approved Servants of Christ. How like a Popish Prelate yea like the Pope himself hast thou proudly maliciously imperiously acted against me and others of the faithful Servants Ministers of Christ Jesus Be ashamed therefore and confounded because of thy Insolent and Slanderous Abuses against the Innocent and particularly of thy gross Lye against me and others viz. That the holy Scripture is by us slighted p. 152. Be ashamed I say of this abominable Lye And for Confutation to thy abuse of me before read the following Certificate from Persons of better Credit than thy self Huntingtonshire From our Monethly Meeting at Godmanchester the 11th day of the 5th Moneth 1682. WHereas George Whitehead hath been evilly traduced in two Letters of Francis Bugg's and charged in one of them with behaving himself in Huntingtonshire like a Lordly Bishop or Popish Prelate lately Now we whose Names are subscribed do testifie We never in this County nor else-where at any time saw any such thing and that he is a man far remote from any such matter but do believe he is a true Labourer in Gods service and an humble Minister of the Gospel Matthew Kay Samuel Nottingham Tobias Hardmeat Robert Lister Jasper Robins John Wilsford John Aversett John Marshall William Starling Richard Snazdale John King David Tisoeth Thomas Lyster Richard Jobson 14 th And thy malicious scribling tends in divers parts of it unjustly to render us Obnoxious and Offensive to Authority by wickedly and falsly rendring the Proceedings of some of our Christian Meetings Tyrannical and Antichristian and comparing us to the Popes Councils to Popes c. And all this to Henry North Knight and the Magistrates too is next to prosecuting us for our Liberties or Lives So disgustful may be thy trumpeting and publishing in Print the Moderation of H. North Knight p. 194. and his mercifulness in taking notice of our threatned Ruin and preventing it c. as in thy Epistle Dedicatory to him that doubtless we think Henry North as a prudent man will not thank thee for thus trumpeting his Fame abroad in Print on behalf of Dissenters for such kind of Ostentatious dealing is offensive and hateful to great Persons of Prudence who would not have their goodness exposed to publick censure or reflection nor be represented as Persons Popular for any dissenting Parties I have many more things material against thy Book but I desire thee to accept of my Labour and honest Endeavours and what I have written thus largely to thee as an act of Christian Condescention and good Will for thy Conviction that thou mayst yet be abased and humbled unto Repentance and publick Condemnation of thy wicked and scurrilous Book if the Lord will yet please to give thee an Heart to Repent and acknowledge the Truth which thou hast deeply offended and sinned against with thy Lyes and Lightness And I desire to know if after the reading and perusal of this my large Letter thou art at all minded to relent and retract thy Book or any part of it and accordingly to give forth a plain Condemnation or Recantation as publick To this I expect answer shortly from thee otherwise trouble me not with any disingenious or scurrilous Letters Thy Abused yet Well-wishing Friend George Whitehead London the 3 d day of the 8 th Moneth 1682. Postscript since added Wherein F. B's fallacy about the Record in the Quarterly Meeting Book in the Isle of Ely his abuse of the Servants of Christ his Contradiction about William Penn his Scorn Malice and Ranting Doctrine are detected and reprehended WHen I was lately in the Isle of Ely I made enquiry about the account which thou F. Bugg givest in thy Observations pag. 52. viz. concerning a Minister thou knowest who thou mentionedst being recorded out of the Vnity for not taking his Wife according to the Order of Friends i. e. not publishing his Intentions before the Womens Meetings as hereafter will be further manifest sayst thou but not one recorded that ever thou remembrest for any breach of Gods Commandments pag. 53. For which acount thou referest any man to search the Records of your Quarterly Meeting Book in Hadenham in the Isle of Ely c. But upon my enquiry I find that Friends do positively give a contrary account and do plainly affirm that there were no Womens Meeting Then at that time in being in those parts or within that Monethly Meeting in Cambridgshire where the said Person lives who proposed his Intentions of Marriage but once before the Men And if so thy account must be notoriously false and thou mayst be horridly ashamed to divulge it as also of thy frequently saying He was recorded out of the Vnity whenas Friends only recorded That they have no Vnion with him in his so doing as thou hast cited it pag. 63. which is only relative to that particular Act viz. of his refusing to come twice to the Meeting and not in such general Terms to exclude the Person Out of the Vnity in all respects Therefore thou appearest fallacious in thy account As concerning the Paper of our sence and advice dated London the 27 th of the 3 d Moneth 1675. consisting of divers particular weighty matters which thou makest thy principal Instance of our Apostacy and Violence upon our first Principles of Vnion and about which thou hast so much scofft and derided at us I must tell thee that I know not one Person who subscribed thaâ— Paper but have cause to stand by it anâ— will stand by it though unjustly and defamingly smote at derided and contemned by thee And why didst not publish all our said Paper Thou sayst Thou hast taken enough to shew our Innovations and manifest Apostacies pag. 50. as if all that Paper were matter of such Proof which is a most slanderous Insinuation for thou hast not proved one of these Instances of our said Paper either a Violation to our first Principles of Vnion Antiscriptural or Inconsistent with the Church-Discipline Order and Government in the Primitive Times among true Christians as thou pretendest nor in the least tending to Apostacy or Antichristianism Thou hast taken upon thee to stigmatize brand and defame both our Testimony and the Subscribers particularly William Penn thou hast compared and rank't among such Vnchristian Societies Violators Innovators Apostates Pope's Council Arbitrary Authority c. Thou art very loud in thy Charge but mute in Proof and wanting in Argument And how dost thou herein agree with thy self where in pag. 133. thou callest William Penn This Noble Man and in pag. 135. Dear W. P. and in pag. 144. thou prayst for William Penn in these words viz. I pray God keep thee steddy and with a continual Dependency upon the Divine Revelation c. when thou hast represented the same Person W. P. Antichristian Apostate Innovator c. as if thou shouldst pray thus for him viz. Thou Antichristian Apostate I pray God keep thee steddy Such Absurdity doth thy Contradiction produce who
chieftains of thy own party dare not stand by thy work nor own thee for their Representative but leave thee to stand by it thy self as thy own What an unjust and false Representative hast thou shewn thy self by thy own rule and manner of Reflection upon others though I am apt to think that some few have privately encouraged thee in thy travail who now are afraid publickly to stand by thy deform'd inform unshapely and monstrous Birth begotten and brought forth by the old Accuser of the Brethren though some are not ashamed to promote and expose it to Sale but it will turn to their own shame and be their burden at length § 5 Again to prove thy false charge of Apostacy and Innovation against us p. 26. thou insistest on a Record in the Quarterly Meeting Book at Hadenham in the Isle of Ely about a Marriage shewing Friends dislike of the manner of proceeding and disunion there-with The Question is Whether the person concern'd gave thee Authority to expose this in Print to make him a subject of the Controversie and proof of our Apostacy If not as I presume he did not but rather F. B. from whom thou sayst thou receivedst it then hast thou shewn thy self no Friend to the Person concerned in exposing his name in Print in a matter that tends to his disrepute and disgrace and that in plain contradiction to thy own Principle and Judgment against us and yet the ground of Friends dissatisfaction in that case thou dost not demonstrate wherein thou hast done partially and unjustly which necessitates this discovery but sayst It is for not proceeding exactly in that outward new formed Method Whereas 't was an Innovation or new Method that Friends were offended at viz. propounding the Marriage but once to the Meeting and that in the Womans absence with whom he intended Marriage which is both a new Method and Imposition on Friends upon his bear word and credit without the Woman's Testimony from her own Mouth which should have been allowed Friends and that at two sundry Meetings from both the Persons concerned which is no new formed Method but that which has been many years among us and is a necessary and commendable Method both for enquiry into the Persons clearness from other Engagements and tending to a general satisfaction of Friends in Truth And this Method doth neither invalidate nor derogate from that antient Advice of Friends cited in thy 4th Chapter concerning Marriage pag 66. viz. Let it be made known to the Children of Light especially to those of the Meeting to which the parties are Members that all in the Light may witness it to be of God and that no Scandal may rest upon the Truth nor any thing done in secret but all things brought to the Light c. This is general and was wholsom advice And there is no particular Method used among us but it tends to the same good end viz. for the satisfaction and Testimony of all in the Light and doth not in the least contradict or lessen it Where 's then the Antichristian Imposition Apostacy and Innovation thou chargest in the Contents of thy fourth Chapter Is it in proposing Marriages twice or at two sundry times to the Meetings the parties bâ—long to and that by both the parties concerned to prevent Scandal and Clandestine proceedings and that Friends in the Light may witness it to be of God which is our Method and in which the Person aforesaid did not proceed in his proposing his intention of Marriage but once and that in the Womans absence as Friends have given account and for which cause Friends expressed they had not Vnion with him in so doing But it seems thou hast in being so officious an Advocate for him against Friends for their Conscientious dislike recorded against such an Example or President and scoffing at our Women Friends in the Isle of Ely as thou sayest may be accounted of the QVORVM p. 24. Is this thy proof of Antichristian Imposition Apostacy and Innovation against us Where 's thy Christianity Conscience Religion and Order pretended Oh! be ashamed of thy Scornful Unchristian and Infamous Attempts And also it was no Friendly part in thee to endeavour to expose the Quarterly Meeting of the Isle of Ely in Print to publick censure on the bare Information of Francis Bugg thy Informer who has shewn himself a Party and open Adversary against that Meeting rendring it no better than an Imposing Church a False Church p. 74. against whom thou hast joyned in Judgment with him without hearing that Meeting 's own defence and answer to Francis Bugg in the case is this thy judicial and equal proceedings Oh for shame give over thy partial and impertinent Scribling And what if the said Quarterly Meeting would not once hear F. Bugg's Letter nor suffer it to be read It appears he has not behaved himself so well and obligingly to that Meeting as to engage Friends there to lay by their other concerns to hear his Letter against their proceeding They were not ignorant of F. B's turbulent Spirit witness his troublesom work his ignoble base and crafty dealing against Samuel Cater about the Fine c. a particular account whereof is expected from G. Smith and Friends of the Isle of Ely who know the transaction in the Circumstances of the subtil Intreague which possibly may be a Rebuke to Francis Bugg his Immorality in the â—ase corrupt Conscience as well as to his Pride and Insolence as an Ensample to Posterity which I really think he deserves if he 'l not study to be quiet towards Friends his peaceable Neighbours In his said Letter to the Quarterly Meeting at Hâ—denham in the Isle of Ely and which is printed in thy Book part 7. p. 72. though he flatteringly begins with Dear Friends he accuseth them about the Record against J. A. as excluding him out of the Vnity of Friends and with Excommunication c. Wherein he has dealt prevaricatingly and falsly as appears by his and thy own account of the Meeting 's Record which is That they have no Vnion with him in THIS HIS SO DOING Which relates to that particular Act and not wholly to exclude the Person out of the Vnity in all other things as one Excommunicate c. Yet he proceeds Reflectingly telling them of Stigmatizing laying stress where God hath laid none Excommunicating about such things which are at best but mens Traditions and Impositions Imposing false Church Applying William Penn's words This noble Man's words as he flatteringly stiles him Fly Rome at Home to the said Quarterly-Meeting which were never so intended by W. P. Thus thou and F. B. have abused W. P. in Print shamefully perverting his words and intention who never could intend to bid a Quarterly-Meeting Fly Rome at Home either for testifying against such Irregularity as proposing a Marriage but once to a Meeting and that in the absence of the Woman concerned nor yet for justifying upon the Method
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
he interfers with himself in his plea for liberty of Conscience § 4. W. R's Confutation to himself apparent in confessing That God hath afforded those helps governments in the Church which are not to be despised in a Paper signed by him among Friends at London 1673. His instance of W. P against the Penman groundless We clear'd from imposing a bâ—ind Obedience and W. Penn's own words farther cited to clear his intention for liberty of Conscience and from what § 5. W. R's unfair dealing and mistaken opposition against R. Barclay's propositions concerning the Power positive Sentence and Judgment of the Church of Christ as being binding in SOME CASES of consequence upon Believers the Spirit of Christ being the only proper Judge c. The point at length granted by William Rogers himself § 6. Wherein W. Rogers's discourse tends to Libertism blind Opposition Confusion and Ranterism A blind Refusal of Submission to what the Lord in his Servants requires condemned as well as blind obedience A Medium between both proposed to prevent a blind Refusal and blind Obedience Of W R's wrong Measures false Judgment and Suppositions Envy and Scorn Laughter hypocritical Lamentation Praying Cain's Sacrifice his lofty conceited and contemning way of writing § 1. IT is true and I am still of the same mind that having the great ends of true Religion and Christian Society in our Eye viz. An unspotted Life Love and good Works c. as the very intent of our care and proceedings in the Church of Christ we can the more easily concur and accord as to Circumstances and outward Methods and in the Wisdom of God so condescend one to another and accomodate matters as not to divide about them c. And I do not find that our Opposer produceth any seeming Contradiction to this Citation out of our Book as he endeavours upon our following words viz. We would be understood that those things commended among us as necessary for good Order and Holiness of Conversation are not recommended doubtfully or upon meer Supposition nor as matters of indifferency to be practised or rejected but in faith full assurance as answering Gods Witness and Truth in the Consciences and that such will meet with a tender Reception and not Opposition in all tender and upright hearts Where 's now the seeming Contradiction in this to the precedent Passage See what observation our Opposer makes upon them He observes That the Penman seems thereby to look three ways at once p. 36. though his sight and observation has greatly fail'd him herein as first In commending things necessary for good Order and Holiness of Conversation NOT as matters of Indifferency To this W. R. thus saith viz. Wherein I take the truest sense of his mind to be and that the first citation importing his readiness to condescend was to cover himself and others from the guilt of Apostacy and Innovation He is mistaken in his observation here there was no such intent nor necessity for the Pen-man to cover himself or others from that guilt for to commend things necessary for good Order and Holiness of Conversation not as Indifferent but Essential to such Order c. and a Condescention in circumstances and accomodating matters so as not to divide c. may very well stand together especially where there 's unity of spirit and affection for if there be true love and unity in the greater matters essential to good Order c. 't is more easie for such as are tender and upright-hearted to find out accomodation and concurrence in lesser circumstances So that still 't is to be understood they must settle in an union and concurrence at last otherwise how should they joyntly do business or service for the Truth or each other There 's no concurrence nor joynt-service where there 's confusion and contradiction But W. R. proceeds in his observation against the Pen-men viz. 2dly By his readiness to condescend to his Brethren which doubtless in that place he intends such as are upright hearted and mean well for 't is not fit to condescend to others and therein the indifferency before excluded is implyed He 's mistaken again in 's observation for there may be a tender and Christian condescention of the upright hearted among themselves in two respects 1 st In the stronger bearing with and helping the weak bearing the burden of the weak and not laying more upon the weak than what they are able to bear 2 dly In the wisdom of God finding out such accomodation in some lesser matters circumstances not so essential and indispensible so that there may be a general concurrence ease and peace of spirit in such lesser circumstances implying or including that indifferency before which is excluded the greater more weighty and necessary things relating to good Order holiness of Life c. For there may be such an indifferency in some circumstances wherein we may condescend to weak Brethren so far as the spirit of Christ will admit they being such as may not alter the property from being good and lawful nor disturbing to our Christian-society Yet there are other material things and circumstances relating our Christian society good order and holy living that cannot be made Indifferent And we plead not at all for empty Ceremonies in Church order or discipline but such as have a real service and good end in them nor are we for a Church whose ornaments are superstitious but for a Church which is gravely and purely adorned with Righteousness the fruits and services of pure Religion I confess W. R. has writ one remarkable Truth i. e. That 't is not fit to condescend to others viz. That are not upright hearted that do not mean well Very true And we have cause to keep to that Doctrine in reference to such as are turbulent and contentious Troublers of and scandalous to our society and profession See his third Observation on the same subject before as shallow as the rest viz. 3dly By the Pen-man's last cited Lines 't is plain that in his sence things recommended for good Order will have a reception with all upright Hearts Which compared with his readiness to condescend c. as before shews as if his condescention was intended to Brethren that were not upright hearted Here his sight fails him and he 's greatly mistaken again perverting the Pen-mans sense for though I affirm that those things recommended among us by Divine Authority and Evidence either as duty to God or Man or as necessary for good Order and Holiness of Conversation will have reception with all upright Hearts Yet it follows not that the condescention was intended to Brethren that were Not upright hearted or false For first Here 's not a limitation of time when all things necessary as before will have reception with all upright hearts So that there is a time and cause for condescention to them of low degree in regard of their weakness not insincerity Secondly Many upright ones
draw the outward Jew off from the observation of their outward Ordinances to the Word and Law in the heart and because the new Covenant was not to be like unto the old he therefore appeals To every Ingenious and Impartial Reader whether it can consist with the tenor of the new Covenant for ANY to attempt the establishment or giving forth of outward Orders Prescriptions Sentences or Decrees to be a Bond upon the Consciences of those who have believed in the Everlasting Light especially those of the Gentiles stock his Chr. Qua. part 1. p. 73. How now William Is not here general Opposition c. detected and answered in our said Treatise Accuser c p. 88 89. Another Instance is where W. R. saith viz. We have no ground either from the Word of the Lord the appearance of Christ or from the Scriptures of Truth since Christ's appearance in the flesh to expect that any should be invested with Power from on high to establish such things relating to the Conscience i. e. outward Orders Prescriptions Sentences Decrees as before much less that the Children of Light under the new Covenant should be led by the eternal Spirit and Word in the heart unto such Conformity his Chr. Quaker part 1. pag. 75. What sayst thou yet William to these plain Instances out of thy own great Book Surely hadst thou but taken a more strict and serious notice of them as plainly cited in our Treatise thou wouldst not have charged any of us with false Suggestion or Forgery in representing as if thou hadst wrote against outward Orders Forms Discipline This is no Forgery nor Prevarication William Peruse thy great Book a little better with our Observations upon it in our said Treatise Consider in calmness if thou mayst not be ashamed thus to evade and deny thy own words and of thy clamour and saying That not a word is cited nor yet can be out of any thing thou hast written that may carry such an import viz. as if thou hadst wrote against outward Orders Forms Discipline c. in a general way p. 41. Thou writest That in one Book which thou denyest the plain import of as well as the matter in another saying and unsaying Be ashamed therefore and also of thy roaring and belching out such Slanders and Falshood also as The impious prevaricating Pen-man doth not quote any sentence of mine confuted c. p. 42. What hast thou done less than wrote against outward Orders Forms Discipline c What means thy saying before That we have NO GROUND either from the Word of God Christ or Scriptures to expect that ANY should be invested with Power from on high to establish such things as before Is not here general Opposition both to such things and to such a Conformity Please to review another instance or two of thy Opposition as before viz. 1 st Where in the Title-page of the 3d part of thy Christian-Quaker where to the inward Government of Christ thou opposest visible persons being invested with power from Christ to execute outward Laws Prescriptions Orders Edicts or Decrees in an outward Form of Government visible c. See now how general thy opposition is and detected in our Treatise Accuser p. 117 118 119 to p. 137. 2 dly The comparison before-cited between the Pope who is a visible man in accounting himself invested with Power to execute outward Laws Edicts and Decrees on the one part and the Pen-man and some of his Brethren on the other part herein thou sayst thou placest not much difference between them c. p. 18. of thy 7th part Who can here reasonably understand thee otherwise than that thou opposest the Doctrine or Principle it self as well as the Pope viz. That any visible man is invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws Edicts and Decrees under Christ's Government lest thou shouldst resemble the Pope For we may rationally take it for granted in those things doctrines or principles wherein thou comparest the Pope any of us thou wouldst be lookt upon as of a contrary mind and judgment that thou mightst not be thought like the Pope in any thing whereof thou condemnest others as either like him or as not much differing from him otherwise thy comparisons or similitudes do condemn thy self as well as others whom thou smitest at And so if thou countest it Popery or resembling the Pope to say That a visible man or men are invested with power from Christ to execute or put in practice any outward Laws Edicts or Decrees under Christ's Government then we must take thee as saying and as we have understood thee That no visible man or men are so invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws c. Which still shews thy oppositions and objections before rehearsed and clears thy opponent from the foul Imputations of Impious Prevaricator down right Forger Impious Prevaricating Pen-man c. and thy self a notorious Slanderer therein as well as shews thy inadvertency and overly shuffling and foully slubbering over matters under debate and controversie and with what blunt and dull tools and weapons thou art toiling and fighting Howbeit we may hear W. R. a little further in his attempts to clear himself and prove his charge of false Suggestion Impious Prevaricator c. he alledges chiefly two things viz. 1st That he owns the Government of Christ in his Church knowing that 't is his right to govern his Church which W. R. also confesseth The Pen-man signifies he understands by Church-Government Observe by the way this is general and not an Answer sufficient to clear him 't will not do his business Against whom did he alledge this when we never questioned Christ's Government in his Church But the Pen-man and his Friends viz. the peaceable People call'd Quakers own Christs Government both in the inward and in the outward parts of it both as he governs and rules immediately by his Spirit and instrumentally by his faithful Servants invested with power and wisdom from him as before explained which I find not that W. R. hath owned with any consistency or clearness but has appeared very inconsistent opposit and frequently contradictory both to us and to himself in the matter saying and unsaying first in one Book then in another as is fully evinced in our Treatise entituled The Accuser c. as from p. 83 to p. 91. and from p. 204 to p. 227. and also in this 2 dly He alledges that he has testified That the Apostles labours were to establish the Churches in the Faith and in the Power leaving them so established to be in the practice of THAT FORM which the Power either had or should lead them into Moreover saith W. R. My proceedings in the Marriage of two Daughters within three years last past and frequent concern amongst Friends in taking care that no proceedings in Marriages may be permitted in any such private Methods as may be scandalous to Truth shews my practice and principle to
sayest viz. Suppose I had in any part of my Writings laid down that the practice of Circumcision by one that was a Jew and a believer in Christ was in that day a Christian-Liberty I only Query not intending to quarrel with my Adversary about a Mode of Speech when our Meanings are the same How can this be termed an Erronious manner of expression Why might not the Practice of such a Christian be without offence termed Christian-Liberty p. 54. I Answer Because Circumcision in the Flesh was not only a Type under the Law but by Christians counted a Yoke of Bondage not to be born by the Disciples under the Gospel being also among other Types abolisht by Christ in his Sufferings and Death Though some weak Believers as those of the Jews did for a time practise it yet they did it in obedience to the Law of Moses and the Old Covenant and not in obedience to Christ and his Apostles in the New Covenant And there was a Christian-forbearance and patience towards them in suffering Circumcision for a time to those of the Jews when the Vail was not wholly done away nor they come clearly to see to the end of those things that were abolished by Christ. and yet no liberty nor way was given for them to draw others into it Whence it follows not that Circumcision it self was Christian-Liberty or practised in a Christian-Liberty in that day but with respect to Moses's Law but the forbearance towards them was Christian and tender I am not willing to make much ado about this thy Mode of Speech though I look on 't to be an unsound and unscriptural Mode To thy saying Thou dost not say that Circumcision practised as aforesaid is a Christian-Liberty 't is the Pen-man's consequence c. What hast thou said less Thou hast told us of these Differing Exercises IN A CHRISTIAN-LIBERTY When speaking of practising Circumcision keeping a day abstaining from eating Flesh amongst the Primitive Believers That Christian-Liberty c. See thy own Recitation p. 53. 7 th Part. Circumcision then was one of those differing Exercises which thou placest in a Christian Liberty and which in thy next page thou termest Christian-Liberty as before And thou sayest If the mode of Speech be not pertinent to express the matter in hand 'T is our own approved Language I think thou mistakest here William and the passage thou citest out of R. B's Book of Government p. 63 64. proves it not from these Words cited viz. There is a certain Liberty and Forbearance also c. whereof we have the Example of the Primitive Church viz. In suffering Circumcision to the Jews Did he here term Circumcision Christian-Liberty No sure 't was only permitted or suffered to them as was the Observation of certain Dayes and abstaining from Meats which were not holden universally but when laid upon others then preacht down and reproved by the Apostle Gal. 5. Is there not a plain difference between a certain Liberty in suffering Circumcision to the Jews and terming it Christian-Liberty Is this the very same Language approved by the Second day's Meeting as thou sayest p. 55. Sure thou art much out here William to our saying That this man who is thus discomposed in his Work should not have medled so much with Points of Divinity which he appears so little skilful in He dreams so much of Liberty that he is greatly bewildred in the management of it Thou answerest 'T is Language more like the proudest of Prelates adorned with a pair of Lawn Sleeves than an humble Quaker p. 53. To this adding also in p. 55. Will not the impartial Reader hence be apt to suppose that the Pen-man's design is to ingross discourses of Divinity to himself and his Brethren that so the Laity may believe nothing but what proceeds from their Mouthes and Pens If they shall complain that this renders them guilty of gross Popery my counsel is Let them for the future cease giving occasion p. 55. This Question contains both scorn and falshood suggested against us to render us guilty of Popery as before is discovered We have no such design of engrosement nor Popish distinction among us as between Clergy and Laity the Spirit of Christ and true knowledge of Divinity are not limitted nor engrossed in the will of man to Persons neither doth our reprehending a discomposed Person for medling in things beyond his skill prove us Guilty in these cases Again William thou proceedest abusively and falsly in these Words viz. For 't is well known that G. Fox his party have been so Contentious as that nothing would content them but the introducing new Practices under the Notion of Gospel-Discipline in a Spirit of Strife and Contention concluding all to be dark that saw not with their Eyes p. 55. I shall say little to these Reproachful Censures But the Lord rebuke this false malicious censorious judging exalted conceited Spirit And he will manifestly rebuke it I doubt not CHAP. VI. § 1. Of our Catalogue of some of W. R's manifest Falshoods notorious Slanders scandalous Abuses c. which are numerous to clear himself and prove the Pen-man to have play'd the Forger He gives only three Instances whereby W. R. cannot clear himself § 2. W. R. again opposing the Credit of the Pen-man's method about proving Negatives The supposed Absurdity and Immorality removed § 3. Concerning his Contradictions His attempts only to reconcile the first Instance proved invalid as between his placing the Disunion in Principles Doctrine and Life of Christianity and placing it not in Principles of Truth nor in Christ's Doctrine but in Ceremonies the Shell c. § 4. His own Affirmation to clear himself of Contradiction no valid Plea or Argument His own dishonesty and injustice in accusing the Pen-man for not informing the Reader what is right and what is wrong in the matter of Contradiction His notorious Falshood and Contradictions farther pursued in judgment against himself on his own Censure about the Apostacy entring the generality Christ's words Mat. 18.15 16 17. Circumcision The Tree of Knowledge Freely paying Tythes c. § 5. W. R's Postscript a slight and scornful Put-off to our Friends of Bristol their Book entituled An Exalted Diotrephes Reprehended his miserable Evasion manifest Fallacy Falshood Abuse and Scorn against them detected § 6. Of his Proposition to our Meeting in London His Insincerity unrighteous Judgment and Conclusion against our Meeting § 1. BUt let 's see how thou W. R. proceedest to prove the Pen-man to have play'd the Forger in giving a Catalogue term'd of some of W. R. his manifest Falshoods notorious Slanders scandalous Abuses Perversions Rayling Scoffing Flattering and Reviling in the 4 th and 5 th Parts of his Book against G. F. and others in his own words and terms which may be seen at large in our said Treatise Accuser c. from page 230 to pag. 255 c. how not only some of his manifest Falshoods Slanders scandalous
his Contradictions as BETWEEN his saying This Doctrine frequently publisht among us That the Apostacy shall never enter the generality more doth give us just occasion to be Jealous c. Part 1. p. 14. AND his saying I would NOT be understood to say That the Apostacy shall never enter the generality again Part 3. p. 74. Our Question on this contradiction is Q. Then why does he so often quarrel with the Doctrine frequently published as he saith viz. That the Apostacy shall never enter the generality more Which plainly shews we own his assent to this Doctrine to be right and not his Jealous opposition to it Again to his Contradiction in saying WE REASONABLY conclude that the Words of Christ and the Apostle in Mat. 18.15 16 17. and 1 Cor. 6.1 2 4. ONLY hinted at Personal Offences or Differences touching worldly matters Part 1. p. 47. And confessing on Mat. 18.15 16 17. that EVERY CASE wherein one Brother may trespass against another may in RIGHT REASON be comprehended in it Part 3. p. 36. Our Question on this contradiction is Q. Whether EVERY CASE be to be limited only to WORLDLY MATTERS and not extend to any Cases of a Spiritual nature Which implyeth our accepting his assent to the latter viz. Every such case c. and not his limiting it only to worldly Matters Again his placing CIRCVMCISION as exercised in a CHRISTIAN-LIBERTY and calling it that Christian-Liberty saying This did not at that time condemn that Christian Liberty in such as made Conscience of Circumcision which were some believing Jews Part 3. p. 82. and Part 5. p. 74 75. AND his contrary confession That the Labour of the Apostles of Christ in the Primitive dayes was to DRAW the outward Jew FROM OFF the observation of these Ordinances which were really establisht by the appointment of God himself Part 1 p. 73. Our Question on this Contradiction is Q. How can it be good Doctrine to account Circumcision a CHRISTIAN-LIBERTY and an Exercise not condemnable in Believers when the labour of the Apostles were to draw the outward Jew from off the observation of these Ordinances This plainly evinceth that we do not own his Doctrine to be right that Circumcision was a Christian-Liberty though there was for some time a Christian-forbearance towards them that observ'd it in obedience to Moses's Law in the Old Covenant Again BETWEEN W. R's opposing that Doctrine That the Tree of Knowledge was not good for Food as not knowing on what Foot of Truth any one can SO assert And his saying I would not be underâ—â—ood to reflect on ALL that have used that Expression viz. The Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food Part 2. p. 27 29. Our Question on this contradiction is Q. 1. If he counts the Doctrine erronious or not of the Truth to say that the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food does not this reflect on all that have used that Expression And 2 dly In commendation of the Tree of Knowledge as good for Food as in it self he instanced John 17.3 This is Life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent adding that 'T is evident that Knowledge is the Way to Life Part 2. p. 28. Hereupon we put the Question Q. 3. Did God forbid the Knowledge of himself the Knowledge which is Life eternal that Knowledge which is the Way to Life to man in the state of Innocency in the beginning Let this be considered And Q 4. Can it be good Doctrine to say That the Serpent perswaded Eve to that Knowledge which is the way to Life or to the Knowledge of the true God and Jesus Christ which is Life eternal Could THAT be the Knowledge that God forbad Man eat of Were not this very absurd to render the Serpent more kind to Man than his Maker was Is it not here apparent that we have informed the Reader that 't is not right to esteem the Tree of Knowledge good for Food As also on his contradiction in pleading one while For them who Freely pay Tythes without constraint i. e. to the National Ministry Another while for J. W. and J. S. Their Testimony against Tythes as being as at this day paid Antichristian Part 2. p. 43. and Part 4. p. 39. On which we observe and question Whether the Liberty W. R. has here granted for the free payment of Tythes be not an Innovation tending to beget into a Looseness and Apostacy from our antient Christian Testimony against Tythes And whether it be not contradictory to J. W. and J. S. their Testimony cited by himself Accuser c. p. 224 225. What 's more plain than that his Liberty or Freedom granted for the payment of Tythes is wrong and inconsistent with our antient Christian Testimony 2 dly That W. R's Charge before recited contains Self-contradiction and Judgment against himself though in it self untrue against the Pen-man is evident in his judging that his Notes and Remarks do not inform the Reader what is right or what is wrong in the matter of Contradiction charg'd against him and for which Omission he does not commend either the Honesty or Justice of the Pen-man c. or his care over the Flock Now though the Injustice and Falshood of this Charge is already fully detected observe how obviously W. R. hath hereby brought Judgment upon himself concerning the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to his being told That he seems to account it good for Food To this he answers viz. Nothing said by me or cited as my Words by themselves shews either opposition or assent to such Doctrine p. 51. Neither have I written any thing to shew my own sence either way viz. whether the Tree of Knowledge was or was not good for Food p. 50. This is all one as for W. R. to tell us That he doth not inform the Reader what is Right or what is Wrong in this matter of Controversie that is Whether it be Right or Wrong to say the Tree of Knowledge is good for Food If nothing writ or said by him doth shew his own sence either way he would be angry if I should make a Similitude Between him and the Jesuits in his reserve in this point When they contend against the Opinions of others but reserve and hide their own And if then it be both Dishonesty and Injustice not to inform the Reader what 's right or what 's wrong in things contrary as before intimated then where's W. R's Honesty or Justice in this matter How evidently is he here self-condemned and judged How manifold and numerous are his Contradictions Now William consider what Labyrinths of Confusion thou runnest into § 5. And William I cannot well but take notice of thy Postscript of somewhat above a Page what a slighty Answer and scornful PUT-OFF it is To the Book given forth by four of our Friends of the City of Bristol entituled An Exalted Diotrephes Reprehended against thy
the punishing the Body Here his Liberty of Conscience pleaded is not from spiritual Censures as thou hast perverted it but from corporal Punishments 10 thly Whereas in our Book Accuser c. pag. 127. we signified that having these things in our Eye viz. The great ends of true Religion and Christian Society a godly Care over one another provoking one another to Love and good Works we can the more easily concur and accord as to Circumstances and outward Methods and in the Wisdom of God so to condescend one to another and accommodate matters as not to divide about them c. Against this thou exceptest in these words viz. p. 96. I marvel that the Author of the Accuser c. which is said to be G. Whitehead should have the Confidence thus to appear in Print when his own Conscience tells him the contrary instancing R. Smith of Colne as not admitted to have his Wife because he would not go into the Womens Meeting The grand Opposer was G. W. It may evidently appear how far G. W. was from Accommodation or Condescention which he fallaciously pretends to the World in order to deceive them to cover their Deceit Hypocrisie and Arbitrary Church-Government Dominion and Lordship c. p. 97. And to aggravate the matter against G. W. in page 129. thou sayst That the pretence of the Author of the Accuser to Condescention and Accommodation is fallacious and false and a meer piece of feigned Hypocrisie to amuse the Reader and delude the World And likewise in pag. 150. thou art smiting at G. W. on the same account Here thou hast brought my name upon the Stage in Print but hast most grosly belyed me and abused me as to my Conscience in saying it tells me the contrary Be ashamed of this thy presumptious bespattering and abusing me in Print for my Conscience tells me I was real in what I proposed in Condescention and Accommodating matters and that I was no deceiver therein as thou proudly slanderest me The Condescention and Accommodation was to those that had the great ends of true Religion Christian care and love one to another in their Eye it was to the upright and tender hearted and not to the exalted hard and wilful And I gave my Christian and tender Advice to the Person who then proposed his Intention in order to convince him of the reasonableness of what I proposed and he shewed no reason against it but remained stiff and pertinacious which I cannot impute to a real tender Conscience the woman was tender and flexible and of a better Spirit Therefore be ashamed of abusing and belying me in Print as for appearing in Print contrary to my Conscience as thou hast shamefully belyed me and so falsly informed the Magistrates against me as about Condescention and Accommodation and divers other things about which I must farther tell thee The condescention of primitive Christians was to them of low degree the strong in bearing with the weak bearing one anothers burthens and so fulfilling the Law of Christ. The Persons unto whom the Condescention was were in a measure of the same faith and love it was not to false Brethren such as thou art or to false Apostles deceitful Workers who caused Divisions c. false Brethren that watched with an evil Eye to such the true Apostle gave not place by subjection no not for an hour What Apostolical condescention was then given to them There was an Apostolical authority and sharpness against such evil Agents of Strife and Division such as thy self that they should be marked as well as a condescention to weak yet upright-hearted Brethren 11 thly In the Certificate printed by thee from Huntington-Meeting to the Quarterly-Meeting in the Isle of Ely about the said R. S. his publishing his Intentions of taking to Wife A. O. of Aldred but grieved some Friends by rejecting their Counsel After some Friends there 's this Parenthesis added viz. Perhaps Richard Jobson and Tobias Hardmeat G. Fox 's two principal Studs in that Country This looks like a scornful Forgery of thy own framing and addition And I find no Advertisement to distinguish or except it as thy own as thou hast done in thy Letter to W. P. about the Copy of Orders Recorded as Your Canon as thou scornfully callest them in the Quarterly verbatim Parenthesis excepted sayst thou p. 139. Remember thou hast confessed That to expose and falsly represent a People would be very wicked and such a Practice is and ever was hated of God good men p. 208. Yet after thou hast promised to recite the said Certificate p. 96. thou hast as before inserted the said scornful Parenthesis viz. Perhaps R. Jobson and T. Hardmeat G. Fox 's two principal Studs in that Country p. 97 98. Unto which thou hast subscribed Jasper Robins Edward Neel William Whitehead James Parris Thomas Bundy Richard Tayler Thomas Bagly Nathaniel Cawthorn Nathaniel Neel Now I am perswaded that these very Persons Jasper Robins and the rest if they come to observe the said scornful Parenthesis inserted in their said Certificate unto which their Names are subscribed as well as the rest of it and that without such Advertisement or Exception as before they 'l look upon it and judge it as thy own Scurrility and gross Forgery and thereupon they may testifie against thee for exposing and falsly representing them in Print to that which is none of theirs and that therefore thou hast done that which is very Wicked a practice that is and ever was hated of God and good Men according to thy own Sentence 12 thly Whereas in thy printed Letter to Friends of our Meeting in London thou sayest That R. R. needed not be admired by G. W. in Print for his great Learning nor perhaps had not only he hath found out some History or Popish Author which sayes there were Deaconesses as well as Deacons which sayst thou was helpful to G. W. in his Preaching and Disputing for Womens Meetings lately in Huntingtonshire and elsewhere c. p. 178. Thou mightest have forborn these and other scornful Detractions cast upon R. R. and my self and upbraiding him with Oh! Profound Learning Logick c. He can easily answer thy Impertinencies and Silliness and evince thy Pride and Conceit in meddling with Learning and Logick which thou hast so little of As for R. R. he is known to be learned both as a Man and a Christian yet not admired by me for any acquired parts though without offence he may be allowed his due in those things without admiration or boasting and therein to be prefered to thy self who neither writest good English nor understandest divers words of Learning thou makest use of improperly and impertinently which I do not mention to detract from and upbraid thee meerly because of such defect in Learning but rather as a Reproof to thy high Conceit and busying thy self so much in Scribling and that about matters beyond thy capacity to mannage or render a Reason to
decide and that thou mayest see that there are others can see and discover thy Ignorance and shallow Conceits as even in this thy Objection against Deaconesses concluding That only R. R. hath found out some History or Popish Author which says there were Deaconesses as well as Deacons In this thou hast shewn as well a great deal of ignorance of History as scorn and contempt yea not only Ignorance in that but Presumption too and as little Learning to be sure in other respects to place the proof of Deaconesses so indifferently upon some History or Popish Author as if there were so little difference or distinction but that if it be some History then it may as well be said some Popish Author however thou knowest not whether it be some History or Popish Author But to correct such Ignorance and Presumption there are Histories and Authors which are not Popish yea divers Protestant Authors which affirm Deaconesses to have been in the Primitive Christian Churches and they were called Diaconissae and even in Rom. 16.1 Paul himself called Phaebe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a Deacon which is a Word borrowed of the Greek in Latin Ministra in English A Servant or Minister I hope thou wilt not call Paul a Popish Author writing so to the Romans And on Rom. 16.1 1 Tim. 5.9 Deacon is said to be a Title of Office or Administration given sometimes to Women vide The Christian-Dictionary by Thomas Wilson Bagwell and Andrew Simpson to which also agrees Edward Leighs Critica Sacra and T. C's Greek Lexicon on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given to Sister Phaebe in Rom. 16.1 We have William Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers for the three first Ages of Christianity and that even in the time of the Emperor Trajan there were Deaconesses that suffered that were examined upon the Rack see fol. 21. As also I find in a Book entituled A Brief of the Bible's History by Enoch Clapham Printed 1608. who writ against the Romish Idolaters fol. 162. And in fol. 171. He thus affirms For the Deacons all almost easily grant that there were two sorts of Deacons or Church-Servitors the first of Men Acts 6.3 c. 1 Tim. 3.8 The second of Women 1 Tim. 5.9 c. Rom. 16.1 That the first had the charge of gathering the Benevolence of the Saints especially every first day of the Week 1 Cor. 16.1 That the second attended the Sick Impotent it is by many held Thus far this Protestant Author besides many other Protestants that might be cited in this very point some whereof I told R. R. of who says He has many others he has not produced and Challenges you to bring one approved Author to shew that Women had no Service in the first Churches And though the Rhemists grant there were Diaconissae or Deaconesses I do not find that Dr. Fulk doth oppose them in that but about their being concerned in the Sacraments and in their Superstitions Nunneries denying Marriages c. as the Papists would have them For as to Deaconesses and their Services in the Christian Churches there is great concurrence of History and antient and modern Writers as well Protestants if not more as Papists And therefore thy placing it upon some Popish Author does greatly manifest not only Ignorance but rather Presumption Pride and Contempt against faithful Women's service in the Church of Christ And I can assure thee that I had not these precedent and other Citations from R. Richardson but mostly from my own search and observations on the Authors themselves though R. R. may be better credited in his Affirmation on Knowledge than thy self in thy ignorant Negation 13 th Again I take notice of thy Charge against me in thy said printed Letter to our Meeting in London p 178. where scornfully writing against and reflecting on G. W. his preaching and disputing for Womens Meetings in Huntingtonshire Thou goest on in these words viz. Where he took too much upon him and behaved himself more like a Lordly Bishop or Popish Prelate than an humble Minister of Christ and by me at this time is and stands impeached as an Enemy to Christian-Liberty a Vsurper over the Conscience the which I stand ready publickly to assert maintain and vindicate p. 178. Thus far thou in thy insolent Reviling and Abuse boasting of thy pretended Impeachment against me But I have met with no lawful nor due Impeachment from thee in any Gospel judicial way Thou writest thus against me to the Friends of our Second day's Meeting in London but they cannot own nor receive any such pretended and proof-less Impeachment against me upon thy bare Accusation nor that thou hast any Jurisdiction to impeach me as by thy unjustly comparing me to a Lordly Bishop or Popish Prelate and rendring me an Enemy to Christian-Liberty an usurper over the Conscience But this is but like thy accusing me as a Cheat at having gone up and down to cheat the Country after thou hadst flatter'd and fawn'd in another Letter and intreated my assistance for the ending of the Controversie as one that could do much in the matter but now revilest me all to nought boasting how ready thou stands Publickly to assert maintain and vindicate And what But that G. W. took too much upon him in Huntingtonshire and behaved himself more like a Popish Prelate c. An Enemy to Christian-Liberty And what worse Marks and Characters of Infamy couldst thou have cast upon me and what more severe Excommunication or Bull couldst thou have exhibited in Print against me How like an exalted malicious prating Diotrephes how like a Pope how like the Accuser of the Brethren hast thou acted Thou accusest scornest and railest but provest nothing of matter charged And can any reasonably think thou hast thy Proofs in readiness against me out of Huntingtonshire of these black and infamous Characters thou hast cast upon me Thy own bare Accusations are no Proofs to be sure The Lord rebuke this thy envious dark Spirit And he will rebuke it But Francis art not thou thy self against Christian-Liberty of Conscience and an usurper over the Womens Consciences so far as thou canst in thy perverse and ignorant opposition against Womens Meetings who have a Conscience towards God and our Lord Jesus Christ therein VVhat Liberty of Conscience dost thou allow them therein or to me in preaching and discoursing in Huntingtonshire or elsewhere thus to send out thy Roaring Bull against me in Print without first either enquiring of me or hearing me and my Accusers if there be any besides thy self face to face What kind of illegal Precipiancy art thou guilty of and yet none more ready to make a great clamour against Excommunications Orders Edicts c. than thy self Oh Imperious Proud Conceited Person Blush and be ashamed of such Abusive Inconsistent and Self-contradictory Work Be ashamed of thy assuming such Power of Excommunication to thy self over thy Elders Antient Friends and Brethren who are
about Impositions Prescriptions c. The Spiritual Christian who hath the Power and Form of Godliness distinguished and vindicated both from the Formal Christian and Loose Apostate who deny both Power and Form § 4. The unsound Doctrine of Robert Rich espoused by T. C. tending to Ranterism About Forms Prescriptions Impositions c. R. R. a false Accuser like the rest of these Apostates His Authority made use of by T. C. and F. Bugg invalid J. Perrot's Spirit and Language appearing in these present Opposers § 5. About T. C's Marrying by a Priest and his Wife 's condemning it His rendring the holy Spirit contradictory to it self in the matter of Tythes His Answer to John Field dirty scurrilous and impertinent His abuse of his Wife and Friends in the case misrepresenting them in his Prejudice and Vncharitableness judging and defaming others contrary to his own warning He himself reprehended and warned § 6. His endeavouring to extenuate his Offence about Marrying by a Priest paying Tythes His Instance and Allegation in the case but slight covers And he proved Irreligious and Fallacious in his preceeding and arguing contrary to the Profession and Testimony of a real Christian-Quaker § 7. His Judgment about Tythes as it accords with W. R's still unsound loose they not excusable in the Declension and Apostacy § 8. His Reply to Stephen Crisp disingenious and fallacious A Catalogue of some of the notorious Falshoods and Slanders therein His Reviling and foul Detractions against Stephen Crisp. § 9. Concerning the Paper which W. R. and T. C. have published and printed in Edward Burroughs's Name To the scattered of Israel c. Their implicit Credulity and Confidence therein and abuse of Edward Burroughs with Reasons given by a Certificate and Testimony to shew it in most probability to be John Perrot's and not E. Burroughs's Paper All which is recommended to Serious Consideration § 1. WHereas Thomas Crisp hath of late time struck in with William Rogers and his party as a busie Agent in Division and as hot and violent in his abusive Language and Reflection as the most of them for want of better Argument and Reason he is also gotten into the same kind of stile and strain with W. R. and F. B. against promoting Government Orders Customs Forms Prescriptions c. as in several of his late Pamphlets called Testimonies I find also that these Opposers have recourse to one anothers Writings and quote each other and thereby show their own Authorities for themselves in the Controversie for want of better Proof as W. R. cites F. B. in his seventh Part from page 64 to page 75. and F. B. quotes W. R. and Tho. Crisp's Babels Builders in his 112 page of his said Book De Christ. Lib. and Thomas Crisp in his fifth part Babels Builders quotes something he calls Q. Vn. M. which I understand to be a pernicious Pamphlet of John Pennyman's which F. Bugg has threatned us with in several Papers so that these Opposers seem to be joyned together in one and the same Spirit of Division Opposition and Separation and therefore may well be linked together as Persons concerned in one and the same Interest and not only so but I find a Paper in T. Crisp's third Edition which he calls George Bishop's Testimony against a Paper of Orders which is the very same Paper that Jeffery Bullock some Years ago cited against us in his Pamphlet stiled Antichrist's Transformations and which the said Jeffery Bullock did so publish in Print against G. Whitehead J. Whitehead T. Green T. Briggs A. Parker J. Coule R. Farnsworth T. Loe S. Crisp J. Moon J. Parkes by Name who are struck at for no other cause but a Paper wherein we gave our Christian sense and seasonable advice which we see no cause to Repent of and therefore G. B's Paper cited by the said Jeffery Bullock and Thomas Crisp in opposition to that of ours proceeded from a mistaken Judgment and is Uncharitable against us as well as Erronious in divers parts of it But the Author is gone I shall say the less and charitably believe God took him away in Mercy and that if he had remained to this day he would not have stood by these Gain-sayers in the evil use they make of his Paper in Print against so many of the Servants of Christ. But I have not done with T. Crisp for his so often printing part of a Letter from B. F. to me when he was under a Cloud and mistake in the Controversie and Division occasioned by J. Perrot c. against Friends for putting off their Hats in Prayer in which Letter I and some others are reflected upon and charged That if ever any separation be it will be through mine and some lording rigid driving Spirits against which I have in humility appealed to the Lord to plead my Innocency in the Consciences of all concerned my labour having been and still is for Love and Unity among God's People and I take it not only unkindly from T. C. but as his Injustice and an Abuse so often to bring forth that piece of a Letter in Print against me which was before published and printed more fully by some malicious Adversaries in their Pamphlet stiled Tyranny and Hypocrisie printed in the year 1673. In answer to which I desire T. C. and the rest of the party concerned would now accept and consider B. F's own late Testimony seeing the Lord in mercy has reduced him to a better understanding and judgment than he was in when he writ the said Letter Benj. Furly's Testimony follows WHereas I understand that sundry persons to me unknown have divers times formerly and now again lately published in Print certain extracts of a Letter written by me as I take it about sixteen years ago to G. W. keeping up and feeding thereby a Spirit of Contention and Strife This is in brief to signifie That what has hitherto been done of this nature has been altogether without my order consent or privity for my soul hates that Spirit of Prejudice Enmity and Contention by which some men though perhaps poor men not knowing by what spirit influenc'd what spirit they gratifie and what spirit they grieve and wound in this their work so acted led and driven As for so many of them that are meerly under a mistake I do from my heart pity them and am touched with the sence of their Condition as having laboured under the same snares Wherefore my earnest desire for them is That they may be made sensible of that which they seem so earnestly to contend for yea even for them that are so tinctur'd and leaven'd with Prejudice that they do wittingly and with some degree of Malice foment Contention I cannot but desire if it be the will of God that they may through Judgment come to know Repentance and through Repentance receive Mercy and Remission in and by the Blood of Jesus Christ to whom all such do doe despight