{Third Part 130} William Rogers his Observations, on a Letter given forth and pretended to be his, together with his Answer to a Paper given forth by Charles Marshall and thirty six persons more, on the hearing of a Debate between W.R. and R.B.
Knowing that of late there hath been spread abroad amongst Friends a Paper subscribed by Charles Marshall and 36 Persons more, together with another, to which my Name is only inserted, both relating to Robert Barclay and my self, and that on Occasion of a Free meeting had in the City of London, wherein some Particulars contained in Robert Barclay’s Book of Government (to part whereof I writ and Answer) were discoursed between Robert Barclay and other Persons on the one part, and my self on the other part: and that many false and wrong Constructions are made thereof, whereby I perceive the Simple may be ensnared, I am now on the behalf of Truth concerned thus to Inform the Reader.
That Robert Barclay and my self did agree, That twelve Persons nominated between us should have a hearing of the Matter, with this Exception made by Robert Barclay, That he would not so limit, as not to have Liberty to add two or three others, giving this reason, that he expected some Friends to the City, &c. I told him to his purpose, ‘twas probable I would not deny the addition of two or three Friends, if he should request it of me; accordingly he did request it of me, and I granted it: but notwithstanding many others came at the appointed time, who were not chosen by us, nor yet was there any Assent of mine (or Desire of R.B’s as I know of) that they should be present: whereupon I refused to meet with them that Day.
After Friends perceived that I would not meet with them, not chosen, *1 an Eminent Preacher, who stood by R.B’s Book, told me in words to this effect, {Third Part 131} that they would not assent to a Meeting limited to Robert Barclay’s nor my Choice; but as a Church would keep their Authority; and not only so, but would vindicate every word in Robert Barclay’s Book: Considering the Station the said Person is in, and how much he is esteemed by George Fox; and that he seems to be the right hand man for that Government contended for by Robert Barclay, I easily perceived my Cause was already Judged, and that ‘twas in vain to expect a Meeting whereof I might have the choise of one half; but yet notwithstanding, lest they should reflect upon me, as a Person afraid to stand to the Cause I was ingaged in, and having faith in God I should be preserved, I the next Day freely and of my own accord gave notice to Robert Barclay, George Fox, and others of my readiness to meet any Friends, and so a free Meeting was had between R.B. and my self in the presence of George Fox, Charles Marshall and Divers others.
When the debate between us was over, Robert Barclay proposes to his purpose, to have some Satisfaction for the wrong I did him. I told him to his effect, I wronged him not and that neither my self, or any other was capable in this Case to do him so much aright, as he was capable to do himself, by writing a Postscript to his Book; this being a reasonable Proposal of mine, the Meeting did approve of his writing a Postcript, and with all counselled me to call in my Manuscript in Answer; which I neither did, have, or can assent unto; but told George Fox and many more publick Friends, that if I should in that respect take their Counsel, before I saw it my Duty I should manifest my self a notorious Hypocrite.
The Reader many also take notice, that in much haste I drew up a few Lines, with intent to have it of my own free will to come to some Friends, by way of Epistle, and to have given it under my own Hand: these two following Considerations were the motives thereto.
{Third Part 132} First, Charity oblieged me to have a Regard to Robert Barclay’s Testimony, as a Publick Person, since he hath publickly declared himself otherwise principled, than I say, his Book doth plainly teach.
Secondly, Since there hath been some Debate between us, I thought it necessary to inspect some of those things whereof we debated, that so those who had heard the Fame of his Book, and my Answer, might take Occasion from thence to examine, whether Robert Barclay’s Sense and Explications by word of mouth were agreeable to his Book, or no: and also to insert so much therein, as to manifest that Robert Barclays Cause was not right, which to every discerning Eye cannot but appear from the said Paper, though such who espouse Robert Barclay’s Cause, may by their smooth Glosses deceive the Simple thereby.
And when I had written what was in my mind, the aforesaid, eminent Preacher being alone with me urges Divers Alterations and Additions, and after I was on Horse-back, departing the City, desired me to give him that so raced and interlinked Paper (but not manifested his intent to Publish the same) to whom I Answered, I would not, unless he would promise me to send it me without the least Alteration, and Addition of a Title, which he then Solemnly promised, but it not yet performed, and so the spreading of that Paper or any Paper under the notion of Copy thereof in my name, without my Privity or Assent, was very Abusive, and I can account it little better than forgery. For my Memory is so good as to know, that my hand was never to any Paper, whereof this given forth in my Name is Copy. And forasmuch as the said Pretended Letter declares nothing of Error contained in my Answer, therefore the force of the said Answer is nothing abated thereby.
And now if that very Paper which is sent abroad under my name, without my Assent, were sent by me: for the {Third Part 133} sakes of such who may misconstrue the same, I thus Observe.
‘Tis therein thus said; I am satisfied that Robert Barclay is not Principled so as I and others have taken his Book to Import. And in another place, as I, and many, by some Passages in his Book, took him to be.
The words spoken by Robert Barclay himself unto me before Friends, manifested that he is not principled as his Book teacheth, and therefore I hope none will abuse my Charity, in believing the words of Robert Barclays mouth rather the what his former Writing saith, my so doing doth not import that I mistook his Book; for I Affirm, that his Book is Erronious, and shewed him otherwise Principled than the words of his mouth imported. Again in the said Paper ‘tis thus said.
In particular he doth declare, That his Book teacheth not that the Church of Christ hath Jurisdiction over the Outward Concernes of Friends in case of Difference, without the assent of the Differing Parties, and that it was far from his Intentions.
As to this I thus say, I hope none will read so carelesly as to conclude, that because I say, He doth Declare, &c. therefore they will conclude that I do so declare. If I should have so said, I should have egregiously wronged my Conscience because I know not where to find such an Explication of his words, this Sentence was inserted to tell Friends what he saith, and not what I say. And so every one hath liberty to search his book that they may see whether he speaketh Truth, or no, for I now positively Affirm, having since searched his Book again, that there is not one one Word or Sentence to be found thorough all his Book, that doth in the least measure import that his Book doth so teach as he saith it doth and yet since my departure from London he had the Confidence (or rather I may say the Impudence) to Affirm that Forty Brethen had given it as their sense, that it did so teach: whenas it appeared that many of the Meeting who also had put their hands to the account given of the Meeting as aforesaid, were not Principled that it ought to teach, as R.B. saith it {Third Part 134} doth, and being for the satisifaction of many desired to shew the Sentence that so imported, he refused so to do; and doubtless the real Reason of his so doing was guilt upon his Conscience, for that he could not tell where to find it.
I also find in the said Paper, that Robert Barclay in one place Affirms to this purpose, That there never will, nor can be wanting, in case of Controversy the Spirit of God to give Judgement throrough some or other in the Church of Christ, so long as any assembly can properly, or in any tolerable suppositon be so termed; and that he Declares the Words are sound, and so he hath concluded as the said Paper imports, That ‘tis disobedience to God, not to submit to the sentence of such Assemblies, though the Persons refusing to submit pretend they see it not. Here also I cannot but Observe, That 'tis unreasonable for any to conclude, that I judge the sentence sound; for I testifie, 'tis Erroneous, and never assented or thought it otherwise, and that there is no consistency in Truth between that which he declares to be his further meaning thereon, and the words in his Book. Which cannot but appear by comparing his further meaning in the said Letter, and his Book together.
The said Paper doth further manifest, that Robert Barclay thus in his Book asserted, viz. That the Antient Apostolick Order of the Church of Christ is re-establisht on its RIght Basis and Foundation, and that his meaning therein was not onely with respect to all the Outward Orders and Forms of Disciplne in Government amongst the People called Quakers, but with Respect to the Power of God, which is the Great Order of the Gospel, and that though, Robert Barclay Hath given these Explications of his meaning, yet the very Explications, as he saith, are to be Found in his Book.
Let the Judicious Reader Consider, whether this can any way credit Robert Barclay, or the Second Dayes Meeting, that approved his Book; as evidence that it cannot, I say, that all the Outward Orders and Forms of Discipline in Governent amongst the People called Quakers do not appear to be the Antient Apostolick Order of the Church of Christ, and {Third Part 135} that I have sufficiently evidenced in my Answer, and if so, how can his Meaning be according to truth.
Secondly, ‘Tis true that the Power of God is the great Order of the Gospel, and is of ability to Establish us, but we not of ability to Establish it; and therefore whatever Robert Barclay may say, 'tis not rational to conclude, that according to his Meaning (when he writ that Sentence) it had Relation to any thing but Outward Orders, and Forms of Discipline in Government; and as to his saying that the very Explications are to be found in his Book, I Affirm, on a further Diligent Search, that there is no such Explications to be found therein; and I hope those who have a concern on their Spirit for Truth, will do me so much Right, as to Examine his Book, since the Case by the spreading of the said Paper under my Name is brought to a narrow issue, for now 'tis easily to be manifested, whether Robert Barclay is not wrong, and the Second Dayes Meeting too, whil'st they Justify and own his Book.
In the said Paper ‘tis thus further said, viz. This further lies upon me to signify unto you, on behalf of Robert Barclay, I am satisfied that he is not Principled, as I and many by some passages in his Book took him to be; and since it is so that many have taken an offence against him for that cause, and as may be doubted even so far, as to reject his Testimony and Service for the truth, it lies upon me as my Duty even for his and the Truths Sake to warn all, that they take heed not to entertain a prejudice against his Testimony on Jealousies that may enter on the score of any apprehensions or mistakes of his Book, and that Answer that I have given thereto; but rather in an unprejudiced Spirit to wait on the Lord, to feel and Savour his Testimony, even as if the occasion had never been.
This Caution plainly appears to be written on this Charitable Foot, that would be unjust to measure his present Testimony {Third Part 136} in Publick, by his Errours in his Book, or from Jealousyes or mistakes of his Book, and that Answer I have given thereto, it doth not follow that I mistook or Misapprehended his Book: for had I so done, I would have plainly confest the same.
The said Paper, as I am Informed, is termed my Paper of Condemnation; this I suppose is taken from these words that I find written therein, viz. I do freely confess that inasmuch as I Publisht, my Book, before I gave Robert Barclay notice of my Objections, and Intentions therein, I acted in that respect not according to Gospel Order, but am Justly worthy of Blame therein; as to this I have this to say, that though I confess my self Blame worthy, & not acting so civil as became me to my acquaintance, for that I write not to him I Intended to Answer his Book, yet I in no respect took Blame to my self more than so; and to speak the Naked Truth, I, rather took more Blame to my self than the Case did require, being no way inclined to Extinuate that which I thought was not so Civil as became me, I dare not say evil, for I really thought he was in Holland, and so knew not where to write to him when I intended to Answer some Passages in his Book, but yet alwaies did and still do Justifie the spreading abroad my Answer, and that I had no Obligations to send him a Copy thereof, since all the Copyes I had Leisure to write were little enough to clear my Conscience, by endeavouring to undeceive those, who either were or might be deceived by his Book. And if by that eminent Preacher’s aforesaid earnest Pressing to alterations (at a time when I give not my self up to discourse with any) there be any such word as not according to Gospel Order I must say, that Word is rather the Word of that others Persons, than any thing freely coming from me. For I must say again, I am not conscious of any Blame, unless my not writing a few Lines to Robert Barclay to signify my Intentions, may be termed {Third Part 137} blame worthy for his Indeavours (if he should have been so minded) to call in his Book, would not have Obstructed my writing that Answer I did, because his Book was so spread that ‘twas out of his Power to call them in: and inasmuch as this Book could not be so Properly called a Particular Trespass against me as a Reproach to the Truth in General and the Profession thereof: I cannot account my spreading an Answer to detect the Errours a breach of Gospel Orders, though not sent to him first. Besides, 'tis Observable, that the aforesaid account, given by Charles Marshall and Thirty six persons more on occasion, signifies nothing of my acknowledgement to have acted contrary to Gospel-Order.
And as to the Paper given forth by Charles Marshall and Thirty Six other Persons, I have this to say, that ‘tis hereby manifest that the Second Days Meeting in London approved Robert Barclay’s Book of Government, and so consequently are Approvers of the Errour and False Doctrine therein contained.
That his Book is Erroneous and doth contain False Doctrine, I sufficiently manifested, and is not largely treated on in my Answer; and if it appeared not to the Meeting, as they say it did not, I am sorry it should be so; but I know it did appear to several of the Meeting: and yet I must confess, I wonder not as such a Testimony, since I certainly know some of the Subscribers of the said Paper, have been exercised so much to preach False Doctrine for Sound, that I account as such improper judges of what is,False Doctrine, and what Sound; and as to the rest not so accustomed, I hope ‘tis no worse than the fruit of their dull hearing, or want of Memory. However, my great Satisfaction is, that every unprejudiced Person hath Opportunity to inform himself by a serious Perusal of Robert Barclay’s Book, without either giving Credit to them or me, barely because we so affirm.
And whereas they thus say, And hath dispersed his Manuscript {Third Part 138} in several parts of this Nation, without so much as first giving either to the said Robert Barclay, or the Second Days Meeting, any Account of his Scruples, contrary to all Rules of Brotherly-Love, Christian-Fellowship, Gospel Order, and the exemplary Pratice of the Church of Christ, to the Defamation of the said Robert Barclay, the great Derogation from the Christian Authority of the said Meeting, and the General Disservice of Truth. If by this they mean, that my sending abroad my Manuscript was contrary to the Rules of Brotherly-Love, &c. I utterly disown that Testimony, as Erroneous; for I have sufficiently proved, both by Word and my Manuscript, that Robert Barclay’s Book is Erroneous, containing false Doctrine, and inasmuch as ‘twas Publickly spread abroad; to the Dishonour of God and Truth, a concern for the Truth came upon me to discover that Errour, that the Souls of the Simple might not be deceived; and Inasmuch as I know, that had he been willing to call in his book, yet it could not take off the Obligation on me (for 'twas out of his Power to call them all in, being so publickly dispersed) I thought it not my Duty to give him, or the Second-Dayes Meeting Copy thereof first: yet as soon as my leisure permitted, I sent Copy to London, directed to Steven Crisp and another publick Person, that so when I came to London (as afterwards I did) they might (if I had committed any Errour therein) have treated me according to the merit thereof: but when I came to London no one accused my Answer as erroneous in any Respect, and if there was any neglect to peruse it, 'twas their Fault, and not mine, since there was Opportunity for the said Subscribers to view it; for I manifested, that I had it with me at the Meeting held as aforesaid, and though I desired the Privilege to make use of it, before the Meeting, to help my Memory, even as Robert Barclay made use of his, yet being then desired to forbear, I made no use thereof at the Meeting. However, if they have this to say, it was their Duty to have perused it before they {Third Part 139} had given a Judgement that my dispersing the said Manuscript, &c. is to the Defamation of the said Robert Barclay, the great Derogation of the Christian Authority of the said Meeting, and General Disservice of Truth, &c. but I certainly know all that gave that Judgment, had not then perused it.
And as to their saying, ‘Twas to the great Derogation of the Christian Authority of the said Meeting (meaning the Second Daies Meeting) I have this to say.
That I never understood, that Friends owned any Authority, in any of our Meetings, as a Christian Authority, but the Power of God, which is Invisible, and cannot be diminished; and therefore I may well query, whether ‘tis not Great Weakness in any to conclude, that I am capable to do any Action, which can either lessen, finish, or take from that Authority: and I hope none of the said Subscribers are so remote from Truth, and a good Understanding as to conclude, that the Second Dayes Meeting hath any Authority given them by Man; but if any should be so Weak, I must tell such, that as I never gave it any, so am wholly incapable by writing to lessen it, if they have any.
And whereas ‘tis said, that the Objections of the said William Rogers lay not so much against the Matter and Substance of the said Robert Barcly’s Book, as against the way of Expressing some Passages therein. This I say is untrue, my Objections were against the very Matter and Substance of some things contained in his Book.
One the whole matter I have this to say, I could not obtain a Meeting of Friends to be chosen by Robert Barclay and my self, though the Person immediately concerned; which agrees not with the Examples of the Scriptures of Truth, Read Acts 15. 1, 2. And that the aforesaid Eminent Preacher, as the Mouth of others, under the Notion of the Church, Obstructed; and though in the Meeting held, Friends Deportment was grave, orderly, and inoffensive, as to meward whilst the debate {Third Part 140} on my Objections held, yet I am greatly satisfied, that by the Publication of the said two Papers, every Impartial Reader, that will be at the paines seriously to weigh the said Papers, this Answer, and Robert Barclay’s Book and Postscript, may easily decern the Errour of Robert Barclay and Charles Marshal, with the Thirty Six subscribers, but those who will have an Eye to Papers and Bookes for the Writers Sakes, more then for the matters Contained therein, may in time come to have their Understanding so Vailed, as to be brought to worship Images, and to esteem *2 Micah’s Mother a vertuous Women in Israel, though she caused a Molten Image and a Graven Image to be made, and put in the House of her Son, Judges, 17. If any should be offended at these Lines, let such Exhort Charles Marshall and the other Thirty Six Subscribers concerned, to make, better Use for time to Come, of so much Condescension as appear in me, (for the sake of Robert Barclay, whom I once accounted my Brother) when I perceived from the Words of Robert Barclay’s Mouth, that he appeared a better Principled Man than his Lines imported.
William Rogers.
-
*Note For the Reasons in the Preface annexed to the First-part, his Name is omitted.↩
-
* See George Fox his Book of Womens Meetings wherein he queries, and was not Micah’s Mother a virtuous Woman. Read Judges 17_th and then a few Lines of these and such like Women were recorded for their Wisdom and their Virtue_.↩
No comments:
Post a Comment