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. II. (Book 2)

§. 1. W. R. questions Ellis Hookes's Credit, and grosly abuseth our Meeting in London, for writing in behalf of our publick Meetings and People called Quakers. §. 2. Of the inward Government and spiritual Kingdom of Christ in his Church. How far his Mi∣nisters or Servants are concerned therein as Instruments in his hand: Not strictly Re∣presentatives thereof. Our Propositions therein unanswered by W. R. He evades and gives the GO-BY to them. §. 3. His late opposition to visible Persons being invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws, Orders, &c. in an outward form of Government, now Overthrown by himself, and the point gain'd upon his own Variation and Concession, and he farther questioned in the point. §. 4. His mistake in his Al∣lusion against representing the Government of the King, and concerning his Prerogative, W. R. unskilful in the point. §. 5. Of the Cause espoused by us, no other than the Cause of Christ his Church and People. W. R. like a persecuting Informer, his work tending to bring more severe Persecution upon us; his representing us as in seeming Vnion with the

Papistical party, and comparing us with Popes, the Church of Rome, &c. Devilish, Malicious and Fallacious, yet most silly and impertinent, and his Resemblances full of Falshood, and his Similitudes abusive and shallow, bringing great Reflection upon him∣self, acting the part of a silly Sophister, yet proud and scornful. §. 6. W. R's Cry for Justice against G. F. and who must be the Judges, and what Judicature, qustioned. His malicious, dubious & proofless Reflections upon the Pen-man, Ministring Friends and yearly Meetings, and comparing them to the Popes General Councils; and his Instance of the Bishop of Bitonto's Commendation of Pope Paul the third (with his Blasphemous Doctrine about the Light) prov'd unjust, and the Similitude impertinent and grosly false, &c. His accounts against Popes, &c. (gathered out of the History of the Council of Trent) he unjustly applies to our Friends▪ §. 7. His Similitude of Disumon, with the Pope, to render us worse than he: And his Comparison between our Friends and the Po∣pish Lords Inquisitors, and his uncharitable Censure about punishing his Body, and taking away his Estate, all unjust. Of our stand∣ing by our Treatise entituled, The Accuser, &c.

§. 1. HIs questioning the Credit of Ellis Hookes, A Clark for his yearly Salary (as he calls him) and insinuating against the Meeting, for whom he was a witness, as not meriting the Name of Sober Conscientious Quakers; and as being infatu∣ated, &c. cap. 2. p. 15. And why so, but because they wrote in the Name of publick Meetings, & in the Name of the People call'd Quakers? Does this prove them Infatuated, or unworthy the Name of Sober Conscienti∣ous Quakers? 'Tis a wonder he is not ashamed thus manifestly to scandalize and abuse so many Conscientious, Sober and Un∣derstanding Persons, when he knew not who they were in particular. Have we not often writ in the name and behalf of our Friends & People call'd Quakers, in their Vindication from the opposition and abuses of Opposers and Gain-sayers of Truth, in matters known to be universally own'd by them; and this both with their tacit Consent and Approba∣tion? Must we seek for a Deputation from the People called Quakers throughout England, &c. in all Cases wherein there is a present necessity of their Vindication, when generally abused in Print by Adver∣saries of divers sorts? For I tell W. R. he merits not so much as the Name of a Qua∣ker, in abusing at least the major part of

them in Print, as he has done, to render them Popish, Odious and Infamous, and ra∣ther justifying the Pope, and Lords of the Spanish Inquisition, p. 21. than many of them. And his disaffected Party are not so numerous as he would have us think, p. 23. far short (to be sure) of those he writes against and abuseth in Print; for his smiting at the publick and faithful Ministers (who are approved of most generally by the People called Quakers) is a Reflection and Scandal upon that People.

§. 2. Our observation on the 42d Disaf∣fection shews, that our Objection lies not against the outward Government under which we live, nor yet against the inward Govern∣ment of Christ; for Christ's inward Go∣vernment in his Church, and his spiritual Kingdom and extent thereof, as also our innocent Conversations towards the out∣ward Government, we have plainly asserted in our Treatise against the Accuser, pag. 114, 115, 116, & 118. Though W. R's words are cited at large, more fully to shew his sense and distinction upon the inward Government of Christ, where he adds, viz. Which is not represented by Persons visible by carnal Eyes, invested with Power from him to execute outward Laws, Prescriptions, Orders, Edicts or Decrees, in an outward form of Go∣vernment visible. Wherein we reasonably

took his Objection to lie as much against visible Persons being so invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws, Pre∣scriptions, &c. and against an outward Form of Government, visible in his Church, as a∣gainst Christ's Government being Represented by Persons visible. But now he pitches his Ob∣jection upon the word [REPRESENTED] questioning, Whether it is not a Contradiction in common sense, to conclude, That Persons visible can be the Representatives of the in∣ward Government of Christ? Which was not our Assertion; nor did we con∣clude, that Persons visible are the Represen∣tatives of Christ's inward Government, in a strict sence, absolutely or solely as in Christ's stead: And therefore his Obje∣ction supposes that to be our position, which we never asserted. Yet not to loose nor lessen any part of Christs Government, we have plainly asserted,

That 'tis exercised by him both Immediately and Instrumentally in his Church: Immediately and princi∣pally by himself; and Instrumentally (in some measure) by his Ministers and Ser∣vants, as well as he teaches and instructs both Immediately and Instrumentally;

as in our first and second unanswered Propo∣sitions about Church Government. And therefore as we prefer Christ's inward and immediate Government by himself as

Principal, and his governing Instrumentally by his Servants: But in some Measure (as our words are) this shews, that we do not render them the absolute Representatives of his inward Government and spiritual King∣dom; though we may truly and tenderly assert, They do by the inward Assistance of the Power and Spirit of Christ, in some measure livingly represent or signifie, declare and shew forth the inward and spiritual Go∣vernment of Christ, as being his faithful Servants and Ambassadours; yea, some are called Ambassadours in Christ's stead, in and through whom Christ ministers, instructs, commands, orders and rules. And the holy Ghost made some Overseers, and ap∣pointed Helps and Governments in the Church (as we have laid down in our third Proposition)

Especially for the sake of the younger and weaker Members, Children and such as are of under Age, as to Truth and experience in the work of the Lord.

Our Adversary answers not this Proposition, which is so plain, tender and submissive to Christ, in his behalf and preference: And therefore W. R's inferring and charging the fruit of a confused Anarchical Principle on us (in reference to our said Disaffection) follows not in Truth, but rather shews it to be the fruit of his own Prejudice and Enmity. From whence also his scornful Question

proceeds, viz. Whether the Pen-man hath known, and hath in pivate a Catalogue of the Names of such visible Persons, whom he may esteem the Representatives of Christ's inward Government? pag. 16, 17. He fallaciously obtrudes and imposes his word REPRE∣SENTATIVES still in this case upon us, extending it beyond our Intention, and what our words will bear; craftily evading and giving the GO-BY to our Propositions in the Case, where we signifie, That IN SOME MEASURE Christ governs Instru∣mentally, &c. see our five Propositions in our said Treatise against the Accuser of the Brethren, p. 114, 115, 116.

§. 3. Whereas we took his opposition to be against visible Persons being concerned in an outward form of Government, and order in the Church of Christ. Hereupon he shews himself very angry, and exclaims against the weight of the Pen-man's Iniquity, charges him with Prevarication, insinuating, as if ac∣cording to my Principle (says he) there were not visible order and form of Government un∣der Christs Dominion, nor any visible Persons exercised in any outward Order under his Go∣vernment, p. 43. Whereby he has now plainly granted, that according to his Prin∣ciple, there is both visible Order, and a form of Government under Christs dominion, and Visible Persons exercised in an outward order

under his Government (for in the two con∣traries, his disowning the one, owns the other; his opposing the Negative grants the Affirmative herein.) But he then should have writ more distinctively, consistently and plain, in telling us, What visible and outward form of Government and Order▪ he would set up? And what has he so much exclaim'd against, and not to have appear∣ed so general in his opposition to outward Orders, Forms, Rules, Prescriptions, Decrees, &c. as he has done in divers passages of his Book; and particularly, that in his first part of his Christian-Quaker, p. 73. in his opposing the Establishment, or giving forth of outward Orders, Prescriptions, Sentences or Decrees, as a Bond on the Consciences of Believers, rendring this more like the Old than the New Covenant. And his oppo∣sing Visible Persons being invested with Power from Christ to execute outward Laws, Prescriptions, Orders, Edicts or Decrees in an outward form of Govern∣ment visible; as 'tis plain in the Title-page of his third part. The frequent Reiteration of these and such like passages and Words, shew his Ob∣jection was against Visible Persons being im∣powered by Christ to execute (or mi∣nister)

† 1.1 outward Laws, Orders, &c. in a visible and outward form of Government; else what needed he write so slightily & frequent∣ly against outward and visible form of Govern∣ment, outward Laws, Edicts, Prescriptions, Orders, Decrees, &c? What's all his Noise come to on this ac∣count? Now he would not be thought, that his Principle is against visible Order and Form of Government under Christ's Domi∣nion; Nor against some visible Persons being exercised in some outward Order under his Go∣vernment: Thus far the point is granted and gain'd upon him, and his Concession thereto the farther confirm'd, in deeming our rendring his great Book to be against Church-Government, outward Methods, Or∣ders and Rules, &c. A false Assertion; Though we cannot reckon that Book of his to look with a better Face in the mian pur∣port and Series of it, especially considering his Third part, from what's mentioned in the Title, and against R. Barclay's Book for Church-Government, and in many other places and passages of that Book, and in his Epistle in this his 7th part he is smiting at Establish∣ing an outward Vniformity, outward Things,

outward Directory, &c. But now we must take his meaning and principle to be not against visible Order and visible Form of Go∣vernment under Christ's dominion, nor against visible Persons being exercised therin; How then shall we understand his meaning and principle? Why did he not then more plainly distinguish it first, and brought the Controversie into a more narrow compass, and not have writ thus confusedly and shat∣teredly, one while against, another while for visible outward Order and Form of Govern∣ment under Christs Dominion in his Church. [As in this Treatise the matter is further Evinced against him hereafter.]

But wherein lies his Charge of Prevari∣cation? He gives us to know, it is in twi∣ning the Word REPRESENTED into CONCERNED, pag. 43. We are yet to seek and study, how to find this Prevari∣cation pretended, considering the purport, tenure and conexion of his Words. For though now he owns visible Persons to be exercised or concerned in an outward Form of Government and Order under Christ's Dominion; yet not that his inward Govern∣ment is represented by them; yet his Di∣stinction before excluding visible Persons not only from representing Christ's inward Government, but also from being invested with Power to execute (i. e. to minister,

give forth, or put in practice) outward Laws, Edicts, &c. in an outward Form of Government Visible, appears to bespeak his sense than to exclude them from being con∣cerned in an outward Form of Government and Order in the Church of Christ under his Dominion. For if they do in no sense or degree represent Christ's Government, how are they concern'd in it? And if they have no power to execute (minister, or put in practice) outward Order and Form of Go∣vernment visible: How are they either ex∣ercised or concerned in an outward form or order of Government under Christ's dominion? But this is now granted us in the Affirmative So then, wherein must we understand W. R's opposition to lie against outward Order, out∣ward Form of Church-Government, outward Laws, Edicts, Rules, Prescriptions, &c? I presume, not against any of his own ma∣king, but against such as he calls G. Fox's, &c. as he has told us of a slighting G. F's Rules, Methods and Orders, with respect to Church-Government; see the Accuser, &c. pag. 83. But then I would know, whe∣ther it is against all, or some, that G. F. has writ or given out? If he says, not against all, but some; then I intreat him to let's know, what SOME they are particularly? What Instructions, Rules or Methods they are he Condemns, and that he deems condem∣nable,

as evil or unlawful in themselves? We have divers times prest for a Catalogue of them, that the Controversie might be more plainly distinguishable, and brought into a narrow compass, which now lies not only prolix and tedious in W. R's Books, but also scattered, confused and ambiguous in his Writings, wanting in many places the supplement of his latter Thoughts and Meanings: So that when he has write one Book, it wants another to declare its mean∣ing; he has taken a great compass to write a very little matter in.

§. 4. For his distinction between the words Represented and Concerned, he says, That many thousands are exercised in an out∣ward Order, under the Government of the King, who if they should thence declare, that they are the Representatives of his Govern∣ment, 'twould be deem'd a Mood of Speech, tending to the annihillating of the King's Pre∣rogative: And concludes the like in relation to Christ's Prerogative, p. 43. But herein the man is under a Mistake; in this Allusion, his skill in the Law, and the King's Pre∣rogative and Government has fail'd him in this point. For the King's Government is represented in all Courts of Judicature, legally acting in his Name and by his Power, whereby the King is look't upon to be present in all his Courts: Yea, every

legal Minister and Conservator of the King's Peace, even from the Justice to the Sheriff & Constable or Peace-Officer does in his place and legal Office in some degree re∣present the Kings Government, in the doing Justice and Conservation of his Peace: And this no ways lessens, but promotes the King's legal Prerogative. For the King in the Eye of the Law is Justitiarius Capitalis, the Head or chief Justice, and hath his subordinate Ministers and Justices under him, legally impowered by him, according to his just and legal Prerogative. Now seeing W. R. is so much out, and has lost his aim in his Comparison, these things are mentioned to rectifie his Judgment; And the Compa∣rison, as now stated, may be better applied to Christ's Kingdom and Government, who though he be the chief Overseer and Shepherd, the great Apostle and Minister, the great Ruler and Governour, &c. he has his Overseers, his Apostles, his Mini∣sters and Servants and Helps in Govern∣ment, which is none other than Christ's Government in his Church and Kingdom, and under his Dominion; which I hope our Opposer dare not deny, however he differ with us in the Application.

§. 5. As concerning an Angry Waspish Pen, wherewith thou twice over chargest the Pen-man, adding, That the more he stirs

therewith, the more will the Cause, which he espouseth, stink, pag. 17, & 44. I must tell thee, first, I never met with a more Angry Waspish Pen than thy own; though thy Malice and Wickedness hath been (in divers parts of our Book) deservedly reprehend∣ed, thou hast in much thereof been mildly treated. 2dly, I know no cause espoused by us therein, than the Cause of Christ his Church and People, which will live and re∣main sweet and pretious to all the upright in Heart, when thy malicious Work and cor∣rupt Cause will more and more appear naucious, loathsom, and stink above ground, till swept into the Pit from whence it came, and which thou art very near, and without Repentance canst not escape it. 3dly, What occasion have we (or any of us) given thee to rage and roar against us, and like a persecuting Informer, to go about to expose us in Print, tending to disgust Authority▪ and to bring more severe Persecution upon us, as seeming to be at Vnion with the Papisti∣cal party? pretending to discover Principles and Practices relating to George Fox and hi•• Party (as thou callest them) that run parale•• with the Church of Rome. And then to excuse this thy persecuting Cain-like and Judas-like work against us, thou falsly placest it on the Will of the Lord, saying▪ The Will of the Lord be done, p. 17. (whils••

thou art doing the Will of the Devil, thy Master and Father of Lyes and Lyars) ad∣ding, That 'tis but just that Deceit and Ido∣latry should be discovered in whomsoever, &c. p. 18. But come on; That thou dost, do quickly. Let's see what exact Similitudes and eminent Discoveries thou hast shewn and made of our seeming Vnion and Paralel with the Church of Rome. Thus thou at∣tempts it, viz.

1st, 'Tis affirmed of the Pope, that he is Christ's Vicar on Earth—Accounts himself in∣vested with Power to execute outward Laws, Edicts and Decrees: Herein (sayst thou) I place not much difference between the Pope, on the one part, and the Pen-man and some of his the Brethren on the other. And why so? The Pen-man and his Brethren (sayst thou) account themselves the Representatives of Christ's in∣ward Government over the Conscience, p. 18. That's an Untruth by the way, and none of our words, but a scornful Pervertion: Where did we so account our selves? 'Tis improper and unsound to say, That visible Men or finite Creatures are the Representatives of Christs inward spiritual Government over the Conscience; which is endless, and where Christ himself reigns. Where did we ever assume a Government in Christ's stead over the Conscience? But only as his Ser∣vants and Witnesses, by his Spirit do com∣mend

our selves to every mans Conscience in the sight of God, and thereby only re∣present or shew forth by sound Doctrine and good Conversation, That Christ must rule and be obey'd as the Head of his Church; which vastly differs from the Pope's false sence of his being Christ's Vicar or Representative on Earth. Thou addest, viz. And that they are invested with Power to execute outward Laws, Edicts and Decrees. And what follows on thy discovery and similitude? Therefore the Pope and G. F. and his Party seem to be in Vnion, and run Pa∣ralel with the Church of Rome: That's false. The true Apostles and primitive Christians had outward Laws, Commands, Decrees, &c. which they practised: So hath the Pope and the Church of Rome (though not the same.) What follows? Did they therefore seem to be in Union? Thy Simi∣litude and Inference are fallacious. We differ in the Power and Manner of Execu∣tion; and our Laws and Decrees, which Christ hath given us, differ from the Popes. The Popes Power is Carnal and Coercive: Ours, Spiritual and Perswasive. The Popes Ecclesiastical Laws, Edicts, Canons and Decrees are to promote a false Church, Idolatrous Worship and Superstition: Our Laws and Decrees, &c. are first writ∣ten in our Hearts, and taught us by Christ

Jesus, enjoyning us to eye, believe and fol∣low him, as our Rock, our Way and Lea∣der in Holiness and Purity of Life and Conversation. Therefore thy Comparison is silly and abusive here, as well as Mali∣cious: The Pope claims a succes∣sion from Peter and Peter's Pri∣macy, * 1.2 (as their term is) as the Rock and Foundation of the Church: So do not we, but deny that Do∣ctrine as false, believing and owning Christ to be the Rock and Foundation; nor yet do we assume or pretend any Priviledge, Power or Authority over Christ's Church from an outward succession, but only being Christ's Witnesses, Ministers, Servants and Ambassadours, are assisted by his imme∣diate Presence, Power and Wisdom with us, to assist, order and govern us in his service, and the service of one another in love.

Again, thou proceedest in thy Similitudes, viz. 2dly, The Pope likewise affirms, that the Church of Rome is the true Church, and —in the true Faith: The Romish Clergy teach, that we must believe as the Church believes. Herein I cannot justly place much difference be∣tween the Popish Clergy and Pen-man, if he approved this Doctrine; viz.

The true Church is in the true Faith that is in God; and we must either believe thus as the true

Church believes, or else it were but both a Folly and Hypocrisie to profess our selves Members thereof, pag. 18.

Thus thou wouldst make me (whom I presume thou intendest) to resemble the Pope and his Clergy, and to seem to be in union with them: But dost thou not own the Doctrine to be true in it self, viz. 1st, That the true Church is in the true Faith that is in God; And darest thou deny this? What sayest thou to it? Speak out man, and be plain to the Point. 2dly, That we must ei∣ther believe THUS (i. e in God) as the true Church believes, or else 'twere Hypo∣crisie to profess our selves Members there∣of. If thou canst not deny the Doctrine in it self, why hast thou made this an In∣stance of our seeming to be in union with the Popish party? For thou knowest in thy Conscience; first, That it was not spoken of the Church of Rome, but in general of the true Church, whose Faith is IN GOD, which we neither believe of the Church of Rome, nor does the Church of Rome believe so of us. Where's then our seeming Union? secondly, To believe in God as the true Church doth, herein the true Church is made an instance and example of Faith in God, not to make the Church's believing this or that, the sole Reason and Cause of my (or our) believing the same, this were Implicit; 'tis as, not

because; for Christ, who is God, is the ori∣ginal & efficient cause both of the Church's and my Faith, which is in him, which is the one, living, substantial Faith, wherein is Unity. Whilst thou canst not confute the said Doctrine, behold thy Similitude, what an empty FALSE SHEW it is: What real Protestants in Europe could escape thy Cen∣sure of Resembling the Pope and his party (nay, how canst thou escape thy self) upon such Fallacious Similitudes as thou hast in∣vented against us? The Pope and his party believe there there is a God, a Christ, a Heaven, a Hell, Immortality, future states: So do all true Protestants. What follows according to thy Similitude? Ergo, all true Protestants seem to be at union with the Pope and his party. The Pope and his party be∣lieve there is one true ••••iversal Church, and one true Faith: So do the Protestants, but not so of each other, they are not in Union; no more are we with the Pope or his party, but with the best Reformed Protestants, wherein they differ'd from, and oppos'd the Church of Rome. The Pope believes he is a true Christian, and no Apostate: So dost thou (W. R.) believe thou art a true Chri∣stian, &c. What follows? Ergo, thou dost Resemble the Pope, and seemest to be at Union with the Papistical party: Is not this (argumentum ad hominem) like thy Simili∣tudes?

and more resembling them, than thou hast resembled G. F. and his party to the Pope and Church of Rome. How like a silly Sophister hast thou argued? Mayest thou not blush and be ashamed of such silly Impertinent, yet abusive Scri••ling, vain Shews, fallacious and abusive Similitudes? But Truth has defaced thy Pictures and I∣mages, and discovered thy empty Shews and Legerdemain Tricks, thy Pride and Scorn against the Innocent.

Thou proceedest in thy Similitudes, viz. 3dly, The Popish Clergy think it not fit that the Laity should undertake to treat on points of Divinity, or concern their heads with that, otherwise than to receive those things in the sence the Clergy teacheth. This bespeaks little of any difference at all between the Pen-man and the Popish Clergy (••nd why so?) The Pen-man on the occasion of my writing some-what touching Doctine, thus saith, viz.

This man who is thus discomposed in his work, should not have medled so much with points of Divinity, which he appears so little skilful in, p. 18.

What was thy design in this Instance, but to render the Pen-man and our second days Meeting so far at unity with the Popish Clergy, as not to allow the Laity to treat on points of Divinity? Thou mightst as well have said, that we think not fit that any Lay∣men

should preach among us, which were notoriously false, and against our selves and Practice, and contrary to our constant Testimony, who are no Clergy-men, but Lay-men * 1.3 (so called) Be∣sides, our saying, Thou shouldst not have med∣led so much with points of Divinity, was not because thou art one of the Laity, and not a Clergy-man, but because of thy discomposedness in thy work, and thy appearing so little skilful in some points of Divinity thou didst medle in. See now how perverting and fallacious still thou art in thy similitudes.

But to proceed on thy Fallacies, viz. 4thly, Some have esteemed the Authority of the Pope above the Authority of an Oecumenical or General Council, but some others the con∣trary; yet both have agreed, that the Autho∣rity accompanying the one of them, hath been the highest in the Church, from whence no appeal on Earth In this I cannot of knowledge place much difference between my Adversaries and the Romish Church, because I know not but that G. F. may be by some declared to be invested with a greater Authority than the Ge∣neral Meeting; neither can I deny, but that

the General Meeting may be by others esteemed to be invested with greater Authority than he, p. 19.

See now, what amounts thy Similitude unto here? Thou canst not of knowledge place much difference, &c. because thou knowest not but that G. F. MAY BE by some so de∣clared, &c. Instead of shewing Resem∣blance or a Similitude and seeming Union between us and the Romish Church, now thy proof is come to [I KNOW NOT BVT, &c.] and to a [G. F. MAY BE, &c.] And then again, thou canst not deny but that the General Meeting may be by others esteemed, &c. as before. So thy May-be's are thy Discoveries before pretended: See thy impertinent trifling. But thou knowest, that the Authority and Power of our Mee∣tings has been frequently declared to be the Power of God, which is the same in all Meetings of his faithful People: We place not the Authority upon any Meeting or Number of Persons, meerly as a Meeting, but upon the Presence and Power of Christ in that Meeting; for he is our great and wonderful Counsellor.

§. 6. 5thly, What Cry for Justice is it thou complainest hath not been hearkned unto in London, when relating to G. F? Was it a Cry for thee to be heard against G. F. in his presence or absence? or was it Justice

for thee to be heard read the Papers or Indictments against him, when he was many Miles distant? It seems thou art for Judg∣ment against G. F. but who must be the Judges, and where the Judicature? Not thy self and Party, for ye are a party extream against him; not those thou hast judged Apostates and of party with G. F. for they are incompetent (in thy own account) for thee to appeal to; not the World, for they are unmeet to judge of spiritual differences; for the Saints shall judge the World. If thou sayst, 'Tis the Church of Christ thou wouldst appeal to for Justice against G. F. this grants the Church a Power of Judgment and Determination in matters relating to Conscience, contrary to thy own Principle and Doctrine. And then, where is that Church of Christ thou wouldst appeal unto, that is neither of thy party, nor of G. F's? Now consider where thou art run. And why dost thou go on with thy jealous Re∣flections upon the Pen-man, when thou canst neither write positively, nor hast proof against him, saying, It is well if the endea∣vours of the Pen-man (who peradventure may expect advance by Vsurpation in the Govern∣ment contended for) be not as great to keep off the stroke of Justice, when as relating to G. F. as Cardinal Scomberges were to keep off the Reformation from the Court of Rome, &c. p. 19.

What proof is all this against the Pen-man, but to expose thy Malice and dubi∣ous (as well as proofless) Reflections to open censure? Instead of Proof, thou presents us with thy [If] and with thy [Peradventure] Whereas the Pen-man can appeal to the righteous Judge of all and Heart-searcher, against thy Defaming and false Insinuation of expecting advancement by Vsurpation in Government, keeping off the stroke of Justice; both which my Soul loaths. As an humble Subject under Christ's Go∣vernment, I only oppose the stroke of the envious revengeful Spirit in thee and other Apostates, &c. as I really judge it my Duty.

5thly, And what if it be reputed, That G. F. originally called Ministring Friends to General Meetings Yearly? (or was Instru∣mental therein) as thou sayest, p. 20. Doth this seem to have union with the Popes calling General Councils consisting of the Clergy? Did not the Primitive Apostles and Elders some∣times assemble, and that long before there were Popes or their Councils? Were they therefore to be compared to the Popes and their General Councils? Our placing the Ground of the Controversie on an opposite dark Spirit on thy and thy Abettors part, is true; and so it is also, that thy opposi∣tion to many Faithful Servants of Christ, was the Fruit of Darkness, and no just

comparison with the Bishop of Bitonto's commendation of Pope Paul the third, nor with his exhorting all to submit to that Council, which if they do not, it will be justly said, the Popes Light is come into the World, and men love Darkness better than Light, (as thou cites him in this blasphemous Doctrine) and to add to this Unjust and Impertinent Instance or Similitude, thou insinuatest by Query, Whe∣ther that Expression may be a proper Looking-glass for the Pen-man and G. Fox, to see their Faces in, when they conclude it the Fruit of Darkness not to submit to their Councils and outward Directories? I shall leave to the con∣sideration of the unprejudiced understanding Reader. [Thus far thou] p. 20.

What expression a Proper Looking-Glass? The Bishop's saying, The Popes Light is come into the World, and men love Darkness better than Light? Is this thy proper Look∣ing-Glass to see our Faces in? 'Tis but a dull one. Where did we ever in all our Councils, Expressions or outward Directo∣ries (as thou callest them) so much as re∣semble such false Doctrine and Blasphemy? No, we abhor it. What a false Looking-Glass hast thou presented here? It serves only to shew how Evil and False thy Eye is, and how bad thy Sight is; how Imperti∣nently and Sordidly hast thou cast upon ma∣ny Servants of Christ those accounts against

Popes, &c. which thou hast gathered out of the History of the Council of Trent? And how easie is it to make Books at that rate? Thou hast known better things of the Ministers of Christ's Light among us, than thus to represent them with thy false Simi∣litudes; and mayest remember, that our frequent Testimony has been (as still it is) to excite People to Christ's Light within, as being that true Light which is come into the World, and to his Counsel that proceeds from his Light; and not to the Pope nor any of his Councils. And thy pretended Godly Jealousie, That G. F. hath been en∣deavouring to exhalt his own Imaginations in∣stead of Christ's Light, appears Ungodly and False, as many more of thy Jealousies (which are no Proofs) do.

§. 7. And now thy Similitudes of Dis∣union or difference between the Pope and G. F. and his Friends, p. 21, 22. to render him and them worse than the Pope, are as scornful and wicked as thy former; as for instance, to thy saying, The Pope publisheth his Bull or Decree in his Name; and doth not usually say, 'tis not for want of freeness in Spi∣rit that I desire my Name should be hid: But it appears to me that the Pen-man was ASHA∣MED that his Name should be publisht with the great Bull, entituled, The Accuser of the Brethren cast down. [Thus thou] where∣in

thou hast told a gross Perver∣sion and Untruth; for the Pen-man neither said, I desire my Name should be hid, nor yet was he ASHAMED that his Name should be publisht with that Book thou falsly and scornfully callest, The Great Bull; nor doth he or any others concern'd therein, find any Cause to be ashamed thereof, but to stand by it against thy Malice and Abuses in thy Great Bull, as it may be rather term'd, for thy attempting therein to Unchristian and Unchurch a great number of faithful Servants of Christ.

Again, the Reason thou givest, why thy Adversaries (as thou callest us) have not pu∣nisht thy Body, nor taken away any of thy E∣state, is, But blessed be the Lord, they have no Power so to do. Herein thou accountest is some little difference between them (thou smites at) and the Lords Inquisitors of the Popish Inquisition, p. 21. I must tell thee, I think this a very Uncharitable censure and smi∣ting, implying that they would both punish thy Body, and take away thy Estate, and so be as bad as the Lords of the Spanish Inquisition, if they had but Power so to do. Which be∣speaks great Prejudice and Darkness to have entred thee. And then, to aggravate the matter, thou turnest it about again, That they (i. e. thy Adversaries) have not suffer∣ed thee to see the Faces or know the Names of

thy Judges: In that respect (sayst thou) the Lords of the Spanish Inquisition have been ore just, p. 21.

How odiously and grosly hast thou here represented thy Opposers, who have not divulg'd their Names against thee, of whom I take the Pen-man (and thee to mean my self) to be one; And if so, I must tell thee, thou hast insinuated a gross Slander, to render the Lords of the Spanish Inquisition more just; and by a Lye justifiest the Papists, who clap men up in Prison all their dayes, never letting them know their Accusers; (see the History of the Inquisition) for though the name of the Writer was not divulged with that Treatise entituled, The Accu∣ser, &c. Many others have given their Names in the same judgment concerning thee and thy work of Discord and Enmity, and many more also do own and stand by that Judgment and Treatise: And I must farther tell thee in the sight of God, I see no cause to retract, but to stand by that Treatise, and own my share in it, notwith∣standing thy opposition to the contrary, picking, and nibbling, and quarrelling here and there, but giving the GO-BY to the most material parts thereof, wherein the Controversie is most fully opened and di∣stinguished.

Of those Popes with whom W. R. compares our Friends.

§. 8. Seeing W.R. esteems the Popes, (yea, even the worst of them) good enough to bring us in comparison with, and to cite and make them as Instances against us. As,

Pope Leo the Tenth, p. 6, & 22.

Pope Paul the Third, p. 19, & 28.

Pope Julius the Third, p. 31.

It may not be amiss to give some descripti∣on of these Popes, according to a late History or Abstract of the Lives of the Popes, printed Anno 1679.

Among the Atheists

Leo the Tenth is ranked, who hearing Cardinal Bembo speaking to a point con∣cerning the joyful Message of our Lord, answered most dissolutely, It is well known to the World, through all Ages, in how great stead that Fable of Christ hath profitted us and our Associates. This man neither be∣lieved Heaven nor Hell after our departure out of this Life. And such were Alex∣ander the 10th, Sylvester the 2d, PAVL the 3d, Benedict the 19th, John the 13th, Clement the 7th and Gregory the 7th.

Among the Magicians & Conjurers

Paul the Third is ranked, as having ob∣tained the Garland in Astrology, and in that kind of Speculation which is assisted by the Ministry of Devils. He altogether kept familiar Acquaintance with Negro∣mancers, and such like Imposters, &c.

Among Warriours & Blood-succors.

Paul the Third was also accounted, viz. A great Persecutor of the Saints of God, raised and fomented the German War, which proved the Destruction of many thousand Families.

Among Paricides & Impoysoners.

Paul the Third also impoisoned his Mo∣ther and Niece, that the whole Inheri∣tance of the Farniesian Family might accrew to himself. His other Sister also, whom be carnally knew upon fancying her freeness to others, he slew by Poyson. And so he is recorded among Incestuous Persons also.

Among the Favourites of Whores.

Its said, That Paul the Third kept a Roll of forty five Thousand Whores, who paid him a Monethly Tribute.

Among Sodomites.

Julius the Third used one Innocent as his Minion, and created him Cardinal.

Of whom this account is also given (in Dr. Gilb. Burnet's History of Reformation, Book 2. Abridgment, pag. 121.) viz.

That Pope Julius the Third (when Cardinal Pool was rejected for his being too good) was chosen for his Badness, who gave his place of Car∣dinal to his man that kept his Munkey, saying, He saw as much in his Man to make him Cardinal, as the Cardinals saw in him to make him Pope.

Query,What worse Persons upon Earth could our Adversary have compared G. F. and Friends unto, or brought in Comparison against them in Church Pro∣ceedings or Spiritual Censures? Behold his horrid Injustice and Envy!

Notes

• † 1.1

  By [Execute] I un∣derstand minister or put in Practice, and not in the common Law sence of inflicting corporal or pecuniary Punishments; for that's not consistent with the Government of a Christian Church.
• * 1.2

  See Rh••. Annotat. fol. 572.
• * 1.3

  But I suppose he hath a reserved and other sence for his Distinction between Clergy and Laity here, than the common sence ••nd distinction: 'Tis some reflecting reserve no doubt. He may tell his mean-in his next Book.