TYRANNY AND HYPOCRISY Detected: OR, A further Discovery of the Tyrannical-Government, Popish-Principles, and vile Practices of the now-Leading Quakers.  
BEING A Defence of the Letter, entitled, The Spirit of the Hat, against the Deceitful, Defective and Railing Answer, called The Spirit of Alexander, etc.  
With a Challenge, To refer the judgement of Matters of Fact to the Verdict of Twelve Impartial judges, equally chosen.  
Also, Many of their Letters, Papers, and Transactions among themselves are made public; wherein they contradict one another, and attribute Titles to GEORGE FOX, that are proper only to CHRIST.  
But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be made manifest unto all men.  
London, Printed for Fr. Smith, at the Elephant and Castle in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange, 1673.   

Tyranny and Hypocrisy detected.  
HOW dangerous a thing it is for a man to engage himself publicly for any singular party upon the account of Religion, is greatly manifest in the leading Quakers, and especially in W. Pen, from whose Parts and Education one would expect more than ordinary Candour and Ingenuity: but having embarked himself among those People, (who also by their Tenets are peculiarly disposed to have a high opinion of themselves, and to contemn all others) and having obtained a high repute among them, he betakes himself to such pitiful shifts, scurrilities and brave to uphold their detected Cause and tottering Kingdom, as one would think could not proceed from any man professing Christianity. He that would have this evidently proved, let him read his late controversal Writings, especially his Winding-sheet, and Spirit of Alexander.  
After the Spirit of the now- Quakers or Foxonians, detected to be none of Christ's, by several Pieces that have come forth of late; at length the Book entitled The Spirit of the Hat made public, discovers their principles and practices in their government amongst themselves, to be far different from what they profess openly when they invite people to be Quakers: and that they act upon the same principles, and in the same Tyrannical manner (as far as their power reaches) as the Court at Rome: And this not only proved by instances of matters of fact, seen and heard for the most part by the Author himself; but also argued and compared with that principle which was held forth as the foundation of their way, and upon which he (certainly not one of the least ingenious among them) became a Quaker.  
What was now to be expected from these men thus detected, may be seen in their Spirit of Alexander the Coppersmith, or Answer to the Spirit of the Hat; which I shall in short make some remarks upon.  
And first we may observe, that (like contentious women) where the matter is most evident against them, there they make the gratest noise, and are most clamorous and furious; and make the greatest show of confidence and victory: when the design of their own vainglory and greatness is manifested not only by those that have considered them in their public appearance; but also by some within themselves that are privy to their Cabals and private transactions, than the Devil must needs be hard beset, and his condition desperate; see Spt. of Alex. p. 1. because the foundations of their Kingdom shake, and their subjects discover it, and seek to withdraw themselves from their territories. Who could have made a more apt inference from such premises?  
2. That though they call this Author's Relation, Lie, Forgery, Defamation, with abundance of terms of the like Foxonian leaven, yet when they come to particulars, they either, 1. confess what they deny with an idle distinction, (except some few things;) or, 2. Acknowledge them by saying nothing concerning them; or 3, use some deceit in their terms of denial, which every Reader cannot discover; or 4. take an occasion from some circumstances, perhaps not rightly set down, to deny the whole matter.  
3. That W. P. doth in their names acknowledge that the substance of this Author's complaint is true, (H●●i●es p. 14, 15. in his p. 8.) namely, that they 〈◊〉 him to yield [to their determination against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ience] because the Body would have it so, say●●● 〈◊〉 ●hat was yielding to the Power. And he under●●●●● 〈◊〉 opposition to the Author, That his not so 〈…〉 but persisting, is dissension; but their disowning [excommunicating and depriving of a liberty of marrying, burying etc.] any person for that cause, is no breach of the great Gospel Charter of Liberty.  
This is that which W. P. labours to do, and for that purpose useth no other Arguments than the Papists in the like case, who are the only persons that I know of that challenge such a power; for the Protestants do not challenge it: the Church of England challenges only a prudential power of determining some Ceremonies, as of the Surplice, Cross and Kneeling, to be convenient at this time: but not by virtue of an infallible Spirit, or as of Divine Authority; which the Romanists do, and the Quakers. As for the Arguments that this Author urges against this usurpation, W. P. passes them by, and giveth, instead of answers, clamours and rail against him. As for the Arguments that W. P. useth, they being the same with those of the Papists against the Protestants, they may be found answered and refuted every where in Protestant writings.  
4. But that which this Author doth chief insist on, and which indeed is most proper for him, and the choice and prosecution of it renders him Ingenious, is, That in this Doctrine and Practice of theirs, they manifestly contradict the chief principle and main foundation they at first held forth, whereby they have commended themselves to the world, and have gained to be their Proselytes some honest hearted people, and among the rest this Author. For indeed the Quakers chief principle, namely, That every one ought diligently to take heed to, and walk according to the Light in himself, is of such evident truth in the plain sense of the terms, that there can scarce be found either Christian or Heathen, (that understands what he saith) that can deny it; for it is in substance this, That every man ought diligently to observe and do what God doth by any means convince him to be his Duty. Now considering that this was cried up by the Quakers, as the old Truth brought to light by them, 'twas no wonder that their Doctrine was received by some well-minded people, that were not so happy as to know themselves aforehand to be possessors of this common principle; and there's no question but all of them that do it honestly, do it upon the same ground: But herein lies the mystery of their iniquity, (which this man has been so ingenious and happy as to discover,) namely, That he who shall receive the forementioned principle as evident in his own heart, shall afterward be induced to believe that whatever the chief Quakers teach, is as evident, and that this evidence is from the immediate Revelation of God's infallible Spirit within himself. But if it happen that the leading men contradict one another (notwithstanding they profess the infallible Light to be their guide) than he that has the strongest interest among the Elders shall judge the other party, and if he or they do not submit themselves to this judgement, he shall be condemned in the name of the Lord, and deprived of all both Ecclesiastic and civil privileges, which they can by any means hinder him of. And besides, if he make any public complaint, and do not conform to their wills, they will then load him with all possible reproaches, and rather than fail, they'll say he is broken in his brain or distracted, as they did of John Pennyman; so if he be a man, who in respect of his Trade or Calling, doth depend upon them or those they have interest in, he and his family shall be pitilessly ruined. This is the substance of what this Author has set forth, and which W. P. defends.  
5. Now who this Author is I know not, and I do not perceive him concerning himself to make any reply to the Quakers rail; perhaps he thinks (as the truth is,) that his vindication is so evident to every one that will but impartially read his Letter, that there's no need of more. For who can otherwise than presume this man capable of giving a just and true account of the Quakers chief principle upon which himself was owned, and received by them, and continued with them some years? And 2. who can read and not clearly perceive that the practice he found among them doth absolutely subvert that principle? For if every man must upon pain of sin walk according to the Light in his own particular, than he cannot without sin walk according to the Light in G. Fox, 
See Cont. Dial. p. 63, 64, 65.  or other Men, when that is contrary or divers from his own.  
6. As for myself and other Christians, this Letter serves us most effectually to prove, 1. That these Quakers their crying up the Light within, or the infallible rule and guidance of the Holy Spirit in every particular Conscience as the supreme Judge, is but a shooing-horn to draw people in, and that when they are brought over to them by that means, than they must be ruled and guided by the judgement of G. Fox and the ruling Elders: So 'tis manifest, They preach that in their Doctrine, which they contradict in their practice. 2. That some Quakers (and it's more than probable that the most of them) believe and practise by tradition and imitation of their Leaders, persuading themselves in the mean time that they are taught by an infallible Light in themselves so to do. 3. That the Body of the Quakers consists of such a sor● of implicit Beleivers; for when this man and his Companions gave themselves so much liberty as to examine things to find a particular conviction, they could find no such thing; and its easy to perceive by his reasoning, that he is more able to examine things than one of a thousand of them. So that, 4. Quakerism properly is not built upon that Principle rightly understood, viz. Every man ought to believe and practise according to the Light in himself; (for in that respect we and all honest men are Quakers,) but upon a false and mistaken notion and sense of it, viz. That what the leading men teach for the Light in every man, is indeed so. 5. This instance gives a full answer to that common evasion of the Quakers: when we plead that we also walk according to the Light of God in us, they presently reply, that we are of the world, and in the customs and reasonings of it; but if we would come out of the world, and be obedient as they are, we should experience the Truth, as they do: Well! we have here an experienced man (and he's not alone) that has given obedience (as they) to the Light in himself, which because it contradicts the will of G. Fox and the Ruling-Elders, he is disowned by them. Now then, 'tis evident they would not have us to follow the Light in ourselves, but the Light in Geo. Fox, etc. and that the Assurance and Infallibility from Experience they talk of, is merely a strong Confidence in G. Fox and his Companions.  
7. But to come to the particulars of the Cause; We are bespattered (saith W. Pen, p. 4, 5.) because we abhor, renounce, and rebuke with severity that rude Imagination of the 
* G. F. did not so in the Book, entitled, True honour amongst the Jews, p. 7. And is not this Cap-honour from below, and worshipping the Beast and Dragon? And p. 9 For the bowing the Hat is a will-worship.  Hat on in public Prayer, which did we use, we should but be esteemed by you [Professors] the worse.  
Answ. Very likely, Sir; But do you order yourselves in the Worship of God by the reason of gaining our esteem? Why do you not answer your Friend's Argument drawn from your own Principles? You acknowledge a Respect and Reverence due unto Magistrates; but you deny them that of the Hat: why? Because it's low and perishing, and may be trampled on, there's no solidity in it; The Hat-honour, Hat-worship, Hat-humility is an honour below: but men that be in the Law of God, they mind not the Hat; G. F. And will you give that as a reverence to God, which you say is too low for men? Doth G. Fox say in Print to them that keep on their Hat at your Prayers, You give no more reverence unto God than unto a Horse; and yet keep it on before Princes and Governors, to whom he allows at least more reverence than to a Horse? But whence is the obligation of putting off the Hat at Prayer? The Quakers do not pretend the Authority of the Scripture, 1 Cor. 11.4. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, dishonoureth his head; And John Perrot has long ago urged that against them: For if it be unlawful to cover the head in Prayer, 'tis so also in Prophesying or Declaring, which notwithstanding they practise: if the one be lawful, the other cannot be unlawful. And why (saith our Author) should it be lawful to have the head covered when a Minister returns high praises to the Lord, and matter of Excommunication to do the same in time of his Prayer? p. 33. We say, There's no Divine Command for it; it becomes an outward token of reverence to God from the custom of the Country that useth it for such toward men. Therefore in the Eastern Countries where they use it not for a reverence to men, neither do they use it toward God, but have their heads covered at public Prayer. G. F. p. 10. The Jews did not put off their Hats when they went into the Synagogues or Temples, etc. P. 11. The Priest was not to uncover his head in the Sanctuary (Leu. 21.10.) which is contrary to the Priests now in the Temples. P. 4. And the Turks count it an odious or hateful practice to put off the Hat: (yet they are to honour.) How come then the Quakers, who abhor the Customs of the World, to retain this in the Worship of God? Did G. F. in this matter forget himself? or, had he a special Revelation for it? A special Revelation without doubt, if it be true that he doth nothing without one; Well! that's enough to justify him in so doing: But how comes he to require other men to practise it, when they are not convinced of it? O (saith Pen) I utterly renounce that, in our Friend's name, as an infamous slander: But (saith he) we will be well satisfied with any Members dispractice of an orderly performance, once cheerfully owned. p. 10. Is not this a deep-studyed Man think ye, that could find out such a learned distinction? Nay, but probably he will pretend he writes by Revelation: So then, they do not require Men to practise what they are not convinced of: but they require men not to dispractise what they are not convinced of. I had always thought that two Negatives in English make an Affirmitive; and so, that not to dispractise is the same as to practise: Let the learned world veil to W. Pen! But he means that they require men not to leave off to practise, what they have practised: (what! though they practised without consideration, or conviction? Yes:) That is (saith Pen) most reasonable and orderly, P. 10. If once you become a Quaker, and do, as they do, let the inducement be the Opinion you have of G. Fox or what it will, if ever you descent from them in the least Ceremony, you are an Apostate, and shall be dealt with accordingly; as it seems our Author was.  
8. But how will W. Pen's learned distinction serve the case of the Maid? who being required of John Bolton, by virtue of an Order from G. F. to few up the slit in her Waistcoat-skirt behind, answered that she saw no evil in it; and James Claypole thought it suitable to their principle, that she should first see the evil of it in herself, before she judged it, and not (saith he) because we say it: But the poor man (as saith our Author, p. 29.) was fain to acknowledge his error in it, though in private he confessed it (to G. Welch, of which 'tis believed John Osgood is not ignorant) to be no error: But I know not how it comes to pass, but J. Claypole is as subtle in distinguishing here as W. Pen himself: The intent of my words (saith he) was, that every one should be left to God's Witness in their Consciences, to condemn what that condemns, and to justify what that justifies, and not to condemn or justify barely upon the motion or judgement of others. This he asserts: and the Slander he denies is this; That the Tyranny of their Elders is such, as to impose upon the weak and simple that which they cannot believe: And the misapprehension upon which he was called to judgement was, as if (saith he) my words had extended so far, as that nothing was to be accounted an evil, unless the guilty party saw it to be so. The Question is touching a thing not in its own nature evil, the meaning must be this; That the slit in the maid's waistcoat must be accounted an evil, because G. Fox had judged it to be so; and the made must few it up, (as many others had done upon the said Order) though she herself saw no evil in it. What now doth this come short of requiring to practise before conviction, or imposing upon the weak what they cannot believe, except they be resolved to believe as the Church belieus? Are these men fit to be talked to, that dare affront the world with such deceiful defences as these are? Is this your glorious liberty, ye members of the Quakers Body? That if ye submit not to the Law of G.F. or the ruling-Elders, ye shall be accounted Belialites and in the Spirit of Ranterism, ranting Spirits, and to be dealt with accordingly! The best words uttered from Christ in the days of his flesh, (saith G. Keith) and yet recorded in Scripture, cannot reveal the Father: but it seems the words of G. F. or the Elders can reveal the Father's will, even in things positive, and so are of greater efficacy and authority than Christ's. He that can say any thing, can reconcile these things with what W. P. saith in his caveat against Popery, p. 8. who, speaking against the determinations of general Councils, as requisite to be indispensibly obeyed, infers, that so the moral or doctrinal good or evil of an Act or principle (in and from a man's own judgement) shall not be obliging; but he must be bound against his own sense, reason and faith.  
9 Now I think the liberty, or rather slavery, the Quakers are in one to another, is manifest; Let us next see what liberty they allow to the world; that is, to Christians who are not of their Body, particularly to Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists; to them G. F. will not allow liberty, because they are not in the Power or Truth: But W. P. never wants a Salvo for George, let him say what he will: He meant it (saith he) not of outward but of inwardly Liberty: And yet W. P. knew it was spoken to one, (at a meeting at Devonshire-house) who pleaded for Liberty of Conscience about his Hat, which is an outward exercise; But why we should imagine they would give Liberty, whose both Principles and and Practices are against it, I know not; of both which we have in these sheets a fair account. For, 1. They pretend to an infallible Judgement in all matters of Religion, whereby the possibility of being in Truth to Persons differing from them, is quite taken away. 2. They account him a Ranting Spirit, who shall not account that evil, (even in matters of Ceremony) which they account evil, after due admonition, etc. And is it consistent with any Government in the World to tolerate Ranters? 3. They do frequently impute to men those crimes as manifest, that are justly punishable by the Magistrate; such as are, Malicious Acts, Slanders, Injurious Lying, Designs to Mischief, Injustice, a Murdering Mind, Sacrilege, Villainy, etc. So that if W. Pen's reasoning against the Baptists in his Epistle before Plain Dealing, etc. be valid, than the Quakers will certainly persecute; for thus he saith, But this notably shows their spirit, who thus adventure to persecute [viz. by revile] without power: Let who will believe they would not do it if they had power; for my own part (saith he) I declare myself none of that number. Now I appeal to the sober judgement of all men that are conversant in reading Books, whether they ever met with any writings so full of reviling and il-bread language upon such slight grounds as those of the Quakers. 4. It's so notoriously true what this Author saith, that he hath seen pulling down, haling out, and thrusting forth of their Meetings, and that they went as far as their Power, and consequently wanted not Will, but Power, to punish: Yea, it's so manifest to those that have used their Meetings, that W. P. in appealing to God's holy Witness in all Consciences for their vindication, discovers himself a man greatly to be lamented as either blind or impudent. Let Francis Chadwel tell of the usage he has found amongst them. Have they not added pushing, pinching, kicking, and hard-treading upon feet and toes to those other violences? But W. P. answers, that they never refused Conscientious Inquirers, and would be informed, if ever they so used any conscientious Inquirer or opposer. Let us name who we will, I dare warrant he'll never allow any of them to have been conscientious. I have seen some Papers of one William King a Quaker, and who upon that account has exposed himself to imprisonment for speaking in the Quakers Meetings. But he complains of the same usage from the Quakers as from their persecutors; that he has been haled down out of their Gallery in Grace-church-street with such violence that he has scarce felt the stairs; that he has often felt their cruel hands; that G. Whitehead, being in a great rage and fury at Jer. Clerk's house, gave him a sore pinch in the arm; that they would not suffer him to be a prisoner (though for the same cause) among them, but procured that he should be kept in the common-prison, with a great deal to the same purpose: Now because he doth in some things disagree with their judgement, they deal with him in this manner: Nay, moreover, he saith, G. Whitehead and others came to Henry Pawson and his wife, with whom he lodged, and charged them not to entertain him, thereby endeavouring what they could to force him out of the Land. Now perhaps they will say W. King is a mad man; if he be, they ought to show more compassion towards him and not to deal with him in that cruel manner they do; but for my part I see nothing in his Papers, which doth not become a Quaker, and is not suitable to their Principles. There are several other Instances of their using Violence in their Meetings, which may be urged as occasion shall serve; And their Paper against John Pennyman when he was in Prison, may show what spirit they are of. Nay, they would not spare that grave ancient Gentlewoman Anne Mudd, who being moved to speak a few words among them, before their Speakers began, Thomas Matthews, who guarded the stairs, pulled her away by violence. These are the People that in former days have vexed and disquieted all sorts of Religious Assemblies with their Messages (as they said) from the Lord, and have clamoured against those as Persecuters, that could not otherwise obtain their peace than by thrusting or carrying them out; and yet themselves do the same and worse, not only to those of a contrary mind and Judgement, but also to those of the same Mind and Principle, even when they profess (as themselves) to be moved thereto of the Lord. The Jews at Venice permitted the Quakers to speak in their Synagogues, but that the Quakers will not allow others. They have professedly denied to permit any of their Religion to marry a Christian, or one of the world, how honest and pious soever, if not in their way; Witness Oliver Holmes, W. Mucklow and many others: And W. Pen owns it as a piece of, not only just, but necessary punishment to be inflicted upon him that is not a Quaker, or him that is so in all things but the Ceremony of the Hat in Prayer, that if he could not get a wife save among the Quakers, he should never have one: See his p. 10. where he calls such an one's dissent, Imaginations and Whimsies. As for their denying such an one a burial, though they would deny it him always as one of them, but especially their now usurping his property in a burial-place, is (he saith) a downright forgery. Kindness! They would not suffer such an one to stink above ground, but he should be buried, not among the Catholics, but as Heretics in Spain or Italy: But it is so notorious and common with them (as they that have been among them report) to deprive such disowned persons of their property in the buryingplace, that I wonder with what face they can deny it, or what evasion they can have for it. Did they not Tho. Fisher, and did not J. Bolton deny it to W. Musklow etc. Did they not make void from the Hat-men (as they called them) the Notes they had for the use of the Buryingplace presently after the Papers of Orders by the 11 Elders? and did not these men's money pay for it?  
11. As for John Osgood's Cabbalistick Harangue, which is pretended to be for the clearing of God's Truth and People, in the matter of his concern, it's so far from that, that it confirms what is said by our Author against the Quakers, but shows that John Osgood is now, by joining with them and becoming a Preacher among them, become another man; so that instead of complaining against, (as formerly) he seeks to cover, the iniquities of his Brethren: For whilst he doth in general terms deny all, he doth in particular deny nothing at all. Read p. 30, 31, 32. of the Spirit of the Hat, and he either says nothing to those things that are there related, or confesseth to that which he would seem to deny. He says p. 21. the opposition he had, related not to his Marriage, as a Marriage, or to hinder his proceed therein: but that the Meeting could not pass it, as their approvement, he being not in unity with the Meeting as to that matter aforesaid, viz. of giving testimony against the Spirit of the Hat, which he did already in his practice disapprove. And what doth our Author say more? and how could this acute man say, the Meeting would not hinder his Proceed in his Marriage, when they would not approve of his Marrying, without which Approvement he could not legally proceed? But the Mother of his Bride, Rebekah Trevers, being a great Mother and Governess among them, cries out then in her own and Daughters concern, that their cruelty was worse than that of the Bishops; and so by her Authority, and J. Osgoods Interest, they proceed to Marriage without Licence; which was so offensive to John Bolton, that he publicly disowned Tho. Salthouse (one of their Ministers) for being a Witness to it, and for his Moderation.  
12. Let us now proceed to other Instances mentioned in the Spirit of the Hat, whereby it will evidently appear, that the great zeal, labours and sufferings of the leading Quakers tend chief to their own ambition, and to the obtaining of a Lordly power & domination over the Persons and Conscience● of their Proselytes: and that they use most wicked ways and means for accomplishing these ends. And that which first offers itself in this service, is that instance of G. Fox menioned p. 28. which the Quakers in their Spirit of Alexander etc. say nothing to▪ and therefore we may well conclude it for truth, and that they had nothing to say in excuse of it; for it i● a most considerable charge against the Man of thei● adoration, whom they can scarce mention without a● Epithet of praise, as, of, innocent, good, holy, upright Man of God, Prophet indeed, and the like: Tha● saying of S. Eccles, cited by our Author, wherein that which is spoken of Jesus, or the True Light Job. 1.10. is applied to G. F. who is also said to b● that true Prophet, whom John said he was not; wh● is no other but Christ; This Blasphemous Testimony was complained of by some of the Quakers themselves, but they could not prevail that it might b● recalled, for G. Fox had approved it both before and after it was printed; but they got S. Eccles to writ● an explication of it, which made the matter so muc● the worse, that it was thought good to suppress tha● And notwithstanding, these complaints from several hands, yet I never could hear that G. Fox reproved him for it; but he made him one of his select Disciples to accompany him in his travels for the propagation of his Gospel in America. Where (as is related in the Account of his proceed read in the Quakers Meetting here at London) he sent for at one time an Emperor and two Kings to come and hear him, and they gave their attendance to the great Prophet G. Fox, at whose name (as was writ formerly by one of their Ministers) even the Heathen tremble. The said S. Eccles at a public Meeting celebrated him in these words: Blessed be the man that came out of the North: Blessed be the womb that bore him, and the paps that gave him suck: And Josiah Coal an eminent Foxonian Minister writes thus to G. Fox from Barbados.  
21 day 12 month. 1658.  
Dear G. Fox, who art the Father of many nations, whose life hath reached through us thy children, even to the Isles afar off, to the begetting of many again unto a lively hope, for which Generations to come shall call thee Blessed; whose being and habitation is in the power of the Highest, in which thou rules and governs in Righteousness, and thy Kingdom is established in peace, and the increase thereof is without end.  
This great Prophet (I say) is charged by our Author with opening Letters and altering the Contents, that he took a Letter of John whitehead's (a most eminent Minister among the Quakers) which was writ by him (as he said) in the name of the Lord, and blotted out a line or more, and wrote, or caused to be writ, to a quite contrary sense, to wit, That he did judge those that kept the Hat on, and not those that kept it off, (or words to this effect) whereas John Whitehead did therein justify both those that kept it off or on, etc. This Letter was (as I am informed) sent into Holland to the Quakers there, which coming to the hands of Benj. Furly, he discovered the forgery, and it was sent back again; and being complained of at a private Meeting by John Osgood, William Penington and John Pennyman etc. and John Bolton putting on't to John Whitehead, whether he did not give G. Fox liberty to alter it, said, No, not any liberty to alter a substance, which he said that was, and at another time said he was abused therein, etc. Let the world see by this Instance from what Spirit it is these men speak and write in the name of the Lord, when they can so flatly contradict one another! (more of this afterwards.) Let the world see also the Quakers way of answering Books, when they can slip over such a charge as this against their chief Prophet, which contains in it, that which, for the nature and kind of it, is one of the greatest crimes that mortals can be guilty of. 'Tis the same with that of Ananias and Sapphira his wife, (Act. 5.) which the Apostle Peter animadverted upon them by a miraculous infliction of Death: for as he and his wife consented to belly the Holy Ghost, (as Erasmus allows, and other learned men sense it) to wit, by pretending an inspiration and motion from the Spirit of God for the doing of that which they had no inspiration for, and knew they had none: So also G. Fox doth in this Letter make John Whitehead with the Holy Spirit to write that in the name of the Lord, which G. F. knew that neither he nor the Spirit did write any such thing, but the contrary. Thus he doth at once belie both John Whitehead and the Holy Spirit of God, and that knowingly. For I do not doubt but the Quakers do frequently write and speak that in the name of the Lord, and as from his infallible Spirit, which is false, but they persuade themselves, it is true; but here we have G. F. writing that for the words of the Lord, and the judgement of the infallible Spirit in John Whitehead, which he himself knew to be false. O Prodigious Impudence! He that counterfeits any man's name in a matter of any concernment deserves to be exposed on a Pillory, and to lose his ears: how much greater punishment doth he deserve that counterfeits both the name of God and man, in a matter of religious concern? Neither may they hereafter pretend, in their excuse for this omission, that G. Fox, the man chief concerned, was absent; for both John Bolton and Samuel Newton (two Zealots against the Hat-men) were both present at the said private Meeting, and stood in the justification of the alteration, and others that are here present know very well the circumstances of this business; and it's like some of them, as well as G. Whitehead, were privy to the aforesaid forgery, as Sapphira was to that of her husband Ananias. This is the course that G. F. took to make his injunctions be observed as well in Holland as in England.  
13. The next instance shall be that of M. Bowman and Eliz. Baily, mentioned p. 33. Now you must know that G. F. and his Peers have, under pretence of good and comely Order, at length enjoined all Quakers that will marry, that they first come before the Meeting and refer the matter to them, and acquiesce in their determination, who will be sure not to pass it, if the party desiring Marriage, one or tother, differ from them in the least Ceremony, as appears in that of J. Osgood, that of W. Mucklow, and in that of Oliver Holms and 
* An honest plain Couple came before the men's Meeting, desired to be married. Their Integrity was fully attested: yet, because the Man could not say (after Prayer and Fasting for resolution in the Question) that he thought it an evil to go and be married with the Priests according to the Law, they would not pass it. Others they have refused for carrying great Guns in their Ships: and yet John Thompson a Quaker, Master of a Ship, owned by G. R. S. N. and other Quakers, not only carried Guns, but fought stoutly, and killed many of the Dutch before his being taken.  others, also in this I am about; for it seems Eliz. Baily was a thorough Quaker, and M. Bowman differed very little from a Quaker, and had testimony given of him that he was a sober man, and no Hypocrite, but was not yet in the full practice of all their little Ceremonies, for he would sometimes put off his Hat in Salutation. These two came before the men's Meeting and found so much favour among them that some of the Preachers declared positively, as from the Lord, that it was to pass: whereof one Tho. Briggs was transported with such an angry zeal, that he told the opposers, it was of the Lord, and they opposed the mind of the Lord. But the poor man was so far from knowing the mind of the Lord in that matter, that he did not know who the Persons were of whom he spoke; others of the Elders opposed it, having on their side the authority of G. Fox's Order; the contest between them was high and long, and in this dissension they parted for that time. To this relation, as set down by our Author, the Answers say nothing, and so we shall take the truth of it pro confesso, and make some improvement of it.  
1st. We may see by this what the infallibility is which these Leading-men so highly glory in: It is only a daring confidence whereby they assert things to be infallible and in the name of the Lord upon such weak grounds as other men cannot build a strong probability upon.  
2dly. That they do even in their Meetings blaspheme the Name of the Lord, a sin not less than Murder or Adultery, and which was (under the Law) to be punished with no less punishment, even Death: See Deut. 18.20. For whilst they contradict one another in the Name of the Lord, of necessity one of the Parties (what ever the other) doth blaspheme God's Name.  
3dly. That this Contradiction which they ascribe to the Name of the Lord, is a proper effect of their present principle, as understood by them: for whilst they assert that every Quaker is to follow the immediate teaching of the Light in himself as the infallible will of God, and have no way or means by their principle to discern one immediate teaching from another; and are manifestly, by reason of their Education, Passions and Interests, diversely inclined in judging; it is morally impossible but that (especially in lesser matters) they should have contrary strong persuasions, which they must account the Teachings of the Lord, and assert in his name: and by this and other instances we see by experience it is so. And hence,  
4thly, We see clearly what our Author asserts, That in the determinations in their Assemblies, when there are any hearty and conscientious dissenters, they apostatise from their principles, and betake themselves to the principles and practices of the Church of Rome, giving the final judgement of their faith and duty to that Party, man, or men among them, which shall have the greatest Interest in their esteem, or by advantage of his wit, confidence, zeal, arrogance, etc. can overpower and subdue the rest. Therefore we see here when the Elders were somewhat equally divided, they could not come to any determination; so in Perrot's case and his Party about the Hat, whilst Perrot's party was strong and numerous, and himself in credit, they permitted them to use their liberty; then in Rich. Hubberthorne's answer to Jo. Parrot's Paper about the Hat, sent by G. Whitehead to I. P. at Isaac Penington's, and which was approved by G.F. etc. were these words, Then no such reasonings had we had, if so be the free Spirit of the Lord had been minded, which is not to be limited neither to the keeping on the Hat, nor off the Hat in time of Prayer. And in the year 1661., there was a Meeting at W. 't's House with G. Fox. F. H. G. W. R. H. and J. Perrot about the Hat, they supposing that Jo. Perrot had enjoined the keeping of it on in Prayer, which he denied, and declared both by words and writing, that he did leave all to the free universal Spirit etc. and made not a Law for any man. So it was concluded upon by them all, that there was to be no imposition on either hand, but every one was to be left free therein: Of this J. Osgood and many others are witnesses. But when Perrot began to decline and lose his credit, than G. Fox and his Party take the advantage, condemn his principle and practice, require conformity of all that will be owned for members of their Body, that is, that will not be excommunicated, & accounted Ranting Spirits, as G. F. J. B. etc. called them. The Papists place Infallibility in the determination of One Pope, or One Council, or One Pope and Council together: But these Quakers place Infallibility in every particular Person, and consequently no other Person or Persons whatsoever have any power to determine against him, for so an equal should have power over an equal, an infallible over an infallible, which is absurd: For a Body consists of particular Persons, every of which is no more infallible one than another; and there being many together, adds nothing of infallibility to them, because infallibility is the highest certainty, and doth not admit of degrees. So that a single Person that is infallible is not more or less infallible, because many or none are of his mind: And if this particular Person may err, that also, and every one of that Body; consequently there can be no infallible decision of any controversy between them, but that which is made by number, interest, force, cunning or the like, none of which will any man in his wits say, is any ground of infallibility, except upon the Arguments of the 
* W.P. saith, that God hath given greater judgement to his Church than to the individual members of it, is a true position, and the Church of Rome errs not in that, but in accounting themselves a true Church.  Church of Rome, which quite subvert the Quakers principle.  
5thly. We see by their assuming to themselves the power of judging in such matters, & by their severity in enforcing those things that tend to their Being and Reputation, as a distinct & eminent Body, even against their primitive principles, that their design is not (as one would have thought at first) to engage people to a diligent observance of the Light in their own Consciences, but to make them acquiesce in those things, as the infallible Law of God, which they shall judge fit for the getting and maintaining of credit and glory in this world. What else can possibly provoke these men thus to oppose the Name of the Lord to the Name of the Lord? Suppose equity and Right on the one side, which made them assert it in the Name of the Lord; there must be some strong lust on the other side, or else they would never have dared to oppose the Name of the Lord, and pretend his name too for so doing: and what could that lust be, but that of dominion, arrogance and glory among men? The deciding of such a matter as this man's marriage upon the point controverted between them, could not I think have any other tendency.  
14. I have been the longer upon these two instances because the matter of fact in them is not denied: now we come to that which is, or rather seems to be denied, or is deceitfully so. I mean that relation of a Paper sent to Hartford, mentioned p. 18. In answer to which three Quakers of Hartford, namely Henry Stout, Nicholas Lucas, Richard Martin testify that in God's fear they know of no such Paper, so signed, or sent, consequently there could be no such contents or dislike: And they conclude that five great and manifest lies meet in those few lines of our Author; 1. that there was such a Letter; 2. that it had that passage in it; 3. that twelve of the great Ones signed it; 4. that it was disliked; and lastly, that he remembers all this. We shall now show the great disingenuity and deceitfulness of this answer. For  
1st, Our Author doth not say that Twelve of the great Ones, etc. but about a dozen (for they were but eleven, as he saith page the 30.) And it's not unlikely, they represented it thus falsely, that they might with less prick of Conscience deny it.  
2dly. It doth not follow, There were no such Paper, because these three men do not know of it. For, 1. it was seven years ago, and they might forget that which our Author remembered. 2. I am informed that Martin did not at that time live at Hartford, and was not then so known in that place as he pretends to be now: and perhaps Lucas neither, however his business abroad might well enough hinder him from seeing and knowing of that which others, that were more at home or in Prison, did both see and know: And the like may be said for Stout.  
3dly. Why did not Rich. Thomas also testify as much as these men? for he both lived at Hartford then, and at London now. And why did they not send to Hartford, and have the testimony of the most part of the known Quakers of that time? But these men must be chosen out, whose testimony be it true or false, doth not at all determine the matter in question.  
4thly. That there was such a Paper, that such was the Contents of it; that it was signed by Eleven of the great Ones or Elders, is so far from being 3 great and manifest Lies, that they are three great and manifest Truths: For the Bookseller will produce it upon any just occasion. Neither is the 4th particular a lie, viz. that it was disliked: For G. Bishope then of Bristol wrote a large Letter in dislike of it, which the Bookseller can also produce: and if those things were so, it's no great marvel if our Author remember them. So that if there was any mistake in his relating this matter; 'twas only of Hartford for Bristol; and this the Quakers at London; and particularly Alex. Parker, Geo. Whitehead, Stephen Crisp, etc. whose names are to the Paper, How could they possibly be ignorant of it? yet notwithstanding, 
* What's become of John Osgood's integrity, that he should put his name among such men as these?  they have the confidence to abuse the world with a seeming denial of the whole matter. But yet there's no reason to imagine that the Author was mistaken, either in that, for the title of the Letter is this: A Testimony from the Brethren, who were met together at London in the third month 1666. to be communicated to the faithful Friends and Elders in the Countries, by them to be read in their several meetings, and kept as a Testimony among them. Shall we think now that this Letter thus designed for the Countries and their several Meetings, thus authorised by eleven great Elders, and sent to Bristol 90 miles from London, shall we think (I say) that it was not sent to Hartford distant 20 miles? Believe it that will! Perhaps indeed it might meet with opposition from the persons to whose hands it first came (and that there is some cause to believe) and so might not be communicated to the whole People. But perhaps they take occasion from some mistaken word in our Author's relation of the Contents, to vilify and deny the whole. [And indeed I hear that even H. Stout being rebuked for denying, confessed the Paper; but said, It was not to that intent as the Author relates] For our Author has told us (p. 22, 23.) and they deny it not, tha● to cover the whoredoms of the wanton Ministry etc. and unclean Strumpets, they did judge openly the mistake of a Person, when the actions were true, and in the same house. It seems the Relators did truly inform of the man and actions, but mistook the woman of the house for the servant, and therefore the testimony was made invalid, the criminals go free, and the poor witness condemned. O innocent, holy, and harmless People!  
So I could tell you the eminent Quakers name, who to a scrupulous man did seem to justify one of his Brethren in denying to know what he very well knew (when questioned by a Magistrate,) by this; he could not tell, because he would not tell; and he said it was usual for friends so to do: but who would believe it, that even the Body of the Quakers in the Paper called, A Declaration from the People of God called Quakers (relating to the Act against Conventicles) have these words? And as for the word, [disloyal to the King] we have always paid our Taxes, and Assessments, and other deuce and duties, more than any people, according to our abilities; when their Neighbours all over England know there are (at least) some Taxes or Assessments, which they have peremptorily refused; which thing being objected to G. Fox, (who with G. Whitehead (they say) was the Author of that Declaration,) he answered, We pay Our Taxes &c. intimating that the term Our was not to be extended to the Taxes etc. required, but to those paid. O wonderful equivocation! But when a honest-harted woman told him, she paid no Taxes etc. he replied, Thy salt, and oil, and vinegar in the shop do all pay taxes; or to that purpose. Behold here the Doctrine and practice of this true Prophet whom John said he was not! Behold the Anointed, whose Kingdom is established in peace! has come up to the Jesuits already, and how far he will excel them, we know not. But let's return to our Author. The substance of that Letter, whereof I have given you the title, is this; These Eleven Brethren and Elders, viz. Rich. Farnsworth, Alex. Parker, George Whitehead, Josiah Coale, John Whitehead, Thomas Loc, Stephen Crisp, Tho. Green, John Moon, Tho. Briggs, James Parks, do by the operation of the Spirit of Truth consider that their Society and Government cannot be kept inviolable against their covert enemies [by whom they mean the Hat-men] who are not afraid to speak evil of Dignities [G. Fox and his Adherents] and despise Government; they therefore do unanimously and with the Lords presence (as they say) testify (1) that such as exalt themselves above the Body of good and ancient Friends [G. Fox etc.] aught not to have any dominion, office or rule in the Church of Christ.  
2. That such as are not in unity with the Ministry and Body have no Gospel-Authority to be Judges in the Church, and their judgement ought not to be regarded: that it is abominable pride when any particular will not admit of the judgement of the witness of God in Friends [G. Fox's and their opinion] to take place against him; for he, that is not justified by that, is condemned in himself and hardened, [a notorious Heretic.]  
3. They testify in the name of the Lord, that the Church has power (without the assent of dissenters) to determine Controversies, and that such Persons as will not submit to their judgement consistent with the Doctrine of ancient Friends [that is, of G. Fox and his Party] but oppose it as the judgement of man, aught to be rejected, together with those that countenance and encourage them. They are joined in one with Heathens and Infidels.  
4. That such disapproved Ministers ought (what ever have been their gifts) to leave off ministering till they are reconciled to the Church: and if approved persons degenerate to division, and countenance faction [that is, the Hat-men] the Church has authority to deal with them in the same manner; to which if they submit not, warning ought to be given in General-Meetings to beware of them, and to have no fellowship with them.  
5. They warn and charge all Friends, that they have no hand in publishing the Books or Writings of such as are not of unity with the Body;— and we farther desire that from time to time faithful and sound Friends and Brethren [G. Fox and his Party] may have the view of such things as are printed upon Truth's account (as formerly it hath used to be) before they go to the Press.  
6. They advise that such as are made Overseers of the flock of God by the Holy-Spirit— admit not the weak to that trust; and that none be admitted to order public business, but those that seek the good of all [that is, submit to the great Body of G. Fox and his party]. They conclude thus: So, dear Friends, believing that you will be one with us— against those who would limit the Lord to speak without Instruments [that is, will obey the Light in themselves, and not be subject to the dictates of G. Fox and his party]— and reject the counsel of the wise men, and the testimony of the 
* For they perceived many of their hearers, wearied and offended with their long preach &c. would have had them to return home to their Employments and Callings; but the proud way of living they had betaken themselves to, they were not willing to leave, and therefore strengthen themselves in it by severe Injunctions.  Prophets which gethered you, and would not allow him liberty in and by his Servants to appoint time and place wherein to meet— and call this Formal, and the Meetings of Man, etc.  
15. Now let all considering men judge, whether ever such an arrogant, imperious and audacious Paper was given out by such a number of Mortals! The Pope hath never (I think) taken so much power to himself as to determine matters of this nature and in this manner, but in a General Council, and with their concurrence: but herein these men transcend him, and all that ever went before them: That they did own those men to whom they wrote, to be led and guided, and that they ought in all such matters to be led and guided immediately by the infallible Spirit of God; and they did own that those against whom they wrote had been led and guided by the same infallible Spirit, and gave at this time no other evidence of their not being now led by it, but only their dissent from these men in the matters mentioned: the chief whereof in particular was, The not putting off the Hat to their prayers; which things considered, their giving Charges and Laws in the Name of the Lord to the persons aforesaid, is nothing less than arrogating a Spiritual and Divine Power over that which they teach, aught to be harkened to as the Infallible and Divine Spirit, and that in those matters which some of themselves have acknowledged might be otherwise ordered by the Holy-Spirit of God. As John Whitehead (who is one of them) in the matter of the Hat, in the Paper forementioned; and Geo. Whitehead in that other Paper sent to J. Perrot: And did they not own John Perrot for a true Friend? and that he was sent of God according to their Principles to preach at Rome? and did they not own his Sufferings there to be for the Truth? and Perrot says in his Paper, I have received by express commandment from the Lord God of Heaven in the day of my Captivity in Rome, viz. to bear a sure Testimony against the Custom and Traditions of the taking off of the Hat by men, when they go to pray to God, the which they never had by Commandment from God: To this agrees what G. Fox saith in the Book of True-honour etc. aforementioned, where he calls Worship with the Hat voluntary Humility and not of command by Christ and his Apostles. And must now this Revelation to this eminent Prophet and Sufferer given him in his Captivity be despised and condemned for a delusion, because it is not approved by George Fox? must the apprehension of Scandal bear sway against such a Revelation, amongst those People, whose practice is full of Scandals, and liked the better by them on the account of distinguishing them from others? Is it not evident enough that the true reason of their not receiving his testimony was, its contradiction to the practice of G. Fox? had it been revealed to him first, it had been received readily; but now it must be rejected. Here we may perceive clearly, what it is that influences these men in the owning or disowning of Divine Revelations: however there's no gainsaying, but that notwithstanding all the advantages that any Ruling Quaker has, he may be grossly deluded, and take that for an infallible Revelation from God, which proceeds indeed from the spirit of deceit. For thus Fox and his party say, Perrot and his party did; and the like might Perrot say of Fox: And Fox or his party cannot give any the least solid ground, whereby to decide the Controversy between them. Therefore we conclude justly that these men, as Rulers and Prophets, are led by a Self-contradicting, Proud, Blasphemous and Tyrannical Spirit. For they equally pretend Revelation, and if there be any advantage in this matter, it is on Perrot's side and not on Fox's; so that if Perrot be condemned, Fox cannot stand. That he doth stand among the greater number of Quakers, proceeds merely from his Interest, Cunning, etc. And as the whole party of the Hat-men is to be opposed to the whole party of Foxonians; so in particular George Bishop of Bristol is to be opposed to every one of those eleven Ministers; for he was so far from attesting to their Testimony (as every Quaker, had it been true, aught to have done) that he contradicted it, and wrote a large Letter in opposition to it; The substance of which is this, viz.  
Having considered their Paper in the Spirit of Truth, he is moved of the Lord to let them know, 1. That it is much, that they so few, so young, and so very little in comparison of the Body, or those whom they count Elders, should take upon them to determine in things of so high a nature, etc. which if they are to be done, aught to be done by the full consent of those who are in Authority in the Church (if so be there be such an Authority so to determine) and not by a few, and those not at all deputed in the thing. If you say (saith he) you have not determined so as to impose upon the Body of Friends, but only given your own judgement in the thing: I answer, you are very positive and plain in the determination. [And so repeating their Preface, he collects]— which is in the nature of a Civil Commandment. [Then he recites their first particular, and says]— which is as much as an Institution. [Then of the second Particular he saith]— which is an Inhibition. [Of the third Particular he saith]— which is Doctrine. [Of the fourth he saith]— which is Correction. [Of the fifth]— which is Admonition. [Of the sixth]— which is Exhortation. [Of the Conclusion he saith]— this is Instruction. Next he saith, The Spirit of the Lord in this day, and in the days of the Apostles bears not the same proportion: then were Apostles, Pastors, Teachers, Elders, etc. but in this day the Spirit itself is Pastor, Teacher, Elder, etc. so that if the Spirit move any to declare or speak, that is the Apostle, Teacher, Elder, etc. So that we have not now things in the disposition of Persons, but according to the Power which moves in everyone, so there is not that Hazard, as to Apostasy, as was in that day— so I know no Pastor, Teacher, Elder, etc. but as I find moving in any to any of these things; and that, which would be otherwise than this, leaps into Apostasy, and will seek to bring in dark night again, and will be secluding the thing to the person, and not the person to the thing: and as for my part, if that day should prevail, or these things which your Paper seems to hold forth and enforce, I have no other expectation, but that the same exercise we shall receive at your hands— as we together received from the hands of those who would have held us in Captivity. 3. The Seed is come in which the Ministry is to end. Now for you, because you Ministered, to think to settle yourselves in the place of the Heir, and to enforce your station,— is not to allow that the Seed is come; and whether your Paper doth not so speak, view it over again, and let that which should, judge in the matter.— Friends and Brethren, take heed how you set up your Laws and Constitutions over his dominion— many have attempted it, and have been broken to pieces; and if you do the same, the same will be your portion from the hand of the Lord. In the Power you are safe, but when once you go to outward things to preserve your station, and keep you up, as Papers, strive, etc. you err so much from the Power, and this will work you down also, if you oppose yourselves against his Kingdom. Bristol the 3d of the 11 month, 1666.  
Here we have the infallible Spirit of the Quakers in G. By hop giving judgement against the eleven Elders, that they had gone from their Principle into the way of Apostasy, and prophesying their downfall. And he that knew George Bishop, or has read his writings, will (I think) find reason enough to take his judgement concerning their principles, as soon as any or all of the eleven Elders. So that they have not only offered this affront to mankind, viz. That they profess in Principles and Practices necessary to man's happiness, to distinguish themselves from all other men, and for the truth and certainty of those principles and practices, they bring no evidence, but the inward Testimony of the Light in every man, and yet condemn all men as unfaithful to that Light, (how innocent soever in their own Consciences) that are contrary to them, or agree not with them: which is in effect, to give the lie to every man besides themselves, and to say, that all the World, except Quakers, are liars; And the thing is true in respect of primitive Christianity, (which they pretend to) that it brought such evidence with it to them, to whom it was fully preached, that no considerate man would disbelieve it, but he must be a liar, and wilfully blind. But these men do not only thus affront all mankind that consent not to them, but also they conclude, even all Quakers, (that agree with them in all their Principles and Practices wherein they differ from others) to be self-condemned, if they subject not themselves to their Judgement in so small a matter as is the covering or uncovering the Head when others pray, and things of that kind. For I never heard that any Hat-man kept on his Hat when himself prayed, except Perrot. And so they contradict in the Name of the Lord, that very voice in men, which they have taught them to give heed to as the voice of the Lord. So when J. Pennyman carrying all his Books to a Friend of his near the Exchange, was moved to burn some waste papers there in his passage, pouring out some Quakers Books, which (he having a little before born Testimony to G. Fox and Whithead's face, against their deceitful Declaration, and another Scurrilous Paper) they were so offended at him for, that G. Whitehead next day in a Letter to J. P. calls this his undertaking to burn their Books [not a word of the Scriptures, as is in their printed Paper, to take with the People] a mad and wicked action, to which the Devil instigated and led him. Which Letter he ordered G. L. to get from him; afterward when J. P. complained of the wrong he had in having the Letter taken away from him surreptitiously; G. Whithead replied, that he was moved of the Lord to send it, and understanding that it was not received in the same love in which it was sent, he was also moved of the Lord to send for it again: to which J. Pennyman replied, that he had neither opened nor read that Letter nor knew from whom it came, till the said G. L. came and asked him concerning it. Thus we see that G. Whitehead could pretend a motion from the Lord, not only to condemn with detestation what his Friend was moved to, but also to send one to get away that which was become another man's propriety, and that upon a false suggestion. Moreover, G. W. said, he would not return it, except the Lord required him: What strange Doctrine is this (replied J. P.) that thou wilt not return me that which was stolen from me, except the Lord require thee?  
XVI. Moreover, let those that have been careful to compare the judgement of the Ruling Elders with the Truth, (in those things that might by future events be discerned) tell us whether particular persons or the Juncto has been more deceived. God in his Providence did (as has been commonly related) for ends best known to himself, raise up among the Quakers a man (by name Thomas Ebbit) who came out of  to London in great haste to Prophesy the burning of the City, and arrived here a day or two before that dreadful Fire began: This Man (as I am informed) the Elders, who so highly pretend to the discerning of Spirits, took unto them, and examined him concerning it, and instead of approving his Prophecy, they did almost persuade the Man that it was a Delusion; and so in a matter that so highly concerned them as well as others, I never could hear that any of them gave credit to him, but were as far from discerning Truth in that Word which came to pass, as any of their Neighbours; and suffered equally with them in that general Calamity. And so this Prophet, who, if they had given heed to him, might have been a great glory to their party, is the shame and reproach of them all to whom his Tidings came, but especially to the Judging Elders. Supposing now G. F. and his adherents to be the old Prophets (as they would be esteemed) we see by this instance, they can contradict the Word of the Lord in the younger Prophets, as did the old Prophet, 1 Kings 13. But methinks the sad fate of that young Prophet, for giving heed to the old one, should sufficiently caution the young Quakers against believing the old ones contrary to the Light in their own particulars.  
XVII. Having now seen G. Fox's forgery in the Name of the Lord, and the Elders contradicting the Elders in the same Meeting in the Name of the Lord, and the whole Body of Quakers divided in the Name of the Lord between the Foxonians and the Hat-men; and G. Bishop by the same Spirit opposing the Eleven Ministers; Let us now take a view of Jo. Swinton opposing himself in the Name of the Lord. And whereas he saith (p. 22.) in extenuation of his fault, in writing that Paper which he is charged with in the Spirit of the Hat p. 34. that soon after he was convinced [to be a Quaker] he was shut up in a close prison, and continued a prisoner for divers years, and being at a distance and much alone— was betrayed to the writing of that Paper mentioned, and when he came to see what he had done by it, he came forth in absolute judgement against that Paper, and the Spirit in which it was writ, and this judgement was not in an hour of Temptation, etc. So he acknowledges the Truth of what our Author has told concerning him, but he denies the inference, namely that his Recantation was rather in an hour of Temptation.  
If it be true (as true it is) that this recanted Paper was wrote in Newgate 1664; then we may justly complain that this man (who has sometimes born a great place and title) comes far short of that ingenuity that might be expected from him; for Newgate was far enough from being a close prison, there being very many of the Quakers prisoners with him at the same time; also I find him come to that proficiency in Quakerism in the year 1660, that he undertakes to write a Paper directed To all the Friends to Truth in the Nations: and he gins thus, Dear Friends, I am commanded of the Lord God, &c and in the process, I speak what in the Infallible I see and know. This (they say) was written from the Gatehouse-Prison: here he tells them, the enemy hath entered, and I say (in the dread & Authority and Power of the Living God) hath leavened many and the Seed hath been and is burdened in many particulars, and in one another; The world hath entered, Self hath entered, the high mind hath entered, etc. In the year 1664, I find another Paper of his, written at Franly in Cheshire the 27th of the 6th month: And the Recanted Paper called a 
* Therein he writes thus; For Friends in the Name and Authority of the Living and Eternal God— I have seen the Anger, and Fury, the Indignation of the Almighty God ready to break forth into a mighty flame,— yea, and the Leaders, many of them not standing clear herein: [speaking of outward things] Is this all? Nay, nay! Israel's wound lies deeper, is more Spiritual and inward, and therefore the more incurable: Pride, Conceitedness, High-mindedness, love of Dominion, Selfishness, an Exalted spirit, an Itching mind, to declare words in and above the Seed of the Kingdom, hath deeply entered Israel, yea the Leaders, the Leaders, etc.  Lamentation, etc. bears date the third of the ninth Month, which was about ten weeks after: Let the Reader judge, whether his being a close Prisoner, and much alone, and at distance, be a righteous excuse: it's observable that in this time of Temptation (as he now calls it) he wrote that which is as likely to have been prophetical as any thing he ever wrote; for in the beginning of the great Sickness, which we know was followed by the Fire, he saith thus: O London, London! thy Trials are but beginning; These are but the beginnings of the evils that are to overtake thee; Desolation, Desolation shall enter into thy Bowels, yea even into thy very bowels! 29th of the month called July, 1665. Afterward in the year 1668. I find a Paper of his dated 26th of the 6th month, directed to the men's Meeting, wherein he tells of his coming to London the Winter foregoing, and of the constructions put upon his 64th Paper, which (saith he) was writ in the express motion of God, and in his manifest leadings out of and beyond all thoughts and reasonings, etc. and that upon every recourse to God, the searcher of his heart in that matter, he had always renewed justification and acceptation; Then he gives an account of what passed between him and them at a Meeting with the Elders, how they judged his Paper in the Name of the Lord, and would have him to aquiesce in their judgement; that being in his own hired House, it risen in him to visit Friends in London again; that the Lord was with him as he passed in Northumberland, Bishopric, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex. And he concludes thus: which Paper I am again to acquaint you stands justified in every tittle of it, and I am plainly to acquaint you, that I cannot retract it, nor the least syllable of it; God doth justify me in it, and I should be Rebellious and Treacherous to my Light and Life, if I should retract it or any syllable of it, or deny the Spirit in which it was writ, etc.  
Now after all this he retracts it, and denies the Spirit in which it was writ; whereupon I would ask him; What greater evidence has he of the Spirit of the Lord in his Retractation, than he had in his Assertion? However doth he not herein plainly acknowledge that the Spirit of Truth and Light, by which he did profess to be led and guided for four or five years together, was the spirit of Error and Darkness? and that the Quakers (notwithstanding their pretence to Infallibility) are upon their present principles incident to Blasphemy, and that for a long time together? And whether this kind of Blasphemy be not a deadly sin? or whether a man may live in it a long time and be in the Favour of God all the while? If John Swinton can satisfy himself in his Retractation, let him not be so vain to imagine that he can satisfy others that require a reason of what they hold. It he would take as much pains with himself now as he pretends to have done heretofore, I am persuaded he might see, that the worldly glory of the Quakers, and consequently of himself, is the great Argument that sways with him in his Recantation, for the Child must not be divided, nor the Seemless Garment rend. How great is the modesty of our Author, that only appeals to the impartial in this case, whether this Recantation was not done rather in an hour of Temptation; and doth not assert it absolutely, having such strong Arguments for so doing? But how great the immodesty of W. Pen, to charge that for a Lie, of which himself can have but a conjectural knowledge. But what wonder? since he seems by his late Pamphlets to have abandoned himself, to be G. Fox's and the Quakers Hector. There was a complaint against him of divers Lies, Calumnies, and other abuses committed by him in his Book entitled, The Spirit of Truth, etc. carried to the Bull and Mouth to be exhibited to the Body of the Quakers, or men's Meeting, then sitting there, by about half a score Citizens and others; but they were not admitted— G. Whitehead told them, he would show it to W. Pen, if they would set their hands to it. It seems he that comes to King G. Fox's Court must observe the formalities of that Court, and though this complaint has been long in Stephen crisps hands signed according to order, yet no answer is returned, but that he had showed it to W. Pen, and W. P. had answered it in Print; indeed W. P. in his Winding-sheet, saith, The Anabaptists came to the Bull and Mouth to demand judgement against W. P. about All, for Many, were they not well employed? What Pen! is this the custom of G. Fox's Court to jeer the poor Petitioners? to reject their complaint with Scorn, and belie them to boot? For the complaint consisted of at least sixteen particulars, whereof All for Many was but one. The Truth is, I do not see how W. P. can vindicate himself from the Nature and Dignity of a Knight of the Post, and consequently the Title will be his due. Provided always that it be taken for the proper character of a Knight of the Post, that he is one that frequently and publicly asserts by Oath, that which he either knows to be false, or doth not know to be true: And that G. P's word publicly given, may (according to the Quakers Principle) be taken to have the force (and the falsity in that case to deserve the punishment) of an Oath. Besides that his frequent appeals to God and calling him to witness and judge, have the true nature of Oaths, and are so esteemed by all sober and intelligent men. Wherefore since W. Pen loves not that we should call him bare William, as the Quakers do, but doth almost beg his due title of J. Morse (see Plain dealing, p. 7.) I think it but equal that we call him Mr. P n.  
XVIII In the next place let us look upon William Gosnell's Testimony, which in two pages contains so much virulent and opprobious language, that I conclude it could not proceed from such a Novice-writer as W. G. It looks more like the work of an older proficient in that manner of speaking, and may agree better to G. W. than to W. G. and that which further induces me to think so, is, that the man intended by the Spirit of the Hat his name (as I am informed) is not written Gosnel as in the Spirit of Alex. but Gosnold; but whether that be so or no, it's not unusual with the Quakers to give as much credit to one another as is the setting their Names to things they know not. Thus William Sparrow desired William Trevers and John Pennyman to sign a certificate (of the contents whereof they knew not the truth or falsity) because it was drawn up and approved by G. Fox, Rich. Hubberthorn, etc. which J. P. refusing, Sparrow was offended at him; and he received a check from G. Fox, for advising him to caution Friends not to subscribe any thing they were ignorant of, through the esteem and great confidence they had of his mind to have it so, for (said J. P.) if they think i● to be thy mind to have it done, they will do it, tho' they be ignorant of it themselves; to which Reb. Trevers (a great Prophetess among them) agreed, saying moreover, that if she had a motion from the Lord as she believed, yet if he (G. Fox) did not own it so to be, she should deny it. She further added, that her Maid should say, Jo. Pennyman was a wise man, and would not subscribe that Paper, else she believed her Master would have done it. This refusal was so much resented by another of their then chief Ministers, that he told J. P. that if he had subscribed the said Certificate, he would have stood betwixt God and him in so doing, alleging that it was their practice in such cases; yea his and their enmity against J. Pennyman, J. Osgood and others (in these days, being about 11 or 12 years since) that opposed the irregularities of the 2d days Meeting, was so great, he called them a company of base fellow's. These things considered, no marvel if W. G. might not give G. W. leave to write what he would, and set his name to't  
But 3dly, when I first saw Gosnel's name in the Spirit of Alexander, I expected nothing less than a denial of what is related to have been said by G. F. (Spirit of the Hat, p. 27.) viz. Friends, although I have not told it you, I do now declare it, I have Power to bind and to lose whom I please: but it seems it was true, and how can it be otherwise, that so great a King and Prophet as G. Fox should not have such a Power? However this Gosnel confesses to have spoken unadvisedly, when he reflected upon the zeal of that man of God, though he had said (as I have heard) when he was desired to go to G. F. to be reconciled, etc. I abhor to prostrate my Reputation at the Feet of any Mortal: yet before his last g●●ng beyond sea, did comply with him, and is now become a Preacher among them.  
But let us see what it was that provoked King George's zeal to such a height, which occasioned W.G. to think he would have struck S. Newton! I understand there was of late a Meeting set up by G. F. upon the Account of the Quakers sufferings, whence as occasion served they had recourse to the Lawyers for their advice to elude the proceed of their Procecutors. At one of these Meetings S. N. produced G. Fox's Book to the Judges and Lawyers against their proceed, by which he told them they made void the blood of all those that have suffered for conscience sake in those matters; and also disliked their making use of a Quaker as their Solicitor, who was under an ill fame, (see Spirit of Hat p. 42.) but favoured by G. Fox: these things so transported their chief Prophet, that W. G. thought by his postures and carriage, he would have struck S. N. who moreover produced a Letter from Rob. Duncomb and John Jennocks, relating the Death of one Rich. White, who for following their Solicitors advise in these matters (considering the Doctrine and Practice of G. Fox himself and the Quakers) had upon his deathbed been much wounded in Spirit, and desired R. D. to warn Friends how they went down to Egypt for help, or went from the Light in themselves to follow the advice of men. Had not G. F. the man of God think ye, reason enough to be in a fury at such a bold man as this S. Newton, who durst thus show him his palpable contradiction to himself, and the sad consequence thereof?  
Well, But Gosnel (what ever becomes of himself) will needs have our Author (among many other great wickednesses) to have brought forth a Monstrous work, to be irreligious and void both of Conscience and Spirit: Why so I pray. Why? because in one place he pleads Conscience and Gospel-Liberty, [that is, He will not count himself obliged to keep off his Hat by virtue of George's Law, finding no inward obligation of conscience so to do:] but in another place he saith, He keeps it neither off nor on upon a Religious Account, tho' the Foxonians keep it off upon such an account. This is the monstrous contradiction found out by this accurate Distinguisher, who if he cannot find a knot in the Bulrush will be sure to make one. Why doth he not also charge the Apostle Paul with the like contradiction, for bidding the Christians, stand fast in the Liberty of Christ, and yet saying that he that regards not the day to the Lord, he doth not regard it? see Rom. 14. Gal. 4.1. 1 Cor. 8.9. and some made Conscience of eating, etc. and others eat, ask no question for Conscience sake. Can a man stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made him free, and not upon a Religious account? or cat, or keep a day in assertion of that Liberty, and yet not upon a conscientious account of Christ's Liberty? And yet make no conscience of eating or not eating, but use his liberty therein as others did not who abstained for Conscience-sake? I knew a Religious man who always put off his Gloves when he went to Prayer, and no doubt but he did it out of Conscience, but who of a thousand did so besides himself? And who would have submitted to it, had he imposed that observance? but enough to this impertinent man.  
XIX. We come in the last place to consider their vindication of their Ministry from being Vicious and Wanton; and that Strumpets are amongst them. This W. P. doth in the Name of the holy God deny, p. 15. and defies any man on Earth to prove any part of this ungodly charge— to so much as belongs to any one person by us (saith he) accounted of it. And John Boulton and Samuel Newton declare in the uprightness of their hearts that they know of no such, nor can acknowledge any such to be either of their Ministry or their Body.  
A Man would think now that these Men would not dare thus to appeal to God (which is the highest Testimony that Men can give) but that they know their Testimony to be very true, even infallible; and that our Author is a very wicked man in writing such a charge against them. But have patience Reader, and hear what I say on the Author's behalf.  
Forasmuch as W. P. exclaims upon us for proof, and promiseth that an hearing shall not be refused, we challenge them to make choice of six disinterested, judicious, and honest persons, such as we may have no just and reasonable exception against; and we on our part will make choice of the same number, and so qualified, against whom they shall have no just and reasonable exception; to which twelve persons so agreed upon, we will refer the Judgement of this matter of Fact, and all other matters of Fact, wherein you have in your late Pamphlets so horribly cried out of being belied and slandered, and of the complaint : and if in the Judgement of these twelve men we shall be found to have said that in detraction from you, of which we cannot give a sufficient reason, we will then give you such satisfaction as these men shall agree upon; Provided that you also engage yourselves to be subject to the like sentence, if the falure be found in you. And lest it should fall our that we may not agree in the choice of such a number of Persons, we are willing in case of difference about them, to refer the Umpirage to the Lord Mayor of London, or any Alderman on the Bench, or any one of Twenty Common-Council-men. If you accept these terms, signify your mind in writing, and leave it with Francis Smith the Bookseller, and you shall find Persons ready to comply with you. If you do not accept them, I hope no considerate man will henceforth ever believe either your word or oath; for so I call your appeals to God, your imprecations and curse.  
But that the Reader may not too much wonder at this strange Confidence on both sides, let him consider, that their loud denial doth but seem to contradict our Author's charge; for he speaks of the time past, and they of the time present when they wrote; whereby they exclude from being accounted of their Ministry, 1. Those that have been found guilty and are disowned, such as J. C. D. B. W. W. T. T. T. M. and others. 2. Those that have been guilty, but are deceased. 3. Those that are disowned by these Persons that writ, tho' perhaps they may be owned by other Persons or Meetings in the Country: For I suppose that John Bolton his keeping on his Hat when Tho. Salthouse prayed in the Meeting, (after he had committed the offence of being a Witness at John Osgood's Wedding) was such a disowning him that J. Bolton would in presence of God have denied him to be of their Ministry; and yet at the same time he was owned by the multitude. 4. I doubt they exclude also those that have sinned and have been judged by G. F. or some few, and have owned their condemnation, and so have been pardoned. For I hear there is one W. C. in New-England who was long ago accused here in London, but either denied the charge, or through favour or otherwise avoided sentence: but now G. Fox writes from New-England that W. C. owns condemnation. 5. If any error has been found in the evidence, as in the case of Tho. Mur. who under pretence of Physic or Chirurgery, made it his common practice to commit Uncleanness, and was employed by G. Fox to judge Persons and Meetings, etc. (See Spirit of Hat, p. 31.) Here the mistake of the Mistress for the Maid (though the man was guilty) got him rather justification, and the reporters condemnation as abovesaid. Now I suppose that in such a case as this, such a Minister will be denied by them to be guilty till further evidence appear; and when such evidence that cannot be evaded doth appear, than he shall perhaps be judged and disowned privately, and so not of their Ministry. 6. The scandalous familiarity of the Prophets and Prophetesses, or Mistresses before marriage, must go for nothing, that is, must have no force to prove matter of viciousness in their Ministry: Now this is the case of a great Man among them and his Lady, concerning whom M. Y. informs that M. Bt. said she was grieved and burdened at her heart, by reason that M. B. her Brother had reproved some secrecies between those two, fearing lest they should become public to the World to dishonour Truth.  
These things considered, how wary are these men in their challenge? and how do they prevaricate with God and men in their appeal? Allow us the equity you desire, let the Quakers Informations by word or writing be taken as proof upon Oath; and let the solemn Testimony of others have the force of solid Evidence; let those that have declared and prayed amongst you with tokens of Approbation, be accounted to have been, or to be of your Ministry, and then let us go to trial. In the mean time let me tell you, we have seen, and could make public the information of M. Y. wherein many of your Friends, and four or five of your Ministry, were concerned; and whereby their names would be sufficiently exposed; but it is so full of obscenity and abominable profaneness, that love to the profession of Religion, and charity to the World, and Personal modesty forbidden its Publication. And we have seen in Andrew Robesons Answer to Jasper Bat and John Graves Letter, (to John Swinton) these words; What was it in that Paper chief hath given you offence? was it the intimation that many of the Leaders of Israel are so inclined, and had a tend ncy to draw back into the flesh-potts of Egypt again? which you call lies and slanders: if such things be lies, what means these frequent and abominable Whoredoms that some are run into, etc.— and in the close he writes particularly to J. Gr. saying, How contrary is this thy work to the private discourses betwixt thee and me, even now in London not a week before this,— were not thy very words, ALL OUR MINISTERS ARE WRONG, etc. 18th of the 5th Month, 1668. And notwithstanding John Bolton's seeming denial, etc. yet he hath since acknowledged that he had by him the confession of the two women chief concerned in the said information, whereof our Author has made mention p. 43. We could name several of your body, (notwithstanding your impudent denial of it) some that have had Meetings frequently at their houses, and others, great sufferers for your cause, that have been detected of whoredom or uncleanness.  
T. Rawl. for a long time G. Fox's companion, was at length detected of great wantonness toward the Maids. We may observe here that W. P. saith, an hearing against any of them shall never be refused: and that our Author doth wickedly distinguish, when he saith p. 29. If any of the Ministers commit a fault, their Peers or Equals are only to be their Judges, and not the Laity. And yet that is so far true, that those words, or to that effect, were spoken by famous S. Eccles upon occasion of W. Mucklow's offering to be at the Hearing of John Whitehead upon an information of wantonness committed by him, concerning which W. M. could say something, but was rejected for the reason aforesaid. And John Harwood (formerly one of their Ministers, and whilst such, found guilty of notorious uncleanness) falling our with G. Fox, accused him of divers matters; but could not obtain a Hearing; and thereupon published his charge in print. And when W. M. accused G. Fox to be a respecter of Persons in judgement, tho' divers confessed the charge was true, yet none had the courage at the Meeting to take his part: but woes and curses were pronounced against him by the Grandees, for accusing an Elder. So, when (at an extraordinary Meeting after the great plague) E. Barns, as the Ministers were exalting themselves, cried out while R. Farnsworth was preaching, You have whored from the Lord. Farnsworth replied, Thou art a whore [or the whore]: whereupon M. Stanclift said softly, An unsavoury word; Th● next second-day Meeting, M. St. being grieved i● Spirit, complained of the carriage of the said Meeting where he expected humiliation rather than exaltation: but they (in stead of harkening to him) having notice of that word unsavoury, judged him, and ●ast him out for that, as they said in their Letter of Excommunication (subscribed by A. Stodart, T. Covency, J. Elson, G. Laytee) he had called the Spirit of Truth an unsavoury Spirit. Thus was this man of known honesty cast out for appearing against the Ministry. But if you would have your Ministry fully vindicated as to this matter, provoke Mr. Hicks to give you the particulars of that general sugestion of your viciousness, mentioned in the end of his Continuation, etc. and then clear yourselves of it if you can.  
XX. Thus I have considered the Testimony which they severally give of their own Innocency and the Innocency of their Body, which I know not what People in the world would have had the face to call them by that title except the Foxonians. Now because I have in these Papers sometimes used that denomination to those people, and also called G. Fox by the title of King, though the reason of these titles is evident enough to him that takes notice of J. Coals Letter, yet lest to the unwary Reader I may be thought to have done this slightly, I will consider his Testimony more fully. 1. The Letter comes from Josiah Coal, a mighty man in their esteem both in his Life and at his Death, for the Narrative of his Life and Death was Printed for his greater Glory. 2. This Letter was approved of, not only by G. Fox himself, but also by his Peers the Elders, among whom no doubt but it was read, and by their concurrence ordered to be Registered among things worthy to be Recorded, and there put in the very first place, tho' it hath not the oldest date, or else why should it be put there at all? It cannot be imagined that such a thing could be done without the Elders their either explicit or implicit concurrence. So than what is attributed to G. Fox by J. C. is approved by George himself, and the select Elders at least.  
As for the Contents of this Testimony. 1. He doth expressly ascribe to him a Kingdom, 
They are the same that are given to King Jesus our Saviour, and agree to him only. See Isa. 9.7. Of the increase of his Government and Peace there shall be no end; upon the Throne of David and upon his Kingdom to order and to establish it with judgement and with justice, from hence forth even for ever. Luk. 1.33. and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end, Isa. 9.6. Everlasting Father, or, the Father of the age to come, as the Septuagint and the old Latin have it. Heb. 2.13. Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Micah 5.4. And he shall stand and seed [or rule] in the strength of the Lord, etc. he shall be great to the ends of the earth.  saying to him, THY KINGDOM, etc. and Thou rules and governs: now he that rules and governs in his own Kingdom must of necessity be an actual King. 2. He describes to us the subjects of this Kingdom; who are nextly Jos. Coal, and the Elders or Peers, whom he calls [us thy children] & remotely those to whom the Life of G. F. hath reached through the Elders to the begetting of them again to a lively hope, and they are said to be MANY, by reason whereof he calls him the Father of many Nations. 3. He tells us what kind of power and authority it is, in which this King rules and governs, and that is, the Power of the Highest; a Spiritual and Divine power, not like that of the Kingdoms of men. 4. We have here the stability of this Kingdom, Thy Kingdom is established in peace. 5. The extent of it, The increase thereof is WITHOUT END: It's a boundless Kingdom. And 6. The glory of this King is such, that not only the present Age, but Generations to come shall call him Blessed.  
XXI. Henceforth I see not with what face they can blame any man for calling G. Fox King of the Quakers, (and that in the same sense as Jesus (that was dead) is the King of Christians:) and the Elders among them, 
By this we see that W. Pen did not speak unadvisedly, when he writes of his Membership in the Quakers-body, that it is an honour more desirable than to be a companion of Kings.  his Children or Princes, in the like spiritual sense; and so Peers of the Kingdom: and all the other Quakers that adhere to them, Subjects of his Kingdom: for these denominations are most firmly built upon that Doctrine which themselves approve. And so it's no marvel that they proceed against those among themselves, that will not subject themselves to his constitutions, as against Rebels and Apostates. As for others that have not at all submitted to his Government, which they preach up under the terms of the Light, Christ in man, Christ the Light, The Seed, A measure of Christ, The Spirit, The Infallible Guide, etc. They account them disobedient persons, haters of the Light, Such as love darkness rather than Light, Of the World that lies in wickedness, Infidels, etc. As Muggleton accounts them unbelievers and reprobate persons that do not believe him to be the great Prophet; so do the Quakers those that submit not to G. Fox, but under the specious names aforesaid: but they give as much special evidence of their being sent of God one as another. They appeal to the Light in us; and when we condemn them upon most mature consideration, they rail against us as partial Judges; W. Pen doth professedly number all that oppose them among Infidels, or worse, and denies them the Privileges of Believers; Nay, for aught I see he counts all of us that are married, Rogues, our Wife's Whores, and our Children Bastards; for he will not call John Pennymans' Wife by his name, but by her Widow's name, consequently she is a Whore, and her Child a Bastard, for all honest Women among us are called by their Husband's names. If he say John Pennyman was not married according to the Law of the Land; that exception will be as strong against himself, who has had a Child by one, to whom he was never so married. Therefore the true reason of his abusing John Pennyman and his Wife must be, because they were not married in the way of the Quakers; and the same reason is full as strong against all that are not subjects of G. Fox's Kingdom. Consequently he would call all our Wives by their former names, if he durst: And W. P. is not singular in this matter, for other Foxonians have done the like in their Writings: so that it is matter of Judgement, not only of special malice, though perhaps it may be imputed to that cause, that he so describes John Pennyman's Wife her inner apparel, as if he were as intimate with her as he is said to be with Gulielma Mar— But M. Pennyman is better known and reputed for an honest Woman than W. P. is for a Man.  
But what occasion did our Author give why W. Pen should fall so foul upon John Pennyman, and especially upon his Wife? A Woman who hath deeply suffered for their sakes, and faithfully served them for many years in whatsoever her hand found to do, (as she saith of herself in her Printed Postscript, (a sad rebuke to W. Pen) the Author doth not mention her, nor is there any one passage (that I know of) that relates to her; and that which he doth say of her comes in by head and shoulders. The Quaker-Ministers have changed that mean and plain habit in which they came forth at first, into rich and fine clothing, saith the Author: He cries out against our Ministers decent and clean apparel, (as if rich and fine, decent and clean were all one) saith Pen) which is but a better sort of cover for his own rusty Garb. Who ever thought to hear a Quaker blaming a Quaker for his mean Apparel? Then he suggests that against him, which I'm confident is the case of many among them, viz. That the Quakers mean  made up much of his convincement at first: but then immediately and on the contrary derides John Pennyman and Mary his Wife for her Farrendine Gown and Satin Bodice. Thus he lays about him like a madman; The Author has vexed him, and he wrecks his fury upon M. Pennyman: We may see what a kind of Gentleman he is: a true Knight would have spared a Woman that gave him no offence, and not have stripped her to her Bodice, and exposed her in the open streets with her Name and Crime in her forehead: but all this is suitable to a Peer of G. Fox's Kingdom.  
XXII. But as for J. Pennyman, he is one who for many years has had his Soul vexed by seeing and hearing the things complained of by our Author, and such like, insomuch that he has often bore Testimony against them; and therefore they conclude him of the same spirit with the Author, which was sufficient to entitle him to all the reproach they could cast upon him, which dealing of theirs with their shameful covering or denying the matters objected, and bold challenge to make them good, fell out to the advantage of our Author's Letter, for thereupon May 30 1673, J. Pennyman went to the Quakers Meeting in Grace-Church-street, and there openly declares that though he was wholly ignorant of either the writing or printing of the Spirit of the Hat, yet knowing many of the matters therein inserted to be true, he was willing to give John Osgood (who knew them as well as himself) and others a private meeting to manifest the same, and also many other matters of as high concern and of as great wickedness, which (saith he) for about these thirteen years myself with several others in those days bore a faithful Testimony against: The next day W. Pen, J. Osgood, J. Claypool, and W. Brend came to his house and demanded of him to give them a particular charge, 
* They would not grant John Whitehouse a copy of his charge, which John Boulton and others had drawn up against him.  which he soon drew up and sent to W. Pen, containing twenty four particulars, many of which are intimated in these Papers. (The 23d against George Fox discovers his hypocrisy and daubing, which we publish not, as W. P. doth any base Insinuation, that may make his adversary obnoxious to the Government) To which W. Pen, according to his wont modesty, replies, that they wondered to see so empty an Account, after so great a charge publicly exhibited; that they had agreed among themselves, that before they proceeded to a meeting, be should let them know, if this were all be intended to insist upon, and if the issue of that Trial should be the decision of the controversy between them, they would not have their charge piece-meal with more to that purpose. To which J. P. returns, that he had done enough at present. Thus these great Champions evade the answering of this fair Challenge. And now, though our Author's name doth not appear, yet we have that which gives more vallidity to his Work, the public attestation of a credible person personally given: For names to Books have been not seldom forged; and who knows whether W. Pen will publicly attest to all those Pamphlets, and things in them, that are printed with his name? If he will, then let him hear what a judicious Country-Gentleman writes to his Friend upon the reading of The Spirit of Alexander, and the Winding-sheet. W. P's words of J. P. are more scornful, than can be seem any pretender to sobriety: His stomach is neither nice nor squeamish: He can (I see) talk at the rate of a Coffee-house Pamphleteer, and account it a piece of high self-denial to set his name to his jerking answers. This man is more mild than that learned and conscientious man who upon the reading of his Winding-sheet, gives him in his Letter the title of Buffoon, and much more of that import, which I do not remember.  
W. P. His treating of J. P. and his Wife in this manner puts me in mind of his calling it a horrid lie, that they with the Papists prefer a lose person before a Nonconformist: p. 15. for what are J. P. and his Wife, our Author and the other ingenious Quakers (whom they call Hat-men) any other but Nonconformists? whom yet he treats as Apostates, the worst of men: so that his answer to that charge which he calls a horrid lie, proves it a clear truth, if there were nothing else (as there wants not enough) to bear evidence.  
XXIII. Now for conclusion to this very unpleasent work, (which the benefit I hope many will reap from it, has put me upon) I shall further allege several testimonies, both out of G. Fox, W. Pen himself, and divers other of their approved men, against the honour and reverence of the Hat, which now they impose, upon peril of all sacred and civil privileges that are in their power to deprive their people of.  
King G. Fox. True Honour among the Jews.  
P. 8. The Honour and Worship with the Hat, and that humility (so called) is voluntary, and voluntary humility, and not of command by Christ and his Apostles, etc.  
P. 11. For the Hat is an earthly thing, and a thing below; and they that trouble, fine, imprison about it, cannot choose but mind earthly things, and mind things below, and circumstances, and customs, and fashions of the world, and feigned humility in which there is no substance, which is below the Royal Seed, and the nobility and dignity of a man, and the honour above, and the Worship of God, and the true humility which goes before true honour that is above.  
P. 13. Now is not Christians worse than these— who make such a work and ado about putting off their Hats, which are for the covering their nakedness? But the true Jews would not put off their Hats in the Synagogue, nor in the Temple, etc.  
1653. G. Fox and Rich. Hubberthorus Reply to the Northern Ministers, in a Book called Truth's Defence, etc.  
P. 22. And when you read them [the Psalms] Hats you keep on, and when you sing them Hats you put off, and here you worship the works of your own hands, etc.  
1653. G. Fox in a Book called Several Papers, etc.  
P. 5. And when they read the Psalms, they keep on their Hats; and when they sing them, they keep off their Hats; here they worship the work of their own hands: all such practices we deny.  
About 1659., G. Fox To the Judges and Lawyers.  
P. 10. Now the Hat-Worship, that Honour, that Idol is set up by transgressors, but men that be in the Law of God which is over transgression— they mind not the Hat.  
P. 25 Now putting off the Hat is but a custom got up among the Christians since the Apostles in the Apostasy, a vain custom set up by traditions, which is a worship of Men and of the Beast, and honour below, and an Idol set up by Transgressor's.  
P. 27. O what a covering of darkness is got over you! [speaking of the then Ministry, etc.] and of prejudice and hardness of heart and wickedness, that now in the Ancient of days, a Hat makes such work with you?  
W. Pen. No Cross no Crown, P. 7, 8.  
Sixteen Reasons why Cap-honour and titular respects are neither honour nor respects.  
Reas. 1. Because— if true honour consists in Hats, Bows, or Titles, then are the most profane and deboist the most civil, since most expert in those vain Ceremomies, which is impossible. Psal. 50.23. Isa. 33.15.  
Reas. 2. Because real Honour is a substantial thing manifested by obedience, which therefore cannot stand in invented gestures— which it must necessarily do in case the ceremony of the Hat be an honour or respect.  
Reas. 4. Because honour properly ascends, not descends, yet the Hat is near as frequently off to equals and inferiors, as to superiors.  
Reas. 5. If pulling off a Hat, or Title, were to pay honour, who so vile— that could not honour? but this is to make Honour (as superstitious men do Religion) to consist in some external appearances, etc.  
Read more in his Book, which for brevity sake I may not transcribe.  
J. Naylor, concerning Worship, Printed about 1656. God is a Spirit, and in Spirit is he worshipped, not with men's hands, not with bodily exercise, farther than by the eternal Spirit the body is exercised: so the imaginations, think, and conceivings are shut out; all man's ways, man's times and forms, man's decency and orders are all shut out, and condemned with the Spirit in which God alone is worshipped.  
Now I shall produce the Judgement of eminent men among the Quakers concerning the very controversy about the Hat, after it was commenced among them.  
Isaac Pennington. Some Queries in the power and drawings of the Spirit of the Lord, etc.  
Quer. 1. Whether this present ministration of life doth not point men to an inward principle there to wait for the Teachings of God's Spirit within, and not to go forth into reasonings about things (either from Scriptures or otherwise) after the manner of men?  
Quer. 2. Whether those whom the Lord made use of to direct to this principle, did then tell us that when we were turned thereto, we must observe what comely orders were prescribed by the Apostles in the Churches, and that they prescribed them by the Spirit of God; and that if we were not found in the same comely orders, we were not led by the Spirit of God; or did they not rather tell us, that the Epistles of the Apostles were writ to the then present state of the Churches, and that we were not to take up the same practices unless we were led thereunto by the same Spirit?  
Quer. 3. 
To this 3d Query G. Whitehead answers— the 5th of the 4th month 1663. This is an unreasonable and impertinent Query, especially as it is to in who are in the Ministry, for we never went about to limit the Spirit of the Lord, in putting off or keeping on the Hat in Prayer, etc. Will he now dare to disown and punish men for that practice, which he acknowledges they may be moved to by the Spirit of the Lord? O strange!  Is the putting off or keeping on the Hat in Prayer a thing of such a nature, for the Spirit of the Lord so to be limited about, as that he shall not, etc.— may not the Spirit of the Lord in some of his chosen vessels testify against it? Oh let God alone reign in Israel!  
Quer. 4. If this be brought in as a comely order, is there not equal ground for bringing in all other things which the Apostles prescribed in those days to the Churches, as comely orders also, and so setting up the outward Court again, which the Spirit of the Lord left out in the measuring of his Temple, and withdrew from?  
Qu. 5. Is not this the direct way to draw the mind into reasonings about Scriptures, and from a simple waiting on the principle of Life, where the true peace and unity alone is preserved, and so necessarily a begetting into separation and division? for it is not at this day different practices that divide, but a departing from the principle, and a propagating of unity by reasonings and considerations about things, where it is easy to err and run into uncertainties, and miss of the principle of life and its leadings, which (if the Lord suffer it to prevail) will bring that desolation and reproach upon Israel, which the enemy otherwise never could.  
Thus far Isaac P. who surely is a man as able to give an account of the Quakers principle as W. Pen the Novice in that way. If it be said that Isaac P. is of another mind now; that makes for us and not against us: for if he was for many years before a true Quaker and a great and approved Writer for that way of infallibility, and then for some years after professed that, as their principle and doctrine, which he afterward recants; doth he not evidently give the lie to himself and doctrine? Can the Spirit of God reach a man for seven years together that he ought to keep off his Hat at Prayer, and then for the next seven years teach him that he may keep it on sometimes, and testify against the constant keeping it off, and after that testify against that Testimony? what blasphemy would it be to assert this? And yet this is Isaac P's case. Would to God he, and they that are concerned with him, would seriously consider what firmer grounds he has in such matters to believe himself infallible at one time more than at another? If it must be resolved by the judgement of the Body, then for ever give over the Doctrine of Infallible Teachings in particular persons; and betake yourselves to the Church of Rome, whose Characteristic Doctrine that is. But if every particular person is fallible, whereon shall the Infallibility of the Body be grounded? but to proceed to some other of these infallible Teachers.  
John Crook the 22d of the 12th Mon. 1662. About Meats, and Drinks, Gestures, and Postures, Habits, Times, and Places.  
DEarly Beloved Friends— Meats are for the belly and the belly for Meats: the head is for the hat, and the hat for the head, but God will destroy and lay all these in the dust. Know your liberty therefore as to these things in the Lord, as things below the life into which you are called; only use it not for a Cloak, for envy or discord: for as we read of Cain and Abel, two men performing the same action, attended with the same circumstances of occurrences and formalities, and yet the one accepted and the other rejected; In like manner may two persons be found in contrary actions, postures or gestures, and yet both accepted of God.— For if I should lay a bond upon myself therein, I transgress the liberty of the Spirit, either as to time, constanoy or place: or if another should lay a bond upon me, or put a yoke about the neck of the disciples, this is no more justifiable than the former, etc.  
We find John Crook and Edward Burrough also (a man great without control) joining in a Letter with John Perrot (the Head of the Hat-men) and professing their unity with him long after he had declared himself in the matter of the Hat.  
Thus they writ: We are here [Newgate prison] kept close prisoners, but the blessed presence of the Lord is with us, and we are all in dear love and perfect unity, and our souls do rejoice in the fellowship with God, and one with another, in his love and life: and the Lord hath knit our hearts together in the happy unity, and the contrary is judged, and life and power reigns over all, Blessed for ever.  
About the year 1662. 

Edward Burrough.  
John Crook.  
John Perrot.    
XXIV. In the last place I shall allege the Testimony of Benj. Furly (a man of parts) concerning this controversy of the Hat, as I find it given in a shorter abstract of a large Paper wrote by him in behalf of himself and the Quakers in Holland, Dated from Rotterdam about the year 1663., and addressed to George Whitehead: which tho' it is larger than might fit this Discourse, yet I hope will recompense the Reader by a clearer state of the controversy among them.  
It runs thus:  
George Whitehead,  
THy Paper, etc. I received, and indeed cannot but admire at thy proceeding therein and dealing with me in that politic manner; but simplicity and innocency had better become thee and the profession of the Ministry of Christ, and will always be found the best Weapons and Armour; but those that have neither Truth nor Right with them in their plea, must needs use such weapons as are most suitable to their evil cause, and by which Truth hath always been opposed, and the professors thereof persecuted: for verily, to my grief, I find thee in this thing walking in the too too plain footsteps of all the false prophets that ever got up into a carnal Authority, viz. to  the innocent and harmless sheep in the skin of a wolf, or some other ravenous beast, and then all will be out of love with them at first sight; the sheep will shun and avoid them, and the dogs run upon and tear and worry them. Thus thou hast done whether simply or subtly, the Lord will judge; but thou hast put me on the Garments of opposition, imposition, etc. yea of opposition against such as in the freedom or motion of the Spirit of Life do put off their Hats in Paryer; which thing is far from me, and that which I shall, as the Lord gives me opportunity and freedom, bear my testimony against in any person whatsoever.— And the Paper which I wrote speaks no such thing as thou wouldst impute to it, it speaks not in the least against any thing which any man is moved to from the Lord, nor against any man for doing as he is moved; nay, though he should but so think and be mistaken in his thoughts, I would not have him leave it till he sees better. But I do only caution such as do practise it without any other ground in themselves, as to the thing itself, as to that groundless one of doing it because others do it, and because it hath been our cuistom and order so many years, etc.— And seeing such a Paper come forth from G. F. so harshly and perversely judging all about it as being entered into the Ranters principle (though we hate it as much as he can) and calling it a comely order, etc. to be out of which was a token of being out of the Spirit in which the Apostle did worship God. And knowing further that G. F. did as much break one part of that order (so called) in prophesying covered, and others with praying with Caps on their heads, for the Apostle saith every man that prayeth or prophesyeth (and G. F. in his Paper to the Dutchmen addeth, or speaketh) having any thing upon his head, dishonoureth his head. I say, knowing and seeing this, I could not but lay these things before Friends, that they might not be deceived, by the example or authority of any man.— But if any list to be contentious about it, and tells it is a comely order, and I must put off my Hat, or by him be judged to be out of the Spirit of God, etc. I shall rather choose to undergo his false judgement then defile my conscience by any piece of will-worship which the Lord requires not of me— and tell him or them that the Church of God hath no such custom as to contend or impose in such matters, but hath in this taught us, and that truly, that every member is to be guided by the measure of Life— in which alone the true unity and good order is.  
And I am fully persuaded of this, that if ever any separation be, it will be through thy and some others Lording, rigid driving Spirits,— yet I cannot but caution thee and all Friends, to keep to the motion of the Spirit of God in all things, and to act nothing by custom, upon the account of being his People or the true Church, etc. For who or what made us to differ? and if we go without that, wherein do we again differ from others? and he can soon call them his people, and make them a people that are no people.  
For it is not lawful for any man, or company of men, because he or they are in the Spirit of God, and of the true Church, to do, or agree to do what they please, nor to make, appoint, prescribe rules and orders for themselves and all other the members of the same body, how or in what manner they shall worship God, and then walk in those rules, whether the Lord leads them into them or no:— But if he or they shall go and do that which the Spirit and Life doth not require of him, it shall be said unto him or them, who hath required this thing at your hands: And therefore very unreasonable & contrary to the known grounds and principles of truth is thy Query to us,— viz. Wherefore we do not go into the world and show our testimony and sign against them in their Steeple-Houses. For we can as little go into any of the Steeple-Houses to be a sign against them, as we can be conformable to any practice which some Friends may use— unless it be required of us. No manner of worship being true or performed aright further than it is performed in the guidings, leadings and motions of the Spirit both as to matter, manner, form and order.  
And for thy saying, what do I know but the Lord may require the putting off the Ha● now as he did Moses to put off his shoe? I say, I limit not the Lord, nor dissuade any from obeying him, nor yet to leave this thing, that do but think it is required of them, but what is this to them that know the Lord doth not require it of them? And tho' thou shouldest this day feel the Lord certainly leading thee to it, what's that to thee to morrow, unless thou hast the same motion then also? yea if a man should have found the Lord leading him ninety and nine times to a thing, if he should do it once more in his own will, that once will be found to be will-worship and voluntary humility, etc.— for he is as much an Idolater that goes before the power, as he that draws back or stays behind is disobedient. Therefore beware what thou dost thyself, and how thou leadest others to act blindly without their own guide. Thou sayest I accuse G. F. for being of another mind than he was six or seven years ago; but thou dost abuse me in so saying: for I neither say nor can believe that he is really of another mind, but that he is to this day, and thou also of the mind (tho' ye unrighteously detain or conceal the Truth) that it is neither sin against nor dishonour to God for a man publicly to Pray with his Hat on, which both his and thy practice so long since (and still in prophesying so) doth evidently show. But when a man gives himself to partiality, to justify an unrighteous & condemn a righteous thing, what confusion is he not subject to utter, and what pitiful stuff will he not bring forth, as is this thy fond argument, viz. that the outward head must be uncovered, because all things are naked and bare before the Lord; and thy silly (or worse) comparing the Elders casting down their Crowns before the Throne of God to worship, with men's doffing their Hats to Pray; but surely thou art not so weak as thou seemest, nor dost in thy conscience believe, that they did then doff their Hats, nor yet that those Crowns were any visible Materials: and yet very frivolously sayest, this was no Romish Tradition. O George! why dost thou thus dally in these matters? may not doffing the Hat as a piece of reverence and worship of God, be a Romish Tradition, though that was none? May not a man doff his Hat to Pray, and yet keep his Crown and not cast it down before the throne of God? and may he not wear his Hat in Prayer, and yet cast down his Crown as the Elders did? etc. I fear this strife is more for Mastery and the Crown than for the thing itself; and in Christ and his Worship no bodily service of any member availeth any thing, but a new creature; neither any covering is to be heeded, but that of the new man.  
But if thou judgest us in this thing as weak children, bear with us as such, and abuse us not, neither insult over us, as being gotten up above us into the state of Christ who never fell, and beyond the state of Adam before he fell; and withal beware of thinking so of thyself,— for this work of thine apparently comes from self, and exalted above judgement, which God will bring down.  
Thy true Friend Benjamin Furly.  
Now I hearty beg it of the Quakers that they would seriously lay it to heart, How they can be assured of any motion or immediate revelation from God, concerning any matter of belief or practice, (not determinable without such revelation,) so as to judge another person thereabout? Since they find such palpable and acknowledged contradictions in those things, both to one another and to themselves, in the very chief men of their party. And I am persuaded that all that know them will acknowledge that the Hat-men, and those that consented with them, were far more considerable for abilities and endowments of every kind, than any the like number of Foxonians. For my part I wonder much what account those that are fallen from their Principles among these, can give of their so doing either to God or men. Indeed it's matter of wonder that any conscientious and sober man or woman should yet adhere to a Body of People, whose Leaders are detected of such gross Contradictions and Enormities as these we have been treating of.  
THE END.   

Here follows a Copy of George Fox's ORDER touching the Slit in the Waistcoat, etc. mentioned pag. 11.  
ALL Friends every where on your Signs set not up the image and likeness of any Creature in Heaven or in Earth, but by the power of the Lord keep down all the makers of such things; for the ground of them is from the Heathen: But set up a Bedstaff, Fireshovel, Saw, Fork, Compasses, Andirons, Harrow, Blow, or any such thing. And all Friends every where admonish one another, young and old, that ye do not run after the World's fashions, which are invented and set up by the vain and light mind; which if you do, How can ye judge the World for such things? Away with your Skimmingdish-Hats, and your unnecessary Buttons on your Cloaks and Coats, and on the tops of your shoulders behind, and on your sleeves: Away with your long Slit-Peaks behind on the skirts of your Waistcoats, and short Sleeves, punishing your shoulders so as you cannot have the use of your arms. Away with your short black Aprons, and some having none; Away with your Vizards, whereby you are not distinguished from bad Women, and your bare-Necks, and your great needless flying Scarves like Colours on your backs. And so set not up nor put on that which you did once with the Light condemn; but in all things be plain, that you may adorn the truth of the Gospel of Christ and judge the World, and keep in that which is comely and decent.  
George Fox.   

Published with the consent of divers credible Persons, who will be ready upon any just occasion to give in their Testimonies concerning the matters of Fact herein contained, and at the instance of many,  
By Francis Smith.