Forgery absolute Forgery gross Forgery double Forgery with which he hath made such a vaunting Flourish falls to the Ground And I might if I had his Forehead recharge him with Forgery in saying I charged him with refusing to go out at the Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia held in the Seventh Month 1691. which last words relating to the time of it are not in my Book But I need no such little Tricks though he doth His Fifth Charge he takes out of p. 22. of mine where I inferr'd from the Judgment given by the Yearly Meeting against W. S. That that Meeting was not at a stand as G. K. abusively represents them to determine whether the Doctrine was true or false But if they were at a stand at all it was to determine whether the Charge exhibited by G. K. against W. S. was true or false W. S. both then and to his dying day denying that he spake those words which G. K. charged him with This he says I falsly alledge and that he has fully proved the contrary urging for his Proof that in the Iudgment that Meeting gave they grant That Proof was made by Two Witnesses that the Charge exhibited was true and if they had been at a stand on that Point it is not like that they would have given any Iudgment against him at all This is â—…o Proof at all that they were not at a stand and did demur whether the Charge exhibited were true or no. For though they might have great reason to doubt the Truth of the Evidence of those two witnesses who were both known to be strong in Party with G. K. and great adversaries to W. S. and might thence have just cause to suspend their Judgment for a while and take the longer time to examine sift and try the matter to the utmost Yet unless W. S. could have disproved that Evidence the Meeting could not well do other than give Judgment according to the Evidence though they might not have compleat satisfaction of the Veracity of the Witnesses For even in worldly Courts where Justice is to be exceeded by the Disciples of Christ Judgment is to be given Secundum Allegata Probata according to what is alledged and proved and often is so where yet the truth of the Evidence is much doubted and sometimes wholy disbelived by the Court that gives it Here then his hold fails him Ye may remember Friends that in my former Epistle p. 20 c. to manifest that G. K. quarrelled with that Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia and published his Anathema's against them without just cause I shewed from his own Books That that Meeting did not only receive his Charge against W. S. but did give a determination therein a Judgment against W. S. Under this I perceive G. K. lies very uneasy and would fain cast it off that he might have some colourable pretence for his disorderly casting off that Meeting First he cavils at them for not publishing their Iudgment till nine Months after How to understand that I cannot well tell for if as he says that Yearly Meeting was held in the Seventh Month 1691. it was not 9. Months to the adjourned monthly Meeting in the Twelth Month 1691. nor full Six neither And yet it should seem to have been published before that because in the Judgment of that Meeting this Judgment of the Yearly Meeting was in part recited Next he finds fault with the Excuse he says they make for not publishing it sooner which was that they were prevented by reason of his unruly Behaviour and extream Passion This he calls a most deceitful pretence What other Causes of delay they might have in publishing their Judgment I know not but that this was one I am the more easily induced to believe from what I my self observed of his Unruly behaviour and extream Passion in our late Yearly Meeting at London of which Friends many of you were grieved Witnesses as well as I. He asks in the next place why they contradicted the sound Iudgment of a Monthly Meeting at Philadelphia passing due Censure upon W. S. Six Months thereafter Methinks this doth not sound as if it came from a sound Iudgment Is it proper to say that he or they that give a Judgment now do contradict that Judgment that shall or may be given by others Six Months hence If they gave their Judgment at that Yearly Meeting near Six Months before the other Judgment if that was another was given how then can the first be said to contradict the latter when the latter was not in being when the First was given One would think if there be Contradiction in the two Judgments the latter should rather contradict the former But to speak plain my sense of them according to what I have seen of them both in his Books I do not find that either of them contradicts the other but that the latter Judgment to wit that of the adjourned Meeting reciting at least in part the former Judgment of the Yearly Meeting doth for ought I see approve it and carry it on further Yet he says of that Judgment of the Yearly Meeting it is Sufficiently apparent from this viz. it s contradicting I think he means the Judgment of the adjourned Meeting which had no being till about Six Months after it was no cordial nor Sincere Iudgment But let me ask him if this was not a sincere Judgment but as he also calls it Hypocritical how came it to pass that his adjourned Meeting which he celebrates for giving sound Judgment and says they gave it Sincerely not only recited part of this Judgment but built theirs upon it For thus in his Reasons of the Separation p. 11. he has delivered their Judgment to us Whereas W. having formerly accused G. K. with preaching two Christs and the Charge and matter having been fully debated at the last Yearly Meeting before publick Friends and others who did deliver it as their Sense and Judgment that the said W. had abused G. K. thereby and that G. K's Doctrine was right and true in his preaching Faith in Christ within and Faith in Christ without c. See here the Basis upon which they build their Judgment Would they build their Judgment upon an insincere hypocritical Judgment methinks it should not become G. K. to fasten such a foul Blemish upon his adjourned Meeting which he Praises so highly for giving sound Judgment and that sincerely Another Objection he makes against that Yearly Meeting that they did not all that time intervening bring W. S. to any Conviction but mightily supported him as an innocent Person Can any one believe this viz. that they mightily supported him as an innocent Person who at the same time shall read in G. K's own Books that they delivered it as their Sense and Iudgment that he had abused G. K. and that he was reproveable and blame-worthy c But as for G. K's saying They did not bring W. S. to any Conviction which he very
Christ withn is held in common by him with them of all sorts of other Professions Besides seeing as G. K. says The true Doctrine of the Faith of Christ without teacheth Thâ—… the only true saving Faith of Christ'â—… Death c. is wrought in Mens Hearts by Divine Illumination Revelation and Inspiration and is taught and begot by the Spirit in Mens Hearts There is the greater reason that the inward Appearance of Christ by his Light Grace and Spirit in the Heart should be the more frequently preached and Men directed and turned to that inward Teaching by the Spirit in their Hearts that by the Divine Illumination Revelation and Inspiration thereof the true Faith of Christ's death c. may be begot and wrought in their Hearts His 33d 34th 35th Charges relate all to one matter and seem to be divided and subdivided by him to make the greater shew The first he calls a Perversion of his modest Proposition about correcting some unsound Words in some Friends Books as if with purpose he would hunt for discover and expose if he can the nakedness of such as in comparison of himself may justly be reputed and called Fathers in the Truth This he thinks an uncharitable construction of his Words and that no good Christian that loves the Truth more than Men would judge the worse of him for correcting them tenderly and Christianly not as an Enemy but as a Friend and Brother But it may be guessed how tenderly and Christianly he would deal with the Dead by his harsh and unchristian dealing with the Living whom he has not dealt with us as a Friend and Brother but as an Enemy His comparing his correcting work to Sem's and Iaphet's going backwards to cover their Father's Nakedness gave me fit occasion to tell him he had mistook his point and taken up Ham's work instead of Sem's and Iaphet's For Sem and Iaphet covered the Nekedness which execrable Ham had discovered and exposed as G. K. would do In this he says I falsly accuse him but instead of proving I do so he turns off and says I reflect not only on him but on the late Christian Teachers and Writers who have corrected the Errors and unsound Expressions contained in the Books of them called the Greek and Latin Fathers In comparing the Books of Friends to the Books of them called The Greek and Latin Fathers he has not done as a Friend and Brother but as an Enemy in supposing Friends Books to have been written by no better guidance nor clearer sight than theirs who lived and writ in those dark times He is so idle as to charge me with perverting the Scripture Words in saying Blessed Sem and Japhet did therefore go backward that they might not see their Father's Nakedness And he makes this one of my 50 Perversions by which you may see how hard he was put to it to make his number up But instead of proving this a Perversion he says As if there were not a further matter and mystery in it Perhaps there might be but if there were he hath not shewed it nor my Perversion But he says If it had been only that they must not see their Father's nakedness they might have covered their Face and Eyes and gone forward and not see their Father's Nakedness But they took a more sure way in going backward and that which freed them from all suspicion of seeing or being willing to see their Father's Nakedness 36. He says I pervert his modest Proposition for every Proposition of his is modest with him and perhaps none but his That every one owned by us to be a Member of our Christian Society give some Declaration of their Faith This which he calls a modest Proposition I shewed from his own Words was an Imposition of a Verbal Confession of Faith without which none should be admitted into Church fellowship with him His Words are We are convinced and perswaded in our Consciences that God calleth us to separate from such Unbelievers and not to be yoked together in Church-fellowship and Discipline with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth c. Reas. of Sep. p. 22. 37. He complains also and makes it his 37th Charge that I pervert his Words that he makes a verbal Confession the Door of admittance into our Society which he says is altogether false This depends upon the former and is proved by those Words of his which I gave for proof of that viz. We are convinced said he and perswaded in our Consciences that God calleth us to separate c. and not to be yoked together in Church-fellowship and Discipline with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth c. This is that I call Verbal Confession If he like not the Word Verbal let him take Oral or Confession of the Mouth which is all one From my observing out of R. Barclay's Book called the Anarchy p. 48. which G. K. had perversly quoted that R. B. doth not make a bare Profession verbal Confession or Declaration of Principles c. to be any Terms at all of Church-Communion G. K. taking it to himself charges a Perversion on me and says This is false I make them not the Terms at all when the Profession is but barely verbal But he hath no such guard in the Place before quoted where he says We are convinced c. that God calleth us to separate c. and not to be yoked in Church fellowship c. with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth that they are sound in the Faith So that he makes a Verbal Confession a proof of their being sound in the Faith and this makes a Verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to yoke them as he phrases it together in Church-fellowship His 39th 40th and 41st Relate to his pretended Quotations out of R. Barclay's Book before mentioned and my Observations thereupon from which he picks several Quarrels one that from his saying as the express Doctrine of R. B. though it be not That some Principles and Doctrines and Points of Faith are necessary to be agreed upon c. and to be owned professed and declared by us to be as it were the Terms that draw us together and the Bond by which we become centred into one Body and Fellowship c. He says I pervert his Words to a wrong sense as if his Sense were That Men were to contrive and cut out their own Terms and before they entred into a Society or Fellowship should consider consult and conclude among themselves what Principles Doctrines and Practices they would have to be the Terms and Bond of their Society Though this was not spoken directly of him but with respect to the Quotation he feigned to give out of R. B. yet he did well enough to take it to himself for I verily think it to be his Sense and the Terms he propounded it in speak the same And
second days morning Meeting in London which ye know consists mostly of Ministring Friends with whom he is seldom pleased At this time his quarrel with that Meeting is for authorizing or allowing my Book to come out Yet that he may keep steady to his Intention of Dividing he deals with that Meeting as he did before with the Yearly Meeting representing this also to be what he would have it divided into Parties He says of my Book that it came out Authorized or allowed either by the second days Meeting at London or at least by a Leading or Prevailing Party of them I mention this Friends not that I think there needs any Refutation of it the Falsness thereof being so well known but that all may see his Splitting Design and none may give way thereto In the same page he casts a wicked Scoff at that Meeting thus And must all this says he be fathered upon the Spirit of God It being their constant pretension to have the Spirit of God Directing and assisting them in all their Chambers Affairs and Meetings This needs no Comment neither Friends it is enough but to repeat it ye cannot but savour what Spirit it came from The rest of his Third page and so on almost to the end of his Sheet he spends in quibbling on a Passage in my Book p. 49. where to shew the emptiness of his great Boast That notwithstanding the Objections and severe Accusations that some have made against his late Books and a strict Examination of them by some that had so complained there is not any Line or Sentence in any of them that they have made to appear to contain any Untruth or Falshood in them either in matter of Doctrine or Fact I said This has nothing of Note in it For supposing it were true in Fact that no Untruth or Falshood in matter of Fact had been discovered in his Books it was not the proper business of the Yearly Meeting which here as elsewhere he strikes at to judge of the matters of Fact contained in his Books which were alledged to have been done in America by Persons not here to answer to or give account of them From the former part of these words contained in the first Parenthesis he would fain strain such a Concession as might justifie all the Matters contained in his Books He says p. 4. I have been so liberal to him to grant by way of supposition all those particulars which he there enumerates comprehending I think the substance of his Scandalous Books written in America and his Books to contain nothing yet discovered of Untruth or Falshood This he calls my liberal Concession and is so fond of the word that he repeats it no less than seven times in his fifth page He knew I perceive the need he had of a Concession and a liberal one too but he should not have been so liberal to himself in making Concessions from my words to his own advantage against the plain sense of my words and of my mind For I assure him if I had made him such a Concession as he pretends to it would have been as far from my intention as from his Desert But let us see whether there be such a Concession or no in those words of mine A Concession is a Grant and differs much from a Supposition whence arises that usual Form of Speech Supposing but not Granting which is implied even where it is not exprest Now Friends if ye observe my words in the place before quoted p. 49. of my former Epistle ye will find I do not say Granting it to be true in Fact but supposing it were true in Fact I was so far from Granting it to be true in Fact that I did not so much as suppose it to be tâ—…e in Fact but said supposing it were true in Fact which implies it was not true in Fact and plainly proves I did not grant it to be true in Fact no not so much as by supposition And in the very next Sentence I affirmed that there is Untruth or Falshood in his Books in matter of Fact and that it was made appear and wherein This was far from a Concession Grant or Allowance that all the Matters of Fact mentioned in his Books are true Nay to prevent any such Misapprehension I added this Caution p. 50. Therefore let none think that because the Yearly Meeting did not declare the Matters of Fact in his Books to be false therefore they are all true They remain to be proved by him that has affirmed them and to be answered by them who are charged therein Ye see now Friends how far I was from granting the Matters of Fact in his Books to be true and what little ground he had for his great glorying in that which he calls my liberal Concession By which if he gain any thing with the Ignorant he will lose more with the Iudicious who by this will see him to be a meer Sophister and conclude his Cause to be bad indeed that hath driven so able a Man in his own Opinion as well as in the Opinion of some others to make use of so mean a shift which a true Scholar would have been ashamed of He charges me also with contradicting the Yearly Meeting in saying It was not the proper business of that Meeting to judge of the Matters of Fact contained in his Books c. And he would hence infer that the Yearly Meeting both medled and judged in that which was not their proper business But in this he deals unfairly and weak ly as well as in the former For ye may see Friends in the fore-quoted place of my Epistle p. 49 50. the Matters of Fact I there say it was not the proper business of the Yearly Meeting to judge were such as were alledged to have been done in America by Persons not here to answer to or give account of them For which reason that Meeting did forbear to give Judgment in those Matters though they could not forbear to hear them being complicated with others and related or read together But it doth not thence follow that that Meeting had not power to judge of those Matters which were of themselves or by his Books apparent to the Meeting and which did not depend upon the Proofs or Defences of absent Persons Such as are the Breach and Division he has made in America the separate Meetings he has set up or caused to be set up there of which his own Books give Proofs sufficient the scandalous Books he has written there and which have been published both there here and else where to the great dishonour of God defamation of our holy Profession and reproach and grief of Friends He would also squeeze some advantage to himself out of that saying of mine in my former Epistle p. 72. That the way to recover the Deceived is to discover lay open and witness against the Deceivers From hence he would fain justifie himself for publishing his abusive and
scandalous Books But this will not yield him any defence unless he could prove them Deceivers whom in those Books he hath written against Which he no otherwise here attempts to do than by begging it from that which he calls my liberal Concession For thus he says p. 7. By his liberal Concession supposing it to be true in matter of Fact that I have charged upon some Preachers in America as above-mentioned they are Deceivers But he should have remembred the Rule supposition proves nothing and not have built upon a supposed Concession which hath no Foundation but in his own Imagination However though that Assertion of mine That the way to recover the Deceived is to discover lay open and witness against the Deceivers will not stand him in stead Yet it is true and will stand the Truth in stead against him and all that turn against it And by it all that have not pluckt out their Eyes and given them to him may see that what he suggests of the Yearly Meeting and me that we would have vile and gross Errors c. Covered and Cloaked is a vile and gross Slander and Calumny of his Thus Friends I have gone through his Epistle and toucht I think the most material parts of it In which if I would have imitated his Example I might probably have picks up as many real Perversions Forgeries and false Accusations out of that one Sheet as he hath feigned ones out of my Epistle of near Five Sheets But I will not imitate his Trifling I come now to his other Book called A Seasonable Information c wherein he pretends to set forth Fifty Perversions c. which in his former Sheet he said he had noted in my Book most of which are so idle and silly that he has rendred himself not ably ridiculous in noting them But before he comes at them he suggests in his Introduction that I printed that Book in great disunity and against the mind of many Friends although approved and promoted by a Party equally prejudiced he says against him for his faithful Christian Testimony to the Truth of Christ. Now Friends although his Falshood in this is sufficiently known to many Friends in London yet because his Books are usually spread by the help of other Separatists into divers parts of this Kingdom as well as beyond the Seas I think fit for the information of all Friends every where to let you know how I proceeded therein After I had written that Book called An Epistle to Friends I went up to London with it and presented it to the Second Days Morning Meeting where such Writings of Friends as are intended for the Press are to be read and considered I read it throughout in that Meeting And to the best of my remembrance there was not one Friend there though the Meeting was pretty full that shewed any disunity therewith or made any exception against it but the Meeting left me to my freedom for the publishing thereof which ye may be sure they would not have done had they had disunity therewith So that I took as I conceive the right way and method in publishing that Epistle and proceeded in the same course that all Friends do who stand in unity with the Body of Friends when they have any thing to Print And though one Friend who did not hear it read nor uses to be at that Meeting meeting me casually in the Street after it was in the Press would have disswaded me from printing it at that time and as I have heard one or two other Friends who do not use to go to that Meeting neither when it was well nigh finished finding what a heat and fret the report of it had put G. K. into did move to have the publication thereof deferred for a while to see if they could bring G. K. to a better mind Yet no Friend either then or since to this day hath signified to me any disunity with the Book or with me for publishing it But if â—…had gone out of the way of unity in the publishing that Book was G. K. of all Men fit to charge me with it who himself has not set one foot therein in the publishing any of the Pamphlets he hath written since he came into England to say nothing here of his other Scandalous Books written in America Hath he offered any of his late Books to the Judgment of that Meeting to which I brought mine and other Friends bring theirs and he I suppose formerly while he stood in Unity with Friends used to bring his Nay did he not publish his Book called The Causless Ground of Surmises c. not only not with but against the Unity and against the Judgment even of those Friends whom he himself made choice of privately to shew it to But why give I instances here of his disunion with Friends of whose Unity with Friends no instance can be given I proceed to his Fifty Perversions c. The First is That I falsly he says accuse him in my Title Page of a Spirit of Contention and Division that I say hath lately appeared in him and some few others that join with him who have made a Breach and Separation from Friends in America That a Spirit of Contention and Division hath of late appeared in him and some few others that join with him is a thing so apparently seen and known to them that converse with him or read his late Contentious Books that he might with like modesty deny the shining of the Sun at Noon in the clearest Day And that he and they have made a Breach and Separation from Friends in America is so fully proved upon him in my last that I am well content to leave it to the Readers Judgment And whereas he says Those I call some few are about sixteen Meetings I say If that be true which I question his Guilt is the greater in having misled so many His Second Charge he takes out of my ninth Page where he says I falsly accuse him that he blames Friends that they were gone too much from the Outward to the Inward This he says is a downright Forgery and that he never blamed any for going too much to the inward But in this he hath perverted my words For I did not say he blamed Friends for going too much to the Inward but for going too much from the Outward to the Inward The words too much there related to their going from the Outward which in the following words I shewed saying For G. K 's Complaint and Charge is That Friends do not preach the Outward Appearance and Manifestation of Christ in the Flesh enough or oft enough I did not say his Complaint was that they preached the Inward Appearance of Christ too much but that they did not preach his Outward Appearance enough or oft enough And that he did so he himself proves in p. 10. of his last Book where he says I have blamed some Persons for not rightly
and fully preaching Christ Without c. His saying in the same place that from my manner of charging him it plainly appears as well as from the words of some others that it was our sense To preach Christ without and Faith in him it draws from the inward c. is a gross Perversion and false Accusation in him as appears from my following words in that ninth page of my former Epistle where I say to Friends Ye know this Charge of his to be false and that the Testimony of Truth hath always been acknowledged and born by Friends from the beginning as occasion has offered to the Outward Manifestation and Appearance of Christ as well as to the Inward His Third Charge is That I falsly and unjustly charge him with Robert Hannay 's Book as if it were his both for Matter and Style and that I cast it upon him For this he cunningly quotes my 15th page where I say least of it for there I only said Considering the manner of that Pamphlet's coming forth the Matter and Style thereof and his refusing to disown it I shall leave it my Friends to your impartial Judgment whether the Reflections contained in that Pamphlet against the Yearly Meeting are not justly to be charged upon him But in my 11th and 12th pages speaking of it I said How far G. K. had an hand or was concerned in the Writing of that Book I will not here say But I may say the matter of the Queries in that Book is so much the same with the matter of the other Book publisht soon after with G. K's Name to it and the Style thereof so agreeable to his Style in that and his other Writings that whoever shall take him for the Author of it will I think be very excusable though he should prove in part mistaken And a little after But in as much as they are both of a Party and R. Hannay is at G. K's right Hand in his Work of Contention and Division and G. K. though often put upon it hath not publickly disowned that Pamphlet which R. H's Name is to I do not think I shall wrong G. K. as indeed I would not in supposing him to have at least a share therein c. This was uot directly charging him with it nor casting it upon him Yet I declare I am more strongly now perswaded that he had the greatest hand in it than I was before For mark but what he now says p. 10. As I had no hand in the Printing it but was against it so diverse things in it that seemed to some most offensive I was not concerned in He does not say he had no hand in the Writing it but he had no hand in the Printing it that is he did not actually work at the Press but was against it he says That proves he was privy to the Printing how else could he be against it Next he says he was not concern'd in divers things in it does not that imply he was concerned in the main And lastly the divers things he says he was not concerned in were those that seemed most offensive to some he does not say they seem'd most offensive to him See now whether he has any whit mended the matter in clearing himself of being a Party at least to that Book and consequently guilty of that Insincerity which in my last I charged upon him His Fourth Charge is That I not only falsly accuse him but am guilty of an absolute Forgery and Fiction in matter of Fact That he refused to go out at the Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia held in the Seventh Month 1691 and that his refusal to go out was the occasion of their delay to give Iudgment against W. Stockdale for which as a proof I cite his Book called Some Reasons and Causes c. p. 14. In this I acknowledge a mistake on my part not in saying he refused to go out at the Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia for that I understand he did But my mistake was in referring to a place in his Book for Proof of this when as that place it seems related not to that Yearly Meeting but to a Quarterly Meeting In which mistake I think I am the more excusable being led into it by his obscure way of Writing For neither in that 14th page of his said Book called Some Reasons c. formerly quoted by me Nor in the 18th page of the same now quoted by himself is there any Day Month or Year set wherein either the Quarterly or Yearly Meeting was held And whereas he quotes his 18th page to prove he did go out as the Yearly Meeting there is a Fallacy in that â—…r there being as he notes Six Meetings in 〈◊〉 time of the Yearly Meeting he did go out at â—…me or one of them but refused to go out at the â—…st But he is too eager in calling this a Forgery an absolute Forgery and Fiction a gross Forgery so he endeavours to aggravate it and that too in matter of Fact For the matter of Fact is that he did refuse to go out of the Meeting wherein his Charge and Proofs against W. Stockdale were to be considered of though he was by the Meeting desired to withdraw Whether that Meeting was Yearly or Quarterly and on what Day or in what Month it was held or where are but Circumstances of Time and Place The matter of Fact viz. That he did refuse to go out at the Meeting 's desire is true and proved by his own Confession not only in the place before quoted by me though misapplied there as to the particular Meeting but even in this last Book also p. 11. where he acknowledges his refusal to go out and gives the same reason for it as he gave before in his former But to make him amends for my former mistake I will now put him in mind that not at that Quarterly Meeting only but at another Meeting also where it seems his Complaint was depending he refused to go forth though desired by the Meeting and that by his own Confession in his Book called Some Reasons c. p. 18. to which he has now referr'd me and thereby helped me to this additional Proof against him There he brings it in with a Note thus Note That whereas it hath been said by some That they would have dealt with these men who have been guilty of those Errors but that G. K. would not go forth being desired to withdraw at the Meeting at R. E's and at the Quarterly Meeting To which his Answer is That G. K. had good reason not to withdraw at Both these times This I hope proves the matter of Fact in both points both that he refused to withdraw though desired and that at two several Meetings while his Charge and Proofs were to have been considered of and that his so refusing did delay or hinder the Meeting from dealing as they otherwise would have done with those he had accused And thus his Charge of
often repeats I know not well what to make of it I know he understands Words well enough when he is cool Which makes me question whether his Heat has not transported him beyond his understanding If he means that they did not bring him to an inward Sense and Conviction in himself that he had done or said Evil they cannot be justly blamed for that since that is not in the power of Man to do and if W. S. knew himself innocent as it seems to the last he affirm'd he was it was not possible they could bring him to such a Conviction nor do I find the sound Judgment as G. K. calls it of the adjourned Meeting how sincerely soever given wrought that Effect on him any more than the Judgment of the Yearly Meeting had done But if he means by Conviction according to the usual acceptation of the Word especially in Judicial Proceedings a proving him guilty by the Evidence of Witnesses it is to be hoped they brought him to some sort of Conviction that way before they gave Sentence of Condemnation upon him nay it appears by G. K's own Book they did Yet G. K. says they did not bring him to any Conviction G. K. will needs have it that the determination given by the Yearly Meeting against W. S. was not sincere Yet because he cannot make it out he first begs the Question and then offers a precarious Proof Thus he doth it in answer to my saying A Determination then it seems was given by his own acknowledgment I answer says he seeing it was not sincere but hypocritical there he begs the Question as appears says he by their contradicting the Iudgment of the Monthly Meeting that gave it sincerely and duly There 's his precarious Proof But first how does it appear that the Yearly Meeting about Six Months before the Monthly Meeting as he calls it gave any Judgment at all contradicted the Judgment which that Meeting gave near Six Months after Secondly how does it appear that his Monthly Meeting gave their Judgment sincerely and duly Why Ipse Tixit he has affirm'd it and they that will believe it may But the best on 't is they that will not believe it upon his bare word may chuse and I know not how he will help himself But is it not strange that so strong a Man should argue so weakly He repeats also the Yearly Meeting 's publishing their Judgment Nine Months after and he thereupon calls it an Abortive out of due time But I doubt the Women that read that will smile at him for calling a Birth of Nine Months an Abortive He objects also p. 12. that when they published it they did not own the words spoken to be any offence against God or Christ but to sound and tender Friends But if this was so great an offence in the Yearly Meeting what will he say for his Adjourned Meeting who in their Judgment as he has given it do not own to use his own word I should else have said declare the words spoken by W. S. to be any offence against God or Christ or to sound or tender Friends either So that they went not so far in expressing the offence as the Yearly Meeting did and yet he calls theirs a sound Judgment and given sincerely But where is the soundness of his Judgment and his sincerity the mean while His Sixth Charge against me is thus worded He falsly and most fictitiously alledgeth That Tho. Fitzwater sufficiently proved his Charge against me for which he refers to my own Books but this is a great Forgery for his Charge was That I denied the sufficiency of the Light and this his Four Credible Witnesses did not prove against me but it was quite another thing that the Monthly Meeting of the other side alledgeth they proved against me viz. That I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Where 's the great Forgery here If there be any it will lye at his Door for reporting me to have alledged that T. Fitzwater sufficiently proved his Charge c. whereas my words are It seems T. F. sufficiently proved the words he charged G. K. with speaking and so I think it will seem to any one that considers the words charged and the words proved The words charged were That he denied the sufficiency of the Light The words proved were that he did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else And these last words he says is quite another thing than the former so that according to him not sufficient without something else is quite another thing than not sufficient But I think it will be hard for him to make that sufficiently out Nor doth the asserting the sufficiency of the Light exclude as he would fallaciously infer the Man Christ without us For the Man Christ without us in his glorified state in which he is united with the Godhead is Light And though G. K. to compass his Design doth cunningly slide in the word within yet he knows it was not in the words charged nor in the words proved The Charge was That he denied the sufficiency of the Light The Proof was that he did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Here was the Light mentioned indefinitely not a word of within And therefore he does not fairly nor like a Disputant to thrust it in afterwards His charging me with excluding the Man Christ without us is an abuse and his telling me of Ieffery Bullock an idle Bugbear He has clear'd me himself beyond what he is able to asperse me with by Citing those Passages out of a former Book of mine called The Foundation of Tythes shaken p. 238. where in answer to my Opponent a Priest that had in Print affirmed That some Quakers slighting the Merit and Necessity of Christ's Death ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within I rejected his Charge and in the Name of the Quakers denied it putting him to Name those Quakers and solemnly declaring I knew no such Then added Nor do the Quakers ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within but they ascribe Salvation to Christ Jesus to whom the Light within doth lead those that truly follow it And in p. 240. I said If any one expects Remission of Sins by any other way than the Death of Christ he renders the Death of Christ useless These Passages G. K. hath now Cited in his Seasonable Information p. 12. and that with approbation save only that he would have the word Only added to the Light within which to gratifie him I am content to do thereby expressing what was before implied And as this was my Judgment and Testimony then so it is now Which sufficiently clears me from his slanderous Suggestion that I exclude the Man Christ without us from having any part or concern in our Salvation And truly Friends by his thus dealing with me I have a great guess at his way of dealing with Friends in America and after
not good but invalid And if so then neither those Friends that denied the Meeting held next day at the School-house upon that Adjournment to be a right Monthly Meeting nor the Quarterly Meeting which afterwards refused to record in their book the Acts of that Meeting held on that Adjournment did thereby begin the Separation or give the others any just cause to separate Divers other Passages in the 26 and 27. pages of my former Epistle tending to prove that not Friends but G. K. and his Party begun the Seperation he takes no notice of but carps at a word to wind himself off by that he might get clear of this matter I had said before Truly the time manner and Circumstances of that Adjournment considered it seems to me that this was an irregular Meeting surreptitiously obtained to serve a private end This he makes his Eight Charge thus He falsly alledgeth that the Meeting Adjourned was surreptiâ—…ously obtained which he grounds on a Forgery or Fiction of his own devising as if Twenty Nine of them might be loose or raw Persons Is it a Forgery or Fiction to say they might be loose or raw Persons I did not say they were and I gave the Reasons that induced me to think they might be such which I had from himself For when I had said It seems to me this was an irregular Meeting surreptitiously â—…btained to serve a private end I added and the rather for that I observe when he sets forth to grace it the Number of them that met upon that Adjournment consisting of he says at least Sixty Persons he adds which as much disgraces it Most of which usâ—… to keep Monthly Meetings So that Twenty Nine of those Sixty might be raw or loose Persons brought in to do a Job or serve a Turn And that they were so I am the more induced to think from his giving the Names of some of them but not of them all This makes it plain that I did not ground my saying on a Forgery or Fiction of my own dâ—…sing but upon the Account himselâ—…â—…ad given of the Persons viz. That being in 〈◊〉 of Sixty most of them used to keep Monthly Meetings which might be true though Twenty Nine of the Sixty were raw or loose Persons But since that Adjourned Meeting was designed for such an extraordinary service as to give forth three Judgments which it seems they did why should some be brought to help make up that Meeting who did not use to keep Monthly Meetings before unless it were to serve a Tâ—… And why should he undertake to give a List of the Names of some of them and not of them all but that he too well knâ—…w there were too many raw or loose Persons among them But from my â—…ng the Words Surreptitiously obtained he takes occasion to slip aside again from the matter and says I may much more justly say his scandalous Book is surreptitiously come out in print being contrary to the mind of many Friends and to Gospel Order professed by himself and all professed Friends viz. That none expose another in print or print against another till he be disowned by the Meeting to whom he belongs after a fair Tryal had Whether my Book came out surreptitiously I leave to you Friends to judge from the Account I have herein given before of the manner of its coming forth And as to his complaint of want of Gospel Order I desire you to consider that before my Book was written he had refused to hear the Church not only in America where he was openly and judicially denied but here also in not following the advice and counsel thereof And truly I think the Church would be in but an ill condition if one under â—…tence and protection of Membership might be imboldned to throw dirt upon her and another of her Members might not have the liberty to endeavour at least to wipe it off But since he urges that Order That none expose another in print or print against another till he be disowned by the Meeting to whom he belongs c. let me ask him Why he has exposed me in print or printed against me who am not disowned by the Meeting to which I belong And what Gospel Order hath he given to either the Yearly Meeting or the Second Day 's Morning Meeting before he exposed them in Print He says It has not been in the least intimated to him that any Meeting in London where he now lives hath denied him By this it seems as if he expected to be as oft denied as he removes his seat What if a Meeting in London had denied him and he should thereupon remove to Bristol and from thence to York Would not his having been denied in London serve his Turn unless he were in like manner denied again in each of the other Places also But what need was there that any Meeting in London should intimate to him their denyal of him who hath cut off himself from friends by open Separation and denied both the Yearly and Second Day 's Morning Meeting in London Besides he hath set up his Standard Proclaimed War begun it in America transferr'd it hither and is eagerly carrying it on here And he knows the saying Inter arma silent leges Can he reasonably expect the exactneâ—… of Proceeding by Gospel Order against him when he hath mâ—…e open War against Friends without â—…spel Order He says But I printed nothing â—…nst any in America till Gospel Order was given tâ—…r and was rejected by them I do not believe this to be true He has exposed in Print a great number of Friends by name in America Yet I don't remember to have read in his Book that any of them were complained of to the Meetings to which they belonged but W. S. and T. F. Therefore I have reason to think they were not Let him shew what Gospel Order all â—…hey severally had whose names he has exposed in Print His Ninth Charge is not only â—…meer Cavil but I take it to be done with design as well as the former thereby to disjoynt the Account of the Separation which I had connected that he may confound his Reader He grounds this Cavil upon an hiâ—…t I gave and that but in a Parenthesis that speaking of a Monthly Meeting in the First Month last he set no Year either when that was or when his Book was Printed as there is scarce to any of his late Printed things which reâ—…ders him and his works more obscure This he says I falsly alledge and that the contrary is to be seen in his Book quoting p. 19. of his Reasons and Causes c. But the mention he made of the Monthly Meeting in the First Month last was not in p. 19. but in p. 15. of that Book So that I must have hunted from p. 15. to 19. if I would have sought it And yet I should not have found it there neither For indeed it is not there nor any where
else in his Book that I can find He says He shews in that Ninâ—…nth page that the Monthly Meeting that gave â—…gment against W. S. and T. F. was the Twenty Seventh of the Twelfth Month. 1691. And in that he â—…ys true He adds And it plainly appears from my Book that the Monthly Meeting in the First Month last there mentioned was in the next Month following in the Year 1692. And in that he says False no such thing appearing plainly or at all Now he refers from p. 19. to p. 27. where he says that very Year is mentioned And so indeed it is but not as relating to the Meeting in the First Month last but as the â—…are of a Letter Written the 15th of the Third Month 1692. without any mention of the Meeting in the First Month last That First Month last must be the First Month next before the Book in which it is mentioned was Printed For the date of the Book therefore I searched both in the Title page and at the End But it doth not appear by the Book it self either in what Year at what Place or by whom it was Printed I gave but a transient hint before of his obscure way of Writing not intending to insist on it But since he takes that light Correction so impatiently it 's fit I think he should have more since more is due to him Therefore I now add That his Book called The Plea of the 〈◊〉 c. His Book called Truth and Innocency defended c. His Book called A Testimâ—… against that false and absur'd Opinion c. His loving Epistle as it came out at 〈◊〉 distinct from his Seasonable Information to which it is now stitched none of these have the Year when the Place where or the name of the Printer by whom they wâ—…re Printed as other Mens Books usually have By this it appears that it was not without 〈◊〉 I gave him that gentle Râ—… before which he had better have â—…orn than have given Oâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…ser Râ—… to follow but that he had no caâ—… to charge me with dealing fâ—…lsly by him in it Why he should choose for in so many Instances it lookâ—… more like Choice than Chance to conceal the dates of his Bookâ—… I cannot tell 〈◊〉 it were that from the Incertainty that arises from such an obscure way of Writing he might haâ—…ly catch his Answerer upon some mistâ—… in point of time as he did me about the Yearly Meeting and thence both take the advaâ—… to insult over him and withal avoid his Argument In his Tenth Câ—…ge He Vaunts himself over my Ignorance saying I most â—…ersly and Ignorantly alledge by a sort of Argument that is so silly and weak that scarce an Ordinary School-Boy woâ—…d use it suppose him to mean One of his own instructing That if that Act of T. L's viz. says G. K. his withdrawing from the Monthly Meeting adjourned where I begin it But say I his withdrawing from the Monthly Meeting before that adjâ—…rnment where G. K. did formerly begin it was the Cause of the Sepâ—…ration â—…en it would not be the Separation it self But the Separation must come after this â—…s this Effect follows â—…he â—…use This that the Effect follows the Cause he 〈◊〉 ridiculously weak And thereupon reminds me of the advice he gave me in the Yearly Meeting to beware of falling into the 〈◊〉 of â—…hat called Philosophy If that called Philosophy be a Ditch I confess I have no mind to fall into it For if it be a Ditch I doubt 't is a 〈◊〉 one because he who has walked so long in siâ—… drops so much Diâ—… from his Pen. And siâ—… Fâ—…â—…st vel 〈◊〉 hoste docâ—…ri it is Lâ—…ful 〈◊〉 lâ—…rn even of an Enemy I am content to learn by another's harm to beware and not venture too far into his Ditch left he bring an Action of Intrusion against me for entâ—…ing against his mind upon his Possession the Ditch of that called Philosophy Yet let him give me leave to put him in mind for I doubt not but he knows it already that Omnis Causâ—… est prior suo effectâ—… every Cause is before it's Effect and Effectus non est Causa the Effect is not the Cause are true Rules in that Philosophy which is not a Ditch But Friends whatever his Logicians or School-men as he says teach who are not always in the right as he is often in the wrong when I argued that if that Act of T. Lloyd's going out of the Monthly Meeting and taking away a Wing or Skirt of the Meeting with him which G. K. said he did was the Cause of the Separation then it could not be the Separation it self But the Separation must come after this as the Effect follows the Cause I suppose I spake to your Understanding and that ye will not be easily perâ—…ded by his Logicians or Schoolmen or himself either to put the Cart before the House or the Effect before 〈◊〉 Cause But however Ignorant I was what Forgery Perversion or false Accusation was there in this His Eleventh Charge is That I falsly alledge that the Change of the Meeting in Philadelphia from the Bank to the Centâ—… was in Course This says he I prove to be false and a Fiction because at the time of the Course of 〈◊〉 was not yet 〈◊〉 nor did come either so soon before or after so Tâ—…l put it to a vote by giving a sign whether it should he â—…ved or not c. This Proof of his consists in two things First That the tiâ—…â—…f the Course of it that is of its being removed in Course was not yet come This Objection I remember he made in the Yearly Meeting at London and it was there Answered and I took notice of both the Objection and Answer in my former Epistle p. 31. thus I remember indeed which I would here note G. K. did object That the Meeting was removed that Year somewhat earlier than it had been some other Year's But to that it was replied by the Friends of Pensilvania then present that there was no certain day prefix'd and settled for the removing thereof but it was either earlier or later in the Year according as the Seasons of the Year proved fair or foul for weather This plain and full Answer to his Objection G. K. takes no notice of but urges afresh that the time of the Course of changing the Meeting was not yet come as a Proof that my saying it was changed in Course is False and a Fiction But this stands still in his way and he must remove this before he can get forward He must prove that there was a prefixt day for the removing of the Meeting and that Friends removed it before that fixt day was come e're his Proof will stand him in any stead However Friends I hope ye will take notice that by his saying The time of the Course of it was not yet come nor did come either so soon before or after he
in the same Spirit and mind in which he went out from Friends and made the Breach and Separation elsewhere his Meeting with you will be but a Burden to you and an aggravation of Condemnation to himself And with respect to his Preaching in Friends Meetings I said While he continues in that Evil Mind and Spirit of Contention Division and Discord wherein he hath of late appeared it must needs be a very great Exercise and Burden to you But I am not dissatisfied with his changing the Words from Will be and must needs be to is For I am fully satisfied it is so and ye my Friends whose suffering Lot it is to hear him I make no question find and feel it so Fourthly That he gave such Interruption and made so great disturbance at the First Publick Meeting he appeared in at London which was at the Bull and Mouth as the like hath scarce been known in any Meeting in that City Of this there were so many Witnesses present that he might with the like Modesty deny he was at that Meeting as that he made such a Disturbance there He asserts again his being in Unity thus As I am at present in Unity with Faithful Friends so I still declare my sincere Intention to remain in Unity with Faithful Friends But as he is not at present in Unity So his declared intention to remain in Unity is not sincere He says Neither I nor any of my Abettors can prove him guilty of making any Breach or Violation of true Unity with Faithful Friends Friends Ye who have his Books and mine before you are the proper Judges of that and to your Judgment I leave it But what heed can be given to the Words of a Man who speaks not plainly but with Equivocation In his Causeless Ground of Jealousies he tenderly intreated that none would apply or construe any Words therein as intended by him in way of Reflection blame or Charge against either the Body of Friends in general or any particular Meeting c. Yet in that Book reflected on blamed and charged the Yearly Meeting highly But he had an Equivocating Salvo to himself which was that he did not own that to be the Yearly Meeting or any Meeting at all duly and regularly Constituted Now he cryes he is in Unity with all Faithful Friends And how in his reserved sense can that be otherwise since he owns none for Faithful Friends but such as are in Unity with him He refers to the Innocency of his Life and Conversation for Proof of the sincerity of his Spirit and Heart But he will get little advantage that way It is not enough for a Man to be free from gross Immoralities and the common Debaucheries of the Age For that an Hypocrite will take care to be But he that will recommend the sincerity of his Heart and Spirit by his Conversation must have his Conversation blameless towards God as well as towards Man For there is a Conversation in the Church as well as in the World and he that orders his Conversation aright will be careful not to give Offence to the Church of God as well as not to the World What G. K's Conversation is in the World I â—…ddle not with But what his Conversation of â—…to Years hath been in the Church with resâ—…ct to his raising Contention and Strife sowing Discord causing Divisions and making an open Rent and Breach his unruly and turbulent Carriage and Behaviour Rayling a â—…and Reviling Friends at his pleasure is too notoriously manifest to need proof And therefore while his Tree brings forth such Evil Fruits he can have no Relief by urging That the Tree should be judged by its Fruits by which it is already judged and found to be of a corrupt Nature He suggests that I and some others who promote my Book seek to drive him forth from the Unity and Fellowship of Friends and from abiding in the Inheritance of the Lord Whereas it is certain and evident that he was gone from the Unity and Fellowship of Friends before my Book was Written or I had any thing to do with him And how little he regards the Inheritance of the Lord to abide in it may be gathered not only from his joyning himself to the Separate Meeting in Harp-Lane but his going to the Meetings of other Professions of almost all sorts He would shake off the blame of having made that disturbance which was at the Bull-Meeting in London presently after he came over by saying Many can and do bear him witness that he was not the Cause nor beginning of it This I leave to you Friends of London who were then present to judge of and to measure the Truth of what he says in other things by his falseness in this He adds It ought not to be reckoned a disturbance when Errors and false Doctrine is Preached in a publick Assembly in a Zealous Christian Spirit to reprove it when things are come to that pass especially that private Reproof is not regarded By this he suggests that Error and false Doctrine was Preached in that publick Assembly at the Bull and that by some whom he had reproved privately for the same before But of this he hath given no Proof nor Instance both which unless he do he is justly to be reputed a false Accuser and Slanderer But to balance the Disturbance made at the Bull he puts me in mind of a Disturbance which he says I made at Grace-Church-street Meeting in speaking against a Person whose Ministry he says was well owned by Hundreds some of which he says cryed out on me Shame Shame To which I say I remember well both the time and occasion of that Disturbance which was not made by me but by a sort of Unruly People that joyned with that unruly Person As for my part I did not in that Meeting interrupt that Person while he was speaking but waited long under a very great weight and Burden that his Preaching brought upon me until he had done before I spake a word And when I had cleared my Conscience in a short Testimony to the Meeting I sate down peaceably again and did not enter into any Debate or Strife with those unruly People of the Separation who by railing at me on his behalf made that Disturbance that was and whose abusive rudeness towards me made some cry out on them Shame Shame And surely if G. K. thinks as he seems here to do that neither I nor any other should call it a Disturbance in him to bear a publick Testimony against a Man that ought not he says to be owned to be a Minister of Christ He ought not to call it a disturbance in me to bear a publick Testimony against that Man that I then testified against who ought not to be owned to be a Minister of Christ not only because he hat divided himself from the Church of Christ by going into and keeping up an open Separation but for other matters