A Winding-Sheet FOR Controversy Ended.  
SO Unpleasant are the Dead among the Living, and so Unfit for any thing besides a Grave, that to remove this Deceased Controversy out of sight, who was both Troublesome Living, and by her Numerous Corruptions, Noisome, now Dead; I the least of all Men concerned to be Kind, contribute a Winding-Sheet towards her Funeral; unless in this I am remembered above others, whatever may be Peevish, Rude, Revengeful, and Impiously Unjust to Man, she has without all Consideration, besides her own freewill, left me for a Legacy.  
That I may not be False to the Truth, Cruel to my own Name, nor Unjust to the World, resolved I am to declare how I came thus in her Books, and to take a Serious View of this Last Will and Testament, and see if I can Vindicate the Truth, Defend myself, and Detect her Villainy to all People; which Her must be an HE sometimes, I mean, Henry Hedworth by Name.  
I shall be very brief, yet Defend myself, Vindicate G. F. consider the Doctrines touched on, of Light, Rule, Divinity, Humanity of Christ, Scriptures Perverted, and his Contradictions, Lies and Revenge.  

Sect. I. William Penn Defended.  
§. 1. Pag. 1. Controversy Ended. Too Big Words, and Happy; but Unhappily applied: Proud and Arrogant; not The, or A Controversy, but Controversy Ended; a Lie in the Front of it, while Civil and Religious Wars remain. But certainly, a Lie with a Witness, if It should in this respect not be Ended. An Ill-guarded Expression, and dangerous to H. H. Again,  
Pag. 1. §. 2. William Penn, their Ablest Advocate. Why Ablest, but because his Ambition Scorned to Engage a Mean One. Self-Pride, and not Justice to W. Penn. But to proceed,  
Pag. 4. §. 3. I looked upon him as a Man of some Learning, Judgement and Conscience; but I find myself Mistaken, in reference to his Judgement and Conscience. How can he choose, who denies Infallibility? But if Mistaken before, why not in the Quakers now? and so, ad infinitum, being so fallible. Because than we did not utterly Reject him, in hopes of Good from him; but since slighted, with his Dark Imaginations, he is like Satan from Heaven fallen among the Anabaptists, who indeed Glean but our Leave, though they Foolishly, yet Gladly turn his Busy Agents. But let it be observed, that he not only charges my Judgement, but Conscience; which none can do, that has not Inward Inspection; if so; does he not censure that as Arrogant in the Quakers, which he does himself? What is it, but to make me a very Rogue, to Write against my Judgement and Conscience? and why, but because I answered; he invited me to it: and had I not done it I had been vanquished; and now I have done it, it is against my Judgement and Conscience; Is this the Meek and Impartial Socinian, or Arrogance itself? I appeal to the Unprejudiced in this Particular. His Failing or Foulness here, should Antidote all Sober Minds against his other Impostures. Again,  
Pag. 5. §. 4. If they set their Names to their Books, to have Praise of Men, I seek it not. Mere Deceit and Hypocrisy! Controversy Ended never yet durst set her Name to any Public Thing I ever saw from her. A very Night-Bird and Wanderer; one, that looks and creeps about like a Vagrant. It is Honesty in us to own our Books, and an high Self-denial to suffer our Names to be subjected to the Reviling of every such Detractor. But take notice, that Paul, who so often begins with his Name, and every other Author extant, is reproved by this Angry Momus, But hear him.  
Pag. 5. §. 5. Next, He is much offended at a Quondam Friend of his, who was so Kind as to give away some Sixpenny Books to those he knew would not buy them. A Notable Charge! And who was this Quondam Friend? that Little Great Pragmatical Thomas Firmin: A Monster, all Tongue, and no Ears; it seems he is now become an Enemy then, but for what? because I abhor his Folly, Lightness and Foul Mouth. Who bid him buy the Books? Was he begged to do it? or did I sell them him? or was he Angry he could not sell them himself? What! Would he have added the Stationer, without Licence, to his many other little Trades? It seems he took Money of as many as would buy them: and if he gave them to those that would not, let him look to that. But Disingenuous Men? Christians? No, I would detest to fasten such Dirty Scandals upon a Turk. Away with your Socinian-Agency. Is this the End of all your Creeping Daubs, Dissimulated Praise, and Hypocritical Address? But indeed, what other could there be?  
Pag. 6. §. 6. He proceeds, Measure his Book by the Title, The Spirit of Truth Vindicated against that of Error and Envy Unseasonably Manifested (as if there were a Season for the Manifestation of Error and Envy) in a late Malicious Libel. My Title is Serious: I did not say, The Spirit of the Socinians Tried, according to that Discovery it has made of itself, in their (Lamentable, yet Conceited Agent) Henry Hedworth; as he did of the Quakers and G. Fox, much less, affirm them to be Impostors, Liars and False Prophet: No, God forbid, though Provoked thereto, by an Envious Libel, which Controversy Ended begun with us upon. Nor is there any Time or Season, in which to manifest Error and Envy justifiably, yet for all this Carping Zoilus, every thing has its Time, and even Wicked Men may, as to the Prosperity of their own Concerns, Unseasonably Time their Projects, as did the Author of that Discourse. For his Collection of my Expressions, with respect to his Epistle, let the Reader peruse my Book, and see the Occasion: There is nothing so Detestable and Hard as Impostor, Liar, False Prophet; nor so Foul as Puppy, Fool, Cheat, Knave, etc. But no more after this time of the Latter, as fresh Accusation, because Recanted, which is the first time I ever heard of it: only, that Free Way, as H. Hedworth mincingly calls it, of so speaking, and that not privately, as he pretends; but in the Hearing of many, in a Public Place, much better deserves a Bridewell, than an Exchange.  
§. 7. But W. P. (like a Man that will Rob his Neighbour for Praise, rather than go without it) saith thus, Sect 2. If we Excel in All Things; I said, Whilst some of you Excel in Many Things. Here W. P. has committed a Double Falsity. 1. He puts All for Many. 2. Quakers indefinitely, for Some of Them. I have looked among the Printers Erratas, whether he had not Corrected ALL for MANY, but I find no such thing: If I should grant him that Error (without good Reason) yet the other piece of Falsity, viz. Putting We, the Quakers in general, for Some of them, will abide by him, to the Gross Injury of Me, and Shame of Himself.  
This, Reader, which he lays so great a Stress upon, I will manifest to be deep Ignorance or Malice. 'Tis true, ALL is put for MANY in the place cited, and has been by me Corrected with a Pen, and never was in my Copy. But what then? do I answer it as All or Many? If as the First, than I Err; yet perhaps not designedly neither: but if as the Last, MANY; what Hurt have I done. Sober Reader, hear my Book.  
If we excel in ALL Things, as he confesseth (there's the Cavil) which is to say, there are but Few Things wherein we do not transcend all others: how possibly can we be Dangerous and Dishonourable to the Christian Religion? Is the Christian Religion among the Few Things, wherein we are supposed wanting, which is the main Thing of all? If so, what are the MANY?  
Judge O Impartial People! How Disingenuously, and with what Envy he hath aggravated, that All for Many, when my own Answer makes no Advantage by it, but runs as it would have done had Many been instead of All: Is it true then, that to esteem it an Error in Printing is without Good Reason, for which there is so evident a Reason? Does this Man make Conscience of a Lie? An Idle Shifter. To his Second, He is here as False as in the Former; for the Paragraph immediately foregoing, to which this has reference, speaks thus, He is pleased to allow us, at least, a great many of us to be Honest-Hearted, etc. If this takes in the Quakers in General, or if any such word as Quakers in General be mentioned, or by me made to be the Consequence of his words, and not rather some of them, I will confess to have wronged him: In the mean time, he has kept to his old wont of most Ungodly Defamations, and fastening upon men's Writings Plain Untruths, but of his own making. God the Righteous Judge will Reward him.  
Pag. 9 §. 8. Lastly, But he tells us again, that in Sect. 8. which is Page 13. of my Spirit of Truth Vindicated, I say, I will not give him the Lie, and that in Page 92. I tell him, he has broke his Word with us, which in plainer English is, He has told a Lie, and would therefore fix the Lie on me; saying, I am Unchristian and Uncivil. But if this be an Answer to my Just Objection against his Twice Breach of Promise with us, not to Reflect, yet immediately to do it, not to use Scripture or Reason, counting us Unworthy, yet endeavour at both; let's forever give off Writing. What? tell me I Lie, because more than Seventy Pages of the Former Passage, in quite another case, I say, that breaking a Man's word, is, in Plainer English, telling a Liar: If I did forbear it at first, it was mere Courtesy. The Author's Countenance in Lies, might well justify my saying what I did; however, Lie and Contradict he did, and he denies it not, whatever I did: but it seems his Proud Spirit can't abide to be spoken plainly to; and to tell Truth of him, or reprove his Lies, must cost a Man as much Implacable Scurrility, as may be expected in case of Real Wrong, from the most Dissolute of Men. This is H. H. with his Grim Socinian Cavils bursoned with Folly and Revenge.  
For my Nonsense, or Ignorance in my Mother-Tongue, we will venture that with the World; but the Press has injured me not a little. I deny that ever Nonsense went to it, whatever came from it. However, H. Hedworth is not my Judge.   

Sect. II. of G. Fox.  
§. 1. P. 15. NOw let us hear what he says of G. F. He that is not Infallible, is a Deluder: but G. F. is not Infallible, therefore G. F. is a Deluder. The first proved from G. F's Book, How can ye be Ministers of the Spirit, and not be Infallible? And how can they but Delude People, who are not Infallible? I Answer,  
G. F's words stand immovable forever: He that is a Minister of the Spirit, is Infallibly so; and in that Ministry, is Infallible; otherwise, the Spirit's Ministry is Fallible, which is the Consequence of this Antispiritual Socinian, and not of G. F's Doctrine. Next, They who are not Infallible, as to the Things of God, they Teach, are not taught of God, nor of his Spirit of Grace, which gives Certain Unerring Understanding, and so Deluders. But G. F. never said, That every one that is not Infallible, is a Deluder in all things; for a Man may be Fallible or Mistaken in some Matters wherein he is not a Deluder: But the Drift of G. F's words is this, That such Preachers who deny the Spirit's Teachings, and Infallible Knowledge, as necessary to a Qualification of a Gospel Ministry, are Deluders; and in this Sense, who pretend to Teach, and know not the Certainty, but the Incertainty rather of what they Teach, such are Deluders; and by this will I stand, against this Vain Syllogizer, in Defence of that Defamed, yet Worthy Man, G. F. But he endeavours to prove G. F. himself not Infallible.  
Pag. 15, 16. §. 2. Next, he that renders the Pronoun YE, where it is to be understood, or renders the Greek Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, BY, WITH, or AMONG, or TO; or puts HE for WE, or what is equivalent, is a Perverter or Corrupter of Scripture, and not infallible, as saith G. F. of his Adversaries: but G. F. does so himself, Ergo a Perverter and Corrupter: the same about his being a Blasphemer; since who corrupts Scripture, preaches what he has not from Heaven, therefore a Blasphemer. O the Logic, O the Ethics, but O the metaphysics of this Under-Graduat in Philosophy!  
What! Is this any more than Bombast Repetition? It was time for Controversy to End indeed. I say, that G. F. had to do with such as believed every Particle, yea the very Hebrew Points themselves to be part of the Scriptures, divinely given forth, as an unalterable and only Rule. He denies it, but asserts the Spirit of Truth that gave them forth to be the Rule, especially since Christ's Manifestation in the Flesh. The Priests therefore are Perverters and Corrupters if they leave out one Jot or Tittle; but G. F. not so: for if the Sense be rendered, God never tied People to the express words, says he; therefore G. F. his not obliging himself to that exactness, makes him no Perverter, unless he should be judged by the untrue Notion, other men have of a Rule that he submits not to, which were Injustice itself. This shows then how unwarrantably our Adversary useth my words against G. F. which are only due to himself; and the Priests he defends, unless he could make their Case one, which he can never do: and therefore what I say to them, cannot be ascribed to G. F. but with manifest wrong. For the Doctrinal Mistakes, they shall be considered anon; only thus far G. F. is no Perverter or Corrupter, and consequently no Blasphemer, if he put With for Among; but the Priests are, who so grievously transgress their own Rule; for they esteem it no less by their Opinion of it.  
Pag. 17. §. 3. But Sol. Eccles' Testimony makes G. F, little other than a God, therefore G. F. a Blasphemer; which is the meaning of his quoting it; but this Lie is for the Lake. Neither G. F. nor S. E. nor the Quakers own any such Inference; neither was the Resemblance in that of the World's being made by him. Good Men may be resembled to Christ in one thing, not in another; Methinks he that believes him only to be an Example, should not deny such Doctrine: but he is angry it should be thought, Christ made the World be came into; he cannot abide that Verse should meet him any where. Neither should he refuse S. E. a mystical Defence for himself, had he thought great things of G. F. when he himself believes it was not the Visible Creation: No; he thinks, Christ no more made this World, then T. Firman did. What then! Will he call Men Blasphemers from other men's Principles? But let him take World which way he pleaseth, the Comparison lay not there; And if it was esteemed Disingenuous in me to mention two Letters of a Man's Name, by way of Reproof, for open Slanders against a man by name at Length, after he had retracted, though I knew it not: certainly it is dishonest with great Aggravation, to question that which has been so often explained and denied, as taken by the World, and that in Print too. But what would not H. Hedworth do, to dirt the Quakers: but we are not to be Hanged by his Straws, nor Fettered by his Cobwebs— Now let sober Persons judge, whether the Beginner of this Controversy knew well how to employ his time, who thought to run down a Folio Book of near 400. Pages, the Author, and with him the Quakers, as Impostors, Liars, and False Prophets, with five or six Sheets, stuffed with dull Ignorance, and Cavils, at G. F's putting Within for In, In for Among, etc. O shallow Head! O Envious Heart! The Spoils in thy Triumph will scarcely cover the Brow-beats, thy own Weakness has given thee, in the sight of the World.   

Sect. III. Of the Rule.  
§. 1. BE it known to the World, that this Socinian Agent, who in the Dark Hector's every Persuasion, has shown himself unworthy the Name of a Man, who has turned his Book upon 25 Scripture Arguments, 6 Reasons, 2 Answers to 2 Objections about the Quakers denying the Scriptures, 15 most clear Authorities, from Papists, Protestants and Socinians 
Pag. 12, 13, 58, 59, 60, 61.  themselves, to prove the Infallible Spirit of God to be the true Christian Rule of Faith, without so much as taking them into any other Consideration, then to fasten downright Lies upon us in general, and me in particular; affirming, that I say Men are to be guided by immediate Inspiration, in opposition to Scriptures, etc. a Lie as Black as Hell, such words are not to be found in my Book. And the very next Paragraph, Now, if this be his Meaning, then tell me if Tollet. Mald. Dr Ham. Hutch. Soc. Sclith. Crel. were of his Mind? Here he doubts what before he asserted: Rare Confutation to 31 pages of serious Christian Argumentation! Well, I will suppose those men never understood it so; nor did ever any Quaker in England, to his great Dishonesty and Shame I assert it: for we say, that the true Knowledge of the Scriptures, is most Heavenly and Divine Knowledge; but the holy Spirit that brought those holy Men out of that they reprove, and into that blessed State they Exhort to, is only able to make that Condition Ours, by its secret Strive, Discoveries, and Operations. We know God may, and does by his Spirit reach to the Conscience, by Scripture and Preaching; but than it is the holy Spirit that makes it efficacious, by fresh and living Touches, and we cannot call it our Faith or Knowledge, till quickened to it by that Eternal Spirit, be it mediately, or be it immediately 
See p. 60, 61. ; and this shall Break the Serpent's Head, Maugre the Force of these Lattern and Mongrel Socinians; which roundly checks his saying, That I bestowed 32 Pages to prove G. F's Spirit to be Infallible; for that belongs simply to God's alone, and then those that are led by it, which was my Question, and in which sense he is, and 
See Spir. of Tr. Vind. Pag. 16.  all such Persons are Infallible, as he himself confesseth pag. 27. and if he fooled himself by any other Belief of us before, let him look to that. But he quarrels at my Use of the Word Spirit, and thinks it Erroneous, that God should be intended by it. God is a Spirit, nor can he be without his Spirit: But H. H's Notion of a Spirit, is a created third Person, and so God is separated from his own Spirit indeed; A Doctrine of late standing.  
Pag. 10. 11. §. 2. But perhaps I should not have been so free with him: To conclude, He allows G. F. to have a Conscience, that to be an Infallible Rule, that God is the Author of it, that the Spirit may be said to have taught G. F. that God did work upon him by it etc. therefore I infer, G. F. to have an Infallible Rule in him; and that both Conscience, and the Spirit of God are said by him to be this Infallible Rule; which, Reader, is more than any Quaker in England ever said, unless Conscience be taken for Christ's Light within, or God's Light within; for H. H. abhors to think Christ should be God enough to illuminate any Man in that sense. But let it be observed, that this Person, who calls the Light of God in the Conscience an Infallible Rule, called it Imperfect in his Letter, contradicting his Dialogue-Man, J. Faldo, and himself too; For than must every Man have a Rule in himself.   

Sect. IU. Of the Light of Christ Within.  
§. 1. THis gravelled him sorely: his beloved Socinianism is shaken by it; this will have him that was, and is called Christ, to be the only Wise God, whether H. Hedworth will or no. But that he might avoid discovering of himself, and his Judgement of the first 10 Verses of John's History, he would not say a word; the Design had been known, and Plot broken, with which he hopes to blow up some Independants, and abundance of poor Anabaptists: therefore does he willingly pass over my Eight Arguments for the Divinity of Christ, and his Light within, and the Testimonies of Ancient and Modern Writers in their Defence. O notable Champion! He needs a better Prayer to excuse his Weakness, then that in Controversie-Ended.  
Pag. 23. But he says, that I am mistaken about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Coming; that the Arabic and Aethiopick, the three French and Low-Dutch Translations are for him; that I wrong Erasmus, by putting too ambiguous, for ambiguous (a Triffler) that Maldonat says, my Sense is neither false nor absurd: Grotius much approves of the Exposition which is extant in Cyr. and Aug. Dr Hammond reads it so.  
§. 2. But I will prove him an Ignorant, or malicious Lyar.  
The Arabic hath it thus; Quod erat Lumen verum illuminans omnem hominem. Venturus in mundum; That was the true Light which enlightens all Mankind. Here I acknowledge is a full stop, What then? therefore is not the Whole Adam or All Mankind enlightened that ever came into the World by this Light? Yes surely; the place proves it to be before, and distinct from that Coming: Nor doth he prove the Contrary. He that was about to come into the World; this begins the next Verse in the Arabic, and must have relation to Word, unless he would have it quod Lumen venturus, which can never agree any more, than his Lux venientem; yet this Man of Accidence will have it so: But still the place will have it, that Christ was before he came; though he and his Abominate all such Doctrine, for which alone, they deny his pre-illumination.  
§. 3. The Aethhiopic has it, Et is est Lux Justitiae, quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in mundum, and he is the Light of Righteousness, who enlightens all Mankind coming into the World. Nothing can be plainer than that Coming is joined to Man, not to Light. Had we an Imprimatur in our Budget like H. H. (the Fruits of T. Firman's Treats to the Licensary chaplains) I would have had it in the Original Characters; but Difficulty in Printing, and Unskilfulness in Compositors hindered: However, he has grossly belied these two Translations, and unworthily reflected on the Learned Interpreters, whose shoes his utmost Skill cannot prefer him to the Carriage of.  
§. 4. The Three French and Dutch Languages (he is not Master of any more than of the other) he also wrongs. Let him give to the World, but under the hands of any learned and Serious French Men, or Dutch Men, that Venant, or Komende, or Coming, was so intended, or is so received, as this great Master of Ignorance impudently avers to the World, and the Controversy, as to that part, shall end with me too. Reader, he has obtruded a very Lie upon thee.  
§. 5. But is it so Criminal to put too Ambiguous for Ambiguous? It belongs to him to think I wrong Erasmus; but none else can have so little Wit or Honesty. I am content with it so.  
§. 6. But he brings in my Maldonat, as he terms him, my sense is neither false nor absurd. He wrongs his words: but suppose them so; If Maldonat be for us, than our sense is neither false nor absurd: very well; suppose against us, it implies they may be taken also for us; which way soever, we have an Interest in them. But hear Mald. Christ illuminates all, that is, offers Light unto all: the other (not my) sense is neither false nor absurd, but in my Judgement not proper. I am better pleased, saith he, with the concurrent Interpretation of the Greeks, that Christ tenders his Light to all mankind; if they are not effectually enlightened, it is, because they refuse to embrace it. Now let this gross Abuser of his Reader appear, if he dare, in Defence of his Quotation; his own Lies obtruded upon the Simple, will clip his Wings.  
§. 7. Grotius and Dr. Hammond run the Socinian strain, but not with their end; they refer coming to Light, as discovering the Excellency of that Dispensation to all former Illumination; and the Socinians, to cut off all pre-exsistence of him who in time was called Christ, antecedent to that Appearance: We deny the latter, and the former I largely own in my Spirit of Truth Vindicated: for Lighteth and Inlightneth, they are one, with respect to the Soul, that being in man; therefore in and within is the same: but Inlighteth, strictly taken, I did confess, to signify a State of belief in the Light.   

Sect. V. Of Christ's Divinity.  
§. 1. IT is denied by the Socinians, and owned by us. To say as Controversy Ended doth, that we make Christ one with God in Nature, proves it for us; their Personality, which we deny, and he objects, is no part of the Essential Unity; therefore it hurts us not. But whether it becomes Independents and Baptist's to please themselves in their Labours, 
See Pag. 54, 55, 56.  who say Abraham was before Christ, and deny him to have made this World more than H. Hedworth, or T. Firman, etc. let the more Sober of them judge.   

Sect. VI Of Christ's Manhood.  
§. 1. THe Manhood, or Humanity of Christ, so called by Controversy Ended, is equivocally taken by the Author; for the Humanity of Christ implies something else proper to Christ, which he denies; as one Passage ill-guarded by him, discovers, when he slights and scorns this Conscientious Expression in my Book, We dare not say the entire Christ was that Visible Body which died at Jerusalem: then, that Body was the Christ, and not the Body of Christ: For know Reader, they hold no other Word (Scriptures excepted) then that which became Flesh, by a kind of Transubstantiation, and that the Soul as well died as the Body; which is their Meaning of those Words, He poured out his Soul unto Death, thus far agreeing with Noetus of old, more gross than Sabellius, his Scholar; and with Muggleton the Sorcerer of our days: So that whilst he suggests we deny the Manhood, and equivocate about the Divinity; he truly, denies the Divinity, and equivocates as to Christ's present Humanity, so called. See into what, but too many Independents and Anabaptists are Running: Let them do as they will; for us, We own Christ's Manhood, as firmly as the Scriptures testify to it, but we cannot say, the Manhood was the entire Christ, though Christ took that Manhood upon him, in which to do the Will of God; and it was (we confess) instrumentally a Saviour to the World, and our Faith herein we leave with God.   

Sect. VII. Of the Scriptures pretendedly Perverted by G. F.  
§. 1. AS these Scriptures about Fifty in number, most of them consisting in, them for him, with for among, in for within, etc. and G. F. have been irrefutably defended in my Spir. of Tr. Vind. from his utmost reflection, nor does he say any thing in his Controversy Ended, more Forceable, if any thing at all; so truly have we got 
Pag. 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43.  thus far the Wether of him, that in Answering the Scriptures Socinianized, and his Account of the Unitarians, alias Socinians Faith, he has fully declared himself Socinian; for he calleth it perverse Doctrine, to call God the Word, though if the Word be God, it is most reasonable: Also, that Christ should be named Father, though the Prophet style him, the Mighty God, and everlasting Father; but we will be more perverse in his sense: he boldly affirms that he Glory Christ prayed for, was a Glory in Decree, for which he quotes Grot. and Aug. they meant, with respect to Christ's Manhood, as having a rational Soul, like other Men; not that he, Christ, who took that Manhood, had not actual Glory before the World began, he who was before Abraham. In short, who ascended, first descended, and who was to be glorified, first humbled himself; which I pressed, and aptly proved, but he meddled not with it, nor the main strength of my Book at all. Let it suffice, that his sense of these words, makes Christ more equivocating, than he has represented any Quaker.  
Pag. 45. §. 2. Of the word Humane, he is very cheery, and derides G. F's refusal of it; making us to deny Christ's Manhood, which never entered into our Hearts to do; vindicating J. Newman's Book against us, and endeavouring to prove, that we deny the Flesh, Blood and Bones to be the Christ: quoting G. Whiteheads Book, called Christ Ascended; and J. Penington's Question to Professors etc. But does not this man walk self condemned, who himself believes no such thing, and equivocates about the word humane: for whilst the Independants and Anabaptist's understand a rational Soul in a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, H. Hedworth means, a rational Soul in a spiritual glorified Body, void of Flesh, Blood and Bones, which gives the Socinians such advantage over the Papists about transubstantiation; or else he varies from his Brethren. Is he not then detestably unjust, who would render the Quakers odious, for not believing that common Doctrine, which he himself by his principle rejects?  
Pag. 62. §. 3. About Swearing he thinks he has caught me fast. G. F. says there is nothing for I protest 1 Cor. 15. 31. and I say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used sometimes to express an Oath. O poor shift! is thy Game come so low? Yes, and it must come lower yet: But I say, there is nothing in that place respecting the Sense, for I protest; therefore G. F. said right.  
§. 4. Again, he is Angry that I say, Oaths were made from a Dis-Trust of Honesty in the Takers, to give true Evidence without them; and answers, As if God had disinherited his own Honesty in Swearing unto Christ, etc. But what is this to my Confutation? I say again, That God therefore Swore as Distrusting their Faith, and as being privy to their Weakness, that all Doubt might be removed out of their Minds. Oaths, therefore came through Weakness, not in God, but Men, which is removed by the Evangelical Righteousness, that says, SWEAR NOT AT ALL.  
Pag. 65. §. 5. About women's Speaking he tosses me off, for an Equivocator. Behold his Answer; this ends the Controversy in this Point.  
§. 6. Of my Argument against Titles, he asks Questions, Why maimed I do this, and that, and t'other? he may answer them if he please. Let him Enervate what I have 
Pag. 63, 64, 65  said, and say something he has not said, If Contr. End. will permit, and I am for him. However, he will supply his want of Reason with Lies gross enough, to prove we Receive and Give Divine Honour to Persons among us, That a Man should come many miles to see M. Fell, fall down on his Knees, his Hat in his Hand before her, making his Humble Address, and by the Compellation of My Dear Mother, and Beseeched her to Pray for him. It is either True or False; if True, he should have done the World Right in proving it, for fear it should be taken for a Lie in the Crowd of those which many Professors tell of us: and if False, Let the Heavens and the Earth, and his own Book bear witness against him in the Terrible Day of God. But we know of no such thing.  
That John Stubs did so, call M. Fell Everlasting Mother, is a Downright Falsehood; but being to go beyond the Seas, He, and she, with many more, fell down upon their Knees to Pray to Almighty God, that his Presence might accompany him. What an Infamous Construction has this Ishmaelite put upon a Most Holy Duty?  
§. 7. What Judas soever H. Hedworth associates with, or holds in hand, that informs him against us, I neither know, nor care: but let it not be Criminal, that I should say, Every Chaste Marriage or Coupling with Fear, as saith the Apostle Peter, is an Emblem of the Holy Covenant, and Marriage relation betwixt Christ and his Church. Shall that which Professors often illustrate Christ's Oneness with his People by, and think it no small Piece of Eloquence too, be reputed Pride or Blasphemy in G. Fox? O partial Man!  
§. 8. But G. Fox absolves Men, they kneeling; and many in the Ministry were wont to pull off his Shoes aboard of Ship. Prove the first if thou canst: and for being assisted, if so it was, to help a Man of a gross Body, full of Aches, through many tedious, and uncomfortable Imprisonments, where he has seen no Fire in the couldst Seasons, but been wetted in his very Bed, and his Chamber a small kind of a Pond, with the like Severities, cannot be esteemed Pride, much less receiving Divine Honour in the Judgement of any, but one as Malicious as H. Hedworth, bend implacably, to seek our Ruin, by all the Slanders he can collect from Men or Devils.   

Sect. VIII. Of his Contradictions.  
§. 1. TAke this small Parcel of Contradictions, which must needs touch 
Contr. End. P. 10, Sp. Qu. Tr. P. 40. Contr. End. p. 58, 56, 10, 11. p. 6. S. Q. T. p. 1, 2.  his proud Heart, as his very Words, or the result of them. The Light is Infallible: the Light is not Infallible: The Light is a Rule: the Light is not a Rule: The Leading Quakers are Impostors; Now we shall see, whether there he any Prudent and Honest Men among the Governing Quakers; G. Fox may have the Spirit of God who is an Impostor; yet God is not wont to give his Spirit but to his humble Servants and Friends, or those whom he will employ: G. F. hath an Infallible Rule in him; G. F. has not an Infallible Spirit in him. Thus is the Light rendered by him an Infallible, Fallible, Rule, and no Rule, and G. F. what this Guiddy-headed Socinian is pleased to have him.   

Sect. IX. Of several Frothy, Lying and Reproachful Passages.  
§. 1. WHether my Book of 17 Sheets of Paper, or his Pamphlet of 4 and an half be most weighty and argumentative, which clearest of contumely, Lightness, Reproach, and a spirit of Revenge I leave with such as impartially read both; only I will sum up a few of the many bitter sayings and untruths he casts upon us, that all may see how notably he has improved his time in this little compass. W. P. his huffing Book— they do but equivocatly confess the Divinity, and plainly deny the Humanity of Christ, Billingsgate Language! The Nature of his Argument required him to call G. F. and the Quakers, Impostors, Liars, False Prophets, Uncivil, Unchristian, Censors of the World; that the Scriptures to an uninspired Man, are like a Gazzet to a Privy-councillor (O irreverent Comparison) That W. P. charges G. F. with Folly, Malice, Weakness (a Lie) as if some Poetic Deity inspired him: Pride and Idleness; Inspiration that is Fancy; His Prophet George; 'tis such as God's Infallible Spirit in G. F. writes. (O Blasphemous Expression! It seems then that God's Spirit can write Nonsense by H. Hedworth's irreverent saying; for 'tis that he Charges upon G. F.) The Quakers detest to think of Christ's being remote from their own dear Hearts (Is that so criminal as that it should be mocked) C. l. 3. 16. J. 17 15. abused to serve that Godly (he means wicked) Doctrine of the Father, Son and Spirit, their not being distinct, but all one (what Derision is this at the Holy Unity) Learned Nonsense! G. Fox 's Spirit did never elevate to such a degree of Jargon. our Polyglettist W. P. The Family of Light called Quakers (Mockage) want of all Honesty and Conscience: Rage, Passion, Revenge, Odious, Detestable, etc. Profound and vehement Prattle. Enough, enough H. H.   

Sect. X. Of his Prayer, and my Conclusion.  
§ 1. REader, it is after a Pamphlet so Stuffed with Wrath and ill-Language, that the Author of it darts to address himself to Jesus Christ by way of Prayer. I matter not his Prayer, but shall make this sober advantage of it; (1) that he minds God no more, then if he believed Christ to be him, which he poor Man abhors; (2) That he commits Idolatry, and makes God himself an 
Pag. 68, 69, 70.  Accessary, in both praying to another then God, one they repute but purely a Man, and sa●, God requires them so to do; (3) That I affirm, it is impossible for one that is but purely a Man, as they say Christ is, to wield all Power in Heaven and Earth, the alone office and capacity of a God by Nature; and more beyond the best of Men, than they are the most stupid of Beasts; if Beasts than would be no more such, could they be changed into such excellent Men; neither could that excellent Man be longer Man, but the most high God, which is impossible, could he be changed into that capacity of Rule, which is alone exerciseable by, and peculiarly demonstrative of him that is the only wise God.  
§. 2. But indeed, his Margin proves to us, he takes him for a Man, and none of the best Linguists neither: for least he should not well understand the English word Delivered, he refers him to TRADITA in the Margin, though both Translations, and one as good as the other, for the Original Word is Greek; which either H. Hedworth does not know, or he doubted the skill of him he prayed to, or else he did foolishly to correct by a Translation, the Original Word being ready. But after all his Prayer (and a little Mercy he seems to show us in it, though if we never have any, till that forced Piece of Business procure it, we are never like to have it) behold the Man is at Revenge as fast as he can. Now it will appear, whether there be any Prudent and honest Men among the Governing Quakers (yet just now he more than once judged them for Impostors, Liars, Equivocators, and what not) by their Dealing with Will am Penn. Very well; Is this the Man that writ Queries for Liberty of Conscience 1670. (but no more of that) who would put the Quakers upon Persecution, now the Powers are for 
The Anabaptists came to the Bull and Mouth to demand Judgement against W. P. about ALL for MANY, already answered. Were they not well employed?  liberty. Here's your Meek, Suffering Socinian: but does he own our 〈…〉, than his Appeal is something; if not, he Appeals idly and unjustly: but since he does seem to appeal to them, and supposes them to have right to deal with me, it is apparent, that he owns it so far as concerns a Judgement betwixt us. For I affirm, against what he saith, p. 25. That Paul therefore appealed to (aesar, because of his ability both to know his Case, and do him Fight: and therefore in the Case of this Man's Appeal, both the Light, and our Friends, are thereby judged Able, and himself to be concluded by their judgement; which is this, That H. Hedworth, first, Author of the Spirit of the Quakers Tried, then of Controversy Ended, is a Busybody, Cavilling, Conceited, Proud, Wrathful, Equivocating, Slandering, yet Cowardly Man, that loves Debate; but is both unable to maintain what he begins, and afraid to own it when he has done: But since he is with-drawn, and his opposition seems to have given up the Ghost in CONTROVERSY ENDED, we bestow this SHEET to bury her out of the World, that the Noisome Errors, Slanders, and Revenge, which broke out upon her, living, and make her yet stink, though Dead, may be buried in the Grave of perpetual silence.  
●●th day 12th Month 1672. So wisheth a Lover of the Person of H. Hedworth, and a Friend to Peace and all Righteousness. William Penn.