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. VI. (Book 6)

§. 1. Of our Catalogue of some of W. R's manifest Falshoods, notorious Slanders, scandalous Abuses, &c. (which are nume∣rous) to clear himself, and prove the Pen-man to have play'd the Forger: He gives only three Instances, whereby W. R. cannot clear himself. §. 2. W. R. again opposing the Credit of the Pen-man's method about proving Negatives: The supposed Absur∣dity and Immorality removed. §. 3. Con∣cerning

his Contradictions: His attempts only to reconcile the first Instance, proved invalid, as between his placing the Disunion in Principles, Doctrine and Life of Christi∣anity, and placing it not in Principles of Truth, nor in Christ's Doctrine, but in Ceremonies, the Shell, &c. §. 4. His own Affirmation to clear himself of Contradiction, no valid Plea or Argument. His own dis∣honesty and injustice in accusing the Pen-man, for not informing the Reader what is right and what is wrong in the matter of Contra∣diction. His notorious Falshood and Contra∣dictions farther pursued (in judgment against himself, on his own Censure) about the Apo∣stacy entring the generality. Christ's words, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. Circumcision: The Tree of Knowledge: Freely paying Tythes, &c. §. 5. W. R's Postscript a slight and scornful Put-off to our Friends of Bristol, their Book entituled, An Ex∣alted Diotrephes Reprehended; his mi∣serable Evasion, manifest Fallacy, Falshood, Abuse and Scorn against them, detected. §. 6. Of his Proposition to our Meeting in London. His Insincerity, unrighteous Judgment and Conclusion against our Mee∣ting.

§. 1. BUt let's see how thou (W. R.) pro∣ceedest to prove the Pen-man to have

play'd the Forger in giving a Catalogue (term'd) of some of W. R. his manifest Falshoods, notorious Slanders, scandalous A∣buses, Perversions, Rayling, Scoffing, Flatter∣ing and Reviling, in the 4th and 5th Parts of his Book against G. F. and others, in his own words and terms; which may be seen at large in our said Treatise, Accuser, &c. from page 230, to pag. 255, &c. how not only some of his manifest Falshoods, Slan∣ders, scandalous Abuses, &c. are collected and stated in his own words and terms, but even all of them there collected, are so far from varying his own sence, that his words or terms are scarce varyed in two of them. I find not his sence or meaning in them va∣ried or altered at all, so far as I can under∣stand or gather.

Now (W. R.) in pursuance of thy charge before, thou engagest in these words, viz. I shall now proceed to cite only three In∣stances in one Leaf of their Catalogue, next to the Title, viz. One of their Forgery, another of their cript Citations, and a third of their cript and non-sensical Representations of my sound words, &c. p. 56.

Observe by the way, That seeing the Instances are so few, as only Three (and though he calls them only a taste, &c. p. 58) the Reader may presuppose them to be (in his thoughts) knocking ones, or the most

likely for his purpose, and the most advan∣tagious for his turn that he could find or pick out, and such palpable Forgery, &c. as nothing to be said for it. But see if it prove so; see if he knocks us in the Head or down with it: Now observe his great and chief Instance, viz.

They thus represent me to say in the Chri∣stian-Quaker, Part 4. pag. 4. That they are persecuting Opposers who oppose John Wilkin∣son and John Story: My own words are, Vn∣less the Lord shall be pleased to change the hearts of the persecuting Opposers of John Wilkinson and John Story. This Forgery—to me appears to render me a Persecutor; for, saith he, would William Rogers be counted a Persecu∣tor for his opposing others more vehemently? I abhor Persecution, and in this Controversie do act the part of a Defendant against (and in discovery of) a Company of PERSECVTORS, p. 56.

Now let the Ingenious Reader observe, what great difference is there in thus repre∣senting him? what variation of his sence? as between his saying, The persecuting Op∣posers of J. S. and J. W. and saying, That they are persecuting Opposers who oppose them? I must confess, I am not so critical as to un∣derstand a variation of his sence, or much of his words, in this small Transposition, though he now makes his exception, That

there may be Opposition to each other, from difference in Religion, yet not attended with Persecution. He should have told us, that exception was included in his discourse be∣fore in this point, viz. That only some of the Opposers of J. W. and J. S. were persecuting Opposers, but not all of them: Some of their Opposers are not Persecutors: But we must commonly be troubled with his colateral Meanings to supply his precedent Defects. But then, what Company of Persecutors are those he now tells of, against whom he acts the part of a Defendant? Are they not all he has written against in this Controversie, both named and unnamed? And are not these the Opposers of J. W. and J. S? Are they not those whom he calls G. F. and his Party, G. F. and his Brethren? And has he not counted them Persecutors, yea, a Com∣pany of Persecutors? Who then are opposers of J. W. and J. S. that are not of party with G. F. (in W. R's account) and conse∣quently no Persecutors? For W. R. saith, G. F. and his Brethren (out of G. F's mouth) may be justy compared to Cain for persecuting their Brethren, p. 50. And as plainly W. R. shews his meaning, and the intent of his words (before cited) where in page 22. in his comparison between the Paper signed by Charles Marshall, &c. and Pope Leo the tenth his Bull against Martin Luther (Anno

1520.) W. R. saith, But in the aforesaid Paper there is no mention of any particular Do∣ctrine or Viciousness of Life, for which they (i. e. J.S. and J.W.) are persecuted by their Brethren.

Now wherein (I pray) is his meaning or sence of his words (about persecuting Op∣posers) altered, or the intent of his Mind clouded, (as he complains) in what we have represented? W. R▪ represents himself in this Controversie as one acting the part of a Defendant, only against a Company of Persecu∣tors. But I am sure he greatly acts the part of an Offendor and bitter Persecutor, with his bitter words of hatred, to scandalize many innocent Friends, approved Servants and Ministers of Christ among the People called Quakers with Popery, tending great∣ly to render that People obnoxious. Whilst he is complaining of Persecution, he's act∣ing the part of a most bitter Persecuting In∣former and Incendiary. Apostate Judas's are the worst of Informers.

As for his Complaint of cript Citation and nonsensical Representation of words; I must say, and that according to my under∣standing, his words are so largely cited, as that the drift and scope of his Intention and Sence may be understood, though some of his long Parenthesis and super-abundant Expressions are left out. I would not desire

to be more largely cited by himself, or any Adversary whatsoever, than he is in his words. And for my own part, I sometime think that I am apt to cite my Adversary's words too largely, but it is, that both his sence may the more plainly appear, and what occasion he gives, either for a judg∣ment or inference naturally to be deduced. And I find not the Passage non-sensically represented, which he recites, pag. 57. But in that he calls the cript Citation (in the 6th line of the same page, I find his recital wrong, viz. words for fruits) But how can it be cript, when the page is quoted, where 'tis to be found at large?

Upon the serious perusal of our Adver∣sary's reiterated black Charges of Palpable Forgery and Prevarications, pag. 57, 58. to∣gether with his attempts to prove them. I do solemnly profess in the sight of God, I do not find my self conscious, nor justly chargeable therein; for I really am for giving the Devil his due, and not to over∣charge nor mischarge him in any case (how bad soever he be in himself) much less to overcharge my fellow-Creatures, how much prejudiced soever any of them be against me. Yet though I know my own Innocence, both as to Intention and Principle, I impose not my bare sence and credit upon the Rea∣ders judgment, but leave him therein free,

to the light of Truth in himself, to take impartial and just measures in what he reads in this Controversie, relating either to Per∣sons or Principles; and let the Light of Truth in all judge, for to that I appeal.

§. 2. To what W. R. saith of the Pen-man's Method, If it should become of Credit, 'twere then easie to undertake a Proof of any sort of Negative, &c. pag. 58.

'Tis a Mistake; for when I see a Person fearing God abused, scandalized, defamed and mis-represented, contrary to his known Principle and Practice (as I am really sensible and satisfied in my judgment, thou W. R. hast frequently dealt by G. F. and others) I may give my positive Testimony and Judgment against such abusive and malicious Treatment, and yet not under∣take a Proof of any sort of Negative; and then it concerns thee W. R. to make Proof of thy Charges and Accusations, when they are either denyed, or a negative Testimony given against them; otherwise not to think thy self secure by quarrelling with Negative Testimonies, which in many cases are law∣ful and of credit, and not Unchristian, nor Immoral, as thou seemest to render them. Neither needed the Pen-man therein to be∣lieve G. F. to be God or Christ that never erred, as thou falsly (by way of supposition)

arguest, pag. 59. to render us odious. For if the Pen-man did but believe (as he doth) G. F. to be a Servant of Christ, or a real Christian, or a man fearing God, he might reasonably shew an utter dislike of thy scornful Abuses, Reproaches and Scandals cast upon him, to render him as odious and obnoxious as thou canst readily do in thy Books.

§. 3. Then as concerning the Contra∣dictions, collected in our Treatise aforesaid, from pag. 204, to p. 227. thou citest only the first Instance, and givest us thy bare Affirmation, That the rest are as groundless, pag. 59.

The first Instance mentioned by thee is, BETWEEN thy telling of so great a concern of Conscience on many to encourage the Publi∣cation of thy Book, lest it should be reputed, That the Doctrine and Life of Christianity were wholly extinct among the aforesaid People.

AND John Wilkinson's writing, That of late dayes the Concord we once had seems much to be broken, &c. And the cause God hath manifested to me, That it is NOT IN PRINCIPLES OF TRUTH, NOR IN CHRIST's DOCTRINE, nor in any Practice which Truth, in the Members of the heavenly Body leadeth into; but about Prescrip∣tions—through the blind zeal of the weak, &c.

Observe; Hath not the one plainly here placed the Apostacy (charged) to be from the Doctrine and Life of Christianity; And the other not in Principles of Truth, nor in Christ's Doctrine? W. R. as the great As∣serter thereof, on behalf of himself and his party, and those whom he writes a∣gainst to be Apostates and Innovators; and not only so, but hath he not (in divers things) contradicted them both in matter of Doctrine and Practice in his Books?

Hath not the other (i. e. J. W.) placed the cause of the breach of the Concord, and of the Jarr, as not being in Principles of Truth, nor in Christ's Doctrine, nor in any Practice which Truth leads into? What's more plain than Affirmative in the one, and Negative in the other, on the same sub∣ject? Is not here a manifest contradiction between presupposing such occasion of re∣pute, as if the Doctrine and Life of Christi∣anity were wholly extinct; And, The breach NOT in Principles of Truth, nor in Christ's Doctrine, &c. The second contradiction does also make it more plain, BETWEEN W. R. his placing the dis-union in Prin∣ciples, Doctrines and Practices, and his pla∣cing it in Ceremonies, the Shell, not in Prin∣ciples of Truth, nor in Christ's Doctrine; See Accuser, p. 206, 207. As also Between the words [wholly extinct among the

AFORESAID PEOPLE] and [Through the blind Zeal of THE WEAK;] for the weak among them, includes not the said People.

But W. R. to save himself from a contra∣diction to J. W. in this case, pleads the different dates of their Words, viz. that J. W's were written in the Year 1676. and W. R's in the Year 1680.—and that when Differences in the Church begin, they usually ascend higher and higher, and fresh and new occasions, are often administred, p. 60.

Here he seems hard put to it, yet this will not save him, nor excuse him; for he knows that the same Practices and Do∣ctrines, for which he has rendred many of the said People Apostate, were in being among them before the Year 1676. as with respect to Womens Meetings, Marriages, Tythes, Tree of Knowledge, &c. As for Priest and Professor reputing or supposing the Doctrine and Life of Christianity extinct or suffering Shipwrack among the said People, p. 60. W. R's rendring many, or the greatest part of them Apostate, was not the way to prevent such Thoughts or Suppo∣sition in them, who were of the same mind against the Quakers, long before he writ, as being no Christians, according as he has rendred many of them: Nor will the rude∣ness of some in the publick Meeting at

Bristol (whether of his own party, or any others) prove a just occasion of such Re∣pute against the said People called Quakers, as his words suppose, without exception.

§. 4. Of the Catalogue of his Contra∣dictions, W. R. again gives us his own Af∣firmation, That not one Instance mentioned therein, as contradiction, will bear that term; and then cryes out of fallacious Prevarica∣ting Insinuations, &c. p. 61. But would not W. R. have exclaim'd against this me∣thod of Writing in another (if against himself) as Imposition, begging the Question, undertaking to prove any sort of Negatives, and not to be credited?

And now William, as for any of us chal∣lenging a Meeting with thee, and thy prof∣fering it in the City of Bristol; and thy in∣stance of an incitement to a Friendly dis∣course, p 61.

Thy Friendship being turn'd into En∣mity, and thy Love into apparent Hatred against us (thy antient Friends) we have no ground to expect any Friendly discourse from thee; thou hast been sufficiently tryed in that way: And 'tis not thy endeavour∣ing to flourish, vaunt and boast it off that will either regain thy Repute among God's People, or restore that Friendship thou hast extinguisht on thy part, by thy ungodly

hard Speeches and Writings, words of Hatred, Scorn and Pride, which thou ap∣pearest puft up withal.

One passage I may not omit, touching W. R's contradictions, p. 62. in these Words, viz. 'Tis well worthy the Readers observation, that though the Pen-man adds in the Title these Words, viz. [with Questions, Notes and Remarks thereon] yet none of the Notes or Remarks do inform the Reader what is right or what is wrong, in the pretended matter of contradiction (more than in pag. 228. in these words, A plain Concession to Truth. Now he speaks like some Ambassadour of Christ) For the aforesaid omission I do not commend either the Honesty or Justice of the Pen-man to me, or his care over the Flock.

To all which I Answer; 1st, This charge contains a notorious falshood: 2dly, A self-contradiction and judgment against himself. For First, our sence of what is right and what is wrong in his Contradictions, were not only declared in our Treatise in many things, before the Contradictions were ranked together, but also the Que∣stions, Notes and Remarks upon them, do inform the Reader what is right, and what is most agreeing to our sence as right, and what not. What we oppose, commonly is first set down in the first Column, and the better part in the second, for confuta∣tion

of himself, as the nature of the Que∣stions, &c. do evince plain enough to the Intelligent: As for instance, where W. R. is set against W. R. in his Contradictions; as BETWEEN his saying, This Doctrine frequently publisht among us [That the Apo∣stacy shall never enter the generality more] doth give us just occasion to be Jealous, &c. Part 1. p. 14. AND, his saying, I would NOT be understood to say, That the Apo∣stacy shall never enter the generality again, Part 3. p. 74. Our Question on this con∣tradiction is, Q. Then why does he so often quarrel with the Doctrine frequently published, as he saith, viz. That the Apostacy shall never enter the generality more? Which plainly shews, we own his assent to this Doctrine to be right, and not his Jealous opposition to it.

Again, to his Contradiction, in say∣ing, WE REASONABLY conclude, that the Words of Christ and the Apostle (in Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. and 1 Cor. 6.1, 2, 4.) ON∣LY hinted at Personal Offences or Differences, touching worldly matters, Part 1. p. 47. And confessing (on Mat. 18.15, 16, 17.) that EVERY CASE, wherein one Brother may trespass against another, may in RIGHT REASON be comprehended in it, Part 3. p. 36. Our Question on this contradiction is, Q. Whether EVERY CASE be to be

limited only to WORLDLY MATTERS, and not extend to any Cases of a Spiritual nature? Which implyeth our accepting his assent to the latter, viz. Every such case, &c. and not his limiting it only to worldly Matters.

Again, his placing CIRCVMCISION as exercised in a CHRISTIAN-LIBERTY; (and calling it that Christian-Liberty) saying, This did not at that time condemn that Chri∣stian Liberty, in such as made Conscience of Circumcision, (which were some believing Jews) Part 3. p. 82. and Part 5. p. 74, 75. AND his contrary confession, That the Labour of the Apostles of Christ in the Pri∣mitive dayes, was to DRAW the outward Jew FROM OFF the observation of these Ordinances, which were really establisht by the appointment of God himself, Part 1▪ p. 73.

Our Question on this Contradicti∣on, is, Q. How can it be good Do∣ctrine to account Circumcision a CHRISTI∣AN-LIBERTY, and an Exercise not con∣demnable in Believers, when the labour of the Apostles were to draw the outward Jew from off the observation of these Or∣dinances?

This plainly evinceth, that we do not own his Doctrine to be right, that Circumci∣sion was a Christian-Liberty; though there was for some time a Christian-forbearance

towards them that observ'd it, in obedi∣ence to Moses's Law in the Old Cove∣nant.

Again, BETWEEN W. R's opposing that Doctrine, That the Tree of Knowledge was not good for Food, as not knowing on what Foot of Truth any one can SO assert. And his saying, I would not be under••••ood to reflect on ALL, that have used that Expression, viz. The Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food, Part 2. p. 27, 29. Our Question on this contradiction, is, Q. 1. If he counts the Doctrine erronious, or not of the Truth, to say, that the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food; does not this reflect on all that have used that Expression? And 2dly, In commendation of the Tree of Know∣ledge as good for Food, as in it self, he instanced John 17.3. This is Life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent; adding that 'Tis evident that Knowledge is the Way to Life, Part 2. p. 28. Hereupon we put the Question; Q. 3. Did God forbid the Knowledge of himself? the Knowledge which is Life eternal? that Knowledge which is the Way to Life, to man in the state of Innocency in the beginning? Let this be considered. And, Q 4. Can it be good Doctrine to say, That the Serpent perswaded Eve to that Knowledge which

is the way to Life, or to the Knowledge of the true God and Jesus Christ, which is Life eternal? Could THAT be the Knowledge that God forbad Man eat of? Were not this very absurd, to render the Serpent more kind to Man than his Maker was?

Is it not here apparent, that we have in∣formed the Reader, that 'tis not right to esteem the Tree of Knowledge good for Food? As also on his contradiction in pleading one while For them who Freely pay Tythes without constraint (i. e. to the National Ministry.) Another while for J. W. and J. S. Their Testimony against Tythes, as being (as at this day paid) Anti∣christian, Part 2. p. 43. and Part 4. p. 39. On which we observe and question, Whe∣ther the Liberty W. R. has here granted for the free payment of Tythes, be not an In∣novation, tending to beget into a Loose∣ness and Apostacy from our antient Chri∣stian Testimony against Tythes? And whether it be not contradictory to J. W. and J. S. their Testimony cited by himself? Accuser, &c. p. 224, 225.

What's more plain, than that his Liber∣ty or Freedom granted for the payment of Tythes, is wrong and inconsistent with our antient Christian Testimony?

2dly, That W. R's Charge before re∣cited,

contains Self-contradiction and Judgment against himself (though in it self untrue against the Pen-man) is evident in his judging, that his Notes and Remarks do not inform the Reader what is right, or what is wrong, in the matter of Contradiction charg'd against him; and for which Omission he does not commend either the Honesty or Justice of the Pen-man, &c. or his care over the Flock.

Now though the Injustice and Falshood of this Charge is already fully detected, observe how obviously W. R. hath hereby brought Judgment upon himself, concern∣ing the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, to his being told, That he seems to account it good for Food. To this he answers, viz. Nothing said by me, or cited as my Words by themselves, shews either opposition or assent to such Doctrine, p. 51. Neither have I written any thing to shew my own sence either way (viz. whether the Tree of Knowledge was or was not good for Food.) p. 50. This is all one, as for W. R. to tell us, That he doth not inform the Reader what is Right or what is Wrong, in this matter of Contro∣versie; that is, Whether it be Right or Wrong to say, the Tree of Knowledge is good for Food?

If nothing writ or said by him, doth shew his own sence either way, he would

be angry if I should make a Similitude Be∣tween him and the Jesuits, in his reserve in this point; When they contend against the Opinions of others, but reserve and hide their own: And if then it be both Disho∣nesty and Injustice, not to inform the Rea∣der what's right, or what's wrong, in things contrary as before intimated) then where's W. R's Honesty or Justice in this matter? How evidently is he here self-condemned and judged? How manifold and numerous are his Contradictions! Now, William, consider what Labyrinths of Confusion thou runnest into.

§. 5. And William, I cannot well but take notice of thy Postscript, of somewhat above a Page, what a slighty Answer and scorn∣ful PUT-OFF it is. To the Book given forth by four of our Friends of the City of Bristol, entituled, An Exalted Diotrephes Re∣prehended, against thy Christian-Quaker, &c. in five parts. Instead of a solid An∣swer, or sober Vindication of thy self, from their Charge against thee, as being of an abusive lavish Tongue, of a rude, inso∣lent and imperious Behaviour in Men's Meetings, and speaking prophanely of the Power of God: To these things thou sayst, viz. All which I return as Dirt, unworthily cast on me—Such their Calumniations are

meerly because of my zealous opposing them and others, &c. And then further sayest, There are few men so weak as (on serious consider∣ation) to believe GENERAL CALVMNI∣ATIONS against a man once well esteemed by the Calumniators: Let this be minded, and their Answer duely weighed, and then 'twill appear that nothing of weight in the said Book is written against me, p. 79. [Thus far thou.]

Oh miserable Evasion, Fallacy and Falshood! with what Conscience couldst thou thus write, (William) as if their said Book and Answer consisted but of General Calumniations against thee, (What reason is there to credit thy general denyal?) which I am sure is a shameful and notorious Untruth. Take one instance out of many more, wherein they charge thee with par∣ticular matter of Fact, and that is about the Paper of Condemnation, or Submission, which was exhibited and owned by J.S. and J. W. at the Meeting at Drawell in Yorkshire, Anno 1676. when afterward they were minded to extenuate (or take off) the weight of it, not owning it according to the common acceptation of A Condemna∣tion, &c. as the said Friends of Bristol re∣late: Hereupon they do particularly charge thee (William) about the same Paper, in these Words, viz. And William Rogers,

(who confessed he drew it for J. S. and J. W.) reported, There was nothing in it, and that the most Innocent man amongst us might own it, and never hurt himself, and that it was not better than a RATTLE to please Children; See their said Book, enti∣tuled, An Exalted Diotrephes Repre. p. 13. And not only in this, but in divers other particular matters they also charge thee home in their Book; and also signifie, that they do not think it necessary at present, to particularize thy prophane speaking concerning the Power of God, no more than they have already done concerning thy horrible unsincere dealing with the Brethren at Drawell, &c. Exalt. Diotreph. p. 17.

Now (William) didst not thou render thy self horribly unsincere, in declaring the said Paper, (which thy self drew up) no better than a Rattle to please Children? af∣ter thou knewst that J. S. & J. W. had ten∣dered it as satisfaction to their Brethren, and the Church of God in general (as their own and thy Words are in it.) Didst thou think to please those Brethren, and the Church of God in general, with a Rattle for Children? Oh, William! was not this particular matter of Fact, and that very gross and absurd? How didst thou resemble the Ranters therein, and bewray great and

horrid Deceit to have entred thee? I can∣not in Charity think that the Devil had got so much hold of thee at that instant, when thou drewst up that said Paper at Dra∣well, as to intend it only as a Rattle to please Children; for thy own Narrative bespeaks better, and more serious things of Friends and Brethren, in their proceedings there towards J. S. and J. W. Surely then thou wast in a better and more serious and sin∣cere mind at that time: But I rather think the Devil prevailed with thee afterward, after thou hadst eaten the Sop among the Disciples, and in the time of thy (and parties) discontented and murmuring Consultations, Satan entred thee, to de∣vise that deceitful and Ranter-like cover and evasion of the said Paper, being but As a Rattle to please Children; Though at first tendred as Satisfaction to the Church of God in general.

Thus thy Fallacy, (in particular matter of fact) is detected, also in slighting and huffing off the said Friends Book, but as General Calumniations, and therefore nothing of weight in it; when there's such particu∣lar matter of notorious Fact charg'd upon thee in it, as thou canst not get over, nor acquit thy self of.

And what men are so weak (on serious consideration) as to believe thy general

Calumniations against either Persons, Peo∣ple or Society, once well esteemed, by thee a Calumniator? Or to esteem thee and thy Abettors The Christian-Quaker, and all whom thou calumniatest to be Apostates and Innovators, according to thy Judgment? How wilt thou clear thy self from a meer begging the Question in both? which is never likely to be granted to thee as the case stands, according to thy own terms, and supposition cast upon us for our owning our selves to be the Church of Christ, p. 45, 61. thou having been once in society with us, and didst well esteem of us, but now not only gone out from us, but turn'd bitter Enemy against us, whilst no probation made on thy part, either of our violating or disserting our first Principles of our Christian Union and Society, which thy Brother F. Bugg hath most sillily, yet maliciously attempted to prove against William Penn, Stephen Crisp, John Burnyeat, Alexander Parker, Thomas Salthouse and My Self, from a Paper signed by us from a yearly Meeting, Anno 1675. wherein the sence and tender advice of the said Meeting is propounded in several matters of moment, all which, (in conclusion) are recommended to the Evidence of Gods holy Witness in the Hearts of his People. Where's now the Imposition, Antichristian Apostacy or Violence done to

our first Principles of Union, charged on us by Francis Bugg, from this very Paper aforesaid, in his Book, De Christiana Liber∣tate? W. R. dost thou allow of the said Paper thus recommended as a sufficient proof of the Subscribers Apostacy and Imposition? I am sure thou hast exprest the contrary. Now W. R. and F. B. clear your selves from begging the Question, if you can, by plain Evidence of your own Chri∣stianity and our Apostacy.

William, thou farther calumniatest and abusest our said Bristol Friends in thy Post∣script, saying, R. V. is known to be as busie to go in the Second day's Meetings Errands, as an hired Apparitour is to go in the Errands of a Bishops Court. And that R. S. and C. H. thou takest to be fitly qualified, to say ANY THING, right or wrong to defame thee; accusing one of them with a Lying Spirit entred him, p. 79, 80

These Persons of Bristol, whom thou calumniatest are well known, both to their Neighbours and others, who I am perswa∣ded will not give credit to thee therein▪ Thy scornful Invectives against them will go but a little way with those who know the honesty and good Repute of the Persons whom thou here writest against, and their deep suffering, with many more for Consci∣ence towards God, which it appears thou hast

little regard to, or sence of, who whilst they are suffering under strait Confinement and Duress in a Nacious Goal in the City of Bristol, for their tender Consciences (as they were when this thy Book (7th part) came forth, and as many yet are) thou art secure in a Corner, studdying and scribling against them, to calumniate and defame them in Print, as men of no Conscience towards God, fitly qualified to say any thing, right or wrong, a Lying Spirit entred, &c. Such is thy Treatment to the Prisoners of Jesus Christ, to add Affliction to their Bonds, and to make void their Testimony and Suffering for his Names sake. And not only thus, but thou art cruelly mocking, flouting and deriding at them, telling a story against one of these suffering Friends of Bristol, which thou sayst, occasioned De∣rision and Laughter; and that by a Lying Spirit entred them (thou sayst) they may become a derision, both to Professor and Prophane, and a scorn to Fools themselves, p. 80. No doubt thy scornful and malicious Work against them (though otherwise under Per∣secution and Suffering) and against many others fearing God, is to make them as ridiculous, and as much the Subjects of scorn and derision as thou canst; but 'twill all return upon thy own head, thou wilt reap the fruit of thy own doings. Thy pretended

Love, Christian Charity, Lamentation for thy Brethren, &c. (in thy hypocritical Epistle directed to the flock of God) go but a little way it seems; but that and other Instances of thy Insincerity and Dissimulations are numerous.

§. 6. And with what Sincerity or Con∣science, couldst thou not only pretend an inclination toward an accommodation of the Controversie, but also propose to our second day's Meeting for thee To read thy Answer, (viz. thy 7th part, when in Print) amongst us, and after so done to leave it with us, and to pretend, thy end was, that if the Meeting should that day propose any expedient, answering the Witness of God in thy Conscience, to stop the Publication thereof, thou shouldst then answer the same by forbearing a further Publication thereof, as in thy Letter, dated, London, the 17th of the 2d Moneth, 1682? pag. 80.

I do still question, with what sincerity or conscience thou couldst make such Pro∣position, and pretend such an end in it to that our Meeting, when thou hadst already prejudged the same Meeting in Print, as be∣ing Apostate Innovators, &c? What capacity could such be in to answer the Witness of God in thy Conscience, if apostatiz'd from it in themselves? And what ground couldst

thou have to expect such a change in them from Apostacy, as that Now (when thou proposedst the reading thy Book) they might be in a capacity to reach thy Conscience, as thou sayst? p. 82. Besides, can any in reason suppose thee real or sincere in thy Proposition for an expedient to stop the Publication of thy Book of about twelve Sheets, when already Printed? Was not the design of thy Proposition rather for a pretence to excuse thy self, and for a flourish over us, as thou hast made an empty one, and what hast thou got by it?

And was it not manifest, that thou wast still at least jealous of our said Meeting, as being Apostate, in thy not being free then to answer our three Questions, which were very proper, to try the reality of thy own Proposition, and thy end pretended thereof, in order to our hearing thy said Book read. The Questions were these, viz.

Question 1. Whether thou art sensible thou hast done evil or hurt to Truth in the Publica∣tion of thy great Book, entituled, The Christian-Quaker distinguished, &c?

Quest. 2. Whether thou hast any better thoughts of our Second day's Meeting now, than thou hadst when thou wrotest that Book, as not now to esteem the said Meeting Apostate, &c?

Quest. 3. Whether thou lookest upon the said Meeting now in a capacity to answer the Witness of God in thy Conscience?

To which thou only gave us this return, viz. I am not free to answer at present.

Our Reason for the Questions was, That we might not spend our time in vain, or to no effect, in hearing thy Book read, which we should do, if we should undertake it, and have no assurance of thy having any better thoughts then of our said Meeting, than to deem it Apostate? Or if thou didst not then look upon it as capable to answer the Witness of God in thy Conscience? To which thou not being then free to an∣swer, we might very well then not be free to hear thy Book read among us, nor be so imposed upon, as to spend our time upon such uncertainty, having no probability of thy performing thy own Proposition, with respect to the end proposed, whilst not prov'd sincere or Christian on thy parts Therefore thy Reflection upon our said Meeting, and supposing us like a Company of lazy or guilty Priests, for our refusal to suffer the reading of thy said Book amongst us, is both very unjust and scornful, and bespeaks thy Lording Imposing Spirit, thus infamously to upbraid us for not implicitly giving up to spend our precious time to answer thy prejudicate will and humour

upon thy reserved dark uncertainty. And also as a farther aggravation of thy Injustice and Prejudice, thy taking our said Meeting's Treatment of thee on this occasion, to be an Evidence of our affection to sit on the Seat of Vnrighteous Judgment. This also is thy unrighteous Conclusion and false Judgment upon our affection, and is no ways naturally deducible from our forementioned Treat∣ment of thee.

I have omitted many other Instances of thy abuse of Truth and Friends, leaving the righteous God to reckon with thee for all thy injurious dealing and hard speeches, as thou seemest to refer the Pen man to such a Reckoning, pag. 46, 63. The Lord awaken thee out of this hardened gain-say∣ing state, and deliver them that are betray'd by the Enemy, and preserve his Heritage in love and peace over this scornful, exalted, conceited, crooked, quarrelsom apostate Spirit. The Lamb shall have the Victory.