The Innocent VINDICATED FROM THE Falsehoods & Slanders Of Certain Certificates Sent from America on behalf of Samuel Jenings, and made public by J. P. in Old England.  
By Daniel Leeds.  He that hideth Hatred with Lying Lips, and he that uttereth a Slander is a Fool, Prov. 10.18. 
Printed in the Year 1695.   

THough my Lot be fallen in a Scribbling Contentious Age, which makes many things of weight and substance slighted, (which was ready to deter me from writing) yet I find it my Duty, according to my capacity, to detect Falsehoods and Slanders covered with a profession of Truth, of which sort, the Book of Certificates published by John Pennington, is plentifully stored. But 'tis not my intent to make Reply to the particular Accusations the said Penington brings against G. K. he being more capable to answer himself, if he thinks it worth his while to waste Ink & Paper about it; for truly I think the man would have wanted matter to make up his Book, if he had not repeated the same things over & over again, and his being so hard put to his shifts to revile G. K. (not daring to accuse him a Doctrine, tho' there lies the main pinch) that the chief part of what he writes against G. K. he takes o●● of S. Jenings Book, who is G K's adversary, concluding (I conceive) that because his brother S. Jewing alleges this, that and t'other thing against G. K. that therefore it must needs be infallibly true, and that must be a sufficient proof against G. K. in time of need; and while he blames G. K. for unfair managing Controversy, he cannot see how unfair himself is in this, and in several other things, both falsely asserting and misrepresenting G. K's words: But the morning of the great discovering Day is dawned wherein all shall be laid open, and no man shall hinder it.  
But to the Certificates my intent is to speak, & chief to that sent from a Monthly Meeting at Burlington the 6 t. 6 m. 1694. which comprehends most of the rest, I shall first show how it was obtained (as I had it as well from some that signed it, as from others which refused to sign it) and next, I shall show how it is stuffed full of Lies and Slanders, that the impartial Reader may see how they sly to Lies for a Refuge, and to Slanders for Revenge.  
When News came from England that S. Jenings was beset in London, by reason of his & his brethren's Actions at Philadelphia coming out in print, Ann, the Wife of S. J. made application first to some Members of Chesterfield Meeting, & obtained a Certificate to relieve her Husband in that distress, for which I blame her not. Then J. Wilsford and Fr. Devonport, two of that Meeting, came to the Meeting at Burlington, to propagate the business there. And having framed a Certificate, it was read in the Meeting, and some readily signed it, but some others, (more willing to see with their own Eyes) made some scruple; and one or two, it seems, questioned the truth of what was written about D. Leeds, which scruple Fr. Devonport took off, by saying, That he had heard D. Leeds say, That he hath not ●●ia Unity with the Quakers since he came into the ●●●try [which is a Lie, as shall be shown anon] Others refused wholly to set hand to it, and shown their Reasons, which I could insert, but for brevity's sake omit; at last it appeared one third of the Meeting did not sign to it, which looked a little odd to those that had signed it; whereupon they resolved upon this Expedient, viz. to write it over again, and for one man to sign it in the Name of the Meeting, and so bring in all those to be guilty of signing, that had refused [A notable way to force a Unity] and for this purpose they made use of James Martial, that it might look with a fairer face, and laid aside their Clerk (for that time) because (as J. Wilsford said) he was given to drinking and Company keeping. But the Certificate being completed, F. Devonport hasted with it next morning down the River, to send it for England, ●here being printed, and returned hither again, is now come under consideration; which before they endeavoured to prevent me and others of: For, I having an account, as aforesaid, went to their next Monthly Meeting for a Copy of the Judgement they had drawn up against me, and sent to England, wherein (I told them) I understood I was defamed. They answered, They had not defamed me, nor wrote any untruth of me. To which I replied, If you have not wronged me, I hope you will be the more willing to do me justice, in granting me a Copy; I'll pay for the writing of it, etc. These and many more words passed, but at last the result was [having none of their Ministers there] That I could have no answer till next Meeting. I went again next Meeting, but no Copy could I obtain, & J. Wilsford gave me an answer in these words, viz. G. Keith, und a Company of you have printed and exprosed us so shamefully to the World, until you condemn that, thou, shalt have no Copy by my Consent. To which I replied, People, behold your Preacher! he preaches, Revenge is his Christian Doctrine, he will not do Justice, because others have done unjustly, as he alleges. With that, two of the Meeting risen up, and faced me with a fierce Countenance, mixed part with Revenge, and part with Scorn, uttering bitter words, and one of them I remember rendered me a Jesuit. And this was all the Justice I could obtain from them.  
But the Certificate being printed in England, as aforesaid, and returned to America having miss the hands of S. Jenings, so that he could not keep them up from the Persons concerned, as he did his own Lying Book, called, The state of the Case, etc.) one of these Books of Certificates is come to my hands. And the first thing I note is, They allege Peter Bess makes a great Noise with his Queries & Witnesses to prove them. To which I say, The Noise was so little, before S. Jenings arrested him (& so made the Noise himself that very few of that Meeting heard it much less in other parts; and although they resent it so hethens a Crime in P. Bess for querying with S.J. whether those Reports were true, or not, yet we see the twelve men of the Jury (those of them his own Brethren) could not find it so much as a Slander, so little was the wrong done by P. B. & had it not been for a Law made by a pattern from New-England (as W. Byles told me) that makes it finable to speak slightingly of Magistrates, the Jury must have cleared P. Bess in the case. And then what become● of this heinous Crime of murdering a man's Reputation, as S. J. calls it?  
2dly, They accuse P. Bess of prejudice against S. J. ever since the Meeting gave Judgement against him in the case of a difference between him and his Neighbour.  
Ass. As to the Meeting giving Judgement against P. B. I know to be false, being present at the Meeting when the thing was debated; but if his Enemies since have got a Judgement into the Meeting Book about that difference, be it to them that did it.  
3dly, They allege, he flattered, persuaded & queried with People, to make up those bundles of stuff, meaning the Queries. But I believe this is not true, for these Reasons, 1st. P. Bess is known to all that know him, to be no flatterer, but a man plain and blunt, and truly for this reason I find myself the more concerned in his Vindication, because I even hated flattery. 2dly, There was no need of his flattering or persuading; for 'tis known to all the Meetings, and all hereabouts, that most of those Reports concerning S. Jenings were frequent about the Country long before P. B. queried concerning the truth of them.  
4ly, They accuse P. B. of being rude, wicked and cruel to his Maidservant, because he could not obtain his Will. This must needs be a base Slander at least; for, 1st, they insinuate hereby, as if he would have lain with her; which tho' 'twas said, she had reported some such thing, yet being examined, news was brought that she denied it: And I remember that I then took it as the general sense of the Meeting, that she endeavoured to make her Master weary of her, to be set free, or change her service; a thing very desirable to most that come Servants from England to these parts. 2dly, They do not in the least declare wherein he was rude, wicked & cruel, as they ought to have done: if they had been just to him: They say in their Chesterfield Certificate, That their wellbeloved Brother S J. was just to all men; Why then are they not just to P. Bess, and tell wherein he was rude, wicked & cruel, and yet S. Jenings be just to all, though it appears by their own Certificates to clear him, That he be at a Man Servant till he broke a Cane, and whi●● a Maid Servant in her Bed, see p. 32 & 42. I say, could this be just in S. Jenings, as they say, He was just to all, p. 19 and yet he rude wicked & cruel in P. Bess in beating his Maid, If he did so. Reader, pray consider from what Fountain this Burlington Certificate spring. Well might a third part of the Meeting refuse to sign it.  
And lastly, To render him yet more Odious, if possible, they say, If Friends and soebr People did but know how reproachful his Life and Conversation has been amongst us, etc.  
Now I demand of these Enemies of P. Bess, to show wherein his Life and Conversation is so reproachful: Is he a Blasphemer, or Thief, or Knave, or Whoremonger, or Adulterer? Is he a Drunkard, an Extortioner, a Lascivious or a Proud Person? Nay, is he a quarrelsome or ill Neighbour? Next time you print pray be so just as to tell us, and the world wherein his Conversation is so reproachful. But herein you manifest (to the judicious) your Spirit of Prejudice and Revenge; for (it seems) 'tis sufficient for you to call a man wicked, and of a reproachful Life, and leave it to others to show wherein he is so. We are informed, and that by one of your own Friends of the Ministry, which came lately out of England, That S. J. when last in England, made search and enquiry of P. B's Conversation while he dwelled in England, and doubt not but if he had found any thing against him, it would freely have come forth in print. But finding not particular matters against him in England not America, they'll venture to brand him for a Person of a reproachsal Life: The Burlington Certificate says it, and therefore it must be so. Now I would have none to think that I justify P. Bess as a man free from failings, no more than myself, S. Jenings, etc. for truly we have little cause, if rightly considered, to ●●veigh one against another, being all of one lump of Corruption, and the Grave will soon equal us all; but for a [pretended] whole Meeting to grate so upon a Man in print, endeavouring to destroy his Reputation, as a Man, without declaring matter of Fact, is so far short of common humanity, that it is intolerably abusive; and to do him the same justice they did me, in denying him a Copy when demanded.  
The next thing in course is about S. J's riding a Horse-race with J. Slocum, and being drunk. Now, this I say, I do not believe S.J. will be drunk; for I know he has a stronger Head to bear drink, than to be diguised by it, unless by chance. And if S. J. be wronged in this case, who is to blame? not P. Bess, but W. Biddle, ●un. for I know several Persons that I can give credit to, that affirm, they had that report from W. B's own Mouth; therefore let the saddle be laid upon the right Horse. But one thing by the way, I have been credibly informed, that some or one of S. J's Friends went with J. Slocum before a Magistrate in East-Jarsey, to get him declare the truth of the matter upon his Attestation, but the Magistrate refused to attest J. Slocum, alleging, it was probable he might be drunk also. Now if this be true, I account it great discretion in the Magistrate.  
2dly, They say, the third Query is proved a Lie, by a Certificate from the Person concerned, and this is my Neighbour John Antrum, poor man! I am really sorry for him, because I think no means no body harm; but to say, by what instruments or means he was so weak to be drawn by, to deny the truth, and give under his hand, that he had no right to Land there, I shall omit at this time; but this I must say, that all or most of his Neighbours know, that he then declared, that he had a right to the Land, and that S. J. had surveyed it from him, and was in an extreme passion about it, as soon as he heard of it; and I having been the former Surveyor, he came to me to ease himself, expecting I could help him; knowing that I knew his right there, he having before told me of his intention about taking it up; but I let him know it was out of my power to do any thing in that kind, being out of Office; but he expressed himself in great trouble about it, to me and my Wife, calling the Surveyor Knave, and said, I pray God keep me in my right Senses, S. Jenings has done right Taylor-like, that takes a piece of one man's Garment, and a piece of another's, to make one for himself; for I hear (said he) he has surveyed, Matthews Meadow too; These were his words, with many more, not only to me and my Wife, but to several others at other times and places So that the Reader, may very well see, that Peter Bos● is not the Liar or raiser of that Report. And if the rest of the Certificate signers have done like my Neighbour J. Antrum, they have made a poor hand on't, that after so many years feeding upon Sermons from Meeting to Meeting, they at last are left so hungry to eat their own words; but 'tis no wonder, for their Ministers have done it also, to our certain knowledge. And tho' many People know not how to judge, or what to believe, as to these things, yet surely they are not hid from Almighty God, who will judge righteously.  
3dly, To the fourth Query, they say, That that Witness has for many Tears been a prejudiced Person, and declared he hath not had unity with the Quakers since he came into the Country.  
Now Observe, They do not in the least mention wherein the Evidence I have given may be suspected [its enough belike they say it] and yet to invalidate my Evidence, they insinuate to the world in print, That my evidence is not to be taken notice of, because (they say) I am prejudiced; which is an indirect declaring me perjured, because what I there evidenced, was upon my solemn Attestation before Authority: I am apt to believe that if such a man as S. J. had the like thing as this against me, he might improve it to my cost. Does not such actions as these render their Meeting; rather Seditious than Religious, thus to meet together to defame men in print, by rendering them unfit to give Evidence, without having matter of Fact to charge them with, muchless to prove against them?  
But as to the Charge itself, That I am prejudiced, I do not only hope it is not true, but have and do pray to God that it may not be true, however, I believe myself to be at least as clear as those that affirm it of me. But that I have declared myself to have no Unity with the Quakers since I came into the Country, I know to be a Lie; and in short I'll declare the matter from which Francis Devenport draws that Consequence, viz. after I had been four years in the Country, I was at a Monthly Meeting at the House of John Woolstone in Burlington, where the Meeting seemed in two parties, W. Peachy, W. Cooper, and others contending violently against T. Olive, etc. about the way or method of exhorting Offenders, & I perfectly remember T. Olive's words were these, If any one have it in their heart from the Lord to go to an Offender, let them go in God's Name, I am one with them; but for the Meeting to send Persons, I am against: This passage I once told F. Devenport accidentally, and withal told him, I was one with T. O. in that thing, and am still of the same mind; and this thing F. Devenport hath kept, it seems, as a Weapon under his smooth Coat, near ten Years, to strike me with at this opportunity. So here the Reader may see where their Unity stands. Yet as I know no Disunity I had with the Quakers ●is● then, so unless he can prove T. Olive, and those of his side then [viz. D. W. J. W. and others] no Quakers, he cannot say but I had Unity them T. Olive was a man whom I always loved, and have oft said, That 'twas my belief no man had better kept his Integrity that came into these parts, than T. O. had done; and do believe the Quakers and he had Unity, notwithstanding his dissent from some in that point. And therefore F. Devenport ought not to have let prejudice so rule his Reason as to have witnessed to a Lie against me, upon this Consequence. But I suppose F. D's word will pass amongst more than mine; Solomon saith, Favour is not to men of Knowledge. and F. D. in one main point declares himself true to his Brethren, and therefore must needs merit their Unity, viz. to hid his Religion under a Bushel as long as he lives; for he has declared, That no man shall know his Faith, but by his Works; so that the Pharisees of Old may stand in competition with him, for they were very just men, as to the outward. And thus he can at once kick the Command of the Apostle out at the Church Door, viz. 1 Pet. 3.15. Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.  
And as to S. Jenings surveving of R. Matthews Meadow, his answer to it, in Book, called, state of the case, etc. he has both abused me and his own knowledge, in calling what I evidenced, An idle story, and yet neither does nor can say, the story is not true; and how can that which is true, be idle? for the substance of what I declare upon my Attestation, is, That he surveyed that Meadow (by Simon Charles) which is not denied, but owned by him; in short, the judicious Reader may early see, that S. Jenings his Answer is only a crafty Shuffle, even such as a plain honest Quaker would blash at; for I appeal to S. J. himself, That suppose the survey of his own Meadow (which lies off from his Plantation too) were by a mistake or neglect (in the Recorder) wrong or short recorded, whether he would not count it unjust in any that should, take that advantage to take away his Meadow, and thereby ruin his Plantation? Here lies the plain honesty of the case.  
And whereas S. J. tells Elias Far, in his Letter printed with the Certificates, That all the Meadow was not pretended to be for Matthews. But I say, that's a mistake, at least, in S. J. for there was no more Meadow in that place, but what was surveyed and recorded to Matthews seven years before, which Meadow terminated in a small run of water at the lower ●nd, where grew some Bushes, and there's a marked Tree or two still to be seen, only the Bushes being burnt root and branch, it shows like Meadow further; but the number of Acres would have determined the matter, which was to be 25. our Law allowing so to 500 Acres of Land. And this was all that was wanting in the wording the survey, which if that had been, (which it seems was by some means omitted) the survey had been perfect. And therefore if it be printed over never so often, Sam. Jenings is to blame for meddling with that Meadow, especially the Owner being absent, and also, inasmuch as I told him how the case stood, shown him the Meadow, and also a Copy of the Record, when he was about to survey said Meadow, and would have dissuaded him from it, as he knows. But to return to the matter.  
In the Burlington Certificate they tell of a Warrant they have by them, insinuating as if J. Skeen took a course at Law with S. Jenings, for saying, Thou pitiful Whip-jack, I despise thee; for that is the thing cited in the Book of the Trials, pag. 30. which we say is false; and therefore if they look again, they'll find it their mistake, nay, a sly insinuation to make the World believe that J. S. took a course at Law S. J. for calling him Ill Names. We grant there was a Warrant written, but 'twas about their difference concerning the Road to Burlington, when they were stopped, and there had like to have b●●● Mischief done; and I heard the Warrant was never executed; but this was for Actions and Threats, as being Unhorsed, and the like, and it was not J. Skeen, but his Wife that complained, being filled with fear of Mischief, S. Jenings having ordered his Son and Servants to stop any of J. Skeens family coming that way, (and that he himself would Unhorsed them, if he met him, viz. J. S) and had endeavoured it with Forks, etc. and broke the Bottles of Rum that J. S 's Son was carrying to the Reapers: & 'tis to be noted also, That some of that Meeting were greatly dissatisfied with S. Jenings behaviour in that affair, and resolved to bring it up in the Meeting, before S. J. removed to Philadelphia; but when the time came, his greatness was such as they had not courage to do it. But to say, their differences were quickly ended, is but daubing; for I know that at the next Monthly Meeting after J. S 's Death, some of S. I 's Friends were for putting the matter, on against the Widow, and I well remember one in the Meeting answered, Let the Widow alone, poor Wom●n, she hath Exercise enough for the loss of her Husband; and so that matter was no more meddled with. And if they mean it was quickly ended, because it could be continued no longer, by reason of J. S' Death, I suppose they are in the right.  
And whereas they tell of Henry Beck and and J. Smith, two of the Evidences, getting young Women with Child, they ought also to have been just to these men, and let the world know that the Young Women were their espoused Wives, that they got with Child: They still are wanting in that excellent Virtue which they say S. Jenings hath, To be just to all men; for they have not been just to these two, but do, as much as in them lies, to defame well-meaning men, and render them Odious: what though they were overtaken with that Infirmity in their Youth, must they therefore be rendered to the World in print, as unfit for Evidences, when neither the Law of God nor Man does now condemn them: Surely if Sam Jenings be just to all men, as they say, needs no such Rubbish to defend him.  
Again, they say of J. Bainbridge, That he has been a Drunkard, Fighter, Quarrel, Rude and Wicked. I say, I know not but the Man has been so; and if he be mended now, does that offend them? pray which of us have not been wicked in one respect or other? but it seems their buness' is not encourage men in turning from evil, but to render them Odious for the evil they have done: O! what a woeful case are we in, if God should deal so by us! Now Jo. Bainbridge denys that ever he called his Mother Jezabel, as they affirm, and says, They cannot prove it, they have belied him in that; and that his Mother le●● the Country, and went to England for such behaviour in him, is utterly false.  
Then as what is said of James Silver, in the Certificate they declare, that he said, it was extorted from him, (meaning his Evidence in the Book of the Trials) never thinking it should b● put in print. These last words, (never thinking it should be put in print) he owns he said, but says, the other is false, he never said it was extorted from him; for he says, That when they asked him concerning the Truth of what he declared, his answer was, Ay, it is all true, and a great deal more; but he did not think when he spoke it, that it should have been printed, he was sorry for that. And that it is true that he gave them that answer, the best Friend of mine going by the House of T. G. in Burlington, heard him speak the same words to those that were interrogating him, who told it to me the same day; and therefore I am fully persuaded of that being another Falsehood; also, I believe the man knew not the meaning of the word extort. And altho' Benj. Moor calls it a great Lie in that Ja. Silver says, his Master Jenings took him by the Throat, yet to my knowledge Benjamin himself has formerly declared such like words, as that his Master gripped him by the Coll●r, and other Complaints he has made, which I have met with at Neighbours Houses. But one thing I observed, which in the defence of Ja. Silver I shall relate, viz. That on a time when S. Jenings was going to England, the said B. M. came to his House to make up some Accounts with him, or the like, and I saw S J. give his old Servant Benjamin a very good Leather Garment or two, and 'tis observable, that B. Moor never after that hath been heard to give his Master a hard word, for which I do not blame him; but truly when men say and unsay, and so make mischief among their Neighbours, I judge them to blame for that; for I take it to be an argument of being void of Conscience.  
Lastly, I find among the Certificates, That Benj. More, jun. charges Joh. Silver and J. Smith of stealing Oats, Powder, Shot, Wool, Eggs, and the like; but I leave them to answer for themselves, that are defamed by it; for I judge it a Defamation, if true, because 'tis divulged many years out of time; and tho' it be like the bundles of stuff in the rest of the Certificates, yet I should be loath any man should have the like advantage against me, as they have against the said B. M. if he dare own it especially, unless I had potent partial Friends, but 'tis enough for me to have such Enemies.  
By this time I hope my old Friends will no more judge others for making up bundles of stuff, and raking up Dirt; for if they do, they certainly condemn themselves, as much as ever men did, as he that reads impartially must acknowledge. And I desire they would take notice of this, That I have not used that method against them [but what a Defender cannot avoid] to take up what failings I could against them, 'tis not my way, I scorn it; I know we are all subject to weaknesses of the flesh, so that I have not been curious (since I had the understanding of a man) about Tithe, Mint, Annis & Cummin, or the skirts of Religion, and therefore have been judged by some, a lose Person; but 'tis the weightier matters of Religion that I have been and am concerned for, and chief the Faith and Merits of our Lord Jesus of Nazareth, so that when I hear him denied, slighted or undervalved, than a Zeal arises in me, and I cannot be silent; I mean, that Jesus for whom the holy Apostles and blessed Martyrs suffered; they did not suffer for owning or denying the Light within them (which yet is a Leader unto him) but they suffered for professing him that was born of the Virgin Mary to be Christ the Son of God, even that same Jesus whom the Jews slew and hanged on a Tree (and they could not say nor hang the Light there) yea, the very same that they slew and hanged on a Tree, that God hath now exalted: it was he they suffered for, and 'tis he that I hope for Salvation by, and pray that he will enable me to obey his Precepts.  
D. L.   

A Postscript by another Hand.  
WEre it not but that I know how to spend my precious Time better, could fill a vollumn to show the Per●●rsions and Falsehoods of Sam Jenings, Thomas Elwood an● J. Penington, in their late Pamphlets against G. Keith, etc. but there being some Reply made to the two first by G. K. and the above short answer to the latter, I shall at present only detect two or three Falsehoods in S. J's book, called, The state of the case, etc. and so conclude.  
In the first place I observe, that both Sam. Jenings, Thomas Elwood and John Penington being hard beset to clear their Friends from the Errors charged and proved against them, they endeavour to invalidate the Evidences of honest men, S. J. p. 7. says, These two Witnesses were much at the Devotion of G. R. & his creatures to use as he pleased. Which I charge upon Sam. Jenings as a wicked Lie, and demand of him to show wherein these two Witnesses were G. K's Creatures, to used as he pleased.  
In the next place I find his Brother Elwood to follow his steps, and in his book called, A further discovery, p. 25. says, Those 2 Witnesses, who were both known to be strong in party with G. K. and great Adversaries to W. S. But I would ask T.E. how he knows they were strong in party with G.K.? and wherein it appeared they were great Adversaries to W. S.? Had there then been any difference, controversy or party taking, whereby these Witnesses had shown themselves strong in party with G. K. and great Adversaries to W. Stockdale? I say, Nay, and T. E. has therein uttered a great Falsehood. And I advise him next time to have more ground for what he asserts than S. J. bare say-so. But this way I find they take to discredit G. K's evidences: it's a new trick they have found out (and, true or false, will be believed by some) for nothing was alleged against them at the time they gave evidence, but on the contrary T. Loyd said then, of one of them, he might be counted among the Elders, etc. But he not running with the stream, his Veracity now must be questioned concerning what he did evidence four years ago.  
They having thus endeavoured by Lies and Falsehoods to discredit G. K 's evidences, let's hear how S. J. multiplies the Evidences against G. K. viz. T. Fitzwater having charged G. K. with denying the sufficiency of the Light, he brings only W. Stockdale as an evidence to prove it, but Sam. Jenings in his state of the case, p. 3. says, T. Fitzwater brought W. Stockdale & W. Meaning to evidence to the truth of his charge. But as we know T. F. never pretended to bring W. Meaning as an evidence, so nor is there any such person in these parts, therefore forgery in S. J. to make two where there's but one.  
Then again, whereas G. K. had occasionally related how S. J. in a Monthly Meeting called one of his fellew Members Nonsensical Puppy, to wipe off this, he says, p. 41. when he met with it in print, he made enquiry, & heard it was spoken by one T. Tress, an odd sort of a singular man, etc. But here it may be observed, That S. J. is not just in this Relation, for it was not only T. Tress, but R. Ward also, that did then, and do now evidence to the truth thereof. But I suppose S. J. thought it best to mention but one evidence, that the matter related against him, might seem the more probable to he false. So where only One Evidence is brought against G. K. he'll forge another to make up two, that the charge against G. K. may seem true, as p. 3. but where Two evidences are against himself, he'll relate only One of them, to make the charge seem not true, see p. 41. Behold, ye Signers of Chesterfield Certificate, this is him ye call your wellbeloved Friend, who was just to all men! will ye say he is just in this matter before related? I suppose not. Well might he be ashamed to let his Book go publicly abroad, here in America, where so many knew it to be made up chief of Lies, Perversions & Forgeries, and therefore it was great Policy in him to keep his books up, and not let one of them be seen by those that were abused therein. But now they are come to hand another way, & his Clandestine way of spreading them is to no purpose. And it now lies upon him to vindicate his said book, and make a just Reply to G. K's Answer to him: Some of the Persons abused by his Book, have demanded a public Conference, where they offer to detect his Falsehoods; but this I find he evades.  
There is one passage more which I cannot well pass by without detecting the notorious Falsehood thereof, and that is in pag. 24. of S. J.'s Book, where he insinuates, That G.K. grati●● his hearers by telling them of a preaching Quaker in Maryland, That got another man's Wife with Child, which they could not discern by the Light within: and of another being carried out of a Ta●●house drunk. I shall say no more in answer to these, but that we charge them on S. J. as notorious Falsehoods, and defy the whole world to make good that ever G. K. uttered such expressions in his Preaching. And S. J. might be ashamed to fill his Book with such lying stuff. But T. Elwood has in great part followed S. J. footsteps, and taken many things upon his credit, else surely he would not have uttered so many Falsehoods and Perversions, which we think to detect shortly.  
FINIS.