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
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
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 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. 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 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 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 't is 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 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. 'T is 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 1 st This charge contains a notorious falshood 2 dly 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 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
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-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
this Concern for 't is 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 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. Judgment fixed upon the Accuser of our Brethren CHAPTER I § 1. W. R's Hue-and-Câ—y 〈…〉 empâ—y Flourish § 2. His 〈…〉 § 3. He iâ— 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. 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 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 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 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 't is 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 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 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. 'T is with me to take a little notice thereof I say again a little notice that so the Reader 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 't is with thee to take of our Treatise we cannot but take notice of thy lofty and 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 't is 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 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 for 't is not credited by many However thou art positive in