pretending to discover Principles and Practices relating to George Fox and hiâ— Party as thou callest them that run paraleâ— with the Church of Rome And then to excuse this thy persecuting Cain-like and Judas-like work against us thou falsly placest it on the Will of the Lord saying The Will of the Lord be done p. 17. whilsâ— thou art doing the Will of the Devil thy Master and Father of Lyes and Lyars adding That 't is but just that Deceit and Idolatry should be discovered in whomsoever c. p. 18. But come on That thou dost do quickly Let 's see what exact Similitudes and eminent Discoveries thou hast shewn and made of our seeming Vnion and Paralel with the Church of Rome Thus thou attempts it viz. 1st 'T is affirmed of the Pope that he is Christ's Vicar on Earth Accounts himself invested with Power to execute outward Laws Edicts and Decrees Herein sayst thou I place not much difference between the Pope on the one part and the Pen-man and some of his the Brethren on the other And why so The Pen-man and his Brethren sayst thou account themselves the Representatives of Christ's inward Government over the Conscience p. 18. That 's an Untruth by the way and none of our words but a scornful Pervertion Where did we so account our selves 'T is improper and unsound to say That visible Men or finite Creatures are the Representatives of Christs inward spiritual Government over the Conscience which is endless and where Christ himself reigns Where did we ever assume a Government in Christ's stead over the Conscience But only as his Servants and Witnesses by his Spirit do commend our selves to every mans Conscience in the sight of God and thereby only represent or shew forth by sound Doctrine and good Conversation That Christ must rule and be obey'd as the Head of his Church which vastly differs from the Pope's false sence of his being Christ's Vicar or Representative on Earth Thou addest viz. And that they are invested with Power to execute outward Laws Edicts and Decrees And what follows on thy discovery and similitude Therefore the Pope and G. F. and his Party seem to be in Vnion and run Paralel with the Church of Rome That 's false The true Apostles and primitive Christians had outward Laws Commands Decrees c. which they practised So hath the Pope and the Church of Rome though not the same What follows Did they therefore seem to be in Union Thy Similitude and Inference are fallacious We differ in the Power and Manner of Execution and our Laws and Decrees which Christ hath given us differ from the Popes The Popes Power is Carnal and Coercive Ours Spiritual and Perswasive The Popes Ecclesiastical Laws Edicts Canons and Decrees are to promote a false Church Idolatrous Worship and Superstition Our Laws and Decrees c. are first written in our Hearts and taught us by Christ Jesus enjoyning us to eye believe and follow him as our Rock our Way and Leader in Holiness and Purity of Life and Conversation Therefore thy Comparison is silly and abusive here as well as Malicious The Pope claims a succession from Peter and Peter's Primacy as their term is as the Rock and Foundation of the Church So do not we but deny that Doctrine as false believing and owning Christ to be the Rock and Foundation nor yet do we assume or pretend any Priviledge Power or Authority over Christ's Church from an outward succession but only being Christ's Witnesses Ministers Servants and Ambassadours are assisted by his immediate Presence Power and Wisdom with us to assist order and govern us in his service and the service of one another in love Again thou proceedest in thy Similitudes viz. 2dly The Pope likewise affirms that the Church of Rome is the true Church and in the true Faith The Romish Clergy teach that we must believe as the Church believes Herein I cannot justly place much difference between the Popish Clergy and Pen-man if he approved this Doctrine viz. The true Church is in the true Faith that is in God and we must either believe thus as the true Church believes or else it were but both a Folly and Hypocrisie to profess our selves Members thereof pag. 18. Thus thou wouldst make me whom I presume thou intendest to resemble the Pope and his Clergy and to seem to be in union with them But dost thou not own the Doctrine to be true in it self viz. 1 st That the true Church is in the true Faith that is in God And darest thou deny this What sayest thou to it Speak out man and be plain to the Point 2 dly That we must either believe THUS i. e in God as the true Church believes or else 't were Hypocrisie to profess our selves Members thereof If thou canst not deny the Doctrine in it self why hast thou made this an Instance of our seeming to be in union with the Popish party For thou knowest in thy Conscience first That it was not spoken of the Church of Rome but in general of the true Church whose Faith is IN GOD which we neither believe of the Church of Rome nor does the Church of Rome believe so of us Where 's then our seeming Union secondly To believe in God as the true Church doth herein the true Church is made an instance and example of Faith in God not to make the Church's believing this or that the sole Reason and Cause of my or our believing the same this were Implicit 't is as not because for Christ who is God is the original efficient cause both of the Church's and my Faith which is in him which is the one living substantial Faith wherein is Unity Whilst thou canst not confute the said Doctrine behold thy Similitude what an empty FALSE SHEW it is What real Protestants in Europe could escape thy Censure of Resembling the Pope and his party nay how canst thou escape thy self upon such Fallacious Similitudes as thou hast invented against us The Pope and his party believe there there is a God a Christ a Heaven a Hell Immortality future states So do all true Protestants What follows according to thy Similitude Ergo all true Protestants seem to be at union with the Pope and his party The Pope and his party believe there is one true â—â—iversal Church and one true Faith So do the Protestants but not so of each other they are not in Union no more are we with the Pope or his party but with the best Reformed Protestants wherein they differ'd from and oppos'd the Church of Rome The Pope believes he is a true Christian and no Apostate So dost thou W. R. believe thou art a true Christian c. What follows Ergo thou dost Resemble the Pope and seemest to be at Union with the Papistical party Is not this argumentum ad hominem like thy Similitudes and more resembling them than thou hast resembled G. F. and his party to the Pope and Church of
What worse Persons upon Earth could our Adversary have compared G. F. and Friends unto or brought in Comparison against them in Church Proceedings or Spiritual Censures Behold his horrid Injustice and Envy CHAP. III. § 1. W. R's Accusation of endavouring to take away his Credit Next to depriving him of his Estate examined and the justness of our dealing with him vindicated What sore Reflection he has brought upon himself by his Complaint and his acting the part of a Persecuting Informer to render his antient Friends call'd Quakers Obnoxious in the Eye of the Law and Authority § 2. His bitterly Inveighing against C. Marshall and many other Brethren His unjust Instance of Pope Leo's Bull again His and F. Bugg's Contradiction about W. Penn. Schism condemned in and by the Church of Christ as well as Heretical Doctrine and Scandalous Living The decrease of W. R's Number and the increase and gathering of many faithful to Christ and us his followers foretold § 3. The Pen-man's writing in behalf and in the name of the peaceable People called Quakers vindicated from W. R's severe and seditious Inferences § 4. W.R. called in question upon his own Principle for writing in the name and behalf of and representing divers Persons who never chose nor gave him Power nor allowed him so to do and his abuse of E. Burroughs and I. Pennington whereupon his severe Charge and Inference is all returned upon his own head § 5. W. R. and F. Bugg their Reflections upon the Meeting in the Isle of Ely no proof of Friends Apostacy but of their own Partiality and Injustice in their Representation of the matter § 6. W. R's again recited Lye about the Paper from Barbadoes as being one part of the fruits of the pretended establisht Government with other unjust Aggravations thereupon farther detected § 1. TO prove that thy Adversaries would cause thee to suffer in Body and Estate if they had Power thou sayst They have endeavoured as much as in them lies to take away thy Credit which is next to depriving thee of thy Estate And wherein to take away thy Credit Thou sayest The Pen-man hath given thee this sort of Treatment either in relation to thy self or thy Book viz. Hellish Iealousies Fiery Agent Incendiary his Heart is filled with Pride and Envy As for William Rogers's Book against Church Government 't is outragiously Wicked Clamorous and Abusive I cannot suppose sayst thou what he means by these his very words He is here treated far more mildly than his work deserves unless he believes that my work deserves corporal Punishment or Confiscation of Estate I cannot but again say Blessed be the Lord that the Rigid Vncharitable Pen-man hath not Power so to do Thus far thou p. 21 22. To all which I say and that in the sight of the Righteous God who is Judge of all that I know no Treatment given thee in these and the like Passages in our Book than what thou and thine justly deserve though in much else of ours thou art treated far more mildly yea more kindly than thy work deserves And dost thou indeed judge that we have endeavoured to take away thy Credit by such kind of Treatment And that 't is next to taking away thy Estate What hast THOU then done against us yea against many of the peaceable People called Quakers Hast not rendred us Vnchristian in notorious Blasphemy Apostates Innovators Imposers of blind Obedience Popish Papistical Track in Vnion with the Pope and his Party more unjust than the Lords of the Spanish Inquisition Yea and at such a time as this when I presume thou canst not be ignorant how that many of our Innocent Friends are under severe prosecution and suffering both in their Persons and Estates in the reign of Q. Elizabeth and K. James How Uncharitable and Unjust How persecuting Informer-like all circumstances considered is thy Treatment And how Inhumane tending to add to these our Afflictions And yet complainest of our Endeavours to take away thy Credit and consequently thy Estate when thou art but justly reprehended and no other Characters placed on thy Work and Envious Spirit than what are just and naturally belong thereunto Hath it not been our practice from the beginning to testifie against our Persecutors and to reprove their Envy and Cruelty Did we therein go about to bring corporal Punishment and Confiscation of Estate upon them No sure Canst thou take liberty to abuse and villifie so many Servants of Christ in Print and think they must all be mute under thy Abuses and none to reprehend thee No such matter They that have but the least spark of holy Zeal or but any Life or Soul for God must needs be kindled in some measure against thy abominable Abuses and Injurious persecuting Work It seems thou valuest thy own Credit and Estate at a high rate above others Thou seemest little to value the Credit Liberty or Estates of many others even of thy antient Friends called Quakers to brand and stigmatize them as thou hast done with as Infamous Characters yea and as Obnoxious in the Eye of Law and Authority as thou easily canst and yet complainest of Endeavours to destroy thy Credit and Estate when thou hast given the first occasion of the Reprehension and Judgment given upon thee and thy work of Malice Thou hast begun the Fray publickly and broke the Peace now complainest of Vncharitable Treatment First thou art Barking Snapping and Biting then art Complaining and Whyning when a little Whipt for thy Folly thy Pievish and Ugly Behaviour Oh! Injurious and Partial Man Hast thou done as thou wouldst be done by For shame give over thy malicious and fruitless Attempts § 2. Again 't is observable how bitterly thou still inveighs against Charles Marshall and the Sixty five Persons more about the Paper touching J. W. and J. S. as judging it In some respect to be much like the Bull given forth by Pope Leo the Tenth against Martin Luther Anno 1520. But yet in one main Point greatly differs for sayest thou in the Bull there are Forty two Articles of Doctrine condemned and the Bull ordered to be read in every place that the matters for which he was prosecuted as an Heretick might be known But in the aforesaid Paper subscribed by Charles Marshall c. There is no mention of any perticular Doctrine or Vitiousness of Life for which they are persecuted by their Brethren p. 22. Thus far thou Whence three things are to be observed 1 st That the said Paper is compared to the Pope's Bull as much like it in some respect 2 dly That it s deem'd worse than the Pope's Bull in not mentioning any particular Doctrine or Vitious Life against J. W. and J. S. 3 dly That they who subscribed the said Paper were persecutors of their Brethren Whereof thou knowest William Penn was one How foully hast thou asperst and represented C. M. and W. P. c. in these things And how do these
And how canst thou think that we can do less than detest thy insolent Spirit by offering to write in the Name of the People called Quakers without Restriction when they gave neither thee nor any of thy Brethren such Authority Had the fear of God been before thine Eyes thou couldst not have attempted to have done so Wickedly p. 25. Here it is probable he thinks he hath given the Pen-man a deadly Blow but when the Devil and William Rogers have done their worst it comes to little Execution but to manifest his Envy and Folly He only shews his Teeth but cannot bite nor fasten for there is no just paralel in the case there is no such kind of Treasonable proceeding justly chargeable upon the Pen-man as is inferred in the Comparison The Pen-man did not call himself the Representative nor write in the Name of the People or of all those called Quakers without Restriction as he falsly saith nor pretend an Election or Authority from them so to do the matter is distinguished and answered before and yet the Pen-man might lawfully represent the Innocency of all true peaceable Quakers both as to Principle and Practice when abused and calumniated either as Vnchristian or Popish Imposers c. without Conviction like as this Adversary hath frequently misrepresented them And this may be done charitably freely and voluntarily in their Name and Vindication and in true Unity from a right knowledge of their Innocency declared Sense and Principles And hath not this been the Practice of many faithful Servants of Christ among us ever since we were a People to write both in the name vindication of the People of God called Quakers or of the Innocent People called Quakers c. as the Lord hath laid a necessity upon them and yet not to include those who are unfaithful or scandalous to Truth or any who are turned into Envy and Strife though they go under that Name Nor yet have they sought or needed to seek Commission from the whole People to write in their behalf being required of the Lord to write And did not many of the best reformed Protestants and Martyrs write in the name and behalf of the Protestant Church and Religion as the Book of Martyrs and other Histories and their own Writings shew of which numerous Instances might be given And did not the the Apostles of Christ often write in the Plural both in the name and behalf of themselves and the rest of true Believers and Fellow-members under the terms We and Vs and Our c. especially in that of 1 John 2.19 They went out from Us but they were not of Us for if they had been of Us they would no doubt have continued with Us see chap. 3.14 and 4.6 Here John wrote in the Name of his Brethren and Fellow-members and distinguished themselves from those that went out from them as we have our selves as a peaceable People from you that are gone out from us into a Spirit of Enmity Discord and Self-separation § 4. But W. R. since thou countest it such a horrid Crime such great Impudence Pride ugly Action Insolence c. to write in the name or on the behalf of People or Persons or in their Vindication without being impowered authorized and chosen by the same Persons or People Now observe well upon thy own principle and way of arguing what a Reckoning I have with thee Let us seriously enquire of thee Have all those Persons in whose behalf and Name thou hast written in the Plural under the Terms We Vs c given thee Authority or chosen thee to write in their Name and behalf Did John Story John Wilkinson and now the person in Cambridgshire whom thou and Francis Bugg contend for against the Record about his Marriage all give thee Authority or chuse thee to write on their behalf and to expose their Names in Print as thou hast done in thy state of the Controversie on their behalf Did they give thee Authority to write in their names and behalf as those Other Friends in Truth thou tellest of and representest Either they did or they did not if they did then they may be entituled to and are justly chargeable with thy work how perverse and abusive soever it be If they did not chuse nor authorize thee to write in their behalf and name then thy own Judgment returns upon thy own head as one guilty of great Impudence Pride towring lofty Spirit notorious Falshood ugly Dress c. to write in the name and vindication of Persons and to represent them who never gave thee Power nor chose thee to thy work Didst not thou pretend to write on behalf of thy self and other Friends in Truth concerned as in the Title-page of thy great Book and now to use the words Vs We or Our with respect to such as encouraged the giving forth thereof as in thy Advertisement to thy seventh part When now divers noted Persons who have appeared of thy party refuse to stand by thy Books and we know none of them that dare say they gave thee any such Authority or chose thee to be their Representative to write in their name and behalf as thou hast done against many faithful Friends whom the Lord is with and will stand by against thy crooked Spirit and Opposition but rather those thy Friends in Truth pretended on enquiry if they own and will stand by thy Books as it has been often asked them particularly at Devonshire-house in 1681. have answered That William Rogers must answer for himself if he hath done more than he can answer or wronged any They will not stand by him 'T is his own Act he must look to it c. Thus upon a pinch they leave him in the lurch to shift for himself they 'l not stand by him openly however they own him not for their Representative though he hath represented them and written as in their Name Person and Vindication as also represented them as Encouragers of the giving forth of his great Book falsly stiled The Christian-Quaker c. But to deal more closely and positively with thee in this matter how camest thou to expose Edward Burroughs Name in Print and to represent him as a Person of thy Principle and Judgment by a confused unsound whimsical Paper which thou hast printed in thy great Book with Edward Burrough's Name put to it and represented it as his Testimony and even in thy Title-page sayst it was given forth in the year 1661. by Edw. Burroughs and since the same is reprinted over and over by thy busie informing Agent Thomas Crisp as E. B's Vision but I am perswaded thou and he have grosly abused and mis-represented that Servant of the Lord E. B. by rendring him the Author of such Absurdities as are contained in that same Paper about the Shepherd and his Dogs c. particularly in that passage of the Shepherd's gathering the Sheep with the many Goats that did push trouble and hurt the Sheep with
thy Judgment in calling the Light in men which thus dictates their duty Their natural Light derived to them from their first Creation Herein thou hast wrongfully informed H. N. and the Magistrates about the Principle the Light in men contrary to the Quakers Testimony born from the beginning concerning the Light in men which is according to the holy Apostle's Testimony John 1.4 9. that In the Word or Son of God was Life and that Life was the Light of men And that this is not a natural or created Light but a Supernatural and Divine Light of the Christ Jesus the Son of God 3 dly And now Francis having thus misrepresented our Principle to the Magistrates and so mis-informed them about the Light in men Thou proceedest upon an unjust charge of Impositions against certain Persons chiefly concerned owned and approved among the People called Quakers whom thou scornfully callest G. Fox and those of Party with him and hast exposed the Names of some of them in Print whom thou meanest by that Party as William Penn George Whitehead Stephen Crisp Alexander Parker Thomas Salthouse John Burnyeat p. 51. And what hast thou to charge all these with that thou hast printed a Book and informed the Magistracy against them It is The mischief of Impositions The inconsistency betwixt the Church-Discipline or Order and Government erected by those and THAT in the Primitive times as in the Title of thy second part It is also That there is Violence done to our first Principles of Vnion Consequently Tyranny introduced and our Society turned Antichristian p. 32 33. According to W P's Proposition in his Address thus falsly applyed by thee against himself and the rest of us before-named Now Francis I must plainly tell thee this Inconsistency and Violence charged by thee against us we utterly deny and the Instances thou givest do not at all prove it As first G. F's Paper for Women's Meeting distinct that they might be in the practice of pure Religion to visit the Fatherless and the Widows and to see that all be kept from the spots of the World c. As 't is cited at large by thee p. 33 34 35 36 37. Now Francis where 's the Inconsistency charged Can there be an Inconsistency where there 's no Contradiction nor the least opposition Thy judging such Women's Meetings as are for the Practice or Promotion of pure Religion in the practical parts of it inconsistent with the Christian-Discipline Order and Government in the Primitive times doth bespeak not only that thou dost not well understand what Inconsistent means but also that thou hast undertaken a Charge thou art never able to make good And thy charge of Violence done to our first Principles of Union is worse than Inconsistent And thy scornfully telling of the Women's Charter and New Order is no Proof man of thy Charge Where 's the Inconsistency and Violence that 's charged done by the faithful Womens Meetings among us or by any of us by encouraging them to meet for those Religious and Charitable ends and services mentioned How hast thou acted the part of an ignorant conceited Scoffer instead of proving thy Charge before cited Besides the very self-same Paper writ by G. F. which thou hast cited as an instance of our Inconsistency and Violence was received owned and approved at a Quarterly Meeting at Kendal in Westmorland in the Year 1671. And another written in approbation thereof and subscribed by some of thy own party as John Wilkinson Richard Stephanson Henry Garnet and Twenty one more Friends for encouraging of the Women's assembling and Religious Charitable Services before proposed both which are cited at large in our Book Entituled The Accuser of our Brethren from pag. 98 to p. 102. Thus contradictory art thou to some of thy own Brethren in thy condemning the same Paper as an Imposition Inconsistency and Violence to our first Principles which they so plainly approved of 4 thly Again in pursuance of thy unrighteous Charge before cited thou recitest four passages out of a Paper of ours dated London the 27th of the 3d Moneth 1675. which was given as our Judgment and Advice in certain things needful for good Order among us as we believed The first Passage thou hast cited is that for Marriages to be at least twice propounded to the Meetings that are to take care therein c. before they are accomplished c. Now where 's the Inconsistency here with the Discipline in the Primitive Christian Church or the Violence done to our first Principles of Union Instead of proving thy charge by this instance we have in thy Observation a piece of Scorn and Mockery viz. This notable if not universal Council Their new stamped Government p. 42. Oh! be ashamed of such Scorn and Folly Is this thy proof of thy charge Is it a violation to our first Principles of Union to have Marriages proposed at least twice to the Meetings concerned both Mens and Womens where both are established However to be twice proposed to such Meetings as are established and to take care therein to understand that the Persons be clear and Friends satisfied before the Marriage be accomplished And this has been these many Years practised among us and I know no true Union broken thereby nor any violation done to our first Principles thereof Be ashamed therefore of thy fruitless attempts in giving such an high charge against us when thou canst make no proof it 5 thly Concerning our Testimony on behalf of Mens and Womens Meetings in the Church of Christ as for their Rise and Establishment being in the counsel of God and for the encouraging Faithful and Grave Women therein and to admonish them that discountenance or weaken their Hands in the Work and Service of the Lord c. Thou callest this A Decree a decretal Order This New fashioned Edict p. 45 46. And sayst It has no relation to scripture-Scripture-Authority Precept or President no relation to the Example of the Holy men of God recorded in Scripture nor any command of God or Jesus Christ. Why no Relation to them How provest thou that what because we have not every particular circumstance of Persons and things exprest Whence it follows not that this has no relation to Scripture or President c. Holy Women and Sisters in the Faith Elder Widdows that were honourable and Deaconesses did many Religious and Charitable Services in the Primitive Christian Churches What then might they not meet and confer together for one anothers help and encouragement in those Services they had and were frequently imployed in Can it either be a violence to their Principles of Union for such to meet together or have their Assemblies no relation to Scripture What contrariety thereto have they Surely we alwayes accounted our Religious Meetings to serve one another in Love consistent with our Union and the Principles thereof And so for Godly Women to meet for those Religious and Charitable ends and Services for which their
about Impositions Prescriptions c. The Spiritual Christian who hath the Power and Form of Godliness distinguished and vindicated both from the Formal Christian and Loose Apostate who deny both Power and Form § 4. The unsound Doctrine of Robert Rich espoused by T. C. tending to Ranterism About Forms Prescriptions Impositions c. R. R. a false Accuser like the rest of these Apostates His Authority made use of by T. C. and F. Bugg invalid J. Perrot's Spirit and Language appearing in these present Opposers § 5. About T. C's Marrying by a Priest and his Wife 's condemning it His rendring the holy Spirit contradictory to it self in the matter of Tythes His Answer to John Field dirty scurrilous and impertinent His abuse of his Wife and Friends in the case misrepresenting them in his Prejudice and Vncharitableness judging and defaming others contrary to his own warning He himself reprehended and warned § 6. His endeavouring to extenuate his Offence about Marrying by a Priest paying Tythes His Instance and Allegation in the case but slight covers And he proved Irreligious and Fallacious in his preceeding and arguing contrary to the Profession and Testimony of a real Christian-Quaker § 7. His Judgment about Tythes as it accords with W. R's still unsound loose they not excusable in the Declension and Apostacy § 8. His Reply to Stephen Crisp disingenious and fallacious A Catalogue of some of the notorious Falshoods and Slanders therein His Reviling and foul Detractions against Stephen Crisp. § 9. Concerning the Paper which W. R. and T. C. have published and printed in Edward Burroughs's Name To the scattered of Israel c. Their implicit Credulity and Confidence therein and abuse of Edward Burroughs with Reasons given by a Certificate and Testimony to shew it in most probability to be John Perrot's and not E. Burroughs's Paper All which is recommended to Serious Consideration § 1. WHereas Thomas Crisp hath of late time struck in with William Rogers and his party as a busie Agent in Division and as hot and violent in his abusive Language and Reflection as the most of them for want of better Argument and Reason he is also gotten into the same kind of stile and strain with W. R. and F. B. against promoting Government Orders Customs Forms Prescriptions c. as in several of his late Pamphlets called Testimonies I find also that these Opposers have recourse to one anothers Writings and quote each other and thereby show their own Authorities for themselves in the Controversie for want of better Proof as W. R. cites F. B. in his seventh Part from page 64 to page 75. and F. B. quotes W. R. and Tho. Crisp's Babels Builders in his 112 page of his said Book De Christ. Lib. and Thomas Crisp in his fifth part Babels Builders quotes something he calls Q. Vn. M. which I understand to be a pernicious Pamphlet of John Pennyman's which F. Bugg has threatned us with in several Papers so that these Opposers seem to be joyned together in one and the same Spirit of Division Opposition and Separation and therefore may well be linked together as Persons concerned in one and the same Interest and not only so but I find a Paper in T. Crisp's third Edition which he calls George Bishop's Testimony against a Paper of Orders which is the very same Paper that Jeffery Bullock some Years ago cited against us in his Pamphlet stiled Antichrist's Transformations and which the said Jeffery Bullock did so publish in Print against G. Whitehead J. Whitehead T. Green T. Briggs A. Parker J. Coule R. Farnsworth T. Loe S. Crisp J. Moon J. Parkes by Name who are struck at for no other cause but a Paper wherein we gave our Christian sense and seasonable advice which we see no cause to Repent of and therefore G. B's Paper cited by the said Jeffery Bullock and Thomas Crisp in opposition to that of ours proceeded from a mistaken Judgment and is Uncharitable against us as well as Erronious in divers parts of it But the Author is gone I shall say the less and charitably believe God took him away in Mercy and that if he had remained to this day he would not have stood by these Gain-sayers in the evil use they make of his Paper in Print against so many of the Servants of Christ. But I have not done with T. Crisp for his so often printing part of a Letter from B. F. to me when he was under a Cloud and mistake in the Controversie and Division occasioned by J. Perrot c. against Friends for putting off their Hats in Prayer in which Letter I and some others are reflected upon and charged That if ever any separation be it will be through mine and some lording rigid driving Spirits against which I have in humility appealed to the Lord to plead my Innocency in the Consciences of all concerned my labour having been and still is for Love and Unity among God's People and I take it not only unkindly from T. C. but as his Injustice and an Abuse so often to bring forth that piece of a Letter in Print against me which was before published and printed more fully by some malicious Adversaries in their Pamphlet stiled Tyranny and Hypocrisie printed in the year 1673. In answer to which I desire T. C. and the rest of the party concerned would now accept and consider B. F's own late Testimony seeing the Lord in mercy has reduced him to a better understanding and judgment than he was in when he writ the said Letter Benj. Furly's Testimony follows WHereas I understand that sundry persons to me unknown have divers times formerly and now again lately published in Print certain extracts of a Letter written by me as I take it about sixteen years ago to G. W. keeping up and feeding thereby a Spirit of Contention and Strife This is in brief to signifie That what has hitherto been done of this nature has been altogether without my order consent or privity for my soul hates that Spirit of Prejudice Enmity and Contention by which some men though perhaps poor men not knowing by what spirit influenc'd what spirit they gratifie and what spirit they grieve and wound in this their work so acted led and driven As for so many of them that are meerly under a mistake I do from my heart pity them and am touched with the sence of their Condition as having laboured under the same snares Wherefore my earnest desire for them is That they may be made sensible of that which they seem so earnestly to contend for yea even for them that are so tinctur'd and leaven'd with Prejudice that they do wittingly and with some degree of Malice foment Contention I cannot but desire if it be the will of God that they may through Judgment come to know Repentance and through Repentance receive Mercy and Remission in and by the Blood of Jesus Christ to whom all such do doe despight
this account Now he would not be thought that his Principle is against visible Order and Form of Government under Christ's Dominion Nor against some visible Persons being exercised in some outward Order under his Government Thus far the point is granted and gain'd upon him and his Concession thereto the farther confirm'd in deeming our rendring his great Book to be against Church-Government outward Methods Orders and Rules c. A false Assertion Though we cannot reckon that Book of his to look with a better Face in the mian purport and Series of it especially considering his Third part from what 's mentioned in the Title and against R. Barclay's Book for Church-Government and in many other places and passages of that Book and in his Epistle in this his 7th part he is smiting at Establishing an outward Vniformity outward Things outward Directory c. But now we must take his meaning and principle to be not against visible Order and visible Form of Government under Christ's dominion nor against visible Persons being exercised therin How then shall we understand his meaning and principle Why did he not then more plainly distinguish it first and brought the Controversie into a more narrow compass and not have writ thus confusedly and shatteredly one while against another while for visible outward Order and Form of Government under Christs Dominion in his Church As in this Treatise the matter is further Evinced against him hereafter But wherein lies his Charge of Prevarication He gives us to know it is in twining the Word REPRESENTED into CONCERNED pag. 43. We are yet to seek and study how to find this Prevarication pretended considering the purport tenure and conexion of his Words For though now he owns visible Persons to be exercised or concerned in an outward Form of Government and Order under Christ's Dominion yet not that his inward Government is represented by them yet his Distinction before excluding visible Persons not only from representing Christ's inward Government but also from being invested with Power to execute i. e. to minister give forth or put in practice outward Laws Edicts c. in an outward Form of Government Visible appears to bespeak his sense than to exclude them from being concerned in an outward Form of Government and Order in the Church of Christ under his Dominion For if they do in no sense or degree represent Christ's Government how are they concern'd in it And if they have no power to execute minister or put in practice outward Order and Form of Government visible How are they either exercised or concerned in an outward form or order of Government under Christ's dominion But this is now granted us in the Affirmative So then wherein must we understand W. R's opposition to lie against outward Order outward Form of Church-Government outward Laws Edicts Rules Prescriptions c I presume not against any of his own making but against such as he calls G. Fox's c. as he has told us of a slighting G. F 's Rules Methods and Orders with respect to Church-Government see the Accuser c. pag. 83. But then I would know whether it is against all or some that G. F. has writ or given out If he says not against all but some then I intreat him to let 's know what SOME they are particularly What Instructions Rules or Methods they are he Condemns and that he deems condemnable as evil or unlawful in themselves We have divers times prest for a Catalogue of them that the Controversie might be more plainly distinguishable and brought into a narrow compass which now lies not only prolix and tedious in W. R's Books but also scattered confused and ambiguous in his Writings wanting in many places the supplement of his latter Thoughts and Meanings So that when he has write one Book it wants another to declare its meaning he has taken a great compass to write a very little matter in § 4. For his distinction between the words Represented and Concerned he says That many thousands are exercised in an outward Order under the Government of the King who if they should thence declare that they are the Representatives of his Government 't would be deem'd a Mood of Speech tending to the annihillating of the King's Prerogative And concludes the like in relation to Christ's Prerogative p. 43. But herein the man is under a Mistake in this Allusion his skill in the Law and the King's Prerogative and Government has fail'd him in this point For the King's Government is represented in all Courts of Judicature legally acting in his Name and by his Power whereby the King is look't upon to be present in all his Courts Yea every legal Minister and Conservator of the King's Peace even from the Justice to the Sheriff Constable or Peace-Officer does in his place and legal Office in some degree represent the Kings Government in the doing Justice and Conservation of his Peace And this no ways lessens but promotes the King 's legal Prerogative For the King in the Eye of the Law is Justitiarius Capitalis the Head or chief Justice and hath his subordinate Ministers and Justices under him legally impowered by him according to his just and legal Prerogative Now seeing W. R. is so much out and has lost his aim in his Comparison these things are mentioned to rectifie his Judgment And the Comparison as now stated may be better applied to Christ's Kingdom and Government who though he be the chief Overseer and Shepherd the great Apostle and Minister the great Ruler and Governour c. he has his Overseers his Apostles his Ministers and Servants and Helps in Government which is none other than Christ's Government in his Church and Kingdom and under his Dominion which I hope our Opposer dare not deny however he differ with us in the Application § 5. As concerning an Angry Waspish Pen wherewith thou twice over chargest the Pen-man adding That the more he stirs therewith the more will the Cause which he espouseth stink pag. 17 44. I must tell thee first I never met with a more Angry Waspish Pen than thy own though thy Malice and Wickedness hath been in divers parts of our Book deservedly reprehended thou hast in much thereof been mildly treated 2 dly I know no cause espoused by us therein than the Cause of Christ his Church and People which will live and remain sweet and pretious to all the upright in Heart when thy malicious Work and corrupt Cause will more and more appear naucious loathsom and stink above ground till swept into the Pit from whence it came and which thou art very near and without Repentance canst not escape it 3 dly What occasion have we or any of us given thee to rage and roar against us and like a persecuting Informer to go about to expose us in Print tending to disgust Authority and to bring more severe Persecution upon us as seeming to be at Vnion with the Papistical party