THE Title bespeaks the injurious Design and Attempt of the Obscure Author, Unjustly and Maliciously to Expose the People called Quakers, either as In­consistent with their Profession against Popery; or as uncertain Tempori­zers, and no real Protestants, (which is a Slanderous Insinuation) for sayes he, The first Collumn is what they formerly Published against Papists; and the other Collumn is what they Published on their behalf, when uppermost. Wherein 'tis observable, that he renders all the words he has Cited in both his Collumns, to be what the Quakers have Publish­ed, concluding his Pamphlet, to be Only the Quakers own Words, without any Observa­tions Page 8 or Remarks; Which is apparrently False, as well as Scandalous; a great part of his Collections being none of the Quakers Words, Language or Books, but s [...]me other Nameless Pamplets, which the Libeller unjustly fathereth upon the People called Quakers.

'Tis true, he Quotes William Penn, Page 4. in his second Collumn against Papists and Popes, and their Persecutions, &c. and not on Papists behalf, whereby he hath gi­ven the Lye to his Title Page. And we doubt not, but by the Grace of God William Penn will sincerely keep to his Testimony against Popery and Persecution. However, he be Unjustly Represented to the contrary by false Repotts, Prejudice or Envy: To his own vindication, in Answer to the Letter directed to Mr Penn, we Refer the Un­prejudiced Reader for further satisfaction. And we cannot see how William Penn, or others of our Friends Writing against Persecution, both among Papists and others, and for Liberty of Conscience towards God, can with any Colour of Reason be constru­ed, Page 5 either for Popery, or in the Papists behalf, as Papists; there being nothing more con­trary or repugnant to Popery it self, or the design thereof, then the free Enjoyment of a real Liberty of Conscience in matters of Religion and Worship, which Popery it self allows not Dissenters, tho we cannot therefore think it Christian to Retaliate upon Pa­pists, by rendering Evil for Evil, to destroy them only for their Consciences in Reli­gious matters; thus none would be served.

What perswasive Arguments for Moderation have been written to Protestants in general, or to the Church of England in particular, against Corporal or pecuniary Punishments for Religious Dissent, or for Repeal of Distructive Penal Laws in that Case, (some whereof being even against dissenting Protestants) all conscientious Dissenters, even Protestants themselves; were and are of the same mind, it being most natural for Persons when under Oppression, to desire their Burthens may [Page 2]be wholly removed, (and blessed be God that some legal Restraint is put to those Laws) a thing so highly commendable in the Civil Government:) And we see no cause of Re­traction in this Case, no more then for commending the Moderation of a Popish Prince, in granting Liberty of Conscience to Dissenters, when like to have been Destroyed and De­voured by Persecutors; yet the same justice of distinguishing between the more mode­rate sort of Papists, and the Cruel, we have always allowed the Moderate Church of England People from the Persecutors therein. And what if the Quakers have Exclaim­ed against the Papists former Persecutions in Queen Mary's days, but Commended their Moderation in King James the Seconds days: Or that the Quakers have condemned their Cruelties to the poor Protestants in France, &c. but acknowledged their late Lenity in England; it follows not that the Quakers are double-minded, but the contrary. That they are of a single mind, still against Persecution, and for Moderation and Charity. This is the true nature and state of our Case, otherwise Abused.

Page 6 Again, how notoriously has the Libeller falsified his Title page, in page 6. not keep­ing within bounds of his own method; Where in his first Collumn, Popish Reservations, as to Tests, is implyed, and the Blood and Cruelty that hath attended Popery; and in his second Collumn, an Express Test against Popery cited, and both fathered upon the Quakers; How then can the Second be what the Quakers have published on Papists be­half, as his Title pretends? What Credit can such silly, contradictory confused Stuff be of, with any Person of common Sence? Nunc vide, audi, judica, (as his Terms are) How the Lybeller has acted the part of both Knave and Fool in Print, or like some Malicious Shatter-Head Apostate, to bring an Innocent People under Reproach and Contempt, by fallacious Abuses, and notorious self Contradictions.

But they have prayed for the late King in their Addresses, and wished him well; and what then? So have a great many of the Church of England, in far more high and flourishing Expressions and Rhetorick in their Addresses to (and Prayers for) the Late King? And have they not also frequently prayed for him in their Lyturgy too? Are they all there­fore favourers of Popery, or of Papists as such? At this rate who may escape the reproach­ful Pens of such Libellizing Incendiaries? How shall the Doctrine or Practice even of the holy Apostles and Primitive Christians go free? viz. to Pray for all men, even for Kings, and all in Authority, that under them they might live a peaceable and quiet Life, in all Godliness and Honesty, and God knows we have aimed at no other. And this Christian Conversation towards Authority, &c. we hope in God ever to own, and stand by in the same Christian Spirit. Having also in our Address to King James 2. dated 6th of June (so called) 1688. Plainly declared, viz. ‘ That we hope by God's Grace to let the World see we can honestly and heartily appear for Liberty of Conscience, and be Inviolably true to our own Religion, whatever the Folly or Madness of some men on that account may sug­gest to the contrary, &c.’ Where's now the double-mindedness? May not this bespeak to the World our Sincerity, and answer and confute the Folly and Envy of our Adver­sary? As to some Advice, Reasons or Arguings, cited about Repeal of Tests, &c. p. 5. 6, 7, 8. he has not produced his Authors, nor of divers other things cast upon the People called Quakers; and we know not who they are; thus cloudy and abmiguous is he in his Page 6, 7, 8. works of Darkness, and designs against us. How proves he the Remonstrance (he men­tions) to the Parliament after the Death of Sir Edmonbury Godfrey, to be the Quakers Re­monstrance. We possitively deny that 'twas theirs, as the Libeller says 'twas. It nei­ther resembles the Quakers in Matter nor Stile in many things. Where did ever the People called Quakers thus dictate to the Government, or use such war-like Language as this, viz. Let every Protestant Family be well armed, &c. Let there be an Act with a strict Page 8 Penalty, &c. That it shall be Treason for any Papist to entertain any Priest, Jesuit, or Seminary in their House? With much more of like nature unjustly cast upon the harmless, Quakers, as their words. And if our Adversary durst shew himself, and were particularly que­stioned about every nameless Pamphlet he has quoted as ours, we are perswaded he would be hard put to it for proof.

To conclude, our Sentiments, real Sence and Clearness in these matters from Popery, (unjustly insinuated against us) may be summ'd up thus, viz.

First, Our plain and ample Testimonies and Judgments given against Popery, Ido­latry and Superstitions, Persecutions and Cruelties, clears us not only from Popery, but from being of any Party with them, as Papists, and those Testimonies we stand by.

Secondly, Our Testifying against Persecution, both in the Church of Rome, and as we [Page 3]have deeply suffered under it, from many of the Church of England (especially of the Clergy) is Evidence that we impartially and sincerely disown Popery, and the Spirit of it, for Persecution is no better then Popery where-ever it is; and it can be no variation from our Testimony, to speak more favourably of the Moderate sort in both Churches, then of the Ridgged and Persecuting in either, we must still own the Good in all sorts, and disown the Bad where-ever it is.

Thirdly, Those Churches or Societies, who profess Reformation from Popery, and yet justly chargable with the Sin of Persecution (which is Popery) against Dissenters from them, are the more guilty in the sight of God, because of their Insincerity in such their pretences to Reformation.

Fourthly, Our Request to the late King for Release of near One thousand five hundred of our poor Afflicted Friends, out of Goals and strait Confinements; and his delivering them, and us, and ours from the Spoilers, the Mercinary and Merciless Informers, and other Persecutors and Spoilers; and our Returns of thankfulness, when Granted and Effected, tho by a Popish Prince, no ways Entitles us to Popery; nor have we cause to be ashamed of such Applications, or Gratefulness. We were Thankful to God and the King then for the Good we actually received, and hope we shall never be ungrateful now; and therefore we are not justly chargable with Double-mindedness, as the Li [...]eller has Insinuated, falsly applying James 4.8, 9, 10. to the Quakers. Blessed be God who hath preserved us the same still in our Integrity and Sincerity towards him; and in our Innocency, Peaceable Conversation, Love and Good-Will towards all men, high and low, Kings, Rulers and People, and the more Good any of them do us, the more they naturally Oblige us, &c.