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 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 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 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 't would 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 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 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 2 dly 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 3 dly 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
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 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 suâ—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. § 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 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 't is 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 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 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 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 'T is 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 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 't is 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 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 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 't was 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 way-laid in our said Treatise pag. 26 27. 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 't is 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 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 'T was 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 'T was 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
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 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 WE whose Names are hereunto subscribed have also perused and compared the above-mentioned 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 Perâ—ots Name as 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 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 § 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 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 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