The Quaker vindication against Francis Bugg's calumnies in his scandalous pamphlet stiled, Something in answer to the allegations of the Quakers (in their printed case presented to the House of Commons, December 1693) ... ; together with Francis Bugg's own vindication of the people called Quakers since he left them and turned to the Church of England.

THE QUAKERS VINDICATION AGAINST FRANCIS BUGG'S CALUMNIES: In his Scandalous Pamphlet, stiled, Something in Answer to the Allegati∣ons of the Quakers (in their Printed Case, Presented to the House of Commons, December 1693.) But his second Edition, Stiled The Con∣verted Quakers Answer. Together with Francis Bugg's own Vindication of the People called Quakers, since he left them and turned to the Church of England.

Conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipse.

First, IT's not unknown unto you that we are Dissenters from the Church of England, and as such we injoy our Liberty by Law under you who are in Authority, (which we have and do thankfully acknowledge) and consequently not to be reputed Criminal for being such.

2. That Francis Bugg himself did not account us Criminal for our Principles two Years after he had left our Communion, and joyned himself unto the Church of England, see his Book.

The Quakers detected, &c. printed 1686. The first point under Consideration is, how I came to be a Member of their Society.

In the beginning they taught that all Men were Inlightned, ac∣cording to John 1. 9. And that this Light wherewith Christ had enlightned them, was sufficient, if obeyed, to lead to Salvation, and that it was the work of the Ministers of Christ, to turn the Peo∣ples minds from Darkness to Light, and from the Power of Satan to God, Affirming that this Light was a sufficient Teacher, Leader & Guide to every Believer, without the help of outward Prescripti∣ons, Forms, Orders and Decrees of Men; upon these and the like Notions I became perswaded to make tryal of their Doctrine. And when I came to see and observe their Practice, Conversations and Deportments in the beginning, and what Simplicity and Plain∣ness attended their Ministry, I was still more confirmed that it was a Dispensation of the Love of God sent as a Visitation to Mankind; and being thus perswaded, I was resolved to bear the Cross, and did utterly despise the Shame, that attended them and their Message, and was not behind any of my Equals, both in do∣ing and suffering for the Testimony thereof, as some amongst them can still bear me witness. And in this manner we went on for many Years, and loved one another with Love unfeigned, and doubtless God blessed our Meetings with the comfortable enjoy∣ment of his presence.

Thus far Francis Bugg, which plainly shews himself very Incon∣sistent with himself, and renders his late Work abusive, malicious, and not to deserve any Credit, against us.

And although this is enough to Clear us from his Calumnies, from what he now pretends or alledgeth against our Doctrine and Con∣versation with all Impartial Men.

Yet as F. Bugg hath vindicated our Doctrine and Ministry as afore∣said, we shall herewith give a general Account by many credible Witnesses of our Belief and Innocency, in opposition to Bugg's great Scandals. So we beseech you to peruse the following particular Ex∣amination of his Calumnies, Partialities and Perversions of our Friends Writings.

Which Writings be pleased to note, were extant in Print many Years before he left us, or gave the aforesaid ample Vindication of our Doctrine and Ministry; and although he confesseth he was more than 25 Years a Member of our Society, Yet in all that time, and some time after he left us, found no fault with our Doctrine or Te∣stimony but own'd and confest the same as aforesaid. And he him∣self must needs then know, that neither he nor we held any such Doctrines as he would now represent. Upon which we query.

1. Didst thou Francis Bugg, when a Quaker, deny Jesus of Nazareth?

2. Didst thou Francis Bugg, when a Quaker. 25 Years, account that the Quakers denyed Jesus of Nazareth?

3. Didst thou F. Bugg contemn the holy Scriptures?

4. Didst thou F. Bugg, when a Quaker, account the Quakers con∣temned the holy Scriptures?

5. Didst thou F. Bugg disown Magistracy?

6. Didst thou F. Bugg, when a Quaker, account the Quakers dis∣own'd Magistracy?

Bugg pag. 5. Concerning his Charge of our denying Jesus of Na∣zareth, We utterly deny it: How proves he it,

1. Observe some of his Instances, viz. pag. 5. Thou must wait to know something of God in thee, which in thy own Conscience he makes manifest.

2. That of God within us is so, viz. the Foundation, for we know it is Christ, we know Christ in us, &c.

3. We believe that Christ in us doth interceed the Father on our behalf.

4. The very Christ of God is within us—We dare not deny him.

By these four Instances of his, he endeavours to prove that The Quakers deny Jesus of Nazareth; but doth not he himself hereby de∣ny the Mystery of Christ in Spirit, and implicity accuse the holy Apostles with denying Jesus of Nazareth for the same Testimony?

1. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, Rom. 1. 19.

2. Examine your selves whether ye be in the Faith, prove your own selves; know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is IN you, except ye be Reprobates? see 2 Cor. 13. 5.

Query 1. Was this another Jesus Christ than Jesus of Nazareth? No sure, there was but one Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 8. 6.

3. Query 2. And was it not Jesus of Nazareth whom Saul perse∣cuted in the Primitive Christians? Yea sure, see Acts 22. 8. I am Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest.

And tho' Bugg cannot conceive this Mystery of Christ IN us, and WITHOUT us also, yet the Apostle says, It was manifest to his Saints.

4. To whom God would make known what is the Riches of the glory of this Mystery amongst the Gentiles, which is Christ IN you the hope of Glory, Col. 1. 27.

5. God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your Hearts, crying, Abba, Father, Gal. 4. 6.

Another of his Instances to prove we deny Jesus of Nazareth; Is, out of W. Smith's Primmer, or demonstration of the New and Living Way, viz. They that are false, preach Christ without, and bid People believe in him as he is in Heaven above; but they that are Christ's Ministers preach Christ within.

We confess there is one Edition in Octavo, reads it as he quotes it; But the other Edition in Folio, bound up with his Works. The Pa∣ragraph runs expresly thus in the fourth Leaf of his said Demonstra∣tion, viz.

Why? they that are false, preach Christ without ONLY, and bid People believe in him as he is in Heaven above, in opposition to his being within, but they that are true Ministers they preach Christ within, and direct People to wait to feel him in themselves, and so to believe in him as he makes himself manifest in them, whereby they truly confess his being without also.

[Thus far W. Smith.]

And this said Author W. S. is yet more full and express in this point, and that too in the very Edition quoted by Bugg in his confessing the same Christ both WITHOUT and WITHIN, viz.

We believe all things which are spoken by the holy Prophets and Apostles concern∣ing Jesus Christ, are true according to the Scriptures: And that he humbled himself to the Death of the Cross, and from Death did rise again: And we believe that he is the Resurrection and the Life, and gives Eternal Life to all that believe in him.

6. Bugg's chief and most remarked Instance to prove the Quakers deny Jesus Christ, is out of Saul's Errand, pag. 32. (which was James Nalyer's Answer) viz.

If I cannot witness Christ nearer than Jerusalem, I shall have no benefit by him; but I own NO OTHER Christ but that (i. e. Christ) who witnessed a good Confession before Pilate, which Christ I witness suffering in me now, pag. 6.

Who but a Person blinded with Envy, Malice and Folly would have rendred this a denyal of Jesus of Nazareth? It appears holy Scripture Testimony is not free from his Reproach.

Bugg, pag. 6.

A Question to Professors, pag. 33. Now the Scriptures do expresly distinguish between Christ and the Body (or Flesh) which he took, saying he can never call the Bodily Gar∣ment (or Vail) Christ.

But Bugg is very unfair in this, in lea∣ving out the Author's own explication, viz. We cannot call the Body (which he took upon him) CHIEFLY and in the FIRST place Christ. As also F. Bugg is quarrelsome in bringing this over again. It ha∣ving been answered before, and to which he hath given no reply. So he may see a little of it again, viz.

We readily grant the Names, Jesus and Christ chiefly belong to him that took the Body or Flesh, yet the names Jesus and Christ were given to both, joyntly and severally, it was Christ that dyed; but how? as concerning the Flesh, 1 Pet. 3. 18. his divine Life never dyed, nor did the Soul of the Messiah ever dye. On the other hand the Apostle, Heb. 10 20. calls his Flesh the VAIL, Mat. 27. 28. The body of Jesus; the Psalmist, A Body hast thou pre∣pared me. And Dr. Barnes, Jesus Christ took Flesh of the Virgin. And thus often in Scripture is each expressed distinct.

To Bugg's Query 5. Whether was the Sufferings of Christ, or the Sufferings of the Quakers greatest?

1. In the first place, we answer, The Sufferings of Christ, in the Nature of them, both inward and outward, in Agony of Soul, and pains of Body ••y that most Cruel Death of the Cross following that of Scourging and Crowning with Thorns.

2. It was both most unjustly and wickedly inflicted by his Persecu∣tors the Jews and Heathen, yet worse in the Jews, because they might have known better, and because they prosecuted him upon false witness. And as Christ's Sufferings were most cruel and unjust, both as to the Nature thereof, and the dignity of him that suffered: So he was a most acceptable Sacrifice, and sweet smelling Savour to God, and his Suffering and Sacrifice of universal advantage and be∣nefit to mankind, in that he died for all men, and gave himself a Ransom for all, that all might be capable of Redemption and Salvation through him.

VVe do not accept of what F. B. partially cites for Answer to his said Question, which was not put unto Edward Burrough's, nor made by him, nor justly deducible from E. Burrough's intention in his Ex∣planatory Reasons, not cited by F Bugg. nor the Year when his Re∣flection was made upon the Arbitrary and unjust proceedings of those then in Power, being in 1657. too tedious here to recite.

His Reproach of Contempt of Scripture, if he means the holy Scrip∣ture, as he elsewhere saith, we utterly deny his Charge herein, as contrary to our Principle and to our Christian profession of the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as being given by Divine Inspiration.

And Bugg has been told

That our Friends distinguishing be∣tween the Letter and the Spirit, between the Ministry of the Letter, and that of the Spirit, as between the Shadow and the Substance, the meer writing in outward Characters (which will decay and wear out) and the Holy divine Doctrines and Truths therein contained, (or holy Scriptures) is so Scriptural, that we know no true Christian will deny such distinction; for the holy Apostle distinguished between the Letter and the Spirit.

2 Cor. 3. 6. Which hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament, not of the Letter, but of the Spirit, for the Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life: This could be no Con∣tempt of holy Scripture.

Note, That in the very Book, News out of the North, quoted a∣gainst us in this point, there's frequent reference had to holy Scrip∣ture Testimonies, both of the Old and New Testament, and ac∣cordingly abundantly quoted in the Margents, which does not be∣speak a Contempt thereof, but the contrary, as we think is un∣deniable. In the said News out of the North, the Scripture is plain∣ly own'd that the Lord hath spoken it by his former Prophets, &c. p. 5.

As for Baptism and the Lords Supper, Scripturally considered in their several Dispensations, both as in the Figure, and in the Substance, in the Type and Antitype, we confess and own; but the Substance is more excellent and permanent than the Shadow, as the Inward and Spiritual Grace is more excellent than the outward and visible Signs.

About this point Bugg is very partial and unjust in his citation out of E. Burrough's Works, p. 518. both in varying his Words, lea∣ving out his explanatory Part, and representing him as writing thus at first, viz. About Water-Baptism and the Sacrament we do utterly deny, and do say it is no Ordinance of God, but an Institution of the Whore of Rome; and England received it by a Popish Institution, and your pra∣ctice of it is Idolatry, and no part of the Worship of God. [Thus Bugg cites.]

This is very partially and unjustly cited (and in the first Words falsly) E. Burrough's Answer in the very place is thus, viz.

As for Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, we do own it, and it is practi∣sed of us in the Life and Power of God: But as for your Baptism, that is to say Sprinkling of Infants, calling it the Baptism into the Faith, and that they are made Members of the Church thereby, and that it is a Seal of Regeneration as you say

[these foregoing Words Bugg leaves out]

that we do utterly deny, and do say it is no Or∣dinance of God, neither was it ever commanded by him, or pra∣ctised by his Saints, &c.

[Thus F. Bugg.]

Note, Here he did not say that Water Baptism is a Popish Institu∣tion, but Sprinkling Infants, calling it the Baptism into the Faith, &c. For he knew that Water Baptism was practised by John Baptist, and in the Apostles time long before the Pope was. And now F. Bugg, if E. B. was in an Error herein, we Query, 1. Why didst thou not disprove the same by Scripture. 2. Dost thou in thy Conscience be∣lieve Sprinkling Infants to be of divine Institution? 3. Dost thou believe it was practised by the Saints or Primitive Christians in the Apostles d••ys? 4. Dost thou believe that it is the Baptism into the Faith, Church, and Kingdom of Christ? 5. If thou believest all these, pray produce us plain Scriptare-Rule for thy Faith, that we (who believe the contrary) may be convinced, or else do not impose an implicit Faith upon us.

Reader, observe what the Author (Bugg quotes in this point) chiefly here opposed was the Popish Notion or Opinion, That no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church without Water Baptism, as held by the Rhemists; see their Annotations upon John 3, 5. And therein opposed by the Prote∣stants, as appears in Dr. Fulke's Answer, viz.

It is not necessary in this place by Water to understand Material Water, but rather the puri∣fying Grace of Christ, as in 4. ch. ver. 11. 14. where 'tis called Living Water, whereof (he saith) washing with Water in Baptism is an outward Sign.

So that the reformed Protestants did not esteem the outward Ele∣ment Essential to Salvation.

And Bugg pag. 3. quotes W. Smith unfairly also, out of his Prim∣mer, where he speaks of these things which arose or had their Institu∣tion from the Pope, Bugg leaves out what these things were he meant, viz. Sprinkling Water in a Child's Face, and signing its Forehead with the Sign of the Cross; and intimating his not owning Bread and Wine to be the Body and Blood of Christ, or calling the Bread the Body of Christ broken for them, when (saith he) People neither discern the Body nor the Blood of Christ, pag. 39. 40. What great Error was this? Did he not here chiefly oppose Infant Baptism with the Sign of the Cross, and the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and Receiving unwor∣thy Communicants to eat and drink their own damnation? Which we think was not to oppose any Command of Christ, nor to Con∣temn his Disciples taking the Bread and the Cup in Remembrance of him, &c.

As to the Publick Ministry and Tythes.

If we could in Conscience have been satisfied with them, we should not have dissented from them nor suffered by them.

Yet his Charging us with Contempt of the Publick Ministry, is too general and harsh we charitably distinguish between the more mo∣derate sort, and the ridgid Persecutors. As for those termed Priests of the World, namely the Covetous and Persecuting sort, mentioned as greedy Dogs, &c. pag. 4. So the Prophet terms such, Isa. 56. 11. for which F. B. accuseth us with Reproaching Christ's Ministers, pag. 8. We do not believe him herein, nor proves he that such were either qualified as Christ's Ministers, or their Call to be Divine. We con∣fess some did give them as hard Language, as the Prophets of Old did those in the same Steps, but their severe Persecution, spoiling our Friends Goods, and causing many to indure long Imprisonments, some till Death, sometime for Tythe of a small value, it may be for the value of a Tythe-Pigg, Goose or Hen, &c. This sure was far harder Treatment. Bugg, pag. 4. quotes a Brief discovery, writ by some body, in which he has Collected ten Lines against the Covetous Persecuting Priests of the World out of 4 Pages, and places them together as one intire Paragraph, but neither tells us the Author's Name, nor the date of the Book, nor can we find the Book it self.

F. Bugg, pag. 4. accuseth some body for objecting against paying of Tythes under the New Covenant, because abrogated by Christ, &c. on which he makes his Observation.

1. That the Quakers by this have condemned the Martyrs, and all Christians, &c. but herein he Unfairly imposeth on us without Proof, and his Observation is too general upon the Martyrs, &c. for both John Wickliff, William Swinderby, Walter Brute, William Thorpe, the Bohemians, with others mentioned in the Book of Martyrs, and others did bear Testimony against the Corruptions of the Popish Clergy, and against Tythes and compelled Maintenance. (And were not these Martyrs Christians?) This was made a Principle Article against them by the Papists, as more largely appears in the first Volume of Martyrs, in the Reigns of Richard the Second, Henry the Fourth, and Henry the Fifth,

2. Bugg argues, That if the Quakers are of the same mind still, how can they have the Face to ask Favour (meaning of the Parliament. So that if we cannot for Conscience sake pay Tythes, Bugg will neither allow us to seek, nor to have any Favour from the Government, and consequently our heavy Sufferings, Imprisonments, Sequestrations, and Spoil, to the Ruining of many Families, must be continued upon us if his Uncharitable Attempts may take effect. Oh! Unmerciful Man!

But let it be remembred, that the House of Commons not long since were of a better mind, and of more tender Inclination, when they passed two Bills for the more easie Recovery of small Tythes, being without Imprisonment of the Persons, or Ruining Families thereby.

Bugg's charging the Quakers with contempt of Governours. We sincerely deny, and we had need to examine his Proofs, seeing in his Observation he gives this severe and Mandatory order there∣upon, viz. Let the Quakers first recant of their Errors, and condemn their Books, and make a Confession of the Christian Faith, and all under their Hands, and then, and not whilst then, let Compassion be shewn unto them.

Is not this an Imperious and presumptive Dictator to the Govern∣ment, trow ye?

How now F. Bugg, thou wast more merciful when a Quaker. but now since thou art now gotten among the Priests and Levites thou hast lost all Mercy and Compassion towards us.

Now observe, that Bugg quotes Edward Burrough's Works for proof, pag. 507, 501, 621, 53, 522, 524. here out of six pages thus far remote from each other he has Pickt and Catcht up a few Words here and there, to prove the Quakers Contempt of Governours, which is a very foul Abuse and Perversion for any Reasonable Man that reads those Passages, may easily perceive that the Author did not testifie against Magistracy or Government it self, nor against Go∣vernours in general, but only against Persecuters and Usurpers over Conscience who frustrate the just ends of Government. As be∣tween Anno 1654. and 1659. as appears in the pages quoted, see what pains this Adversary takes Unjustly to pick out Words that he thinks make against us, and leaves out at the same time what more ex∣plains the matter for us. As pag. 501. E. B. speaking of Arbitrary Usurpt dominion over the Consciences of Men, to which (says he) we cannot yield our Obedience; within two Lines after he goes on (We) Preach Jesus Christ alone in the things of God, to be our Lawgiver, and own Magistracy in civil things. Which last Words Bugg leaves out, basely to infinuate that we contemn Magistracy. And as for the Power, the said People ascribe only to God, which they cannot give to Man, or any Earthly Power; it is that Power which God only has given them in point of Conscience, Religion and Worship, which no Mortal Man nor Worldly Powers have domi∣nion or prerogative over, it only appertaining to God's Preroga∣tive; and 'tis on that account we cannot seek to Earthly Powers to make or establish our Religion, for if we could, what need had we ever to have suffered by them? Nevertheless we may seek to Au∣thority and thereby own Magistracy) to be eased from Unjust Op∣pressions, and desended from unreasonable men in our civil Rights and Properties, without infringing God's undoubted Prerogative and Power over our Consciences.

Note, That the Instances Bugg has chopt out and given in pag. 7. to prove the Quakers contempt of Governours, being between the year 1654, and 1659. 'Tis evident therein that E. B. testified a∣gainst the corruption of O. Cromwell and his Ministers and Magi∣strates in that day, for which Bugg has past this heavy Judgment upon the Quakers, not only that they contemn Governours (which is without exception) pag. 7. But also that they are Those wretched Impostors who revile Christ's Magistrates, and reproach his Ministers, pag. 8. This is sad indeed! when 'tis very clear that the Magi∣strates and Ministers which he has here instanced, and which Edward Burrough's reprehended were those very Persecutors and Usurpers over Conscience in Cromwell's days, whereby (to do us an ill turn) Bugg has at unawares run his own Head against a Wall, and at once justified those Magistrates or Governours in those days as Christ's Ma∣gistrates; and consequently the Usurpation of that Government te∣stified against by E. Burrough's, and others.

But we now Query of F. Bugg, wilt thou indeed stand by it pur∣suant to thy Charge?

1. That those Magistrates and Ministers in O. Cromwell's days were Christ's Magistrates and Ministers?

2. That to testifie against, and reprehend them for their Cor∣ruptions, Persecutions, and Arbitrary Usurpations over Conscience, &c. (as E. Burrough's did) was a reviling Christ's Magistrates, and reproaching Christ's Ministers? Answer directly and ingenuously, if thou wilt adventure to stand by thy own Charge and Instances as proof thereof.

3. Dost thou really believe that no Compassion ought to be shewn to us, because E. Burrough's reproved O. Cromwell and his Ministers for their Corruptions?

Concerning Humbling our selves in Fasting and Prayer.

His Insinuation against us, as slighting Authority is still unjustly to render us obnoxious; for the Intent, Substance, and end of a true Fast, Humiliation and Prayer to Almighty God for an universal Hu∣miliation and Repentance through the Nation, &c. for the Sins thereof, that God in Mercy may avert his Judgments, and turn away his Wrath; this we are frequently mindful of in our Solemn Assemblies, and sincerely desire to be manifest unto God in the Spirit of Grace and Supplication; for the good of our whole Nation, and safety thereof, knowing also that the FAST that God hath chosen and accepts, is described by the Prophet Isaiah. Is it such a Fast as I have chosen (saith the Lord) a Day for a Man to afflict his Soul? Is to bow down his Head as a Bull-Rush, &c. Is not this the Fast that I have chosen, to loose the Bands of Wickedness, to undo the heavy Bur∣dens, and to let the Oppressed go free, and that ye break every Yoke? Is it not to deal thy Bread to the Hungry, &c? see Isa. 58. 5, 6, 7.

'Tis farther observable that by Bugg's course of chopping, mang∣ling and perverting, an Atheist may grosly abuse and Injure the best Writings extant in the World, even the holy Scripture it self, and make them to look with another Face, than they naturally import, or ever were intended by the first Writers.

F. Bugg tells us of a brief History of the Rise, Growth, and Progress of Quakerism, which in time possibly you may see,

But who will believe him to be an impartial Historygrapher? Or what rational man will be so credulous of his partial and per∣verse Works against a People whom he hath so grosly defamed and abused?

And now suppose any particular Person amongst us have formerly, or at any time been defective in the manner of some expressions, is it just or ingenuous in F. Bugg, captiously to take advantage there∣at, and then charge his ill Constructions upon the whole People: When the same Persons in the same Books have elsewhere better explained themselves, and safely laid down what might else seem more doubtful?

His accusation That a Spirit of Persecution hath been among us from the beginning, is manifest in the Tryal of G. K. &c. Is absurd in him to say.

1. We have not heard the noise of the said Tryal till very late∣ly, how then could that manifest a Spirit of Persecution among us from the beginning? Did that Tryal continue from the beginning? And how contrary is this to his own confession before cited, that we went on for many Years, and loved one another with Love unfeigned, &c.

2. The said Tryal at Phyladelphia, mentioned by him, is forreign to us, and we have had no other Account that any such Tryal was but from one party.

Nevertheless if any thing turbulent, unwarrantable or Arbitrary on either side was acted or done, we shall not espouse nor justifie the same; when it shall so appear to us.

'Tis observable that Bugg in his Book of Christian Liberty, or Li∣berty of Conscience, 2d. part, p. 28. approves of the testimony of those very Authors, viz. I. Pennington, E. Burrough's. &c. whom he now condemns as blasphemous and wretched Impostors. So that they were good men and sound in testimony while alive, but wicked men and blasphemers when dead, such is the Folly and Contradicti∣on of this Perverter.

Note also, that F. Bugg in his said Book of Christian Liberty. printed 1682. 2d part pag. 83. affirms THAT CONFORMITY is a Monster conceived by the great Whore, Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots, a Monster because of its Deformity and degenerate Birth, it can be no other, for the Devil is the Father of it (I speak of a forced Conformity upon Mens Consciences) saith he. And yet in about two Years after in 1684. he himself turned about and conformed contra∣ry to his own Testimony; what credit then can be given to this un∣stable and partial man's Scribling, or pretending to give Account or History against the Quakers, so grosly Reviled and Calumniated by him?

In Bugg's Q. 4. 2d Edition, That we seemed to embrace the Whore in King James's Reign, in presenting Addresses to him, but not one to King William; Bugg is false and envious in both. For 1st, Our grati∣tude for our Liberty, was no embracing the Whore. 2 We have more publickly expressed our hearty Thanks several times even in Parliament to the present Government for the Kindnesses we have now received by Law, which is more than we could do before.

Bugg pag 2. 4. That We (the Quakers) undermine the Christian Re∣ligion (and Principles) to overthrow it, Is both false and Contradictory to Bugg's own Confession, Of the Christian Quaker's being Innocent, and what they hold SOUND, and that tho' they do dissent from the Established Religion, yet they hold the true Faith, at least for Sub∣stance.

Thus Bugg, in his New Rome Unmask'd, pag. 68. printed but in 1692. And yet those Christian Quakers he mentions declares against Swearing under the Gospel, and against Tythes, as being no Gospel Mi∣nisters Maintenance, Artic. 25. and 27. of the same Book he quotes for his Authority, for the Christian Quakers.

These foregoing Citations were examined and compared by divers intelligent Persons.

And further, seeing F. Bugg has shewn his Hatred and Revenge against George Whitehead especially, for discovering his Self-condemna∣tion and Malice, &c. I (the Person concerned) freely offer, and am

willing (with the Lord's Assistance) to make it plainly appear be∣fore any Six, Ten or Twelve competent Witnesses, who are mode∣rate, men of Sense and common Reason, that F. Bugg has grosly and wickedly abused and perverted Truth, and wronged the People called Quakers, both in Charge, Citation, and Observation, in his said Pamph••et. And that in his late Book New Rome arraigned, he has forged notorious Lyes in other mens Names, to Ridicule, Desame, and Scandalize divers Citizens of London, and Men of good Repute▪ condemning them also to the Pillory as Perjured Persons, in his pre∣tended Tryal, in a way of Judicature unwarrantably acted by him∣self, assuming the place of both Judge, Accuser, Jury, Condemner and Executioner; with a form of a Pillory and Effigies in it, to represent the Persons so grosly Scandalized by him.

I say for these Ends mentioned, I do proffer (God willing) to meet F. Bugg before Witnesses, at any convenient Time and Place within the City of London, that the Persons so defamed by him may be present. To which Proposal I subscribe

George Whitehead.