R. Hence observe 1st That the Reason why he has reflectingly mentioned the Names of some Persons in his Book is their hardness of Heart and continuing to oppose as he judges 2dly The Reason why the Names of others reflected upon are omitted in his Book is That he hath hope of their coming to a sense of their failings ana Repent And 3dly That when they Repent either the memory of their Offence may be blotted out or their Repentance therewith Recorded See now what Authority and Judgment he hath Diotrephes-like assumed to himself without the Church or consent thereof to Excommunicate to Condemn and Record such Persons as oppose him and with what distinction some by Name as hopeless of their Repentance others not by Name as having hope for them hence it follows that all whom he hath censured and condemned by Name are in his account hardned past Recovery as George Fox Charles Marshal Jasper Batt Robert Barclay John Blaykling Robert Barrow and others Men more Righteous than himself he has reflected on and severely judged by Name and that on Record rendring them Infamous what in him lies to Posterity in his printed Volumn and when is such a Record and Memory like to be blotted out as he pretends But if to get off this hanck he should alledge That his meaning was not so severe as to render them whom he has named Irrecoverably Hardned or Without Hope though it most evidently follows from his Reason before cited why he has omitted the Names of others Persons reflected on for that he hath intimated some hopes concerning G. F. in his fifth part p 92. in these Words viz. On this score I am now concerned in my Conscience thus to declare and conclude that for sometime past G. F. hath stood in a state of Seperation from many of the Lord's People May the God of Heaven give him a true sight and sense thereof unto Repentance that so before his Body be turned to Dust from whence it came he may be restored into fellowship with them again saith my Soul William Rogers 'T is true that he has herein intimated that there is yet some hope for G. F. as that his Offence is not so great nor he so irrecoverably hardned but that he may possibly Repent and be restored into Fellowship with the Lord's People that is in his sence with W. R. and his party but then how fairly doth this contradict his Reason for omitting the Names of others as not being without hope of their coming to a Sence and Repentance for by the same Reason he should have omitted to name G. F. and others upon Record so Infamously as he has done if he be not without hope of their Repentance and Restoration otherwise he has dealt very partially and unjustly in recording G. F. and others by Name whilst there is the same Reason for to have omitted their Names that he gives for omitting others thus this severe Judge and Excommunicator runs himself into a Labyrinth of Confusion and this is not all but there lies another palpable Contradiction in the case he appears for recording Persons Offences and their Repentance also as his great Book in Print contains matter of Record and Condemnation against many Friends some by Name and others not all as being the Apostate and Innovator from whom he distinguishes the Christian-Quaker in his Title page and yet as Persons not Irrecoverably fallen but that they may be restored to a true sight and sence unto Repentance but how Notoriously in this matter hath he contradicted the Testimony of his frequently termed two Ancient and Honourable Friends and Brethren J. W. J. S. cited in his fourth part pag. 39. where they thus declare viz. From that Inward Sence and Heavenly Understanding we have we see no necessity to leave them i. e. Condemnations upon Record to Posterity or retain them when the Sin is blotted out and remitted by the Lord neither to be extended farther then the Offence is known nor yet to continue longer than the Memory of the Offence abideth Thus far W. R's said Brethren But W. R. hath recorded Condemnations in his great Book in Print that are like to be of farther Extent and longer Continuance then either the Offences supposed or Memory of them otherwise would have been and that in a very infamous and disgraceful manner against particular Persons by Name whom yet upon serious thoughts he dares not finally condemn as Persons Irrecoverable See how apparently contradictory his Work is to it self and to his Brethrens Testimony he is contradicting them whom he advocates for so that his Judgment against particular Persons will be of less Credit with all Judicious Readers because of its inconsistency Disaffect IX W. R. has pleaded his being concerned to oppose an Erroneous and Persecuting Spirit which he saith He hath beheld entring among the Flock of God and his being preserved by the Arm of the Lord's Power in his acting to keep a Conscience void of offence and his concern of Conscience to prepare his Manuscript his frequent breathing unto the Lord that he might not bring forth an untimely Birth but might answer the Witness of God in all Consciences On all which he tells the Reader thus viz. That to my inward Peace and Joy in the Lord I can say that I have the Evidence of his Spirit notwithstanding what any Man may say to the contrary that he hath owned my proceeding therein hitherto These are very fair and specious Pretences but his Work appears otherwise an untimely Birth and monstrous both scandalous to Truth and the People of God among us called Quakers as is evidently proved in this Treatise and as it will farther appear his Delusion under these fair pretences is the stronger and the Witness of God hath searched and found it out in his reproachful abusive Work By all which we find that he has not singly nor Innocently waited upon the Lord nor in a right Spirit breathed unto him for Counsel but rather with a False Heart a Double Mind and a Self-Will inclined and bent towards this his perverse Work of Discord which was conceived in Sin and brought forth in Iniquity and is found to be a confused deformed monstrous Birth we mean his great Book stiled The Christian-Quaker c. Though he farther pretends that As he was seriously waiting on the Lord he became satisfied in his Conscience to forbear Reflecting in his Treatise on the Names of many reputed Quakers Albeit he has so Characterized many not named by him that 't is easily understood whom he smites at for all his great pretences in the matter and his Forbearance which he pretends was upon the Intercession of several of his Brethren for which Submission to them he cites the Apostles counsel to the Ephesians To submit themselves to one another in the fear of God Whereby it seems then he owns an outward submission to his Brethren though he has much opposed outward Orders Directions Laws Decrees
be their Duty as the Reason of such their refusal What a large extent would he make this Liberty in Christ Jesus and how Contradictory to it self God preserve his People from this Libertine Spirit But he has contrarywise stated the matter which may be taken for both an Answer and Confutation to himself 1st part pag. 43. where he confesseth plainly thus viz. Some may run into Looseness and say The Light in Conscience condemns me not and therefore 't is the care of Faithfull Brethren to appear as Watchmen over the Flock WE SAY SO TOO and those who approve themselves Watchmen will endeavour to convince such who in very deed run into Looseness c. that though they may pretend the Light condemns them not yet that their Deeds are Evil and that the Light doth condemn the same though they may be hardned and see it not Note Now he has granted some to be Watchmen over the Flock and their care as such and that the Blindness and false Liberty is placed upon such as run into Looseness and become hardned and not upon any Innocent Members of the true Church or tender-hearted Believers whose Liberty is in Christ Jesus and this Blindness and Hardness cannot excuse them in Sin or Evil whether in Omission or Comission because the Light doth condemn the same and both their Blindness and Hardness being effects of their disobedience to the Light of Christ in them Ignorance can be no excuse for Sin when it self is Sin as also W. R. confesses pag. 52. That the Church of Christ hath Power to Admonish the Parties differing to their Duty and if they refuse to take their wholsome Counsel may then declare such Unworthy of their Society whereby he has granted the Churches Power both of Admonition and giving Judgment against those that refuse the Churches wholsome counsel and admonition so that 't is plain that Power of Judgment and Rejection he has granted the Church in which he has granted the Authority and Government pleaded for by us for Power of Coertion or Force we claim not and this leaves no room for W. R. or any else to plead a Liberty in Christ for the Members of his Church either for not seeing it their Duty to practise such Counsel or for refusing to submit on that score Disaffect XXV W. R. 1st part pag. 52. For any Members under the Notion of the Church to say We have Power to decide and remove these things without the assent of the Parties differing is an Usurpation and that the Assent of Parties was not intended by the Approvers of the said Book of Government is evident to us for that there is not in any part of the said Book one Tittle to that purpose Here are two gross Untruths in this Passage insinuated against us First Without the Assent of the Parties Differing When did any of us so pretend a Power to remove the Difference We cannot force Unjust Injurious Persons to make Restitutions for Wrongs done but leave them to the outward Power to subject them to common Law and Justice though we have Power by Perswasive Means with those among us who design nothing but Justice and Right to all men that they may do accordingly Secondly That the Assent of Parties was not intended by the Approvers of the said Book is a very gross Abuse and Untruth for it is most acceptable to us as we are a People for Peace and Concord to have all Parties differing among us assent to a just decision and fair end of the Differences by faithful and competent Persons among our selves to prevent their going to Law one with another Thirdly And if the very words Assent of Parties differing to the Decision of honest men in the Church skilled in the Matters be not expressed yet we take the thing to be all along implyed in the said Book viz. the assent of the Parties differing to be concluded by some or other Judicious Persons in the Church and not to go to Law before Unbelievers there is much in the said Book will prove that their Submission in that case is urged His telling us pag. 50. That the Author to the Hebrews speaks nothing of the Churches Authority as Judges is still to lessen the Churches Authority contrary to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostle viz. If he will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen Man Mat. 18. And The Spiritual man judgeth all things the Saints shall judge the World Know ye not that we shall judge Angels how much more things that pertain to this Life 1 Cor. 6. And wherein judge Angels but in higher things than those of this Life therefore the Church is not to be denyed a Judgment in those lower things pertaining to this Life Disaffect XXVI W. R. pag. 48 49. Mixt and Uncertain Assemblies as to Number and Qualification may call themselves the Church and under that Notion give forth Orders Rules and Sentences telling the rest of those whm they account their Fellow Members 'T is your Duty to Obey though you pretend you see it NOT. Observe This we take to be not only a slight but an Unjust and Implicit Charge upon our Assemblies therefore we demand Proof of any Assembly or Assemblies among us that under the Notion of the Church have given forth Orders and Rules in these Terms as telling the rest of their Fellow-Members 'T IS YOUR DUTY TO OBEY THOUGH YOU PRETEND YOU SEE IT NOT. We dare say this is a Forgery of his own contrivance When did any of our Assemblies so tell their Fellow-Members 'T is to be noted that in such places where he in his Book allows not the Church of Christ power to judge or to give positive sentence in cases of Difference nor yet so much as to chuse or set a part any for the persons differing to decide their Differences but only those at variance to make their own choice as in pag. 53. Herein he has endeavoured wholly to make void all Church-Government and Authority allowing more Power to the persons differing yea to the person offending than to the Church the person offending to make his own choice as well as the person offended whenas the Offender if one unwilling to make Restitution for the Injury done he will be apt to chuse some partial persons of his own party to serve his own turn if he can which no wayes can tend to bring the difference to a fair and just end Now to allow such Offender an equal power of choice is not according to Christ's Doctrine Mat. 18. where the Brother offended was to make his Complaint and tell the offender his fault who refusing to hear then two Witnesses and for want of hearing them lastly to tell the Church and if he would not hear the Church then to count him as an Heathen man c. So the innocent offended Brother was to make his choice and had an esteem of the Churches Authority and right of Judgment in
the case of Offences which such Injurious offending Brother had not and therefore to be rejected as an Heathen man chiefly for refusing to hear the Church and herein consists the Nature of the Controversie between Us and W. R. We take part with the Innocent Brother that is injured and offended who is willing to bring his Case before the Church of Christ and to hear the Church as in point of Judgment and as knowing his presence in the midst But W. R. plainly appears to take part with that injurous offending Brother that will not hear the Church And as for the Power W. R. grants it any Members of the Church for deciding and removing Differences only when given by the assent of Parties He confesseth that any Heathen man might claim the like Power p. 53. What Power then has he here allowed the Members of Christ's Church in these cases more than to any Heathen man But mark if this Gainsaying Spirit be not drawing back among the Heathen that hath so little esteem of the Church of Christ but he often contradicts himself confessing to divers Truths against his own Oppositions so that the Light sometimes interposeth though Darkness has moâ—â— prevailed in his Work Disaffect XXVII W. R. third part pag. 64. Christ's Doctrine well described by his Sermon in the Mount Mat. 5. and Chap. 6. wherein there is not the least Tittle to countenance this Sentence that the positive sentence or decission of the Church in matters of Conscience may be obligatory on Believers Observe His main Work is still to Invalid the Authority and Sentence of the true Church whereby here he would set Believers in opposition to the Church as not oblieged by the Churches Sentence without exception let it be as really from Christ and as true just and reasonable as may be but if the Sentence or Decision of the Church in matters of Conscience be no wayes obliging on Believers then why has he told us of the Counsel and Admonition of the Church which they that will not submit unto are to be rejected by the Church His Inconsistences and Self-contradictions are numerous what was that counsel which he that did but say to his Brother Racha should be in danger of as Christ said Mat. 5. 22. Was not this counsel in the Church of Christ under the Gospel as well as in the Church of the Jews under the Law But still our Adversary proceeds in his Inconsistency Disaffect XXVIII W. R. pag. 64. third part Nay in that very Case Mat. 18. 15 16. where 't is said If thy Brother trespass against thee go tell him his Faults if he hear thee not take with thee one or two if he hear not them tell it to the Church if he refuse to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man The Scripture doth not say that Sentence ought to be obligatory on all other Members of the Church of Christ who might be no way concerned either in the Admonition or Sentence to look upon him as an Heathen man but it saith Let him be unto Thee as an Heathen Man Observe This we do except against as unsound Doctrine the sentence in this place against that Brother that refuseth to hear the Church was Christ's and the offence for which he is sentenced as an Heathen man is both against a Brother in particular and against the Church in his refusing to hear the Church and therefore seeing its Christ's Admonition and Sentence to let him be to thee as an Heathen man how could the rest of the Members of the Church of Christ look on him otherwise than as an Heathen man having refused to hear the Church Strange Doctrine that one Member of the Church of Christ should have occasion and that according to Christ's Doctrine to look upon a Brother so offending against him and the Church as an Heathen man and yet other Members of the Church of Christ not to look upon him as an Heathen man what then may they look upon him as a good Christian contrary to Christs own Sentence And what though there be other Members of the Church of Christ that are not immediately concerned in the Admonition or Sentence against the Offender being not present in the Church when he refused to hear them Does it therefore follow that they must be so far divided in their Sence and Judgment either from the Sentence of Christ the Sence of the Church to whom complaint was made against the Brother Trespassing or from the Sence of the Brother offended as to look on him not as Christ or the Offended Brother or the Church whom he refused to hear have judged of him that is as an Heathen Man What Confusion would this make in the Church and Contradiction to Christ's own Sentence Much might be said to shew the Absurdity of this but W. R. in his own contradiction has granted 3d part pag. 36. viz. Since the case is stated between two Brethren and that on an orderly Proceeding and Admonition of the Church the Sentence for not hearing the Church is Let him be unto thee as an Heathen Man Here he has granted both Authority Order and Government in the Church of Christ in respect to such Judicial proceeding as is confirmed by the Sentence of Christ himself This is the man whose Work is much of it to oppose Church-Government and to render the Sentence or Decision of the Church of Christ not obligatory on Believers We have rarely known any of Truth 's Adversaries more confounded in their Attempts against the Truth and People of God than he is howbeit we will grant him that nothing that is Outward whether it be Sentence Judgment Order or Decree in the Church of Christ that can be a Bond on such to forsake Sin and embrace the Truth as are run into Looseness Evil Deeds and are become hardned as he saith pag. 43. 3d part Until their Consciences be awakened to hear Gods Witness in themselves This is true but then it s no Proof against Church-Government or that the just Sentence Admonition or Judgment of the Church of Christ is no wayes binding on Believers who are Members of the same Church but only that they are not obliging to such as are hardned through Sin that they see not their Duty whose part our Adversary has taken and their cause he has pleaded against Church-Government and against the Authority Sentence Judgment Outward Directions c. of the Church Again W. R. grants 1st part pag. 48. That though we find the Author to the Hebrews chap. 13. v. 7. saying on this wise Remember them which have the Rule over you yet he doth not say Such who had the Rule were the Church but describes them to be such who had spoken unto them the Word of God so that if any Authority be given to any to Rule as Members of Christ's Body it appears from the Scriptures of Truth to be unto such who had spoken the Word of God unto
And 5th part pag. 75. on Gal. 5. 2. 4. 9 10 11. to the same purpose he saith Yet this did not at that time condemn that CHRISTIAN-LIBERTY and Forbearance which the Apostle before approved in and with respect unto such as made Conscience of Circumcision and the Observing of Days before they had so received the Spirit as to be led out of it that is many of the Believing Jews whom he saith the Apostles did not condemn the same in until by Faith they saw beyond it 3d part pag. 81. Observe Here it is evident what kind of Liberty this Person would Introduce an Indulgence of under the Notion and Title of Christian-Liberty but his Mistake in this matter appears very great for he takes that to be Christian-Liberty which was no other in it self than a Legal Bondage or Servitude as Circumcision was with the Legal Observation of days which were not only Shadows and meer Types abolished by Christ and nayled to his Cross as inconsistent with that Evangelical Dispensation the Apostles and Primitive Christians were in but also counted a Yoke and Bondage Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. cap. and not a Christian-Liberty their Testimony was absolute for Christ's abolishing and ending these Types and Shadows under the Law but Christ did not abolish Christian-Liberty nor did the Apostles forbear their absolute Testimony to Christ as the End of the Law because many of the Jews did not see the end of things abolished nor yet did they tell them that they were in a Christian-Liberty in the Practice of Circumcision or those things abolisht but that the Vail was over their Hearts that they did not see to the End of things abolished We grant there was a Christian-forbearance towards the weakness of believing Jews in Circumcision c. but not a Christian-Liberty declared in the Practice thereof Our Opposer has greatly erred in this point and extended his Liberty too far in this and many other matters and not only so but hath manifestly Contradicted himself having in his first part pag. 73. confessed That the Labour of the Apostles of Christ in the Primitive dayes was to draw the outward Jew off from the Observation of these Ordinances which were established by the Appointment of God himself having exalted instead thereof the Word nigh in the Heart and the Law written therein See now how inconsistent this Mans Work is surely the Apostles did not Labour to draw them off from a Christian-Liberty nor the Exercises thereof and did not the Apostles witness to the Inward Circumcision of the Heart by the Spirit as well as the Jew inward and Law inward This man who is thâ—s Discomposed in his Work should not have meddled so much with points of Divinity which he appears so little skilful in he Dreams so much of Liberty that he is greatly bewildered in the Mannagement of it and what is the Tendence of his Work but to Invalidate the Christian Authority Care and Oversight that God has set up in his Church and People among us The Case further Explained But to take W. R's Notion of Christian-Liberty in the best and most Charitable Sence of his Intention viz. not to judge one another about the outward Circumstances of Discipline nor urge them with Severity on Rom. 14. 1 2 3 4. Him that is weak in the Faith receive but not to doubtfull Disputations One man believeth that he may eat all things another who is weak eateth Herbs let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him And Vers. 5. One Man esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike Let every man be fully perswaded in his own Mind We do testifie in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ that where this is really the case of any one weak in the Faith who is under some private Scruple or Dissatisfaction of Conscience yet peaceably minded and having his Faith to himself there ought to be Christian Tenderness and Forbearance towards such and no urging with Severity for too much of that we mean of Severity or Zeal without true Knowledge or Wisdom from God may possibly discourage the weak drive and scatter from Truth into Prejudice and make some Desperate Hard and Careless but tender Perswasion and Instruction towards such is needfull and far be it from us to be Severe in such Cases the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught and daily teacheth his Servants how to bear the Burden of the Weak Ones and their Weakness and Infirmities to help them and not drive them out for a Private Difference in Opinion or Judgment in one that 's peaceable though but Weak may be better born than Publick Opposition and Contention in the Church But where Persons may differ only in Judgment in some outward Thing or Circumstance from the Society they belong to and yet will be Contentious Strive with Oppose and Disturb their Brethren or the Meetings they belong to and seek to make Parties raise Annimosities sow Discord and Strife cause Divisions and Seperations Whisper Murmur Backbite and Complain against their Brethren who are Unanimous and Conscientious towards God in what they believe is Convenient and good Order the Opposers Imagining themselves to be stronger and wiser than all the rest not being content to be quiet nor to demean themselves peaceable under their differing Opinions this is not Tender Brotherly nor Sociable but to be avoided and they marked Mark them that cause Divisions and Offences and avoid them If any Man lust to be Contentious we have no such Custom in the Church of Christ. There can be no Unity in orderly proceedings in the Church without Love Concord there can be no true Society held without Agreement Due Order and Method Be of One Mind be of One Judgment be of One Accord do all things without Murmuring and Disputings let nothing be done through Strife or Vain Glory whosoever would appear to be Elders and Overseers in the Church and be at Variance and do not accord with faithfull Brethren in publick wholsome Counsel and Advice to the Younger sort nor to agree in due Methods and orderly Proceedings these are Wrong this their way tends to distract those that are weak in the Faith who should be helped by good and Unanimous Counsel and Advice Those that mind not Peace nor Unity Concord with their Brethren in due and orderly Proceedings are not fit to advise others they had better keep at Home than disturb Meetings and confound the Weak 't is a shame for such to undertake the Place or Office of Elders Overseers and Counsellors of others who are neither Sound nor Unanimous in Judgment and Advice themselves with them who are for Peace and good Order and to prevent Reproach and Scandal but are ready to let Loose Youth and let up a Spirit of false and fleshly Liberty under pretence of Conscience For Instance set Case two Young Persons about to
false Reports and the like The Matters of Fact wherein he can place a real Difference as to Church-Order and Discipline may be summed up in this narrow Compass under these Heads viz. I. W. R. and some others his Party seem to be ONLY for a select Company of Elders and Deacons to order in Church-Affairs about the Poor Marriages c. Our Meetings in that case are more free and open for others also of the Younger sort to be present whose Conversations are Honest and Sober II. W. R. in his Contest with R. B. seems not to own that the Church of Christ hath Power or Right of Judgment to decide Controversies in matter of Evil Fact or Trespass of one Brother against another in things of outward Property c. but only the Parties differing to have an equal Choice of Persons to determine the Difference yet he varyes and is not altogether consistent with himself but is some-what off and on in these cases as is more fully evinced in this Treatise Whereas we distinguish between a wilfull Injury and an Offence whether real or supposed only through mistake In the first the real not supposed Offender has not an equal right of Choice with the Offended but the Offended Brother hath Power to proceed with the Offending according to the Doctrine and Order prescribed by Christ Mat. 18. 15 16 17. so far as if there be necessity to make his Complaint to the Church and if he refuse to hear the Church then he is to be accounted as an Heathen Man accordingly we assert the Power and Right of Judgment in the true Light to be in the Church of Christ in cases of real Trespass of one Brother against another which is not to set the general Judgment of Truth in the Church in opposition to any measure of true Light and Judgment in any particular Member but to the real Offence which the Light in all condemns In the second Where the Offence is not wilfull but through Mistake both the Parties differing are more easily perswaded either to compose the matter between themselves or to submit to a hearing and determination of two or three just judicious and discreet Persons in the Truth whom neither Party hath any just Exception against III. They are against proposing Marriages before the distinct Meetings of faithful Women amongst us We judge it very convenient and sociable to lay them before those Meetings where they are settled IV. They are against recording Condemnations to Posterity VVe judge it needful in many Cases for the clearing us from Reproach and vindicating of Truth and that both the Condemnations and Repentance be recorded and Testimonies kept against such as continue Impenitent whose Conversations are reproachful and scandalous to Truth and to our Society as a People gathered by the Lord's Power Now if these things seem inconsiderable to divide and seperate upon and that they might easily be accommodated or reconciled upon amicable conference We say so too therefore the greater is the Enmity of that Spirit that will seperate on any of them cast the odiums of Imposition Apostacy Innovations c. upon us for our Christian Care and Advice about them urging with Severity we need not among our tender-hearted Friends and 't is to no purpose to those that are in prejudice and hardness only we would have them who profess the same Light and Spirit with us to studdy to be quiet that whilst they pretend Liberty of Conscience they might not maintain Opposition to others for those things which they are Conscientious in the Light of Truth in the Practice and Counsel of for that were to plead Liberty of Conscience to themselves and allow it to none but themselves Whereas our pleading for Liberty of tender Conscience to the outward Powers was never intended for a Liberty to make Discord Schisms or Strife among our selves but singly as a People intending nothing but Love and Unity among our selves in Gods Way and Worship a Liberty of Conscience in Christ Jesus as to us from those outward Laws Penalties and Persecutions which we have suffered under NOT a Liberty from the Yoke of Christ nor from the Judgment of Truth nor from Unity or good Order in him no more than a Liberty of gross Enormities from the hand of Justice not a Liberty for Disorder and Confusion not a Liberty to set Conscience against Conscience under the Profession of the same Light and Spirit of Christ as the great and certain Rule of Conscience for that were to let up Ranterism and cause our Adversaries to Blaspheme against the true Light As for W. R's Book against Church-Government 't is outragiously Wicked Clamorous and Abusive it admits of no Mediation nor moderate Qualification or Accommodation no better Character than Apostates and Innovators will serve his turn against the very Body of Friends who are not of his Party his Book is revengeful and scornful it gratifies the Ranters and Atheists and tends to make our Enemies rejoyce and us a scorn to Fools if they take him for a Quaker which now he is not it tends in many things to expose us not only to the Censure of our profest Adversaries but to the Fury of our Persecutors and to bring open Persecution upon us by Implicity rendring us Obnoxious to the outward Government The Lord rebuke that Malicious Proud Spirit from whence his Book came and he will rebuke it and send it to its place and stop the Mouth of Iniquity for his Name and Seed's sake His Title Christian-Quaker is a false Title as his Unchristian Work evinceth His Text also which he begins with is Mis-applyed viz. the words of Christ which are As I hear I judge this is his Text. 1st As it s applyed only to outward Hearing and Evidence 't is Misapplyed Christ intended his hearing of the Father and that true and just Judgment given him of the Father who bore witness of him John 5. 30. ch 8. 16 18. And the Father hath committed all Judgment to the Son Joh. 5. 22. for Christ had and gives also a spiritual Judgment that is not after the sight of the Eyes nor after the hearing of the Ears Isa. 11. 3. yet in Cases Criminal Infamous and Injurious we grant outward and certain Evidence Proof and Knowledge very needful safe and judicial though a true and spiritual Discerning Sence Judgment of Spirits in the Church of Christ cannot in Truth be denyed it being a spiritual gift But 2dly As the said Text As I hear I judge is applyed by W. R. to himself or his Judgment in 's Book 't is Hypocritically and Unjustly applyed for he has not given Judgment as he has learned or heard of God or Christ but in many things as he has heard by Reports and from his own Jealousies according to his common phrase If Reports be true this Jealousie has entred me I am Jealous full of Jealousie c. which we are sure proceeded not from God nor
outward form of Government in the Church of Christ hereupon is a great part of his Contest throughout his Book yet he owns a Submission to his Brethren in a matter which was such a concern of Conscience to him but if any Direction Advice or Counsel be given by an Assembly Meeting or Church among us such as he himself formerly has owned to be the Church of Christ and joyned with in Counsel then he can easily evade it on this pretence It is not his Duty to obey without inward Conviction It is no Bond upon him when he sees it not They are not to submit to outward Orders Instructions or Prescriptions of any Assembly whether they see it to be their Duty or not it is not binding to them unless they see it with these and such like Exceptions is much of his Book made up to shun that Authority and Right of Judgment which Christ has given his Church and People that answer his Witness though these his Exceptions and Allegations as applyed contain a very Unjust Insinuation and Reflection upon our Meetings which are for the Service of Truth and one another in Love as if we imposed Rules and Methods for our Fellow Members to observe in an Implicit Faith or Blind Obedience which has ever been far from us and contrary to our Principle and Testimony since we knew any thing of Truth 's Inward Conviction and Work nor do our said Meetings give any Instructions or Advice relating to good Order in the Church c. to such as are Blind Faithless or Senseless and not belonging to us as a People but to such whose Eyes are opened in some measure to incite them to Faithfulness and Diligence in those things which the true Light will shew to be their Duty as they are watchful in it to receive and practise good Advice and Counsel from the Light both in themselves and in their Elder Brethren in Christ Jesus Disaffect X. W. Rogers to prove the Righteousness of his proceeding to Print and Publish his Book gives this Account dated Bristol the 10th of November 1680. Postscript pag. 25 26 27. viz. The Question needfull to be answered is this Whether 't is matter of Evil Fact in me to Publish in Print an Historical Relation of the Truth and that for the clearing of my Conscience c The Answer in short is Nay to every Impartial and Unprejudiced Reader I doubt not but that the Preface to the Reader the Introduction to the First and Fourth Parts of this Treatise may give sufficient Satisfaction but lest the Ignorance and Blindness of any should be so great as nâ—â— from thence to perceive the Righteousness of my present proceeding to Print or that the Partiality of any that do so should so abound as to strengthen Evil Insinuations against me on that account I have this to say That such aâ— have been of Party against us concerned in the Publication hereof have been the first and Frequent Promulgators by Declaration by Manuscript and by Printing that there hath been Divisions amongst the aforesaid People Passing by at present his Impertinent Instances relating to Declaration and Manuscript for perspicuity and brevity's sake we will insist on his chief Instance that relates to Printing which he gives to prove the Righteousness of his proceeding to Print or to Promulgate or Publish by Printing according to his own Terms his pretended Historical Relation his Instance follows viz. But that which on this occasion is chiefly my concern is to Evidence that there hath been a Publication of the aforesaid Divisions in Print before the Publication hereof and that by and on the behalf of some of G. Fox's Party On the 8th Instant came to my hands two Sheets of Printed Paper Entituled An Epistle c. Anne Whitehead and Mary Elson the Subscribers I should now proceed to cite a few Sentences out of it which amounts to a Publication of Divisions Thus far W. R. To evince the Righteousness of his proceeding to Print and Publish his great Book of Divisions Be pleased to observe then That what he alledges for Instance in this Case to prove his Proceeding Righteous bears this Sense that the Instances he cites for this end are not only Occasions and Causes justly provoking him to proceed to Print but also that they were all such Occasions given him before he proceeded to Print or to Promulgate Divisions by Printing which we judge are both very Unjustly pretended and nothing parallel to his Work in his Book nor demeriting any such publick Volumnious and Remaining Infamy and Reproach as his Book contains against certain faithful Men in particular and the People called Quakers in general And now we will presently detect his Fallacy and manifest Injustice in this his Principal Instance relating to his Printing Query Whether W. R. did not know in his own Conscience that he had proceeded to Print his Book some time before the 8th day of November 1680 which he confesseth to be the time that the said two Sheets of Printed Paper came to his Hands We Answer Yes he knew in his Conscience that he had Printed most of his Book before that Day or Time for he confesseth Post. p. 24. in these words Bristol the 8th of November 1680. which was the same day that the two Printed Sheets came to his Hands notwithstanding that all this Treatise excepting the Postscript Index and Errata is already Printed So that all his Treatise excepting as is excepted was Printed before the two Printed Sheets came to his Hand and therefore that could be no Reason of his proceeding to Print his Book or to Promulgâ—te or Publish it by Printing it being Printed before that Epistle For Note also That by W. R ' s own Letter to John Bringhurst dated the 21st of the 8th Moneth 1680. it appears much of his Book viz. of all the Five Parts was then already Printed about Eighteen Days before the said Printed Epistle of two Sheets came to his Hands being about Eighteen Dayes from the 21st of the 8th Moneth to the 8th of the 9th Moneth 1680. In the said Letter to John Bringhurst the Printer W. R. adviseth him thus viz. This Morning I received another small Parcel I want two Sheets of the Third Part from pag. 113. to pag. 128. and one Sheet of the Fifth Part from pag. 69 to 83. And when I have those Sheets then the Sheets I shall have from thee will be as followeth First three Sheets of the Preface Of the First Part to page 72. Of the Second Part to pag. 80. Of the Third Part to pag. 136. All the Fourth Part viz. to pag. 108. Of the Fifth Part to pag. 84. Not more to add then to desire thy Expedition Thus W. R. in the said Letter dated the 21st of the 8th Moneth 1680. as before By all which its apparent First That on the 21st of the 8th Moneth 1680. much of W. R ' s Book was Printed and received by him at
his Instance of that Epistle being publick before his Book for his Intention of Printing as also his often Threatning to Print was a long time before that Epistle ever was in being and when he gave his said Supplymental Reasons in his Postscript on the 10th of November 1680. he had Printed his Treatise except the Postscript Index and Errata as he confesseth the 8th of November 1680. being the same day that Epistle came to his Hands and therefore his Intention of Printing and Publishing Divisions could have no Relation to that Epistle as any Cause or Reason of his Intention And how could that Epistle be any Reason of his Printing when it was not in being till after he had Printed a great part of his Book in the Five Parts of it 4thly If he yet alledge That in the Title Page of the said Epistle 't is said to be Printed by Andrew Sowle and to be sold at his Shop in Devonshire-Buildings and that therefore he was the more concerned for the Publication of his Book when it was Printed To this we say That Addition shewing by whom it was Printed and Sold was the Printer's own Addition and not the Authors and yet suitable enough for him to add being cautioned in the same Title Page how far it was intended by the Authors to be published being plainly Recommended to Friends in Truth chiefly for the sake of the Weak and Unstable-minded for Information and Encouragement in our Christian Unity and Society held in the Spirit of Christ both in Faith and Practice as their words are so that the Advice where to have that Epistle was for Friends to whom it was recommended that they might know where to have it whereas W. R. has given no such Caution in his Title page but leaves his whole Book and Friends Reflected on therein to the Censure and Judgment of the World Unbelievers and Truth 's Adversaries to the great Scandal and Reproach of Truth and Friends in it Qu. But hath not W. R. placed the Publication of his Book upon a higher Motion and Necessity than the occasion pretended of the aforesaid Epistle Answ. Yes a far higher and what is it 'T is upon such a great concern of Conscience pretended that the Publication of it could no longer be forborn The Accounts he gives in the case are these viz. So great a concern of Conscience lies on many to encourage the Publication thereof as that we can no longer forbear lest it should be reputed that the Doctrine and Life of Christianity were wholly extinct among the aforesaid People as in his Preface And pag. 77. 1st part The Righteous God bears us Record that the very reason why this Treatise is now prepared is because our very Consciences on behalf of God's People are concerned Thus far William Rogers William Ford the Subscribers Note That these high Pretences of Conscience both for the Preparation and Publication of their Book as that they could no longer forbear must needs be before 't was Printed here was two great concerns in the case the one to Prepare it the other to Print or Publish it by Printing both which Concerns were before the aforesaid Epistle of A. Whitehead and M. Elson was in being at least before ever W. R. knew or saw that Epistle and therefore that Epistle could not be the cause of such concern of Conscience to Prepare Print or Publish W. R's great and Chargeable Book besides it may be observed that all the Allegations used by some of his Party for the Publication of his Book as about G. F's not giving him a Meeting or not giving it under his hand to meet him appear but meer Pretences and slight Covers having placed a Necessity to encourage the Publication thereof upon a higher and more absolute concern of Conscience as namely to prevent such a Misrepute as that of the Doctrine and Life of Christianity being wholly extinct amongst the People called Quakers And there 's not the least Colour or Pretence of Reason that this Danger should be placed either upon the said Epistle or upon G. F's not meeting W. R. in his time This his pretence of such concern of Conscience is far higher than these But if it shall yet be pretended by any that G. F's not giving W. R. a Meeting was cause of his publishing his Book Then how Unjust and grosly Unreasonable was it to expose the Names of divers other Faithfull Friends in Print and that to Infamy without any such particular Offer to them and Refusal on their parts Moreover W. R. is so far from proving himself Just or Righteous in his proceeding to Print by those Instances he gives of a Publication of Divisions by Declaration by Manuscript and by Printing that his great Injustice and Iniquity therein appears there being no just Comparison between these so far as he yet gives Instances and his great Book in Print either as to the Nature Quality or Quantity For 1st What he mentions of Declaration in their Meetings if it were all true it was not published in Print to the World until he himself did it neither do we understand that such Unprinted Declaration can Equalize his Book in the Pernicious Nature and Tendence of it in many particulars which are Scandalous to us as a People and against divers honest Men by Name and not only so but 't is against Church-Government and Order among us 2dly The Forty Four Articles he mentions were not in Print nor the Paper of Sixty Six nor the Narrative at Drawell nor were these ever intended to be exposed in Print or to the World as his Book is but to be reserved within the Church till matters might be cleared and Reconciliation and Union effected which divers faithful Friends among us have earnestly desired and travelled for whose Work and Reward is with the Lord though this Perverse Spirit turns all into Bitterness Gall and Wormwood 3dly And as to that Epistle written by a Publick Preacher as he saith Post. pag. 26. that was not in Print nor any Persons by Name reflected on in it though mention be made in it of Rents Schisms Contention Strife Distraction Discord c. A faithful Testimony was therein given against the Spirit of Discord Division and Separation refering it to the Witness of Truth in all Consciences and the Spirit of Judgment in themselves to make the Application to Persons and not by Name to Infamize any G. Whitehead owns the said Epistle and saith he hath stood by it and hopes ever to stand by the Testimony and tender Counsel therein in the same Spirit that moved him to write it as also that since W. R. has made such an occasion and pretence of it to justifie his own proceeding to Print he had done him more Right if he had printed it together among others in his Book which Epistle and the publick reading of it was approved by divers of W. R's own Friends And what if it were read in such a publick
both him and our said Meeting from any such Imputation as either Assuming or Exercising an absolute Jurisdiction Power or Dominion over mens properties in outward things for R. B. affirmeth That they have greatly mistaken him who did suppose that he did Ascribe to Friends an absolute Jurisdiction over men's Properties in outward things nor was our said Meeting in London or any of us in the least designed or principled to any such thing whose Ox or whose Ass have we taken c Therefore hath our Adversary most grosly mis-represented and abused us therein to the great scandal and reproach of us and the Holy Truth professed by us As to the taking up and composing of Differences among our selves as to outward things and R. B's avering That as a people gathered together by the Lord unto the same Faith we have Power and Authority to decide and remove these things Against this W. R. immediatly testifies in these Words viz. Disaffect XXIV W. R. first part pag. 51. This we testifie is repugnant to the Light of Christ Jesus within us and Testimony of the Scriptures of Truth without us for as Christ's Kingdom is not of this World so 't is not likely that his Members should by his Authority claim a Jurisdiction in the matters relating to this World and if Christ himself when he was desired by a certain man to bid his Brother divide the Inheritance with him refused to be a Judge in that matter relating to Property when desired by one party saying Who made me a Judge over you How much more unreasonable is it for his Members to assume a Jurisdiction when desired by neither party c Observe We look upon this Testimony in the first place Unsound and the Allegation Impertinent for 1st That as a People of the Lord or Church of Christ we have Power to compose Differences as to outward things This is neither repugnant to the Light of Christ within nor to the Testimony of the Scriptures without us see 1 Cor. 6. 1 2 3 4 5. Maâ— 18. 15 16 17. 2dly claim a Jurisdiction What Jurisdiction do Christ's Members claim by his Authority other then what he himself has given them viz. to Counsel Advise and Admonish for the ending of Differences and to give true Judgment 3dly What does Jurisdiction mean properly but a pronouncing right Equity or Justice though in the common Law it is Power and Authority to minister and execute Laws which in a Gospel Way and Order is not excluded the Church of Christ seeing the Law shall go forth of Sion 4thly Christ's refusing to be a Judge in that matter relating to property when desired by one party Luk. 12. 13 14. argues not that none of his Members Church or Saints have power to judge in matters relating to outward Property for that were to contradict the Apostle's Testimony 1 Cor. 6. 3. Know ye not that we shall judge Angels how much more things that pertain to this Life 5thly That of Luke 12. 13 14. alledged proves not that either Christ had not Power and Right to judge among his Disciples in matters relating to this World nor yet that the Saints or his Members were altogether to refuse judging in matters relating to Property among themselves or them of the same Faith 6thly In the Scripture alledged Luke 12. 13. its said One of the company said unto him Master speak to my Brother that he divide the Inheritance with me It is not said 't was one of his Disciples Nor would it have been Judicial for him to have given Judgment in the matter upon the motion and determination of one paâ—ty assigning what he would have done in 's own case aforehand and whose fault Christ seems to reprehend in the following Words Luk. 12. 15. Take heed and beware of Covetousness for a man's Life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth Nor was it so properly Christ's Ministry and Work to be concerned in determining those outward matters of Property having given a higher Ministry and sufficient Law Light and Judgment in mens Consciences to determine what 's Right and to do Right in those cases especially in his Church and Followers The Lord is exalted when Sion is filled with Judgment and Righteousness And now whereas R. B. pleads for the Church of Christ having Power in some cases of Conscience to give a positive Sentence or Decision which may be obligatory upon Believers This W. R. opposeth as being a Government over the Consciences of Believers contrary to the Principle of Truth and Liberty they have in Christ Jesus pag. 48. because his Plea is for a Liberty for a Believer to refuse to submit on account of not seeing it his Duty This is still to divide the Church of Christ and Believers as if the Church did see and Believers were blind which is Absurd and Ignorant He now neither allows the Church power in cases of Conscience nor outward things to give positive Sentence or Judgment to decide difference pag. 48 51. but both these he has sufficiently contradicted 1st in concluding the words of Christ and the Apostle Mat. 18. and 1 Cor. 6. did concern Personal Offences or Differences touching Worldly Matters 2dly In granting that Every Case wherein one Brother may Trespass against another may be comprehended in it But now to his Opposition against the Churches Judgment set case the Church of Christ in some or any matters of Conscience or Property where a Difference is doth give a positive Sentence or Judgment which in it self is Just and Reasonable Our Opposer is for a Liberty for Believers to refuse to submit on account of not seeing it their Duty that is to say That Believers who are Members of Christ's Church may refuse Submission to their Brethren in things that are in themselves Just and Reasonable according to the Law of Truth in the Conscience on the pretence of not seeing it their Duty which is a most Blind and Irrational way of pleading and arguing and we can make nothing of it but what tends to Confusion Rebellion and Ranterism and to a Contempt of the Church of Christ and an undervaluing of the Light of Truth and Righteousness which is in all true Believers ready to engage in a concord in whatsoever things are Honest Just and Reasonable And that which aggravates the Offence of our Adversary is his Fathering this Contradiction and Opposition which he would make in the Church of Christ and this Liberty for Believers refusing to submit to this Church upon the Liberty that is in Christ Jesus which is as Absurd as to tell us the Church of Christ may in some things have a Liberty in Christ to give a Righteous Judgment both in matters of Conscience and Property but Believers who are Members of the same Church must have a Liberty in Christ to refuse to submit to the same Judgment and not only so but a liberty in Christ to plead That they see it not to
pag. 61 62. Many professing Truth do look upon G. F. as one whom the Lord in these Latter Dayes hath raised up and set in the like place amongst the Children of Light as Moses was c. and that whosoever shall oppose him shall never prosper which we are perswaded hath so over-awed MANY that they become Sacrificers of their own Sence and Understanding to the will of man and p. 62. We firmly believe he will become Despised and Vile before the People c. and pag. 86. A slighting of G. F's Rules Methods and Orders with respect to Church-Government is in their Sence a slighting the Cause of God and p. 91. If a Conscientious slighting of G. F's pretended Motions with respect to Forms of Church-Government imposed contrary to Faith and a Charitable Belief that he intended not to urge his Papers relating thereto on any of Gods faithful People with Severity c. Observe We are very sensible of our Adversary's great Envy against G. F. and his great Abuse and Scandalous work in his Book to render him Odious and Vile but he has known better things and given another manner of Testimony on G. F's behalf than now he has done slighting his Directions and Instructions without Distinction as having taken it upon him to give them forth from his pretended Motions not owning him now as a Servant of Christ or moved by him at all therein but only renders him one assuming to himself a Power to direct others Time was when W. R. gave a better account of G. F. witness an Epistle dated London the 26th of the 3d Moneth 1673. and subscribed by Thomas Briggs William Rogers Arthur Eastmead John Rance Charles Marshall Morgin Watkins Jasper Batt William Gibson Samuel Cater Stephen Crisp John Moon William Penn Robert Barclay George Whitehead Thomas Green and above Twenty more of the People called Quakers at a Meeting at Anne Traver's House at Horslie-down the day and year above-said wherein William Rogers and the rest do thus testifie concerning G. F. viz. DEar Friends let the Authority of God's Power heavenly and Peaceable Wisdom be Eyed in all your Assemblies that the Government of Truth and Righteousness may be Exalted over all that true Judgment and Mercy may have their place And though a General Care be not laid upon every Member touching the good Order and Government in the Churches Affairs nor have many travelled therein yet the Lord hath laid it more upon some in whom he hath opened Counsel for that end and particularly in our dear Brother and God's faithful Labourer G. F. for the help of many and God hath in his Wisdom afforded those Helps and Governments in the Churches which are not to be despised being in Subjection to Christ the one Head and Law-giver answering his Witness in ALL and so all necessary Counsel Admonitions or Testimonies that have been given forth and received in the Universal Spirit of Life and Unity have their Service for God in subjection to his Light and subservency to and in order to answer the great Rule and Law of the Spirit of Life as proceeding from it and they that are spiritual will acknowledge those things spoken or written from this Spirit and for this end to be the Requirings of the Lord. Thus far the said Epistle Wherein W. R. and the rest have plainly confessed First To that Care the Lord hath laid on some with respect to good Order and Government in his Churches And Secondly To the Counsel which the Lord has opened for that end particularly in G. F. And Thirdly That G. F. is therein owned to be a Dear Brother and God's faithful Labourer Fourthly That God hath in his Wisdom afforded those Helps and Governments in the Churches which are not to be despised c. which things do Answer Confute and Condemn much of W. R's Book against Church-Government Outward Methods Orders and Rules c. with respect to Church-Government which he calls G. F's Methods and Orders pag. 86. 1st part but though in his Letter to G. F. cited in his 4th part pag. 93. he tells of some New Prescriptions which they cannot embrace for Conscience-sake and which G. F. is accounted either the Author or Countenancer of Howbeit W. R. produceth not any New Prescription Methods Rules Orders and Forms of Church-Government set up and imposed by G. F. at his pretended Motion and that contrary to Faith since the date of the said Epistle of the 3d Moneth 1673. and signed by W. R. c. he having justified G. F. in his Service until that time Now he should have produced some such new Orders Forms of Church-Government introduced among us since that time to prove his Charge of Apostacy and Innovation against G. F. and those he calls His Party or otherwise have forborn such Unjust Judgment And comparing W. R's Book against G. F. and Forms of Church-Government with the said Epistle on behalf of both it will plainly appear that W. R. is guilty of Apostacy and that his Book is a Scandalous Innovation against the Truth and People of God called Quakers And further W. R. his opposing Outward Rules Orders Precepts c. with respect to Church-Government appears Contradictory to what his Honourable Friend J. S. hath granted as is cited p. 87. 1st part viz. That John Story took occasion to give his Sence touching such things which G. F. had given forth on this wise viz. That he did not believe that G. Fox intended any such thing that they meaning his Papers directed to the Churches should with Severity be urged upon any of God's Faithful People but as Instructions or Directions commending them to the Churches leaving the Effect thereof to God and his leading Grace in his People to make use thereof as he should manifest a need of such Direction Counsel or Advice Thus far J. S. whose Sence herein appears contrary to W. R's both in respect to G. F. and to those Outward Instructions or Directions J. S. granting also That God and his Leading Grace in his People might lead them to make Use thereof as he should manifest a need of such Counsel or Advice which Answers and Confutes W. R. in his opposing Outward Directions Methods and Forms relating to Church-Government Thus his Pleading and Advocating on his honourable Friends behalf is run to a Contradiction to them and their Sence as well as to himself in many things and that on the same Objections he makes to prove G. F. and others Apostates and its very much if he do not fly out against J. S. and J. W. as Apostates also if so be they should but plainly oppose the Unsoundness and Inconsistency of his Work which to Evince farther on the point observe what follows viz. Disaffect XXXII W. R. pag. 73. first part We now appeal unto every Understanding Ingenious and Impartial Reader whether since the Labour of the Apostles of Christ was to draw the outward Jew off from the Observation of these Ordinances
shall suffice viz. the form of proceedings in Marriages wherein the Scriptures are wholly silent as to the Primitive Christians By which you may see what a narrow compass his great noise of Innovations outward Order in Discipline is brought to he should have made his Book wholly on this subject about the form of proceedings in Marriages among us and not have made such a great impertinent blunder upon general Scandalous Charges to no purpose and then it would have appeared whether he could have disapproved our proceedings therein or not or prove them inconsistent with those Righteous Ends that he himself has granted 2dly In his Preface he only mentions outward Forms relating to Marriages Relief of the Poor c. About which he saith a great part of the Contention seems to be and yet he is the hotest Maintainer of the Contention 3dly And though in some Circumstances every thing be not specified in the Scriptures yet whether there is any part of Church-Discipline practised among us that does not tend to answer the Apostolick Doctrine in respect to Good Order a Holy Conversation a Heavenly Society and things that are Honest Just Reasonable and of good Report What Form or Discipline do we practise that is unsuitable to these Righteous Ends We affirm that his crying out Impositions Innovations Form of Church-Government Orders Prescriptions c. in general is no answer nor any proof of his Charge of Apostate and Innovator against us let him either specifie the particulars thereof that he condemns us for as Apostates and that we practise as Church-Discipline or else forever be ashamed of such Impertinency and Scandalous charging the Meetings of the People of God called Quakers which are concerned in and about those Outward Affairs and Christian Services for which they were intended as Charitable Duties inspecting Marriages taking care that Truth be not Scandalized c. which he hath confessed and the Service of such our Meetings being to answer those Righteous and Good Ends. As also to the same purpose in reference to Friends care about Printing in these Words viz. Third part pag. 31. I would not be understood that it is unnecessary for the Members of the Church of Christ to take care that nothing Scandalous to the Truth come forth in publick under the Name of any who make Profession thereof and were it so that I had ought upon me on Truths behalf to bring to publick view I should be glad of the opportunity to lay it before such Brethren with whom the Word of Wisdom Knowledge and Discerning of Spirits dwelt Hence it appears that this Man would seem to be for Order and Society with such Brethren as he has a good esteem of and to be so conformable and submissive as to have their Counsel and Approbation of what he brings to publick view granting it necessary for the Members of the Church of Christ to take care that nothing Scandalous to Truth come forth in publick which is one main end of our Meeting in London so much struck at and vilified by him But who those Brethren are with whom he accounts the Word of Wisdom and Knowledge dwells and before whom he would lay what he would bring to publick view for their Care and Approbation he tells us not but we may easily guess by his high Characters of Ancient and Honourable Friends Labourers in the Gospel c. And whether they did see and approve of this confused scandalous Book of his or not is best known to themselves either they did or they did not if they did then by his own Inference they are entituled to the matters contained in it if neither of them did see and approve of it then that omission contradicts his own pretence it not being probable that he can justly plead he wanted opportunity to lay it before any of his honourable Brethren in two or three Years time Third part pag. 82. There is great need for every one to watch against a Censorious judging Spirit lest whilst they are judging their Brethren they themselves become cast-awayes p. 83. It behoves every one diligently to watch that we judge not one another by reason of these differing Exercises c. Observe how well this man can Counsel others but how contrary thereto he acts himself in giving forth such a censorious judging Book as he has done tending to render many Innocent Persons and People Apostates and Innovators wherein he is far more loud in his Charge and Exclamation than in his Proof or Instances of that Apostacy or those Innovations But if he could prove such Innovations or New matters in Discipline or differing Exercises therein as he would Insinuate which yet is not granted him then by his own rule he ought not to have brought forth his Censorious Book but rather have watched and studied to be quiet Pag. 80. I would not be understood to judge Apostles or Elders when they shall find freedom from the Lord being met together for giving forth any thing by way of Recommendation to the Consciences of their Brethren Answ. We know nothing given forth as Duty to God or Man to be practised among us by Apostles or Elders but what is in Truth intended at least to be recommended to the Consciences and hath an Answer and Reception in the Consciences of Friends in Truth what we write or preach on behalf of Truth and true Religion is recommended by Divine Authority and Evidence in the Apostles sence by the Manifestation of Truth commending our selves to every mans Conscience in the sight of God and this may be either by good Exhortation Counsel Admonition Reproof Judgment Testimony Warning Charge Command c. all which the holy Apostles used But it appears our Opposer has another sence of Recommendation as leaving matters more indifferent and loose by way of doubtful Proposition as on these or the like Terms viz. You are not Bound to submit whether you see it your Duty or not And whereas this Person is frequently judging our Friends for Imposition Innovation c. We would be understood that those things commended among us as necessary for good Order and Holiness of Conversation are not recommended doubtfully or upon meer Supposition nor as Matters of Indifferency to be Practised or Rejected but in Faith and full Assurance as answering God's Witness and Truth in the Consciences and that such will meet with a tender Reception and not Opposition in all tender and upright Hearts Disaffect XLIV Third part pag. 83. Amongst the Primitive Believers there were such as practised Circumcision some made Conscience of keeping a Day and some that abstained from eating Flesh and others that did not and yet a Christian-Liberty and Forbearance was so Exercised as that they were not to be judging one another about these things and that we find not that these Differing Exercises in a CHRISTIAN Liberty did subject any of those Believers exercised therein to the Censure of being out of the Unity of the Body
for Condemnation upon that Spirit of Division did advise Persons to receive the Mark of the Beast and on the other hand that the Beast in causing both small and great to receive his Mark did cause them to own Condemnation upon that Spirit of Division We never had such a Description given of the Mark of the Beast before And why did W. R. draw his supposed doubtful Meanings on his IF 's and give his positive Judgment against G. F. as a Deceiver causing men to receive the Mark of the Beast c. without first enquiring of and hearing G. F. give his own Sense and Meaning Is not he herein condemned out of his own Mouth even in that which he has much pleaded and insisted upon to wit in his enveighing against Judging any man without hearing him Judging the Merit of the Cause without hearing the same Judging and Censuring a Person Unheard in the Defence of himself as being a Grand Mark of Apostacy Has he not greatly condemned this in his Preface and other parts of his Book and that upon the Law and Manner of the Romans citing John 7. 51. Acts 25. 16. and yet now is sound presently after Accusing and Condemning a Person without any Judicial hearing Face to Face upon his own Malicious Suggestion contrary to the plain Intent and Sence of his words whereas if he had first heard the Person accused Face to Face no doubt but he could have given him a better Meaning upon his own words than either to forbid Friends convincing Gainsayers or buying and selling with them But his great pretence for this false Interpretation is what he says in his Marginal Note of One of his Correspondents that hath been Partner with him in a Merchandizing Trade breaking off dealing with him in Partnership giving for his Reason these words viz. I CANNOT BUT REASONABLY EXPECT THE HAND OF THE LORD MAY BE AGAINST THEE AND THAT PERADVENTURE IN THE THINGS OF THE WORLD The Person 's Name W. R. omits which if he had told would not have added any weight to his Cause nor Credit to him in Religious Concerns However it appears this his Correspondent had a Concern and Fear upon him according as he expresses which no wayes proves that G. F's words were intended to discourage him or others from buying and selling with him 'T was his own Concern and Care who so broke off with W. R. which is none of G. F's or any of our Business Let W. R. consider what Occasion he has given to provoke the Lord against him by his Envy and Bitterness against his People And whereas W. R. 5th part pag. 87. cites what John Story said to the matter of Charge contained in Henry Sweeting's Certificate viz. That these are not the first Lyes G. F. hath reported both against my self and the Meeting they call Seperate he hath not given us ground of late Years to expect any Right of Justice from him Whereby if these be J. S. his words he takes it for granted 1st That the said H. S. his Certificate contains nothing but Truth in the Citation of G. F's words And 2dly He gives positive Judgment that G. F. has reported Lyes therein as not being the first Lyes Howbeit the Charge as laid down and contained in the said Certificate G. F. denyes as a Perversion and Confounding his words yea as Horrid Lyes except that of Drunkards and Swearers as W. R. has cited G. F's Answer and Negation before H. S. his Certificate 5th part pag. 83. We think that J. S. should not have taken the words so Hardly and Censoriously up against G. F. until he had been sure G. F. would have owned them directly as laid down by H. S. and that upon a fair hearing Face to Face Now the Question is whether W. R. and J. S. have heard G. F. and his Accusers Face and Face concerning this Matter whereof he is accused by H. S. before he was Condemned and recorded as a Lyar therein If not as we presume they have not then whether they have therein done Judicially and Justly according to their own Pretentions of Justice and Right and their severally declaring against condemning any man before heard judging and censuring him when unheard in defence of himself concerning the Crime laid against him And if it be a grand Mark of Apostacy and Persecution so to do as W. R. signifies we would know how they can escape their own Judgment herein thus to condemn a Person and that in Print before he be heard or duely tryed in the Case And seeing also W. R. 2d part pag. 76 77. thus saith viz. That which to us seems to aggravate the Offence of the Sixty Six Subscribers is this J. S. doth POSITIVELY affirm That a great part of the Subscribers never spoke or sent to him about the matter we have great cause to doubt that not a few but many of the Subscribers IF NOT ALL have given Judgment without hearing of either Party Now we may still Question 1st Whether J. S. and W. R. did ever speak or send to G. F. the Party accused in this matter before they condemned him to such Infamy as W. R. hath recorded him in Print for a Lyar. 2dly Whether J. Story gave way to allowed or advised or doth really own the Printing of what he saith to H. Sweeting's Certificate against G. F. J. S. his plain Answer hereunto may justly be expected 3dly The Question is also whether H. Sweeting and the rest that Certified against G. F. on this point were not a Party against him when their Certificates were written 4thly Whether their Certificates do not so much vary in their relations as may justly render them of less Credit and to be looked on as from Parties set against G. F. H. Sweeting certifies G. F. did say That to the Seperate Meeeting there was Whores and Rogues Drunkards and Swearers and that there came a couple to be Marryed and one stood up and said Master Story I take such a one to be my Wife c. M. B. testifies to G. F. thus viz. That thou saidst Master Story I take such a one to be my Wife and I take such a one to be my Husband and eat Bread and drink Wine go together like Whores and Rogues See now how various differing the Certificates are as between saying That to the said Meeting there was Whores Rogues Drunkards c. and go together like Whores and Rogues c. Seeing these Certificates are so differing in the manner of stating the matter the Question is whether these Persons might not mistake in both upon failure of Memory or Prejudice and might possibly mis-place the Words if spoken However they might have been better imployed than to make such sorry Certificates and so might W. R. than to publish a Judgment upon them without any Judicial hearing of the Parties Face to Face And as for E. P. he appears angry against G. F. as one willing to be his
D. W. J. and N. D. your pretended Testimonies bear no Date as to the Day and Time when that Meeting in Bristol was held when G. F. departed as you believe to avoid Imprisonment nor as to the day and time of the making and signing your said Testimonies nor do you shew how long it was between the time of the said Meeting and the making and signing your said Testimonies and we may question whether they were formed and drawn up by your selves or by W. R. or whether you were not drawn by him to sign them And whether it was by your advice or consent that he Printed them However Pray for the time to come be you more careful and no more drawn to sign such Insignificant and Impertinent Testimonies or Certificates against any Friend or Brother to gratifie an Envious Revengeful Spirit as is W. R's And now Samuel Hollister how comest thou to expose thy Ancient deceased Uncle's Name in such a Certificate as this viz. I do also remember that my Uncle Dennis Hollister did acquaint me That G. F. did advise him to absent himself from Meetings in time of Persecution Hast thou herein shewn that Reverent respect to thy Aged Grave Uncle as thou oughtst to have done thus to expose his Name so long after his decease which doubtless had he been alive he would either have prevented or severely reprehended thee for and we may justly question whether thou hast given a Just and Impartial account of thy deceased Uncle's Words in this matter when he is not here to answer for himself to be sure thou hast not given a Circumstantial Account to render it credible to us and dost thou not know that Circumstances may greatly vary matters Nor do we believe that G. F. gave him any such general Advice as to absent himself from Meetings in time of Persecution for he absolutely denys it and says He did encourage him to the contrary when he was able or capable Dost thou not know and remember that thy Uncle was an Aged Weakly and Sickly man that much kept his Chamber in Winter time and therefore sometimes unfit to endure such Hardship and Sufferings as Friends were often exposed to at Meetings Was he then meet to expose himself to stand in the Streets when Friends were either haled out or kept out of their Meetings in the Streets Thou sayest thou Remembrest thy Uncle did acquaint thee but thou certifies neither Day nor Year when And suppose G. F. spake any thing in tenderness to thy Uncle with respect to his Age and Infirmity of Body it could not amount to any such general advice as to absent from Meetings in time of Persecution he having encouraged him to the contrary However could it be Just in thee to expose both thy Uncle and G. F. as thou hast done to gratifie W. R. his Spirit of Enmity against Friends in such a Certificate Whether of thy framing and whether Printed by thy advice or consent or not thou canst best Answer we do not believe it will be grateful to Dennis Hollister's honest Children and Family to see their Ancient Grave and Honoured Father's Name thus exposed in Print so long after his Decease to gratifie an Envious Quarelsom Proud Disdainful Spirit Disaffect XLVII W. R. 1st part pag. 31. Neither can we be at Unity with the Appearance of that Spirit be it in whomsoever it will that can Recriminate Men as Tythe-Payers who have been faithfull in their Testimony relating to Tythes and yet adviseth Friends to purchase Tythes which is G. F's Case with relation to his Advice unto Nathaniel Crips and Robert Arch according as is treated on and proved by Certificates under their Hands Observe This indeed is a Heavy Charge and Judgment against G. F. and the matter if duely and judicially proved with the Accusers and the Accused Face to Face before Competent Persons would be as justly condemnable as for one to judge fleeing in Times of Persecution and yet be the frequentest Fleer himself But we question whether W. R. hath given this Charge against G. F. on any such due and regular proceeding and hearing of both Parties Face to Face and that before a proper Judicature but this we presume he has not although he has given positive Sentence that 't is G. F's Case to wit To blame men as Tythe-Payers and yet advise a Friend to purchass Tythes But this G. F. denyes Let 's Examine the Certificates mentioned 5th part pag. 54 55. which W. R. cites for Testimony against G. F. viz. This is to Certifie c. That G. F. being several Years past at my House I told him That in the Parish where I dwell there is both Priest and Impropriator and that both of them claimed Tythes of the Inhabitaints and amongst our Discourse that we had there-about G. F. then advised me To Purchase the Tythes of them This he spake in Love to me and I took it no otherwise but if he will prosecute others for such things whereof he is more guilty himself he will much loose his Honour and hardly ever recover it Thus far Nathaniel Crips dated the 23d of the 11th Moneth 1677. Robert Arch his Testimony viz. G. F. being at my House as I remember it was the time that he came into our Country to set up the Monethly and Quarterly Meetings and there being several Writings read of G. F's in which there was written as I remember That such Friends as did pay Tythes should be Exhorted or Admonished c. In my Garden I told him There was two or three Priests and two Impropriators did claim Tythe of me or of my Land c. Said G. F. to me Canst not thou buy it Buy it said he I answered him That I did look upon it to be no odds or difference between paying of it and buying of it Dated the 18th of the 11th Moneth 1677. Observe We grant that the Buying Tythes or Compounding with the Priests for them is not consistent but contrary to our Testimony but G. F. positively denyes that he so advised or intended there has been some Mistake in the Case 't is probable and here is no date of the day and year when he so advised in either of these Certificates or Testimonies as W. R. calls them The one saith it was several Years past the other says as he remembers it was that time that he came into their Country It seems 't was several or many Years after they had some private Discourse apart with G. F. that they made their Certificates or Testimonies from it and that upon the Credit of their Memories which might easily fail them in so many years time and which incertainty W. R. has grounded his Charge and Judgment against G. F. upon as having advised a Friend to Purchase Tythes thus to make this a matter of Credit against G. F. he layes it down under the Title of Testimony with his own Judgment presumed on it to wit that he so advised them to
buy their Tythes which is contrary to G. F's known Testimony and Principle who has been for several Years and is at this present in trouble for Non-Payment of Tythe being under prosecution at Law because he cannot comply with the Plantiff which is far from buying off his Tythe And that which renders these mens Certificates of less Credit is that G. F. would have them that paid Tythe admonished Strange what admonished against Tythe and at the same time advise to the buying off Tythe that 's very Improbable And why should he advise them to purchase or buy the Tythes of the Priests For what time or how long could they sell them or give them Title to them Hath the Priest the Tythe any longer than for his Life and how uncertain is that But hath not N. C. appeared an Accuser of G. F. as being more Guilty himself c And does W. R. in point of Judicial Proceedings allow of an Accuser or Informer to be a Competent Witness we suppose not some of his Party have distinguished between a Witness and an Accuser but he has taken N. C's Information for Testimony against G. F. yea for granted he has given his Censure and Judgment upon it that G. F. did so advise to the Purchasing or Buying of Tythes both of the Priest and Impropriators But before he gave this Judgment and exposed those Certificates in Print did he Examine and hear all the Parties concerned Face to Face Did he Examine and hear all Circumstances on all hands relating to the Accuser and Accused face to face We may presume he did not And who induced N. C. and R. A. to make and give out their Certificates upon a Private Discourse so many years after Have they not done Unkindly and Prejudicially therein and W. R. more basely to Print them and give a Judgment thereupon without hearing the Parties face to face Where was his Justice his Conscientiousness and his Legality pretended according to his own Plea upon John 7. 51. Doth our Law judge any man before it hear him and know what he doth And Acts 25. 16. For him which is Accused to have his Accusers face to face and have Licence to Answer for himself concerning the Crime laid against him and not to judge and censure a Person in matter of Fact when unheard in Defence of himself has not W. R. much pleaded for this Method but how has he kept to it Did he hear G. F. and N. C. and R. A. face to face and G. F. answer for himself and make his own Defence before them and that before such time as he had exposed and promulgated their Certificates and his Censure and Judgment against G. F. upon them If not as we are apt to think he did not then what gross Hypocrisie Irregularity as well as Unfair and Unchristian Dealing is he guilty of And how False and Inconsistent with himself is he in these matters discovered to be And how will he escape the Grand Mark of Apostacy in his own Terms and Sense in judging and censuring a Person unheard in Defence of himself before his Accusers face to face Let the Impartial and Prudent judge And now N. C. thou hast known something what belongs to the Administration of Justice dost thou not know that the Omission of Material Circumstances in point of Evidence may greatly alter the Case And what probable Circumstances hast thou given in thy pretended Testimony How tender is Common Law and Justice in such Cases Chief Justice Cook saith Quod in Criminalibus Probatione debent Esse Luce clariores Cook 's Institut 3d part fol. 210. i. e. That in Criminals Proofs or Testimonies ought to be more clear than the Light And Michael Dalton plainly shews how many wayes Justice may be perverted amongst which he mentions When they proceed hastily without due Examination and Consideration of the Fact and of all MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES without hearing both Parties for as one saith Qui aliquid Statuerit Parte inaudita altera aequum Licet Statuerit haud equus est He that shall Judge or Determine of a Matter the one Party being Unheard although he shall Judge Aright yet is he not a just Judge We do confess and will grant That where Matters Criminal of outward Fact or Overt Act are charged 't is most safe and judicial to have the Parties face to face and a fair and equal Hearing and Proof before Judgment be given But this is not the Case of W. R. who in many things is Informer Accuser and Judge and herein has assumed to give Judgment without any such equal Hearing or Evidence What Concerns Matters of Charge Trespass or Crime upon Persons in common Law and Justice ought to have fair and judicial Hearing of all Parties and sufficient Evidence Outward of the Fact before Judgment be past but true Judgment of Spirits Angels or Inward States considered abstractly without outward Evidence of Matter of Fact whether they be Good or Evil this cannot be without a Spiritual Discerning Inward Sense or Divine Revelation given by Christ Jesus whereby both Right and Wrong Spirits and States have been Discovered even Satan when Transformed as an Angel of Light and his Ministers when transformed like the Ministers of Christ. And W. R. 1st part pag. 2. himself grants The Evidence of our heavenly Union to spring from that which neither the Carnal Eye nor the Carnal Ear could be Witnesses of And pag. 24. We who had believed in the Light of our Lord Jesus Christ had the Evidence in our selves that we were of the true Brotherhood and Members of Christs Body So that he has granted an Inward and Spiritual Evidence in Spiritual Cases which is higher than the outward But to the occasion of N. C ' s Certificate aforesaid What kind of Discourse could be between him and G. F. that he could ground HIS CHARGE upon as W. R. calls it Or what Discourse could they have that might any wayes seem in N. C's Apprehention to look like an Advice to Buy his Tythe of Priest and Impropriator for we are not willing to leave him under the suspicion of a designed Forgery in this Case but rather in Charity to impute it partly to the Infirmity of his Age and Defect of Memory that he has thus represented G. F. as having advised him to buy his Tythe and that this said Certificate was prejudicially drawn from him so many years after that private Discourse he had with G. F. which he grounds it upon as 't is very possible and easie for an Aged Man's Memory to fail him in such a Case that is in making a Prejudicial Certificate or Charge upon a private Discourse many Years after the Discourse as his against G. F. was What then could be the Matter or Subject of that Discourse which he might very likely be Mistaken in Was there any thing said about Buying off Tythe on any account To this we may cite G. F's own Answer to W. R's Queries
That such a one is a dark separate Spirit which cannot be evidenced either by Doctrine or Conversation as if the Tree were not now to be known by its Fruits as in days past Had they not entertained unrighteous Jealousie we are perswaded they would not have testified against such as have approved themselves unto us no other than faithful Ministers of Christ sound in Doctrine and as blameless In Conversation as any Friends Compared with part 5. p. 91. That Rule which God Almighty as by a finger from Heaven hath laid down viz. BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHAL KNOW THEM Qu. Whether then sound Doctrine and blameless Conversations be not such Fruits Marks and Tokens whereby Persons may be known to be good Trees Members and Followers of Christ Jesus But W. R's Contradiction appears both wayes as in what follows also partly relating to the Contradictions before Preface p. 10. Insisting on Judging by Outward Fruits viz. If living well and holding forth nothing but sound Doctrine shall not be brought to the Measuring Line of Christ what Defence can there be aganst a Slanderous tongue Part 3. pag. 83. I therefore do reasonably conclude that the Infallible Mark whereby any Member of the Body is known to be in true Unity with the Body doth NOT consist in Profession and Belief of certain Principles and Doctrines and Practices DEPENDING THEREON which comprehends both well living holding forth nothing but sound Doctrine BUT in the Circumcision of the Heart and an answer of a good Conscience towards God p. 84. The most Infallible Mark and Token then of a Member in the true Unity of the Body of Christ is an inward Invisible Mark that cannot be stampt on any but by the Impression of Gods Power on the Heart Qu. Are not his Contradictions various and manifold One while no outward Marks and Tokens do Infallibly manifest the Members of the true Church Another while Living well and holding forth nothing but sound Doctrine shall be brought to the measuring Line of Christ i. e. ye shall know them by their Fruits another while the infallible Mark to know a Member of the Body in true Unity is an invisible Mark Stampt on the Heart by the Impression of God's Power 't is the inward Circumcision of the Heart and answer of a good Conscience it doth not consist in Profession and Belief of certain Principles and Doctrines no nor in any outward Marks and Practices THEREON DEPENDING especially if by no outward Marks or Tokens Christ's Members be to be known One while the Infallible Mark is Outward another while 't is Inward Again 't is Outward in sound Doctrine and Practices Again 't is NOT Outward but Inward One while 't is Visible Another while 't is Invisible Whereas there are really good Fruits both Inward and Outward Visible and Invisible proceeding from the true and holy Root of Life all manifest in the Light for be sure bad Fruits come from a bad Root and Spirit But to take the matter in W. R. his last sence viz. The most Infallible Mark and Token of a Member in the true Unity is an Invisible Mark And this grants an inward and Invisible Evidence from the Spirit of Christ and so a certain Sence and Judgment of Members in the true Unity and Members out of it beyond all outward Evidence Marks or Tokens and this Inward Sence and Judgment extends even to Mens Spirits certainly to discover whether they are right or wrong in true Unity or not in it And yet in giving any publick Judgment upon Persons as being in a Wrong Dividing Spirit there ought to be outward apparent Evidence Mark them which cause Divisions and Offences contrary to the Gospel and avoid them Those Divisions and Offences are somewhere evident though they be not Drunkards nor openly Gross or Scandalous in Conversation yet if they cause Division Schisms and Rent in the Church this may be easily evidenced and is to be condemned and we know of none judged among us on this account without some real Evidence of matter of Fact of this kind if any are we allow it not Part 1. pag. 7. Some Persons Uncertain in Number and Qualifications do take upon them to call themselves a General Meeting Pag. 16. Mens Meetings have MOST usually CONSISTED of Men Uncertain as to Qualifications c. may assume a Power over Consciences under the Notion of the Church of Christ. Pag. 12. We dare not conclude that none in those Meetings were Members of the Church Part 3. pag. 39. Where two or three are gathered together in Christ's Name there is the Church of Christ. Note If some of those Meetings be Members of the Church or gathered in Christs Name and so his Church then such are certainly Qualified they CONSIST not of men uncertain Part 1. p. 11. That one Man G. F. advising friends to hold such Meetings Monethly and Quarterly But for our parts we understood not at that Day that it was DESIGNED by him or any else that those Meetings should not only be accounted the CHURCH but also such as professed the Truth ought to believe * as his Church believes had he so exprest himself Testimonies would have arisen as a Flood against such Darkness Part 4. pag. 37. J. W. and J. S. do testifie thus viz. On the whole matter in the Fear and Presence of the Almighty God we declare That as we do APPROVE of Monethly and Quarterly Meetings for the necessary service of the truth so we further say that as these or any other Meetings of Friends in Truth shall be continued to answer these Services we believe that as it now is it also will become our Duty to be at UNITY with our Brethren in the Services thereof Part 3. pag. 74. * I confess the true Church is in the true Faith and every Member thereof is in some measure at least of the same faith that all the Elect of God are of So that it may in truth be said every Member of the Church doth in some measure believe as the rest of the Members do Note Qu. 1st Wherein have those Meetings declined the Service of Truth 2dly Then why not to be accounted the Church if two or three gathered in Christ's Name be the Church 3dly How comes W. R. to UNCHURCH them and yet they approved by his Friends 4thly How can every Member be in the same Faith if they believe not as the same Church doth Part 1. p. 12. 'T is now our concern to declare that whosoever hath or shall testifie that all those Meetings as usually held viz. Monethly and Quarterly were the Church of Christ hath and will appear to be such as know not whereof they affirm Part 3. pag. 78. The word Church is mostly used in Scriptures with respect to perticular Congregations or Assemblies Pag. 79. Where two or three are gathered together in Christs Name there is the Church of Christ Mat. 18. 19 20. Qu. Whether W. R. can prove that
chief Agent in their Cause hath Mannaged it well but greatly to his own and their Disadvantage XL Another notorious and two-fold Untruth before opened in this Treatise is that by these words Do not strive nor make Bargains with that i. e. that Spirit which is out of the Truth W. R. insinuates that G. F ' s Meaning must be That he would not have Friends Discourse nor have orderly Conference in order to Reconciliation nor to Bargain Buy or Sell with such whom he condemns until they Answer by Condemnation Which are gross Falshoods and foul Perversions The like Perversion has he made on another Friend's words in pag. 4 5. of his Preface viz. Let not this Spirit be reasoned with enter not into Proposals and Articles with it but feed it with Judgment that is God's Decree so may the Souls that are deceived come by the right Door into the heavenly Unity c. yet saith W. R. he himself did a few Moneths after accompany G. F. to the City of Bristol and there enter into Reasonings Proposals and Articles with such as owned J. S. c. contrary to his own Counsel Here W. R. hath dealt very Disingeniously confounding the Persons with the Spirit making no difference between entring into Terms with the Spirit and some Proposals with the Persons for a fair Discourse concerning the Difference as if we could not Reason with the Persons without entring into Covenant and Terms with the Spirit of Division whereas he knows the contrary and that when W. P. entred into Articles with him at Bristol it was but for Method and Order in Discoursing Matters in Difference and for a Narrative thereof according to Agreement from both Parties and not to acquit that Spirit of Division in W. R. or any of his Party from just Judgment nor yet to enter into an Agreement and Peace with it upon its own Terms muchless to set W. R. as he is in that Spirit upon equal Ground and Terms with the Church of Christ or Body of Friends concerned in Judgment against it who yet desire that the Souls that are deceived may come in by the right Door and be restored into the heavenly Unity and on that account may Reason with the Persons and propose due Methods to them for their good but not enter into Covenant with that Spirit of Discord which will submit to no Terms of Agreement and Reconciliation but in its own Will and Way which Truth cannot admit of Surely 't is no Contradiction to stand in true Judgment against an Evil Spirit and yet gently endeavour to perswade the Creature out of it And concerning the preparing his Manuscript and bringing forth his Birth viz. his Book in Print he hath this passage in his Preface viz. XLII And to my inward Peace and Joy in the Lord I can say that I have the evidence of his Spirit notwithstanding what any man may say to the contrary that he hath owned my Proceedings therein hitherto and not only so but that there hath been an answer thereto in many Brethren Note That we do not charge him in this Passage with down right designed Lyes against Knowledge but with strong Delusion and Error which is the effect of his believing a Lye which the Devil is the Father of which will be his own Trouble in the End nor can we believe that he says true in saying There hath been an answer in MANY BRETHREN seeing there has not yet appeared any Brethren so much as his own that would publickly own or stand by his Book as having the Evidence of God's Spirit for it when closely called in Question about it Abundance of his Abuses Perversions Raylery Slanders Falshoods Scorn Reviling and foul Aspersions are here omitted and passed by which are dispersed throughout his Book for which he is left to the Righteous Judge of all to deal with him as no doubt he will in his own due time XLIII As concerning the Quotation about Micahs Mother Judges 17. which he has made a great ado about over and over in his Book calling it THAT ABOMINABLE QUOTATION Part 4. pag. 96. which seems but an Irreverent Character of a Quotation out of holy Scripture And concerning the Woman or Widdow of Tekoah and what she said to King David 2 Sam. 14. W. R. also shews himself very fierce against this poor Widdow accusing her over and over with a LYING STORY Part 5. p. 5. Whereas it was but a Parable or Form of Speech as Joab had directed her to save Absolom's Life At this rate W. R. might charge the Prophet's Parable to King Ahab 1 Kings 20. 39. and abudance of Parables more in the holy Scriptures with being Lying Stories because it seems G. F. expressed some Charitable Thoughts concerning these and other Women as having Virtue or some Religion in them towards God in their day and time although some were clouded with Superstition For the further opening of which Controversie we refer the Reader to a short Tract written by our Antient and Learned Friend Richard Richardson Entituled A few Ingredients against the Venom of William Rogers his Book stiled The Christian-Quaker Distinguished c. A Passage in William Rogers's Postscript about a Meeting with G. F. and William Mead's Exception against it being concerned in the Matter Postscript pag. 24. dated at Bristol the 8th of November 1680. XLIV W. R. As a further Evidence of my readyness to meet George Fox and his declining thereof I thought meet to insert this Additional Postscript A Friend from London advised me That William Mead desired Nicholas Lucas that it might be intimated unto me That now George Fox would give me a Meeting Which occasioned me immediately to take care that my Mind might be communicated to Nicholas Lucas who thereupon acquainted William Mead That their desire that I would give G. F. a Meeting was accepted by me provided that G. F. would give it under his Hand to meet me To which William Mead said He would speak to G. F. about it And afterward thâ— said William Mead told Nicholas Lucas He had spoke with George Fox and his Answer was He would not give it under his hand nor write to me By which all Impartial Readers may further judge whether George Fox hath any Inclination at all to give me a Meeting for clearing of Matters laid to his Charge William Mead's Exception Against which account W. Mead objects That it is not the whole Truth but Partial Fallacious Abusive both to him and George Fox in leaving out the most Material part of G. F. his Answer which was That he would meet William Rogers in his own way before Persons chosen on each side provided that he came within a certain time while he staid in the City as also in leaving out the Reason William Mead gave why G. F. refused to give it under his hand which was That he was sensible they would make an ill use of it against him in Print as also