Judgment fixed upon the accuser of our brethren and the real Christian-Quaker vindicated from the persecuting outrage of apostate informers chiefly from W. Rogers, F. Bugg, T. Crisp, John Pennyman and Jeffery Bullock ... / by that contemned servant of Christ George Whitehead.

CHAP. VIII. (Book 8)

§. 1. Thomas Crisp being joyned with Wil∣liam Rogers as a busie Agent in Division, as also his abuse of George Whitehead, by part of an old Letter from B. F. The rea∣son of their being linked together in this Treatise. B. F. his late Testimony on G. W.'s behalf against T. C. §. 2. Notice taken of a few Passages in Thomas Crisp's Pam∣phlets: The reason thereof particularly about Tythes: His unsound Proposition: His In∣justice unto and abuse of John Crook in im∣pertinently quoting his Authority in the case, contrary to John's Principle and Testimony §. 3. How dis-ingenious Tho. Crisp is in his Authorities and Citatio••s about Tythes; And how like his Brother John Pennyman, against our plain Language. Of J. Penny∣man's furious roaring Letter against G. F. &c. containing the like unjust Reflections with W. R. T. C. &c. about Impositions, Pre∣scriptions, &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 pre∣sent Opposers. §. 5. About T. C's Marry∣ing by a Priest, and his Wife's condemning it: His rendring the holy Spirit contradicto∣ry 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, & pay∣ing Tythes. His Instance and Allegation in the case, but slight covers. And he proved Irre∣ligious and Fallacious in his preceeding and arguing contrary to the Profession and Testi∣mony of a real Christian-Quaker. §. 7. His Judgment about Tythes, as it accords with W. R's, still unsound & loose, & they not ex∣cusable in the Declension and Apostacy. §. 8. His Reply to Stephen Crisp, disingenious and fallacious. A Catalogue of some of the no∣torious

Falshoods and Slanders therein. His Reviling and foul Detractions against Ste∣phen 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 impli∣cit Credulity and Confidence therein, and abuse of Edward Burroughs, with Rea∣sons 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 Con∣sideration.

§. 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 Argu∣ment and Reason, he is also gotten into the same kind of stile and strain with W. R. and F. B. against promoting Govern∣ment, 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 threat∣ned us with in several Papers * 1.1 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 Pam∣phlet, 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, pro∣ceeded from a mistaken Judgment and is, Uncharitable against us, as well as Erronious in divers parts of it † 1.2 But the Author is gone, I shall say the less, and cha∣ritably 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 Contro∣versie 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 Con∣sciences

of all concerned, my labour having been and still is, for Love and Unity among God's People; and I take it not only un∣kindly 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 sun∣dry 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 meer∣ly 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 Pre∣judice, that they do wittingly and with some degree of Malice, foment Con∣tention. 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.

And as for those Papers so long since given forth by me, not discerning what spirit did then influence me (for so it is, that the actions of men are many times influenced both by good and evil Spirits, though they perceive it not, how much soever the Notion of Spirits, ridiculed by the Atheistick Philosophasters and wild Wits of this age) I did many years since recall them, and make it my request, that any that had them in their custody might make no further ill use of them; and to have found the contrary since, has been no small grief to me, especially to see so often repeated these personal Reflections by me used against G.F. and G.W. whom I truly honour in the Lord for their works and labours of Love.

However, I would not have any malicious Persons from hence take occasion to think, much less to say or represent, that I have hereby revoked, or do in the least intend to inervate any of the words in that or any other

Paper, so far as they are assertive of a just and equal Liberty of Conscience.

For I do firmly believe, That there is no Principle maintained amongst Man∣kind that stands upon f••••••er Foundations, that is more becoming the Rulers of this World in their respective Dominions, nor more agreeable to the Life and Spirit of Christianity, than is that of Liberty of Conscience. Neither let any man on the other hand think or say, That I do hereby in the least hinder the Church of Christ from judging, condemning and testify∣ing against things and Persons by the Spirit of Christ, for preaching things which those persons erring from the spirit of Christ, may judge not only to be allowable as their Christian Liberty, but even look upon to be their very duty.

For as the Principle of Liberty of Conscience is in it self most reasonable and christian, so is this latter of deny∣ing All Iudging upon any account most unreasonable, blind and foolish.

And they that cannot see, that these two Principles of Liberty and Judgment, are not only consistent, but very har∣monious

with each other, are to be pitied for their weakness and half-sightedness; of which perhaps, God giving life and ability, I may at another time say more — In the mean while I wish heartily, that all that profess and name the Name of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, would seek peace and ensue it.

Benjamin Furly.

Now Tho. Crisp and the rest concerned, see by these Lines how far B. F. hath di∣stinguished the point in Controversie, and cleared himself upon a better understanding concerning the said Letter, and against the perverse use thou hast made of it in Print to reproach me withal.

§. 2. And since thou hast causlesly aspersed me with it, and so far censoriously exposed me in Print, as thou hast done, when I sought no occasion against thee, nor designed Controversie with thee; and seeing thou art grown so hardy and con∣fident as to make thy self such a publick Agent and Advocate for W. R. and his Party in the Controversie, I have not yet done with thee, but am concerned further to take notice of a few Passages in thy

Pamphlets, which I look upon as very corrupt and perverse, and contrary to our antient and constant Testimony, born among us on behalf of Christ.

The first is in thy Pamphlet, stil'd, Several Testimonies, 3d Edition, which is also printed in others of thy Pamphlets, in these words, viz. pag. 26.

I fear you take more care for the strict Obser∣vation of your own Orders and Traditions than the Truth in the Heart; for if any use not your Language, or observe not to do just as others, in Tythes or other CIVIL RIGHTS, which the Laws of our Land require, and ought to be observed, (unless God by his Spirit in the Heart doth forbid, or any do really for Con∣science sake refuse) But if one cannot do so, must he therefore judge his Brother? That may be required of one that may not be required of another; for Growth or Measure may differ, Rom. 14.

AND J. Crook saith,

We read of— Cain and Abel, two men performing the same Action, attended with the same For∣malities, &c. and yet the one accepted, and the other rejected. In like manner may two Persons be found in contrary Actions, Postures, Gestures, and yet both accepted of God; for if I should lay a Bond upon my self therein, I transgress the liberty of the spirit, either as to time,

constancy or place; or if another should lay a Bond upon me, or put a Yoke about the Neck of the Disciples, this is no more justifiable than the former.

To the first part, being thy words, I must tell thee, thy Proposition is unsound and inconsistent with our antient Testimo∣ny, as well as Contradictory in its self: Vnsound in that it bespeaks thou art not principl'd against the Payment of Tythes in this Gospel day, and hast not retain'd a true or certain Judgment against them in thy esteeming and accounting of them amongst Civil Right, but Rites in thy other Pamphlet, which ought to be observed; and implying, that a Brother is not to be judg'd for observing (or paying) them. I am sure this is contrary to the Testimony born and received among us from the beginning. And to thy granting, that God by his Spirit in the Heart may forbid them, or that for Conscience sake some refuse them; as if the Spirit of the Lord did allow one Brother to pay Tythes as a civil Right, and forbid another; or that from a different Growth or Measure of Grace, one Brother may be required to refuse the Payment of Tythes, and another Brother not so requi∣red, and therefore not to be judged for the Payment of them, being both under the same Profession and Dispensation: Is not

this Inconsistent & Babylonish, yea, and ten∣ding to apparent Ranterism, to render the Spirit and different Measures thereof so con∣trary and opposite in its requirings, in a mat∣ter so eminent & weighty as that of Tythes? wherein our manifest Testimony hath been so positive, and the Sufferings of many so deep and heavy for not paying Tythes, and whereof the very first breaking forth of the Light and dawning of the Gospel Day did convince many Thousands, when their Eyes were first opened to see the Corruption of that Ministry which is upheld by Tythes and forced Maintenance; therefore T. C. thou art gone from the Light that first con∣vinced thee, in thus confusedly arguing for Tythes; and thy Proposition is loose and fallacious, and there's no such contra∣diction in the different Measures of Grace and Spirit received from God, as thou absurdly implyest. If ever thou knew'st or wast sensible either that Tythes were ended by Christ, or that the Ministry upheld by them is none of Christ's Ministry, thou couldst never suppose that any measure or degree of his Grace or Spirit would allow or lead any (who have been really convinced of the Evil thereof) in the payment of them, if thou wert not gone from the true sence and measure thereof in thy self; for the dif∣ferent measures or degrees of Grace do not

alter the Property of it; and whatever it once manifests to be sin, and forbids as such, it always forbids, and allows none in the practice thereof; and whoever are truly convinced by the Grace of God, and have their Minds turned to it, if they keep in it, and walk in its way and teaching, they are principled by it, and are a Law to them∣selves therein, against those things, ways and works which are corrupt or sinful, and cannot place a slight Indifferency where the Truth hath made a real Difference; for what communion hath Light with Darkness, or Christ with Belial, or Truth with Error, or Sincerity with Hypocrisie, or Sobriety and Watchfulness with Ranterism and Looseness?— Consider how and from whence thou art fallen, and Repent.

To thy subsequent Allegation of John Crook's saying, I must tell thee, that I look upon thee to have dealt unjustly, disingeniously and injuriously by him, and very impertinent∣ly alledged his words in this case, for thy unwarrantable, confused & loose Proposition for the Observation of Tythes, as a civil Right or Rite. I doubt not but he is better principled, even from the time of his first receiving the Truth, than to grant or allow any such liberty to any Christian Brother for the observation (or payment) of Tythes, as thy words import; and that thy Allega∣tion

of his words in this case, is contrary to his very Intention. I dare presume and appeal to his Conscience to give Judgment against thee in this case, whether the different or contrary actions, postures or ge∣stures, relating to time, constancy or place, &c. mentioned by him, were intended with respect to Tythes, * 2.1 the Payment or Non-payment of them. I dare say thou hast foully perverted his words and intention in this case; for the dif∣ferent actions, postures and gestures, relating either to time or place, may relate to divers things only circumstantial and indifferent, as to God, and not to things substantial, wherein Truth's Testimony has made a real Difference; As I, or any other in Truth, may be in different postures and places praying to God or waiting upon him, in Closet, on our Beds, in Field, High∣way, either kneeling, standing, sitting or walking, and yet truly led, moved and exercised by the holy Spirit, and accepted of God, † 2.2 which I

cannot say in relation to the Payment of Tythes in this Gospel day, no more than in Sacrifice and burnt Offerings, since Christ hath put an end thereto. Those things offered by Cain and Abel as the fruit of the Ground and firstlings of the Flock, were things in themselves lawful, and allowed in their day and time, and were also according to the Law of Moses, being Types under the old covenant. But this can be no pertinent Instance, as alledged by thee (Thomas) in the case of Tythes, to observe (or pay) them in this Gospel day, and as now in Controversie; since both Tythes and Offer∣ings were ended by Christ in his Death; nor is there any parrallel in the case, unless thou couldst prove that the Spirit of Christ doth move Believers in this Gospel day, both to the Payment of Tythes and the Non-payment (or refusal) of them, which I dare say, thou canst not prove. 'Tis not to be supposed that what Christ has abolish'd in the old Covenant he will enjoyn or com∣mand in the new; the Spirit of Christ is not contradictory to it self, nor are Gods sub∣stantial Commands contrary one to another, especially under one and the same dispen∣sation and state.

§. 3. Besides thy abuse and injury against John Crook, and Impertinency in this case,

I cannot but take notice how dis••ingenuous, cover'd and fallacious thou art, in the ma∣nagement of thy loose design, in reference to the Personal Authorities thou bringest, particularly in thy citing part of John Wil∣kinson and John Story's Paper concerning Womens Meetings, &c. in two of thy Pam∣phlets (viz.) thy second and third Edition; in the 24th pag. of the last thou sayst,

These foregoing Testimonies are not transcribed at large, but abridged for brevities sake, but the SENSE AND SVBSTANCE OF THE WHOLE included.

But Thomas, I must tell thee, this is a down-right Untruth; the Sense and Substance of the Whole of that very Paper of J. W. and J. S. is not included in thy citation, although thou hast confessed their Testimony to be weighty Truths, and hast cited more passages than that concerning Womens Meetings; for thou hast left out these Words of their Testi∣mony, (viz.)

As to Tythes, we can in truth say, 'twas never so much as in our Hearts to strengthen any in the Payment thereof, nor yet to weaken the Faith of any, having a Testimony in our Hearts that Tythes, as at this day paid, are AN∣TICHRISTIAN.

(Thus far they.)

How now Thomas? Why didst thou leave these Words out of thy Citation? Was here nothing of the sense nor sub∣stance

of their Testimony? or wast thou not conscious to thy self, that their Posi∣tion here against the payment of Tythes, and thy Proposition aforesaid for the obser∣vation of Tythes, as a civil Right or Rite, &c. were inconsistent and contradictory? their words are positive against them, as Anti∣christian, but thine are partly for them, and but doubtfully against them, that is [If the Spirit of the Lord in the Heart forbid the payment of them] or if the different mea∣sure of Grace require one Brother not to pay them, and allow (or be silent at) another Brother's paying them. Thus Thomas thou appearest in Confusion a BABEL-BUILDER.

And what is our Language thou reflects upon? Is it the plain Language of Thee and Thou to a single Person? And what are those Orders thou complainest of, and those Customs, Forms and Prescriptions? Hast not thou appeared like thy Brother John Penny∣man, in thy empty and fruitless opposi∣tion? only he is a little more plain in his furious Roaring Letter to G. F. dated the 27th of the 3d Moneth, called May, 1680. printed among his other Letters to divers Friends, he furiously exclaims and roars out against us in these Expressions (viz.)

A∣way with your long Prayers, and long Prea∣chings, for they are an abomination; away

with your Pride and Arrogance, sitting as Judges and Lords over your Brethrens Con∣sciences—Away with your set Form of Words of THEE and THOV, calling it the pure Language—O ye Blind and Ig∣norant! how can you escape the Condemna∣tion of the Just and Righteous One; who have set up Shadows instead of Substance, and Form instead of Power? — Builders of Babel, or Babylonish Builders —All your Buildings, your Inventions, Imaginations and Conceivings about your Forms, your proud self-conceited Modes, your Impositions, your Prescriptions, Laws and comely Orders (as you in your fallen Wisdom call them) must all be thrown down, laid waste, and become a By-word or Proverb of Reproach * 2.3 to the very Heathen, &c.

(Thus far John Pennyman.)

These Words are cited to show how far you Backsliders and Opposers resemble one another in Stile and Language against us, crying out against Impositions, Forms, Pre∣scriptions, Laws, &c. but show no Unjust nor Unrighteous Law, Form, Order or Prescription practised among us; and therefore in your Madness and Fury are but beating the Air, and unjustly and falsly ac∣cusing us with Impositions, lording over our Brethrens Consciences: And John Pennyman he is for crying out, Away with your set form

of Words of THEE and THOV; he is of∣fended at the Form of sound Words; his Backsliding, Apostacy and vain Imagina∣tions have been these many Years openly manifest, and time will further discover him to be a false Prophet against us: The Lord has brought us into that Form and Order, which neither Apostates, fallen Spirits, nor the Father of Lyes shall ever be able to throw down or lay waste. We direct People to the Light and Power of Christ within, to guide them both in the Life and Form of Godliness, Form of sound Words, and to obey from the Heart the Form of Doctrine received from Christ, and therefore we impose no blind Obedi∣ence, nor dark Formality upon any, but desire that all may come to be living Chri∣stians in Spirit, Life, Power and Holiness of Conversation, that their Conversations may be as becometh the Gospel of Christ; but you Backsliders are of disobedient and loose Spirits, else you would not rage, roar and foam out your own Shame as you do against the Servants of Christ, or that Form and Order which we are sure he has brought us into, and wherein we are Con∣scientiously concerned to follow our Lord Jesus Christ in Humility; and herein we can distinguish between formal Christians and living Christians, and would have none

to enter into either extream of Formality without Life and Power, or under pre∣tence of Life and Power to deny or oppose all Form and Order; for there may be a formal pretended Christian without Life and Power, but no real living Christian in Power without true Form; And this di∣stinction we had from the beginning, and therefore alwayes believed that the true Power would not lead into any false or wrong Form, nor into any Disorder or Confusion, knowing that our God is the God of Order, and not of Confusion; he is the God of Love, Peace and Union, and not of discord or strife.

§. 4. And Thomas Crisp hadst thou kept to that which first Convinced thee, and raised up a love in thee to Truth, and the People of God called Quakers, thou wouldst not have espoused such unsound Do∣ctrine as this of R. R. printed and publish∣ed in thy Pamphlets among thy pretended weighty Truths, nor reckoned it among sound Doctrines, as thou hast done even in thy third Edition, p. 22. where after he hath confessed in these words (viz.) I know that the Lord hath his People amongst them (mean∣ing those called Quakers) as in All Forms, and such as love and fear the Lord, doing the thing which is just and right. [The words

which I chiefly take notice of, are these of his which follow, viz.] And such are ac∣cepted with me as bone of my bone, and as my Brother Benjamin that came of the free-woman, and are in that freedom fitted to act in ALL FORMS, † 2.4 as the Lord their Light shall lead them, that they may replenish the Earth.

This Doctrine or Proposition I look upon to be very unsound, and tending to plain Ranterism, making no distinction in Forms, but including ALL FORMS, without Di∣stinction, under the leading of the Light of the Lord: Which also is an absurd begging of the Question; for his Light doth neither lead nor fit the Children of the free-woman to act in All Forms † 2.5 of Professions, but in its own form or way most proper and peculiar to it self, as the Form of Godliness is to the Power of God and Godliness, for granting the Lord may have a People that mean well under other Forms, as he has other Sheep that are not of this Fold: Howbeit, many that mean well are clouded and mistaken, under wrong Forms, empty Shews, Ceremonies and Circumstances, only of mens inventions and imposing, which the Light of the Lord guides them not into, being but humane Traditions and Impositions of men, neither proper nor suitable to divine Worship, or to a true spiritual Christian state; and therefore it is not the freedom of the Chil∣dren of the Free-Woman to act in ALL or any such Forms, nor will the Light of the

Lord lead them therein; nor may R. R's words be applied to the Children of New Jerusalem, who under the dispensation and order of the new Covenant, nor are they properly applicable to them, where he saith, Why may not God enjoyn that as an Ordinance to day, and give his Power to it also, which to Morrow he will lay aside as useless, and by his withdrawing his Power from it, leave it no better than an Idol? as in pag. 19, 20. of thy 3d Edition. This cannot be truly said of the Ordinances of the new Cove∣nant, which are not to be compared to the Shadows under the old; and therefore these his Expressions, as applied to this Dispensation which we are under (which is that of the Gospel and new Covenant) do tend to lead into Uncertainty, Instability, Looseness and Ranterism. Good Works are ordained of God, the practice of pure Religion he enjoyns us to walk it▪ and he will not forsake the Children of the Free-Woman, who therein serve him in his free Spirit.

This R. R. whose pretended Testimony thou hast espoused, his exclaiming, accusing and smiting unjustly, also like the rest of you about Imposing upon Brethrens Con∣sciences, Prescriptions, Impositions, and falsly accusing Friends with the Spirit of Dominion and Rule over the Conscience: Telling of the

Yoke of your Prescriptions, your carnal and literal Impositions: G. F's comely Order; G. F. and his Tribe of Proselites; creating a Dominion over your Brethren, and the movings of God in them, and claiming a power to judge of all Differences, prescribing Rules and Orders, &c. falsly comparing Friends with the Pope himself, and accusing them with swelling Soveraignity over the Minds and Consciences of men, heavily imposing upon others in such Circumstances and Indifferences wherein the Kingdom of God doth not consist, &c.

With many more Falshoods and unjust Reflections, and A∣buses, * 2.6 without innumerating or giving particular Instances of those Impositions, Rules & Orders complained of, only bids us witness the Hat; which I take to be because we could not own J. Perrot and his party in their keeping on their Hats in publick Prayer: R. Rich being one of his Party, a Disciple and Agent in his Cause, confounded in his Judgment with a Spirit (and Notions) of Ranterism, though sometimes he confessed to the Power of God among Friends, but too lofty in his Spirit; he now seems to be adopted by you in his opposition (in this his Paper which thou hast printed for a weighty and sound Testimony, I mean, Robert Rich's, whom I take to be thy Author) Why

didst not set his Name, but R. R? which may stand for another Name, as Richard Richardson; but we are sure he is better principled than to write such Airy, Loose, Ranting stuff. One reason that makes me take it to be R. Rich's Paper that thou hast espoused, 'tis so much in his floating, re∣flecting, accusing, lavish and conceited Stile; and also that thy Brother Francis Bugg makes use of his Authority in his Book De Christ. Lib. p. 170. in these words (viz.) I begin to see the truth of Robert Rich's words in a Letter from Barbadoes, to his Friends, Abstracts, &c. pag. 20. viz. I can assure you, that who meddle with the Quakers, had need to be fenced within and without with the whole Armour of God, Truth and love to Righteous∣ness, David's Sling and Stone, &c.

These Passages are mentioned that it may the more obviously appear how plainly you resemble one another, and tread the same Track, in the Stile and Terms of your Opposition, and that 'tis no new Contro∣versie in the Substance; 'tis but only John Perrot's Spirit of Division risen with some other Circumstances and Pretences, in a more Rough, Lofty, Contemning, Hector∣ing and Huffing Party, daring and scornful, who have not that seeming show of Humility, Lamb-likeness and

Outside Demureness, that John Perrot had, * 2.7 the tendency and end of whose work, time will manifest more di∣rectly to center in RANTERISM, as it now tends to FLESH∣LY LIBERTY, ca∣sting off the Yoke of Christ, and causing the offence of his Cross to cease.

§. 5. And now Thomas I am not willing at present to spend much farther time with thee, thou having been so much answered by R. Richardson and J. F. only I would show thee a little further, how unfairly and

disingenuously thou dealest with John Field in thy 5th part of thy Babels, &c. First, I take notice of the account J. Field gives in the 3d page of his Book, entituled, Thomas Crisp's Envy detected, about thy Do∣ctrine, and then of what thou sayst in rela∣tion to the same; and that which thou scornfully callest J. F's Bull of Excommunica∣tion against thee, his account is this, viz.

John Field signifieth, That Friends have "no Vnity with Tho. Crisp nor his Doctrine, which is as followeth,

The 8th day of the 9th Month, 1681. Thomas Crisp said, That he had lately paid Tythes, and that the Spirit of God did or might allow him to pay Tythes, or Marry by a Priest. And that by the same Spirit of God another might be re∣quired not to pay Tythes, or not do the same Things.

This Thomas Crisp spake the day and year abovesaid, and consented to have it writ and printed, and took a copy of the aforesaid words. Witness,

John Field, jun.

Oh Thomas! How hast thou lost true tenderness and the sence of Truth? How art thou backsliden, and gone from that which first convinced thee of the way of the Lord and his holy Truth, which is but one? And how variable dost thou render

his Spirit, and contradictory to it self in these great concerns of Tythes and Mar∣riage? Is this like the Testimony of the Christian-Quaker, as thou and thy Brother W. R. and his party would be rendred? Is it not more like exact Ranterism? Let all tender Hearts and sincere Souls in the Light judge. But what sayest thou to J. F's Que∣stion, Why did thy Wife condemn it? mean∣ing your marrying by a Priest: To this thou most unrighteously and scornfully answerest in these Words, (viz.)

But may not those that pretend to sell Par∣dons, and pray Souls out of Purgatory (your Brethren) say, that if their Prayers and Pardons be not effectual, why have and do so many give so much Money for them? If a Woman gives all she hath to have her Hus∣band out of Purgatory, an effectual Proof of the worth of the Pope's Pardon.

Thomas, Thy Answer herein is dirty and scurrilous, & thy comparison with the Pope, and those that falsly pretend to pray Souls out of Purgatory, most unjust and slanderous: Be ashamed of such scribling and abusive dirty Work, and falsly calling such our Brethren: Be ashamed also of thus unnaturally exposing thy own Wife to an un∣just censure in this comparison (viz.) As to a Woman that gives all she hath to have her Husband out of Purgatory: Oh sordid and

bruitish! As also in thy following Words, and foul Reflection upon thy Wife (viz.)

It is like SHEE, as too many more have, gave too much credit to what some of G. F's CHEATS said: And she is not the first that hath been deceived by you, and perhaps some a∣mong you, that have prated others out of their Money, might prate her, unto the writing and giving you that Paper you pretend to.

Thus far thou in the 9th page of thy 5th part of thy Babel.

O Thomas! be ashamed of thus abusing thy Wife and others, (our Friends) with thy Railery in Print, as if she were cheated or deceived into the giving forth the said Paper in judgment against your marrying with the Priest; I am satisfied thou hast most foully wronged her, as well as abused her Friends herein; for I am perswaded that the Lord made her sensible you had done amiss in so marrying, that she was convin∣ced in her Conscience of the Evil of it, and of your wrong proceeding therein by the Light of Truth, before she gave out the said Paper; and that therefore thou hast not only abused and unjustly exposed thy Wife, thy near relation in Print, but also that thou hast abused the Truth, and the real Conviction thereof in her: I dare ap∣peal to the witness of God in her Consci∣ence against thy sordid abuse of her and

Friends in this matter. I find thou art a shallow impertinent Scribler and Railer, and uncharitably Censorious and Reviling in much of thy Work; thou hast an absurd and dirty stile of writing, if it be thy own, however it is patronized by thee. Remem∣ber from whence thou art fallen, and Repent of thy hard Speeches, Preju∣dice and Uncharitableness against Gods People, his Heritage. Thou hast abused the Servants of Christ, have a care thy dayes be not shortned in Darkness and Sorrow. I am sorry for thee. Thou canst advise and instruct others to Love and Gentleness, and pretendest to shew the neces∣sity of bearing with, and not judging one ano∣ther about such things, wherein they differ in Opinion or Practice in some things, viz. out∣ward and circumstantial matters of Re∣ligion; for that thou sayest, We may belong to one Shepherd, although not all in one Fold; and confessest, That Love is part of the Seal in the Forehead of the Lamb's followers; and so also Hatred, Strife, &c. the mark of the Beast, as in thy Introduction to thy third Edition: As also page 13. thou givest Friends this warning, To forbear judging any man any more, upon any pretence whatso∣ever, as in the Paper thou hast cited, and falsly callest E. B's Vision. Yet contrari∣wise thou art severely judging and con∣temning

us on some Pretence; thou appear∣est in Hatred and Strife in the most of thy controvertial Pamphlets. May we belong to one Shepherd, although not all in the Fold as yet? Why then art thou and W. R. and F. Bugg, and John Pennyman, so severe in Judging, Censuring, Reviling and Re∣proaching many among us, whom we know to be the Servants of Christ? And thou telling of G. F's Cheats, rendring thy Wife as one cheated and deceived by our Friends: Oh sordid and base Confusion, and Baby∣lonish stuff! Seriously recollect thy self, and give over thy false and fruitless At∣tempts, Impertinencies, and confused Scribling; for the Day is dawned and bro∣ken forth, that has made a discovery of the miserable Apostacy and Darkness, which you contentious & quarrelsom Opposers are fallen into. Oh! come down, come down, and seek Repentance, and be humbled un∣der the mighty Hand of God: May the Lord in Mercy give thee an Heart thereto, my Soul charitably wisheth it for thee, &c.

§. 6. In thy Fourth Part, page 19. thou art endeavouring to extenuate the offence on thy part on thy Principle, that one may marry by the Priest, and pay Tythes, and yet be a Christian; Thou shouldst have added, [One of the darker sort of Christians.] But

to excuse the matter on thy part, Thy Wife was not then one called a Quaker, * 3.1 And thou couldst not satisfie her, so that thou CONDE∣SCENDED to take thy Wife in the presence of a Priest, and acquain∣ted him, that thou didst it not on any account of Re∣ligion, but to answer the LAW; and sayest, who (i. e. the Priest) very Christian-like condescended to thee, so as not to say or do, or require thee to do or say any thing thou shouldst be dissatisfied with, &c. And you did before him declare you took each other, &c. nor was there half the Ceremony or Formality that is now practised according to G. F's Form, &c. Oh Thomas! These slight Covers, and Linsey-Woolsey Gar∣ments will not hide thy Disobedience, nor excuse thee from acting contrary to thy Conviction and Conscience. It appears thou wast marryed by a Priest [but to mince it, 'twas in the presence of a Priest] though not in all Formalities; and this was thy CONDESCENTION: Was it so? Then thou wast come to a higher sight and state than to be marryed by a Priest. May it not be said further, how could it be consistent

with thy Principle and Profession as a real Christian-Quaker or Conscientious Dissenter, to be so Marryed? Mince it as much as thou canst, 'twill not hold together. But thou didst it not on any account of Religion, &c. No! how couldst thou exclude that weighty concern of Marriage out of Religion? How Irreligious wast thou then in it? Is there not as much need to keep unspotted of the Word in the great concern of Mar∣riage, as in any other concern in this Life? How couldst thou then lay Religion aside in this weighty concern? Is it not manifest Ranterism for a person to make so slight of Religion, as at his will and pleasure to lay it aside, and that under pretence of conde∣scending in matters of greatest Moment here wherein all truly enlightned and clear sighted Christians have most need to be Re∣ligiously exemplary, and faithful in their Testimony, according to their Consci∣ences?

But to thy Question; May not one Marry by the Priest, or pay Tythes, and yet be a Chri∣stian? For thy Principle, That he may, (in thy 5th part, p. 14.) thou givest us this In∣stance, viz. I find George Keith very Chri∣stian like say,

I do not doubt but the Lord had, and I believe he now hath many that are precious to him, and that belong to the Catholick-Church, even as I believe the

Lord hath many such among Episcopalians, Papists, &c. Also, I do acknowledge the Lord hath among the Presbyterians some who belong to the true Church.

Surely then (sayst thou) these must be Chri∣stians, and did and do Marry by or with a Priest, and pay Tythes.

Now (Thomas) this Instance, and thy Inference upon it, are the most cunningly alledged of any thing I find in thy writings, and yet they will not do, they will not serve thy turn; for granting some among all these to whom the Lord hath regard, and who in some sence may belong to his Church, it is with respect to their Sincerity towards God, and their fear of him, Conscientious∣ness springing from his own Seed in them; and not with respect to their Formalities, cloud of humane Traditions and Inventions, which thy are led into by their Priests, as Marrying by Priests, paying Tythes, &c. Therefore, however the Lord in Mercy hath a regard to them for the sake of the good in them, yet they are but dim-sighted, and of the darker sort of Christians, who see not beyond those humane Impositions and Traditions, as paying Tythes and Marrying by a Priest, &c. And for thee to excuse thy self therein, who pro∣fessest a higher state and degree of Illumina∣tion (no doubt) as no less than that of a

Christian-Quaker, thou mightst as well argue, that there are some of the better and more sincere sort of Papists that bow to Images, and use many Superstitions, which their Priests have misled them into, and to whom God shews Mercy in saving their Souls at length; therefore thou or any Christian-Quaker may bow to Images, ob∣serve Popish Ceremonies, &c. Or thus, There are many of the sincerer sort of Episco∣pal People that have their Children sprinkled by a Priest, and signed with the Sign of the Cross, that hear Common-Prayer, conform, and do all Conscientiously, and are sincere to God in their Way; so that in Charity we may conclude, that their Souls find Mercy with God at length. And what follows? Therefore Thomas Crisp as a Christian-Quaker, and all other Conscien∣tious Dissenters, both Anabaptists and others, may carry their Children to be Sprinkled by a Priest, have them signed with the Sign of the Cross, hear Common-Prayer, conform, &c. and yet be good Christians, precious to God, while thus inconsistent with their own Consciences, dissenting Principles and Profession. Thus incon∣sistently thou mightst as well argue for the Christian-Quakers paying Tythes and Mar∣rying by a Priest, &c. But I must deny the consequence: Thou (as a Quaker

doubtless) hast known better things, and that as to the knowledge of Truth and degree of divine Illumination. There is no just Comparison between a real Christian Quaker and the best sort of Papists and Epis∣copalians. Therefore thy pleading in thy 5th part of Babels, p. 19, 20. for charity and forbearance to be allowed them who think it as much their duty to pay Tythes, as we do think it a sin (and to those who do Marry by a Priest, and pay Tythes, being of different Perswasion from us.) Granting such there are, who see no further, and are to be pitied; 'tis no argument for any that are of our con∣trary Perswasion to take liberty to pay Tythes and Marry by a Priest; for their sin is greater than the other.

Oh Friend! thy Disobedience, Declen∣sion and Apostacy from those Discoveries the true Light has made, will not be excus∣able by all thy slight Allegations in the sight of the All-seeing and Heart-searching God.

§. 7. But—T. C's Judgment about Tythes accords with what is in the third part of the Christian-Quaker, &c. by W. R. Christi∣anly and largely treated on (quoth he) in his fourth part, p. 19. And what is W. R's Judgment or Doctrine in that case? Is it not for freely paying Tythes to the National Mini∣stry,

i. e. not as by Constraint; yea, if any Person will freely of himself give a tenth part of his Estate or Encrease thereof to ANY VSE WHATSOEVER, having no regard to any humane Institution, or claim by any pretended divine Law, &c. as his words are, 7th part, p. 52. Compare his Objection and Answer in that case, in his 2d part, Christian-Qua∣ker, p. 43. and the Apology he makes for it in his 7th part, p. 52, 53. together with our fore-going Replyes, then it will appear how loose and apostatized thy Judgment is from the ancient Principle and Christian Testimony of the truly Christian-Quakers, whose Principle never allowed paying Tythes freely, (or otherwise) to the National Mi∣nistry, or to any use whatsoever. Therefore how little excusable is your Declension, Apostacy, and loose Doctrine in that case, who have seen and known better things from a farther degree of Illumination, than either the best sort of Papists or Episcopa∣lians have as yet received? Wherefore you, in sinning against Knowledge, are more condemnable in those things, than they in their Ignorance, blind Zeal, or Dim-sightedness. So that 'tis high time for thee to bethink thy self better, and Repent.

§. 8. I could say much to thy Reply thou hast given to Stephen Crisp, in thy Babels, 4th part, to evince how disingenuous, falla∣cious and abusive it is; but I find little ne∣cessity upon me therein, considering what little weight it is of, and how that Stephen Crisp, the Person immediately concerned, did not look upon himself so deeply con∣cerned, as to think it worth the while to spend much time about, or take much no∣tice of: Only I must tell thee, thou hast abused both him, and those of us who gave our Testimony, and plainly showed our dislike against the Paper and Subscription from Barbadoes, which was not * 3.2 ONLY a dislike of the Wording it, (as thou falsly sayest) but of both mat∣ter and subscription: And therefore thy saying, * 3.3 There is no denial or disowning the Principle of giving up all (i. e. Spiritual and Temporal) to G. F's Mens and Womens Mee∣tings (as thou scornfully accusest us, p. 2, 3.) This is a gross Untruth and foul Perversion, and our Consciences bear us witness to the contrary, that we do dislike and disown any such Principle and Doctrine: Thou hast mis-stated the case against us herein.

Secondly, As also thy Objection is false, That we were more afraid of the Publication, than ashamed of the Matter, p. 6.9. Seeing

we so plainly manifested our Dislike of the matter, in our Letter to those of Barbadoes concerned.

Thirdly, As also a scornful and two-fold Slander it is, That we endeavour to compel all to worship our Image (as thy false term is) of G. F's Orders, p. 7. We deny both by terms and matter herein.

Fourthly, And likewise a gross Slander and Abuse it is, That G. F. and his Party sharply reprove others, who cannot against their Consciences give up as the Barbadoes Church have done, and for not bowing to our Image, G. F's Laws, p. 8. What a scornful abo∣minable Lye is this!

Fifthly, Also these are notorious Fal∣shoods; That we will drive them that will not follow us, contrary, or before the Spirit of the Lord lead them into our Ceremonies, else they must be Sons of Perdition, and all black Cha∣racters we can find to vilifie them, pag. 10. These are foul and false Accusations.

Sixthly, Again, That thou hast to thy un∣derstanding endeavoured the Advance and Honour of that Truth we profess, (i. e. the Light in the Conscience) p. 11. This is an untruth; thy Vilifying and Abusing (and Railery against) the Servants of Christ; who truly own and profess the Light for their guide, proves the contrary.

Seventhly, That we are zealous for Forms,

more than the Power, p. 11. Is also a false Accusation and Slander.

Eighthly, That Stephen Crisp is an Engine of Satan, p. 12. And A Forger, p. 2. And A bold-faced Lyar, p. 4. appear slanderous Abuses and foul Detractions, also expresly contrary to thy own warning thou hast given forth in E. B's Name, for All Friends to forbear Judging any man upon any pretence whatsoever. However, Stephen Crisp is known to be a man Conscientious towards God, a man more Righteous than thy self, and I suppose better qualified, both as a Man, and a Christian, than ever thou wast; and thy envious Detractions cannot lessen his Reputation, where he is well known. For the rest of thy Abuses, Perversions, foul Detractions, Railery, and bitter an∣gry Stuff, (in thy Pamphlets) which are not here recited, I leave thee to the Righ∣teous Judge of all to reckon with and judge thee, as I doubt not but in due time he will.

§. 9. I hereby give the Reader further notice about that Paper before-mentioned, which William Rogers and thy self have printed and published in your Books in Edward Burroughs's Name, as his Testimony, Vision, &c. concerning The scattered of Israel, the Shepherd and his Dogs, and Sheep,

&c. and which in thy third Edition thou recommendest, To be considered by all, more especially by us called Quakers, among whom (thou sayest) 'tis proved to be a true Vision, and not a Dream of E. B's making: Shew∣ing still thy confident Credulity, that 'tis really Edward Burroughs's Paper. I am still the more confirmed that 'tis none of E. B's, but John Perrots; and that William Rogers and his party (who encouraged the Pub∣lication thereof) together with thy self, have been too credulous and confident, both in receiving the said Paper upon trust, and imposing it on others as Edward Burroughs's, and that therein you appear both implicit in your Faith, and meer Imposers, as well as Abusers of E. B. and his faithful Testi∣mony, unless you can shew more manifest Testimony and valid Reason that the said Paper was E. B's, than we can show to the contrary that it was John Perrot's. It shall not serve W. R's turn to slight a Negative Testimony herein, unless he and his party can prove their Affirmative, that E. Bur∣roughs was the Author of the said Paper, and that with more manifest Testimony and probable Reason than we have here to show to the contrary, namely, that 'twas John Perrot's: For besides the Unsound∣ness of the said Paper in Matter and Man∣ner, before hinted, as one Reason that

'twas not E. B's; observe the following Certificates and Testimonies from Bristol, viz.

I Having read and perused the Paper of The scattered of Israel, set down in W. R's Book, stiled, The Christian-Quaker, to which W. R. affixeth and subscribeth the Name of Edward Burroughs, as the Author and Giver forth of the same. I re∣membring that I had read a Paper of the like Import among the Papers of John Batho, when living, did search into them after his decease, and among the Letters of John Perrot, which John Batho choicely kept and transcribed with his own Hand, I found the same Paper above mention∣ed, without any substantial variation of matter, with John Perrot's Name subscribed at length, which if duely weighed, and compared with the Writings and Stile of E. B. and J. P. seems, according to my best discern∣ing, much more likely to be the Stile of John Perrot, than of Edward

Burroughs. Further, I am well as∣sured that the Hand-writing of that Paper is John Batho's, which I have reason to know, by the many Years Co-habitation and intimate Acquain∣tance that I had with him and his Hand-writing, who hath often ex∣pressed to me a more than ordinary respect to, and admiration that he had of John Perrot his Ministry and Writings, which occasioned his Di∣ligence and Care in transcribing his Epistles and Writings, of which he left a large Parcel behind him at his decease. This I am a Witness of, and do give this Testimony, in or∣der to the undeceiving of the Simple in that particular, and the vindica∣ting of that worthy Friend E. B. from W. R's Mis-representations in this matter.

Bristol, the 2d of the 10th Moneth, 1682.

Laurence Steel.

WE, whose Names are here∣unto subscribed, have also perused and compared the above∣mentioned Paper, touching The scattered of Israel, &c. with that William Rogers recites in his Book, entituled, The Christian-Quaker, wherein he assigns Edward Burroughs to be the Author thereof; And up∣on strict Examination, we find it to be the same in Substance, differing only here and there in some Words, which alter not the sence, and ap∣pears to be only by the Writers mi∣stake on one hand or other. We have also compared the said Paper with John Batho's Books of Ac∣counts, and divers other Papers and Epistles transcribed under his own Hand, and do most apparently dis∣cern that the above-said Paper is the same Character with them, and the same Hand-writings. We also fur∣ther testifie, that at the end of the said Paper, John Per••ots Name, as

Author thereof (and not Edward Burroughs) is subscribed at length by the same Hand: And if William Rogers, or any else, desire a sight of the said Paper, Epistles and Books, we do freely offer our selves ready to shew it them.

Witness our Hands,

• Charles Harford,
• Richard Snead,
• Richard Vickris.

Dated in Bristol, this 2d of the 10th Moneth, 1682.

SErious Reader, please to take no∣tice, that since the writing of the second Section of the eighth Chapter, containing a Charge against T. C. for his dealing unjust∣ly and injuriously by John Crook in the afore∣said citation, which I sent him a true Copy of about Tythes, &c. as stated by T. C. I received John Crook's own Answer by Let∣ter, dated, 6th of the 10th Moneth, 1682. plainly importing his dislike, and Testi∣mony against such publication of his Name and Citation, contrary to his Principle and Practice, signifying, That if T. C. hath done him right in the Quotation, he is sure he hath wronged him in the Intention, by making

his Words speak any thing at all touching Tythes: And that his Paper, which is only in Manuscript, (near twenty Years since, writ on another occasion) Cannot with any ingenuity be referred to the Payment, or Non-payment of Tythes: And that by a Book writ by him, and Printed 1659. against Tythes, together with his own clearness from the payment thereof, it is evident He cannot reasonably be supposed to favour the Payment of them. Thus far J. Crook hath ingenuously and plainly intimated and given his judgment, which (compared with my Exception before) doth confirm it against T. C. his disingenuous and injurious Citation, reflecting on J. C. and his Testi∣mony, who concludes his Letter & Account in these Words to me, (viz.)

What I have said, may satisfie those that are willing to be informed aright; and for others, that will not be contented, except their Humour of Conceitedness be gratified, they need not greater Judgment here, than to be their own Tormentors, and hereafter to be left to the Judgment of the great Day, when every man shall re∣ceive a Reward according to his Deeds.

Thy Brother in the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus, John Crook.

Notes

• * 1.1

  And whereunto we have a full An∣swer in being, in Ma∣nuscript, reserved (about five Years) in order to pursue and detect that of J. P.'s, if divulged abroad in Print.
• † 1.2

  As in his oppo∣sing Pastors, Teachers, Elders, &c. in our day, and the Spirit to them, and ren∣dring us at inforce∣ing Orders, and set∣ting our selves in the place of the HEIR, &c. And he was Answer'd in his Life time by several of the Servants of Christ w•••• withstood his opposition in this matter.
• * 2.1

  For J. Crook hath given publick Testimo∣ny against the Payment of Tythes in this Go∣spel day, witness his Treatise, i. e. Tythes no Property, &c.
• † 2.2

  But I must confess that in our publick Assemblies for divine Worship, such postures as bespeak the most Reverence to God and Union among our selves, are most commendable, edifying and exemplary, &c.
• * 2.3

  N. C's Epistle.
• † 2.4

  So the Work of Backsliders and Apo∣states tends to fit them to hear and sit under the Parish Priests, con∣trary to the real Chri∣stian Quaker; Wit∣ness F. Bugg's Propo∣sition, espoused by him as his own judg∣ment, viz. Things Moral, under the Gospel men may be commanded by the Magistrate, as HEARING is an act purely Moral. A man may be commanded to hear the Gospel preacht, without being forced to give his assent to it. The Light of Nature guides the Magistrate to instruct his Subjects in whatsoever he thinks for their eternal Good. And the Light of Nature obligeth every man to hearken, &c▪ A man that is only commanded to hear and receive In∣struction, is dealt with as a rational Creature, and forced to nothing. The Judgment is still left in himself. [Thus F. Bugg's De Christiana Libertate, or Liberty of Conscience, pag 91, 92.] Whereby he has plainly given away and betray'd the cause of all conscientious Dissenters. For what place is left for Liberty of Con∣science to dissent, if the Magistrate may thus enjoyn the Subjects to hear what he thinks is for their eternal Good, and they be thus obliged to hear, when he thinks 'tis for their good to hear the Parish Priests? By this Proposition, when the Magistrate commands Fr. Bugg to his Parish Church and hear the Priest, he is oblig'd so to do by his own Proposition, and reserve his judg∣ment in himself, whether to accept or reject what he hears. Thus he may be in a freedom fitted to act in ALL FORMS. But then let him not esteem himself a Christian Quaker, but another sort of a (Latitude) Christian, whose Religion and Principle, before cited, will not oblige him to suffer any more as a Quaker.
• † 2.5

  So the Work of Backsliders and Apo∣states tends to fit them to hear and sit under the Parish Priests, con∣trary to the real Chri∣stian Quaker; Wit∣ness F. Bugg's Propo∣sition, espoused by him as his own judg∣ment, viz. Things Moral, under the Gospel men may be commanded by the Magistrate, as HEARING is an act purely Moral. A man may be commanded to hear the Gospel preacht, without being forced to give his assent to it. The Light of Nature guides the Magistrate to instruct his Subjects in whatsoever he thinks for their eternal Good. And the Light of Nature obligeth every man to hearken, &c▪ A man that is only commanded to hear and receive In∣struction, is dealt with as a rational Creature, and forced to nothing. The Judgment is still left in himself. [Thus F. Bugg's De Christiana Libertate, or Liberty of Conscience, pag 91, 92.] Whereby he has plainly given away and betray'd the cause of all conscientious Dissenters. For what place is left for Liberty of Con∣science to dissent, if the Magistrate may thus enjoyn the Subjects to hear what he thinks is for their eternal Good, and they be thus obliged to hear, when he thinks 'tis for their good to hear the Parish Priests? By this Proposition, when the Magistrate commands Fr. Bugg to his Parish Church and hear the Priest, he is oblig'd so to do by his own Proposition, and reserve his judg∣ment in himself, whether to accept or reject what he hears. Thus he may be in a freedom fitted to act in ALL FORMS. But then let him not esteem himself a Christian Quaker, but another sort of a (Latitude) Christian, whose Religion and Principle, before cited, will not oblige him to suffer any more as a Quaker.
• * 2.6

  The sub∣stance where∣of is answer∣ed fully before to W. R.
• * 2.7

  For tho John Perrot placed his opposition to the Putting off the Hat in Prayer very high, as on express Commandment from the Lord God of Hea∣ven, as against a Cu∣stom, Romish Tradi∣tion, and Triffle in the Apostacy, as in his Paper which Richard Hubberthorn answer'd. Yet he had more smooth and taking Expressions to temper and gloss his matters withal▪ as, The Spirit of the Lamb is Poor, Low, Humble, Patient, Content, Temperate, Chaste, willing to Suffer, full of Thanks-giving in all things, and of Pity, Mercy, Forgiveness, Love unto all, not holding Pre∣judice against any— and ready to lay down Life for all. —Now all that will follow the Lamb wheresoever he goeth, must be of this Mind, &c. as in a Paper of John Perrot's. Now here was a more likely shew and resemblance and pretence of Christianity, than these Lofty Scorners do appear in, though he profest greater things than he possest; his Spirit was not in that Lowliness, nor was he constant with God. His fall should be a warning to many.
• * 3.1

  But it seems T.C. was one then so cal∣led; and if she was instrumental to induce him to Marry by a Priest, contrary to his Perswasion or Profes∣sion, she had also cause to Repent it, and may yet see more cause to Rue it, be∣cause of his Apostacy.
• * 3.2

  First
• * 3.3

  First