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
And how canst thou think that we can do less than detest thy insolent Spirit by offering to write in the Name of the People called Quakers without Restriction when they gave neither thee nor any of thy Brethren such Authority Had the fear of God been before thine Eyes thou couldst not have attempted to have done so Wickedly p. 25. Here it is probable he thinks he hath given the Pen-man a deadly Blow but when the Devil and William Rogers have done their worst it comes to little Execution but to manifest his Envy and Folly He only shews his Teeth but cannot bite nor fasten for there is no just paralel in the case there is no such kind of Treasonable proceeding justly chargeable upon the Pen-man as is inferred in the Comparison The Pen-man did not call himself the Representative nor write in the Name of the People or of all those called Quakers without Restriction as he falsly saith nor pretend an Election or Authority from them so to do the matter is distinguished and answered before and yet the Pen-man might lawfully represent the Innocency of all true peaceable Quakers both as to Principle and Practice when abused and calumniated either as Vnchristian or Popish Imposers c. without Conviction like as this Adversary hath frequently misrepresented them And this may be done charitably freely and voluntarily in their Name and Vindication and in true Unity from a right knowledge of their Innocency declared Sense and Principles And hath not this been the Practice of many faithful Servants of Christ among us ever since we were a People to write both in the name vindication of the People of God called Quakers or of the Innocent People called Quakers c. as the Lord hath laid a necessity upon them and yet not to include those who are unfaithful or scandalous to Truth or any who are turned into Envy and Strife though they go under that Name Nor yet have they sought or needed to seek Commission from the whole People to write in their behalf being required of the Lord to write And did not many of the best reformed Protestants and Martyrs write in the name and behalf of the Protestant Church and Religion as the Book of Martyrs and other Histories and their own Writings shew of which numerous Instances might be given And did not the the Apostles of Christ often write in the Plural both in the name and behalf of themselves and the rest of true Believers and Fellow-members under the terms We and Vs and Our c. especially in that of 1 John 2.19 They went out from Us but they were not of Us for if they had been of Us they would no doubt have continued with Us see chap. 3.14 and 4.6 Here John wrote in the Name of his Brethren and Fellow-members and distinguished themselves from those that went out from them as we have our selves as a peaceable People from you that are gone out from us into a Spirit of Enmity Discord and Self-separation § 4. But W. R. since thou countest it such a horrid Crime such great Impudence Pride ugly Action Insolence c. to write in the name or on the behalf of People or Persons or in their Vindication without being impowered authorized and chosen by the same Persons or People Now observe well upon thy own principle and way of arguing what a Reckoning I have with thee Let us seriously enquire of thee Have all those Persons in whose behalf and Name thou hast written in the Plural under the Terms We Vs c given thee Authority or chosen thee to write in their Name and behalf Did John Story John Wilkinson and now the person in Cambridgshire whom thou and Francis Bugg contend for against the Record about his Marriage all give thee Authority or chuse thee to write on their behalf and to expose their Names in Print as thou hast done in thy state of the Controversie on their behalf Did they give thee Authority to write in their names and behalf as those Other Friends in Truth thou tellest of and representest Either they did or they did not if they did then they may be entituled to and are justly chargeable with thy work how perverse and abusive soever it be If they did not chuse nor authorize thee to write in their behalf and name then thy own Judgment returns upon thy own head as one guilty of great Impudence Pride towring lofty Spirit notorious Falshood ugly Dress c. to write in the name and vindication of Persons and to represent them who never gave thee Power nor chose thee to thy work Didst not thou pretend to write on behalf of thy self and other Friends in Truth concerned as in the Title-page of thy great Book and now to use the words Vs We or Our with respect to such as encouraged the giving forth thereof as in thy Advertisement to thy seventh part When now divers noted Persons who have appeared of thy party refuse to stand by thy Books and we know none of them that dare say they gave thee any such Authority or chose thee to be their Representative to write in their name and behalf as thou hast done against many faithful Friends whom the Lord is with and will stand by against thy crooked Spirit and Opposition but rather those thy Friends in Truth pretended on enquiry if they own and will stand by thy Books as it has been often asked them particularly at Devonshire-house in 1681. have answered That William Rogers must answer for himself if he hath done more than he can answer or wronged any They will not stand by him 'T is his own Act he must look to it c. Thus upon a pinch they leave him in the lurch to shift for himself they 'l not stand by him openly however they own him not for their Representative though he hath represented them and written as in their Name Person and Vindication as also represented them as Encouragers of the giving forth of his great Book falsly stiled The Christian-Quaker c. But to deal more closely and positively with thee in this matter how camest thou to expose Edward Burroughs Name in Print and to represent him as a Person of thy Principle and Judgment by a confused unsound whimsical Paper which thou hast printed in thy great Book with Edward Burrough's Name put to it and represented it as his Testimony and even in thy Title-page sayst it was given forth in the year 1661. by Edw. Burroughs and since the same is reprinted over and over by thy busie informing Agent Thomas Crisp as E. B's Vision but I am perswaded thou and he have grosly abused and mis-represented that Servant of the Lord E. B. by rendring him the Author of such Absurdities as are contained in that same Paper about the Shepherd and his Dogs c. particularly in that passage of the Shepherd's gathering the Sheep with the many Goats that did push trouble and hurt the Sheep with
their Horns and putting them into the Fold and that he made fast the door and would not separate them until he had the other Sheep also that did not come with the Flock See what Doctrine this is as applyed to Christ the good Shepherd rendring him so severe to his Sheep as to gather shut up and keep so many Goats so long among them in his Fold to trouble bruise and hurt his poor Sheep with their Horns And also that Warning and Precept given in the said Paper to Friends for all to forbear judging any man any more upon any pretence whatsoever Can any that knew E. B. and the soundness of judgment understanding that he was attain'd to in the year 1661. believe that he was the Author of such Doctrine to all Friends as to judge no man under any pretence whatsoever A man well known severely to judge deceitful Workers and rebellious Ones as yea he testified plainly against John Perrot's spirit of Division is fully evinced in his Books and Writings And I dare presume E.B. never gave thee authority nor chose thee or Tho. Crisp to represent him in print so many years after his decease as the Author of the said Paper or warning to all friends To judge no man under any pretence whatsoever And yet thou art severely judging and reproaching others that are not of thy party as Apostates Innovators c. contrary to such an express precept doctrine espoused by thee as E. B's Testimony Besides the express contradiction to thy self in thus representing E. B. in print without his leave authority or consent what great abuse hast thou done to him his Memory Name and Testimony in exposing him in Print as Author of that which doth not so much as look like him or his Testimony or any Vision of his but in the said Doctrines both contrary to his Judgment and Practice I say what a horrid Abuse hast thou done to the Name and Memory of the dead in Christ and that by promoting a forged Subscription if thou canst not give sufficient demonstration and proof that Edw. Burroughs was the Author of the same Paper aforesaid which thou hast exposed in his name in Print If thou sayst it was delivered to thee with Edw. Burrough 's name to it I say that 's no proof of its being his for both I and divers others have seen a Copy of the same only with J. Perrots name to it and this more probably true that he was the Author for divers reasons than thy rendring E. B. the Author Again thou hast also exposed that honest and innocent Person Isaac Pennington in Print to serve thy own turn and thy parties as a Confirmation of thy work and that after his decease also for which I dare presume he gave thee no authority nor chose thee so to represent him in Print or to pick out of the middle diminish or curtalize his Writings or Testimony by leaving out the most material and explanatory precedent and subsequent Passages thereof to the great injury and abuse of his Intention for which his Son John Pennington was stirred up to vindicate his deceased Father and to detect thy abuse and Prevarication And am satisfied that neither Edward Burroughs nor John Crook gave thee Authority to quote or cite them or either of them in opposition to G. F. as thou hast John Crook especially in thy Epistle pag. 3. nor to tell the World in Print That his Testimony is agreeable to thy sence I do not believe J. C. will in the least own thee in thy work of Opposition and strife against many faithful Servants of Christ. Also thou and Francis Bugg have represented William Penn in Print on some passages pickt out of his Address to Protestants as in thy 66 and 73 pages which he never gave you power to do much less to represent him as if he were one in Judgment with you against his Brethren nor did he give thee or F. Bugg leave to discant upon and turn his words to serve your own turns nor to apply them against such his Friends in the Isle of Ely or else-where who are for Womens Meetings and laying Marriages twice before the Mens and Womens Meetings it is not to be supposed that he intended Fly Rome at Home as proper Admonition to them as thy Brother F. Bugg applies them as in the Authority and genuine sence of Dear W. P. p. 78. calling William Penn Dear Friend p. 65. This Noble Man c. p. 73. Which is to render W. P. exactly one of your own party and all this without his authority leave or consent But how comes he now to be Dear William Penn Dear Friend and This Noble man Hast not thou numbred him among the Persecutors of J. S. and J. W. as thou esteemest Charles Marshall and Sixty Five more as thy phrase is who signed the Paper thou art so much offended at p. 22 27. Was not William Penn one of those sixty six Subscribers And dost not thou on this very occasion retort his words Let us fly Rome at Home What! must he therefore be a Persecutor of his Brethren and yet a Dear Friend Dear William Penn This Noble man c. in thy Book What Self-contradiction and manifest Flattery art thou and thy Brother Bugg like Parasites guilty of Pray lift up your Eyes and see your selves if not judicially given over to blindness and hardness of heart Take another Instance or two of thy Self-contradictory dealing Didst not thou expose a Certificate or Testimony as thou esteemedst it of Nathaniel Crips in Print against G. F. without any Authority from Nathaniel for so doing I am sure he confest as much to me and John Bouldron the 6th Moneth 1679. against thy publishing it in Manuscript as that thou didst it without his advice knowledge or order see our Book Accuser c. p. 172 And likewise that pretended Certificate or Testimony of Edw. Perkins which thou printedst against G. F. Edward confessed to me at sundry times and before divers Persons that he did not give any advice or consent to thy printing it for 't was printed without his knowledge And so we may question or suppose thou hast done the like in the rest or most of the pretended Testimonies against G. F. c. from those Women and others of Bristol c. Now may not I rationally take leave to reflect and argue ad hominem upon thee and according to thy own Terms thus Oh! thou Imperious Map of Pride towring lofty and Lordly Spirit insolent and conceited proud Vsurper how durst thou either write in the name or behalf of so many whom thou countest Friends in Truth and numerous too or expose the names of so many deceased Servants of Christ in thy Quarrel as if they were all on thy side and party when thy gave thee no power nor deputed thee so to do And thou must answer for thy misrepresenting them and abusing their Names Memories and Testimonies when the
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
thirst after Righteousness By Isabel Yeomans A Warning to London in particular By James Parks A Warning to England in general By J. P. A Testimony to the Lords Power and blessed appearance in and amongst Children A plain Path-way opened to the simple hearted for the answering all Doubts and Objections c. By S. Crisp. A Blast blown out of the North ecchoing up towards the South to meet the Cry of their oppressed Brethren The Lamentable Cry of the Oppressed H. Smith's Books collected into one Volumn The Spirit of the Martyrs revived ☞ A faithful Warning and Lamentation over England By William Bingley Jude 13 14. vers †A Pope reputed no better than an Atheist a Prophaner of the holy Scriptures a Person careless of Religion and Piety an Avaritious Corrupt Person who made great advantage of his impious Indulgencies Pardons c How unjust impious therefore is our Adversary W R. to rake so many Instancies as he hath done out of the History of the Council of Trent of Wicked Popes and their Agents to compare brand and scandalize Us or any of our Friends withal who abhor Popery and all the Popes Corruptions †By Execute I understand minister or put in Practice and not in the common Law sence of inflicting corporal or pecuniary Punishments for that 's not consistent with the Government of a Christian Church * See Rhâ— Annotat. fol. 572. * But I suppose he hath a reserved and other sence for his Distinction between Clergy and Laity here than the common sence â—nd distinction 'T is some reflecting reserve no doubt He may tell his mean-in his next Book * I tenderly forbear exposing the Person 's name at present believing that 't was not by his order or consent that W.R. F B. have made him such a subject of printed controversie as also hoping that he has more charity tenderness in him than to allow of their malicious Books Pag. 27. P. 72. P. 26. P. 27. * As our words are Accuser p. 136. * Who must so exercise and proceed in them if no visible man or men be invested with Power from Christ to execute them or put them in practice Pag. 41. pag. 42. Rom 2 8. 1 Cor. 16.16 1 Thes 5 12 13 14. Heb. 13 17. 2 Pet. 3.2 pag. 45. pag. 45. Accuser c. p. 26 27. P. 52. Page 52. This passage W. R. hath Printed divers times over in his Book against himself p. 55. P. 55. †Francis Bugg's Proposition implyes a Contradiction for if Samuel Cater subscribe the Instrument he ought not to have his Money by the tenure of it because he told not his Name If he do not subscribe it as his judgment then he also ought to have his Money again according to F. B's tenet of Christian Liberty As not seeing it his duty ergo he may not or at least ought not to be compelled to suffer for it Another contradiction is from the ground of his Law or Canon viz. the equality in suffering For by his Rule a poor Minister must suffer 20 l when a rich Hearer whom he ministers to but 5 s. And he on the apparent sight of the Informer must tell his Name when the other but when he is asked it Oh equal levelling Law Are not the children of the world wiser looking on us as Levellers to make the rich Hearers pay the poor Preachers penalties as well as they look on them obliged to maintain them on their own supposition * Marg. added Yet I do not limit Persons in this case there may be a special occasion to tell Names for the sake of others but not to make that a general Rule Friends are to be left free to Gods counsel * Q. added If it be not Dog-Latin Thy Charge collected * Query added I do seriously ask William Rogers if this Paper of ours thus Recommended be sufficient proof of Imposition and being turned Antichristian I desire plain Answer hereunto in relation to what he has granted for a Recommendation c. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mas. and Fem. * Yet I find it not So manifest afterward in thy Book at all * And whereunto we have a full Answer in being in Manuscript reserved about five Years in order to pursue and detect that of J. P.'s if divulged abroad in Print †As in his opposing Pastors Teachers Elders c. in our day and the Spirit to them and rendring us at inforceing Orders and setting our selves in the place of the HEIR c. And he was Answer'd in his Life time by several of the Servants of Christ wâ—â— withstood his opposition in this matter * For J. Crook hath given publick Testimony against the Payment of Tythes in this Gospel day witness his Treatise i. e. Tythes no Property c. †But I must confess that in our publick Assemblies for divine Worship such postures as bespeak the most Reverence to God and Union among our selves are most commendable edifying and exemplary c. * N. C 's Epistle †So the Work of Backsliders and Apostates tends to fit them to hear and sit under the Parish Priests contrary to the real Christian Quaker Witness F. Bugg's Proposition espoused by him as his own judgment viz. Things Moral under the Gospel men may be commanded by the Magistrate as HEARING is an act purely Moral A man may be commanded to hear the Gospel preacht without being forced to give his assent to it The Light of Nature guides the Magistrate to instruct his Subjects in whatsoever he thinks for their eternal Good And the Light of Nature obligeth every man to hearken c A man that is only commanded to hear and receive Instruction is dealt with as a rational Creature and forced to nothing The Judgment is still left in himself Thus F. Bugg's De Christiana Libertate or Liberty of Conscience pag 91 92. Whereby he has plainly given away and betray'd the cause of all conscientious Dissenters For what place is left for Liberty of Conscience to dissent if the Magistrate may thus enjoyn the Subjects to hear what he thinks is for their eternal Good and they be thus obliged to hear when he thinks 't is for their good to hear the Parish Priests By this Proposition when the Magistrate commands Fr. Bugg to his Parish Church and hear the Priest he is oblig'd so to do by his own Proposition and reserve his judgment in himself whether to accept or reject what he hears Thus he may be in a freedom fitted to act in ALL FORMS But then let him not esteem himself a Christian Quaker but another sort of a Latitude Christian whose Religion and Principle before cited will not oblige him to suffer any more as a Quaker †So the Work of Backsliders and Apostates tends to fit them to hear and sit under the Parish Priests contrary to the real Christian Quaker Witness F. Bugg's Proposition espoused by him as his own judgment viz. Things