An antidote against the infection of VVilliam Rogers's book, mis-called, The Christian-Quaker distinguished from the apostate and innovator whereby the envy, falshood, slander, errors, and false doctrines contained in the said book, being plainly laid open, the charge of apostacy and innovation is justly retorted upon W.R. and his adherents / by Thomas Ellwood.

CHAP. VIII.

Sect. 1. IT begins with an Account of some of your dis∣satisfactions, exhibited against G. F. touching certain passages in a Book of his, intituled [This is an Encourage∣ment to all the Women's Meetings in the world, &c.] Which you take to be either unsound or impertinently quoted. And the first Quotation you quarrel with is in page 43. of the said Book, where it is said, And was not Micah's Mother a virtuous Woman? read Judges 17. and see what she said to her son. Against this you object that she was an Idolatrous Woman. And a great noise and clutter you make about her, throughout your Book. In first Part, page 62. (according to my Observation) you begin with her, and page 65. you are at her again. In 3 part, p. 140. you have another fling at her, and in 4 part, page 71. you are at her afresh. In page 93, 94, and 96. she is fetch'd up again. And in this Fifth Part, not only here, in page 4. but in page 33, 34, and 39. she is fetch'd about again. So that Eleven timcs over have you pleased your selves with railing at Micah's Mother, And the sum of all your clamour is, that she cursed and was an Ido∣latress. To the first I say, It doth not appear by the Text to be a prophane Curse, but rather such a Curse as Jacob feared from his Father, when he said to his Mother, My Father peradventure will feell me, and I shall seem to him as a Deceiver, and I shall bring a Curse upon me, and not a blessing, Gen. 27.12. Now Isaac, was questionless a very Religious and pious man, far no doubt from prophane and wicked Cursing, yet Jacob knew that if his Father catch'd him in deceit, he should be in danger of being cursed by his Father. Nor did Rebecca to incourage him say, Fear not my Son, thy Father is a good man, and therefore dares not curse thee; But she said, Ʋpon me be thy Curse my Son, verse 13. Noah was a good man and a Preacher of Righteous∣ness, yet he cursed Canaan, Gen. 9.25. Elisha was an eminent Prophet of God, on whom a double portion of Elisha's Spirit rest∣ed: Yet did he solemnly curse those Children in the name of the Lord, that in prophane Mockage called him Bald-head. 2

Kings 2.22, 23. Now that the Curse you quarrel at this woman for was not a prophane Curse, but a solemn Curse denounced against him that was guilty not only of theft, in robbing her, but (in her account) of sacriledge also, in robbing God, unto whom she had wholly dedicated the Mony, Judge 17.3. is very probable, first, in that the Text doth not charge her with it as an Evil, nor set any mark of Reproof upon it; 2. In regard of the Effect it wrought, the force and influence it had upon her Son; it brought him both to confess his fault and to restore the Mony. So those learned Translators of the Bible, Tremellius and Junius understood it, and in their Notes upon the place say thus [As if he said, I being struck with the hearing of thy Curse, do acknowledge my fault.] If it be objected that she presently blessed him whom she had cursed; the answer is, first, that it doth not appear what distance of time there was between her Curse and her blessing, though certain it is there was some: for her Curse is spoken of in the Preterit Tense, but her Blessing in the Present. But 2. Were there never so little time between, yet those things which were most conducible to the taking off the Curse, and ob∣taining the blessing, did intervene, namely, his acknowledgement of his offence and making restitution. And it is the more likely that the Curse was grave and Solemn, not wicked and prophane in as much as the Blessing is so solemn, and that which is fre∣quently used in Scripture in weighty and Solemn cases. Since then it appears from Scripture Evidence that in that time, good men might without offence denounce a solemn Curse, and it doth not appear, by any Scripture Testimony, that this of Micah's Mother was any other; nay, since there is so much reason to perswade that it was a solemn, not a prophane Curse; how unreasonable are you, upon this score to fly out as you do upon the woman, and deny her to have any thing of Wisdom, vir∣tue or Faith!

Now to the 2 part of your Charge, that she was an Idola∣tress, I have this to say; So were at that time the Jewish peo∣ple in general. She lived in a gloomy and dark time. Joshua was dead and so were the Elders that had seen the mighty works, and great deliverances of the Lord (And the word of the Lord was pretious in those days: There was no open vision, 1 Sam. 3.1.) And after their death, the People forsook the Lord, and served strange Gods, Judges 2. Now though the Lord was hereby

greatly provoked, and displeased with them, in so much that he punished them with sore Servitude under the Kings of the Heathen, yet did he not wholly Cast them off, but owned them still to be his People, and often wrought deliverances for them. And therefore for you so wholly to reject them, as if there were nothing good in them, is very uncharitable and hard measure. For as to this woman, though she was not wholly exempt from the Common Evil of her Age and Nation, yet it is evident she retained a great Regard and Devotion to God, and Zeal for his service, though she erred in the manner of performing it. For she had dedicated that Mony to the Lord, even 1100 shekels of silver, and her son took care to get him a Levite for his Priest, in hopes that then the Lord would bless him. So that their Eye was to the Lord, it seems, in what they did, although by rea∣son of the Cloudiness of the day wherein they lived their sight was not clear. Will you judge that whole people, that because they had Images, therefore there was not a wise or a virtuous one among them? [Ruth lived about the same time (at lest in the time of the Judges, Ruth 1.1.) and was a Moabitess, verse 4. one of the people of Moab, who were Enemies to and Oppres∣sors of Israel, Judge 3.14. and served strange Gods, Ruth 1.15. Yet is she called in Scripture a virtuous Woman, Ruth 3.11. and no doubt was so; Not only after she came to be a Jewish Prose∣lyte, but before: for Boaz, who calls her a virtuous woman, Ruth 3.11. tells her also (and that, as the ground of his kind∣ness to her) Chap. 2.11. It hath fully been shewed me all that thou hast done unto thy Mother-in-law, since the death of thy Husband, &c. Which related to the time of her Gentile-state, while she dwelt in the land of Moab, and served the God's of the Moabites.

Gideon was one of the Judges, whom God raised up to deliver Israel by, and the Lord was eminently with him. Yet he having overthrown the Midianites, of the Ear-ings of the Prey made an Ephod, and set it in his City Ophrah, and all Israel went thither a whoring after it; which thing, it is said, became a Snare to Gideon, and to his House, Jud. 8.27. But will you from hence conclude that there was neither wisdom nor virtue in Gideon?

Rachel I suppose you'l grant, was a virtuous Woman; yet she both stole her Father's Gods, and with feigned words deceived

him also, when he came to Search for them, Gen. 31.35. Nor did she take them to destroy, but to keep, and kept them almost to her dying day. And, as the text imports, both she and her family corrupted themselves with them: for when Jacob, by God's appointment prepared to go to Bethel, there to make an Altar unto God, he said unto his Houshold, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange Gods that are among you, and be clean (they had defiled themselves it seems with those strange Gods) and change your garments, Gen. 35.1 2. Now not to detract in the least from Rachel, but only to shew you the partiality of your too severe and unjust Censure, what great difference was there between the Cases of Rachel and Micah's Mother? The one is said to have cursed him that stole that mony which she had dedicated to the Lord; the other stole her Father's Gods, and by a false pretence deceived him when he searched her Tent for them. The once made Images with her mony; the other polluted her self and family with the Images she had stolen from her Father. Ye there you'l celebrate (I sup∣pose) for a virtuous Woman (as no doubt she was) but trample upon Micah's Mother as an Idolatrous Woman, in whom virtue had no place. If you exclude all from having any share in virtue, who in those early ages had Images in their houses, I doubt you'l leave but few that might be called virtuous. [We read of those Assyrians, whom Salmanesur transplanted out of Assyria, and placed in the Cities of Samaria, when he carried Israel Captive into Assyria, 2 Kings 17. That they feared the Lord (being thereunto instructed by an Israelitish Priest, verse 28.) and yet served their own Gods, verse 33. And in verse 41. 'Tis said of them, So these Nations feared the Lord and served their graven Images. Or (as some read it) served him with grav∣en Images. Now these that feared the Lord although they wor∣shipped him not aright, had they no virtue, think you? [Rahab, you know, was not originally of Israel, but an Heathen, an Inhabitant, of Jerico, an Heathenish City, that served strange Gods, and by God's appointment was to be, and was destroyed. Yet is her Faith recored, Heb. 11.31. and she celebrated a∣mongst the worthies of Israel. Had she no virtue think you? Nay did she not shew both Wisdom and virtue, as well as Faith, in the whole transaction with the Israelitsh Spies? Read Joshua 2. and 6 Chapters. The author to the Hebrews calls her the Harlot,

Heb. 11.31. But he does not commend her for that, but for her faith. The Apostle James calls her the Harlot, Jam. 2.25. But he does not commend her for that, but for her words: No more does G. F. mention Micah's Mother for her Idolatry, but for her Zeal to God. And if Rahab's being an Harlot (supposing her so) and Idolatress (as she must needs then be) did not hin∣der her from being commended for her faith, and for her work, why should Micah's Mother's Images hinder her from being com∣mended for her Zeal? [I have insisted the longer on this, be∣cause you make so great a Clamour about it, throwing it at G. F. at every turn, and calling it an abominable Quotation. What work would you have made with the Apostle? How would you have ranted at him (had you then lived) for quoting one whom he calls an Harlot, and who doubtless was an Idola∣tress, as an Example and instance of the virtue and power of Faith, and for an Encouragement to the Believing Hebrews? But it is evident your calling this Instance of Micah's Mother an Abominable Quotation is but an effect of your abominable Envy against G. F. whom you charge with saying to William Ro∣gers, He saw it would be a stumbling-block; And thereupon cla∣mours against him for laying stumbling-Blocks in the way of God's peo∣ple, which you repeat over and over, half a dozen times, in your 1.4, and 5. parts. Whether G. F. said so or no, I neither know nor think much material: For if he had said, or did say, what thou, William, chargest on him; yet those words (even as thou hast set them down) do not express that he said he saw it would be a stumbling-block to the People of the Lord. Nor doth it appear that it is so, though thou and some other, such as have made Profession of Truth, but are departed from the simplicity of it, and have lifted up your selves in an high, lofty, proud, scornful, disdainful, captious and contentious Spirit against the Truth and those that have kept their Habitations therein, take occasion to be offended and stumble at it. But what if the Lord hath ordered or permitted this for thee and others to stumble at, who by feeding on the Tree of Knowledge are growing up in the carnal Wisdom and in a puffed up Conceit and self-will are despising, the appearance and work of the Lord as too low, mean and contemptible in your lofty Opinions? It is just with the Lord so to do; and no new thing: For thou mayst read what the Lord by his Prophet threatned to some of old,

who had been called his People, but were grown wanton and kicked against him; Behold I will lay stumbling-Blocks before this People, saith the Lord, Jer. 6.21.

Sect. 2. The second Quotation you Cavil at in G. F's fore∣mentioned Book, is the Instance of the Women of Tekoah; of whom G. F. said, pag. 43. And the Women of Tekoah, see what a Sermon she Preached to King David, which convinced him, 2 Sam. 13.14. Against this you exclaims and say, pag. 5. The Scripture quoted informs, that the Woman was a subtil Woman, whom Joab caused to fain her self as a Mourner, and go to King David with a lying Story in her Mouth, &c. And you charge her with deceiving King David by her Lies, and repeat the words [lyes in her Mouth, and Lying Story] over and over. I Answer, Though you in your subtilty call her a subtil Woman, yet the Scripture calls her a Wise Woman: Nor doth the Scripture say she went with a Lying Story in her Mouth; and therefore it is a lying Spirit which thus abuseth both her and the Scripture. The words she spake the Scripture doth not call a lying Story, but a Form of Speech, 2 Sam. 14.20. of which kind Examples in Scripture are fre∣quent. Nor doth it appear (as you say it doth) That David was appeased as to his Son Absolom before the Woman came to him: For though his Natural Affection went out towards his Son, yet after he had (through Joab's Mediation, by means of the Woman) permitted him to return to Jerusalem, it was two full years before David would see him, ver. 28. Nor then, but by the Intercession of Joab, a man of great Power and Interest with him. And surely this is no great sign of his being appeased: Nor would there have been need of such a course as Joab took, had he been appeased before. But whe∣ther he were or no, William, without all doubt the Woman was (as the Scripture calls her) a wise Woman. Her manage∣ment of the Business proves her so; nor canst thou convict her of any thing inconsistent with Virtue: For so far was she from Lying to the King, as thou (with too much Indecency and little Reverence to the Scriptures) chargest her; that she told the King plainly and downright the Naked Truth of the matter, when he asked her, If the hand of Joab was with her in that thing, ver. 19. But whether will thy Hot-brain'd fury transport thee, William, thus wickedly to call a Scripture-Parable a Lying Story! Did

John Story teach thee this? Or was he one of those other thou mentionest, pag. 3. who were concerned with thee in drawing up these your dissatisfactions against G. F.? You that say, you are not satisfied that G. F. hath of late been guided by the Spirit of Truth, &c. Because he hath numbred the Woman of Tekoah among the Wise and Virtuous Women, mentioned in Holy Writ, have said enough to satisfy all (that shall rightly weigh the matter) that you were guided by a false and foul Spirit, in calling this a Lying Story which the Holy Ghost hath made a part of Sacred Story. What, William, what! must all the Parables in the Bible be now rejected for Lying Stories? God forbid. How frequently did Christ himself use such Parabo∣lical Forms of Speech (as, of the two Sons, Mat. 21.28. Of the Housholder that planted a Vineyard, ver. 33. Of the man that fell among Thieves, Luke 10.30. Of the Ʋnjust Steward, Luke 16.1. Of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15.11. Of the Ʋnjust Judge, Luk. 18.2. and too many more to instance) which thy Language [of a Lying Story] cast a most horrid and Blasphemous Re∣flection on? But what thinkest thou, William, of the Pa∣rable of the Eagles in Ezekiel 17. was that a Lying Story? Or what wilt thou call the Parable wherewith Nathan caught the same King David (much after the manner as the Woman of Tekoah did) was that a Lying Story? Did Nathan come to the King with Lyes in his Mouth, as thou wickedly sayst of her? wilt thou say he deceived King David by his Lyes, as thou filthily suggestest of her? David, we may be sure, did not take Parables to be Lying Stories, when he said▪ I will incline mine Ear to a Parable, Psal. 49.4. But I hate and abhor Lying, Psal. 119.163. And again, He that telleth Lyes shall not tarry in my sight, Psal. 101.7. If for a shift thou wilt say, Nathan was sent of God; I Answer, So was the Woman of Tekoah too, for ought thou knowest. There is ground from the Text to suppose, that it was not barely Joab's contrivance, but that the Councel of the Lord was in it: For the Text is express, Neither doth God respect any person, yet doth he devise means, that his ba∣nished be not expelled from him 2 Sam. 14.14. And surely, William, it had been but necessary for thee, and those others concerned with thee, to have considered how far the means in that Case, used by the Woman of Tekoah, was of Gods devising, before you had branded it for a Lying Story, and her for one that came with Lyes in her Mouth.

Sect. 3. The third Quotation you Cavil at, is in pag. 23. of G. F's forementioned Book, where he says, And the Women had their Assemblies in the days of the Judges and the Kings, and Old Ely's Sons abused them, &c. Now Old Ely was not against the Assemblies of the Women, who Assembled by Troops, as you may see in 1 Sam. 2.21, 22, &c. Against this you object, pag. 6. That this only proves that there was an Assembly of Men and Women at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, who committed Evil together. I Answer, the Text speaks of an Assembly of Wo∣men, not of Men and Women, as you without any ground affirm: For here's no mention of Men, as of the Assembly, nor of any other Men at all but Ely's Sons, who had but two, that we read of; and though they did abuse some of those Wo∣men, that did there Assemble, yet it is not very likely that they would so abuse them in that Assembly. Neither doth the evil committed by Ely's Sons with any of the Women who so Assembled, above any thing of the force of the Instance, which was to prove that in those days such Assemblies of Women there were, of which the Scripture quoted is a plain and positive Evidence. You would gladly have it understood, that this Assembly was only of such Women, as came to be legally pu∣rified after Child-birth, which fancy you ground upon an obscure Marginal Note in the Scriptures, as you say, but do not shew that it might be examined. The concealment of your Note takes off the Authority you would have it have. You should have directed where your Note was to be found, if you intended it should have been Noted: For it is a pretty deal too large and at Random, to tell us there is a Marginal Note in the Scriptures, without assigning where. But be your Note as Notable as it will, I doubt not but by Arguments and Authority to weigh it down, and shew that those Assemblies were not upon the score of legal Purification after Travel, as you are willing to imagine. For first those Women Assembled in great Numbers, or by Troops (so the Marginal Note upon the place tells us the He∣brew reads it) and sure it sounds 〈◊〉〈◊〉 very unlikely,, that the Women should Assemble by Troops or Companies to be Puri∣fied after their Travel: For since the time of their Purification after Child-Birth was fixed and appointed by the Law, if you will suppose they came in Troops to be Purified, you must sup∣pose

they were delivered by Troops also. But 2. That you may see your mistak•• more fully, consult Scripture, Exod. 38.8. and you will find that Women Assembled, and that by Troops, at the Door of the Taberhacle of the Congregation, before your Precept for Purification, Levit. 12.6. (which ye bring to set off your Marginal Note) was given. For in Exod. 38.8. It is said, And he made the Laver of Brass, and the foot of it of Brass, of the Looking-glass of the Women Assembling, which Assembled at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation. By this (if you had taken the right way) you might have informed your selves better from the Scripture it self, than from your Marginal Note, somewhere or other, in the Scriptures. But yet further, to set a Note against your Note, and direct too where you may find it, which is more than you have done yours. Those Learned Translators of the Bible, Tremellius and Junius, say, Those Looking-glasses whereof the Laver was made, were offered by the Women, who in pious Affection, and Religious Devotion, did run together in Troops, or Companies, to offer unto God. See their Annotation upon Exod. 38.8. to which they refer from 1 Sam. 2.22. This could not have relation to the Legal Purifyings of Women after Travel, both as this was in practice before that was in Precept, and as these Oblations (of Looking Glasses) were not only Voluntary, those injoyned Levit. 12. but these quite different from those which in that Case were re∣quired to be offered. So that you may now see (if you are not resolved not to see) that Women had their Assemblies in the times of the Judges and the Kings, which is what G. F. brought this Instance to prove. And since it is manifested that the end of their Assemblies, were not (as you mislead by a Marginal Note, did imagine) for Legal Purification after Travel, your Query, grounded on that mistake, falls together with it.

Sect. 4. The fourth Quotation you Cavil at, is in pag. 32. of G. F's fore-mentioned Book, The Passage is the Councel which Rachel and Leah gave to Jacob, Gen. 31.14, 15, 16. This, you say, you take to be a Quotation to evidence Womens speaking in the Church to be according to Truth: But yet, you say, you cannot own it to be much (if any thing at all) better Argument for Womens speaking in the Church of God, when the Church is

met to Worship the Lord in his Spirit, than Womens Discourses with their Husbands about their Outward Estates, doth almost every day produce amongst us. Whatever you take this Quotation to be brought for, it was and is an evidence that Rachel and Leah were Wise, Virtuous, Religious Women. Jacob's Discourse to them, and theirs to him, was more than Ordinary and Com∣mon discourse, betwixt men and their Wives about their Estates. The Lord had appeared to Jacob, and command∣ed him to return unto the Land of his Fathers and Kindred, and had renewed withal his Promise that he would be with him and deal well by him. This Jacob imparted to his Wives Rachel and Leah, who did not draw back, or oppose the mo∣tion, but having Faith in the Promise, readily consented, and gave up to leave their Kindred and Fathers House, and with their Husband follow the Lord, though into a strange Coun∣try. And this is an Argument of Virtue and Faith in those two Women. But your comparing it to the common Dis∣courses of Women with their Husbands about their Outward Estates, is an Argument you have not a right sense of the ex∣traordinary Hand and disposing Providence of God in that matter; and therefore your Comparison is Irreverent and un∣savoury, of which you have cause to be ashamed.

Sect. 5. The fifth and last Quotation you carp at; is in the 42 pag. of G. F's fore-mentioned Book, where speaking of Jeptha's Daughter, it is said, And the Daughters of Israel, went yearly to lament the Daughter of Jeptha, Judges 11. So here they had a yearly Meeting upon this occasion. This, you say, occasions you to Query, whether such a Meeting occasioned on the untimely death of a Virgin (for Jeptha's Vow was a rash Vow) can be any evidence of the matter which is taken by us to be intend∣ed, viz. Either for Womens Speaking in the Church, or Womens Meeting distinct from Men on the account of Worship to God, or performing Acts of Government, relating to Church Discipline? I Answer, your Query is grounded on a mis-understanding of the Scripture. You say that Meeting of the Daughters of Israel was occasioned by the untimely Death of a Virgin: But the Scrip∣ture cited doth not say so. Nor, had you consulted the Text well, with the Marginal Notes upon it, would you have found cause so to conclude. For the Text says, Judges 11.39. He

did with her according to his Vow. Now his Vow was, ver. 31. Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my House to meet me, when I return in Peace from the Children of Ammon▪ shall be the Lords, and I will offer it up for a Burnt-offering. But in the Margin, instead of [And I will offer it up] it is [Or I will offer it up] which shews there was regard had in the Vow to the fitness of the Subject (or thing Vowed) for a Burnt-Offering. So that if what came forth to meet him were not fit for Sacri∣fice, it should be dedicated or Consecrated to the Lord: If it were fit for Sacrifice it should then be offered for a Burnt-offering But Jeptha's Daughter was not fit to be made a Burnt-offering. for that had been Inhumane, and too like the Sacrifices of the, Heathen, forbidden by the Law, Levit. 18.21. It is therefore more reasonable to believe, that her Father, according to his Vow, gave her to the Lord, that is, devoted, dedicated or con∣secrated her, in an especial manner, to the Service of God, than that he Sacrificed her for a Burnt-offering. And the rather, for that we do not read she had the two Months time to bewail her Death, but to bewail her Virginity; whereupon, immediatly after it is said, He did with her according to his Vow, it follows, And she knew no man. And in the next Verse, where we read the Daughters of Israel went yearly to lament, in the Margin it is, to talk with the Daughter of Jeptha, &c. Which shews she was alive, not Sacrificed. The Translators of the Bible, Tremellius and Junius, in their Annotations upon this place, say, He performed his Vow upon her, that is, he did not redeem her by a price of Money, as he might have done by the Law, Levit. 27.4. But left her consecrated to the Lord, and for this reason would not permit her to Marry, lest she should seem to belong to any other than the Lord. Now if Jeptha's Daughter was not Sacri∣ficed, or brought (as your word is) to an untimely death, but in a peculiar and special manner dedicated to the Service of the Lord; and that thereupon the Daughters of Israel did use to meet four days in a year yearly (as the Text expresly says) and that to talk, discourse or confer with her who was thus de∣dicated to the Lord (as not only Tremellius, Junius and Arius Montanus read it, but the Margin of our English Bibles also Note) who then can deny, but there were in those days Wo∣mens Meetings, or suspect that they were for any other than a Religious and pious end.

Sect. 6. Having thus far answered your Cavil against G. F's Quotations, the next thing I take notice of is the Account you give of several Meetings held at Bristol about those and other matters in which you pretend to be dissatisfied. Previous to those Meetings there were it seems certain Propositions a∣greed on, and signed by a Friend (whom you name not) on the one hand, and William Rogers on the other. These you set down, page 10, 11. And in these I observe great care was taken, that a Narrative of the proceedings of those Meetings might be made by joynt consent of both Parties; the reason of which is Obvious, that neither side might, by a partial Account or Relation, misrepresent things to the prejudice of the other. Yet in page 12. you acknowledge that after the said Meetings two of you (viz. William Ford and William Rogers) did send abroad An Account, &c. And this you did without the consent, nay without the knowledge and privity of those Friends, by whose consent, according to your agreement the Narrative ought to have been drawn. For this some of you were it seems (as well they might be) charged with breach of Covenant; which you not only here complain of, but struggle hard, in page 15, 16, 17. to cast off, and yet it sticks fast to you. Your shuffling about it does but shew your Confusion, and you cannot acquit your selves of the imputation of Covenant-breaking. For when you have told us page 15. that by the Agreement, Each party had liberty to have a scribe to take passages in the Conference, and that when any thing was read, and finally agreed by both parties to be recorded, the same should be at the end of every Meeting subscribed by both Parties, and by at least six credible persons of each side; You add, But not a word intimating that no other Re∣lation should go forth. Indeed! I should have thought (and so I believe will every one that considerately reads the Agreement) that every word in that part of it, relating to a Narrative, did intimate that no other Relation should go forth. What else I pray, doth so great care and caution, as is expressed in the Agreement, bespeak? The first Article of your Agreement says, That each may have a Scribe to take all those passages in the Conference, which to them severally shall seem meet; And that

before any one head be left, or a new matter begun, all that each Party have thought fit to have written be first read; if in any thing defective, amended; and finally agreed by both persons to be a true Record, Minute, or Memorial of the Conference, &c. The second Article adds, That all things so written by both Scribes, and so agreed upon to be recorded, shall be at the end of every Meeting subscribed by both parties, and by at least six credible persons of each sides, and by as many more as shall please to sign the same, as witnesses of what is so recorded; and the said six respectively to be named before the Meeting begin, and they then to declare that they are free to it, &c. What greater circumspection and wariness could have been used? What better provision could have been made, or greater care taken that no Narrative, Relation or Account of the passages of that Meeting should go forth, but by joynt-consent of each Party? So that if the reason, intention and implication of that agreement did not lay a restraint upon each Party from giving forth any Relation, Account or Nar∣rative of the proceding of that Meeting, but what should be joyntly drawn up after the manner, and according to the Terms of that Agreement: But that each Party, notwithstand∣ing that agreement, was intentionally and designedly left at liberty, to write and disperse what Narrative, relation or Account he or they should please, according as their affection, inclination or Judgment should lead them, your agreement it self, at least with respect to that (which was the main) part of it, was altogether insignificant and to no purpose. But the Method you began in, the Caution and Wariness you used, the care you took, and provision you made in your agreement, plainly shew the intent and meaning of your agreement was, that no Relation, no Narrative, no Account should be given forth by any of either Party, but what should be drawn up by joynt-consent, and subscribed by some of each Party deputed thereunto. Now this being so, this being the plain and naked scope and drift of this part of your agreement, what else can you be but Covenant-breakers, who have given forth a Relation or Narrative of the proceedings of that Meeting, without the consent, knowledge or privity of those of the other Party, contrary to the intent, purport, true. meaning and natural tendency of your own agreement? And indeed, the fig-leave

pretences you would cover your selves with, are arguments not of Innocency, but of guilt: for what can be more idle and impertinent than to alleadge (as you do page 16.) that it was no part of the Articles, that what was to be agreed upon as a Narrative should be sent abroad? How then would it have been a Narrative, if it had not been to be sent abroad? For since a Narrative (if I rightly understand the word) is so called from it's declaring, shewing forth, telling abroad, or publishing what is contained in it, I am to learn how any thing can properly be called a Narrative, which is not intended to be sent a broad. But that which utterly cracks the Credit of that Relation which, thus contrary to your own agreement, you have dispersed, is, That your selves do here confess, that in that Meeting nothing was so read, a mended and finally agreed upon to be a true Record or Memorial of the Conference, nor yet any thing wit∣nessed by the six chosen on either side to subscribe the same. And yet it seems you could pick up enough to fill about ten sheets of Paper (by your own acknowledgment) though nothing was a∣greed on in the Meeting to be a true Record or Memorial of the Conference. How little this bespeaks Truth in your Relation let others judge. Nay, you seem your selves to account the Truth of your Relation but a Circumstance, for you say, thus, Which being considered, together with this Circumstance, that the Manuscript hinted to ••e given forth was the Truth, &c. You pretend that the person who signed the Argument with W. R. interrupted the orderly Proceeding of the Meeting: But you shew not wherein, nor give any thing like a Demonstration thereof. You refer indeed most confusedly and distractedly to the 22. Section of this second Part (when there is no such thing in your Book) and desire the Reader to peruse a Section which is not extant. But it is certain you your selves interrupted the orderly proceeding of the Meeting: For in order to an Orderly proceeding, the 4 Article of your agreement did provide, That matters or subjects to be debated on by each Party, be first written down, and respectively delivered to each other. But for all this, and notwithstanding that you say, page 11. The aforesaid Dissatisfactions relating to G. F. were delivered in the Meeting, yet your selves will know (who were concerned in that affair) that you charge against G. F. though often

called for and demanded, could not be otbained, nor was deliver∣ed in, until the last of the three Meetings. So that your saying your dissatisfactions relating to G. F. were delivered in the Meeting, is a fallacy and equivocation. And though you stick not to call it in page 17. a notorious Ʋntruth and a lye, That Articles and Covenants were drawn and agreed on both sides, that no Papers were to go forth, without the consent of both parties: Yet I dare submit it to the judgment of any indifferent and con∣siderate Reader, whether the plain purport, intent and mean∣ing of the Articles of agreement, as your selves have set them down, was not, That no paper as a Narrative or Relation of the proceedings of that Meeting, should go forth without the consent of both Parties. Besides, that it may appear how inconsistent your Practises are with your Pretences, I shall desire the Reader here to observe how forward you (who often pretend as if you had been very back-ward and unwilling to widen the breach, to inlarge the Controversy, to spread the knowledge of the differences further by sending abroad Papers, &c. how, for-ward I say, you, under the feigned Pretences) have been, even so long ago as the year 77 to send abroad a Manuscript of about ten sheets of paper, containing your dissatisfactions concerning G. F. and other Friends, and to disperse this up and down, through the Nation, from Town to Town, and County to County, where ever you could get an Entrance.

Sect. 7. But leaving this to the Reader's Consideration, I observe that your Envy to G. F. pricks you forward to Charge him with Writing a Letter to a Friend (concerning William Rogers his dispersing that Narrative) and that too to such an one, say you, who hath suffered one that is no Friend to have a sight thereof. This serves you to make a noise with, and to increase the number of your Pages: For it takes up pag. 18, 19, 20. here, and yet we had had it before in the Postscript, pag. 13, 14. But what is there in your Clamour, besides an empty sound? If G. F. Writing to a Friend, did take notice of the injury William Rogers, &c. had done him, in spreading abroad a bad ••••d Lying Paper against him, who was in fault? He in mentioning the wrong they did him? or they in doing it? If (as you say) that Friend did suffer one who is no Friend to have a

sight of that Letter (which if so, is more like to be casual∣ly than purposely done) yet what is that to G. F.? you cannot say that that Friend had any Order, Direction or Allowance from G. F. so to do. So that your charging that upon G. F. is a manifest token of Envy and Injustice in you. But have you and your Party been so careful, that nothing of this kind may be charged upon your selves? If not, you had better have been Silent in this Case. You may do well to make inquiry amongst your own Party, whether some of them did not send either that very Lying Paper mentioned in G. F's Letter, or some other of like import, to others of their Party, by a man of the World, by which means it came to the view of a Priest to make sport with, before it reached the Hand of them to whom it was sent.

G. F's Mentioning William Rogers and his Company, you call the term of an haughty and scoffing Spirit, pag. 19. But are you content to take what you give? Then turn to J. Wilkin∣son's Letter to G. F. Printed in your 4 Part, pag. 43. where you may read J.W. writes thus to G.F. Let it be a warning to thee, and reprove thy Company, &c. Henceforth if J.W. be taken to be of an Haughty Scoffing Spirit, he may in part thank you for it.

Sect. 8. In pag. 21. you set down part of a Letter from G. F. to John Story concerning the unfairness of Writing and Spread∣ing that Narrative without the knowledge or consent of both Parties, contrary to the agreement made at Bristol. In this Letter (so far at least as you have Printed of it) W. Rogers was not Named, nor any else particularly: Yet William being gauled presently winches; and as one that knew himself guilty, takes it to himself, and flies out into reviling Exclamations against G. F. calling his Letter an Ʋnrighteous Reproach, un∣godly reproach, scandalous reproach (three times over in a matter of Ten Lines) but not a word here for the clearing himself or his Party from being of a Covenant-breaking Spirit; and no wonder, for he knew that he and they had spread abroad their Narrative, and that in a secret underly way; and that this was contrary to their agreement, none can doubt that con∣siders the intention of their agreement. But thou insinuat∣est,

William, as if G.F. had a design to defame thy Reputation as a proper expedient to bring a withering on thy outward Estate, and thereupon thou spreadest thy Sails, displayest thy Colours, magnifies thy Industry, and proclaimest thy self a Merchant, an Industrious Merchant. 'Tis well known, (sayst thou, pag. 22.) I have hitherto comfortably maintained my Self, my Wife, my Children by my Industry as a Merchant. Yes, yes, no question this was well known, and so well known, that had it not been to introduce something else, which perhaps was not so well known, or at least not so well known as thou wouldst have it, I can hardly think thou wouldst have publish'd a thing so well known as this was. Therefore I observe thou addest [And been able to be Assisting unto others in my Generation.] This I perceive thou wert big with, and seemedst in pain till 'twas out. In thy Preface, pag. 13. Thou couldst not forbear boasting, though thou wert fain to fetch a great compass, and strain hard too to bring it in, and yet at length it was fain to come in a Maginal Note, That thou hast been enabled by that method of Trade thou art in, not only to provide for thy Family, but to administer to the Relief of others also. The World must know it seems, and ra∣ther than fail from thy own Pen, not only that thou art a Mer∣chant, an Industrious Merchant, but a Charitable Merchant too. Well, be it so; the Information however is of little use to me. I should have believed as much, though thou hadst not given it under thy Hand. If thou hast given Alms to be seen of men, thou knowest what follows, Mat. 6.1, 2. But certain∣ly, William, thy liberality had look'd more like Charity, and less Pharisaical, had this Trumpet never been sounded.

From thy Charity thou passest to thy Sufferings, and hookest in an occasion to tell the World how much thou hast been Fined, how well thou wert Stock'd, and how much thou lost; The Fines, thou sayst, laid on thee, exceed 90 if not 100 l. pag. 23. (and lest this should not be sufficiently Noted, it is repeated in a Marginal Note on purpose in pag. 29.) As for Stock, be∣sides what thou hadst secured, thou tellest us thou hadst in that place, within doors and without, about 300 l. worth; and thou addest, That a Mare of 12 l. was taken from thee. Now really William, as I think these things were not worth thy Writing, so I should not have thought them worth my Noting, were it not

to let thee see, how thou art over-run with Itch of Ostentation, and how ill it becomes thee.

Sect. 9. The rest of thy fifth Part, William, is so full of Con∣fusion and Scurrillous Revilings, with Lye, Lye, Lye, at every turn, as if Lying were the Method thou tradest in, and a part of the Merchandize thou so Industriously drivest on. I cannot but acknowledge I have been greatly mistaken in thee: For I took thee for a man that had at least pretended to somthing of an Ingenuous and Civil Education. But upon a deliberate Consideration I am now perswaded, That for Railing, Re∣proaching, Reviling, giving the Lye, and for other Scur∣rilities and Ʋncleanliness of Stile; Thy Book may bid defy∣ance to any Book that hath been Printed against the Truth, since Friends have been a People. But I intend not to be Sca∣venger to thy Book, and therefore will not take in every Puddle, nor sweep every Kennel; but touch upon a few more Passages which shew thy Envy and Injustice, and so draw to a Conclusion.

Thou Chargest G. F. in pag. 22. with making a False Cer∣tificate his Refuge, and in pag. 67. thou settest down a Certi∣ficate Subscribed by 28 Friends of Bristol, whom thou liken'st to Perjur'd Informers. And yet thou thy self bringest ten se∣veral Certificates to defame G. F. by, which carry in them no probability of Truth. This shews thy Partiality and In∣justice.

In pag. 71. thou sayst, G. F. Informed thee, that some said thy Paper (which thou sentest to him) was not worth Answer∣ing, and yet thou sayst, G. F. hath Written six Sheets of Paper in Answer to it. Upon this thou beginnest to erect thy self and Vaunt a little; sayst thou, Since G. F. hath acted contrary to their Sense, what's become of their Ʋnity now? And again, This I take to be one sign or token, that the Word of the Lord by his Ser∣vant John Wilkinson is fulfilling. This is a very slender Beast, William, an idle poor Brag. What if some said thy Paper was not worth Answering, and yet G. F. Answered it? 'Tis probable enough G. F. might not think it worth Answering neither: And yet both he might see Cause to Answer it, and they for its being Answered. And therein he acted not con∣trary

but according to their Sense, both with respect to the worthlessness of thy Paper, and also to the reason of Answering it. And then what's become of thy Cavil? For thou art ex∣treamly out, if thou thinkest there is no other reason for An∣swering a Paper, but the worth of it. Yes, yes, William, there may be many Inducements to Answer that, which in it self is not worth Answering. For instance, A fool in his folly is not worth Answering; yet it may be convenient sometimes to Answer him, lest he grow wise in his own conceit. And who knows how far that very reason might prevail upon G. F. in this very Case? But sure if thou hadst not been in great fear that John Wilkinson will be found a false Prophet, thou wouldst not have sought to have sheltered him under such a silly pre∣tence as this. However since it is evident that G. F. and Friends are in Unity still, not broken, nor turned one against another, (as six years ago it seems J. W. Prophesied they would be) thou art to seek again for another Fig-Leaf to co∣ver J. W. with, for this proves too Thin and too Narrow to hide him.

Sect. 10. The next thing I observe, William, is thy fond attempt to prove G. F. a Flyer in time of Persecution. I call it a fond attempt, because I think it can appear no other to any that know him, and the many Imprisonments, and Cruel Sufferings, he has undergone, for his Faithfulness to his Testi∣mony. Thou bringest four Certificates, Subscribed in all by six persons, to prove that G. F. went out of a Meeting at Bristol, in a Suffering time, before the Meeting was ended. This is weighed down by another Certificate Subscribed by 28 Friends of Bristol Meeting. To discredit their Testimony, thou com∣parest them to Perjured Informers. I have learn'd better than to imitate thy ill Language; and therefore shall not revile thy Witnesses (as thou hast done those 28 Friends) but shall only make two or three Observations on them, and so leave them. 1. I observe, that four of thy six Witnesses against G. F. to wit, Mary Gouldney, Mary North, Ann Day and Nathaniel Day, do not only Certify matter of Fact, but matter of Faith (their own belief) also. They not only say G. F. departed out of the Meeting before it broke up, but they say they believe he so

did, to avoid being taken prisoner. Had it not been enough for them to have certified matter of fact (if in truth they could so have done) and have left others to judge of the Intention? But this forwardness of theirs to certify their belief of his Inten∣tion, smells more of the Accuser than the witness. 2d. I observe, that although in the first Certificate Mary Gouldney, Mary North and Ann Day speak only of a Meeting in general (out of which they say G. F. departed) without particularizing, or fixing upon any certain day, month, or year wherein that Meeting was held; yet William James, who subscribed the 2d. Certifi∣cate says, To this Testimony I also can bear witness; Nathaniel Day, who subscribed the 3d Certificate, says, I do remember on this Occasion AFORESAID, that G. Fox did depart out of the Meeting AFORESAID, &c. And Samuel Hollister, who sub∣scribed the 4th Certificate, says, I do on the Occasion AFORESAID declare, that I do remember, that G. Fox did depart out of the Meeting AFOREMENTIONED, &c. So that all thy three Men-Witnesses have reference to and dependence upon the Testimony of the three women, and undertake to speak of the same Meeting that the women speak of, although the women do not declare when that Meeting was which they speak of. Now how could these Men know, that the Meet∣ing which each of them respectively mentions, is the same with that which the women speak of? nay how can they be assured that they themselves were present at that Meeting which the Women speak of, unless the Women had particularly assigned and ascertained what Meeting it was that they meant? This shews there has been a Cabal and consultation held, and that thou and thy witnesses have laid your heads together, and have hammered out one Certificate by another; how fairly, let others Judge. 3. I observe, that thy prime Certificate says, G. Fox stood up and spoke in the Meeting, and that it was at a time when persecution attended Friends in their Meeting. This plainly shews G. F. was far from shunning suffering, why else came he there? It was it seems a suffering time, Persecution they say attended the Meeting. This he knew before. If he would have avoided a Prison, he might have kept away, be needed not have come there: For he could have no assurance (out∣wardly) that if he came there he should escape. Yet thither he

went, to that Meeting he came, it seems, and in that Meeting he stood up and spoke, by your own Confession, though he knew it was attended with persecution. Tell this to any considerate Man, and perswade him thereby, if you can, that G. F. did this to shun suffering, to avoid persecution. More might be observed from these Certificates, (as that, although they declare their belief that G. F. went out of the Meeting to save himself from being taken Prisoner by the Persecutors, yet it does not appear by any of these Certificates, either that any was taken Prisoner, or that any Persecutors came to the Meeting that day.) But I forbear insisting further on them, believing the weakness of those that subscribed them, and thy envy in publish∣ing them, will from what is already observed, be obvious to every intelligent Reader.

I shall therefore take notice of what thou sayest in page 61. Where thou settest down two Sentences of G. F's delivered at several times and upon different Occasions; In one of which thou reportest him to say thus, I remember I was sitting in a Meeting at Bristol, when another was speaking, and some officers came up, and took him away, and when he was gone, I kept the Meeting and none meddled with me. In the other thou settest down his words thus, As for the Meeting at Bristol, there came no Souldiers or Officers, while I was in the Meeting neither before nor after. Hereupon thou sayst, He that runs may read, that George Fox, in some Cases, doth not matter what he saith. If envy had not made thy Pen run too fast for thy Understand∣ing, thou mightest have seen, and read plain enough, that those were two distinct times and Meetings, whereof G. F. spoke. In the first, it seems, a Man was speaking, and some Officers came up, and took him away. In the second a Wo∣man (Margaret Thomas) was speaking page 58. and the Meet∣ing was quiet. What contradiction I pray is there in this? Might he not be in one Meeting where the Officers did come, and in another where the Officers did not come? Thy Certificates say nothing of any Souldiers or Officers coming into the Meet∣ing that day, when they say G. F. departed before the Meet∣ing broke up. And yet thou sayst (page 26, 27.) that the Persecutors came up one pair of Stairs in your Meeting Room in Broad-Mead, whilst G. F. was speaking, and that on a sudden

he stept down and hastned out of the Meeting at a Back-pair of stairs. Either therefore thou must acknowledge, that this Meeting thou speakest of was another not the same with that which thy Certificators speak of, or else that thou and they dis¦agree in your Relation of one and the same thing. The latter-will not much credit your evidence, as the former will mani∣fest thy envy and injustice towards G. F. in representing those two Sentences of his, which were spoken of distinct Meetings, as if they had been spoken but of one, meerly that thou mightest thence take occasion to say, George Fox, in some cases, doth not matter what he saith. But this very Instance is enough to prove William Rogers, in case he may a∣buse G. F. doth not matter what he says. And therefore though thou sayst, Thy Eyes were witnesses of what thou there chargest G. F. with, in relation to Bristol Meeting, yet I assure thee if thy Eyes be like thy Tongue, they are not fit to be believed. The story thou relatest upon the Credit of thy Eyes is a very blind story. It agrees not well with it self, and worse with thy Certificates. Thou sayst, The Persecutors came up one pair of stairs in your Meeting Room in Broad-mead, whilest G. F. was speaking (so that they must be in the Meeting, by thy Ac∣count, while he was speaking) and yet thou sayst, he stept down on a sudden, and hastned out of the Meeting at a Back pair of Stairs. Does this sound likely? is it probable that if the Persecutors were in the Meeting Room while he was speaking, they would have let him step down and hasten out, and not themselves have hastened to lay hold of him? But if this of it self look very unlikely, William Jame's Certificate (who is one of thy witnesses) will make it more unlikely: for he says, that After G. F. stept down from the place he stood upon to speak, and was departing, some Friends were moving to go with him, and he perceiving it (as W. James took it) said, holding out his hand, Keep your Meetings, keep your Meetings; and accordingly (says he) the Meeting was held a considerable time longer after his de∣parture. Now what the Persecutors did all that considerable time that the Meeting was held after you say G. F. was gone, had been very considerable for you to have told: For they don't use to be idle when they come to take Prisoners. Yet according to thine and thy witnesses Relation, though G. F. was speak∣ing

when they came into the Meeting, yet they let him alone, they suffered him to step down and quietly depart. Nay to speak to the Friends as he was departing: Nor only so, but they suffered the Friends to hold their Meeting a considerable time longer. And when all was done, it does not appear, from what thou and thy half dozen of Witnesses have said, that there was any one taken Prisoner that day, or any distur∣bance made. What Credit this Story deserves, I leave to the Reader to judge.

Some other small Observations thou hast, fitter for a Child than a Man to have made; as that there were some Friends at Edward Pyott's, who he bid go away (what else should they have done? Had it been common Discretion for them to have staid to have gone with him in a great Company in time of Persecution? Wherein had the Service of that lain?) that Edward Pyott's Son (who thou knowest was a Young Lad then) accompanied him through the fields (what matter how Young the Lad was if he were Old enough to know the way; for his business was but to shew him the way) that when he met Dennis Hollister, Thomas Gouldney, and George Bishop, he bid them walk by (and well he might I think. There were many Peo∣ple, he says, walking there; and was it fit, thinkest thou, that they should hear those Friends reasoning with him, and labouring to disswade him from going to the Meeting?) And though, sayst thou, at length he came to the Meeting (at length too! At what length dost thou mean? It seems he was there as early at least as Dennis Hollister, Thomas Gouldney and George Bishop.) And, addest thou, as is credibly reported, by back and unusual ways (who I pray are thy Credible Reporters of this so little credible Report? None of thy six Certificate-Witnesses say any thing to this purpose. Upon whose Credit then dost thou report it? Wilt thou pawn the little Credit of thy own Eyes again?) Yet I find (sayst thou, speaking of the Relation G. F. gave of this business) not one word positively testifying, that he staid in the Meeting, until the Meeting broke up. How! not one word! Doth he not say, When he came down stairs, many Friends were in the Street? Was not that a sign the Meeting was broke up? And dost not thou within three or four Lines charge him with asking, as he went down, Why do Friends

busste and make such a throng? Was not that a sign the Meet∣ing was up? Yes sure, and thy urging all these Impertinent Cavils is a sign thy Envy was up too, which made thee not matter what thou saidst, that thou thoughtst might tend to de∣fame G. F.

Sect. 11. From these thou passest to other Observations, pag. 64, 65, 66. upon G. F's account of the Meeting at Ring∣wood, in every of which thy Envy is very apparent. The first is, Of the improbability, that the Women that c••me from Pool should come five or six Hours before the Meeting was to begin. Would any but a discomposed Head have clog'd a Book with such an Observation as this! I am ready to say of this, as some body else (it seems) said of another of thy Papers, It is not worth Answering; and yet for a reason that might be given, I return this Answer to it. It was in Summer-time, the Weather Hot; to avoid which those Women of Pool chose to come in the Cool of the Morning.

The next thing thou takest notice of is, that G. F. walk'd with a young man. A shrewd matter indeed! But then there came an other young man; Will, what if there had come a third? Why, This (sayst thou) is cause of Jealousy that G. F. had a shifting kind of design, to take Young men for his Companions. Indeed! why so? If young men are in Truth, why may not they be ac∣companied with as well as Old men? I have read that the Com∣pany of Hereticks and Scandalous Professors of Truth was to be shunned, Tit. 3.10. and 1 Cor. 5.11. But I never read that any Faithful Friends Company was to be avoided because of their Youth. But this Cavil at their Youth Springs from an Old root of Envy in thee against G. F.

Another of thy Observations is, That G. F. was for having a good Meeting after the Soldiers were gone. And good reason too, if the Soldiers came so early as to be gone before Meeting time, as it seems they did, Thou addest, that although the Young man said the Soldiers were Neighbours, and Civil People, and would hardly meddle, yet G. F. kept still walking in the Fields. Ay, why not? It was two hours, it seems, before Meeting time. Did his walking in the Fields two hours before the Meeting, shew any design to shift the Meeting? 'Tis a sign thou wantest matter

against G. F. when thou pickest up such trivial matter as these.

Thy fourth Observation is, That one of the Young men, be∣ing gone about two Bow-shots from G. F. waved his Hat to him. This I perceive thou wouldst have for a ballance to the Boy's standing on an Hill to wave his Hat, if any occasion offered, while John Story and others were at Meeting in By-places: But this will hold no Parallel; for that was a designed thing, this a meer Accident; that Boy was set on purpose, this young man went there by Chance; That Boy was appointed to wave his Hat as a Token agreed upon before hand, this Young man waved his Hat of his own accord, without any appointment made. And though thou sayst it may reasonably be supposed he did it to keep G. F. from Meeting, yet thou wilt get nothing by that, for it appears G. F. would not be kept from Meeting, but when Meeting-time came, to the Meeting he went, and a very large and Blessed Meeting they had, till about three in the After∣noon, and then broke up the Meeting in the Power of God and in Peace, pag. 59. But as thou wouldst fain fasten some imputation upon G. F. but canst not; so thou endeavourest to palliate the matter on John Story's part, but with as ill success. Thou sayst, the setting a Boy on top of an Hill, waving his Hat to Friends (spoken of by G. F. by way of Reflection on John Story,) is de∣nied by John Story, and by his Accusers intended only (so far as thou understandest) to shew Friends the way to the Meeting. Thou mightest have added, And to give them warning to shift for themselves, if any Persecutors should have come. And though thou here sayst John Story denyed it, yet I do not find in his Answer to the 4th. Query about it (4 Part, pag. 11.) that he denyes it, but only says, I remember no such thing. But John Wilkinson I suppose can re∣member both the thing, and the person to whom (if I mistake not) he himself told, that John Story's own Brother was the Boy. But let it pass, a Boy it seems was set on the Top of an Hill, waving his Hat to shew Friends the way to the Meet∣ing; and thou thinkest it was done for Conveniency. A rare Conveniency, to have Meetings in such Blind-Holes and Ob∣scure-Corners, that the Friends that belonged to them could not find them, without a Boy to direct them by waving his Hat on top of an Hill. What Sculking, hiding work was this!

Well might one of your Party, have a Vision of your Sepa∣rate Meeting Sitting Sleeping under ground, when they found such Contrivances, to hide and shelter themselves from Suffe∣rings, as to Meet in Holes, Gills or Dells in the Earth, and that so private and concealed, that their own Friends, that were of the Meeting, could not find them, but a Boy must be set on top of an Hill, waving his Hat to signify which way they should pass. Was this to stand up for Truth? Was this to hold forth Truths Testimony as an Ensign to the World? Was this to be like a City set on an Hill? Was this to set the Candle on a Candlestick, that it might give Light unto all? Or to put it under a Bushel, in an Hole or dark Corner, lest any should see it, and find them out by it? This was not to bear a Faith∣ful Testimony for Truth, but to shrink from their Testimony, and let their Testimony for Truth fall as in the Streets, which has been the burden of many of them since, as they acknow∣ledged. Thou hintest that this was when Friends met without Doors; but that helps nothing: For why did they meet with∣out doors? They might have met within if they would, as other Friends did. They were never put out of Doors (so far as I can learn) but voluntarily went out, and forsook their Meeting places, out of a Self-Saving design to avoid being Fined for their Meeting Houses. And when they had forsaken their Meeting places, and put themselves out of Doors, they had other Houses offered them, by Faithful Friends, to meet in if they would. John Story in his Answer to the 7th Query (4 Part, pag. 11.) confesses, William Chambers offered his House, but pretends it was too far for the greatest part of the Meeting to go, and says, They were well satisfied with other places much nearer. Yes no doubt, they that were so fraid of Suffering for Truth, as to for∣sake the Houses they were wont to meet in, for fear of being Fined, would be very well satisfied to creep into blind Holes and Corners to save themselves, though they lost Truth. And if all Friends had been as Unfaithful, Degenerate and Cowardly as John Story and those of his Party were, what had become of all Friends Meetings! And how had the Testimony of Truth fallen throughout the Nation!

Thy fifth Observation is, That G. F's words cannot reason∣ably be taken to import a denyal, that he hid himself behind a Bank. This is not only malicious, but false: for in pag. 59. he says, He was out in the open fields, where the Souldiers might easily see him. That was far from hiding behind a Bank sure. And there was he walking before any Souldiers came, or he had heard any thing of their coming: Neither was it in Meeting time, but at least two hours before.

In thy sixth Observation there is another falshood. Thou sayst, He went not into the House where the Meeting was, but to another, &c. This thou repeatest in thy seventh thus, If he had had so much patience as to have gone into the House, after Meeting, to Visit the distressed Family, the Woman being Dead. Whence dost thou infer that he went not into the House where the Meeting was? The Relation thou pretendest to make thy Observations upon, doth not say so, and he himself saith he did. 'Tis true that he did go to another House after∣wards, but that he did not go into the House where the Meeting was, is false: For he did Visit the distressed Fami∣ly both before Meeting and after. So thou art guilty of a false Charge.

In thy 7th Observation thou sayst, That though as to that Meeting at Ringwood (if Report be true) there are many noto∣rious Circumstances, to shew him a Flyer in time of Persecution, yet thou observest he makes mention of but one particular thing, that he saith is a Lye or false, which to thee (thou sayst) is a demonstration, that he could not in Truth deny other things reported of him on this occasion. It seems then thou thinkest he hath so much regard to Truth, that he would not deny what could not in Truth be denied. Well, such an acknow∣ledgment from an Enemy is something, though he doth not need it. I wish the same could in Truth be said of thee. But where or what are the many notorious Circumstances thou speak∣est of as to that Meeting at Ringwood, which thou sayst (if Re∣port be True) shew him a Flyer in time of Persecution? Why didst thou not bring them forth? Can any one doubt but that, if thou hadst had such Notorious Circumstances, such a Notorious Report-Monger as thou art, who hast so often in this Book sug∣gested thy Slanders upon Report, would have been forward, and

glad of the opportunity to have been the Reporter of such Circumstances, how notoriously false soever they had been?

These are the Observations, William, which thou it seems hast thought worth making upon G. F's Relation of Ringwood Meeting. But I desire thee not to think I have taken notice of them as thinking them worth Answering: For that I assure thee I did not, but upon another reason. I look upon them to be so entirely made up of envy and falshood interwoven, that it will be obvious to the weakest sight; and that they smell so strong of Malice (with which transported, thou hast over-done thy design) that there is no likelihood any Body should believe thee, that is not like thee; and who are, are not to be re∣garded.

As for thy other Slander, which thou and thy Party would fasten on G. F. by several Certificates from his Enemies at Hertford and thereabouts, I think it not needful to say more than that thy Witnesses should have agreed better in their Evi∣dence, if they expected to have been believed. The incohe∣rence of their Testimonies is sufficient of it self to discredit what they say. And besides, those Certificates have already been fairly examined, and the Invalidity of them fully laid open in another Treatise, called, The Accuser of our Brethren cast down, &c. To which I refer the Reader for more full satisfaction, not only in this, but other particulars. And indeed, had I read that Treatise before I begun this, or had I had that by me while I was Writing this, it might probably have either wholly diverted me from this undertaking, or at least have much contracted this work, by excusing me from med∣dling with, or insisting on many particulars, so fully handled and clearly enervated in that. But since Providence hath or∣dered it as it is, I shall not Apologize for the Writing of this, but leave the success and service of it to the Lord, desiring that Friends will be prudent and wary in the spreading of it, and not make it more publick, than (in the Wisdom of God) they see a just occasion for.