Whereas Th. Elwood hath Printed a Scandalous Book against me, called. An Epistle to Friends, &c. in great disunity, and against the Mind of many Friends; and contrary to the Gospel Order Professed by us, (although approved and promoted by a Party equally prejudiced against me, for my faithful Christian Testimony to the Truth of Christ.) Upon a diligent Review and Examination of his scandalous Book, I find in it at least fifty several Perversions, and Misrepresentations, and divers of them down­right Forgeries, and Fictions in matter of Fact, and false Accusations; the which in Order follow, with their several respective Answers.

I. HE falsly accuseth me (in his Title Page) of a Spirit of Contention and Division, that (as he saith) hath lately ap­peared in me, and some few others that joyn with me; who have made a Breach and Separation from Friends in America. For seeing by a Spirit of Contention he meaneth it in the worst Sense, as Contending against faithful Friends, or Separating therefrom; This is a false Charge; we remain in Unity with faith­ful Friends in America, and elsewere; and contend only against Er­ror and wicked Practises; and are only separate from Unbelievers, and [Page 10] such as the Scriptures command us to be separated from, Rom. 16. 17. A Place of Scripture cited in his Title Page, which makes against him; for they in America whose unjust Cause he hath taken to de­fend, hath caused Divisions and Offences contrary to the Doctrine of Christ, and therefore we ought to avoid them; and there is a god­ly Contention we ought to be found in, so as to contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, Jude 3.—And we are commanded to be 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17. separated from Unbelie­vers, such as these are from whom we were sepa­rated in America, though they themselves began the Separation, and not we. And these he calleth some few, are about Sixteen Meetings.

II. pag. 9. He falsly accuseth me, that I blame Friends, That they were gone too much from the outward to the inward; this is a down right Forgery, I never blamed any for going too much to the inward; for it hath been my Perswasion, and that from a true Experience, that the more any Man doth come to the inward, even to the Grace and Gift of God in his Heart, the more he hath a due esteem of Christs Death and Sufferings, and precious Blood that was shed for the Remission of Sin; and the more his Faith is increased in Christ, as he dyed for us, and rose again, and is our Mediator in Heaven. But because I have blamed some Persons for not rightly and fully Preaching Christ without, and Faith in him, as well as in Christ within, there­fore he hath forged this Fiction against me, That I blame Friends, that they were gone too much from the outward to the inward; but from his manner of falsly charging me, it plainly appears, as well as from the words of some others, that it was their Sense, to preach Christ without, and Faith in him, it draws from the inward, and from the Gift of God within; but this is both false and contrary to the Doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles, recorded in the Scriptures.

III. pag. 15. He falsly and unjustly chargeth me with Robert Han­noy's Book, as if it were mine, both for Matter and Stile, and that I cast it upon him; For as I have divers times declared, as I had no hand in the Printing it, but was against it; so divers things in it, that seemed to some most offensive, I was not concerned in; though, as I have also freely delared, and is well known to many, divers of the words contained in some of these Queries, I spoke them in the yearly Meeting, and so far I was concerned, but not in Printing them.

IV. He not only falsly accuseth me, but is guilty of an absolute Forgery and Fiction in matter of Fact, That I refused to go out at the [Page 11] yearly Meeting in Philadelphia, held in the 7th Month, 1691. and, that my refusal to go out, was the occasion of their delay to give Judgment against W. Stockdale; for which, as a proof, he cites my Book, called, Some Reasons and Causes, &c. pag. 14. But let the Reader that loveth to see with his own Eyes, read that Book, and he will find no such thing either in that page, or any where else; for I went out at the yearly Meeting when I was desired, as my Book expresly testifieth, to which he appealeth; See page 18, at line 22, where it is expresly said, that at the yearly Meeting he did withdraw, viz. G. K. at the Meetings desire, and yet they did nothing to bring W. S. to Conviction. But my Book, page 14, cited by him, sheweth, that my refusal to go out, was at the quarterly Meeting that was half a year thereafter, where I give my just reason why I refused to go out, viz. because my Accusers refused to go out also. So that this is a gross forgery in matter of Fact; and yet he makes it the Foundation of his Superstructure, in excusing them, why they delayed to give Judgment, page 19. So this is a double forgery, one built on another.

V. pag. 22. He falsly alledgeth, that the yearly Meeting at Phila­delphia, was not at a stand to determine whether the Doctrine was true or false; but, if they were at a stand at all, it was (saith he) to determine whether the Charge exhibited against W. S. by G. K. was true or false: But the contrary of this I have fully proved out of my Books to which he refers; for in the Judgment they gave the 4th Month, 1692. which was both defective and out of Season, like Mustard after Meat; they grant, that Proof was made by two Wit­nesses, that the Charge exhibited was true; and if they had been at a stand on that Point, it is not like that they would have given any Judgment against him at all; but such as it was, they grant they did not publish it either then, or till nine Months after; and though they most deceitfully pretend, for an Excuse, their being prevented by reason of my unruly Behaviour and extream Passion, as they are pleased to call it; yet this cover is too narrow; for what hindred them all that nine Months? and why did they contradict the sound Judgment of a monthly meeting at Philadelphia, passing due Censure upon W. S. six Months thereafter? it is sufficiently appa­rent from this, it was no cordial, nor sincere Judgment; nor, did they, all that time intervening, bring W. S. to any Conviction, but mightily supported him as an innocent Person. But whereas T. F. alledges, page 20. a Determination then, it seems, was given by his own acknowledgment. But I answer, seeing it was not [Page 12] sincere, but hypocritical, as appears by their contradicting the Judgment of the Monthly Meeting that gave it sincerely and duly; and also that it was not published, nor W. S. brought by them to any Conviction, but supported by them, it might well be said to be as good as none at all, they making it void by themselves; and when they published it, or another like it, (after nine Months, as an Abortive out of due time) they did not own the words spoke by W. S. to be any Offence against God, or Christ, but to sound and tender Friends, as I have formerly shewed in my Book called, The Plea of the Innocent; and for which I justly call it, as every sin­cere Christian will call it so, a bare Shadow or Formality.

VI page 23. He falsly and most ficticiously alledgeth, that Th. Fitswater sufficiently proved his Charge against me, for which he refers to my own Books; but this is a great forgery, for his Charge was, That I denyed the sufficiency of the Light, and this his four credi­ble Witnesses did not prove against me, but it was quite another thing that the Monthly Meeting of the other side, the 26th of the 3d Month, 1692. alledgeth; they proved against me, viz. That I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else. Now be­cause T. E. judgeth both these one and the same, he hath plainly excluded the Man Christ without us, from having any part or concern in our Salvation; for the Man Christ Jesus without us, and his Death, Suf­ferings, Blood, &c. are something else than the Light within; and, thus by the Judgment of G. Whithead against Jeffrey Bullock, who fell into the same Antichristian Error, he is gone from the Light into Imaginations, and contradicteth his former Testimony, in his Book called, The Foundation of Tithes shaken, page, 238. where he saith, Nor do the Quakers ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within, (he should have added the word only) but they ascribe Salvation to Christ Jesus, to whom the Light within doth lead those that truly follow it; and page 240, he saith, If any one expects Remission of Sins by any other way, than the Death of Christ, he renders the Death of Christ useless.

VII. page 25. He falsly alledgeth, That I account the beginning of the Separation at Philadelphia, from somes going away at the Monthly Meeting, the day before the adjourned Meeting; and upon this Founda­tion of forgery he builds a false Superstructure; for though some go­ing away from that monthly Meeting, was a preparation to the Se­paration, yet I did not reckon that the beginning of it, but their going away at the adjourned Meeting the next day following, where three great Instances of their beginning the Separation, appeared, [Page 13] First, Their disowning the Meeting. Secondly, Upon that Founda­tion, their going away. Thirdly, Their denying the Judgment of that Meeting to be a true Meeting, and refusing to suffer it to be Recorded; but, that the Meeting could not adjourn, because the Book and the Clark was gone, is so ridiculous, that 'tis not worth mentioning; though that's the chief, or rather the only reason gi­ven by T. E. For what else is this, but to sett the Clark in Friends Meeting, where the Papists sett the Pope; So that as Papists argue, without the Popes Authority there can be no general Counsel; in like man­ner, Without the Clark and his Book, there can be no Meeting of Friends, qualified to judge of Church Affairs.

VIII. page 27. He falsly alledgeth, that the Meeting adjourned, was surreptitiously 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; 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: But so it is, that I have had no such Gospel-Order given me, nor hath it been in the least intimated to me, That any Meeting in London, where I now live, hath denyed me. But I Printed nothing against any in America, till Gospel Order was given them, and was rejected by them.

IX. page 28. He falsly alledgeth, That I tell no Year when the monthly Meeting, in the first Month last, was. But the contrary to this is to be seen in my Book, page 19. where I shew, that the monthly Meeting that gave Judgment against IV. S. and T. F. was the 27th of the 12th Month, 1691. 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. (see that very Year mentioned page 27.) unless he can find out some Month, or Months betwixt the 12th Month of the Year 1691. and the 1st Month of the following Year, 1692.

X. page 24. He most perversly and ignorantly doth alledge, by a sort of Argument that is so silly and weak, that scarce an ordi­nary School boy would use it; that if this Act of T. L's, (viz. His withdrawing from the monthly Meeting adjourned where I begin it) 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; and of this Argument he is so conceited, (though ri­diculously [Page 14] weak) that though I answered it in the yearly Meeting, to the Satisfaction of many; at which time I advised him to beware of falling into the Ditch of that called Philosophy; yet he brings it up again, and is not ashamed to Print his ignorance, and expose it; (not to say his folly) but the Answer I gave him then, I now again give him more largely; that though the efficient Cause can­not be the Effect, yet the formal Cause is the Effect in part, as all Logicians or School men, that treat on the Nature of Causes and Effects, do teach; and the material Cause is also another part of it; and thus, the Soul and Body are the formal and material Cau­ses of a Man, and yet they are the Man. Wood and Stone, and Fashion or Figure of the House are the material and formal Causes of the House, and yet they are the House. So T. L. and his Facti­on going away out of the Meeting, and his rude and disorderly manner of doing it, denying them to be a Meeting, and conse­quently to be the Church, were the material and formal Causes of that begun Separation; and that evil Spirit that set him and them at work, was the efficient Cause of it, and the final Cause was to exalt themselves over their poor Brethren; that as they ruled in the State, (most of them being Magistrates that went out) so they might rule in the Church, and exercise a Tyranical and Arbitrary Power (Papist like) over them; which they not long after discover­ed, by their open Persecution of Fining and Imprisoning for Con­science Sake. And thus I have assigned the four general Causes of that begun Separation, made by them, which this unjust Man, by his Sophistical wrangling, would cast upon us.

XI. He falsly alledgeth, that the change of the Meeting in Phi­ladelphia, from the Bank to the Center, was in Course, page 30. This I prove to be false, and a fiction, because, as the time of the Course of it was not yet come, nor did come either so soon before or after, so T. L's puting it to a Vote, by giving a Sign, whether it should be removed or not, the Sign being, They that stood should be for its removing; they that sate, for its not removing; but this not be­ing according to the way and order of Truth, nor vielded to, we gave no regard to it, farther then to prove by it, the Meeting was not changed by Course, but by Will, and Arbitrary Power; and 'tis no wonder that they had an influence on many to joyn with them, having the worldly Government in their Hands.

XII. page 33. His Perversion of Thomas VVilsons Words, that gave Evidence against me, at the Yearly Meeting, that I said, I be­lieved they removed the Meeting to force me to meet with them, [Page 15] proveth, that they that used that force toward me, were guilty of the separation, and the cause of it: For can there be any greater cause of separation or breach, than to force Mens Consciences, as some of them thought to force me to joyn in Prayer with them, whom I could not in Conscience joyn with, for their unchristian Usage towards me (one of them having publickly cursed me in the Mens Meeting, saying, VVoe be to thee from the Lord; another call­ing me in the Meeting Babylons Brat, and none of them censuring these wicked Actions) and they knowing that I was not like to be forced by them, to joyn with such in Prayer, they knew how to find an occasion against me, to disown me. And how many Hun­dreds here in England, Friends as well as others, have been separated from other Professions, because of their seeking to force and compel them to a way of VVorship they could not in Conscience own? So their seek­ing to force me, proves they had a design to disown me. And so Thomas VVilson's saying, that he juddged me out of my own mouth, judgeth him and them out of their own Mouth.

XIII. His Perversion in blaming me for having a private Fami­ly meeting my House (hence casting the Separation upon me) to instruct my Family, and pray in my Family, saying, page 33. That I give no account, by whose appointment, or what Authority that Meeting was held; so that by his Sentiment, Men must not instruct their Families, nor pray in their Families without Authority and Appointment of the Mens-Meeting: or if they do, they must let none others be present, though the Act of Parliament (now expir'd and re­peal'd) permitted Five beside the Family. His Clamour about our meeting at the Barbadoes House, is idle and impertinent; we met not there, till they had separated themselves from us, and denyed the Monthly Meeting. And after this, who can say but we had liberty to meet where we thought fit? Besides that, they not only threatned to keep us out of the Bank Meeting, but most rudely abused us when we met in it, at our ordinary times, having a Right to it as good as theirs, always interrupting any of us that spoke, though we ne­ver interrupted them; and at last sending some, by their Magistrati­cal Authority, with Saws and Axes to knock down our Gallery, but they were prevented by some that knocked down both the one and the other, which I had no hand in, directly nor indirectly.

XIV p. 35. His Perversion, that I affirmed a Power to alter, choose, change, pull down, and set up Meetings as I pleased; and the foundation of this Forgery, is, by his own confession, because I declar'd my Sense, by way of Proposition, That it were good to have [Page 16] but one publick Meeting on First days, and the remaining part to be used in private Families. Now, Reader, judge what ground he had from my simple Christian-Proposition to invent this Forgery.

XV. He grosly perverteth my Words, that because I said, It was good to have but one publick Meeting on First days, thereby inferring, that it was not good, according to my sense, but evil, to have two publick Meetings on First days, and that therfore to keep two was against my Conscience. But let the Reader judge what perverse Reasoning this is. Pag. 36, 37. Knoweth he not a Distinction betwixt two goods, and the one either equal to the other, or better than the other, as the Circumstances may happen to vary and cast the Ballance; so that what is less good at one time, may be more good at another time? Do not many Friends keep two publick Meetings on First days, here in the City? And yet many others, both in Cities and Country, keep but one; and yet by this Man's perversion, one part of them do evil, and sin against their Con­science.

XVI. pag. 38, 39 His perversion, in labouring to cast the Sepa­ration on me, by reciting some of my Words, but leaving out a ma­terial Clause in the Sentence that cleareth me; the whole Sentence being this, Now the Scriptures that warrant us in this Separation (altho' as is said, first made by them) are these following, &c. the Words, altho, as is said, first made by them: that clears me fully, that I did not take the Separation on me, as he forgeth, he doth fraudulently leave out page 39.

XVII. His Perversion of the Sense of the Word separate, and Separation; a Separation, saith he, page 39. from a thing or Per­son, implies a being joyned to that thing or Person before, and till such separation be made; Here he sheweth his great ignorance; for by his sense of the word, separate, Christ being separate from Sin­ners, (as the Scripture expresly testifieth) he was joyned to them before. And the People called Quakers, being separate from the Papists, were joyned to them before. Now let him tell me when Friends were joyned to the Papists before. And because England, and all Europe is separate from America, by a wide and spacious Sea, let him tell us when they were joyned. He is extreamly ignorant, that knoweth not that the word separate hath several Significations. Beside, it being granted that we were formerly [...]oyned with them, this doth not prove that we began the Separation: but after it was made by them, we were warranted and justified by the Scripture without, and the Spirit of Truth within, to remain separate from [Page 17] them, till they renounced their vile Errors, and evil Practices and the most that my words can import, is, That had we made the Separation, we had been justified by the Lord in so doing, after they had so openly discovered the vile Errors that some of them held, and others did justifie and support them that held them; but they prevented out making the Separation, by first making it them­selves.

XVIII. page 41. His denying that it hath been proved, That my Opposers in Pensilvania are guilty of vile Errors; and his alledging That I picked the Words I charged them with, from their own Discourses, &c. But that this is a Forgery, is apparent from the Testimonies of those whom he pretends greatly to Credit; For first of all, That Judgment given out from the Meeting of publick Friends, as 'tis called, the 4th of the 4th Month, Signed by his dearly beloved persecuting Friend and Brother, Samuel Jennings, doth declare, that Proof was made by two Witnesses; that W. S. should say, That George Keith 's Preach­ing Christ without, and Christ within, was Preaching two Christ's; (and this to all sober and sincere Christians, doth appear to be a vile Error,) for if so, then either Christ within, or Christ without, is a false Christ, seeing the true Christ is but one. Secondly, I stand re­corded on the monthly Meeting book at Philadelphia, by the monthly Meetings Judgment given out against me, and clearing Th. Fitswater 26th 3d Month for his accusing me, that I denied the sufficiency of the Light; and the Evidence against me was, That I said I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else; where­by it is evident, they exclude Christs Man-hood, Death and Sufferings, Blood and Intercession for us in Heaven, from having any part in our Salva­tion; which is so vile and gross an Error, as is enough to make the Ears of all sincere Christians to tingle. But Thirdly, The Paper called, A true Account of the Proceedings, &c. at the yearly Meeting at London, 2d Month 1694. doth plainly declare, that some were guilty of erronious Doctrines, or unsound Expressions, their words being these following; And altho' it appears that some few Persons have given Offence, either through erronious Doctrines, unsound Expressions, or weakness, forwardness, want of Wisdom, and right Understanding, &c. And, Fourthly, I produced above six Manuscripts signed with the Persons own Hands, that were read at the yearly Meeting, that proved them sufficiently guilty of vile Errors, repugnant to the fundamentals of Christianity. And if T. E. or any others persist to charge me, That I have wrongfully charged them in Pensilvania, these [Page 18] Manuscripts then read, with some others, may be made publick for my further clearing.

XIX. page 42. His Fallacy and Deceit in covering W. Southby, by concealing his foregoing Words, in his Letter cited by him, that proves him guilty of my Charge, which Letter under his own Hand I have to produce, where he confesseth, that he called it doubtful Questions, Whether the Patriarchs have received the Resurrection? So, whether they had, or had not, was no Article of his Faith; for surely no Article of the Christian Faith is a doubtful Question; but the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead, as a thing to come, and not past, is such a great Article of Faith, that because some said it was past, they are said in Scripture, To overthrow the Faith, &c. And T. Elwoods Fallacy is the more manifest, that in W. Southby's Confession of Faith recited by him, there is not one word concern­ing the Resurrection of the Body, nor of Christs coming without us to judge the Quick and the Dead, which were the things charged on him, and which his Confession giveth not the least account of, and so is nothing to his present purpose to clear him; yea, his words of his Confession, telling how he believed the day of Judgment when he was a Papist, maketh rather against him, than any ways clear him; for then, said he, I owned it very carnally and outward; but if he do not own it, that that great Judgment shall be outward as well as inward, he has a worse belief of it now, then when a Papist.

XX. page 43. His Perversion in clearing Th. Lloyd, Arthur Cook, Samuel Jennings, and John Delavall, on behalf of themselves, and many others, in their Paper directed to me, where he writes some words of theirs, containing ten or eleven Lines, giving an Ac­count of their Faith concerning God, Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Re­surrection, and Eternal Judgment; which, say they, though offered to you to the same purpose, and that several times, yet was rejected as insufficient by you. But let the impartial Reader judge whether Eleven Lines of a Confession of Faith, relating to so many great Fundamentals of the Christian Religion, expressed in such general Terms, as the grossest of Hereticks could do, could suffice to satisfie our Consciences, when they had given us such ground of Offence, that they were not sound in the Faith, both before this Paper, and since? And whereas they say, firmly believing what is upon Record in the Holy Scriptures concerning God, &c. so will every Papist say, every Socinian say, and every Muggletonian; for it is a common Fal­lacy that the vilest of Hereticks use, whereby to deceive People, to tell them they firmly believe all that is Recorded in the Holy Scriptures [Page 19] concerning God, Christ, &c. But if this had been enough to say in general, We firmly believe what is upon Record in the Holy Scriptures, Why have the People, called Quakers, separated from the seve­ral Professions of Christianity here in England, and elsewhere, up­on the Account of Errors in Doctrine, which they did charge them with, seeing all these Professions in general Terms say as much as we, that they firmly believe what is upon Record in the Holy Scriptures? But we have often told Th. Lloyd, and them that have joyned with him, let them condemn these gross and vile Errors, which we have proved some of them guilty of, and others cloak and excuse them, and have refused to this day, to pass due censure on them, and that shall satisfie us in this Point. And in this general Confessi­on of theirs conceived in such general Terms, there is nothing to be found to clear them of their Errors, or things charged upon them; their Paper mentions the Resurrection State, but what that Resurrection State is, they do not declare it, or when it is witnessed; for many hold, to my certain Knowledge, That the Resurrection is the New Birth, and nothing else; others say, Immediately after Death they get the Resurrection fully; all which is expresly contrary to the Holy Scripture. And they cover themselves no less in relation to the Eternal Judgment; for the question between them and us, being, Whether that great and last Judgment shall be only by Christs inward Ap­pearance in Mens Consciences? Or, Whether also by his outward Coming and Appearance in his glorified Person, even the glorified Man Christ Jesus? VVhether he shall outwardly come to judge all Mankind? But of this, to cover their Unbelief, they are wholly silent. And this gross and vile Error, That Christ is not to come without us in his glorified Body or Person, to judge all Mankind, I find too many in England guilty of, which they have drank in too probably from some unsound Expressions contained in some of the Printed Books too generally conceived and owned by them.

XXI. page 43. His Perversion and Fallacy in covering these Men, because of their saying in their Papers, If any of them, or any counte­nanced by them, have given any Offence, either by unsound Expressions, or any Gospel-like Conversation, and the same be made to appear by credible VVitnesses, we promise unto you, that if the Parties concerned do not con­demn the same, they shall be disowned therein. But what more credible Witnesses could be desired, than the several Manuscripts Signed with their own Hands, whom they have owned, and by the seve­ral Manuscripts of John de Lavall in particular; two of which were read at the yearly Meeting, wherein he chargeth me with Heresie, [Page 20] and denying the fundamental Doctrine of the People, called Quakers, for saying, the Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without something else; by that something else it being confessed, that I did and do mean the Man Christ without us, in whom all fulness dwelleth, and his Death and Sufferings, and Resurrection and Intercession for us in Heaven; all which are something else than the Light within, and all necessary to our Salvation. Also the Act of their monthly Meeting at Phila­delphia, clearing Th. Fitswater for accusing me, Of denying the suffi­ciency of the Light, because I did not, nor can place our whole Salva­tion upon the Light within, so as to exclude the Man Christ without us, from having any share therein, is a sufficient proof that they have given just Offence to us; and John Humphrey's two Letters that were read also at the yearly Meeting, (who is an approved Minister among them) wherein he asserts, That we are not justified by that Blood that was shed at Jerusalem; and that Christ himself ascribed the work of Mans Salvation, and Sanctification, not to the Flesh that Suffered, but to the Spi­rit that quickned; not to the Blood that was shed at Jerusamem, but to the Flesh and Blood that is Spiritual, &c. most perversly and ignorantly understanding these words in John 6. 33. And though we have dealt much with them, to have these Errors disowned, and the Persons duly censured, that were guilty of them, yet to this day, they have never done any thing to answer our desire.

XXII. page 44. His Perversion of my words, I saying at the Meeting of the other side, 22d 3d Month, 1692. That I and my Friends had Unity with the most there, as to the main, by his perverse and strain­ed reasoning to draw a Conclusion from them, that is most un­reasonable; now (saith he) If there had been such gross, vile, and Un­christian Errors, &c. held among them, as he suggests, &c. How could he say, that he and his Friends had Unity with the most there, as to the main. I answer very well, In the common Signification of the word Unity, when we commonly say, we have Unity with them, under the Profession of the Truth, whom we have not yet disowned, nor found any just Cause to disown them, nor they to disown us. And this was the Case then; for more than two thirds of that Meeting were Country Friends, who had come from several Places in the Country to that Meeting, having notice that James Dickeson was to be there, as was common in such Cases, when Travelling Friends come to a Town Meeting, Country Friends flock to it in plenty. And there had not been any breach betwixt these Country Friends and us at that time, nor for a conside­rable time thereafter, until after the false Judgment of the 28th came out against us, bearing date the 20th of the 4th Month. And [Page 21] after this false Judgment was forced and imposed to be read in the Country Meetings both of Pensilvania, and West and East Jersey it broke them generally into pieces, and some of all the Country Meetings turned against us, and others of all of them stood for us, and for the Truth of our Testimony. Beside, there were divers of the other side, belonging to the Town Meeting, that both at that time, and always since, have loved us, and we them, and we had Uni­ty with them; and some of them afterwards joyned with us, and left the other side. But it was the Preachers mostly, and others that did bear sway in their monthly Meetings, that were most guil­ty of these vile Errors, some asserting them, others cloaking them, and with such we had no Unity, neither then nor since. But for many of the People we never denyed to have Unity with them, whom we do not charge to be guilty of these gross and vile Errors; but their Leaders and Teachers, and such as do vindicate them in their sad Errors. And we would have been glad to have kept Meetings with many or most of the People of the Meeting of the other side, after the Separation was begun, believing and knowing that they were in great measure beguiled and led astray by their Leaders, that they were too much given up to follow, yet retain­ing a measure of Simplicity; but we could not meet with them in Peace, after their Leaders on the other side had begun the Separati­on, not having freedom given us, or Permission peaceably to ex­ercise our gift among them, but were always interrupted and mo­lested, when we met together, and otherwise most unchristianly abused. And thus I hope I have sufficiently shewed the good Con­sistency betwixt my saying, I and my Friends had Unity with the most there at that Meeting, considering the Circumstances then of that Meeting, and yet did remain in a Separation both of Spirit, and outward Fellowship from many of that Meeting both then and since; and the same Answer here given may serve to answer the same Objection and Accusation made against us very unduely, in the Book called, The Christian Do­ctrine and Society of the People called Quakers, page 18. of the said Book.

XXIII page 47. His Perversion of my words, about the word many, and very many, in my saying it was my charitable Perswasion, that the worthy Name Christian doth belong to very many of that People; where, by very many, he construeth my Sense to be only these few I had an ex­perimental proof of, through intimate Conversation, and frequent verbal Communication with, since I came last into England. But this is a gross Forgery and Perversion, for I did really mean not them only, but [Page 22] all them, whom I have at any time formerly bad Experience of their Christianity, by intimate Conversation, and verbal Commu­nication, either in England, or any other part of the World, that have given me no occasion to think otherwise of them, (as many have not, though some have) and my Charity leads me to believe and judge, that there are very many called Quakers, that are true Christians, both in Faith and Practice, that I have had no outward knowledge of; but I cannot in Charity esteem them Chri­stians, who have unchristian'd themselves, either by their bold and open contradicting the great Truths of Christianity, or by their per­secuting and otherwise unjust and wicked Practises.

XXIV. page 48. His Perversion of my words, that though I said in my last Book, called, The causless ground, &c. I have not charged the People called Quakers, either in the general, or in the plurality, he will needs have it to be understood only of these few I have in­timately conversed with, since I came last into England. Oh! How hath prejudice blinded him? But how can he, or I either, be po­sitive to say the People called Quakers, are good Christians, either in general, or in the plurality, when Geo. Whitehead hath told us in his printed Epistle, printed about four years ago at London, and was re-printed in Penstlvania, called, A Christian Epistle to Friends in gene­neral, &c. That few sincerely seek the Lord, &c. And very few have their Minds and Spirits really and inwardly exercised in frequent Prayer, and dai­ly Supplications to God, or in heavenly Meditation or spiritual Contemplati­ons, in Gods pure and spiritual Laws, Ways, Judgments, and Works; or in holy Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, which opens them; but too many have their Minds, Hearts, and Affections, taken up with these fading Objects, and things below; or overcharged with the love of Riches, Ca [...]es and Cum­bers of this Life, to compass the Earth, wherein many a good Talent has been hid, and poor Soul buried in Captivity. And concerning Friends Children, and young Persons, he saith, It's but few in Comparison, that come in at that door, viz. the work of Regeneration. And who will say, that the worthy Name of Christian doth belong to such? And yet by G. W's charge, they must be at least the plurality, when ve­ry few do otherwise; though some formality, and something of the form of Truth, as he saith, they may have by outward Educati­on. But let none think I blame G. W. in this, it may be a true charge, for what I know to the contrary; but why should I be so much blamed, for charging neither the generality, nor plurality, but some particulars, when he hath charged many more with things as bad, as Errors in Principles, and that publickly in Print, be­side [Page 23] that Errors in Practise do commonly go along with Errors in Principle. But it seems strange to many, as well as to me, that Errors in Principle, as Pride, vanity of Apparel, Covetousness, Envy, Backbiting, may without offence be publickly reproved by word of Mouth, in Meetings, and also in Print; but Errors in Principle must not be reproved, and witnessed against, either in publick Meetings, or in Printed Books. Do Errors in Practise, as Pride, vanity of Apparel, Covetousness, Envy, and the like, when publickly witnessed against in Print, or in Meetings, open the Mouths of Adversaries, and grieve faithful Friends, less than Errors in Principles? unless it be said, that reproving Errors in Principles reflect upon the Preachers; but reproving Errors in Pra­ctise, reflect only upon the People; but if any of the Preachers be guilty, why may they not, and ought they not to be as publickly reproved as the People, unless we respect Persons, and that both for their Error in Doctrine and Practise? Is it not a just charge upon some called Preachers, which Christ charged upon the Scribes and Pharisees, They loved the Praise of Men, more than the Praise of God, and therefore cannot beat to be reproved; for it hath been the general default of Teachers and Leaders of the People in former times, to hide their own Faults, and expose the Faults of others, especially of such as did not flatter them, and gave them not honour enough before Men. And nothing can be said against my Printed Books, in reference to my publick witnessing again the Errors in Principles, whereof some are guilty in Pensilvania, and elsewhere, but what may be as much said against G. Whitehead his reproving these great Vices and Immoralities among many called Friends, having the Name and form of Truth. Have my Books tended to the dishonor of God, disservice to Truth, reproach and grief of Friends, for my Printing against the vile Errors whereof some called Friends, are guilty? And hath not G. Whiteheads printed Epistle had as much that tendency, for his printing against the vile Practises of many more than ever I charged? But in reality, I judge, and many others do judge, that the faithful witnessing against Mens gross and vile Errors, either in Doctrine or Practise, is no proper and direct cause of such Effects, as the dishonour of God, the disservice of Truth, the reproach and grief of Friends; but on the contrary, the proper and direct cause of Gods being honoured, Truth cleared the Reproach removed, and faithful Friends comforted, with a pub­lick Testimony borne against such publick Sins and Evils. And though I had a foresight and sense that Enemies of Truth would [Page 24] seek to take advantage from my printed Books, yet I had also a sense and foresight, as I have expressed in my Book, page 6. Some Reasons, &c. That in the conclusion, they would be disappointed, and that after a little time their great glorying and seeming grati­fyings would be turned into discontent and trettings. For on the other hand, doth it not greatly stop the cry and reproach that Ad­versaries of Truth cast upon Friends, when they find us cordially zealous in our Testimony against all things reproveable among us, whether in Doctrine or Practise; and will it not much more occasi­on their outcry and reproach, to find us, if so any of us should so do, covering and excusing what is not excusable. And whereas I said in my said Book, That the publishing such account of things, might be occasion of grief to many, which some seek to take advantage against me for. I did not think that the simple Relation or Account of these things, would or could be any proper cause of grief to faith­ful Friends; but I did judge, and so I do still judge, that the gross Errors whereof I did give an Account, that too many in these American parts were guilty of, would be a just cause and occasion of grief to faithful Friends, but neither the Relation in Print, nor I the Relator of it, should be blame-worthy for the same, more then if a News-Letter should come forth in Print, giving a Relation or Ac­count of some great loss and destruction of our Country-men, or near Kindred and Relations at Sea, when the things related do and ought to afflict us with grief; but who will say, we should blame the Relation, or him that hath faithfully related it to us, but ra­ther, that we should give him thanks, for his faithful Relation? And indeed, I judge farther, Friends should have been justly grie­ved, with these vile Errors, and wicked Practises, that too many professing Truth, have been guilty of; and it had been more be­coming all professing Truth among us, to have been deeply hum­bled before the Lord, and to have lamented these things with Wee­ping, Mourning, and Fasting, then to have found fault so unjustly with the zealous Testimony I have borne against these things, that they might have approved themselves like these in Ezekiel, 9. 4. That did sigh and cry for all the Abominations that were done in the midst of Jerusalem, whom the Lord commanded to have a Mark put upon, that they might be spared, when the City should be destroyed. And if my Books, or the things therein related, have been instrumental to move any unto such godly grief, for the great ignorance, unbelief, Errors in Doctrine, that some are guilty of, repugnant to the Christian Faith, so as to be humbled before the Lord, for these Evils, with Prayer [Page 25] unto God, that he would cause his Light and his Truth to shine forth, to the dispelling these Foggs and Clouds; that such who are in such Darkness, Ignorance, and Errors, may be recovered. I have cause in that respect to rejoyce, and have in a great part, my end an­swered.

XXV. page 49 His gross Perversion and Reflection on the year­ly Meeting, in his saying, supposing it were true, That no untruth or falshood, in matter of fact, hath been discovered in his Books, it was not the proper business of the yearly Meeting to judge of the matter of fact contained in his Books, which were alledged to have been done in America, by Persons not there to answer, or give an account of them. And page 50. He saith, 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. Here note, 1. He grants that the yearly Meeting did not declare the Matters of fact in my Books to be false, (and for matter of Doctrine, they do not blame me in the least) and yet he holds that I am justly censured and blamed by the year­ly Meeting, which seemeth to me, an unparalleled instance of un­justice he casts on the yearly Meeting, to blame me for things in my Books that are neither matter of Doctrine, nor matter of fact; for whatever can be said or written in a Book, must needs be one of these two, either matter of Doctrine, or matter of Fact. I know not that ever I heard or read of the like instance, that a Book, or the Author of it was blamed, when nothing, either in Doctrine or Fact, was declared blame worthy. But it seems this Man thinks himself to be more sharp sighted than the yearly Meeting, that hath, as he thinks, discovered matter of fact to be false in my Books, and that is, That I cast the Separation off from my self, and lay it upon Friends; and that it was so, he alledgeth did appear in the opening and stating that matter in the yearly Meeting; but he on­ly saith it, but doth not prove it. And if it did appear in the year­ly Meeting, how comes it that he saith, The yearly Meeting did not declare the matters of Fact in my Books to be false. Is not my clearing my self of the blame of the Separation, a matter of Fact, in my Book? this 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, wherein he by his own Confession, hath plainly contradicted the Judgment of that called, The yearly Meeting Paper, which layeth it at my door, viz. The Separation, so far as I have [Page 26] been concerned therein, and yet I judge, they lay it not so much at my door, as by their own words, they should lay it at the door of them of the other side, for they plainly say, And as to the Sepa­ration among Friends in America, arising from the unhappy Differences, &c. So here, what can be more plain than that they make the Diffe­rences betwixt us in America, to be the cause of the Separation, as the word arising doth plainly import; And seeing the original ground and Cause of the Differences, was the unsound and erronious 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, and it lyeth mainly at their door in that respect, and no otherwise doth it lye at my door, but as I opposed their erronious Doctrines; and if for this any will lay it at my door, as being the innocent cause of it, I need not much contend with them, though I still say, I began not the Separation; even as the Diffe­rences in Doctrine betwixt Luther, and such as joyned with him, on the one hand, and the Pope, and Church of Rome on the other hand, caused a Separation betwixt them, and the Separation did arise from the difference in Doctrine: And if any will charge Lu­ther to be the cause of that Separation, who own the Truth of his Doctrine, and disown Popery, they will say, he was the innocent cause of it, and the Pope and his Adherents, were the culpable cause of it, the Application is easie to the case in hand. But let none be offended, that I call that Paper, having this Title, A true Account of the Proceedings, &c. That called the Judgment of the yearly Meeting, because indeed I never owned it to be the Judg­ment of the yearly Meeting, but of a party of Men in it, that were swayed by some, beyond what they ought to have been; for a ve­ry great part of the yearly Meeting was gone, before any Judgment was given; and I can sufficiently prove, they that did remain, were not unanimous in that Judgment. And T E. doth but equivocate, when he saith, page 23. That I know, when the Sense and Advice of the Meeting was in the Meeting openly read, and delivered in Writing to me, there was not any one Member of the Meeting, that objected against it, or expressed any dissent from it; for though they did not express their dis­sent in my hearing, yet, as some of themselves tole me, they had expressed their dissent formerly, before I was called; for divers in that Meeting did shew their dissent, in charging the Separation up­on me, and I judge the words of the Paper it self, as I have proved, layeth it more upon them of the other side; and there seemeth not [Page 27] to be a good consistency, but rather an interfering in the words of that Paper, of one part with another. Beside, that divers there did judge the Judgment was too partial, and too favourable towards them of the other side, and especially towards Sam. Jennings. Nor can it be said, that that called the yearly Meeting, was a free Meeting, for it was too private, and limited to too small a number, and ma­ny of them deeply prejudiced against me, and who had long before pre-judged the case, especially many of them called publick Friends, both of the City and Country. And many Friends that had a desire to be present, were hindered to come in, and the Door kept shut by some appointed so to do; and some that had got in, were turn­ed out; and therefore it cannot be owned to be the yearly Meeting, nor any Meeting duely and regularly constitute, when any faithful Friend had not freedom to be present, and deliver his Sense. And granting the Judgment given in that Paper, called, A true Account, was the Judgment of the Plurality then present, this proves it not to be a true Judgment; for R. B. in his Anarchy, &c. saith, page 79. The Quakers allow that at times the plurality may be wrong, and the few may be right. Nor can it be said, that the yearly Meeting, is the Representive of the body of Friends, in cases that pertain to mat­ters of Fact and Conscience; for though Men may chuse Represen­tatives to sit in a National Assembly, to judge of worldly Matters, and to make Laws for the outward Man, yet I deny that they can choose Representatives to judge of Matters of Faith and Salvation, that bind the Conscience singly as such; for this were downright Popery, and is the Foundation of all that blind Obedience that the Pope and Church of Rome imposes upon the People, because such a general Counsel hath so decreed; but rarely hath any general Coun­sel, since the Apostles days, done much good, but rather hurt, especially since the Purity of Christian Religion began to decay. And this may clear me of these unjust and groundless Occasions, where­with T. E. doth load me, as being guity of Insincerity, Hypocrisie, double Dealing, having not a Conscience, &c. For my saying in my Introduction, to my Treatise, The causeless 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 Meeting of Friends in particular, or against any singular faithful Friend, or Friends whatsoever; For my Intention was singly to clear Truth and faithful Friends in the first Place, and next my Innocency and Chri­stian Testimony; and this I did still judge, might well be done [Page 28] without Reflection or casting blame upon any faithful Friends, or any Meeting of faithful Friends; if any blame occasionally and in­directly fall upon any, it was not my Intention, to blame the faith­ful; and if the unfaithful be occasionally blamed, let them see to it, to amend what is blame-worthy in them. But as for that, called, The yearly Meeting Judgment, I own it not to be such, far less of the body of Friends, or their true Representative, knowing that hun­dreds of faithful Friends are otherwise minded. But my calling the monthly Meeting in Philadelphia, that gave Judgment against W. S. and T. E. the only Representative of the Church in that Place, doth not prove, that the yearly Meeting at London, is the only Representa­tive of the body of Friends over all the World, where they are to be found; That monthly Meeting did contain most of the Men Friends that did belong to that Place, but the yearly Meeting doth not contain one for an hundred of the body of Friends; beside, there is a vast difference and disparity betwixt a monthly Meeting Re­presenting the Church in that Place, where all can be present if they will, and hear and judge for themselves, and not to hear by other Mens Ears, and judge by other Mens Sense, and believe by other Mens Faith; but if a yearly Meeting be made the Represen­tative of the body of Friends all over the World, then what they de­cree or determine, in Spiritual Matters, must oblige and bind the Conscience of all Friends, so that they must believe by the Faith of the yearly Meeting, and not by their own Faith.

XXVI. His perversion, in saying, p. 50. That the printing and pub­lishing my books, (wherein I bear my Christian Testimony against these gross and vile errors that some are guilty of in America, are the proper and direct cause of great hurt and mischief, &c. But he brings no proof for it, but that it is apparent; and it is as good an Argument for others to say, it is apparent they are not the proper and direct cause of any hurt, but of much good; and the rather, because he confesseth, The Yearly Meeting hath not declared, that my books contain any untruth or falshood in matter of Fact; And for matter of Doctrine, they have not charged me in the least; how then can a book which hath nothing of Un­truth or Falshood in it, be the proper cause of hurt? For as exveris, nil nisi verum, i. e. of true premises, a false conclusion cannot follow, so ex bonis nil nisi bonum, out of good things, that hath nothing of fals­hood in it, but much truth, can nothing come but that which is good, as the proper and direct effect thereof. But if the publick reproving of mens errors and vices be the proper and direct cause of hurt and mischief, the same argument will prove, that when the Prophets did [Page 29] publickly reprove the errors and vices or the sins of the people that were then the Church of God, by visible profession. and did record them (tho not in Print; for it was not then in use) in books, that they were the proper and direct cause of hurt, and when John reproved the Pharisees, and Christ reproved most sharply Priests, Scribes and Phari­sees, that they were proper causes of hurt, and especially the record­ing of them in books that have remained to posterity, and which some have made an ill use of, and Paul's withstanding Peter to his Face, and committing it to writing, that he was to be blamed, was the proper cause of hurt, &c by this unfair, and undue way of arguing. Al­so when Friends did print books, reproving the Errors of Doctrine in other professions, by the same argument, they were the proper and direct cause of hurt, to open the mouths of Papists against them.

XXVII. pag. 51. His perversion, and false charge, That I have sought occasions, by my late book, to throw more Reproach on Truth and Friends But 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, Truth produceth Error, Light Darkness, Good Evil, all which is false.

XXVIII. His perversion and fallacy, in seeming to own the Do­ctrine in my book [The Causeless Ground, &c.) pag. 3. and yet altoge­ther waving the chief thing of Doctrine, wherein the Controversie lieth betwixt them of the other side and me, and as I judge 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, &c. But his leaving out wholly this period and clause, that is so material, shewing the great difference betwixt us, in relation to the Christian faith, I question not is to hide his and his brethrens errors in Pensilvania, whose evil cause he hath taken up to defend. And it will appear clearly so to be, by noticing that he joyns not the work of sanctification in the heart, to Christ's outward appearance but to his inward appearance. Whereas, had he the true Knowledge and Faith of Christ, he would joyn and at­tribute the work of Regeneration and Sanctification both to Christs inward and outward appearance, and hold forth and assert the Ne­cessity of the Faith of his outward appearance. as well as of his in­ward appearance, in order to the work of Sanctification and Regene­ration; and would inform people, that the true Faith in Christ, as he did outwardly appear, and die for our sins, is not a bare historical and literal Faith, but a living Faith, wrought in the heart by the power of [Page 30] God, and his Spirit inwardly revealed. But that he doth not joyn the work of Regeneration and Sanctification to Christ's outward ap­pearance, Death, Refurrection, Ascension and Mediation in Heaven, but to his inward only, is clear from pag. 54. where he saith, the Do­ctrines whereof (as well those that related to the outward appearance and work of Christ in the flesh, as those that relate to his inward ap­pearance and work of Sanctification, in the hearts of his people) were in the first Ages of the Christian Church fully and clearly held forth and believed; and pag 55. he distinguishing betwixt the Doctrines we hold in common with other professions. that have always from the beginning been asserted, &c and those Doctrines that respect the in­ward appearance, he saith. Yet those Doctrines that respect the inward appea­rance and manifestation of Christ Jesus,, by his Light, Grace and Spirit shi­ning and working in the hearts of men and women, from the beginning, car­rying on and perfecting the work of Regeneration, Sanctification and Salva­tion, have been more largely insisted on. So that it is evident he attributes the work of Regeneration and Sanctification only to Christ's inward ap­pearance, because he gives this as the Reason why the Doctrine of his inward apperrance is more largely insisted on, than the Doctrine of his outward appearance; that Sanctification is wrought by his inward appearance, and not by his outward appearance, viz. his Death, Blood, Resurrection, Ascension, Mediation, wherein he erreth fundamen­tally; for the work of Sanctification is ascribed in Scripture to Christs Blood and Sufferings, as well as to his inward appearance, and to both indispensibly necessary, and to Faith therein. For we are said to be sanctified See Heb. 9. 14. Heb. 10. 29. Heb. 13. 12. viz. through Faith in it; And he was wound­ed for our Transgressions; and by his stripes, or Dolors, we are healed, Isa. 535. 1 Pet. 2. 24.

XXIX. His gross and bold Fiction and Forgery, in saying, p. 57. Whatever jealousies and Dissatisfactions any of other professions had en­tertained against us on this account before, they had no ground or occa­sion given them. Whereas now he hath given them occasion, tho unjustly and without cause, to entertain wrong Jealousies of us.

But this his bold Fiction is false in both Parts. 1. That other Professions had no ground of Dissatisfaction given them, touching these Doctrines, before my Books came forth; for they had but too much ground from too many unsound Expressions contained in their Books, and which some of that Profession have objected to [Page 31] me, and which I could not answer, otherwise than to acknowledge them to be unsound; but it would take up too much time at pre­sent, to mention them, and the Books and Pages where these un­sound Expressions are to be found. But if T. E. or any else put me hard to it, I can produce for Evidence, but too many, that to my certain knowledge have offended and stumbled many of other Pro­fessions. 2. That I have now given them occasion to entertain wrong Jea­lousies of us; for on the contrary, by my faithful Testimony to sound Doctrines of the Christian Faith, and against the opposite Errors, I asserting that these Errors are not chargable on the body of Friends, nor on the plurality, but on certain particular Persons; this is the most effectual way, and indeed the only way, to remove these Jea­lousies against us. But nothing can be more effectual to confirm their Jealousies against us, than to find any among us, either to de­ny, that any such erronious Doctrines are chargeable upon particu­lar Persons, when 'tis clear, as the Light of the Noon-day, they are chargeable; or to excuse and cloak them, with such strained glosses, as they cannot bear, and make the Offence the greater.

XXX. page 52. His Perversion and Fallacy, in construing my words, That the Doctrine of Christ Crucified, &c. was buried in silence; as if I understood it generally or universally, and respected all Friends every where; whereas my words have a Restriction and Limitation very expresly; for I do not say buried in silence by all, or most part, or opposed by all, or most part, but I say, buried in silence by some, and opposed by others, which I did chiefly intend, with respect to these parts of America, where the Controversie began among us about Preaching The Necessity of the Faith of Christ without, as well as of Christ within; and the Faith of his Manhood, as well as of his God head, being necessary to our Christianity and Regeneration. But I confess, I find it buried with too many here away in England, as well as there I found it buried in America. And for all this Mans loud Clamour against me, until he clear himself more than he hath done, I can conclude no other concerning him, but that the true Faith of Christ Crucified, and the true and sincere Doctrine of it, is buried with him also, as in the Sequel will further appear.

XXXI. His Fallacy in excusing them, who do not Preach the Doctrines relating to the Birth, Death, Resurrection, Assention, &c. of Christ, as to the outward body, are not so frequently and con­stantly declared in our publick Meetings. (saith he) Ye know also that the Servant is not to frame his Message himself, but to deliver the Mes­sage his Lord gives him to deliver, &c. Plainly importing that the Lord [Page 32] doth not call his Servants or Ministers so frequently to Preach the Faith of Christ without, as of Christ within; this 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; for it is absolutely and indispensibly Necessary to Salvation, to believe that Christ died for our sins, and rose again, accord­ing to Rom. 109. 8, It cannot be supposed that God will be wanting to move and call all his Servants to preach frequently all that is ne­cessary to Salvation, to all to whom they preach; Therefore his suppo­sing the preaching of it not being so necessary to be so frequently preached, as that of his inward appearance, giveth us cause to believe he doth not judg the Faith of Christ without necessary to Salvation, but the Faith of Christ within only.

XXXII. pag. 54. His fallacy and perversion, in feigning and inven­ting another excuse, as thread-bare as the former, and as a fig-leaf that cannot cover his Nakedness, nor that of his brethren, who gave the same de­ceitful excuse as he doth; to which his frivolous excuse I did suffici­ently answer him, when he gave it at a meeting of Conference, when he was present in the Upper Room at Grace-Church-street, about the time of the Yearly Meeting last, viz. That though the Doctrines of Christ's inward appearance were generally lost and forgotten, yet the Doctrines relating to the outward appearance of Christ in the flesh, &c. were not lost, but retained, and preached through all Ages, and by every sort or sect of professed Christians. To which I then answered him, and I now again answer, The true Doctrine of the Faith of Christ without, as he came in the flesh, &c. was as much lost in the time of the Apostacy, 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, tho none of them was universally lost; the which true Doctrine teacheth, That the only true saving Faith of Christ's Death &c. is wrought in mens hearts, by divine Illumination, Revelation and Inspiration, and is taught and begot by the Spirit in mens hearts. But T E. will not say, that this was not lost; therefore his excuse in this also is vain and in­sufficient; and indeed, as touching all these Doctrines that have been re­tained in the time of the Apostacy, whether of God or Christ, &c. tho the literal Knowledge and Faith of them hath not been lost, yet the spiritual knowledge of them hath been lost as much as the know­ledge and faith of Christ within; for the true knowledge of both is but one knowledge, and the true faith of both is but one faith.

[Page 33] XXXIII. Pag. 57. His perversion of my modest Proposition, about correcting some unsound words in some Friends Books, as if with purpose, I did hunt for, discover, and expose, if I can, the nakedness of such as in Comparison of my self, may justly be reputed and called Fathers in the Truth. But I refer my self to the impartial Reader, whether my modest Proposition can bear such uncharitable construction; However, let it be granted, that some might be reputed Justly my Fathers in the Truth, some of whose words being unsound, and finding that they have done hurt to weak Readers, and are like to do hurt to more, I should not think that any good Christian man, that loves the Truth more than men, would judge the worse of me for correcting them tenderly and Christian­ly, not as an Enemy, but as a Friend and Brother.

XXXIV. pag. 58. His perversion, in falsly accusing me, That I have taken up Ham's work; by which he reflects not only on me, but on the late Christian Teachers and Writers, who have with deserv­ed praise noted and corrected the errors and unsound expressions con­tained in the books of them called Greek and Latin Fathers, as Erasmus, Skultetus, and divers others commendably have done, and as Friends, have corrected the weak and unsound expressions of divers of the blessed Martyrs, and others that have gone before us, who were in Christ, as to time, before us.

XXXV. p. 58. His perversion of the Scripture words concerning Sem and Japhet, their going backward to cover their Father's Nakedness, as if there were not a further matter and mystery in it; For 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.

XXXVI. pag 59. His perversion of my modest proposition, That every one owned by us, to be a Member of our Christian Society, give some Declaration of their Faith; which he makes to be an humane imposi­tion, thus changing the commandment of God to an humane impo­sition; for it is a commandment of God as to believe with the heart, so to confess with the mouth, that God hath raised Christ from the dead; And we are commanded to hold fast the profession of our Faith; which we cannot do, unless we first have it; and we cannot have it without some Declaration of words; for Works, however so good, without confes­sion, will not prove a man to be sound in the Christian Faith; nor will confession alone without good works.

[Page 34] XXXVII. p. 59. His perversion of my words, That I make a verbal confession the door of admittance into our Society. But this is altogether false; I own no other Door but Christ, and he both as sincerely believed in, (not with a bare literal historical Faith, but a divine spiritual Faith be­got in our hearts by the Spirit of Faith) and as sincerely confessed, the sincere living Confession flowing from a sincere living Faith in the heart.

XXXVIII. pag. 61. His perversion, That I make a bare profession, ver­bal confession, or Declaration of Principles, Doctrines and Practises, the Terms of Church-communion. This is false; I make them not the Terms at all, when the profession is, but barely verbal; but when the Confession, or Profession, floweth from the living Faith of Christ, and from his Life in the heart, I said, and still say, they are secondary Terms of Church-Communion, the inward life of Christ in the heart being the princi­ple.

XXXIX. p. 61. His perverting of my words to a wrong sense, never intended by me, my words being (The Causless Gro [...], p. 8.] But 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, &c. As if my sense were, That men were to contrive and cut out their own Terms. But how doth prejudice blind and byass him! Know­eth he 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, without contriving and cutting out their own Terms: I mean not by agreeing, or agreed, an humane political contrivance, or design, but a divine agreement.

XL. p. 60, 61. His perversion, first in most fraudulently putting a false gloss upon my words, about the word agreed on, and next deceiving and abusing his Reader, as if I did put the same gloss upon R. B. his words p. 48. of his book The Anarchy. Also his most disingenuous endeavou­ring to make the Reader believe I wrong R. Barclay in citing some words of his, and that because I cite not so many of his words as he thought fit to cite after me, in that place, p. 48. But I cited as many as were suffici­ent to prove, That it is R. Barclays Doctrine and Testimony that Princi­ples and Doctrines, and the Practices necessarily depending on them, are as it were the Terms that have drawn us together, and the Bond by which we became centered into one body and fellowship, and distingui­shed from others; yet not this so the Bond, but that we have also a more inward and invisible, the Life of righteousness: And in my book called, The Reasons and Causes of the Sep. p. 24 25. I have cited R. B. his words at great length, to confirm his agreement with me in this particular, which [Page 35] he will never be able, with all his silly quibles, to overthrow. But when he cannot fairly dispute, he goes to pervert and invent false things; first, he quarrels with the word agreed; but I did not say R. B. used the word agreed; but it must needs be his sense, That whoever believes the same Doctrine, by the Operation of the Spirit of God in their Hearts, they must needs agree in that faith. Secondly, he saith, R. B. doth not make a bare profession, verbal confession, any Terms at all? and no more do I; and to suppose I do, is an invention of his own. Thirdly, he saith, The Prin­ciples, Doctrines and Practises themselves, he calls not the Terms and Bond strictly and properly, but as it were. But that manner of Phrase, as it were, doth not hinder, that they are truly in his sense the secondary Terms, or Terms in part, and that properly enough; but they are not the only, or principal, but the inward Life of Righteousness; as man's body may be said, as it were, to be the man, and yet not the principle part of the man; for that is the soul.

XLI. p. 62. His gross perversion, insinuating, that in my book, Some Reasons and Causes, &c. p. 16. I had cited R. B's words: but it was not 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: This Circumstance I did not say was in R. B's book, but the substance of the Doctrine; but all his proof, that it is not his Doctrine, is, that he assures the Reader it is not: but let the Rea­der compare my Citations at length, in my Reasons and Causes of Sep. p. 24. 25. and he shall find it is his Doctrine, notwithstanding T. E. his bold­ly affirming it is not.

XLII. p. 58. His perversion, by insinuating, That all the most ne­cessary Principles and Doctrines of our Faith, both common and peculi­ar, are published and made known by the general Consent, Advice and Approbation of the most Judicious, Wise and Understanding Friends now alive. In answer to my proposition, desiring it might be so, he saith, by way of insinuation, Is that a new thing to be done now? I reply, it is a new thing yet to be done: and I believe he is not able to shew me that book where it is done by general consent: for it is not the consent of a few, or of the Second Days Meeting at London, who take too much upon them, and have published and recommended books that Truth cannot stand by. that I mean, but the general Consent of the most Judicious Friends, the which, if it were done, were not to be imposed, but to be recommended to other Friends.

XLIII. p. 62. His perversion, as if I said, That the lesser matters, of plain Languages, and plain Habit, &c. were so the Terms of Friends Com­munion, as if every one should thereby be intituled to our Communi­or, [Page 36] who speak the plain Language, wear plain habit: but I neither said nor thought any such thing.

XLIV. p. 62. His perversion in owning these lesser things, when sin­cerely performed. to be fruits effects, and signs of that inward and in­visible Life of Righteousness, but not the Terms so much as in part, as if fruits effects and signs joyned with the inward life of Righteousness, were not a part of these Terms, which is as much as to say, because the body is not the whole man, therefore it is no part of a man.

XLV. p. 64. His error and perversion in laying more weight on these lesler matters of plain language, plain habit, &c. than on the outward profession and confession, to the great Doctrines and Principles of the Christian Faith. This is apparent from his words.

XLVI. p. 64. His perversion; in falsly charging me, That I spurn dis­dainfully at the advice given me, to retract the bitter Language (as some call it) in my books; whereas 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 unto them, withal desiring some to give me their good Ex­ample. Is this any disdainful spurning?

XLVII. p. 64. His perversion, in feigning me to have retracted the acknowledgment I made of my inward infirmities. But that I acknow­ledged, I had justly offended any in words or deeds, relating to our dif­ferences in Pensilvania or elsewhere, I say it is false, as divers can wit­ness.

XLVIII. His perversion, in misapplying James 1. 26. and 3. 11, 12. to me, which most properly and duly belongs to himself; for surely he that is guilty of so many Perversions, Fictions and Forgeries in mat­rers of fact, as well as otherwise, and false accusations and bitter Lan­guage, without any just cause, bridleth not his Tongue, and hath not that sweet Fountain of the Water of Life in him.

XLIX. p. 67. His perversion, in falsly affirming, that I was not con­demned in Pensilvania, without hearing, conviction or Tryal: for as none of their Judgments intimate, that I was so much as present, so the Evi­dences given, as describ'd in some of the books, sufficiently prove it:

L. His falsly charging me, That I am not in Unity with faithful friends, and falsly and bitterly accusing me of hardness, that I said in my print­ed paper, called, The Causless Ground, &c. I declare my real intention to re­main in Unity with all faithful friends every where; and his false and gross flander, That my meeting with friends, and continuing to exercise my gift of Ministry among them, is a very great exercise and burden to friends; and al­so [Page 37] his slandering me, That I gave such interruption, and made so great di­sturbance at the first publick Meeting I appeared at in London, as the like hath scarce been known in any Meeting in that City. Here is a complex and bundle of false Accusations and Misrepresentations; to which I answer briefly, 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; and neither he, nor any of his Abettors, can prove me guilty of making any breach or violation of true Unity with faithful Friends, seeing I am one with them in Doctrine and Practise, and the sincerity of my Spirit and Heart is to be judged by the sincerity of the Doctrine I Preach, and the Innocency of my Life and Conversation in Practise, as Christ hath taught, to judge the Tree by its Fruits. But it is too great Presumption in T. E. and some others, to judge that a Mans Spirit is wrong, when they have nothing wherewithal to blame him justly, either in Doctrine or Pra­ctise. I do believe that he, and such as he, vainly boast of a false Gift; such a high Gift, or Spirit of discerning, is not given to him, or them, nor indeed is commonly given, to all sincere Christians; and if such a Latitude be allowed, that a Man shall be condemned to be of a wrong Spirit, when they have nothing justly to charge him with, either in Doctrine or Conversation; What Confusion shall this bring in, and disorder, and rash, and false Judgment? The innocentest Man li­ving shall at this rate be condemned, by saying, he is of a wrong Spirit. And as some innocent Men have thus been most unjustly judged, so some very bad have been justified upon this high pretence, of a Spirit of discerning, to judge Men without regard to their Fruits. But the ge­neral rule that Christ hath given us, is to be observed above the vain pretences of some proud boasters, which is, to judge the Tree by its fruits; and even in that case to give a right Judgment, is a spiritual gift of God, and proceedeth from a true spiritual discerning. But is it not apparent in T. E. and some others that promote his candalous book, that they seek to drive me forth from the Unity and Fellowship of Friends, by suggesting, reporting and publishing false things against me, as David's accusers did against him, concerning whom he complained to Saul, 1 Sam. 26. 19 If the Lord hath stirred thee up against me, let him accept an Offering: But if they be the children of men, they are cursed before the Lord, (so the Latin Version of Ju [...]ius) for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying, go serve other Gods. But my faith and hope is in the Lord, whose blessed power I feel, that I shall be preserved in Unity with the Lord, and with his faithful Peo­ple, notwithstanding the evil Endeavors of T. E. and his Party, who seek to drive me out, from abiding in the Inheritance of the Lord. [Page 38] But I am so far from pronouncing a Curse upon them for their evil devisings against me, that it is my sincere desire that God may bless them, with true Repentance, for that and all their other Sins. And as to the Exercise of my Ministry among Friends, hundreds bear Wit­ness, that my Ministry is both refreshing and Edifying to them, and is burdensom to none, but to the ignorant and unfaithful, and such as are prejudiced against me by false Reports. And as to that Interrup­tion and Disturbance that happened at the first publick Meeting, I ap­peared in at London, many can, and do bear me Witness, that I was not the Cause, nor beginning of it. And why should T. E. or any other call it a Disturbance in me to bear a publick Testimony against a Man, that ought not to be owned to be a Minister of Christ, viz. S. J. because of his proud and persecuting Spirit and Practises; nor ought it to be reckoned a disturbance, when Error 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 Reprof is not regarded; for in my so doing, I have the Example of Friends. of good Note, that have done the like before me. And why doth not T. E. remember the disturbance he himself made (which I heard some say, was greater than that other) at a publick Meeting at Grace-Church-street some time ago, (the most publick Meeting of Friends at London) that gave great Offence to hundreds, in his speaking against a Person, whose Ministry was well owned by hundreds, some of which cryed out on him, at that time, shame, shame. And as to my general Department in Meetings, many can bear me Witness, it is peaceable, having no Inclination nor purpose to interrupt any, though divers have uncivily and unchristianly Inter­rupted me, and otherwise behaved most unfairly towards me. And to this bundle or summ of Fashoods and Misrepresentations, in the last place, let it be added, his accusing of my innocent true Words, as sa­vouring of a boasting Spirit, because I humbly and modestly did men­tion my Thirty Years Labor in the Work of the Ministry, and God ha­ving blest my Labors with great Success, in being an Instrument to the bringing many unto the blessed Unity and Fellowship with his Spirit, and one with another in the same. I appeal to all that have a true Savor, whether these Words savor of a boasting Spirit, I only using them by way of Argument, to perswade some that had a wrong jealou­sie of me, That I intend no breach among faithful Friends. But whether his words do not savor of deep Prejudice, and want of Charity, in saying, he cannot but express his fear, that I have been instrumental to draw many more from the blessed Unity and fellowship of the Gospel, than [Page 39] ever I brought into it; for which (he saith) the doom was long since set, Ezek. 18. 24. For that I have been Instrumental to draw any one from the blessed Unity, he can never prove; and the doom that is set; Ezek. 18. 24. belongeth to himself, (but not to me) if to be guilty of so many Forgeries, false Accusations, and Misrepresenta­tions, be a turning away from his Righteousness, which formerly he either had, or at least seemed to have.

There are divers other gross Perversions, and false Accusations in his Book, that I pass by, judging these noticed by me, are more than ever he will be able fairly to answer, and to clear himself of.

His bitter Language and Revilings, calling me Vain, page 9. charging me with an impetuous height of Mind, setting my self in an exalted Spirit of Pride and Self conceit, &c. page 10. and with Insincerity, double Dealing, falseness of Spirit, great Hypocrisie, great Deceit, as having no Conscience, as being an open Opposer, and the greatest despiser of the Spirits Teachings, page 10. 13, 14, 15, 16, 20. &c. I shall take no further notice of, then to appeal to all impartial Persons, whether T. E. be not highly guilty of that Vice, which he unjustly would cast up­on me, as being a Man that have no Bridle to my Tongue, because that with sharp words I have reproved the gross Errors, and wicked Practises of some in America, &c. But must he, and these joyned with him, take the liberty to give me the worst of Names, and the foul­est reviling Language, (without proving me guilty of deserving any one of them;) for, What can he say worse of any Man, than he hath said of me, and all this pass as Piety and true Religion in him? If he and they blame hard and sharp words universally, especially given to them, not yet denied, to be of the same Society, then why doth he give them to me, if he alloweth they may be given in some Cases; the merit of the Cause; and what case is proper is duely to be examined, and left to the Judgment of impartial Men, which I freely do, and chiefly and most principally to that most just and impartial Witness of God, in every Mans Conscience, to which every Man must stand or fall.

His saying, page, 72. The way to recover the deceived, is to discover, lay open, and witness against the deceivers, having noticed in my printed Epistle, that may serve as a Preface to this my Answer; I shall not fai­ther consider here, but that it serveth wholly to my purpose, (and nothing to his, seeing be hath not proved me a deceiver, in the least particular) as an Apology to excuse both this my present Reply to [Page 40] his scandalous book, and to all my other books, relating to these diffe­rences; and the rather, that it cometh from the mouth or pen of a pro­fessed adversary.

But whereas he alledgeth, it is strange I should complain of the year­ly Meeting, for not condemning the Friends there, viz. in Pensilvania, without all hearing, conviction or tryal, which it must have done, had it condemned them who are absent and distant several thousand miles. I answer, I did not complain of the yearly Meeting, there being no word of the yearly meeting mentioned in all my printed paper; but whereas they who gave out, that Paper called, A true account of the Proceedings, &c. advised me to call in my printed books, I put them in mind, that in order to a true reconciliation, they should have advised them of the other side, to call in their false Judgments, and to give out a Testimony acknowledging their error, in several passages of injustice towards me, which they might have done by way of advice, tho without giving a formal Judgment against them, being absent. But if they thought it not Just to give a Judgment against them of the other side, being ab­sent, what hindered them from giving a Judgment against S. Jennings, being present, and who had chiefly injured us, and me in particular; as also against Th. Ducket, who was present. And why have they given a Judgment against our Friends in Pensilvania, and West-Jersey, who were not present any more than they of the other side, by giving out a con­tradictory Judgment to what was given out by the Yearly Meeting at Burlington, signed by 70 persons? And seeing it is an undeniable rule of Justice, not to Judge the person that is present in the absence of his Accusers; but that the accusers and the accused be both present in person; why did they judge me in the absence of my Accusers, in Pensilvania? If it be said, they had sufficient evidence from my printed books, so had they as sufficient evidence from their Manuscripts and Letters sign­ed with their own hands, of the Other side; and therefore it was not according to the rule of true Justice, to have given any Judgment a­gainst me, tho present, in my accusers, and opposite parties absence, un­less they had dealt impartially, with respect to both, and laid equal weight on the authentick evidences I produced against them, from their own Manuscripts, signed with their own hands, and the true Copy of the Court-Sessions, signed by the hand of the Clerk, as on my printed books. And both sides being alike absent, or present, two of their side (the third deceased) present, and three present on our side, it is an ap­parent quible and shift, to give it as a Reason why they of the Other side in Pensilvania, had not Judgment passed against them, being ab­sent, and yet to judg G. K. his Friends, who also were absent, and to [Page 39] Judg him in the absence of his accusers: and if they think it was suffici­ent to have S. Jennings, and Th. Ducket present to be his accusers, by the rule of Justice, it was sufficient to have G. K. and Th. Budd to be present to be Sam. Jennings his accusers; so the case is as broad and long the one way as the other, and either G. K. should not have been Judged, or at least Sam. Jennings should not have been so connived and passed by: yea so publickly countenanced and owned and G. K. so publickly censured and hardly treated, as both then and since.

HIS Postscript I am little concerned to take notice of, being a pretended Re­ply to two things in the printed paper of R. H. which he and some others so highly aggravating, it was, and is still expected by many, that T. E. would dis­cover in the several particulars of it wherein he is so highly guilty, the which he not having done, leaveth a suspicion in the minds of some, that he had better to have re­moved, by a full and particular Answer to the whole, than to nibble only at these two, wherein he hath said nothing to give just satisfaction; for as it may be granted, that in great Assemblies, where all are unanimous, as well as in lesser Assemblies (as it hap­pened at the adjourned Meeting in Philadelphia), the Judgment may be signed by one of the Members; so when the Judgment is not unanimous, as it was not in that As­sembly, one party should not call that the Judgment of the whole, which was but the Judgment of a part, supposing them to be the majority, it not being the way of Friends in their Assemblies, to carry it by plurality of Voices; and had it come to a signing with the hands of particular persons, as it happened in that paper signed by 66 con­cerning J. S. and I. W. it is sufficiently probable divers would have refused to sign it, that said little or nothing against it in the open Meeting, it being sufficiently known, that many are silent to things which they do not always approve. To the se­cond, he taketh it barely for granted, that the Yearly Meeting at Burlington, that gave forth that Judgment concerning G. K. and T. L. &c. was a separate Meeting, which being as readily denied by me, as affirmed by him, leaveth the matter undetermined to some, until it further appear which of the two sides might be most justly called the separate Meeting. But that which casteth the Ballance is, when it is duly understood, that they whom he calleth the Separate Meeting, stood up for Truth against the vile Errors, that too many of the other side were guilty of, and which the rest of them did cloak and cover; and it is left to the impartial Judgment of the Readers, whether it doth not appear that they of the other side were the Separatists, in the worst sense, after the due consideration of what is said pro and contra, in reading these my late books relating to these differences, and T. E. his late book in opposition, and this my Reply. But that the said meeting was made up of some others that seldom or never went to Friends meetings at all, as he alledgeth, it can easily be proved, that where one such can be mentioned, that made up that called by him, the separate meeting, or were otherwise unqualified to give Judgment in such a case, three can be mentioned of the other side, or rather more, and much more unqualified, that gave a contrary Judgment [Page 40] at the other meeting at that time, as can be sufficiently proved, by comparing persons with persons, and names with names, and it is evidently apparent, that what they could not do with the weight of Truth and Justice, they laboured to do with number of Names, divers of whom were manifestly known to be of bad Fame and Reputation. But it is not what Number of Names maketh a Judgment authentick and weighty, but what Truth and Justice is in it.