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. V. (Book 5)

§. 1. W. R's Trifling against the Pen-man about his own Concessions to Truth. His abuse of the People called Quakers, as ha∣ving such kinds of Declarations, frequently publisht among them as are unsound (and of a Popish tendence) about shutting out the Wisdom of all kinds, without distinction, and his now mincing the matter reflecting about proving Negatives, and his shufling and shifting, on his not mentioning Time, Place or Persons. §. 2. About his mis-expressing himself, how it might be excusable. W. R. can never come off clearly by those Instances he gave in his Postscript, to prove his pro∣ceeding to Print, Righteous. But his Fal∣lacy still remains upon him, in that his chief Instance of the printed Epistle of two Sheets, by Anne Whitehead and Mary Elson, not Writ nor Printed till long after he had pro∣ceeded to Print; His Fallacy therein made more and more notorious §. 3. About the Tree of Knowledge: W. R's late Do∣ctrine rendring it good for Food; but now denying that he has written any thing to shew his own sence either way. His say∣ing and unsaying, Fallacy and Imperti∣nency

apparent in this point. §. 4. Of his straining G. F's Words (about setting up outward things) besides his Intention; His gross and reproachful Construction; His dark smiting and suggestion against Preachers among the Quakers, to render them exalted and imperious Imposers, WITHOUT GIVING A REASON WHY, &c. §. 5. His Story of Jealousies being entred Thousands against our travel∣ling Brethren, and what Jealousies incre∣dible and unreasonable. §. 6. About the Tree of Knowledge again, Whether W. R. esteem it good for Food or not: He still shifts and writes manifest untruth, in denying his own Words, to shew either opposition or assent to such Doctrine (i. e. that 'tis good for Food.) His fallacious Evasion and Imperti∣nency return'd more home and closely upon him. §. 7▪ Concerning Tythes. W.R's late Objection and loose Answer farther exami∣ned, and the tendency thereof (and of what he now further saith) for the Payment of TYTHES FREELY to the National Mi∣nistry, and now to any use whatsoever, without regard to humane Institution or claim of divine Right. His Apostacy and evading our antient Testimony in this point; and his fallacious Insinuations and Reflecti∣ons made obvious. §. 8. W. R. cannot

clear himself of his Erronious Doctrine of Circumcision being a Christian Liberty, or in a Christian Liberty, &c. which was a legal Bondage and Yoke, observed for a time in submission to Moses's Law, and not to Christ's Doctrine, wherein was a Chri∣stian forbearance, not Christian Liberty in the Practice. W. R's scorn and falshood about the LAITY, to render us Popish, &c.

§. 1. TO thy occasion taken on the title Disaffection in the Contents of our Treatise [viz. That if the Writer's words may be taken, to shew the meaning of his mind, then he is disaffected with thy very Concession to Truth, &c.] pag. 46. cap. 3. This is meer trifling and idle▪ Those Concessions of thine to the Truth are so excepted, by being distinctly noted both in the Contents and Book, as being Con∣cessions to the Truth (in Confutation to thy self and much of thy Book) which being thus plainly exprest by the Writer, thou canst not justly construe his Words, as shewing his meaning to be that he is disaffected with such Concession to Truth. This is an abuse to be sure.

Because that in our observation on the 5th Disaffection, we utterly denyed and judged as a falshood and abuse to the

People called Quakers, thy saying, That these kinds of Declarations frequently published amongst the aforesaid People, viz. Let us exclude the Reasoning, the Wisdom and the Iealousie, and let us have an Eye to the Brethren; yea, to shut out the Wisdom and Reason of All kinds, without Distinction, [according as thou relatest in thy Christian-Quaker, part 1. Pref. p. 6. and p. 18, & 27.]

On our denying and judging this as a Falshood, and horrid Abuse and Scandalous, thou art pleased to reflect upon the Pen-man as very ignorant, void of sound Argument, and Obnoxious to the censure of ingenious Rea∣ders, as being in his own sence capable to prove any sort of Negatives whatsoever, p. 47.

That's a falshood William, the Pen-man hath no such sence: But by the way observe how unfairly thou art shifting here instead of proving thy Charge, That these kinds of Declarations are frequently publisht amongst the aforesaid People called Quakers. Now in thy last citation, where thou sayest, viz. I in∣timate as if this Doctrine had been publisht a∣mongst us, &c. p. 47. Here thou mincest the matter, and leavest out the Words fre∣quently, and the said People, which do ren∣der the Fact more notorious and general, and the more rational for us to deny it, and to judge it as thy gross abuse against the

said People, which is not to prove any sort of Negatives whatsoever; We first give our Negative to thy Charge in the terms of it, then our Judgment: It concern'd thee to make it good then, and not to put us off with Flams and Jeers; and now tell us, Thou didst not mention either Time, Place or Person: At that rate it may be a hard mat∣ter to prove Negatives against thee in∣deed.—Though thy charge be never so false, so long as thou canst prevaricate, and also vary the matter from a popular and publication, to a particular Person, Time and Place, (and neither tell us who, when or where) —as FROM these kind of Declarations frequently publisht among the People called Quakers. TO this Doctrine had been publisht amongst us: Yet I did not men∣tion either Time, Place or Person, p. 47. Like as to say, You must take all the matter up∣on my Credit: You must pin your Faith upon my Sleeve: If you deny and judge what I say as an abuse, I have a cunning way to shift it, instead of making proba∣tion. I can tell you, I did not mention, Time, Place or Person: 'Tis void of sound Argument for you to go about to prove any sort of Negatives, &c. But Wil∣liam, this kind of shifting, and then retort∣ing and scorning, will not gain thee Cre∣dit nor Reputation, in thy mean and feeble

attempts to prove the People called Qua∣kers frequently under such a kind of Mini∣stry as is in it self Popish, and tending to Introduce Popery it self (according to thy own Inference) that is, Ignorance in∣stead of Wisdom, Bondage instead of Freedom in Christ, Ignorance as the Mother of Devo∣tion, &c. Answered in our Treatise, ACCVSER, &c. p. 6, 7, 8, 9. And not only so, but that some blind Zealots are Princi∣pled to have an Eye to the Brethren instead of the Light in himself; as in thy Postscript to thy Christian-Quaker. But we can as well and truly deny that such Declarations (as afore) are frequently published among the People called Quakers, and judge it a horrid abuse and reflection on the said People, as we can deny that Jesuits fre∣quently Preach among them, which is also an Abuse of some, and which thy Charge resembles. And 'tis no absurdity to prove Negatives in some cases, either in Popular or Personal actions, if Testimo∣nies of Eye and Ear witness may be of any Credit. As for Instance:

The Question was put to a Meeting here in London (the greatest part being antient grave Friends) Where ever they heard such Do∣ctrine preacht among the People called Qua∣kers, as, To exclude or shut out Wis∣dom

& Reason of all kinds, without Distinction, and to have an Eye to the Brethren, instead of the Light in themselves? And they never heard such Preaching, nor any such Doctrine preached among the People called Quakers at all, either in City or Country, much less frequently. And their (with many others) negative Testimony, may be of credit in this case, else how should we answer those that falsly accuse us with Jesuits frequently preaching among us, but by our negative Testimony from our certain knowledge of those that do preach among us, that they are no such? Put case any of our peace∣able Meetings should by our Persecutors be charg'd with committing a Riot at such a time▪ and place; We deny the Charge and declare it to be utterly false, and produce evidence and proof sufficient and credible, (in contradiction to it) that our Meeting at such a time and place was in a peaceable posture, and nothing of vio∣lence or hurt done, offered or threatned, &c. Here▪ we prove a Negative, that our Meeting was no Riot, by proving the Affir∣mative, that it was Peaceable. And what's frequently preached among us in our pub∣lick Meetings is as publick as they. And set case a Person be falsly accused for com∣mitting

Burglary at such a time and place, and he produces sufficient Evidence, that he lodged at an Inn twenty or thirty or forty Miles off at that very same time when the fact was done. Here he proves a Negative, i. e. that he did not commit the fact.

§. 2. To thy saying, viz. If in his sence I mis-express my self, then my meaning shall not be taken to excuse the defect, p. 47. That's not true; for wouldst thou be so low in thy Mind, and so ingenious as either to confess such mis-expressing or defect, where we meet it, and clogg thee with it in thy wri∣tings, and not be tenacious therein, it would the more excuse thee, and shorten the Debate.

I do not at all find, that thou canst come clearly off, as either a just or righteous man in thy Allegations and Instances in thy Post∣script, for thy proceeding to print and publish thy great Book, by thy principal instance of the printed Epistle of two Sheets by Anne Whitehead and Mary Elson, which thine (when nigh printed) did occa∣sion; for that could not be the occasion of thine, when 'twas not in being till thine was almost finished in the Press. Thou producest no Plea to clear thy self, but what's presupposed, anticipated and way∣laid in our said Treatise, pag. 26, 27.

However, by thee impertinently slighted as Impertinent. That the said Epistle was thy principal Instance for thy so proceeding, is no false Assertion, as thou wouldst make it, is evident from thy own account, on which 'tis grounded: The matter is fully evinced in our said Treatise, under the tenth Dis∣affection, from page 19, to pag. 37.

Thy alledging, Thou only assertedst Pro∣mulgation of the said Epistle, to shew that they were the first Publishers in Print, but not the first Printers. Of what? That there are Divisions, &c? This will not clear thee, nor evince thy Righteousness in proceeding to print and publish thy Book, on thy In∣stance of the said Epistle of two Sheets, which on this occasion was chiefly thy concern to evidence and mention, and that in pursuance of thy own Justification, to prove thy Righteousness in proceeding to Print, which the other Instances given by thee (about the publication of Divisions by Declaration by Manuscript) do not an∣swer nor seem to parallel, but that chief one of Printing. And what? the said printed Epistle of two Sheets, though the greatest part of thy great Book was printed before that was writ? To thy now confes∣sing, That they (i. e. Mary Elson and Anne Whitehead, &c.) were the first Publishers in Print, but not the first Printers. Then their

Publication could be no just plea nor in∣stance for thy proceeding to Print, as thou didst. Thy not being the first Publisher, but they, does neither excuse thy intention as Righteous, nor thy act of first Printing: 'Twas the bulkiness of thy Book that pre∣vented its first Publication, and the small∣ness of theirs (though not writ till after a great part of thine was printed) that did expedite its publication.

Thy saying, Thou only assertedst Promulga∣tion of the said Epistle, is an evasion: 'Twas in pursuance of thy pretence of Righteous∣ness in thy proceeding to Print, as well as to promulgate or publish thy Book of Divi∣sions, that thou gavest that instance of the said Epistle being printed. And as a supple∣ment in thy Postscript, to what thou hadst writ in thy Preface and Introduction (which thou judgedst might give sufficient satisfaction to every Impartial Reader) but lest the Igno∣rance of any should be so great, as not from thence to perceive the Righteousness of thy pro∣ceeding to Print, they might by these In∣stances in thy Postscript, which therefore relate to the same proceeding that the Pre∣face and Introduction do: See, the case is plain, 'tis no evading it. Therefore thou appearest not ingenious in thy Allegation, viz. He represents not the state of the case aright; for my own words were these, viz.

My Present proceeding to Print (the word [Present] they leave out) which could not re∣late to any thing more than the Postscript, be∣cause the very Postscript informs the Reader, that All the Treatise, excepting the Postscript, Index and Errata, was then printed, p. 49.

This will not render thee either a sincere or just man in thy proceeding (William) we do not leave out the word Present in the citation of thy words; for 'tis incerted in our citation of thy own words, relating both to thy Preface, Introduction and Post∣script, all alledged for thy present procee∣ding to Print, and to evince the Righ∣teousness thereof; And thou knowest in thy own Conscience, that either thy Word [PRESENT] must relate to more than thy Postscript, or else thou wast very Impertinent and defective. If when in a Postscript, by additional and supple∣mental Plea or Reasons to all that precedes in thy Preface, thou art going about to make out the Righteousness (pretended) of thy present proceeding to Print and publish Divisions; we must thereby under∣stand it not to relate to any thing more than thy Postscript. Then we must take thy meaning to be, as if thou must have more plain and convincing Reasons for thy pro∣ceeding to Print thy Postscript of but four Sheets, than for all the rest of thy Book of

near four score Sheets: And yet the plea in thy Postscript appears to supply what thou hast said in thy Preface, in Vindica∣tion of thy publishing in Print thy Histo∣rical Relation, or great Book of Divisions. I cannot perceive that thou hast herein writ either Ingeniously, Conscientiously or Consistently. And thou mightest have seen how thou wast aforehand obviated, which might have prevented thy present impertinent Excuses and vain Allegations, if thou hadst but taken serious notice of the following recited passage in our Treatise, viz.

And further, If to evade the charge of Fallacy and Injustice, De∣ceit and False cover laid on W. R. in this matter,* 1.1 he flies to his Grammatical sence of his Words, and pleads his Intention, &c. as thinking himself safe in both.

1st, We say, His present proceeding to Print cannot in reason be confined to his Postscript, wherein the Words are, nor answer the SOME of the People called Quakers he tells of, that have judged him wicked, as for intending to Print against Friends, Post. p. 25. (whom he under∣takes to answer in that case) nor vindi∣cate him as to his Historical Relation, (mentioned in the same page) which

includes his Book, which therefore can∣not be confined to, nor included in his Postscript.

2dly, The Reasons he gives in his Post∣script, to prove himself Righteous in his proceeding to Print, cannot relate only to that his Postscript, but to his whole Book, because they are added for a sup∣plement to his Preface to the Reader, and his Introduction to the first and fourth parts of his Treatise; which Preface and Introduction concern his whole Book or Historical Relation (as he calls it.) And which Preface and Introduction he thinks may give sufficient satisfaction to every impartial & unprejudiced Reader: But lest the Ignorance or Blindness of any should be so great, as not from thence to per∣ceive the Righteousness of his present proceed∣ing to Print, &c. he gives his additional Reasons and Instances in his Postscript; the chief whereof is that relating to the two printed Sheets, which came to his Hands the 8th of November, 1680. as aforesaid, wherein the supplemental Reason given, was more clearly to evince the pretended Justness of his proceeding to Print, than he had done before in his said Preface or Introduction, as that it was even to prevent such great Igno∣rance and Partiality as would hinder any

from perceiving his Righteousness in pro∣ceeding to Print. [which therefore must needs relate to more than his Postscript.]

And William, I find no Contradiction, as thou accusest, between our signifying, That the two Sheets aforesaid was the Prin∣cipal Instance for thy proceeding to print and publish thy Book, (that is, to prove thy Righteousness pretended therein, as 'twas made appear from thy own Words) AND signifying that thou declaredst a far higher necessity, i. e. a great concern of Conscience, &c. That the Epistle of two Sheets, afore∣said, was thy principal Instance, Reason or Allegation, to prove the Righteousness (pretended) of thy proceeding, is no down-right falshood (as thou falsly ren∣derest it) but true; for 'twas CHIEFLY thy concern to give that Instance of the said Epistle after other Instances of less con∣cern, and less to the purpose of Printing, &c. And that thou also placedst a higher necessity on thy proceeding, than the said two Sheets, is also true: The first was pro∣duced as a principal instance or cause, to evince the Righteousness of thy proceed∣ing to print an Historical Relation, &c. The second was thy own Assertion for the ne∣cessity of thy proceeding, pretending it for the clearing of thy Conscience, &c. Such necessity (pretended) of proceeding

was higher than thy said Instance or Reason for it, as between an Immediate necessity of doing a thing, and an outward Reason or Instance for doing it. Where's now the Contradiction? If there be any, it must be thy own, in placing such occasion on the said two Sheets, as to be so chiefly concern'd at them, and yet a more immediate necessity of Conscience, &c. before that. The Pre∣mises of this point considered, in reference to thy being so chiefly concerned, to in∣stance the said Epistle of two Sheets, thy Charge that a down-right Vntruth is the Sub∣ject occasioning his Words, p. 49. (which thou callest Drollery) falleth to the Ground as a down-right Falshood. That which thou callest Drollery (in conclusion of that De∣tection we made of thy unrighteous and fal∣lacious Vindication of thy proceeding to Print, &c.) I am perswaded it hit thee, and touched thee, as in a way of answering a Fool (that is, such a one as is highly con∣ceited, and wise in his own Eyes) accord∣ing to his Folly. And how natural and suitable that passage (thou callest Drollery) is to the subject and occasion given on thy part, unto which it relates, I leave to the impartial and ingenious Reader to consider and judge, upon perusal of the whole mat∣ter concerning that point, as 'tis handled in our said Treatise, entituled, The Accu∣ser

of our Brethren cast down, under the 10th Disaffection; from p. 19. to p. 37.

Unto all which (William) thou hast but given an Impertinent Fling, and the slie GO-BY to the substance, even the most part thereof.

§. 3. Whereas upon thy Confusion and Contradiction to many Friends about the Tree of Knowledge, that God forbad Man to eat of: The Question was put concern∣ing thy self, thus, viz. What kind of Preacher would he make, if he should tell People, The Tree of Knowledge is good for Food; the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food? This Question thou takest to be grounded on a down-right Falshood; for sayest thou, I never asserted that the Tree of Know∣ledge was good for Food, and that it was not good for Food; neither have I written any thing to shew my own sence either way, p. 50.

No! That's strange; and a gross and manifest Untruth and Shuffle, I am sure: And I may ask thee, if thou hast not be∣lyed thy own Conscience in these Words? How darest thou now utter in Print, that thou hast not written any thing to shew thy own sence either way, i. e. Whether the Tree of Knowledge be good for Food, or not good for Food? Hast thou not (in the first place) written to shew thy own

sence, That it is good for Food, by thy plain∣ly opposing the contrary Doctrine, as preached by divers among us: (viz. That the Tree of Knowledge was not good for Food.) Hast not thou plainly objected against this Doctrine? Instancing, That a Father may command his Child not to eat an Apple; his Rebellious eating no Argument to prove the Apple in it self not good for Food: And we know not on what Foot of Truth any one can assert that the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food. And to prove the Tree of Knowledge in it self good for Food, thou also didst cite John 17. This is Life Eternal to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Thence infer∣ing, so that Knowledge is the way to Life. But did God forbid the knowledge of him∣self, and of his Son, to Man in Innocency, when he forbad him to eat of the Tree of Knowledge? Didst thou not here plain∣ly enough shew thy sence, That the Tree of Knowledge was good for Food? And doth not this imply that the Serpent was more kind to Man in moving to eat of it, than his Maker was in forbidding him? There's no need of thy adding [as in it self] for the Tree is it self. With what Conscience then durst thou adventure not only to say, Thou never assertedst that the Tree of Know∣ledge was good for Food, but also, that thou

hast not written any thing, to shew thy own sence either way. Oh, wonderful! I somewhat admire at such a manifest gross Untruth, that thou shouldst undertake in several Pages, with several Objections, to oppose a Doctrine, as thou didst that of the Tree of Knowledge not being good for Food: And now to flam us off, with telling us, That thou hast not written any thing to shew thy own sence either way? Hast thou not here play'd Legerdemain, to write so plainly in oppo∣sition to another's Position, and yet tell us, Neither hast thou written any thing to shew thy own sence either way? For shame leave off such Impertinent Scribling, and spend thy time better in the Creation. But yet what reason for the Question, viz. What kind of Preacher wouldst thou make, if thou shouldst tell People, the Tree of Knowledge is good for Food, the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food? For the first, thou hast shewn thy sence plainly, however thou wouldst now smother it: The latter appears deducible from thy finding out a Salvo, or Plea, for some that may declare, That the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food; for thou wouldst not be understood to reflect on all that have used that Expression, because thou que∣stionest not but many have so express'd them∣selves — to shew that if we should feed upon, or admire any excellent Qualification or En∣dowment,

and not have the Eye of our mind Chiefly unto the Giver, we might then come to a loss; See the Second Part of thy Chri∣stian-Quaker, p. 28, 29. Thus hast thou excused the Doctrine before opposed by thee, viz. That the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food.

§. 4. As for G. F's Epistle against the envious Spirits, and Persecutors of those who could not observe their outward Things, Traditions, &c. thou dost much insist on these Words, viz. They that do so, viz. set up outward things, gather People to themselves, not unto God, &c. If these be truly cited, G F. best knows his own Intention, and in point of Justice ought rather to have been enquired of, as to have been his own Interpreter, than to have been brought forth in Print under the dis∣guise of a prejudicial Interpretation and straining his Words, and turning his sence besides whatever was intended in them, or by him. And what hast thou got by the said Citation, thou hast so much insisted on? If thou strainest the Litteral sense thus, That no outward things are to be set up, nor outward Order practised in the Church of Christ. Thou wilt therein farther inter∣fer with thy self, having already granted outward Form and Order, &c. to be in

the Church of Christ, yea, even the case of Marriage; as what care thou tookest about the marrying thy two Daughters, &c.

But G. F's intention and sence in the words of his said Epistle, is by another hand fully spoken to, and therefore I forbear en∣larging on them. However thy construction, That out of G. F's Mouth he and his Brethren may justly be compared to Cain for persecuting their Brethren, for no other cause than for not submitting to outward things, &c. p. 50.

This Construction I look upon to be very gross and reproachful, and that it proceeded from a persecuting spirit, that is, a false and unjust Judge.

And as false and malicious (William) is thy dark smiting, in telling of such sort of Preachers, (i. e. among the People called Quakers) whose Pride and Insolency might prompt them at this day to say,—Though you are our Witnesses, that we have often declared that our Commission from God was to turn People from the Power of Satan to God, that so they might all come to be ordered and governed by the appearance of the Power in themselves; yet we did NOT mean, but that when we had gathered any into the Truth, we should be those who ought to have the RULE over them, and that such should observe our Traditions, or follow us, Without giving a Reason why;

and though they might in Truth be submitting themselves one to another in the Lord (accor∣ding to the Apostles Counsel) yet all of them must submit to us, and reverence, honour and obey us, &c. pag. 50, 51. Thus far thou (William.)

But that any Preachers among the said People called Quakers have so said or preach∣ed after this exalted, imperious and incon∣sistent manner, I must take leave to deny, till I have better proof from thee, than thy quoting thy self, or thy saying (that in the 48 & 49 pages of the 3d part of thy Treatise entituled, The Christian-Quaker) 'Tis so written, which is thy own Book, making thy self thy own Authority proof for thy self; and then thy saying, 'Tis as naturally deduced from R. B's discourse in his Book of Government; and then quotest thy self again for Proof, bidding us see pages 41 to 49. in thy said 3d Part. But still, we deny thy Credit in the case, thou art no sufficient Proof for thy self against us; 'tis a meer begging of the Question. The Pride and Insolency thou wouldst now fix upon R.B. he utterly denyes, as also, That those whom we have gathered to the Truth, should observe our Traditions, Without giving a Reason why. He also denys, that this is either naturally deduced or justly deducible from any dis∣course of his in his said Book. And I must

tell thee (William) this looks like one of Tho. Hicks's Abuses and gross Forgeries in his Dialogues; seeing it has always been our Principle to give convincing Reason, where scruples or doubts are, first to remove them, and clear Peoples understandings (so far as the Lord enables us) before they proceed to act in any Religious Performances; and we being the Servants of our Lord Jesus Christ, we utterly abhor and detest setting up our selves as Lords over God's Heritage▪ or seeking to have the Rule and Dominion over them or their Faith; and we may each of us conclude, and say with his Servant Gideon, I will not Rule over you, the Lord shall Rule over you, Judges 8.22, 23. 'Tis not Man, but the Lord we must exalt.

§. 5. Thou (W. R.) still proceedest falsly and perversly in saying, viz. That Jealou∣sies have entred the breasts of thousands, that though these our travelling Brethren exalted the Spirit of God in man, as the only sufficient Rule for man, and declared, that the Scriptures were not a sufficient Rule to man; yet instead of leaving us to the Rule which they have declared to be sufficient, they strain that which they have declared not sufficient, to make it (as much as in them lies) a Rule for them to rule over their Brethren, p. 51.

To all which I say, 1st, We have no

cause to believe thy story, that such Jealou∣sies have entred thousands. 2dly, All travel∣ling Brethren, approved among us, exalt the Spirit of God in man as much as ever. 3dly, Such do not make the holy Scriptures (however truly own'd in their place) any such Rule as for them to rule over their Bre∣thren, such being called to feed the flock, and not be as Lords over Gods Heritage, nor as seeking Dominion over their Brethrens Faith, but to walk in the Humility of Jesus Christ, as Ensamples to the flock. Thy thoughts therefore to the contrary concerning those who gave forth our Treatise, entituled, The Accuser, &c. are utterly wrong; and thy quoting thy self in thy said third Part, is as feeble and impertinent as before in thy Forgery against R. B. &c.

§. 6. About the Tree of Knowledge again, thou (W. R.) again proceedest thus, viz. p. 51. The Pen-man thus saith, By all this opposition to the Doctrine, That the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food, William Rogers seems to account it good for Food. No∣thing said by me, or cited as my words by them∣selves shews either opposition or assent to such Doctrine, p. 51.

That's a manifest untruth again, and before detected: Many of thy own words cited in our said Treatise, do plainly shew

thy assent to such Doctrine, and that thou accountedst the Tree of Knowledge good for Food, especially in thy opposing the contrary Doctrine. Review the Passage in thy own Christian-Quaker, part 2. p. 27, 28, 29. with our Answer, Accuser, &c. pag. 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114. and pag. 222, 223, 224. If nothing said by thee, or cited as thy words, shew either opposition or assent to the said Doctrine; and that thou hast not written any thing to shew thy sence either way, as thou hast declared, how hast thou pur∣sued thy charge of Apostacy and Innovation? Didst thou not bring in that Doctrine (That the Tree of Knowledge was not good for Food) among other things to prove thy charge of Apostacy and Innovation against us, and this as to Doctrine opposed by thee? But now wilt not own either opposition or assent in any thing said or written by thee, to shew thy own sence either way. Oh William! where's thy Conscience, in writing not only thus insignificantly, but thus evasively and prevaricatingly? And how hast thou by such Impertinency distinguished or proved thy self and party The Christian-Quaker, and those against whom thou writest The Apostate and Innovator, either in Doctrine or Pra∣ctice, when thou hast attempted it in Do∣ctrine? Thy attempts and opposition signifie nothing; thou hast not written any

thing to shew thy sence either way. Then thou hast produced nothing to prove no∣thing.

To thy saying, viz. If we had learned from the Scriptures, that the Serpent had said, 'Twas good for food, yet it would not have shewn me erronious in my Assertion, unless the words [as in it self] had been added, which are not, pag. 51.

Thy Assertion! What Assertion hast thou made in the case, when thou hast not written any thing to shew thy sence either way, either of opposition or assent to such Doctrine, if therein we may believe thee? But how inconsistent with thy self art thou, as between shewing no sence, and thy As∣sertion in the same case? And what if the word [as in it self] are not added, for the Tree of Knowledge being good for Food, as in it self, as thou hast plainly enough implyed? What would that have added to the verity of thy Assertion, or to the weight of the Do∣ctrine, whilst the Controversie relates to the Tree of Knowledge, whether or no it be good for food, it relates to it self, and not to another; for that Tree is it self. How∣ever, thou mayst intend, [as in it self] to be in its own Nature, without respect to the Command.

The matter in Question is not Whether the Tree of Knowledge be good in it self,

but whether it be good for such an end and purpose, as for Food, i. e. for the Soul of man, either before the Fall, or in the Resto∣ration? Both God's Prohibition and Ex∣perience teach the contrary, viz. That 'tis not good for Food; though otherwise, Know∣ledge (rightly so called) be good as in its own Nature. But the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a mixt Knowledge, not Food for an innocent Soul; 'tis the pure unmixt Know∣ledge of the good only which springs from divine Life that is its Food. The words [Tree of Knowledge] are an allusion, and is Mysteriously to be understood only in the Light of Christ.

To thy saying, 'Tis hard to know with what sort of Spirit the Pen-man, most immediately concerned in the Accuser, &c. is at unity with; For 'tis evident he doth not give the Devil his due, neither doth he give God or good Men their due, pag. 52.

Is it hard to know? How camest thou then so severely to censure and judge him and his Spirit, as Impious, Wicked, &c?

But in humility and fear of the Lord, he is at Unity (and daily converseth) with the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is a Spirit of true Understanding and Judg∣ment, whereby he clearly discerns, and hath Power to judge thy dark, confused Spirit of Enmity, and its unfruitful Works

of Darkness and Division against Christ and his true followers.

§. 7. Concerning Tythes, thou pre∣tendest to except against the Pay∣ment of them,* 1.2 That they are (as at this day paid under pretence of being Due, JVRE DI∣VINO)—Antichristian, and also against the Humane Institution and constraint to pay them. [And thus far we do not oppose thee, nor have shewn disaffection.] But thou hast found out another and more easie way to pay them: Thus, viz. Yet if any Person will FREELY of himself give a Tenth part of his Estate, or of the Increase thereof TO ANY VSE WHATSOEVER; having no regard to any Humane Institution or Claim by vertue of any pretended Divine Law, it can no more be called Antichristian then, &c. p. 52.

No! not as given to any use whatsoever? That's large and loose, and as strange! Suppose some do freely pay Tythes to maintain an Antichristian Ministry, with∣out regard to the plea of Jure Divino, or humane Institution or Constraint, but vo∣luntarily and freely, which needs no con∣straint nor coertion: Were not this An∣tichristian? And did not the Christian-Quaker bear Testimony from the begin∣ning against the Antichristian Ministry and Tythes paid to maintain them, whe∣ther

by some paid freely or not; the labour was to bring People from them to Christ, the great Shepherd, and end of the first Priesthood, Tythes and the Law that up∣held them.

Art not thou now evading and shifting from our first Testimony, that was absolute against the payment of Tythes in these Gospel dayes? And doth not these thy evasive Apostatizing shifts tend to draw others into Looseness and Apostacy, to de∣cline the Cross, and cast off the Yoke of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Again, thou givest a recital of thy An∣swer to the Objection or Question of thy own framing, in the case of Tythes; but now craftily leavest out thy Objection, which concern'd Tythes, as given to the National Ministry, thus, viz. But what if it please the Supream Power to bestow on the National Ministry Tythes? How prove you from Scripture, that those who freely pay it, do ill? or that 'tis not lawful for them, to re∣ceive it from such? These are thy own Words, (William) to which thou madest the following Answer, mentioned in our 40th Disaffection, and recited in these words, viz.

We are so far from condemning those who freely pay them, (i. e. Tythes) and not as by

Constraint, that we look upon it to be the Duty of all,* 1.3 professing Christianity, to contribute towards the outward Maintenance of such whom they usually hear, and account to be the true Ministers of Christ, though not obliged thereto by Law, in case they have need, p. 52.

We remain still Disaffected with thy Doctrine it this point, (William) so far as it relates to the paying of Tythes: Thy granting an uncondemned Liberty there∣in, for them who can freely pay them to those they account the true Ministers of Christ (though they be the National Mi∣nistry) I am sure is contrary to the antient Testimony of the true Christian-Quaker, and all faithful travelling Brethren in the Gospel and Work of Christ, To contribute towards the outward Maintenance, &c. is not the matter under debate. But the Question immediately relating to the Payment of Tythes, as 'tis included in thy own Ob∣jection in the case, which thou hast craftily forborn to recite, and only recitest the Words of thy Answer; both being com∣pared together, do more clearly evince thy Unchristian Liberty and Apostacy, in justifying Mens freely paying Tythes to those they count Ministers of Christ, &c. yea, though it be to the National Ministry, by thy Objection and Answer before. Thy

varying the Terms from [FREELY PAY∣ING them] i. e. Tythes, TO a CONTRI∣BVTING towards their outward Main∣tenance, appears but a Prevaricating shift, and evading the terms of thy own Ob∣jection and Question: Review the Point in thy own 2d Part, Christian-Quaker, in granting a Liberty of freely paying Tythes to the National Ministry, without con∣demnation (as before.) Thou hast con∣tradicted J. W. and J. Story's Testimony, 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 Anti∣christian. Mark, [as at this day paid] is to the National Ministry; by some freely, and by others by constraint. As also thou shewest thy fallacious Insinuation and Pre∣varication, from the terms under debate, in concluding, That the Pen-man would ex∣clude such sort of Charity to any ministring Professor of Christianity, besides such as he may account of his own Brotherhood, whereby their outward Man might receive Sustenance; else if they accounted it not Christian-like, to give on a Charitable score, TYTHES, with∣out Compulsion; yet he might have shewn his assent that their Conscientious Hearers might (without Condemnation) have administred in

another Method, p. 53. How falsly hast thou insinuated against the Pen-man, and daubed with the Professors, as if now thou wouldst ingratiate thy self, to come into favour with the Professors, who are against the Quakers, and as if thou wouldst please them, by telling of giving on a Charitable score, Tythes. But William, I am sorry thou shouldst thus wrong thy own Consci∣ence, (by such false Insinuations) for therein thou knowest the matter in que∣stion; and our Observation was not about (nor for) excluding such sort of Charity, as that of freely relieving or contributing towards the Sustenance of the outward Man of any of them, in case of need; for that Humanity allows, much more Christi∣anity: But the matter in question, was singly about the freely paying of Tythes, and that to the National Ministry, (as thy Words were) against which our 40th Dis∣affection was directed. And thy insinua∣ting expressions about giving on a Charitable score Tythes, will not excuse thee, nor clear thee in this matter; as also on this occasion thou fallaciously insinuatest in thy Prayer, viz. The Lord preserve me and all true Chri∣stians from that Censorious Spirit, as may con∣clude, that there are no other Sheep than of the Pen-man's Fold, p. 53.

Whom dost thou herein accuse? We

deny any such Censorious Spirit, with thy terms [Pen-man's Fold] for 'tis Christ's Fold we own. Thou art an uncharitable censorious Spirit. We know there are other Sheep, as Christ declared, which he will fetch home into his Fold: But thou appearest none of Christ's Sheep, either in his Fold, or out of his Fold, whilst in such an Envious, Wolfish and Scornful Spirit.

§. 8. Whereas to our 44th Disaffection, about Circumcision being a Christian-Li∣berty, according to thy own Words; thou sayest, viz. Suppose I had in any part of my Writings laid down, that the practice of Cir∣cumcision, by one that was a Jew, and a be∣liever in Christ, was in that day a Christian-Liberty: I only Query, (not intending to quarrel with my Adversary about a Mode of Speech, when our Meanings are the same) How can this be termed an Erronious manner of expression?—Why might not the Practice of such a Christian, be without offence term∣ed Christian-Liberty? p. 54.

I Answer; Because Circumcision in the Flesh, was not only a Type under the Law, but by Christians counted a Yoke of Bon∣dage, not to be born by the Disciples under the Gospel, being also among other Types abolisht by Christ in his Sufferings and

Death: Though some weak Believers, as those of the Jews did for a time practise it; yet they did it in obedience to the Law of Moses, and the Old Covenant; and not in obedience to Christ and his Apostles in the New Covenant: And there was a Christian-forbearance and patience to∣wards them, in suffering Circumcision for a time to those of the Jews, when the Vail was not wholly done away, nor they come clearly to see to the end of those things that were abolished by Christ. (and yet no liberty nor way was given for them to draw others into it.) Whence it fol∣lows, not that Circumcision it self was Christian-Liberty, or practised in a Christian-Liberty in that day, but with respect to Mo∣ses's Law; but the forbearance towards them was Christian and tender. I am not willing to make much ado about this thy Mode of Speech; though I look on't to be an unsound and unscriptural Mode. To thy saying, Thou dost not say, that Circumcision practised as aforesaid, is a Christian-Liberty; 'tis the Pen-man's consequence, &c. What hast thou said less? Thou hast told us of these Differing Exercises IN A CHRI∣STIAN-LIBERTY; When speaking of practising Circumcision, keeping a day, ab∣staining from eating Flesh amongst the Pri∣mitive Believers; That Christian-Liber∣ty,

&c. See thy own Recitation, p. 53. 7th Part. Circumcision then was one of those differing Exercises, which thou pla∣cest in a Christian Liberty, and which in thy next page thou termest Christian-Liberty, as before: And thou sayest, If the mode of Speech be not pertinent to express the matter in hand—'Tis our own approved Language. I think thou mistakest here, (William) and the passage thou citest out of R. B's Book of Government, p. 63, 64. proves it not from these Words cited, viz.

There is a certain Liberty and Forbear∣ance also, &c. whereof we have the Ex∣ample of the Primitive Church

—viz. In suffering Circumcision to the Jews. [Did he here term Circumcision Christian-Liberty? No sure, 'twas only permitted or suffered to them, as was the Observa∣tion of certain Dayes, and abstaining from Meats, which were not holden univer∣sally; but when laid upon others, then preacht down and reproved by the Apostle, Gal. 5.

Is there not a plain difference between a certain Liberty in suffering Circumcision to the Jews, and terming it Christian-Liberty? Is this the very same Language approved by the Second day's Meeting (as thou sayest?) p. 55. Sure thou art much out here, (William) to our saying,

That this man,

who is thus discomposed in his Work, should not have medled so much with Points of Divinity,* 1.4 which he ap∣pears so little skilful in: He dreams so much of Liberty that he is greatly bewildred in the management of it.

Thou answer∣est, 'Tis Language more like the proudest of Prelates, adorned with a pair of Lawn Sleeves, than an humble Quaker, p. 53. To this add∣ing also in p. 55. Will not the impartial Reader hence be apt to suppose, that the Pen-man's design is to ingross discourses of Divi∣nity to himself and his Brethren, that so the Laity may believe nothing but what proceeds from their Mouthes and Pens:* 1.5 If they shall complain, that this renders them guilty of gross Popery; my counsel is, Let them for the future cease giving occasion, p. 55.

This Question contains both scorn and falshood, suggested against us, to render us guilty of Popery, as before is discovered: We have no such design of engrosement, nor Popish distinction among us, as between Clergy and Laity; the Spirit of Christ, and true knowledge of Divinity, are not limitted nor engrossed in the will of man, to Persons; neither doth our reprehend∣ing a discomposed Person for medling in

things beyond his skill, prove us Guilty in these cases.

Again, William, thou proceedest abu∣sively and falsly in these Words, viz. For 'tis well known, that G. Fox his party have been so Contentious, as that nothing would content them but the intro∣ducing new Practices,* 1.6 under the Notion of Gospel-Discipline, in a Spirit of Strife and Contention, concluding all to be dark that saw not with their Eyes, p. 55.

I shall say little to these Reproachful Censures. But the Lord rebuke this false, malicious, censorious, judging, exalted, conceited Spirit: And he will manifestly rebuke it, I doubt not.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Accuser, &c. p. 26, 27.
• * 1.2

  P. 52.
• * 1.3

  Page 52.
• * 1.4

  This passage W. R. hath Printed divers times over in his Book against him∣self.
• * 1.5

  p. 55.
• * 1.6

  P. 55.