Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	fallacy_n	page_n	syllogism_n	90	3	16.3665	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39305	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 the reproach he hath brought upon truth and Friends by his late printed books, are fixed faster on him / written by way of epistle ... by Thomas Ellwood.	Ellwood, Thomas, 1639-1713.	1694 (1694)	Wing E623; ESTC R224514	71,867	130

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. ●…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

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 ins●…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 proc●…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

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 ●…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 ●…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 ●…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

the Yearly Meeting he supposes them not to own the Friends guilty of Erroneous Doctrines but of Weakness only But when he strikes at the Friends in America he affirms the Meeting doth own them guilty of Erroneous Doctrines Thus Ambodexter-like he plays with both hands as he apprehends it will make for his advantage Now this feigned Proof of his being taken away his Argument falls and his supposing the Original ground and Cause of the Differences to be the Unsoundand Erroneous Doctrines held by them of the other side is but a vain Begging of the Question Nor need the Original ground and Cause of those Differences in America be sought for farther or elsewhere than in his own Ambitious Quarrelsome Restless temper and Spirit which rather than be quiet or let others be so would create matter for Differences by laying Trains in Discours●… 〈◊〉 trap and draw simple and well-meaning Men to let fall some weak Expressions which by wresting and misconstruction might be brought to sound unsoundly His mentioning the Differences betwixt Luther and the Church of Rome the application whereof he says is easie to the case in hand shews his Proud Conceit of himself and his vile Thoughts and contempt of Friends notwithstanding his Hypocritical pretences elsewhere of being in Unity and intending to remain in Unity with all Faithful Friends every where Which I wish all Friends every where would well note For Luther's difference and Separation was with and from the whole Church of Rome I hinted before G. K's disowning the Yearly Meeting at London to be the Yearly Meeting or any Meeting Duly and Regularly constituted which he doth more especialy in page 27. and then says And this may clear me of these unjust and groundless Occasions wherewith T. E. doth load me as being guilty of Insincerity Hypocrisie Double-dealing having not a Conscience c. for my saying in my Introduction to my Treatise The Causless Ground c. I tenderly intreat and desire that none apply or construe any words contained in these following Lines as intended by me in way of Reflection Blame or Charge against either the Body of Friends in general or any particular Meeting or Meetings of Friends in particular or against any Singular faithful Friend or Friends ●…soever It seems by this he had this equivocal 〈◊〉 in his mind that not esteeming that 〈◊〉 to be the Yearly Meeting nor indeed any Meeting at all duly and regularly constituted nor the Friends that made it up to be faithful Friends he might throw his Reflections Blame and Charge freely enough upon that Meeting in general and the Members thereof in particular without interfering with his premised desire that none would apply or construe any words contained in that Book as intended by him in way of Reflection Blame or Charge against either the Body of Friends in general or any particular Meeting or Meetings of Friends in particular or against any Singular faithful Friend or Friends whatsoever But what a depth of Deceit must lodge in him the mean-while 26. He Charges me with Perversion in saying The Hurt Mischief Dishonour Reproach Grief that have fallen on the Holy Name of God his Truth and People respectively by the Printing and publishing his Scandalous Books are the proper and direct Effect thereof And he says I bring no proof for it but that it is apparent I say there needs no proof for that that is apparent as this is And it is apparent also that he had a sense and foresight before he Printed them that the printing and publishing those Books of his would have that evil Effect which he himself confessed in the beginning of one I think the first of them Reas. of Sep. p. 2. where he said It is too probable the Enemies of Truth and of all true Religion will seek to take advantage therefrom and think themselves greatly gratified thereby so as to rejoyce the more in their Iniquity and glory over the Sincere Lovers and Professors of Tr●… What greater hurt or mischief could any do against the Truth than to give advantage to the Enemies of Truth and of all true religion and thereby so greatly to gratifie them that they should rejoyce the more in their iniquity and glory over the sincere Lovers and Professors of Truth And to do this knowingly and against a fore-sight and sense that the Enemies of Truth and of all true Religion would seek to take this advantage Did the Prophets Iohn Christ the Apostles any of those he would shelter himself under ever do any thing like this Nay sure And had he not been heady high-minded self-willed and regardless of Truth the fore-sight and sense he had of that which we have since seen come to pass viz. That the Enemies of Truth and of all true Religion have not only sought but found and taken the Advantages he has given them and gratified them with to rejoyce the more in their and his Iniquity and glory over the sincere Lovers and Professors of Truth would have stopt him from publishing those Scandalous Books of his which have been the proper and direct Cause of so great hurt and mischief To excuse himself from which he again attempts in vain to frame an Argument from my having said The Yearly Meeting did not declrae the matter of Fact in his Books to be false and since for matter of Doctrine they have not says he charged me in the least how then can a Book which bath nothing of Untruth or Falshood in it be the proper cause of hurt In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 useth a Double fallacy one in stretching 〈◊〉 words of mine concerning matters of 〈◊〉 a general sense which are expresly restrained in my Books to particulars The other in inferring that his Book hath nothing of Untruth or Falshood in it because the Yearly Meeting who were not acquainted with the particular matters of Fact did not declare that his Books containe any Untruth or Falshood in matter of Fact as if there could be no Untruth or Falshood in a Book unless it were declared to be in it What sort of Logick is that Will he stand by it That if a Meeting doth not declare a Book to contain any Untruth or Falshood in it it thence follows that that Book hath nothing of Untruth or Falshood in it He knows this is false Reasoning and he may blush to have offered it And as he says ex veris nil nisi verum so I may say to him ex falsis nil nisi falsum and ex malis nil nisi malum From such false and evil arguing as his is he can bring forth nothing that is good 27. His 27th seemeth to be split off from his 26th only to encrease the number that he may not fall short at last of his Tale for upon my saying he has been so far from endeavouring to wipe away the Reproach his Scandalous Books have cast on Truth and Friends that in his last called The Groundless Cause of Surmises c. he

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 ●…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 again●… 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 us●…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 ●…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