WE whose Names are hereunto Subscrib'd, in behalf of our selves, and of the Christian Society and People commonly called Quakers (to whom we belong) do sincerely and solemnly, and in the Fear of God, testifie and declare, That Francis Bugg in his late great Book, stiled, New Rome Vnmask'd, hath most injuriously and falsly Accused and Charg'd the said People and their Ministers, as followeth.

‘I. With denying Christ Jesus, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered without the Gates of Jerusalem, rose a­gain and ascended into Heaven, &c. And that they believe and say, That they cannot call Him Christ, Chap. 3. p. 16. [Page 2] and Epistle to Bereans:’ P. 2. of his New Rome Unmask'd.

‘II. That the Quakers Prophets give witness to G. Fox INSTEAD of this Christ; that they call Him (G. F.) the Branch, the Star, the Son of Righte­ousness; and put the North of England for the Town of Bethlehem.’ Epistle to the Bereans, and p. 81.

‘III. That they (i. e. the Quakers) say, His Body ( viz. Christ's Body) was of an earthly perishing Nature.’ Epist. ibid. Remark on Creed 3.

‘ IV. That they say, The HOLY SCRIPTURE is Carnal, Dust, Death, and Killeth, &c. Epist. ibid. on Cr. 6. and p. 78.’ ‘And to aggravate Mat­ters against the Quakers, F. B. most un­justly and maliciously affirms their Creed to be Anti-Christian, Blasphemous, Ido­latrous, if not a Compound of all Heresies.’ Epist. ibid. on Cr. 6.

‘ V. That if they should Sing, clap their Hands, or leap for Joy, then might all true Protestants wring their Hands, mourn and lament; for they would soon see ALL THINGS turn'd upside down. For in­stance (saith F. Bugg) down with the Holy Scriptures; down with the Ministers of the Gospel, &c. down with the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the [Page 3] Apostles Creed, and all that bears the face of true Christianity.’ [This he unjustly insinuates against the People called Quakers in his New Rome Arraigned, Epist. to Be­reans, p. 12, 13.]

‘ VI. That they (speaking of the Qua­kers) do not believe the Doctrine and Pre­cepts contained in the Bible, to be Holy and Blessed.’ Apol. Introd. p. 7, 8, 9, 14. [He might as well tell us, we must not believe our own Eyes, but put them out and see with his; he would destroy our own Belief, to impose false Creeds on us.]

‘ VII. That THESE Quakers, who pre­tend to own the PRECEPTS and DO­CTRINE of the Bible to be Holy and Blessed, yet say, 'tis Dust and Death, the Serpents meats, &. Apol. Introd. p. 18.’ [We do not believe any of these Quakers ever so said of the Precepts and Doctrine, nor do they own any such saying]

‘ VIII. That this same Jesus (who was born of the Virgin, this Messiah or Son of God) the Quakers say, they cannot call Christ.’ New Rome Arraign'd, p. 26. [But where do we thus say of this Messiah? F. B. falsly makes his own Con­sequence our Saying.]

‘ IX. That they teach, That the Body of Christ is like ours, of an earthly perishing Nature.’ Ibid. p. 30. [Where do we [Page 4] teach that Christ's Body is so? We deny it.]

‘ X. That the Quakers teach, That the Name Jesus and Christ belong to every Member in the Body, as amply as to Christ the Head.’ Ibid. p. 47. [Where proves he as amply?]

‘ XI. That the Quakers would make Christ only a Figure, a Vail, a Garment, who is the Substance of all Figures (imply'd by way of Question Ibid. p. 58.’) [Where proves he only a Figure? &c.]

And now seeing F. B. pretends plain Matter of Fact against us, and saith, viz. That to My Knowledge I have not set down one Line or Word as their's, which is not their's, p. 22. And also saith, I love to keep to Matter of Fact, p. 59. Ibid. There­fore we plead Not Guilty, both to the Manner and Form of these his Charges (or Indictment) and to Matter of Fact, as in Words laid down by him; and in the holy Fear of Almighty God, and in behalf of the said Christian Society and People, declare and testifie, That all these his re­cited Accusations, and all other of the same kind, or naturally depending thereupon, are utterly false, wicked and malicious; and never so believed, nor (in words) affirmed or intended by us, nor as in the same words charg'd against us; but expresly [Page 5] contrary to our Christian perswasion, Prin­ciple, Profession and Testimony (as before re-assumed in the Affirmative) as we also sincerely believe, they are contrary to the Principle, Intentions, meaning and Professi­on of our Friends and Ministers of Jesus Christ in Communion with us.

XII. And further, that the said F. Bugg (being pufft up with Pride, Self-conceit, deadly Malice and abominable Outrage, scorn and derision against the peaceable peo­ple called Quakers, and to the reproach of Religion and Christianity) hath most mali­ciously invented, fram'd and forg'd a ficti­tious Judicature, an Extra—Judicial and Mock—Court or Tragedy, thereby notori­ously defaming and Scandalising Peaceable Subjects, not only G. Whitehead, but Eleven Witnesses, who Signed the aforesaid Te­stimony, who (he falsly saith) are examined, try'd and convicted of Perjury, and for the same put into the Pillory, as in his Title-page. And to make a flourish upon such his Scandalous Forgery and Romance, he hath erected the Form or Figure of a Pil­lory, and twelve Pictures in it, with the first Letters of their Names over ther Heads, and the word Perjury set over them in the middle; which is all but an Idle ficti­ous Romantick Tragedy of his own mali­cious inventing and framing; never such a thing having been in reality.

BY the way 'tis to be noted, That in this mock Tryal and Court of Judica­ture, presumptuously Erected and Feigned by Fr. Bugg. He makes himself both Judge, Accuser, Witness and Jury, and also forges the Quakers Answers (without ta­king the least Notice of our own proper Answers to his Objections in our Books, only impertinently cites three or four Lines out of G. W.'s Charitable Essay for his An­swer, p. 7. Though in none of these In­stances cited against us, can we find those words as charged by him, viz. That the [Page 11] Quakers say, The Holy Scripture is Car­nal, Dust, Death and Killeth, &c. or that they deny Jesus to be The Christ, &c.

And 'tis evident, That F. B. is not able to make Replication or Answer to our single sheet, Intituled, A Charitable Essay. Nor to clear himself from the Arguments and Inversions upon him therein, concern­ing his feigned Creed and false Charges against the Quakers, but gives the greatest part of that Sheet (and the most substantial Matters that are in it to clear us) the go by; so it remains against him unrefuted.

His pretended Evidence, That we deny Christ Jesus, &c. and that we cannot call Him Christ, is from Isaac Pennington's Que­stions to Professors, wherein he calls the Body or Flesh (which the Son of God took upon him) the Vail, &c. And what then? Does this prove we deny Christ Jesus, that was born of the Virgin? Did not the A­postle say, he consecrated a new and living way through the Vail, that is to say, his Flesh? Heb. 10.20. Did the Apostle herein deny Jesus to be Christ? No sure.

But what if I. P. said, he could not call the bodily Garment or Vail Christ? (that is) the entire Christ; or the Body (which was prepared for him) chiefly, and in the first place, Christ; as he Explains his own [Page 12] words. Does this deny Him (the Son of God) to be Christ? Surely no. Is the masculine [ Him] properly relative to the Neuter [ Body] distinct from the Soul? I do not think that to be proper (or Grammatical) Sence. The word [ It] is relative to Body, but [ Him] to our Lord Jesus Christ himself. For Joseph went unto Pilate, and asked the Body of Jesus, and took It down, and wrapped It in a Linnen Cloath and laid It in a Tomb, Luke 23.52, 53. Which is also called the Body of the Lord Jesus, Chap. 24.3. Yet the entire Messiah or Christ of God, is not to be divided in Body or Soul. And Isaac Pennington did not say he could not call Him Christ, who was both God and Man, Immannuel and the Man Christ Jesus the Messiah.

First, His Charge; That the Quakers believe and say, They cannot call Him Christ that was born of the Virgin. I can­not find these words either as believed or said by the Quakers in any of Bugg's Quo­tations, either out of Is. Pennington's Questions, or any other; and therefore I desire him in his next, to shew me ex­presly, where the Quakers say they cannot call Him Christ, that was born of the Virgin, &c. if he can, I can as expresly deny that saying; for I have told him [Page 13] the contrary in my Charitable Essay.

Secondly, I cannot find (nor believe) that the Quakers call Geo. Fox the Branch, the Star, the Sun of Righteousness. In the In­stance quoted by F. Bugg, p. 34. I find not G. Fox mentioned in that Cita­tion; but instead thereof F. Bugg questi­ons it in the Margin thus; viz. Pray who do you account this Branch, if not G. Fox? I say, who else did you assign these Titles to? Was it to G, FOX, or the Light in him? Pray distinguish in your next. Thus he now questions that which before he has possitively charged over and over. Thus instead of Proof, he meerly beggs the Question, and so whirles about begging Questions; and not only so, but (like an unjust Judge) has condemn'd us as perjur'd Persons, yea, even a pack of false Witnesses and perjur'd Persons for denying his Charge, p. 33. And this is not all, but he has condemn'd us to the Pillory too with his ridiculous Figure thereof, in his Epistle to the Bereans (as before) But now, upon Tryal and Enquiry, he is fain to question Matters of Fact, after his Condemnation and such his Execution. Thus preposterous is this unjust Judge in his arbitrary Proceedings, and scandalous Treatment against us. And his Conse­quence of the Quakers giving Witness to [Page 14] G. Fox Instead of Christ follows not from such his begging Questions, his lame De­fective and false Evidence; and we are sure it's contrary to our Faith and Testimony— For our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, of whom the Holy Scriptures Te­stifie, who is the Branch, the Morning Star, the Sun of Righteousness, and hath spiritually risen both in the North, South, East and West of England, and other Parts, even in the Hearts and Souls of many Thousands, and G. F. and many others on­ly his Servants and Ministers.

F. Bugg's other consequence, That they (i. e. Quakers) put the North of England for the Town of Bethlehem. 'Tis also a notorious falshood deduced from his other falshoods, which is but adding one Lie to another.

Thirdly, I neither do believe, nor can find, that the Quakers say, Christ's Body, either was, or is, of an earthy perishing Na­ture (as F. B. hath frequently charged it upon Isaac Pennington, and consequently up­on the Quakers Ministers, for his sake, but that the Flesh and Blood of our Na­ture (and as 'tis in us) is of an Earthly pe­rishing Nature, whereas Christs Flesh saw no Corruption, it did not Corrupt; * Psa. 16.10. Act. 2.31 and 13.37. And therefore it were a very great Ignorance [Page 15] and Absurdity for any to say, that his Bo­dy (which is chang'd and glorified) is of an Earthy and perishing Nature, he being Ascended into Glory. This is answer'd in our Charitable Essay, p. 4. and Unrefu­ted by F. B. And I still charge it upon him as a Lie, that the Quakers say Christ's Body, either was, or now is, of a perishing Nature.

Fourthly, I do not find in F. Bugg's In­stances and Quotations, nor yet in any of our Friends Books, that the Quakers say, The Holy Scripture is either Carnal, Dust, Death, or killeth, &c. (These are not our Words, he wrongs us in Fact) but that the Letter killeth, and is dead. And did not the Holy Apostle say, The Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life? And did he not speak of the Ministration of Death Written? 2 Cor. 3.6, 7. Yet he did not contemn, but own the Holy Scriptures, as able to make the Man of God Wise unto Salvation through Faith in Christ, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. In the Book Cited by F. B. News out of the North, p. 14. the Words he chief­ly picks out, and Objects, are, viz. Their Gospel is dust [it's not the Gospel] Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, which is the Letter [not their Doctrine, but the meer Letter or Writing.] The Words should rather be thus Transposed, viz. Their Gospel is dust, [Page 16] who put the Letter (or four Books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) for the Gospel, with­out distinction. Such also have put the Letter or Writings for the Light, and the Letter for the Word, and for the Gospel, yea for Eternal Life, consequently for Christ, &c. Some clapping hands upon the Book, saying, This Book is the Word of God, the Gospel, you must have Eternal Life here, such Life-less Preachers we have often met withal.

Though it's not my place Litterally to excuse these Expressions as laid down be­fore, yet I cannot take this Instance for any real Proof or clear Evidence of matter of Fact as charged, viz. That the Quakers say, the Holy Scripture is Carnal Dust, Death, &c. as he chargeth Us; yet if F. B. can fairly prove that any of Us have expresly said, or said That the Gospel-Doctrine contain­ed in the four Books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John is Dust, or but the Letter that killeth. We do, and shall positively disown it: This I fairly proffer him: However, the said Author's intention and meaning ought justly and charitably to be consider­ed and compared with some other passages in the said Treatise which I take to be thus, viz. by Their Gospel is Dust, i. e. the false Ministers Preaching their own con­ceivings and immaginations on Scripture for [Page 17] Gospel, and by Matthew, Mark▪ Luke and John being the Letter, as not meant either of those holy Men or their Evan­gelical Doctrine, but to the meer Letter or Writing in the four Books abstractly consi­dered as in Paper and Ink; and false Ministers dead Preaching and Commenting thereupon, without the Spirit, Life or Power of Christ Jesus; like as the false Prophets, who though they stole the true Prophets Words, yet their Preaching was compared but to the Chaff (or Husk, &c.) Jer. 23.28, 30. Accordingly the same Treatise before quo­ted the Reflects on these Hipocrites, ‘Proud, Covetous and Idolatrous Priests, who Preach their own Words, Imagi­nations and Conceivings, painting them­selves with the Words of the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles; and teach People, They shall never overcome their Sins in this Life, calling such Preaching the Gospel.’ This is their Gospel in­tended before ( News out of the North, p. 12, 13, 14.) yet falsely pretend Mat­thew, Mark, Luke and John to be their Gospel.

There are many substantial living Truths and divine Openings declared and testified in that Treatise, which no doubt proceed­ed from a Divine Motion. And suppo­sing some accidental Mistakes and Mistrans­sposing [Page 18] of Words, and Defects in Gram­mar and Syntax (in the manner of word­ing) have happened, either in Printing, Transcribing or otherwise, is it just to charge our Principle, or the Author's Intention, therewith.

The Scriptures themselves have not been wholly free from vain Carpers and Caviller; our Adversary when he has de­clared positively, That he is not endued with that Spirit the Holy Apostles bad, and that his Reasons against us must needs be de­fective. Yet now we must take his mean­ing, that he has it not by way of Eminency as they had, Apol. p. 2. Yet pretends the Assistance of God's holy Spirit, p. 46. Now let's but have the same Liberty to construe our Friends Words as he takes here for his own, and we shall make them look far better then he does, no doubt.

Concerning G. F's. respect to the Holy Scriptures, I further add, That 'tis well known, it was his frequent and publick Testimony; and in his Books also, ‘That Holy Men of God gave them forth from the holy Spirit; and that they spake and prophesied as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and that the Scriptures were thus given forth to be Read, Be­lieved and Fulfilled.’

[Page 19]To return, though it be improper to say, the four Evangelists are but the Let­ter, because they were holy Men who Preached the Gospel; and their Testimo­nies and Declarations contain evangelical and lasting Truths as declared; yet the four Books, as made up of Paper and li­teral Characters, will decay, wear out and turn to Dust, as many good Bibles have done; as in my Just Enquiry is more fully answered, with due respect to the holy Scriptures; to wit, the Holy Doctrines and divine Precepts thereof (and to the Books also) as F. Bugg also confesses, viz. G. W. says, Though he does not ascribe Holiness to the Paper and Ink or dead Characters; no more do I, nor do I know any body does; but (says George) to the holy Doctrine, and blessed Precepts therein contained. which therefore are called holy Scriptures: Very well; here we agree, if G. W. &c. speak as they mean, Apol. Introd. p. 6.

[Thus far F. B,] Pray observe, then both we and he agree in this, not to ascribe Holiness to the Paper and Ink or dead Characters, but to the holy Doctrine and blessed Precepts therein contained. How now F. B. where art thou now with thy Charge and Condemnation of Perjury and Pillory upon us? Thou hast fairly given [Page 20] away thy Cause, and discharged us whom thou hadst unjustly Condemned. Thy Charge is now more remote from Proof than ever it seemed: Therefore I challenge thee to prove that we say, The holy Scripture, namely, the holy Doctrine and blessed Precepts, are either Carnal, Dust, Death, Killing, &c. We still deny thy Charge herein as false and slanderous, considering the Nature and Import of it, and thou dost but clamour and foam out thy own Shame, in crying out of Impu­dence, and such a notorious Lye, as the very Heathens would abhor; and all this for our denying thy notorious Lye, in charging us with saying that which we never said nor believed, viz. That the holy Scripture, namely, the holy Doctrine, &c. is Carnal, Dust, &c. And thy pretended Ten Rea­sons to prove thy other false Charge, That we do not believe the Doctrine and Precepts contained in the Bible, are Holy and Blessed: They are so shallow and imper­tinent Reiterations, and begging the Que­stion, (as also clamorous) that they are not worth answering, the substance being already answered.

Only to thy first pretended Reason: There is no proof, that by the Letter any of our Friends cited, meant the Doctrine and divine Precepts contained in the Bible, [Page 21] nor that the Ministers of the Letter only were true living Ministers of the Word of the Gospel, or of Christ Jesus, who is the Word of God. Though some Priests in the North, in and before the Year 1653, when those Books, News out of the North, and Saul's Errand, &c. were Printed, were so ignorant, as to call the Bible, namely, the Books made up of Paper, and Ink, and literal Characters, the Word and the Gospel: Wherein they were oppos'd, Christ being the Word, and the Gospel the Power of God which endures for ever, which the Books and Letters or Characters cannot.

Of his charging these Quakers who pre­tend plainly to own the Precepts and Do­ctrine of the Bible to be Holy and Blessed; yet, that in other Books they say, 'Tis Dust and Death, the Serpents meat, &c. and that to preach out of them, is Conjura­tion, Apol. Introd. p. 18. I want still plain Proof of Matter of Fact herein, that we, who are these Quakers (so called) say, The holy and blessed Doctrine, &c. is Dust, Death, &c. Let him produce plain Proof that we say so, or else be ashamed of this his horrid reiterated Slander.

Whereas Is. Pennington did in his Que­stions, take it for granted, that the Names and Titles Jesus and Christ, chiefly and in [Page 22] the first place, belong not to the Body which he took, but to him who took the Body, namely, to Him the Son of God, who said, A Body hast thou prepared me. Now, F. B. grants, viz. I own the Son of God was before the Incarnation; then I ask, if he was not the Anointed of God, and a Saviour before his Incarnation? If he was, then he was Christ before, cons [...]quently, the name Christ in the first place belonged to Him, who took Flesh, and not chiefly, nor in the first place to the Body which he took on him; tho his Words chiefly and in the first place im­ply that the Titles Jesus and Christ did also belong to the Body, when he took it upon him, and sometime given to it. Again, F.B. grants, That the names Jesus and Christ, are given to the Word, the Son of God af­ter he took a Body, and so neither to the Body which he took, nor to him, before he took the Body, p. 4. Apol. Introd. But I ask, was Jesus Christ the Word, and Son of God, be­fore he took the Body? If he was, did not both the Ti [...]les of Saviour and Anointed belong unto him, as being the Son of God? What does this Man quarrel at? What against I. P. for implying that the names Jesus and Christ do not chiefly and in the first place belong to the Body, but to him that took it? Is this such a great Error of the Quakers? And must they be Prosecu­ted [Page 23] for Perjury and unto the Pillory for testifying against F. B. for his falsly charg­ing us with denying Christ Jesus, who was Born of the Virgin Mary? &c. O what sad Envy and Confusion is this, poor dark Back­slider run into! Who also grants, That there needed not many Arguments to prove, what he never denyed; whereas the Argu­ments were to prove both, that Jesus Christ was before he took the Body of Flesh, and that the names chiefly and in the first place belonged to him that took the Body, yet the Body not denied them, Charitable Essay, p. 3, 4.

Object. But further, he inveighs against Isaac Pennington, viz. Isaac Pennington's Words are, He took the Flesh and Blood of our Nature, which is of a perishing Nature: Now if he took ours, and ours be of a perish­ing Nature, Ergo, his was perishing, or it was not of our's, so that G. W 's Evasion will not do. Ibid. p 4.

Here F. Bugg, by his kind of Logick, has run himself into the same Snare and Error (as he deems it) which he has unduly charged Isaac Pennington withal, namely, That if Christ took upon him the Flesh and Blood of our Natures, and our's be Perishing, Ergo, his was perishing; but he took our's, he cannot deny, he took part of the same Flesh and Blood the Children had, Heb. 2. [Page 24] 14. Then by F. B's. own, Ergo, his must needs be of a perishing Nature, unless he will whirl about, and unsay what he has said, namely, that it was not of our Na­ture which Christ took upon him: And then he must deny him to be of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh.

But I deny F. B's Argument in this case, as neither very good Logick, nor true in its self; I deny his Ergo: Though the Flesh of our Nature be perishing, as in us, yet it was not perishing as assumed by him (Christ,) his Flesh, his Body, which he took upon him, saw no corruption, it did not Corrupt; consequently was not perish­ing, much less is it now, his Body being changed into a Heavenly, Spiritual and Glorified State; and therefore called, his Glorious Body, like unto which our low bo­dy shall be changed and fashioned, Phil. 2.21.

The Premises considered, we do solemn­ly, and in the holy fear of God, both te­stifie against F. Bugg's precedent Argu­ment, viz. 1. That because Christ took up­on him the flesh and blood of our Nature. therefore his was perishing. 2. Also against his false Affirmation and Testimony against us, p. 25. viz. And thereupon I do affirm and testifie, and charge it upon them in the pre­sence of God, Angels and Men, that they [Page 25] disown and deny Jesus Christ, whom God hath ordained to be Salvation to the ends of the Earth, and a propitiatory, Sacrifice for the Sins of the whole World to be CHRIST.

[Thus far F. B.] But this we utterly deny, and sincerely testifie against, as a­bominably false and presumptuous, as well as Anti-Christian in it self.

And to his saying, the names Jesus and Christ, are given to the Mediator, &c. [True, but what follows?] Therefore, quoth F. B. 'Tis no absurdity to say, It was not Jesus Christ for whom the Body was prepared; It was not Jesus Christ that came in the Flesh, but the Word, Joh. 1.1. Apol. In­trod. p. 3.

And yet he has confessed, it was the Son of God that took the Body, p. 4. What confusion and Self-contradiction does the Man blindly run into? And how contrary to the Apostle John's Testimony is his Doctrin herein. See 1 Joh. 4.2, 3. Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh, is of God, and every Spirit which confesseth not, that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh, is not of God; but this is the Spirit of Anti-Christ. What Spirit is this in our Adversary, which saith, It was not Jesus Christ that came in the Flesh, who was it then? It was the Word the Son of God; as if Jesus Christ were neither [Page 24] [...] [Page 25] [...] [Page 26] the Word, nor the Son of God: O horrible Anti-Christianism!

And contrary also to that Martyr Dr. Barnes his Confession, as cited by F. Bugg himself, p. 45. viz. I believe, that without Man's will or power, Christ Jesus was Concei­ved by the Holy Ghost, and took Flesh of the blessed Virgin Mary, Acts, and Mon. p. 610. Now, if Jesus Christ took Flesh of the bles­sed Virgin Mary, then it was Jesus Christ that came in the Flesh: But it was Jesus Christ that took Flesh; Therefore 'twas Jesus Christ that came in the Flesh; con­sequently F. Bugg's Doctrine, That is was not Jesus Christ that came in the Flesh, is Anti-Christian, Anti-Apostolical and con­tradictory to the said Martyr 's Do­ctrine.

Note. His accusing us, That we own no other Christ than He that appeared in the body, Introd. p. 5. 'Tis well he grants we own that Christ, what other Christ would he have us own? For his Light, Spirit, Heavenly Treasure,, that we have in our earthen Vessels, is neither any divi­ding of Christ, nor any other Christ, but of the same Christ Jesus who came in the Flesh, was born of the Virgin Mary, &c. and spiritually manifested, and partaken of in his Saints (in Measure) by his Grace and good Spirit, where the Spirit of Christ is, there is Christ.

[Page 27]I observe, that much of F. B's former Book is reprinted in this; at which rate 'tis an easie matter to make Books, to print and reprint the same things over and over again; and when Answered (as in my Charitable Essay) instead of Replicati­on, to impose the same things refuted, over and over again: And this is F. B's man­ner of troubling the World with his Im­pertinent Scribbles, and Scandalous Books, tending to divide and make discord, Sedi­tion and Strife among the People; as may be easily made appear, that the very Na­ture and Tendency of them is Seditious, to cause Discord, most falsly to render the People commonly called Quakers Obnoxi­ous, and so much Popish as Rome's Sister▪ New Rome, Babylon the Whore, a Cage of unclean Birds, among whom he has cros­wise plac'd, the names of many ho­nest Men (far more Righteous and clean than himself) in the Figure or Form of a Cage, p. 50. maliciously invented by him (as his Pillory is) to Reproach and Scan­dalize Men, fearing God, and of good Repute and Esteem in their day; as G. Fox, John Audland, Francis Howgil, Samuel Fisher, Edward Burroughs, Jo. Blaykling, Isaac Pennington, Richard Hubberthorn, Stephen Crisp, William Gibson, John White­head and others, having in all to the num­ber [Page 28] of Thirty Four Persons names in his Cage. Thus he can Pillory, Stage and Cage-Men at his pleasure to defame and scanda­lize them!

His Accusation, that the Quakers insinu­ate in a Book, called, The Quakers Refuge, That what the true Prophets spake, was false; and what the false Prophets spake was true, p. 47. We disown these Expressions as laid down; and I think they are not duly In­ferr'd from the said Book; questioning, Whether some Words in theirs were not spoken by Wicked Men, some by Wise Men, ill applied; some by good Men ill Expressed; some by false Prophets, and yet true; some by true Prophets, and yet false (or rather mistakes) yet this questioned but of some words in Scripture, not all, as what the true or false Prophets spake, as he states it in his New Rome Vnmask'd, p. 23.

Of the false Ministry ( Introd. p. 9.) He is offended at some of our Friends former­ly calling them The Priests of the World, Conjurers, raising dead Doctrines out of the Letter, Theives, Robbers, Anti-Christs, ra­vening Woolves, greedy Doggs, &c. (Introd. p. 9.) But who were these names given to? Not to all other Ministers in general, that are not of us, or not in outward So­ciety with us: Who to then? F. B. An­swers They (i. e. Quakers) give them [Page 29] generally to all the false Ministry, Apol. In­trod. p. 10. And why is he offended then? Have our Friends wrong'd the false Mini­stry therein? What need he be so much concern'd for the false Ministry? But he Objects, They account none true Ministers but themselves, which is not true: There were sincere and true Ministers under se­veral Dispensations, as among the Puritans, Protestant Martyrs and others, according to what the Lord had made known to them: And there are divers true in Words, who have a Zeal of God in some measure; but too many who Preach true and good words, live bad lives.

But F. B. it seems is rather willing to rake up the Characters given of the false Ministry against us, than to answer what he calls our false Glosses, Evasions, and subtil Turnings (Ibid. p. 12.) which ap­pears to be his Evasion and Shuffle, when he cannot answer my Arguments, but is put to a Ne plus ultra; then he rambles, rakes up, picks, and reiterates Stories, scraps and broken Sentences, and pieces out of old Books, and so patches up his Dirty and Scurrilous Books against us, and then gives us all the ill names he can, and cries out against us as New Rome, Impu­dence, Impudent Impostors, Cowards, cunning Sophisters, Jugglings, Legerdemean, a pack of [Page 30] false Witnesses and Perjur'd Persons: And saith, Surely Simon Magus never exceeded these Impostors, Act. 8. (Introd. p. 11.15.18.47.) Thus his great Outrage and Impla­cable Malice appears.

And like a furious Incendiary, to blow up the Fire of Contention and Persecution again, and to incense the Government and Magistrates against us; he does not only call us New Rome, Rome's Sister, compa­ring us with the Papists, as coming, not one jot behind them, but harmonising with them (Ep. Ded. p. 3.4.) and most unjustly accu­sing the Quakers with condemning the Pro­testant Religion in general terms ( Ibid.) and with accounting Magistracy a cumber­some Tree, that must be cut down, and our Principles he maliciously accuseth, as both Anti-Magistratical and Anti-Monarchical, Ep. to Bereans, p. 12, 13. How much re­sembling an Incendiary and Seditious Wri­ter hath our Apostate Adversary appear­ed in these Invectives against a peaceable People fearing God, and by his Divine Pro­vidence recogniz'd by the Government as Protestants also? Though this Incendiary will needs have us Papists. But pray does he therein befriend the Protestant interest, or Government either?

By thus magnifying or falsly Greatening the Popish Interest, as in (and by) a Peo­ple [Page 31] who are wholly averse to Popery: Let the wisest in Heart, and impartial Judge, the Nature and tendency of this Adversa­ries work of Division and Discord, and whether it will excuse him therein to shel­ter and shroud himself in the Church of England, and to assume the Testimonies of Protestant Martyrs and Authors for his co­ver and Authority. Also he might have been so discreet, as not to question, nor upbraid us about, paying Ten Pounds, &c. towards carrying on a Vigorous War against the French King, because scrupling to pay 2 d. or 4 d. towards the Militia-Arms, accu­sing us with deluding the World (p. 65. and 49.) He might in prudence have considered, how far this may affect the Government, under which we live, and Charitably have excused those, who conscientiously scrupling active­ly to raise or bear Arms, yet in a sense, quietly pay the penalty by patiently suffer­ing distress. Christ and his Servants of old would not Fight, yet payed Tribute to Caesar.

‘Because of our Solemnly declaring to the King and Parliament, that we believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa­ment were given forth by Divine Inspira­tion, and that they have accepted this our Declaration.’ F. Bugg thus grosly reflects upon us, viz. The more shame for you to be [Page 32] so deceitful, to give in a Testimony so contra­ry to your belief, p. 40. further, That this we pretended to the Parliament to serve a Turn, p. 24.

Pray observe the horrid Envy and Inso­lency of this Incendiary herein, and not only the reproach he casts upon us, but what reflection upon the Civil Government? as if the same were deceived and cheated by us, and thereupon granted us our Liber­ty. O horrible, Mischievous and deadly Malice! What, will nothing less satiate his Fury, but our Destruction by Persecution again? Oh! O thou Backslider and malici­ous Man, the Lord rebuke thy envious Spi­rit, thy deadly Hatred and Outrage! And he will signally rebuke thee, I doubt not.

And moreover, thou F. B. hast no great cause to boast, nor thy Priests to glory in thy Conversion to the Church of England, from the People called Quakers, with whom thou wast conversant for twenty five Years (as thou pretendest,) if such thy Conversi­on was a being Sold into Aegypt, as thou hast granted in thy Pamphlet, Stiled, The Qua­kers detected, p. 8. by thy applying to thy self Joseph's words, Gen. 50.20. and Chap. 45.5. on which thou sayest, thou canst say as Joseph did to his Brethren, viz. But as for you, ye thought evil against me, but God [Page 33] meant it unto good. Now, therefore be not grieved, nor angry with your selves, that you Sold me hither. Didst not think this Applicable to thy Condition? If thou didst, then where art thou now, but in Aegypt? But we Sold thee not thither; thou art gone down into Aegypt for help, and there­fore art not a Joseph, who trusted in, and feared the living God. And woe is to them, that go down into Aegypt for help! Art not thou rather like Judas, turn'd to the Priests to betray and persecute the Innocent, and to gratifie them that hate us, with thy refuge of Lies and Calumnies? Even against Inno­cent People, unto whose Principle, Foun­dation, Doctrine, Ministry, Faith, Love, Unity, Spiritual Testimony (and as being the Church of Christ Jesus) Thou hast made large and solemn Confession, both some­time before thou quite left us (in thy Book De Christina Libertate, Printed 1682 Chap. 1. p. 24, 25, 26, 27, &c.) as also in thy said Quakers Detected, Printed in the Year 1686. about two Years after thy Conformi­ty to the Church of England; wherein thou hast given large Testimony to the Truth of our Principle, and high Commendations of the People called Quakers, their Doctrine and Ministry, as in the beginning, even as being a Dispensation of the Love of God, sent as a Visitation to Mankind; together with [Page 34] their Christian Society, love unfeigned, and blessed Estate for many Years, and how God blessed their Meetings with the comfortable Enjoyments of his Presence; as may be seen more at large in the said Quakers Detected. Insomuch, that thy Self-condemned Back-sliding, Apostacy and Envy against God's People, and Heritage is the more apparent in thy now exclaiming against us for dan­gerous Errors, pernicious Principles, Blasphe­mies, Heresies, Impostures, and saying, thou wast more than 25 Years a Member of their Society (meaning the Quakers) being carried away with their Dissimulation, see Title Page of thy New Rome Arraigned; thus self condemn'd, and self-contradictory thou art.

And I cannot rationally Perceive; how F. B. can warrantably excuse himself, by pretending the Approbation of his Minister Isaac Archer for the Substance of his Book, or the Approbation of another Divine of the Church of England, (as he calls them) and of Letters, both from Conforming and Non-Conforming Ministers, which he pretends, brevity constrains him not to recite: Epist. to Bereans, p. 12.

1. As to Isaac Archer's Approbation, F. B. saith, he recites only an Abridgment thereof, viz. I do own the substance of this Book, as a defence of those Eternal Truths, [Page 35] by which I hope for Salvation, &c. But why did not F. Bugg recite the whole? Was he so tied up to brevity in this concern, that he al­lowed his Teacher no more room in a Book of ten or eleven Sheets? But it was very warily done of Isaac Archer to own the substance of F. B's Book, that is so much of it, as he esteems to be in defence of those Eternal Truths, by which he hopes to be Saved; that is, so much of it, as is Scriptural, in behalf of Jesus Christ. But this will not Excuse nor Warrant those circumstantial passages of F. B's, in his Book, which consists of Perversions, Rai­lery and false Accusions, and of his Errors justly Inverted upon him, in my Charitable Essay.

2. That Divine of the Church of England (so called) who gave his Approbation of F. B's Book, as a most acceptable peice of Ser­vice to his Country, in unvailing the falshoods, errors and hippocrisies of the Quakers, as he saith; pray; what is his name? Why does not he appear, and make proof of F. B's malicious confused Work against the Qua­kers? He may be ashamed of such his Ap­probation, if any such pretended Divine did give such Approbation.

3. And if F. B. has Letters by him of the same Import, both from Conforming and Non-Conforming Ministers, what are [Page 34] [...] [Page 35] [...] [Page 36] their names, and why do not they appear? I am perswaded, many of their Brethren would be greatly ashamed of such their Ap­probation upon serious perusal of F. Bugg's bitter Invectives, and our Answers, and see that all such Approbations will be of no Reputation or Honour, either to Conform­ing or Non-conforming Ministers.

As to Bugg's comparing the People called Quakers, with the Papists, as he has fre­quently done, he has fairly contradicted himself therein, by quoting W. P's Caveat against Popery, saying, Let them renounce their Errors, &c. And what follows, but, Therefore the People called Quakers are no Papists, according to F. B's way of argu­ing; concluding all by one. But many o­thers of our Friends, have sincerely testi­fied against Popery, Superstition and Ido­latry, both in the root and branch, and for the Protestant Religion, considered in the purity of it; and therefore free from excu­sing Idolatry, as falsly charged on their Teachers, in his third charge, p. 23.44. which hath been refuted, both in some o­ther answers to this false Accuser, as also in our Answer to the Athenians (so called) and more particularly in my Just Inquiry into the Libeller's abuse from p. 17. to p. 30. concerning the pretended Letters of John Audland and Jos. Coale.

[Page 37]Now Bugg acknowledges himself to have a Hand in, and to own the Composing the Book (he should have said Scandalous Libel or Pam­phlet) Intituled; Some of the Principles and Doctrines, Laws and Orders of the Quakers, &c. ( Introd. p. 10.) which is fairly an­swered in the said Just Inquiry.