HAving had the curiosity and opportunity of reading, The Quakers Vnmask'd, Their Double dealing and False-heartedness disco­vered, &c. I thought it impossible for the Quakers to vindicate themselves from that Authors Charge; which made me desirous to read their Answer; and having perused it, I can scarce forbear to Remark some few Passages, which are clear Confutations of their boasted Innocency, Plainness, and Christian Charity.

In the Advertisement to the Reader, G. Whitehead takes notice that The Quakers Vnmask'd, &c. was sent them in Manuscript in the year 1677. and that Liberty of Conscience being established by Law, and placed upon the Book in writing, is the cause of its now publication. Which (says G. W.) looks as if he envyed our present Liberty. Behold the Spirit of this Answerer! Mr. Pennyman kept his Books unpub­lished for 13 years together, lest it might be any oc­casion of the Quakers Persecution; but when Liberty of Conscience is established by Law, he publisheth 10 or 11 of them, presuming there is now no danger of their being persecuted. Does this look as if he envyed their present Liberty, and not rather that he was glad of it, as no doubt he is.

In p. 6. to the Reader. ‘Our Adversary, again p 14. (says he) deals very unfairly and unjustly by G. W. about some of our Friends, saying, They give forth Writings from the immediate Eternal Spirit of God, and by the same Spirit and Power that was in the Pro­phets, Christ, and his Apostles; unto which he falsly addeth, And their so speaking (G. W. saith) is of as great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are, and greater; his words (and their so speaking) are J. P's own Abuse and Perversion.’ Now I beseech you, Sir, read the Passage in p. 14. and see wherein J. P's Abuse and Perversion lies. It lies in this, that he added these words [and their so speaking] and did not put them in a different Character, to distinguish them from G. W's words, though they did not alter the sense at all; if you leave them out, the Passage is as much to the same purpose, as if they were in. Did ever any Writer charge his Adversary with Abuse and Perversion upon so slender an account? What an af­front is it to the simple-hearted Reader to write at this rate? This is the Man that in his Letter to J. O. threatens Mr. P. farther to detect and unmask him if he will not be reduced to Christianity. Does he mean by Christianity, Quakerism, which it seems teaches him to use the basest Equivocations and Slights that can be found in any Writer?

Of his Book, p. 3. He utterly denies it as a Slan­der, that the Quakers formerly exhorted Men to fight and would fight themselves. I must refer you to The Quakers Vnmask'd, &c. to judge whether that is a Slander, or not? It will abundantly satisfie you, whilst you understand their Writings in the plain ho­nest sense of the Words without their after Equivo­cations. J. P cites one of the, Quakers Ministers, say­ing, We directed all People to the Spirit of God in them, and if that led them to fight, I had nothing a­gainst it; for this, saith G. W. he quotes, fol. 4. but tells us not what Book. But why did he not tell J. P so 13 years ago when he desired to know what Er­rors they sound in the Quotations, (if there were any; however to satisfie him that it was a true citation, he took it out of the Quakers Book, where Foreign Let­ters were recorded, which was first in J. O's custody and afterwards in J. P's.

P. 4. The Quakers tell Rich. Protector, 'That he would walk with the Lord, and preserve his Peo­ple, then thy Name shall be greater than was thy [Page 2]Fathers, and the numberless number of this [Now] distressed People will be unto thee a strength, and stand by thee, and Defend thee and thy just Government. Sir, If you had been Protector, I persuade my self, you would have thought these People would have fought to defend you and your Government: But whatever they or you thought then, the meaning now is, ac­cording to G. W. &c. they would defend him and his Government, By Righteousness, Prayers, and Faith, and by Contributions, Taxes, &c. or the fear of the Lord, as in the days of Jehosaphat. Would you not judge that Man perjured, that should swear Allegiance in such terms, with such a meaning? And must we not take the Quakers words for as binding as an Oath?

Next, p. 5. you will please to note what G.W. An­swers to the Charge of upbraiding others with that which themselves, for many years, were as deeply concerned and ingaged in, &c. ‘To all which, saith G. W. I do conscientiously Answer, He hath most grosly and palpably belyed the People cal­led Quakers in these Passages divers ways. First, in rendring them, without exception of Persons, not only Justifiers of the late Wars, and what had been done therein, without exception of things done, but also equally concerned with the Presbyterians, Inde­pendents, and others therein.’ But do the Quakers when they charge these things upon the Presbyte­rians, &c. make any exception of Persons or Things? And yet it is well known, and it is proved out of their own writings in The Quakers Vnmask'd, &c. that their Chief Leaders approved of the greatest things done in the late Wars against the King, and to his Per­son; whereas the Presbyterians generally dis-ap­proved of them. Besides they say, their giving forth Papers or Printed Books, is from the immediate eternal Spirit of God, and that their Preachers are guided by an Infallible Spirit, and that they are of one Mind and Judgment, and the like; and therefore an indefinite, and general charge will affect them more generally than other Parties.

G. W. says, p. 6. ‘The War began in 41. and in 48 the King was Beheaded, and all this while no Quakers heard of, till about 50.51, 52. when there was no Wars in England for them to be concerned in, how false then is J P. to say, The Quakers were as much, or more, concerned in the War against the King as any others.’ But G. W. confesses, that di­vers who have been since, and now of us, [Quakers,] have formerly been concerned in the late Wars. And J. P. has made evident their approbation of what was then done, and that many that turned Quakers in the Armies, continued there till they were turned out, that the Protector is blamed for putting them out by G. Fox and others, that they are called, Sober Men and true Hearts that feared God and trembled at His Word, valiant Captains, Soldiers, and Officers, it may be for saying thou to a single Person, or for wearing their Hats, &c. the distinguishing Characters of Quakers from others. Whereas, he says, there was no Wars in England in 50.51.52. it is a piece of his cunning, and is false; for Worcester Fight was in the year 51. and Sir George Booth's Insurrection in 1659. when the Quakers gave intelligence, calling them Re­bels, for but endeavouring to bring in the King; and for some years there were Wars both in Scotland and Ireland, and upon the Sea, and in Flanders. See E. Burrough's Alarm Sounded, &c. 1659. The Qua­kers Vnmask'd, &c. p. 6. 9. You see then how G. W's Answer is both false and deceitful

P. 7. 8. G. VV. charges J. P. with an apparent lye, in saying, the Quakers had been engaged in the same Cause, so as to Preach up Battels, &c. But I pray Sir, what difference is there between Preaching up Battles, &c. and exhorting Generals, Officers, and Soldiers, to go forth against mighty Enemies till they had subdued them, and set up their Standard a top of Rome, and done many other things which were to be done by Fighting? And that in the Quakers Spirit. See E. B's Alarm Sounded, &c. p 28.

P 9, 10. G.W. Commends the Quakers for their for­bearance towards J. P. and is confident that had J. P. look'd upon them as Fighters, &c he durst not have adventured to have given them such frequent and publick occasions of provocations and frequent disturbances and interruptions. To this, J. P. saith, he hath always been careful never to interrupt them, nor to give them any disturbance otherwise than by speaking a few words, either before they began to Preach, or when any one of them had done Preaching; and though the words which he spoke they could not gainsay, but were true; yet because they look'd upon t, that in what he spake he meant them therefore (notwithstanding his peaceable behaviour) he has sometimes found himself in much danger from the Qua­kers, who have frequently done violence to him them selves, and that in the place where he has a Propriety.

P. 10. They would excuse G. Fox in what he says against an Earthly King, &c. by turning it into an Earthly oppressing King, and setting an Earthly King over them, p. 11. But did not King Charles the Se­cond (to whom they addressed so early, professing their Innocency formerly, and their present Truth and Fidelity to him) challenge the Supreme Power over the Church? Are not all these Elders Christians, that will dote so much of an Earthly King Traytors a­gainst Christ? says G. Fox; And whom did they dote upon but Charles 2 (and afterwards upon King James) whom the Quakers do now love, own, and honour? Neither do you read, saith G. F. that there ever was an Earthly King since the days of the Apostles, but [Page 3]amongst the Apostate Christians. So then according to their own Principle, when King Charles 2. was among the Quakers he was among Apostate Christians; or else they temporiz'd and changed their Principles, holding that there might be an Earthly King among true Christians. And how could they profess their Innocency to the King, and that none had any just cause against them, since they had maintained such Principles as aforesaid? The case of the Prophet Sa­muel was far different from that of the Quakers, he was chief Magistrate himself, and they a little part of a People that had put to Death their King, and kept out the Heir by Arms, (of both which the Quakers sufficiently approved.) Now, suppose, Samuel had been the Representative of the Quakers, and the Heir made King contrary to his mind and endeavour, would he have addressed him, and said. ‘You are not ac­quainted, O King, with my Principle and Practice, neither have known my Innocency and Sufferings, they that speak against me as a Person that was an Opposer of your Kingship, and did vehemently ex­hort the People from subjecting themselves to your Arbitrary and Oppressive Power, had no just ground for that Charge. I love, own, and honour you and your Government.’ Might not the King have an­swer'd him, Are not you asham'd, Samuel, to play the Hypocrite in this gross manner? Do you brag of your Principle, and Practice, and Innocency be­fore me in this matter, since if the People had acted according to your Principle, and done as you would have had them, I should never have recovered my Kingdoms? If you are innocent, who is guilty? Is this your Innocent Plainness? Who then is Equivoca­ting and Deceitful? Your Pride will not suffer you to acknowledge any Error in Principle or Practice, be­cause ye have profess'd to speak and write from the immediate Eternal Spirit of GOD, though you are found fallible and foolish as other Men.

P. 15. The Quakers Vnmask'd, is cited, saying, Are not they in their own Judgments become Apo­states, for now they say we love, own, and honour an Earthly King. G. W. answers, p. 16. And where do we use these very words Earthly King on this occa­sion, but that we love, own, and honour the King, (whom here this Mau has judged an Earthly King,) does this shew us to be Apostates. Remark Did you ever read a more frivolous Answer? Was it any other King but that very King Charles 2. whom they had writ so bitterly against, under the Name of an Earth­ly King? he was an Earthly King before, when they said, They were Traytors against Christ that will dote so much on an Earthly King; but now the Quakers love, own, and honour him, he shall not be called an Earthly King. He was an Earthly King before when the Episcopals and Presbyterians doted on him; but now he is become the Quakers King he must be some­what else; I presume not a Heavenly King; but this is somewhat of the Quakers plainness.

P. 19. G.W. says, ‘I am persuaded that reproving him [O. C. Protector] for putting such [as feared GOD, sober Men and true Hearts, because of their faithfulness to the LORD,] out of the Army for their Consciences, was MORE upon his breach of Promise, than with an intent to have them always continue in it, in order to War and Fight.’ Here G. W. or whoever writ this passage, would seem to have some sense of Conscience; for his saying MORE is a comparative with what follows; and argues that it was written with an intent to have had them al­ways to continue in the Army in order to War and Fight, though MORE upon his breach of Promise. I doubt we shall not find G. W. &c. guilty of so much openness again throughout the whole Book. Do not the Quakers hold that none fear GOD truly and right­ly but themselves? That they are in the Truth, and none but they; and only among them is GOD known?

Christ was not contradictory to himself in bidding his Disciples to sell their Garments, and buy Swords, and consequently to wear Swords (as Peter did,) be­cause He saith my Kingdom is not of this World, or from hence; but Christ was contradictory to the Quakers sense of that saying, because if it was not law­ful to Fight, in any case, Christ would never have bid them buy Swords: But I did not intend to argue the lawfulness of Fighting, only G. W. brings it in need­lessy.

P. 21. One of their chiefest Preachers had said, It is no Rebellion to call away those in Power; by which J. P. understands to Depose those in Power that perform not their Trust: G. W. calls this a per­verse addition of a meaning, as if to call away and to Depose were both one in common acceptance. But G. W. is not pleased to tell us what other thing was meant by it, and I am persuaded that no Man but a fore-warn'd Quaker will take them for other than both one.

But I must hasten; read his 23 page, and you will find it amount to this, Had you [the Army] been faithful to the Power of the LORD GOD, you had gon into Spain to require the Blood of the Innocent, —and knock'd at Rome Gates, &c. [And done wonderful great things by wicked and unchristian Fighting, or otherwise by the fear and terror of your Power, Arms, and Conquests without Fighting,] or as the Host of the Midianites fled and were overcome. and yet not by Fighting on Gideon's part, but by a mean Stratagem. Quere, Whether they that kill by Stratagem do not Fight? And when the Ephraimites slew Oreb and Zeeb, and brought their Heads to Gi­deon, and pursued Midian, they did not Fight? [Page 4] Judges. 7.25. And whether Barack, Jepthah, Sam­son, David, Samuel, and the Prophets, who by Faith subdued Kingdoms, and turned to flight the Armies of the Aliens did not Fight? G.W. has found out all these ways of an Army's Conquering without Fighting. Sir, I know you are an impartial Man, can you think seriously (not that any Man to whom the Quakers wrote, or any Man that should read what they wrote, would understand them in any such sense, without Fighting; for I take it for manifest no Man did; but) whether they that wrote, or even the Quakers themselves, (till now they are press'd with these passages,) ever thought of such Senses? And if not, where is the Quakers plainness, whereof they so nau­seously boast?

P. 24. G. W. says, It cannot consist with our Chri­stian Principle, so much as to avenge our selves. Who are more ready to avenge themselves in Word and Print than Quakers? How have they railed and reviled their Opposers? Witness those Names G. W. calls Will. Rogers, F. Bugg, Tho. Crisp and others, in the Preface to his Book, Judgment fixed, viz. Apostate-Informers, Treacherous Hypocrites, False Brethren, and Deceitful Workers, Betraying Judas's, Devils Incarnate, who having tost their first love to Truth, and gone out from us, are become degenerate, without Natural Affections, Dogs that are without, Wolves, and raging waves of the Sea, that foam out their own shame. And a multitude of other such like Names do they call those that oppose, and cannot con­form to their outward Prescriptions and Impositions, besides their frequent violence with their own Hands, See the complaint of one of their own People, touching this matter, It hath been their lot to be haled, (with violence) out of the Assemblies,— Did I think to see the same violence offered in our Assemblies! Nay, but with Sorrow, mine Eyes have seen pulling down, haling out, and thrust­ing forth of our Meet­ings, and they went to the utmost, as far as their Power; and doubt­less they wanted not Will but Power to punish. And although they e­xercise the Oppressions before-mentioned, (and much more as may be seen in the said Book;) yet by their deceitful flatteries, they make People believe, That they are harmless, inno­cent, and peaceable Peo­ple, suffering and bearing wrong but not doing any. And if any Person write, or speak their Grief, they will represent them under such terms as may render them odious; and the more effectually to weaken their Testimonies they will fix upon them scurrilous and contem­ptible Appellations, as Scotch-Men, Welch men, Tinker, Taylor, &c. Some of them utterly un­true; and to prevent an Inquisition into the mat­ter, they would make People believe, that they are envious, malicious, and discomposed Spirits, bad, dirty, factions, and ranting Spirits, who are gone from Truth, and are out of Truth. Such is the Portion of those that appear in the least against their imperious, tyrannical, and lascivious Actions: And whatever Man detected the Falla­cies, and destructive Cheats of imperious, dis­dainful Men, but was thus reproached? Must it be Justice in them to complain of their Oppressions; and Envy, and Malice, &c. in us to complain of ours? Their years are but few; yet verily they have been exceeding expert to learn of the Papists, Subtilties. Spirit of the Hat, p. 29, 36, 37. and what is a great part of this Book of G W. &c. but avenging themselves of J. P.? They might have said all they had to say in their own vindica­tion, without those ma­nifold reproaches, and even Curses, which they belch out against him, such as that in p. 30 God will smite thee, thou malicious Hypocrite. Our Innocency shall rise up in Judgment against thee. Read to the end of that Paragraph. Of this nature is G. W. glorying, that Jer. Ives not long af­ter his malicious Works against us [Quakers] was soon cut off by Death, p. 33.

I must desire you, Sir, to read p. 34, 35, 36, 37. of their Vindication of that Declaration to which Mr. P—'s Name was amongst the rest sub­scribed, and then judge what disingenuity and deceit there was in him, to insert the substance of that Declaration, without telling that his own Name was to it, since his Name was not to those after Declarations, which are inconsistent with this. 2. Whether it is possible to give a more Equivocating An­swer to any charge, than G. W. &c. has given of this? They say, God might command Thou­sands and Ten Thou­sands of His Saints, at this Day, to Fight in His own Cause This passage, and the like, the Quakers left out in the reprint of E. B's works, know­ing (it seems) they would expose them in their clear sense; but being brought to light, they then study to put an equi­vocal sense on them.. But it must not be taken for granted (says G. W.) that therefore he would do it. But that which GOD may do, and which we cannot yet be­lieve that He will make use of us in that way, and therefore for the pre­sent we are given up to bear and suffer, &c We must needs conclude that this is one of those things that GOD hath made no DECREE to the contra­ry, but that He may Will it to be done, even by us in the future, though He hath not done it at present. And all that G. W. &c. has Cri­ticiz'd upon the Equi­vocalness of the term YET, does but bewray his and their Equivoca­tion; for though YET may be taken for Never­theless, when they say, [Page 5]but YET His Kingdom is not of this World; notwithstanding it cannot be so taken, when they say, neither can we YET be­lieve, &c. but it must be taken to denote the time to this present [adhuc, as yet] in exception to the time to come; especially when it is farther ex­plained by the clause, for the present; which is ne­cessarily opposed to the time to come, and imports clearly that Fighting may be commanded as in the Future, as now bearing and suffering is commanded. I am very confident that G. W. &c. cannot produce any one instance out of any Man's Writings, that understood well the English Tongue, of the use of the term Yet, in such a Phrase and Construction, in any other sense than of Time. But if all uncon­cern'd Readers must and will understand it in this sense, then G. W's Answer is full of gross Equivo­cation.

These are the People that exalt themselves above all other Professors whatsoever, that they reckon all them to be of the World, out of the Truth; and them­selves the Only People of GOD, and that they are in the Truth, and none but they, Christ's Lambs, and the like. And for distinguishing themselves from o­thers, they took up some Observances, or Ceremonies, which did it effectually; such as saying Thou not You to a single Person; calling no Man Master, but John or Thomas, &c. not I thank you, but I receive thy love; not carrying the Feet but the Head foremost of their Dead, and the like. They condemn utterly the courtesie of putting off the Hat to any. In short, they affected singularity in most things that were customa­ry in England, how innocent soever: And under the notion of not Swearing, they only refuse the Ceremo­ny of an Oath, as the laying the Hand upon, and Kissing the Book. Now, I pray Sir, what of true Re­ligion, or real Goodness, is there in these things? Sup­pose the whole World did observe them, would they be at all the better for it? However, by these things they have cut off all others, how religious and sincere soever. And if any Man oppose what they say or do, instead of meekly answering, they are ready with the most virulent, opprobrious, and threatning Language and Writings that can be found in any sort whatever. They will diligently seek out, and take up any thing may reproach one; and will insinuate Crimes that Men are most free from: Thus have they changed the Meekness and Gentleness of Christianity, into Fierceness and Churlishness; Humility and Modesty, into Arrogance and Self-conceit; Peaceableness into Contentiousness; Mildness into Clamour; and Blessing into evil speaking and reviling; Plainness and Simpli­city, into Equivocation and Craft; and all this under the Profession of the most unspotted Innocency and Sincerity. Truth, Righteousness, and Holiness.

But I would not be understood to impute these Immoralities to the Quakers in general, nor to all their Teachers and Leading Men, but to the Foxonian Party that love to Govern and have the Preheminence, who have endeavoured to suppress those who have at any time proposed any thing contrary to their Sentiments. Thus in a few years, instead of being led and guided, and being obedient every one to the Light in himself, they were obliged to submit to the sense of the greater number of the Governing BODY, though never so contrary to their own sense. Nay, this Imposing Spirit proceeded so far, at a Quarterly Meeting in Barbadoes, where they did not act with that Caution and Cunning as here at London, that they made and subscribed this following Order, viz.

‘I desire to give up my whole Concern, if required, both Spiritual and Temporal unto the Spirit of God in Men and Wo­men's Meetings, as believing it to be more according to the Universal Wisdom of God, than any particular measure in my self, or any particulars with whom the Men and Women's Meetings have not Unity.’

The Actings, Writings, and Speakings of that kind I have spoken of, being observed by some W. Rogers, T. Crisp, F. Bugg, W. Macklow, J. Story, J. Wilkinson, Charles Harris, J. Rance, Tho. Curtis, J. Ansloe, and many more. among them, who were either too wise, or too honest to be per­suaded, that those cor­rupt Fruits could pro­ceed either from the Spi­rit of God, or from the Light within, that they griev'd and mourn'd to see that excellent Prin­ciple of Reformation, The Light in every Man, so grosly perverted and undermined, that they were made to oppose and testifie against them.

Sir, I might go on throughout G. W.'s &c. whole Book, and shew many more gross Equivocations, Palliations, and Deceits; but I will not proceed far­ther, lest I may seem to question your Judgment, in not observing those things that are so evident. But I think we that read Books have just cause of in­dignation against those Quakers, who have the face to impose upon the World such abominable Stuff, un­der the Notion of the Teachings of the Light, of [Page 4] [...] [Page 5] [...] [Page 6]the unspotted Innocency and Christian sincerity. But it may reasonably be thought they write not for vindication of themselves to those that are of the World, (as they call all that are not in their Form;) but for their own Party, that are so blindly addicted to their Leaders, that they swallow every thing they say without consideration: Unhappy Men! that have given up their Minds to the Glory of a singular Party, in contempt of all others, and can find no other way of vindicating themselves. I may need your excuse for writing so much, and therefore will now subscribe