AFter the late Insurrection was quelled, it was hoped that unanimity and concord would again have taken place among the good People of this Province: And as the lenity of the Go­vernment was so great as to pardon the Offenders, it was expected that not even their abettors would again attempt to rekindle the coals of strife and jealousy in the breasts of the rash and inconsiderate.

But unhappily for Pennsylvania, there seems to be some of its Inhabitants that are resolved to leave no stone un­turned till they can hit upon the means that will force a lasting breach among their Fellow-Countrymen. In this Class of Men appears the Author of the Piece under pre­sent consideration; called The Quaker Unmask'd; or, Plain Truth. Which, as he asserts to be matter of fact, it may be expedient to canvass its pages, and see if it be the spirit of Truth that breathes through it, or a wilful Misrepre­sentation: In the disquisition of which, we shall endeavour, as much as possible, to avoid railing, and only stick to the argument.

The Unmasker says, "He thinks it a Duty incum­bent on every good subject to make diligent search, in or­der to find out the aggressors, and then to inform the Public how he has found matters".—Let us see how con­sistent he prosecutes this design: First then, without give­ing the least proof of it, he roundly asserts, that "These Incendiaries (the Quakers) have wrote and published se­veral inflamatory Pamphlets with a design to enrage the Populace". Surely, our Unmasker never could have made "diligent Search", or he would not have begun with so great a mistake; the Quakers Address to the Governor being the sole Piece they have published, vindicating [Page 4] themselves from the invidious reflections of the Declara­tion and Remonstrance.

How unfair does this Unmasker proceed in the next paragraph, "The Savage Indian Butchers—whose cause and interest Quakers so warmly espouse". Do the Qua­kers, or any one else, espouse the cause of such? Did not several of the Rioters examine all the Indians at the Bar­racks that the City has protected? and didn't they ac­knowledge that they knew not one of them? then how groundless is this Assertion!—

Again, "Terrible! indeed beyond Description, are the Cruelties daily practised by those Savages on our Fellow-Subjects, while Prisoners amongst them! But where are the Quakers who have taken up arms to defend them"? Defend who? — What, defend those that are prisoners? — Have not the Quakers bore their burden of taxes equal with others? and what other way has any in­terior part of the Province defended its Frontiers?

The Unmasker now opens a paragraph as angry as it is grossly fallacious; "When the Indian incursions last summer laid waste a considerable part of our Frontier, how did these meek Quakers behave on so melancholy an occasion; to their immortal Infamy be it known that they would not grant a single farthing (as a Society) for the relief of their poor Fellow-Subjects". A great defi­ciency appears here in his "diligent Search": The Qua­kers (or Incendiaries, as he handsomely calls them) did make a Collection as a Society, but withheld it for a while, as there were generous Contributions sent to the assistance of the Frontier-Inhabitants, by several other Societies in Town; thinking, that, when those Monies had been nigh exhausted, their Subscriptions might be of greater use. Accordingly some Gentlemen of their Society (with whom the Money was deposited) wrote several times to a Clergyman in one of the Frontier-Townships, desiring him to take upon him the distribution of their Money, as he was best acquainted with the circumstances of those [Page 5] about him;—and he as often refused: alledging that their assistance was not wanted.—This they did as a Society.— And at the same time many Individuals most freely opened their purses, and joined in private Collections.—So that we see, this vehement outcry "of immortal Infamy" means nothing.—

But, says the Unmasker, "When their good Brethren the Indians (some of whom were well known by Officers now in this City, to have been in the battle against Colo­nel Bouquet, and others at the siege of Fort Pitt, during the summer) seemed in danger of receiving their Just de­serts, &c. no toils are thought too great—to protect these Bosom-friends". The Officer who was charged with say­ing he knew them, declared in divers public Companies that it was an absolute falsehood, and that he had never uttered such a thing. Is it likely that in the hurry and confusion of a battle, or at the irregular siege of Fort Pitt, ^* "the red, blue, or any other colour painted" Indians seen there, should be well known, when seen again in Philadelphia in their natural colour?—Or were it pos­sible that that should be the case, is it to be thought that those Gentlemen Officers would not have informed the Ci­vil Magistrates of so essential a truth? On the contrary did they not all (the Officer in particular who was charged with saying be knew them) express the greatest abhor­rence of the intended Massacre, and willingness (as well as the Citizens) to protect the Indians? But the Un­masker, we see, unmasks himself with all his circumspec­tion: In the first page he says, "shall we attempt to vin­dicate their killing Indians under the protection of the Government? By no means". But here we see he thinks it would have been "Just". And in the next paragraph he acknowledges "the Paxton People's coming down in a seemingly hostile manner, is justly to be condemned". What a strange contradiction is here! But this will be [Page 6] always the case, when men under the Veil of Truth, endeavour to hide the bitterest Rancour and Ill-will.—

But let us further listen to what is said in behalf of the Rioters:—"They had long before," says their Cham­pion, "sent several Petitions to the Governor and Assem­bly, which, it's supposed, have been concealed by some ill-designing persons; his Honour never having received these Remonstrances, — and they looked upon themselves as neglected by the Government". Is it not surprizing that if these People had done so, they should not have availed themselves of so strong a Plea in their Declara­tion and Remonstrance? where not a word like it is men­tioned. And are those that they sent such Petitions to (whom we may suppose their unquestionable Friends) so neglectful of their cause and interest, as to conceal such important Papers? But this Writer has made so bold with Truth in several other places, that he has given us reason to doubt the verity of this assertion. But admitting that to be the case, why are the poor Quakers to be so egre­giously reviled? Is it to be thought that they either con­cealed the Petitions, or bribed others to do it?

In the next paragraph he owns, the Paxton People are "mad", but says it is owing to their "Oppression". For, says he, "have not all Nations and Generations found it so? Nay, is not the happy and glorious Revolution, by which our Civil and Religious Rights, as Englishmen and Protestants, were secured on their present footing, a striking Instance of this Truth"? that is, were not the renowned Nassau, and all those Worthies, that assisted in establishing the blessed Revolution, "mad", like the Pr—st. enflamed Rioters of Pennsylvania? Noble comparison! thrice puissant Advocate! — And how can the Quakers help their "madness" and "desperation"? But here we have a Clue to the whole Scheme of Philopatrius, which accounts for the great zeal and warmth he has shewn on this occasion; it is a Revolution then that he is hankering after, and prompts him, thus, by way of simile, [Page 7] openly to prostitute one of the most auspicious Events in the British Annals to his low and illiberal purposes. But let the Caballers have a care that they dont fare like the Dog in the Fable, and loose the Substance by grasping at the Shadow.

"What these People intended by their coming down armed", says he, "let themselves declare". This is no bad instance of Philopatrius's modesty, as we see he is ashamed to mention their intention, for it would be too ridiculous to suppose he could feign ignorance of it so late in the day; more especially as, he says, they sent "se­veral Petitions", which not being mention'd in the Declaration, &c. must be a piece of private intelligence which he was let into. But the style of both these Pieces is so wonderfully similar, that it is more than possible the same Lucina ushered them into the world.

To elucidate this matter, let us see what reason the Citizens of Philadelphia (including the few armed Qua­kers) had to put themselves in a defensive posture: — News was brought to them of a great Number of armed Men being on their way towards the City; their design being, as they gave out, to kill all those Indians (Friends of this Province) in the Barracks, Men, Women and Children, that were under the Protection of the Govern­ment, and to force their way through all opposition, or die in the attempt; and likewise threatened what they would do to several of the Citizens. The Inhabitants therefore, (shocked at so inhuman and illegal a project) entered into an Association, at the request of the Go­vernor, to strengthen the hands of Magistracy, and op­pose the extravagant designs of the Rioters, few of whom were Freeholders or Men of Property, the majority of them being people the Caballers had in pay. But the Ci­tizens of Philadelphia had no design to offer them the least injury, unless they should use violence; which evi­dently appears from the measures they entered into with them.

[Page 8]However, Philopatrius "only observes that their be­haviour did them honour, as it shewed them to be brave, loyal, and discreet". I would ask this Gentleman, in what Nation was it ever counted "brave", to desire to attack a defenceless confin'd body of people, with a resolution, in cool blood, to kill them all, Men, Women and Chil­dren? In what State or Government was it ever thought "loyal", to fly in the face of Authority, and trample down the Laws of their Country? In what Realm or Re­gion was it ever deemed "discreet", for a Man to come with a Petition in one hand, and a loaded Musket in the other. The Unmasker may think as he pleases, but I am sure this is not PLAIN TRUTH.

"They sent in a Memorial", says this Writer, "to the Governor; letting his Honour know that by such a time they would be at Germantown, and there halt till he was pleased to give them an answer". If they did send in their Petition before they came to Germantown, it was so far commendable, and spoke more in their favour than their preceding conduct. But it has been observed that it was by no means dictated in the petitory manner; a small quotation will evince the truth of this remark, where, speaking of killing the Indians in the Barracks, they say, "It is this we DESIGN, it is this we are RESOLVED to PROSECUTE".

"Some of the People called Quakers", says the Un­masker, "said that they had force sufficient to kill the whole", and "it was better so, than condescend to treat with such a Banditti". It is impossible in an answer of this kind to decide what "some of the People" might say. However, had any Quakers of note made such a propo­sition, why did he not mention their names? Certainly, he does not want good-will enough to expose them. But as he only asserts it without proof, I must use the freedom of suspending my assent.

"Nevertheless", says he, "those Gentlemen, who were more averse to the shedding of the blood of their Fellow-Subjects, [Page 9] than the meek, peaceful, inspired Quakers, did prevail". Here we have another instance of our Au­thor's fair and ingenuous way of arguing. Even admit­ting (tho' with little reason) that some called Quakers might have been of that opinion, does it infer that the Quakers (i. e. the Society) approved of such sentiments. Let us reduce the sense of this to the scholastick way of reasoning, and see what a pretty syllogism it will make.

If some called Quakers would have fought the Paxton People, had they come to Philadelphia, it means the meek, peaceful, inspired Quakers would.

But some called Quakers would have fought, had they come to Philadelphia;

Ergò, the "meek, peaceful, inspired Quakers wanted to shed the blood of their Fellow-Subjects."

What a curious Logic is here! And yet this would be the Unmasker's inference.

"They were willing," says he, "to disperse and re­turn to their respective homes, which was accordingly agreed to". (Tho' by the by, it is conceived from an other reason than that alledged; to wit) "on proviso they might have a fair hearing", "and they dispersed without doing any Mischief". Then their design was mischievous? "They (the Paxton People) have charged the Quakers with gross partiality to Indians, and their being unfit for Government, nay, ascribe the greatest part of their sufferings to them ALONE". This is not so "glaring a Fact" neither, as the Unmasker would make it out. That the Quakers have had more trouble, and been at more expence than any other Society in the Province, in endeavouring to bring the Indians over to the English Interest, ever since the commencement of last War, is a truth that all the impartial will acknow­ledge. If they have not been so fortunate as to accom­plish their design, and have shewn too much lenity to­wards them, would it not be more becoming an unpre­judiced, candid person, to attribute such errors to a fai­lure [Page 10] in judgment, rather than a design in the Quakers to have our bleeding Borders infested with the cruel Bar­barians of the Wilderness? Indeed our Frontier-Inhabitants have been strangely deluded and abused concerning the character, that has been handed to them, of this People. "They do sympathize" (most sincerely) "with them", and unfeignedly "pity their distresses". But they have Enemies in Philadelphia, that are determined, if it lays in their power, to make the Frontier-Inhabitants ever­lastingly hate them. —The rest of this paragraph contains some low invectives, quite foreign to PLAIN TRUTH, and are too mean to deserve any further notice.

"Let us next consider Quakers with respect to Go­vernment"; says the Unmasker, "Can it be consistent that a Person who declares that his conscience forbids him to take up Arms, should be a Representative for a warlike People? By no means: Neither is it an "inex­pressible absurdity" that a man who communes with the Quakers may not make a good Representative even "in time of war". You stare at this, Sir, as militating against itself; but let us examine, look into any Set of Christians, and you may find some of its Members that don't agree in every Article of its Believe, and yet com­mune with that Society which they have been educated among. Nor is this, I conceive, at all preposterous or hypocritical. The Father instructs his Son in what he thinks is truth, and during the son's minority the father endeavours to implant his own opinions into the bosom of his child, but when the son arrives to years of under­standing, it is his peculiar privilege to judge for himself; (and he is accountable to GOD only, the Author of his being, for his thoughts) and then, as men vary so much in their sentiments, how common is it for people to re­cede from their primary instructions in some particulars, and yet hold in the main with the Christian System in which they have been educated? nor was this ever thought duplicity, or counted a dissembling part, by sensible [Page 11] and thinking men. Thus, we have had several instances, at divers times, of men who have been educated Qua­kers, (unexceptionable, moral men) who have thought it no Crime to defend their King and Country, their Laws and Immunities against the violence of a foreign, or domestic enemy. Non-resistance, therefore, is not "a fundamental Principle" universal among Quakers. But if it is so "inexpressibly absurd" for a Quaker to be an Assemblyman, why in the name of sense are they not left out at the annual Elections? How few Quakers to Members of other Societies is there, in the Counties of Lancaster and York! and yet we find Quaker As­semblymen even in those places: What can be the rea­son of this? Is it that the people really think them the suitablest men, or are their Constituents under an "in­fatuation"? as the Declaration civily expresses it.

"Here", the Unmasker "observes, that the peo­ple whom the Quakers took up arms to destroy" (might not the Quakers, with equal justice, rejoin, the people that said they'd scalp them) "were those who preserved them from feeling the Severities and Contrivances of In­dian Cruelty? "'Tis owing", says he, "to the brave stand which these unrequited Voluntiers have made against the inroads of Savages, that the Quakers are now able to treat their Protectors with such ingratitude." (Is that really the case then? God bless them for it! and may their King and Country amply reward them!)—Can the Unmasker seriously think that the Paxton Volun­tiers expedition to the Great Island was the means of Phi­ladelphia's not being laid waste by Savages, and its Inha­bitants butchered? If this is not his meaning "feeling the Severities and Contrivances of Indian Cruelty," must be idle words. (That Expedition was unquestionably praise-worthy) but surely the Unmasker must be dreaming, or only means this for a flourish. Were the Quakers the only people that armed on the late occasion? Were there not Churchmen, Presbyterians, Roman Catholicks, &c [Page 12] in short did not all good and honest men approve of the opposition? But the Quakers must be made odious at any rate.

"Behold the Meeting-House", says he, "converted into a place of Arms". One of the days that the City was under arms happened to be Meeting-Day, and the Meeting-House was opened at the usual hour for the re­ception of its Members, but before they came, a Com­pany of the Association had taken possession of it to shel­ter themselves from the inclemency of the weather, it being a rainy day, and there remained till evening; from thence, he says, the Quakers have converted it into "a place of Arms".

"Whilst some of their Preachers are busied in procure­ing Powder and Shot, others are employed in refreshing the spirit or their brave Soldiers with Wine and other Liquors." Amazing Falsehood! and is this his Address to the Public of Plain Truth?—Despicable Scribbler! thus to violate the sacred name of Truth with such bare­faced Fictions.

The Unmasker here gives way to his depraved fancy once more, and, to make use of a peculiar expression of his, "saddles" the Quakers with a malicious invention of his own, instead of proving matters of fact; — wretched succedaneum!— in which among other things, equally kind, he puts this into the mouth of a Quaker, "nay we secretly rejoice when we hear of whole Settle­ments MURDERED and DESTROYED". Sure this un­happy man's senses must be steep'd in gall, and his heart dash'd with wormwood, to utter such detestable calumny.

"But it may be asked", says the Unmasker, "why all this Clamour against Quakers? ay! and with the greatest reason! but Philopatrius seems to be sensible at last, that he is grossly abusing a Society of People, on little or no grounds. This Writer says, "to talk against Presbyterians as such, is the effect either of party-spirit, malice or nonsense." I agree with him with [Page 13] all my heart; and think likewise that to talk against Quakers as such, is equally the effect either of malice and party-spirit or nonsense. To confine virtue or vice to any particular sect or set of men, shews little know­ledge in human nature and a most uncharitable narrow­ness of spirit; human nature being all formed out of the same essence, and only dispersed in different degrees to different men; every Society, therefore, has its knaves and honest men; and that the Quakers have their Modi­cum of the later, with other Communities, I must in charity believe.

In the next paragraph we have an observation of the father of Constantine the Great, that, "they who were false to their God, would never be true to their Prince." Which he seems to insinuate is applicable to the Qua­kers; and that they are like "the Pagans, ready to embrace any religion indifferently", and of course should be "discarded," and, "the Christians", that is, Paxton people, "be employed, who firmly adhere to their pro­fession." I would not invidiously pervert any man's meaning, but I can put no other sense on this paragraph.

"Let us look round", says the Unmasker, "and see who are those who enjoy the Places of Profit and Trust in this Province; (a very few excepted) are they not Qua­kers or Quakers Creatures?" are all those Gentlemen then, of other Societies in the Province, (a very few ex­cepted,) that bear public Offices, Quakers Creatures?— abusive man!—to let his factious zeal carry him to such lengths of vile defamation.

"It has been argued", says he, "if the Indians are guilty let their accusers appear, and not put them to death without a fair trial"? and doubtless a very up­right and Christian argument it is: but because "it is a hard matter to prove Indians guilty,—that are not guilty—"put them to death without a fair trial."

Again, "But it has been proved by a very circumstan­tial Oath of a young man (who has since very unac­countably [Page 14] disappeared) that the Quakers, or Persons who appeared to be such, have convey'd off and con­cealed these (Indians) that were most suspected". It is said in the Scriptures, that there be some men who will debase themselves even to Hell: what a marvellous de­gree of turpitude does this Writer here discover! and what a malignant heart must such a man have! to men­tion a most infamous Forgery, as—"a very circumstan­tial Oath"? and to say the assertion "has been proved": a perjury that had been plotted with a design to scanda­lize and vilify the King's Officers, (that had orders from the General to guard the Indians) and the Society of Quakers; the Person who took the qualification, having absconded, and the Magistrate, who gave the Oath, being afterwards of opinion that he was perjur'd.

I have now gone thro' the task I imposed on myself; to wit, a discussion of "THE QUAKER UNMASK'D", or PLAIN TRUTH": and from what the Unmasker has said, "I hope my Countrymen will coolly consider", whether or no, in his "diligent Search after Aggressors", he has hit upon "PLAIN TRUTH"? and whether it is ap­parent that the Quakers have shewn any favour to our Savage Enemies, or attempted to screen one of them from Justice? and whether some Members of that Communi­ty's joining their Fellow-Citizens to protect the Innocent from the bloody violence of a deluded people can be called so? And lastly, that this did not proceed from any prejudice to the distressed Frontier-Inhabitants, or the want of generous sympathizing hearts, but from a noble regard to justice, and the preservation of the Laws of their Country, is it not equally clear?

And now, my Countrymen, if this is the case, and I believe all the impartial will acknowledge it is, what must we think of a Writer who without any provocation could thus attempt to blast the reputation of so large a Body of People, many of whom are valuable Members of Society? What must we think of a man who could [Page 15] treat his neighbour with such scurrility▪ who could pu­blish such base falsehoods, under the mask of truth? It surely could not arise from a zeal, as he pretended, "that Peace might again be restored among us?" No: Such a supposition would imply greater stupidity than belongs to his character. Let me speak with boldness what reason and truth conspire to dictate. We must than conclude that our Unmasker had no other design but to vindicate the conduct of Rioters, and bespatter as much as possible the name of a Quaker, no matter with how little justice or decency; to impose on the ignorant, in­flame the giddy, and to prolong the alienation (unhap­py circumstance!) which has already taken place. Judge then, my Fellow-Countrymen, whether such a man's opinion should determine you in your choice of Representatives?—

But I hasten to conclude, in the sentiment of a noble Lord, upon another occasion; Whatever factions may arise, and however loud the Drummers of faction may sound their noisy alarms; however they may attempt to drown the voice of reason and truth by their clamour; let the Friends of Pennsylvania lay aside the animosities which have been raised and maintained by the wicked and by the weak; let them hold fast their integrity, and sup­port with spirit the Cause of their Country and its Laws, and they will confirm the good, reclaim the bad, van­quish the incorrigible, and Peace again shall be restored among us.