HAVING read Geo. Keith's Book, Entituled. A further Discovery, &c. pretended to be in Answer to S. J's. Book, called The State of the Case, and observing with what heat he flings his proofless Accusa­tions against the said S. J. whom he might know to be remote, and out of the reach of his Charge (being on his Voyage to America) I thought it would not be unacceptable to the moderate and impartial, as well as a Duty to the injured, if I presented him with such Certificates, as the said S. J. re­ceived, after the publication of his Book, not long before his leaving us, and had deposi­ted with a Friend in London, to be dispersed, as Service might be seen in the Spreading thereof; having notice in an Advertisement printed in G. K's. late answer to T. E. that he designed an answer to his Book.

[Page 2]I shall say little to the Book it self, it chiefly relating to matters of Fact, trans­acted in another part of the World, of which I am no Eye-and Ear-witness; nor is it so proper to be debated, but between persons privy to those several actions. But in as much as it is probable, that by reason of the distance of place, and unsafenes of the Seas, G. K's answer may not reach thither in a long while, and the return from thence must needs be yet longer, I offer these in the mean-while, advising all that would not condemn a Man unheard, to suspend their Judgment in the rest, till the accused can have an opportunity to defend him­self.

Yet two or three Observations (among the many that Book affords to an Observant Eye) I am not willing wholly to pass by, that, as ex pede Herculem, by this little the Reader may have a taste of the rest.

First, As to the Stile and Language there­of, I freely Submit it to the Considerate, who hath read both Books, to judge which of the two, G. K. or his Opponent, hath shewed himself most Master of his own Spi­rit, it being a true Maxim delivered by the Apostle James, that if any Man among you seem to be Religious, and bridleth not his Tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's Religion [Page] is vain, Chap. 1. Ver. 26. Yet let me add, that while he magnifies his own Patience, saying, God hath endued him with a good mea­sure of patience, and what he hath born with much Patience, p. 25. in the next line he Justifieth his calling Friends Blood-thirsty hounds, and in the same page these words, Cut me in Collops, Fry me, Eat me; the Reader may give a guess, what will pass for Patience with him.

Secondly, The abovesaid instance leads me to take notice of his Language to Friends in Pensilvania, what artifices he useth to palliate it, and how he bespeaks his own Praise, in the slight, vain-glorious acknowledgment he makes.

The Ministring Friends, at their Meeting held at Philadelpha the 24, 4th Month, 1693. relating his calling Friends in their Religious Meetings Hypocrites, Snakes, Vipers, Blood-thirsty Hounds, Impudent Rascals, and the like; bidding them Cut him in Collops, Fry him, and Eat him, and saying his Back had long Itched to be Whipt. And that at the same juncture, he said, he was like our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Comparing himself to a Dove and a Lamb, (State of the Case, p. 23.) This Charge he doth not deny, but applauds his own Patience, as hinted already.

For the term Blood-thirsty Hounds, he alledgeth (but without a proof) that what [Page 4] he was accused of tended to destroy his Natu­ [...]al Life; then flies to the Hebrew word Ne­bal, in Latin Nebulo, and translated in the Eng­lish Bible, vile Person, to excuse the Epithet of Impudent Rascal (the word Snakes, and Vipers he toucheth not upon); and from Friends telling him (as he saith) he deserved to be punished, he feeling great boldness and Cou­rage given him uttered some such words, as Cut me in Collops, Fry me, Eat me. Thus much in p. 25. of his Further Discovery. Now, Friendly Reader, where was the Dove-like, Lamb-like Nature in all this, thinkest thou? But he deems such an imputation injurious, and that G. F's. saying to the rude multitude, that Beat him on his Head, Arms and Shoulders, Strike again, here are my Hands, my Head and my Cheeks; bears a propor­tion to his Case, as p. 28. That to turn the Cheek to the Smiter, as we are Counseled Luke, 6.29. is Lamb-like, I confess; but what is this to a Man that is not smitten? but at most told, he desreves to be punished (and for that we have but his word in his own Case) that shall retort, Cut me in Collops, Fry me, Eat me. This is not a meek, quiet, yielding to a suffering already inflict­ed (as in the instance of G. F.) but a da­ring, provoking to it, and that by Un­savoury expressions, which relish of a diffe­rent tincture. Nor doth he more suc­cesfully come off, when p. 47. he denies [Page 5] not, but he might say, by way of probability They should hear ere long, he were either Whipt, or Imprisoned; And in the next page, owns he said in a publick Meeting, on a First day, that his Back Itched for their Whip, assigning as the reason, their interrupting him in his Christian Testimony, and most extraordinari­ly, threatning him with their Magistratical Power (but that depends upon his single say so, and wants proof). For these passages manifest an incensing, provoking temper which (though covered over with the Specious pretences of Godly Zeal) like to what Lawrence the Martyr said to the Tyrant, that caused to Roast him on a Grid-iron, Oh gross Com­parison of the perse­cuting Heathen Em­perour, to our Chri­stian abused Friends in Pensilvania: Have they not been more persecuted by his Tongue and Pen, than he by their Laws and Proceedings? to G. F. as a­bove noted; and to E. Burrough, who said and writ in lines to his perse­cutors (but when and where did they say) our Backs are ready for your Blows: Yet do G. K's. words declare themselves to proceed from a bitter Root. Now, one reason he gives, why he said, his Back Itched for their Whip, was their interrupting him in his (so called) Christian Testimony: Did Lawrence do thus, or G. F. or E. B. either? Let him bring [Page 6] the precedent, when and where; When they were in their Persecutors Hands, or exposed for their Christian Testimony, they in a Christian Spirit bore it, and that Chearfully: But when did they because in­terrupted in their Christian Testimony, tell the Magistrates, they were not only ready (i. e. they were given up to the suffe­ring, and that without reluctancy) but craved it, and their Backs Itched for it; for there is a difference between a bowed mind to the will of God, that is prepared (made ready) Patiently and Meekly to Suffer what evil Men may be permitted to do, and the seeking it, the coveting it, and having an Itch to tempt and provoke them to it; perhaps through a desire of Popula­rity and to encrease a Party. Nor will the succeeding instance of what Christ said to Judas, help him, though it may shew the Fond conceit and High value he hath of his own doings, in the very Comparison. The Lord Jesus did not approve of the Tray­tour's Act, neither did he seek the Suffering, when he said to Judas, What thou dost, do quickly; but on the contrary, warned against the doing it, and prayed the Father that the Cup might pass, Mat. 26. v. 24, and 39. Yet foreknowing the Blessed benefit and effect, it would have towards Mankind in general, for our sakes he both embraced it, [Page 7] and pressed the doing it quickly, for he was Straitened till it was accomplished, Luke, 12.50. But G. K. can assign no good, that his passionate and daring carriage to those Friends, could produce, or was proposed thereby.

Now when he had said, what he thought fit, towards his own Vindication, he goes on in the sum 48. p. thus; I have (saith he) never Justified all the words I have said to those my Adversaries (what words hath he not Justified? for these even now cited, I have made appear, he hath) but readily have granted, that it's possible I have at times exceeded on great provocation. But S. I. &c. have far exce [...]ded me in hard words, &c. And a few lines after, my great Comfort is, that what­ever Human weaknesses have attended me, as to some Circumstances, which have been greater on their part, my Cause—is good, and with a Sincere and Ʋpright Heart, as to the main, I have managed it, and I have peace from my gracious God in so doing, as well as a sence of his Pardoning mercy, wherein I have failed in some particular Circumstances, and this is more than ever any of my Adversaries, that I know, have acknowledged, who Proud Pharisee-like, do justify themselves. Now consider, Reader, what is it to Act the Pharisee, if not to Extol himself and depretiate others. Sincerity [Page 8] and godly Contrition, would have taught him to think more lowly of himself, and less aggravatingly concerning others: For his faint acknowledgment of human Weak­ness is but ushered in to set a fair gloss upon his own conduct in the main, while he would insinuate how much worse Men his Adversaries are, and therein hath imi­tated the style of the proud Pharisee, Luke 18.11. in his boast, That he was not as other men. But in what follows, ver. 14. he may read his own doom, viz. Every one that ex­alteth himself, shall be abased, and so will G.K. when detected not only of Self-applause, but also of Self-contradiction. For although he declares he never justified all he hath said to his Adversaries, but grants he hath at times exceeded; Yet (in Causless Grounds, p. 11.) he saith, As I have not acknowledged unto any (nor seen just cause so to do) so they have not proved me guilty, either in words or deeds, that the truth condemneth, &c. so un­certain a sound doth his Trumpet give, that either what he now saith, or hath said before, must be false, for they are not re­concileable.

Thirdly, His want of Candour cometh also under my Consideration, and that un­der two Heads.

First, The Friends of Burlington, in West-Jersey, in their Account, entituled, The [Page 9] present Case stated, relates the orderly pro­ceeding of that Meeting against him: He had, it seems, charged Friends, That they were met together to cloak Heresie and Deceit, and that t [...]ere were more Damnable Heresies and Doctrines of Devils among the Quakers, than among any Profession of Protestants; whereupon they first sent two of their Mem­bers, S. J. and G. O. to admonish him; and to give him notice of their next Meeting, which followed in course Three Months af­ter, at Philadelphia. But he justifying his Speeches, and declining his usual appear­ance (tho' at home) and having set up se­parate Meetings, and printed against Friends; they notwithstanding (for peace sake, and to prevent the dilateing of his Schism, if possihle) generally inclined to Adjourn their Meeting for a Fortnight lon­ger, and gave him notice thereof, the same Evening. At the Fortnight's end, finding him not at Home, they forbore drawing any Testimony against him for two Days lon­ger, and then sent two of their Members, William Biles and Walter Faucet, to enquire at his House of his return; but he being still absent, they gave forth their Testimony, yet with this Caution, that it should not be published till he had had an opportunity to hear it read, and such others as he approved of, as may be seen at large, State of the Case, [Page 10] p. 17, 18, 19. Now what answer doth he give to all this? He denies they told him the precise day, hour or place of their Meeting; and alledgeth, That called a Fortnight, some­times includes fourteen days, sometimes fifteen or sixteen days, p. 23. Is not this extreamly idle and shifting, shewing he was hard put to it for an excuse? And yet they deferred giving Judgment till sixteen days were ex­pired, waiting his return two days beyond their time; so that had he been at Home within his longest Fortnight, he had come before Judgment had been published against him. But he again pretends, They met some­times at one place, sometimes at another; sometimes at one part of the day, sometimes at another: And could not he, in a Fortnight's time (and living in the Town, where the Meeting was to be held) inform himself, where, and at what time of the day they met? or did the Friends sent refuse to tell him? Well, but he hath a third Salvo, Their Paper, saith he, doth not so much as al­ledge, that I had any call to come to their Meet­ing: Why then, say I, did they take the pains to give him notice by the Friends they sent? And yet the Paper doth (to use his own terms) implicitely alledge it, if not explicitely, by their delay to pass Judgment in his absence. And in p. 29. he saith, he went out of Town upon his necessary Occasion, [Page 11] (so not on Truth's account) and how nevcessary that occasion was, himself best knows: That it was more indispensible, than the attending the Meeting, he pre­tends not. Yet as mean and trifling as these excuses are, he thinks they are too se­vere in un-ministring and un-christianing him, without coming again and again, at least twice or thrice, not considering, that by this time things were too far gone to be very dilato­ry, a separation was begun (which if he had not begun, yet the continuation, or remaining separate, if he will believe himself, Seasonable Information, p. 16. must lye at his own Door) and he had printed against them; so that the relation between him and them, as Brethren, ceased, and they under no such Obligation to him that was become an open Enemy. And although he expostu­lates, Was this like the restoring me in a Spirit of meekness; yet afterwards, p. 29. says, At that time they neither owned our Judicatory, nor we theirs, which as I take to be the truest reason of his Non-appearance, so I cannot but observe, that his insisting on their com­ing again and again, that it might be like the restoring in a Spirit of Meekness, is no­thing but Artifice, he designing to make them Journies enough, and at last deny their Judicatory, which is far enough from sincerity.

[Page 12]Another instance, suitable to this Head, is, that when he would wind himself off from being Author of ALL that Book (what part he was not Author of, he saith not) which gave a relation of his own and others Tryals, called, New England's Spirit of Per­secution, &c. he seeks to palliate the un­proved Accusations, saying, Nor do I find, that the said Book of the Tryal doth charge him either with Drunkenness or Horse-racing, but simply (he should have said invidiously) as to that, narrates the Proceedings of the Court, how things did pass there, p. 31. But besides that this is a sly, mischievous way of insi­nuating a slander, especially from a nameless Pamphleteer (whereby the Lives and Con­versations of the most Innocent may be ex­posed to every scurrilous, lurking Detra­ctor) I wish the Reader to observe, that this Anonymous Author doth not narrate Proceedings impartially, as is manifest even from hence: For whereas that account sug­gests, p. 19. that a Paper was read, sub­scribed by Mary Budd, wherein she saith, That Sarah Biddle saith, that William Biddle saith, that John Slocum saith, that S. J. run a Race, and was Drunk; yet when S. J. appeals to Geo. Keith in open Court, whe­ther J. S. himself did not tell him, the mat­ter was not true, (see p. 67. of The State of the Case, and p. 50. of G. K's Answer to [Page 13] it) that tending to clear in part him, whom this Book of the Tryal was designed to prostitute, we find never a tittle of it men­tioned there. So that the Author being thus partial, and withal concealing his Name, when by Name he could defame o­thers, manifests Malice, not Sincerity and Candour; and that he touched on this Charge, not as driven to it, by its being in­terwoven with the matter of the Tryal, but with an intent to fasten a Reproach and Slander, leaving out what might tend to the Party's purgation in any wise. This great­ly discredits the whole Undertaking, and bespeaks Malice.

Fourthly, What G. K. offers for proof, falls short of being so, himself being judge, cum sua res agitur. For he excepts against S. J's bringing only the Credit of John White, whom he calls a prejudiced Adversary, p. 4. Again, By whom will he prove them, seeing he hath none but his own Party to give proof in the Case, which (saith he) as it is no Authentick proof among men, &c. p. 31. And in p. 33. For no man ou [...]ht to be accused of a thing, and for a ground of his Accusation, say, he can prove the thing true, and yet give no proof. Also in p. 48. he tells S. J. he giving no proof but his bare say so, the impartial Reader will not be­lieve it. And again in his Postscript, allow­ing evidences on both sides, being confessedly [Page 14] Parties, to be no proper Witnesses, adds, Nor did I any farther make use of evidences of that sort, but to make a balance against the evidences of their side. (But what balance were his Evidences to make, when he had printed so many Books against them, before they made any defence at all?) And yet that he may cast an Odium on his Opponent and others, of all the Charges he brings in this Book, he offers no evidence, but his own, who is their Adversary, and confessedly a Party indeed; and when he Cites F. Howghil, p. 33. J. Crook and Geo. Bishop, p. 30. (to fa­vour his Notion of Baptism) and Edw. Bur­rough, p. 48. he is so far from referring to the Page, that he doth not so much as give the Title of the Treatises, but in general terms, F. H. hath well asserted in one of his printed Treatises against a Romanist; I have the printed Testimonies of J. C. and G. B. in their Treatises concerning Friends Principles; and G. B. hath said and writ in Lines (so they were not Lineless Writings) to his Persecutors. Now is this Man fit to reprove another, who though a Scholar, writes thus loosly? And when he is put to prove any matter of Fact, he tells us indeed of Witnesses, that some of them are here in England, and at London, as p. 14. and 36. That an honest Person of good repute here in Town is ready to witness, p. 47. and an honest Friend, p. 50. and that to a [Page 15] matter, wherein he charges high. Nay so far is he put to it for Evidence, that he brings in William Bradford, p. 40. as an Evi­dence in his own particular Case. Hath not this Man's Envy outrun his Judgment, and drawn Paul's reproof upon him, who said, Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thy self, Rom. 2.21. But if he will not see himself, I hope the Judicious will see him.

Fifthly, But that which renders the Man yet more mean and base, is that he thus treats (and vaunts over) an absent Per­son, who upon reading G. K's Advertise­ment, wherein he threatned a Reply, wrote a Letter to him, (which a Friend left at his House for him) pressing G. K. to hasten his, that he might have an opportu­nity to Rejoin, before he went off the Coast. Now surely any worthy Antagonist, if he had protracted his Work, till the other was too far gone, than to reach him; yet at least would have been sparing in offering any thing to blemish his Reputation, as a Man, or as a Christian, without very full, clear and undeniable Evidence, such as might bespeak its Credit, and not such, as in his own Case, he rejecteth; and also, in his Re­ply, have taken some notice of the offer made; if this occasion, to detract him, had not been rather industriously embraced, than casual.

[Page 16]Sixthly, If it be not matter of Flourish, and to set off a bad Cause, why should he insinuate, that he hath Evidence so near as in London, many Witnesses, p. 14. some in London, ready to witness, p. 36. An honest Person of good repute here in Town, p. 47. An honest Friend here in Town, p. 50. and pro­duce neither Testimonial from them, nor so much as name them, that others might be Judges of their Veracity, as well as himself? But the way he hath taken to slur another, slurs himself, and renders his own Charge the more suspected? And I may tell him, in his own words, p. 20. If it be enough to make a man guilty by the single Evidence of a preju­diced Adversary, he hath hit the mark; but if otherwise, he only sheweth his Enmity and Pre­judice.

These short Touches, respecting G. K's partial way of managing Controversie, the ungovernedness of his Spirit, and his unfair way of treating his Opponent by obtruding as Evidence, what he disallows from others, (and that at a time, when he could not de­fend himself, by reason of his distance) as they are matters deducible from his late printed Books, without dependance upon Evidence elsewhere, so are they left with the Reader, as Introductory to the following Certificates; my aim herein being to vindi­ [...]ate [Page 17] the Traduced, undeceive the Deceived, and lay open the Deceiver, and not to trace him through the several Parts of his Book, which affords matter enough, but shall re­fer that to the Friends more immediately concerned, to do it, when G. K's Answer shall come to their Hands; and so conclude this Epistle, who am