Judgment fixed upon the accuser of our brethren and the real Christian-Quaker vindicated from the persecuting outrage of apostate informers chiefly from W. Rogers, F. Bugg, T. Crisp, John Pennyman and Jeffery Bullock ... / by that contemned servant of Christ George Whitehead.

Judgment fixed upon the accuser of our brethren and the real Christian-Quaker vindicated from the persecuting outrage of apostate informers chiefly from W. Rogers, F. Bugg, T. Crisp, John Pennyman and Jeffery Bullock ... / by that contemned servant of Christ George Whitehead.

Table of contents

Title page

An Introductory Epistle. To my beloved and tender-hearted Friends, called Quakers, who are lovers of Peace and Unity in our Lord Jesus Christ; Greeting in the holy Spirit of Life.

CHAPTER I

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII. A Letter in Two Parts, Which was sent in Manuscript to Francis Bugg, Except two Passages left out in favour to him, unless he will further expose himself to danger thereby.

The First Part.

The Second Part of the said Letter.

Postscript since added. Wherein F. B's fallacy about the Record in the Quarterly Meeting Book in the Isle of Ely, his abuse of the Servants of Christ, his Contradiction about William Penn, his Scorn, Malice and Ranting Doctrine, are detected and reprehended.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

ADVERTISEMENT.

ERRATA.

BOOKS Printed and Sold by A. Sowle at the Crooked-Billet in Holloway-Lane in Shoreditch, 1682.

[Page]Judgment fixed upon the Accuser of our Brethren

§

[Page]

[Page]

Iudgment fixed UPON THE Accuser of our Brethren, AND THE Real Christian-Quaker VINDICATED From the Persecuting OUTRAGE of Apostate Informers; Chiefly from W. Rogers, F. Bugg, T. Crisp, John Pennyman and Jeffery Bullock, their Malicious, Confused and Unjust Opposition and Imputation of Apostacy, Imposition, Popery, &c. in their abusive Books and Pamphlets herein specified. Beginning with W. R's Seventh Part. By that Contemned Servant of Christ, George Whitehead.

Psal. 109.3.

They compassed me about with words of Hatred, &c. vers. 4. For my Love they are my Adversaries, but I give my self unto Prayer.

Jude v.13.

Raging Waves of the Sea, foaming out their own Shame, &c.

London, Printed and Sold by Andrew Sowle at the Crooked-Billet in Holloway-Lane, near Shoreditch, 1682.

An Introductory Epistle. To my beloved and tender-hearted Friends, called Quakers, who are lovers of Peace and Unity in our Lord Jesus Christ; Greeting in the holy Spirit of Life.

[Page]

[Page]

IF I did not feel the Lord my God laying a real necessity upon me to be publickly concerned in this Controversie (and that for the sake of simple Hearts and poor Lambs, to warn them against such grievous Wolves as seek to prey upon them, rend and tear them; and that the weak of the Flock may not be hurt, scattered or perverted by those that speak perverse things, to draw Disciples after them) I would chuse rather to sit down mute, and silently bear the Revilings, Outrage and fierce Despisings of crooked Spirits, than spend time in Controversie with them or against them. But the Lord has laied the necessity, and knows best my Conscientious concern, and for what end, and to what effect, and for whose sakes. And in discharging my Duty, I neither consult Events, nor fear Effects, but leave all to God; for I feel his divine Power and Counsel; In whose Name, and in the Patience, Forbearance, Long-suffering and Bowels of our Lord Jesus Christ, my Soul hath had a share in deep [Page] Travail and Exercise (with many more of his faithful Servants, my Brethren) for a quiet Composure of this Breach; 1st, With Respect to Truth's Reputation: 2dly, With respect to that Compassion that's to be had on some, where a difference ought to be made for the regaining and delivering them who have been at unawares taken captive by the Enemy. I have no self-Interest nor end, but the Churches Peace and the Salvation of Souls, and Prosperity of the Lord's Work in the Earth. God doth bear me Record, I have not been awanting in Christian Endeavours, private and friendly, with divers principally concerned in this Opposite, Rending, Self-Separating Spirit. Christian Patience and Forbearance have not been awanting in the Exercise of my Spirit and Testimony. But when all our Christian Endeavours on these accounts have been rejected by some Conceited, Exalted, Pufft up Luciferian Spirits, Despisers and Mockers, that have of late time lusted to be Contentious, and at open War and Defiance against many of the faithful Ministers and Servants of our Lord Jesus Christ, who have kept their Garments and Stations in Truth and Uprightness, and whom they have most grosly abused in Print in their Books and Pamphlets: On this extream Occasion and Offence given against the Truth and Gods Heritage, I find my Spirit stirred and moved within me by and in the same Long-suffering tender Spirit and Power of Christ Jesus my Lord, (saying, [Page] Why should God's Heritage lie under their publick Lyes and Defamations, without open Rebuke?) and to withstand, oppose, weaken and repel these their Wicked Attempts and Insolent Abuses, and to vindicate the peaceable Christian People called Quakers, in their blessed Society, Order and Church-Discipline, &c. from the cruel Envy, Scorn, Outrage, Madness and Confusions of certain Persons turned Apostate Informers, Treacherous Hypocrites, False Brethren, and Deceitful Workers, Betraying Judases, Devils Incarnate (for Christ called Judas a Devil) who having lost their First Love to Truth, and gone out from us, are become Degenerate, without Natural Affection, Dogs that are without, Wolves, and Raging Waves of the Sea, that foam out their own Shame; whom the strength of Truth is turned against in Judgment, and God in ten Thousand of his Saints is coming to execute Jude 13, 14. vers. Judgment upon them, as the Patience of Christ in his Saints comes to be fulfilled towards them, and their Iniquity ripened for open Discovery and Condemnation, as they have not spared publickly to defame the Innocent. [But they that are at unawares betrayed, deceived or only mistaken, (and not willful & contentious) are to be had Compassion of, and distinguished from the other.] And in Righteous Judgment will the great Judge of all decide the Controversie with all them who would be counted true Jews and are not, Christian-Quakers, [Page] and are not, but of the Synagogue of Satan and Antichrist; whose Works the Day of Christ our Lord will yet more clearly declare and fully manifest, and the Day and Time hastens, blessed are they that watch, and keep their Garments, that their Nakedness appear not, Amen.

Ingenuous Reader, Note, that the Contents of the ensuing Treatise are mostly placed before each Chapter, respectively in several Sections, directing to the Passages therein. And also please to take notice, That William Rogers, (who is first concerned in this Treatise) is not ignorant what great Labour and Pains I have taken with him more privately, to inform his Vnderstanding and allay his Heat, by divers large Answers in Manuscript, (unto his Gain-saying, Accusing and Reviling Letters and Papers) amounting to much more than what's herein contained in Answer to his seventh Part of his Christian-Quaker; but instead of any fair ingenuous Reply, or acknowledgment of the Truth from him, he hath slighted me and my Christian-Labours and Endeavours, sometimes casting Dirt upon me, yet giving the GO-BY to the greater part of my Writings, seeming rather desirous to be some-body in Print against us, as one affecting Popularity (though in a perverse Work) the more publickly to manifest his Revengeful Spirit, in Abusing, Scandalizing and casting undeserved ODIUMS upon those whom [Page] his Spight and Malice is most bent against; and I expect no better Treatment from him, and such exalted Spirits; I expect the Hatred of Scorners for rebuking them, and for this my Christian Conscientious Labour. Howbeit, I doubt not but this shall have its Effect, for the clear Information and Advantage of many simple honest Hearts. And I can say, Surely my Judgment is with the Lord, and my Reward is with my God, Isa. 49.4.

Several Testimonies and Answers are already extant in Print against William Rogers's wicked Books, as by Thomas Ellwood (his ANTIDOTE) and divers others. Surely it would be more reputable for him to desist and lay aside his daring Confidence and evil Attempts against the Servants of Christ, and ingenuously and humbly submit to the Truth; for our God (n [...] doubt) will finally and signally rebuke that Rebellious, Exalted Spirit of Strife and Contention.

To him who is the Righteous Judge of all I freely commit my Cause (with my Friends) in this Concern, for 'tis his own. And I do tenderly refer the spreading of this Treatise to the Discretion of faithful Friends, where they shall see a Necessity and Service for the Truth. I not designing nor desiring this may [Page] be otherwise or farther exposed to the view of the World, but where any of these Adversaries or their Party have given (or do give) occasion by spreading theirs; as there are some busie Agents among them, that neither regard the Fear of God therein, nor the Reputation of his Truth or People, in spreading their defaming Books and Pamphlets: for which Treacherous Injurious Work, I am assured the Righteous Judge of all will Reckon with both the Authors and Spreaders thereof. To each of whom this Scripture appears justly applicable, viz. Jer. 2.19. Thine own Wickedness shall Correct thee, and thy Back-sliding shall Reprove thee; Know therefore and see that it is an Evil thing and bitter, that thou hast 6forsaken the Lord thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord God of Hosts. I wish they may yet find a place of Repentance and Forgiveness, before the Judgment be executed which hangs over their Heads.

G. W.

CHAPTER I

§. 1. W. R's Hue-and-C [...]y [...] emp [...]y Flourish. §. 2. His [...] §. 3. He i [...] proved guilty of [...] the People called Quakers [...] §. 4. His Concessions to Truth do [...] him conscientious in his writing, nor [...] man guilty of Blasphemy. §. 5. His slighting and insulting way of writing, his own abasement. §. 6. His writing in's own Justification to clear himself from giving Judgment on Reports and Jealousies, call'd in question, and prov'd untrue by divers Instances. §. 7. His Reflection on G. F. A. P. and my self about the Barbadoes Subscription, (which we had denyed) proved Malicious and Vnjust. §. 8. His comparison between some of our Friends and Pope Leo the tenth; shewing more favour to the Pope than to Friends, &c. §. 9. His rendring R. R. [Page] (and the Pen-man) like Papists, for quoting some of their Authors, brings great Reflection & Contradiction on himself. §. 10. He upbraids us often with the words [Learn'd Friend] yet useth the same word Learned to a Friend. §. 11. His false Suggestion and Jealousie of great Idolatry, touching G. F. and his sordid abuse of John Blaikling, and foul Vntruth and Infamy therein manifest. §. 12. His Charge against J. B. about ascribing eternal Honour, and Perversion of his Intention; and against G. F. about Infallibility, distinguished. §. 13. His denying the sence of his and party's own words for a select Company of Elders and Deacons, to order in Church Affairs. §. 14. His pretence for amicable Conference, Hypocritical: His charge of meer Hypocrisie and Deceit, and the Fruits of manifest Injustice, abusive and unjust.

§. 1. AS concerning William Rogers's Hue-and-Cry after the Name of the Pen-man of a Treatise entituled, The Accuser of our Brethren cast down; and that this Hue-and-Cry is in pursuance of his Name, because not subscribed thereunto, page 1.

How Insincerely and Fallaciously does he herein begin with a silly Boast, an empty Flourish and Vapour, containing also an [Page] unjust Reflection, compared with his false Scoff, (pag. 21.) i. e. That the Pen-man was ashamed that his Name should be publish'd with the great Bull, entituled, The Accuser, &c. Which is a falshood also. And why an Hue-and-Cry after his Name? He is not fled into Obscurity, nor any Criminal, Treasonable or Fellonious Person in any sense, that an Hue-and-Cry need to be divulg'd in Print after his Name. Nor has he either deny'd or conceal'd his concern in that Book which W. R. falsly terms The great Bull, when modestly asked. But why is W. R. so very ignorant of his Name, that he must needs make the noise of an Hue-and-Cry after it? when but in pag. 25. he pretends a Description of the Person, and of his Habit, to wit, As being one that hath forgotten his low and mean Estate, and arrived to a Beautiful City-dress, &c. And this is not all; but in pag. 34. he queries about the Pen-man, as having been that no mean Person (viz. of our Society) that hath solicited the Powers under which we have peaceably lived, &c. Could he so positively describe the Pen-man's dress and condition, and yet not find out his Name without an Hue-and-Cry in Print after it? What empty Flourishes does this Person dress himself in? But what Beautiful City-Dress is that he reflects upon the Pen-man, that becomes not [Page] Humility, or his Call to the work of the Ministry, or his soliciting the Powers on behalf of suffering Friends? And wherein is he condemnable of Excess in that case of his Habit or Dress? And wherein does he exceed all W. R's Brethren, even them he has counted Honourable? I would have him speak out plainly in this matter, and not to mutter and smite in the dark.

§. 2. He says, He will not conclude the Pen-man to be a Vagrant, a Night-Bird, a Wanderer, &c. because his Name is not to his work, pag. 1. And what, if he'l not thence conclude him such an one, what better Character does he give him, both by the Instance and comparing his or his Brethren's Actions to the ugly Vizzard of a Night-walker? pag. 3. Thus he detracts and reviles.

§. 3. He affirms it A notorious Vntruth, that his Book contains Reproach against the People called Quakers in general; and that the Pen-man quotes not a word to shew it so, pag. 2. But his Affirmation we may rather justly conclude a notorious Untruth. For in his Preface, p 6. to the first part of his (falsly stiled) Christian-Quaker, he thus reflects upon the People called Quakers (which was quoted by us) viz. ‘These kinds of Declarations frequently publisht amongst the aforesaid People, viz. Let's exclude the Wisdom, [Page]and have an Eye to the Brethren, &c. I▪ cannot but be full of Jealousie, that these things have a tendency to insinuate Submission without Conviction, and nurture up Ignorance instead of Wisdom, as much as ever was, where this Maxim, to wit, Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion, is, &c.’ By all which 'tis apparent, that his Book contains unjust Reproach upon the People call'd Quakers in general, as being under such a Popish blind Ministry. For what means [the aforesaid People] but the People called Quakers in general? See now, that which he calls a notorious Untruth, is proved apparently true from his own Reflection on the People called Quakers, and therefore he himself thereby proved in the notorious Untruth. Was it not a Reflection upon the Church of Thyatira to suffer the woman Jezabel to teach and seduce, &c? And what better doth his Reflection on the said People render them?

§. 4. He says, He finds what's cited out of his Book of above Eighty Sheets, is less than Two, and one considerable part thereof acknowledged to be Concessions to the Truth, so that the Light sometimes interposeth. But then he judges this Inconsistent with that sense, viz. That his way of writing is void of Conscience, Reason and Religion. From whence he infers upon the Pen-man (as he calls him) Is [Page]it not hence plain, that such a sense renders those very things acknowledged to be interposed from the Light it self, to be void of Conscience, Reason and Religion? And then crys out at an hideous rate, as if he had wholly knock'd down his Respondent; O notorious Blasphemy! —The Pen-man acted in the Dark, shown himself unworthy of the name of a Man —May without abuse be numbred amongst such sort of Beasts at Ephesus—Vnreasonable men —I have already prov'd the Pen-man Vnreasonable and Blasphemous; yet he may be termed a man, though a very Wicked one, &c. pag. 2, 3. with more Aggravations. This is the Person that complains of a great Bull against him; but observe his furious Bull here, and what a wild one! and how outragiously mad and false in his Inference! What's the matter with him on which he is so furious? It is that his way of writing is deemed void of Conscience, Reason, Religion, &c. because it has been confest, That the Light sometimes interposeth and makes him concede to Truth. But does it hence follow, that these very things interposed by the Light, are esteemed void of Reason or Religion in themselves? No such matter: The major part of this work appears such, and he is measured by the major part thereof. A man may justly be adjudged a Wicked Person, when the greatest part of his [Page] life is such, though he may both speak and act some right things, when the Light comes over him, and convicts him, as Balaam did, and some of the wicked Kings of Israel, with many others: Yea, and the Devil himself, though a Lyar from the beginning, yet is made to grant and speak some Truths, when over-powered, though contrary to his Nature. Besides, we do not believe our Adversary to be Conscientious in what the Light interposeth through him, any more than that Balaam was a good man, when his heart was evil: Nor can the Devil's confessing to Truth at any time render him a good Devil, nor of tender Conscience, his Nature being contrary to Truth and Goodness.

§. 5. But there lies another great Reflection in the case upon W. R. in his charging the Pen-man (suppose my self or any other of our second day's Meeting) with Notorious Blasphemy, acting in the dark, being unworthy the name of a Man, numbering him among the Beasts at Ephesus, with whom Paul fought; having already proved him Vnreasonable and Blasphemous, as boastingly and falsly he pretends; comparing this also with what he saith of the said Treatise entituled, The Accuser of our Brethren cast down, viz. 'Tis with me to take a little notice thereof; I say again, a little notice, that so the Reader [Page]may not think me so Impertinent as to trouble the Press with so great a Volumn, as a full Answer to every Impertinency, &c. Thus W. R. p. 14. chap. 2.

See now, at what a Villifying and Insulting rate this man writes, and how Wicked and Despicable he has rendred the Pen-man, (as his term is.) Now [W. R.] supposing thou takest my self, or any other of my Brethren to be the Person thou chiefly smites at, how consistent art thou in thy work to spend so much Time, Labour and Cost in writing and printing against such a mean, inconsiderable and undeserving Person, in thy account, as unworthy the Name of a Man, but rather to be numbred among unreasonable Beasts? One would think it should be far beneath a Person of thy Hight, Rank and Quality, as thy flourishing Vaunts bespeak thee, thus to abase thy self, as to spend so much time and cost upon such an Inferior, Irrational and Inconsiderable Person in thy high Thoughts. But art not thou a great Defamer and Opposer in thy said Charge of Notorious Blasphemy, and of being unworthy the Name of a Man, &c? Is this thy Christianity? Who will believe thee, thinkest thou, that are not of thy own Party? And seeing thou art pleased to signifie what little notice 'tis with thee to take of our Treatise, we cannot but take notice of thy lofty and [Page] slighty way of writing. However, we have no reason to take this thy little Notice for an Answer; for thou hast collected and replied to so little of the matter, and hast so much given the GO-BY to the principal and greatest part of our said Treatise, as one that has found out the craft of Evasion, that 'tis a little notice indeed thou hast taken, and thy work deserves but little notice to be taken of by others, unless to evince thy Envy and its Falshood, &c. Thy pretence of Vnreasonableness in thy Respondent, will not hide thy Loftiness and Contempt, nor excuse thy shifting Evasions from those things that are most material and weighty upon thee; which every Ingenuous Reader may easily perceive, in comparing our said Treatise against the Accuser of the Brethren, and thy Seventh Part against ours together.

§. 6. Thou writes much in thy own Justification, and to clear thy self of giving judgment on Reports and Jealousies, though frequent in thy great Book: Thou on thy own behalf sayst, I can in Truth delare, that I have not at any time positively asserted any thing, but what I either know, or have had sufficient proof, as may render my Pen blameless therein, pag. 3.

Upon which I would seriously ask thee, What sufficient proof hast thou that that [Page] was E. Burrough's Epistle, which thou hast cited for his Epistle, and positively asserted it two or three times to be E. B's Epistle in thy first part of the Christian-Quaker (falsly so called?) which I and many more do not believe it to be E. B's for divers causes; having seen John Parrots Name only to a Transcript of it in a Persons Hand, writing, i. e. J. Batho's, that was for a time an Admirer of J. P. How durst thou be so positive in asserting it to be E. B's? I dare Challenge thee to produce it under E. B.'s own hand, to any of us that knew his hand, if thou tookest it not up upon an Implicit belief, trust and report. As we can prove, thou hast written many things from thy own Jealousies and Reports, only with this provision in some other things, If Reports be true, &c. to save thee from the censure of drawing a positive Conclusion; and then what weight or credit does this add to much of thy Work?

And I would know, what sufficient proof thou hast of thy Story, That a Friend of known credit did declare, that twelve pence was paid in London, on demand of so much for a Certificate, in order to the Accomplishment of his Marriage, which otherwise might have been obstructed, p. 5. I pray thee produce thy Author and Informer for this Story, and what Friend of known Credit did so declare? [Page] for 'tis not credited by many. However, thou art positive in it, by the following words, viz. This being done under the form of Government contended for, &c. Which I am sure is a positive Lye; for we have no such Action under the form of Government contended for among us, as to obstruct any Marriage for Non-payment of twelve Pence for a Certificate. Such practice is so far from relating to Church Government among us, that 'twas never own'd by us, as to obstruct any Marriage on that account.

And what positive Proof hast thou, That the Manuscript of the Primmer, subscribed by G. F. and E. H. was sold for thirty Pound? Enquiry has been made about this Accusation, and 'tis positively deny'd by the Person concerned; though these Stories thou hast instanced as tokens of Apostacy and Innovation, p. 5.

And what if E. H. was a Clark for his yearly Salary, does that hinder his Credit in his signing our said Treatise on behalf of our Meeting? Or was his yearly Salary to extend to pay for all the many Certificates relating to Marriages, and the Expences thereupon, who many times was known to be deprived of his natural Rest, in writing to serve Truth and Friends? And was't not lawful for him to have a Livelihood for his great pains in Truth's service, [Page] who lost his place and livelihood for Truth, and ended his dayes in Peace? One would think, that W. R. should be ashamed to asperce or cloud his Reputation after his Death.

§. 7. His Reflection upon the Barbadoes Mee [...]ers (as he calls them) about a Subscription, and upon G. F. my self, (and consequently on A. P. who also was concerned with us) as seeming to sew Pillows under their Armholes, p. 4. appears Malicious, as well as Unjust, being a Subscription from the first exploded by us, and since seen in its defects, and condemned by themselves on our Christian Advice and real Dislike shewn them in our Epistle, which W. R. is so partial and unjust, as to omit the words containing our Judgment and Dislike of it. Hath not he and Francis Bugg and Tho. Crisp herein exactly resembled the Devil, the old Accuser of the Brethren, in accusing the Innocent, and charging Persons after Repentance, with that which they have repented of, which is Satan's unjust Prosecution? And W. R. unjustly also lays hold of these friendly and tender Expressions, wherein we shewed regard to Friendship, and answered that which was tender and good in them: For instead of shewing himself impartial and just, he minces and clouds the matter on our parts, only telling [Page] the Reader, We seem to dislike the latter part thereof—And in other parts, seem to dislike the wording thereof, p. 4, & 28. But is not so honest as to give the Reader a particular Citation and Notice of our real judgment in our own words in that case. As in dislike of their opposing the Judgment of the Spirit of God in the Meetings to any particular Measure. We plainly signified, ‘That this would be the way to bring them all from the measure of the Spirit in their own parti [...]lars — [...] all must be left to the universal Spirit in their own measures thereof —Now this would make the Belief, which is in the Light, and the measure of the Spirit in their own particulars, not one with the universal Spirit, &c. The universal Spirit of God has unity with the least measure now, as it was in the Apostles days, who kept every one to their own measure; which was both the great Rule and Line of the New Creature in the Believers and Saints then.’

And in dislike of their subscription, we signified, ‘That all are to give up to the Universal Spirit of God in their own particulars, in which spirit they have unity and fellowship, without outward subscription’ —And further, ‘Now as for your Subscription to an outward Tye, be above such things.’

[Page]Now let the serious and impartial judge; Is not here a manifest Dislike shown, and Judgment given? And therefore the greater Injustice in our Adversary to cite the Paper from Barbadoes, either to prove us guilty of Aiming at Dominion and Lordship over Faith, Conscience and Property, pag. 4. or that the said Paper is one part of the fruits of the pretended establisht Government, as he most falsly saith, p. 27. And the Lordship over Estates and Consciences, he infers thence. He would deceitfully insinuate and charge upon us sewing Pillows under their Armholes, calling them dear Friends, with other tender Expressions; which when he has cited, without the words containing our Judgment, as to Fact, he then says, THIS shews no dislike to the said Paper. Which is a very deceitful and unjust way of writing in Controversie: I would not deal thus by the worst Adversary in the World, to entitle him to that which he has disowned, and to leave out the words of Dislike and Judgment on the Mistake or Error so disown'd, and to pick and take up those other words which are tender, relating to the Persons, and not to the Fact; and then to cry, This shews no dislike thereof, &c. What if THIS shews it not, when enough besides shews it? But is it indeed a Crime to call any dear Friends, who do commit an Error or Mistake? No [Page] sure, that will not hold. Did not Paul call the Corinthians, DEARLY BELOVED, 1 Cor 10.14. (see James 1.16. compar'd with cap. 5.) and yet some among them did Err, were in Divisions, &c. 1 Cor. 3. And did he not call the Galatians BRETHREN? Gal. 6.18. yet charges them with being Foolish. Were not the seven Churches of Asia commended in many things, when yet there were a few things against divers of them? Rev 2 & 3 chapters. O Dis-ingenious Person, (W.R.) I am ashamed of thy Partial, Unconscionable & Unjust dealing! Is this thy best way to prove us guilty of aiming at Dominion and Lordship over Faith, Estates and Consciences? How miserably comest thou off in thy Evil Attempts!

§. 8. That We have given occasion to be rendred in some things as bad as Papists (or as having a Papistical Countenance, p. 5.) is a notorious Slander: And that in some other things we have given occasion to be rendred MUCH WORSE in our Practices and Treatments, than the very Papists themselves, (p. 6.) is also a foul Reproach. And his excusing Pope Leo his Bull against Martin Luther, rather than our Friends, is no Proof, but rather shews himself more on the Popes side than on our Friends, having spoken more for Pope Leo the tenth than our [Page] Friends, A Pope reputed no better than an Atheist, a Prophaner of the holy Scriptures, a Person careless of Religion and Piety; an Avaritious Corrupt Person, who made great advantage of his impious Indulgencies & Pardons, &c How unjust & impious therefore is our Adversary W R. to rake so many Instancies (as he hath done) out of the History of the Council of Trent, of Wicked Popes and their Agents, to compare, brand and scandalize Us or any of our Friends withal, who abhor Popery and all the Popes Corruptions. on the instance he gives, to wit, That in the Popes Bull forty two Articles of Doctrine, held by the said Martin, were mentioned, and declar'd Erronious; by which the World was notified of the reputed Crimes laid to his Charge. But in the Papers subscribed by Charles Marshall & Sixty five more, against J. W. and J. S. nothing that may properly be termed particular matter of Fact, or Erronious Doctrine is therein laid down, unless their general words now following may be termed such, to wit, That they have Evil Designs, despise Heavenly Dignities, promote false Iealousies, set up a kind of a standard of Separation, pag. 6. And is not this matter of Fact, to set up a standard of Separation? Where then is his Comparison between Pope Leo the tenth, and us? And how were the Pope's proceedings in that respect, far [Page]more just than our Friends? (as he signifies) p. 6. See what Favour and Charity he has for the Pope, more than for our Friends. The causing or making Divisions and Separations in the Apostles days was then such matter of Fact, as that they were to be marked and avoided that did so; though our Adversary does not own this to be properly termed particular matter of Fact laid down, when plainly mentioned in writing.

Thus I have considered him on his own terms, and taken notice how he justifies the Pope's proceedings, as far more just than our Friends, whilst he would be reckoned against Popery.

§. 9. That we would not be rendred like Papists, is true; but that the Pen-man seems to marr it all again (in refering the Reader to a short Tract, writ by our Friend R. Richardson) is false: And though both Heathenish, Papistical and Protestant Authors of divers sorts (as he saith) are quoted in the said Tract; 'tis no reasonable Inference, that therefore R. R. is like a Papist, or like all those he quotes, unless W. R. would like it well to be so reflected upon (Argumentum ad hominem) as resembling a Papist in his quoting Pope Leo's Bull against Martin Luther, as having some more pretended ground whereon to place a Judgment, and as far more just in his proceedings than C. M. and sixty five [Page]Friends more. As also in his quoting the Parliament of Papists at Paris, p. 31. Does not this then by his own reflection, render him more like to a Papist than a strict Quaker? Whilst he'l needs have R. R. &c. like Papists for quoting Heathenish, Papistical or Protestant Authors; yet he himself quoting Pope Leo's Bull against M. Luther, and the said Parliament of Papists against our Friends: Let him wind himself out from a Self-condemnation in this, and other points of like nature, if he can.

§. 10. He seems much to upbraid us with the words, Learned Friend R. R. he throws them over and over upon the Pen-man: he often twits us with them, and yet but in his 8th page he tells us of the Memory of the Learned Samuell Fisher. See how the man makes work to his own Confutation. Though our words in the Copy were Learned in the Truth; how the words [in the Truth] were left out, I know not. And yet a Person being Learned in any respect, it can be no sin to say, He is Learned; whilst 'tis not to admire outward Learning or Acquirement above its place; which I am sure was not intended on our parts.

§. 11. Of our saying, That it is at least suspected for a great Slander, viz. That some do look upon G. F. as that Prophet, whom the Lord by Moses prophesied, he would raise up: [Page]Aad that he is not ignorant, that such there are, &c. Our Adversary in his inference has perverted the words from [at least suspected] to [only suspected, and bear suspicion] when as [at least suspected] implies more than a bear Suspicion: And therefore his supposition thereupon (and his Jealousie) That the secret Reason was, that on Conference with G. F. he could not in Truth deny the same; And that he will not deny it, p. 9, 10. This is a Presumptious Imagination: for I affirm, G F. does deny the same, in reference to himself, as a particular Man or Person, whose days and years are limited; only the Truth of the Immortal Seed, Christ in him, (as he is in every true Believer, Male and Female) he stands to maintain, against all Opposers, and persecuting Gain-sayers and Apostates. And therefore his Jealousie, That at length this Controversie, as mannaged, &c. will occasion the discovery of great Idolatry, pag. 10. shews, that he suggests false things still upon Jealousie, to render G. F. &c Odious and Obnoxious.

That the Pen-man offers not a word to prove him [...]uilty of sordid and foul Abuse against John Blaikling, p. 10. is a sordid & foul Untruth; see our Treatise against the Accuser of our Brethren, pag. 246. where we offer what he says against J. B. and others, Writing or Signing any thing, right or wrong, and comparing[Page]him to a Parasite, to an Earthly Prince: Here's more than one word offered to prove W. R's foul Abuse against J. B. &c. who to add to his Abuse, now saith, J. B. has acted the part of a Sycophantizing Parasite in writing touching G. F. And what's this but to render him a meer Tale-bearer and Flatterer, or an Informing Flatterer for his own Ends and Advantage? This still appears sordid and abusive, thus infamously to brand any Friend or Person Conscientious towards God.

§. 12. As for his ascribing Eternal Honour either to G. F's Life, or to him or his Soul, as joyned to the Spotless Life; wherein J. B. can mean no other than the Life of Christ Jesus in him, I do not understand that this can prove him a Sycophantizing Parasite. For that Christ is our Life, the Life of every true Believer, is plain; that Eternal Honour belongs to him, is not disputed. In the next place, He that Honours me, saith the Lord, him will I Honour. The Question is, Whether this Honour is not Eternal, (a parte post) that is, Everlasting to the Souls of the Righteous, whom God never forsakes? Then how can any such ever loose that Honour that God gives? And does our Adversary believe, that nothing may be said to be Eternal, that had a beginning, as to Man? Had not Eternal Salvation and [Page] Eternal Redemption a beginning, as to the Creature, yet Eternal? But W. R. notes in the Margent, That Eternal Honour is due to none but God, who alone, and not the words of Mortal Man, is able to nourish the Soul which is Immortal: And all this to confute John Blaikling. Wherein he greatly perverts J. B's Intention, and misrepresents his words; for he spoke of the dropping of his tender words in the Lords Love; and W. R. tells of the words of mortal man. When the Apostle said, Hitherto I have fed you with Milk, and not with strong Meat; Was this a Soul's feeding or nourishing, yea or nay? And was the Apostle's preaching the Gospel in a living Ministry only the words of mortal mam? No sure: For our Gospel came not unto you in word only, but in Spirit and in Power.

His charge against G.F. that he hath described himself one unto whom Infallible Judgment hath been committed in all things, is denyed by G. F. though he owns the Judgment committed to him of God in matters of Salvation and things Spiritual, to be Infallible.

§. 13. His Marginal Note appears manifestly untrue, viz. That he has not written one word to shew that such a sense is his sense, to wit, That he and some others of his party seem to be only for a select company of Elders and Deacons to order in Church Affairs about the Poor, [Page]Marriages, &c. p. 11. What then means his exclaiming so much against our Meetings about Church Affairs, as being an uncertain number of uncertain qualified Persons? and his Brethrens Paper of Separation in Westmerland, quoted by him, plainly limiting to Chosen men, Chosen, Imployed and Authorized by the Churches? see our said Treatise, pag 119, 120. Now if his sense was not for a select company, then he and his Brethren Subscribers of the said Paper, are of contrary senses. But then how does he consist therein with himself, in his charging us with Vsurpation, and upbraiding us, p. 19. with such a form of Church-Government, as hath admitted of no rightful Succession or Constitution by Election, &c? What Foundation or Certainty can we find in this mans writing? One while he is comparing us with the Pope, another while he charges us with Vsurpation, for want of rightful Succession or Constitution of any Supream Person or Persons, pag. 19. This is the man that would seem to oppose Popery so much, whilst he is bringing a Popish plea of Succession against us. But this is like much of his Work: I wish he were better composed.

§. 14. He pretends greatly to be for an Amicable Conference, p. 12. whilst he is so far from Amity, that he has appeared an [Page] open Enemy, abusing and reviling us in Print

And what, if his Letter was not read publickly at our yearly Meeting, at the time of its being delivered? What reason had Friends to interrupt their publick and weighty concerns of Truth with the then reading of an Adversary's letter? especially seeing divers of us took care to answer him therein so soon as the Meeting was over; and were not wanting afterward to give him a Meeting thereupon.

His charging us with a piece of meer Hypocrisie and Deceit for pretending to Amicable Conference, is a sordid Abuse to my knowledge: For many of us have not been awanting in that case, but have been ready to Amicable Conference, before W. R. and some of Party with him, turned open Adversaries, Gain-sayers and Enemies to us, whose Enmity has made them, (especially him) uncapable of Amicable Conference. And he may be ashamed of his pretended seasonable Hue and Cry after the Name of the Pen-man; his Hue and Cry shews his own Complexion and Image not to be innocent.

And his Charge of the Fruits of manifest Injustice, that his Letter was not read in our yearly Assembly, being (he says) a Letter from a Friend, especially when not Excommunicated. This is unjust and untrue in the [Page] first place, and shews an imperious, Lordly, Exalted Spirit, thus to charge us with manifest Injustice: And why so? but because we did not serve his turn, we did not observe his time and manner in reading his Letter, when and where he would have had us: We did not lay all the weighty Affairs of Friends and Truth aside presently to read William Rogers's Letter; we did not gratifie his Irregular interposing; and therefore we must now be censured in Print, charg'd with Irregularity, Answering without order of the Meeting, Lordship and slavish Submission, fruits of manifest Injustice, &c. He seems very hot on this occasion, and a Person very strict and zealous for Regularity and Order of the Meeting, when he thinks it may serve his own turn: But at other times he hugely exclaims against Outward Vniformity, Orders, outward Rules, Prescriptions, Directions, Imposition, &c. But now it seems, it is against such as are not of his own setting up or imposing. And yet he most highly justifies whatever he has written; which we either pretend to answer, or to shew dissatisfaction in, as remaining undetected, and in no respect unbecoming a Christian Pen, p. 14. We have only his own Self-commendation for this; wherein his Self-confidence and wilful Blindness is to be wondered at.

CHAP. II.

[Page]

§. 1. W. R. questions Ellis Hookes's Credit, and grosly abuseth our Meeting in London, for writing in behalf of our publick Meetings and People called Quakers. §. 2. Of the inward Government and spiritual Kingdom of Christ in his Church. How far his Ministers or Servants are concerned therein as Instruments in his hand: Not strictly Representatives thereof. Our Propositions therein unanswered by W. R. He evades and gives the GO-BY to them. §. 3. His late opposition to visible Persons being invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws, Orders, &c. in an outward form of Government, now Overthrown by himself, and the point gain'd upon his own Variation and Concession, and he farther questioned in the point. §. 4. His mistake in his Allusion against representing the Government of the King, and concerning his Prerogative, W. R. unskilful in the point. §. 5. Of the Cause espoused by us, no other than the Cause of Christ his Church and People. W. R. like a persecuting Informer, his work tending to bring more severe Persecution upon us; his representing us as in seeming Vnion with the [Page] Papistical party, and comparing us with Popes, the Church of Rome, &c. Devilish, Malicious and Fallacious, yet most silly and impertinent, and his Resemblances full of Falshood, and his Similitudes abusive and shallow, bringing great Reflection upon himself, acting the part of a silly Sophister, yet proud and scornful. §. 6. W. R's Cry for Justice against G. F. and who must be the Judges, and what Judicature, qustioned. His malicious, dubious & proofless Reflections upon the Pen-man, Ministring Friends and yearly Meetings, and comparing them to the Popes General Councils; and his Instance of the Bishop of Bitonto's Commendation of Pope Paul the third (with his Blasphemous Doctrine about the Light) prov'd unjust, and the Similitude impertinent and grosly false, &c. His accounts against Popes, &c. (gathered out of the History of the Council of Trent) he unjustly applies to our Friends▪ §. 7. His Similitude of Disumon, with the Pope, to render us worse than he: And his Comparison between our Friends and the Popish Lords Inquisitors, and his uncharitable Censure about punishing his Body, and taking away his Estate, all unjust. Of our standing by our Treatise entituled, The Accuser, &c.

[Page]§. 1. HIs questioning the Credit of Ellis Hookes, A Clark for his yearly Salary (as he calls him) and insinuating against the Meeting, for whom he was a witness, as not meriting the Name of Sober Conscientious Quakers; and as being infatuated, &c. cap. 2. p. 15. And why so, but because they wrote in the Name of publick Meetings, & in the Name of the People call'd Quakers? Does this prove them Infatuated, or unworthy the Name of Sober Conscientious Quakers? 'Tis a wonder he is not ashamed thus manifestly to scandalize and abuse so many Conscientious, Sober and Understanding Persons, when he knew not who they were in particular. Have we not often writ in the name and behalf of our Friends & People call'd Quakers, in their Vindication from the opposition and abuses of Opposers and Gain-sayers of Truth, in matters known to be universally own'd by them; and this both with their tacit Consent and Approbation? Must we seek for a Deputation from the People called Quakers throughout England, &c. in all Cases wherein there is a present necessity of their Vindication, when generally abused in Print by Adversaries of divers sorts? For I tell W. R. he merits not so much as the Name of a Quaker, in abusing at least the major part of [Page] them in Print, as he has done, to render them Popish, Odious and Infamous, and rather justifying the Pope, and Lords of the Spanish Inquisition, p. 21. than many of them. And his disaffected Party are not so numerous as he would have us think, p. 23. far short (to be sure) of those he writes against and abuseth in Print; for his smiting at the publick and faithful Ministers (who are approved of most generally by the People called Quakers) is a Reflection and Scandal upon that People.

§. 2. Our observation on the 42d Disaffection shews, that our Objection lies not against the outward Government under which we live, nor yet against the inward Government of Christ; for Christ's inward Government in his Church, and his spiritual Kingdom and extent thereof, as also our innocent Conversations towards the outward Government, we have plainly asserted in our Treatise against the Accuser, pag. 114, 115, 116, & 118. Though W. R's words are cited at large, more fully to shew his sense and distinction upon the inward Government of Christ, where he adds, viz. Which is not represented by Persons visible by carnal Eyes, invested with Power from him to execute outward Laws, Prescriptions, Orders, Edicts or Decrees, in an outward form of Government visible. Wherein we reasonably [Page] took his Objection to lie as much against visible Persons being so invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws, Prescriptions, &c. and against an outward Form of Government, visible in his Church, as against Christ's Government being Represented by Persons visible. But now he pitches his Objection upon the word [REPRESENTED] questioning, Whether it is not a Contradiction in common sense, to conclude, That Persons visible can be the Representatives of the inward Government of Christ? Which was not our Assertion; nor did we conclude, that Persons visible are the Representatives of Christ's inward Government, in a strict sence, absolutely or solely as in Christ's stead: And therefore his Objection supposes that to be our position, which we never asserted. Yet not to loose nor lessen any part of Christs Government, we have plainly asserted, ‘That 'tis exercised by him both Immediately and Instrumentally in his Church: Immediately and principally by himself; and Instrumentally (in some measure) by his Ministers and Servants, as well as he teaches and instructs both Immediately and Instrumentally;’ as in our first and second unanswered Propositions about Church Government. And therefore as we prefer Christ's inward and immediate Government by himself as [Page] Principal, and his governing Instrumentally by his Servants: But in some Measure (as our words are) this shews, that we do not render them the absolute Representatives of his inward Government and spiritual Kingdom; though we may truly and tenderly assert, They do by the inward Assistance of the Power and Spirit of Christ, in some measure livingly represent or signifie, declare and shew forth the inward and spiritual Government of Christ, as being his faithful Servants and Ambassadours; yea, some are called Ambassadours in Christ's stead, in and through whom Christ ministers, instructs, commands, orders and rules. And the holy Ghost made some Overseers, and appointed Helps and Governments in the Church (as we have laid down in our third Proposition) ‘Especially for the sake of the younger and weaker Members, Children and such as are of under Age, as to Truth and experience in the work of the Lord.’ Our Adversary answers not this Proposition, which is so plain, tender and submissive to Christ, in his behalf and preference: And therefore W. R's inferring and charging the fruit of a confused Anarchical Principle on us (in reference to our said Disaffection) follows not in Truth, but rather shews it to be the fruit of his own Prejudice and Enmity. From whence also his scornful Question [Page] proceeds, viz. Whether the Pen-man hath known, and hath in pivate a Catalogue of the Names of such visible Persons, whom he may esteem the Representatives of Christ's inward Government? pag. 16, 17. He fallaciously obtrudes and imposes his word REPRESENTATIVES still in this case upon us, extending it beyond our Intention, and what our words will bear; craftily evading and giving the GO-BY to our Propositions in the Case, where we signifie, That IN SOME MEASURE Christ governs Instrumentally, &c. see our five Propositions in our said Treatise against the Accuser of the Brethren, p. 114, 115, 116.

§. 3. Whereas we took his opposition to be against visible Persons being concerned in an outward form of Government, and order in the Church of Christ. Hereupon he shews himself very angry, and exclaims against the weight of the Pen-man's Iniquity, charges him with Prevarication, insinuating, as if according to my Principle (says he) there were not visible order and form of Government under Christs Dominion, nor any visible Persons exercised in any outward Order under his Government, p. 43. Whereby he has now plainly granted, that according to his Principle, there is both visible Order, and a form of Government under Christs dominion, and Visible Persons exercised in an outward order [Page]under his Government (for in the two contraries, his disowning the one, owns the other; his opposing the Negative grants the Affirmative herein.) But he then should have writ more distinctively, consistently and plain, in telling us, What visible and outward form of Government and Order ▪ he would set up? And what has he so much exclaim'd against, and not to have appeared so general in his opposition to outward Orders, Forms, Rules, Prescriptions, Decrees, &c. as he has done in divers passages of his Book; and particularly, that in his first part of his Christian-Quaker, p. 73. in his opposing the Establishment, or giving forth of outward Orders, Prescriptions, Sentences or Decrees, as a Bond on the Consciences of Believers, rendring this more like the Old than the New Covenant. And his opposing Visible Persons being invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws, Prescriptions, Orders, Edicts or Decrees in an outward form of Government visible; as 'tis plain in the Title-page of his third part. The frequent Reiteration of these and such like passages and Words, shew his Objection was against Visible Persons being impowered by Christ to execute (or minister) [Page] By [Execute] I understand minister or put in Practice, and not in the common Law sence of inflicting corporal or pecuniary Punishments; for that's not consistent with the Government of a Christian Church. outward Laws, Orders, &c. in a visible and outward form of Government; else what needed he write so slightily & frequently against outward and visible form of Government, outward Laws, Edicts, Prescriptions, Orders, Decrees, &c? What's all his Noise come to on this account? Now he would not be thought, that his Principle is against visible Order and Form of Government under Christ's Dominion; Nor against some visible Persons being exercised in some outward Order under his Government: Thus far the point is granted and gain'd upon him, and his Concession thereto the farther confirm'd, in deeming our rendring his great Book to be against Church-Government, outward Methods, Orders and Rules, &c. A false Assertion; Though we cannot reckon that Book of his to look with a better Face in the mian purport and Series of it, especially considering his Third part, from what's mentioned in the Title, and against R. Barclay's Book for Church-Government, and in many other places and passages of that Book, and in his Epistle in this his 7th part he is smiting at Establishing an outward Vniformity, outward Things,[Page]outward Directory, &c. But now we must take his meaning and principle to be not against visible Order and visible Form of Government under Christ's dominion, nor against visible Persons being exercised therin; How then shall we understand his meaning and principle? Why did he not then more plainly distinguish it first, and brought the Controversie into a more narrow compass, and not have writ thus confusedly and shatteredly, one while against, another while for visible outward Order and Form of Government under Christs Dominion in his Church. [As in this Treatise the matter is further Evinced against him hereafter.]

But wherein lies his Charge of Prevarication? He gives us to know, it is in twining the Word REPRESENTED into CONCERNED, pag. 43. We are yet to seek and study, how to find this Prevarication pretended, considering the purport, tenure and conexion of his Words. For though now he owns visible Persons to be exercised or concerned in an outward Form of Government and Order under Christ's Dominion; yet not that his inward Government is represented by them; yet his Distinction before excluding visible Persons not only from representing Christ's inward Government, but also from being invested with Power to execute (i. e. to minister, [Page] give forth, or put in practice) outward Laws, Edicts, &c. in an outward Form of Government Visible, appears to bespeak his sense than to exclude them from being concerned in an outward Form of Government and Order in the Church of Christ under his Dominion. For if they do in no sense or degree represent Christ's Government, how are they concern'd in it? And if they have no power to execute (minister, or put in practice) outward Order and Form of Government visible: How are they either exercised or concerned in an outward form or order of Government under Christ's dominion? But this is now granted us in the Affirmative So then, wherein must we understand W. R's opposition to lie against outward Order, outward Form of Church-Government, outward Laws, Edicts, Rules, Prescriptions, &c? I presume, not against any of his own making, but against such as he calls G. Fox's, &c. as he has told us of a slighting G. F's Rules, Methods and Orders, with respect to Church-Government; see the Accuser, &c. pag. 83. But then I would know, whether it is against all, or some, that G. F. has writ or given out? If he says, not against all, but some; then I intreat him to let's know, what SOME they are particularly? What Instructions, Rules or Methods they are he Condemns, and that he deems condemnable, [Page] as evil or unlawful in themselves? We have divers times prest for a Catalogue of them, that the Controversie might be more plainly distinguishable, and brought into a narrow compass, which now lies not only prolix and tedious in W. R's Books, but also scattered, confused and ambiguous in his Writings, wanting in many places the supplement of his latter Thoughts and Meanings: So that when he has write one Book, it wants another to declare its meaning; he has taken a great compass to write a very little matter in.

§. 4. For his distinction between the words Represented and Concerned, he says, That many thousands are exercised in an outward Order, under the Government of the King, who if they should thence declare, that they are the Representatives of his Government, 'twould be deem'd a Mood of Speech, tending to the annihillating of the King's Prerogative: And concludes the like in relation to Christ's Prerogative, p. 43. But herein the man is under a Mistake; in this Allusion, his skill in the Law, and the King's Prerogative and Government has fail'd him in this point. For the King's Government is represented in all Courts of Judicature, legally acting in his Name and by his Power, whereby the King is look't upon to be present in all his Courts: Yea, every [Page] legal Minister and Conservator of the King's Peace, even from the Justice to the Sheriff & Constable or Peace-Officer does in his place and legal Office in some degree represent the Kings Government, in the doing Justice and Conservation of his Peace: And this no ways lessens, but promotes the King's legal Prerogative. For the King in the Eye of the Law is Justitiarius Capitalis, the Head or chief Justice, and hath his subordinate Ministers and Justices under him, legally impowered by him, according to his just and legal Prerogative. Now seeing W. R. is so much out, and has lost his aim in his Comparison, these things are mentioned to rectifie his Judgment; And the Comparison, as now stated, may be better applied to Christ's Kingdom and Government, who though he be the chief Overseer and Shepherd, the great Apostle and Minister, the great Ruler and Governour, &c. he has his Overseers, his Apostles, his Ministers and Servants and Helps in Government, which is none other than Christ's Government in his Church and Kingdom, and under his Dominion; which I hope our Opposer dare not deny, however he differ with us in the Application.

§. 5. As concerning an Angry Waspish Pen, wherewith thou twice over chargest the Pen-man, adding, That the more he stirs [Page]therewith, the more will the Cause, which he espouseth, stink, pag. 17, & 44. I must tell thee, first, I never met with a more Angry Waspish Pen than thy own; though thy Malice and Wickedness hath been (in divers parts of our Book) deservedly reprehended, thou hast in much thereof been mildly treated. 2dly, I know no cause espoused by us therein, than the Cause of Christ his Church and People, which will live and remain sweet and pretious to all the upright in Heart, when thy malicious Work and corrupt Cause will more and more appear naucious, loathsom, and stink above ground, till swept into the Pit from whence it came, and which thou art very near, and without Repentance canst not escape it. 3dly, What occasion have we (or any of us) given thee to rage and roar against us, and like a persecuting Informer, to go about to expose us in Print, tending to disgust Authority▪ and to bring more severe Persecution upon us, as seeming to be at Vnion with the Papistical party? pretending to discover Principles and Practices relating to George Fox and hi [...] Party (as thou callest them) that run parale [...] with the Church of Rome. And then to excuse this thy persecuting Cain-like and Judas-like work against us, thou falsly placest it on the Will of the Lord, saying▪ The Will of the Lord be done, p. 17. (whils [...] [Page] thou art doing the Will of the Devil, thy Master and Father of Lyes and Lyars) adding, That 'tis but just that Deceit and Idolatry should be discovered in whomsoever, &c. p. 18. But come on; That thou dost, do quickly. Let's see what exact Similitudes and eminent Discoveries thou hast shewn and made of our seeming Vnion and Paralel with the Church of Rome. Thus thou attempts it, viz.

1st, 'Tis affirmed of the Pope, that he is Christ's Vicar on Earth—Accounts himself invested with Power to execute outward Laws, Edicts and Decrees: Herein (sayst thou) I place not much difference between the Pope, on the one part, and the Pen-man and some of his the Brethren on the other. And why so? The Pen-man and his Brethren (sayst thou) account themselves the Representatives of Christ's inward Government over the Conscience, p. 18. That's an Untruth by the way, and none of our words, but a scornful Pervertion: Where did we so account our selves? 'Tis improper and unsound to say, That visible Men or finite Creatures are the Representatives of Christs inward spiritual Government over the Conscience; which is endless, and where Christ himself reigns. Where did we ever assume a Government in Christ's stead over the Conscience? But only as his Servants and Witnesses, by his Spirit do commend [Page] our selves to every mans Conscience in the sight of God, and thereby only represent or shew forth by sound Doctrine and good Conversation, That Christ must rule and be obey'd as the Head of his Church; which vastly differs from the Pope's false sence of his being Christ's Vicar or Representative on Earth. Thou addest, viz. And that they are invested with Power to execute outward Laws, Edicts and Decrees. And what follows on thy discovery and similitude? Therefore the Pope and G. F. and his Party seem to be in Vnion, and run Paralel with the Church of Rome: That's false. The true Apostles and primitive Christians had outward Laws, Commands, Decrees, &c. which they practised: So hath the Pope and the Church of Rome (though not the same.) What follows? Did they therefore seem to be in Union? Thy Similitude and Inference are fallacious. We differ in the Power and Manner of Execution; and our Laws and Decrees, which Christ hath given us, differ from the Popes. The Popes Power is Carnal and Coercive: Ours, Spiritual and Perswasive. The Popes Ecclesiastical Laws, Edicts, Canons and Decrees are to promote a false Church, Idolatrous Worship and Superstition: Our Laws and Decrees, &c. are first written in our Hearts, and taught us by Christ [Page] Jesus, enjoyning us to eye, believe and follow him, as our Rock, our Way and Leader in Holiness and Purity of Life and Conversation. Therefore thy Comparison is silly and abusive here, as well as Malicious: The Pope claims a succession from Peter and Peter's Primacy, See Rh [...]. Annotat. fol. 572. (as their term is) as the Rock and Foundation of the Church: So do not we, but deny that Doctrine as false, believing and owning Christ to be the Rock and Foundation; nor yet do we assume or pretend any Priviledge, Power or Authority over Christ's Church from an outward succession, but only being Christ's Witnesses, Ministers, Servants and Ambassadours, are assisted by his immediate Presence, Power and Wisdom with us, to assist, order and govern us in his service, and the service of one another in love.

Again, thou proceedest in thy Similitudes, viz. 2dly, The Pope likewise affirms, that the Church of Rome is the true Church, and —in the true Faith: The Romish Clergy teach, that we must believe as the Church believes. Herein I cannot justly place much difference between the Popish Clergy and Pen-man, if he approved this Doctrine; viz. ‘The true Church is in the true Faith that is in God; and we must either believe thus as the true [Page] Church believes, or else it were but both a Folly and Hypocrisie to profess our selves Members thereof, pag. 18.’

Thus thou wouldst make me (whom I presume thou intendest) to resemble the Pope and his Clergy, and to seem to be in union with them: But dost thou not own the Doctrine to be true in it self, viz. 1st, That the true Church is in the true Faith that is in God; And darest thou deny this? What sayest thou to it? Speak out man, and be plain to the Point. 2dly, That we must either believe THUS (i. e in God) as the true Church believes, or else 'twere Hypocrisie to profess our selves Members thereof. If thou canst not deny the Doctrine in it self, why hast thou made this an Instance of our seeming to be in union with the Popish party? For thou knowest in thy Conscience; first, That it was not spoken of the Church of Rome, but in general of the true Church, whose Faith is IN GOD, which we neither believe of the Church of Rome, nor does the Church of Rome believe so of us. Where's then our seeming Union? secondly, To believe in God as the true Church doth, herein the true Church is made an instance and example of Faith in God, not to make the Church's believing this or that, the sole Reason and Cause of my (or our) believing the same, this were Implicit; 'tis as, not [Page] because; for Christ, who is God, is the original & efficient cause both of the Church's and my Faith, which is in him, which is the one, living, substantial Faith, wherein is Unity. Whilst thou canst not confute the said Doctrine, behold thy Similitude, what an empty FALSE SHEW it is: What real Protestants in Europe could escape thy Censure of Resembling the Pope and his party (nay, how canst thou escape thy self) upon such Fallacious Similitudes as thou hast invented against us? The Pope and his party believe there there is a God, a Christ, a Heaven, a Hell, Immortality, future states: So do all true Protestants. What follows according to thy Similitude? Ergo, all true Protestants seem to be at union with the Pope and his party. The Pope and his party believe there is one true [...]iversal Church, and one true Faith: So do the Protestants, but not so of each other, they are not in Union; no more are we with the Pope or his party, but with the best Reformed Protestants, wherein they differ'd from, and oppos'd the Church of Rome. The Pope believes he is a true Christian, and no Apostate: So dost thou (W. R.) believe thou art a true Christian, &c. What follows? Ergo, thou dost Resemble the Pope, and seemest to be at Union with the Papistical party: Is not this (argumentum ad hominem) like thy Similitudes? [Page] and more resembling them, than thou hast resembled G. F. and his party to the Pope and Church of Rome. How like a silly Sophister hast thou argued? Mayest thou not blush and be ashamed of such silly Impertinent, yet abusive Scri [...]ling, vain Shews, fallacious and abusive Similitudes? But Truth has defaced thy Pictures and Images, and discovered thy empty Shews and Legerdemain Tricks, thy Pride and Scorn against the Innocent.

Thou proceedest in thy Similitudes, viz. 3dly, The Popish Clergy think it not fit that the Laity should undertake to treat on points of Divinity, or concern their heads with that, otherwise than to receive those things in the sence the Clergy teacheth. This bespeaks little of any difference at all between the Pen-man and the Popish Clergy ( [...]nd why so?) The Pen-man on the occasion of my writing some-what touching Doctine, thus saith, viz. ‘This man who is thus discomposed in his work, should not have medled so much with points of Divinity, which he appears so little skilful in, p. 18.’

What was thy design in this Instance, but to render the Pen-man and our second days Meeting so far at unity with the Popish Clergy, as not to allow the Laity to treat on points of Divinity? Thou mightst as well have said, that we think not fit that any Laymen [Page] should preach among us, which were notoriously false, and against our selves and Practice, and contrary to our constant Testimony, who are no Clergy-men, but Lay-men But I suppose he hath a reserved and other sence for his Distinction between Clergy and Laity here, than the common sence [...]nd distinction: 'Tis some reflecting reserve no doubt. He may tell his mean-in his next Book. (so called) Besides, our saying, Thou shouldst not have medled so much with points of Divinity, was not because thou art one of the Laity, and not a Clergy-man, but because of thy discomposedness in thy work, and thy appearing so little skilful in some points of Divinity thou didst medle in. See now how perverting and fallacious still thou art in thy similitudes.

But to proceed on thy Fallacies, viz. 4thly, Some have esteemed the Authority of the Pope above the Authority of an Oecumenical or General Council, but some others the contrary; yet both have agreed, that the Authority accompanying the one of them, hath been the highest in the Church, from whence no appeal on Earth In this I cannot of knowledge place much difference between my Adversaries and the Romish Church, because I know not but that G. F. may be by some declared to be invested with a greater Authority than the General Meeting; neither can I deny, but that[Page]the General Meeting may be by others esteemed to be invested with greater Authority than he, p. 19.

See now, what amounts thy Similitude unto here? Thou canst not of knowledge place much difference, &c. because thou knowest not but that G. F. MAY BE by some so declared, &c. Instead of shewing Resemblance or a Similitude and seeming Union between us and the Romish Church, now thy proof is come to [I KNOW NOT BVT, &c.] and to a [G. F. MAY BE, &c.] And then again, thou canst not deny but that the General Meeting may be by others esteemed, &c. as before. So thy May-be's are thy Discoveries before pretended: See thy impertinent trifling. But thou knowest, that the Authority and Power of our Meetings has been frequently declared to be the Power of God, which is the same in all Meetings of his faithful People: We place not the Authority upon any Meeting or Number of Persons, meerly as a Meeting, but upon the Presence and Power of Christ in that Meeting; for he is our great and wonderful Counsellor.

§. 6. 5thly, What Cry for Justice is it thou complainest hath not been hearkned unto in London, when relating to G. F? Was it a Cry for thee to be heard against G. F. in his presence or absence? or was it Justice [Page] for thee to be heard read the Papers or Indictments against him, when he was many Miles distant? It seems thou art for Judgment against G. F. but who must be the Judges, and where the Judicature? Not thy self and Party, for ye are a party extream against him; not those thou hast judged Apostates and of party with G. F. for they are incompetent (in thy own account) for thee to appeal to; not the World, for they are unmeet to judge of spiritual differences; for the Saints shall judge the World. If thou sayst, 'Tis the Church of Christ thou wouldst appeal to for Justice against G. F. this grants the Church a Power of Judgment and Determination in matters relating to Conscience, contrary to thy own Principle and Doctrine. And then, where is that Church of Christ thou wouldst appeal unto, that is neither of thy party, nor of G. F's? Now consider where thou art run. And why dost thou go on with thy jealous Reflections upon the Pen-man, when thou canst neither write positively, nor hast proof against him, saying, It is well if the endeavours of the Pen-man (who peradventure may expect advance by Vsurpation in the Government contended for) be not as great to keep off the stroke of Justice, when as relating to G. F. as Cardinal Scomberges were to keep off the Reformation from the Court of Rome, &c. p. 19.

[Page]What proof is all this against the Pen-man, but to expose thy Malice and dubious (as well as proofless) Reflections to open censure? Instead of Proof, thou presents us with thy [If] and with thy [Peradventure] Whereas the Pen-man can appeal to the righteous Judge of all and Heart-searcher, against thy Defaming and false Insinuation of expecting advancement by Vsurpation in Government, keeping off the stroke of Justice; both which my Soul loaths. As an humble Subject under Christ's Government, I only oppose the stroke of the envious revengeful Spirit in thee and other Apostates, &c. as I really judge it my Duty.

5thly, And what if it be reputed, That G. F. originally called Ministring Friends to General Meetings Yearly? (or was Instrumental therein) as thou sayest, p. 20. Doth this seem to have union with the Popes calling General Councils consisting of the Clergy? Did not the Primitive Apostles and Elders sometimes assemble, and that long before there were Popes or their Councils? Were they therefore to be compared to the Popes and their General Councils? Our placing the Ground of the Controversie on an opposite dark Spirit on thy and thy Abettors part, is true; and so it is also, that thy opposition to many Faithful Servants of Christ, was the Fruit of Darkness, and no just [Page] comparison with the Bishop of Bitonto's commendation of Pope Paul the third, nor with his exhorting all to submit to that Council, which if they do not, it will be justly said, the Popes Light is come into the World, and men love Darkness better than Light, (as thou cites him in this blasphemous Doctrine) and to add to this Unjust and Impertinent Instance or Similitude, thou insinuatest by Query, Whether that Expression may be a proper Looking-glass for the Pen-man and G. Fox, to see their Faces in, when they conclude it the Fruit of Darkness not to submit to their Councils and outward Directories? I shall leave to the consideration of the unprejudiced understanding Reader. [Thus far thou] p. 20.

What expression a Proper Looking-Glass? The Bishop's saying, The Popes Light is come into the World, and men love Darkness better than Light? Is this thy proper Looking-Glass to see our Faces in? 'Tis but a dull one. Where did we ever in all our Councils, Expressions or outward Directories (as thou callest them) so much as resemble such false Doctrine and Blasphemy? No, we abhor it. What a false Looking-Glass hast thou presented here? It serves only to shew how Evil and False thy Eye is, and how bad thy Sight is; how Impertinently and Sordidly hast thou cast upon many Servants of Christ those accounts against [Page] Popes, &c. which thou hast gathered out of the History of the Council of Trent? And how easie is it to make Books at that rate? Thou hast known better things of the Ministers of Christ's Light among us, than thus to represent them with thy false Similitudes; and mayest remember, that our frequent Testimony has been (as still it is) to excite People to Christ's Light within, as being that true Light which is come into the World, and to his Counsel that proceeds from his Light; and not to the Pope nor any of his Councils. And thy pretended Godly Jealousie, That G. F. hath been endeavouring to exhalt his own Imaginations instead of Christ's Light, appears Ungodly and False, as many more of thy Jealousies (which are no Proofs) do.

§. 7. And now thy Similitudes of Disunion or difference between the Pope and G. F. and his Friends, p. 21, 22. to render him and them worse than the Pope, are as scornful and wicked as thy former; as for instance, to thy saying, The Pope publisheth his Bull or Decree in his Name; and doth not usually say, 'tis not for want of freeness in Spirit that I desire my Name should be hid: But it appears to me that the Pen-man was ASHAMED that his Name should be publisht with the great Bull, entituled, The Accuser of the Brethren cast down. [Thus thou] wherein [Page] thou hast told a gross Perversion and Untruth; for the Pen-man neither said, I desire my Name should be hid, nor yet was he ASHAMED that his Name should be publisht with that Book thou falsly and scornfully callest, The Great Bull; nor doth he or any others concern'd therein, find any Cause to be ashamed thereof, but to stand by it against thy Malice and Abuses in thy Great Bull, as it may be rather term'd, for thy attempting therein to Unchristian and Unchurch a great number of faithful Servants of Christ.

Again, the Reason thou givest, why thy Adversaries (as thou callest us) have not punisht thy Body, nor taken away any of thy Estate, is, But blessed be the Lord, they have no Power so to do. Herein thou accountest is some little difference between them (thou smites at) and the Lords Inquisitors of the Popish Inquisition, p. 21. I must tell thee, I think this a very Uncharitable censure and smiting, implying that they would both punish thy Body, and take away thy Estate, and so be as bad as the Lords of the Spanish Inquisition, if they had but Power so to do. Which bespeaks great Prejudice and Darkness to have entred thee. And then, to aggravate the matter, thou turnest it about again, That they (i. e. thy Adversaries) have not suffered thee to see the Faces or know the Names of[Page]thy Judges: In that respect (sayst thou) the Lords of the Spanish Inquisition have been ore just, p. 21.

How odiously and grosly hast thou here represented thy Opposers, who have not divulg'd their Names against thee, of whom I take the Pen-man (and thee to mean my self) to be one; And if so, I must tell thee, thou hast insinuated a gross Slander, to render the Lords of the Spanish Inquisition more just; and by a Lye justifiest the Papists, who clap men up in Prison all their dayes, never letting them know their Accusers; (see the History of the Inquisition) for though the name of the Writer was not divulged with that Treatise entituled, The Accuser, &c. Many others have given their Names in the same judgment concerning thee and thy work of Discord and Enmity, and many more also do own and stand by that Judgment and Treatise: And I must farther tell thee in the sight of God, I see no cause to retract, but to stand by that Treatise, and own my share in it, notwithstanding thy opposition to the contrary, picking, and nibbling, and quarrelling here and there, but giving the GO-BY to the most material parts thereof, wherein the Controversie is most fully opened and distinguished.

[Page] Of those Popes with whom W. R. compares our Friends.

§. 8. Seeing W.R. esteems the Popes, (yea, even the worst of them) good enough to bring us in comparison with, and to cite and make them as Instances against us. As,

Pope Leo the Tenth, p. 6, & 22.

Pope Paul the Third, p. 19, & 28.

Pope Julius the Third, p. 31.

It may not be amiss to give some description of these Popes, according to a late History or Abstract of the Lives of the Popes, printed Anno 1679.

Among the Atheists

‘Leo the Tenth is ranked, who hearing Cardinal Bembo speaking to a point concerning the joyful Message of our Lord, answered most dissolutely, It is well known to the World, through all Ages, in how great stead that Fable of Christ hath profitted us and our Associates. This man neither believed Heaven nor Hell after our departure out of this Life. And such were Alexander the 10th, Sylvester the 2d, PAVL the 3d, Benedict the 19th, John the 13th, Clement the 7th and Gregory the 7th.’

[Page] Among the Magicians & Conjurers

‘Paul the Third is ranked, as having obtained the Garland in Astrology, and in that kind of Speculation which is assisted by the Ministry of Devils. He altogether kept familiar Acquaintance with Negromancers, and such like Imposters, &c.’

Among Warriours & Blood-succors.

‘Paul the Third was also accounted, viz. A great Persecutor of the Saints of God, raised and fomented the German War, which proved the Destruction of many thousand Families.’

Among Paricides & Impoysoners.

‘Paul the Third also impoisoned his Mother and Niece, that the whole Inheritance of the Farniesian Family might accrew to himself. His other Sister also, whom be carnally knew upon fancying her freeness to others, he slew by Poyson. And so he is recorded among Incestuous Persons also.’

[Page] Among the Favourites of Whores.

‘Its said, That Paul the Third kept a Roll of forty five Thousand Whores, who paid him a Monethly Tribute.’

Among Sodomites.

‘Julius the Third used one Innocent as his Minion, and created him Cardinal.’ Of whom this account is also given (in Dr. Gilb. Burnet's History of Reformation, Book 2. Abridgment, pag. 121.) viz. ‘That Pope Julius the Third (when Cardinal Pool was rejected for his being too good) was chosen for his Badness, who gave his place of Cardinal to his man that kept his Munkey, saying, He saw as much in his Man to make him Cardinal, as the Cardinals saw in him to make him Pope.’

Query,What worse Persons upon Earth could our Adversary have compared G. F. and Friends unto, or brought in Comparison against them in Church Proceedings or Spiritual Censures? Behold his horrid Injustice and Envy!

CHAP. III.

[Page]

§. 1. W. R's Accusation of endavouring to take away his Credit: Next, to depriving him of his Estate, examined; and the justness of our dealing with him, vindicated. What sore Reflection he has brought upon himself by his Complaint, and his acting the part of a Persecuting Informer, to render his antient Friends call'd Quakers, Obnoxious in the Eye of the Law and Authority. §. 2. His bitterly Inveighing against C. Marshall and many other Brethren. His unjust Instance of Pope Leo's Bull again. His and F. Bugg's Contradiction about W. Penn. Schism condemned in and by the Church of Christ, as well as Heretical Doctrine and Scandalous Living. The decrease of W. R's Number, and the increase and gathering of many faithful to Christ and us his followers, foretold. §. 3. The Pen-man's writing in behalf and in the name of the peaceable People called Quakers, vindicated from W. R's severe and seditious Inferences. §. 4. W.R. called in question upon his own Principle, for writing in the name and behalf of (and representing) divers Persons, who never chose nor gave him Power, nor allowed him so to do (and his [Page] abuse of E. Burroughs and I. Pennington) whereupon his severe Charge and Inference is all returned upon his own head. §. 5. W. R. and F. Bugg, their Reflections upon the Meeting in the Isle of Ely, no proof of Friends Apostacy, but of their own Partiality and Injustice in their Representation of the matter. §. 6. W. R's again recited Lye about the Paper from Barbadoes, as being one part of the fruits of the pretended establisht Government, with other unjust Aggravations thereupon, farther detected.

§. 1. TO prove that thy Adversaries would cause thee to suffer in Body and Estate, if they had Power; thou sayst, They have endeavoured, as much as in them lies, to take away thy Credit, which is next to depriving thee of thy Estate. And wherein to take away thy Credit? Thou sayest, The Pen-man hath given thee this sort of Treatment, either in relation to thy self or thy Book, viz. ‘Hellish Iealousies, Fiery Agent & Incendiary, his Heart is filled with Pride and Envy. As for William Rogers's Book against Church Government, 'tis outragiously Wicked, Clamorous and Abusive.’ I cannot suppose, (sayst thou) [Page] what he means by these his very words ‘[He is here treated far more mildly than his work deserves]’ unless he believes that my work deserves corporal Punishment, or Confiscation of Estate. I cannot but again say, Blessed be the Lord, that the Rigid Vncharitable Pen-man hath not Power so to do. [Thus far thou] p. 21, 22.

To all which I say, and that in the sight of the Righteous God, who is Judge of all, that I know no Treatment given thee, in these and the like Passages in our Book, than what thou and thine justly deserve, though in much else of ours thou art treated far more mildly, yea, more kindly than thy work deserves. And dost thou indeed judge, that we have endeavoured to take away thy Credit by such kind of Treatment? And that 'tis next to taking away thy Estate? What hast THOU then done against us; yea, against many of the peaceable People called Quakers? Hast not rendred us Vnchristian, in notorious Blasphemy, Apostates, Innovators, Imposers of blind Obedience, Popish, Papistical Track, in Vnion with the Pope and his Party, more unjust than the Lords of the Spanish Inquisition (Yea, and at such a time as this, when I presume thou canst not be ignorant, how that many of our Innocent Friends are under severe prosecution and suffering, both in their Persons [Page] and Estates) in the reign of Q. Elizabeth and K. James? How Uncharitable and Unjust? How persecuting Informer-like (all circumstances considered) is thy Treatment? And how Inhumane, tending to add to these our Afflictions? And yet complainest of our Endeavours to take away thy Credit, and consequently thy Estate, when thou art but justly reprehended, and no other Characters placed on thy Work and Envious Spirit, than what are just, and naturally belong thereunto. Hath it not been our practice from the beginning, to testifie against our Persecutors, and to reprove their Envy and Cruelty? Did we therein go about to bring corporal Punishment and Confiscation of Estate upon them? No sure. Canst thou take liberty to abuse and villifie so many Servants of Christ in Print, and think they must all be mute under thy Abuses, and none to reprehend thee? No such matter. They that have but the least spark of holy Zeal, or but any Life or Soul for God, must needs be kindled in some measure against thy abominable Abuses and Injurious persecuting Work. It seems, thou valuest thy own Credit and Estate at a high rate above others: Thou seemest little to value the Credit, Liberty or Estates of many others, (even of thy antient Friends, called Quakers) to brand and stigmatize [Page] them, as thou hast done, with as Infamous Characters, yea, and as Obnoxious in the Eye of Law and Authority, as thou easily canst, and yet complainest of Endeavours to destroy thy Credit and Estate, when thou hast given the first occasion of the Reprehension and Judgment given upon thee and thy work of Malice. Thou hast begun the Fray publickly, and broke the Peace; now complainest of Vncharitable Treatment. First thou art Barking, Snapping and Biting, then art Complaining and Whyning, when a little Whipt for thy Folly, thy Pievish and Ugly Behaviour. Oh! Injurious and Partial Man! Hast thou done as thou wouldst be done by? For shame give over thy malicious and fruitless Attempts.

§. 2. Again, 'tis observable how bitterly thou still inveighs against Charles Marshall and the Sixty five Persons more, about the Paper touching J. W. and J. S. as judging it In some respect to be much like the Bull given forth by Pope Leo the Tenth, against Martin Luther, Anno 1520. But yet in one main Point greatly differs; for (sayest thou) in the Bull there are Forty two Articles of Doctrine condemned, and the Bull ordered to be read in every place, that the matters for which he was prosecuted as an Heretick might be known. But [Page]in the aforesaid Paper, subscribed by Charles Marshall, &c. There is no mention of any perticular Doctrine, or Vitiousness of Life, for which they are persecuted by their Brethren, p. 22. [Thus far thou.]

Whence three things are to be observed, 1st, That the said Paper is compared to the Pope's Bull, as much like it in some respect: 2dly, That its deem'd worse than the Pope's Bull, in not mentioning any particular Doctrine or Vitious Life against J. W. and J. S. 3dly, That they who subscribed the said Paper, were persecutors of their Brethren. Whereof thou knowest William Penn was one: How foully hast thou asperst and represented C. M. and W. P. &c. in these things? And how do these Comparisons against him, and thy rendring him a Persecutor of his Brethren, agree with his being Dear W. P. This Noble man, &c? as thy Brother F. Bugg, and consequently thy self, have rendred him, being in thy Book, pag. 73.74.

As for their not mentioning any particular Doctrine or Vitious Life, that others might know the matters alledged against them; what, wouldst infer that therefore the Pope's Bull against M. Luther was more reasonable or just? That's a mistake, for thou confessest a Judgment to be given against that jealous, rending and separate Spirit [Page] from which thou hast not cleared them (but rendred them the more Guilty, if thou beest their Representatives, as impowered by them to write in their Vindication, according to thy own reflection on us.) And was that no Reason then to give others notice and warning against such a Spirit? Is Schism no Sin, or not reproveable? But how Unjust is thy Comparison? I ask thee, if thou darest say, that Pope Leo (that Atheist) was in the same Sense, Religion, Gravity and tender Exercise toward M. Luther, that in thy own Narrative thou hast rendred these Friends in, that were concern'd in dealing with J. S. and J. W. at Drawell? And I ask thee further, If ever thou readst any such Acknowledgment, Submission or Condemnation made by Martin Luther to the Church of Rome, as the said J. S. and J. W. with thy own assistance, made as satisfaction to their Brethren, and the Church of God in general? Though afterward thou comparedst it to a Rattle to please Children. And hath a Christian Society no Power to reprove and judge a dividing, self-separating Spirit, (in whomsoever it be) that makes Rents and Schisms, as well as Heretical Doctrine, and Vitious or Scandalous living? Mark them that cause Divisions and Offences, and avoid them, &c. If thou grantest the Principle, and such [Page] power in a Christian Society or Church, what will thy attempts to Unchristian and Unchurch us avail, unless thou canst prove us guilty of Vitious Lives and Heretical Doctrine? Which if thou canst not, then hast thou and thy party assumed a Power to judge of Spirits, wherein you fairly give away your Cause, and overthrow much of your own opposition to the Churches Power and Determination in such cases? And your Judgment to Unchristian us or our Spirits, being but your Imposition, we shall as little value; and the day will yet farther discover whose Spirits are Unchristian, and whose Spirits are Christian. And 'tis not thy boasting either of the Numerousness or Scores (of thy party) p. 23. that will decide the Controversie; nor wouldst thou accept of such a Plea on our parts, but doubtless esteem it no Christian Proof or Argument, but an Imposition, and begging the Question: But seeing thou layest so much stress on thy Numbers and Scores, I must tell thee, that if they amounted to as many as the third part of the Stars (which yet they are far short of) that followed thee, or owned thy Work of opposition & strife, they would be but wandring Stars, and have lost their Habitations and Glory, and are darkned, whom the Dragon's Tayl has drawn and cast down to the Earth. But blessed be [Page] the Lord our God, the greater part of the Stars, among us his People called Quakers, have kept their Station and Splendor in the Firmament of his Power, and in living Union, Concord and Love, wherein they live above that Spirit of Enmity and Discord which thou and thy party are in, and which the Lord will yet farther discover and deliver those who are at unawares betrayed thereby, yet have some secret Breathings unto him, and that they may come into clearness of Judgment, so as on the Restoration and increase of the number of the Faithful and Upright: And by the spreading of the Gospel day, thy Numbers shall decrease; and many will come to see thee more and more in thy dark and mischievous attempts, and how insuccesful and disappointed thou wilt be therein. And those that come to be recovered, and many Thousands that shall be gathered to the Lord and us his People, shall be found better, and more worthy, than thy self, and those that go out and separate from us.

§. 3. W. R. is pleased to make a Charge, and draw severe and seditious Inferences upon our Advertisement, and conclusion of our Introduction, especially against the Pen-man, for vindicating the People called Quakers in their Church-Order and Discipline, [Page] and writing in the Name of the People called Quakers, when vindicated from his Scandals. But he has very unfairly and dis-ingenuously left out the distinguishing expressions in the first, as [Peaceable, Christian, Conscientiously, Christian Society, p. 23.] in the passage of ours, viz. We the peaceable Christian People called Quakers are Conscientiously vindicated and cleared in our Christian Society. Where's then his exception against our vindication and writing in the Plural, in the Name of the peaceable People called Quakers? But that, 1. We could not write in the Name of such as encouraged the publication of his Treatise entituled, The Christian-Quaker, in five parts, who yet are a part of the People called Quakers. (saith he) 2. Nor in the Names of such as are disaffected with laying Marriages before Womens Meetings; And these are numerous, and called Quakers (quoth he) To the first; Answer, No: How should we write in their Names, who encouraged the Publication of his said Treatise against us (if any such were, for they keep very obscure, as not willing to be known in such encouragement.) It is a Book of Envy, Strife and Discord, and they no Peaceable Quakers who encouraged it. 'Twas the Peaceable People called Quakers that were concerned in our Vindication: And therefore W. R. [Page] saith true, as't happens; The Pen-man could not write in the Name of such as encouraged the Publication of his Book. Whence it follows, they were not of that Peaceable sort which he vindicated, nor W. R's Book a work of Peace, or in the least tending thereto, but a great Abuse and Scandal to, and against the very peaceable People called Quakers. Secondly; Nor are they who oppose our Godly Women's Meetings, and laying Marriages before them, so peaceable and clear in their minds (in that point) as we could wish they were, and they should be better informed, and hear Instruction: However, they also are concluded by W.R.'s words, not to be of that Peaceable People called Quakers intended in our Vindication, in that he saith, The Pen-man cannot be understood to write in their Names; when 'tis most evident he did write in the Name of The Peaceable Christian People called Quakers. Though W. R. as one in some wise Conscious, leaves out the word [Peaceable] that he might with the greater colour draw his Charge and severe Inferences upon the Pen-man, &c. But such kind of slighty mean shifts will stand him in no stead, when we strictly look into his Fallacious dealing.

And granting him that we cannot represent (nor be understood to write in the Name of) such Quakers (so called) as encouraged [Page] the publication of his persecuting Books and Pamphlets against us, nor of such as either oppose our Womens Meetings, or laying Marriages before them, or are disaffected there-with, nor in the Names of the several Scores he tells of, who gave Testimony in Writing against Charles Marshall and Sixty five more. (The greatest part whereof being known to be Faithful men of Sincerity and service in the Lord's work) Nor in the Names of such as he saith appear Neutral in the present Controversie, and yet own the same Principles which he and his party do. Where is then their Neutrallity? is it in having no concern of Conscience outwarly to appear on either party, as W. R. saith? Then they are only Neutrals in appearance, but secretly of his party and Principles, some whereof are very perverse and unpeaceable, as well as unsound. Now I say, we grant that we of the Second day's Meeting did not represent such kind of Quakers as those of W. R. his party; nor could they impower us in our writing for, and representing the peaceable People called Quakers, or that peaceable sort of Quakers, who are for Unity, Love, Concord and Peace in the Church of Christ among us, nor was it our intention to represent, personate or vindicate such pretended Quakers, as are in a Spirit of discord and strife, causing and [Page] making Divisions, Rents and Schismes in the Church (first disturbing and troubling, then reproaching the Society they sometime owned) but only those of a peaceable Mind and Spirit; and therefore his not knowing that we can represent any under that Name, more than our own Second day's Meeting, is a false insinuation; for there are many Thousands of the People called Quakers, yea, of the most sincere and peaceable minded, besides our said Meeting, whose real sense and judgment (in the matters treated on in our Book, against W. R's great Book) we have represented, and who really do and will own the same. Where now hath W. R. shown the Pen-man guilty of great Impudence, in writing in behalf of the peaceable People called Quakers? The word Peaceable in our Advertisement, left out by him, doth really distinguish it, with respect only to the peaceable sort, which are they that live in Love and Unity, who may properly be termed The PEOPLE called Quakers, as united in one Society, and become one People, and not dividing separate Spirits, who are gone out from us. And though in our Introduction, we say the terms We and Vs are used, sometimes in the Name of the People called Quakers, when vindicated from his Scandals. I say so still. And this intends no other than the Peaceable People, [Page] (as before explain'd in our Advertisement) and not any such pretended Quakers, as W. R. his party and Abettors, who are unpeaceable and turbulent to the Society and People among whom they sometime walked. And therefore his roaring and clamouring out great Impudence, Pride, and height of such towring lofty spirited Persons as the Pen-man, &c. are but empty Clamours and Abuses, as is also his Jealousie, That the Pen-man counts himself one of the Representatives of Christ's inward Government, who alone is Lord over the Conscience. Whereas the Pen-man never so accounted of himself, nor ever assumed to himself any such Government or Lordship over the Conscience, as is peculiar to Christ alone; but only accounts himself a Servant of Christ, and a Subject under his spiritual Government: And therefore W. R's still proceeding in his roaring and bitter Exclamation against him, as That he would represent in Print, as if the People called Quakers, without r [...]triction (a Lye still) were Persons impowering such an imperious Map of Pride and Drollery, as the Pen-man shews himself to write in their Names. The matter is answered before; but yet I may further add, as the Envy and Malice of this Adversary appears swelling high, so his confidently repeated Falshoods and Abuses are numerous; [Page] for we would neither so represent in Print, nor yet did the Pen-man so much as pretend to be impowered to write by the People in general, or without restriction; and yet both in Charity and Christian duty, might vindicate all them as the peaceable People ca [...]ed Quakers, who are really peaceable in their Spirits and Conversations: And though there be some called Quakers, who are unpeaceable in both such as W.R. and his party; yet that cannot unpeople the other, who are truly peaceable, but rather unpeople themselves, who are unpeaceable, from being of that People: Such our vindication of a peaceable People from the unpeaceable, proves none of us Impudent, nor any imperious Map of Pride and Drollery, notorious Falshood, &c. as most unjustly rendred by an imperious proud Adversary. For hath it not been frequent with us, to vindicate the People called Quakers? intending all those that might properly be counted a People in Peace and Unity, and that from the general Aspersions and Calumnies, both of open and secret Enemies: And in this Controversie we vindicate them as that peaceable People, who are sincere and faithful to God, lovers of Peace, Unity and good Order, and whom W. R. and his party, in their dividing and perverse gain-sayings, are not able to unpeople, nor justly to render [Page] themselves that People. As for him and those of his party, who promote his malicious, persecuting, defaming Books, &c. We cannot look upon them worthy to bear so much as the Name Quakers, muchless to be deemed that People under the Title of Christian-Quakers, whilst in their Unchristian spirit of strife and discord: And they will yet more manifest themselves to be further remote from that peaceable People called Quakers, if they Repent not; and the peaceable and faithful, who love unity and peace in our Lord Jesus Christ, shall remain a people, and live when all such spirits as lust to envy and contention, shall be confounded, scattered, wither, be driven back and come to naught in their evil Designs and wicked Attempts; the Breath of the Lord shall scatter them; for no Weapon formed against his Heritage shall prosper.

But alas! our Adversary is still in a great fude and fret for our writing in behalf, or in the name of the People called Quakers, (reiterating his Falshood again) without Restriction, p. 24, 25. he should have said, Peaceable People called Quakers. But he goes on at an outragious rate on this subject, confessing, He wants words to represent the Action in as ugly a dress as it deserves. And therefore when he hath as falsly asperst the [Page] Pen-man, and set him out in as Vgly a Dress as he can (so that the Devil and William Rogers have done their worst hitherto) he supposeth a Comparison in the case against him, but very unjustly in these words, viz.

Suppose a company of men, never chosen according to Law, should meet at Westminster, and call themselves the Representatives of the People of England, and accordingly in the Name of the People of England proceed to act as such: Wouldst thou not abhor and detest the Action? And how canst thou think that we can do less than detest thy insolent Spirit, by offering to write in the Name of the People called Quakers, without Restriction, when they gave neither thee nor any of thy Brethren such Authority? Had the fear of God been before thine Eyes, thou couldst not have attempted to have done so Wickedly, p. 25.

Here it is probable he thinks, he hath given the Pen-man a deadly Blow; but when the Devil and William Rogers have done their worst, it comes to little Execution, but to manifest his Envy and Folly. He only shews his Teeth, but cannot bite nor fasten; for there is no just paralel in the case; there is no such kind of Treasonable proceeding justly chargeable upon the Pen-man, as is inferred in the Comparison: The Pen-man did not call himself the Representative, nor write in the Name of the [Page] People (or of all those) called Quakers, without Restriction, as he falsly saith, nor pretend an Election or Authority from them so to do; the matter is distinguished and answered before, and yet the Pen-man might lawfully represent the Innocency of all true peaceable Quakers, both as to Principle and Practice, when abused and calumniated, either as Vnchristian or Popish Imposers, &c. without Conviction (like as this Adversary hath frequently misrepresented them) And this may be done charitably, freely and voluntarily in their Name and Vindication, and in true Unity, from a right knowledge of their Innocency, declared Sense and Principles; And hath not this been the Practice of many faithful Servants of Christ among us, ever since we were a People, to write both in the name & vindication of the People of God called Quakers, or of the Innocent People called Quakers, &c. as the Lord hath laid a necessity upon them, and yet not to include those who are unfaithful or scandalous to Truth, or any who are turned into Envy and Strife, though they go under that Name? Nor yet have they sought or needed to seek Commission from the whole People, to write in their behalf, being required of the Lord to write. And did not many of the best reformed Protestants and Martyrs write in the name [Page] and behalf of the Protestant Church and Religion, as the Book of Martyrs and other Histories, and their own Writings shew; of which numerous Instances might be given. And did not the the Apostles of Christ often write in the Plural, both in the name and behalf of themselves and the rest of true Believers and Fellow-members, under the terms, We, and Vs, and Our, &c. especially in that of 1 John 2.19. They went out from Us, but they were not of Us; for if they had been of Us, they would no doubt have continued with Us; see chap. 3.14. and 4.6. Here John wrote in the Name of his Brethren and Fellow-members, and distinguished themselves from those that went out from them, as we have our selves, as a peaceable People, from you that are gone out from us, into a Spirit of Enmity, Discord and Self-separation.

§. 4. But (W. R.) since thou countest it such a horrid Crime, such great Impudence, Pride, ugly Action, Insolence, &c. to write in the name or on the behalf of People or Persons, or in their Vindication, without being impowered, authorized and chosen by the same Persons or People. Now observe well upon thy own principle and way of arguing, what a Reckoning I have with thee: Let us seriously enquire of thee, [Page] Have all those Persons in whose behalf and Name thou hast written in the Plural (under the Terms We, Vs, &c) given thee Authority, or chosen thee to write in their Name and behalf? Did John Story, John Wilkinson, and now the person in Cambridgshire (whom thou and Francis Bugg contend for, against the Record about his Marriage) all give thee Authority (or chuse thee) to write on their behalf, and to expose their Names in Print, as thou hast done in thy state of the Controversie on their behalf? Did they give thee Authority to write in their names and behalf, as those Other Friends in Truth thou tellest of and representest? Either they did, or they did not; if they did, then they may be entituled to, and are justly chargeable with thy work, how perverse and abusive soever it be; If they did not chuse nor authorize thee to write in their behalf and name, then thy own Judgment returns upon thy own head, as one guilty of great Impudence, Pride, towring lofty Spirit, notorious Falshood, ugly Dress, &c. to write in the name and vindication of Persons, and to represent them who never gave thee Power, nor chose thee to thy work. Didst not thou pretend to write on behalf of thy self, and other Friends in Truth concerned, as in the Title-page of thy great Book? and now to use the words [Page] Vs, We or Our, with respect to such as encouraged the giving forth thereof, as in thy Advertisement to thy seventh part? When now divers noted Persons, who have appeared of thy party, refuse to stand by thy Books; and we know none of them that dare say, they gave thee any such Authority, or chose thee to be their Representative to write in their name and behalf, as thou hast done (against many faithful Friends, whom the Lord is with and will stand by, against thy crooked Spirit and Opposition) but rather, those thy Friends in Truth pretended (on enquiry, if they own and will stand by thy Books) as it has been often asked them, particularly at Devonshire-house, in 1681. have answered, That William Rogers must answer for himself, if he hath done more than he can answer, or wronged any: They will not stand by him; 'Tis his own Act, he must look to it, &c. Thus upon a pinch they leave him in the lurch to shift for himself; they'l not stand by him openly however; they own him not for their Representative, though he hath represented them, and written as in their Name, Person and Vindication; as also represented them as Encouragers of the giving forth of his great Book, falsly stiled, The Christian-Quaker, &c.

But to deal more closely and positively [Page] with thee in this matter, how camest thou to expose Edward Burroughs Name in Print, and to represent him as a Person of thy Principle and Judgment, by a confused, unsound whimsical Paper, which thou hast printed in thy great Book, with Edward Burrough's Name put to it, and represented it as his Testimony, and even in thy Titlepage sayst, it was given forth in the year 1661. by Edw. Burroughs, and since the same is reprinted over and over by thy busie informing Agent Thomas Crisp, as E. B's Vision; but I am perswaded thou and he have grosly abused and mis-represented that Servant of the Lord E. B. by rendring him the Author of such Absurdities as are contained in that same Paper about the Shepherd and his Dogs, &c. particularly in that passage of the ‘Shepherd's gathering the Sheep with the many Goats, that did push, trouble and hurt the Sheep with their Horns, and putting them into the Fold; and that he made fast the door, and would not separate them until he had the other Sheep also, that did not come with the Flock.’ See what Doctrine this is, as applyed to Christ, the good Shepherd, rendring him so severe to his Sheep, as to gather, shut up and keep so many Goats, so long among them in his Fold, to trouble, bruise and hurt his poor Sheep with their Horns. And also, that Warning and Precept [Page] given in the said Paper to Friends, ‘for all to forbear judging any man any more, upon any pretence whatsoever:’ Can any that knew E. B. and the soundness of judgment & understanding that he was attain'd to in the year 1661. believe that he was the Author of such Doctrine to all Friends, as to judge no man under any pretence whatsoever? A man well known severely to judge deceitful Workers and rebellious Ones, as (yea, he testified plainly against John Perrot's spirit of Division) is fully evinced in his Books and Writings. And I dare presume E.B. never gave thee authority, nor chose thee or Tho. Crisp to represent him in print (so many years after his decease) as the Author of the said Paper or warning to all friends, To judge no man under any pretence whatsoever: And yet thou art severely judging and reproaching others that are not of thy party as Apostates, Innovators, &c. contrary to such an express precept & doctrine espoused by thee, as E.B's Testimony. Besides the express contradiction to thy self in thus representing E. B. in print, without his leave, authority or consent, what great abuse hast thou done to him, his Memory, Name and Testimony, in exposing him in Print, as Author of that which doth not so much as look like him or his Testimony, or any Vision of his, but in the said Doctrines both contrary to his Judgment and [Page] Practice? I say, what a horrid Abuse hast thou done to the Name and Memory of the dead in Christ, and that by promoting a forged Subscription, if thou canst not give sufficient demonstration and proof, that Edw. Burroughs was the Author of the same Paper aforesaid, which thou hast exposed in his name in Print? If thou sayst, it was delivered to thee with Edw. Burrough's name to it: I say, that's no proof of its being his; for both I and divers others have seen a Copy of the same only with J. Perrots name to it; and this more probably true, that he was the Author, for divers reasons, than thy rendring E. B. the Author.

Again, thou hast also exposed that honest and innocent Person Isaac Pennington in Print, to serve thy own turn and thy parties, as a Confirmation of thy work, and that after his decease also, for which I dare presume he gave thee no authority, nor chose thee so to represent him in Print, or to pick out of the middle, diminish or curtalize his Writings or Testimony, by leaving out the most material and explanatory precedent and subsequent Passages thereof, to the great injury and abuse of his Intention; for which his Son John Pennington was stirred up to vindicate his deceased Father, and to detect thy abuse and Prevarication. And am satisfied, that [Page] neither Edward Burroughs nor John Crook gave thee Authority to quote or cite them, or either of them in opposition to G. F. as thou hast John Crook especially, in thy Epistle, pag. 3. nor to tell the World in Print, That his Testimony is agreeable to thy sence: I do not believe J. C. will in the least own thee in thy work of Opposition, and strife against many faithful Servants of Christ.

Also, thou and Francis Bugg have represented William Penn in Print, on some passages pickt out of his Address to Protestants, as in thy 66 and 73 pages, which he never gave you power to do, much less to represent him (as if he were one in Judgment with you against his Brethren) nor did he give thee or F. Bugg leave to discant upon and turn his words to serve your own turns, nor to apply them against such his Friends in the Isle of Ely or else-where, who are for Womens Meetings, and laying Marriages twice before the Mens and Womens Meetings; it is not to be supposed, that he intended [Fly Rome at Home] as proper Admonition to them, as thy Brother F. Bugg applies them, as in the Authority and genuine sence of Dear W. P. p. 78. calling William Penn, Dear Friend, p. 65. This Noble Man, &c. p. 73. Which is to render W. P. exactly one of your own [Page] party; and all this without his authority leave or consent.

But how comes he now to be Dear William Penn, Dear Friend, and This Noble man? Hast not thou numbred him among the Persecutors of J. S. and J. W. as thou esteemest Charles Marshall and Sixty Five more (as thy phrase is) who signed the Paper thou art so much offended at? p. 22, 27. Was not William Penn one of those sixty six Subscribers? And dost not thou on this very occasion retort his words [Let us fly Rome at Home?] What! must he therefore be a Persecutor of his Brethren, and yet a Dear Friend, Dear William Penn, This Noble man, &c. in thy Book? What Self-contradiction and manifest Flattery art thou and thy Brother Bugg (like Parasites) guilty of? Pray lift up your Eyes and see your selves, if not judicially given over to blindness and hardness of heart.

Take another Instance or two of thy Self-contradictory dealing; Didst not thou expose a Certificate or Testimony (as thou esteemedst it) of Nathaniel Crips in Print against G. F. without any Authority from Nathaniel for so doing? I am sure he confest as much to me and John Bouldron the 6th Moneth, 1679. against thy publishing it in Manuscript, as that thou didst it without [Page] his advice, knowledge or order; see our Book, Accuser, &c. p. 172

And likewise, that pretended Certificate or Testimony of Edw. Perkins, which thou printedst against G. F. Edward confessed to me at sundry times and before divers Persons, that he did not give any advice or consent to thy printing it; for 'twas printed without his knowledge. And so, we may question or suppose thou hast done the like in the rest, or most of the pretended Testimonies against G. F. &c. from those Women and others of Bristol, &c.

Now may not I rationally take leave to reflect and argue, ad hominem, upon thee, and according to thy own Terms thus, Oh! thou Imperious Map of Pride, towring lofty and Lordly Spirit, insolent and conceited, proud Vsurper! how durst thou either write in the name or behalf of so many, whom thou countest Friends in Truth, and numerous too? or expose the names of so many deceased Servants of Christ in thy Quarrel, as if they were all on thy side and party, when thy gave thee no power, nor deputed thee so to do? And thou must answer for thy misrepresenting them, and abusing their Names, Memories and Testimonies, when the chieftains of thy own party dare not stand by thy work, nor own thee for their [Page] Representative, but leave thee to stand by it thy self, as thy own. What an unjust and false Representative hast thou shewn thy self, by thy own rule and manner of Reflection upon others? though I am apt to think that some few have privately encouraged thee in thy travail, who now are afraid publickly to stand by thy deform'd, inform unshapely and monstrous Birth, begotten and brought forth by the old Accuser of the Brethren; though some are not ashamed to promote and expose it to Sale, but it will turn to their own shame, and be their burden at length.

§. 5 Again, to prove thy false charge of Apostacy and Innovation against us (p. 26.) thou insistest on a Record in the Quarterly Meeting Book at Hadenham in the Isle of Ely about I tenderly forbear exposing the Person's name at present, believing that 'twas not by his order or consent that W.R. & F B. have made him such a subject of printed controversie; as also hoping that he has more charity & tenderness in him than to allow of their malicious Books. a Marriage, shewing Friends dislike of the manner of proceeding and disunion there-with. The Question is, Whether the person concern'd gave thee Authority to expose this in Print to make him a subject of the Controversie, and proof of our Apostacy? If not, as I presume he did [Page] not, but rather F. B. from whom, thou sayst, thou receivedst it; then hast thou shewn thy self no Friend to the Person concerned, in exposing his name in Print, in a matter that tends to his disrepute and disgrace, and that in plain contradiction to thy own Principle and Judgment against us; and yet the ground of Friends dissatisfaction in that case, thou dost not demonstrate, (wherein thou hast done partially and unjustly, which necessitates this discovery) but sayst, It is for not proceeding exactly in that outward new formed Method: Whereas 'twas an Innovation or new Method that Friends were offended at, viz. propounding the Marriage but once to the Meeting, and that in the Womans absence (with whom he intended Marriage) which is both a new Method and Imposition on Friends, upon his bear word and credit, without the Woman's Testimony from her own Mouth, which should have been allowed Friends, and that at two sundry Meetings, from both the Persons concerned; which is no new formed Method, but that which has been many years among us, and is a necessary and commendable Method, both for enquiry into the Persons clearness from other Engagements, and tending to a general satisfaction of Friends in Truth. And this Method doth neither invalidate nor derogate from that [Page] antient Advice of Friends, cited in thy 4th Chapter concerning Marriage, pag 66. viz.

‘Let it be made known to the Children of Light, especially to those of the Meeting, to which the parties are Members, that all in the Light may witness it to be of God, and that no Scandal may rest upon the Truth, nor any thing done in secret, but all things brought to the Light, &c.’ This is general, and was wholsom advice. And there is no particular Method used among us, but it tends to the same good end, (viz. for the satisfaction and Testimony of all in the Light) and doth not in the least contradict or lessen it▪ Where's then the Antichristian Imposition, Apostacy and Innovation, thou chargest in the Contents of thy fourth Chapter? Is it in proposing Marriages twice (or at two sundry times) to the Meetings the parties b [...]long to? and that by both the parties concerned, to prevent Scandal and Clandestine proceedings, and that Friends in the Light may witness it to be of God, which is our Method; and in which the Person aforesaid did not proceed, in his proposing his intention of Marriage but once, and that in the Womans absence (as Friends have given account) and for which cause Friends expressed they had not Vnion with [Page]him in so doing: But it seems thou hast, in being so officious an Advocate for him against Friends for their Conscientious dislike recorded against such an Example or President; and scoffing at our Women Friends in the Isle of Ely, as (thou sayest) may be accounted of the QVORVM, p. 24. Is this thy proof of Antichristian Imposition, Apostacy and Innovation against us? Where's thy Christianity, Conscience, Religion and Order pretended? Oh! be ashamed of thy Scornful, Unchristian and Infamous Attempts. And also it was no Friendly part in thee, to endeavour to expose the Quarterly Meeting of the Isle of Ely in Print to publick censure, on the bare Information of Francis Bugg, thy Informer, (who has shewn himself, a Party and open Adversary against that Meeting) rendring it no better than an Imposing Church, a False Church, p. 74. against whom thou hast joyned in Judgment with him, without hearing that Meeting's own defence and answer to Francis Bugg in the case: is this thy judicial and equal proceedings? Oh for shame, give over thy partial and impertinent Scribling! And what if the said Quarterly Meeting, would not once hear F. Bugg's Letter, nor suffer it to be read? It appears he has not behaved himself so well and obligingly to that Meeting, as to engage Friends there to [Page] lay by their other concerns, to hear his Letter against their proceeding: They were not ignorant of F. B's turbulent Spirit; witness his troublesom work, his ignoble, base and crafty dealing against Samuel Cater about the Fine, &c. a particular account whereof is expected from G. Smith and Friends of the Isle of Ely, who know the transaction in the Circumstances of the subtil Intreague, which possibly may be a Rebuke to Francis Bugg his Immorality in the [...]ase, & corrupt Conscience, as well as to his Pride and Insolence, as an Ensample to Posterity, which I really think he deserves, if he'l not study to be quiet towards Friends his peaceable Neighbours.

In his said Letter to the Quarterly Meeting at H [...]denham in the Isle of Ely (and which is printed in thy Book, part 7. p. 72.) though he flatteringly begins with Dear Friends, he accuseth them about the Record against J. A. as excluding him out of the Vnity of Friends, and with Excommunication, &c. Wherein he has dealt prevaricatingly and falsly, as appears by his and thy own account of the Meeting's Record, which is, That they have no Vnion with him in THIS HIS SO DOING: Which relates to that particular Act, and not wholly to exclude the Person out of the Vnity in all other things as one Excommunicate, &c. Yet he proceeds Reflectingly, telling them of Stigmatizing, [Page]laying stress where God hath laid none—Excommunicating about such things which are at best but mens Traditions, and Impositions— Imposing false Church. Applying William Penn's words, This noble Man's words (as he flatteringly stiles him) [Fly Rome at Home] to the said Quarterly-Meeting, which were never so intended by W. P. Thus thou and F. B. have abused W. P. in Print, shamefully perverting his words and intention, who never could intend to bid a Quarterly-Meeting Fly Rome at Home, either for testifying against such Irregularity as proposing a Marriage but once to a Meeting, and that in the absence of the Woman concerned; nor yet for justifying upon the Method of proposing the Marriage twice before consumated. Is this that Rome at home which Thou and F. B. would have Friends to Fly? (for I take thee and F. B. to be in great Union now in your work, seeing you appear so joyntly together in Print, and to charge Friends with Imposition, Immorality, Pag. 27. &c. as thou hast done.) But he deals partially, as thou hast done, in not manifesting the occasion of Friends dissatisfaction, he charging them with Excluding the aforesaid Person, what in them lies, out of the Vnity, Excommunicating, &c. In which he placeth the Controversie but about manifesting his intention to Marry;P. 72. [Page] and then crys, Behold the Crime! But shews not what it is in the manner of circumstances of it. Thus partial and covered you are in stating matters.

But the said Meeting would not hear his Letter: What great Crime was that? To this thou sayst, viz. Should the Supream Power in this Nation have treated our Friends so as not to hear our Addresses, P. 26. many Goals might at this day have remained full of honest Friends, who have been discharged from their sore Imprisonments. There's no parallel in the case between Friends tender Addresses to Authority for Relief of Friends in Distresses, Goals, &c and F. Bugg's [...]lecting abusive Letter to Friends, in vindication of an Irregular Practice, unwarrantable, and tending to a corrupt fleshly Liberty, as that of Proposing the Marriage but once to the Meeting, &c. Howbeit, 'tis a marvel thou wilt grant us so much Truth, as that our Addresses have at any time had so good effect with Authority, as to obtain the enlargement of so many honest Friends out of their sore Imprisonments. This is more than some of thy Party have owned. However, considering thy Concession herein, 'tis the worse requital in thee to villifie and abuse such in Print as have been most industrious with the supream Power in the Sufferers behalf, as to my knowledge thou hast very [Page] evilly requited and treated some such, rather like a revengeful Persecutor, than a Helper of the oppressed.

So thy Charge of Immorality on the Quarterly Meeting in the Isle of Ely, for not hearing F. B's Letter, and instancing the Parliaments admitting us to represent our Agrievance, P. 27. &c. are still both unjust and no ways parallel. For if we had given the like occasion against the Parliament, that thou and F. B. have against us, they might very well have rejected our Applications, as Persons insolent to, and contemning of Government; should we have rendred them no more rightly in Government than you have our Meetings for a Church of Christ, how should they have accepted our Addresses? As if we should have told them, they were a false, usurping, imposing, apostate Parliament, they might justly have rejected our Addresses.

§. 6. Moreover, 'tis a shameful Lye and Abuse for thee again to recite the Paper from Barbadoes, As one part of the fruits of the pretended establisht Government, p. 27. since that Paper was so far from being own'd as any part of the fruits of that Government establisht (which was by Christ, we affirm) among us, that we have both plainly manifested our dislike thereof; and [Page] the Persons concern'd in it in Barbadoes have themselves retracted it, as is since publickly evinced in Print; yet thou art so unconscionable as to render both G. Fox, my self, &c. as shewing no dislike to the said Paper, p. 28. Oh shameless Prevaricater and Abuser! Thou canst not but otherwise understand divers Passages in our Letter about it to Barbadoes, which clearly bespeaks our real dislike of it, as thou confessest G.F. &c. would seem to discourse a little of something amiss, &c. 'Tis evident G. F. &c. dislike some part of the said Paper, &c. p. 29. Seem to dislike the latter part thereof, p. 4. But little indeed thou makest of that part of our discourse, but art rather willing to expose us unjustly to publick Censure, on those words of ours which appear most friendly, tender and obliging, and falsly to represent us, as shewing no dislike to the said Paper. Adding also another gross Untruth and self-contradiction in the case, viz. That the Penman is espousing a cause contrary to antient Testimonies, &c. p. 30. And further sayst, G. W. smoothed up the Barbadoes Meeters with this Expression, We know you aim at the best things, p. 82. What smoothing was this, when we had plainly shewed them their Mistake? We are sure then 'twas not to smooth them up therein: And may not some aim at good (yea, the best) things, [Page] and yet be mistaken in some cases? What Absurdity then have I committed, in telling them (whom I believed had a good meaning, though otherwise mistaken) they aim'd at the best things. Thou hast put my Name with G. F's at length, with an &c. instead of A. Parker's, to two or three [...]ines thou hast cited in the conclusion of our Letter to Barbadoes, as an instance wherein we shew no dislike to their Paper, because we call our selves Their dear Friends, &c. Is this thy [More anon] to shew that I would now be as a Lord over my Brethrens Consciences and Estates? p. 25. For I presume 'tis me thou intendest; and if so, 'tis false and abusive. [O righteous Judge of all, and Heart-searcher! plead thou my Innocency, and rebuke this Spirit of Envy, Falshood and Slanders that's risen upon against thy faithful Servants.]

Whereas our charitable, tender and friendly Treatment of them in Barbadoes rather shews, that we were not willing to reject, exclude or unfriend Persons for one or two Mistakes, than to seek Lordship over them or theirs, who otherwise were so well meaning, as that we had cause to believe, that God would rectifie their Judgments, and set them to rights in all their Undertakings. So that 'twas enough for us to shew our dislike or disunion with them [Page] in that particular thing wherein they were mistaken or erred.

CHAP. IV.

§. 1. The great ends of Christian Religion and Society being eyed, a more easie condescention and concurrence follow in lesser matters. Things necessary for good order, not doubtfully recommended. Our consistency in the condescention proposed, and how; explain'd and clear'd from W.R's mistaken Objections. §. 2. W. R's judging and censuring a Person (and that falsly) whilst unheard in defence of himself, condemned by himself as a grand Mark of Apostacy, and he proved guilty thereof in fact. §. 3. W. R's Charge of false Suggestion, Prevarication and Forgery (reflecting on himself) proved notoriously false by divers Instances recited out of his own Book, shewing his general Opposition to outward orders, form and discipline, &c. relating to Church-Government: And then unsaying that opposition again by his finally granting both outward Order, Methods, Forms and Discipline under Christ's Government: How far binding on the Conscience of others, enquired into. And he must grant Liberty of Conscience in preaching [Page] and exhorting to things just, honest and needful, or else he interfers with himself in his plea for liberty of Conscience▪ §. 4. W. R's Confutation to himself apparent, in confessing, That God hath afforded those helps & governments in the Church, which are not to be despised, in a Paper signed by him among Friends at London, 1673. His instance of W.P against the Penman groundless. We clear'd from imposing a b [...]ind Obedience, and W. Penn's own words farther cited to clear his intention for liberty of Conscience, and from what. §. 5. W. R's unfair dealing and mistaken opposition against R. Barclay's propositions concerning the Power, positive Sentence and Judgment of the Church of Christ, as being binding in SOME CASES of consequence upon Believers, the Spirit of Christ being the only proper Judge, &c. The point at length granted by William Rogers himself. §. 6. Wherein W. Rogers's discourse tends to Libertism, blind Opposition, Confusion and Ranterism. A blind Refusal of Submission to what the Lord in his Servants requires, condemned, as well as blind obedience. A Medium between both proposed, to prevent a blind Refusal and blind Obedience. Of W R's wrong Measures, false Judgment and Suppositions, Envy and Scorn, Laughter, hypocritical Lamentation, Praying, [Page] Cain's Sacrifice, his lofty conceited and contemning way of writing.

§. 1. IT is true, and I am still of the same mind, that having the great ends of true Religion and Christian Society in our Eye, viz. An unspotted Life, Love and good Works, &c. as the very intent of our care and proceedings in the Church of Christ, we can the more easily concur and accord as to Circumstances and outward Methods, and in the Wisdom of God so condescend one to another, and accomodate matters as not to divide about them, &c. And I do not find that our Opposer produceth any seeming Contradiction to this Citation out of our Book, as he endeavours upon our following words, viz. ‘We would be understood that those things commended among us as necessary for good Order and Holiness of Conversation are not recommended doubtfully, or upon meer Supposition, nor as matters of indifferency to be practised or rejected, but in faith & full assurance, as answering Gods Witness and Truth in the Consciences; and that such will meet with a tender Reception, and not Opposition in all tender and upright hearts.’ Where's now the seeming Contradiction in this to the precedent Passage? See what observation our Opposer [Page] makes upon them. He observes, That the Penman seems thereby to look three ways at once, p. 36. [though his sight and observation has greatly fail'd him herein] as first, In commending things necessary for good Order and Holiness of Conversation, NOT as matters of Indifferency. To this W. R. thus saith, viz. Wherein I take the truest sense of his mind to be (and that the first citation importing his readiness to condescend) was to cover himself and others from the guilt of Apostacy and Innovation.

He is mistaken in his observation here; there was no such intent nor necessity for the Pen-man to cover himself or others from that guilt, for to commend things necessary for good Order and Holiness of Conversation, not as Indifferent, but Essential to such Order, &c. and a Condescention in circumstances, and accomodating matters, so as not to divide, &c. may very well stand together, especially where there's unity of spirit and affection; for if there be true love and unity in the greater matters, essential to good Order, &c. 'tis more easie for such as are tender and upright-hearted to find out accomodation and concurrence in lesser circumstances. So that still 'tis to be understood, they must settle in an union and concurrence at last; otherwise, how should they joyntly do business or service for the [Page] Truth or each other? There's no concurrence nor joynt-service where there's confusion and contradiction.

But W. R. proceeds in his observation against the Pen-men, viz. 2dly, By his readiness to condescend to his Brethren (which doubtless in that place he intends such as are upright hearted, and mean well for 'tis not fit to condescend to others) and therein the indifferency before excluded is implyed.

He's mistaken again in's observation; for there may be a tender and Christian condescention of the upright hearted among themselves, in two respects:

1st, In the stronger bearing with, and helping the weak, bearing the burden of the weak, and not laying more upon the weak than what they are able to bear.

2dly, In the wisdom of God finding out such accomodation, in some lesser matters & circumstances not so essential and indispensible; so that there may be a general concurrence, ease and peace of spirit in such lesser circumstances, implying or including that indifferency before which is excluded the greater, more weighty and necessary things relating to good Order, holiness of Life, &c. For there may be such an indifferency in some circumstances, wherein we may condescend to weak Brethren so far as the spirit of Christ will admit; they being such as may [Page] not alter the property from being good and lawful, nor disturbing to our Christian-society. Yet there are other material things and circumstances relating our Christian society, good order and holy living, that cannot be made Indifferent. And we plead not at all for empty Ceremonies in Church order or discipline, but such as have a real service and good end in them; nor are we for a Church whose ornaments are superstitious, but for a Church which is gravely and purely adorned with Righteousness, the fruits and services of pure Religion.

I confess W. R. has writ one remarkable Truth, i. e. That 'tis not fit to condescend to others, viz. That are not upright hearted, that do not mean well: Very true. And we have cause to keep to that Doctrine, in reference to such as are turbulent and contentious Troublers of and scandalous to our society and profession.

See his third Observation on the same subject before, as shallow as the rest, viz.

3dly, By the Pen-man's last cited Lines, 'tis plain, that in his sence things recommended for good Order will have a reception with all upright Hearts: Which compared with his readiness to condescend, &c. (as before) shews, as if his condescention was intended to Brethren that were not upright hearted.

Here his sight fails him, and he's greatly [Page] mistaken again, perverting the Pen-mans sense; for though I affirm, that those things recommended among us by Divine As our words are, Accuser, p. 136. Authority and Evidence (either as duty to God or Man, or as necessary for good Order and Holiness of Conversation) will have reception with all upright Hearts. Yet it follows not, that the condescention was intended to Brethren that were Not upright hearted, or false. For first, Here's not a limitation of time when all things necessary (as before) will have reception with all upright hearts: So that there is a time and cause for condescention to them of low degree, in regard of their weakness (not insincerity.) Secondly, Many upright ones do not presently or immediatly see every thing that is recommended in the wisdom of God to be practised, but must have time to weigh and consider matters before the Lord first, in order to receive a clear understanding and judgment from him, before they act therein. So that in the mean time there must be a tender condescention, patience and forbearance on all hands towards such, not to look upon or judge their want of present clearness (and their present fear to act because thereof) an act of Refusal or Rebellion on their parts: No, no, far be it from us; knowing [Page] that such upright hearted ones, even when but in a poor low and weak state, will not oppose, refuse or gain-say any thing they at present see not that's either in it self good and honest, or necessary for good order and society, their uprightness, tenderness, honesty and fear towards God, preserves them from contention and blind opposition in such cases, whilst given up tenderly to wait till God reveal that unto them (whether immediately or instrumentally) which for a time they have not clearness in: And be sure, he will not be awanting in his divine counsel and openings to such.

§. 2. To his charging the Pen-man with a groundness Complaint of Printing against G. F. without first proceeding judicially, or hearing of matters face to face, p. 39.

[Groundless Complaint] is an untruth; there was manifest ground for that complaint on W. R's own confession and principle, viz. his enveighing against judging any man without hearing him: Judging the merit of the cause without hearing the same: Judging and Censuring a Person unheard in the defence of himself, as being a grand Mark of Apostacy, as in his Preface to his Christian-Quaker. That W. R. has so (ipso facto) judged and condemned G. F. and others in [Page] divers things unheard in their own defence, we have produced divers sufficient and unanswered Instances in our Treatise entituled, The Accuser of our Brethren cast down; and particularly his false construction on G. F's words, viz. [Do not make Bargains with that which is out of the Truth] On which W. R. concludes a design of Imposition, and so far as in G. F. lies to obstruct Friends from bargaining with such whom he condemns, as having no right to bargain, buy or sell, until they answer by Condemnation; or else, that his meaning was, that G. F. would not have Friends discourse with such, nor yet to agree about any orderly Conference, in order to a Reconciliation or Hearing of Differences, &c. concluding it must be one of these two meanings, because a third he could not think of, as the matter is fully treated on in our said Treatise, Accuser, p. 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, &c. in which W. R's judgment, and both his supposed Meanings are proved untrue. But still, to aggravate the matter against G. F. he saith, He has used the utmost of his endeavours to obtain a Meeting with him for such an end (that is, for a hearing of matters face to face) at several times since his last being in Bristol in the year 1677. and it will not be condescended to, (saith he) p. 39, 40. This still the more confirms the Complaint against him, viz. his Printing against [Page] G. F. (yea, judging and condemning him without hearing the matters face to face, for which he is condemned; which is an extradicial and injurious proceedure, and grand Mark of Apostacy so to do, according to W. R's own judgment. And his pretence, That such a Meeting will not be condescended to, will not excuse the fact, that is, his judging and censuring a Person unheard in his own defence, &c. as a grand Mark of Apostacy. He might have had patience, and rather waited an opportunity for meeting with G. F. than have condemned him in Print in divers things, unheard in his own defence, and that on his own false Suggestions, Meanings and Constructions) contrary to his own Doctrine, which is become his own Self-condemnation.

§. 3. Now wherein doth the Pen-man's false Suggestion and Vnchristian-like Treatment consist, to prove him an Impious Prevaricator, or down-right Forger, as W. R. terms him? p. 41. See how he attempts proof, in these words, viz.

I shall at present cite only a few Instances thereof in his own words, (quoth he) viz. ‘p. 73. His main work is still to invalidate the Authority and Sentence of the true Church. Pag. 87. Which answers and confutes W. R. in opposing outward Directions, [Page] Methods and Forms relating to Church Government. Pag. 88. His principal Objection against outward Orders, Prescriptions, Sentences, Decrees, Form of Church Government, Discipline, &c. P. 91. His gain-saying and general Objections against us in relation to Church Government and Order amongst us the People called Quakers. P. 261. Which answers his general opposition to outward Order, Form and Discipline.’ [Thus hath W. R. cited our words by pieces.]

Now if it be made appear, that these things are justly laid to W. R's charge from his own words and sence thereof, I hope he'l see cause to be ashamed of his clamour of false Suggestion, impious Prevaricator, &c. In order to which I thus directly proceed:

First, That his work has been to invalidate the authority and sentence of the true Church: On Mat. 5. and chap. 6. he saith, Wherein there's not the least tittle to countenance this sentence, That the positive Sentence or Decision of the Church in matters of Conscience, may be obligatory on Believers, as in the third part of his Christian-Quaker, p. 64. And his contest against those, who (he saith) have approved a Plea for such a Church Government as claims a power of deciding matters relating to Conscience and outward things, on occasion of Differences about worldly Estate;[Page]and that others ought to obey such Decisions, which says he) in its natural consequence hath (as we take it) no less tendency than to claim Power over our Properties as well as Consciences, as in the first part of his Christian-Quaker.

[Note; A sad, but fallacious consequence, detected in our Treatise, Accuser, from pag. 53, to p. 76.]

Is it not plain, that W. R. has here endeavoured to invalidate the authority and sentence of the true Church (by us pleaded) if neither obligatory on Believers in matters of Conscience, nor in outward things? Or if the Church may not be allowed a Power of making decisions in matters of difference, either relating to Conscience or outward Estate, according to Mat. 18.17. and 1 Cor. 6. of what validity is the authority, sentence or power of the Church with W. R? What's more plain against him than his own words before recited?

Secondly, That he has opposed and objected against outward Orders, Forms, Discipline, Prescriptions, Sentences, Decrees, his Gain-saying and general Objections and Opposition to outward Order, Form and Discipline relating to Church Government, &c. see how he argues the case against outward Orders, Prescriptions, Sentences, Decrees, &c. under the new Covenant, viz. because the Apostle's labour was to draw the outward [Page] Jew off from the observation of their outward Ordinances, to the Word and Law in the heart; and because the new Covenant was not to be like unto the old; he therefore appeals To every Ingenious and Impartial Reader, whether it can consist with the tenor of the new Covenant for ANY to attempt the establishment or giving forth of outward Orders, Prescriptions, Sentences or Decrees, to be a Bond upon the Consciences of those who have believed in the Everlasting Light, especially those of the Gentiles stock, his Chr. Qua. part 1. p. 73. How now William? Is not here general Opposition, &c. detected and answered in our said Treatise, Accuser, &c? p. 88, 89.

Another Instance is where W. R. saith, viz. We have no ground either from the Word of the Lord, the appearance of Christ, or from the Scriptures of Truth, since Christ's appearance in the flesh, to expect that any should be invested with Power from on high to establish such things relating to the Conscience (i. e. outward Orders, Prescriptions, Sentences, Decrees, as before) much less that the Children of Light under the new Covenant should be led by the eternal Spirit and Word in the heart unto such Conformity; his Chr. Quaker, part 1. pag. 75.

What sayst thou yet William to these plain Instances out of thy own great Book? [Page] Surely hadst thou but taken a more strict and serious notice of them, as plainly cited in our Treatise, thou wouldst not have charged any of us with false Suggestion or Forgery, in representing as if thou hadst wrote against outward Orders, Forms, Discipline. This is no Forgery nor Prevarication (William) ▪ Peruse thy great Book a little better, with our Observations upon it in our said Treatise: Consider in calmness, if thou mayst not be ashamed thus to evade and deny thy own words? and of thy clamour, and saying, That not a word is cited, nor yet can be, out of any thing thou hast written, that may carry such an import, viz. as if thou hadst wrote against outward Orders, Forms, Discipline, &c. in a general way, p. 41. Thou writest That in one Book which thou denyest the plain import of (as well as the matter) in another, saying and unsaying. Be ashamed therefore, and also of thy roaring and belching out such Slanders and Falshood also, as The impious prevaricating Pen-man—doth not quote any sentence of mine confuted, &c. p. 42. What hast thou done less than wrote against outward Orders, Forms, Discipline, &c? What means thy saying before, That we have NO GROUND either from the Word of God, Christ or Scriptures, to expect that ANY should be invested with Power from on high to establish such things [Page] (as before?) Is not here general Opposition, both to such things and to such a Conformity?

Please to review another instance or two of thy Opposition, as before, viz.

1st, Where in the Title-page of the 3d part of thy Christian-Quaker, where to the inward Government of Christ thou opposest visible persons being invested with power from Christ to execute outward Laws, Prescriptions, Orders, Edicts or Decrees in an outward Form of Government visible, &c. See now how general thy opposition is, and detected in our Treatise, Accuser, p. 117, 118, 119, to p. 137.

2dly, The comparison before-cited between the Pope, who is a visible man, in accounting himself invested with Power to execute outward Laws, Edicts and Decrees, on the one part, and the Pen-man and some of his Brethren on the other part; herein, thou sayst, thou placest not much difference between them, &c. p. 18. of thy 7th part. Who can here reasonably understand thee otherwise, than that thou opposest the Doctrine or Principle it self, as well as the Pope, viz. That any visible man is invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws, Edicts and Decrees under Christ's Government, lest thou shouldst resemble the Pope. For we may rationally take it for granted in those [Page] things, doctrines or principles wherein thou comparest the Pope & any of us, thou wouldst be lookt upon as of a contrary mind and judgment, that thou mightst not be thought like the Pope in any thing whereof thou condemnest others, as either like him, or as not much differing from him, otherwise thy comparisons or similitudes do condemn thy self as well as others, whom thou smitest at. And so, if thou countest it Popery or resembling the Pope, to say, That a visible man or men are invested with power from Christ to execute (or put in practice) any outward Laws, Edicts or Decrees under Christ's Government, then we must take thee as saying (and as we have understood thee) That no visible man or men are so invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws, &c. Which still shews thy oppositions and objections before rehearsed, and clears thy opponent from the foul Imputations of Impious Prevaricator, down right Forger, Impious Prevaricating Pen-man, &c. and thy self a notorious Slanderer therein, as well as shews thy inadvertency and overly shuffling, and foully slubbering over matters under debate and controversie, and with what blunt and dull tools and weapons thou art toiling and fighting.

Howbeit, we may hear W. R. a little further, in his attempts to clear himself, and [Page] prove his charge of false Suggestion, Impious Prevaricator, &c. he alledges chiefly two things, viz.

1st, That he owns the Government of Christ in his Church, knowing that 'tis his right to govern his Church; which W. R. also confesseth, The Pen-man signifies he understands by Church-Government.

Observe by the way; this is general, and not an Answer sufficient to clear him; 'twill not do his business. Against whom did he alledge this, when we never questioned Christ's Government in his Church? But the Pen-man and his Friends (viz. the peaceable People call'd Quakers) own Christs Government, both in the inward and in the outward parts of it, both as he governs and rules immediately by his Spirit, and instrumentally by his faithful Servants invested with power and wisdom from him, as before explained; which I find not that W. R. hath owned with any consistency or clearness, but has appeared very inconsistent, opposit and frequently contradictory both to us and to himself in the matter, saying and unsaying (first in one Book, then in another) as is fully evinced in our Treatise, entituled, The Accuser, &c. (as from p. 83, to p. 91. and from p. 204, to p. 227.) and also in this.

2dly, He alledges, that he has testified, That the Apostles labours were to establish the [Page]Churches in the Faith and in the Power, leaving them so established, to be in the practice of THAT FORM which the Power either had or should lead them into. Moreover, (saith W. R.) My proceedings in the Marriage of two Daughters within three years last past, and frequent concern amongst Friends in taking care that no proceedings in Marriages may be permitted in any such private Methods as may be scandalous to Truth, shews my practice and principle to be otherwise—And indeed I can in Truth say, That I never had a thought entred in my Breast, that OUTWARD ORDER, Methods, Forms and Discipline were not to be exercised, and proceeded in Who must so exercise and proceed in them if no visible man or men be invested with Power from Christ to execute them, or put them in practice? under the Government of Christ, according as the Spirit of the Lord should direct and guide, p. 42. [Thus far W. R]

Observe; He has here given a very fair and ample concession to Truth in words, viz.

1st, To the Apostles labours for the Churches establishment in the Faith and in the Power.

2dly, To the practice of that Form which the Power should lead them into.

3dly, To his care in the Marriage of his two Daughters, and others, that NO Proceedings in Marriages may be permitted in any[Page]such private Methods as may be scandalous to Truth.

4thly, To outward Order, Methods, Forms and Discipline, that they are to be exercised and proceeded in under Christ's Government, according as his spirit directs and guides.

Are they so? A fair confession! Had he alwayes kept to this method and language, and so been consistent with himself, the Controversie had been in a narrow compass. But though he seems seriously to say, That he never had a thought entred his breast, that outward Order, Methods, Form and Discipline were not to be exercised and proceeded in under the Government of Christ, I query, (on his contradiction) how they should be exercised and proceeded in under Christs Government in his Church, if so be it cannot consist with the tenor of the new Covenant for any to give forth outward Orders, Sentences, Decrees, &c? Or if Christ doth invest none with Power from on high to establish such things relating to Conscience (as outward Order, Methods, Forms, Discipline, &c?) Or if no visible Persons be invested with power from Christ to execute outward Laws, Prescriptions, Order, &c? How then are outward Order, Methods, Forms and Discipline to be exercised and proceeded in under Christ's Government? And who are to exercise and proceed in [Page] them, if not visible Persons? May not they declare and practise outwardly what they have received from Christ inwardly? How then shall the Law go forth of Sion, and the Word from Jerusalem? But if he grants that some persons are made instrumental under Christs Government, to give forth good outward Methods, Forms, Order, Discipline, &c. but not to be a bond on the Consciences of others who have believed in the everlasting Light: This appears contradictory again: (William, was thy proceedings in the Marriage of two Daughters, and thy care that Truth might not be scandalized, no bond upon thine or their Consciences?) How are outward Methods, Forms, Order and Discipline then to be practised and proceeded in under Christ's Government? Must they be so practised, exercised and proceeded in by Believers, without Conscience, or without Obligation, or being binding upon their Consciences? Strange Doctrine, loose and confused, and not consistent with any Religious tender Conscience towards God or Christ, which requires all to be done in his name, and to his glory.

But after all our Opposers variations, inconsistencies and whirlings, he is fled to this Refuge, or rather Subterfuge, viz. That his writing shews dislike to Man's Pretence to [Page]establish outward Orders, relating to matters of Conscience, as the Order of the Gospel, or to take upon him the giving forth of any outward Rules, Pag. 41. &c. relating to Faith and Discipline in the Church, with intent that they should become a Bond upon others to submit thereto, further than from a Recommendation unto the Conscience, a service may be seen therein, according to the measure of Light given, &c. pag. 41.

Observe, 1st, This censures only MAN's PRETENCE to establish outward Orders relating to Conscience, &c.

2dly, Man's taking upon him to give forth any outward Rules in Faith or Discipline in the Church, with intent they should become a Bond upon others, to submit further than (from a Recommendation to the Conscience) a service MAY be seen therein, according to the measure of Light given, &c.

Whereupon 'tis to be noted, first, That this does not oppose the Spirit of Christ, making use of man or men, as instrumental to establish or give forth outward Orders, Rules, &c. relating to Conscience, Faith or Discipline in the Church, to be submitted unto.

2dly, Nor such outward Orders, Rules, &c. as a service may be seen in, according to the measure of the true Light given. But only a dislike to MAN's PRETENCE & TAKING [Page]VPON HIM therein. Which I understand is intended, as without the true Spirits Guidance. Which appears still to be an Abatement and Extinuation of his more general reiterated Opposition and Noise against ANY giving forth outward Orders, Prescriptions, &c. or being invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws, Orders, &c. under Christs inward Government, because the new Covenant and its Law is inward. For now he only opposeth Man's Pretence and Taking upon him in these cases; and who must be Judge that he is but a Pretendor, and an Actor in his own will, if the Rules, Directions or Laws he declares or gives out be in themselves Honest, Lawful and Just, yea Convenient and Needful, not of Man, nor by the Will of Man? Were not this to judge of Spirits without outward evidence or proof against them? But if our Opposer would place the Controversie against some Rules, Orders, &c. among us, as being in themselves either unjust, unlawful or dishonest, and could make sufficient proof thereof, that would both greatly narrow and soon determine the Controversie: For that can be no good nor true Spirit that gives forth bad or unjust Laws, otherwise we have no reason to give credit to him in his bitterly smiting with words of hatred against any [Page] Men or Persons among us, whilst speaking, ministring or acting things just, lawful or honest, and needful, as bound in Conscience to declare and advise others to practise, (and which he must grant them Liberty both to speak and act, or else hee'l miserably interfer with his pretended Liberty of Conscience) Seeing whatsoever things are honest, just and of good report, are to be thought on and practised.

That W. R's great Book aforesaid (as it is against R. B's Book for Church-Government) is against Church-Government, so far as it relates to an outward Form of Church-Government, outward Order, Rules, Methods, &c. And this is no Prevarication, as now he renders it, as is evident from divers passages before recited,pag. 42. and by himself frequently contradicted.

§. 4. Also, 'tis a manifest falshood, where W. R. saith, That the Prevaricating Pen-man doth not quote any Sentence of his, confuted by his asserting, (in a Paper dated London, 26th of the 3d Moneth, 1673.) That God hath in his Wisdom afforded those Helps and Governments in the Churches, which are not to be despised, being in subjection to Christ the one Head and Law-giver, &c. [This was signed by W. R. among other Friends] pag. 42. [Page] If no visible Persons be invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws, Orders, &c. in an outward Form of Church-Government; Or if it be Popery, or like the Pope, or inconsistent with the New Covenant so to do, (as he has insinuated) what and where are those Helps and Governments, which God in his Wisdom hath afforded in his Churches, in subjection to Christ? Are no visible Persons instrumental therein by the Power of Christ? Or are they Helps and Governments, or helpers in Government without visible Persons? Were Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Elders, Overseers, &c. in the Christian Churches no visible Persons, or not so indued with Power from Christ to be helpers in the Government? See 1 Cor. 12 28.

I confess I know not how to reconcile our Opposer to himself in these matters, no more than I can find Reason or Proof for his black Charges of Impious Prevaricating Pen-man; Oh Impious Prevaricator! perverse and hard Heart; qualified like a proud Prelate; The Pen-man's Iniquity; angry Waspish Pen, &c. [Thus he.] I must needs say, he's far more loud in his Censures than in's Proofs.

If our Opposer did impartially consider and compare William Penn's Address to Protestants, [Page] quoted by him, he would see there's no Lash to the Pen-man (as he falsly affirms) seeing W. P. grants, that the one Shepherd may have many Servants, p. 44. And on 2 Cor. 4.1, 2. He further saith, Here is the utmost Imposition the Apostle makes use of; He requires not men to receive him without Evidence, &c. p. 44. No more do we, whom Christ hath called forth in his Service and Ministry, in this his day, who by the manifestation of Truth, commend our selves to every mans Conscience in the sight of God, having renounced the hidden things of Dishonesty, &c. Here's no cause to complain for want of Evidence, or of Imposition without Evidence, in plainly discovering or shewing the hidden things of dishonesty. Truth in its manifestation, both in the Ministry and in the Hearers Conscience, is Evidence, both against what's Dishonest, and for what's Honest: God would not have Men blind in their Duty, their own Negligence and Prejudice is cause of blindness. Nor hath this Person convicted us of pleading for or setting up Imposition without Evidence in the Conscience, or of Imposing a blind Obedience, or putting any Persons thereupon; No, my very Soul is against that. And though W. P. also has writ against Imposition without Conviction; the Pen-man seems to have no [Page] other sence, nor doth it follow that he is either against Church Discipline, outward Order or Form of Church-Government (but for these) in the Church of Christ and Christian Societies; he being Principl'd for the true Church, having Power from Christ to give Judgment, spiritual Censures and Sentences against all dark Spirits that sow Discord and make Division, and against all ungodly, loose, disorderly and scandalous walking and walkers under profession of Truth. I'le adventure to quote William Penn's Address to Protestants, to shew his Principle and Sence in these matters: In page 214. he saith, ‘No Scripture-Church-Discipline is hereby oppugned or weakned: Let not the Sentence end in Violence upon the Conscience unconvinced. Let whoso will expound or determine, so it be according to true Church-Discipline, which can be exercised on them only, who have willingly joyn'd themselves in that Covenant of Union, &c. P. 215. Let us observe what sort of Church-Government the Apostle recommends; Avoid foolish Questions and Contentions, &c. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second Admonition, reject, &c. And on Phil. 3.15. He did not say, You shall be Fined, Pillaged, Excommunicated, and flung into Prison, if [Page] ye be not of our mind. P. 216. on 2 Tim. 2.22, 23, 24, 25. Here is both Faith and Government, Religion and Duty, all that becomes us towards God, our Brethren, our Neighbours, yea, our Opposers and Enemies.’ And W. P. in his Brief Examination and State of Liberty Spiritual, he doth more particularly explain and clear the Point, to Friends, first in his Epistle, saying, Christ's Liberty is obtained through his Cross; they that would be his Free-men must be his Bonds-men, and wear his blessed Yoke: His Liberty is from Sin, not to Sin; to do his will, not our own. And secondly, he speaks farther to it in the said Examination.

Observe; Here W. P. pleads not for a Liberty of Conscience, in opposition to true Church-Government, Discipline or Order, but to those outward Penalties, Persecutions and Punishments, corporal and pecuniary, mentioned and opposed by him and the rest of us, which is no Liberty to make Division or Discord in the Church of Christ or Society of Believers,

§. 5. To the Question, Whether the Church of Christ hath Power in any cases, that are matters of Conscience, to give a positive Sentence and Decision, which may be obligatory upon Believers? To this [Page] R. B. answers affirmatively, SHE HATH, Anarch. p. 48. And,

Whereas R. B. pleaded for the Church of Christ having Power in SOME CASES of Conscience to give a positive Sentence or Decision, which may be obligatory upon Believers. (To this W. R. saith) Which clearly shews to us R. B's meaning to be, That in some cases the Consciences of Believers ought to be bound by the positive Sentences of others. (To which he adds) Without leaving any Liberty for a Believer to refuse to submit on the account of not seeing it his duty to submit. This meaning and Government (saith W. R.) over Believers, we take to be contrary to the Principle of Truth and Liberty we have in Christ Jesus, &c. p. 44.

Herein he appears both unfair in his citation, and mistaken in his construction: For 1st, The [some cases] intended, (wherein a positive Judgment or Sentence from some Members or Believers is binding upon others) are such Cases, ‘Wherein only the Truth, the Spirit of God doth give the Judgment through some or other in the Church of Christ. The only proper Judge of Controversies in the Church, is the Spirit of God, and the power of deciding solely lies in it (saith R. B.) Anarch. pag. 66.’ As also, ‘That God hath ordinarily in communicating his Will under [Page] his Gospel, employed such whom he made use of in gathering his Church, and in feeding & watching over them, though not excluding others.’ Thus R. B's Anarchy of the Ranters, p. 67, 68. Observe here, that he placeth the Judgment or Sentence (as binding, and to be submitted unto by others) professing the same Faith) on the Truth, the Spirit of God, the Will of God.

2dly, And therefore the Judgment is not placed upon any Imposition of Government over Believers, contrary to the Principle of Truth or Liberty that's in Christ Jesus; for the Judgment of Truth, or of the holy Spirit, which unites in one Mind and Judgment, cannot be contrary to that Principle, nor without evidence in the Conscience for conviction to oblige, and the Conscience thus obliged is not without true sight, sence or knowledge of duty therein, because 'tis Conscience obliged, not a blind affection. So 'tis not to impose a blind Submission, though some's want of perswasion may probably proceed from their being hardened (through Rebellion) as R. B. intimates, Anarch. p. 67. And their contradiction in that case will not excuse them from being guilty of disobeying God, because it is from his Spirit the sentence proceeds; and 'tis their duty both to see, receive & submit to what's justly required. The intent of the [Page] Spirit of God in giving forth Judgment or Sentences through his Servants (to end Controversie, &c.) doth not bespeak or intend any design of such Imposition, as to enforce any upon a blind Submission or Obedience, in such a hardened Condition; for the Spirit of Christ strives with them to open their Eyes, and enlighten their Understandings, that they may see and know in their own Consciences first, their Duty, and then submit in what is according to the will of God, being the judgment of his Spirit, which makes its way with its own evidence to the Consciences and Hearts of Persons, if not wholly harden'd through Rebellion against God's Spirit in themselves: For the Testimony of the Lord is sure, making Wise the Simple. The Commandment of the Lord is pure, ENLIGHTNING the Eyes, Psal. 19.

3dly, Then what power or freedom can any Minister or Servant of Christ have, to leave any liberty for a believer to refuse submission to the judgment of the Spirit of Christ in his servants or believers where Christ leaves none? or to grant that he may not see it his duty to submit, and thereupon to refuse when the spirit of Christ (who knows the Creatures capacity) gives the Judgment, and requires Submission? There's no just ground nor pretence for such Indulgence, which tends to Rebellion and Ranterism, but rather for [Page] the Servants of Christ to be faithful and stedfast in their Testimony and Judgment, which they know is both in it self Just, and proceeding from his Spirit. Whether it be by others received or rejected: He that hath an Ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches; which doth many times speak through Instruments as formerly.

And further, 'tis neither a false sence, nor wicked construction, to say, That our Opposer being for a Liberty for Believers to refuse to submit on account of not seeing it their duty: Therefore, that Believers (who are members of Christ's Church) may refuse submission to their Brethren in things that are in themselves Just and Reasonable, according to the Law of Truth in the Conscience, on pretence of not seeing it their duty, &c. I do sincerely profess, I do not find a more natural construction that our Opposers own Words (being without distinction) will bear, all material and precedent Causes and Circumstances of this very point in Controversie considered.

For first; The Submission pleaded for by R. B. among Believers, and in the Church, was to the Judgment and positive Sentence proceeding from the Spirit of God or Christ in his Church and Servants.

Secondly; Our Adv [...]rsary's opposing the [Page] Church of Christ's having Power in any cases of Conscience, to give positive Sentence or Decision, which may be obligatory on Believers, rendring this a Government over Believers, contrary to the Principle of Truth and Liberty in Christ Jesus: See Accuser, &c. from p. 62, to 81. When no other Submission is pleaded for, nor any other intended by us, than to such Judgment or Sentence as originally proceeds from the Spirit of Truth, which is agreeable to the will and mind of God. Now, doth not our Adversary's opposition tend to divide Believers and the Church of Christ, as well as from a true sight and performance of their Duty, in cases wherein the Spirit of Christ gives the Judgment (which must needs be just and reasonable.) For to the Question, Whether the Church of Christ hath Power in ANY CASES of Conscience, to give positive sentence, which may be obligatory upon Believers? R. B. Answers affirmatively, SHE HATH, Anarch. p. 48. To which W. R. replyes, This Government over Believers is contrary to the Principle of Truth and Liberty in Christ Jesus. Doth not this plainly imply, that in NO CASES of Conscience a Believer is bound to submit to the positive sentence of the Church of Christ, or other Members thereof, but that a Believer may refuse Submission, On the account of not seeing it his Duty to submit. (This is W. R's great pretence [Page] and supposition) and this [in ANY CASES of Conscience] without distinction. (The terms of the Question and Opposition before cited being general:) Which supposed Blindness and Discord in Believers I cannot grant him against any true or sincere Believers, who are faithful to Christ in their measures of Grace received; such will neither want a sight of those Dutyes, or things the Spirit of Christ teacheth and requireth of them; nor submission one to another therein, but in humbleness of mind submit themselves one to another in the fear of God,Rom 2 8. 1 Cor. 16.16. 1 Thes 5 12, 13, 14. Heb. 13 17. 2 Pet. 3.2. Ephes. 5.1.21. Here the Younger submits to the Elder, and all one to another, being clothed with Humility; for God resisteth the Proud, but giveth Grace to the Humble, 1 Pet. 5.5. This Humility and Submission was among the Primitive Christians, and was very commendable among them; and none but the Proud oppose it. And farther, the Sentence, Judgment and Determination proceeding from the Spirit of Christ in the midst of his Church, is Binding in Heaven and Earth; and he that will not hear the Church (where Christ is in the midst) is to be accounted as an Heathen Man. Moreever, our Lord Jesus Christ knows how [Page] much or how little a burthen to proportion and lay upon his sincere and true Followers, from the greatest to the least of them, suitable to their Capacities: He knows our Weaknesses, and is touched with the feeling of our Infirmities, and hath raised up a Spiritual fellow-feeling of one anothers states and conditions, that we might bear each others Burthens, the strong to bear with and help the weak, and so fulfill the Law of Christ.

But seeing our Opposer at length (to acquit himself) gives us this Concession, pag. 45. viz. I do say, a Believer in Christ ought to submit to any reasonable just Judgment (answering the Truth in the Conscience) when it relates to him, let it spring from whom it will, I shall say the less in this point. But (William) hast thou been always of this mind? If thou hast, thou art very inconsistent in thy writing, and greatly wrongest thy self by Self-contradictions; and then what signifies all thy opposing R. B. for pleading a consciencious Submission in Believers to the positive judgment or sentence, which (as he saith) proceeds from the Spirit of God in some or other of their Brethren in the Church of Christ? What amounts all thy work of Opposition and Gain-saying unto? Now a Believer in Christ ought to submit to any Reasonable just judgment, let it spring from [Page]whom it will. And sure, all judgment proceeding from the Spirit of God (in any of his Servants) is just and reasonable; for whatsoever is unjust, is not of God, but to be rejected: The Controversie is not there.

§. 6. Again (William) upon our words, viz. [God preserve his people from this Libertine Spirit] thou falsly notest, That (by the Pen-man's discourse) a Believer's refual to submit to the Church, on account of not seeing it his Duty to submit, is the fruit of a Libertine Spirit, &c. p. 45.

[A Believer's refusal to submit to the Church] is a begging the Question, and fallacy; for I do not own that any true Believer will REFVSE to submit to the Church of Christ in any thing that Christ, commands, or is in it self his just duty towards God or his Neighbour [on the account of not seeing it his duty] is again a begging the Question. If it be his Duty and required of him by the Spirit of God in his servants, the same spirit (if he minds it) quickly makes an immediate discovery of it to (and impression on) his Conscience, it being his duty both to see and submit to what Truth and Justice require of him; so as the sincere and tender-hearted, though but weak in the Faith for a time, are preserved [Page] on the one hand from Rebellion, and from Refusing that submission which the Lord requires, and on the other hand from running into a blind Obedience. For put case there be a little space of time, that one weak in the faith sees not presently every thing that may be required by the Lord in his People, as duty, he does not therefore REFVSE Submission, but waits patiently on the Lord, to clear up his way, and reveal his duty therein; and though whilst thus waiting for satisfaction and clearness, he's neither refusing nor opposing that which he has not a clearness of judgment in. Want of sight, or clearness in such cases of Conscience, is no just ground for Refusal, Rejection or Opposition, no more than for any to act in a blind Obedience or ignorant Devotion, without satisfaction in Faith or Conscience. Let but blind Opposition and Refusal as well as blind Obedience be laid aside, and we shall have quietness; for though neither be good, yet blind Opposition is the worst of the two. For there's yet a Medium between Refusal and Active Submission, viz. A WAITING passively and patiently until God reveal his will in this or that particular thing required by him as duty.

Again, thou dost both scornfully and fallaciously proceed against the Pen-man in these words, viz. 'Tis plain to me, that he [Page](reputing himself a Church-Governour) is thirsting after such a sort of Subjects that may be willing to follow his Track, though they know not whether it be right or wrong, p 45.

I presume thou meanest my self, as that Pen-man that so affects being a Governour, or so reputeth, as thou hast before twitted the Pen-man with having forgotten his low and mean Estate (telling him how the very conceit of being a Governour in an outward Government, is very apt to puff up Persons of some sort of Qualifications, pag. 25.) If thou intendest me herein, thou hast taken wrong measures, and hast given me Scurrillous and Abusive Characters; and then thou art grosly mistaken in thy judgment, That I thirst after such ignorant Subjects, as thou importest. The Lord hath raised me up to open peoples Eyes, and to turn them from Darkness to Light; and God, the Righteous Judge, who knows my heart, and whom I serve with my spirit in the Gospel of his Son, he knows 'tis my delight in Humility, to serve him therein, and to see People turned from Darkness to the true Light, and from their Ignorance and Error to the knowledge of the Truth in the spirit and power of it in themselves, that they may walk in the Path of Life, and be saved; and no otherwise to follow me, than as they may see me walk therein. So knowing my [Page] Integrity and Humility in the sight and presence of God, who hath thorowly searched and tryed me, that I affect neither Popularity nor Greatness, I do the less value thy Reproaches, and all the bitter Invectives that thou canst bring forth against me. My innocent Life reigns over thy hatred, and shall out-live thy envy and scorn.

And as thou hast laid a false foundation against the Pen-man, as judging him a Person thirsting after such sort of ignorant Subjects, as before related; so thy Superstructure raised by supposition is impertinent, trifling and fallacious. For,

1st, Where have any of us (whom thou smitest at) either from a Meeting yearly, or else-where, in giving forth (as thou callest them) certain Sentences, Decrees and Orders (directed to the rest of the People called Quakers) therewith signified to them, 'Tis your Duty to submit, whether you see it your Duty or no? p. 45. I am sure, this is forreign to my (and my Brethrens) Language and Intention. If it intends an active Obedience before men see their real duty, which none can acceptably perform, nor is it my Principle to urge them upon practice until their Eyes be opened to see their duty therein, yet peoples present Ignorance of their Duty (when proposed or told them in the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ) is no [Page] warrant for them to oppose, refuse, resist or reject it, but rather tenderly and quietly to weigh & consider of it before the Lord, and wait in his Light till he reveal it, resolve the doubts and remove the scruples.

2dly, Moreover, that which hath a tendency to Confusion, Rebellion and Ranterism, was thy undervaluing the Authority of the Church of Christ in such a Judgment or Decision given thereby as proceeds from the Spirit of God,pag. 45. (for 'twas no other that R. B. argued for in the case) by thy pleading (in opposition) for leaving a liberty therein for a Believer to refuse to submit on the account of not seeing it his duty to submit, with other circumstances of Looseness and Confusion, proceeding from thy opposite, loose confused Spirit of Prejudice and Division: This has a tendency to Confusion, Rebellion and Ranterism, which we placed not meerly on a Non-submission or Forbearance of Practice, for want of seeing it their duty to act therein. For 'tis possible some Members may want a present sight in some things required by the Church of Christ and his Spirit, and yet they not thence allow themselves a liberty to Refuse submission, but rather to wait in their measures till God reveal his mind therein, in which cases there's a tender sence and forbearance one to another▪ and this does not [Page] tend to Confusion, Rebellion or Ranterism; but thy plea for the leaving a liberty for Believers to refuse to submit to the judgment and decision of the Church of Christ, and for the same insisting on their not seeing it their Duty to submit, when the judgment of the Church of Christ, pleaded for on our parts, is no other than what proceeds from his Spirit, or Christ himself as being present in his Church. This thy Libertine plea tends to divide the Church of Christ, and to leave Believers, (who are Members thereof) in a liberty both of denying submission, and in an ignorance or blindness concerning what the spirit of Christ in his Church may require of them, which I cannot grant thee that any sincere Believer is either so to be left in such a liberty of REFVSAL, nor yet remains in such Ignorance; for he that will not hear the Church (where Christ is in the midst) is to be accounted as an Heathen man. Therefore thy Plea tending to divide and make Believers Heathen, is contrary to our Principle and Testimony received from the beginning, which is, That Life answers Life: The Spirit of Truth receives its own in men; every living true Member in some degree feels what proceeds from its Life in other Members, though all Christ's Members are not come to the same measure and degree of growth, strength and understanding, yet [Page] there's so much inward sence and nearness in his Life and Faith, as preserves them from Confusion, Rebellion and Opposition to one another, or to any thing the Spirit of Christ saith unto the Churches by any of them.

Thy putting and supposing Cases against us that are not, thy arguing from Generals to Particulars, from Principles to Persons, from a Plea for the Church of Christ (and its obliging Judgment proceeding from his Spirit) to reflect upon particular Persons (as the Pen-man and his Brethren, John and George and Stephen, pag. 45. &c. p 45.) are empty, trifling and impertinent, and as vain and silly is the Laughter and Scorn which thereupon thou supposest, and wouldst stir up against the Pen-man, and his Brethren, all grounded upon a false bottom, namely, thy uncharitable and false sence and censure against the Pen-man, viz. That he is thirsting after such a sort of Subjects that may be willing to follow his Track, though they know not whether it be right or wrong: Which is so utterly false (if thou intendest me) that such a desire never entred into my Heart; my Soul abominates such a Principle as to lead People on in such blindness. Again, I do not make the reason of my Discourse depend on a meer supposition, nor yet on a bear affirmation, that I and my Brethren are the Church, & thou and thine not; we are now on the defensive part, [Page] and thou art not able to unchurch us; we may give testimony of our Faith, and to our sence of the presence of Christ with us and among us, & of our continuance in Love & Unity in him, and against thine and others Apostacy, and thou not able to confute us. The reason of our Discourse (in the present Controversie) depends not on Persons, but on undeniable Principles and Practices, agreeable both to divine Testimony, Revelation & undeniable Evidence amongst men. And wherein any of us have been moved of the Lord in his holy zeal to give positive Judgment, either concerning Spirits, Persons or Practices, that appear not yet so evident to some as to us, the day will make further discovery and declare it, and the Lord will appear witness and evidence in the case. And thou shalt then find, that thy Scorn, and the Laughter and Scorn thou hast supposed (and sought to stir up) against us, will be turn'd into sorrow on thy part; and thou mayst be ashamed of thy scorn and laughter, and of comparing our Treatment with the Papistical Parties towards the Protestants, and telling of following the Pen-mans Papistical Track, p. 46. All grounded on thy false sence before-cited, though to me all thy Scorn, Laughter, false Comparisons and Rattles (thou knowest what I mean) are all but like the Crackling of Thorns under a Pot. It's observable, [Page] that in thy Epistle to the Reader, &c. thou art for taking up a Lamentation for the Apostacy of your Brethren, as thy pretence is: Now thou art for Scorn and Laughter against them thou so censurest; yea, to the Presbyterians Laughter and Scorn thou art exposing R. R. and for those Instances he gives for Deconesses in the Gospel-times, p. 33. though this be a Truth, which many Protestant Authors have confirmed, besides Paul's own commendation of their Sister Phebe, whom he called, [...], Ministra, A Servant of the Church at Cenchrea, Rom. 16.1, 2. There were Women-Deacons, who in their places did service in the Churches, with respect to the Sick and Impotent, &c. But to return, one while thou pretendest to pray for the Pen-man, That the Lord would mollifie his hard heart, p. 42. another while art for causing Scorn and Laughter against him [Thus but in pag. 46.]

Thus thy hypocritical Lamenting, Praying and thy Scorning do much resemble thy confused Work.

And what such things are they thou insinuatest against the Pen-man and his Brethren? Of which thou sayst, Thou couldst soon lay a new Foundation to prove him and his Brethren guilty of such things, as by his Rule would tend to Confusion, Rebellion and Ranterism, and what not? p. 46. What things are those? We expect no mercy nor favour [Page] from thee; thou hast rendred us as obnoxious, I think, as of thy self thou canst. And this thy general and dark way of smiting (with what things thou couldst prove the Pen-man and his Brethren guilty of, as tending to Rebellion and Ranterism, without mentioning what things, is very unfairly to raise great suspicion against us, and to render us highly Criminal, Odious and Obnoxious, some-what like the Treatment we had in those Abusive, Scurrillous, Atheistical and Slanderous Pamphlets, stil'd, The Quakers Qu [...]bbles.

How now William! Is this thy Conscience, thy Charity, thy Christianity, thy Love pretended? and the end of thy feigned Lamentation and Praying for us, thus to abuse us, and cast dirt upon us, after this general implicit and suspicious manner? Is not such deceitful, injurious and contradictory Dealing rather contrary to common Morality and Civility amongst men?

Thy Prayer, conclusive of thy second Chapter, pag. 46. is mixt with as much Falshood and Envy (as the other stuff is with Scorn) in these words, viz.

The Lord preserve us all from following the Pen-man's uncharitable Papistical Track, lest thereby we should not only merit the Indignation of God, but justly be accused by men of understanding, of so much Delusion, Weakness or[Page]Wickedness, as (considering our antient professed Principles, and Practices) might render us unworthy the favour of a true Protestant, a derision to the Heathen, and a scorn to Fools themselves.

I am sure this Prayer appears not without Wrath and doubting; 'tis not offered in Charity, nor with Holy Hands; 'tis more like a Cain's Sacrifice; 'tis to slay the Christian and Protestant Reputation of him (and those) thou writest against, to render him not only one that has merited the Indignation of God, but one in a Papistical Track, unworthy the favour of a true Protestant, and so obnoxious to the outward Penal Laws, seeing (by thy Words) If you should follow his Track▪ you should SO merit, be SO justly accused and rendred, as thy Prayer intimates. Herein thou dost not only assume the place of a Judge over us (contrary to thy own Principle, especially that in the Paper which thou hast exposed as E. B's to Judge no man under any Pretence whatsoever) But also thou hast set the Heathen to judge and deride such among us as (in thy account) go from their antient Principles and Practices, and such also to be a scorn to Fools. But must the Heathen and Fools be such absolute Judges in Church-Affairs, as over Apostates, &c? Why dost thou then so much contend against and oppose R▪ B. for [Page] pleading the authority of the Church of Christ, as having power in some cases of Conscience to give positive Sentence or Decision obligatory upon Believers? Or why hast pleaded a Liberty for a Believer's refusing submission thereunto, on account of not seeing it his duty to submit? Must the Heathen be allowed a greater Power and Clearness in positive Judgment than the Church of Christ or Believers? But if the said Pen-man hath rendred himself so deluded, so weak or wicked, so unworthy the favour of a true Protestant, such a derision to the Heathen and scorn to Fools, as thou dost import. Then it must needs be a great undervaluing to such a great and popular Person of Knowledge and Parts (as thou wouldst seem to be) so much to trouble thy Head, and to spend so much time, toyle, labour and charge (as thou hast done) against su [...]h an inconsiderable, weak, mean, contemptible Person (as thou dost represent the Pen-man) yet one whose writing doth not shew him a meer Fool, (thou sayest) P. 45. It seems hee's one who is but a little wiser or better (in thy esteem) than a meer Fool. How lofty and high art thou? How conceited and wise in thy own Eyes? God will abase thee, I am perswaded.

CHAP. V.

[Page]

§. 1. W. R's Trifling against the Pen-man about his own Concessions to Truth. His abuse of the People called Quakers, as having such kinds of Declarations, frequently publisht among them as are unsound (and of a Popish tendence) about shutting out the Wisdom of all kinds, without distinction, and his now mincing the matter reflecting about proving Negatives, and his shufling and shifting, on his not mentioning Time, Place or Persons. §. 2. About his mis-expressing himself, how it might be excusable. W. R. can never come off clearly by those Instances he gave in his Postscript, to prove his proceeding to Print, Righteous. But his Fallacy still remains upon him, in that his chief Instance of the printed Epistle of two Sheets, by Anne Whitehead and Mary Elson, not Writ nor Printed till long after he had proceeded to Print; His Fallacy therein made more and more notorious §. 3. About the Tree of Knowledge: W. R's late Doctrine rendring it good for Food; but now denying that he has written any thing to shew his own sence either way. His saying and unsaying, Fallacy and Impertinency [Page] apparent in this point. §. 4. Of his straining G. F's Words (about setting up outward things) besides his Intention; His gross and reproachful Construction; His dark smiting and suggestion against Preachers among the Quakers, to render them exalted and imperious Imposers, WITHOUT GIVING A REASON WHY, &c. §. 5. His Story of Jealousies being entred Thousands against our travelling Brethren, and what Jealousies incredible and unreasonable. §. 6. About the Tree of Knowledge again, Whether W. R. esteem it good for Food or not: He still shifts and writes manifest untruth, in denying his own Words, to shew either opposition or assent to such Doctrine (i. e. that 'tis good for Food.) His fallacious Evasion and Impertinency return'd more home and closely upon him. §. 7▪ Concerning Tythes. W.R's late Objection and loose Answer farther examined, and the tendency thereof (and of what he now further saith) for the Payment of TYTHES FREELY to the National Ministry, and now to any use whatsoever, without regard to humane Institution or claim of divine Right. His Apostacy and evading our antient Testimony in this point; and his fallacious Insinuations and Reflections made obvious. §. 8. W. R. cannot [Page] clear himself of his Erronious Doctrine of Circumcision being a Christian Liberty, or in a Christian Liberty, &c. which was a legal Bondage and Yoke, observed for a time in submission to Moses's Law, and not to Christ's Doctrine, wherein was a Christian forbearance, not Christian Liberty in the Practice. W. R's scorn and falshood about the LAITY, to render us Popish, &c.

§. 1. TO thy occasion taken on the title Disaffection in the Contents of our Treatise [viz. That if the Writer's words may be taken, to shew the meaning of his mind, then he is disaffected with thy very Concession to Truth, &c.] pag. 46. cap. 3. This is meer trifling and idle▪ Those Concessions of thine to the Truth are so excepted, by being distinctly noted both in the Contents and Book, as being Concessions to the Truth (in Confutation to thy self and much of thy Book) which being thus plainly exprest by the Writer, thou canst not justly construe his Words, as shewing his meaning to be that he is disaffected with such Concession to Truth. This is an abuse to be sure.

Because that in our observation on the 5th Disaffection, we utterly denyed and judged as a falshood and abuse to the [Page] People called Quakers, thy saying, That these kinds of Declarations frequently published amongst the aforesaid People, viz. Let us exclude the Reasoning, the Wisdom and the Iealousie, and let us have an Eye to the Brethren; yea, to shut out the Wisdom and Reason of All kinds, without Distinction, [according as thou relatest in thy Christian-Quaker, part 1. Pref. p. 6. and p. 18, & 27.]

On our denying and judging this as a Falshood, and horrid Abuse and Scandalous, thou art pleased to reflect upon the Pen-man as very ignorant, void of sound Argument, and Obnoxious to the censure of ingenious Readers, as being in his own sence capable to prove any sort of Negatives whatsoever, p. 47.

That's a falshood William, the Pen-man hath no such sence: But by the way observe how unfairly thou art shifting here instead of proving thy Charge, That these kinds of Declarations are frequently publisht amongst the aforesaid People called Quakers. Now in thy last citation, where thou sayest, viz. I intimate as if this Doctrine had been publisht amongst us, &c. p. 47. Here thou mincest the matter, and leavest out the Words frequently, and the said People, which do render the Fact more notorious and general, and the more rational for us to deny it, and to judge it as thy gross abuse against the [Page] said People, which is not to prove any sort of Negatives whatsoever; We first give our Negative to thy Charge in the terms of it, then our Judgment: It concern'd thee to make it good then, and not to put us off with Flams and Jeers; and now tell us, Thou didst not mention either Time, Place or Person: At that rate it may be a hard matter to prove Negatives against thee indeed.—Though thy charge be never so false, so long as thou canst prevaricate, and also vary the matter from a popular and publication, to a particular Person, Time and Place, (and neither tell us who, when or where) —as FROM these kind of Declarations frequently publisht among the People called Quakers. TO this Doctrine had been publisht amongst us: Yet I did not mention either Time, Place or Person, p. 47. Like as to say, You must take all the matter upon my Credit: You must pin your Faith upon my Sleeve: If you deny and judge what I say as an abuse, I have a cunning way to shift it, instead of making probation. I can tell you, I did not mention, Time, Place or Person: 'Tis void of sound Argument for you to go about to prove any sort of Negatives, &c. But William, this kind of shifting, and then retorting and scorning, will not gain thee Credit nor Reputation, in thy mean and feeble [Page] attempts to prove the People called Quakers frequently under such a kind of Ministry as is in it self Popish, and tending to Introduce Popery it self (according to thy own Inference) that is, Ignorance instead of Wisdom, Bondage instead of Freedom in Christ, Ignorance as the Mother of Devotion, &c. Answered in our Treatise, ACCVSER, &c. p. 6, 7, 8, 9. And not only so, but that some blind Zealots are Principled to have an Eye to the Brethren instead of the Light in himself; as in thy Postscript to thy Christian-Quaker. But we can as well and truly deny that such Declarations (as afore) are frequently published among the People called Quakers, and judge it a horrid abuse and reflection on the said People, as we can deny that Jesuits frequently Preach among them, which is also an Abuse of some, and which thy Charge resembles. And 'tis no absurdity to prove Negatives in some cases, either in Popular or Personal actions, if Testimonies of Eye and Ear witness may be of any Credit. As for Instance:

The Question was put to a Meeting here in London (the greatest part being antient grave Friends) Where ever they heard such Doctrine preacht among the People called Quakers, as, To exclude or shut out Wisdom[Page]& Reason of all kinds, without Distinction, and to have an Eye to the Brethren, instead of the Light in themselves? And they never heard such Preaching, nor any such Doctrine preached among the People called Quakers at all, either in City or Country, much less frequently. And their (with many others) negative Testimony, may be of credit in this case, else how should we answer those that falsly accuse us with Jesuits frequently preaching among us, but by our negative Testimony from our certain knowledge of those that do preach among us, that they are no such? Put case any of our peaceable Meetings should by our Persecutors be charg'd with committing a Riot at such a time▪ and place; We deny the Charge and declare it to be utterly false, and produce evidence and proof sufficient and credible, (in contradiction to it) that our Meeting at such a time and place was in a peaceable posture, and nothing of violence or hurt done, offered or threatned, &c. Here▪ we prove a Negative, that our Meeting was no Riot, by proving the Affirmative, that it was Peaceable. And what's frequently preached among us in our publick Meetings is as publick as they. And set case a Person be falsly accused for committing [Page] Burglary at such a time and place, and he produces sufficient Evidence, that he lodged at an Inn twenty or thirty or forty Miles off at that very same time when the fact was done. Here he proves a Negative, i. e. that he did not commit the fact.

§. 2. To thy saying, viz. If in his sence I mis-express my self, then my meaning shall not be taken to excuse the defect, p. 47. That's not true; for wouldst thou be so low in thy Mind, and so ingenious as either to confess such mis-expressing or defect, where we meet it, and clogg thee with it in thy writings, and not be tenacious therein, it would the more excuse thee, and shorten the Debate.

I do not at all find, that thou canst come clearly off, as either a just or righteous man in thy Allegations and Instances in thy Postscript, for thy proceeding to print and publish thy great Book, by thy principal instance of the printed Epistle of two Sheets by Anne Whitehead and Mary Elson, which thine (when nigh printed) did occasion; for that could not be the occasion of thine, when 'twas not in being till thine was almost finished in the Press. Thou producest no Plea to clear thy self, but what's presupposed, anticipated and waylaid in our said Treatise, pag. 26, 27. [Page] However, by thee impertinently slighted as Impertinent. That the said Epistle was thy principal Instance for thy so proceeding, is no false Assertion, as thou wouldst make it, is evident from thy own account, on which 'tis grounded: The matter is fully evinced in our said Treatise, under the tenth Disaffection, from page 19, to pag. 37.

Thy alledging, Thou only assertedst Promulgation of the said Epistle, to shew that they were the first Publishers in Print, but not the first Printers. Of what? That there are Divisions, &c? This will not clear thee, nor evince thy Righteousness in proceeding to print and publish thy Book, on thy Instance of the said Epistle of two Sheets, which on this occasion was chiefly thy concern to evidence and mention, and that in pursuance of thy own Justification, to prove thy Righteousness in proceeding to Print, which the other Instances given by thee (about the publication of Divisions by Declaration by Manuscript) do not answer nor seem to parallel, but that chief one of Printing. And what? the said printed Epistle of two Sheets, though the greatest part of thy great Book was printed before that was writ? To thy now confessing, That they (i. e. Mary Elson and Anne Whitehead, &c.) were the first Publishers in Print, but not the first Printers. Then their [Page] Publication could be no just plea nor instance for thy proceeding to Print, as thou didst. Thy not being the first Publisher, but they, does neither excuse thy intention as Righteous, nor thy act of first Printing: 'Twas the bulkiness of thy Book that prevented its first Publication, and the smallness of theirs (though not writ till after a great part of thine was printed) that did expedite its publication.

Thy saying, Thou only assertedst Promulgation of the said Epistle, is an evasion: 'Twas in pursuance of thy pretence of Righteousness in thy proceeding to Print, as well as to promulgate or publish thy Book of Divisions, that thou gavest that instance of the said Epistle being printed. And as a supplement in thy Postscript, to what thou hadst writ in thy Preface and Introduction (which thou judgedst might give sufficient satisfaction to every Impartial Reader) but lest the Ignorance of any should be so great, as not from thence to perceive the Righteousness of thy proceeding to Print, they might by these Instances in thy Postscript, which therefore relate to the same proceeding that the Preface and Introduction do: See, the case is plain, 'tis no evading it. Therefore thou appearest not ingenious in thy Allegation, viz. He represents not the state of the case aright; for my own words were these, viz. [Page] My Present proceeding to Print (the word [Present] they leave out) which could not relate to any thing more than the Postscript, because the very Postscript informs the Reader, that All the Treatise, excepting the Postscript, Index and Errata, was then printed, p. 49.

This will not render thee either a sincere or just man in thy proceeding (William) we do not leave out the word Present in the citation of thy words; for 'tis incerted in our citation of thy own words, relating both to thy Preface, Introduction and Postscript, all alledged for thy present proceeding to Print, and to evince the Righteousness thereof; And thou knowest in thy own Conscience, that either thy Word [PRESENT] must relate to more than thy Postscript, or else thou wast very Impertinent and defective. If when in a Postscript, by additional and supplemental Plea or Reasons to all that precedes in thy Preface, thou art going about to make out the Righteousness (pretended) of thy present proceeding to Print and publish Divisions; we must thereby understand it not to relate to any thing more than thy Postscript. Then we must take thy meaning to be, as if thou must have more plain and convincing Reasons for thy proceeding to Print thy Postscript of but four Sheets, than for all the rest of thy Book of [Page] near four score Sheets: And yet the plea in thy Postscript appears to supply what thou hast said in thy Preface, in Vindication of thy publishing in Print thy Historical Relation, or great Book of Divisions. I cannot perceive that thou hast herein writ either Ingeniously, Conscientiously or Consistently. And thou mightest have seen how thou wast aforehand obviated, which might have prevented thy present impertinent Excuses and vain Allegations, if thou hadst but taken serious notice of the following recited passage in our Treatise, viz.

‘And further, If to evade the charge of Fallacy and Injustice, Deceit and False cover laid on W. R. in this matter,Accuser, &c. p. 26, 27. he flies to his Grammatical sence of his Words, and pleads his Intention, &c. as thinking himself safe in both.’

‘1st, We say, His present proceeding to Print cannot in reason be confined to his Postscript, wherein the Words are, nor answer the SOME of the People called Quakers he tells of, that have judged him wicked, as for intending to Print against Friends, Post. p. 25. (whom he undertakes to answer in that case) nor vindicate him as to his Historical Relation, (mentioned in the same page) which [Page] includes his Book, which therefore cannot be confined to, nor included in his Postscript.’

‘2dly, The Reasons he gives in his Postscript, to prove himself Righteous in his proceeding to Print, cannot relate only to that his Postscript, but to his whole Book, because they are added for a supplement to his Preface to the Reader, and his Introduction to the first and fourth parts of his Treatise; which Preface and Introduction concern his whole Book or Historical Relation (as he calls it.) And which Preface and Introduction he thinks may give sufficient satisfaction to every impartial & unprejudiced Reader: But lest the Ignorance or Blindness of any should be so great, as not from thence to perceive the Righteousness of his present proceeding to Print, &c. he gives his additional Reasons and Instances in his Postscript; the chief whereof is that relating to the two printed Sheets, which came to his Hands the 8th of November, 1680. as aforesaid, wherein the supplemental Reason given, was more clearly to evince the pretended Justness of his proceeding to Print, than he had done before in his said Preface or Introduction, as that it was even to prevent such great Ignorance and Partiality as would hinder any [Page] from perceiving his Righteousness in proceeding to Print. [which therefore must needs relate to more than his Postscript.]’

And William, I find no Contradiction, as thou accusest, between our signifying, That the two Sheets aforesaid was the Principal Instance for thy proceeding to print and publish thy Book, (that is, to prove thy Righteousness pretended therein, as 'twas made appear from thy own Words) AND signifying that thou declaredst a far higher necessity, i. e. a great concern of Conscience, &c. That the Epistle of two Sheets, aforesaid, was thy principal Instance, Reason or Allegation, to prove the Righteousness (pretended) of thy proceeding, is no down-right falshood (as thou falsly renderest it) but true; for 'twas CHIEFLY thy concern to give that Instance of the said Epistle after other Instances of less concern, and less to the purpose of Printing, &c. And that thou also placedst a higher necessity on thy proceeding, than the said two Sheets, is also true: The first was produced as a principal instance or cause, to evince the Righteousness of thy proceeding to print an Historical Relation, &c. The second was thy own Assertion for the necessity of thy proceeding, pretending it for the clearing of thy Conscience, &c. Such necessity (pretended) of proceeding [Page] was higher than thy said Instance or Reason for it, as between an Immediate necessity of doing a thing, and an outward Reason or Instance for doing it. Where's now the Contradiction? If there be any, it must be thy own, in placing such occasion on the said two Sheets, as to be so chiefly concern'd at them, and yet a more immediate necessity of Conscience, &c. before that. The Premises of this point considered, in reference to thy being so chiefly concerned, to instance the said Epistle of two Sheets, thy Charge that a down-right Vntruth is the Subject occasioning his Words, p. 49. (which thou callest Drollery) falleth to the Ground as a down-right Falshood. That which thou callest Drollery (in conclusion of that Detection we made of thy unrighteous and fallacious Vindication of thy proceeding to Print, &c.) I am perswaded it hit thee, and touched thee, as in a way of answering a Fool (that is, such a one as is highly conceited, and wise in his own Eyes) according to his Folly. And how natural and suitable that passage (thou callest Drollery) is to the subject and occasion given on thy part, unto which it relates, I leave to the impartial and ingenious Reader to consider and judge, upon perusal of the whole matter concerning that point, as 'tis handled in our said Treatise, entituled, The Accuser[Page]of our Brethren cast down, under the 10th Disaffection; from p. 19. to p. 37.

Unto all which (William) thou hast but given an Impertinent Fling, and the slie GO-BY to the substance, even the most part thereof.

§. 3. Whereas upon thy Confusion and Contradiction to many Friends about the Tree of Knowledge, that God forbad Man to eat of: The Question was put concerning thy self, thus, viz. What kind of Preacher would he make, if he should tell People, The Tree of Knowledge is good for Food; the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food? This Question thou takest to be grounded on a down-right Falshood; for sayest thou, I never asserted that the Tree of Knowledge was good for Food, and that it was not good for Food; neither have I written any thing to shew my own sence either way, p. 50.

No! That's strange; and a gross and manifest Untruth and Shuffle, I am sure: And I may ask thee, if thou hast not belyed thy own Conscience in these Words? How darest thou now utter in Print, that thou hast not written any thing to shew thy own sence either way, i. e. Whether the Tree of Knowledge be good for Food, or not good for Food? Hast thou not (in the first place) written to shew thy own [Page] sence, That it is good for Food, by thy plainly opposing the contrary Doctrine, as preached by divers among us: (viz. That the Tree of Knowledge was not good for Food.) Hast not thou plainly objected against this Doctrine? Instancing, That a Father may command his Child not to eat an Apple; his Rebellious eating no Argument to prove the Apple in it self not good for Food: And we know not on what Foot of Truth any one can assert that the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food. And to prove the Tree of Knowledge in it self good for Food, thou also didst cite John 17. This is Life Eternal to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Thence infering, so that Knowledge is the way to Life. But did God forbid the knowledge of himself, and of his Son, to Man in Innocency, when he forbad him to eat of the Tree of Knowledge? Didst thou not here plainly enough shew thy sence, That the Tree of Knowledge was good for Food? And doth not this imply that the Serpent was more kind to Man in moving to eat of it, than his Maker was in forbidding him? There's no need of thy adding [as in it self] for the Tree is it self. With what Conscience then durst thou adventure not only to say, Thou never assertedst that the Tree of Knowledge was good for Food, but also, that thou [Page]hast not written any thing, to shew thy own sence either way. Oh, wonderful! I somewhat admire at such a manifest gross Untruth, that thou shouldst undertake in several Pages, with several Objections, to oppose a Doctrine, as thou didst that of the Tree of Knowledge not being good for Food: And now to flam us off, with telling us, That thou hast not written any thing to shew thy own sence either way? Hast thou not here play'd Legerdemain, to write so plainly in opposition to another's Position, and yet tell us, Neither hast thou written any thing to shew thy own sence either way? For shame leave off such Impertinent Scribling, and spend thy time better in the Creation. But yet what reason for the Question, viz. What kind of Preacher wouldst thou make, if thou shouldst tell People, the Tree of Knowledge is good for Food, the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food? For the first, thou hast shewn thy sence plainly, however thou wouldst now smother it: The latter appears deducible from thy finding out a Salvo, or Plea, for some that may declare, That the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food; for thou wouldst not be understood to reflect on all that have used that Expression, because thou questionest not but many have so express'd themselves — to shew that if we should feed upon, or admire any excellent Qualification or Endowment,[Page]and not have the Eye of our mind Chiefly unto the Giver, we might then come to a loss; See the Second Part of thy Christian-Quaker, p. 28, 29. Thus hast thou excused the Doctrine before opposed by thee, viz. That the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food.

§. 4. As for G. F's Epistle against the envious Spirits, and Persecutors of those who could not observe their outward Things, Traditions, &c. thou dost much insist on these Words, viz. They that do so, viz. set up outward things, gather People to themselves, not unto God, &c. If these be truly cited, G F. best knows his own Intention, and in point of Justice ought rather to have been enquired of, as to have been his own Interpreter, than to have been brought forth in Print under the disguise of a prejudicial Interpretation and straining his Words, and turning his sence besides whatever was intended in them, or by him. And what hast thou got by the said Citation, thou hast so much insisted on? If thou strainest the Litteral sense thus, That no outward things are to be set up, nor outward Order practised in the Church of Christ. Thou wilt therein farther interfer with thy self, having already granted outward Form and Order, &c. to be in [Page] the Church of Christ, yea, even the case of Marriage; as what care thou tookest about the marrying thy two Daughters, &c.

But G. F's intention and sence in the words of his said Epistle, is by another hand fully spoken to, and therefore I forbear enlarging on them. However thy construction, That out of G. F's Mouth he and his Brethren may justly be compared to Cain for persecuting their Brethren, for no other cause than for not submitting to outward things, &c. p. 50.

This Construction I look upon to be very gross and reproachful, and that it proceeded from a persecuting spirit, that is, a false and unjust Judge.

And as false and malicious (William) is thy dark smiting, in telling of such sort of Preachers, (i. e. among the People called Quakers) whose Pride and Insolency might prompt them at this day to say,—Though you are our Witnesses, that we have often declared that our Commission from God was to turn People from the Power of Satan to God, that so they might all come to be ordered and governed by the appearance of the Power in themselves; yet we did NOT mean, but that when we had gathered any into the Truth, we should be those who ought to have the RULE over them, and that such should observe our Traditions, or follow us, Without giving a Reason why; [Page] and though they might in Truth be submitting themselves one to another in the Lord (according to the Apostles Counsel) yet all of them must submit to us, and reverence, honour and obey us, &c. pag. 50, 51. Thus far thou (William.)

But that any Preachers among the said People called Quakers have so said or preached after this exalted, imperious and inconsistent manner, I must take leave to deny, till I have better proof from thee, than thy quoting thy self, or thy saying (that in the 48 & 49 pages of the 3d part of thy Treatise entituled, The Christian-Quaker) 'Tis so written, which is thy own Book, making thy self thy own Authority proof for thy self; and then thy saying, 'Tis as naturally deduced from R. B's discourse in his Book of Government; and then quotest thy self again for Proof, bidding us see pages 41 to 49. in thy said 3d Part. But still, we deny thy Credit in the case, thou art no sufficient Proof for thy self against us; 'tis a meer begging of the Question. The Pride and Insolency thou wouldst now fix upon R.B. he utterly denyes, as also, That those whom we have gathered to the Truth, should observe our Traditions, Without giving a Reason why. He also denys, that this is either naturally deduced or justly deducible from any discourse of his in his said Book. And I must [Page] tell thee (William) this looks like one of Tho. Hicks's Abuses and gross Forgeries in his Dialogues; seeing it has always been our Principle to give convincing Reason, where scruples or doubts are, first to remove them, and clear Peoples understandings (so far as the Lord enables us) before they proceed to act in any Religious Performances; and we being the Servants of our Lord Jesus Christ, we utterly abhor and detest setting up our selves as Lords over God's Heritage ▪ or seeking to have the Rule and Dominion over them or their Faith; and we may each of us conclude, and say with his Servant Gideon, I will not Rule over you, the Lord shall Rule over you, Judges 8.22, 23. 'Tis not Man, but the Lord we must exalt.

§. 5. Thou (W. R.) still proceedest falsly and perversly in saying, viz. That Jealousies have entred the breasts of thousands, that though these our travelling Brethren exalted the Spirit of God in man, as the only sufficient Rule for man, and declared, that the Scriptures were not a sufficient Rule to man; yet instead of leaving us to the Rule which they have declared to be sufficient, they strain that which they have declared not sufficient, to make it (as much as in them lies) a Rule for them to rule over their Brethren, p. 51.

To all which I say, 1st, We have no [Page] cause to believe thy story, that such Jealousies have entred thousands. 2dly, All travelling Brethren, approved among us, exalt the Spirit of God in man as much as ever. 3dly, Such do not make the holy Scriptures (however truly own'd in their place) any such Rule as for them to rule over their Brethren, such being called to feed the flock, and not be as Lords over Gods Heritage, nor as seeking Dominion over their Brethrens Faith, but to walk in the Humility of Jesus Christ, as Ensamples to the flock. Thy thoughts therefore to the contrary concerning those who gave forth our Treatise, entituled, The Accuser, &c. are utterly wrong; and thy quoting thy self in thy said third Part, is as feeble and impertinent as before in thy Forgery against R. B. &c.

§. 6. About the Tree of Knowledge again, thou (W. R.) again proceedest thus, viz. p. 51. The Pen-man thus saith, By all this opposition to the Doctrine, That the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food, William Rogers seems to account it good for Food. Nothing said by me, or cited as my words by themselves shews either opposition or assent to such Doctrine, p. 51.

That's a manifest untruth again, and before detected: Many of thy own words cited in our said Treatise, do plainly shew [Page] thy assent to such Doctrine, and that thou accountedst the Tree of Knowledge good for Food, especially in thy opposing the contrary Doctrine. Review the Passage in thy own Christian-Quaker, part 2. p. 27, 28, 29. with our Answer, Accuser, &c. pag. 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114. and pag. 222, 223, 224. If nothing said by thee, or cited as thy words, shew either opposition or assent to the said Doctrine; and that thou hast not written any thing to shew thy sence either way, as thou hast declared, how hast thou pursued thy charge of Apostacy and Innovation? Didst thou not bring in that Doctrine (That the Tree of Knowledge was not good for Food) among other things to prove thy charge of Apostacy and Innovation against us, and this as to Doctrine opposed by thee? But now wilt not own either opposition or assent in any thing said or written by thee, to shew thy own sence either way. Oh William! where's thy Conscience, in writing not only thus insignificantly, but thus evasively and prevaricatingly? And how hast thou by such Impertinency distinguished or proved thy self and party The Christian-Quaker, and those against whom thou writest The Apostate and Innovator, either in Doctrine or Practice, when thou hast attempted it in Doctrine? Thy attempts and opposition signifie nothing; thou hast not written any [Page] thing to shew thy sence either way. Then thou hast produced nothing to prove nothing.

To thy saying, viz. If we had learned from the Scriptures, that the Serpent had said, 'Twas good for food, yet it would not have shewn me erronious in my Assertion, unless the words [as in it self] had been added, which are not, pag. 51.

Thy Assertion! What Assertion hast thou made in the case, when thou hast not written any thing to shew thy sence either way, either of opposition or assent to such Doctrine, if therein we may believe thee? But how inconsistent with thy self art thou, as between shewing no sence, and thy Assertion in the same case? And what if the word [as in it self] are not added, for the Tree of Knowledge being good for Food, as in it self, as thou hast plainly enough implyed? What would that have added to the verity of thy Assertion, or to the weight of the Doctrine, whilst the Controversie relates to the Tree of Knowledge, whether or no it be good for food, it relates to it self, and not to another; for that Tree is it self. However, thou mayst intend, [as in it self] to be in its own Nature, without respect to the Command.

The matter in Question is not Whether the Tree of Knowledge be good in it self, [Page] but whether it be good for such an end and purpose, as for Food, i. e. for the Soul of man, either before the Fall, or in the Restoration? Both God's Prohibition and Experience teach the contrary, viz. That 'tis not good for Food; though otherwise, Knowledge (rightly so called) be good as in its own Nature. But the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a mixt Knowledge, not Food for an innocent Soul; 'tis the pure unmixt Knowledge of the good only which springs from divine Life that is its Food. The words [Tree of Knowledge] are an allusion, and is Mysteriously to be understood only in the Light of Christ.

To thy saying, 'Tis hard to know with what sort of Spirit the Pen-man, most immediately concerned in the Accuser, &c. is at unity with; For 'tis evident he doth not give the Devil his due, neither doth he give God or good Men their due, pag. 52.

Is it hard to know? How camest thou then so severely to censure and judge him and his Spirit, as Impious, Wicked, &c?

But in humility and fear of the Lord, he is at Unity (and daily converseth) with the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is a Spirit of true Understanding and Judgment, whereby he clearly discerns, and hath Power to judge thy dark, confused Spirit of Enmity, and its unfruitful Works [Page] of Darkness and Division against Christ and his true followers.

§. 7. Concerning Tythes, thou pretendest to except against the Payment of them,P. 52. That they are (as at this day paid under pretence of being Due, JVRE DIVINO)—Antichristian, and also against the Humane Institution and constraint to pay them. [And thus far we do not oppose thee, nor have shewn disaffection.] But thou hast found out another and more easie way to pay them: Thus, viz. Yet if any Person will FREELY of himself give a Tenth part of his Estate, or of the Increase thereof TO ANY VSE WHATSOEVER; having no regard to any Humane Institution or Claim by vertue of any pretended Divine Law, it can no more be called Antichristian then, &c. p. 52.

No! not as given to any use whatsoever? That's large and loose, and as strange! Suppose some do freely pay Tythes to maintain an Antichristian Ministry, without regard to the plea of Jure Divino, or humane Institution or Constraint, but voluntarily and freely, which needs no constraint nor coertion: Were not this Antichristian? And did not the Christian-Quaker bear Testimony from the beginning against the Antichristian Ministry and Tythes paid to maintain them, whether [Page] by some paid freely or not; the labour was to bring People from them to Christ, the great Shepherd, and end of the first Priesthood, Tythes and the Law that upheld them.

Art not thou now evading and shifting from our first Testimony, that was absolute against the payment of Tythes in these Gospel dayes? And doth not these thy evasive Apostatizing shifts tend to draw others into Looseness and Apostacy, to decline the Cross, and cast off the Yoke of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Again, thou givest a recital of thy Answer to the Objection or Question of thy own framing, in the case of Tythes; but now craftily leavest out thy Objection, which concern'd Tythes, as given to the National Ministry, thus, viz. But what if it please the Supream Power to bestow on the National Ministry Tythes? How prove you from Scripture, that those who freely pay it, do ill? or that 'tis not lawful for them, to receive it from such? These are thy own Words, (William) to which thou madest the following Answer, mentioned in our 40th Disaffection, and recited in these words, viz.

We are so far from condemning those who freely pay them, (i. e. Tythes) and not as by [Page]Constraint, that we look upon it to be the Duty of all, Page 52. professing Christianity, to contribute towards the outward Maintenance of such whom they usually hear, and account to be the true Ministers of Christ, though not obliged thereto by Law, in case they have need, p. 52.

We remain still Disaffected with thy Doctrine it this point, (William) so far as it relates to the paying of Tythes: Thy granting an uncondemned Liberty therein, for them who can freely pay them to those they account the true Ministers of Christ (though they be the National Ministry) I am sure is contrary to the antient Testimony of the true Christian-Quaker, and all faithful travelling Brethren in the Gospel and Work of Christ, To contribute towards the outward Maintenance, &c. is not the matter under debate. But the Question immediately relating to the Payment of Tythes, as 'tis included in thy own Objection in the case, which thou hast craftily forborn to recite, and only recitest the Words of thy Answer; both being compared together, do more clearly evince thy Unchristian Liberty and Apostacy, in justifying Mens freely paying Tythes to those they count Ministers of Christ, &c. yea, though it be to the National Ministry, by thy Objection and Answer before. Thy [Page] varying the Terms from [FREELY PAYING them] i. e. Tythes, TO a CONTRIBVTING towards their outward Maintenance, appears but a Prevaricating shift, and evading the terms of thy own Objection and Question: Review the Point in thy own 2d Part, Christian-Quaker, in granting a Liberty of freely paying Tythes to the National Ministry, without condemnation (as before.) Thou hast contradicted J. W. and J. Story's Testimony, viz. As to Tythes, we can in truth say, 'twas never so much as in our Hearts to strengthen any in the Payment thereof, nor yet to weaken the Faith of any, having a Testimony in our Hearts that Tythes, as at this day paid, are Antichristian. Mark, [as at this day paid] is to the National Ministry; by some freely, and by others by constraint. As also thou shewest thy fallacious Insinuation and Prevarication, from the terms under debate, in concluding, That the Pen-man would exclude such sort of Charity to any ministring Professor of Christianity, besides such as he may account of his own Brotherhood, whereby their outward Man might receive Sustenance; else if they accounted it not Christian-like, to give on a Charitable score, TYTHES, without Compulsion; yet he might have shewn his assent that their Conscientious Hearers might (without Condemnation) have administred in[Page]another Method, p. 53. How falsly hast thou insinuated against the Pen-man, and daubed with the Professors, as if now thou wouldst ingratiate thy self, to come into favour with the Professors, who are against the Quakers, and as if thou wouldst please them, by telling of giving on a Charitable score, Tythes. But William, I am sorry thou shouldst thus wrong thy own Conscience, (by such false Insinuations) for therein thou knowest the matter in question; and our Observation was not about (nor for) excluding such sort of Charity, as that of freely relieving or contributing towards the Sustenance of the outward Man of any of them, in case of need; for that Humanity allows, much more Christianity: But the matter in question, was singly about the freely paying of Tythes, and that to the National Ministry, (as thy Words were) against which our 40th Disaffection was directed. And thy insinuating expressions about giving on a Charitable score Tythes, will not excuse thee, nor clear thee in this matter; as also on this occasion thou fallaciously insinuatest in thy Prayer, viz. The Lord preserve me and all true Christians from that Censorious Spirit, as may conclude, that there are no other Sheep than of the Pen-man's Fold, p. 53.

Whom dost thou herein accuse? We [Page] deny any such Censorious Spirit, with thy terms [Pen-man's Fold] for 'tis Christ's Fold we own. Thou art an uncharitable censorious Spirit. We know there are other Sheep, as Christ declared, which he will fetch home into his Fold: But thou appearest none of Christ's Sheep, either in his Fold, or out of his Fold, whilst in such an Envious, Wolfish and Scornful Spirit.

§. 8. Whereas to our 44th Disaffection, about Circumcision being a Christian-Liberty, according to thy own Words; thou sayest, viz. Suppose I had in any part of my Writings laid down, that the practice of Circumcision, by one that was a Jew, and a believer in Christ, was in that day a Christian-Liberty: I only Query, (not intending to quarrel with my Adversary about a Mode of Speech, when our Meanings are the same) How can this be termed an Erronious manner of expression?—Why might not the Practice of such a Christian, be without offence termed Christian-Liberty? p. 54.

I Answer; Because Circumcision in the Flesh, was not only a Type under the Law, but by Christians counted a Yoke of Bondage, not to be born by the Disciples under the Gospel, being also among other Types abolisht by Christ in his Sufferings and [Page] Death: Though some weak Believers, as those of the Jews did for a time practise it; yet they did it in obedience to the Law of Moses, and the Old Covenant; and not in obedience to Christ and his Apostles in the New Covenant: And there was a Christian-forbearance and patience towards them, in suffering Circumcision for a time to those of the Jews, when the Vail was not wholly done away, nor they come clearly to see to the end of those things that were abolished by Christ. (and yet no liberty nor way was given for them to draw others into it.) Whence it follows, not that Circumcision it self was Christian-Liberty, or practised in a Christian-Liberty in that day, but with respect to Moses's Law; but the forbearance towards them was Christian and tender. I am not willing to make much ado about this thy Mode of Speech; though I look on't to be an unsound and unscriptural Mode. To thy saying, Thou dost not say, that Circumcision practised as aforesaid, is a Christian-Liberty; 'tis the Pen-man's consequence, &c. What hast thou said less? Thou hast told us of these Differing Exercises IN A CHRISTIAN-LIBERTY; When speaking of practising Circumcision, keeping a day, abstaining from eating Flesh amongst the Primitive Believers; That Christian-Liberty,[Page]&c. See thy own Recitation, p. 53. 7th Part. Circumcision then was one of those differing Exercises, which thou placest in a Christian Liberty, and which in thy next page thou termest Christian-Liberty, as before: And thou sayest, If the mode of Speech be not pertinent to express the matter in hand—'Tis our own approved Language. I think thou mistakest here, (William) and the passage thou citest out of R. B's Book of Government, p. 63, 64. proves it not from these Words cited, viz. ‘There is a certain Liberty and Forbearance also, &c. whereof we have the Example of the Primitive Church’—viz. In suffering Circumcision to the Jews. [Did he here term Circumcision Christian-Liberty? No sure, 'twas only permitted or suffered to them, as was the Observation of certain Dayes, and abstaining from Meats, which were not holden universally; but when laid upon others, then preacht down and reproved by the Apostle, Gal. 5.

Is there not a plain difference between a certain Liberty in suffering Circumcision to the Jews, and terming it Christian-Liberty? Is this the very same Language approved by the Second day's Meeting (as thou sayest?) p. 55. Sure thou art much out here, (William) to our saying, ‘That this man, [Page] who is thus discomposed in his Work, should not have medled so much with Points of Divinity,This passage W. R. hath Printed divers times over in his Book against himself. which he appears so little skilful in: He dreams so much of Liberty that he is greatly bewildred in the management of it.’ Thou answerest, 'Tis Language more like the proudest of Prelates, adorned with a pair of Lawn Sleeves, than an humble Quaker, p. 53. To this adding also in p. 55. Will not the impartial Reader hence be apt to suppose, that the Pen-man's design is to ingross discourses of Divinity to himself and his Brethren, that so the Laity may believe nothing but what proceeds from their Mouthes and Pens: p. 55. If they shall complain, that this renders them guilty of gross Popery; my counsel is, Let them for the future cease giving occasion, p. 55.

This Question contains both scorn and falshood, suggested against us, to render us guilty of Popery, as before is discovered: We have no such design of engrosement, nor Popish distinction among us, as between Clergy and Laity; the Spirit of Christ, and true knowledge of Divinity, are not limitted nor engrossed in the will of man, to Persons; neither doth our reprehending a discomposed Person for medling in [Page] things beyond his skill, prove us Guilty in these cases.

Again, William, thou proceedest abusively and falsly in these Words, viz. For 'tis well known, that G. Fox his party have been so Contentious, as that nothing would content them but the introducing new Practices, P. 55. under the Notion of Gospel-Discipline, in a Spirit of Strife and Contention, concluding all to be dark that saw not with their Eyes, p. 55.

I shall say little to these Reproachful Censures. But the Lord rebuke this false, malicious, censorious, judging, exalted, conceited Spirit: And he will manifestly rebuke it, I doubt not.

CHAP. VI.

§. 1. Of our Catalogue of some of W. R's manifest Falshoods, notorious Slanders, scandalous Abuses, &c. (which are numerous) to clear himself, and prove the Pen-man to have play'd the Forger: He gives only three Instances, whereby W. R. cannot clear himself. §. 2. W. R. again opposing the Credit of the Pen-man's method about proving Negatives: The supposed Absurdity and Immorality removed. §. 3. Concerning [Page] his Contradictions: His attempts only to reconcile the first Instance, proved invalid, as between his placing the Disunion in Principles, Doctrine and Life of Christianity, and placing it not in Principles of Truth, nor in Christ's Doctrine, but in Ceremonies, the Shell, &c. §. 4. His own Affirmation to clear himself of Contradiction, no valid Plea or Argument. His own dishonesty and injustice in accusing the Pen-man, for not informing the Reader what is right and what is wrong in the matter of Contradiction. His notorious Falshood and Contradictions farther pursued (in judgment against himself, on his own Censure) about the Apostacy entring the generality. Christ's words, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. Circumcision: The Tree of Knowledge: Freely paying Tythes, &c. §. 5. W. R's Postscript a slight and scornful Put-off to our Friends of Bristol, their Book entituled, An Exalted Diotrephes Reprehended; his miserable Evasion, manifest Fallacy, Falshood, Abuse and Scorn against them, detected. §. 6. Of his Proposition to our Meeting in London. His Insincerity, unrighteous Judgment and Conclusion against our Meeting.

§. 1. BUt let's see how thou (W. R.) proceedest to prove the Pen-man to have [Page] play'd the Forger in giving a Catalogue (term'd) of some of W. R. his manifest Falshoods, notorious Slanders, scandalous Abuses, Perversions, Rayling, Scoffing, Flattering and Reviling, in the 4th and 5th Parts of his Book against G. F. and others, in his own words and terms; which may be seen at large in our said Treatise, Accuser, &c. from page 230, to pag. 255, &c. how not only some of his manifest Falshoods, Slanders, scandalous Abuses, &c. are collected and stated in his own words and terms, but even all of them there collected, are so far from varying his own sence, that his words or terms are scarce varyed in two of them. I find not his sence or meaning in them varied or altered at all, so far as I can understand or gather.

Now (W. R.) in pursuance of thy charge before, thou engagest in these words, viz. I shall now proceed to cite only three Instances in one Leaf of their Catalogue, next to the Title, viz. One of their Forgery, another of their cript Citations, and a third of their cript and non-sensical Representations of my sound words, &c. p. 56.

Observe by the way, That seeing the Instances are so few, as only Three (and though he calls them only a taste, &c. p. 58) the Reader may presuppose them to be (in his thoughts) knocking ones, or the most [Page] likely for his purpose, and the most advantagious for his turn that he could find or pick out, and such palpable Forgery, &c. as nothing to be said for it. But see if it prove so; see if he knocks us in the Head or down with it: Now observe his great and chief Instance, viz.

They thus represent me to say in the Christian-Quaker, Part 4. pag. 4. That they are persecuting Opposers who oppose John Wilkinson and John Story: My own words are, Vnless the Lord shall be pleased to change the hearts of the persecuting Opposers of John Wilkinson and John Story. This Forgery—to me appears to render me a Persecutor; for, saith he, would William Rogers be counted a Persecutor for his opposing others more vehemently? I abhor Persecution, and in this Controversie do act the part of a Defendant against (and in discovery of) a Company of PERSECVTORS, p. 56.

Now let the Ingenious Reader observe, what great difference is there in thus representing him? what variation of his sence? as between his saying, The persecuting Opposers of J. S. and J. W. and saying, That they are persecuting Opposers who oppose them? I must confess, I am not so critical as to understand a variation of his sence, or much of his words, in this small Transposition, though he now makes his exception, That [Page]there may be Opposition to each other, from difference in Religion, yet not attended with Persecution. He should have told us, that exception was included in his discourse before in this point, viz. That only some of the Opposers of J. W. and J. S. were persecuting Opposers, but not all of them: Some of their Opposers are not Persecutors: But we must commonly be troubled with his colateral Meanings to supply his precedent Defects. But then, what Company of Persecutors are those he now tells of, against whom he acts the part of a Defendant? Are they not all he has written against in this Controversie, both named and unnamed? And are not these the Opposers of J. W. and J. S? Are they not those whom he calls G. F. and his Party, G. F. and his Brethren? And has he not counted them Persecutors, yea, a Company of Persecutors? Who then are opposers of J. W. and J. S. that are not of party with G. F. (in W. R's account) and consequently no Persecutors? For W. R. saith, G. F. and his Brethren (out of G. F's mouth) may be justy compared to Cain for persecuting their Brethren, p. 50. And as plainly W. R. shews his meaning, and the intent of his words (before cited) where in page 22. in his comparison between the Paper signed by Charles Marshall, &c. and Pope Leo the tenth his Bull against Martin Luther (Anno [Page] 1520.) W. R. saith, But in the aforesaid Paper there is no mention of any particular Doctrine or Viciousness of Life, for which they (i. e. J.S. and J.W.) are persecuted by their Brethren.

Now wherein (I pray) is his meaning or sence of his words (about persecuting Opposers) altered, or the intent of his Mind clouded, (as he complains) in what we have represented? W. R▪ represents himself in this Controversie as one acting the part of a Defendant, only against a Company of Persecutors. But I am sure he greatly acts the part of an Offendor and bitter Persecutor, with his bitter words of hatred, to scandalize many innocent Friends, approved Servants and Ministers of Christ among the People called Quakers with Popery, tending greatly to render that People obnoxious. Whilst he is complaining of Persecution, he's acting the part of a most bitter Persecuting Informer and Incendiary. Apostate Judas's are the worst of Informers.

As for his Complaint of cript Citation and nonsensical Representation of words; I must say, and that according to my understanding, his words are so largely cited, as that the drift and scope of his Intention and Sence may be understood, though some of his long Parenthesis and super-abundant Expressions are left out. I would not desire [Page] to be more largely cited by himself, or any Adversary whatsoever, than he is in his words. And for my own part, I sometime think that I am apt to cite my Adversary's words too largely, but it is, that both his sence may the more plainly appear, and what occasion he gives, either for a judgment or inference naturally to be deduced. And I find not the Passage non-sensically represented, which he recites, pag. 57. But in that he calls the cript Citation (in the 6th line of the same page, I find his recital wrong, viz. words for fruits) But how can it be cript, when the page is quoted, where 'tis to be found at large?

Upon the serious perusal of our Adversary's reiterated black Charges of Palpable Forgery and Prevarications, pag. 57, 58. together with his attempts to prove them. I do solemnly profess in the sight of God, I do not find my self conscious, nor justly chargeable therein; for I really am for giving the Devil his due, and not to overcharge nor mischarge him in any case (how bad soever he be in himself) much less to overcharge my fellow-Creatures, how much prejudiced soever any of them be against me. Yet though I know my own Innocence, both as to Intention and Principle, I impose not my bare sence and credit upon the Readers judgment, but leave him therein free, [Page] to the light of Truth in himself, to take impartial and just measures in what he reads in this Controversie, relating either to Persons or Principles; and let the Light of Truth in all judge, for to that I appeal.

§. 2. To what W. R. saith of the Pen-man's Method, If it should become of Credit, 'twere then easie to undertake a Proof of any sort of Negative, &c. pag. 58.

'Tis a Mistake; for when I see a Person fearing God abused, scandalized, defamed and mis-represented, contrary to his known Principle and Practice (as I am really sensible and satisfied in my judgment, thou W. R. hast frequently dealt by G. F. and others) I may give my positive Testimony and Judgment against such abusive and malicious Treatment, and yet not undertake a Proof of any sort of Negative; and then it concerns thee W. R. to make Proof of thy Charges and Accusations, when they are either denyed, or a negative Testimony given against them; otherwise not to think thy self secure by quarrelling with Negative Testimonies, which in many cases are lawful and of credit, and not Unchristian, nor Immoral, as thou seemest to render them. Neither needed the Pen-man therein to believe G. F. to be God or Christ that never erred, as thou falsly (by way of supposition) [Page] arguest, pag. 59. to render us odious. For if the Pen-man did but believe (as he doth) G. F. to be a Servant of Christ, or a real Christian, or a man fearing God, he might reasonably shew an utter dislike of thy scornful Abuses, Reproaches and Scandals cast upon him, to render him as odious and obnoxious as thou canst readily do in thy Books.

§. 3. Then as concerning the Contradictions, collected in our Treatise aforesaid, from pag. 204, to p. 227. thou citest only the first Instance, and givest us thy bare Affirmation, That the rest are as groundless, pag. 59.

The first Instance mentioned by thee is, BETWEEN thy telling of so great a concern of Conscience on many to encourage the Publication of thy Book, lest it should be reputed, That the Doctrine and Life of Christianity were wholly extinct among the aforesaid People.

AND John Wilkinson's writing, That of late dayes the Concord we once had seems much to be broken, &c. And the cause God hath manifested to me, That it is NOT IN PRINCIPLES OF TRUTH, NOR IN CHRIST's DOCTRINE, nor in any Practice which Truth, in the Members of the heavenly Body leadeth into; but about Prescriptions—through the blind zeal of the weak, &c.

[Page] Observe; Hath not the one plainly here placed the Apostacy (charged) to be from the Doctrine and Life of Christianity; And the other not in Principles of Truth, nor in Christ's Doctrine? W. R. as the great Asserter thereof, on behalf of himself and his party, and those whom he writes against to be Apostates and Innovators; and not only so, but hath he not (in divers things) contradicted them both in matter of Doctrine and Practice in his Books?

Hath not the other (i. e. J. W.) placed the cause of the breach of the Concord, and of the Jarr, as not being in Principles of Truth, nor in Christ's Doctrine, nor in any Practice which Truth leads into? What's more plain than Affirmative in the one, and Negative in the other, on the same subject? Is not here a manifest contradiction between presupposing such occasion of repute, as if the Doctrine and Life of Christianity were wholly extinct; And, The breach NOT in Principles of Truth, nor in Christ's Doctrine, &c. The second contradiction does also make it more plain, BETWEEN W. R. his placing the dis-union in Principles, Doctrines and Practices, and his placing it in Ceremonies, the Shell, not in Principles of Truth, nor in Christ's Doctrine; See Accuser, p. 206, 207. As also Between the words [wholly extinct among the [Page] AFORESAID PEOPLE] and [Through the blind Zeal of THE WEAK;] for the weak among them, includes not the said People.

But W. R. to save himself from a contradiction to J. W. in this case, pleads the different dates of their Words, viz. that J. W's were written in the Year 1676. and W. R's in the Year 1680.—and that when Differences in the Church begin, they usually ascend higher and higher, and fresh and new occasions, are often administred, p. 60.

Here he seems hard put to it, yet this will not save him, nor excuse him; for he knows that the same Practices and Doctrines, for which he has rendred many of the said People Apostate, were in being among them before the Year 1676. as with respect to Womens Meetings, Marriages, Tythes, Tree of Knowledge, &c. As for Priest and Professor reputing or supposing the Doctrine and Life of Christianity extinct or suffering Shipwrack among the said People, p. 60. W. R's rendring many, or the greatest part of them Apostate, was not the way to prevent such Thoughts or Supposition in them, who were of the same mind against the Quakers, long before he writ, as being no Christians, according as he has rendred many of them: Nor will the rudeness of some in the publick Meeting at [Page] Bristol (whether of his own party, or any others) prove a just occasion of such Repute against the said People called Quakers, as his words suppose, without exception.

§. 4. Of the Catalogue of his Contradictions, W. R. again gives us his own Affirmation, That not one Instance mentioned therein, as contradiction, will bear that term; and then cryes out of fallacious Prevaricating Insinuations, &c. p. 61. But would not W. R. have exclaim'd against this method of Writing in another (if against himself) as Imposition, begging the Question, undertaking to prove any sort of Negatives, and not to be credited?

And now William, as for any of us challenging a Meeting with thee, and thy proffering it in the City of Bristol; and thy instance of an incitement to a Friendly discourse, p 61.

Thy Friendship being turn'd into Enmity, and thy Love into apparent Hatred against us (thy antient Friends) we have no ground to expect any Friendly discourse from thee; thou hast been sufficiently tryed in that way: And 'tis not thy endeavouring to flourish, vaunt and boast it off that will either regain thy Repute among God's People, or restore that Friendship thou hast extinguisht on thy part, by thy ungodly [Page] hard Speeches and Writings, words of Hatred, Scorn and Pride, which thou appearest puft up withal.

One passage I may not omit, touching W. R's contradictions, p. 62. in these Words, viz. 'Tis well worthy the Readers observation, that though the Pen-man adds in the Title these Words, viz. [with Questions, Notes and Remarks thereon] yet none of the Notes or Remarks do inform the Reader what is right or what is wrong, in the pretended matter of contradiction (more than in pag. 228. in these words, A plain Concession to Truth. Now he speaks like some Ambassadour of Christ) For the aforesaid omission I do not commend either the Honesty or Justice of the Pen-man to me, or his care over the Flock.

To all which I Answer; 1st, This charge contains a notorious falshood: 2dly, A self-contradiction and judgment against himself. For First, our sence of what is right and what is wrong in his Contradictions, were not only declared in our Treatise in many things, before the Contradictions were ranked together, but also the Questions, Notes and Remarks upon them, do inform the Reader what is right, and what is most agreeing to our sence as right, and what not. What we oppose, commonly is first set down in the first Column, and the better part in the second, for confutation [Page] of himself, as the nature of the Questions, &c. do evince plain enough to the Intelligent: As for instance, where W. R. is set against W. R. in his Contradictions; as BETWEEN his saying, This Doctrine frequently publisht among us [That the Apostacy shall never enter the generality more] doth give us just occasion to be Jealous, &c. Part 1. p. 14. AND, his saying, I would NOT be understood to say, That the Apostacy shall never enter the generality again, Part 3. p. 74. Our Question on this contradiction is, Q. Then why does he so often quarrel with the Doctrine frequently published, as he saith, viz. That the Apostacy shall never enter the generality more? Which plainly shews, we own his assent to this Doctrine to be right, and not his Jealous opposition to it.

Again, to his Contradiction, in saying, WE REASONABLY conclude, that the Words of Christ and the Apostle (in Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. and 1 Cor. 6.1, 2, 4.) ONLY hinted at Personal Offences or Differences, touching worldly matters, Part 1. p. 47. And confessing (on Mat. 18.15, 16, 17.) that EVERY CASE, wherein one Brother may trespass against another, may in RIGHT REASON be comprehended in it, Part 3. p. 36. Our Question on this contradiction is, Q. Whether EVERY CASE be to be [Page] limited only to WORLDLY MATTERS, and not extend to any Cases of a Spiritual nature? Which implyeth our accepting his assent to the latter, viz. Every such case, &c. and not his limiting it only to worldly Matters.

Again, his placing CIRCVMCISION as exercised in a CHRISTIAN-LIBERTY; (and calling it that Christian-Liberty) saying, This did not at that time condemn that Christian Liberty, in such as made Conscience of Circumcision, (which were some believing Jews) Part 3. p. 82. and Part 5. p. 74, 75. AND his contrary confession, That the Labour of the Apostles of Christ in the Primitive dayes, was to DRAW the outward Jew FROM OFF the observation of these Ordinances, which were really establisht by the appointment of God himself, Part 1▪ p. 73.

Our Question on this Contradiction, is, Q. How can it be good Doctrine to account Circumcision a CHRISTIAN-LIBERTY, and an Exercise not condemnable in Believers, when the labour of the Apostles were to draw the outward Jew from off the observation of these Ordinances?

This plainly evinceth, that we do not own his Doctrine to be right, that Circumcision was a Christian-Liberty; though there was for some time a Christian-forbearance [Page] towards them that observ'd it, in obedience to Moses's Law in the Old Covenant.

Again, BETWEEN W. R's opposing that Doctrine, That the Tree of Knowledge was not good for Food, as not knowing on what Foot of Truth any one can SO assert. And his saying, I would not be under [...]ood to reflect on ALL, that have used that Expression, viz. The Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food, Part 2. p. 27, 29. Our Question on this contradiction, is, Q. 1. If he counts the Doctrine erronious, or not of the Truth, to say, that the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food; does not this reflect on all that have used that Expression? And 2dly, In commendation of the Tree of Knowledge as good for Food, as in it self, he instanced John 17.3. This is Life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent; adding that 'Tis evident that Knowledge is the Way to Life, Part 2. p. 28. Hereupon we put the Question; Q. 3. Did God forbid the Knowledge of himself? the Knowledge which is Life eternal? that Knowledge which is the Way to Life, to man in the state of Innocency in the beginning? Let this be considered. And, Q 4. Can it be good Doctrine to say, That the Serpent perswaded Eve to that Knowledge which [Page] is the way to Life, or to the Knowledge of the true God and Jesus Christ, which is Life eternal? Could THAT be the Knowledge that God forbad Man eat of? Were not this very absurd, to render the Serpent more kind to Man than his Maker was?

Is it not here apparent, that we have informed the Reader, that 'tis not right to esteem the Tree of Knowledge good for Food? As also on his contradiction in pleading one while For them who Freely pay Tythes without constraint (i. e. to the National Ministry.) Another while for J. W. and J. S. Their Testimony against Tythes, as being (as at this day paid) Antichristian, Part 2. p. 43. and Part 4. p. 39. On which we observe and question, Whether the Liberty W. R. has here granted for the free payment of Tythes, be not an Innovation, tending to beget into a Looseness and Apostacy from our antient Christian Testimony against Tythes? And whether it be not contradictory to J. W. and J. S. their Testimony cited by himself? Accuser, &c. p. 224, 225.

What's more plain, than that his Liberty or Freedom granted for the payment of Tythes, is wrong and inconsistent with our antient Christian Testimony?

2dly, That W. R's Charge before recited, [Page] contains Self-contradiction and Judgment against himself (though in it self untrue against the Pen-man) is evident in his judging, that his Notes and Remarks do not inform the Reader what is right, or what is wrong, in the matter of Contradiction charg'd against him; and for which Omission he does not commend either the Honesty or Justice of the Pen-man, &c. or his care over the Flock.

Now though the Injustice and Falshood of this Charge is already fully detected, observe how obviously W. R. hath hereby brought Judgment upon himself, concerning the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, to his being told, That he seems to account it good for Food. To this he answers, viz. Nothing said by me, or cited as my Words by themselves, shews either opposition or assent to such Doctrine, p. 51. Neither have I written any thing to shew my own sence either way (viz. whether the Tree of Knowledge was or was not good for Food.) p. 50. This is all one, as for W. R. to tell us, That he doth not inform the Reader what is Right or what is Wrong, in this matter of Controversie; that is, Whether it be Right or Wrong to say, the Tree of Knowledge is good for Food?

If nothing writ or said by him, doth shew his own sence either way, he would [Page] be angry if I should make a Similitude Between him and the Jesuits, in his reserve in this point; When they contend against the Opinions of others, but reserve and hide their own: And if then it be both Dishonesty and Injustice, not to inform the Reader what's right, or what's wrong, in things contrary as before intimated) then where's W. R's Honesty or Justice in this matter? How evidently is he here self-condemned and judged? How manifold and numerous are his Contradictions! Now, William, consider what Labyrinths of Confusion thou runnest into.

§. 5. And William, I cannot well but take notice of thy Postscript, of somewhat above a Page, what a slighty Answer and scornful PUT-OFF it is. To the Book given forth by four of our Friends of the City of Bristol, entituled, An Exalted Diotrephes Reprehended, against thy Christian-Quaker, &c. in five parts. Instead of a solid Answer, or sober Vindication of thy self, from their Charge against thee, as being of an abusive lavish Tongue, of a rude, insolent and imperious Behaviour in Men's Meetings, and speaking prophanely of the Power of God: To these things thou sayst, viz. All which I return as Dirt, unworthily cast on me—Such their Calumniations are [Page]meerly because of my zealous opposing them and others, &c. And then further sayest, There are few men so weak as (on serious consideration) to believe GENERAL CALVMNIATIONS against a man once well esteemed by the Calumniators: Let this be minded, and their Answer duely weighed, and then 'twill appear that nothing of weight in the said Book is written against me, p. 79. [Thus far thou.]

Oh miserable Evasion, Fallacy and Falshood! with what Conscience couldst thou thus write, (William) as if their said Book and Answer consisted but of General Calumniations against thee, (What reason is there to credit thy general denyal?) which I am sure is a shameful and notorious Untruth. Take one instance out of many more, wherein they charge thee with particular matter of Fact, and that is about the Paper of Condemnation, or Submission, which was exhibited and owned by J.S. and J. W. at the Meeting at Drawell in Yorkshire, Anno 1676. when afterward they were minded to extenuate (or take off) the weight of it, not owning it according to the common acceptation of A Condemnation, &c. as the said Friends of Bristol relate: Hereupon they do particularly charge thee (William) about the same Paper, in these Words, viz. And William Rogers, [Page] (who confessed he drew it for J. S. and J. W.) reported, There was nothing in it, and that the most Innocent man amongst us might own it, and never hurt himself, and that it was not better than a RATTLE to please Children; See their said Book, entituled, An Exalted Diotrephes Repre. p. 13. And not only in this, but in divers other particular matters they also charge thee home in their Book; and also signifie, that they do not think it necessary at present, to particularize thy prophane speaking concerning the Power of God, no more than they have already done concerning thy horrible unsincere dealing with the Brethren at Drawell, &c. Exalt. Diotreph. p. 17.

Now (William) didst not thou render thy self horribly unsincere, in declaring the said Paper, (which thy self drew up) no better than a Rattle to please Children? after thou knewst that J. S. & J. W. had tendered it as satisfaction to their Brethren, and the Church of God in general (as their own and thy Words are in it.) Didst thou think to please those Brethren, and the Church of God in general, with a Rattle for Children? Oh, William! was not this particular matter of Fact, and that very gross and absurd? How didst thou resemble the Ranters therein, and bewray great and [Page] horrid Deceit to have entred thee? I cannot in Charity think that the Devil had got so much hold of thee at that instant, when thou drewst up that said Paper at Drawell, as to intend it only as a Rattle to please Children; for thy own Narrative bespeaks better, and more serious things of Friends and Brethren, in their proceedings there towards J. S. and J. W. Surely then thou wast in a better and more serious and sincere mind at that time: But I rather think the Devil prevailed with thee afterward, after thou hadst eaten the Sop among the Disciples, and in the time of thy (and parties) discontented and murmuring Consultations, Satan entred thee, to devise that deceitful and Ranter-like cover and evasion of the said Paper, being but As a Rattle to please Children; Though at first tendred as Satisfaction to the Church of God in general.

Thus thy Fallacy, (in particular matter of fact) is detected, also in slighting and huffing off the said Friends Book, but as General Calumniations, and therefore nothing of weight in it; when there's such particular matter of notorious Fact charg'd upon thee in it, as thou canst not get over, nor acquit thy self of.

And what men are so weak (on serious consideration) as to believe thy general [Page] Calumniations against either Persons, People or Society, once well esteemed, by thee a Calumniator? Or to esteem thee and thy Abettors The Christian-Quaker, and all whom thou calumniatest to be Apostates and Innovators, according to thy Judgment? How wilt thou clear thy self from a meer begging the Question in both? which is never likely to be granted to thee as the case stands, according to thy own terms, and supposition cast upon us for our owning our selves to be the Church of Christ, p. 45, 61. thou having been once in society with us, and didst well esteem of us, but now not only gone out from us, but turn'd bitter Enemy against us, whilst no probation made on thy part, either of our violating or disserting our first Principles of our Christian Union and Society, which thy Brother F. Bugg hath most sillily, yet maliciously attempted to prove against William Penn, Stephen Crisp, John Burnyeat, Alexander Parker, Thomas Salthouse and My Self, from a Paper signed by us from a yearly Meeting, Anno 1675. wherein the sence and tender advice of the said Meeting is propounded in several matters of moment, all which, (in conclusion) are recommended to the Evidence of Gods holy Witness in the Hearts of his People. Where's now the Imposition, Antichristian Apostacy or Violence done to [Page] our first Principles of Union, charged on us by Francis Bugg, from this very Paper aforesaid, in his Book, De Christiana Libertate? W. R. dost thou allow of the said Paper thus recommended as a sufficient proof of the Subscribers Apostacy and Imposition? I am sure thou hast exprest the contrary. Now W. R. and F. B. clear your selves from begging the Question, if you can, by plain Evidence of your own Christianity and our Apostacy.

William, thou farther calumniatest and abusest our said Bristol Friends in thy Postscript, saying, R. V. is known to be as busie to go in the Second day's Meetings Errands, as an hired Apparitour is to go in the Errands of a Bishops Court. And that R. S. and C. H. thou takest to be fitly qualified, to say ANY THING, right or wrong to defame thee; accusing one of them with a Lying Spirit entred him, p. 79, 80

These Persons of Bristol, whom thou calumniatest are well known, both to their Neighbours and others, who I am perswaded will not give credit to thee therein▪ Thy scornful Invectives against them will go but a little way with those who know the honesty and good Repute of the Persons whom thou here writest against, and their deep suffering, with many more for Conscience towards God, which it appears thou hast [Page] little regard to, or sence of, who whilst they are suffering under strait Confinement and Duress in a Nacious Goal in the City of Bristol, for their tender Consciences (as they were when this thy Book (7th part) came forth, and as many yet are) thou art secure in a Corner, studdying and scribling against them, to calumniate and defame them in Print, as men of no Conscience towards God, fitly qualified to say any thing, right or wrong, a Lying Spirit entred, &c. Such is thy Treatment to the Prisoners of Jesus Christ, to add Affliction to their Bonds, and to make void their Testimony and Suffering for his Names sake. And not only thus, but thou art cruelly mocking, flouting and deriding at them, telling a story against one of these suffering Friends of Bristol, which thou sayst, occasioned Derision and Laughter; and that by a Lying Spirit entred them (thou sayst) they may become a derision, both to Professor and Prophane, and a scorn to Fools themselves, p. 80. No doubt thy scornful and malicious Work against them (though otherwise under Persecution and Suffering) and against many others fearing God, is to make them as ridiculous, and as much the Subjects of scorn and derision as thou canst; but 'twill all return upon thy own head, thou wilt reap the fruit of thy own doings. Thy pretended [Page] Love, Christian Charity, Lamentation for thy Brethren, &c. (in thy hypocritical Epistle directed to the flock of God) go but a little way it seems; but that and other Instances of thy Insincerity and Dissimulations are numerous.

§. 6. And with what Sincerity or Conscience, couldst thou not only pretend an inclination toward an accommodation of the Controversie, but also propose to our second day's Meeting for thee To read thy Answer, (viz. thy 7th part, when in Print) amongst us, and after so done to leave it with us, and to pretend, thy end was, that if the Meeting should that day propose any expedient, answering the Witness of God in thy Conscience, to stop the Publication thereof, thou shouldst then answer the same by forbearing a further Publication thereof, as in thy Letter, dated, London, the 17th of the 2d Moneth, 1682? pag. 80.

I do still question, with what sincerity or conscience thou couldst make such Proposition, and pretend such an end in it to that our Meeting, when thou hadst already prejudged the same Meeting in Print, as being Apostate Innovators, &c? What capacity could such be in to answer the Witness of God in thy Conscience, if apostatiz'd from it in themselves? And what ground couldst [Page] thou have to expect such a change in them from Apostacy, as that Now (when thou proposedst the reading thy Book) they might be in a capacity to reach thy Conscience, as thou sayst? p. 82. Besides, can any in reason suppose thee real or sincere in thy Proposition for an expedient to stop the Publication of thy Book of about twelve Sheets, when already Printed? Was not the design of thy Proposition rather for a pretence to excuse thy self, and for a flourish over us, as thou hast made an empty one, and what hast thou got by it?

And was it not manifest, that thou wast still at least jealous of our said Meeting, as being Apostate, in thy not being free then to answer our three Questions, which were very proper, to try the reality of thy own Proposition, and thy end pretended thereof, in order to our hearing thy said Book read. The Questions were these, viz.

Question 1. Whether thou art sensible thou hast done evil or hurt to Truth in the Publication of thy great Book, entituled, The Christian-Quaker distinguished, &c?

Quest. 2. Whether thou hast any better thoughts of our Second day's Meeting now, than thou hadst when thou wrotest that Book, as not now to esteem the said Meeting Apostate, &c?

[Page]Quest. 3. Whether thou lookest upon the said Meeting now in a capacity to answer the Witness of God in thy Conscience?

To which thou only gave us this return, viz. I am not free to answer at present.

Our Reason for the Questions was, That we might not spend our time in vain, or to no effect, in hearing thy Book read, which we should do, if we should undertake it, and have no assurance of thy having any better thoughts then of our said Meeting, than to deem it Apostate? Or if thou didst not then look upon it as capable to answer the Witness of God in thy Conscience? To which thou not being then free to answer, we might very well then not be free to hear thy Book read among us, nor be so imposed upon, as to spend our time upon such uncertainty, having no probability of thy performing thy own Proposition, with respect to the end proposed, whilst not prov'd sincere or Christian on thy parts Therefore thy Reflection upon our said Meeting, and supposing us like a Company of lazy or guilty Priests, for our refusal to suffer the reading of thy said Book amongst us, is both very unjust and scornful, and bespeaks thy Lording Imposing Spirit, thus infamously to upbraid us for not implicitly giving up to spend our precious time to answer thy prejudicate will and humour [Page] upon thy reserved dark uncertainty. And also as a farther aggravation of thy Injustice and Prejudice, thy taking our said Meeting's Treatment of thee on this occasion, to be an Evidence of our affection to sit on the Seat of Vnrighteous Judgment. This also is thy unrighteous Conclusion and false Judgment upon our affection, and is no ways naturally deducible from our forementioned Treatment of thee.

I have omitted many other Instances of thy abuse of Truth and Friends, leaving the righteous God to reckon with thee for all thy injurious dealing and hard speeches, as thou seemest to refer the Pen man to such a Reckoning, pag. 46, 63. The Lord awaken thee out of this hardened gain-saying state, and deliver them that are betray'd by the Enemy, and preserve his Heritage in love and peace over this scornful, exalted, conceited, crooked, quarrelsom apostate Spirit. The Lamb shall have the Victory.

CHAP. VII.
A Letter in Two Parts, Which was sent in Manuscript to Francis Bugg, Except two Passages left out in favour to him, unless he will further expose himself to danger thereby.

[Page]

IN the first part, his fraudulent dealing against Samuel Cater about the 15 l. Fine. His Abuses against him and others. His Conceitedness, Pride, Scorn and Shallowness are detected and reprehended.

In the Second part of the Letter, relating to Francis Bugg's Book, is evinced, 1. His unjust Reflection on the people call'd Quakers, and his being turned Informer. 2. His Judgment in espousing and presenting false Doctrine against the divine Light of the Son God in man. 3 His unjust Charge, and the collection thereof against certain Persons among us by name, who are the Servants of Christ, and against our faithful Womens [Page] Meetings. 4. His Instances for Proof of his Charge and Contempt, no proof thereof. 5. His Opposition to our Testimony for Mens and Womens Meetings in the Church of Christ; and his scoffing and smiting thereat, no proof of his Charge, nor of their having No Relation to Scripture. 6. His upbraiding our sober and faithful Womens Meeting as an Idol, and comparing it to the Papists great Idol; rebuked. 7. The same Challenge returned upon him, that we laid upon W. Rogers, being unanswered by either. 8. His Rambling impertinently, not following the terms of the Challenge, which therefore is further urged against him. 9. His charge of Imposition plainly proved false by the conclusive Recommendation of our Testimony instanced by him. 10. His grosly belying and abusing G. W. and his Conscience about Condescention and Accommodation. 11. His scornful Forgery on a Certificate from Huntington Meeting: His falsly representing them therein, proved very wicked, on his own Concession. 12. His scornful detraction against R. Richardson, his Impertinency and silliness in opposing DEACONESSES, as found out of some Popish Author, &c. 13. His scornfully writing and reflecting on G. Whitehead; and his insolent Reviling, Boasting, Abuse and Slander, confuted by Certificate from divers Persons of [Page] Credit. 14. His trumpeting abroad the Fame of Henry North, Knight, &c. disgustful. A Proposition and Advice to Repentance and publick and plain Condemnation of his Wicked and Scurrilous Book aforesaid, with desire of an Answer shortly, &c. [But no such Answer (nor any) as yet return'd, being now above six weeks since this Letter was left at Ely Prison with Samuel Cater▪ to be conveyed to him] With a Postscript since added.

The First Part.

Francis Bugg;

UPon the perusal of thy two Letters lately sent me, the one directed to Samuel Cater in Ely Goal, and the other to my self, and the rest of the second day Meeters (as thy terms are.) And since thou art become such an open contending Adversary, I thought my self the more concerned in Conscience to take some notice, and give thee my sence of thy proceeding and treatment in the Controversies thou hast so confidently undertaken, and become an officious Advocate in, that yet thou mayest be cautioned to stop thy pernicious Current, and destructive Race thou art running, and seriously bethink thy self, and Repent, before thy final Destruction▪ which I clearly perceive thy extraordinary Conceitedness,[Page]Pride, Scorn and Envy, &c. do tend to bring upon thee. By the way, I observe thy Allegations against Samuel Cater, about the old Difference between thee and him so long depending, touching the FINE laid upon thee for him, as a Preacher, for which thou confessest, That thy Cousin George Smith, as his Wifes Agent, made thee Restitution; and yet I perceive thou art uneasie under that Restitution (as thou callest it) thou seemest concerned that several Friends now bring up that old concern, since thou published thy Book. But how did George Smith make thee Restitution? Did not he proffer thee half the Fine to stop thy Turbulency? but thou by Craft got beyond him for the whole, &c. wherein he and many more are greatly dissatisfied; and which, if the Friends in those parts give a circumstantial Narrative of the whole transaction, and of thy Selfish Craft, Over-reaching and Fraudulency in that case, and be as free in their Publication, as thou hast been against many faithful Servants of Christ, in thy confused scurrilous piece of Impertinent Prate, Malice and Scorn, I am perswaded it will greatly redound to thy Dis-repute and Infamy in the Eyes of all sorts of intelligent Persons, and lower thy Topsail to thy great abasement, shame and confusion of Face. Thou makest thy own terms for the [Page] repayment of the whole 15 l. that thy Cousin George Smith (thou sayest) by S Cater's Wifes order, paid thee in Satisfaction for the Fine, thou suffered from him (as thou pretendest) And now I have the Money (sayest thou.) But I never yet understood that Samuel Cater's Wife did order him to pay the whole 15 l. neither would he have done it, but that thou madest him believe, It was not for love of Money thou wouldst have the whole tendred, &c. for thy Word's sake ▪ Thou confessest he first proffered thee 5 l. and when THAT would not do, he proffered thee 7 l. 10 s.

Thus far it seems was his proffer to pacefie the business on thy part: The other part, to make it up 15 l. he did deposit, in expectation thou wouldst return it him, so he understood by thy smooth and crafty Pretensions, That THY END WAS NOT FOR MONEY, &c. Thus he, poor, well-meaning man was insnared, and S. Cater become the sufferer. But upon what account got'st thou the whole 15 l from him, seeing the Penalty of the Conventicle Act doth not exceed 10 l. upon a Hearer, for the Poverty of the Preacher, or in default of his payment? And yet hast thou the boldness to assert, That if the Justice please, he may lay the 20 l. upon any single Person present, of the Hearers. But by what Law may he [Page] do so; if the Pena [...]ty upon any one for anothers Offence amount not in the whole, to above the sum of 10 l. as 'tis twice over limited in the Conventicle Act? For though the Justice be impowered to levy the 20 l. by Warrant, as aforesaid (as the Words of the Act are) ‘Vpon the Goods and Chattels of any such PERSONS, who shall be present at the same Conventicle, in case the Preacher be a Stranger, and his Name and Habitation not known, or is fled, and cannot be found, or in the judgment of the Justice, shall be thought unable to pay the same.’ Note, that 'tis upon any such PERSONS, in the Plural, not upon any one Person the Fine is so to be levied; 'tis to be proportioned, so as that no one Person shall be lyable to pay above 10 l. for any one Meeting, in regard of the Poverty of any other Person or Persons, as the express Words of the Act are. See what a mistaken Lawyer thou art. And was not the said 15 l. an arbitrary punishment of thy own inflicting, both Illegal and Extrajudicial? What an arbitrary Persecutor wast thou therein? Mayest thou not be ashamed to cry out against Imposition, arbitrary Authority, and yet be such an arbitrary Imposer, and thy own Carver, to serve thy own fraudulent Enterprizes? IGNOBLE AND BASE! And now to excuse thy arbitrary, extorsive [Page] Fraud, to assert that which is contra formam Statuti [...] in the case: Be ashamed of such Collusion. I cannot but take notice of thy saying, Thou toldst him thou wouldst have the whole tendred, which done, thou shouldst make it appear that thy End was NOT ONLY for Money. And how rarely hast thou mended the matter now? Thou madest him believe 'twas not for love of Money; but now to mince and smooth it over, thy end was not ONLY for Money: It seems thy end was then in a great part for Money; but thou shouldst have told him plainly aforehand how far thy end was for Money, and how far 'twas not for Money, that so he might not have been defrauded out of the whole 15 l. and thereby poor Samuel Cater his Wife and Children sufferers in their Estate, meerly for quietness sake, from thy complaints and clamours; if thy end was not ONLY, but PARTLY for Money, thou mightst have been content with half of the 15 l. which G. Smith proffered thee; but it seems thy end was so WHOLLY for Money, that thou wouldst have the WHOLE Fifteen Pound, according to thy own account: Thus Selfish, Arbitrary and Avaricious wast thou. What a mean shift is it therefore for thee to say, Thy end was not ONLY for Money? We see what sorry shifts and slighty Subterfuges a bad Cause must have. [Page] And as a person conscious to thy self, disquieted and uneasie for a pretence, thou now makest this Proposition (namely) S. Cater's signing a Paper like this which follows, of thy own forming; and then thou wilt return the whole 15 l. Thy Paper is this, viz.

Francis Bugg's Proposition implyes a Contradiction; for if Samuel Cater subscribe the Instrument, he ought not to have his Money by the tenure of it, because he told not his Name. If he do not subscribe it as his judgment, then he also ought to have his Money again, according to F. B's tenet of Christian Liberty, As not seeing it his duty; ergo he may not, or at least ought not to be compelled to suffer for it. Another contradiction is from the ground of his Law or Canon, viz. the equality in suffering For by his Rule a poor Minister must suffer 20 l when a rich Hearer, whom he ministers to, but 5 s. And he on the apparent sight of the Informer must tell his Name, when the other, but when he is asked it. Oh equal levelling Law! Are not the children of the world wiser (looking on us as Levellers) to make the rich Hearers pay the poor Preachers penalties, as well as they look on them obliged to maintain them, on their own supposition. Memorandum, That I S. Cater do hereby testifie, that is my judgment, That all Friends in the Ministry, where they are Strangers, ought to tell the Name and Habitation upon the apparent sight of the Informers coming into a meeting, taking friends names in writing, or otherwise, in order to convict the Meeting, that so we may all stand in a like suffering capacity. Or if any have not freedom thus to do, that then they[Page]ought to make satisfaction to such who suffer for them through their concealing their Names and Habitations; and that such as refuse to perform his or their part in either of these two Propositions, ought from thenceforth to be reputed blame-worthy, and noted as such▪ Witness my hand, the day above-written, per me.

[Thus far thy Prescription.]

Further adding, viz. I say, signe this Paper, or one like it, and I will return the said 15 l. for the reason aforesaid. And this thou esteem'st a Condescention sufficient.

Thus art thou become a Dictator and Prescriber and Imposer upon others: Here thou hast made a general Rule and Prescription, as condition of thy returning the 15 l. to S. C. [such an improbable condition as thou couldst not reasonably suppose would be complied with. Thus insincere thou appearest.] Here's a Canon, an Edict of thy framing, who hast made a [Page] great part of thy Book against Canons, Prescriptions, Rules, Edicts, Orders, Excommunications, &c. How consistent art thou in thy work? yea, and if the Ministers will not observe this thy Canon to perform it, then to be reputed Blame-worthy, and noted as such; and this thou wouldst have S. Cater subscribe. But thy Canon or Prescription is illegal, lame and defective; yea, it exceeds the severity and extent of the Conventicle Act, which no where compels all Friends in the Ministry, where thy are strangers, to tell their Names and Habitations upon their apparent sight of Informers coming into a Meeting and taking Friends Names in writing or otherwise; nor are any of the Meeters compelled by Law to tell their Names to Informers.

Thus Arbitrary, Illegal and Foolish too art thou in thy Canon and Constitution; thou wouldst enforce upon Friends of the Ministry, where they are strangers, who sometimes may be silent in a Meeting, and sometimes ministring when Informers come in to take Names, by thy Canon the Ministers in silence must tell their Names and Habitations to Informers, and those that are ministring must stop to tell the Informers their Names and Habitations. This illegal Imposition of thine I further except against, in that it tends to gratifie the Informers, [Page] and forward them in their designs and prosecution, for a more speedy and easie Conviction; Marg. added, Yet I do not limit Persons in this case; there may be a special occasion to tell Names for the sake of others, but not to make that a general Rule — Friends are to be left free to Gods counsel. for if they get their Names thus readily told aforehand, as thy Canon and Prescription requires, they go presently to the Justices, swear the Offence, and cause the Conviction in the absence of the party concerned. In consideration of which, divers of us, even of late time, in the Meetings at Westminster have not had freedom presently to tell our Names to Informers and Officers, to leave them to inform the Justices what they please upon Oath, without controul, in our absence, but rather we have chosen to go to the Justices, that there we may tell our Names to them, and have opportunity to object to their faces against any Mis-informations. Thus thou hast failed and shewed thy shortness and shallowness in thy imperious and illegal Prescription and Imposition.

As for thy pressing for the Preachers who are Strangers to tell their Names, as aforesaid, and so to be in an Equal capacity with the Hearers in suffering.

1st, We cannot make a Law to enjoyn them [Page] to tell their Names to Informers, which the Law requires not: I know none that refuse to tell their Names to the civil Magistrate. We know the Preachers generally are most struck at, and most liable to suffer, and the Penalties are most severe upon them, as 20 l. for a first, and 40 l. for a second Offence (so called) and if Strangers, they are not wholly free from Sufferings (as thou sayest.) But all Preachers more lyable in the first place to suffer Imprisonment, &c. than others, being most envyed and aimed at by the Persecutors.

2dly, We cannot in point of Christianity, Truth or good Conscience, deem the Preacher an Offender, if we own his Ministry, So as to lay an Obligation upon him not only to tell his Name to Informers, but to be the greatest Sufferer. Truth's interest and cause is but one in Minister and Hearer, and Christian love leads us therein to sympathize and suffer one with another in Spirit; yea, and outwardly too, if there be necessity, and not to make preaching the Gospel an offence, any more than meeting or hearing it Preacht, seeing the Labour, and Pains, and greatest Hazard commonly is the Preachers, the advantage thereof is the Hearers. And if we have true Unity with the Gospel Preachers, we shall not complain against them, because of the [Page] Fines, nor think our selves to be bound under thy Prescription or Canon, who art both in Dis-union with them, and Enmity against them, much less to follow thy Crafty method, to pay our selves out of their Estates, when fined for them, or for their not telling their Names to Informers on sight, &c.

3dly, If thou makest the Preachers such Offendors, as that for want of telling their Names to Informers, they must be Responsible to the full, or wholly for the Fines laid upon Hearers on their account, and thereupon thy Eye is so severe upon them, as if they were the greatest Offendors. This is but the same Spirit that's in the Persecutors and Informers, that's not in unity with, but in Enmity against the Gospel-Ministers. This would not lay down its Life for the Brethren, that will not suffer 5 l. or 10 l. for them: And then I presume there's no danger of thy suffering much on that account, who couldst so craftily repay thy self the whole 15 l. from Samuel Cater.

In this very Action, and thy malicious Book, thou appearest a Person more ready to turn Informer against the true Ministers and Servants of Christ, than to lose 10 l. on any of their account, by thy offensive Characters and Popish Comparisons thou hast put upon them, particularly upon George [Page]Fox, William Penn, George Whitehead, Stephen Crisp, Alexander Parker, Thomas Salthouse and John Burnyeat, whom thou hast represented in Print as Apostates, Antichristian, Innovators, Imposers, Popish, &c. for their Christian advice in divers particulars, cited by thee in thy printed Book, De Christiana Libertate, with thy scandalous defaming Observations upon them severally, from page 32. to page 57. to prove thy Unjust charge of doing Violence to our first Principles of Vnion, which they and we all utterly deny.

4thly, And the more like an Informer hast thou appeared, in ambitiously dedicating thy Book to a Great Man, i. e. Henry North, Knight, and in shewing that thou designed it for the Magistrates, in pretending to have laid before them a clear Demonstration for Liberty of Conscience; thy Book being in two Parts, as is confest in the Title, and both Bound up and made to go in one: So that if the Magistrates see the first Part for Liberty of Conscience, (which is not thy own) they are liable to see thy second Part, wherein (as an Enemy to Christian-Liberty) thou art bitterly inveighing and clamouring against many faithful Servants and Ministers of our Lord Jesus Christ (who are well approved among the People called Quakers) for their [Page] signifying and giving their Christian Advice and Sence, in things needful to be practised in the Church, whereby thou art opposing the Liberty of their Consciences, which they have in Christ Jesus; and art endeavouring to expose them as obnoxious and offensive to the Magistrate and outward Government, rendering them Tyrannical and Popish, like the Pope's Councils, &c. Thus false Informer-like, thou hast broke all Bonds of Christian Friendship, Society and Church-Order, and hast acted the part of a treacherous, persecuting Informer, in the very nature, purport and series of thy Book.

And I doubt not, but thy Infamous work will become odious to all Serious, Religious and Impartial Dissenting Protestants, the more it comes to Light, and to be strictly scand, and that thou wilt appear thereby not only as a turbulent, but perfidious, treacherous Person, and malicious Informer against thy own Society, and therefore not to be trusted by any other Societies or People, on any Religious and sociable account.

Thou hast also in thy Letter scurrilously abused and misrepresented S. Cater, J. Parks, and my self, and also the Womens Meeting, as That Samuel Cater had 10 l. presently sent him out of the Treasury from [Page]London: And that The Women's Meeting gathered so much Money for James Parks, upon his pretence of being Robbed. Both which I have made enquiry into, and find them false in Fact; Samuel Cater belyed, the Women's Meeting belyed, and James Parks belyed, in the state of these Accusations. Be ashamed therefore of such Abuses, or produce Proof both of Fact and Circumstance, as stated by thee. Be ashamed also of thy saying, James Parks acted the part of an Oliverian Preacher, or G. W. once at Snare-Hill, or like some SVCH PENSIONERS.

Didst thou ever tell me of any thing thou hadst against me at Snare-Hill? I am not Conscious to my self, but am sure thou dost shamefully belye me and J. P. in calling us Pensioners. What Pension, Wages, or yearly Stipend dost thou charge me or us withal? What an unconscionable Defamer art thou? Dost thou know what Pensioner means? This is somewhat like thy espousing and printing the Report of Nicholas Lucas's saying, That I went up and down to Cheat the Country. And thy affirming, That truly my Behaviour hath manifested the truth thereof, page 150. of thy Book.

Thus in thy Letter before, sent after me in Manuscript, without the least occasion given thee by me, that I know of; since [Page] which to amend the matter of thy Scandalous defaming abuse of me, before cited, thou addest this Parenthesis, viz. [I reckon he meant not of Money, but the People of their Liberty they have right to] Which is also a Slander and base come-off, and thousands of God's People are able to testifie against these thy defaming and insolent Lyes. I never was accounted a Cheat and Pensioner before. As also in thy calling Thomas Rudyard LYING LAWYER, for saying, Thou paidst thy Money Voluntarily before Distress was made on thy Goods: This I shewed Thomas Rudyard, and he counts it a foul abuse, slander and defamation upon his Person and Employment, to call him Lying Lawyer, supposing thou placest his Lying upon the word Voluntarily. If thou didst pay or deposit thy Fine on thy Appeal, and so prevented Distress (as he understood thou then didst at that time) he accounted it Voluntary, in respect of the Law, because the Act of Parliament in that case doth not compel thee to pay thy Fine upon entring thy Appeal; for that the Appeal may be entred within one weeks time after the Fine is paid, OR Distress made; so that 'tis in the Appealants choice whether to pay the Fine or suffer Distress first; for the Particle OR is disjunctive between both. Where is now the LYING LAWYER? [Page] Art not thou herein manifest to be the LYING DEFAMER, that hast so little regard to the Reputation or Credit of others? Where's thy Conscience, or doing as thou wouldst be done by?

Thy Envy and Defamation stops not here, but thou hast falsly accused us (of the Second days Meeting) with loving to have the Pre-eminence: He that searches and knows our Hearts, sees and will judge thy false Judgment and Abuse in this and many other things; as also in thy false and abusive Insinuation in telling of the Sums, Gratuities and large Pensions, privately extended to such (speaking of James Parks) and others of his Fraternity: And which far exceed THAT of the Bason and Platter, we usually, and with too much confidence (sayst thou) bespatter the Professors withal, seeing we do the same thing for which we condemn them only a little privater. [Thus far thy false and abusive Accusation against such as James Parks and his Brethren.]

Oh horrid Impudence and Falshood! be ashamed hereof: Thou heapest up Slanders and Defamations against the Innocent, for which God will rebuke thee. 'Tis not unknown how many of us spend our Strength, Labour and Substance in the service of the Lord and his People in many respects, wherein I for one have not had the [Page] least share, though now by thee rendred a Cheat and a Pensioner. Oh! blush and be ashamed of such abominable Lyes and scurrilous Detractions.

To conclude thy Letter, on thy falshood against the Womens Meeting gathering Money, &c. thou scornfully inferrest, that therein they have forfeited their Charter, mentioned in thy Book, p. 37. and deserves a COERANTO to be brought, &c. I cannot but take notice what a liberty thou takest to scoff, mock and jeer against our Religious Christian Womens Meeting, and how abusive and silly thou art therein, although thou hast often scornfully twitted me with the words LEARNED FRIEND, in thy Book and Letters, as if it were such a great Crime to ascribe that to any Friend, whilst yet thou art ambitious to shew thy self a learned Person. Here to shew thy Learning in the Latin Tongue, thou tellest us of a COERANTO, which is no good Latine to be sure, and thou mayst be questioned in what Language thou hadst the Expression. Q. added, If it be not Dog-Latin? I suppose thou hast lately heard Discourses of Quo Warranto about the City-Charter, upon which from thy own imaginary conceit thou writest us COERANTO in a large Italick Character, that it may appear how learned and skilled [Page] thou art in Latine and Law; and likewise we must have a Latine Title to thy Book, second Part, i. e. De Christianâ Libertate: But where thou learnedst this Title, and what stress or Emphasis canst thou place upon its being in Latine more than if it had been in English, i. e. Concerning Christian-Liberty? For Liberty of Conscience asserted, is not the English of thy Latine Title, but varies from it in the Terms, as well as in the Nature of it: And thy prosecution for Liberty of Conscience, as asserted by thee, appears a Liberty not only in opposition to Persecution, but also to our Godly Care, Advice, Counsel and Admonition, relating to good Order and Church-Government amongst us, and testified unto in our Paper opposed by thee in thy Book (from page 41, to page 51.) And if this must be the extent of thy Christian-Liberty, thou mightst better have entituled thy Book, Pro Libertate Carnali; for it seems the Liberty pleaded for by thee, admits not of Spiritual Censures, Reproofs, Advice or Judgment, according to Christ's Law exhibited, as appears by thy scurrilous opposition & infamous Characters thou givest to our said Paper, partly cited in thy Book, and most Unchristianly and Unjustly made thy great Proof of our Doing Violence to our first Principles of Vnion, and consequently [Page]turned Antichristian; and such thou renderest William Penn, George Whitehead, Alexander Parker, Stephen Crisp, Thomas Salthouse, John Burnyeat, whose Names thou hast exposed in Print, as the Persons unjustly charged by thee. But we have not yet concluded thy Learning in Coeranto, but must view a little more of it in thy Book, on the passage thou hast borrowed on trust from William Rogers his Translation, as he confesseth, for which we have only his own Authority in these Words, (viz.) Which for the sake of some, I thus Translate, (7th Part, Christian Quaker, p. 62.) 'Tis in thy 125, 126, 127, 128 pages, out of Bishop Hooper; the first Words, Scitis quod res sancta, et vera quo magis examinatur. Thou accepts his Translation hereof in these words, KNOW YE, that by how much the more, &c. Here Scitis, the very first Word, which is, Ye know, in the Indicative, is falsly translated know ye, as Scite in the Imperative; whereas by Scitis in this place was intended Indication, Demonstration, or Proof, and not imperatively Teaching; and likewise Nam quod variis modis tentatur; ac probatur, modo pium ac sanctum FVERIT, Jacturam ab hostibus nullam sentit, is thus translated (viz.) For that which is tryed and proved after various manners, if IT HATH BEEN, &c. instead of IT SHALL BE; [Page] for FVERIT is exact future (as they term it.) Many things of the Types and Shadows under the Law, as Tythes and Offerings, &c. have been holy, but shall not be again, afficitis is made afflict instead of affect, and also Legem & Evangelium Dei, are translated The Word of God, instead of The Law and Gospel of God; then at last Judicio, is, to the Judgment, when it should be more properly by the Judgment ▪ But the most material Mistake is in the very first word Scitis, falsly translated, as to the Mood.

But these Instances are only to shew thee what a ridiculous Novice and Ludibrie thou hast rendred thy self, both in Writing and Print, even to School-Boys: I saw lately a School-Boy of Eleaven Years old Laugh at thy Absurdity, as a Person wise in thy own Conceit. Yet whilst thou wouldst make a show and flourish of Learning, thou hast here taken a false Translation upon an implicit Faith and blind Credulity: Thou that art such a fierce opposer of implicit Faith and blind Obedience, and hast so often scoft at me for the Words, Learned Friend, in reference to R. R. I wonder thou art not ashamed of such scornful treatment, and medling so often with Latine, when I find thou canst not write true English in many things.

[Page]This is only a small Check to thy Pride and empty Conceits, this not being one of the absurdest Faults or Falshoods thou hast presented the World withal. Come down and be humbled before the All-seeing God.

From thy antient Friend, and yet Well-wisher, though insolently abused by thee, G. Whitehead.

Middlesex, the 22d day of the 7th Moneth, 1682.

The Second Part of the said Letter.

Francis Bugg;

NOw concerning thy Book, stiled, DE CHRISTIANA LIBERTATE, or Liberty of Conscience, &c. 1st, I observe thou beginest unjustly to accuse and reflect upon the People called Quakers in the very Title page, in these Words, viz. And the mischief of Impositions amongst the People called Quakers, &c. In two Parts. And that thou concernest the Magistracy with it, both in thy Epistle dedicated to H. North, Knight, (as being obliged to publish it for the Information of the Magistracy, &c.) as also in thy Epistle, directed [Page] to the Noble Bereans, thou concernest the Magistrates, as having in the Book prefixed (i. e. thy first Part) laid before them many weighty Arguments for Liberty of Conscience, &c. So that to the Magistrates thou hast given thy Information against the People called Quakers, as having mischievous Impositions among them; which we utterly deny; and thy Scornful Malicious Book proves it not. Thus thou art turned Informer to the Magistrates against an Innocent suffering People, whom thou hast so long walked amongst: How darest thou appear in their Meetings, and thus act the part of a treacherous, malicious Informer against them, even to the Magistrates? Oh! Blush and be ashamed of this thy hateful Work.

2dly, Thou having entituled thy self to to the matters contain'd in a Treatise, entituled, Liberty of Conscience asserted and vindicated, by thy high Commendations given of it to H. North, as Being perswaded it will be of Good Service; and (in thy Epistle to the Bereans) A clear Demonstration, &c. And in thy Preface to the Reader, of the Author, thou thus sayest, viz. His Judgment upon this Subject, is my Judgment.

Now observe what this Author's Judgment is concerning the Light in men, whereupon he chiefly placeth his Demonstration [Page] for Liberty of Conscience. In page 4. he saith, viz. Their Natural Light, derived to them from their first Creation, dictating to them what they ought to do, and what not, and enabling them to pass a Judgment upon themselves of their due behaviour towards God, &c. With some other passages of like nature in the said Treatise.

Here (Francis) thou hast presented H. North, and the Magistrates with unsound and unscriptural Doctrine, and appearest Apostate, and corrupt in thy Judgment, in calling the Light in men (which thus dictates their duty) Their natural Light, derived to them from their first Creation: Herein thou hast wrongfully informed H. N. and the Magistrates about the Principle, the Light in men, contrary to the Quakers Testimony, born from the beginning concerning the Light in men, which is according to the holy Apostle's Testimony, John 1.4, 9. that In the Word, or Son of God, was Life; and that Life was the Light of men; And that this is not a natural or created Light, but a Supernatural and Divine Light of the Christ Jesus, the Son of God.

3dly, And now (Francis) having thus misrepresented our Principle to the Magistrates, and so mis-informed them about the Light in men. Thou proceedest upon an unjust charge of Impositions against certain [Page] Persons, chiefly concerned, owned and approved among the People called Quakers, whom thou scornfully callest G. Fox, and those of Party with him; and hast exposed the Names of some of them in Print, whom thou meanest by that Party, as William Penn, George Whitehead, Stephen Crisp, Alexander Parker, Thomas Salthouse, John Burnyeat, p. 51. And what hast thou to charge all these with, that thou hast printed a Book and informed the Magistracy against them? It is The mischief of Impositions; The inconsistency betwixt the Church-Discipline, or Order and Government erected by those, Thy Charge collected. and THAT in the Primitive times (as in the Title of thy second part.) It is also, That there is Violence done to our first Principles of Vnion; Consequently Tyranny introduced, and our Society turned Antichristian, p. 32, 33. (According to W▪ P's Proposition in his Address, thus falsly applyed by thee against himself, and the rest of us before-named.) Now Francis, I must plainly tell thee, this Inconsistency and Violence charged by thee against us, we utterly deny, and the Instances thou givest do not at all prove it, ‘As first, G.F's Paper for Women's Meeting distinct, that they might be in the practice of pure Religion, to visit the Fatherless and the Widows, and to see that all be [Page] kept from the spots of the World, &c.’ [As 'tis cited at large by thee, p. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37.]

Now (Francis) where's the Inconsistency charged? Can there be an Inconsistency where there's no Contradiction, nor the least opposition? Thy judging such Women's Meetings as are for the Practice or Promotion of pure Religion, in the practical parts of it, inconsistent with the Christian-Discipline, Order and Government in the Primitive times, doth bespeak not only that thou dost not well understand what Inconsistent means, but also that thou hast undertaken a Charge thou art never able to make good. And thy charge of Violence done to our first Principles of Union is worse than Inconsistent. And thy scornfully telling of the Women's Charter and New Order, is no Proof (man) of thy Charge: Where's the Inconsistency and Violence that's charged, done by the faithful Womens Meetings among us, or by any of us, by encouraging them to meet for those Religious and Charitable ends and services mentioned? How hast thou acted the part of an ignorant conceited Scoffer, instead of proving thy Charge before cited? Besides, the very self-same Paper writ by G. F. which thou hast cited as an instance of our Inconsistency and Violence, was [Page] received, owned and approved at a Quarterly Meeting at Kendal in Westmorland, in the Year 1671. And another written in approbation thereof, and subscribed by some of thy own party, as John Wilkinson, Richard Stephanson, Henry Garnet, and Twenty one more Friends, for encouraging of the Women's assembling, and Religious Charitable Services before proposed, both which are cited at large in our Book, Entituled, The Accuser of our Brethren, from pag. 98, to p. 102. Thus contradictory art thou to some of thy own Brethren, in thy condemning the same Paper as an Imposition, Inconsistency and Violence to our first Principles, which they so plainly approved of.

4thly, Again, in pursuance of thy unrighteous Charge before cited, thou recitest four passages out of a Paper of ours, dated, London, the 27th of the 3d Moneth, 1675. which was given as our Judgment and Advice in certain things needful, for good Order among us (as we believed) The first Passage thou hast cited, is that for Marriages to be at least twice propounded to the Meetings, that are to take care therein, &c. before they are accomplished, &c. Now where's the Inconsistency here, with the Discipline in the Primitive Christian Church, or the Violence done to our [Page] first Principles of Union? Instead of proving thy charge by this instance, we have in thy Observation a piece of Scorn and Mockery, viz. This notable, if not universal Council: Their new stamped Government, p. 42. Oh! be ashamed of such Scorn and Folly! Is this thy proof of thy charge? Is it a violation to our first Principles of Union, to have Marriages proposed at least twice to the Meetings concerned? (both Mens and Womens, where both are established) However, to be twice proposed to such Meetings as are established, and to take care therein, to understand that the Persons be clear, and Friends satisfied, before the Marriage be accomplished? And this has been these many Years practised among us; and I know no true Union broken thereby, nor any violation done to our first Principles thereof: Be ashamed therefore of thy fruitless attempts, in giving such an high charge against us, when thou canst make no proof it.

5thly, Concerning our Testimony on behalf of Mens and Womens Meetings in the Church of Christ; as for their Rise and Establishment, being in the counsel of God, and for the encouraging Faithful and Grave Women therein, and to admonish them that discountenance or weaken their Hands in the Work and Service of the Lord, &c. [Page] Thou callest this A Decree, a decretal Order; This New fashioned Edict, p. 45, 46. And sayst, It has no relation to Scripture-Authority, Precept or President; no relation to the Example of the Holy men of God recorded in Scripture, nor any command of God or Jesus Christ. Why no Relation to them? How provest thou that? what because we have not every particular circumstance of Persons and things exprest? Whence it follows not that this has no relation to Scripture or President, &c. Holy Women and Sisters in the Faith, Elder Widdows that were honourable, and Deaconesses, did many Religious and Charitable Services in the Primitive Christian Churches: What then might they not meet and confer together for one anothers help and encouragement in those Services they had, and were frequently imployed in? Can it either be a violence to their Principles of Union for such to meet together? or have their Assemblies no relation to Scripture? What contrariety thereto have they? Surely we alwayes accounted our Religious Meetings, to serve one another in Love, consistent with our Union and the Principles thereof. And so for Godly Women to meet for those Religious and Charitable ends and Services, for which their Assemblies are intended, must needs be consistent with the same Principles of Love and [Page] Union, and tend to the Increase thereof, and not to the Violation thereof, as thou hast falsly charged. Upon our Admonition, ‘Not to discountenance or weaken their Hands in the Work and Service of the Lord.’ Thou maketh this observation, viz. See what a strict and severe admonition is uttered forth, even as if it had come from the Pope's Council of Jesuits and crafty Fryars, [Scoffing and Smiting still at the Womens Meetings] p. 46, 47.

How now (Francis) is this thy treatment and comparison of us? Hadst thou no better than the Pope's Council of Jesuits and crafty Fryars to compare us unto, in our Testimony and Admonition? Oh! be ashamed of such foul, sordid, and scornful, and false treatment, who instead of proving thy Charge of Inconsistence and Violence, as before, now abuseth us, mocks and scoffs, and scandallizeth us, like a conceited proud Fool.

6thly, Be ashamed also of thy scornfully upbraiding us with our Womens Meetings, as an Idol of our own erecting; and asking, Why should it not publickly be brought to Light, and made as manifest as the Lord Cromwell made the Papists great Idol, to wit, the Rood of Grace (which had goggling Eyes, and would smile when a good Gift was offorded to it) when he caused it to be brought to Paul's Cross, where [Page]the People tore it all to pieces, in King Henry the 8ht's time, p. 47.

Oh, thou ungodly Wretch and malicious Informer! is this a fit Comparison and Instance to present the Magistrates with, against our Christian, Religious, Charitable and Sober Womens Meetings? And dost thou under such an abominable and odious Comparison thus expose them to the Magistrates, for their Meetings, to be torn to pieces? Thou vile Wretch, blush and be ashamed of such malicious, scornful and defaming Impertinences, thus instead of proving thy before-cited Charge, to act the malicious, reviling and false accusing Informer against God's People; then scornfully concludest thy Observation with these words, viz. This notable, not Scriptural, but Anti-scriptural Edict, p. 48. Which is a false Conclusion, without Premises, and a shameful begging the Question, wherein thou art an Imposer; for not one sentence or word in all that said Paper of our sence and Advice hast thou proved ANTI-SCRIPTVRAL, or directly contrary to Scripture, as thy terms are, p▪ 79. Thou shouldst then have shewn us what Scripture forbids either faithful Womens Assembling, or those Religious and Charitable ends and services proposed, which their Meetings are [Page] intended for? I dare challenge thee in this to prove thy charge of Anti-scriptural.

7thly, I do affirm, thou art so far from making good thy Charge, that for all thy Attempts, I have still occasion to return the same charge upon thee that we did upon William Rogers, which for a pretence thou citest, but dost not answer it, p. 39. viz.

‘What new and unchristian Doctrines and Practices are we fallen into? We find no proof nor discovery thereof in all thy Book.’ I do profess seriously (however thou scoffingly callest me a notable serious George) ‘I see no cause nor reason thou shewest for the great noise & rumble thou makest about outward Laws, Prescriptions, Orders, Edicts or Decrees, outward form of Government, Apostacy, Innovation, Impositions, Lording over Faith, over Conscience, &c. (To which I may add thy terms, Womens Charter, Grant, Confirmation, New Order, Decretal Order, New fashion'd Edict, Popes Council, Papists great Idol, Canonical Rules, New spiritual Lords, Decrees, Canons, Edicts of Men, Tyrannical proceedings, &c.) whilst thou shewest to us no unjust, no unlawful nor uncomely Order or Proceedings amongst us, as a People, nor yet givest us any Catalogue or Instance of those Impositions, Innovations, New Doctrines or Practices brought in and received amongst us, which [Page] are INCONSISTENT with our first Testimony to the Light and Grace of God within, and teaching thereof, or thereby condemned as Evil, or wholly unnecessary in themselves (as our words are.)’

8thly, This thou dost not answer, but Marvellest that G. Whitehead should have the Confidence thus to call for a Catalogue of New Orders that are introduced among us; or rather (sayst thou) Impudence to deny such things as are every Moneth put in practice among us. And therefore sayst, thou wilt bring forth Proof and President; first the Confirmation of the Foundation of the Womens Meetings, namely, G. F's Order by a general Council held at London, 1675.

To all which I must tell thee, thou dost not follow the terms of the Challenge, but ramblest impertinently, telling us of New Orders, such things, the Confirmation of the Foundation of the Womens Meetings, &c. but provest not those things (nor one thing) practised among us as a People; or that first Confirmation, as thou falsly callest it, to be Inconsistent with (or contrary to) our first Testimony to the Light and Grace of God within, and teachings thereof. 'Tis not thy making a noise with New Orders, Decrees, &c. shall serve thy turn in this point; but I challenge thee to prove that the setting up and encouraging our faithful [Page] Womens Meetings are contrary to the Light and Grace of God within and teachings thereof. This is matter thou hast undertaken to bring proof and president for. This is close to the terms of our Challenge, and thou hast but made shuffling, slubbering work about it.

9thly, Moreover, what we propounded in our Paper aforesaid, (which thou callest The Confirmation by a general Council held at London, Anno 1675. and which thou hast instanced for proof of thy Charge of Inconsistency and Violence, and consequently as Antichristian) was tenderly concluded in these terms, viz. ‘All which we recommend to the Evidence of Gods holy Witness in the Hearts of his People. Query added. I do seriously ask William Rogers, if this Paper of ours, thus Recommended, be sufficient proof of Imposition, and being turned Antichristian? I desire plain Answer hereunto, in relation to what he has granted for a Recommendation, &c.’ Why didst thou not take notice of this Conclusion, to have prevented thy false charge of Imposition, wherein thou hast contradicted thy Brother William Rogers; for he hath divers times assented to and own'd the giving advice and counsel by way of Recommendation, distinguishing that from Imposition, as his own Books and Words are evidence. But thou cryst out, Impositions, [Page]Inconsistency, Violence to our first Principles of Vnion, on that very same Paper which is concluded by way of Recommendation to the Evidence of Gods holy Witness in the Hearts of his People. And to this and other Papers of Advice, Judgment, &c. thou hast opposed Liberty of Conscience, and so made void Spiritual Censures, contrary to the very Author thou hast printed, owned and espoused, as being of the same Judgment with thee, where he saith, pag. 138. part 1. ‘'Tis very fit, that wheresoever you will suppose Errors to be sprung up, all the means Christ hath appointed for that end should be used to suppress them, and reclaim Men from them: Let their Mouthes be stopped with sound Doctrine and Spiritual Censures. The only Question is about the use of the Temporal Power in such things.— Principles and Opinions in the Mind were never extinguished by the punishing the Body.’ Here his Liberty of Conscience pleaded, is not from spiritual Censures, as thou hast perverted it, but from corporal Punishments.

10thly, Whereas in our Book, Accuser, &c. pag. 127. we signified, that having these things in our Eye, viz. ‘The great ends of true Religion and Christian Society, a godly Care over one another, provoking one another to Love and good Works, we can the more easily concur [Page] and accord, as to Circumstances and outward Methods; and in the Wisdom of God so to condescend one to another, and accommodate matters, as not to divide about them, &c.’

Against this thou exceptest, in these words, viz. p. 96. I marvel that the Author of the Accuser, &c. which is said to be G. Whitehead, should have the Confidence thus to appear in Print, when his own Conscience tells him the contrary, instancing R. Smith of Colne, as not admitted to have his Wife, because he would not go into the Womens Meeting: The grand Opposer was G. W.—It may evidently appear how far G. W. was from Accommodation or Condescention, which he fallaciously pretends to the World, in order to deceive them, to cover their Deceit, Hypocrisie and Arbitrary Church-Government, Dominion and Lordship, &c. p. 97.

And to aggravate the matter against G. W. in page 129. thou sayst, That the pretence of the Author of the Accuser, to Condescention and Accommodation is fallacious and false, and a meer piece of feigned Hypocrisie to amuse the Reader and delude the World. And likewise in pag. 150. thou art smiting at G. W. on the same account.

Here thou hast brought my name upon the Stage in Print, but hast most grosly belyed me and abused me, as to my Conscience, [Page] in saying it tells me the contrary. Be ashamed of this thy presumptious bespattering and abusing me in Print; for my Conscience tells me, I was real in what I proposed in Condescention and Accommodating matters, and that I was no deceiver therein, as thou proudly slanderest me. The Condescention and Accommodation was to those that had the great ends of true Religion, Christian care and love one to another in their Eye; it was to the upright and tender hearted, and not to the exalted, hard and wilful. And I gave my Christian and tender Advice to the Person who then proposed his Intention, in order to convince him of the reasonableness of what I proposed, and he shewed no reason against it, but remained stiff and pertinacious, which I cannot impute to a real tender Conscience; the woman was tender and flexible, and of a better Spirit. Therefore be ashamed of abusing and belying me in Print, as for appearing in Print contrary to my Conscience, as thou hast shamefully belyed me, and so falsly informed the Magistrates against me, as about Condescention and Accommodation (and divers other things) about which I must farther tell thee, The condescention of primitive Christians was to them of low degree, the strong in bearing with the weak, bearing one anothers burthens, and so fulfilling [Page] the Law of Christ. The Persons unto whom the Condescention was, were in a measure of the same faith and love; it was not to false Brethren (such as thou art) or to false Apostles, deceitful Workers, who caused Divisions, &c. false Brethren that watched with an evil Eye, to such the true Apostle gave not place by subjection, no, not for an hour: What Apostolical condescention was then given to them? There was an Apostolical authority and sharpness, against such evil Agents of Strife and Division (such as thy self) that they should be marked, as well as a condescention to weak (yet upright-hearted) Brethren.

11thly, In the Certificate, printed by thee from Huntington-Meeting, to the Quarterly-Meeting in the Isle of Ely, about the said R. S. his publishing his Intentions of taking to Wife A. O. of Aldred, but grieved some Friends by rejecting their Counsel; After some Friends, there's this Parenthesis added, viz. [Perhaps Richard Jobson and Tobias Hardmeat, G. Fox's two principal Studs in that Country.] This looks like a scornful Forgery of thy own framing and addition; And I find no Advertisement to distinguish or except it as thy own, as thou hast done in thy Letter to W. P. about the Copy of Orders Recorded as Your Canon (as thou scornfully callest [Page] them) in the Quarterly—verbatim, Parenthesis excepted (sayst thou) p. 139. Remember thou hast confessed, That to expose and falsly represent a People, would be very wicked; and such a Practice is, and ever was hated of God & good men, p. 208. Yet after thou hast promised to recite the said Certificate, p. 96. thou hast, as before, inserted the said scornful Parenthesis, viz. [Perhaps R. Jobson and T. Hardmeat, G. Fox's two principal Studs in that Country] p. 97, 98. Unto which thou hast subscribed Jasper Robins, Edward Neel, William Whitehead, James Parris, Thomas Bundy, Richard Tayler, Thomas Bagly, Nathaniel Cawthorn, Nathaniel Neel. Now I am perswaded, that these very Persons, Jasper Robins, and the rest, if they come to observe the said scornful Parenthesis inserted in their said Certificate, unto which their Names are subscribed, as well as the rest of it, and that without such Advertisement or Exception, as before, they'l look upon it, and judge it as thy own Scurrility and gross Forgery, and thereupon they may testifie against thee, for exposing and falsly representing them in Print, to that which is none of theirs, and that therefore thou hast done that which is very Wicked, a practice that is and ever was hated of God and good Men, according to thy own Sentence.

[Page]12thly, Whereas in thy printed Letter to Friends of our Meeting in London, thou sayest, That R. R. needed not be admired by G. W. in Print, for his great Learning, nor perhaps had not, only he hath found out some History, or Popish Author, which sayes, there were Deaconesses as well as Deacons; which (sayst thou) was helpful to G. W. in his Preaching and Disputing for Womens Meetings lately in Huntingtonshire, and elsewhere, &c. p. 178.

Thou mightest have forborn these and other scornful Detractions, cast upon R. R. and my self, and upbraiding him with, Oh! Profound Learning, Logick &c. He can easily answer thy Impertinencies and Silliness, and evince thy Pride and Conceit, in meddling with Learning and Logick, which thou hast so little of. As for R. R. he is known to be learned both as a Man and a Christian; yet not admired by me for any acquired parts; though without offence, he may be allowed his due in those things, without admiration or boasting, and therein to be prefered to thy self, who neither writest good English, nor understandest divers words of Learning thou makest use of improperly and impertinently, which I do not mention to detract from and upbraid thee, meerly because of such defect in Learning, but rather as a Reproof to thy [Page] high Conceit, and busying thy self so much in Scribling, and that about matters beyond thy capacity to mannage, or render a Reason to decide, and that thou mayest see that there are others can see and discover thy Ignorance and shallow Conceits, as even in this thy Objection against Deaconesses, concluding, That only R. R. hath found out some History or Popish Author, which says, there were Deaconesses as well as Deacons. In this thou hast shewn as well a great deal of ignorance of History, as scorn and contempt; yea, not only Ignorance in that, but Presumption too, and as little Learning to be sure, in other respects, to place the proof of Deaconesses so indifferently upon some History or Popish Author, as if there were so little difference or distinction, but that if it be some History, then it may as well be said some Popish Author; however, thou knowest not whether it be some History or Popish Author. But to correct such Ignorance and Presumption, there are Histories and Authors which are not Popish, yea, divers Protestant Authors, which affirm Deaconesses to have been in the Primitive Christian Churches, and they were called Diaconissae ▪ and even in Rom. 16.1. Paul himself called Phaebe [...] (i. e. a Deacon, which is a Word borrowed of the Greek) in Latin Ministra, in English A [Page]Servant or Minister. I hope thou wilt not call Paul a Popish Author, writing so to the Romans. And on Rom. 16.1. 1 Tim. 5.9. Deacon is said to be a Title of Office or Administration, given sometimes to Women, vide The Christian-Dictionary, by Thomas Wilson, Bagwell, and Andrew Simpson; to which also agrees Edward Leighs Critica Sacra, and T. C's Greek Lexicon on the word [...], [...] Mas. and Fem. given to Sister Phaebe, in Rom. 16.1. We have William Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers for the three first Ages of Christianity, and that even in the time of the Emperor Trajan, there were Deaconesses that suffered, that were examined upon the Rack (see fol. 21.) As also I find in a Book, entituled A Brief of the Bible's History, by Enoch Clapham, Printed 1608. who writ against the Romish Idolaters, fol. 162. And in fol. 171. He thus affirms, ‘For the Deacons all almost easily grant, that there were two sorts of Deacons, or Church-Servitors; the first of Men, Acts 6.3. &c. 1 Tim. 3.8. The second of Women, 1 Tim. 5.9. &c. Rom. 16.1. That the first had the charge of gathering the Benevolence of the Saints (especially every first day of the Week, 1 Cor. 16.1.)— That the second attended the Sick & Impotent, [Page] it is by many held.’ [Thus far this Protestant Author, besides many other Protestants that might be cited in this very point, some whereof I told R. R. of, who says, He has many others he has not produced, and Challenges you to bring one approved Author, to shew that Women had no Service in the first Churches.] And though the Rhemists grant there were Diaconissae or Deaconesses, I do not find that Dr. Fulk doth oppose them in that, but about their being concerned in the Sacraments, and in their Superstitions, Nunneries, denying Marriages, &c. (as the Papists would have them.) For as to Deaconesses, and their Services in the Christian Churches, there is great concurrence of History, and antient and modern Writers, as well Protestants, (if not more) as Papists. And therefore thy placing it upon some Popish Author, does greatly manifest not only Ignorance, but rather Presumption, Pride and Contempt against faithful Women's service in the Church of Christ: And I can assure thee, that I had not these precedent (and other) Citations from R. Richardson, but mostly from my own search and observations on the Authors themselves; though R. R. may be better credited in his Affirmation on Knowledge, than thy self in thy ignorant Negation.

[Page]13th, Again, I take notice of thy Charge against me, in thy said printed Letter to our Meeting in London, p 178. where scornfully writing against, and reflecting on G. W. his preaching and disputing for Womens Meetings in Huntingtonshire. Thou goest on in these words, viz. Where he took too much upon him, and behaved himself more like a Lordly Bishop, or Popish Prelate, than an humble Minister of Christ; and by me at this time is, and stands impeached as an Enemy to Christian-Liberty, a Vsurper over the Conscience, the which I stand ready publickly to assert, maintain and vindicate, p. 178.

Thus far thou in thy insolent Reviling and Abuse, boasting of thy pretended Impeachment against me: But I have met with no lawful nor due Impeachment from thee in any Gospel judicial way. Thou writest thus against me to the Friends of our Second day's Meeting in London, but they cannot own nor receive any such pretended and proof-less Impeachment against me upon thy bare Accusation, nor that thou hast any Jurisdiction to impeach me, as by thy unjustly comparing me to a Lordly Bishop, or Popish Prelate, and rendring me an Enemy to Christian-Liberty, an usurper over the Conscience: But this is but like thy accusing me as a Cheat, at having gone [Page]up and down to cheat the Country, after thou hadst flatter'd and fawn'd in another Letter, and intreated my assistance for the ending of the Controversie, as one that could do much in the matter; but now revilest me all to nought, boasting how ready thou stands Publickly to assert, maintain and vindicate. And what? But that G. W. took too much upon him in Huntingtonshire, and behaved himself more like a Popish Prelate, &c. An Enemy to Christian-Liberty. And what worse Marks and Characters of Infamy couldst thou have cast upon me? and what more severe Excommunication or Bull couldst thou have exhibited in Print against me? How like an exalted, malicious, prating Diotrephes? how like a Pope? how like the Accuser of the Brethren hast thou acted? Thou accusest, scornest and railest, but provest nothing of matter charged: And can any reasonably think thou hast thy Proofs in readiness against me out of Huntingtonshire, of these black and infamous Characters thou hast cast upon me? Thy own bare Accusations are no Proofs to be sure. The Lord rebuke this thy envious dark Spirit: And he will rebuke it.

But (Francis) art not thou thy self against Christian-Liberty of Conscience? and an usurper over the Womens Consciences (so far as thou canst) in thy perverse [Page] and ignorant opposition against Womens Meetings, who have a Conscience towards God, and our Lord Jesus Christ therein? VVhat Liberty of Conscience dost thou allow them therein? or to me in preaching and discoursing in Huntingtonshire, or elsewhere, thus to send out thy Roaring Bull against me in Print, without first either enquiring of me, or hearing me and my Accusers (if there be any besides thy self) face to face? What kind of illegal Precipiancy art thou guilty of! and yet none more ready to make a great clamour against Excommunications, Orders, Edicts, &c. than thy self? Oh Imperious, Proud, Conceited Person! Blush and be ashamed of such Abusive, Inconsistent and Self-contradictory Work! Be ashamed of thy assuming such Power of Excommunication to thy self over thy Elders, Antient Friends and Brethren, who are approved Servants of Christ. How like a Popish Prelate, yea, like the Pope himself hast thou proudly, maliciously & imperiously acted against me and others of the faithful Servants & Ministers of Christ Jesus? Be ashamed therefore and confounded because of thy Insolent and Slanderous Abuses against the Innocent; and particularly of thy gross Lye against me and others, viz. That the holy Scripture is by us slighted, p. 152. Be ashamed, I say, of this abominable Lye.

[Page]And for Confutation to thy abuse of me before, read the following Certificate from Persons of better Credit than thy self.

§

Huntingtonshire. From our Monethly Meeting at Godmanchester, the 11th day of the 5th Moneth, 1682.

WHereas George Whitehead hath been evilly traduced in two Letters of Francis Bugg's, and charged in one of them with behaving himself in Huntingtonshire like a Lordly Bishop or Popish Prelate, lately. — Now we whose Names are subscribed, do testifie, We never in this County, nor else-where at any time, saw any such thing; and that he is a man far remote from any such matter; but do believe he is a true Labourer in Gods service, and an humble Minister of the Gospel.

Matthew Kay,

Samuel Nottingham,

Tobias Hardmeat,

Robert Lister,

Jasper Robins,

John Wilsford,

John Aversett,

John Marshall,

William Starling,

Richard Snazdale,

John King,

David Tisoeth,

Thomas Lyster,

Richard Jobson.

[Page]14th, And thy malicious scribling tends, in divers parts of it, unjustly to render us Obnoxious and Offensive to Authority, by wickedly and falsly rendring the Proceedings of some of our Christian Meetings Tyrannical and Antichristian, and comparing us to the Popes Councils, to Popes, &c. And all this to Henry North, Knight, and the Magistrates too, is next to prosecuting us for our Liberties or Lives.—

So disgustful may be thy trumpeting and publishing in Print the Moderation of H. North, Knight, (p. 194.) and his mercifulness in taking notice of our threatned Ruin, and preventing it, &c. as in thy Epistle Dedicatory to him, that doubtless we think Henry North as a prudent man will not thank thee for thus trumpeting his Fame abroad in Print, on behalf of Dissenters; for such kind of Ostentatious dealing is offensive and hateful to great Persons of Prudence, who would not have their goodness exposed to publick censure or reflection, nor be represented as Persons Popular for any dissenting Parties.

I have many more things material against thy Book; but I desire thee to accept of my Labour and honest Endeavours; and what I have written thus largely to thee, as an act of Christian Condescention and good [Page] Will for thy Conviction, that thou mayst yet be abased and humbled unto Repentance and publick Condemnation of thy wicked and scurrilous Book, if the Lord will yet please to give thee an Heart to Repent and acknowledge the Truth, which thou hast deeply offended and sinned against with thy Lyes and Lightness.

And I desire to know, if after the reading and perusal of this my large Letter, thou art at all minded to relent and retract thy Book, or any part of it, and accordingly to give forth a plain Condemnation or Recantation as publick. To this I expect answer shortly from thee, otherwise trouble me not with any disingenious or scurrilous Letters.

Thy Abused (yet Well-wishing) Friend, George Whitehead.

London, the 3d day of the 8th Moneth, 1682.

Postscript since added. Wherein F. B's fallacy about the Record in the Quarterly Meeting Book in the Isle of Ely, his abuse of the Servants of Christ, his Contradiction about William Penn, his Scorn, Malice and Ranting Doctrine, are detected and reprehended.

[Page]

WHen I was lately in the Isle of Ely, I made enquiry about the account which thou F. Bugg givest in thy Observations, pag. 52. viz. concerning a Minister (thou knowest who thou mentionedst) being recorded out of the Vnity, for not taking his Wife according to the Order of Friends (i. e.) not publishing his Intentions before the Womens Meetings, as hereafter Yet I find it not So manifest afterward in thy Book at all. will be further manifest (sayst thou) but not one recorded that ever thou remembrest for any breach of Gods Commandments, pag. 53. For which acount thou referest any man to search the Records of your Quarterly Meeting Book in Hadenham in the Isle of Ely, &c.

[Page]But upon my enquiry I find, that Friends do positively give a contrary account, and do plainly affirm, that there were no Womens Meeting Then at that time in being in those parts (or within that Monethly Meeting) in Cambridgshire, where the said Person lives, who proposed his Intentions of Marriage but once before the Men; And if so, thy account must be notoriously false, and thou mayst be horridly ashamed to divulge it, as also of thy frequently saying, He was recorded out of the Vnity; whenas Friends only recorded, That they have no Vnion with him in his so doing, as thou hast cited it, pag. 63. which is only relative to that particular Act (viz.) of his refusing to come twice to the Meeting, and not in such general Terms to exclude the Person Out of the Vnity in all respects: Therefore thou appearest fallacious in thy account.

As concerning the Paper of our sence and advice, dated, London, the 27th of the 3d Moneth, 1675. (consisting of divers particular weighty matters) which thou makest thy principal Instance of our Apostacy and Violence upon our first Principles of Vnion, and about which thou hast so much scofft and derided at us; I must tell thee that I know not one Person who subscribed tha [...] Paper, but have cause to stand by it, an [...] [Page] will stand by it, though unjustly and defamingly smote at, derided and contemned by thee. And why didst not publish all our said Paper? Thou sayst, Thou hast taken enough to shew our Innovations and manifest Apostacies, pag. 50. as if all that Paper were matter of such Proof; which is a most slanderous Insinuation; for thou hast not proved one of these Instances of our said Paper either a Violation to our first Principles of Vnion, Antiscriptural, or Inconsistent with the Church-Discipline, Order and Government in the Primitive Times among true Christians, as thou pretendest, nor in the least tending to Apostacy or Antichristianism. Thou hast taken upon thee to stigmatize, brand and defame both our Testimony and the Subscribers, particularly William Penn, thou hast compared and rank't among such Vnchristian Societies, Violators, Innovators, Apostates, Pope's Council, Arbitrary Authority, &c. Thou art very loud in thy Charge, but mute in Proof, and wanting in Argument. And how dost thou herein agree with thy self, where in pag. 133. thou callest William Penn, This Noble Man, and in pag. 135. Dear W. P. and in pag. 144. thou prayst for William Penn in these words, (viz.) I pray God keep thee steddy, and with a continual Dependency upon the Divine Revelation, &c. when thou [Page] hast represented the same Person W. P. Antichristian, Apostate, Innovator, &c. as if thou shouldst pray thus for him, (viz.) Thou Antichristian Apostate, I pray God keep thee steddy. Such Absurdity doth thy Contradiction produce, who thus one while calumniatest and revilest, and another while flatterest and prayest for the same Person; one while judging and condemning the said Person as Antichristian, Imposer, Innovator, &c. another while counting him Noble Man, A Dear Man, &c. Thou exclaimest against Religious Societies, Excommunicating, Condemning a Person as out of the Vnity, when it was but that They have no Vnity with him in his SO doing, (i e. in his irregular Proceeding out of Unity and Order with them, in proposing his Intention of Marriage but Once to the Meeting, and that in the Womans absence) whilst thou thy self art (like an exalted Diotrephes, yea, like a Pope with thy printed Bull) Excommunicating, Condemning, Deriding and Contemning the Servants of Christ by Name in Print, as William Penn, George Whitehead, Stephen Crisp, Alex. Parker, Thomas Salthouse, John Burnyeat, &c. for proceeding and giving their Christian Advice, Sence and Judgment, according to their Consciences and inward Perswasions, relating to good Order in the Church of Christ.

[Page]Thus inconsistent art thou, conceited proud Scorner and false pretender to Liberty of Conscience, who hast given more black Characters, and made a worse (to speak ad hominem) Record even in Print against these and divers other faithful Servants of Christ, than only for a Meeting to Record in Manuscript their having No Vnion with a particular Person in his Irregular Proceeding in this or that particular act; for thou hast recorded these before mentioned Servants of Christ by name as Antichristian, Imposers, Innovators, &c. and compared them to the Popes Council in Print, and that in thy Book intended for the Magistrates, as by thy Epistle appears, pag. 3. Thus inconsistent and contradictory to thy self art thou in thy pretended Plea for Liberty of Conscience, whilst thou art Defaming, Condemning and Excommunicating many of the Servants of Christ among us, for the exercise and testimony of their tender Consciences in their Christian Advice and Admonition, which is all one as to seek to stop their Mouthes from preaching, exhorting others, &c. And this is not all thy Inconsistency and Confusion, the fruit of thy Malice and Treachery; but thou hast presented such a one as Henry North, Knight, and the Magistrates with such abominable Lyes and Abuses, as if (like a malicious [Page] Informer and Incendiary) the Devil and thou designed not only the perpetual Reproach of the People called Quakers, but an Aggravation of their Sufferings and Persecutions; against whom the chief ground of thy Book also is a gross Slander and great Lye, (viz.) That their way of Compelling, and Antichristian way of proceeding to bring to and force an Vniformity, Epis. p. 4. And thus raging against our Friends in these terms, (viz.) These Tyrannical Proceedings have been used by our New Spiritual Lords, Epis. p. 6. with much more Infamy, Slander and Scorn cast upon us in thy Book, for which the hand of the Lord will be upon thee: Thy Envy and Wickedness is judged of the Lord; take heed how thou persistest in it, lest he make thee an Example.

In thy sixth Chapter thou art, according to thy wonted course of Malice and Scorn, inveighing against our Womens Meetings, falsly charging them with usurped Authority, unlimited Power and Rule, placed in their Meetings by G. F. and others; which is a gross abuse and slander. Also thou art inveighing against presenting Intentions of Marriage before them by both the Persons, p. 118, 119. And this is not all the Fruit of thy perverse opposition, but in the same Chapter, p. 123. after divers Citations, thou [Page] bringest a comparison or instance of eating Flesh or Fish, as being indifferent and free; and then addest, that These with ALL other outward Works be Things Indifferent, and may be used, and also left. I must tell thee (Francis) that this Position makes void all Christian-Discipline, good Order & Church-Government, leaving all loose and uncertain: And we are sure thou hast here asserted corrupt Doctrine, tending to practical Ranterism it self; for here thou makest no exception; thy assertion is general, not only of eating of Flesh and Fish, but of ALL other outward works, that they be things Indifferent, that may be used, and also left: See now if this be not sordid Ranterism; this loose, gain-saying Spirit leads into both, to thy own contradiction, where thou pretendest for Church-Discipline, Order and Government, as in thy Title page thou seemest to grant were in the Primitive times, (i. e. among the Primitive Christians, as we understand.) But what Discipline, Order or Government in the Church canst thou Conscientiously plead, and be consistent with thy Position (viz.) That all outward Works be things Indifferent, &c? How contrary to the Apostles Doctrine also is this? for all good Works, which God hath ordained we should walk in; these are not indifferent to be used, and [Page] also left; outward works of Righteousness, Justice, Goodness, Charity, &c. commanded of God, are not Indifferent to be used and also left: Solemn contracts and engagements in Marriage are not Indifferent: Persons may not break solemn Contracts, due and orderly Proceedings: Men may not leave their Wives when they please, as an indifferent thing. But this Libertine Spirit that gave out and printed the said Ranters assertion, in placing such Indifferency upon ALL outward works or things, as that they may be used, and also left, hath thereby cast off all Bonds, Limitations, outward Discipline, Order and Government of Truth, relating to Conversation.

We have much more in reserve against thy Book, which at present I do forbear adding for brevity's sake, and refer the Reader to R. Sandiland's single Answer, Entituled, Righteous Judgment placed upon the Heads of malicious Opposers and persecuting Apostates, against thy malicious Book; and also to Tho. Elwood's Antidote against the Infection of William Rogers's Book, miscalled, The Christian-Quaker, &c. Your Envy, Confusions, perverse in-and-out ways and hard Speeches are judged by the Lord, and his Hand is against you therein; and I question not but God will more signally determine the Controversie against that [Page] proud contentious Spirit of Envy, Scorn, and false Jealousie: And Truth lives, and shall live and reign over it all.

CHAP. VIII.

§. 1. Thomas Crisp being joyned with William Rogers as a busie Agent in Division, as also his abuse of George Whitehead, by part of an old Letter from B. F. The reason of their being linked together in this Treatise. B. F. his late Testimony on G. W.'s behalf against T. C. §. 2. Notice taken of a few Passages in Thomas Crisp's Pamphlets: The reason thereof particularly about Tythes: His unsound Proposition: His Injustice unto and abuse of John Crook in impertinently quoting his Authority in the case, contrary to John's Principle and Testimony §. 3. How dis-ingenious Tho. Crisp is in his Authorities and Citatio [...]s about Tythes; And how like his Brother John Pennyman, against our plain Language. Of J. Pennyman's furious roaring Letter against G. F. &c. containing the like unjust Reflections with W. R. T. C. &c. about Impositions, Prescriptions, &c. The Spiritual Christian, who hath the Power and Form of Godliness, distinguished and vindicated, both from the [Page] Formal Christian and Loose Apostate, who deny both Power and Form. §. 4. The unsound Doctrine of Robert Rich espoused by T. C. tending to Ranterism. About Forms, Prescriptions, Impositions, &c. R. R. a false Accuser like the rest of these Apostates: His Authority made use of by T. C. and F. Bugg, invalid. J. Perrot's Spirit and Language appearing in these present Opposers. §. 5. About T. C's Marrying by a Priest, and his Wife's condemning it: His rendring the holy Spirit contradictory to it self in the matter of Tythes: His Answer to John Field, dirty, scurrilous, and impertinent: His abuse of his Wife and Friends in the case, misrepresenting them in his Prejudice and Vncharitableness; judging and defaming others, contrary to his own warning. He himself reprehended and warned. §. 6. His endeavouring to extenuate his Offence about Marrying by a Priest, & paying Tythes. His Instance and Allegation in the case, but slight covers. And he proved Irreligious and Fallacious in his preceeding and arguing contrary to the Profession and Testimony of a real Christian-Quaker. §. 7. His Judgment about Tythes, as it accords with W. R's, still unsound & loose, & they not excusable in the Declension and Apostacy. §. 8. His Reply to Stephen Crisp, disingenious and fallacious. A Catalogue of some of the notorious [Page] Falshoods and Slanders therein. His Reviling and foul Detractions against Stephen Crisp. §. 9. Concerning the Paper which W. R. and T. C. have published and printed in Edward Burroughs's Name, To the scattered of Israel, &c. Their implicit Credulity and Confidence therein, and abuse of Edward Burroughs, with Reasons given by a Certificate and Testimony, to shew it in most probability to be John Perrot's, and not E. Burroughs's Paper: All which is recommended to Serious Consideration.

§. 1. WHereas Thomas Crisp hath of late time struck in with William Rogers and his party, as a busie Agent in Division, and as hot and violent in his abusive Language and Reflection, as the most of them, for want of better Argument and Reason, he is also gotten into the same kind of stile and strain with W. R. and F. B. against promoting Government, Orders, Customs, Forms, Prescriptions, &c. as in several of his late Pamphlets, called Testimonies. I find also that these Opposers have recourse to one anothers Writings, and quote each other, and thereby show their own Authorities for themselves in the Controversie, for want of better Proof, as W. R. cites F. B. in his [Page] seventh Part, from page 64, to page 75. and F. B. quotes W. R. and Tho. Crisp's Babels Builders, in his 112 page of his said Book, De Christ. Lib. and Thomas Crisp in his fifth part Babels Builders, quotes something he calls Q. Vn. M. which I understand to be a pernicious Pamphlet of John Pennyman's, which F. Bugg has threatned us with in several Papers And whereunto we have a full Answer in being, in Manuscript, reserved (about five Years) in order to pursue and detect that of J. P.'s, if divulged abroad in Print. so that these Opposers seem to be joyned together in one and the same Spirit of Division, Opposition and Separation, and therefore may well be linked together as Persons concerned in one and the same Interest; and not only so, but I find a Paper in T. Crisp's third Edition, which he calls George Bishop's Testimony, against a Paper of Orders, which is the very same Paper that Jeffery Bullock (some Years ago, cited against us, in his Pamphlet, stiled, Antichrist's Transformations, and which the said Jeffery Bullock did so publish in Print against G. Whitehead, J. Whitehead, T. Green, T. Briggs, A. Parker, J. Coule, R. Farnsworth, T. Loe, S. Crisp, J. Moon, J. Parkes, by Name, who are struck at for no other cause, but a Paper, wherein we gave our Christian sense and [Page] seasonable advice, which we see no cause to Repent of; and therefore G. B's Paper cited by the said Jeffery Bullock and Thomas Crisp, in opposition to that of ours, proceeded from a mistaken Judgment and is, Uncharitable against us, as well as Erronious in divers parts of it As in his opposing Pastors, Teachers, Elders, &c. in our day, and the Spirit to them, and rendring us at inforceing Orders, and setting our selves in the place of the HEIR, &c. And he was Answer'd in his Life time by several of the Servants of Christ w [...] withstood his opposition in this matter. But the Author is gone, I shall say the less, and charitably believe God took him away in Mercy, and that if he had remained to this day, he would not have stood by these Gain-sayers, in the evil use they make of his Paper in Print against so many of the Servants of Christ. But I have not done with T. Crisp for his so often printing part of a Letter from B. F. to me, when he was under a Cloud and mistake in the Controversie and Division occasioned by J. Perrot, &c. against Friends for putting off their Hats in Prayer; in which Letter I and some others are reflected upon, and charged, That if ever any separation be, it will be through mine, and some lording, rigid, driving Spirits, against which I have in humility appealed to the Lord, to plead my Innocency in the Consciences [Page] of all concerned, my labour having been and still is, for Love and Unity among God's People; and I take it not only unkindly from T. C. but as his Injustice and an Abuse so often to bring forth that piece of a Letter in Print against me, which was before published and printed more fully by some malicious Adversaries, in their Pamphlet, stiled, Tyranny and Hypocrisie, printed in the year 1673. In answer to which, I desire T. C. and the rest of the party concerned would now accept and consider B. F's own late Testimony, seeing the Lord in mercy has reduced him to a better understanding and judgment, than he was in when he writ the said Letter.

Benj. Furly's Testimony follows.

WHereas I understand that sundry persons, to me unknown, have divers times formerly, and now again lately published in Print certain extracts of a Letter written by me, as I take it about sixteen years ago to G. W. keeping up and feeding thereby a Spirit of Contention and Strife. This is in brief to signifie, That what has [Page] hitherto been done of this nature, has been altogether without my order, consent or privity; for my soul hates that Spirit of Prejudice, Enmity and Contention, by which some men (though perhaps, poor men! not knowing by what spirit influenc'd, what spirit they gratifie, and what spirit they grieve and wound in this their work) so acted, led and driven. As for so many of them that are meerly under a mistake, I do from my heart pity them, and am touched with the sence of their Condition, as having laboured under the same snares. Wherefore my earnest desire for them is, That they may be made sensible of that which they seem so earnestly to contend for; yea, even for them that are so tinctur'd and leaven'd with Prejudice, that they do wittingly and with some degree of Malice, foment Contention. I cannot but desire, if it be the will of God, that they may through Judgment come to know Repentance, and through Repentance receive Mercy and Remission in and by the [Page] Blood of Jesus Christ, to whom all such do doe despight.

And as for those Papers so long since given forth by me, not discerning what spirit did then influence me (for so it is, that the actions of men are many times influenced both by good and evil Spirits, though they perceive it not, how much soever the Notion of Spirits, ridiculed by the Atheistick Philosophasters and wild Wits of this age) I did many years since recall them, and make it my request, that any that had them in their custody might make no further ill use of them; and to have found the contrary since, has been no small grief to me, especially to see so often repeated these personal Reflections by me used against G.F. and G.W. whom I truly honour in the Lord for their works and labours of Love.

However, I would not have any malicious Persons from hence take occasion to think, much less to say or represent, that I have hereby revoked, or do in the least intend to inervate any of the words in that or any other [Page] Paper, so far as they are assertive of a just and equal Liberty of Conscience.

For I do firmly believe, That there is no Principle maintained amongst Mankind that stands upon f [...]er Foundations, that is more becoming the Rulers of this World in their respective Dominions, nor more agreeable to the Life and Spirit of Christianity, than is that of Liberty of Conscience. Neither let any man on the other hand think or say, That I do hereby in the least hinder the Church of Christ from judging, condemning and testifying against things and Persons by the Spirit of Christ, for preaching things which those persons erring from the spirit of Christ, may judge not only to be allowable as their Christian Liberty, but even look upon to be their very duty.

For as the Principle of Liberty of Conscience is in it self most reasonable and christian, so is this latter of denying All Iudging upon any account most unreasonable, blind and foolish.

And they that cannot see, that these two Principles of Liberty and Judgment, are not only consistent, but very harmonious [Page] with each other, are to be pitied for their weakness and half-sightedness; of which perhaps, God giving life and ability, I may at another time say more — In the mean while I wish heartily, that all that profess and name the Name of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, would seek peace and ensue it.

Benjamin Furly.

Now Tho. Crisp and the rest concerned, see by these Lines how far B. F. hath distinguished the point in Controversie, and cleared himself upon a better understanding concerning the said Letter, and against the perverse use thou hast made of it in Print to reproach me withal.

§. 2. And since thou hast causlesly aspersed me with it, and so far censoriously exposed me in Print, as thou hast done, when I sought no occasion against thee, nor designed Controversie with thee; and seeing thou art grown so hardy and confident as to make thy self such a publick Agent and Advocate for W. R. and his Party in the Controversie, I have not yet done with thee, but am concerned further to take notice of a few Passages in thy [Page] Pamphlets, which I look upon as very corrupt and perverse, and contrary to our antient and constant Testimony, born among us on behalf of Christ.

The first is in thy Pamphlet, stil'd, Several Testimonies, 3d Edition, which is also printed in others of thy Pamphlets, in these words, viz. pag. 26.

I fear you take more care for the strict Observation of your own Orders and Traditions than the Truth in the Heart; for if any use not your Language, or observe not to do just as others, in Tythes or other CIVIL RIGHTS, which the Laws of our Land require, and ought to be observed, (unless God by his Spirit in the Heart doth forbid, or any do really for Conscience sake refuse) But if one cannot do so, must he therefore judge his Brother? That may be required of one that may not be required of another; for Growth or Measure may differ, Rom. 14.

AND J. Crook saith, ‘We read of— Cain and Abel, two men performing the same Action, attended with the same Formalities, &c. and yet the one accepted, and the other rejected. In like manner may two Persons be found in contrary Actions, Postures, 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, [Page]constancy or place; or if another should lay a Bond upon me, or put a Yoke about the Neck of the Disciples, this is no more justifiable than the former.’

To the first part, being thy words, I must tell thee, thy Proposition is unsound and inconsistent with our antient Testimony, as well as Contradictory in its self: Vnsound in that it bespeaks thou art not principl'd against the Payment of Tythes in this Gospel day, and hast not retain'd a true or certain Judgment against them in thy esteeming and accounting of them amongst Civil Right, but Rites in thy other Pamphlet, which ought to be observed; and implying, that a Brother is not to be judg'd for observing (or paying) them. I am sure this is contrary to the Testimony born and received among us from the beginning. And to thy granting, that God by his Spirit in the Heart may forbid them, or that for Conscience sake some refuse them; as if the Spirit of the Lord did allow one Brother to pay Tythes as a civil Right, and forbid another; or that from a different Growth or Measure of Grace, one Brother may be required to refuse the Payment of Tythes, and another Brother not so required, and therefore not to be judged for the Payment of them, being both under the same Profession and Dispensation: Is not [Page] this Inconsistent & Babylonish, yea, and tending to apparent Ranterism, to render the Spirit and different Measures thereof so contrary and opposite in its requirings, in a matter so eminent & weighty as that of Tythes? wherein our manifest Testimony hath been so positive, and the Sufferings of many so deep and heavy for not paying Tythes, and whereof the very first breaking forth of the Light and dawning of the Gospel Day did convince many Thousands, when their Eyes were first opened to see the Corruption of that Ministry which is upheld by Tythes and forced Maintenance; therefore T. C. thou art gone from the Light that first convinced thee, in thus confusedly arguing for Tythes; and thy Proposition is loose and fallacious, and there's no such contradiction in the different Measures of Grace and Spirit received from God, as thou absurdly implyest. If ever thou knew'st or wast sensible either that Tythes were ended by Christ, or that the Ministry upheld by them is none of Christ's Ministry, thou couldst never suppose that any measure or degree of his Grace or Spirit would allow or lead any (who have been really convinced of the Evil thereof) in the payment of them, if thou wert not gone from the true sence and measure thereof in thy self; for the different measures or degrees of Grace do not [Page] alter the Property of it; and whatever it once manifests to be sin, and forbids as such, it always forbids, and allows none in the practice thereof; and whoever are truly convinced by the Grace of God, and have their Minds turned to it, if they keep in it, and walk in its way and teaching, they are principled by it, and are a Law to themselves therein, against those things, ways and works which are corrupt or sinful, and cannot place a slight Indifferency where the Truth hath made a real Difference; for what communion hath Light with Darkness, or Christ with Belial, or Truth with Error, or Sincerity with Hypocrisie, or Sobriety and Watchfulness with Ranterism and Looseness?— Consider how and from whence thou art fallen, and Repent.

To thy subsequent Allegation of John Crook's saying, I must tell thee, that I look upon thee to have dealt unjustly, disingeniously and injuriously by him, and very impertinently alledged his words in this case, for thy unwarrantable, confused & loose Proposition for the Observation of Tythes, as a civil Right or Rite. I doubt not but he is better principled, even from the time of his first receiving the Truth, than to grant or allow any such liberty to any Christian Brother for the observation (or payment) of Tythes, as thy words import; and that thy Allegation [Page] of his words in this case, is contrary to his very Intention. I dare presume and appeal to his Conscience to give Judgment against thee in this case, whether the different or contrary actions, postures or gestures, relating to time, constancy or place, &c. mentioned by him, were intended with respect to Tythes, For J. Crook hath given publick Testimony against the Payment of Tythes in this Gospel day, witness his Treatise, i. e. Tythes no Property, &c. the Payment or Non-payment of them. I dare say thou hast foully perverted his words and intention in this case; for the different actions, postures and gestures, relating either to time or place, may relate to divers things only circumstantial and indifferent, as to God, and not to things substantial, wherein Truth's Testimony has made a real Difference; As I, or any other in Truth, may be in different postures and places praying to God or waiting upon him, in Closet, on our Beds, in Field, Highway, either kneeling, standing, sitting or walking, and yet truly led, moved and exercised by the holy Spirit, and accepted of God, But I must confess that in our publick Assemblies for divine Worship, such postures as bespeak the most Reverence to God and Union among our selves, are most commendable, edifying and exemplary, &c. which I [Page] cannot say in relation to the Payment of Tythes in this Gospel day, no more than in Sacrifice and burnt Offerings, since Christ hath put an end thereto. Those things offered by Cain and Abel as the fruit of the Ground and firstlings of the Flock, were things in themselves lawful, and allowed in their day and time, and were also according to the Law of Moses, being Types under the old covenant. But this can be no pertinent Instance, as alledged by thee (Thomas) in the case of Tythes, to observe (or pay) them in this Gospel day, and as now in Controversie; since both Tythes and Offerings were ended by Christ in his Death; nor is there any parrallel in the case, unless thou couldst prove that the Spirit of Christ doth move Believers in this Gospel day, both to the Payment of Tythes and the Non-payment (or refusal) of them, which I dare say, thou canst not prove. 'Tis not to be supposed that what Christ has abolish'd in the old Covenant he will enjoyn or command in the new; the Spirit of Christ is not contradictory to it self, nor are Gods substantial Commands contrary one to another, especially under one and the same dispensation and state.

§. 3. Besides thy abuse and injury against John Crook, and Impertinency in this case, [Page] I cannot but take notice how dis [...]ingenuous, cover'd and fallacious thou art, in the management of thy loose design, in reference to the Personal Authorities thou bringest, particularly in thy citing part of John Wilkinson and John Story's Paper concerning Womens Meetings, &c. in two of thy Pamphlets (viz.) thy second and third Edition; in the 24th pag. of the last thou sayst, ‘These foregoing Testimonies are not transcribed at large, but abridged for brevities sake, but the SENSE AND SVBSTANCE OF THE WHOLE included.’ But Thomas, I must tell thee, this is a down-right Untruth; the Sense and Substance of the Whole of that very Paper of J. W. and J. S. is not included in thy citation, although thou hast confessed their Testimony to be weighty Truths, and hast cited more passages than that concerning Womens Meetings; for thou hast left out these Words of their Testimony, (viz.) ‘As to Tythes, we can in truth say, 'twas never so much as in our Hearts to strengthen any in the Payment thereof, nor yet to weaken the Faith of any, having a Testimony in our Hearts that Tythes, as at this day paid, are ANTICHRISTIAN.’ (Thus far they.)

How now Thomas? Why didst thou leave these Words out of thy Citation? Was here nothing of the sense nor substance [Page] of their Testimony? or wast thou not conscious to thy self, that their Position here against the payment of Tythes, and thy Proposition aforesaid for the observation of Tythes, as a civil Right or Rite, &c. were inconsistent and contradictory? their words are positive against them, as Antichristian, but thine are partly for them, and but doubtfully against them, that is [If the Spirit of the Lord in the Heart forbid the payment of them] or if the different measure of Grace require one Brother not to pay them, and allow (or be silent at) another Brother's paying them. Thus Thomas thou appearest in Confusion a BABEL-BUILDER.

And what is our Language thou reflects upon? Is it the plain Language of Thee and Thou to a single Person? And what are those Orders thou complainest of, and those Customs, Forms and Prescriptions? Hast not thou appeared like thy Brother John Pennyman, in thy empty and fruitless opposition? only he is a little more plain in his furious Roaring Letter to G. F. dated the 27th of the 3d Moneth, called May, 1680. printed among his other Letters to divers Friends, he furiously exclaims and roars out against us in these Expressions (viz.) ‘Away with your long Prayers, and long Preachings, for they are an abomination; away [Page] with your Pride and Arrogance, sitting as Judges and Lords over your Brethrens Consciences—Away with your set Form of Words of THEE and THOV, calling it the pure Language—O ye Blind and Ignorant! how can you escape the Condemnation of the Just and Righteous One; who have set up Shadows instead of Substance, and Form instead of Power? — Builders of Babel, or Babylonish Builders —All your Buildings, your Inventions, Imaginations and Conceivings about your Forms, your proud self-conceited Modes, your Impositions, your Prescriptions, Laws and comely Orders (as you in your fallen Wisdom call them) must all be thrown down, laid waste, and become a By-word or Proverb of Reproach N. C's Epistle. to the very Heathen, &c.’ (Thus far John Pennyman.)

These Words are cited to show how far you Backsliders and Opposers resemble one another in Stile and Language against us, crying out against Impositions, Forms, Prescriptions, Laws, &c. but show no Unjust nor Unrighteous Law, Form, Order or Prescription practised among us; and therefore in your Madness and Fury are but beating the Air, and unjustly and falsly accusing us with Impositions, lording over our Brethrens Consciences: And John Pennyman he is for crying out, Away with your set form [Page]of Words of THEE and THOV; he is offended at the Form of sound Words; his Backsliding, Apostacy and vain Imaginations have been these many Years openly manifest, and time will further discover him to be a false Prophet against us: The Lord has brought us into that Form and Order, which neither Apostates, fallen Spirits, nor the Father of Lyes shall ever be able to throw down or lay waste. We direct People to the Light and Power of Christ within, to guide them both in the Life and Form of Godliness, Form of sound Words, and to obey from the Heart the Form of Doctrine received from Christ, and therefore we impose no blind Obedience, nor dark Formality upon any, but desire that all may come to be living Christians in Spirit, Life, Power and Holiness of Conversation, that their Conversations may be as becometh the Gospel of Christ; but you Backsliders are of disobedient and loose Spirits, else you would not rage, roar and foam out your own Shame as you do against the Servants of Christ, or that Form and Order which we are sure he has brought us into, and wherein we are Conscientiously concerned to follow our Lord Jesus Christ in Humility; and herein we can distinguish between formal Christians and living Christians, and would have none [Page] to enter into either extream of Formality without Life and Power, or under pretence of Life and Power to deny or oppose all Form and Order; for there may be a formal pretended Christian without Life and Power, but no real living Christian in Power without true Form; And this distinction we had from the beginning, and therefore alwayes believed that the true Power would not lead into any false or wrong Form, nor into any Disorder or Confusion, knowing that our God is the God of Order, and not of Confusion; he is the God of Love, Peace and Union, and not of discord or strife.

§. 4. And Thomas Crisp hadst thou kept to that which first Convinced thee, and raised up a love in thee to Truth, and the People of God called Quakers, thou wouldst not have espoused such unsound Doctrine as this of R. R. printed and published in thy Pamphlets among thy pretended weighty Truths, nor reckoned it among sound Doctrines, as thou hast done even in thy third Edition, p. 22. where after he hath confessed in these words (viz.) I know that the Lord hath his People amongst them (meaning those called Quakers) as in All Forms, and such as love and fear the Lord, doing the thing which is just and right. [The words [Page] which I chiefly take notice of, are these of his which follow, viz.] And such are accepted with me as bone of my bone, and as my Brother Benjamin that came of the free-woman, and are in that freedom fitted to act in ALL FORMS, So the Work of Backsliders and Apostates tends to fit them to hear and sit under the Parish Priests, contrary to the real Christian Quaker; Witness F. Bugg's Proposition, espoused by him as his own judgment, viz. Things Moral, under the Gospel men may be commanded by the Magistrate, as HEARING is an act purely Moral. A man may be commanded to hear the Gospel preacht, without being forced to give his assent to it. The Light of Nature guides the Magistrate to instruct his Subjects in whatsoever he thinks for their eternal Good. And the Light of Nature obligeth every man to hearken, &c▪ A man that is only commanded to hear and receive Instruction, is dealt with as a rational Creature, and forced to nothing. The Judgment is still left in himself. [Thus F. Bugg's De Christiana Libertate, or Liberty of Conscience, pag 91, 92.] Whereby he has plainly given away and betray'd the cause of all conscientious Dissenters. For what place is left for Liberty of Conscience to dissent, if the Magistrate may thus enjoyn the Subjects to hear what he thinks is for their eternal Good, and they be thus obliged to hear, when he thinks 'tis for their good to hear the Parish Priests? By this Proposition, when the Magistrate commands Fr. Bugg to his Parish Church and hear the Priest, he is oblig'd so to do by his own Proposition, and reserve his judgment in himself, whether to accept or reject what he hears. Thus he may be in a freedom fitted to act in ALL FORMS. But then let him not esteem himself a Christian Quaker, but another sort of a (Latitude) Christian, whose Religion and Principle, before cited, will not oblige him to suffer any more as a Quaker. as the Lord their Light shall lead them, that they may replenish the Earth.

[Page]This Doctrine or Proposition I look upon to be very unsound, and tending to plain Ranterism, making no distinction in Forms, but including ALL FORMS, without Distinction, under the leading of the Light of the Lord: Which also is an absurd begging of the Question; for his Light doth neither lead nor fit the Children of the free-woman to act in All Forms So the Work of Backsliders and Apostates tends to fit them to hear and sit under the Parish Priests, contrary to the real Christian Quaker; Witness F. Bugg's Proposition, espoused by him as his own judgment, viz. Things Moral, under the Gospel men may be commanded by the Magistrate, as HEARING is an act purely Moral. A man may be commanded to hear the Gospel preacht, without being forced to give his assent to it. The Light of Nature guides the Magistrate to instruct his Subjects in whatsoever he thinks for their eternal Good. And the Light of Nature obligeth every man to hearken, &c▪ A man that is only commanded to hear and receive Instruction, is dealt with as a rational Creature, and forced to nothing. The Judgment is still left in himself. [Thus F. Bugg's De Christiana Libertate, or Liberty of Conscience, pag 91, 92.] Whereby he has plainly given away and betray'd the cause of all conscientious Dissenters. For what place is left for Liberty of Conscience to dissent, if the Magistrate may thus enjoyn the Subjects to hear what he thinks is for their eternal Good, and they be thus obliged to hear, when he thinks 'tis for their good to hear the Parish Priests? By this Proposition, when the Magistrate commands Fr. Bugg to his Parish Church and hear the Priest, he is oblig'd so to do by his own Proposition, and reserve his judgment in himself, whether to accept or reject what he hears. Thus he may be in a freedom fitted to act in ALL FORMS. But then let him not esteem himself a Christian Quaker, but another sort of a (Latitude) Christian, whose Religion and Principle, before cited, will not oblige him to suffer any more as a Quaker. of Professions, but in its own form or way most proper and peculiar to it self, as the Form of Godliness is to the Power of God and Godliness, for granting the Lord may have a People that mean well under other Forms, as he has other Sheep that are not of this Fold: Howbeit, many that mean well are clouded and mistaken, under wrong Forms, empty Shews, Ceremonies and Circumstances, only of mens inventions and imposing, which the Light of the Lord guides them not into, being but humane Traditions and Impositions of men, neither proper nor suitable to divine Worship, or to a true spiritual Christian state; and therefore it is not the freedom of the Children of the Free-Woman to act in ALL or any such Forms, nor will the Light of the [Page] Lord lead them therein; nor may R. R's words be applied to the Children of New Jerusalem, who under the dispensation and order of the new Covenant, nor are they properly applicable to them, where he saith, Why may not God enjoyn that as an Ordinance to day, and give his Power to it also, which to Morrow he will lay aside as useless, and by his withdrawing his Power from it, leave it no better than an Idol? as in pag. 19, 20. of thy 3d Edition. This cannot be truly said of the Ordinances of the new Covenant, which are not to be compared to the Shadows under the old; and therefore these his Expressions, as applied to this Dispensation which we are under (which is that of the Gospel and new Covenant) do tend to lead into Uncertainty, Instability, Looseness and Ranterism. Good Works are ordained of God, the practice of pure Religion he enjoyns us to walk it▪ and he will not forsake the Children of the Free-Woman, who therein serve him in his free Spirit.

This R. R. whose pretended Testimony thou hast espoused, his exclaiming, accusing and smiting unjustly, also like the rest of you about Imposing upon Brethrens Consciences, Prescriptions, Impositions, and falsly accusing Friends with the Spirit of Dominion and Rule over the Conscience: Telling of the [Page] Yoke of your Prescriptions, your carnal and literal Impositions: G. F's comely Order; G. F. and his Tribe of Proselites; creating a Dominion over your Brethren, and the movings of God in them, and claiming a power to judge of all Differences, prescribing Rules and Orders, &c. falsly comparing Friends with the Pope himself, and accusing them with swelling Soveraignity over the Minds and Consciences of men, heavily imposing upon others in such Circumstances and Indifferences wherein the Kingdom of God doth not consist, &c.

With many more Falshoods and unjust Reflections, and Abuses, The substance whereof is answered fully before to W. R. without innumerating or giving particular Instances of those Impositions, Rules & Orders complained of, only bids us witness the Hat; which I take to be because we could not own J. Perrot and his party in their keeping on their Hats in publick Prayer: R. Rich being one of his Party, a Disciple and Agent in his Cause, confounded in his Judgment with a Spirit (and Notions) of Ranterism, though sometimes he confessed to the Power of God among Friends, but too lofty in his Spirit; he now seems to be adopted by you in his opposition (in this his Paper which thou hast printed for a weighty and sound Testimony, I mean, Robert Rich's, whom I take to be thy Author) Why [Page] didst not set his Name, but R. R? which may stand for another Name, as Richard Richardson; but we are sure he is better principled than to write such Airy, Loose, Ranting stuff. One reason that makes me take it to be R. Rich's Paper that thou hast espoused, 'tis so much in his floating, reflecting, accusing, lavish and conceited Stile; and also that thy Brother Francis Bugg makes use of his Authority in his Book De Christ. Lib. p. 170. in these words (viz.) I begin to see the truth of Robert Rich's words in a Letter from Barbadoes, to his Friends, Abstracts, &c. pag. 20. viz. I can assure you, that who meddle with the Quakers, had need to be fenced within and without with the whole Armour of God, Truth and love to Righteousness, David's Sling and Stone, &c.

These Passages are mentioned that it may the more obviously appear how plainly you resemble one another, and tread the same Track, in the Stile and Terms of your Opposition, and that 'tis no new Controversie in the Substance; 'tis but only John Perrot's Spirit of Division risen with some other Circumstances and Pretences, in a more Rough, Lofty, Contemning, Hectoring and Huffing Party, daring and scornful, who have not that seeming show of Humility, Lamb-likeness and [Page] Outside Demureness, that John Perrot had, For tho John Perrot placed his opposition to the Putting off the Hat in Prayer very high, as on express Commandment from the Lord God of Heaven, as against a Custom, Romish Tradition, and Triffle in the Apostacy, as in his Paper which Richard Hubberthorn answer'd. Yet he had more smooth and taking Expressions to temper and gloss his matters withal▪ as, The Spirit of the Lamb is Poor, Low, Humble, Patient, Content, Temperate, Chaste, willing to Suffer, full of Thanks-giving in all things, and of Pity, Mercy, Forgiveness, Love unto all, not holding Prejudice against any— and ready to lay down Life for all. —Now all that will follow the Lamb wheresoever he goeth, must be of this Mind, &c. as in a Paper of John Perrot's. Now here was a more likely shew and resemblance and pretence of Christianity, than these Lofty Scorners do appear in, though he profest greater things than he possest; his Spirit was not in that Lowliness, nor was he constant with God. His fall should be a warning to many. the tendency and end of whose work, time will manifest more directly to center in RANTERISM, as it now tends to FLESHLY LIBERTY, casting off the Yoke of Christ, and causing the offence of his Cross to cease.

§. 5. And now Thomas I am not willing at present to spend much farther time with thee, thou having been so much answered by R. Richardson and J. F. only I would show thee a little further, how unfairly and [Page] disingenuously thou dealest with John Field in thy 5th part of thy Babels, &c. First, I take notice of the account J. Field gives in the 3d page of his Book, entituled, Thomas Crisp's Envy detected, about thy Doctrine, and then of what thou sayst in relation to the same; and that which thou scornfully callest J. F's Bull of Excommunication against thee, his account is this, viz.

John Field signifieth, That Friends have "no Vnity with Tho. Crisp nor his Doctrine, which is as followeth,

§

The 8th day of the 9th Month, 1681. Thomas Crisp said, That he had lately paid Tythes, and that the Spirit of God did or might allow him to pay Tythes, or Marry by a Priest. And that by the same Spirit of God another might be required not to pay Tythes, or not do the same Things.

This Thomas Crisp spake the day and year abovesaid, and consented to have it writ and printed, and took a copy of the aforesaid words. Witness,

John Field, jun.

Oh Thomas! How hast thou lost true tenderness and the sence of Truth? How art thou backsliden, and gone from that which first convinced thee of the way of the Lord and his holy Truth, which is but one? And how variable dost thou render [Page] his Spirit, and contradictory to it self in these great concerns of Tythes and Marriage? Is this like the Testimony of the Christian-Quaker, as thou and thy Brother W. R. and his party would be rendred? Is it not more like exact Ranterism? Let all tender Hearts and sincere Souls in the Light judge. But what sayest thou to J. F's Question, Why did thy Wife condemn it? meaning your marrying by a Priest: To this thou most unrighteously and scornfully answerest in these Words, (viz.)

‘But may not those that pretend to sell Pardons, and pray Souls out of Purgatory (your Brethren) say, that if their Prayers and Pardons be not effectual, why have and do so many give so much Money for them? If a Woman gives all she hath to have her Husband out of Purgatory, an effectual Proof of the worth of the Pope's Pardon.’

Thomas, Thy Answer herein is dirty and scurrilous, & thy comparison with the Pope, and those that falsly pretend to pray Souls out of Purgatory, most unjust and slanderous: Be ashamed of such scribling and abusive dirty Work, and falsly calling such our Brethren: Be ashamed also of thus unnaturally exposing thy own Wife to an unjust censure in this comparison (viz.) As to a Woman that gives all she hath to have her Husband out of Purgatory: Oh sordid and [Page] bruitish! As also in thy following Words, and foul Reflection upon thy Wife (viz.) ‘It is like SHEE, as too many more have, gave too much credit to what some of G. F's CHEATS said: And she is not the first that hath been deceived by you, and perhaps some among you, that have prated others out of their Money, might prate her, unto the writing and giving you that Paper you pretend to.’ Thus far thou in the 9th page of thy 5th part of thy Babel.

O Thomas! be ashamed of thus abusing thy Wife and others, (our Friends) with thy Railery in Print, as if she were cheated or deceived into the giving forth the said Paper in judgment against your marrying with the Priest; I am satisfied thou hast most foully wronged her, as well as abused her Friends herein; for I am perswaded that the Lord made her sensible you had done amiss in so marrying, that she was convinced in her Conscience of the Evil of it, and of your wrong proceeding therein by the Light of Truth, before she gave out the said Paper; and that therefore thou hast not only abused and unjustly exposed thy Wife, thy near relation in Print, but also that thou hast abused the Truth, and the real Conviction thereof in her: I dare appeal to the witness of God in her Conscience against thy sordid abuse of her and [Page] Friends in this matter. I find thou art a shallow impertinent Scribler and Railer, and uncharitably Censorious and Reviling in much of thy Work; thou hast an absurd and dirty stile of writing, if it be thy own, however it is patronized by thee. Remember from whence thou art fallen, and Repent of thy hard Speeches, Prejudice and Uncharitableness against Gods People, his Heritage. Thou hast abused the Servants of Christ, have a care thy dayes be not shortned in Darkness and Sorrow. I am sorry for thee. Thou canst advise and instruct others to Love and Gentleness, and pretendest to shew the necessity of bearing with, and not judging one another about such things, wherein they differ in Opinion or Practice in some things, viz. outward and circumstantial matters of Religion; for that thou sayest, We may belong to one Shepherd, although not all in one Fold; and confessest, That Love is part of the Seal in the Forehead of the Lamb's followers; and so also Hatred, Strife, &c. the mark of the Beast, as in thy Introduction to thy third Edition: As also page 13. thou givest Friends this warning, To forbear judging any man any more, upon any pretence whatsoever, as in the Paper thou hast cited, and falsly callest E. B's Vision. Yet contrariwise thou art severely judging and contemning [Page] us on some Pretence; thou appearest in Hatred and Strife in the most of thy controvertial Pamphlets. May we belong to one Shepherd, although not all in the Fold as yet? Why then art thou and W. R. and F. Bugg, and John Pennyman, so severe in Judging, Censuring, Reviling and Reproaching many among us, whom we know to be the Servants of Christ? And thou telling of G. F's Cheats, rendring thy Wife as one cheated and deceived by our Friends: Oh sordid and base Confusion, and Babylonish stuff! Seriously recollect thy self, and give over thy false and fruitless Attempts, Impertinencies, and confused Scribling; for the Day is dawned and broken forth, that has made a discovery of the miserable Apostacy and Darkness, which you contentious & quarrelsom Opposers are fallen into. Oh! come down, come down, and seek Repentance, and be humbled under the mighty Hand of God: May the Lord in Mercy give thee an Heart thereto, my Soul charitably wisheth it for thee, &c.

§. 6. In thy Fourth Part, page 19. thou art endeavouring to extenuate the offence on thy part on thy Principle, that one may marry by the Priest, and pay Tythes, and yet be a Christian; Thou shouldst have added, [One of the darker sort of Christians.] But [Page] to excuse the matter on thy part, Thy Wife was not then one called a Quaker, But it seems T.C. was one then so called; and if she was instrumental to induce him to Marry by a Priest, contrary to his Perswasion or Profession, she had also cause to Repent it, and may yet see more cause to Rue it, because of his Apostacy. And thou couldst not satisfie her, so that thou CONDESCENDED to take thy Wife in the presence of a Priest, and acquainted him, that thou didst it not on any account of Religion, but to answer the LAW; and sayest, who (i. e. the Priest) very Christian-like condescended to thee, so as not to say or do, or require thee to do or say any thing thou shouldst be dissatisfied with, &c. And you did before him declare you took each other, &c. nor was there half the Ceremony or Formality that is now practised according to G. F's Form, &c. Oh Thomas! These slight Covers, and Linsey-Woolsey Garments will not hide thy Disobedience, nor excuse thee from acting contrary to thy Conviction and Conscience. It appears thou wast marryed by a Priest [but to mince it, 'twas in the presence of a Priest] though not in all Formalities; and this was thy CONDESCENTION: Was it so? Then thou wast come to a higher sight and state than to be marryed by a Priest. May it not be said further, how could it be consistent [Page] with thy Principle and Profession as a real Christian-Quaker or Conscientious Dissenter, to be so Marryed? Mince it as much as thou canst, 'twill not hold together. But thou didst it not on any account of Religion, &c. No! how couldst thou exclude that weighty concern of Marriage out of Religion? How Irreligious wast thou then in it? Is there not as much need to keep unspotted of the Word in the great concern of Marriage, as in any other concern in this Life? How couldst thou then lay Religion aside in this weighty concern? Is it not manifest Ranterism for a person to make so slight of Religion, as at his will and pleasure to lay it aside, and that under pretence of condescending in matters of greatest Moment here wherein all truly enlightned and clear sighted Christians have most need to be Religiously exemplary, and faithful in their Testimony, according to their Consciences?

But to thy Question; May not one Marry by the Priest, or pay Tythes, and yet be a Christian? For thy Principle, That he may, (in thy 5th part, p. 14.) thou givest us this Instance, viz. I find George Keith very Christian like say, ‘I do not doubt but the Lord had, and I believe he now hath many that are precious to him, and that belong to the Catholick-Church, even as I believe the [Page] Lord hath many such among Episcopalians, Papists, &c. Also, I do acknowledge the Lord hath among the Presbyterians some who belong to the true Church.’ Surely then (sayst thou) these must be Christians, and did and do Marry by or with a Priest, and pay Tythes.

Now (Thomas) this Instance, and thy Inference upon it, are the most cunningly alledged of any thing I find in thy writings, and yet they will not do, they will not serve thy turn; for granting some among all these to whom the Lord hath regard, and who in some sence may belong to his Church, it is with respect to their Sincerity towards God, and their fear of him, Conscientiousness springing from his own Seed in them; and not with respect to their Formalities, cloud of humane Traditions and Inventions, which thy are led into by their Priests, as Marrying by Priests, paying Tythes, &c. Therefore, however the Lord in Mercy hath a regard to them for the sake of the good in them, yet they are but dim-sighted, and of the darker sort of Christians, who see not beyond those humane Impositions and Traditions, as paying Tythes and Marrying by a Priest, &c. And for thee to excuse thy self therein, who professest a higher state and degree of Illumination (no doubt) as no less than that of a [Page]Christian-Quaker, thou mightst as well argue, that there are some of the better and more sincere sort of Papists that bow to Images, and use many Superstitions, which their Priests have misled them into, and to whom God shews Mercy in saving their Souls at length; therefore thou or any Christian-Quaker may bow to Images, observe Popish Ceremonies, &c. Or thus, There are many of the sincerer sort of Episcopal People that have their Children sprinkled by a Priest, and signed with the Sign of the Cross, that hear Common-Prayer, conform, and do all Conscientiously, and are sincere to God in their Way; so that in Charity we may conclude, that their Souls find Mercy with God at length. And what follows? Therefore Thomas Crisp as a Christian-Quaker, and all other Conscientious Dissenters, both Anabaptists and others, may carry their Children to be Sprinkled by a Priest, have them signed with the Sign of the Cross, hear Common-Prayer, conform, &c. and yet be good Christians, precious to God, while thus inconsistent with their own Consciences, dissenting Principles and Profession. Thus inconsistently thou mightst as well argue for the Christian-Quakers paying Tythes and Marrying by a Priest, &c. But I must deny the consequence: Thou (as a Quaker [Page] doubtless) hast known better things, and that as to the knowledge of Truth and degree of divine Illumination. There is no just Comparison between a real Christian Quaker and the best sort of Papists and Episcopalians. Therefore thy pleading in thy 5th part of Babels, p. 19, 20. for charity and forbearance to be allowed them who think it as much their duty to pay Tythes, as we do think it a sin (and to those who do Marry by a Priest, and pay Tythes, being of different Perswasion from us.) Granting such there are, who see no further, and are to be pitied; 'tis no argument for any that are of our contrary Perswasion to take liberty to pay Tythes and Marry by a Priest; for their sin is greater than the other.

Oh Friend! thy Disobedience, Declension and Apostacy from those Discoveries the true Light has made, will not be excusable by all thy slight Allegations in the sight of the All-seeing and Heart-searching God.

§. 7. But—T. C's Judgment about Tythes accords with what is in the third part of the Christian-Quaker, &c. by W. R. Christianly and largely treated on (quoth he) in his fourth part, p. 19. And what is W. R's Judgment or Doctrine in that case? Is it not for freely paying Tythes to the National Ministry, [Page] i. e. not as by Constraint; yea, if any Person will freely of himself give a tenth part of his Estate or Encrease thereof to ANY VSE WHATSOEVER, having no regard to any humane Institution, or claim by any pretended divine Law, &c. as his words are, 7th part, p. 52. Compare his Objection and Answer in that case, in his 2d part, Christian-Quaker, p. 43. and the Apology he makes for it in his 7th part, p. 52, 53. together with our fore-going Replyes, then it will appear how loose and apostatized thy Judgment is from the ancient Principle and Christian Testimony of the truly Christian-Quakers, whose Principle never allowed paying Tythes freely, (or otherwise) to the National Ministry, or to any use whatsoever. Therefore how little excusable is your Declension, Apostacy, and loose Doctrine in that case, who have seen and known better things from a farther degree of Illumination, than either the best sort of Papists or Episcopalians have as yet received? Wherefore you, in sinning against Knowledge, are more condemnable in those things, than they in their Ignorance, blind Zeal, or Dim-sightedness. So that 'tis high time for thee to bethink thy self better, and Repent.

[Page]§. 8. I could say much to thy Reply thou hast given to Stephen Crisp, in thy Babels, 4th part, to evince how disingenuous, fallacious and abusive it is; but I find little necessity upon me therein, considering what little weight it is of, and how that Stephen Crisp, the Person immediately concerned, did not look upon himself so deeply concerned, as to think it worth the while to spend much time about, or take much notice of: Only I must tell thee, thou hast abused both him, and those of us who gave our Testimony, and plainly showed our dislike against the Paper and Subscription from Barbadoes, which was not First ONLY a dislike of the Wording it, (as thou falsly sayest) but of both matter and subscription: And therefore thy saying, First There is no denial or disowning the Principle of giving up all (i. e. Spiritual and Temporal) to G. F's Mens and Womens Meetings (as thou scornfully accusest us, p. 2, 3.) This is a gross Untruth and foul Perversion, and our Consciences bear us witness to the contrary, that we do dislike and disown any such Principle and Doctrine: Thou hast mis-stated the case against us herein.

Secondly, As also thy Objection is false, That we were more afraid of the Publication, than ashamed of the Matter, p. 6.9. Seeing [Page] we so plainly manifested our Dislike of the matter, in our Letter to those of Barbadoes concerned.

Thirdly, As also a scornful and two-fold Slander it is, That we endeavour to compel all to worship our Image (as thy false term is) of G. F's Orders, p. 7. We deny both by terms and matter herein.

Fourthly, And likewise a gross Slander and Abuse it is, That G. F. and his Party sharply reprove others, who cannot against their Consciences give up as the Barbadoes Church have done, and for not bowing to our Image, G. F's Laws, p. 8. What a scornful abominable Lye is this!

Fifthly, Also these are notorious Falshoods; That we will drive them that will not follow us, contrary, or before the Spirit of the Lord lead them into our Ceremonies, else they must be Sons of Perdition, and all black Characters we can find to vilifie them, pag. 10. These are foul and false Accusations.

Sixthly, Again, That thou hast to thy understanding endeavoured the Advance and Honour of that Truth we profess, (i. e. the Light in the Conscience) p. 11. This is an untruth; thy Vilifying and Abusing (and Railery against) the Servants of Christ; who truly own and profess the Light for their guide, proves the contrary.

Seventhly, That we are zealous for Forms, [Page]more than the Power, p. 11. Is also a false Accusation and Slander.

Eighthly, That Stephen Crisp is an Engine of Satan, p. 12. And A Forger, p. 2. And A bold-faced Lyar, p. 4. appear slanderous Abuses and foul Detractions, also expresly contrary to thy own warning thou hast given forth in E. B's Name, for All Friends to forbear Judging any man upon any pretence whatsoever. However, Stephen Crisp is known to be a man Conscientious towards God, a man more Righteous than thy self, and I suppose better qualified, both as a Man, and a Christian, than ever thou wast; and thy envious Detractions cannot lessen his Reputation, where he is well known. For the rest of thy Abuses, Perversions, foul Detractions, Railery, and bitter angry Stuff, (in thy Pamphlets) which are not here recited, I leave thee to the Righteous Judge of all to reckon with and judge thee, as I doubt not but in due time he will.

§. 9. I hereby give the Reader further notice about that Paper before-mentioned, which William Rogers and thy self have printed and published in your Books in Edward Burroughs's Name, as his Testimony, Vision, &c. concerning The scattered of Israel, the Shepherd and his Dogs, and Sheep, [Page] &c. and which in thy third Edition thou recommendest, To be considered by all, more especially by us called Quakers, among whom (thou sayest) 'tis proved to be a true Vision, and not a Dream of E. B's making: Shewing still thy confident Credulity, that 'tis really Edward Burroughs's Paper. I am still the more confirmed that 'tis none of E. B's, but John Perrots; and that William Rogers and his party (who encouraged the Publication thereof) together with thy self, have been too credulous and confident, both in receiving the said Paper upon trust, and imposing it on others as Edward Burroughs's, and that therein you appear both implicit in your Faith, and meer Imposers, as well as Abusers of E. B. and his faithful Testimony, unless you can shew more manifest Testimony and valid Reason that the said Paper was E. B's, than we can show to the contrary that it was John Perrot's. It shall not serve W. R's turn to slight a Negative Testimony herein, unless he and his party can prove their Affirmative, that E. Burroughs was the Author of the said Paper, and that with more manifest Testimony and probable Reason than we have here to show to the contrary, namely, that 'twas John Perrot's: For besides the Unsoundness of the said Paper in Matter and Manner, before hinted, as one Reason that [Page] 'twas not E. B's; observe the following Certificates and Testimonies from Bristol, viz.

§

I Having read and perused the Paper of The scattered of Israel, set down in W. R's Book, stiled, The Christian-Quaker, to which W. R. affixeth and subscribeth the Name of Edward Burroughs, as the Author and Giver forth of the same. I remembring that I had read a Paper of the like Import among the Papers of John Batho, when living, did search into them after his decease, and among the Letters of John Perrot, which John Batho choicely kept and transcribed with his own Hand, I found the same Paper above mentioned, without any substantial variation of matter, with John Perrot's Name subscribed at length, which if duely weighed, and compared with the Writings and Stile of E. B. and J. P. seems, according to my best discerning, much more likely to be the Stile of John Perrot, than of Edward [Page]Burroughs. Further, I am well assured that the Hand-writing of that Paper is John Batho's, which I have reason to know, by the many Years Co-habitation and intimate Acquaintance that I had with him and his Hand-writing, who hath often expressed to me a more than ordinary respect to, and admiration that he had of John Perrot his Ministry and Writings, which occasioned his Diligence and Care in transcribing his Epistles and Writings, of which he left a large Parcel behind him at his decease. This I am a Witness of, and do give this Testimony, in order to the undeceiving of the Simple in that particular, and the vindicating of that worthy Friend E. B. from W. R's Mis-representations in this matter.

Bristol, the 2d of the 10th Moneth, 1682.

Laurence Steel.

§

[Page]

WE, whose Names are hereunto subscribed, have also perused and compared the abovementioned Paper, touching The scattered of Israel, &c. with that William Rogers recites in his Book, entituled, The Christian-Quaker, wherein he assigns Edward Burroughs to be the Author thereof; And upon strict Examination, we find it to be the same in Substance, differing only here and there in some Words, which alter not the sence, and appears to be only by the Writers mistake on one hand or other. We have also compared the said Paper with John Batho's Books of Accounts, and divers other Papers and Epistles transcribed under his own Hand, and do most apparently discern that the above-said Paper is the same Character with them, and the same Hand-writings. We also further testifie, that at the end of the said Paper, John Per [...]ots Name, as [Page] Author thereof (and not Edward Burroughs) is subscribed at length by the same Hand: And if William Rogers, or any else, desire a sight of the said Paper, Epistles and Books, we do freely offer our selves ready to shew it them.

Witness our Hands,

Charles Harford,

Richard Snead,

Richard Vickris.

Dated in Bristol, this 2d of the 10th Moneth, 1682.

SErious Reader, please to take notice, that since the writing of the second Section of the eighth Chapter, containing a Charge against T. C. for his dealing unjustly and injuriously by John Crook in the aforesaid citation, which I sent him a true Copy of about Tythes, &c. as stated by T. C. I received John Crook's own Answer by Letter, dated, 6th of the 10th Moneth, 1682. plainly importing his dislike, and Testimony against such publication of his Name and Citation, contrary to his Principle and Practice, signifying, That if T. C. hath done him right in the Quotation, he is sure he hath wronged him in the Intention, by making [Page]his Words speak any thing at all touching Tythes: And that his Paper, which is only in Manuscript, (near twenty Years since, writ on another occasion) Cannot with any ingenuity be referred to the Payment, or Non-payment of Tythes: And that by a Book writ by him, and Printed 1659. against Tythes, together with his own clearness from the payment thereof, it is evident He cannot reasonably be supposed to favour the Payment of them. Thus far J. Crook hath ingenuously and plainly intimated and given his judgment, which (compared with my Exception before) doth confirm it against T. C. his disingenuous and injurious Citation, reflecting on J. C. and his Testimony, who concludes his Letter & Account in these Words to me, (viz.)

What I have said, may satisfie those that are willing to be informed aright; and for others, that will not be contented, except their Humour of Conceitedness be gratified, they need not greater Judgment here, than to be their own Tormentors, and hereafter to be left to the Judgment of the great Day, when every man shall receive a Reward according to his Deeds.

Thy Brother in the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus, John Crook.

CHAP. IX.

[Page]

§. 1. Why notice is taken of Jeffery Bullock, in this Treatise; some Reasons given. §. 2. His charge of mens Inventions, false Doctrines. Of the Church of Rome, &c. Visible Church-Government, that's altogether Antichristian, testified against. §. 3 Christ's Government in his Church, how Invisible and Visible, vindicated from Jeffery Bullocks opposition to Elders, Mens Meetings and Womens Meetings, &c. §. 4. Our Reverence to God in our Prayers, and reverent Deportment and Conscientiousness therein, both in uncovering our Heads, Kneeling, &c. vindicated from his false Objections. §. 5. His fallacious dealing with our Doctrine about the Seed of God in man: The matter truly stated against his Falshood. §. 6. Of his disowning the arising of the Seed of God in man. §. 7. Our preaching Salvation and Justification by the Man Christ, the Son of God, and his being our Way to the Father, questioned by J. Bullock; here vindicated. §. 8. His Ignorance of the innocent Birth or Babe Immortal; and of Gods appearance and speaking by his Son, and his opposing the inward feeling of Life. [Page] His slanderous repetition against us about God being held in Bondage, testified against, and the matter opened, as what it is that suffers, and what is in Bondage in man. His denying Christ to be the only Way to the Father again; with a Collection of his Erronious and Atheistical Doctrines. §. 9. His opposing Justification, Salvation and Condemnation by that Christ that suffered, proved Erronious, and against his Mediatorship, and Scripture-Testimony. J. B. confounded about two Christs, &c. §. 10. His opposing Christ's coming of David, &c. And his asserting that his Soul dyed, that he internally dyed. And his holding the Mortality of the Soul of man, proved Erronious and Atheistical, and abundantly contradicted by himself and his Preaching. §. 11. His asserting the Scriptures to be the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, whimsical and erronious; and disowning our Friends Book, Letter and Testimony, and yet confessing them to be in the Letter of the Scriptures, contradictory to himself and his Books against us. §. 12. His practical contradiction in separating himself from others, and preaching in our Friends Meeting at Sudbury. His erronious Denyings and Doctrines sumed up, and denyed by the true Christian-Quakers.

[Page]The Conclusion, by way of Solemn Appeal and Supplication to God.

§. 1. COncerning Jeffery Bullock's four Pamphlets, slanderously charging us with Antichristian Doctrines, and an Antichristian Government, or a visible Church-Government that's altogether Antichristian, as in his One Blow, pag. 9. &c.

Some may ask me, Why I take notice of such confused, muddled, blind, dark and mad Stuff, as his appears to be? To which I Answer:

First, Because neither the Truth, nor us, as a Religious People and Christian Society, may lie under any Dis-repute, Blemish or Derision thereof, in the Eyes of those that know not, nor rightly understand the Christian Doctrine, Discipline, Church-Government, and wholsom Order among us, seeing the said J. B. has been for many Years conversant among the People called Quakers, and born the Name of a Quaker (he saith) this twenty Years, and more: Though he IS NO QVAKER, but turn'd an open Enemy to them.

Secondly, Because the said Jeffery Bullock, in a great measure, runs parallel with, and resembles William Rogers and his party, in his opposition and gain-saying of that Order and Church-Government that is [Page] among us, falsly accusing us with Men's Inventions, Imitations, Traditions, laying aside the Spirits Government, &c. as in his ONE BLOW, &c.

Thirdly, Because four Persons of William Rogers's Party Their Names I forbear exposing at present to this monstrous Birth they have adopted from Jeffery Bullock. But if they shall again suffer or encourage the reading of any such Unchristian, disingenuous and malicious Books (or Pamphlets) as W. R's 7th part, by any of their Party in Friends publick Meeting, (as I understand, was once done at Chippinham, which was a turbulent, irreverent, and mad Action) then they will more manifestly deserve to have their Names exposed, both in relation to that, and to Jeffery Bullock and his Books, &c. of Chippinham in Wiltsshire have given their approbation in a Letter to the said Jeffery Bullock of his Books, particularly that called, One Blow more against Antichrist's Ministers; and have declared, that several Friends have good Vnity therewith; Which I do not believe: And not only so, but this in opposition and contempt to others, whom they abusively revile in these Words (viz.) But here are also a company of called Friends, which are very much for Foxonians Orders, which may be called mens Inventions, that do make it their work to Defame and Calumniate all them [...] do not conform thereunto. Some of[Page]which thou, and most of which we are in our Hearts perswaded are Servants of the living God, amongst which thou hast a share of being villified to be a bad man; although to us its no manner of Invitation for us to give Credit thereunto, &c — Barnadiston and another hath been here, their envious Darts fly very swiftly and secretly—If thou pleasest to send half a Dozen of thy Books, &c. With other Aggravations in the said Chippinham Letter, shewing not only their approbation and owning of Jeffery Bullock and his Books, but also their bitterness of Spirit in villifying and reproaching others; although I understand they have been a little ashamed of their approbation of his Books, yet not that they have repented of the bitterness of their Spirits, nor condemned those villifying Reproaches and bitter Expressions in their said Letter, as Foxonians Orders, Barnadiston and another; their envious Darts fly very swiftly, &c. What scorn, bitterness, and rancor do such Expressions bespeak? Christ never taught them to give such Names to Friends as Foxonians, nor would they take it well to be so dealt by, nay, they would think much if they should but be called Johannites, and their reviling Giles Barnardiston, who was a peaceable innocent man, and of good Report, doth bespeak a great Prejudice and Enmity [Page] to have entred their Spirits, which they should plainly have condemned; their Letter is all perverse, but I do not understand any sincere or tender Retractation, or real Condemnation thereof given out by them.

Fourthly, Notice is here taken of Jeffery Bullock's Pamphlets, to manifest the great Absurdity that opposit dividing Spirit leads into, and to warn others against it. And why these Persons should so hastily approve of Jeffery Bullock's Books, or say, that several Friends have good Unity therewith, I know no reason, being in several things so Corrupt, Erronious and Atheistical, as they are, except it be with respect to the Oppositions therein contained against the Church-Government, Order and Methods among us, in opposing whereof, Jeffery Bullock was these men's Elder Brother. Concerning which, take a view of some Passages in his said Pamphlet, viz. One Blow more, in his own Words.

§. 2. Jeffery Bullock saith, And you my Brethren also ought to have Preached up God's invisible appearance by his Spirit in our dayes, to be the end of mens Inventions, Imitations and false Doctrines: But instead thereof, you have preached up false Doctrines, and also set [Page]up your own Inventions among the Quakers so called, p. 5.

Answer; His charge of false Doctrines, and mens Inventions, we utterly deny as slanderous: God's invisible and spiritual Appearance, and the Testimony thereof still lives among us in as high esteem as ever, against false Doctrines and mens Inventions. But herein J. B. resembles the rest of the Opposers, in the work of the false Accuser of our Brethren.

Jeffery Bullock. My Brethren, I fear you are not past the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, nor yet of the Priests and Professors of England [a false Fear] There is as great necessity of Preaching up Salvation to us Gentiles, by God's invisible Appearance, who is a Spirit, and also his Spirit to be the end of all mens Inventions, Imitations, Traditions, &c. pag. 6. [True, but misapplied] Therefore I would have G. Fox, and the eleven Elders, who are preaching up false Doctrines, and also setting up their Inventions among the People called Quakers, as Rules, &c. p. 7.

Answer; Herein he is a false Accuser still like the rest, and he's far louder in his Charges than in's Proof. False Doctrines and Inventions of men, both of the Church of Rome and elsewhere, we utterly deny.

J. B. My Brethren your visible Church-Government [Page]is altogether Antichristian, because that every Member of the Church in God is to be both ruled and governed by the measure of Gods Spirit in them; and it is none of George Fox's, nor yet the eleven Elders that is to be a Rule for the Quakers to walk by, p. 9.

Answ. His charge of Antichristian and Inventions we utterly deny, and testifie against as Antichristian; and he, and the rest of his backsliding Spirit, and approvers of him and his Books, are never able to make his Charge good. However, here its plain that he opposes visible Church-Government, because of the inward Rule by the measure of God's Spirit, wherein he argues Erroniously, and contrary to the Apostles Doctrine and Primitive Christians Practice: Both the inward Rule, and outward Order, and due Methods among them, all springing from God's Spirit within, were not to draw them from a dependance on that Spirit, but to shew forth Obedience in Practice and Example to the holy Spirit and pure Religion, and therein to help one another, for which purpose the Holy Ghost made Overseers and Elders, The Elders that rule well are worthy, &c. He that ruleth with Diligence, &c. I left thee in Creet to set in order those things that are lacking, &c. But there were such Apostates then as despised Dominion, and spoke Evil [Page] of Dignities, even of those Instruments and Ministers, Helps and Governments, whom the Lord ordained and raised up and dignified in his Church; and such are these Opposers now in the same Spirit of Opposition and Contempt.

§. 3. J. B. And she (i. e. the Church) hath no need of your visible Government, because she is the Bride, the Lambs Wife; and she hath no need of the Light of the Moon to shine in her, because the Lord is the Light, and the Lambs Spirit is the Light of the Church that is in him: But your visible Churches make use of the Light of the Moon, That's a Whimsie; where proves he that? Or that the Light of the Moon is Antichristian? that is, your Mens Meetings, and also your Womens Meetings, and the Orders which are set up by them, they are to be Rules for your visible Churches to walk by: For the Women have power to order the Affairs of your visible Church, as well as your Men; and this Practice of yours is altogether Antichristian, and so also is your Church-Government, because it is the Invisible man Christ, who orders all things in his Church by his own Spirit.—Those who are Members of the Church in God among you, in time will abhor your Government, because it is Antichristian; For you Elders do look upon[Page]your selves to be Judges, and that you have Power to determine things in matter of Conscience, &c. p. 10, 11.

Answ. Christ's Government in his Church is both Invisible and Visible, he governs by himself and by his Ministers: all are not come to a ripe Age in him, there are many Children and weak Ones, who have need of helps in Government: Our faithful Mens Meetings and Womens Meetings were set up by the Power of Christ Jesus, and in his Light he governs and rules among them by his own Spirit: And faithful, grave and sober Women have power to be Teachers of good things, and to teach the younger Women. Christian-Church-Order and Spiritual Rule were exercised among the Primitive Christians, both Men and Women, who were Children of New Jerusalem, the free Woman; the Inhabitants of this City are not without Order, or Ministers therein. And therefore this Opposers Blow and Charge of [altogether Antichristian] against our Mens and Womens Meetings, is both Silly, Proofless, Slanderous, and altogether Antichristian, against Christ's Work (and appointment) in Male and Female; and as the Church-Government among us is Christ's Government, both revealed, set up, and ordained by him; none that are [Page] and continue true Members of his Church, will ever abhor that Government, nor reject, slight or despise that promised Dominion and Judgment that he hath given to the Saints to determine matters of Difference, but only Apostates, false Brethren and deceitful Workers, and loose Spirits; these will be smiting and accusing the Brethren, despising Dominion, and speaking evil of Dignities; yea, speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after them, crying against outward Rule and Government, Forms and Order in the Church, whilst they are seeking Mastery, Dominion, Rule and Government to themselves. As for our visible Church and visible Church-Government (or Order) so much opposed by this Adversary, he talks blindly and ignorantly; for though the Church be Invisible, as to the Spirits of Men, who are Members of it, and Christ's immediate Rule and Government in the Heart be Invisible, yet there is a Visibility both of the true Christian Congregation, and good Order and Rule therein, proceeding from the Spirit of Christ within.

The People of God and their good Conversations and Order in Christ, are not all shut up in an Invisibility, being as Epistles to be read and seen of all; and they as a City set upon a Hill, &c.

[Page]J. B. You do prefer your selves, and the Church in the first place before God, who is Light— And have set up themselves and their Church as Head, instead of God and Christ, p. 12. Their setting up themselves and their Government, and are laying aside the Spirit's Government and Authority, p. 13. Those Elders who call themselves Ministers, look upon themselves and their Image to be equal in Power and Glory, both with the Father and the Son, Testimony against the Quakers, p. 3.

Answ. These are notoriously false and slanderous; We prefer the living God, and his Son Christ Jesus before all, and do not lay aside the Spirit's Government or Authority, but in humility reverence, and desire ever to live under the same, knowing Self abased, and Images defaced and rejected by the Light of Christ Jesus.

§. 4. J. B. If any of those called Teachers intend to speak a few words commonly called Prayer, then the Women and the Men that are set in the Meeting, shall rise up, and the Men will uncover their Heads.—Their Teachers have judged those Quakers not to be real Members of their Church or Body, that have not done it (i. e. uncovered their Heads) And herein the Quakers in general have given more Homage, Reverence and Respect to the Words or Prayers of another, wherein there was no Life [Page]at all, than they have done to the Word of Life it self in their own Particulars: And this is Anti-christ's work, p. 14, 15.

Answ. His conclusion is false and slanderous herein. We Reverence the Word of Life in our living Prayers, and not Lifeless Words; And why doth he thus judge any Reverent Posture among us in Prayer, as that of Peoples Rising up, and Mens Uncovering their Heads in our holy Duty of publick Prayer? This is like John Perrot's prejudiced Party. And how foully Contradictory to himself is he in thus uncharitably judging us for our Reverent Posture or serious Behaviour, which is matter of Conscience to us, when yet he'l not allow any Members or Elders among us to judge or determine matters relating to Conscience? And cautions us in Christ's words, Judge not, that ye be not judged, p. 12. Oh, blind harden'd Man! how darest thou thus judge over our Consciences, or falsly accuse us with leading People from the Power, to worship and reverence the Form more than the Power? And then most falsly to add, That this is the work of Antichrist among the Quakers, p. 17. Here thou hast slandered, and shamefully belyed the People of God called Quakers, and hast shewn thy self not worthy of so much as the Name of a Quaker. Thou hast long been a Reproach unto them.

[Page]J. B. Postscript to his Antichrist's Transformations within, (viz.) If any amongst you pretend to be moved by the Spirit to go to Prayer, then both Men and Women, they either stand up or else kneel down, and the Men all pull off their Hats, which own your Form of Prayer; and herein you do both Worship, Reverence and Adore the Form outwardly, and the Words more than you do the Word of Life in your own Particulars.

Answ. An erronious Conclusion, and no natural Consequence, either of our standing up, kneeling or putting off our Hats in Prayer; for all these may be and are innocently and conscientiously performed with Respect (and in a holy Reverence) to Almighty God, whom we breathe and pray unto by his own Spirit. Besides, both Kneeling and being Uncovered have been practised among God's People and true Christians in Prayer to him; so that these Postures are not condemnable in themselves. How blind and ignorant therefore is this Gain-sayer in his Opposition? Read Psal. 95.6. O come, let us Worship and Bow down▪ Let us Kneel before the Lord our Maker. And Acts 21.5. And we Kneeled down on the Shore and prayed; see also 1 Cor. 11.4.

§. 5. Having thus manifested the Heads of Jeffery Bullock's Opposition to outward [Page] Order and visible Church Government, &c. and how blind and irrational he is therein, Inconsistent, Erronious and Antichristian in his Judgment. Now take a view of the Doctrinal part of some of those Doctrines he opposeth, and what Doctrines he asserteth.

J. B. The second false Doctrine by you Preached, and also Printed, is, That the Seed, Spirit, Word, or God, is both in Prison, Bondage and Captivity, and to be quickned, raised, &c. and that the Blessing is to the Seed, p. 2, 3. of his ONE BLOW.

Answ. Herein he hath dealt unfairly and fallaciously; he hath not produced any Book of ours, or our Friends, wherein this Doctrine is Printed, nor proved where any of us have thus asserted in these very Words, though much of his opposition in his Pamphlets depend hereupon. We deny the Doctrine that the Word, God, is either in Bondage or Captivity in the Sons and Daughters of men, but only that there is a Seed of God and of Christ that is oppressed, and suffers in many by reason of Transgression [a Seed of God] is commonly our phrase and terms in this case: God is greater, he is above all, he is God and Father of his own Seed and Birth in man, which is a tender Seed, a lowly and innocent Seed, of the nature of Christ Jesus as Mediator,[Page]who hath planted of his own Seed in man from the beginning, even of his own Life, Soul and Image, &c. who was The first born of every Creature, who said, My Father is greater than I: A [...] from this Seed comes a holy Generation, in them that believe in his Name and Power. Read also the Parable of the Sower, which was the Son of Man, and of the Seed that fell, some on good Ground, some on stony Ground, and some in High-way Ground, &c.Matth. 13. And also how the Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a Grain of Mustard Seed; as also the Parable of the Pearl hid in the Field, &c. And further, the Seed of God and Christ may suffer, and yet not be in Bondage nor Captivity; nor hath the Devil or Sin, power or dominion over Christ or his Spirit in man (as J. B. falsly infers against us) but over the Soul and whole Creature in Sin, for whom Christ laid down his Life, and took it up again, who gave his Flesh for the Life of the World; And every one that seeth the Son, and believeth on him, shall have everlasting Life; and I will raise him up at the last day, (saith Christ) John 6.39, 40, 44. and ver. 54. Christ Jesus is not brought into Bondage or Captivity in man, though he condescends to suffer and bear Affliction for his own Seed and Generation, to bring them forth; for his own Arm can bring Salvation[Page]to him: he can take unto him his great Power when he pleaseth: Though he was oppressed and afflicted, and his Soul was Sorrowful, nigh unto Death, when he bore the Sin of many in the dayes of his Flesh, & when the Iniquities of all did meet upon him, when he suffered on the Cross; and he is also such an high Priest as can be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities, suffer with us, and be afflicted in all our Afflictions; many are also said, To pierce him, grieve his holy Spirit, crucifie to themselves the Lord of Life afresh, and to tread under Foot the Son of God, &c. These are certain Allusions and Elegancies, intimating Christ's suffering, and also his being offended and grieved by the Contempt, Despight and Enmity of the Rebellious: And yet Christ cannot be properly said to be in bondage or captivity in the Sons and Daughters of men; for (as in himself) he that was dead, and is alive, ever lives in Dominion, having power over all Flesh, that he might give eternal Life to all that come unto him, & truly believe in him: 'Tis properly said of the Souls of Man and Woman in the Fall, that they are in Bondage and Captivity; that they are in Prison and Thraldom, till Christ bring them forth and deliver them: Psal. 142.1. Bring my Soul out of Prison that I may praise thy Name. And be [Page] sure he that brings the Soul out of Prison, does condescend to visit it in Prison. He that brings up the Soul out of the horrible Pit, does first descend or reach so low to fetch it up, or else it would alwayes remain th [...]re.

§. 6. J. B. Antichrist's Transformations, pag. 9. The Seed is not to arise in man— And p. 25. I disown the arising of the Seed or God in man.

Answ. A sad Doctrine and State! That's because the Enemy is arisen to such a great hight in thee, that thou dost not own the arising of the Seed of God in thee: What Fruit canst thou bring forth to God, if thou dost deny the arising of his Seed in thee? 'Tis evident thy Heart is bad Ground, stony Ground and thorny Ground, in which the good Seed hath not taken Root, so as to spring up, and bring forth Fruit unto Perfection; for in the good Ground or honest Heart it takes Root downward, and brings forth Fruit upward. And they that take heed unto the Light of Christ in them, where it shines but as in a dark place, they come to see the Day dawn, and the Day-Star arise in their Hearts: And is not Christ Jesus the bright and Morning Star? But thou, as an enemy to the Seed of God, disownest the arising of his Seed in thee. [Page] Howbeit, that His Light doth ARISE: The brightness of his RISING: He shall grow up: Truth shall SPRING out of the Earth: The Sun of Righteousness shall ARISE: The Day spring: Let God ARISE and his Enemies be scattered, &c. The Word of God grew: So mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed. These are Scripture Terms and Language, though little heeded by thee: We shall see more of thy absurd and erronious Disownings and Denyings anon, concerning the very Christ of God, and the Soul, &c. But how comest thou to deny the arising of the Seed in man, when thou hast espoused and cited what G. B. writ as thou sayest, against that Paper of Orders, &c. seeing he herein plainly saith, The Revelation of God is to his Seed, and his secrets he reveals to it, for which he made the World, and for whose sake it is continued; And now the SEED IS RAISED to reign over all. (Thus far G. B. thy authority.) But how shamefully hast thou contradicted him in this matter, in thy disowning the arising of the Seed in Man?

§. 7. J. B. You do preach both Salvation and Justification, and also Condemnation to us Gentiles, by the man Christ, the Son of God, as other Professions do; and this Doctrine I would have you to prove, because you preach [Page]Salvation by Christ the Light within.—You Preachers do say in your Declaration, that the Son of God is come, and hath given you an understanding; the which Doctrine I do deny, ONE BLOW, p. 20.

Answ. Thou that canst not reconcile (or see the consistency of) Salvation by the Man Christ Jesus, AND by his Light within, art gone from his Light into Imaginations. Why hast thou not better observed the Gospel preached by the Angel of the Lord to the Shepherds, concerning Jesus Christ the Son of God, Luke 2.11. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord; see also Mat. 1.21. Read also good Old Simeon's Testimony, which he gave of the Lord's Christ, Luke 2.26, 27, 28. And also read Verse 30, 31, 32. For mine Eyes have seen thy Salvation, which thou hast prepared before the Face of all People, a Light to lighten the Gentiles, and the Glory of thy People Israel. The true Christ of God is but one, though he hath appeared in divers manners, both in the Flesh and in the Spirit; he is the Light; he is the Way to the Father; he is the Saviour; he is the one Mediator betwixt God and Man, even the Man Christ Jesus, the heavenly, glorious Man, the Man that was promised to be for a hiding place, who in the dayes of his Flesh, said, I am the Light of the World— [Page] And, He that is with you, shall be in you. As he was the eternal Word, the Son of God; the Life that was in him was the Light of men (John 1.) both before his coming in the Flesh, and ever since, and therefore he was that true Light that enlightens every man that cometh into the World; he was given for Life and Salvation: This our one Lord Jesus Christ is our Light, Life and Salvation, he is also Judge of quick and dead, that MAN by whom God will judge the World in Righteousness; he that believeth not in his Name, is condemned already; and This is the Condemnation that Light is come into the World (i. e. the Light of the Son of God) and Men love Darkness rather then Light, John 3. see also 2 Thes. 1.7, 8. When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with his mighty Angels in flaming Fire, taking Vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel, &c. Then such shall know him their Judge and Condemner unto their deserved punishment; see Verse 9.

J. B. You Teachers do hold forth to us Gentiles Christ the Son of God, to be our Way to the Father; The which Doctrine I would have you to prove; One Blow, p. 20.

Answ. What defidence and unbelief hath entred thee? Christ the Son of God testied, John 14.6. I am the Way, the Truth, [Page]and the Life: No man cometh unto the Father but by me; and no man cometh unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. Wherefore in that no man cometh unto the Father but by the Son, the Son is the way to the Father, and the Father's drawing or teaching reacheth unto man, before he come to the Son or Father, that he may be drawn and come to both. No mans knows the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. Therefore Christ the Son of God, is the way to the Father out of Adam in the fall (if thoul't believe him) and 'Tis by one Spirit through Jesus Christ (the Mediator) that we have access to the Father.

§. 8. J. B. In his gross Errors detected, or many of the Doctrines of the leading Quakers disowned, as coming from an Antichristian Spirit, p. 1. he saith, John Webb's Doctrine was, That God's appearance in the Sons and Daughters of men, is to beget and bring forth that innocent Birth and Babe immortal, &c. This Doctrine doth signifie that God's appearance is to his Son Christ Jesus, and for the begetting and bringing of him forth in the Sons and Daughters of men; the which Doctrine I do deny.

Answ. First, God's appearance in the Sons and Daughters of men, is not to bring forth a nocent Birth, nor a Babe that's mortal, [Page] but an innocent Birth, and a Babe immortal. Except a man be Born of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God: And whosoever is born of God, doth not commit Sin, for his Seed remaineth in him.

Secondly; This innocent Birth, which God by his Spirit brings forth in the Sons and Daughters of men, who truly believe, relates to them and their souls, as begotten and born of the immortal seed, by the living word: so that this Birth is not Christ Jesus; for he is that incorruptible Seed and Word of Life, which begets, forms and brings forth the Soul of man into his own Nature and Image, and so he renews his own Image in man, that believes in his Power; and so Christ may be said to be formed in us, as in a mysterious and elegant way of speaking: the property and effect being put for the cause; for Christ in himself hath all Power in Heaven and Earth given to him, and it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell in him.

J. B. That God's appearance is in and by his Son Christ Jesus to us, and that all are to hear the Son in them, by whom the Father speaketh to them, and that the Son in us is our way to the Father; The which Doctrine I do deny. His gross Error, p. 1.

Answ. Here thou hast denyed sound Doctrine, which is according to Christs own [Page] Doctrine, i. e. He that seeth me, seeth the Father also: who hath shined in our Hearts, to give us the Light of the Knowledge of his Glory in the face of Christ Jesus: And my Sheep hear my Voice, saith Christ: And God hath spoken to us by his Son. Thy denying God's appearing, and speaking by his Son, and his Son to be our way to the Father▪ Herein thou hast not only denyed Christ's own Testimony, but the blessed advantage we have by him as MEDIATOR.

J. B. Another of their Doctrines is, That the Quakers ought so to wait upon God, as that they may feel the Life in them to flow from Vessel to Vessel, whenas they are met together to wait upon God. This was Charles Marshalls Wife's Doctrine, p. 2 ibid.

Answ. This is neither false Doctrine nor gross Error, as thou imaginest, but sound Doctrine; Hannah Marshall knew better than thy self herein; for they that truly wait upon God, both receive an encrease of Life from him who is the Fountain, and feel Life to flow from Vessel to Vessel; He that believes as the Scripture saith, out of his Belly shall flow Rivers of living Waters; This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe should receive. And the true Believers all drink into One Spirit. And there is among such a spiritual and effectual Communication of Faith and Virtue, in the living [Page] Communion of the holy Spirit; all which thy dark Imaginations have deprived thee of.

J. B. These Doctrines of the Quakers are false Doctrines and Antichristian, because that God's Appearance is not by his Son Christ Jesus to us, p. 3.

Answ. Thou art guilty of Antichristian Doctrine, and Anti-scriptural also, in denying God's Appearance to be by his Son Christ Jesus, The Mediator; for what God is to us for our Salvation, and what good we receive from him for our Souls, and what we are unto him in our Obedience (as acceptable to him) 'tis all IN and Through our Lord Jesus Christ the Mediator.

J. B. That God, who is a Spirit, should be held in Bondage and Captivity by his Creation, or by the Power of Darkness, is contrary to Right Reason—So that it must needs follow by plain Argument, that not only the Creature, but the Power of Darkness too hath had Dominion over God—contrary to sound Doctrine, and is Blasphemy, pag. 5, 6. GROSS ERRORS.

Answ. This thou hast often unjustly and slanderously repeated upon the Quakers; and herein I testifie against thy Abuse, and dare Challenge thee to prove out of any of our Writings, that 'tis the Quakers Doctrine, That either God is held in Bondage or Captivity[Page]by his Creation, or that the Power of Darkness hath Dominion over him. We utterly deny the Assertion and Expressions as Blasphemous; but do say, the holy Spirit is grieved, and the Seed of God burdened by the Iniquities of the World, which suffering is in Condescention on Christ's part, and not for want of Power or Dominion over the Devil or Wicked men; for he bruiseth his Head, hath Power to subdue, condemn and punish them, and his own Arm to bring Salvation to him.

J. B. Another of their Doctrines, That all are to come to the Son of God, Christ Jesus, whom they say is in them, and that he is the only Way to the Father; which Doctrine I do deny, because it is God who both was and is a Spirit, which hath first appeared in and to the Sons and Daughters of men, after sin, &c.— Therefore every one is to be first turned to God in their own particulars, and NOT to the Son of God, p 8. Gross Errors.

Answ. This Erronious Denyal and Doctrine of thine, against coming to the Son of God, as the only Way to the Father, is but the same reiterated over and over. The Father and the Son are not divided in the work of Regeneration. I and my Father are one, saith Christ: No man cometh to the Father but by me. But 'tis no marvel that thou hast denyed Christ (the Mediator) to [Page] be the way to the Father, and so opposed his Mediatorship; for thy Denyals and Oppositions appear more Gross, Erronious and Antichristian against Christ himself and the holy Scriptures in thy Antichrist's Transformations.

1st, In thy not owning Justification or Condemnation by Christ N [...] marvel if Giles Barnardiston's Wife did say that she trembled to hear the Blasphemy that thou heldst, as thou sayest; Antichrist [...]s Transfor. pag. 21. that dyed without the Gates of Jerusalem; which thou confessest to be the ground and main Difference that arose between some of the Quakers and thee, p. 10.

2dly, In thy asserting, That Christ's Soul dyed, p. 19. N [...] marvel if Giles Barnardiston's Wife did say that she trembled to hear the Blasphemy that thou heldst, as thou sayest; Antichrist [...]s Transfor. pag. 21. And so thy holding the the Mortality of the Soul in general.

3dly, Thy asserting, That the Book of the Scriptures both was and is the fruit which the Tree of Knowledge bears, p. 22.

4thly, Thy affirming, That there is Two Christs, p. 23. Thus thou arguest.

§. 9. J. B. It is no where written in the Scriptures, that we shall either be justified or condemned by that Christ which dyed without the Gates of Jerusalem; but it is written, By Grace ye are saved, and by Grace ye are justified; and 'tis also written, By the Light of the World ye are condemned; and not by [Page]Christ that dyed without the Gates of Jerusalem, Antichr. Transf. p. 17.

Answ. Here again thy erronious Blindness is apparent, who seest not how consistent being saved and justified by that Christ who is the very Christ of God, to whom all the Prophets gave witness, AND being saved and justified by his Grace; both which the holy Scripture testifie. Isa. 53.11. By his Knowledge shall my Righteous Servant justifie many; for he shall bear their Iniquities. This was a Prophecy of the same Christ that suffered; and Mat. 1.21. She shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his Name Jesus, for he shall save his People from their Sins; and verse 23. Behold, a Virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son, and his Name shall be called Emanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with us: And Luke 2.11. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And that Grace by which we are saved, is that Grace of God which comes by Christ; see also Tit. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. Where the saving Grace of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all Iniquity &c. are testified of; and therefore Salvation by that Christ, through his Grace are not Inconsistent.

J. B. Now if Salvation be by that Christ that dyed without the Gates at Jerusalem, then [Page]are all the Gentiles perished that were in the World before that Body came into the World, Antich. Trans. p. 18.

Answ. Thy consequence is erronious; for that very Christ, the Son of God, was (and is) Mediator and Saviour from the beginning; his outgoings were from of Old, he was spiritually in being by his Life, Light, Spirit and Grace before he took upon him that Body prepared of the Father to do his Will. John bore witness of that Man Christ, saying, He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me, John 1.15. And again, vers. 30. After me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he was before me: Therefore the Man Christ Jesus was before he came in the Body or Flesh: He was that spiritual Rock which all Israel drank of; his Life was the Light of men from the beginning, and all the generations of the Righteous did spiritually p [...]rtake of the benefit of Christ as Mediator, both before and after his Coming in the flesh they vertually pertook of the Sacrifice of the Lamb, of the vertue of the Blood of the Covenant for Remission, and were saved by the Life of this Mediator; by Faith they pertook of the spiritual Advantage of his suffering and sacrifice, who was as a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World, and as (in the fullness of time) his [Page] coming and suffering in the flesh, and his tasting Death for every man, and his giving himself a Ransom for all, were for a Testimony in due time of God's great kindness to Mankind. So Christ's coming in the flesh an eminent Dispensation from God, ordained and decreed in great love to Mankind: So that thereby a greater and more eminent discovery and breaking forth of his Light and Glory in the Gospel Day and Dispensation was manifest in due time, which Glory the holy spirit of Christ in the holy Prophets testified of, as that which should follow his sufferings; and in him are all Nations and Families of the Earth blessed and saved, who believe and walk in his Light.

J. B. All the World was freed from their Offerings for sin by that one Offering—reconciled to God by the death of his Son—But we must be redeemed, justified and also saved by a measure of the same Life that dwelt in the Son, in which Life the Son of God offered up his Soul and Body to be crucified to the Death a Sacrifice once for all These precedent words (except that of his Soul) are true; but not the subsequent. Then NO Salvation to the Souls of the Sons and Daughters of men by him that dyed without the Gates at Jerusalem, p. 19. Anti. Transformations.

Answ. An erronious Inference still, and [Page] most blindly reiterated; for if we must be saved by that Life that was in the Son of God, how darest thou deny Salvation to the souls of Mankind by him that so suffered and dyed? seeing we are reconciled by his Death; who dyed and rose again, and Death has no more dominion over him? And hast not thou confessed that we are reconciled by his Death, so we shall be saved by his Life?

Well, by whose Life? by the Life of the very same Christ of God, who (as concerning the flesh) was put to Death. And was his Death then no ways conducing to our Salvation? How are we then reconciled by it? Is Reconciliation no degree of Salvation? Surely thou art under great Contradiction and gross Mistakes in this matter.

To thy Objection, That Mary saith, her Soul did magnifie the Lord, and her Spirit did rejoyce in God her Saviour, p. 21. And that God said, Look unto Me all ye Ends of the Earth, and be saved, p. 23.

This is no proof that his Son Jesus Christ was No Saviour; for God saves by his Son; God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself; God works by the Mediator; and Jesus Christ, who is the Saviour and the Redeemer is both truly God and Man Inseparable.

[Page]But how comest thou off in answer to the Objection made against thee, (viz.) If no Salvation by that Christ that dyed without the Gates of Jerusalem, then thy Doctrine implyeth two Christs, which we do not profess, nor preach, nor own; for in words thou over and over tellest us of that Christ that dyed without the Gates, and that he was the Son of God, the Christ of God, &c. What sayst thou to this? Review thy following words:

J. B. (viz.) Now that there are two Christs, it is plain according to the Scriptures; for there is both the true Christ and Antichrist, p. 23.

Rep. Oh, sad and lamentable! How absurdly, blindly and erroniously hast thou answered here! The Objection or Question against thee was not about Antichrist, but about the True Christ, who is the very Christ of God, who was crucified at Jerusalem, and is in his Saints (by his Light, Life and Spirit) whom thy Doctrine tends to render Two Christs, and so to divide the True Christ; but we testifie he is but One; As to us there is but ONE GOD, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and ONE Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him, 1 Cor. 8.6. And of this ONE Lord Jesus Christ the true Apostles testified as One and the same Christ, though he variously appeared, according to what is written of him, (1 Cor. 15. & 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [Page] verses) of his Death and Resurrection, and how he was seen of many, And last of all he was seen of me also, (saith Paul) as of one born out of due time, v. 8. This was ONE and the SAME CHRIST still.

§. 10. J. B. Now Christ he neither came of David, nor yet of Israel, according to the Flesh; not as to his outward appearance as he was a visible Man; but he came of David and Israel both, according to the Spirit: And this is the Spirit whom God hath exalted, both as a Prince and a Saviour; Anti. Trans. p. 23.

Answ. This is a gross Mistake, and Contradictory to plain Scripture; see Rom. 1.3, 4, 5. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the Flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with Power, according to the spirit of Holiness, by the Resurrection from the dead; by whom we have received GRACE and Apostleship for obedience to the Faith among all Nations for his Name; see also Rom. 9.5. But thou sayst, He neither came of David, nor yet of Israel according to the flesh, quite contrary to the Apostle's testimony; Which shall People believe, thee or the Apostle? Surely not such a blind, muddled, confused, dark and dull Soul as thou art. I wish thee (with the Light of Christ within, on the holy Scriptures) to recollect thy self [Page] better, that thou mayst repent, and condemn, and call in thy muddled, confused, distracted, whimsical and mad Pamphlets, that would be the safest way for thee upon all accounts; for thou hast no matter of Religion to suffer for, thy hope being in this Life only according to thy Principle of the Soul's Mortality.

J. B. He that dyed without the Gates at Jerusalem—he was the Christ of God, being one with the Spirit of God; but it was the Womans part What Scripture hath he that saith His Soul was the Woman's part that dyed? The Scripture says otherwise; That 'twas according to the Flesh, he was made of the seed of David, Rom. 1.3. that dyed, that was his What Scripture hath he that saith His Soul was the Woman's part that dyed? The Scripture says otherwise; That 'twas according to the Flesh, he was made of the seed of David, Rom. 1.3. Soul and Body.— Now Christ as he was a visible Man, and made of a visible Woman made under the Law, he INTERNALLY DYED, as to his SOUL and BODY; Antichrist's Transformations, pag. 19.

Answ. Oh poor Jeffery! Whither art thou run in thy whimsical Conceits, and distracted Imaginations, one while to DENY Jesus Christ the Son of God, to be the Way to the Father; another while to DENY Salvation by him; another while to DENY the Immortality of his Soul; and here most erroniously to AFFIRM, That his Soul dyed, and that he internally dyed as [Page]to his Soul. Oh! Antichristian and Antiscriptural Doctrine! For though he was put to death only as to his Body, his Soul dyed not with it; for he said, Father, into thy Hands I commend my Spirit, Luke 23.46. see Acts 7.59. And to the penitent Thief, To Day shalt thou be with me in Paradise, Luke 23.43. Therefore his Soul (or Spirit) dyed not with the Body, he did not internally dye, he dyed only as to the Body, being put to death as concerning the Flesh, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures; and Death has no more dominion over him. And although it be said, He hath poured out his Soul unto Death: This concerned the travail of soul, and sorrows of death, which he was under the sence of, when he said, My Soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, Matth. 26.38. whilst yet his soul was living and immortal in its own being, praying and making intercession unto the Father: For pouring out the Soul or Heart, sometimes (in Scripture) imports an earnest supplication to God, and travail in Prayer; Psal. 42.4. I pour out my Soul in me. And Psal. 62.8. Pour out your Heart before him, God is a Refuge for us. The soul of Messiah was poured out in Prayer and Supplication to the Father, whilst in great sorrow and deep suffering for Mankind, even when he bore the Sin of [Page] many, and made intercession for the Transgressors.Isa. 53. Thus his soul was poured out, and made an offering for Sin, that he might see his Seed, and the effect of his Souls travail, and be satisfied, and through all Reign with the Father in the same Glory which he had with him before the World began. So that the Messiah reigneth in Life, Glory and Immortality, blessed forever; and his Saints shall reign with him for evermore.

But thy Error ends not here, in asserting that Christ's Soul dyed, seeing thou hast publickly opposed the Immortality of the Soul in my hearing, and the hearing of many more, and hast affirmed, The mortality of the Soul of man, that it dyes with the Body. And so denying future States, Beeings and Rewards of mankind. Thou knowest (Jeffery) I have laboured with thee at sundry times, and before several endeavoured to Convince thee of thy Atheistical Error in this very point; and many are my Witnesses therein: But thou hast appeared wilful, dark and pertinacious in thy blind, dark and confused Imaginations, whereupon I have exhorted thee, and do exhort thee, to give over Preaching, and telling People of saving their Souls by the Word, and of raising of our Souls out of the [Page]Grave of Sin and Death, by the Light and Power of God within, when thou dost not believe any Immortality of the Souls of Men, more than of a Beast, as I have told thee to thy Face; when the Beast dyes, there's an end. So what gross Hypocrisie is it in thee so often to Preach in Friends Meetings at Sudbury, in opposition to our Friends, and to pretend, as if thou hadst such a great Regard to Peoples Souls, that they might be saved, raised up, and delivered from Sin in this Life, when thou hast nothing further to propose to them, than only a Hope in this Life, a Happiness in this Life, a Portion in this Life? which is so short and uncertain, that the dayes of Man here are compared but to a Shadow, Psal. 90.4, 6, 9. & 102.11. & 103.15. & 144, 4. See Jo [...] 7.6. & 16.22. Isa. 40.6 James 4.14. and to a Cloud that vanishes, and as being swifter than a Post, or than a Tale that's told, and swifter than a Weavers Shuttle, &c. So that if we have hope in this life Only, we are of all men most miserable. But I cannot take thee as a Person consistent with thy self, in this thy Atheistical Doctrine of the Soul's Mortality, no more than in other things; for thou art manifestly inconsistent and contradictory to thy self in this matter; for in thy Pamphlet (i. e. GROSS ERRORS) [Page] thou hast confessed,His Concessions manifestly Contradictory to his Doctrine of the Soul's Mortality. That Christ's Soul never was captivated, p. 4. And, That the Blessing is to God's invisible Creation within the Sons and Daughters of men, as that cometh to be begotten by a measure of divine Life, into a true and living Faith; the which invisible Creation (sayest thou) or the Souls and Vnderstandings of men and women, over the which Death, that power of Darkness hath invisibly reigned, p. 3. And, That Ministry which is sent of God, it is to the Souls and Vnderstandings of Men and Women—That so their Souls may be turned to the Light, or measure of divine Life which hath appeared to their Souls, p. 4. As also thou sayest, That God's appearance is both to the Souls and Vnderstandings of the Sons and Daughters of Men, even whilst they are altogether Children of the Vnrighteous Nature and Spirit, for that very end, that so they may be quickned, and also raised up, and so come to be changed, they being made partakers of the Divine Nature, pag. 7.

Query: How then dost thou affirm that such Souls are Mortal? This change in such Souls does not only bespeak their Immortality, but their being Immortally happy: [Page] Is not that Soul or Birth immortal that's capable of partaking of the divine Nature, or that doth partake thereof? Can that Soul dye with the Body, or end in Mortality? No, no; the very Souls of the Wicked, and impenitent workers of Iniquity, shall live in Torment, where the Worm dyeth not, and the Fire is never quenched; Christ's instance of Dives and Lazarus doth really intimate the two different states hereafter; see Luke 16.22, 23. &c. How grosly Erronious and Contradictory art thou in this point? and farther to thy own confutation, addest, (viz.) Thus the Sons and Daughters of Vnrighteousness come to be made the Children of Righteousness, they being changed, and also lifted up by the Spirit of Life from under the power of Death, into the Kingdom of God, with him to reign over the Power of Death, even as the Son of God did in the dayes of his Flesh, p. 7.

How now Jeffery? These passages relating to the Soul's conversion, and their being made partakers of the Divine Nature, and being lifted up into the Kingdom of God, are some of thy better sort of Preaching; but thy Doctrine of the Soul's mortality, or the Soul's dying with the Body, doth allow the Souls of the Children of men, even of the Converted, but a very short share, and uncertain time in the Kingdom [Page] of God, if but in this Life only. O Jeffery! give over thy troublesom, hypocritical Preaching in our Friends Meetings for shame, and never pretend such a concern for the Conversion and Salvation of Peoples Souls, whilst thou holdest this Atheistical Opinion, That they are all Mortal. Keep at home, and give over such Hypocritical Preaching, for 'tis neither Conscientious nor Religious.

§. 11. Now concerning the Scripture, thy Doctrine followeth.

J. B. (in his Antichrist's Transformations, p. 22.) saith, (viz.) For the Book of the Scriptures both was and is the Fruit which the Tree of Knowledge bears. And in his Testimony against the Quakers false Doctrine (as he falsly calleth it) page 19. He saith thus, viz. The Book of the Scriptures is part of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge— I say, that the Book of the Scriptures is the Fruit that the Tree of Knowledge bears.

Answ. This Doctrine is not only Unscriptural, but a dark, erronious Imagination and Whimsie of thy own: Thou knowest not whereof thou affirmest, and hast plainly contradicted thy self herein, by confessing not only, That the Scriptures are opened by the Spirit of Truth, but that They were given forth by the Word of Life, p. 22. and 29.

[Page]Thou farther proceedest (like a whimsical, self-opposing and contradictory Person) in these words, (viz.) Let all that read your Book, and also the Letter that was given me, which I disowned (which Letter is printed in my first Book) and they may easily perceive that the Line of your Testimony is in the Letter and Book of the Scriptures, and not in the Light and Law written in the Heart. Thus in thy Testimony, p. 19.

Here thou hast at one dash confuted and overthrown thy own Work, and knockt down thy own evil cause at one blow. Thou hast undertaken to detect the Quakers Errors, and many of the Doctrines of the leading Quakers, as Erronious, Antichristian, &c. And, To give a Testimony against the Quakers false Doctrine, (as thou falsly callest it) even in the Titles of thy Pamphlets) but now confessest our Testimony is in the Letter and Book of the Scriptures.

Thus hast thou denyed and opposed that Testimony which is in the Book of the Scriptures, and not only So, but most erroniously opposed the Light and Law written in the Heart thereunto; when as they do agree, and the Scripture cannot be broken. Therefore Repent of thy vain and Antichristian opposition. Another Contradiction is in thy following words (viz.)

J. B. Your Paper to the Churches is not to [Page]be owned by the Churches, inasmuch as it was written from a sight or a sence, and not in and from the Spirit of Revelation: Now whatsoever is written, declared, or given forth in the sight or in the sence, is not to be owned. Antichrist's Transformations, p. 2.

Contradictions.And p. 25. ibid. I disown that to be any true Ministry for God, who in their Declarations do exhort both Friends and other People, to come to a sence, and to wait in a sence, and continue in a sence; for God is not a sence, neither is his Spirit a sence.

But in plain contradiction [...]ereto, p. 9. Lazarus was raised, and so must we be raised by the same Voice, Spirit and Power, must we come both to FEEL and Witness Christ the Light within, to be our Resurrection, and our Life, by FEELING and Receiving his Power revealed from Heaven, &c.

Observe; Here thou hast confessed to the Truth of Feeling and witnessing Christ, Feeling and receiving his Power, &c. contrary to thy opposing and denying what's written in the sense, and exhorting Friends, &c. To come to wait and continue in a sence, whereas there is a spiritual sence and feeling of divine Life; there are spiritual Sences to be exercised by the holy Spirit, to discern between good and evil. There is a spiritual [Page] seeing, tasting and handling of the Word of Life, but thou hast lost these Senses, thou art out of they right Senses, which makes thee so Sensless and Nonsensical in thy scribling, and full of rambling confused Whimsies, Delusions and dark Imaginations, which are the effects of thy Disobedience to, and Apostacy from the Light of Christ within, which convinced thee long ago.

§. 12. And now I would have thee observe thy manifest and practical Contradiction to a Passage in conclusion of thy Gross Errors, Postscript. The Passage is this, (viz.)

J. B. It is an Antichristian Spirit in all which leads People (under what Profession soever) to think of themselves above others, or to be in a better state than others, or to separate themselves from others, although their Souls may have seen by the Light within them beyond others; yet these ought not to separate themselves from others; for they have been Children of Darkness as well as others; for if they do separate themselves from others, then this holds forth a certain Testimony, that they do think of themselves above others, and also to be in a better state than others are in; so that this is all Antichrist's work.

Answ. Why dost thou then separate thy self from others, that is, from the Church [Page] of England? for by this Proposition thou oughtst not so to separate, nor to frequent the Quakers Meetings, nor to preach in them, whether thou thinkest thy self in a better state than those of the Church of England or not, or that thy Soul hath seen by the Light within beyond them, as doubtless thou thinkest thy self herein above them: On this Proposition of thy own thou oughtst not to separate, nor to preach in the Quakers Meetings. And if thou didst not think thy self to see with the Light within beyond them of the Church of England, there were no reason for thee then to separate from them. Behold! thy Practical Contradiction and Ranterism, in thy Proposition or Doctrine against separating from others, on the account of seeing with the Light beyond them, which is to maintain a confused mixture and society in Worship, between those that see with the Light, and those that see not with it, between the Seeing and the Blind, the Children of the Light and the Children of Darkness; for thy opposing a Separation from others is without distinction, and yet thou art in a Separation from others. Why separatest thou from the National Worship, and makest thy self a Preacher at the Quakers Meetings in Sudbury? when they disown [Page] thee, thy Preaching and Corrupt, Erronious and Antiscriptural Doctrine? As,

Thy Denying Christ, the Son of God, to be our way to the Father.

Thy Denying Salvation or Condemnation by the same Christ that suffered.

Thy Denying the Immortality of the Soul of Christ Jesus, or of any other Souls of Mankind, and affirming, That his Soul dyed, and that he internally dyed, as to his Soul, &c.

And thy asserting, The Book of the Scriptures to be the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

And thy Denying the Arising of the Seed of God and Christ in man.

And thy Denying to come to a Sense, and to wait in a Sense in thy self, and opposing preaching from a sight and sence; as in thy Antichrists Transformations, p. 2, 25.

Thy dark and erronious Doctrine and Preaching in these things the True Christian Quakers utterly deny, with many other dark erronious Positions, Whimsies, Contradictions and blind Oppositions, Falshoods and Abuses, foolish and unlearned Questions in thy Pamphlets here omitted; as also thy Hypocritical Preaching in pretence, For the good of Souls, For the quickning of Souls, For the raising up of Souls, For the converting of Souls, That Peoples Souls may [Page]partake of the divine Nature, and be lifted up into the Kingdom of God, &c. Which though this be the best sort of thy Preaching, and in the best words thou hast, yet while thou denyest the Immortality of the Soul, and concludest, They all dye with the earthly Tabernacles, and so a total end of all: This thy gross and Atheistical Error is enough to evince thy abominable Hypocrisie and Irreligiousness in the best sort of thy Preaching. And therefore give over thy preaching in our Friends Meetings, hold thy Tongue, lay thy hand upon thy Mouth, keep at home, and seriously bethink thy self, and remember from whence thou art fallen, and then condemn, retract and call in thy Erroneous and Antichristian Pamphlets. Remember I have herein given thee the safest Counsel, in Love and Friendship to thee, and to thy Immortal Soul, which shall remember me when thou art awakened under the hand of thy Righteous Judge, who is the Judge of all, to whom I can sincerely appeal, and commit my Christian and faithful Endeavours concerning these Controversies and Differences with thee and the rest concerned in this Treatise, you being all concerned in one Spirit of Opposition, Prejudice, Strife and Enmity, though thou hast exceeded the rest in thy Doctrinal part, in presumptuously attempting such an Antichristian Confutation [Page] of the Quakers Doctrines. And with my solemn Appeal and Supplication I do Conclude.

OH! Thou Heart-searching God and righteous Iudge of all, unto thee I make my Appeal and Supplication, against this Jealous, Dividing, Rending Spirit that hath appeared in Strife and open Contention against thy Servants and faithful Witnesses, and against that good order and society that thou hast been pleased to gatber us into. Thou knowest the integrity of my soul before thee, and that I have waited for thy Counsel how to act and behave my self in these matters, and that I have not sought to exalt my self, nor any Popularity, Party or Interest to my self, but only thy Glory and the good of Souls. Thou knowest, that in the first place my soul hath sought for Peace in the way of Peace, and for a quiet Composure of Differences,[Page]occasioned by some Self-willed and Luke-warm Professors of thy Truth, whilst there was any hope or probability thereof, before the opposite Party became open Adversaries. And O Lord thou knowest I am not alone in this concern, many others of thy faithful servants have traveled in the same Christian Spirit with me, for peace and quietness, and for a quiet end of Differences in Truth and Righteousness: But thine and our Adversaries have rewarded us evil for good, and to me hatred for my love.

And now▪ O Lord, behold how true love and tenderness is rejected by thy Adversaries, and how thy holy spirit is offended! Behold and judge the bitterness of their spirits; Their Rancor and Fury, their Words of Hatred, Reviling and Slander against thy faithful Servants and Witnesses; Their Disregard to the Honour and Reputation of thy Truth, thy Name and People; [Page] Their working against the Glory and Honour of thy excellent Name among us; Their crucifying thy Son afresh to themselves, and putting him to open shame and reproach in the Eyes of thy open Enemies and Persecutors of thy People.

Oh! Lord, Lord, look down, behold and judge for these things, show thy Power in putting an end as openly to these Controversies, as they are openly forced out into the World by Apostates and Adversaries of thy Truth and People.

Thou knowest, O Lord, that though thou hast endued me with a Christian Spirit, and with Faith, Patience and Rejoycing under all my Sufferings and Tribulations for thy Name sake, and enabled me patiently to undergo the open Revilings and Infamies cast upon me, both by open, profest (and secret) Enemies; in all which I daily praise thy Name for thy Goodness. Yet thou hast also endued me with the Spirit of [Page] Righteous Judgment, Understanding and Zeal for the Glory of thy holy Name and Truth, and hast raised me up in defence of thy Gospel, to vindicate thy Truth and innocent People, who are Lovers of Peace and Union in thy Son Christ Iesus.

And now, O Lord, I humbly pray thee, preserve thy Lambs and tender Babes, and open the Eyes and unvail the Understandings of all whom the Enemy has deceived and prejudiced, who are mistaken in their Iudgments, and not guilty of willful Opposition and Hatred; That they that have not sinned out their day nor become judicially hardened, may yet find a place of Repentance and Mercy, in returning to thee with Humility, true Contrition and Brokenness of Heart, that thou maiest heal their Backslidings, and love them freely.

O my God! in these my Labours and Endeavours, as I have eyed [Page]thee and thy Counsel, and thou hast been with me, for which I praise thy Name. So I recommend all to thee, to manifest the real intent and end of all, and to plead and justifie my Cause, it being thy own Cause, and the Cause of thy whole Heritage: Amen, Amen, saith my Soul.

ADVERTISEMENT.

[Page]

FIrst, Note, That where in pag. 158. of this Treatise, mention is made That G. F's intention and sence is by another hand spoken to. That and much more is yet reserved in Manuscript against W. R's abusive Books.

Secondly, That whereas in pag. 205. it is said, It being now above six Weeks since the Letter was left at Ely, &c. and yet no Answer.— It is now above three Moneths since, and yet no Answer received from F. B. being now (at the Printing hereof) towards the latter end of the 11th Moneth, 1682.

Thirdly, That this Treatise has been long in the Printer's hands, and not hastened in the Press, because of these Additions in the three last Chapters, to Francis Bugg, Thomas Crisp, John Pennyman and Jeffery Bullock; for the Answer to William Rogers's 7th part of his Christian-Quaker, was writ in a short time after it was out.

[Page] Fourthly, It is some question whether two or three of the Names in pag. 250. be right, i. e. Averset, Snazdale and Tysoeth, by reason of their Names being badly writ in the Certificate sent up.

Fifthly, Note, That where in the Postscript, after the Letter to Francis Bugg, pag. 253, 4. and in his Book also, p. 52. he gives account of a Minister thus, viz. That in the Quarterly-Meeting Book at Hadenham, they shall find a Record, wherein he is recorded out of the Vnity, for not taking his Wife according to the Order of Friends, i. e. not publishing his Intention before the Womens Meetings. Which Account is excepted against upon Friends positively giving a contrary one to me.

Let it be farther remarked, that Francis Bugg's pretended Proof appears not from Evidence of the Fact, but is his consequence drawn from the Records. But first, his Consequence appears not only fallacious, but false in Fact, in his restraining the Order of Friends only to the Womens Meetings, which is not consequent to the Record of the Quarterly Meeting, dated, the first of the 10th Moneth, 1675. and cited by F. B. (p. 61.) for Proof; for the extent of [Page] that Record is, For the consent of Friends at two Mens Meetings and two Womens Meetings, &c.

2dly, Neither can his Account be true, if there was not then a Womans Meeting established in that part of the County, but that the complaint of the Monethly Meeting was, That the Person concerned did not publish his Intention above once to the Mens Meeting, and refused to bring the Woman to any Meeting at all, before the time of their Marriage.

3dly, Since the said Exception was writ, I have met with a Certificate under the Hands of several Persons of Credit, i. e. Phillip Taylor, William Brasier, John Prime, and Jacob Baker, who do confirm the matter excepted against Francis Fugg's said Account; whereby they declare it to be his false Insinuation, ‘and a manifest misrepresenting of Friends in those parts, and a malicious Falshood. For they affirm, That there was no Womens Meetings established in that part of the County where it fell in course for the said Person to publish his Intention of Marriage; and that because he refused to bring the Woman to any Meeting at all (to manifest her consent and intention of Marriage with him) And his proposing it but once to the Mens Meeting, [Page] and that in her absence, before he took her to Wife.’ This they looked on as an irregular Proceedure and Innovation, and no safe President or Example. For which cause, together with his refusal to give the Monethly Meeting satisfaction for the Irregularity (as desired) on complaint thereof to the Quarterly Meeting, a Record was made, according to their Consciences and Care, That they had not Vnity with him in this his SO doing (as 'tis cited by Fr. Bugg himself.

Sixthly, Let it be noted, That Francis Bugg is guilty of notorious Falshood and malicious Slander, where he pretends to discover That hypocritical and two-faced Practice of pleading to the Magistrates for Liberty of Conscience, and at the same time using and exercising all Force, Rule and Dominion they are capable to inflict upon their dissenting Brethren, who cannot fall down and cry Hosanna to every Likeness, &c. And the Reason he suggests is, Lest the Ruling Party should be encouraged to introduce a numberless Number of needless Ceremonies, till at length Rome may, if possible, be outdone, pag. 115, 116. 2d part. Thus like a false informing Judas he has belched out his Lying Insinuations, [Page] tending to incense the Magistrate against us. For,

1st, In the first part I take his Charge [Hypocritical] to intend our Applications to the Magistrates for Liberty from Persecution: and then 'tis malicious, false and scandalous, and therein he has acted the part of a base Informer against us, for which God (who knows our sincerity and consistency in our pleading to the Magistrate on this account) will certainly rebuke his lying malicious Spirit.

In the second part, I take his Charge [Of using all Force, Rule and Dominion, &c. upon dissenting Brethren for not falling down to every Likeness] to intend that Church-Government, Discipline and Order, and those Ministers concerned therein which he opposeth among the People called Quakers: And then he hath herein most wickedly and falsly informed the Magistrates, 1st, To render our Applications for Liberty of Conscience of no credit with them, but Hypocritical: 2dly, To render us guilty of that which we are pleading against, i. e. Exercising Force upon our Brethrens Consciences, and that for not falling down to every Likeness. Oh, horrid Abuse and Slander! And what lamentable Blindness and gross [Page] Absurdity is this Adversary fallen into! like as if he should thus argue, viz. You plead to the Magistrate for Liberty of Conscience in the free exercise of Religion, from Persecution, Corporal and Pecuniary Punishments on that score. Therefore you are Hypocritical, Two-faced and Inconsistent in your Practice, whilst you exercise a Church Authority, by giving true Spiritual Judgment, Admonition or Censures upon any that dissent or divide from you, or cause Divisions or Offences: Such are the Consequences of his before-cited Charge, considering that he has not proved our Judgment VNJVST, or Advice and Admonition ERRONEOVS or VNCHRISTIAN in any of those things opposed by him; or our Paper, which he makes his great Proof against us, and Scornfully calls, A Grant and Confirmation by a general Council held at London, Anno 1675. pag. 41. For which he falsly accuseth us of INNOVATIONS, IMPOSITIONS, APOSTACIES, NEW-STAMPED GOVERNMENT, ARBITRARY RVLE, &c. comparing us to the POPES COVNCIL. (pag. 42, 46, &c.) And then he might as well say, 'Tis a great infringement of Liberty of Conscience for a Christian Society to Reprove, Judge or Censure disorderly [Page] Walkers under the same Profession. And by the same absurd way of Arguing and shallow Opposition he may as well assume a Power to stop the Mouthes of all Gospel Ministers for exercising their Consciences in that divine Authority that Christ hath given them, To renounce the hidden things of Dishonesty, and to Exhort, Rebuke, Reprove, Admonish, Command, &c. according to their Commission, both in the primitive Times and our Day.

Thus we may justly conclude, that a corrupt, defiled, immoral Conscience would have its unchristian Liberty.

Seventhly, Some Errors have escaped the Press, in this Treatise, both in Points, Letters and Words, the most material whereof are here noted, which I desire the ingenuous Reader accordingly to Correct; (the sense will shew the rest) wherein I do as I would be done to; for I examine the Errata's, even of my Adversaries Books, as they are noted, before I answer the Matter.

ERRATA.

[Page]

PAge 19. Line 4, 6. for bear read bare. p 26 l 10 r questioned. p 33 l 24 f mian r main. p 34 l 17 f twining r turning. p 43 l 13 dele there. p 47 l 1 f the r thy p 59 read by laws made in the reign of. p 62 l 3 f tives r tive. p 84 l 20 f bear r bare. p 88 l 16 f justifying r insisting p 144 l 10 r blind zealot is. p 158 l 1 r in the case. p 167 l 9 f it r in. p 209 l 2 f Statutis r Statuti. p 210 l 14 r their names. p 228 l 21 r upon W P's p 233 l 20, 21 r abusest, scandalizest. p 237 l 3 r the matter. p 252 l 16 f disingenious r disingenuous. p 254 l 10 r horribly. p 262 l 1 r Apostates. p 272 l 14 r rights. p 279 Margent r Like the Postscript of N. C's Epistle. p 284 l 3 r are under. p 295 l 16 r their Conscientiousness. p 300 l 7 f by r thy. p 310 l 16 r because thereof p 311 l 12 r and of p 315 l 14 r his pretence being, because. p 326 l 17 f herein r therein. The sense will evince the rest of literal fauls, less material.

THE END.

BOOKS Printed and Sold by A. Sowle at the Crooked-Billet in Holloway-Lane in Shoreditch, 1682.

[Page]

DVe Order of Law and Justice pleaded, against Irregular and Arbitrary Proceedings. By George Whitehead.

The Real Quaker a Real Protestant. By G.W.

A legal Examination of Abuses of Law.

The Religious Assemblies of the People called Quakers vindicated.

The Christian-Quaker and his divine Testimony vindicated; in two parts. By W. Penn and G. Whitehead.

An Answer to a foolish Libel, called, The Quakers Opinions. By William Penn.

England's present Interest discovered, with honour to the Prince and safety to the People. By W. P.

An Epistle to the Churches of Jesus throughout the whole World. By W. P.

An Epistle to the Children of Light. W. P.

An Address to Protestants; in two Parts. By W. P.

A brief state and examination of Liberty Spiritual. By W. P.

An Epistle, containing a solemn Farewell, &c. By W. P.

A Mite into the Treasury: or, A Treatise concerning the seven Liberal Arts. By Thomas Lawson.

[Page]A Testimony against Tything among Christians. By R. Richardson.

The Foundation of Tythes shaken. By Thomas Elwood.

Tythes ended by Christ. By W. Gibson.

The great Case of Tythes once more revived. By Francis Howgill.

A Treatise of Oaths, &c.

Universal Love. By W. Smith.

The Principles of Truth, or a declaration of our Faith, who are called Quakers.

An Epistle of Love and good Will to the called and choson of God. By J. Songhurst.

An Invitation of Love to all that hunger and thirst after Righteousness. By Isabel Yeomans.

A Warning to London in particular. By James Parks.

A Warning to England in general. By J. P.

A Testimony to the Lords Power and blessed appearance in and amongst Children.

A plain Path-way opened to the simple hearted, for the answering all Doubts and Objections, &c. By S. Crisp.

A Blast blown out of the North, ecchoing up towards the South, to meet the Cry of their oppressed Brethren.

The Lamentable Cry of the Oppressed.

H. Smith's Books collected into one Volumn.

The Spirit of the Martyrs revived.

☞ A faithful Warning, and Lamentation over England. By William Bingley.

Information about this book

Title statement

Judgment fixed upon the accuser of our brethren and the real Christian-Quaker vindicated from the persecuting outrage of apostate informers chiefly from W. Rogers, F. Bugg, T. Crisp, John Pennyman and Jeffery Bullock ... / by that contemned servant of Christ George Whitehead.

Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.

Edition statement

1682

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A65870

ID [STC]

Wing W1937

ID [STC]

ESTC R34747

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

14582034

ID [OCLC]

ocm 14582034

ID [VID]

102665

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A65870)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 102665)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1081:6)

Source

— Judgment fixed upon the accuser of our brethren and the real Christian-Quaker vindicated from the persecuting outrage of apostate informers chiefly from W. Rogers, F. Bugg, T. Crisp, John Pennyman and Jeffery Bullock ... / by that contemned servant of Christ George Whitehead., Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723..

Extent

[8], 366 p.

Printed and sold by Andrew Sowle ...,. London :: 1682.. (Imperfect: pages stained.) (Reproduction of original in the Huntington Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.