IMPARTIALITY (it seems this Letter wri­ter would have his Readers believe) is the chief Bases, on which he has founded his Ar­guments; but eiher for want of Honesty, or Policy, or both, he has forsook it in the most obvious Manner: For where a Man is impartial, he deals in Truth to the best of his Judgment, not favouring either party; but this Author has en­deavoured, with all his little Politicks, to paliate the Actions of the one Side, when for want of Policy he has exclaimed against the other, in the most malignant Manner.

HE begins his Letter thus, The Paxton Riot (as it is called) makes so great a Noise, ‘And is so much the general Topick, that a Man must be but little in Conversation, without having his Opinion asked concerning this Affair.’ What must this Question be! Whether the King will bring those Men to Justice, for that Act, and punish them according to their deserts. Not whether they deserve Punishment; that's a Question, I believe, never asked: For I think it must be the settled Opinion of every solid Man, that the Paxton Men, who Murdered the Indians, deserve the same Punish­ment as though they had Murdered so many white [Page 3] People under the same Situation.—Again.—‘In Truth Matters are now come to such a pass, that some People are of Opinion, that an endeavour to make them worse may probably be the way to make them better.’ Here he must mean the Paxton People and their Advocates, who, if they had succeeded in their attempts on the Lives of the Indians in the Barraks, with Murdering some of the Citizens, for whose Scalps they offered Two Hundred Pounds each, then they should have been able to have destroyed the Constitution of Government, and settled a Republick, agreeable to their own darling Principles. Again, for my Part, I am no adept ‘in Politicks, and have but seldom troubled my Head about that Science be­yond the reading of a common News-Paper.’—The word Politicks is this, (that Part of Ethick, or Moral Philosophy, that relates to the well-govern­ing a State or Kingdom. Here I join him: But why did he not content himself soly with reading his News-papers? And not Vindicate the Paxton peo­ple; and their bloody Act, by introducing Quo­tations from divers places in Historys, that I am sure his common News-papers never ushered into his Brain: And that with false Quotations and hor­red Misrepresentations, which I am sure, agreeable to his own Sentiments, proves that he is no poli­tition. But did this Letter Writer imagine, that in case the Paxton people had succeeded in their At­tempt, it would have escaped the Notice of his Majesty? (Wofull stupidity! Or did they propose to have thrown of the Reins of Government en­tirely, and paid no Tribute but to their Goddess [Page 4] Presbytery? If this I say be his meaning (which I rather think it is) it also proves him to be no poli­tition, for had he been one of that Class, he would have concealed his Sentiments from the populace, and only devulged them to his dear Brethren. He sayeth I have no ‘other View in troubling you with this Letter, then to rescue the miserable Frontier people, who lately rose in Arms, from the infamy and odium thrown upon them.’ I think the Paxton people may be tired of their Ad­vocate by this Time. They committed the worst of Crimes, and he is making bad worse; he is de­vulging the whole Scheme; he tells us it was to make better Times. If that be so it must be under the head I have already mentioned; but this Opi­nion is no policy; for if they have by that Act, ushered into their corrupt Minds, some small Glimps of fain'd pleasure, I think the Time is coming, when they I wish they had never seen the Light of that Day. He goes on and tells us, ‘that whilst they were thus busied, and thus stripped of their Birth-Rights,—Israel and Joseph, two petty fellows, who ought to have no higher Claims than themselves, were permitted to Lord it over the Land, and in contempt of the Go­vernment and the express Orders of the Crown, for bidding them to hold private Treaties with the Indians.’—Here is the want of policy; when he intended to exclaim against Israel and Joseph, he heaps the highest Ecomiums on them, when he sayeth they ought to have (observe) no higher Claims than themselves; which plainly points out, that they should have no higher Claims than their [Page 5] own Merits deserve, which it seems was esteemed great,—(by whom?) Why by our Superiors. For he sayeth, that they were (observe) permitted. I ask this Writer, who permitted them? It could not be their Equals. For no Man hath power to per­mit another to do a Thing, but he must also have power to forbid the doing of that Thing. Here is the meaning of the Word, (permit.) I. e. to give leave, to Authorize, Suffer or allow, a per­son to do somewhat—now I say, a person must be invested with power in himself, before he can de­ligate another to Transact any Affair; neither can a Man act in Contempt of Authority, when his Actions receive their very Being from that Autho­rity. Well I conceive the Force of his Argument carries thus much, that Israel and Joseph were Men, whose Viracity the Government might con­fide in; therefore allowed to act in the Manner they thought fit. A very just permission; for it has evi­dently appeared, that those two Men have acted their parts in the most worthy Manner they were capable of, for the well-being of this province, with regard to Indian Affairs.—I ask how can that be? When the same Writer affirmeth, that they have acted in Contempt of the Government, and the express orders of the Crown. Why I must allow it to be a plain Contradiction. But will not his speaking the Truth in the Front of his Letter (where he sayeth he is no Adept in politicks) pali­ate for a few Untruths in the following Sheets, well but he sayeth they held private — Treaties with the Indians. (Where was that) why at the publick Treaty at Lancaster: Where his [Page 6] late Honour, the Governor, with the Commis­sioners, was present. How could that be a pri­vacy when acted publickly? And he sayeth by per­mission of his Honour:—Excuse him he is no Adopt in politicks.—But all this they have done, sayeth this Writer, without so much as including the simple Menonists, from whom they have ex­torted large Sums of Money, to support their Ex­pence. (The meaning of the Word Extort is this) to exact Illequally, or get, or take violently and by unjustificable Means, to abuse Authority) this must be a false Assertion.

Let the Menonists Answer for themselves. But the Truth is, that the Menonists, as a Society of good Religious people, by way of Simele col­lected Money and desired the Quakers to hand it to the then suffering people on the Frontiers, to serve their Necessities. Is this extortion in the Qua­kers? I leave the Candid Reader to judge. Or doth it shew the Menonist to be a simple people? No; it's evident that the Menonists, were a com­passionate people, not regardless of their fellow Creatures sufferings, and willing to contribute to­wards their Support, (observe) here is a possitive Assertion, when he sayeth—‘Nay with the most matchless impudence, Insinuated to the Indians, that they were Rulers and Governors.’ (Well let us hear his proop:) As plainly appeared, at the late Treaty at Lancaster, where the principal Chief ‘and Speaker told Mr. H — n, then Governor, that as he understood there were two Governors in the province, he would be glad to know which he was to Treat with.’ In Case [Page 7] this writer speaks the Truth,) here is not so much as a single Indians Affirmative, to prove the Assertion; no not any Evidence at all. ‘Again the Indians were induced to look upon Israel, as the first Man, or Chief Cechim of the Province (why so, because they say his Haughtiness and the Contempt with which he treated his fellow Subjects;’—then I conclude, our Author must be of Opinion, that this has been a stand­ing Rule with our Governors, (viz.) Haughtiness and Contempt— by which the Indians hath known them. (He just now said Mr. H. — n. was a Quaker, and now calls him something else fie upon such a fellow) he must have had a high Opinion of the Indians judg­ment, or he would not have made it the chief Bases of his Argument, and by this means of false Reason­ing, unjustly blam'd the Quakers. Here I shall take some notice of his Note in Page the 7th, where he sayeth, one Patrick Ignew, of the Burrough of Lancaster, who upon Oath sayed, that at the late Treaty at Lancaster, he was commanded to make Proclamation by the Governor, to forbid any Person to either sell, or give, Spiritious Liquors to the Indians; and when he proclaimed, and said by order of the Governour, the Infamous Tediuskung, as be is called, in Page the 4th. Cryed out, D—n your G—nr, D — n your G —r. I'm—tn is our Governor, he allows Rum e­nough; Who also upon his Oath, declares, that not­withstanding the Proclamation, the Indians where privately entertained at a certain Tavern in the Town: Well and what does all this make for him? suppose Tediuskung did say that, Pm—tn allows Rum enough; so did his Honour too. But at that Time, and upon such Important Business, the Governor, being ap­prehensive; [Page 8] that any quantity might be too much, there­fore forbid the use of it intirely. Well but they were privately entertained at a Tavern in the Town: I ask with what? Here this writer is Silent. Now if he would but comply with one word, in the front of his Letter (Truth) and tell us it was no other then with the Necessaries of Life, he would then give the Peoples Actions a genuine Connection with the Governor's Proclimation; for the said Deponent doth not Charge the Quakers or any one of them, with the least Mis­conduct; neither is there one word of Spiritious Li­quors in the whole Affadavit, nor the Name Quaker mentioned: And as to the rest of the Affadavits, I think they are not worth a solled Man's notice. I think they were all trumpt up, since the Indians were Murdered, to gloss over that horred act. Was the like ever known before? For a set of Men in Conspiracy together, to fall upon and Murder a number of their Neighbours, and then ransack the Earth, to find E­vidence to prove that they were dangerous Neighbours; and that they had received but their deserts. This is a very odd Affair, first to kill a Man, then to pass Sentence on him, and after all that to produce the E­vidence against him: Surely those People, that were in danger of the Indians, must be very careful to keep the Magistrates in Ignorance of their Dangers; or the Magistrates had but little regard to their Neighbours safety: For it seems this Writer has traced Time back towards Noah's Flood; nay quite as far as Governour Keith's Administration to produce Evidence against dead Indians. Page the 8th. here is another Paragraft, that plainly discovers their Design of overturning the [Page 9] present Constitution of Government, when he saveth;—they looked upon it as their duty, [...]. (The Paxton Men) to Administer such Remedies, however severe they might ‘be looked upon, by some, as might raise her drooping Head, and restore her to Health and Vigour.’—What Mea­sures where they, certainly Murdering the Indians at Lancaster; collecting into a Body with Guns, Swords and Tomahawks, in Contempt of all Au­thority; vowing Death to the Indians in the Barraks, and a total extinction to the very Being of Govern­ment. Well but they were disappointed,—and the Quakers had a hand in it; For the Readers Sa­tisfaction, I recommend to his perusual, a Piece lately Published Entituled a Vindication of the Qua­kers Proceeder in Philadelphia, with regard to the safety of the Indians, where that Matter is set in a clear Light. This writer Caluminates the Qua­kers, when it is some of his own Kidny, that has been the hateful Agressors. Did not a Colony from New-England settle on Lands, unpurchased of the Indians, in Contempt of Government and contrary to all Rules of Equity? And did not his Honour, the Governor Issue out several Proclamations, and forbid all his Majesty's Subjects to act in such a pre­fidious Manner; warning them to turn off the Lands, under the severest Penalties? And did not the Indians declare to them, that the Lands were theirs, and if they did not turn of their Land, they would cer­tainly drive them off, or kill them on the spot? And did they not stay there in spite of all this, un­till the Indians Scalp'd some of them? (Where those Quakers, I answer no) I believe they were Pres­byterians: [Page 10] Was it not Presbyterians that Murdered the Indians at Lancaster? Was it not Presbyterians, that came down with an intent, to murder the Indians in the Barraks? Was not the Author of the Quaker Unmask'd one of their esteemed Ministers? And was not the Author of this preposterious Letter, the same Man, or one of his base Brethren? In fine, I think the Presbyterians have been the Authors, and Abettors, of all the Mischief, that's happened to us, as a People. Did we ever read or hear tell of a Quaker, being guilty of any one of the above Villanous acts? I say no. But if any pretended Member of their Society had been found guilty of any one of them, they would have disown'd him in ten Minutes: But the Presbyterians do all this with impunity; And who but their Ministers be­comes their Advocates? See the Looking-Glass. Well might the Prophet cry, in the Name of the LORD, and say, ‘the Leaders of my People cause them to err, Page the 9th. The names of Rioters, Rebels, Murderers, white Savages, &c. have been liberally and indiscriminately bestowed upon them; but all this they look upon only as the Effects of disappointed Malice, and the Resentments of a distructive (Faction,) who see their darling Power in Danger.’ I shall an­swer this Paragraph, and Adapt the discourse to the Faculty of Reason, and that in so plain and familiar a Manner, as to reach the Capacity of every soled thinking Man; which I am confident is an easy Task. The Inhabitants of this Province, and under this Government, are a body Corporate, which body composes a Society in civil Govern­ment; [Page 11] and every Loyal Person, a real Member of that Society. Thus we are bound together by U­naminity and Concord, under the sanction of Laws, to support our civil and Religious Rights in Go­vernment: And we are not to be disturbed in this happy Situation, but by a failure in one, or more of the Members; and this appears in every Person, that acts contrary to the system of Laws, by which this body Corporate is formed into a Society. The Word, factious, declares for me, that those People, whom this Writer so much extoles, are the very Men, whom he so horridly exclaims a­gainst. See the word (factious) ie. Quarrelsome, Riotous, Rebellious, disatisfied with the publick Establishment; here it wants of Policy with a Wit­ness to it: But I have so much Charity for the Let­ter Writer, as to think, if he has at any Time met with some of these, sholastick Words, that he has made use of, in his common News-paper, the prin­ter has been so ungenerous, as not to give him the Meaning of one half of them. Let the Blame lye there. Well but is this agreeable to his Title Page? Impartially represented? I think its the nearest that of any Branch of his Discourse I have met with; he has been exclaiming against the Government; he has been exclaiming against the Quakers; and now he exclaims against the Presbyterians.

There is no one thing appears clearer, then that the Quakers are blam'd without a Cause. Is the Go­vernor a Quaker? Is his Council Quakers? Is the Majority of the Assembly Quakers? I answer in the negative. Well, they are the Men, that all Acts of State are determined by; then pray what are [Page 12] they blam'd for? why, because they assisted their honest Neighbours to save the Indians from a horrid Massacre: And this is every Thing I find against them, when I have canvas'd the whole Af­fair, in the minuetest Manner, I am capable of. Did not the Governor request all the Freeholders in the City, to meet him at the State-House? Was not this with the Approbation of his Council? And did not the Governor and Assembly pass an Act against Riots and Rioters? All this was done on the Ap­proach of the Paxton Rebels: And without the aid of the Quakers. Now I conclude, this none-Poli­tition has in the first Place to prove, that for one Man to endeavour to save the Life and Fortune of another, is an unjustifiable Act; Secondly, the whole Sistom, or Body of Laws, which support civil So­ciety, and bindeth the Body corporate, as with Chains of Iron, to be a mere Fandom or useless Ce­remony: Nay it strikes at the very Assence of those Laws; I mean the Laws of God: For why did the great and wise Legislature form those Laws, but for the Regulation and well being of Mankind. I say he must first prove the abovesaid Possitions, or he cannot prove the Quakers worthy of any Blame. If this is not the most palbable Essay towards the intire Demolition of all good Government, I know not what is. Well my Countrymen, by this Time you see, in what a sophistical Manner, this Author hath wrote: He meaneth one then, and speaketh another; he spitts his Spite at you our Superiors, whose Title I have just mentioned, under the Similitude of Qua­kers; but how you will put up with such glarring impudence, I don't undertake to determine.

[Page 13]Now I come to consider that Part, where he af­firmeth, that it can be proved, the first Quakers took up Arms, and fought well too upon many other Occasions; the first Man he mentions, is George Keith: Where he sayeth page 9. Whoever will take the trouble to read the printed Tryals of George Keith, will find, that when a Quaker Sloop belong­ing to this province, was formerly taken by some pirates; and finding it impossible to save both the Sloop and their so much cried up principles, &c. Opposed Force to Force, retook their Vessel: This parragraph contains both Nonesense and Con­tradiction i. e. A Quaker Sloop, what can he mean by that? Doth he call the Sloop a Quaker, or doth he suppose the Owner was a Quaker? Well, but he doth not tell us, whether the Mariners were Qua­kers or what they were. But thats not all, for he sayeth the Sloop was taken; (observe) and after it was taken, (here is the Cunning) they found it impossible to save it (I believe so), And their so much cryed up principles against outward Force. Now I ask this Writer, how it was possible for the Captain of that Sloop to deliver up his sole Right of that to the pirate? (which was the Case if he had taken it) And still retain his sole property in that Vessel. And after it became the others property fight and save it: But he tells neither Book or page, therefore I shall take no more Notice of it: But shall inform the Reader that George Keith though once in Community with the Quakers, was afterwards disown'd by them, and wrote against them and their principles; out of which Book this Wri­ter hath undoubtedly fetch'd this Quotation. I [Page 14] remember a saying of a great and wise Man i. e. one Runagate is worse than ten Turks-Men; the next he mentions is George Fox, as worthy a Man as I believe the modern Ages hath produced on pur­pose to bespatter the Character of the Quakers (but this is want of Policy) for if he would have vilified the Quakers Reputation: He should have Quoated the Works of none but those like himself, and concealed Book and Page; in doing of which he might have drag­ged some sort of Men into his Scheme. However I shall Quote a passage or two of the genuine Works of George Fox, by which the moderate Reader will be convinced that that good Man was quite of the Reverse opinion, to what this Writer insinuates. If George Fox made use of any of those Expressions, which this Writer has, they are pick'd words, and a Connection given them as they now stand to serve the Purpose of some envious Apostate, of whom there were several that run into such Extravagances, or took such undue Li­berties, that the Rules in the Society could not dispense with; then they testified against them, and those Men being of the like Spirit with our Author, thought the worst they could say or write, was hardly enough to be­spatter them, and their innocent Principles. This Letter Writer sayeth: ‘It is plain that the first Quakers were never against force of Arms, if they thought the Quarrel just;’ if you will believe their own writers, they fought well in the Reign of Oliver Cromwell. George Fox in the fifth page of his Letter directed to the Council of Officers of the Army, &c. com­plains that many were disbanded out of the Army for no other fault, then their being Quakers.—I will not undertake to say that George Fox, did not [Page 15] make use of any of the above Expressions to Cromwel or his Army (though I find nothing like it in any of his Writings) for I conceive the Quakers Principles took place by degrees. They first saw one thing wrong and then another: And by acting accord­ing to what they saw to be their Duty, they at length became acquainted with every Part that constituted, a sound religious Society of People. And amongst the many that joined them, there was some of the Soldiery part; and those were Men of good Car­racters, they were zealous for what they thought right, and some were convinced inpart of the Quakers Principles: But for a Time did not see, its their Duty to lay down their Arms, but stood as valiant Soldiers for their Lives and Liberties. That was the Case with George Bishop, whome this Writer mentions, he was a Captain in the Parliament Ar­my: And in that Station manifested his Loyalty to the best of his Knowledge to detect and suppress every thing that might obstruct thee, then hope for peaceable Government. But this was before he became established in the Quakers Principles, he afterwards laid down his Sword, enter'd into Community with them, and became as faithful a Warrior for his God as he had been a Soldier in the Parliaments Army. And was Author of a Book entituled, New-England Judged. In which he has set forth the Cruelty and Barbarity of this Authors Brethren, while they had the Reins of Govern­ment in their Hands.—I would advise him to get one of those Books, and read it through with good Attention, I believe it might be of more Ser­vice to him, then his News-Papers. This is a small [Page 16] Degression, I shall return to George Fox, and give you his own Word. George Fox's Journal pag. 31. Some would have had me into the auxiliary Bands among the Soldiery but I refused. This was in the twentieth Year of his Age. Page 96. there being new Soldiers raised, the Commissioners would have made me Captain over them: And the Soldiers cried, they would have none but me. They asked me, if I would not take up Arms for the common Wealth against Charles Steuart: I told them, I knew from whence all Wars did arise, even from the Lusts according to James's his Doctrine. And that I lived in the Virtue of that Life and Power that took away the Occasion of all Wars, but they courted me to except of their offer, and thought I did but Complement with them: But I told them I was come into the Covenant of Peace, which was before Wars and Strifes were, they said they offered it in Love and Kindness to me, because of my virtue, and such like flattering Words they used. But I told them, if that was their Love and Kindness I trampled it under my Feet, then their Rage got up. And they said, take him away Jailer, and put him into the Prison amongst the Rogues and Fel­lons: This was in the 26th. Year of his Age, when he was committed to a loathsome stinking Jaile, among thirty Fellons where he remained near six Months, and for no other Reason but because he would not bear Arms; what I have wrote all hap­pened in Cromwels Life time, he died in 1658 and the Year following George Fox wrote the following Paper, wherein he shewed the unlawfulness of Wars and Fighting, representing it as a Work not [Page 17] at all becoming the followers of CHRIST. And he exhorted his Friend not to join with those that took up Arms, but to fight only with Spiritual weapons which took away the occasion of the Carnal; this was in the 35th Year of his Life, the next is Robert Rich, another Author (here he shews his cunning) for he neither tells Book nor Page, neither is he so kind as to inform us that the Quakers had disown'd him when he wrote; he also tells us that the said Rich names five Commissioners, to nominate Offi­cers, &c. But the Assertion might be proved as it deserves to be a positive Untruth, the Truth is that Robert Rich was a Member of the Quaker's Society, and continued so for sometime, but could not content himself to live agreeable to the Rules of that Society, but run into immoral or at least in­desent practices; being a Man naturally of a haughty and asspiring Temper. However the Quakers disown'd him, and then to be up with them he became just such another fellow as our Letter Writer. He might as well have mention'd another Author, (for he don't say Rich was a Quaker,) Bur—on, and he recommended us to the perusal of his Works (where I'll be a Voucher for him,) that nearly every Page is examin'd with wrong Quotations, Misrepresentations, false Insi­nuations and horrid Exclamations, against almost every Thing that's good, well, but if he was or­dain'd to do, all this he can't help it: I allow that, but I will affirm that if he was ordain'd to do so, he was ne­ver ordain'd to be a Minister of CHRIST. The next he Quotes is Robert Barclay, and all the Mischief he seems to Design at him, is to call him St. Robert: But I shall not thank him for that, for he has no Apostate Quota­tions [Page 18] to cite were by he might be able to vilifie that good Man, but this Sentence is to condemn the Quakers; whereas, a little before he justifies them, where he says, it can be proved that those People have taken up Arms, and fought well too. However, this I am sure that he hath fell prodigiously short of his proof; for there is not one Circumstance produced by him, that no one of them took up Arms and fought for neither King or Parliament; p. 9, 11. That usurpation Friend has such an Interest, that by the Act of Parliament, bearing date June 28 1659, for setting the Militia? The Quakers were made Commissioners to form Troops, and Regiments, to buy Horses, &c. This Paragraph contains both Nonsense and Contradiction; but Friends will deny all these Things, (observe) and if you turn over to the very Expressions, they will sneere at your Ig­norance; for taking them in a literal Sense, and tell you with a very grave Phyz, that they are all to be taken spiritually. What strange Logick is this? in the first Place, the deny that Charge, and in the second Place, and at the same Instant allows that Charge; and in the third Place he confirms it, when he sayeth they tell you that the Battle with the Pirates, the Petition to Cromwel, the choping off Charles Stuarts Head, the forming of Regi­ments, and the buying of Horses, are all to be taken spiritually. Now I shall answer agreeable to, and in his own words; i. e. If any Man has a mind to be imposed upon by such Quibbles, I have no objection: Let him believe that no more is mentioned here, than Malice in disguise, Hypo­cricy under a Cloak, Venum as from under the [Page 19] Tongue of a Serpent; an attempt to destroy Go­vernment, an Essay to make Neighbours invitarate Enemies, in fine, to destroy all good Rules and Order. And you may believe if you will too, that our Letter Writer is the chief promoter of it all: Page [...]3. he begins with the Debates in Par­liment, and tells us of one great Lord's opinion, and then of anothers; about Tumults and Riots. I would have him to know, we have reason as well as he to believe, that there may be great Debates in the Parliment House, before a Matter comes to a Determination. But if he will be pleased to look in one of his News Papers, he will find the par­liments result on that; how Rioters are to be dealt with, in page 17. he begins with the Narrative, and tells us that a shock of Electricity would have had a much more sensible effect upon those people, than all the Arguments and Quotations he has pro­duced; (I believe him) for that opperation of E­lectricity can effect no more than the Animal parts. And those people with their Advocates, have so much likeness [...]o the Ala [...]t Stone, that they seem determined to pay no regard to any Thing, though ever so well wrote, that may be likely to touch the Internal. Notwithstanding that worthy patriot has wrote in a good Stile; and has produced Quotations so paralell to support his opinion, and the just le­neaments of that horrid act at Lancaster, that it makes his Works vuluable to every good Man: But alas! what good Man either alive or dead, escapes this writers cruel censor. I think we read in the Bible that some Mens countenances are as hard as though they were seared with a hot Iron: I can't think what he pro­posed to himself by Annamadvertion on the Nar­rative; [Page 20] for it has no ways deminished the valitity of that Work, (but if his Evidence availeth any Thing,) it adds to the Renown of the Author; in that he ranks him with the best of Men for it, those he tries to Redicule; next comes the curl'd Lawyer in page 22. In his Exclamation against the Author of the Narrative, he sayeth, ‘every body knows that this Assertion is the reputed offspring of the curled Lock Lawyer, who wrote the Dia­logue between Andrew, &c.’ (observe) a Crea­ture by his Debaucheries and Immoral Life; has done more dishonour to the Scriptures and Religion than all those Men put together; i. e. The Men that murdered the Indians at Lancaster) the fore­part of this Paragraph is an Introduction to the Crimes lay'd to the curl'd Head's charge; hence is the Crime, ‘who has been endeavouring for a series of Years, to sow the Seeds of Discord and Desention, among his fellow Subjects: And has even in prints propagated groundless and wic­ked Insinuations among the Germans.’ I expect this Writer has gain'd the displeasure of all that Class of Men: By exclaiming against one of their Clan, (and in that he has no policy,) seeing he is just on the brink of ruin. I think he will want half a dozen of them to fetch him out of the scrape; (Remark) here he has absolutely—though I believe unadvic'dly passed an irravocable Sentence on him­self, for he is the very person that has done this; though handed to us by him under the Similitude of a curl'd Lock Lawyer: I say this Author is the very Man. I submit it to the Judgment of every Man that can think for himself, whether this [Page 21] Man's Works can have any other Design or Ten­dency, then to sow the seeds of Discord and Di­sention amongst his Neighbours: Is it possible that it can be of any service to any one soul on Earth. A Thing that is stuft full of Malicious Sentences, a Thing that has all the leneaments of Spite, Hatred, Malice, bitterness of Heart, Detraction, open Vio­lation to the Laws and Government. A Man that is not ashamed to declare to the World, that the Actions above mentioned in that one Man is worse, (that is) he deserves a more grievious punishment, then if he had murdered twenty of his Neighbours in cool blood, I can't find the Lawyer stands indited for one more then that he in Print has propigated groundless and wicked Insinuations among the Germans, and for that deserveth D— h, what then doth this Letter Writer deserves? who has been guilty of the like Crime, and of a ten Times worse Consequence: I say he has past Sentence on himself, and must stand condemned in the Judg­ment of all good Men, to all Intents and Purposes. Page the 23 he tells us that the Author of Cato's Let­ters very justly observes that, viz. It is a most wicked and absurd position to say, that a People can ever be in such a Situation as not to have right to oppose a Tyrant, a Robber or a Traytor, who by Violence, Treachery, Rapine, Infinate murders and Devestations has deprived them of safety and pro­tection, &c. This Author could mean no other here, but those who had the Reins of Government in their Hands, it represents the very Situation our happy People were in, when the Mob, (as this Wri­ter calls them) were coming down; it really con­demns [Page 22] the Rioters, and justifies the Loyal Citizens, and so will every good Man. Is it not something strange; that Men of good natural Parts and Learning enough to be Conjurers; should be so confused and bother'd in their own Brain, to con­tradict themselves, introduce Quotations of other Men's Works, that makes more against, then for them; I think their Master hath a Design against such, he does it to make them look like himself; and he has been too cunning for our Author, for he is like to gain his Point: Whereas our Letter Writer I think will fall short in every Part. Page 24. He tells that the Senators kill'd Julius Caesar even in the Senate House: But is not so kind as to inform us how it far'd with the murderers, the Historian sayeth that the Judgments of GOD was evidently manifested, in taking Vengeance on those treacherous Villains; he sayeth there was hardly one of them that died a natural Death, divine Justice persued them where ever they went, untill they were exterpated, Brutus and Cassius the chief Con­spirators put an end to their own Lives; not for fear of coming under Tyrany, (as this Author as­serteth) but because it should not be said they were put to Death by the Hands of other Men; If our Author produceth this as a Parallel Case, with that of the Paxton Men; he must also think the like Catastrophe may be all them, in which opinion I think the Majority may safely join him: our Au­thor tells us, he hopes that he shall not be suspected to be an encourager of Insurrections and Tumults; certainly this must be the hope of the Hypocrite, which the Scripture says shall fail, I hope he is not [Page 23] quite so stupid as to think all Men are like himself, not in a Capacity to judge what's for, or what's a­gainst their presents or future Happiness, but if it be just so, I query, what he wrote this Letter for, it is stuft with little but immoral Sentences; it has no Connection with Religion, it has no perswasive Arguments, that has any Tendency to promote the good of the Church or State? What was it wrote for? was it not to divide and scatter People one from another? by sowing the Seeds of Discord and Contention, by ushering into the Minds of the one Part an inveteracy and hatred against the other, by the most unjust way of Arguments, that Malice could Dictate.

The moderate Reader has seen by this Time, how I have canvas'd his Quotations, not in the Minuetest but in a Corsory way; and find no one Instance of any Quaker that has been seen in the Field of Battle, or of using earnel Weapons of any sort as this Writer hath asserted: again, he hath Quoted Heathen Authors to vindicate the Actions of the Paxton Men: But for want of Judg­ment (I think) it must be that he has handed us such that make against and not for him. He tells us that he hath as great an Advertion to Mobs and all Rioters proceedings as any can have, (observe) as any Man ought to have a harden'd Man. However we shall see his proof in Page 24. After telling us the Storys of the most celebrated He­roes of Antiquity: Men whom the present World is not worthy of &c. Who have recited, de­stroyed or expelled Traytors and Tyrants, the Pests, the Burdens and the Butchers of Mankind. [Page 24] Then draws a Line, makes it an entire Paragraph of it self, throws off all his covering; and tells us in plain Terms that ‘indeed such an Action could never have been censured in the World, if their had not lived in all Ages; abject Flatterers and ser­vile Creatures of power, always prepared to sanc­tifie and abet the most enormous wickedness, if it were gainful, and they are they, who have often missed good Men in the worst Prejudices.’ Here I have given the intire Paragraph; now I propose to give the definition, ergo: Indeed such an Action could never have been censured in the World, i. e. killing the Indians at Lancaster, coming down to Philadelphia with the like Design, ergo: If they had not been in all Ages abject Flatterers, and servile Creatures of Power; the Governor, Commissioners and Assembly, it can be well else: They are always prepared to Sanctifie and abet the most e­normous wickedness, if it were gainful, these are those who have often led good Men in the worst Prejudices, i. e. The Actions of Philadelphia, who at the Governors request, saved the Lives of the Indians in the Barraks, and this Letter writer and his Brethren are the Men that are Prejudiced against them for it; the Reader may see that I have not strain'd this Paragraph in the least, but have given the genuine Character and Sentiments of the Author, which is that he was the Instigator of all the Mischef; or that he is the Abettor and doth approve of all their Conduct, nay, we have his own Qualifications for what I assert in the following Words, viz. (As any Man ought to have) and his whole Writing make a Chain of Circumstances, which being linkt together at the Ends, makes a Lawful Evidence, [Page 25] therefore by the valitity of these two Evidences and according to Form in Law, I shall pass Sen­tence on him; and do hereby Pronounce in a sollid Manner, the Author of this Letter I now have under my Notice to be a Stark Naked Pres­byterian, Page 22, 23. Here he seems to be somewhat mift'd at the Author of the Nar­rative, for calling the killing of the Indians mur­der; and wants to know, who made him Judge or Jury, &c. I shall let him know their wants nei­ther Judge nor Jury in that Affair: Such like Actions as that at Lancaster has been condemned by the express Name murder, some thousand of Years past. Numb. 35. v. 16. And if a Man smite another, with an Instrument of Iron, (so that he die,) he is a murderer: The murderer shall surely be put to Death. Is not the Barrel of a Gun Iron? and is not that the principle Part of the Machine? and are not the Tomahawks Iron? and did they not kill the Indians with those very weapons? ergo▪ This cannot be denied, well then, I assert it is prov'd that the Paxton People did murder the Indians at Lancaster? the Author has Quoted one Passage in the Bible, and another in the Apo­criphy, which I conceive he has brought for no other Purpose than to palliate the Horrid per­fidy of the Paxton Men, in shewing us that there was two People in former Times that did make use of Treachery, though it was in Cases quite [Page 26] fore-on from his Subject. In Page 32. He tells us that to stifle the Notions of Revenge is prudent and Religous in private Persons. But at the same Time it is undoubtedly true, that a proper Spirit of Jealousy (observe) and revenge too, in a Peo­ple, who are oppressed and injured; is a Politick and commendable Virtue: I should have been glad to have seen a little of his Activity displayed here, where he might have saved this Paragraph from a plain Contradiction; for my Part I can't to stifle the Notions of Revenge, is Prudant; that is when a Person thinks himself or his Friend injured, he feels something stiring in his Heart, which inclines him to do somewhat as bad or worse to the Person whom he looks upon to be, or is the Agressor; this motion ought to be sti­fled (observe) and never allow'd to come forth into Action; nay, he seems to bind every Person to this, by the Cords of Religion; (well this is sound Doctrine.) But (observe) when Men kick against the Pricks of Conscience, and will pay no Regard to the divine Instinct in themselves. notwithstanding, our Author cries out against it; Religion absolutely forbids it. Each Man suffers it to raise into a Flame, and Numbers of them being infatuated, combine together determined to be reveng'd and will Prosecute their Design, let the Consequence be what it will; even to murder their Neigbours, insult Government, [Page 27] redicule their Friends, pay no regard to Laws moral or Divine. Then behold! this Letter Writer sayeth, it is acommendable Virtue without which they will never be valued or respected: I am sure I have done this Author no other diskindness on my Definition of this Paragraph; but to expose his notorious Nonsense. I expect this little Book when it comes into the World, will meet Men of three opinions; the one may think I have been too smart on the Presbyterians, the other may say its but what they deserve, and the third will hardly have Patience to read a single Page. The Reader may see I have run over the whole, and here and there made a Remark: But in Truth, they are but slightly touch, if Life and Health Permitted: I could write a Volume upon it, shewing the Authors Envy and Folly; in such a Manner that it would disgrace him to all Intents and Purposes: However, I am spared, that Pains, for his own Work, will come nearly to the same thing; I say as I was inspecting into the Charges against the Quakers, I found myself, as I thought under a Necessity to mention some Facts against the Presbyterians, that the impartial Reader may judge as he finds Things stand in an obvious Man­ner either for one or the other of the two Societies: And that he may be the better enabled to de­termine upon the Whole, and judge for himself, which Societies Members may be the fitest for [Page 28] Representatives of the Peoples Lives and Fortunes, the fitest for Magistrates to judge impartially between a Man and his Neighbour, the fitest for Assessors to value Men's Goods and Chattles without Malice or Favour, the fitest for Collectors of Taxes and Assizes, where a Man ought to do by his Neighbour as he would have his Neighbour do by him; in short, whether an honest Man would rather have a Quaker or a Presbyterian for his Neighbour. I shall conclude with a short Address, (but with a great deal of sencerity) to doom Bur—on and his Ulceration Presbyterians, desiring the next Day, they dedicate to Liberty and St. Patrick; and at the end of their Chorus, he will make a Proclamation, as with the sound of a Ram's-Horn, begging and intreating those that mur­dered the Indians, to surrender themselves up to Justice: Pray their Neighbours to take warning by them, confessing his hearty sorrow for his being the Author or Abetter of such a horrid Crime, promising in the most sollid Manner that he will never protitute his Pen to such villianous Purposes more; pray that the Quakers will forgive, and pass by, acknowledging that he wrote by no other Motion than the Spirit of Lucifer, and declare that his Will and Pleasure is; that whosoever has this spurious Letter, that he will commit it to the Flames. Amen. ‘And then we may expect to feel the happy Effects resulting from Li­berty and Law; to see the Quiet of the Province restored, and Harmony and good order of Govern­ment re-established among us.’