THE concern which our former Brethren have expressed, on several occasions, and at several times, for the peace and harmony of the the Church, is worthy of attention: But whether they consider their incorporate Body, or Church, to be so, in distinction from all others, they have not in this Controversy, clearly told us. If they mean by the true Church, all those who are born again from above by the incorruptible Seed and Word of God, that liveth and abideth forever; and that these are not re­stricted to their own Church, but are to be found in every other Christian Society all over the World, we freely and fully acquiesce in this sentiment— That this is the sincere belief of the Society in general we cannot doubt, or call in question; But remark, with concern, that the line of conduct which those have pursued, who were immediately concerned in disown­ing us is not favourable to such an opinion, which we trust will be fully evinced before we close this Address. Whether our idea of the true Church, in every respect, coincides with theirs must, for the present, remain undetermined; but that in what is necessary to pre­serve its peace and unity we are not, in every respect, agreed, is very clear from the different measures we have pursued for that purpose — We have thought it neces­sary in order▪ not only to preserve, but to restore that peace and unity that hath been disturbed in the Society [Page 4] by the present controversy, to investigate the whole of their conduct, as well as ours, in that case, that it might, if possible, appear who were the faulty cause of it, which they have constantly declined since Timothy Davis was disowned about which the uneasiness on our part, arose—how far they laboured to suppress any thing of that nature before, will, we trust, in the following lines be manifested.

They alledge that every Church hath an indisputa­ble right to judge of the fitness or unfitness of their members to be continued as such.

No one, we apprehend, will dispute this; but then it ought to be considered that it is possible that a Church may misuse their members and abuse this right. —This is what we complain of—how justly we hope also to make appear to the satisfaction of the unpreju­diced reader.

They say, that the constitution of their Church is such that it affords sufficient opportunity for us mem­bers to vindicate their several causes while they are under-dealing, by appeals from lesser to superior meet­ings, without those meetings being called upon after they have fully heard, considered, determined and settled a matter.

We answer, That the Church in general gives this liberty is not the matter in question; but whether that right, in the present case, hath been suffered fully and freely to operate without any interruption, is the matter now in question, and what we wish to have fairly held up to light, that it may be made manifest whether their proceedings against us, or ours in our own defence was dictated and influenced by the Light or not? It is an unhappiness with some, that they are so prejudiced in favour of their own deeds, they are [Page 5] very averse to having them brought to the impartial examination of the Light, lest they should be reproved: How far this will apply to our opposers, in the present case, we submit to the unprejudiced part of such who are acquainted with the present controversy.

We think it not unseasonable here to take notice of what they say in a Letter superscribed to Joseph Taber, and those in whose behalf he signed a Letter, dated at Dartmouth 14th 7 mo. 1783. which is as followeth, viz. ‘It seems — you have seen fit to attempt a Prosecution by way of Indictment, a matter of such a nature, as we apprehend, was never before heard of from any professing themselves to be the People called Quakers, and which we think the truly thoughtful among you cannot approve.’

We answer. That it appears incontestably true, that Friends have frequently had recourse to the civil Powers for redress, when under oppression or persecution; this would have been nothing more had we been concerned in it — That there was a Prose­cution is very true, that happened at Rochester; oc­casioned by one Jonathan Macy's publicly opposing Benjamin Bumpus in his publick ministry in Friends Meeting-house there, to a very great majority of such Friends who favoured our cause: That, under this [...], such opposition was not only very inju­dicious, but a very unlawful disturbance, notwith­standing they might have a right in the Meeting-house, yet being a very small minority they could have no just pretensions of a right to disturb so large a majority as there was present at that time, no less interested in the Meeting house than they. But Macy, with his attendance, it seems, by the afore­said Letter, were sent to preserve Peace and good [Page 6] Order; but unhappy for them, they either forgot their errand, or those from whom they received it did not understand the nature of such an errand. If such disturbances as this be the effects of such friendly attention, as they mention in their letter to us, we should be glad that such marks of it might not be often repeated, otherwise their exhortation to patient suffering may want their example to give it weight and energy — Macy did not pretend to object to what he had heard, but was so inconsiderate as to alledge that he had no right to appear in the Ministry there, being disowned. To this right, which is pretended to be forfeited by being disowned by them we shall speak more particularly hereafter.

But with respect to the beforementioned Prose­cution, although it is strongly urged against us, we know not of any one of our Member being con­cerned in it, either less or more, directly or indirectly; yet, with gratitude, we acknowlege the kindness of such others who justly pitied and felt a sympathy for us under our oppression, and thought it quite time to endeavour a suppression of such disorder. It is a little surprising that the Authors of this Letter should have suffered themselves to have been so imposed on —Men in such high esteem in the Society for their sagacity, penetration, judgment and discerning, one would have thought would have sifted a Case with a little more accuracy, wherein their Reputation would necessarily suffer, they might know, if this insinuation should fail: But it is an unhappiness with some people that they too easily yield their assent to that, which they wish to be true of such as they disaffect, often to the wounding of their own Reputation at least. We think however, that even this mistake, as great as it is, [Page 7] is capable of being improved to their, and our advan­tage, by affording them such a lesson of instruction as they might not have had, or that they might have overlooked, by leading them to consider that however great their religious experience hath been, they are yet liable to mistakes, and to be imposed on by wrong in­formation; and that too from among themselves— being convinced of this, they may be led to turn their thoughts towards their former conduct, and see if they cannot find something out of the line of Truth there, which we think will not be very difficult, if they are disposed to indulge a little impartial enquiry— We doubt not but that we shall be able, before we con­clude, to manifest something in the line of conduct they have pursued, that will hardly bear the light unrepro­ved, without entering very minutely into every circum­stance of their proceedings against us, and shall there­fore say little of the manner in which the Meeting for Sufferings treated the subject when they first took it up; they were however the first that discovered to us any uneasiness in the case.

But with respect to the before-mentioned Prosecu­tion; suppose we had been concerned in it, altho' we were not, yet we think it would have been much more eligible than such measures as have been adopted by Friends formerly, in taking such by the shoulders as they did not approve as Ministers, and such who have attempted to sit in their meetings of Church Discipline, whom they did not approve as Members, and leading or forcing them out of a meeting-house, sometimes with much difficulty and not a little confusion, without any authority from any civil Magistrate, but done alto­gether in an arbitrary and forcible manner. If we had approved, and adopted, such a mode of Conduct we [Page 8] might easily have dispossessed such who have given us disturbance where we are a majority; but if ever such are dispossessed, where we have the rule in any Meet­ing-house, it will be, we think by such authority as is Divinely instituted for the punishment of evil-doers and the praise of them that do well, mentioned by the great Apostle to the Gentiles in the 13th chap. of his Epistle to the Romans, where he asserts, not only that the institution of Magistracy is Divine, but also the power of the civil Magistrate under that institution, which we tenderly recommend to their consideration, and observe in the words of the same Apostle that when civil Rulers are in their proper places, they are not a "terror to good works, but to the evil:" Not a terror to those who meet together peaceably to wor­ship their Maker in the way that they are persuaded he requireth of them, but to those who unreasonably disturb them while they are performing this important duty. "Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power? Do that which is good and thou shall have praise of the same." Let us then not assume that Authority with which we have no right to intermeddle, never having been legally introduced: But as such kind of distur­bances come under the cognizance of civil Jurisdiction, we ought to submit them to their decision, if we cannot in a mild amicable manner settle them between ourselves, and not indulge that selfish dictatorial dispo­sition that seeks to be judge in its own cause.

It is not from an inclination to expose them as a re­ligious Society, that we expose their proceedings against us to public view, but from a necessity of vindicating ourselves against their charges and insinuations. We have waited long, and suffered much from them unjustly in our religious characters in the Society, while we [Page 9] wished those of it who were immediately concerned in disowning us to see and acknowledge their mistakes in their proceedings against us, that the Society may in general be undeceived, who have accustomed themselves, too much, to the following of the voices of such as they take for their leaders, without examining for themselves; which is quite repugnant to that Doctrine that inforceth the necessity of every one's knowing the Lord for him­self: Where this is experienced, they not only know him but know him to be their Teacher, which removes the occasion of that servile dependence, many have on their Ministers and some other active and assuming Members.

As they, by their aforesaid Letter, render all hope or encouragement of their being disposed to recede from their errors in this case, we think we shall be excusable, at least, in giving a just account of some of their pro­ceedings against us; but as some part thereof is unplea­sant to revive, the undertaking will be disagreable; yet as there appears a desire, in some well-disposed persons in the Society, to be informed how the matter was con­ducted, and they also being under the influence of mis­representation, we feel a willingness to oblige them.

It hath been observed, that the Meeting for Suffer­ings was the first that manifested, to us, any uneasiness with Timothy Davis's Piece on Taxation, who have found means to extend their influence through most of the proceedings of the Society against him, which proved to be a circumstance not favourable to his cause.

It was, after this, introduced into the Monthly Meeting of Sandwich, and as far as they acted upon it at that time, they proceeded, in general, agreeable to the Rules of the Society, and restored him to his former station in the Church, and for that time dis­missed [Page 10] the subject; where it might finally have termi­nated, had it not been for a few disaffected members, who, it is probable, with a view to recommend them­selves to some other members of influence, in other parts of the Country, under the same prejudices, by some means or other conveyed it back to the Meeting for Sufferings, where the uneasiness originated, under a pretension, that the aforesaid Monthly Meeting had been misled: But allowing, for the present, that it had been misled, which was far from being the case, this was not the way to set it right unless they thought to mend one error by committing another—According to the Rules established in the Society, it ought to have been carried from the Monthly Meeting to the Quarterly Meeting, by a complaint against the pro­ceedings of the Monthly Meeting in that case; where he would have had a hearing, if they had allowed him the liberty provided in such cases, and the Monthly Meeting would have had a right to have vindicated their proceedings in the case; but we shall see, before we conclude, how that Meeting was treated, and how tamely they submitted to it, as unreasonable as the demand upon them was.

If it be asked why they neglected to carry this case in the usual channel to the Quarterly and Yearly Meeting, and why they carried it to the Meeting for Sufferings.

We answer, It is hard to say, from the circumstances of their proceedings, whether they acted from a want of understanding their own Rules, or whether they were apprehensive, that if he was allowed to defend his own cause, it would render their success against him too precatious. However, be that as it may, the Meeting for Sufferings, when they received it, ought [Page 11] immediately to have dismissed it, with directions to the Monthly Meeting, that if any of her members remained dissatisfied, the way was open to the Quar­terly and Yearly Meeting, for redress.

How those disaffected members came to meet with such unjust countenance from the Meeting for Suffer­ings, is hard to reconcile with that justice and christian decorum that it ought to be possessed of; for, it seems, they thought themselves sufficiently qualified by hear­ing them ex parte, to carry the matter forward to the Yearly Meeting: And they as insensible of their duty and his right, proceeded to act upon it ex parte also.

If it be said they acted no further upon it than to give their advice.

We answer, Admitting they proceeded no further, yet, when we see how important they consider their advice, and would have others, we shall find that it falls little short of a final judgment, especially in this case; and that the subordinate Meetings are little more than their executioners in such cases. See the Advice and Direction of a Committee of the Yearly Meeting, appointed in this case, which is as followeth, viz.

Here we think none can hesitate how important they consider their advice, and would have their mem­bers▪ Their non-compliance with it or labouring to obstruct its force subjects them to a being dealt with, the consequence of which is, if they will not comply, they must be disowned: Witness the case of Ebenezer Gaskil, whose disownment originated in his neglecting a compliance with the advice of the Elders where he lives, concerning his publick appearance in the mini­stry, where no doctrinal errors were ever alledged against him, as we have ever heard of—As the advice of the yearly Meeting is held in this point of view, and Timothy Davis's case not only treated accordingly, but he not having opportunity to vindicate his cause after their taking it up the second time, he was virtually judged and condemned unheard.

But it is objected on the contrary, that the yearly Meeting treated the matter with so much tenderness, that they sent a Committee to treat with him on the subject in dispute.

We answer, that a moderate examination will suffi­ciently manifest this to be a mistake. If there was a Committee appointed by the yearly Meeting for that [Page 13] purpose, they failed in it, for there never was any com­mittee from them, in that case, that visited him by a particular appointment, and if there had been one ap­pointed particularly in that case, yet if they were only authorized to advise and admonish him, and not to hear and determine the matter in dispute, he was never­theless condemned without a hearing. There was a committee appointed by the yearly Meeting to visit the monthly or quarterly Meeting of Sandwich, who made it in their way to visit Timothy, who told them that he could freely receive them in their private capacities, but not as a committee, legally appointed in that service, for that matter was never legally before that Meeting, and consequently they could not be a legal committee, therefore he could not confer with them as such, which to do, would be to countenance such irregularity as ought to be discountenanced by every judicious con­scientious person.

As partial and irregular as their proceedings were, the Monthly Meeting, who had before restored him to his former station, were reduced to a compliance with the direction of the yearly Meeting, and reassumed the sub­ject, and accordingly soon disowned him; who, if they had refused, were liable to have been disowned, or to have had their Meeting taken from them, or dissolved. This Meeting also appointed a Committee of admonition to treat with him, but he did not acknowledge their authority, for the reasons before-mentioned, in the in­stance of the yearly Meeting Committee, he being tender of the religious rights and liberties of his christian Brethren. Nor was there the remotest prospect of his having a free and impartial hearing at this Meeting, circumstanced as it was, under awe of the yearly Meet­ing. Indeed the whole conduct of that Meeting in this [Page 14] case, very clearly manifested that they intended to carry their point; this we were fully convinced of when they first took the matter out of its proper channel, after it had been settled by the Monthly Meeting, and therefore thought it would answer no good purpose to follow them in their various, and uncertain windings and turnings from one thing to another, to answer their partial views.

As the Monthly Meeting had at first fully gone into the subject, and had all the advantage of hearing of it fairly stated and explained, it was no less than calling upon that Meeting to give judgment twice in one case or to execute the judgment of the Yearly Meeting con­trary to their own. Which conduct, to use an expres­sion of theirs, is not very savory, nor can we think, that in their present state, they are very good judges of what is truly so, in a religious sense.

The right of defending one's self before any judges whatever, either civil or religious, is held very sacred by all judicious, conscientious people, and ought never to be given up, or infringed by any Society whatever. The Apostle Paul seems to have had a very clear sense of that liberty when making his defence before King Agrippa, and expresseth himself on that occasion, as followeth, ‘I think myself happy, King Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews.’ We cannot but doubt that the Yearly Meeting, when they had this matter under consideration were insensible of such tender sentiments and feelings, or they would have called upon him to have answered for himself, touching all the things whereof he was accused, not by the Jews, or Pharisees, but by a Spirit which, we fear, too generally presided among them— [Page 15] Perhaps they were apprehensive, that if he was allowed that liberty, it might be a means of strengthening, if not increasing his friends, and they could not then be cer­tain but that they might be too powerful for such who wished to prevail against him.

If there remains any true sense of feeling with those who were so active and busily employed against him, it must, we think, lay very heavy upon them.

However lost to this tender religious right any of that Society may be at present, it appears that they, formerly, had a very clear sense of, and regard for if, by their making such large provision for it by appeals from lesser to superior Meetings: First from Monthly to Quarterly, and finally to the Yearly Meeting.

If it be said, this practice is still continued.

We answer, the name of it is; but not the use and design of such appeals, they being superceded, at least in the present case, by a partial application being made to the Yearly Meeting for advice. The carrying of it by way of the Meeting for Sufferings to the Yearly Meeting for advice, naturally forecloseth, and rendereth futile all attempts to appeal to that Meeting.

Whereas, if this christian provision and care was attended to as it ought, it would very clearly manifest the impropriety, and absurdity, of calling upon the same Meeting to give a counter judgment in the same case, or to reverse their former judgment. To make up a judgment in a case, no further than to give advice, only by a partial hearing, where a case is liable to come by appeal, betrays very great weakness, as well as insin­cerity; and what one would hope no man of candour would be active in.

[Page 16]It is nevertheless urged by some, that he might have appealed from the judgment of the Monthly Meeting, who disowned him, and have had a hearing.

We answer, that we are very sensible of that, and as clearly sensible, that they took care to fortify themselves against any appeal that he could make, unless to him who judgeth righteously, who never [...] in counsel nor varied in judgment. Timothy not having had opportunity to vindicate his cause, gave his opposers all the opportunity they could wish, to spread their influ­ence through the Society, that there was no kind of reason to hope for success by appealing to a Quatterly, or Yearly Meeting, from the judgment of a Monthly Meeting, by whose direction, and under whose influence they acted in disowning him. The idea of appealing from one, to another, by whose judgment, and under whose influence the first acted, must be considered as one of the greatest absurdities, and an appeal in that case a mere empty name.

It is objected, that where Monthly Meetings are weak, there have been frequent instances of application being made to superior Meetings for advice, which when they have had, they have conformed to, without making any uneasiness in the Society.

Answer: It is not improbable this may have been the case; the question is not how easily they may have imposed on their Members in time part, but whether such imposition is capable of defence upon christian principles. Unless the Church hath always been infal­lible in judgment, which they do not pretend, positively, to assert, it will not be safe to follow her advice impli­citly—no doubt it can be made very clear, that she, and the members under her jurisdiction, have made many such mistakes—The thing to be considered is whether [Page 17] in those cases the interest, spiritual or temporal, or the reputation of any one or more of her members was concerned, and whether they were liable to be brought by appeals to such meeting as had given their advice already? If not, the case is clear they had a right to apply there for advice. But if they were liable to be brought to such meeting, where such advice originated, and either interest, or reputation was liable to be affected, they are in danger of suffering in consequence of such meeting being prejudiced in favour of their former advice, when they give judgment. It is generally very hard for such meetings to recede from their former advice, lest it should incur the odium of instability; especially as they have said so much of an infallible judgment in the Church; but their frequent mistakes very clearly manifest that they do not always make use of it, which we think is a pity, it they are really possessed of it—It appears, we think, very clear, that such meetings ought to have so tender a regard to the rights of their members, as not, so far to prejudge any case, at least, that is liable to come before them by ap­peal, as to give their partial advice in it, but wait to have it regularly brought before them and keep them­selves as clear of prepossession as possible.

That the weakness of a meeting may indeed operate against the right of the aggrieved, we have a sorrowful instance in the present Case, for want of discretion or a will in Timothy Davis's Judges to do him justice; but where this is the case it is not likely to mend the matter by applying to a superior Meeting for advice, where it is liable to come by appeal.

As it appears that every disputable case in a Monthly Meeting, is liable to have its final issue at the Yearly Meeting, we cannot see what just advantage can [Page 18] be proposed, by first applying there for advice, unless by the consent of both sides of the question: An ad­vantage no doubt may be gained, but not a just one. If the Case is so circumstanced, that the advice of a Yearly Meeting is rendered really necessary by the weakness of a Monthly Meeting or otherwise, we can think of no more just and equitable way of proceeding, than to let it have its regular course there by appeal, where, if they have not already given their advice or judgment in the case, there will be some prospect of having justice done; each party having a right to be heard; and where that right, in time past, hath gene­rally been allowed.

Some have urged, that he had full liberty to vindi­cate his cause at the Monthly Meeting, when they first took the matter under consideration.

To this we answer, it is very true that he had that liberty, and the consequence of it was, he was restored to his former station in the Church by a Committee of seven Friends, all of their own chusing, and it is not improbable, that he would have been favoured with the like success, if he had had an opportunity to have defended his case through the whole process.

It may not be improper here to observe, that he had no other voice in the choice of the Committee who restored him to his former station, that a negative one, which he made use of so far as to object to such as he thought disqualified for that service; which is by no means equal to a mutual choice; for tho' such a Com­mittee may consist of such, as one may have no par­ticular objection to, yet there may not be any one of them such a one would have any reason to make choice of. However, as scanty as this liberty is, it is objected to, as being much too large: Larger they say than [Page 19] what is consistent with their Discipline; and that his being even present when the aforesaid Committee was appointed, was an intrusion; but we must confess it that is the case, both we and Timothy remain still insensible of it.—It hath generally been the practice within the compass of this Yearly-Meeting, to allow a negative voice to the person under dealing; how arbitrary they may be in other Yearly or General Meetings we can­not pretend to say, but if it be true, that they do not admit even a negative voice in similar cases, they ought to be considered as being indeed very arbitrary, much more so than can be supported by civil or Christian principles.

Among such objections we find one in a Letter from a Member of another Yearly Meeting to Timothy Davis, but from a tender regard to the character of the Author and his brethren, we shall conceal his name, but as his letter is a little extraordinary, we shall take the liberty to transcribe a passage from it, which is as followeth, viz. ‘As far as I have understood, thou will hardly allow thy self to be properly disowned, because thy Case was left to a Committee, chosen by the Monthly Meeting, and that Committee brought it in little or no offence (as I have understood) but why so, because thou was willing from thy teeth out to condemn the publishing that Piece, which had a ten­dency to undermine and lay waste the judgment of the sensible part of the Body, but not to condemn the contents of it. Why surely this was a very weak Committee (perhaps thy choice was also in it) which appears to have had too little regard to the sincerity of a member, in condemning his misconduct. It may be thou wast present when the Committee was chosen in that monthly meeting, so I was informed, and did [Page 20] object to such as would not suit thy turn, if so, well might thy Friends judge thy bewildered state, and that thy acknowledgment, in that part, was no more than from the teeth out; in this case, according to the good Rules amongst us, thou wast a disorderly person to intrude thy self in the Monthly Meeting of business, after thy matter was brought there. Truly it was high time for Friends, of the neighbouring meetings, to assist that weak meeting over which by thy great influence, thou had almost over powered. And how can thou blame Friends for endeavouring to maintain the good Rules established among them, let all reasonable men judge in this matter.’

If by good rules he means those by which they con­ducted this matter, his making his appeal to reasonable men, we think, will rather operate against him, if the matter was to be judged by such: Men of a different character would be much likelier to favour his cause. We think it will hardly be for the reputation of the Society, or those rules be refers to, to have them brought under the examination of Reason. His charge of in­sincerity is very injurious as well as unjust. If his meaning can be collected from what he saith, we think it must be this, viz. Timothy's acknowledgment must be insincere, or to use his own words, from the teeth out, because he only condemned the publication or rather the manner of it, and not the matter contained in the Piece. It is not hard to see that this conclusion is very unnatural and injudicious, for the matter of a performance may be very good, when the manner by which it is effected may be very much amiss: It needs no great penetration to see this—The truth of the mat­ter is strictly this: They have a Rule that requires their members, when any of them propose to publish any [Page 21] thing, by means of the Press, that they lay it before the Meeting for Sufferings, which Timothy not only neglected to do, but proceeded to publish a piece when he had received their advice to the contrary, they having by some means got intelligence of the Piece he had wrote. This is thought to be a very great Trangression; but there are some circumstances attending this matter, that are a very great alleviation, viz. when he first received the advice from them respecting the not pub­lishing his piece, he expected that the leading part of the Society were that quiet, peaceable People which they have ever professed themselves to be, and that as a body they would not, at least, interest themselves in the dispute between Great-Britain and the Colonies, but when he, afterward, met with several of their publications, especially from Philadelphia, he was obliged, to his great grief, to change his sentiments concerning them in that respect; from those publica­tions it appeared very clear that they interested them­selves very deeply in the said public dispute, which was also farther manifested by many of them refusing to pay Taxes to the American Government; all which he considered as inconsistent with their former princi­ples and practice, and might involve them in much unnecessary Sufferings; to prevent which he was in­duced to publish the aforesaid Piece on Taxation, not expecting, under these circumstances. to meet with any encouragement from the Meeting for Sufferings: But however, when he came fully to consider the circum­stances of publishing his Piece without first laying it before the Meeting for Sufferings, for their approba­tion, he could do no less than consider it as a mistep; for let the Society be as much out of the way as they might, he considered that it did not licence him to [Page 22] commit one error to mend another, and therefore told them that he was sorry he had not paid more attention to the beforementioned Rule, and laid his Piece before them, before he published it, or words to that purpose, which they were so far satisfied with, that they gave him no more trouble about transgressing the aforesaid Rule, but then took in hand the matter contained in the Piece, and because he would not condemn that, they disowned him; altho' it does not appear that it contains any matter inconsistent with the ancient, and approved practice of the Society, from their first appear­ance as such until very lately.

There appeared at that time, very different Senti­ments, both with respect to paying Taxes, and the present Revolution; but many that were in favour of the Revolution, when they began to feel the weight of increasing Taxes, began to exclaim against it, and continue to find much fault with the present Government. There remains, however, a very consi­derable, as well as respectable number who continue to justify their ancient and approved practice of paying general mixed Taxes under every change of Govern­ment, who are apprehensive that they, on the other hand, by disclaiming the practice of paying such Taxes, are, to use the expressions of the beforementioned Letter writer, labouring to undermine and lay waste Friends Testimony in that case, which must involve them in much Suffering, that, to considerate people, appears very unnecessary, to the grief and sorrow of many of their most sensible experienced members, who were desirous of continuing and supporting a practice that so nearly concerned the Peace of Society, both civil and religious.

[Page 23]When this matter was first taken under consideration by the Monthly Meeting, it appeared that the refusing to pay Taxes was making its way into Society with too much success, by such who embraced that sentiment of refusing to pay taxes, &c. who soon became very active and assuming, and according to what hath been observed, laboured to bear down every thing that ap­peared in favour of Timothy Davis's cause; and took the freedom to complain of intrusion, tho' without cause, yet, with as much assurance as if their novel opinions had been received as articles of faith from their first appearance as a religious Society.

We do not blame them for the sentiment of refusing to pay Taxes, merely because it is new, but because we think it an error; but suppose it were true, it is very imprudent to press it so hard, seeing it is new, as to disown any one for publicly opposing of it. It would be much more Christian like to exercise a little patience until it is more generally received and established. A Sentiment's being either new or old, ought never to be a reason for either receiving or rejecting it; but its being old, and generally received, demands a very close examination and clear conviction before we part with it. A thing's being true or false, ought to be the only reasons for which we either receive or reject it, but we doubt it is an unhappiness with many, that they believe, or reject, according to the sentiments of those with whom they wish to continue in favour, whether it be the Church or particular persons.

Timothy was so far from indulging an inclination to intrude himself where he had no right, or where his right might even be suspected, although without any reason, that he addressed himself to the meeting, who where about to appoint a Committee to hear his case, [Page 24] in the following manner. ‘Friends, if my being pre­sent, at the appointment of this Committee, is disa­greeable I will withdraw, as I have no inclination to give uneasiness to any.’ And received for answer, that they had no objection to his being present, or words to that purpose, and he was sensible, they could have no reasonable objection: That this Letter writer's charge against him, as being an intruder, and a disor­derly person for being present at the Meeting after his case was brought there where the aforesaid Committee was appointed, is very indecent and even abusive.

But to proceed. After he was disowned, it became a question of importance with many judicious well-disposed members, that, as he appeared to be illegally disowned, whether in that case it ought to affect his right in Society? Many of whom were determined in the negative; partly in consideration of that just maxim which the Society formerly, when under suffering, were very willing to take the advantage of, viz. That which is not legally done is not done; and partly from a consideration that their proceedings against him were without any just cause, after he had acknowledged his fault in publishing his Piece without the consent of the Meeting for Sufferings. They were also soon brought under Dealing for joining him in Prayer, as it is pre­tended to be a breach of their Rules to join with one in that duty not a member of their Church: Many of them notwithstanding continued to join him for sometime, who were at length terrified into a compliance with their or­ders, out of fear of being disowned, and some after they had been disowned on that account and continued to join him for some time, went back and made them satisfaction—There were a large number disowned for joining him, as above, in the duties of external worship, [Page 25] of which there still remain with him a very hopeful number, among whom is Benjamin Bumpus, a man of a fair character as a Minister of the Gospel.

The greatest reason, they confess, that inclined them to join Timothy Davis and Benjamin Bumpus in their public devotion, was, that they thought themselves fully convinced that they were divinely favoured in it, and therefore thought it not only safe, but an indispensible duty to join with them or any others favoured in like manner. It is a duty, that we should think every one must acknowledge, to join with those that we are convinced our great Lord and Master joins with by his sacred influence; nor durst many of them refuse, notwith­standing the terror of being disowned was often held up to them for their discouragement; thinking that such rules as required such a compliance, as lays its members under a necessity of acting contrary to the will of Him who only hath a right to all our obedience, ought not to be considered as binding. Many, never­theless, were, at first, frightned into a compliance, from insinuations, closely urged by some, that could much easier terrify weak minds than convince the wise, that whatsoever the Church bound on Earth was bound in Heaven: Not considering that That which is acted even by the Church, if it is not consistent with the will of Heaven, will never be ratified there, and that there is some room to think that her conduct, in the present case, is not very consistent with the Divine Will, we think is very clear.

It hath been objected by some, that to join in prayer with such who are disowned, is an encouragement to them to continue in a state of separation, which they wish to discourage by an example of disapprobation.

[Page 26]Answer: To us this appears extreamly weak, how­ever plausibly expressed.—Do they think their example of such importance, that it will over-balance that Divine approbation and encouragement we receive from the kind and tender influence of our great Lord and Master: Can they not see the absurdity?—They will not say, surely, that His aiding and assisting in Prayer; or Preaching, is no encouragement to those duties. But some of them say, He may possibly assist them for a while, in order to bring them off from it, that they may come and be reconciled to Friends.

Answer: It appears to us a little odd that a person should be encouraged in a thing to bring him off from it. If they had said that He sometimes witholdeth his sensible influence to let us see, and feel, our dependence on him, it would have been talking like experienced Christians.

Some indeed do not care to say that they think those who are disowned, ever are assisted in Prayer, until they are reconciled to Friends.

Answer: We suppose some are doubtful in this respect, which to us discovers a very great want of true religious experience, which would furnish with such Christian charity as disposeth us to think humbly of ourselves, and to be charitable in our thoughts of others. Do they think that a being a member of their Church is so absolutely necessary a qualification in order to ap­pear in a Duty of that obligation, that a person can, by no means pray acceptably without it, and that the Almighty doth so strictly adhere to their orders in that case, as not to influence any unless that qualifica­tion be added?— Do they think He hath as much partiality for them, as they have for themselves? This [...] idea that this sentiment, in this case, very naturally [Page 27] suggests, tho' we are far from insinuating that it is a general received opinion among them. Such as favour the opinion of not joining in prayer with such who are disowned, we suppose ground it chiefly on the two fol­lowing passages of Scripture: The first is thus expressed as above, viz. Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, &c. If what they, either bind or loose on Earth, is not done in the Counsel of God, it never will meet his approbation.—

The second contains these words, viz. "If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there rememberest that thy Brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the Altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy gift." This we think is not very pertinently urged in this case when compared with their idea of the Gospel Ministry, for they very justly observe, that no man ought to take this gift, or honour, to himself, except he is called of God as was Aaron; or in other words of the Apostle, viz. "A necessity is laid upon me, and woe is me if I preach not the Gospel!" What will they do with this necessity? Is it in their power to dismiss it when they please?

We think that, tho' a brother may alledge any thing against a Minister, if it is not a just charge, it cannot justly be supposed that he will be less sensible of his necessity to improve his gift, which cannot justly be supposed to be so pliant as to conform to an unjust charge of a brother, or the partial decision of a Church; and therefore this Text will not very well apply in this case, unless they adopt the sentiment of preaching by notes, and consider them as the gift alluded to by our Saviour: This, we confess, may be left at the Altar, or any where else, at the discretion of the Preacher▪ [Page 28] If one person chargeth another with any thing that is not true, it cannot properly be said he hath any thing against him, or if it be true, if it be not a fault it is the same case.—That their charge against Timothy Davis cannot justly be called a fault, we think appears very clear, and will, we trust, be further manifested.

It may further be considered, that it is no less a breach of their rules to refuse to join with one who is a member, than it is to join with one who is not; therefore as it appears that we, according to their dis­cipline, are not legally disowned, such disownment ought not to affect our liberty, or right in the Church, they therefore by refusing to join him in prayer, have counteracted their own rules, and according to them they ought to be dealt with, and if they refuse to make suitable satisfaction, they ought to be disowned, if the matter could operate consistently.

It is the general sentiment of such who are disin­terested in the dispute, and who are acquainted with the circumstances of their conduct and sentiments with respect to the present revolution, that they were too much sharpened by political disaffection, which giveth the greatest uneasiness and dissatisfaction of any par­ticular circumstance attending the present controversy to us whom they have disowned, and will remain a powerful obstacle in the way of a reconciliation, until they, properly and effectually, remove it, by acknow­ledging their error in disowning of us by virtue of such influence. If it be asked how this appears? We answer, from what many of the most active and severe against us have, with much freedom, expressed in con­versation on the subject of the controversy between Great Britain and America, as well as from several of their publications, especially that which they call their Antient Testimony, &c. before alluded to.

[Page 29]There is something in their proceedings in this case, under such influence, that so very plainly and clearly discovers an aspect of insincerity and disingenuity, when coloured over with religious pretensions, that it renders a reconciliation, at least, very difficult, if not imprac­ticable upon christian principles, unless they retract their proceedings against us.—We, however, sincerely wish them well in every sense of the word; but cannot be free to unite with them in their present situa­tion. We do not mention this from any personal dis­respect to any of them; but could not well suppress what we earnestly wish them to consider; and are led to think, that if they truly ponder the matter in that Wisdom which is from above, "which is first pure, then peaceable; then gentle and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, and without partiality or hypocrisy," they will clearly see that the present un­happy division originated in their political disaffection, as what Timothy Davis wrote by no means called for such usage from them, nor was it by any means incon­sistent with the long approved practice of the Society; we therefore think that it naturally, and justly, lieth with them, who have misused us, to make way for a reconciliation, if ever such a thing is rightly effected.

Some of them say, that they see no less an attachment, in the Piece he wrote on Taxation, to the Americans.

Answer: Supposing that to be the case, which we cannot fully grant, they were not the proper persons to deal with him until they had first taken the Beam out of their own eyes. It appears, we confess, from that Piece, that he was so far a friend to the American Government, as to urge the lawfulness of paying Taxes to it as Friends have done to the paying them under every other change of Government, and why not to the present?

[Page 30]It is objected, That if he, as well as they, was at some times actuated by political influence, why doth he fault them? Where is the difference between them in that case?

Answer: We have not yet granted that he was in that, or any other publick performance, actuated by political influence: But suppose he was, and had been equally faulty; the best thing we can think of, would have been for them equally to have extended their charity and forbearance towards each other. In this respect there was a very wide difference between them, for it doth not appear by any means, that he had even the remotest thought of withdrawing his charity from them, merely on account of their political sentiments, nor did he wish them to be brought under church dealing in consequence of them: But they would by no means indulge his.

If it be said that they would not have taken any notice of his if he had not published them, which were exceedingly disagreeable to Friends.

Answer: So did they, which were no less disagreea­ble to him and his Friends. He published his senti­ments no farther than to shew the reasonableness and expediency of paying Taxes to the present Govern­ment consistent with their universal practice in time past, with a view to prevail with them to keep up a uniformity of conduct in that respect. But if he had manifested himself to be as partially in favour of Ame­rica as they were in favour of Great Britain, it would have been but just to have let one case have been a balance for the other, with respect to any church demands. But this, it seems, would not very well consist with that spirit of Domination that they ap­pear to be so very anxious for in the church. Can it [Page 31] be thought that they wished to suppress his Publication, that their's might be the more successful? If this was really the case it was indeed very ungenerous, which there is but too much reason to suspect, by the line of conduct they have pursued against him; in which there is some things so dark and obscure, that it is hard, if not impossible, to reconcile them with that candour and generosity of sentiment that ought ever to characterise every professor of Christianity.

It remains a dispute with some, whether Timothy was disowned for the matter contained in the Piece in dispute, or for some circumstances attending the Publi­cation; it hath generally been thought that he was disowned for both, until we received the Testimony they gave forth against him, which puts the matter out of dispute, by which it appears he was disowned for the matter contained in the piece only, which is as followeth, viz.

[Page 32]That his Piece contained matter altogether dissatis­factory to such who were unwilling to pay Taxes to the American Government, is not hard to believe; but that it contained matter inconsistent with their ancient Testimony concerning paying general mixed Taxes, is not quite so clear. What their Testimony had got to be, at the time he wrote, was a subject of his inquiry for no other reason, than to labour to convince such of their error who refused to pay such Taxes; and more especially as there was too much reason to fear that such refusal, with many, originated in political disaffection.

Our Letter writer tells us of scruples of that kind some had about twenty five years ago. We are some­thing acquainted with the history of that matter; from which it appears that they were far from meeting the general approbation of the Society, especially in Great Britain, which appears by a Letter from a Meeting for Sufferings in London to John Hunt and Christopher Wilson, not far distant from the time he mentions. They in that Letter very clearly shew their disappro­bation of their singularity in being scrupulous about paying such Taxes. This Letter was afterwards pub­lished in a Piece intituled, a serious Address, &c. to the People called Quakers—1778, by a Native of Pennsylvania, from which we have extracted what fol­loweth, viz.

We wish not, however, to bear hard upon any who are tenderly scrupulous about paying such Taxes under any Government whatever, whose scruples do not origi­nate in political disaffection, but cannot be of their senti­ment in this respect, but are apprehensive that their scruples arise from a want of a well informed judgment. The chief that we fault them in is, that they press this new sentiment too hard upon such of their brethren as are differently minded from themselves in that case, and generally treat them with shyness and disrespect; but have not been able to establish a Rule in the Society that forbids paying such Taxes.

What their ancient, and long approved, Testimony was with respect to the paying Taxes may be seen in the before mentioned Address, and also in their ancient and most approved Authors, many of whom are quoted in the said Address, particularly George Fox, whose authority with them, in general, hath been as great, at least, as any one of their Authors. See his Book of [Page 34] Epistles, p. 137, ‘ All Friends every where, who are dead to all carnal weapons, and have beaten them to pieces, stand in that which takes away the occasion of Wars, which saves mens lives and destroys none, nor would have others;—and as for the Rulers that are to keep Peace for Peace sake and for the advantage of Truth, give them their Tribute, but to bear and carry weapons to fight with the men of Peace (who live in that which takes away the occasion of Wars) they can­not act in such things under the several Powers, but have paid their Tribute, which they may do still for Peace sake, and not hold back the earth, but go over it, and in so doing Friends may better claim their Liberty.’

He here gives two very powerful reasons for the paying of Tribute. The first is, that it be done for the preservation of Peace for Peace sake: The second is, that in so doing Friends may better claim their Li­berty. We cannot see with what confidence any can expect their Liberty preserved, who will not pay their Taxes to enable the Magistrate to defend it from the hands of violence. These are reasons, one would think, that none would be weak enough to oppose▪ Reasons no doubt, that Christ and his Apostles had in view when they encouraged, and enjoined, the paying of Tribute or Taxes, and also because it was Cesar's due, but for no other reason than for his service done, or to be done, to his Subjects; the same reasons for which Tribute or Taxes becomes due to the Govern­ment we live under, or any other civil Government.

If Friends will grant that it is the duty of the Magi­strate to preserve Peace for Peace sake, they must also necessarily grant that it is his duty to suppress violence, otherwise Peace will not be likely to take place.— [Page 35] How far the Magistrate may act in the suppression of violence for Peace sake, perhaps is the matter in dispute. George Fox, and many other Friends who have wrote since, have thought, that they might go so far in the suppressing of violence, as to pay their Taxes for the Peace sake, and leave it with the Magistrate to pre­serve it in any lawful way that he should think pro­per and most for the benefit of the subject—The Magistrates have thought, that to answer so good and salutary a purpose as the preserving Peace for Peace sake, they ought to do all that is reasonably in their power to suppress all kind of violence and intrusion on the Persons, Properties and Liberties of the subjects, whether committed by any of them, or by foreigners that should intrude themselve

There is, perhaps, not any of their Writers more clear in this point than Isaac Pennington; nor was there scarcely ever an Author better approved among them in general, who, in answer to what he calls a weighty Question, as indeed it was, concerning the Magistrates protection of the innocent; in the col­lection of his Writings expresseth himself thus, Vol. 1. p. 444. ‘Whether the Magistrate in righteousness and equity is engaged to defend such who (by the peaceableness and love which God hath wrought in their spirits and by that Law of Life, mercy, good will and forgiveness which God, by his own finger hath written in their hearts) and taken off from fight­ing, and cannot use a weapon destructive to any creature?’ Here followeth his answer:

‘Magistracy was intended by God for the defence of the people; not only of those who have ability and can fight for them, but of such also who cannot, or are forbid by the love and law of God written in [Page 36] their hearts so to do. Thus Women, children, sick persons, aged persons, and also Priests in Nations (who have ability to fight, but are exempt by their function, which is not equal to the exemption which God makes by the Law of his Spirit in the heart) have the benefit of the Law, and of the Magistrates protection, without fighting for the defence of either.’

Here followeth a few very pertinent observations by the Author of the before-mentioned Address, viz. Now, if Magistrates be appointed by God, and it be the Magistrates duty to defend such, who, either are not able or cannot for conscience sake defend themselves, is it possible any can be right who lay waste this ordi­nance, or speak of such defence as sinful? If any man be appointed by God to defend my life, is it possible that God can authorise me to call him a sinner, for doing his duty? Or is it possible that I can, consistent with my duty, refuse him that Tribute which is absolutely necessary to enable him thus to defend me? But had I much greater abilities to speak to this subject than I am conscious of no reasoning of mine could be of equal autho­rity with the Author above quoted; hear him therefore again, p 448, where treating on this peaceable principle professed by the Society, he says,

‘I speak not this against any Magistrate or People defending themselves against foreign invasions, [...] making use of the Sword to suppress the [...] and evil doers within their own borders; for the present state of things may and doth require, and a a great blessing will attend the Sword when it is uprightly borne to that end, and its use will be honourable; and whilst there is need of a Sword, the Lord will not suffer the Government, or those Governors, to want fighting instruments under them, [Page 37] for the management thereof, who wait on him in this fear, to have the edge of it rightly directed; but yet there is a better state, which the Lord hath already brought some into, and which Nations are to expect and to travel towards.’

That this Quotation contained the general sentiment of the Society at the time of its publication cannot with reason be disputed, for if it had not, it is not likely they would have published it with a collection of his Works after his death. A further evidence of its general approbations, is the large number of Testimonies of some of the most approved Friends in the Society printed at the beginning of the collection in favour, not only of the Author, but of the Piece. And it ap­pears with no less certainty that it hath continued to be the received sentiment of the Society of Friends in America, by their causing of it to be reprinted a few years ago by subscription, from almost every part of the Country where there are any Friends. And there­fore it doth not appear to be either his or our particular sentiment, but that of the Society in general, both in Europe and America.—How those who encouraged that Publication by their subscriptions, could encourage the disowning Timothy Davis is very unaccountable, as there is nothing in his Piece that can, with any colour of Justice, be construed to be any ways equally in favour of War with that Quotation, and Timothy, as well as we, think ourselves to be as much called from the destructive use of the Sword as they: But we have quoted that passage from Isaac Pennington, that they may, if possible, be convinced of their parti­ality—What we mean to encourage is mutual charity and forbearance to all Societies.

[Page 38]Now, for such who are called from the use of the sword it would no doubt be a very great sin for them to make a destructive use of it; who are, no doubt, designed to be lights in the World, and to hold out the Olive branch to the Nations until it shall please infinite Wisdom to call the rest of mankind in like manner from the use of the sword, when every one shall sit quietly "under their own vine, and under their own fig-tree, and none shall make them afraid. Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim;" for these will have fully entered into Peace and Righteousness, the Glory and Perfection of the Gospel Dispensation: But till then it hath pleased God to provide for the peace and safety of mankind by insti­tuting Magistracy for the punishment of evil-doers, while violence and oppression remain in the earth, and the keeping peace for peace sake is so absolutely necessary.

However shocking some circumstances which may attend the suppression of violence and injustice may ap­pear to tender minds, yet they ought to consider, that they are wisely ordered by the disposer of all events to prevent much more alarming and dreadful consequences that await a state of Anarchy: We therefore can hard­ly think that any are so imprudent as to wish the World to be without Law or Government, if it is not at all times, and at all places, quite as they would have it, however zealously they may contend against the use of the sword in the suppressing of violence.

If they are in favour of continuing Magistracy for the suppressing of violence, would they not be willing to give so much assistance toward it, as to pay their Taxes, without which Magistracy cannot be supposed to be upheld, whose business it is to hold up the sword only a terror to evil-doers; when it becomes a [Page 39] terror to others, it is time to take it out of their hands, and place it where it may answer the design of its insti­tution, viz. that the Magistrate may not only be a terror to evil-doers but a praise to them that do well.

But some can hardly reconcile it with infinite Wis­dom and Justice, to prohibit that in one, which he ap­proves in another. This objection will easily be removed if we properly advert to the reasons there are for di­versity and variety in the Divine Oeconomy. It appears perhaps no where more convincing than in the diversity of Gifts mentioned by the Apostle Paul, and his recom­mendation to every one to attend to their own proper gifts, otherwise they might prejudice the cause they were engaged in, and the same reasons hold good still, and even in temporal matters: And altho' some may not be qualified or gifted to bear rule in the Church, yet they may be well qualified for Magistrates to rule the World, if they are moral men: And it is evident from the same Apostle that we ought to be subject, and that for conscience sake, not only to those Magi­strates of our own Society, but to those who do not even profess themselves to be Christians; and these too he calls the Ministers of God to the subject for good; for they were then under the Roman govern­ment, who did not profess Christianity: Not that we would encourage the introducing such into authority, where it can be avoided, who do not at least profess the Christian name.

But with respect to diversity: Our Saviour saith, in my Father's House are many Mansions—But why? Because doubtless there are many kinds of services, whether we consider those Mansions to respect his Church militant on earth, or triumphant in Heaven, and it is therefore necessary that there should be many [Page 40] Rooms or Mansions, that these various services or employments may be properly attended to, that they might not interfere to the prejudice of each other. Would it not be ridiculous to ask why he refused one the use of one of these Rooms, while he granted it to another, and even compelled him to labour in it, and required the other to return to his own Mansion, where his proper business was.—As there are diversities of gifts, so there are diversities of employments, and therefore every one ought to attend to his own proper business to prevent distraction; and also for this one incontestible reason, that God is a God of order and not of confusion.

The consistency of this we should think could hardly be mistaken. The like reasoning, we think▪ may very well be admitted with respect to the power of the civil Magistrate, especially if he be considered as a Minister of God whom we ought to obey in every thing lawful for conscience sake. The reasonableness of this diver­sity and the different departments will further, very clearly, appear, if we wisely consider the different degrees of growth there are in religion: We are told not only of Fathers and Mothers in Israel, but of young Men and new born Babes; and as that of not defending ones self is considered by Robert Barclay, and no doubt by others, as one of the highest Christian attainments, it can hardly be expected from a new born Babe and therefore if they will have none in their Church but such who have arrived to that degree of christian experience as not to defend themselves, they must not admit any new born Babes who desire the sincere milk of the word that they may grow up thereby, but all must be born into the Church in the full grown statute of Men and Women: Whereas it is absolutely necessary [Page 41] that the Members of Christ's Church should be rege­nerated and born again as infants; that it appears to us, there should be somewhere in the Church or house of God, in which light the Church is sometimes considered, such an apartment as a nursery: And would it then consist very well with the tender character of a nursing Mother, or Church, to turn her infant into the world to shift for itself, because it was not born into the Church a perfect Man or Woman, i. e. that could not see it to be unlawful to defend itself? We hope that such thoughts as these may awaken such christian tender feelings in some, as they, either have not indulged, or have not known.

Wars were not even lawful under the Mosaical con­stitution, but when they acted in them according to the counsel of God, and if the same counsel hath now made the sword necessary to assist Magistracy which He hath instituted, it cannot be unlawful for such Magistrates to make use of it who are to serve him in that depart­ment until he shall call them to some other.

This the aforesaid Apostle seems to have been very sensible of, notwithstanding he was under the Gospel dispensation and influence, when he said "For this cause pay you Tribute: For they are God's Ministers attend­ing continually on this very thing."—To use the words of the aforesaid Letter-writer, "Truly such must have a very high opinion of their own judgment," that would set them over the judgment and example of Christ and his Apostles, as well as their Brethren in general, from their first appearance as a Religious Society until the late revolution. This we think hath a tendency to undermine and lay waste the ancient Testimony of Friends in that case, founded on the example and ex­perience as above, and is very afflicting to the sensible, considerate part of the Society: To prevent which was the desire, we make no doubt, of the Author of the Piece in dispute.

[Page 42]We cannot, however, think so strange of many of their novel opinions, which appear to be increasing among them, when we consider the weakness of the human mind, as well as the animal machine each one of the human race bears about with him, which is so often controuled by the almost invincible force and power of an over heated and gloomy Imagination, which is often the cause of the weakness of our minds and the errors in our judgment, and frequently at­tended with doubting, sinking, discouraging thoughts; And as it is generally attended with ebbings and flow­ings, it will sometimes rise into very high transports and elevations; but let them incline to which extream they may, they are generally fixed and determined in their conceits until a different habit of body alters their minds; and cannot be prevailed on to think, but that they are realities; and often as much, or more selfishly opinionated than any others—It is a pity that peo­ple under these weaknesses should be much together, for they do but strengthen and increase each others weaknesses and infirmities of this nature. People of such gloomy imaginations are almost incessantly ru­minating and revolving their imaginary difficulties— Reason and argument, and even advice under the best influence, are generally lost upon them, as there is none harder to be wrought upon — When the objects of their doubts and scruples are religious subjects they ought however to be treated with tenderness, especially when they do not labour to impose their scruples on others, which when they are persons of influence in the Church, they often do—Scruples often of little or no consequence, and yet sometimes would be very per­nicious if they were received by a Church: Instances of this nature have been so frequent that it is needless [Page 43] to mention particulars. There have been, every one knows, frequent instances of persons giving way so far to the influence of such gloomy thoughts and imagina­tions as to be led into a state of desperation, and sometimes to do violence to their own lives. This is of a quite different nature from that godly sorrow that worketh true repentance to salvation, not to be repented of: However, if persons labouring under the pressure of such gloomy imaginations are real lovers of God they will find this, as well as every other thing, will work together for their good, as they strive against it in patience and true resignation to Him who is able to make all things new in them, in his own time and in his own way, which we ought to strive to be recon­ciled to. One reason, perhaps, why many well disposed religious people are imposed on by many such needless doubts and scruples, as arise in such peoples minds, [...] the appearance they sometimes make of self denial and humility, by the sanctimonious appearance they often put on, which is so much of a deception, that self denial and humility are the most effectual preservatives from, and remedy against such evils, and will, sooner than any other Christian virtue bring them out of that dark bewildered state. This we speak from religious ex­perience, some of us having been in a good degree brought out of that dark bewildered situation, into the marvellous Light▪ by being truly humbled before our great Lord and Master. This sort of people, before­mentioned, are as superstitiously attached to the idols of imagination as any other, if not more so, and by no means easier to be reclaimed than they, and none more ready to turn again and rend one; and seem to have little other idea of Humility, than an external appear­ance of affected singularity and subjection to their [Page 44] Church, where they would willingly be regarded as leaders, which is too often the case—This temper and disposition of mind is perhaps no way easier discovered than by its impatience of dissent, which we have never seen more apparently verified in any case than in the present controversy between Timothy Davis and his former Friends, notwithstanding the novelty of their sentiments about paying Taxes, which was the ground of the controversy, and yet they pretend a very great regard for their Ancestors and their sentiments, but can very easily part with any of them that do not coincide with their new ones, at the expence of many of their sober useful Members, who from an inward sensibility of the rectitude of the sentiments of our, and their pre­decessors, respecting paying Taxes, are led publickly to defend them. This is something so inconsistent with that Christian Liberty, which the Spirit of the Gospel every where breathes, that, indeed, we cannot but think they are very much in the dark: We therefore affectionately wish them deeply to consider, both the nature and necessity of that Humility recommended by our dear Lord and Saviour; Mat. ch. 18. v. 3.4.5. Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Whosoever therefore, shall humble him­self as a little child, the same is great in the Kingdom of Heaven. And whosoever shall receive one such little Child in my name receiveth me. We wish this might be calmly and dispassionately attended to. The Hu­mility here recommended, doth not lead the mind into rambling fluctuating Opinions, nor into a fixed deter­mined Bigotry, nor into a conceitedness of our having discovered more than our Predecessors, nor yet to re­ject that which is true because not embraced by them, [Page 45] of the Church, of which we are now Members; but always to receive the Truth for its own sake; and far less to impose our new Sentiments on our Brethren, or seek occasion, in consequence thereof, to disown them, when, perhaps, they are only the fruits and effects of our own fruitful imaginations, but brings the mind, with singleness of heart, to offer up on the Cross, every favorite opinion to the examination of the Light. In this state of Resignation our minds are brought to be quiet and contented to pass under the closest scrutiny by the Light of Christ, however it may eclipse our reputation as being encouragers, or promoters, of any popular opinions in any Society, civil or religious, con­sidering that true Reformation consists not in a mere speculative notion of Religion, but in the sanctification and renovation of Heart, represented by our Saviour under the metaphor of cleansing the inside of the cup and platter, which he recommends first to be done, that the outside may be clean also: Then, oh! the quietness the mind enjoys, being retired from religious partial strife about opinion, zeal and victory; and can say feelingly, O Lord, altho' thou stay me, yet will I trust in thee; enable me and I will follow thee in the way of Re­generation unto Life everlasting! When we are brought into this humble state, we are not disposed without very great cause to be very severe in our censures of others, but concerned that nothing in ourselves pass without the closest examination. In this resignation is found that Peace and Consolation that the World is a stranger to, as well as the superficial christian.

There is one thing in the Piece in dispute that hath been objected to by some, which if not mentioned, may be thought to be too great an omission, which is as followeth, viz. ‘By all that I have been able to [Page 46] discover, our Society in England have ever made a Point of being careful and exact in paying all Taxes, legally assessed, except the Priests Rates.’

This is thought to be a very great blunder: Whether it is or not, may be easily seen, by even a moderate attention to the manner of his treating the subject. It may be observed that he doth not positively assert they had payed all such Taxes, but makes this reserve, viz. by all that he had been able to discover. Now, suppose there had been two or three Taxes, that he had not discovered, in the first Century after they appeared as a separate Society, that were calculated merely to defray the charges of War, and we question where more in­stances can be produced, that Friends refused to pay; is it not very disingenuous and unfriendly to labour that to his disadvantage—The subject he was upon was general mixed Taxes, and could not well have been understood otherwise, if proper attention had been paid to the scope of his arguments, notwithstanding the word, general and mixed were omitted; that, it can­not reasonably be thought he had any design to impose on his reader; therefore we cannot see what purpose the above objection was intended to serve, unless to supply the want of something more to their purpose — It is indeed matter of some consolation that they could find nothing greater to lay to his charge: If they ever have, they have concealed it, both from him and us. In their Testimony against him, they appear very cautious of mentioning particulars, and only say that his Piece contained matter altogether dissatisfactory to Friends; not a word to let us know what that matter is. The reason of this reservedness perhaps they did not think for their reputation to disclose.

[Page 47]Some, when they have failed in every other attempt against him, alledge a want of spiritual mindedness in him.—How far this is true he submits to the candour of those who are the best acquainted with his life and conversation, and are the least prejudiced in the case, either for or against him. But those who make this objection pretend to a more certain way of knowing the state of his mind, by a spirit of discerning; but unhappy for them their spirit of discerning hath sometimes failed them.

The Doctrine of spiritual mindedness, or a being led by the Spirit, is notwithstanding, so essential both to the being and well being of a Christian, that it is mat­ter of deep sorrow that its Professors are not more gene­rally led by it, or that any who profess to be so led should strain their pretensions to it beyond what the most extensive Charity can lead one to think, by their lives and conversation, they ever have experienced. We shall however leave them to their own Master before whom they shall stand or fall.

That there is such a thing as having a spiritual dis­cerning of our own states in some degree we fully believe, and have some experience of; and that there are some who pretend to much more than what is real, cannot with reason be disputed. What we would therefore advise against is a being imposed on, or imposing on others.

Although he is charged with a want of spiritual-mindedness, we hope it is not expected that he will attempt by argument to prove himself possessed of it. We expect, if he is possessed of common modesty, he will not, let his experience, in that respect, be as great as it may: We therefore think it quite out of character to charge him with that which he is not at liberty to defend himself in, unless by his life and conversation.

[Page 48]That some have had a gift of spiritual discerning so far, as at some times, to see the states of others we fully believe; and that some, in this respect, have pretended to see the states of others who did not see their own, we as fully believe. As there are so many instances where­in this pretensions to spiritual discerning hath failed, and persons who have pretended to it have opposed each other, it appears indisputably necessary to examine such pretensions well before they are admitted, or before we receive such kind of revelations when sug­gested to us, or in any way give way to their dictates. The old serpent, or transformer, hath no doubt as easy access to our feelings, in these cases, as many others wherein he deceiveth poor weak man. And we are not without our doubts that in their conduct­ing the case in dispute, they were imposed on in that manner; and felt a little too much for their own re­putation with a Political Party; and likely were ap­prehensive that it might suffer, if they treated the matter with less severity. Such kind of prejudice is not likely to help to a very dear understanding of religious matters, especially to judge of the spirits of others: Like the Night, it often represents objects to be very different from what they are: Like the want of Faith, which rendereth us very incapable of judging of, or profiting by the bed instructions. This no doubt an inspired Apostle was very sensible of, when he said, "the word preached did not profit, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it." We are notwithstanding so much in favour of spiritual discerning, or Religious Feelings, that we think them to be as really necessary to the being and well being of a Christian, as feeling and discerning is to the life of the body. All that we reject concerning them, is, what every thoughtful Christian ought to reject, viz. false pretensions.

[Page 49]That Friends have been a respectable body of Christians is not doubted by us, which perhaps might have been with more propriety affirmed of them in time past than at present: But however, as respectable as they may have been, or now are, we hardly think it safe to follow them implicitly. A Christian Body or Church, however large or respectable, doth by no means intitle it to implicit faith or blind obedience.— That we ought to listen with attention to the voice of the Church is not disputed but to follow it without proper examination betrays very great weakness, if not very great bigotry. If we are always to follow her voice, it must be because we are convinced she is al­ways infallible, which we cannot very willingly assent to; and if she is not, it may be difficult to know when she is or will be infallible. If it be said by standing in that Light which only, and truly, makes manifest. We answer, this is very true, and the only way that a true and saving knowledge is obtained, but it appears by innumerable facts as well as experience, that neither the Church nor individual members are at all times so under the influence of the unerring Spirit as to make up Judgments wholly from its dictates, who may therefore at some times, with great propriety, say that it is I and not the Lord that speaks, who often give their judgment as men. And further, if individuals are favoured with the Light as well as the Church, they, in that respect, stand upon the same ground she doth, seeing also the Church is only a collection of individuals that afford her all the Light she can have from enlightened members, all of which are liable to be misled, as well in a collective, as in an individual capacity, and therefore each one hath a right to determine for himself according to the evi­dence received, whether human or Divine.

[Page 50]That there never was a Church, altogether infallible cannot with reason be disputed, for such a one would re­main to be so still; for that which is infallible cannot at any time fail, and consequently must forever remain in­fallible. But all Protestants are agreed that the primitive churches, however well founded, have failed in many in­stances— If we are to follow the voice of the Church at this day implicitly, it must be because she is now infallible and that they were not, which we hardly think any will affirm. But to do justice to the Society we must say they do not say that the Church, as such, is infallible, but that there is an infallible Spirit in it; no doubt this is so far true, that at certain times it hath presided in their Church, and that is the most that can be truly said, either of their Church or any other, and what all Christians are agreed in, and we fully believe that if all Churches were truly and humbly to seek and pa­tiently wait for the guidance and direction of that Spirit they would be much more largely favoured with it than they now are; remembring that encouraging pro­mise, viz The humble, God will teach of his ways, and the meek be will guide in Judgment, but that he beholds the proud afar off; and they will forever remain at a distance from him, while in that situation of mind.

That uncertainty, more or less, attends all Churches in a militant state we think cannot reasonably be dis­puted; therefore the members of the primitive Churches did well in keeping their eyes open to the principles and practice of them and to take the liberty to judge for themselves concerning their rectitude, or they would not have been likely to have discovered their errors, which were complained of in very early days. John the Divine as well as others of the Apostles take very particular notice of many things among them [Page 51] very far from being the result of an infallible judg­ment. It appears therefore highly necessary, that the members of any church have their attention engaged towards her sentiments and conduct, even in her best state, otherwise they may not discover when she begins to decline; for want of such attention she may deviate so far from her first rectitude as to be past recovery; nor is her confidence of her own good state always a very clear evidence of it. It is perhaps some­times with Churches as with some individual mem­bers, who are never more impatient of dissent than when there is the greatest reason to dissent from them.

From these considerations it very naturally followeth, that no church ought to discourage the free exercise of private judgment, nor think hard of her Members if their suspicions are sometimes awakened, especially if they are alarmed by her adopting new sentiments, contrary to what she hath always firmly adhered to; altho' it is possible such new sentiments may be true, yet it is as possible they may not, and therefore it be­comes the duty of the Church to wait on such dissatis­fied members with patience, perhaps they may be bless­ed as a means to set her right if she hath erred, and if not she may be a blessing to such dissatisfied members in sitting them right; they may however be a mutual blessing to each other if they truly seek that wisdom which is from above; for the promise to them that seek is, that they shall find: ^* Remembring, as hath been observed, that her existence as a Church, is only as a collection of individuals, and that therefore she is no longer a Church than while those individual mem­bers which constitute her, remain united; whose duty it is, while thus united, by all lawful means, to preserve [Page 52] that unity, that the Church may edify itself in love, either by exhorting, reproving, or encouraging, where necessary This Christian Freedom, in the Spirit of Love, manifested in gospel tenderness and care for each other, is the most likely means to preserve true unity and fellowship in a Church—Severity ought never to be extended but in wilful obstinate cases, where the peace of the church is manifestly endan­gered by them, and perhaps there hath seldom been more distressing instances of that nature than where reformation hath been pretended. The multiplying severities in a Church hath seldom been found to be of real service: It may indeed sometimes procure a superficial and servile obedience, and thereby increase her hypocrites, but will hardly effect her reformation.

As we are accountable to One before whom each one must answer for himself and not another, it is highly reasonable that we ought to think, judge and digest religious matters for ourselves, without being confined to the voice of a Church; and it is at least equally reasonable that she be not confined to the voice or judgment of an individual, let his authority in the Church be as great as it may: Conviction on either side ought to be the only reason for assent.

Every Church hath an undoubted right to settle the Terms of its own Communion, provided nevertheless, that they do not interfere with the civil or religious rights of members, or of any one else—Whenever they interfere with such rights, it becomes the duty of the civil Magistrate to interfere. Every Member hath an undoubted right to dissent from the Church when he sees reason, yet he ought not to use this liberty to his own, or the Church's disadvantage, in suffering small things, or things of mere indifference, to be magnified [Page 53] into matters of separation; but whether the matters of offence are great or small, the Church as well as her members have each their undoubted right of determination; and cannot well walk togther without christian condescension—But the idea that there is always an infallible judgment in the Church, which some have embraced, and that she is always led by it, hath been a great hindrance to the exercise of private judgment and free enquiry, and fixed some so im­moveably in a state of bigotry that they receive all from the Church, without indulging a thought of seeking any further for information, that if it even comes from Heaven they durst not believe it unless the Church says it came from thence.—We ought to con­sider, that a being immediately led by the Spirit of God, and a being only implicitly led by the Church, are very different things. The Primitive Christians were not required to follow even the Apostles any farther than they followed Christ.

One objection that hath been very strongly urged against us is, that we have applied to the Earthly Powers for the recovery of what we think to be our civil right in the Society who disowned us, which they refuse to give up, which we think if properly attended to the reasons for objection, in that case, will cease. And therefore let it be considered that we made them proposals of settlement of those matters of property in dispute between us and them to no purpose, they neglecting or refusing to comply with them, or to treat with us on the subject, and since have wholly refused, even to submit the matter to Reference, lest it should embarrass the Society in endless Arbitra­tions, that we saw no way for redress but the Law: And to have it remain in that unsettled situation was [Page 54] likely to produce, as well as continue very disagreeable effects, while each party claimed what the other thought they had no right to; therefore to prevent such effects, by Justice taking place, we thought it adviseable to take the most easy way for a settlement both to them and us, which appeared to us would be to apply to the General Court. This being also consistent with their own Discipline, one would have thought they would readily have complied.—They have constantly urged it as a Rule among them, that Friends do not attempt to try titles of land in dispute, but that it be referred to the Law for settlement. This was the way by which we wished it to have been settled, not with respect to the land only, but the Meeting-houses in the same disputable situation; where they would have been cited in to have made their defence: But the General Court thought it more properly came under the consideration of the Judicial Department, first advi­sing to a Reference, which we have urged them to, but they, as hath been observed, refuse to comply with it.

It is objected that a Petition of that nature, is to them intirely new and unprecedented, and a compliance im­practicable, and therefore unreasonable; and the more so, as it hath been an established Rule in the Society that such as are at any time disowned, do not only loose their rights as Members, but also their right to any property they may have had in the Society.

We answer, That impossibilities are neither re­quired nor expected: But will it follow, that because length of time, or any other circumstance, hath render­ed it impossible to do some people strict justice, that they are justifiable in refusing it to others in like cases where it is practicable? If they have always neglected to do justice to their disowned members until it is [Page 55] impossible to do some of them strict justice, will it follow that they are excusable where it is in their power to do it? It is not a very good argument to say, that because in some cases we never have done our duty, therefore, in similar cases we never ought to. Their alledging the continued practice of the Church in this case will not help them in point of Justice, nor add to the reputation of their Church Constitution, when justly considered, however it may have been indulged by the Law, which we hope it will be before we conclude.

They did not argue as they have done here in the case of the poor inslaved Negroes: They have very clearly manifested the absurdity of such a kind of rea­soning in that case; therefore, in confuting that kind of reasoning in that case; they have necessarily confuted it in all similar cases. They did not think the countenance that iniquitous practice met with from civil Authority, nor the indulgence and encouragement it met with from the Society in time past, by any means a sufficient reason to persist in it. The iniquity of refusing that unhappy People Justice in so tender a point as their Liberty, is perhaps, by those possessed of them, more easily seen than complied with, and it is not unlikely it may be the case in the present controversy, which altho' not attended with circumstances equally moving, yet equally intitled to Justice, and therefore demands a very close attention.

A supposition that we have forfeited any part of our property to them, in consequence of our being disown­ed by them, to us appears extremely absurd; and more especially as the disownment of us, all originated in Timothy Davis's being disowned, who never had a hearing in that case—We wish them to look at it.— [Page 56] That we have properly in those Meeting-houses and Lands appertaining to them where we claim it, is what they dispute with as little reason as they might do any property we possess—What we have contributed to the purchasing such Houses and Lands hath intitled as to a property in them; with as much reason as they can assign for any property they claim in them, or any other property they possess; for the like contributions by them is all the reason they can properly assign for any pro­perty they have in them: That while we were together, our rights to such property were equal; this we think they will not dispute. The question then wholly turns upon our being disowned by them. Then it will be necessary to consider whether any Constitution, either civil or religious, can be considered as just and righteous that considers the Property of its subjects, or members, so far at its own disposal, as that for any dissention merely Religious they shall take from them any part of their Property without their consent. If the civil Authority hath not such a right, which it is clear they have not, then it is as clear they cannot confer any such Right no not even on membership, for they say that ‘The common right or priviledge of our Meeting Houses, &c is a right annexed to Membership only.’ We would willingly know who annexed it; was it the civil Power that had no right to do it? If it was it cannot be a very conscientious right that Membership is in possession of, that belongeth to other people.

If he aforesaid Society have not received this pretended right to confiscate to their own use, or the use of Membership, from Civil Government, who had no just right to bestow it on them, from whence did they derive it? Surely they do not claim that power of confiscation as a Divine Right, and [...] hope [Page 57] Civil Authority will nor defend any pretensions to a Power over other peoples Property which they had no right to give, or the others to claim. That it therefore very clearly appears that the pretensions of those who have disowned us to any part of our property in consequence of our being disowned by them, is built on a foundation that Reason, Revelation Religion and Civil Government disclaim.

That our being disowned by them should forfeit to their use any part of our property, hath something in it so selfish and unchristian that we are inclined to hope that the moderate and conscientious among them will relinquish all such pretensions.

Some have been weak enough to urge that contri­buting to such religious uses doth not intitle to a right in it, but that it is to be considered as a free donation; because, say they, any one hath an indubitable right to contribute to any lawful use he pleaseth, without any hope or prospect of reward, or being by any means benefited thereby; yea he may lend or give hoping never to receive again. This they say is the case in contributing to such religious purposes.

Answer: No one can reasonably dispute against the right every one hath to contribute to religious purposes, either with, or without a prospect of being benefited thereby. But if we properly advert to the nature of the Controversy in contributing in such cases in gene­ral, we shall see that it naturally and unavoidably suggests the idea of being benefited by them in pre­ference to such who have not contributed any thing, unless it be such Members on whom the Society have bestowed those priviledges in consequence of their be­coming members; and if they detain all the property those have in the Society whom they disown, they may afford to bestow a little on those who are not able [Page 58] to assist by their contributions. They, as a religious body, as well as other Societies, bold Meeting Houses as well as the Lands appertaining to them as their own property, which do one else hath any right to inter­meddle with This is very easily discovered when they think themselves intruded on, which they are as sensible of as any other people— But why is it their property?— Because, say they, we have purchased it by contributions, or received it as a donation for that purpose, and consequently we are the proprietors.

It is objected by some, that as do temporal reward is required when a person is received into membership it would be very unreasonable that they should make any demands on the Society when they are disowned.

Answer: This objection is very foreign from the Point No one of a common understanding supposeth that a member can justly have any demands on that Church that hath not been benefited by him, unless they have admitted him as a proprietor in consideration of his being a member only, if this be the case, they can no more be considered as having forfeited their rights to such property than those who have contribut­ed to the purchasing of it. In a word, if a person be justly intitled to the property of the Church, or any part of it, no act of theirs can justly deprive him of it without his consent. Whenever an interest is collected, whether by the Church, or any other collective Body, those who contributed to the collecting of it are un­doubtedly interested in it, according to the assistance they gave in collecting of it, unless they have bestowed it on that Body as a free donation: If they have, every one knoweth that they have no right of demand on that Body: But if they have not, they have a propor­tionable right to the interest they have assisted in col­lecting, and never ought to be deprived of it but by their own consent.

[Page 59]If they who have contributed to the before men­tioned religious purposes, do not expect to be benefited in preference to those who are by do means interested in it, in burying their dead, and attending meetings for Worship and Discipline, there might be something said in favour of their objection, but as this is not the case, it is in vain to pretend that they do not consider such interest as their Property, and theirs only.

It hath been urged, we apprehend, for want of something more to their purpose, that one person hath no more right to such property than another, because any sober person who never contributed a farthing, and who is not even a member in Society is allowed full liberty to attend meetings of Worship.

Answer: This is very true, and what every Christian Society approves of. But who are they that indulge them in this liberty? Is it they that have no property in such interest? It is said that those who contribute to such religious purposes have no more property in them than those who have not: That if they have such liberty it must be from such who have no right to grant it; for it is a clear case that those who have no property in such interest, have no right to grant any liberty concerning it. And if there is none to grant it, there is none who can justly take it away: Then we who have been disowned stand upon equal ground with them in that respect, which is all we urge. But they, when they are molested, can always find some body that hath property in such Meetings Houses without much difficulty, and fre­quently say we have forfeited our right to such pro­perty, and consider themselves to be the persons to whom it is forfeited. If we have forfeited it, we must have had it, and indeed are intitled to it still, not­withstanding any thing they have said or done to the contrary.

[Page 60]Some indeed are so ingenuous as to confess that they do not think we have forfeited our right to the Pro­perty in question, but do not see that a just settlement can be had without letting in, and giving an encou­ragement to others who have been justly disowned, to bring in their claims in like manner— This free confession naturally supposeth us to have been unjustly disowned—Let them fully reverse that act of dis­ownment, and acknowledge their mistake, and the matter concerning Property will easily settle. But why doth a person's being properly and justly or un­justly disowned forfeit his right to property, and espe­cially to those who disowned him? This is opening a door to what is called pious fraud—We will suppose that Avaro and Tirannus were leading active members in a Society that was very rich, who considered the property those had in Society who were disowned by it to be forfeited to it in consequence of their being disowned by it: Avaro and Tirannus viewed this large interest with selfish eyes, and soon began to be very zealous inspectors into the conduct of its members, and urged that it was quite time that the Church was purged of its dross and filth; and taking advantage of the superstition and credulity of their fellow mem­bers, began to cast out of the Church, both men and women, and under some pretensions or other of faults in the Members, never gave over until the Church was so far dissolved, that they two only were left; and finding themselves in this happy situation, as they thought, considered that now the right of Membership and consequently the right to the property of the Church concentered in them, and therefore sold it and exceed­ingly inriched themselves.

[Page 61]Those who have made the foregoing acknowledge­ment of our right to the Property in question, but do not see how it can be had without letting into such claims those who have been justly disowned, should consider, that even a being justly disowned ought not to affect Property. If they can make appear that they have property to the Society it ought not to be withheld. No act of the Church ought, so far, to affect Property as to ingross it themselves; therefore let any one who claimeth property be called upon if the case be doubt­ful, to make appear that he hath been a Member of that Society, which, if he hath, will not be hard to do by their records, and if it can be made appear he hath been interested in the property of the Society, his claim ought to be acknowledged to be good: And if any one is contented with improving his right by attend­ing their Meetings, and improving the lands, or any other interest in common with the Church, there need be no difficulty in that case. But, if any are uneasy with attending their Meetings, and have a mind to meet by themselves, when a minority, let them have liberty of the House when the majority do not occupy it: But if they are a majority they ought to have the rule and direction of said House, &c. allowing the others the like liberty. This appears to us to be no more than what Christian condescension will very clearly justify if not demand.

To conclude, let it be considered, that while that Property, which any one contributeth to such religious uses, remains in his own hands, it is wholly in his own power, and at his own disposal; he may therefore dis­pose of the whole, or part thereof, or put it just as far out of his power as he pleaseth. Now, in contributing to the before mentioned purposes he only gives up his [Page 62] right to order and dispose of such property, or the use of it, to the Church while he remains a member of it, in expectation that in consideration of his becoming, or being a member of said Church he shall be let into the general property thereof, with every other priviledge or appurtenance belonging thereto, in like manner as the rest of the members: In ordering and directing of which, he only expects to have a voice with the rest of his Brethren. As every Member becomes thus inte­rested in, and dependent on the property of each other, so that no one part of the Church can say that the other hath no right in it, the Property of each indivi­dual Member being circumstanced alike, the being dis­owned ought not to alienate such Property, neither in justice can it, and therefore when any one is deprived by the Society of that benefit, in consequence of which he was induced to contribute, it ought to revert to him again; and more especially, when we consider that the constitution of their Church is such, that if any one of their Members is reduced to want, the Church holdeth itself under obligation to contribute to his relief as long as he remains a member, and no longer; when he is disowned they consider themselves released from such particular obligation, and he is no longer benefited by what he hath contributed to the general stock, but is obliged to go out empty-handed, however large his con­tribution may have been, if it be even to the whole of his substance, be it less or more.

But they say that they hold themselves equally obli­ged to contribute to the relief of those who never have contributed a farthing, as those who have contributed the most largely, without any discrimination.

We answer, that their care in relieving their poor does them very great honour: It is an example well worthy the imitation of every Christian society. But [Page 63] do they think to make themselves amends by detaining the property of those they have disowned? is it just to take from those who have property to give to those who have not? Such conduct as this will inevitably cast a shade over the fairest characters.—

We will suppose that some years past, William was so well pleased with being admitted a member of their Church, that he contributed so largely to it that he had but little left; William is now convinced of his mistake; the wants of an encreasing family are sensibly felt, and he would willingly leave the Society, but has strong suspicions that he shall need their assistance, and Membership will ingross all that he hath put into the hands of the Church by his large contributions to their interests, and his Family will suffer for want of it, there­fore William still remains a member.

Avaro is exceedingly well pleased with this part of the constitution of the Church, that hath annexed all its property to Membership, that provided so well for her interest; is in hopes in time she will grow rich: And thinks it may be a means too of preserving her members from leaving of her, and highly commends her prudence.

But Christianus is as much displeased with it, and it is matter of hesitation with him whether he had best leave the Society or not: His greatest uneasiness at present is, that Avaro is so much in favour with the Church and this sentiment of her detaining the property of her disowned Members. He thinks indeed it may be a means of preserving her numbers, but not her virtue, innocence or reputation with truly Christian people.

It is objected that we are grown sower and bitter against them, and in that bitter spirit are collecting all their weaknesses we can think of.

[Page 64]We answer, That this charge, we hope, is in general without any just foundation. We think they have given cause for this and much more to have been said without justly incurring the censure of bitterness. But perhaps in some times of weakness, something like this charge may have been discovered, which may not seem very strange if we allow what King Solomon remarks to have any weight, viz. that oppression will make a wise man mad. It may then be thought less strange if some of us get a little out of the way in that respect. It is however what we wish not to indulge—It is diffi­cult to say what is really necessary in one's vindication against oppression, either verbally or by writing, with­out being thought too fevere, or even bitter or acrid, especially by those whose conduct we expose—They are frequently cautioning us against being too severe and bitter against them, and we wish it to have a good effect, but they seem not to be under any apprehension of erring in that respect themselves: We should be glad to be convinced that they do not: We shall however leave their conduct to manifest what tempers and dis­positions they have indulged towards us in time past, and hope they will be better in future, and hope also to preserve that disposition towards them that can render good for evil, and wish well to all men, and have no reason to think but that it is the sentiment and wish of those among of whom they have disowned.

In the close of the beforementioned Letter signed by Isaac Lawton, &c. they express themselves thus, viz.

‘And there having been heretofore, as well as of late, happy instances of a return from your situation, we may express, on this occasion, our desire that you may feel their example to be worthy your serious con­sideration and imitation; which we trust will be the case of all such as truly seek their own, and the Church's, Peace.’

[Page 65]From this it very clearly appears how high an opinion they have of their Church, so high, that they insinuate that by being separated from it, we are rendered incapa­ble of seeking either our own, or the Church's, Peace, until we return to her again. In this we must take the liberty to dissent from them, and think that all such who truly seek the peace of that universal Church which Christ hath gathered by his holy Spirit, necessarily seek their own Peace; which we hope is at least the case with some of us. What examples they may be able to exhibit of any returns to them that is worthy of imi­tation we do not pretend to say; but think that such a partial fondness for, and attachment to their parti­cular Church, is much more to be lamented than imitated.—What solid satisfaction any one, who is truly humble, can expect to hate from a People so full of themselves, we must leave, and that can so easily lay aside, or overlook the example of our Saviour and the Apostles, as well as their Predecessors, in the instance of paying taxes, a thing so necessary for the upholding Civil Government, divinely instituted by the Author of our being and well-being: To which examples we shall take the liberty to give the pre­ference, however we may be censured by our former Friends, or those who have returned to them; and therefore can, by no means, with peace and safety to our own minds, give so much encouragement to a contrary practice and sentiment, as to disapprove that publick encouragement any of us have heretofore given to the paying taxes. Had it only been the ex­ample of their Predecessors that they had disregarded, or misconstrued, much might have been said in excuse for them; but that they should neglect the example of Christ and his Apostles, and recommend, with so [Page 66] much earnestness, the example of such, who not pay­ing a suitable attention to the before-mentioned ex­ample, have returned to them again, who were labouring to propagate a contrary practice, and to lay waste the before-mentioned example, is very extraor­dinary, and what we would wish them carefully to consider. What renders the matter still peculiarly discouraging is, than those who refuse to pay such taxes are generally the most active and distinguished in the Society, which, when they become differently minded, we shall, it is probable, look towards with a much more encouraging prospect.

They could have scarcely suggested any thing more injurious and prejudicial to our religious Characters in the Society than that we are not in a situation to seek our own, or the Church's, Peace; nor could they easily have discovered more partiality for themselves; which indeed hath been remarkably manifest through the most of their proceedings against us, as is very evi­dent from what hath been already said; who have been very industrious in labouring to foreclose and prevent us, as much as possible, from rendering any public, religious service to any of our former Brethren; many of whom appeared as ready and willing to attend our meetings for public Worship as ever they were, but appear to be afraid of being brought under Church dealing in consequence of it, and sharing the fate of many of their Brethren who have been disowned, for no other cause than joining with us in the external acts of public Worship—We have reason to think the more strange of their conduct in this Case when we reflect that they might have been convinced of the impropriety of such a procedure by a similar weakness that, at a certain time, discovered itself among the [Page 67] Disciples of Christ, Mark 9.38, 39, 40. And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy Name, and he followeth not us; and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: For there is no man which shall do a Miracle in my Name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. What we particularly remark as being more especially perti­nent to our case are these words, viz. and we forbad him, because he followeth not us—Our former Brethren have virtually forbid us, not to cast out devils in a mi­raculous way, but to appear in public Prayer to Him, who, through Christ, hath taught us to pray without ceasing.—If any ask how this appears? We answer, by their frequently refusing to join us in that public duty as hath been observed, which is considered as an act of disapprobation, and is far, very far, from this salutary doctrine taught by our Saviour, as above; which we think ought to have more weight in their minds than they give it—We are however but little concerned about our Reputation with them in this case, however they may attempt to injure it, unless because it renders us incapable of being of much religious service to them. It is our greatest conso­lation that we are under the tender care of a kind Providence, to whose wisdom and goodness we commit, for defence and protection, not only our Reputation, but every thing else that appertains to us; nothing doubting but that He, whose watchful eye is over all such who put their trust in Him, will graciously plead our cause.