Folly and Envy DETECTED: In some Brief Observations on a Late Scandalous Pamphlet, Subscribed by D. S. Entitled, An Answer to several Passages, Citations and Charges, in a Book published by Fran. Bugg, Styled, New Rome Arraigned, etc.  
By R. Bridgman.  
Prov. 10.18. He that hideth Hatred with lying Lips, and he that uttereth a Slander, is a Fool.  
James 3.16.— Where Envying and Strife is, there is Confusion, and every Evil Work.  
London, Printed and Sold by T. Sowle, near the Meetinghouse in White-Hart-Court in Grace-Church-Sreet, and at the Crooked-Billet in Holywell-Lane near Shoreditch, 1694.   

Folly and Envy Detected, etc.  
THE Author tells us, He has for several Years observed divers Contentious Books writ by Fran. Bugg and Geo. Whitehead one against the other; which having read, proceeds to give his Sense of the Matter.  
1. He apprehends the tendency of F. B's striving, is to have several Errors Retracted and Condemned.  
2. That Geo. Whitehead 's Contention is to Cover and Cloak many Errors and Weaknesses, which he and all True Christians ought to Condemn, etc.  
He proceeds to tell us, That Brevity is designed by him, and what he writes is done in order, (if happily it might be so) to appease the Fury of an Enraged Adversary, meaning F. B.  
But this his Sense and Apprehension, he Imposeth upon his Reader without any due Proof or Rational Consequence.  
He confesseth F.B. is a provoked and an enraged Adversary, and I may add, that he is a great and declared Apostate, sufficiently manifest to be so, by those Books, (which this Author confesseth he has Read.)  
Now with what good Reason or Conscience can any apprehend the tendency of F. B's striving, is to have several Errors Retracted and Condemned? Is it likely a Person gone into so much Error, Envy and Rage, should strive, or be Zealous to have Truth cleared from Error?  
And could D. S. fall upon no better expedient to appease the Fury of such an enraged Adversary, than to join Issue with him, in his furious attempts upon the Religious Reputations of both the Living and the Dead; Men that have Hazarded, and some even laid down their Lives in the Service and Defence of the Blessed Truth.  
Is this like the Office of a true Peacemaker, or Mark of a true Christian Quaker, as this D. S. would be esteemed; but his Folly is manifest, and the burden of his Iniquity must be laid upon his own Head.  
He Blames F. B. for Raking in the Ashes of the Dead, 
Compare p. 4. with p. 7, 9, 10, and 11.  (as he Terms it) and himself is found in the same Work; he blames F. B. for Reproaching a People that believes all things according to Scripture, and would not have him vilify any part of their Society upon the score of the Ignorance or Folly of any pretended Member; yet himself upon no better score or proof than a perhaps, or for aught he knows, vilifies some, or a part of the same Society, and that with no less than denying him that was Born of the Virgin Mary, to be Christ the Saviour of the World. He tells F.B. That if at any time he has found any Man or Men under the Name of a Quaker guilty of Error of any kind, relating to the Christian Religion, that he ought to pray to God on their behalf; and yet himself declares, That if at any time any pretended Member that may be Dead, or yet is in Being, did ever deny Jesus of Nazareth to be the Saviour of the World, he is Disowned for the same, and deemed no less than guilty of Blasphemy in the superlative degree, which I affirm, according to Scripture, is a Sin ought not to be prayed for, it not having the Promise of Forgiveness either in this World, or in that which is to come.  
What Contradiction and Confusion is here, and how much unlike a Christian Quaker to vilify, some (or a part of their Society) upon no better proof than a perhaps, or for aught he knows?  
May I not with the same sort of Reason argue against him, that perhaps, or for aught I know, it may be undeniably proved upon him, that he is a Thief or a Murderer; to be sure, if a professed Quaker, a very false and treacherous Brother?  
All the proof he brings against G. W. is F. B's Charges and Accusations, with his own positive Sense and Judgement, and yet even in that, he is also found inconsistent with himself; for tho' in the beginning he apprehends G. W's Contention (as he calls it) is to Cover and Cloak many Errors, etc. yet in his Answer to the Second Objection, page 6. G. W. is but supposed to be guilty in part; and adds, that it's hoped he may see his weakness in so doing; but still no instance produced, wherein G.W. has been either weak, or wicked, which to Cover or Cloak many and gross Errors, must be.  
However, it seems 'tis his Sense and Judgement, and so it is, that Light and Darkness are manifest Being's, which as much bespeaks his Skill in Philosophy, as the other does his Title to Christianity.  
Yet he would seem tender of the Christian Religion, giving it as his Sense and Judgement, p. 3. That the many Books of Contention, writ by G. W. and others, has done much hurt to it, and would be glad if it should please God to put it into the Hearts of the Governors and Rulers of the Nation to condemn them, and order them all to be Burnt. Then no need of Explanations and Emendations Requested in the Postscript.  
But why must they be Burnt? The Matter (it seems) is Distasteful; Apostates and Unruly Spirits like not to have their Fruits made manifest, and their Rebellion against the Light rebuked; and that which would have the Books Burnt, in all probability in its next step would have the Authors Burnt also, lest there should be any more such Books.  
But he proceeds in Answer to another of F. B's. Accusations against G. Whitehead, page 6th. Object. 3. wherein G. W. is accused for endeavouring to cover several Errors in some Persons in Pensilvania. D. S. in Answer insinuates, that if G. W. or any others do wink or connive at the aforesaid blasphemous expressions, (cited by F. B.) he or they are Judged to be equally guilty with them.  
Now to show the Disingenuity of this D. S. who 'tis supposed has Read the Yearly Meeting Paper, (which he so much Inveighs against, p. 15.) wherein not doubt he believes G. W. with others were concerned: 'Tis therein declared,  
That if there be any Gross Errors, etc. held by any professing Truth in America; such Persons ought to be diligently Instructed and Admonished by faithful Friends in those Parts; and if they shall wilfully persist after being duly informed, than such are to be dealt with according to Gospel Order.  
Does this look like endeavouring to cover any such gross Errors, or doth advising such to be duly Instructed and Admonished, and upon their wilful persistance, to be further dealt with according to Gospel Order, look like Conniving or Winking at them; away with such Malicious Insinuations.  
But this D. S. (who, in a Malapart Pragmatical stile, would be deemed, the Representative of the True Christian Quakers▪ is for Censuring and Excomunicating (Pope like) without the consent of the Church, and that not only many that are alive, but even several that are dead. For,  
He charges (upon F. B's. Accusation) several Eminent, Ancient Friends, p. 9, 10, 11. with no less than great and high Blasphemy, particularly G Fox, Josiah Coal, J. Audland, and James Parnell, Men that were great sufferers for Truth, and who (being deceased) laid down their heads in Peace, and were never disowned by any Christian Quaker; but were sincerely Loved and Esteemed by them, and their Innocency being already elsewhere vindicated (and that in some of those Books, this Author would so gladly have Burnt) I need say the less, but refer to them; supposing there may have been some defect in Expression: by which means the matter has not been left so well guarded against the Exceptions of Malicious Cavillers, who, no doubt (were it not for the general Authority of the Holy Scriptures) would be as ready to make their Exceptions, against many Sentences or Expressions therein also.  
But I would fain know why it must be deemed (by D. S.) such a great weakness in G. Fox, to set his Name to the Book called the Battle-door, wherein some other Men, more Learned in those many Languages were also concerned; must he not tho (as this D. S. scornfully suggests) he was a Shoemaker, and bred an Illiterate Man, (which 'tis likely enough, to use his own Phrase, he knew not but by History or Tradition:) I say must it therefore follow that G. F. knew not the signification of Tu Nos & Vos, But Even as a Parrot (which this Author says Can well Talk so far as he hath been Taught.  
'Tis true, a Parrot may be Taught to speak Tu, nos & vos; but I presume 'tis above the skill of this Doctor to Teach a Parrot the signification of Tu nos & vos, which no doubt G. Fox had, as well as also some knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue.  
Again in his Answer to F. B's. charge recited by him, against Isaac Penington, D. S. positively charges the matter of the said Citation as an undeniable Error in J. P. proceeding from a defect in his understanding, which no doubt (as he saith) were but that worthy Man, J. P. in being, he would readily retract the slip of his Pen, not only in that matter, but in any other of the like Import.  
Methinks then a slip of his Pen (were it so in J. P.) ought not to be charged upon him as an undeniable Error, proceeding from a defect in his understanding; so no more ought a slip of the Pen, were it so in the other Friend's , be charged as Great and High Blasphemy: But 'tis plain that the Old Adversary, and false Accuser of the Brethren is very ready to lay hold on every seeming occasion, to endeavour (through his several Instruments) to blast the Reputation of these Goodmen, that the Blessing of their Labour and Memory might not Increase, or remain among the Living.  
But should I, or any other be as ready as this D. S. or F. B. to lay hold upon every slip of a Pen, or unguarded Sentence or Expression; we might have and make work enough.  
For Instance, might I not (in such a way of arguing) positively charge D. S. (whatever Notion he may have of the pre-existence) that he denies or at least questions a future Existence, by his saying, If that Worthy Man (J. P.) were in being, as if after Death there was no being or existence; but I am not either so Captious, or Uncharitable towards him in that Matter.  
Again in his Third Page, He desires every true Believer in Christ Jesus, and Follower of him, that they would bear his Image; as if he may be truly Believed in and followed, and his Image not born: Does not this at best appear to be a slip of his Pen? And yet how ready is D. S. to mark out such in others.  
As to this frequent professing Faith in Jesus of Nazareth, and therein distinguishing, himself and others to be the most or only Christian Quakers, so long as he or they show forth no better Fruits, to what purpose is it to take any notice of their Faith.  
And notwithstanding he is so ready, to refer and recommend such as he would have know more of the Quakers Faith, to the first part of a little Treatise, Entitled the Principles of Truth; Written by J. Crook. 'tis plain enough, whatever be his talk, or knowledge, he is but little acquainted with the True Christian Quakers Faith, which is attended with Christian Charity, and teacheth to exercise a Conscience void of offence both towards God, and towards Man.  
London, Octob. 11. 1694. Robert Bridgman.   

A POSTSCRIPT by way of Caution and Consideration.  
WHereas D. S. in his Postscript seems to request all those that are living, whose former or latter Writings are in any sort Defective; that they would write Explanations and Emendations upon them, as also on those of which the Authors may be Dead, (yet in his Third Page declares) that he would be glad if God would put it into the Hearts of the Governors and Rulers of the Nations to Condemn them, and order them all to be Burnt. Now I do herein tenderly Caution this D. S. or any other who may presume, to correct or amend what they shall apprehend or suppose to be offensive; that they be very careful how they detract from the due credit and esteem of any approved writer, or writing concerned in Testimony to the Blessed Truth, lest they be found so touching the Lord's Anointed as to hurt his Prophets, and justly fall under the Reproof of the Hypocrite, who would behold a More in his Brother's Eye, but considered not the Beam which was in his own. Mat. 7th. 3, 4, and 5, Verses.  
And I offer it to D. S. his Consideration, whether it can be any Evidence of good Breeding, or Christianity, so to Reproach and Revile G. W. (an Elder in the same Profession he pretends to) and that upon no better or other produced Evidence, than that of an Enraged Adversary, viz. F. B. Is it not very Scandalous and Wicked, to publish it in print to the World, that G. W. is guilty, not only of Covering and Cloaking many Errors, but also of being a continual Contentious Scribbler, and guilty of giving Base and Scurrilous Language. Doth D. S. pretend a Venerable Esteem of the Scripture, and yet so much forget or reject the Apostles advise, Not to Rebuke an Elder, but Entreat him as a Father: Nor to Receive an Accusation against such, but before Two or Three Witnesses.  
Indeed 'tis no wonder D. S. has concealed his Name, for he may well be ashamed of such Work; and I would advise him, whoever he be to take the shame to himself, by 〈◊〉 publicly acknowledging his Folly, that so through unfeigned Repentance he may find Mercy, and learn to do so no more.   

Advertisement.  
SInce the foregoing went to the Press, I have seen another Pamphlet, Entitled, Something by way of Reply to a Paper lately published in the City Mercury, etc. Signed G. W.  
The foregoing Reproof and Rebuke to D. S. may serve also in Answer to that Pa●●●●; unless the Author had wrote something more worth Notice, and put his Name to it.