THE Author tells us, He has for several Years observed divers Contentious Books writ by Fran. Bugg and Geo. Whitehead one against the other; which having read, proceeds to give his Sence of the Matter.

1. He apprehends the tendency of F. B's striving, is to have several Errors Re­tracted and Condemned.

2. That Geo. Whitehead's Contenti­on is to Cover and Cloak many Errors and Weaknesses, which he and all True Christi­ans ought to Condemn, &c.

He proceeds to tell us, That Brevity is designed by him, and what he writes is done in order, (if happily it might be so) to appease the Fury of an Inraged Adversary, meaning F. B.

But this his Sense and Apprehension, he Imposeth upon his Reader without any due Proof or Rational Consequence.

He confesseth F.B. is a provoked and an inraged Adversary, and I may add, that he is a great and declared Apostate, sufficiently manifest to be so, by those Books, (which this Author confesseth he has Read.)

Now with what good Reason or Con­science can any apprehend the tendency of F. B's striving, is to have several Er­rors Retracted and Condemned? Is it likely a Person gone into so much Error, Envy and Rage, should strive, or be Zealous to have Truth cleared from Er­ror?

And could D. S. fall upon no better expedient to appease the Fury of such an inraged Adversary, than to join Issue with him, in his furious attempts upon the Religious Reputations of both the Liv­ing and the Dead; Men that have Ha­zarded, and some even laid down their Lives in the Service and Defence of the Blessed Truth.

Is this like the Office of a true Peace­maker, or Mark of a true Christian Qua­ker, as this D. S. would be esteemed; but his Folly is manifest, and the burden [Page 5]of his Iniquity must be laid upon his own Head.

He Blames F. B. for Ra­king in the Ashes of the Dead, Compare p. 4. with p. 7, 9, 10, and 11. (as he Terms it) and himself is found in the same Work; he blames F. B. for Reproaching a People that be­lieves all things according to Scripture, and would not have him vilifie any part of their Society upon the score of the Igno­rance or Folly of any pretended Member; yet himself upon no better score or proof than a perhaps, or for ought he knows, vilifies some, or a part of the same So­ciety, and that with no less than deny­ing him that was Born of the Virgin Mary, to be Christ the Saviour of the World. He tells F.B. That if at any time he has found any Man or Men un­der the Name of a Quaker guilty of Er­ror of any kind, relating to the Christian Religion, that he ought to pray to God on their behalf; and yet himself de­clares, That if at any time any pretend­ed Member that may be Dead, or yet is in Being, did ever deny Jesus of Naza­reth [Page 6]to be the Saviour of the World, he is Disowned for the same, and deemed no less than guilty of Blasphemy in the superlative degree, which I affirm, ac­cording to Scripture, is a Sin ought not to be prayed for, it not having the Pro­mise of Forgiveness either in this World, or in that which is to come.

What Contradiction and Confusion is here, and how much unlike a Chri­stian Quaker to vilifie, some (or a part of their Society) upon no better proof than a perhaps, or for ought he knows?

May I not with the same sort of Rea­son argue against him, that perhaps, or for ought I know, it may be undenia­bly proved upon him, that he is a Thief or a Murderer; to be sure, if a professed Quaker, a very false and treacherous Brother?

All the proof he brings against G. W. is F. B's Charges and Accusations, with his own positive Sense and Judgment, and yet even in that, he is also found inconsistent with himself; for tho' in the beginning he apprehends G.W's Con­tention (as he calls it) is to Cover and [Page 7]Cloak many Errors, &c. yet in his An­swer to the Second Objection, page 6. G. W. is but supposed to be guilty in part; and adds, that it's hoped he may see his weakness in so doing; but still no in­stance produced, wherein G.W. has been either weak, or wicked, which to Co­ver or Cloak many and gross Errours, must be.

However, it seems 'tis his Sense and Judgment, and so it is, that Light and Darkness are manifest Beings, which as much bespeaks his Skill in Philosophy, as the other does his Title to Christianity.

Yet he would seem tender of the Chri­stian Religion, giving it as his Sense and Judgment, p. 3. That the many Books of Contention, writ by G. W. and others, has done much hurt to it, and would be glad if it should please God to put it into the Hearts of the Governours and Rulers of the Nation to condemn them, and order them all to be Burnt. Then no need of Explanations and Emendations Requested in the Postscript.

But why must they be Burnt? The Matter (it seems) is Distasteful; Apo­states and Unruly Spirits like not to have their Fruits made manifest, and their Rebellion against the Light rebuked; and that which would have the Books Burnt, in all probability in its next step would have the Authors Burnt also, lest there should be any more such Books.

But he proceeds in Answer to another of F. B's. Accusations against G. Whitehead, page 6th. Object. 3. wherein G. W. is accused for endeavouring to cover se­veral Errors in some Persons in Pensil­vania. D. S. in Answer insinuates, that if G. W. or any others do wink or connive at the aforesaid blasphemous expressions, (cited by F. B.) he or they are Judged to be equally guilty with them.

Now to shew the Disingenuity of this D. S. who 'tis supposed has Read the Yearly Meeting Paper, (which he so much Inveighs against, p. 15.) where­in no doubt he believes G. W. with o­thers were concerned: 'Tis therein de­clared,

‘That if there be any Gross Errors, &c. held by any professing Truth in America; such Persons ought to be diligently Instructed and Admonished by faithful Friends in those Parts; and if they shall wilfully persist after being duly informed, then such are to be dealt with according to Gospel Or­der.’

Does this look like indeavouring to cover any such gross Errors, or doth advising such to be duly Instructed and Admonished, and upon their wilful per­sistance, to be further dealt with accord­ing to Gospel Order, look like Conni­ving or Winking at them; away with such Malicious Insinuations.

But this D. S. (who, in a Malapart Pragmatical stile, would be deemed, the Representative of the True Christi­an Quakers▪ is for Censuring and Ex­comunicating (Pope like) without the consent of the Church, and that not on­ly many that are alive, but even several that are dead. For,

He charges (upon F. B's. Accusation) several Eminent, Ancient Friends, p. 9, [Page 10]10, 11. with no less than great and high Blasphemy, particularly G Fox, Josiah Coal, J. Audland, and James Parnell, Men that were great sufferers for Truth, and who (being deceased) laid down their heads in Peace, and were never dis­owned by any Christian Quaker; but were sincerely Loved and Esteemed by them, and their Innocency being already elsewhere vindicated (and that in some of those Books, this Author would so gladly have Burnt) I need say the less, but refer to them; supposing there may have been some defect in Expression: by which means the matter has not been left so well guarded against the Ex­ceptions of Malicious Cavillers, who, no doubt (were it not for the general Authority of the Holy Scriptures) would be as ready to make their Exceptions, against many Sentences or Expressions therein also.

But I would fain know why it must be deemed (by D. S.) such a great weakness in G. Fox, to set his Name to the Book called the Battle-door, wherein some other Men, more Learned in those [Page 11]many Languages were also concerned; must he not tho (as this D. S. scornfully suggests) he was a Shooe-maker, and bred an Illiterate Man, (which 'tis likely enough, to use his own Phrase, he knew not but by History or Tradition:) I say must it therefore follow that G. F. knew not the signification of Tu Nos & Vos, But Even as a Parrot (which this Au­thor says Can well Talk so far as he hath been Taught.

'Tis true, a Parrot may be Taught to speak Tu, nos & vos; but I presume 'tis above the skill of this Doctor to Teach a Parrot the signification of Tu nos & vos, which no doubt G. Fox had, as well as also some knowledge of the He­brew Tongue.

Again in his Answer to F. B's. charge recited by him, against Isaac Penington, D. S. positively charges the matter of the said Citation as an undeniable Error in J. P. proceeding from a defect in his un­derstanding, which no doubt (as he saith) were but that worthy Man, J. P. in be­ing, he would readily retract the slip of his Pen, not only in that matter, but in any other of the like Import.

Methinks then a slip of his Pen (were it so in J. P.) ought not to be charged upon him as an undeniable Error, pro­ceeding from a defect in his understand­ing; so no more ought a slip of the Pen, were it so in the other Friends above-mentioned, be charged as Great and High Blasphemy: But 'tis plain that the Old Adversary, and false Accuser of the Bre­thren is very ready to lay hold on every seeming occasion, to endeavour (through his several Instruments) to blast the Re­putation of these Good-men, that the Blessing of their Labour and Memory might not Increase, or remain among the Living.

But should I, or any other be as ready as this D. S. or F. B. to lay hold upon every slip of a Pen, or unguarded Sen­tence or Expression; we might have and make work enough.

For Instance, might I not (in such a way of arguing) positively charge D. S. (whatever Notion he may have of the pre-existence) that he denies or at least questions a future Existence, by his say­ing, If that Worthy Man (J. P.) were in [Page 13]being, as if after Death there was no be­ing or existence; but I am not either so Captious, or Uncharitable towards him in that Matter.

Again in his Third Page, He desires every true Believer in Christ Jesus, and Follower of him, that they would bear his Image; as if he may be truly Believed in and followed, and his Image not born: Does not this at best appear to be a slip of his Pen? And yet how ready is D. S. to mark out such in others.

As to this frequent professing Faith in Jesus of Nazareth, and therein di­stinguishing, himself and others to be the most or only Christian Quakers, so long as he or they shew forth no better Fruits, to what purpose is it to take any notice of their Faith.

And notwithstanding he is so ready, to refer and recommend such as he would have know more of the Quakers Faith, to the first part of a little Treatise, In­tituled the Principles of Truth; Written by J. Crooke. Tis plain enough, what­ever be his talk, or knowledge, he is but little acquainted with the True Christian [Page 14]Quakers Faith, which is attended with Christian Charity, and teacheth to exer­cise a Conscience void of offence both towards God, and towards Man.