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
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
have Evil Designs despise Heavenly Dignities promote false Iealousies set up a kind of a standard of Separation pag. 6. And is not this matter of Fact to set up a standard of Separation Where then is his Comparison between Pope Leo the tenth and us And how were the Pope's proceedings in that respect far more just than our Friends as he signifies p. 6. See what Favour and Charity he has for the Pope more than for our Friends The causing or making Divisions and Separations in the Apostles days was then such matter of Fact as that they were to be marked and avoided that did so though our Adversary does not own this to be properly termed particular matter of Fact laid down when plainly mentioned in writing Thus I have considered him on his own terms and taken notice how he justifies the Pope's proceedings as far more just than our Friends whilst he would be reckoned against Popery § 9. That we would not be rendred like Papists is true but that the Pen-man seems to marr it all again in refering the Reader to a short Tract writ by our Friend R. Richardson is false And though both Heathenish Papistical and Protestant Authors of divers sorts as he saith are quoted in the said Tract 't is no reasonable Inference that therefore R. R. is like a Papist or like all those he quotes unless W. R. would like it well to be so reflected upon Argumentum ad hominem as resembling a Papist in his quoting Pope Leo's Bull against Martin Luther as having some more pretended ground whereon to place a Judgment and as far more just in his proceedings than C. M. and sixty five Friends more As also in his quoting the Parliament of Papists at Paris p. 31. Does not this then by his own reflection render him more like to a Papist than a strict Quaker Whilst he 'l needs have R. R. c. like Papists for quoting Heathenish Papistical or Protestant Authors yet he himself quoting Pope Leo's Bull against M. Luther and the said Parliament of Papists against our Friends Let him wind himself out from a Self-condemnation in this and other points of like nature if he can § 10. He seems much to upbraid us with the words Learned Friend R. R. he throws them over and over upon the Pen-man he often twits us with them and yet but in his 8th page he tells us of the Memory of the Learned Samuell Fisher. See how the man makes work to his own Confutation Though our words in the Copy were Learned in the Truth how the words in the Truth were left out I know not And yet a Person being Learned in any respect it can be no sin to say He is Learned whilst 't is not to admire outward Learning or Acquirement above its place which I am sure was not intended on our parts § 11. Of our saying That it is at least suspected for a great Slander viz. That some do look upon G. F. as that Prophet whom the Lord by Moses prophesied he would raise up Aad that he is not ignorant that such there are c. Our Adversary in his inference has perverted the words from at least suspected to only suspected and bear suspicion when as at least suspected implies more than a bear Suspicion And therefore his supposition thereupon and his Jealousie That the secret Reason was that on Conference with G. F. he could not in Truth deny the same And that he will not deny it p. 9 10. This is a Presumptious Imagination for I affirm G F. does deny the same in reference to himself as a particular Man or Person whose days and years are limited only the Truth of the Immortal Seed Christ in him as he is in every true Believer Male and Female he stands to maintain against all Opposers and persecuting Gain-sayers and Apostates And therefore his Jealousie That at length this Controversie as mannaged c. will occasion the discovery of great Idolatry pag. 10. shews that he suggests false things still upon Jealousie to render G. F. c Odious and Obnoxious That the Pen-man offers not a word to prove him â—uilty of sordid and foul Abuse against John Blaikling p. 10. is a sordid foul Untruth see our Treatise against the Accuser of our Brethren pag. 246. where we offer what he says against J. B. and others Writing or Signing any thing right or wrong and comparing him to a Parasite to an Earthly Prince Here 's more than one word offered to prove W. R's foul Abuse against J. B. c. who to add to his Abuse now saith J. B. has acted the part of a Sycophantizing Parasite in writing touching G. F. And what 's this but to render him a meer Tale-bearer and Flatterer or an Informing Flatterer for his own Ends and Advantage This still appears sordid and abusive thus infamously to brand any Friend or Person Conscientious towards God § 12. As for his ascribing Eternal Honour either to G. F's Life or to him or his Soul as joyned to the Spotless Life wherein J. B. can mean no other than the Life of Christ Jesus in him I do not understand that this can prove him a Sycophantizing Parasite For that Christ is our Life the Life of every true Believer is plain that Eternal Honour belongs to him is not disputed In the next place He that Honours me saith the Lord him will I Honour The Question is Whether this Honour is not Eternal a parte post that is Everlasting to the Souls of the Righteous whom God never forsakes Then how can any such ever loose that Honour that God gives And does our Adversary believe that nothing may be said to be Eternal that had a beginning as to Man Had not Eternal Salvation and Eternal Redemption a beginning as to the Creature yet Eternal But W. R. notes in the Margent That Eternal Honour is due to none but God who alone and not the words of Mortal Man is able to nourish the Soul which is Immortal And all this to confute John Blaikling Wherein he greatly perverts J. B's Intention and misrepresents his words for he spoke of the dropping of his tender words in the Lords Love and W. R. tells of the words of mortal man When the Apostle said Hitherto I have fed you with Milk and not with strong Meat Was this a Soul's feeding or nourishing yea or nay And was the Apostle's preaching the Gospel in a living Ministry only the words of mortal mam No sure For our Gospel came not unto you in word only but in Spirit and in Power His charge against G.F. that he hath described himself one unto whom Infallible Judgment hath been committed in all things is denyed by G. F. though he owns the Judgment committed to him of God in matters of Salvation and things Spiritual to be Infallible § 13. His Marginal Note appears manifestly untrue viz. That he has not written one word to shew that such a sense is his
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-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
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
lest the Ignorance of any should be so great as not from thence to perceive the Righteousness of thy proceeding to Print they might by these Instances in thy Postscript which therefore relate to the same proceeding that the Preface and Introduction do See the case is plain 't is no evading it Therefore thou appearest not ingenious in thy Allegation viz. He represents not the state of the case aright for my own words were these viz. My Present proceeding to Print the word Present they leave out which could not relate to any thing more than the Postscript because the very Postscript informs the Reader that All the Treatise excepting the Postscript Index and Errata was then printed p. 49. This will not render thee either a sincere or just man in thy proceeding William we do not leave out the word Present in the citation of thy words for 't is incerted in our citation of thy own words relating both to thy Preface Introduction and Postscript all alledged for thy present proceeding to Print and to evince the Righteousness thereof And thou knowest in thy own Conscience that either thy Word PRESENT must relate to more than thy Postscript or else thou wast very Impertinent and defective If when in a Postscript by additional and supplemental Plea or Reasons to all that precedes in thy Preface thou art going about to make out the Righteousness pretended of thy present proceeding to Print and publish Divisions we must thereby understand it not to relate to any thing more than thy Postscript Then we must take thy meaning to be as if thou must have more plain and convincing Reasons for thy proceeding to Print thy Postscript of but four Sheets than for all the rest of thy Book of near four score Sheets And yet the plea in thy Postscript appears to supply what thou hast said in thy Preface in Vindication of thy publishing in Print thy Historical Relation or great Book of Divisions I cannot perceive that thou hast herein writ either Ingeniously Conscientiously or Consistently And thou mightest have seen how thou wast aforehand obviated which might have prevented thy present impertinent Excuses and vain Allegations if thou hadst but taken serious notice of the following recited passage in our Treatise viz. And further If to evade the charge of Fallacy and Injustice Deceit and False cover laid on W. R. in this matter he flies to his Grammatical sence of his Words and pleads his Intention c. as thinking himself safe in both 1 st We say His present proceeding to Print cannot in reason be confined to his Postscript wherein the Words are nor answer the SOME of the People called Quakers he tells of that have judged him wicked as for intending to Print against Friends Post. p. 25. whom he undertakes to answer in that case nor vindicate him as to his Historical Relation mentioned in the same page which includes his Book which therefore cannot be confined to nor included in his Postscript 2 dly The Reasons he gives in his Postscript to prove himself Righteous in his proceeding to Print cannot relate only to that his Postscript but to his whole Book because they are added for a supplement to his Preface to the Reader and his Introduction to the first and fourth parts of his Treatise which Preface and Introduction concern his whole Book or Historical Relation as he calls it And which Preface and Introduction he thinks may give sufficient satisfaction to every impartial unprejudiced Reader But lest the Ignorance or Blindness of any should be so great as not from thence to perceive the Righteousness of his present proceeding to Print c. he gives his additional Reasons and Instances in his Postscript the chief whereof is that relating to the two printed Sheets which came to his Hands the 8th of November 1680. as aforesaid wherein the supplemental Reason given was more clearly to evince the pretended Justness of his proceeding to Print than he had done before in his said Preface or Introduction as that it was even to prevent such great Ignorance and Partiality as would hinder any from perceiving his Righteousness in proceeding to Print which therefore must needs relate to more than his Postscript And William I find no Contradiction as thou accusest between our signifying That the two Sheets aforesaid was the Principal Instance for thy proceeding to print and publish thy Book that is to prove thy Righteousness pretended therein as 't was made appear from thy own Words AND signifying that thou declaredst a far higher necessity i. e. a great concern of Conscience c. That the Epistle of two Sheets aforesaid was thy principal Instance Reason or Allegation to prove the Righteousness pretended of thy proceeding is no down-right falshood as thou falsly renderest it but true for 't was CHIEFLY thy concern to give that Instance of the said Epistle after other Instances of less concern and less to the purpose of Printing c. And that thou also placedst a higher necessity on thy proceeding than the said two Sheets is also true The first was produced as a principal instance or cause to evince the Righteousness of thy proceeding to print an Historical Relation c. The second was thy own Assertion for the necessity of thy proceeding pretending it for the clearing of thy Conscience c. Such necessity pretended of proceeding was higher than thy said Instance or Reason for it as between an Immediate necessity of doing a thing and an outward Reason or Instance for doing it Where 's now the Contradiction If there be any it must be thy own in placing such occasion on the said two Sheets as to be so chiefly concern'd at them and yet a more immediate necessity of Conscience c. before that The Premises of this point considered in reference to thy being so chiefly concerned to instance the said Epistle of two Sheets thy Charge that a down-right Vntruth is the Subject occasioning his Words p. 49. which thou callest Drollery falleth to the Ground as a down-right Falshood That which thou callest Drollery in conclusion of that Detection we made of thy unrighteous and fallacious Vindication of thy proceeding to Print c. I am perswaded it hit thee and touched thee as in a way of answering a Fool that is such a one as is highly conceited and wise in his own Eyes according to his Folly And how natural and suitable that passage thou callest Drollery is to the subject and occasion given on thy part unto which it relates I leave to the impartial and ingenious Reader to consider and judge upon perusal of the whole matter concerning that point as 't is handled in our said Treatise entituled The Accuser of our Brethren cast down under the 10 th Disaffection from p. 19. to p. 37. Unto all which William thou hast but given an Impertinent Fling and the slie GO-BY to the substance even the most part thereof § 3. Whereas upon thy Confusion and
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
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