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.

The Second Part of the said Letter.

Francis Bugg;

NOw concerning thy Book, stiled, DE CHRISTIANA LIBERTA∣TE, or Liberty of Conscience, &c. 1st, I observe thou beginest unjustly to ac∣cuse and reflect upon the People called Qua∣kers in the very Title page, in these Words, viz. And the mischief of Impositions amongst the People called Quakers, &c. In two Parts. And that thou concernest the Magistracy with it, both in thy Epistle dedicated to H. North, Knight, (as being obliged to publish it for the Information of the Magi∣stracy, &c.) as also in thy Epistle, directed

to the Noble Bereans, thou concernest the Magistrates, as having in the Book prefix∣ed (i. e. thy first Part) laid before them many weighty Arguments for Liberty of Conscience, &c. So that to the Magistrates thou hast given thy Information against the People called Quakers, as having mischie∣vous Impositions among them; which we ut∣terly deny; and thy Scornful Malicious Book proves it not. Thus thou art turned Informer to the Magistrates against an In∣nocent suffering People, whom thou hast so long walked amongst: How darest thou appear in their Meetings, and thus act the part of a treacherous, malicious Informer against them, even to the Magistrates? Oh! Blush and be ashamed of this thy hate∣ful Work.

2dly, Thou having entituled thy self to to the matters contain'd in a Treatise, en∣tituled, Liberty of Conscience asserted and vindicated, by thy high Commendations gi∣ven of it to H. North, as Being perswaded it will be of Good Service; and (in thy Epistle to the Bereans) A clear Demonstration, &c. And in thy Preface to the Reader, of the Author, thou thus sayest, viz. His Judg∣ment upon this Subject, is my Judgment.

Now observe what this Author's Judg∣ment is concerning the Light in men, whereupon he chiefly placeth his Demon∣stration

for Liberty of Conscience. In page 4. he saith, viz. Their Natural Light, deri∣ved to them from their first Creation, dictating to them what they ought to do, and what not, and enabling them to pass a Judgment upon themselves of their due behaviour towards God, &c. With some other passages of like na∣ture in the said Treatise.

Here (Francis) thou hast presented H. North, and the Magistrates with unsound and unscriptural Doctrine, and appearest Apostate, and corrupt in thy Judgment, in calling the Light in men (which thus dictates their duty) Their natural Light, derived to them from their first Creation: Herein thou hast wrongfully informed H. N. and the Magistrates about the Principle, the Light in men, contrary to the Quakers Testimo∣ny, born from the beginning concerning the Light in men, which is according to the holy Apostle's Testimony, John 1.4, 9. that In the Word, or Son of God, was Life; and that Life was the Light of men; And that this is not a natural or created Light, but a Supernatural and Divine Light of the Christ Jesus, the Son of God.

3dly, And now (Francis) having thus misrepresented our Principle to the Magi∣strates, and so mis-informed them about the Light in men. Thou proceedest upon an unjust charge of Impositions against cer∣tain

Persons, chiefly concerned, owned and approved among the People called Quakers, whom thou scornfully callest G. Fox, and those of Party with him; and hast exposed the Names of some of them in Print, whom thou meanest by that Party, as William Penn, George Whitehead, Stephen Crisp, Alexander Parker, Thomas Salthouse, John Burnyeat, p. 51. And what hast thou to charge all these with, that thou hast printed a Book and informed the Magistracy against them? It is The mischief of Impositions; The incon∣sistency betwixt the Church-Discipline, or Order and Government erected by those,* 1.1 and THAT in the Primitive times (as in the Title of thy second part.) It is also, That there is Violence done to our first Principles of Vnion; Consequently Tyranny introduced, and our Society turned Antichristian, p. 32, 33. (Ac∣cording to W▪ P's Proposition in his Ad∣dress, thus falsly applyed by thee against himself, and the rest of us before-named.) Now Francis, I must plainly tell thee, this Inconsistency and Violence charged by thee against us, we utterly deny, and the In∣stances thou givest do not at all prove it,

As first, G.F's Paper for Women's Meeting distinct, that they might be in the practice of pure Religion, to visit the Fatherless and the Widows, and to see that all be

kept from the spots of the World, &c.

[As 'tis cited at large by thee, p. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37.]

Now (Francis) where's the Inconsi∣stency charged? Can there be an Incon∣sistency where there's no Contradiction, nor the least opposition? Thy judging such Women's Meetings as are for the Practice or Promotion of pure Religion, in the practi∣cal parts of it, inconsistent with the Chri∣stian-Discipline, Order and Government in the Primitive times, doth bespeak not only that thou dost not well understand what Inconsistent means, but also that thou hast undertaken a Charge thou art never able to make good. And thy charge of Violence done to our first Principles of Uni∣on is worse than Inconsistent. And thy scornfully telling of the Women's Charter and New Order, is no Proof (man) of thy Charge: Where's the Inconsistency and Vio∣lence that's charged, done by the faithful Womens Meetings among us, or by any of us, by encouraging them to meet for those Religious and Charitable ends and services mentioned? How hast thou acted the part of an ignorant conceited Scoffer, instead of proving thy Charge before cited? Be∣sides, the very self-same Paper writ by G. F. which thou hast cited as an instance of our Inconsistency and Violence, was

received, owned and approved at a Quar∣terly Meeting at Kendal in Westmorland, in the Year 1671. And another written in approbation thereof, and subscribed by some of thy own party, as John Wilkinson, Richard Stephanson, Henry Garnet, and Twenty one more Friends, for encouraging of the Women's assembling, and Religious Charitable Services before proposed, both which are cited at large in our Book, En∣tituled, The Accuser of our Brethren, from pag. 98, to p. 102. Thus contradictory art thou to some of thy own Brethren, in thy condemning the same Paper as an Imposi∣tion, Inconsistency and Violence to our first Principles, which they so plainly approved of.

4thly, Again, in pursuance of thy unrighteous Charge before cited, thou re∣citest four passages out of a Paper of ours, dated, London, the 27th of the 3d Moneth, 1675. which was given as our Judgment and Advice in certain things needful, for good Order among us (as we believed) The first Passage thou hast cited, is that for Marriages to be at least twice propound∣ed to the Meetings, that are to take care therein, &c. before they are accomplished, &c. Now where's the Inconsistency here, with the Discipline in the Primitive Chri∣stian Church, or the Violence done to our

first Principles of Union? Instead of pro∣ving thy charge by this instance, we have in thy Observation a piece of Scorn and Mockery, viz. This notable, if not universal Council: Their new stamped Government, p. 42. Oh! be ashamed of such Scorn and Folly! Is this thy proof of thy charge? Is it a violation to our first Principles of U∣nion, to have Marriages proposed at least twice to the Meetings concerned? (both Mens and Womens, where both are e∣stablished) However, to be twice proposed to such Meetings as are established, and to take care therein, to understand that the Persons be clear, and Friends satisfied, be∣fore the Marriage be accomplished? And this has been these many Years practised among us; and I know no true Union bro∣ken thereby, nor any violation done to our first Principles thereof: Be ashamed there∣fore of thy fruitless attempts, in giving such an high charge against us, when thou canst make no proof it.

5thly, Concerning our Testimony on behalf of Mens and Womens Meetings in the Church of Christ; as for their Rise and Establishment, being in the counsel of God, and for the encouraging Faithful and Grave Women therein, and to admonish them that discountenance or weaken their Hands in the Work and Service of the Lord, &c.

Thou callest this A Decree, a decretal Order; This New fashioned Edict, p. 45, 46. And sayst, It has no relation to Scripture-Authority, Pre∣cept or President; no relation to the Example of the Holy men of God recorded in Scripture, nor any command of God or Jesus Christ. Why no Relation to them? How provest thou that? what because we have not every parti∣cular circumstance of Persons and things ex∣prest? Whence it follows not that this has no relation to Scripture or President, &c. Holy Women and Sisters in the Faith, Elder Widdows that were honourable, and Dea∣conesses, did many Religious and Charitable Services in the Primitive Christian Church∣es: What then might they not meet and confer together for one anothers help and encouragement in those Services they had, and were frequently imployed in? Can it either be a violence to their Principles of Union for such to meet together? or have their Assemblies no relation to Scripture? What contrariety thereto have they? Sure∣ly we alwayes accounted our Religious Meetings, to serve one another in Love, consistent with our Union and the Prin∣ciples thereof. And so for Godly Women to meet for those Religious and Charitable ends and Services, for which their Assem∣blies are intended, must needs be consistent with the same Principles of Love and

Union, and tend to the Increase thereof, and not to the Violation thereof, as thou hast falsly charged. Upon our Admonition,

Not to discountenance or weaken their Hands in the Work and Service of the Lord.

Thou maketh this observation, viz. See what a strict and severe admonition is uttered forth, even as if it had come from the Pope's Council of Jesuits and crafty Fryars, [Scoffing and Smiting still at the Womens Meetings] p. 46, 47.

How now (Francis) is this thy treat∣ment and comparison of us? Hadst thou no better than the Pope's Council of Jesuits and crafty Fryars to compare us unto, in our Testimony and Admonition? Oh! be ashamed of such foul, sordid, and scornful, and false treatment, who instead of pro∣ving thy Charge of Inconsistence and Vio∣lence, as before, now abuseth us, mocks and scoffs, and scandallizeth us, like a con∣ceited proud Fool.

6thly, Be ashamed also of thy scornfully upbraiding us with our Womens Meetings, as an Idol of our own erecting; and asking, Why should it not publickly be brought to Light, and made as manifest as the Lord Cromwell made the Papists great Idol, to wit, the Rood of Grace (which had goggling Eyes, and would smile when a good Gift was offorded to it) when he caused it to be brought to Paul's Cross, where

the People tore it all to pieces, in King Henry the 8ht's time, p. 47.

Oh, thou ungodly Wretch and malicious Informer! is this a fit Comparison and In∣stance to present the Magistrates with, against our Christian, Religious, Charitable and Sober Womens Meetings? And dost thou under such an abominable and odious Comparison thus expose them to the Magi∣strates, for their Meetings, to be torn to pieces? Thou vile Wretch, blush and be ashamed of such malicious, scornful and defaming Impertinences, thus instead of proving thy before-cited Charge, to act the malicious, reviling and false accusing Informer against God's People; then scornfully concludest thy Observation with these words, viz. This notable, not Scriptu∣ral, but Anti-scriptural Edict, p. 48. Which is a false Conclusion, without Premises, and a shameful begging the Question, wherein thou art an Imposer; for not one sentence or word in all that said Paper of our sence and Advice hast thou proved ANTI-SCRIPTVRAL, or directly contrary to Scrip∣ture, as thy terms are, p▪ 79. Thou shouldst then have shewn us what Scripture forbids either faithful Womens Assembling, or those Religious and Charitable ends and services proposed, which their Meetings are

intended for? I dare challenge thee in this to prove thy charge of Anti-scriptural.

7thly, I do affirm, thou art so far from making good thy Charge, that for all thy Attempts, I have still occasion to return the same charge upon thee that we did upon William Rogers, which for a pretence thou citest, but dost not answer it, p. 39. viz.

What new and unchristian Doctrines and Practices are we fallen into? We find no proof nor discovery thereof in all thy Book.

I do profess seriously (however thou scoffingly callest me a notable serious George)

I see no cause nor reason thou shewest for the great noise & rumble thou makest about outward Laws, Prescriptions, Orders, Edicts or Decrees, outward form of Government, Apostacy, Innovation, Impositions, Lording over Faith, over Conscience, &c. (To which I may add thy terms, Womens Charter, Grant, Confirmation, New Order, Decretal Order, New fashion'd Edict, Popes Council, Papists great Idol, Canonical Rules, New spiritual Lords, Decrees, Canons, Edicts of Men, Tyrannical proceedings, &c.) whilst thou shewest to us no unjust, no unlawful nor uncomely Order or Proceedings amongst us, as a People, nor yet givest us any Catalogue or Instance of those Impositions, Innovations, New Doctrines or Practices brought in and received amongst us, which

are INCONSISTENT with our first Te∣stimony to the Light and Grace of God within, and teaching thereof, or thereby condemned as Evil, or wholly unnecessary in themselves (as our words are.)

8thly, This thou dost not answer, but Marvellest that G. Whitehead should have the Confidence thus to call for a Catalogue of New Orders that are introduced among us; or rather (sayst thou) Impudence to deny such things as are every Moneth put in practice among us. And therefore sayst, thou wilt bring forth Proof and President; first the Confirmation of the Foundation of the Womens Meetings, namely, G. F's Order by a general Council held at London, 1675.

To all which I must tell thee, thou dost not follow the terms of the Challenge, but ramblest impertinently, telling us of New Orders, such things, the Confirmation of the Foundation of the Womens Meetings, &c. but provest not those things (nor one thing) practised among us as a People; or that first Confirmation, as thou falsly callest it, to be Inconsistent with (or contrary to) our first Testimony to the Light and Grace of God within, and teachings thereof. 'Tis not thy making a noise with New Orders, De∣crees, &c. shall serve thy turn in this point; but I challenge thee to prove that the set∣ting up and encouraging our faithful

Womens Meetings are contrary to the Light and Grace of God within and teach∣ings thereof. This is matter thou hast un∣dertaken to bring proof and president for. This is close to the terms of our Challenge, and thou hast but made shuffling, slubbering work about it.

9thly, Moreover, what we propounded in our Paper aforesaid, (which thou callest The Confirmation by a general Council held at London, Anno 1675. and which thou hast instanced for proof of thy Charge of In∣consistency and Violence, and consequently as Antichristian) was tenderly concluded in these terms, viz.

All which we recommend to the Evidence of Gods holy Witness in the Hearts of his People. * 1.2

Why didst thou not take notice of this Con∣clusion, to have prevented thy false charge of Imposition, wherein thou hast contra∣dicted thy Brother William Rogers; for he hath divers times assented to and own'd the giving advice and counsel by way of Recommendation, distinguishing that from Im∣position, as his own Books and Words are evidence. But thou cryst out, Impositions,

Inconsistency, Violence to our first Principles of Vnion, on that very same Paper which is concluded by way of Recommendation to the Evidence of Gods holy Witness in the Hearts of his People. And to this and other Papers of Advice, Judgment, &c. thou hast opposed Liberty of Conscience, and so made void Spiritual Censures, contrary to the very Author thou hast printed, owned and espoused, as being of the same Judgment with thee, where he saith, pag. 138. part 1.

'Tis very fit, that wheresoever you will sup∣pose Errors to be sprung up, all the means Christ hath appointed for that end should be used to suppress them, and reclaim Men from them: Let their Mouthes be stop∣ped with sound Doctrine and Spiritual Censures. The only Question is about the use of the Temporal Power in such things.— Principles and Opinions in the Mind were never extinguished by the punishing the Body.

Here his Liberty of Conscience pleaded, is not from spiritual Censures, as thou hast per∣verted it, but from corporal Punishments.

10thly, Whereas in our Book, Accuser, &c. pag. 127. we signified, that having these things in our Eye, viz.

The great ends of true Religion and Christian Society, a godly Care over one another, provoking one another to Love and good Works, we can the more easily concur

and accord, as to Circumstances and out∣ward Methods; and in the Wisdom of God so to condescend one to another, and accommodate matters, as not to divide about them, &c.

Against this thou exceptest, in these words, viz. p. 96. I marvel that the Author of the Accuser, &c. which is said to be G. Whitehead, should have the Confidence thus to appear in Print, when his own Consci∣ence tells him the contrary, instancing R. Smith of Colne, as not admitted to have his Wife, because he would not go into the Womens Mee∣ting: The grand Opposer was G. W.—It may evidently appear how far G. W. was from Accommodation or Condescention, which he fallaciously pretends to the World, in order to deceive them, to cover their Deceit, Hy∣pocrisie and Arbitrary Church-Government, Dominion and Lordship, &c. p. 97.

And to aggravate the matter against G. W. in page 129. thou sayst, That the pretence of the Author of the Accuser, to Condescention and Accommodation is fallacious and false, and a meer piece of feigned Hypocrisie to amuse the Reader and delude the World. And likewise in pag. 150. thou art smiting at G. W. on the same account.

Here thou hast brought my name upon the Stage in Print, but hast most grosly belyed me and abused me, as to my Con∣science,

in saying it tells me the contrary. Be ashamed of this thy presumptious bespat∣tering and abusing me in Print; for my Conscience tells me, I was real in what I proposed in Condescention and Accommodating matters, and that I was no deceiver therein, as thou proudly slanderest me. The Con∣descention and Accommodation was to those that had the great ends of true Religion, Christian care and love one to another in their Eye; it was to the upright and tender hearted, and not to the exalted, hard and wilful. And I gave my Christian and tender Advice to the Person who then pro∣posed his Intention, in order to convince him of the reasonableness of what I propo∣sed, and he shewed no reason against it, but remained stiff and pertinacious, which I cannot impute to a real tender Conscience; the woman was tender and flexible, and of a better Spirit. Therefore be ashamed of abusing and belying me in Print, as for ap∣pearing in Print contrary to my Conscience, as thou hast shamefully belyed me, and so falsly informed the Magistrates against me, as about Condescention and Accommodation (and divers other things) about which I must farther tell thee, The condescention of primitive Christians was to them of low de∣gree, the strong in bearing with the weak, bearing one anothers burthens, and so fulfil∣ling

the Law of Christ. The Persons unto whom the Condescention was, were in a measure of the same faith and love; it was not to false Brethren (such as thou art) or to false Apostles, deceitful Workers, who caused Divisions, &c. false Brethren that watched with an evil Eye, to such the true Apostle gave not place by subjection, no, not for an hour: What Apostolical con∣descention was then given to them? There was an Apostolical authority and sharpness, against such evil Agents of Strife and Di∣vision (such as thy self) that they should be marked, as well as a condescention to weak (yet upright-hearted) Brethren.

11thly, In the Certificate, printed by thee from Huntington-Meeting, to the Quarterly-Meeting in the Isle of Ely, about the said R. S. his publishing his Intentions of taking to Wife A. O. of Aldred, but grieved some Friends by rejecting their Counsel; After some Friends, there's this Parenthesis added, viz. [Perhaps Richard Jobson and Tobias Hardmeat, G. Fox's two principal Studs in that Country.] This looks like a scornful Forgery of thy own framing and addition; And I find no Ad∣vertisement to distinguish or except it as thy own, as thou hast done in thy Letter to W. P. about the Copy of Orders Recorded as Your Canon (as thou scornfully callest

them) in the Quarterly—verbatim, Paren∣thesis excepted (sayst thou) p. 139. Remem∣ber thou hast confessed, That to expose and falsly represent a People, would be very wicked; and such a Practice is, and ever was hated of God & good men, p. 208. Yet after thou hast pro∣mised to recite the said Certificate, p. 96. thou hast, as before, inserted the said scornful Parenthesis, viz. [Perhaps R. Job∣son and T. Hardmeat, G. Fox's two princi∣pal Studs in that Country] p. 97, 98. Unto which thou hast subscribed Jasper Robins, Edward Neel, William Whitehead, James Parris, Thomas Bundy, Richard Tayler, Tho∣mas Bagly, Nathaniel Cawthorn, Nathaniel Neel. Now I am perswaded, that these very Persons, Jasper Robins, and the rest, if they come to observe the said scornful Parenthesis inserted in their said Certifi∣cate, unto which their Names are subscri∣bed, as well as the rest of it, and that without such Advertisement or Exception, as before, they'l look upon it, and judge it as thy own Scurrility and gross Forgery, and thereupon they may testifie against thee, for exposing and falsly representing them in Print, to that which is none of theirs, and that therefore thou hast done that which is very Wicked, a practice that is and ever was hated of God and good Men, according to thy own Sentence.

12thly, Whereas in thy printed Letter to Friends of our Meeting in London, thou sayest, That R. R. needed not be admired by G. W. in Print, for his great Learning, nor perhaps had not, only he hath found out some History, or Popish Author, which sayes, there were Deaconesses as well as Deacons; which (sayst thou) was helpful to G. W. in his Preaching and Disputing for Womens Meetings lately in Huntingtonshire, and elsewhere, &c. p. 178.

Thou mightest have forborn these and other scornful Detractions, cast upon R. R. and my self, and upbraiding him with, Oh! Profound Learning, Logick &c. He can easily answer thy Impertinencies and Silli∣ness, and evince thy Pride and Conceit, in meddling with Learning and Logick, which thou hast so little of. As for R. R. he is known to be learned both as a Man and a Christian; yet not admired by me for any acquired parts; though without offence, he may be allowed his due in those things, without admiration or boasting, and there∣in to be prefered to thy self, who neither writest good English, nor understandest di∣vers words of Learning thou makest use of improperly and impertinently, which I do not mention to detract from and upbraid thee, meerly because of such defect in Learning, but rather as a Reproof to thy

high Conceit, and busying thy self so much in Scribling, and that about matters be∣yond thy capacity to mannage, or render a Reason to decide, and that thou mayest see that there are others can see and discover thy Ignorance and shallow Conceits, as even in this thy Objection against Deaconesses, concluding, That only R. R. hath found out some History or Popish Author, which says, there were Deaconesses as well as Deacons. In this thou hast shewn as well a great deal of ignorance of History, as scorn and con∣tempt; yea, not only Ignorance in that, but Presumption too, and as little Lear∣ning to be sure, in other respects, to place the proof of Deaconesses so indifferently upon some History or Popish Author, as if there were so little difference or distinction, but that if it be some History, then it may as well be said some Popish Author; however, thou knowest not whether it be some Hi∣story or Popish Author. But to correct such Ignorance and Presumption, there are Hi∣stories and Authors which are not Popish, yea, divers Protestant Authors, which af∣firm Deaconesses to have been in the Pri∣mitive Christian Churches, and they were called Diaconissae▪ and even in Rom. 16.1. Paul himself called Phaebe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (i. e. a Deacon, which is a Word borrowed of the Greek) in Latin Ministra, in English A

Servant or Minister. I hope thou wilt not call Paul a Popish Author, writing so to the Romans. And on Rom. 16.1. 1 Tim. 5.9. Deacon is said to be a Title of Office or Administration, given sometimes to Women, vide The Christian-Dictionary, by Thomas Wilson, Bagwell, and Andrew Simpson; to which also agrees Edward Leighs Critica Sacra, and T. C's Greek Lexi∣con on the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, * 1.3 given to Sister Phaebe, in Rom. 16.1. We have William Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers for the three first Ages of Christianity, and that even in the time of the Emperor Tra∣jan, there were Deaconesses that suffered, that were examined upon the Rack (see fol. 21.) As also I find in a Book, entituled A Brief of the Bible's History, by Enoch Clapham, Printed 1608. who writ against the Romish Idolaters, fol. 162. And in fol. 171. He thus affirms,

For the Deacons all almost easily grant, that there were two sorts of Deacons, or Church-Servi∣tors; the first of Men, Acts 6.3. &c. 1 Tim. 3.8. The second of Women, 1 Tim. 5.9. &c. Rom. 16.1. That the first had the charge of gathering the Bene∣volence of the Saints (especially every first day of the Week, 1 Cor. 16.1.)— That the second attended the Sick & Im∣potent,

it is by many held.

[Thus far this Protestant Author, besides many other Protestants that might be cited in this very point, some whereof I told R. R. of, who says, He has many others he has not produ∣ced, and Challenges you to bring one ap∣proved Author, to shew that Women had no Service in the first Churches.] And though the Rhemists grant there were Dia∣conissae or Deaconesses, I do not find that Dr. Fulk doth oppose them in that, but about their being concerned in the Sacra∣ments, and in their Superstitions, Nun∣neries, denying Marriages, &c. (as the Papists would have them.) For as to Dea∣conesses, and their Services in the Chri∣stian Churches, there is great concurrence of History, and antient and modern Wri∣ters, as well Protestants, (if not more) as Papists. And therefore thy placing it up∣on some Popish Author, does greatly manifest not only Ignorance, but rather Presump∣tion, Pride and Contempt against faithful Women's service in the Church of Christ: And I can assure thee, that I had not these precedent (and other) Citations from R. Richardson, but mostly from my own search and observations on the Authors them∣selves; though R. R. may be better credi∣ted in his Affirmation on Knowledge, than thy self in thy ignorant Negation.

13th, Again, I take notice of thy Charge against me, in thy said printed Letter to our Meeting in London, p 178. where scornfully writing against, and re∣flecting on G. W. his preaching and disputing for Womens Meetings in Huntingtonshire. Thou goest on in these words, viz. Where he took too much upon him, and behaved him∣self more like a Lordly Bishop, or Popish Pre∣late, than an humble Minister of Christ; and by me at this time is, and stands impeached as an Enemy to Christian-Liberty, a Vsurper over the Conscience, the which I stand ready publickly to assert, maintain and vindicate, p. 178.

Thus far thou in thy insolent Reviling and Abuse, boasting of thy pretended Im∣peachment against me: But I have met with no lawful nor due Impeachment from thee in any Gospel judicial way. Thou writest thus against me to the Friends of our Second day's Meeting in London, but they cannot own nor receive any such pre∣tended and proof-less Impeachment against me upon thy bare Accusation, nor that thou hast any Jurisdiction to impeach me, as by thy unjustly comparing me to a Lord∣ly Bishop, or Popish Prelate, and rendring me an Enemy to Christian-Liberty, an usur∣per over the Conscience: But this is but like thy accusing me as a Cheat, at having gone

up and down to cheat the Country, after thou hadst flatter'd and fawn'd in another Letter, and intreated my assistance for the ending of the Controversie, as one that could do much in the matter; but now revilest me all to nought, boasting how ready thou stands Publickly to assert, maintain and vindicate. And what? But that G. W. took too much upon him in Huntingtonshire, and behaved himself more like a Popish Prelate, &c. An Ene∣my to Christian-Liberty. And what worse Marks and Characters of Infamy couldst thou have cast upon me? and what more se∣vere Excommunication or Bull couldst thou have exhibited in Print against me? How like an exalted, malicious, prating Diotrephes? how like a Pope? how like the Accuser of the Brethren hast thou acted? Thou accu∣sest, scornest and railest, but provest no∣thing of matter charged: And can any rea∣sonably think thou hast thy Proofs in readi∣ness against me out of Huntingtonshire, of these black and infamous Characters thou hast cast upon me? Thy own bare Accusa∣tions are no Proofs to be sure. The Lord rebuke this thy envious dark Spirit: And he will rebuke it.

But (Francis) art not thou thy self against Christian-Liberty of Conscience? and an usurper over the Womens Consci∣ences (so far as thou canst) in thy perverse

and ignorant opposition against Womens Meetings, who have a Conscience towards God, and our Lord Jesus Christ therein? VVhat Liberty of Conscience dost thou allow them therein? or to me in preaching and discoursing in Huntingtonshire, or else∣where, thus to send out thy Roaring Bull against me in Print, without first either enquiring of me, or hearing me and my Accusers (if there be any besides thy self) face to face? What kind of illegal Pre∣cipiancy art thou guilty of! and yet none more ready to make a great clamour against Excommunications, Orders, Edicts, &c. than thy self? Oh Imperious, Proud, Con∣ceited Person! Blush and be ashamed of such Abusive, Inconsistent and Self-contra∣dictory Work! Be ashamed of thy assuming such Power of Excommunication to thy self over thy Elders, Antient Friends and Brethren, who are approved Servants of Christ. How like a Popish Prelate, yea, like the Pope himself hast thou proudly, maliciously & imperiously acted against me and others of the faithful Servants & Mini∣sters of Christ Jesus? Be ashamed therefore and confounded because of thy Insolent and Slanderous Abuses against the Innocent; and particularly of thy gross Lye against me and others, viz. That the holy Scripture is by us slighted, p. 152. Be ashamed, I say, of this abominable Lye.

And for Confutation to thy abuse of me before, read the following Certificate from Persons of better Credit than thy self.

Huntingtonshire. From our Monethly Mee∣ting at Godmanchester, the 11th day of the 5th Moneth, 1682.

WHereas George Whitehead hath been evilly traduced in two Letters of Francis Bugg's, and charged in one of them with behaving himself in Huntingtonshire like a Lordly Bishop or Popish Prelate, lately. — Now we whose Names are subscribed, do testifie, We never in this County, nor else-where at any time, saw any such thing; and that he is a man far remote from any such matter; but do believe he is a true Labourer in Gods service, and an humble Minister of the Gospel.

• Matthew Kay,
• Samuel Nottingham,
• Tobias Hardmeat,
• Robert Lister,
• Jasper Robins,
• John Wilsford,
• John Aversett,
• John Marshall,
• William Starling,
• Richard Snazdale,
• John King,
• David Tisoeth,
• Thomas Lyster,
• Richard Jobson.

14th, And thy malicious scribling tends, in divers parts of it, unjustly to render us Obnoxious and Offensive to Authority, by wickedly and falsly rendring the Proceedings of some of our Christian Meetings Tyran∣nical and Antichristian, and comparing us to the Popes Councils, to Popes, &c. And all this to Henry North, Knight, and the Ma∣gistrates too, is next to prosecuting us for our Liberties or Lives.—

So disgustful may be thy trumpeting and publishing in Print the Moderation of H. North, Knight, (p. 194.) and his merci∣fulness in taking notice of our threatned Ruin, and preventing it, &c. as in thy Epistle De∣dicatory to him, that doubtless we think Henry North as a prudent man will not thank thee for thus trumpeting his Fame abroad in Print, on behalf of Dissenters; for such kind of Ostentatious dealing is offensive and hateful to great Persons of Prudence, who would not have their good∣ness exposed to publick censure or reflecti∣on, nor be represented as Persons Popular for any dissenting Parties.

I have many more things material against thy Book; but I desire thee to accept of my Labour and honest Endeavours; and what I have written thus largely to thee, as an act of Christian Condescention and good

Will for thy Conviction, that thou mayst yet be abased and humbled unto Repent∣ance and publick Condemnation of thy wicked and scurrilous Book, if the Lord will yet please to give thee an Heart to Re∣pent and acknowledge the Truth, which thou hast deeply offended and sinned against with thy Lyes and Lightness.

And I desire to know, if after the read∣ing and perusal of this my large Letter, thou art at all minded to relent and retract thy Book, or any part of it, and according∣ly to give forth a plain Condemnation or Recantation as publick. To this I expect answer shortly from thee, otherwise trouble me not with any disingenious or scurrilous Letters.

Thy Abused (yet Well-wishing) Friend, George Whitehead.

London, the 3d day of the 8th Moneth, 1682.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Thy Charge collected.
• * 1.2

  Query added. I do serious∣ly ask William Rogers, if this Paper of ours, thus Recom∣mended, be sufficient proof of Imposition, and being tur∣ned Antichristi∣an? I desire plain Answer hereunto, in re∣lation to what he has granted for a Recom∣mendation, &c.
• * 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mas. and Fem.