A Further DISCOVERY Of that Spirit of Contention Division Which hath appeared of late in George Keith c. Being a REPLY to Two Late Printed Pieces of his the one Entituled A Loving Epistle c. the other A Seasonable Information c. Wherein his Cavils are Answered his Falshood is laid open and the Guilt and Blame of the Breach and Separation in America and of the Reproach he hath brought upon Truth and Friends by his late Printed Books are fixed faster on him Written by way of Epistle and Recommended as a further Warning to all Friends By THOMAS ELLWOOD Prov. 22. 10. Cast out the Scorner and Contention shall go out yea Strife and Reproach shall cease London Printed by T. Sowle at the Crooked-Billet in Holy-well-lane Shoreditch and near the Meeting-House in White-hart Court in Grace-Church-street 1694. A Further DISCOVERY Of that Spirit of Contention Division Which hath appeared of late in G. Keith c. Dear Friends WHO have received the Truth in the love of it and have kept your Habitation therein unto whom the Truth is exceeding precious and who desire the Prosperity thereof above all things Unto you is the Salutation of my endeared love in this blessed Truth in which the Fellowship of the Faithful stands In this it is I desire to know you to be known by you and to have Fellowship with you earnestly breathing to the God of Truth the Father of Spirits that he will be pleased to pour forth more abundantly of his good Spirit into all our Hearts and fill us with the blessed Fruits thereof that there may be no room for the Enemy to enter to break this holy Fellowship But that all who profess to believe in the Light may so walk therein that a clear sight they may have thereby and a true discerning between things that diffeâ—… and may be able to make a right Judgment what is of God and what is not that so the Design of that Spirit by whatsoever Instrumenâ—… it works which would break or disturb the Churches Peace and cast Reproach upâ—… the Heritage of God may be so discovered and laid open that all may see and shun it As this is the Exercise and Travel of my Spirit so it is the Service I have been of late and am at present engaged in For Friends It is not many Months since I saluted you with an Epistle wherein my Spirit was drawn fortâ—… â—…fly to Commemorate the gracious Dealings of the Lord with his People and as in a general way to remind you of the many Attempts the Enemy hath made by Force and Fraud to hinder the Work of God from going on So more particularly to Warn you to beware of that Spirit of Contention and Division which hath appeared of late in George Keith and some few others that join with him who have made a Breach and Separation from Friends in some parts of America In writing that Epistle I did not consult Flesh and Blood neither had I an Eye to my own ease and quiet as outwardly for I had no reason to expect rest from so restless a Man nor fair Treatment from one who in his late Writings and personal Debates hath so notoriously let loose his Pen and Tongue to an unbridled liberty of Railing and Reviling But I cleared my Conscience in discharging my Duty to God and to his Church and therein have that Peace which all his Abuses cannot disturb After that Epistle of mine had been sometime abroad G. K. published a Sheet of Paper which he called A loving Epistle to all the moderate judicious and impartial among the People called Quakers c. In that Sheet he charged me with Fifty Perversions Forgeries and false Accusations which he said he had noted in my Book but left his Proofs behind to come after in another Book which he then threatned should be published if my Book was not called in and disowned Some Weeks after the publishing of that Sheet he hath now sent forth his threatned Book pretended to be an Answer to that Epistle of mine and containing his Proofs such as they are of the Charge he had made publick so long before As soon as I had notice of the coming forth of his last which he calls A Seasonable Information c. I gave direction for the stopping what I had before written and sent to London in Answer to his other Sheet chusing rather to make but one work of it than to multiply Books as he does who notwithstanding his alledging that the Scripture says Of making many Books there is no end seems to have an Itch to writing and a Pride in Printing He begins his Epistle with a double or two fold Boast One of his Labours and Services in the Truth to which perhaps I may say something hereafter The other of the considerable Number of those that he says he has Experience are in true Unity with him To which at present I shall only say If that were true the more were the pity But as I am far from believing it to be true So I wish for his own sake as well as others he may be as much misstaken concerning the number of his Favourers as those few that do favour him are concerning his Sincerity His second page and part of his third is in a manner wholly filled with Railing at me He says I labour to take from him his Innocency and Christian Reputation and Testimony Of all which I think he brought but little if any into England What stock of each he carried with him into America he has I fear made Shipwrack of there He charges me with a sordid way of Sophistâ—…l Wrangling Perversions Forgeries and false Accusations to the number of Fifty and upwards This Charge he sent abroad in his Printed Epistle in general Terms without instancing the Particulars which he kept in reserve to furnish out another Book But was not this a sordid way of Sophistical Wrangling in him thus to Charge without making Proof How often and highly does he complain in several of his former Treatises of being charged in generals without producing particular Proofs In his Plea of the Innocent p. 8. He with others of his Party say Seeing their Accusations against G. K. lye much in bare generals we see no cause further to take notice of them but to shew that for want of particular matter against him they thus labour to defame him in bare generals a way says he common to all Sophisters and false Accâ—…ers Did he not then take the way which he says is common to all Sophisters and false Accusers when he accused me in bare generals without producing the Particulars Did he not take the most deceitful way he could when he accused me in bare generals seeing himself says p. 17. of his Plea Nothing is more deceitful than bare generals It will not excuse him that he has now at length in another Treatise set forth the Particulars of his Charge that being but
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
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
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
verbal Communication either in England or any other part of the World that have given me no Occasion to think otherwise of them This Fallacy will not help him For as his Charitable Perswasion is grounded on his Experimental Proof and that Proof drawn from intimate Conversation and frequent verbal Communication So that intimate Conversation and frequent verbal Communication is restrained by his own Words to the time since he came last into England For it is all in the Present Tense none in the Preterit Having not having had but now having an Experimental Proof through intimate Conversation and frequent verbal Communication with many of them that they are not that they have been formerly many Years ago when I was in England before but that they now are sincere in the Christian Faith and whose Life and Conversation doth seal not hath sealed unto the sincerity of their Christian Profession By this Friends ye may see that I neither forged nor Perverted his Words But that he hath now put a false meaning upon his Words which they will not bear And that by very many he meant those only that cleave to or favour him may be gathered from the boast he makes at the Entrance of his Loving Epistle as he calls it of the considerable Number he hath Experience are in Unity with him 24. He calls it a Perversion of his words that when in contradiction to the Advice of the Yearly Meeting that he should call in his Books or at least publish something innocently and effectually to clear the Body of the People called Quakers and their Ministers from those gross Errors charged on some few in America he denied that he had charged the People called Quakers either in general or in the plurality I said I had not found in his last Book that he had cleared or attempted to clear the People called Quakers there in general or in the plurality and that he was scarce willing to allow the Name Christian to any more of them than he had had experimental proof of through intimate Conversation and frequent verbal Communication c. In this he says I pervert his words and yet labours to justifie himself for not allowing the Name Christian to the People called Quakers from an Epistle of G. W's to Friends How says he can he or I either be positive to say the People called Quakers are good Christians either in general or in the plurality when G. W. hath told us in his printed Epistle That few sincerely seek the Lord c. So that he quarrels with me for saying how unwilling he was to allow the Name Christian to the People called Quakers and yet urges G. W's Epistle to justifie himself for not allowing the Name Christian to the People called Quakers either in general or in the plurality And reciting divers passages from that Epistle tending in a general way to shew that many fall short of that watchful diligent close walking with the Lord and inward Exercise of Mind towards him that they should have And too many are taken up with fading Objects or cumbred with the Cares of this Life he endeavours from thence to justifie himself for having exposed in Print to the scorn and contempt of the World and in the most reproachful terms and manner both many particular Persons by Name and whole Meetings of Friends For says he Nothing can be said against my printed Books in reference to my publick witnessing against the Errors in Principles whereof some are guilty in Pensylvania and elsewhere but what may be as much said against G. W. his reproving those great Vices and Immoralities among many called Friends c. That the falsness of this Comparison which he makes between G. W.'s Epistle and his own Books may the better appear let it be considered that his Books contain the blackest Charges with respect to Errors in Principles that Man can be guilty of viz. gross and vile Errors contrary to the Fundamentals of Christianity Daâ—… Heresies and Doctrines of Devils held by some and covered or cloaked and tolerated by others But did G. W. in that Epistle charge any with the grossest Deaucheries Uncleanness prophaneness Dishonesty c. that Mankind is oâ—… can be guilty of Or do his â—…ords import any more than a romisness slackress or falling short of only Exercising Spiritual 〈◊〉 and being too much taken up with the things of this World And did he say that such as were faulty in those things were cloaked or covered and tolerated therein by Friends No such matter Therefore G. K. says falsly in saying as before nothing can be said against his Printed Book c. But what may be as much said against G. W's e. And it is observable that no publick Reproach was cast by Truth 's Adversaries upon Friends and Truth from that Epistle of G. W's whereas G. K's filthy and scandalous Books have brought very great Reproach upon Truth and Friends from the Adversaries thereof So that G. K's bringing G. VV's Epistle to justifie his own infamous Books shews his own falness but will not defend or excuse him Nor can he be excused for the Wrong and Mischief he hath done in publishing those Scandalous Books of his which he acknowledges he had a foresight and sense the Enemies of Truth would seek to take advantage from though he adds his sense and foresight that in the conclusion they would be disappointed As I also believe they will by seeing in the conclusion his Deceit fully laid open and Truth and Friends cleared from his false Accusations Their disappointment he refers to the Conclusion But the Advantage he has given them by the mischief he has done is present and he is industriously endeavouring to do more He says He did not think the simple Relation or Account of these things would â—…r could be any proper cause of grief to feithful Friends c. Is this fit for a Wise Man to say A Boy from his Accidence could have told him that it is Insipientis dicere non putâram the property of a Fool when he has done mischief to say I did not think or I had not thought 25. He would seem here to be very Zealous for the Yearly Meeting at London and arraigns me for gross Perversion and Reflection on the Yearly Meeting And yet before he passeth from this Head he kicks the Yearly Meeting out of Doors and disowns it to be a Yearly Meeting or any duly constituted Meeting at all Nor can it be said says he p. 27. that that called the Yearly Meeting was a free Meeting for it was too private and limited to too small a number c. and therefore it cannot be owned to be the Yearly Meeting nor any Meeting duly and regularly constituted c. Ye see now Friends whither he is run and to what a pass he is come having outrun in this so far as I remember all the Apostates that have gone before him He disowns it to be a Yearly Meeting
or any Meeting at all duly constituted and yet takes upon him to impeach me of Perversion and Reflection on the Yearly Meeting Is not this gross Hypocrisie in him The Perversion and Reflection he charges me with is my saying 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 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 And that none should 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 said I to be proved by him that has affirmed them and to be answered by them who are charged therein Now though I suppose I have said enough to this matter in the former part of this Book in Answer to his Loving Epistle as he calls it to satisfie any reasonable Person Yet because he repeats it here I will not stick to take notice of it again From my last Cited words he notes that I grant the Yearly Meeting did not declare the matter of Fact in his Books to be false and seeing as he says for matter of Doctrine they did not blame him and yet he is blamed he thinks I cast an unparalleled instance of Injustice on the Yearly Meeting to blame him for things in his Book that are neither matter of Doctrine nor matter of Fact In this he is very fallacious playing upon the Words Matters of Fact His Books contain many particular Matters alledged by him to have been said or done by many particular Persons in America who were not at the Yearly Meeting at London to Answer to or give an Account of them These Matters of Fact I said it was not the proper business of the Yearly Meeting to judge of so were my words expresly Epistle p. 49. viz. It was not the proper business of the Yearly Meeting 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 And to these Matters of Fact I referr'd when I added 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 said I by him that has affirmed them and to be answered by them who are charged therein Viz. Those particular Persons who he says have said or done those particular Words or Deeds by him charged in his Books upon them What I there spake of those particular Matters of Fact he stretches to Matter of Fact in general and thence falsly inferrs that I deny it was the proper business of the Yearly Meeting to judge of any Matter of Fact at all contained in his Books or that the Meeting did declare any Matters of Fact at all in his Books to be false And he argues upon it at a wild rate Is not my clearing my self says he of the blame of the Sepâ—… 〈◊〉 despairing to acquit himself of the Act 〈◊〉 â—…eparation he would now excuse himself of the blame of it a Matter of Fact in my Book This says he he saith the Yearly Meeting hath not declared to be false in Matter of Fact therefore they have not declared it that my clearing my self of the Separation is false and consequently they have not declared the contrary but that my clearing my self of the Separation is true and from hence again he infers that I have contradicted the Judgment of that called The Yearly Meeting Paper which layeth the Separation at his door Now besides that his Argument is faulty and naught the Terms in his Consequence not answering the Terms in his premises his way or manner of arguing here is meerly Sophistical and grounded upon a false Position That I say the Yearly Meeting hath not declared This to be false This viz. His clearing himself of the blame of the Separation whereas I never said so and his saying I have said so is that in him which he would have called gross Perversion if not Forgery in me But as my not saying so clears me from his Charge of contradicting the Yearly Meeting in that so that Meeting 's laying the Separation at his Door is at least an implicit Declaring that what he hath said for the clearing himself of the Separation or the blame thereof is false Nor will his other shift stand him in any stead to acquit him from being the culpable Cause of the Separation which he endeavours to draw from those words in the Yearly Meetings Paper viz. As to the Separation among Frieâ—…â—…n America arising from the unhappy Differences c. From whence he infers that the Meeting makes the Differences between them in America to be the Cause of the Separation And from thence argues thus And seeing the Original ground and Cause of the Differences was the unsound and Erroneous Doctrines held by them of the other side which that Paper called A true Account of the Proceedings c. doth own them to be guilty of it plainly appears they of the other side were the culpable Cause of the Separation c. Here again he is guilty of that which he so often chargeth me with Forgery and Perversion He says The Paper called A true Account of the Proceedings c. doth own them of the other side to be guilty of unsound and Erroneous Doctrines How false and unfair he is in this the words of that Paper shall shew which are these And although it appears that some few Persons have given Offence either through Erroneous Doctrines Unsound Expressions or Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding yet c. Here ye see Friends that that Paper of the Yearly Meeting is so far from owning them of the other side as he calls them that is the Friends in America to be guilty of unsound and Erroneous Doctrines which G. K. here expresly says it doth that it doth not undertake to determine whether the Offence said to be given by some few Persons was through Erroneous Doctrines and Unsound Expressions or through Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and 〈◊〉 Understanding And yet this Man hath the Confidence and Falseness to say positively That Paper doth own them guilty of holding Unsound and Erroneous Doctrines By this yâ—… may see how false he is and how unfit he is to charge another with Forgeries and Perversions This looks the worse in him in as much as he who here says the Yearly Meeting owns them of the other side to be guilty of Unsound and Erroneous Doctrines doth in his causeless ground of surmises p. 5. secretly smite at that Meeting for lessening and extennating such gross and vile Errors with the smooth name of Weakness So that when his Blow is at
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
to use his own Phrase like Mustard after Meat If he had intended to deal fairly he should either have brought his Proofs with his Charge or kept his Charge till he could find his Proofs But so far was he from that that he expected his Reader should give Judgment against me upon his general Accusation without proof for Generals he says prove nothing Causless Ground of Surmises p. 2. Hear how he bespeaks it I appeal says he to all moderate judicious and impartial Persons called Quakers Whether T. E. hath not shewed himself as a Man hurried and carried away as with a Tempest and impetuous Current of prejudice against me not only to heap so many Perversions Misrepresentations Forgeries and false Accusations against me but c. This is in his Loving Epistle before he had brought forth the Instances to prove his Charge by So that the moderate judicious and impartial Persons he appealed to wore to take it for granted upon his bare and general Accusation that I had heaped so many Perversions Forgeries c. against him How else could they answer his Appeal By this Friends ye may see what he meant by moderate judicious and impartial Persons viz. Such as would give Judgment upon his Accusation in bare generals then and take his word for proof till his other Book should come forth But no such Persons will he ever find I hope among the Quakers Yet that this was his expectation and desire that other passage in the close of his Epistle proves beyond doubting Where threatning to publish his Answer to mine in which he said he had noted Fifty of my Perversions c. he does it with this Reserve and Proviso If nothing be done forthwith by that Party that hath approved and promoted his Book to call it in and disown it This plainly shews he expected Friends should have called in and disowned my Book upon his bare and general Accusation without seeing the Fifty Perversions c. he talked of or hearing what they were For the calling in and disowning my Book was proposed by him as an Expedient to prevent his publishing the Proofs of that Accusation upon which he would have had it called in and disowned But did he herein like a Christian Like a Wise Man Like a Scholar Or at all like a Man Surely more discretion at least if not Iustice was expected from George Keith And the truly moderate judicious and impartial will easily see that he hath used those Epithets but artificially and to deceive He is in great Confusion in this part of his Work For he calls his Book a just and necessary Defense of the Truth as well as of himself and yet he is fain to intreat and request over and over his moderate judicious and impartial Persons and that â—…nestly too to excuse him and not be offended with him for it Surely if he believed what he writ was a just and necessary defense of the Truth he might have trusted it boldly with the moderate judicious and impartial without begging their Excuse or fearing to offend them He goes on thus against me p. 3. But when he cannot heap up so many Perversions c. as he would he goes about by an Art of wrangling and sophistry of Words to prove me guilty when his Evidence in matter of Fact doth utterly fail him of this he gives no Instance neither but says I do it even as a Man would go before an Assize to prove one guilty of Theft or Felony by false Syllogisms when his Evidence is short in matter of Fast thus arguing against an innocent Person some Man is a Thief but A B is some Man therefore A. B. is a Thief Upon this he enters a new Appeal not so restrained as before to the moderate judicious and impartial but more at large I appeal says he to all that know the Truth of which he knows there are besides himself too many that do not walk in it whether this sort of Sophistical Arguing doth Agree to that Simplicity of Truth and plainness both of Doctrine and Practice that we generally have professed This shews he is well versed in the Fallacies of Logick and is ready at making false Syllogisms and it also shews his unfair dealing For Friends I appeal to you who not only know the Truth but dwell and walk in it whether I have used such sort of Arguing against him as he hath here charged me with He says I go about by an Art of wrangling and sophistry of words to prove him guilty when my Evidence in matter of Fact doth utterly fail me And he says I do this even as a Man would go before an Assize to prove one guilty of Felony by false Syllogisms when his Evidence is short in matter of Fact thus arguing against an innocent Person some Man is a Thief but A. B. is some Man therefore A. B. is a Thief Friends my Book out of which he pretends to make this Charge against me is in your hands pray search and examine it throughly see if you can find any such false syllogism in it or any such manner of Arguing as he hath here taxed me with If ye cannot as I am sure ye cannot then pray reflect your thoughts upon G. Keith and consider seriously what a sort of Man he must be to deal thus Injuriously with both you and me Hath not he himself acted like a Man that should go before an Assize to accuse an innocentPerson of some heinous Crime and though he brough no evidence to convict him by should yet press to have â—…im condemned on pretence that he has Evidences at home and will bring them sometime 〈◊〉 Sure I am such Dealing is very far from the Simplicity plainness and justice of Truth which we profess Yet so ye may see he hath dealt by me in that Epistle of his He â—…aks of some in his Third page who he says have plucked out their Eyes and given them away to such as would deceive them How he should know that some have done so unless they have brought their Eyes to him to keep for them I who have kept my Eyes to my self don't see But questionless if he knows any such that have pluct out their Eyes and given them away to such as would deceive them it must be to them he made his Appeal before he brought his Prooss for none he might be sure that had Eyes in their heads and knew how to use them would give Judgment upon his Appeal before they had seen his Proofs His mentioning how much Friends have been warned to beware lest any spoil them through Philosophy and vain Deceit and impose upon them by the Wisdom of words gives me occasion to say If he had been wary and not suffered himself to be spoyled through deceit and vain Philosophy he would not have so far shamed himself by imposing upon others as he too often does by words without Wisdom In his Third p. he hath a fling at the
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
what manner he has gathered up the gross and vile Errors and Damnable Heresies and Doctrines of Devils he so liberally charges them with and so I hope will ye too upon the reading of this I hope Friends I have clear'd this Point to your Satisfaâ—…on and made it appear by what the Yeaâ—…y Meeting did in hearing G. K's Complaint and Charge against W. S. and in giving Juâ—…gment according to Evidence in the Case both of W. S. and T. F. George Keith had no just Cause or â—…und to Anathematize that Meeting and Write and Print against it in that reproachful manner he has done to the dishonour of Truth and scâ—…al of his Profession the Guilt of wâ—…ch lyâ—…s upon him and will lye on him till he repent thereof In his Seventh Charge he says I falsly alledge that â—…e 〈◊〉 the â—…eginning of the Separation at Phâ—…delphia from somes going away at the Monthly Meetiâ—… the Day before the Adjourned Meeting and upon thâ—… Fouâ—…dation of Forgery so he calls it I build he says a false super-structure for though says he some going aâ—…ay from that Monthly Meeting was 〈◊〉 preparation to the Separation yet I did not reckoâ—…â—…t the beginning of it but their going away at the Adjourned Meeting the next Day following where he says three great Instances of their beginning â—…he Separation appeared First Their disowâ—…ing the Meetiâ—…g Secondly Upon that Foundation their going away Thirdly Their denying the Iudgment of that Meâ—…ting to be a true Meetiâ—…g and refâ—…sing to suffer it to be recorded In this he has dealt unfairly with me For he charges me with saying That he accounts the beginning of the Separation at Philadelphia from fomes going away at the Monthly Meeting the Day before the Adjourned Meeting and there he stops as if I had made him to account that only the beginning of the Sepaâ—…tion and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this a Foundation of Forgery Wheâ—… I joiâ—… that and the Quarterly Mâ—…ting's denying the â—…djourned Meeting to be a 〈◊〉 Monthly Meetiâ—…g â—…gether saying thuâ—… as 〈◊〉 â—…ay seâ—… iâ—… 〈◊〉 23. not 25. as he quoteâ—… it of my 〈◊〉 I remember indeed he aâ—…ged in 〈◊〉 Yearly Meeting at London Thaâ—… at a Monthly Mâ—…eting in Philadelphia T. Lloyd â—…nt aâ—… and took away a Skiâ—…t or Wiâ—…g aâ—… hâ—… 〈◊〉 it of the Meeting with him and that thaâ—…â—…eeting afterwards Adjourning it self to another Time and Plâ—…ce waâ—… denyed by the â—…terly Meeting to be a right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this said I there he 〈◊〉 have taken fâ—…â—…e beginning of the Separation Thâ—… â—…t only soâ—… going away froâ—… the Monthlâ—…â—…eeting before the Adjournâ—…t but the denying the Adjourned Meeting to be a right Monthly Mâ—…eting And he himself gives that now as he did the other also in his râ—…lation of it at tâ—…â—…rly Meeting though he now disowns it â—…mong his three great Instances of their beginniâ—… the Separation viz. Their disowning the â—…eeting â—…heir denying the Judgment of thâ—…t Mâ—…ting aâ—…d 〈◊〉 to suffer it to be Reâ—…orded Foâ—… as for his saying Their denying the Judgment of that Meeting to be a true Meeting I have not Judgment enongh to make common senâ—… of it For I underâ—…and not how the Judgment of a Meeting can be said to be a Meeting He â—…ys But that the Meeting could not Adjourn beâ—…ause the Book and the Clark was gone is so ridiculous that 't is not worth mentioning though that 's the chief or rather the only Reason given by T. E. Shall I call this a Forgery or a Peâ—…sion I am sure 't is a foul one which soever it be For I no where said The Meeting could not adâ—…ourn because the Book and the Clark was gâ—…ne I no where gave that as the only or as â—…ny Reason why the Meeting could not adjourn But I â—…ged the Clark's being gone with the Mâ—…ing Book before the adjournment was made 〈◊〉 that not in an abrupt manner or by way 〈◊〉 â—…reach or Disunion which I argued from his not being reproved or blamed for it afterwarâ—… by the Mâ—…eting as an Argument that the Meeting was really ended before that Adjournment â—…as made and that consequently that Adjornment â—…s irregulâ—…r and without Authority Fâ—…ds this is a main point For upon that Adjournment depends much of the open Breach that followed Therefore this had need be well heeded In my former Epistle I handled this Point pretty largely because I knew there lay much weight upon it G. K. in his Answer has well â—…igh waved it all at least the most pressing parts of it Which shews his Weakness I shall therefore râ—…n over agaiu here some part of what I said on this Subject before that it may appear how short his Answer is and that his strength lies more in a sort of Sophistical Arguing and quibbling on words than in substantial and solid Reasoning I urged in my former Epistle p. 26. the Clark's going away with the Meeting Book as well as some others of the Meeting as an Argument that the Meâ—…ting was regularly ended before the Adjournment was made To this he gives no Answer But fallaciously slips from this to another thing crying out It is ridiculous to say that the Meeting could not adjourn because the Book and the Clark was gone and that this is the chief or rather only Reason given by me I have shewed this to be false But what 's this to the purpose The Question is not whether the Meeting could adjourn while it was a Meeting But whether it was a Meeting when the Adjournment was made Or whether it was not ended and broken up before I observed that G. K. himself spake of it doubtfully and with reserve He did not say the Meeting was not broke up before the Adjournment but that it was not understood to be broke up before the Adjournment He says nothing to clear this Part of the Meeting he says was gone What made them go before the Meeting was ended The Reason he gave is its being colâ—… Weather and growing dark But among thosâ—… that went away the Clark of the Meeting it seemâ—… was one and he took the Meeting 's Book witâ—… him If some few would take the liberty to risâ—… and go away before the Meeting was ended beâ—…cause it was cold and grew dark is it reasonaâ—…ble to think that that would have induced thâ—… Clark of the Meeting to have gone away toâ—… and carried the Meeting 's Book away with hiâ—… in which the Proceedings of the Meeting shoulâ—… be recorded before the Meeting was ended Or have excused him if he had Would aâ—… Meeting suffer that in a Clark without 〈◊〉 Believe it that can And let G. K. clear hiâ—… self fairly of this if he can Till then I shaâ—… take it for certain that that Monthly Meetiâ—… was ended and broken up part of the Friends gone away the Clark gone the Book in which the Proceedings of the Meeting should be recorded gone before the Adjournment was made and consequently that Adjournment
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
Doctrine which they charged them with but also because those Professions in general were departed from the Power and Life of Godliness and withstood and denied the Inward Appearance of Christ in his People And Secondly As far as they did separate on the Account of Doctrines it was because they found those Doctrines even as those Professions themselves had stated them to be not according but contrary to what was upon record in the Holy Scriptures He says VVe have often told T. L. c. Let them condemn those gross and vile Errors which we have proved some of them guilty of and others cloak and excuse them c. and that shall satisfie us in this point But have not T. L. and Friends often if not as often told him that he has not proved them guilty of those gross and vile Eerrors he talks of nor others of cloaking and excusing them And yet he will not be satisfied of which more in his next Perversion He says Many hold to my certain knowledge That the Resurrection is the New Birth and nothing else Others say Immediately after Death we get the Resurrection fully If by many that hold thus he means many of the People called Quakers I neither own nor know any that hold such Doctrines So also his other saying viz. This gross and vile Error That Christ is not to come without us in his glorified Body to judge all mankind I find too many in England guilty of I esteem as a vile slander if by many he intend many of the People called Quakers And his suggesting that too probably they have drunk it in from some unsound Expressions in some of the printed Books too generally owned by them discovers in him an unsound and evil mind And speaks his inclination to quarrel with Friends in England as well as he has already done in America His Twenty First Charge against me is Of Perversion and Fallacy in covering these Men because of their saying in their Papers If any of us or any countenanced by us have given you any Offence either by any unsound Expressions or by any ungospel-like Conversation and the same be made to appear by credible Testimonies We promise unto you that if the Parties concerned do not condemn the same they shall be disowned therein To this fair offer he says What more credible VVitnesses could be desired than the several Manuscripts signed with their own hands whom they have owned c But I ask him Did he upon this Offer complain to those Friends who made it of any of them or countenanced by them that had used unsound Expressions Did he produce the Manuscripts he mentions as Witnesses against those that Writ them Did the Monthly Meeting to which the Parties belonged refuse to hear his Complaint Did they reject his Manuscript Evidences If he did upon this offer make such Complaint if he did produce his Manuscripts in Evidence let him make appear when where at what Monthly Meeting he did this But if he did not this what he says now of it is but Fallacy and Deceit Nor do I think it proper to take notice of what he now mentions out of his Manuscripts because I do not think it safe to take it upon his Report His Twenty Second He calls my Perversion of his words which were That after the Separation was actually begun and he and his Party met apart from Friends he went to the Friends Meeting and did there declare that He and his Friends had Unity with the most there as to the main From whence I inferr'd If there had been such gross vile and unchristian Errors against the Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith such damnable Heresies and Doctrines of Devlls held amongst them as he suggests and cloaked or covered and tolerated by them How could he say that he and his Friends had Unity with the most there as to the Main This he would shift off by alledging That more than two thirds of that Meeting were Country Friends who were come to that Meeting upon notice that J. Dickinson was to be there and that there had not been any Breach between those Country Friends and him at that time But this is a meer Fallacy For it was not with respect to those Country Friends that he said he had Unity with the most there but with respect to the Friends of that Meeting For he says he also signified his desire to be United to that Meeting not to the Friends of other Meetings in the Country for with them he says he had had no Breach but to that Meeting And his connecting his Desire to be united to that Meeting with his Declaration that he and his Friends had Unity with the most there restrains his declared Unity to the Friends of that Meeting and that Unity being declared to be as to the main that is in the main and fundamental Doctrines of Christianity his separating from that whole Society or Meeting of Friends with the most of whom he declared he had Unity in the Main even after he had separated from them is a Fault he can never justifie nor excuse by all the Fallacies he can invent 23. What I said in the 45 and 46. pages of my Epistle concerning the sending over his scandalous Books from America to one in London who is not a Quaker for him to expose to Sale as he would and G. K's blaming them that reprinted his Books here not for reprinting them but only for altering their Titles he passes over in silence and Cavils at my shewing his Deceit in the use of the word many in his Causeless Ground p. â—…2 where he said It is my charitable sincere Perswasion that the worthy name of Christian doth truly belong to very many of that People as well as unto me From hence I inferr'd He will not allow it it seems to the People called Quakers or to the Body of Friends as a People no not so much as from a charitable Perswasion And how insincere he was in pretending to allow it to very many of that People I shewed by his following words which were Having an experimental Proof through intimate Conversation and frequent verbal Communication with many of them that they are sincere in the Christian Faith c. From whence I shew'd To what a narrow scantling he had reduced his application of the name Christian among the Quakers and how few he meant by very many even just so many as he hath an experimental Proof of through intimate Conversation and frequent verbal Communication with them which how many they may be judge ye said I considering how short a time he had then been in England and in that time scarce or little out of London nor very conversant with Friends there This he calls as he doth most things a gross Forgery and Perversion and says I did really mean not them only but all them whom I have at any time formerly had Experience of their Christianity by intimate Conversation and
hath sought occasion by secret flurts to throw more on suggesting as if the Yearly Meeting was guilty of covering or cloaking thosevile Errors heexclaim'd against and of lessening them with the smooth name of Weakness He replies How can faithful witnessing against Error be a throwing Reproach on Truth and Friends of it he may as well say one contrary produceth another c. Ye see â—…now Friends how forward he is advanced in his Charge of Error and what ye may expect from him when ever he shall have a mind to throw Dirt upon any or all of you He can instance himself under the pretence of faithful witnessing againâ—… Error and then tell you ye may as well say Truth produceth Error Light Darkness Good Evil as that he doth Evil in throwing Dirt on you 28. His next Cavil which he calls Perversion and Fallacy in me is that I seem to own the Doctrine in his Book and yet altogether wave the chief thing of Doctrin wherein the Controversie he says lieth betwixt them of the other side and him and as he judges betwixt him and me viz. That the faith of Christ as he died for our Sins and rose again is necessary to our Christianity and Salvation that God doth justifie us and pardon our Sins for Christ's sake who died for us through our Faith in him that is always accompanied with sincere Repentance In this he hath judged wrong for I have no Controversie with him about this Doctrine which I own as well as he And if he had not had a wilfully bad memory he might have remembred that himself hath cited a Passage out of a former Book of mine Foundation of Tythes shaken p. 240. where I say If any one expects Remission of Sins by any other way than the Death of Christ he renders the Death of Christ usâ—…ss This Passage which I then urged against the Priest on behalf of the Quakers clears me now from G. K's groundless suggestion His Cavil at me now is for not reciting the fore-mentioned Doctrine of the Faith of Christ as he died for our Sins c. when I recited other Doctrines out of his Book and he takes advantage thence to call â—…is the chief Doctrine in Controversie betwixt him and them of the other side By this I perceive I must either quote all or nothing out of his Books if I mean to escape his Censure for I am perswaded had I recited this and omitted any other of the Doctrines he mentioned that Doctrine should then have been singled out for the chief Doctrine in Controversie betwixt him and them whatever it had been The truth is I omitted to recite that as not understanding he had reputed that a Doctrine in Controversie between him and them And therefore I chose to recite those Doctrines about which I apprehended he had made the greatest Clamour He would increase his own and others Jealousie concerning me by noticing that I joyn not as he says the works of Sanctification in the Heart to Christ's outward Appearance but to his inward Appearance This he labours to shew from several Passages in my Epistle which mention Christ's inward Appearance and work of Sanctification in the Heart To all which I give this short and plain Answer I do not divide Christ nor set his inward Appearance in opposition to his outward And therefore when I speak of Christ's inward Appearance in the Heart and the work of Sanctification wrought there I do not exclude nor intend to exclude his outward Appearance in the Flesh and what he did and suffered therein for Man's Redemption from being concerned in our Sanctification through a living Faith in him But I do not allow that the work of Sanctification is wrought in any by that outward Appearance of Christ in the Flesh in whom his inward Appearance by his Light Grace and Spirit in the Heart is not known received and subjected unto And it is this inward Appearance of Christ that gives Man a right knowledge of and saving faith of the outward Appearance of Christ. 29. His next is no less a Charge against me than that of gross and bold Fiction and Forgery in saying Whatever Jealousies and Dissatisfactions any of other Professions had entertained against us on this account before they had no ground or occasion given them therefore whereas now he has given them occasion though unjustly and without cause to entertain wrong jealousies of us This he says is false in both parts 1. That other Professions had no ground of Dissatisfaction given them touching these Doctrines before his Books came forth for they had he says but too much ground from too many unsound Expressions contained in their Books In whose Books he must needs mean the Books of Friends and why not in his own Books as likely as in any others and which says he some of that Profession hath objected unto me That Profession what Profession We spake of other Professions in general not of any one Profession in particular But whatever Profession it was that objected or whatever were the Expressions objected against they were such he says as he could not answer otherwise than to acknowledge them to be unsound If this be true I am perswaded it was since he himself came to be unsound And this Passage of his puts me in mind of that filthy Libel lately published with the Letters D. S. to it in which I thought I trackt the print of his Foot 2. He says it is false that he has now given them occasion to entertain wrong Iealousies of us But in this he contradicts Experience and the several Pamphlets that some of other Professions grafting on his Crab-stock have either reprinted of his or printed of their own grounded on his against us prove what I said to be true His saying That it is clear as the Light of the Noon Day that particular Persons among us are chargeable with erroneous Doctrines is without Proof And if when he says It is clear he means by his Books it is so far from being clear as the Light of the Noon Day that it is not near so clear as Moon-shine 30. He quarrels with me for construing his Words That the Doctrine of Christ crucified c. was buried in silence as if he understood it generally and universally whereas he says his Words have a Restriction and Limitation very expresly for says he I do not say buried in silence by all or most part or opposed by all or most part but buried in silence by some and opposed by others So I cited his Words before and thereupon put the Question What saving is here what Exception made either of the Quakers in general or in the Plurality or indeed of any at all Buried by some and opposed by others will hardly pass for a very express Restriction and Limitation Nay according to common manner of speaking some and others may be taken to comprehend all in this case especially when we shall consider that he represents
these Doctrines as Dead let fall extinct which as I noted before though he takes no notice of it is implied by his Words to revive and raise up Nor does his later Invention help him to wit that he did chiefly intend this with respect to those parts of America where the Controversie began for his Word Chiefly shews he did intend it elsewhere besides America And he now says he finds it buried with too many hereaway in England as well as in America Nay he can conclude no other he says concerning me But the best on 't is I am not to be concluded by his Conclusions 31. His One and Thirtieth is worded nonsensically But that which I gather to be his meaning in it is that my saying The Servant is not to frame his Message himself but to deliver the Message his Lord gives him to deliver which was said to answer or rather obviate an Objection That those Doctrines relating the Birth Death Resurrection Ascension c. of Christ as to the outward Body are not so frequently or constantly declared in our publick Meetings as those that relate to the inward Appearance and work of Christ in the heart He says imports that the Lord doth not call his Servants so frequently to preach the Faith of Christ without as of Christ within and this he saith proveth that in the Opinion of T. E. the Doctrine and Faith of Christ without is not so necessary to Regeneration as the Faith of Christ within or rather not at all absolutely necessary This is a grosser Perversion on his part of my Words than any he can charge on me for the Reason I gave for this was not that it was less necessary but that it was more known Therefore I said p. 55. When it pleased God to raise up and send forth a true Gospel Ministry again c. it was agreeable to the Divine Wisdom to bring to light that which had been hidden to restore to the Nations that which had been lost to turn People to that which they had been turned from to instruct them in that which they were most ignorant of c. Hence said I I conceive it hath come to pass that they whom the Lord have sent forth to preach the everlasting Gospel in this Day have been led and guided by him to teach People that which they knew not rather than that which they profest to know before to open those Doctrines of Life and Salvation which the People were ignorant of and Strangers to rather than those which they were acquainted with and had been all along trained up in From all which it is very apparent that I did not deny the Doctrine and Faith of Christ without to be necessary to our Regeneration as well as that of Christ within but that that without was more known already to the People than that within 32. He quarrels with me for saying That though as the Apostasy from the life and power of Christianity gained place c. the inward Appearance of Christ by his Spirit in the Heart was departed from and the Doctrines thereof generally lost and forgotten Yet the Doctrines relating to the outward Appearance of Christ in the Flesh and what he therein did and suffered for Man's Redemption were not lost but retained and preached through all Ages and by every sort or sect of professed Christians insomuch that G. K. now calls those Doctrines which he pretends to be raised up to revive and raise up such Doctrines as are held in common by us with all other Professions This angers him so that I have scarce found him more fretful in any part of his Book than here From whence I conclude he finds himself pincht and would supply his weakness and want of Argument with noise and angry words He calls it Fallacy Perversion Feigning Threadbare Excuse Fig-leaf that cannot cover deceitful Excuse frivolous Excuse c. His Answer is The true Doctrin of the Faith of Christ without as he came in the Flesh c. was as much lost in the time of the Apostasy as the true Doctrine of the Faith of Christ within to wit not the bare historical literal faith of Christ that I confess was not lost but the true living Faith and the Doctrine of it was as much lost as that of his inward Appearance Here he varies the Terms from the Doctrines relating to the outward Appearance of Christ which was the subject we were upon to the true living Faith and the Doctrine of it which was not the Subject we were upon And to prove his Charge against me of Fallacy Perversion Feigning c. He alledges that the true living Faith and the Doctrine of it was lost in the Apostasy which it might be and yet the Doctrines relating to the outward Appearance of Christ in the Flesh c. might not be lost as I asserted they were not This shifting the Terms is a Fallacy and Perversion in him and seems to be done with design to help himself off from what he was upon But he cannot so escape he has hampered himself too fast to get off For in his Causeless Ground p. 3. this very Doctrine of the Faith of Christ without viz. That the Faith of Christ as he died for our Sins and rose again is necessary to our Christianity and Salvation and that God doth justify us and pardon our Sins for Christ's sake who died for us through faith in him that is always accompanied with sincere Repentance c. This I say which he now says was as much lost as the true Doctrine of the Faith of Christ within is there set by G. K. amongst the many great Doctrines of the Christian Faith and the first of them which he says we hold in common with all sorts of other Professions But if this Doctrine of the Faith of Christ without was lost as he says it was how comes it that all sorts of other Professions have it and hold it in common with him as he says they do If he and they hold it in common they must hold it as he doth And that he holds they do so appears by his saying Many of all sorts that frequent our Meetings of other Professions are well affected with our Testimony to the inward Appearance of God in Christ together with the Holy Spirit in Mens Hearts while they find us warm and zealous in our Testimony to the other great Doctrines of the Christian Faith held in common with them Of which in the next Line he gives this Doctrine of the Faith of Christ without for the first instance as I have cited it before But if all sorts of other Professions hold it and hold it as he doth which they must if he hold it in common with them how can he say and say truly that it hath been as much lost in the time of the Apostasy as the true Doctrine of the Faith of Christ within Sure he will not say that the true Doctrine of the Faith of
though he says he did not mean by agreeing a humane political Contrivance or Design but a Divine Agreement yet I make no question but he meant an Agreement of his own contriving and cutting out And I doubt not that he would call any such thing Divine that were of his Contriving He asks If I know not that Men may well agree together in one Faith by the Spirit 's inward working in their Hearts as well as they may agree together in one Prayer by the Spirit c I answer Yes I do But would he have some certain Form of Prayer agreed upon and set forth for all to be obliged to pray by at all times because Men may agree together in one Prayer by the Spirit That would be Common Prayer indeed It is one thing to propose certain Principles Doctrines and Points of Faith to be necessarily agreed upon and being so agreed upon a Confession thereof to be imposed to be owned professed and declared to be as it were terms of Communion and the Bond of Fellowship And it is another thing to be drawn together by the inward force and vertue of Truth through the Operation of the Divine Spirit in the Heart into an Agreement in the Belief of the same Principles Doctrines and Points of Faith and so also to agree substantially in making confession thereof when and wheresoever the honour of God requires it of us My Discovery that he has falsly quoted R. B. angers him extreamly and he rails at me for it like himself but that will not clear him He says I most fraudulently put a false gloss upon his Words about the Word agreed on and next that I deceive and abuse my Reader as if he G. K. did put the same Gloss upon R. B 's Words But all this is trifling both his Book and mine are in the Reader 's Hands and I dare trust it to the Impartial Reader 's Judgment He complains that I endeavour to make the Reader believe he wronged R. B. in citing some Words of his and that because he cited not so many of his Words as I cited after him This is a foul fallacy for G. K's Blame lies not in giving a Quotation out of R. B. too short but in giving a false Quotation for a true one or in forging a Quotation For neither in the Words he quoted nor in that Page nor in that Book nor in all the Books of R B. can G. K. find that which he has pretended to give as the express Doctrine and Testimony of R. B. in the 48th Page of R. B's Book called the Anarchy c. He struggles to get loose but cannot He says he cited as many of R. B's Words as were sufficient to prove that it is R. B's Doctrine and Testimony that Principles and Doctrines c. are as it were the Terms that have drawn us together c. But R. B. doth not say so of Principles and Doctrines indefinitely or of the Principles and Doctrines in general that we will agree upon to be such but of those Principles Doctrines and Practices into the belief of which we are gathered together without any Constraint or Worldly respect by the meer force of Truth upon our Understandings and its power and influence upon our Hearts Again G. K. says he did not say R. B. used the Word Agreed See his own Words in p. 8. of his Book called The causeless Ground of Surmises which are these That some Principles and Doctrines and Points of Faith are necessary to be agreed upon c. is the express Doctrine and Testimony of R. Barclay 's Book above mentioned pag. 48. Judge now how little this Man is to be trusted He calls it a gross Perversion in me for insâ—…ating that in his Book Some Reasons and Causes pag. 16. He had cited R. B's Words But it was not says he his Words but his Doctrine that I mention in that place as to the substance of it but not as to that particular circumstance of answering to some plain Questions with Yea or nay Had not I discovered his Falshood in this he had gon off snug with his Quotation as a very fair Quotation taken out of R. B's Book But now he is put to his shifts and to shift it off he pretends now that he did not intend to give R. B's Words but his Doctrine and lest that cover should prove too short for him he falls from the Doctrine to the substance of the Doctrine Now let us repeat again the Quotation he gave and then let the Reader Judge of it It is in p. 16. of his Reason of the Separation where he proposes that we agree together to put Rob. Barclay 's Doctrine into Practice which says he is He does not say the substance of which is but which is to declare our Faith and Perswasion in certain Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith and Religion that by the same as well as by a good Life and Conversation it may be known who are qualified to be Members of our Church and that every one owned to be a Member of our Church declare his Faith and Perswasion in every one of these Fundamentals which is a Secondary Bond of our Union the Spirit being the Principal which may be easily done by answering to some plain questions with Yea or Nay Let any one now that reads these words Judge whether they were not designed to perswade the Reader that not only this was R. B.'s Doctrine but that these were the very words in which he had delivered it Whereas ye see now G. K. not only confesses they are not his words but dares not adventure to say they are plainly and directly his Doctrine but the substance of his Doctrine And yet even that I deny I say they are neither R. B.'s Words nor Doctrine nor the Substance of his Doctrine And had his Quotation lain in a tolerable compass to be recited I would have given it But he cites for it Sect. 4 p. 32 33. and Sect. 6. p. 48 49. to which I again refer and recommend every Reader that has or can procâ—…re that Book of R. B.'s called The Anarchy of the Ranters c. That G. K.'s Deceit herein may be more generally known He says all my proof that it is not R. B. 's Doctrine is that I assure the Reader it is not But says he let the Reader compare my Citations at length in my Reason and Cause of Separation p. 24 25. and he shall find it is his Doctrine But besides my assuring the Reader it is not so and my Referring him for certainty to the Original Book I have now too other proofs to offer which though not positive and direct are strong Presumptives against G. K. One is that he hath not attempted to Prove that this is the Doctrine or Substance of the Doctrine of R. B. in that Book by producing now R. B.'s own words to manifest it And the other is that he doth not now refer his
Reader to R. B.'s Book for Satisfaction but to his own Book and the Quotations therein which he pretends to have taken out of R. B.'s Book which perhaps he may have falsified as well as this 42. His next Cavil is grounded on a Quibble In his Causless ground of Surmises p. 10. he said Iâ—… it not high time that by the general Consent advice and approbation of the most Iudicious Wise and Understanding of Friends now alive all the most necessary Principles and Doctrines of our Faith both common and peculiar should be published and made known c. I minding more the Substance of his proposition than Circumstances Answered Is that as a new thing to be done now adding What Principle or Doctrine of our Faith either common or peculiar can he assign that hath not been published and made known perhaps before he knew either our Faith or us He calls this a Perversion and says It is a new thing yet to be done and he believes I am not able to shew him that Book where it is done by general Consent So that I perceive he expects it all in one Book But what if it be done in several Books and that by some that are not now alive who yet perhaps might be as Judicious Wise and Understanding as any that are now alive Will not this serve his turn I doubt Not For he will object perhaps that it has not beenâ—… done by general Consent of the most Judicious Wise and Understanding Friends He says It is not the consent of a few or of the Second Days Meeting at London who that he may speak in the words as well as from the Spirit of Core he says take too much upon them that he means but the general Consent of the most Iudicious Friends But how will he do to find out the most Iudicious Friends now alive Who does he think himself excepted Judicious enough to Judge who are the most Iudicious Wise and Understanding Friends now alive But before so great and difficult a work be undertaken it may be fit to consider what need there is of this The Apostles of our Lord and the Primitive Christians contented themselves without it Did they ever get together the most Judicious Wise and understanding amongst them to publish by their general Consent all the most necessary Principles and Doctrines of their Faith both common and peculiar I believe he is not able to shew me that Book wherein that is done Yet the necessary Principles and Doctrines of their Faith both common and peculiar were published and made known by some or other of them in their several writings though not in one Book or by such general consent advice and approbation as he now proposes And he hath not assigned any Principle or Doctrine of our Faith which is the same with theirs of old that hath not been already published and made known His 43 44 45. Charges relate to his Suggesting that Friends make plain Language plain habit c. Terms of their Communion which I refuted so fully before that I see no cause to say more to it now especially since he offers nothing of moment now against what I then writ His 46. he calls Perversion in me for chargeing him with Spurning disdainfully at the advice given him to retract the Bitter Language in his Books Whereas says he I modestly promise to do it when they have told me what hard or bitter words I have given to any that are not due to them withall desiring some to give me their good Example Is this says he any disdainful Spurning What is disdainful Spurning of advice If to recriminate the Advisers and charge them higher in the same kind be not For to their Advice says he I Answer some who have so advised me should give me their good Example by retracting their much more bitter Language and more hard and severe Names they have given c. Is not this disdainful Spurning And whereas he pretends that he modestly promised to retract when they have told him what hard or bitter words he hath given to any that he cannot prove to be due unto them he must remember I put him formerly in mind that by his own confession he gave his hard Names and words without proof of their being due to them For in his Plea of the Innocent p. 11. he says As for his giving hard Names and Words to any it was but conditional upon Supposition of their holding such Errors which they did seem to favour Was this modestly done Or like a Christian to revile and abuse Persons conditionally and upon Supposition Why did he not clear himself of this Or confess his fault in it Was it not because he could not do the one and hath not honesty enough to do the other 47. He persists in retracting the acknowledgment he made in the Yearly Meeting of his passions c. Yet blames me for saying he retracted and denies he acknowledged he had justly offended any in words or deeds relating to the differences in Pensilvania or elsewhere But he answers not what I writ of that before in my 64 65 66 and 67. pages which lies still on him and will 48. So will also what I there said from Iames 1. 26. and 3. 11. 12. concerning his unbridled Tongue which he in vain retorts on me as guilty of the Perversions Fictions and Forgeries c. he charges Which being not real but feigned by him and charged without proof is a further proof against him that his Fountain is bitter and his Religion vain 49. His charging me with Perversion in affirming that he was not condemned in Pensilvania without all hearing Conviction and Trial is a Perversion of his own For though I believe it is true that he was not yet I did not so affirm but taking notice of his frequent Complaining that he had been Condemned in America without all hearing Conviction or Trial I said in a Parenthesis though that is both denied and disapproved by the Friends there So that his is rather a Perversion or false Charge upon me 50. The last of his Fifty Charges he calls a Complex and Bundle of false Accusations and Misrepresentations The parts whereof are First That I say he is not in Unity with faithful Friends This is not only too true but too plain to be doubted Secondly That I accuse him of hardness in his saying I declare my real Intention to remain in Unity with all Faithful Friends What else could it be but extream Hardness for him to declare his real intention to remain in Unity with all Faithful Friends every where after he had as I there shewed broken from the Unity and gone out into an open Separation from Friends Thirdly That his Meeting with Friends and continuing to exercise his Gift of Ministry as he calls it amongst them is a very great Exercise and burden to Friends I was not positive it is But I said to Friends If he continue to Meet with you
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
so p. 5. and so p. 7. Nay he there suggests as if that Paper called A true Account of the Proceedings of the Yearly Meeting was not given forth by the Yearly Meeting For speaking of it he says p. 4. The Paper said to be given out by the Yearly Meeting though after he had heard it Read it was deliver'd to him in the Yearly Meeting in the Name and as the Act of the Yearly Meeting But now in his last Book which he calls A seasonable Information c. He says downright p. 28. As for that called The Yearly Meetings Iudgment I own it not to be such And of the Meeting its self he says It cannot be owned to be the Yearly Meeting nor any Meeting duly and regularly constitute c. p. 27. So that Friends the nearer ye look upon this Man and the more exactly ye weigh and consider his Words and Actions the more plainly ye will see his Shifting Shuffling and Double-Dealing and that he is departed from the Simplicity of Truth yet uses the Terms of Truth to beguile the Simple by For ye see he calls his Sheet A Loving Epistle Addresses it to you under the kind Compellation of Dear Friends and Brethren and concludes that he remains in true Love your Friend in the Truth As if Who but he to Friends And who but Friends to him Whereas upon all occasions that have hitherto Offered since his last Arrival in England so far at least as hath come to my notice when Friends have had to do with him he regards neither Friend nor Friends nor Meetings of Friends if they do not answer his humour And Friends it is observable and worth your taking notice of that in the Idle Challenge he made in the Postscript to his Epistle to me and those Friends that approve my Book for a publick Meeting between him and us he provides by a particular Caution that all Sober and Moderate Persons whether Friends or Friendly People may have freedom to be present What else doth this bespeak but that he hath more Confidence in the Populace than in Friends In those that are not of us Than in those that are Do ye not see Friends even by this Where his Life lies Doth it not appear that he is departed from the Communion of the Saints in Light and from the Fellowship of the Faithful whose Unity is with the Father and with the Son in the Eternal Spirit And though he directs his Epistle to the Moderate Judicious and Impartial among the People called Quakers Yet it is the Moderate Persons as he calls them that are not Quakers whom he would have present to make his Appeal to against the Quakers could he but get a Stage to wrangle on To procure which he urges that the Scripture says Of making many Books there is no end But how unseasonably is this urged by him now when he should defend his Books who hath tumbled out so many Scandalous Books to the dishonour of the Truth and Reproach of Friends as he has done without any regard to that Scripture He urges also the Example of the Barbican Meeting thereby setting not me only but the Second Days Morning Meeting and all Friends that approve and promote my Book in the place of those envious Baptists that then made War against Truth and Friends By this Friends ye may see to what a degree he is degenerated and whither his Envy has run him But as there is no parallel between that Case and this those Baptists having Blasphemed the Principle we prosess traduced the whole Body of Friends and in a Mock-Meeting condemned su unheard so their yeilding to such a Meeting at Friends demand will neither excuse him for demanding the like nor would have blamed Friends had it been denied But since by his publishing his Fifty Charges against me with such proofless Proofs as he was able to make thereof he has put the Cause into another way of Tryal and given every Reader opportunity to judge both of his Charges and Proofs I think not my self obliged to take any farther notice of his daring Challenge than to tell him that had he not himself superseeded it by Printing I should have expected some assurance of his being reclaimed from that abusive rudeness wherewith he usually treats those he contends with before I should have given him such an Opportunity to gratifie the Rabble who in such Assemblies and on such Occasions commonly make the greater part And to disgrace his Profession he yet makes of Truth by so publick a discovery of his ungoverned Passions the remembrance of which from the Yearly Meeting makes me desire never to see the like again But Friends I desire that both you and I may be kept in the weighty Life and may dwell in a sensible feeling thereof continually and grow up therein from day to day that we may not only be thereby enabled to savour discern and distinguish Right from Wrong Good from Evil that which is of God from that which is of the Enemy in his most specious appearances but so to cleave to the one and reject the other that nothing that is of the Evil one and which tends to make Rents Di isions and Breaches among Brethren or draw from the Holy Fellowship of the Gospel of Peace and throw publick Scandals upon our Religious Profession may receive any Strength Incouragement or Countenance from any that profess the Truth But that we may all watch over our selves and over one another for good in that which is of God To whose Impartial Witness in every one of your Hearts I recommend the foregoing Lines and in that Love that desires and seeks the good of the whole Body and of every particular Member thereof I remain The 22th of the 9th Month 1694. Your Friend and Brother T. E. POSTSCRIPT HAD George Keith been a Man of any Worthiness of Mind or had the Cause he mannages been defensible he would not though an Adversary have suffered Iohn Raunce to have clapt on his abusive Piece at the End of his Book thereby to throw Dirt at his Opponent And had not Iohn Raunce been an unmanly Adversary he would have scorn'd to have crept in at the Tayl of another's Books to repeat an old Slander no way relating to the Subject of that Book when another Book of mine called A tair Examination of a foul Paper relating chiefly fo himself hatâ—…â—…ain this Twelve Month on his head unanswered But George Keith's mean mind could not it seems withstand the slight Temptation of Iohn Raunce's Offer to take off an Hundred of his Books Besides that he was glad of any help to run down his Opponent if he could with Slanders which he found he could not do with Arguments And Iohn Raunce seem'd no less glad of the Opportunity to creep behind such a Mickle Man as G. K. is taken to be and from the Backside of his Book to let fly his dirt at me wherein he has sufficiently shew'd his Envy