§. 1. I Find nothing worthy of an answer in all the said Book, with reference to any Principles of Doctrine in matters of Faith controverted betwixt any true Christians and the Quakers in general, or betwixt the Quakers and Me in particular; nor have I observed so much as six lines in all the said Book, of any Argu­ment, whether real or meerly apparent, to convince the Readers either of the truth of the Quakers Doctrine, or the falseness of any Principle of Doctrine maintained either by the Church of England, to which I belong, or by me in particular. The matter of Contest being chiefly matters of Fact, as, Whether the Quotations out of the Quakers Books be true, or not?

Now, to what purpose shall this sort of Contest be continued betwixt us, by this method of printing Book after Book, one against the other, I still affirming to the fidelity of the Quotations (three or four typographical Errors of the Press excepted, and which C. P. and the Qrs. require to be excepted in their own Books) and which in all reason ought to be excepted in all Books, provided they be really such) and he or they denying the fidelity of said Quota­tions? Now most of the Books out of which these Quotations are made, are very rarely to be found in the hands of any but Quakers, and what of said Books the Qrs. have they keep close; how then shall this Controversie be decided, but by coming face to face in publick, and producing the Books out of which said Quotations are made, and comparing said Quotations with the Books? But this the Qrs. refuse, although they have been invited to it by me at several times and places since I came last into America; nay, tho' [Page 2] I have gone to their Meetings, and offered this fair Tryal of com­paring their Books with said Quotations (as particularly I have done at Lynn in New-England, at Newport in Rhode-Island, at Flushing in New-York Government, at Shrewsbury and Burlington in New-Iersey, (and at Philadelphia I invited them to a publick Meeting:) but at all these places the Quakers fled, and would neither have the patience to hear me, nor examine into the fidelity of said Quotations, tho' requested to do it.

Seeing therefore that the Policy of the Quaker Preachers is such, that they strive to stifle the truth, and thereby keep their hearers in Ignorance, (who are willing have it so,) and that they will not come out of their [...] Dens, and seeing also that I have the Attestation of eight worthy Ministers of the Church of England to the fidelity of my Quotations out of the Qrs. Books, who by the appointment of the Bishop of London, did compare said Quota­tions with the Qrs. Books before an Auditory of several hundreds of People, (where many of the Qrs. were present) at Turners Hall in London, as many be seen at large in my third and fourth Nar­ratives; I do therefore hereby declare, that I think my self suffi­ciently clear and free of any further Obligation to lie upon me, or of any need to print any further Answer, beside this, to the said C. P. or any of his Associates or party, as touching the abovesaid Books published under his Name; for, to do it again and again would be a superfluous labour, seeing the Quakers generally, and in a manner universally are resolved not to believe the Truth in mattes of fact; and for all others who are not of their Party, or byassed to them, they are generally, and universally (so far as I have had occasion with them) satisfied fully about the truth and fidelity of the Quotations, and the gross Prevarication and Dissi­mulation of the Quakers, and particularly of him or them that pub­lish their Books to the contrary.

But to come to the matter of his Book; As one instance of my falseness (as C. P. is pleased to charge it) pag. 1. of his Preface, he brings a Certificate from Iohn M ^cc Comb, in the following words, viz.

When the Book of C. P. (with this printed Certificate) came to my hands, I was then in East-Iarsey and bound for New-York, and when I came there I shewed the said Certificate to W. Bradford (the other Person concerned) who admired not a little at the falseness of it, and said, he believed that some designing Person had drawn I. M ^ccComb to sign that Certificate unawares, as (he says) he has known the Qrs. some times have drawn up Certificates and offered them to persons to sign, and who sometimes by that means have certified false things, as J. M. has in this case; and the said W. B. offered to give his Certificate to the contrary of what J. M. has certified, a Copy of which Certificate follows at the end of this Book. Also, I writ to Mr. Talbot, who was about that time at Phi­ladelphia, to go to I. M ^ccComb and enquire of him the case of the matter, & take his answer before Witnesses, persons of Credit, which accordingly he did, and is as followeth,

[Page 4]Now, Reader, pray observe, here is the Certificate of four Per­sons of good Credit that Iohn M ^ccComb was not discharged, but only enlarged upon Parol.

2 dly, Observe that this Certificate which C. Pusey or the Quakers have printed, saith, That W. Bradford and J. M ^ccComb were both set at liberty from their imprisonment before Gov. Fletcher came into the Go­vernment of Pennsilvania. Now, if these words had not come from the Iesuites or Quakers, who would have thought there had been a mental Reservation in them? Take the words [ set at liberty] as they lie plain to the understanding of every common Reader, and you'll think these Prisoners were set at liberty by due course of Law, or by the same Authority they were imprisoned; and then G. K. would be a Lyar, a base man, &c. because he says, they were set at liberty by Governor Fletcher. But if you observe I.M ^ccComb's own words to the above-named four Persons, they bewray his and C. Puseys falseness and sophestry, and it appears he had only liberty given him by the Sheriff to go home upon his Parol; as many Qrs. in England have had liberty given them by the Goalers to go home and return when called for; and yet the Qrs. have still reckoned them Prisoners, and have so recorded them in their printed Books. But now to serve a turn and make G. K. a Lyar, they can strain this favour so far, as make the Reader believe these Prisoners were set at liberty by due course of Law. Indeed, it appears they think it no evil to belye & slander any one that has left their society; as lately there was a Quaker in New-Iarsey that reported a slander against one of these Apostates (as they call them) The Person wronged writes a Letter to this Qr. expostulating with him why he would raise or report so gross a slander unless he knew it to be true. This Quaker returns an answer in writing, That seeing he (this slander'd person) was gone from Truth and Friends, he thought he had done no ill, tho' the report was not true.

3 dly, This Certificate saith, That he J. M. never made application to Governor Fletcher, nor any other Person under him, for his liberty. For this he gives no proof but his own authority. But William Bradford declares that he made application, by his Petition, to Governour Fletcher, (to which Iohn M ^cc Combe was privy,) both for himself and Iohn M ^cComb; and so I testifie that I made application to Gov. Fletcher for them both, & also for Peter Boss who was then actually in Prison.

[Page 5]Another thing C. P. chargeth on me to be false, and a contra­diction to my self, That the Quaker Magistrates hired men to fight, as accordingly they did, and recovered a Sloop, and took some Privateers by force of Arms. But that all this is true to a tittle, I can produce sufficient evidence, and Peter Boss in particular, as well as Capt. Holt, both which I have heard assert it, and who are ready to assert it still to any sober enquirer; and tho' Peter Boss enter'd the Sloop, without either Gun, Sword or Spear, yet armed men with Guns & Swords, who pursu'd them in Boats, by force of Arms, made them through fear, yeild to give up the Sloop, and the Privateers fled into the Woods, and were pursued by armed men (hired by Quaker Magistrates) and taken by them; the which armed men discharged several of their fire Locks at them, and tho' none were killed, yet some were wounded, and blood was shed in struggle with some of them. This relation I had from the above-named Persons, worthy of Credit, and who were both, in part, concerned.

Again, this Author, pag. 22. laboureth to make me guilty of several Falshoods in my 9th Query of the printed Appeal, for say­ing, ‘They ( i. e. the Quakers) gave a Commission to fight, sign­ed by three Justices of the Peace, whereof one was a Preacher among them. Whereas (saith C. Pusey) it was but a Warrant, in the Nature of a Hue-and-Cry, to bring the Robbers back to Justice, without any word of fighting, killing or destroying in it. 2 dly, It was not (saith he) signed by three Justices that were Quakers, neither was any one of them a Preacher among [...].’ Another Falshood was, ‘That the Ministers here had engrossed the Worldly Government; whereas (saith he) there were divers then concerned in Government, not Ministers nor Quakers neither.’

Answ. All his Metaphysicks cannot prove that it was not a Com­mission, as if a Commission could not be a Warrant. Again, that he saith, It was but a Warrant in the nature of a Hue-and-Cry. But he doth not say, it had the Name of a Hue-and-Cry either in the Title or Body of it; but by his Philosophy, it had the Nature of a Hue-and-Cry; and I think, by as good Philosophy, and better, I may say, it had the Nature of a Commission, much rather, (tho' whether one or the other, is not material) for I never understood that a meer Hue-and-Cry, without having the Nature of a Com­mission, [Page 6] could be given and directed to three Captains to raise men with Guns and Swords, to pursue a Company of Pyrate, or Sea-Robbers. 2 dly, He saith, It was not signed by three Iustices that were Quakers. Answ But neither do the words, as quoted by him, say, they were all Quakers: It is sufficient to clear me of his Charge against me in his Book, if some, or two of them were Quakers, & this, I think, he has not the Fore head to deny, because it is so generally known, and can be effectually proved by Witnesses living▪ who have seen the very Original; and what will C. P. lay if they produce it? Will he then own himself justly guilty of that Fals­hood he has unjustly charged upon me? O nay, it was but a small mistake or slip of the Pen! And yet the least circumstance of a Mistake in G. K. or any whom the Quakers call Truths Adversaries, (tho' no wise material to the case, and but an error of the Press, and tho' corrected in print, yet it) must be aggravated to a great Fals­hood! So very fair and impartial would the Quakers seem to be, (to them who do not well know them) that they, forsooth! would not for a world be guilty of any Partiality! But (saith he) neither was any one of them a Preacher among us. But for this we have but his bare affirmation; and indeed it is in a manner impossible for any to tell certainly, who is not a Preacher or Speaker among them; for any one among them (who is owned to be Friend of Truth) has as great authority to preach among them, at will and pleasure, as the best of them. 3 dly, Nor is it any Falshood (as he chargeth it) That the Quaker Ministers had then here engrossed the worldly Go­vernment; for they have done the same (in great part) since, as is nortoriously known, in the Province of Pennsilvania, to all impar­tial Persons. 4 thly, Nor doth his Reason he brings, invalidate the truth of the Query, or Assertion contained in it, viz. ‘That there were divers then concerned in the Government, not Ministers nor Quakers.’ I Answ. Suppose there were a few such; what were they but Quaker-Tools, created on purpose to dance after their Masters infallible Pipe, be it right or wrong, and which was ofther wrong than right, as has been sufficiently proved? Or if they were not such Tools, they were, at most, but as so many Cyphers; for the Quaker party of Justices were sure, by number, to carry any cause as they pleased; and therefore it may very well be said, that they engrossed the worldly Government; for they [Page 7] engrossed it so far as to be the major part, yea▪ two or four Quaker Magistrates for one that was no Quaker, and by that means they carried all matters and causes as they pleased; as witness the Pri­vate Sessions at Philadelphia the 25th of August, 1692. where they drew up that most unjust Proclamation against me, which they caused to be published in the Market-place by the common Cryer, the Quaker Justices & Magistrates attending the publication there­of. Now at this private Sessions there were six Quaker Justices and two that were not Quakers; these two Justices dissented from the Quaker Justices in the case before them, because they found the matter of the Accusation against G. K. to be a Religious difference among the Quakers, and not at all concerning the Government; neither would the Quaker Justices suffer G. K. to be sent for before them, in order to be convict, but right or wrong they drew up said Proclamation against him, and published it, as aforesaid, and posted it up both in Town and Country; & the dissent of these two Justices signified nothing, for the Quakers out-voted them by their number, and carried causes which way they pleased, as much as if they had been all and every one Quakers.

§. 2. But it is Comical in this Caleb Pusey, that the Warrant to so many armed men with Guns and Swords (that came to pursue the Pyrates in the Sloop they had stollen) was without any word of Fightinging, Killing or Destroying in it. But friend Caleb, dost thou think that the words of the Warrant mean, that they should NOT fight, kill, destroy nor wound any of those Pyrats, but bring them to Justice without the use of any carnal Weapon? And what if these Pyrats had refused to come at their command? Ought these three Captains, with their armed men (by virtue of that Warrant given by the Quaker-Justices, &c.) to have return'd with their fingers in their Mouths, and done nothing against them, though these Pyrats had offer'd to wound and kill any that should assault or lay hands on them? Had the Quakers any ground by Inspiration to think, that meer words would bring them back, or that they would be so tame to let them lay hands on them, without any Re­sistance? If Words without Swords could do it, or had they faith to believe that words would do it, why then did they send so many armed Men? could not one or two with a Constables have done it? [Page 8] And [...], what need had there been for the Quaker-Sheriff of Phi­ladelphia (who was a great Preacher) to have searcht the Town for Guns and Swords to arm these men with? And what need had there been for that eminent Quaker, Sam. Carpenter to stand by his Shop Door and invite those that would go recover the said Sloop, to go into his Shop and supply themselves with Powder and Lead gratis? And if there had not been danger of Life or Limb in this expedi­tion, why was so much Money as a hundred Pound promised and paid by the Quakers to these armed men that fetch't back these Pyrats? Come, Caleb, if thou hast any honesty left, answer plain­ly, and tell what need there was of all this Preparation and Furni­ture, if nothing of Fighting or use of carnal Weapons were intend­ed? Now, if nothing was either expressed in words, or intended in the sence of that Warrant, to warrant and impower these armed men to fight, and to kill rather than be kill'd, what a premunire had the Quakers drawn these armed men into, if they had killed any of the Pyrates in re-taking the Sloop? And if their words & Warrants are so double faced; who ought to trust them? When thou, or thy imployers, ( Caleb) print again, pray answer these these things plainly.

But before I conclude this point, let me add, to prevent all fu­ture debate whether the Quakers Principle be not, That it is lawful for them, upon occasion, to use the Carnal Weapon, as well as for any others, I think Caleb Pusey hath plainly enough resolved it; and I leave it to the intelligent Reader to judge, whether he hath not so done in pag. 23, of his last Book, where he saith, ‘That Richard Hubberthorn (a great Quaker-Apostle) told King Charles the second, That such Government (viz. that is for the Punish­ment of evil Doers, and praise of them that do well) We (the Quakers) could Assist both in BODY and ESTATE.’ Now what means their Assistance in Body as well as Estate, to suppress evil Doers, when they might happen to rise in Rebellion against the Government? Is it not to use the carnal Weapon against them? unless their intent be, that they will expose their naked Bodies to the Guns and Swords of these Rebels, to be a sort of Bullwark to defend the Bodies of those that think it lawful to fight?

But C. P. saith, p. 23. ‘That G. K. is not fair to leave out the rest, for which the Authority here was justly offended at him, which was expresly mentioned in the Proclamation.’

[Page 9] Answ. This was about some Names or words they alledge I gave Thomas Lloyd, and some others that were then Quaker-Magistrates. But this, in effect, I did not leave out, but have sufficiently answer'd to it, so far as was true (see p. 35. Spirit of Railing) but divers of those words he quotes, I altogether deny, as spoke by me, as that I call'd T. L Pitiful Governour, which I remember nothing of, nor are they in said Proclamation; and divers other words there men-are falsly charged against me; but whether true or false, I was never legally convict of any such words; and whatever words I said at any time then, much harder and more severe Names were given by▪ W. P. to the Mayor of London, and Justices at the Sessions in Old Baily; and the like, may be found in G. F 's Journal, of his giving much more severe and hard words and Names to some Ju­stices in England. But why doth not C. P. insert the much harder Names that both Quakers and Quaker-Magistrates gave me, where­of there is a list in a printed Paper, call'd, An Expostulation? And why does he not distinguish betwixt what was spoke to them as Quakers, and not as Magistrates? I have many living evidences that heard T. Lloyd say, he would take no advantage, as a Magi­strate, of words spoke to him in those Religious Controversies; and yet now to defame me, they charge me with speaking sharp words to them as Magistrates, which is altogether false.

But what was all this, if it were true, of giving hard Names to some Quaker Magistrates? was there any shadow or colour of Law to make me guilty of speaking and writing what tended to Sedition and Subversion of the Government? Had I given them scandalous Names, they might have sued me at Law, and fined me, as Samuell Ienings did, I think, very unjustly; and if it had possible for me to have got fair [...] impartial Judge and [...], I might have sued and cast them at Law for their vile Defamations of me, as well as other great Acts of Injustice, rare, I think, to be heard of. They did not only proclaim me an Offender at the Market-place, and one that had Writ and spoke what had a Tendency to Sedition and Di­sturbance of the Peace, as also the Subversion of the present Government; but they also proclaimed me an Offender for what they supposed I might dare to do, saying, He that useth such Exorbitancy of Speech towards the Governour, may be supposed will easily dare to call the Mem­bers of Council and Magistrates Impudent Rascals. Observe, Reader, [Page 10] this is all one as to pass sentence of Death on a Person, not for a Murder actually committed by him, but for a Murther that may be supposed he will easily dare to commit. This is as bad, or rather worse than Abbington Law. And does not their blood thirsty Spi­rit herein appear, as well as their exposing me to the fury of a mixt multitude, which they might think would be so exasperated as the Mob in Holland were against the two De Wits; and all this without the least calling me before them to convict me of any thing they alledge against me. Just as their 28 unjust Judges served me in their spiritual Court, without the least conviction or calling me before them, and aggravating my supposed Crimes in the words that are commonly used in convicting Fellons, viz. That I was a Person as not having the fear of God before my Eyes. For my part I cannot but with good Conscience think, that their thus un­usual proceedure against me, so contrary to all common Law and Equity, (as if I had been some Fugative, willful Murderer or Traytor against both King and Country, to proclaim me thus in the open Market-place before a mixt multitude) was to no other end but (had God permitted it) to be a Sacrifice to the Malice & Blood-thirsty Spirit of my Adversaries. But God that caused the Earth to help the Woman, did cause the Earth to help me at that time, tho' there was no Violence used by any of them to any Qua­ker Magistrate or Quaker; yet the friendlyness of the common People (both in Town and Country) made the Qr. Chariot-wheels go more heavy; that tho' they put some of my Friends into Prison, yet they did not put me in Prison, fearing the Multitude (as was supposed) for that time; tho' their Fury was not abated, but en­creased against me, to that height, that after some time they got a Grand Jury of Quakers (whereof Alex. Beardsly, that inviduous Quaker, was fore-man, to present me,) for trespassing against that fundamental Law of the Province made by the Assembly held at New-Castle, May, 10 1684, beside some other Presentments, as I can prove, they had in readiness against me, yet more severe, as I have cause to apprehend, especially, that on a Sunday at the Bank Meeting, two of their Preachers, both Quaker-Magistrates, did positively charge me, That I had said in that very Meeting, That the King had broke his Coronation Oath. The falshood of which Ac­cusation, many then present bore witness against; [of this see more in my Book, called, Railing Shimei, p. 39.]

[Page 11]But C. P. thinks he has got a mighty matter against me, that after those words in the Proclamation [ Subversion of the Government] G. K. stops, but the words following are, [ Or to the Aspersing the Magistracy thereof] By these last words (saith he) its clear they did not positively charge THEM with doing that which tended to the Subversion of the Government.

Answ. That these last words make it clear they did not charge me positively with doing what tended to the Subversion of the Go­vernment, is a groundless insinuation and trifling argument, after his usual manner: The word [ Or] both in Scripture, as well as in other Authors, and even in Quakers Books, is oft synonimous, and of the same signification with what goes before; for, Aspersing the Magistracy is Aspersing the Government, and that tends to the sub­version of it. And for a clear proof that they charged me posi­tively with what tended to the Subversion of the Government, in the Mittimus signed by five Quaker Justices, they call the said Appeal from the 28 Judges, &c. (expresly mentioned in the Pro­clamation, and on which it is grounded) ‘A malitious and sedi­tious Paper, tending to the disturbance of the Peace and subver­sion of the present Government;’and this without any [ Or] or [ If] or disputative Particle whatsoever.

Again, he severely charges me with Baseness, as well as ill Logick, p. 25. of his last Book, for my having said, ‘That I was charged for speaking and writing what tended to the subversion of the Kings Government, as well as W. P 's; for (saith he) there was no such words as the Kings Government.’ But I say, as much every whit as of W. Penn's Government, the words being general▪ [ The Subversion of the Government.] And dare C. Pusey say, that Pennsilvania was not then under the Kings Government, as well as it is now under the Queens Government? And that they did mean the Kings Government chiefly, & but nextly W.P 's, their words I cited formerly out of their Proclamation, do plainly prove; We cannot (say they) without the violation of our Trust to the King and Governour. What King was this? Was it W. P. or was it any other King but the King of England? What silly trifling is this in Caleb Pusey!

Beside, it is most evident, that they judged me guilty of doing what tended to the utter subversion of the Kings Government in [Page 12] Pennsilvania; for in the printed Tryal▪ p. 34. David Lloyd did infer from the words of the Appeal, Qu. 9. ‘That if the Magistrates must be blamed for their proceedings against those Rogues that had Pyratically stollen away a Sloop, to the great Terror of the People, what do you think (said he, to the Jury, upon the Tryal of W. Bradford) will be the consequence thereof, but to encou­rage all manner of Wickedness.’ Now under this universal All Manner of Wickedness is contained that one manner of Wickedness (with many other sorts) viz. To encourage, comfort and assist the Indians and French, that are in league together, and by speech or writing to perswade them, without all fear of danger to invade Philadelphia and all Pennsilvania, and bring it under the King of France, because the far greatest number of the Inhabitants in Penn­silvania being Quakers, will not sight with any carnal Weapons, either in Defence of themselves, or of the Kings Government: This agrees to the severe Charge that D. Lloyd made against that Appeal, and consequently against me the Writer of it. And thus by D. Lloyd's consequence not only William Bradford but G K. and others that signed, were guilty of High-Treason against the Crown of England, which to be sure is a Capital Crime; see for this Daltons Iustice, printed at London, 1697. Tit. High-Treason, p. 328. cap. 140. ‘To succour the Kings Enemies is Treason. ’And p. 3 [...]8. cap. ibid. ‘To be adherent to the Kings Enemies (aiding them, or giving them aid or comfort in his Realm, or else-where) is High-Treason.’ Thorp. Edit. 3. fol. 429. ‘Again, To stir up any Forreigner with force to invade this Realm, or any other h [...] Dominions or Countries, [or Countries, Mark that C. P.] under his Obeysance, and such Compassings, Imaginations, Intentions, or any of them, that any shall express, utter or declare by any print­ing, writing, preaching, or malitious and advised Speeches, be­ing convict thereof, or attainted by course of Law, is Treason and Forfeiture, as in High-Treason incurred thereby,’13 Car. 2. cap. 1.

Now the above-said Consequence of David Lloyd was the com­mon discourse and inference of my Adversaries, the Quaker Ma­gistrates and their party against me and my Friends, saying, (like to the Iews) If we let him alone, the Romans will come and take away our place and Nation, Ioh. 11.48. But by the like Consequence that [Page 13] D. L. made against me and my friends, for blaming the Quaker Magistrates, for recovering a Sloop by force of Arms, all the Quakers both here and in England, &c. are equally guilty of High-Treason, who profess it to be their Principle, Not to defend themselves nor the Government by carnal Weapons.

But C. P. thinks me very insincere that I blamed the Qr. Ma­gistrates for their giving a Commission or Warrant to 3 Captains and their Men to recover the Sloop by carnal Weapons, and yet some time before that I commended them for the same. But how did I commend them? Answ. Why, I commended them as they were Magistrates, believing it was their Duty to do what they did and much more, if there had been occasion; but as Qrs. I blamed them, as transgressing their professed Principle, which is no proof of my Insincerity; for I was of that mind then, as I am now, That if Quakers will be Magistrates, they must resolve to use the carnal Sword, otherwise they violate and betray their Trust; and if they use it, they act contrary to their Profession. The only way to extricate themselves of this Dilemma, is, either not to undertake the Office of a Magistrate, or if they do, to relinquish their former Principle of its being unlawful to use the carnal Sword, so much as in Defence: But then down goes their Infallibility, and they ex­pose themselves to be reproached by the Name of Apostates ▪ as they have reproached me and others by the like Name, for leaving their Error in this and other things.

§. 3. But whereas C. P. had said in his Proteus, &c. ‘That they had no Law to make it Capital, viz. my doing what tended to Sedition and subversion of the Government.’ To this I answer'd, first, That it was Capital both according to the Law of God, and the Law of right Reason, and so it was judged both by Iews and Romans, and by St. Paul, according to Acts [...].5, 6. and 25.11. To this C. P. saith nothing. 2 dly, Their Law in the Province▪ ‘That who by speaking or writing do or commit any act or deed tending to the Subversion of the present Government, shall suf­fer Imprisonment, not exceeding 12 Moneths, and undergo such Corporal Punishment as the Quality of the Offender and the nature of the Offence may require.’ By which words of their Law it appears, That as to the corporal Punishment, it is not ex­pressed [Page 14] or limited, either as to Matter and Manner in special, but wholly left to the arbitrary will and pleasure of the Judge or Judges, to make it as severe as they will; and such who were to be my Judges were sufficiently known to have had Will enough to have extended it, not only to the utmost Rigor of the Letter of the Law, but to exceed it, even to Death it self, considering how ille­gal, and contrary to the very Heathens Justice, their proceedings were against me, in the cases above-mentioned, by making my Queries in the Appeal seditious, and tending to the subversion of the Government, because I expostulated with them for transgres­sing their known Principle against using the carnal Sword, where­by they made themselves equally guilty; and by passing a severe sentence against me in their Proclamation, without all Tryal or Conviction, or calling of Witnesses to my face.

§. 4. As for the Resolution of the Lawyer, I mentioned in my Book, Railing Shimei, That though they could not hang me by that Law, yet they could, by that Law, (if it was their Will) Whip me to Death; for if Whipping be the corporal Punishment intend­ed by the Law, there is no limitation, as to the Number or the Se­verity of the Lashes. To this C. P. saith, ‘Tho' that Law did not assign the number of Stripes, yet there was a Law made at the same Sessions, limiting the stripes not to exceed twenty one, where they are not otherwise assigned.’

Answ. But that Law limiting the number of stripes to 21, hath no reference to the Letter nor Sence of the other Law, where whip­ping is not so much as mentioned, but it is left to the arbitrary Will of the Judges (if the sentence be whipping,) to cause it to be not only 21 stripes, but as many times 21 as they should please, seeing there is no limitation of Time, no more than there is of Number of stripes: So that they might cause whip the Person, not only with 21 stripes for one day, but for as many days (by continual succession, without intermission of one day) as might infallibly put an end to his life; which would be more severe than forth-with to hang him. And tho' this would be the highest Cruelty, yet what less could I expect from these bloody Men, who did aggravate things against me to the highest imaginable, calling me Worse than Prophane and Bloody H [...]man (both which Names Sam. [Page 15] Ienings gave me) and an encourager of all manner of Wickedness, a Murderer of Souls, a Tyger, a Monster, &c. And at my first meeting with W. Penn in London, he told me I had spoiled his Country, which he gather'd from the wretched Information of those my Adversaries who were to be my Judges; and the alteration of the Government from W. Penn to Coll. Fletcher, was laid to the charge of my Friends and me. And truly, if I had been such a Monster of Wickedness as they endeavoured to represent me, all that severity above-mentioned, would have been my just desert. But I thank God I was no such Person; and as I shewed in my former Book, I had a publick Writing from the Governour, Council and other Magistrates of Philadelphia, (after the alteration of the Govern­ment) wherein they fully clear'd me of all things the Qr. Magi­strates laid to my charge, and especially from being guilty of do­ing any thing that tended to Sedition or Subversion of the Govern­ment, but that my difference with them was about matters purely Religious. And as for the sever [...] Names they say I gave some of them, for their Anti-christian and Atheistical Principles, They far exceeded me, and the Qr. Authors, particularly W. Penn, has given far worse to the whole Clergy of the Church of England, the Bishops not excepted, who are Peers of the Nation. But if the Qrs. say, he gave them not those Names, as Peers of England, but as Priests and Teachers. Why then will they not allow me the same liberty? for I gave not those Names to the Qrs. as they were Magistrates, but as Quakers, false Teachers, Heathens & Anti-christs. Let them remember the Proverb, Sawce for a Goose is Sawce for a Gander. Indeed the Disparity is great in this, that what Names W. P. gave to those worthy Persons, were most unjust, but the Names I gave to my Adversaries were their true Characters ge­nerally, tho' I do not justifie my self in any sinful Passion [...] might be in, on extream Provocation, but have oft acknowledged it, yet tho' they have far exceeded me, I never heard they made any ac­knowledgment; Nay, these infallible ones are impeccable also.

But again, suppose they had made 21 Lashes to be one part of my punishment, (which if laid on by an Executioner with as strong a hand, and as vindictive heart, and strong will to make an end of of my frail Life (as this C. P. seems to have) would very likely have done it) They might, as another part of my punish­ment [Page 16] (if surviving the first part) have put me (for a minute or two) on a Gibbet, not on any pretence to hang me till dead, but in Waggery, as Caleb Pusey saith, Benj. Waller told me in Waggery That the Quakers were preparing a Gibbet for me. But had they hanged me on the Gibbet in Waggery, it might possibly have turn'd to too great Earnest to themselves, as well as to me. But Benja▪ Waller did not signifie to me, that it was in Waggery, he so told me, and I had but too grat cause to think, it was in strong Earnest then, however since they may, or some of them have over-aw'd him, (he living in a Qrs. family, and one of my greatest Adversaries) to say now, It was in Waggery. But whereas C. P. saith, p 26. That the Person that told me so was no Quaker. What can I conclude from this, by true reason, but that either another Person beside Benj Waller told me so, and so I should have two Witnesses for it, by C. P's acknowledgment, That the Qrs. were preparing a Gibbet for me, or C. P. is self-condemned, and hath writ this against his Conscience; for all the Qrs. here-away, that knew Benj. Waller (& they generally knew him, and C. P. to be sure knew him) did well know, that both then, and divers years after, he was a Quaker by Profession.

§. 5. But whereas C. P. saith, ‘They ( i. e. the Qr. Magistrates) had no Law in the Province to make what they accused me of to be Capital, to wit, speaking and writing what tended to Sedition and Subversion of the Government.’ To which I say, That tho' they had no Law in their Provincial Laws, to make me guilty of any Crime or Trespass, it never having been made any Law among the Qrs. That to blame the use of the carnal Sword, was of a tendency to Sedition and Subversion of the Government; for then they would have been all guilty who profess to blame it still, if any of them should use it, or give a Commission to other to use it, yet by their straining that Law beyond what the Law saith, as they have oft strained in divers cases, and acted not only beyond Law, but contrary to it, and to common humanity; and some of them have been known in those days to say, They had the Law in their own hands, and it was but to use their common defence, their Spirit of discerning taught them what was the true sence of the Law, and by that they could judge, without all outward Evidence [Page 17] who was guilty, as A [...]thor Cook, one of their Provincial Judges, (in a Meeting of the Ministring Friends at Burlington, when I call'd for his Evidences to prove what he had there, most unjustly, accu­sed me of,) said, Friends, ye have a Spirit of Discerning to know whether I speak True or False, and what need then is there of other Evidence? And it can be proved, that Quaker-Jury-men (in these parts) have found Persons guilty, and given in their Verdict, without all outward legal Evidence, only from their pretended inward evidence of their Spirit of Discerning. And at another time, being at the same Arthur Cook's House, I told him, That I would not plead to my Indictment unless I had a fair Jury; To which said A. Cook (before Witnesses) replyed, Truly George, a Foul one is good enough for Thee. And indeed I had no other and on that account I refused to plead; and yet they found me guilty, as in the printed Tryal.

But whereas it is objected, ‘That at London no man would own that Tryal, as the Author of it, and that therefore it is not to be credited.’

I Answ the Author that had the main hand in that Tryal, was not at [...], but so far as I had any hand in it, I owned it. But why is it not to be credited, because the Authors Name is not to? Are none of the Qrs. Books to be credited, that have not the Authors Names to them? Pray what Authors Name is to W. Penn & W. Mead [...] Tryal? What Authors Name is to the 2d part called, The Peoples Antient and just Liberties asserted? Why did not T. Ellwood put his Name to his Book, called, The Case of Protestant Dissenters? Why did not G. Whitehead put his Name to his Book, entituled, A legal Examination of Abuses of Law? Why did not G Whitehead set his Name to his Tryal at Norwich, which is entituled, Due Order of Law and Iustice pleaded, against Irregular and Arbitrary Proceedings? And why did not G. Whitehead put his Name to his Book, called, The Ac­cuser of the Brethren? Nay, tho' W. Rogers sent out a Hue-and-Cry after the Author of that Book, and tho' G W. answer'd that Hue-and-Cry, yet would not own himself to be the Author? And why did not W. Penn put his Name to the first impression of his Book, called, A Perswasive to Moderation, presented to the King and his great Council? several thousands of them were printed and sold before he put his Name to them. Now, were all these, and many more r. [Page 18] Books, that could be named, of no credit, because the Authors Names are not them? I suppose C. P. will answer Nay. But why then must our printed Tryal be discredited, only for want of the Author's Name? And might there not be good reason for the said Author to conceal his name at that time? It is not unknown how severe they were upon William Bradford for printing some Books of mine (only about those Religious Differences at Philadelphia) without putting his Name thereto; and D. Lloyd and the Quaker Justices urged much upon the Jury to find him guilty by a statute made in England, altho' it was very usual for the Quaker Printers at London to print the Quakers Books without putting the Printers Names to them; and because the Jury could not agree to find him guilty, the Quaker Justices dismist the Jury (absolved them from their Oath) without bringing in any Verdict, and told W. Bradford, who was then their Prisoner, That they would have another Jury that should find him guilty; but soon after, by the good Providence of God, Coll. Fletcher ▪ came (unexpected) with the Queens Com­mission and turn'd these cruel men out of the Government. Now seeing the Quakers were so severe with the Printer for printing some Books against them concerning their Religion, ought not the Author of that Tryal to be cautious how he exposed himself to their Fury? Why might not he use a little of that they call Chri­stian Policy, for once, as well as G. Whitehaed, W. Penn, and other Quaker Authors and Printers use it at will and pleasure?

And this doth very properly lead me to give an effectual Reason, beside what is above said, That tho' by the Law of the Province they could not (without strain) make it Capital, what they ac­cused me of, yet by a Statute in England they could, as they did most unjustly construe what I had writ in that Appeal, to be no less than tending to Sedition & Subversion of the Government; from which they infer'd, That I was guilty of encouraging all manner of Wickedness, and a part of that Wickedness was to encourage, comfort and assist the Indians, in league with the French, to take away the Government from the King of England, which (as above) is Treason. And indeed this very consequence tho' not expressed in so many words) was the common discourse of my Adversaries against me, ‘That if Pyrats be suffered to take away our Vessels out of our Harbours, we shall not only loose our Trade, but the [Page 19] French will come in upon us, and destroy both Property and Government.’

And thus, I think, to a Demonstration, I have made the truth of my Assertion appear, That the Quakers held what they accused me of in the Appeal, to be Capital, and to be sure they wanted no will to have done it, if Actions can be deemed the Interpreters of mens Wills and Inclinations. And had divine Providence permit­ted them to bring me to a Tryal, upon that Presentment above mentioned, or another they had in readiness, the Issue, in all pro­bability, would have been Parallel with that of Coll, Bayards Tryal at New-York.

Friendly Reader, I judge by what Remarks I have made on C. P's Book, I have given sufficient Proof (and more than was needful) what a Prevaricator he is, and how dully, and with what dull So­phestry he has laboured, in vain, to prove me what he really is himself. And seeing, as I have above noted, I have not observed so much as fix lines in all his Book of any Arguments, true or false, whereby either to prove any of the Quakers Principles to be true, or any Principles of the Church of England to be false, I shall at present pass the other parts of his Book, as not worth Noticing; for except the Railings, and notorious Falshoods uttered by him in it, which make up the far greatest part of his Book, there is little behind but a nauseous Repeating, with multiplyed Tautologies▪ which I have fully answered in my former Book, call'd, The Spirit of Railing Shimei.