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.

CHAPTER I (Book 1)

§. 1. W. R's Hue-and-C••y 〈…〉〈…〉 emp••y Flourish. §. 2. His 〈…〉〈…〉 §. 3. He i•• proved guilty of 〈…〉〈…〉 the People called Quakers 〈…〉〈…〉 §. 4. His Concessions to Truth do 〈…〉〈…〉 him conscientious in his writing, nor 〈…〉〈…〉 man guilty of Blasphemy. §. 5. His slight∣ing and insulting way of writing, his own abasement. §. 6. His writing in's own Ju∣stification to clear himself from giving Judg∣ment on Reports and Jealousies, call'd in question, and prov'd untrue by divers Instan∣ces. §. 7. His Reflection on G. F. A. P. and my self about the Barbadoes Subscrip∣tion, (which we had denyed) proved Mali∣cious and Vnjust. §. 8. His comparison be∣tween some of our Friends and Pope Leo the tenth; shewing more favour to the Pope than to Friends, &c. §. 9. His rendring R. R.

(and the Pen-man) like Papists, for quoting some of their Authors, brings great Reflection & Contradiction on himself. §. 10. He upbraids us often with the words [Learn'd Friend] yet useth the same word Learned to a Friend. §. 11. His false Suggestion and Jealousie of great Idolatry, touching G. F. and his sor∣did abuse of John Blaikling, and foul Vn∣truth and Infamy therein manifest. §. 12. His Charge against J. B. about ascribing eternal Honour, and Perversion of his Inten∣tion; and against G. F. about Infallibility, distinguished. §. 13. His denying the sence of his and party's own words for a select Company of Elders and Deacons, to order in Church Affairs. §. 14. His pretence for amicable Conference, Hypocritical: His charge of meer Hypocrisie and Deceit, and the Fruits of manifest Injustice, abusive and unjust.

§. 1. AS concerning William Rogers's Hue-and-Cry after the Name of the Pen-man of a Treatise entituled, The Accu∣ser of our Brethren cast down; and that this Hue-and-Cry is in pursuance of his Name, because not subscribed thereunto, page 1.

How Insincerely and Fallaciously does he herein begin with a silly Boast, an empty Flourish and Vapour, containing also an

unjust Reflection, compared with his false Scoff, (pag. 21.) i. e. That the Pen-man was ashamed that his Name should be publish'd with the great Bull, entituled, The Accuser, &c. Which is a falshood also. And why an Hue-and-Cry after his Name? He is not fled into Obscurity, nor any Criminal, Trea∣sonable or Fellonious Person in any sense, that an Hue-and-Cry need to be divulg'd in Print after his Name. Nor has he either deny'd or conceal'd his concern in that Book which W. R. falsly terms The great Bull, when modestly asked. But why is W. R. so very ignorant of his Name, that he must needs make the noise of an Hue-and-Cry after it? when but in pag. 25. he pre∣tends a Description of the Person, and of his Habit, to wit, As being one that hath for∣gotten his low and mean Estate, and arrived to a Beautiful City-dress, &c. And this is not all; but in pag. 34. he queries about the Pen-man, as having been that no mean Per∣son (viz. of our Society) that hath solicited the Powers under which we have peaceably lived, &c. Could he so positively describe the Pen-man's dress and condition, and yet not find out his Name without an Hue-and-Cry in Print after it? What empty Flourishes does this Person dress himself in? But what Beautiful City-Dress is that he reflects upon the Pen-man, that becomes not

Humility, or his Call to the work of the Ministry, or his soliciting the Powers on be∣half of suffering Friends? And wherein is he condemnable of Excess in that case of his Habit or Dress? And wherein does he exceed all W. R's Brethren, even them he has counted Honourable? I would have him speak out plainly in this matter, and not to mutter and smite in the dark.

§. 2. He says, He will not conclude the Pen-man to be a Vagrant, a Night-Bird, a Wanderer, &c. because his Name is not to his work, pag. 1. And what, if he'l not thence conclude him such an one, what better Character does he give him, both by the In∣stance and comparing his or his Brethren's Actions to the ugly Vizzard of a Night-walker? pag. 3. Thus he detracts and reviles.

§. 3. He affirms it A notorious Vntruth, that his Book contains Reproach against the Peo∣ple called Quakers in general; and that the Pen-man quotes not a word to shew it so, pag. 2. But his Affirmation we may rather justly conclude a notorious Untruth. For in his Preface, p 6. to the first part of his (falsly stiled) Christian-Quaker, he thus reflects upon the People called Quakers (which was quoted by us) viz.

These kinds of Declara∣tions frequently publisht amongst the aforesaid People, viz. Let's exclude the Wisdom,

and have an Eye to the Brethren, &c. I▪ cannot but be full of Jealousie, that these things have a tendency to insinuate Submission without Conviction, and nurture up Ignorance instead of Wisdom, as much as ever was, where this Maxim, to wit, Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion, is, &c.

By all which 'tis apparent, that his Book con∣tains unjust Reproach upon the People call'd Quakers in general, as being under such a Popish blind Ministry. For what means [the aforesaid People] but the People called Quakers in general? See now, that which he calls a notorious Untruth, is proved ap∣parently true from his own Reflection on the People called Quakers, and therefore he himself thereby proved in the notorious Untruth. Was it not a Reflection upon the Church of Thyatira to suffer the woman Je∣zabel to teach and seduce, &c? And what better doth his Reflection on the said People render them?

§. 4. He says, He finds what's cited out of his Book of above Eighty Sheets, is less than Two, and one considerable part thereof acknow∣ledged to be Concessions to the Truth, so that the Light sometimes interposeth. But then he judges this Inconsistent with that sense, viz. That his way of writing is void of Conscience, Reason and Religion. From whence he in∣fers upon the Pen-man (as he calls him) Is

it not hence plain, that such a sense renders those very things acknowledged to be interposed from the Light it self, to be void of Conscience, Rea∣son and Religion? And then crys out at an hideous rate, as if he had wholly knock'd down his Respondent; O notorious Blasphe∣my! —The Pen-man acted in the Dark, shown himself unworthy of the name of a Man —May without abuse be numbred amongst such sort of Beasts at Ephesus—Vnreason∣able men —I have already prov'd the Pen-man Vnreasonable and Blasphemous; yet he may be termed a man, though a very Wicked one, &c. pag. 2, 3. with more Aggravations. This is the Person that complains of a great Bull against him; but observe his furious Bull here, and what a wild one! and how out∣ragiously mad and false in his Inference! What's the matter with him on which he is so furious? It is that his way of writing is deemed void of Conscience, Reason, Religion, &c. because it has been confest, That the Light sometimes interposeth and makes him con∣cede to Truth. But does it hence follow, that these very things interposed by the Light, are esteemed void of Reason or Re∣ligion in themselves? No such matter: The major part of this work appears such, and he is measured by the major part there∣of. A man may justly be adjudged a Wick∣ed Person, when the greatest part of his

life is such, though he may both speak and act some right things, when the Light comes over him, and convicts him, as Balaam did, and some of the wicked Kings of Israel, with many others: Yea, and the Devil himself, though a Lyar from the beginning, yet is made to grant and speak some Truths, when over-powered, though contrary to his Nature. Besides, we do not believe our Adversary to be Conscientious in what the Light interposeth through him, any more than that Balaam was a good man, when his heart was evil: Nor can the Devil's con∣fessing to Truth at any time render him a good Devil, nor of tender Conscience, his Nature being contrary to Truth and Goodness.

§. 5. But there lies another great Re∣flection in the case upon W. R. in his charg∣ing the Pen-man (suppose my self or any other of our second day's Meeting) with Notorious Blasphemy, acting in the dark, being unworthy the name of a Man, numbering him among the Beasts at Ephesus, with whom Paul fought; having already proved him Vnreason∣able and Blasphemous, as boastingly and fals∣ly he pretends; comparing this also with what he saith of the said Treatise entituled, The Accuser of our Brethren cast down, viz. 'Tis with me to take a little notice thereof; I say again, a little notice, that so the Reader

may not think me so Impertinent as to trouble the Press with so great a Volumn, as a full An∣swer to every Impertinency, &c. Thus W. R. p. 14. chap. 2.

See now, at what a Villifying and Insult∣ing rate this man writes, and how Wicked and Despicable he has rendred the Pen-man, (as his term is.) Now [W. R.] supposing thou takest my self, or any other of my Brethren to be the Person thou chiefly smites at, how consistent art thou in thy work to spend so much Time, Labour and Cost in writing and printing against such a mean, inconsiderable and undeserving Person, in thy account, as unworthy the Name of a Man, but rather to be numbred among unrea∣sonable Beasts? One would think it should be far beneath a Person of thy Hight, Rank and Quality, as thy flourishing Vaunts be∣speak thee, thus to abase thy self, as to spend so much time and cost upon such an Inferior, Irrational and Inconsiderable Person in thy high Thoughts. But art not thou a great Defamer and Opposer in thy said Charge of Notorious Blasphemy, and of being unwor∣thy the Name of a Man, &c? Is this thy Christianity? Who will believe thee, think∣est thou, that are not of thy own Party? And seeing thou art pleased to signifie what little notice 'tis with thee to take of our Treatise, we cannot but take notice of thy lofty and

slighty way of writing. However, we have no reason to take this thy little Notice for an Answer; for thou hast collected and replied to so little of the matter, and hast so much given the GO-BY to the principal and greatest part of our said Treatise, as one that has found out the craft of Evasion, that 'tis a little notice indeed thou hast taken, and thy work deserves but little notice to be taken of by others, unless to evince thy Envy and its Falshood, &c. Thy pretence of Vnreasonableness in thy Respon∣dent, will not hide thy Loftiness and Con∣tempt, nor excuse thy shifting Evasions from those things that are most material and weighty upon thee; which every Ingenuous Reader may easily perceive, in comparing our said Treatise against the Accuser of the Brethren, and thy Seventh Part against ours together.

§. 6. Thou writes much in thy own Ju∣stification, and to clear thy self of giving judgment on Reports and Jealousies, though frequent in thy great Book: Thou on thy own behalf sayst, I can in Truth delare, that I have not at any time positively asserted any thing, but what I either know, or have had sufficient proof, as may render my Pen blameless therein, pag. 3.

Upon which I would seriously ask thee, What sufficient proof hast thou that that

was E. Burrough's Epistle, which thou hast cited for his Epistle, and positively asserted it two or three times to be E. B's Epistle in thy first part of the Christian-Quaker (falsly so called?) which I and many more do not believe it to be E. B's for divers causes; having seen John Parrots Name only to a Transcript of it in a Persons Hand, writing, i. e. J. Batho's, that was for a time an Admirer of J. P. How durst thou be so positive in asserting it to be E. B's? I dare Challenge thee to produce it under E. B.'s own hand, to any of us that knew his hand, if thou tookest it not up upon an Implicit belief, trust and report. As we can prove, thou hast written many things from thy own Jealousies and Reports, only with this provision in some other things, If Reports be true, &c. to save thee from the censure of drawing a positive Conclusion; and then what weight or credit does this add to much of thy Work?

And I would know, what sufficient proof thou hast of thy Story, That a Friend of known credit did declare, that twelve pence was paid in London, on demand of so much for a Certificate, in order to the Accomplishment of his Marriage, which otherwise might have been obstructed, p. 5. I pray thee produce thy Author and Informer for this Story, and what Friend of known Credit did so de∣clare?

for 'tis not credited by many. How∣ever, thou art positive in it, by the follow∣ing words, viz. This being done under the form of Government contended for, &c. Which I am sure is a positive Lye; for we have no such Action under the form of Govern∣ment contended for among us, as to obstruct any Marriage for Non-payment of twelve Pence for a Certificate. Such practice is so far from relating to Church Government among us, that 'twas never own'd by us, as to obstruct any Marriage on that account.

And what positive Proof hast thou, That the Manuscript of the Primmer, subscribed by G. F. and E. H. was sold for thirty Pound? Enquiry has been made about this Accusa∣tion, and 'tis positively deny'd by the Per∣son concerned; though these Stories thou hast instanced as tokens of Apostacy and Inno∣vation, p. 5.

And what if E. H. was a Clark for his yearly Salary, does that hinder his Credit in his signing our said Treatise on behalf of our Meeting? Or was his yearly Salary to extend to pay for all the many Certifi∣cates relating to Marriages, and the Expen∣ces thereupon, who many times was known to be deprived of his natural Rest, in wri∣ting to serve Truth and Friends? And was't not lawful for him to have a Liveli∣hood for his great pains in Truth's service,

who lost his place and livelihood for Truth, and ended his dayes in Peace? One would think, that W. R. should be ashamed to asperce or cloud his Reputation after his Death.

§. 7. His Reflection upon the Barbadoes Mee••ers (as he calls them) about a Subscrip∣tion, and upon G. F. my self, (and conse∣quently on A. P. who also was concerned with us) as seeming to sew Pillows under their Armholes, p. 4. appears Malicious, as well as Unjust, being a Subscription from the first exploded by us, and since seen in its defects, and condemned by themselves on our Christian Advice and real Dislike shewn them in our Epistle, which W. R. is so par∣tial and unjust, as to omit the words con∣taining our Judgment and Dislike of it. Hath not he and Francis Bugg and Tho. Crisp herein exactly resembled the Devil, the old Accuser of the Brethren, in accusing the Innocent, and charging Persons after Re∣pentance, with that which they have re∣pented of, which is Satan's unjust Prosecu∣tion? And W. R. unjustly also lays hold of these friendly and tender Expressions, wherein we shewed regard to Friendship, and answered that which was tender and good in them: For instead of shewing himself impartial and just, he minces and clouds the matter on our parts, only telling

the Reader, We seem to dislike the latter part thereof—And in other parts, seem to dislike the wording thereof, p. 4, & 28. But is not so honest as to give the Reader a particu∣lar Citation and Notice of our real judg∣ment in our own words in that case. As in dislike of their opposing the Judgment of the Spirit of God in the Meetings to any particular Measure. We plainly signified,

That this would be the way to bring them all from the measure of the Spirit in their own parti••••lars — 〈…〉〈…〉 all must be left to the universal Spirit in their own mea∣sures thereof —Now this would make the Belief, which is in the Light, and the measure of the Spirit in their own particulars, not one with the universal Spirit, &c. The universal Spirit of God has unity with the least measure now, as it was in the Apostles days, who kept every one to their own measure; which was both the great Rule and Line of the New Creature in the Believers and Saints then.

And in dislike of their subscription, we sig∣nified,

That all are to give up to the Uni∣versal Spirit of God in their own particu∣lars, in which spirit they have unity and fellowship, without outward subscription

—And further,

Now as for your Sub∣scription to an outward Tye, be above such things.

Now let the serious and impartial judge; Is not here a manifest Dislike shown, and Judgment given? And therefore the grea∣ter Injustice in our Adversary to cite the Paper from Barbadoes, either to prove us guilty of Aiming at Dominion and Lordship over Faith, Conscience and Property, pag. 4. or that the said Paper is one part of the fruits of the pretended establisht Government, as he most falsly saith, p. 27. And the Lordship over Estates and Consciences, he infers thence. He would deceitfully insinuate and charge upon us sewing Pillows under their Armholes, calling them dear Friends, with other tender Expressions; which when he has cited, without the words containing our Judg∣ment, as to Fact, he then says, THIS shews no dislike to the said Paper. Which is a very deceitful and unjust way of writing in Con∣troversie: I would not deal thus by the worst Adversary in the World, to entitle him to that which he has disowned, and to leave out the words of Dislike and Judgment on the Mistake or Error so disown'd, and to pick and take up those other words which are tender, relating to the Persons, and not to the Fact; and then to cry, This shews no dislike thereof, &c. What if THIS shews it not, when enough besides shews it? But is it indeed a Crime to call any dear Friends, who do commit an Error or Mistake? No

sure, that will not hold. Did not Paul call the Corinthians, DEARLY BELOVED, 1 Cor 10.14. (see James 1.16. compar'd with cap. 5.) and yet some among them did Err, were in Divisions, &c. 1 Cor. 3. And did he not call the Galatians BRETHREN? Gal. 6.18. yet charges them with being Foolish. Were not the seven Churches of Asia commended in many things, when yet there were a few things against divers of them? Rev 2 & 3 chapters. O Dis-inge∣nious Person, (W.R.) I am ashamed of thy Partial, Unconscionable & Unjust dealing! Is this thy best way to prove us guilty of aiming at Dominion and Lordship over Faith, Estates and Consciences? How miserably comest thou off in thy Evil Attempts!

§. 8. That We have given occasion to be rendred in some things as bad as Papists (or as having a Papistical Countenance, p. 5.) is a notorious Slander: And that in some other things we have given occasion to be rendred MUCH WORSE in our Practices and Treat∣ments, than the very Papists themselves, (p. 6.) is also a foul Reproach. And his excusing Pope Leo his Bull against Martin Luther, rather than our Friends, is no Proof, but rather shews himself more on the Popes side than on our Friends, having spoken more for Pope Leo the tenth than our

Friends, † 1.1 on the in∣stance he gives, to wit, That in the Popes Bull forty two Articles of Do∣ctrine, held by the said Martin, were mentioned, and declar'd Erronious; by which the World was notified of the reputed Crimes laid to his Charge. But in the Papers subscrib∣ed by Charles Marshall & Sixty five more, against J. W. and J. S. nothing that may properly be term∣ed particular matter of Fact, or Erronious Do∣ctrine is therein laid down, unless their general words now following may be term∣ed such, to wit, That they have Evil Designs, despise Heavenly Dignities, promote false Iealousies, set up a kind of a standard of Sepa∣ration, 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 Sepa∣rations 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 pro∣perly 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 Rea∣der 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; 'tis 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 Qua∣ker? 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-con∣demnation 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 Learn∣ed in the Truth; how the words [in the Truth] were left out, I know not. And yet a Per∣son being Learned in any respect, it can be no sin to say, He is Learned; whilst 'tis not to admire outward Learning or Acquirement above its place; which I am sure was not in∣tended 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 suppo∣sition 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 Idola∣try, 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 ••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 compa∣ring

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 ren∣der 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 Ho∣nour belongs to him, is not disputed. In the next place, He that Honours me, saith the Lord, him will I Honour. The Que∣stion is, Whether this Honour is not Eternal, (a parte post) that is, Everlasting to the Souls of the Righteous, whom God never for∣sakes? 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 per∣verts 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 mor∣tal 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 descri∣bed himself one unto whom Infallible Judgment hath been committed in all things, is denyed by G. F. though he owns the Judgment com∣mitted to him of God in matters of Salva∣tion and things Spiritual, to be Infallible.

§. 13. His Marginal Note appears mani∣festly untrue, viz. That he has not written one word to shew that such a sense is his sense, to wit, That he and some others of his party seem to be only for a select company of Elders and Deacons to order in Church Affairs about the Poor,

Marriages, &c. p. 11. What then means his exclaiming so much against our Meetings about Church Affairs, as being an uncertain number of uncertain qualified Persons? and his Brethrens Paper of Separation in West∣merland, quoted by him, plainly limiting to Chosen men, Chosen, Imployed and Autho∣rized by the Churches? see our said Treatise, pag 119, 120. Now if his sense was not for a select company, then he and his Bre∣thren Subscribers of the said Paper, are of contrary senses. But then how does he con∣sist therein with himself, in his charging us with Vsurpation, and upbraiding us, p. 19. with such a form of Church-Government, as hath admitted of no rightful Succession or Con∣stitution by Election, &c? What Founda∣tion or Certainty can we find in this mans writing? One while he is comparing us with the Pope, another while he charges us with Vsurpation, for want of rightful Succes∣sion or Constitution of any Supream Person or Persons, pag. 19. This is the man that would seem to oppose Popery so much, whilst he is bringing a Popish plea of Succes∣sion against us. But this is like much of his Work: I wish he were better com∣posed.

§. 14. He pretends greatly to be for an Amicable Conference, p. 12. whilst he is so far from Amity, that he has appeared an

open Enemy, abusing and reviling us in Print

And what, if his Letter was not read publickly at our yearly Meeting, at the time of its being delivered? What reason had Friends to interrupt their publick and weighty concerns of Truth with the then reading of an Adversary's letter? especially seeing divers of us took care to answer him therein so soon as the Meeting was over; and were not wanting afterward to give him a Meeting thereupon.

His charging us with a piece of meer Hy∣pocrisie and Deceit for pretending to Amicable Conference, is a sordid Abuse to my know∣ledge: For many of us have not been awanting in that case, but have been ready to Amicable Conference, before W. R. and some of Party with him, turned open Ad∣versaries, Gain-sayers and Enemies to us, whose Enmity has made them, (especially him) uncapable of Amicable Conference. And he may be ashamed of his pretended seasonable Hue and Cry after the Name of the Pen-man; his Hue and Cry shews his own Complexion and Image not to be innocent.

And his Charge of the Fruits of manifest Injustice, that his Letter was not read in our yearly Assembly, being (he says) a Letter from a Friend, especially when not Excommu∣nicated. This is unjust and untrue in the

first place, and shews an imperious, Lordly, Exalted Spirit, thus to charge us with ma∣nifest Injustice: And why so? but because we did not serve his turn, we did not ob∣serve his time and manner in reading his Letter, when and where he would have had us: We did not lay all the weighty Affairs of Friends and Truth aside presently to read William Rogers's Letter; we did not gratifie his Irregular interposing; and there∣fore we must now be censured in Print, charg'd with Irregularity, Answering with∣out order of the Meeting, Lordship and slavish Submission, fruits of manifest Injustice, &c. He seems very hot on this occasion, and a Person very strict and zealous for Regularity and Order of the Meeting, when he thinks it may serve his own turn: But at other times he hugely exclaims against Out∣ward Vniformity, Orders, outward Rules, Prescriptions, Directions, Imposition, &c. But now it seems, it is against such as are not of his own setting up or imposing. And yet he most highly justifies whatever he has written; which we either pretend to answer, or to shew dissatisfaction in, as remaining unde∣tected, and in no respect unbecoming a Christian Pen, p. 14. We have only his own Self-com∣mendation for this; wherein his Self-con∣fidence and wilful Blindness is to be won∣dered at.

Notes

• † 1.1

  A Pope reputed no better than an A∣theist, a Prophaner of the holy Scriptures, a Person careless of Religion and Piety; an Avaritious Cor∣rupt Person, who made great advan∣tage of his impious Indulgencies & Par∣dons, &c How un∣just & impious there∣fore is our Adversary W R. to rake so many Instancies (as he hath done) out of the History of the Council of Trent, of Wicked Popes and their Agents, to com∣pare, brand and scan∣dalize Us or any of our Friends withal, who abhor Popery and all the Popes Corruptions.