WE Read among the Proverbs of Solomon, that the way of the Wicked is as darkness, they know not at what they stumble, Prov. 4.19. This is verified in John Raunce, L. Key, and others of their Separate Party. Since their turning against the Truth, their Way is become as Darkness; They stumble and know not at what. They fall into many idle Absurdities, many gross Follies and Errors, and into many hurtful Evils, and labour to draw others (better than themselves) after them: For whose sake chiefly the following Lines are Written, that the Deceit and Hypocrisy of these men, their Falshood and Envy being further and further laid open, the more simple and well meaning ones amongst them, may see them as they are, and be no longer beguiled by them.

John Raunce begins his Reflective Paper thus; If T. E. would make it really appear, that we are such bad Persons as he would have us, then some body might know he had done something, &c. To which I say, truly I would not have them be such bad Persons as they are, if I could help it; and I am sorry they are so bad: but that they are bad, I believe I have plainly proved in several Printed Papers, of which I am content the Reader should judge. He saith, There is no­thing [Page 2] of Evil I have proved against them. I say, if Lying, False Ac­cusing, Railing, Reviling, countenancing loose and disorderly Persons in Marriages, Backbiting, Envy, Division and Separation, Imposition, Persecution, in shutting up Meeting-Houses, and keeping Friends out of their Rights and Properties; if these may pass with him for Evils, I am perswaded I have proved these things upon that Party which he is one of. He charges me to be in such work as one of his Disciples who is the Accuser of the Brethren. I return this upon him­self and his own Party. They are the Accusers of the Brethren: For they have foully and falsly accused many faithful Friends, calling them, and that publickly to the World in Print, Apostates Inno­vators, Idolaters, setters up of Images, Introducers of Popery, &c. And yet (in Deceit and Flattery, to creep in again) have called them Brethren. So that it is they that are indeed The Accusers of the Bre­thren even of them that they themselves call Brethren: Whereas they well know, that Friends do neither own nor call them Bre­thren, unless it be under the Notion of false Brethren, such as once by Profession were Brethren, but now are become Enemies to the Brethren, and to the true Brotherhood.

Next John Raunce says, that In the beginning of my Paper (like the Serpent to Eve) I use fair Words with Craft and Subtilty, to beguile my un­wary Reader, and so darken Council with Words without Knowledge. Where I wonder was his Knowledge when he writ this! Is there any Craft and Subtilty without Knowledge? Here his Craft has fail­ed him, and want of Knowledge has led him into this Absurdity, thus to contradict himself.

He says, Its true, B. C. and C. H. published a Paper, proposing Ex­pedients for Peace and Reconciliation among the People of God called Qua­kers, and (he says) it was very well done. I say, the People of God called Quakers, are at Peace among themselves, and there is no need of Expedients for Reconciliation amongst them. Many Friends (says he) earnestly pray, that Peace may be amongst us. I answer, true Peace cannot be amongst you: For there is No peace to the Wicked, saith my God, Isai. 57.21. And ye have wickedly departed from the Lord, and made a wicked Breach, Rent, Division and Separation from the Church of Christ: Friends may and do earnestly Pray, that they whom Satan by his Instruments, hath led astray, and drawn into a wicked separation from Friends, may through Judge­ment [Page 3] return, and be brought back to the true Fold again: But no Friend to Truth, and to the Peace and Prosperity of the Church, can desire or endeavour to have Reconciliation made (if that could be) between Friends and their Apostates, while they stand and continue in that Spirit of Enmity, Bitterness, Railing, Reviling, Ly­ing, Slanding and Injustice, wherein they have appeared and yet do.

Again he says, The Proposals were made for Peace and Reconciliati­on to differing Friends, as they are a Body of People, &c. I say again, That Friends, as they are a Body of People, differ not with or a­mong themselves. 'Tis they that are gone from Friends, they that are dropt off from the Body, and have imbodied themselves as ano­ther People, in a self-Separation from the Body of Friends; 'tis these that are in the Difference, 'tis these that have made and caused it, tis these that are out of the way of Peace and Reconciliation, into which they can never come again, but through Judgement, and by Repentance.

He says, There is a breach among many of them, about some small matter that are not essential to Salvation; and cannot make us happy in the enjoyment of them, I answer, If the Matters they have broke about are (in his and their esteem) so small it is the greater shame for them, and they are the more to be blamed, for making so great a breach about them. Would they hazard their own and others Damnati­on in making so great a Rent and Breach, about things which they themselves think are not essential to Salvation? The smaller the things were in their Account, for which they have made so great a Breach, the greater will their Judgement and Condemnation be in the day of Account, which the Lord God will assuredly call them to, and which hastens upon them. I desire and intreat those ten­der People that are beguiled by them, to consider this well, and how they can answer it to the great and righteous God.

He says, The Paper published by B. C. and C. H. was to perswade all concerned to endeavour to make up the Breach, in passing by all that hath been done amiss, and to forgive one another wherein any one hath any wise offended. These words are easily spoken, but the Matter is not so easie to be accomplished. The greatest Offence in this Breach is against God himself. They have thereby caused his holy Name to be Blasphemed amongst the Unbelievers, his blessed Truth to be de­spised, and his Faithful People to be reproached by the prophane, a­mongst [Page 4] whom they have industriously spread their filthy Books and Lying Pamphlets, to defame Friend. They have perverted the right Way of the Lord, and hath both hindred many from en­tring into it, and turned many out of it. This is not a small mat­ter; this is not a Light thing, nor lightly to be passed by: And upon good Assurance, I am bold to say, the Lord hath not passed it by. Personal Wrongs between Man and Man only, are of another Nature; but this is not a Wrong to Men as Men: Tis a wrong to God, tis a wrong to the Truth of God, tis a wrong to the People of God, and that as his People. It is not enough therefore for the of­fending Party to say, Let all be passed by that hath been done amiss, &c. But first, let them that have done amiss, repent of their having done amiss, and manifest their Repentance by their Confessing and forsaking those Misdeeds of theirs. This is the way by which Fallen Man comes to be reconciled to God: And this is the only right Way; by which they that have fallen from Truth, and departed from the Communion of the Faithful can be restored to it again.

In my last printed Sheet (called Deceit Discovered, &c.) I char­ged L. Key, and J. Raunce particularly (and such others of that party as joyned with them therein) with Double dealing and Deceit, in pretending to seek Peace and Reconciliation, and proposing an Oblivion of all things relating to former Differences (which they did by spreading the beforementioned Paper signed by B. C. and C. H.) and yet at the same time spread another Paper, tending to revive and dilate the Difference, and inform people afresh about it. I forsaw this would pinch, and Hamper J. Raunce extreamly, and so I find it. He knows not which way to help himself off it; but in attempting that, plunges himself further in. For having spoken of the Paper of Expedients, he faintly touches on the other Paper, thus. Now the other Paper (mentioned by T. E.) was published by L.K. about the same time, and is a more particular Business, wherein but a few Persons are concerned, as being accused by T. E. of many false things, &c. J. Raunce, thus mincing the Business of this Latter Pa­per, shews both his Streight and his Deceit, whereby he would wind himself out of it, if he could; but he cannot. He says, it is a more particular Business wherein but a few Persons are concerned. Yet in that Paper, L. Key directs his Reader to see the Memorial for the present Generation, and also for that which is to come: It gives an Account (says [Page 5] he) of the Difference that hath happened among the people called Quakers (not some few persons only) in these Parts. This is the Book J. Raunce and C. H. (though C. H. hath since declared that it was Prin­ted without his consent, or knowledge) did publish in the year 1690. to transmit the Difference to the succeeding Age, and as a lasting Monument to preserve the difference alive. In the same Pa­per also, L. Key refers his Reader to see also the Revival that was pub­lished from Reading in 1692, It giving an Account (he says) how the Difference was brought in there. If this Paper of L. Keys had related as J. Raunce pretends) to a more particular Business, wherein but a few Persons are concerned, and those but such as were accused by T. E. what need or use had there been of referring the Reader to those several Papers of theirs, which themselves say gives an Ac­count of the Difference that hath happened among the People called Quakers, either in Buckinghamshire or at Reading? Tis manifest, that the Difference L. Key there mentions among the People called Quakers, and which he would have his Reader (whatever he be) fur­ther informed and instructed in, is the same Difference which B.C. and C. H. (one of them of Reading the other of Buckinghamshire) pretended to desire a Reconciliation of: And this alone is enough to Convict J. Raunce of Falshood, in saying that Paper of L. Keys was a more particular Business, wherein but a few Persons were con­cerned. Besides, in that Paper which L. Key calls The Revival, (and to which in his other he refers his Reader for fresh Informa­tion in the Difference) he recommends to the Readers view about half a Score of their durty Pamplets, by their particular Titles, all relating to the Difference; and among them those those two abo­minable Papers, which (it is said) were formed at Wickam, and Sign­ed by S. Aldridge. Was all this done only with respect to a parti­cular Business, wherein but a few Persons were concerned, that were accused by T. E. Or does it not rather manifestly appear, that the design of those who spread those two Papers together (to wit, that of B. C. and C. H. and that of L. K.) was, that while some of the Party made Overtures for Peace, and a shew of desiring Re­conciliation, others of the same Party should spread the know­ledge of the difference, and of those Books and Papers that were written to justify themselves therein? This is what I called Deceit and double Dealing, and which I still account & call so, and which [Page 6] sticks too fast upon them, for even J. Raunce himself, with all his craft and subtilty, to wipe off, or clear himself from. Yet from his false premises he draws this faulty Conclusion, So now, from what hath been said, all rational persons may reasonably conclude that we may with sincerity, make Offers of Peace and Reconciliation with a Body of People, and yet at the same time have Controversie with one or more per­sons who pretend to be of the same Body; and this (he says) may be done without any breach of Sincerity. But he cannot without a great breach of sincerity say that this is the Case in hand. The Matter I charged them with (& which I do still charge them with, and him particularly) was (not having a Controversy with one or more Persons at the same time that they made Offers for Reconciliation with the Body, but) that at the same time that they made Offers for Peace and Reconciliation with the Body, they endeavoured to renew and spread further the Difference which they made the Of­fer to have reconciled, and to that end published anew the Titles of the Books and Papers they had formerly written to promote and defend it, and which (as things relating to former Differences) they proposed, at the same time, in their Expedients for Peace, should be buried in Oblivion on all hands (But it seems by their Actions, they did not mean on their own hands.) This was double Dealing with a Witness; and this double Dealing stands a Witness still against them that did it, particularly J. Raunce. His instan­cing the Controversie that was between Paul and Barnabas, to pa­rallel this Case, is so much beside the Business, that it serves only to shew the streight he is in, and how unable he is to defend him­self. Had either Paul or Barnabas, in that Controversy between themselves, any Difference also with the Church, as these Men ac­knowledge they have? Or if either of them had, did he in the Ma­nagement of the particular Controversie, rip up the difference he had with the Church, and endeavour to spread it as publickly, and as far as he could, and that at the same time while he made Offers for Reconciliation of that very Difference, which he then spread, as I have plainly shewed, J. Raunce, and some of these men have done? If not, what is there in that Case to parallel this? Or what does J. Raunces mentioning that Case prove, but his own weak­ness?

The next thing he passes to is the Paper of the Woman for­merly [Page 7] mentioned, and which L. Key Printed in his last Sheet, to which J. Raunce refers such as desire further satisfaction therein, bidding them read it; and so do I too, with this hint, that they consider it as drawn up, as a Cover for her, by C. H. In my last I confirmed the Account I formerly gave of that foul Business of the forementionod Woman (so much by them defended) by the Re­port those grave Women Friends made, whom at the request of the Mens Meeting, the Womens Meeting sent to Examine her, and enquire into that Business; which was, that they found she had be­haved her self very immodestly in her Carriage towards her Father. This I perceive gauls J. R. much, and because he knows not how to An­swer it, he indeavours in a Rage, to fling it off thus. As for what T. E. saith of his Grave Women, who gave the report he mentioned, there is good Cause, and sufficient Ground to look on what he saith about that Business to be a Forgery of his own Brain, and as such, we & all sober People who know T. E. shall look upon it, till he prove what he saith. I do not doubt but I shall satisfy all sober People: For I do not look upon them to be sober that are Drunk with Envy and prejudice: Others if they will not believe my Report (which I do not desire they should) shall have as plain Evidence as sober People can desire. I took the Words which I Printed before, exactly out of the Monthly Mee­ting Book, where they stand as they were entred at that very time, which was in the 11th Month 1677. before there was any Separa­tion in this Country, and while J: Raunce and C. Harris met with us: And I make no doubt but they know it to be true. But be­cause I would not impose upon the Belief of any, I have desired some Friends to view the Book also, and to certify the Matter as they find it; which they have done thus.

By this J. Raunce may see if he will (but if he will wink, others will see) that he had no Cause nor Ground, to charge me with a Forgery of my own Brain: And if he had had Brain, Honesty, or Civility, I think he would not have done it: For thereby he has but shamed himself, and fixed that foul Matter faster on him.

In the rest of that Paragraph, J. Raunce undertakes to maintain and defend their Account from Wickham, which is the Book that was written by him and C. Harris for a Memorial of the Difference; and he Vaunts, that whatever T. E, hath at any time written against it, he hath not yet proved it false in any one particular. I do not think either he or I is the fittest Judge in that Case. Let the judicious Reader, that has them both, satisfy himself of that. In the mean time, let me observe how askew this looks to the Paper of Proposals for Peace and Reconciliation, in which one Expedient offered was, that All things relating to former Differences should be buried in Oblivion on all hands. Did not this Account of theirs from Wickham, this Monu­mental Memorial, that was raised for the present Generation, and that which is to come, to relate to former Differences? Yes sure, if we may believe L. Key, concerning it (for he says) It gives an Ac­count of the Difference that hath happened among the People called Qua­kers:) Or if we may believe it self concerning it self (for it calls it self An Account from Wickham concerning the Difference among the People called Quakers, &c.) Well then, according to the Proposals for Peace (which C. Harris his Name is to) this Account from Wick­ham (which C. Harris's Name is also to) should have been buried in Oblivion, or passed by as a thing that was done amiss (or which they did amiss in Writing:) For so J. Raunce seems to explain their Meaning, when he says, The Paper published by B. C. and C. H. was to perswade all concerned, to endeavour to make up the Breach, in passing by all that had been done amiss, &c. But instead of that, we see here [Page 9] J. Raunce is extolling and Magnifying that Account of theirs from Wickham still, as an irreprovable Piece. Doth not this plainly shew, that notwithstanding his Talk of passing by all that hath been done amiss, he would not be thought to have done amiss himself, even in that which was one of his grand Misdeeds. This still ma­nifests his Deceit and Insincerity: For it appears by this, that for all their fair Words, and Specious Pretences of passing by all that had been done amiss, and burying in Oblivion all things relating to former Differences; he had his Reserve, and intended still to justify himself and his Party in what they had done and Written. He applies to me that Text, 1 John 2.11. He that hateth his bro­ther is in Darkness, &c. and says, I fulfil that saying in my own Per­son. But he says falsly: For I neither own them to be my Brethren, nor do I hate them, or any man else: Yet their Wickedness I hate.

In my last Printed Sheet, I shewed L. Key, a foul blunder, that he had made, in saying the Year 81. Was above 4 years before the Year 77. And I there also shewed, that having before falsifyed my Words, and forged words in my name (which thing I had before charged him with, and he knew not how to clear himself of) he had run himself into this foolish error (of placing 81 four Years be­fore 77.) by shifting and shuffling to hide himself, rather than he would honestly confess his Fault, as common Ingenuity would have led him to have done: Now this Absurdity (in misreckoning the years) was so obvious, and withal so Ridiculous, that I suppose the whole Club, concerned in J. Raunces Paper, concluded it was necessary something should be said to take this off. And there­fore J. Raunce, (who, the Scene being now changed is Advocate for L. Key, as L. Key had been for him before) though he leaves L. Key still in the Briers, about his falsifying my Words (a Disease it seems, beyond the Doctors Cure) endeavours to help him up from his Latter stumble, thus, If (says he) T. E. were not without all Christian Civility, he would not make such a Clutter about one mis­take of a Word in L. Keys Paper which plainly appeareth to be the Prin­ters fault. Ay, I thought where they would endeavour to shift it off. Ah poor Printer! say I: Printers for the most part have faults enough of their own they need not have the Authors Faults laid on them too. But J. Raunce saith, It plainly appeareth to be the Prin­ters [Page 10] fault, as the matter will make it out: For (says he) the Word [be­fore] is put in the place of the word [after,] and the sence of the Mat­ter clearly proveth it. But that doth not (by J. Raunces leave,) clear­ly prove (or at all prove) that it was the Printert fault? Why might it not be as well the Authors Fault? Is L. Key such an exact Writer, that he could not mistake, and put before instead of after as well as the Printer. They that shall consider, that neither the Author, nor his Friend J. Raunce [...] nor any of the Party (that I have heard of) ever found it, till I shewed it them, above two Months after it was Printed, may have cause to think it was more likely to be the Authors fault, than the Printers. However the Printer it seems must bear the blame. Well, be it so for the present; but I think by that time they have cast up their Accompt a new, they will get no good by laying the Fault upon the Printer. For if the Word before is put there in the place of after, and that by the printers fault, as J. Raunce says positive­ly it is; then we must read the passage in L. Keys last Paper thus; This (to wit, G. F's coming to Reading to set up the Womens Meeting in the sixth Month 1681.) Was above 4 years after that Marriage which was on the 12th of the first Month 1677. And we must conclude that L. Key writ so, and intended so. Now let us compute the time, and see whether the 6th Month 81. was re­ally above 4 Years after the 12th of the first Month 77. Now ac­cording to my way of Reckoning from the 12th. of the first Month 1677. to the 12th of the first Month 1680 is but three Years. And from the 12th. of the first Month 1680, to the 6th. Month 1681. is but six Months at most (let them make more of it if they can:) So that by this Device, they have made L. Key fall short in his Re­ckoning above half a year in four. And thus J. Raunce has made L. Keys case much worse than it was before. For whereas before, his placing the year 81 four years before the Year 77. passed but for a Blunder, though a foul one: Now, his affirming the 6th. Month 81. to be above 4 years after the 12th of the first Month 77. (when it was above 3 years and an half) will not pass for less than a downright falshoood. I have heard J. Raunce, in Preaching say, that he would step into the durt, to help another out: But now he has stept into the Durt, to help another out, and cannot help ei­ther the other or himself out; but there sticks, and wants the help of all his Party (and all too little) to help himself out. For [Page 11] he hath taken this matter upon himself now. He is positive, that it was the Printers fault; he saith, It plainly appeareth to be so; that the Matter will make it out, and that the sense of the Matter clearly proveth it. Now let him, with all the sense he has, make the Mat­ter out if he can. But I hope he will not lay any more new faults upon the Printer for it. I have not understood they ever laid this Fault upon the Printer, or found it as a fault, till I shewed it them in my last printed Sheet, two Months or more after they had begun to spread theirs. And for my own part, I am strongly per­swaded that it was not the Printers Fault, but L. Keys own fault; and that they know it to be so, and have designedly invented this shift, to slide it off from the Author to the Printer, whereby, as a just recompence of their Deceit, they have plunged themselves into a worse Bog, than they were in before. And indeed, I cannot but still look upon it as an Argument of judicial Blindness, and great Infa­tuation of mind upon them, (how small soever the thing in it self may appear to some) that they should spread that paper of L. Keys for so long a time as they did, and none of them, in all that time, should discover that shameful Blunder. And more, that when I had shewed it them, they should now chop upon this Contrivance of casting it off upon the Printer, without seeing thereby that they should run L. Key into a far worse Pit, than he was in before, by making him guilty of a downright Falshood, in affirming that which is not true. But in this we may see the Wise Mans saying verified, The way of the Wicked is as Darkness, they know not at what they stumble.

The next Passage, to be taken notice of in J. Raunces Paper, re­lates to that Scandalous Marriage before mentioned, which J. Raunce and others abetted, and carried on against the mind of the Monthly Meeting (to which they then resorted) and to the grief of Friends in this Country. L. Key (to excuse J. Raunce for bringing that Couple to be Married in a publick Metting of Friends, contra­ry to the express mind of Friends, and the engagement of the Par­ties) hath alleadged that it was then a time of Persecution, and that he has been told, the people that owned the House (where they proposed to be Married) were not willing a Meeting should be there. J. Raunce in a Letter of his to me (dated the 3d. of the 3d. Month. 90.) says the same. I suspected this Allegation of [Page 12] J. Raunces (that it was a time of Persecution) to be false; and search­ing the Records of the Sufferings of Friends in this Country, found no mention of any Persecution, or suffering upon Friends, in these parts, for Meetings, in or near that time. This, in my last, I ob­jected to L Key and J. Raunce, pressing them, since they affirmed it was a time of Persecution, to name, if they could any one Friend that suffered about that time on the account of Meetings, in this County. Now see J. Raunce shift to avoid the force of this: the sillyest, I think, that ever was. He says, When T. E. saith that no Friends suffered about that time, yet that doth not prove there was no Law in force against Meetings at that time. And T. E. must prove there was no such Law at that time, before he draw such Conclusions as he hath done in his Paper against us. This is extreamly idle. He was put to prove that it was then a time of Persecution (which he had affirmed) instead of proving that, he proves that it might have been a time of Persecution, because the Law against Meetings was in force, and bids me prove that the Law was not in force: not considering, that it is not the Existence or Being of a Law, but the Execution of that Law, that makes a Persecution. The Law for Burning People for Religion, under the Notion of Heretick, (made several hundred Years ago) was in force too, I think, at the same time (being not repealed till about that time or soon after, as I remember.) Now if a Man should have Written that at that time People were burnt to death for Religion, and being put to prove it, should think to come off, by saying they might have been, because the Law for burning Hereticks was then in force, that man and J. Raunce might have gone together, for a Couple of Wise men; but no Body, I suppose, would have thought them, in that case, very honest. Was and might have been, are signs I per­ceive of the same Tense, in J. Raunces Grammer. Some perhaps may think this is but a small matter. But the Inference I make from it is great: For this shifting shews that he has not Sincerity, nor makes Conscience of Speaking or Writing the Truth; for if he had, he needed not have been driven to this shift. Doubtless he thought, his alleadging it to be then a time of Persecution, would excuse himself from the blame laid upon him, and he did not imagine it would have been looked into and disproved. Nay so little care has he of what he says, that even now he Writes another [Page 13] plain falshood, on the same occasion, and which he cannot but know to be one: For mentioning a Letter he sent me formerly, he says, as in my Letter to him formerly, I then said, the People were un­willing the Meeting concerning the Marriage should be at their house, be­ing the Conventicle Act was then in force. This Letter which he here mentions, is that I mentioned even now, (dated the 3d of the 3d Month 1690.) Which I have by me to produce. And I do positively affirm, there is not any mention of the Conventicle Act in that Letter, as being in force or not in force; it is not at all named therein: But his Words in that Letter are expresly these, It being a time of Persecution, the man at whose House it should have been accomplished was so fearful, he was not willing the Meeting should be at his house. Now instead of these Words (it being a time of Persecution) he does not stick to say, that in that Letter of his to me he said, (The Conventicle Act was then in force;) though he, having the Co­py of this Letter by him, could not but know that those Words are not in his Letter. So that here are two untruths, one upon the Back of the other; One, that it was then a time of Persecution (which it was not:) the other, that in that Letter of his to me, he said, the Conventicle Act was then in force (which he did not,) and both these are invented, premeditated and known Falshoods. From which I infer, that J. Raunce, to save himself, doth not regard to speak the Truth, but will speak an Ʋntruth knowingly, and make lyes his Refuge.

I did not intend to have taken notice of the Scurrilous Language he uses to and of me, having of late years been so accustomed to re­ceive such from him, that I expected no better, as know­ing from what Fountain it flows. But his complaining of me, for using towards them these Words, [Envy, Strife, Bitterness, Railing, false Accusing and Division] and his calling these Bad Words, and ill Manners in me, made me look more particularly on his Language now to me, and then I could not but wonder at his Partiality and Blindness. For he very freely bestows upon me these Words following, viz. [Envy, Craft, Subtilty Slanders, Lyes, Forgeries, a black mark of Envy, Forgery of my own Brain, slan­derous Reproaches, false Accusations, Impudence and Crafty Sub­tilties, says I am without all Christian Civility, and compares me [Page 14] to the Serpent that beguiled Eve,] with more of the like sort of Language. How these should come to be good Words and Man­ners in him, the softest of which he accounted bad Words and Manners in me, I cannot imagine. But I observe it is frequent with him to condemn me for that which he is guilty of himself. Of this another instance is in his charging me with abusing the Dead, that cannot answer for, nor defend themselves, which he makes (as indeed it is) an hainous Crime: Yet he himself, in this Paper of his, endeavours with his utmost power, to abuse and de­fame my Father, who has been dead above these ten Years.

That is the next thing he takes in hand, endeavouring to con­firm L. Keys former Slander, that I suffered my Father to want. One would think J. Rau [...]ce might have found Work enough in his own Family, to have imployed himself about, without raking up Durt to throw at others, and that only upon report, considering the foul Reports that have gone (and which he knows are not with­out Grounds upon one as nearly related to him in the descendant Line, as my Father to me in the Line ascendant; Of which he knows I know much, and can perhaps tell him more then he knows. He says, L. Key told in few Words what he can prove at large; and he would perswade me, it was L. Keys Kindness to ex­press himself in these modest Words, and that I had cause to acknowledge his Kindness to me. I hope then J. R. will take this as a kindness from me (or at least that others will see he has cause, upon his own say­ing to acknowledge my kindness to him) in expressing my self in these modest Words, concerning a near Relation of his, and in tel­ling him in few Words, what I can prove at large, and that with better Evidences and clearer Demonstration, than L. Key or he hath yet given, that I suffered my Father to want. And if here­after I should be drawn to say more, on this Subject, than shall be pleasant to him, and some of his Relations to hear, they may (as L. Key says to me) blame themselves for it.

J. Raunce tells me also what was intended by charging me with suffering my Father to want, viz. To put me in remembrance where­in I had been short in my duty to my Father. But to answer that end, they should have done this while my Father had been living, that if I had really been short in my Duty to him, there might [Page 15] have been time to have amended it. But they staid till he had been dead many years, and then they brought this Story. Why did they not bring this Forth in my Fathers life time? Was it because their Rage and Envy was not then boyled up to so great an height as it hath been since? Or did they designedly conceal it till he was dead, that they might deprive me of the benefit of his Te­stimony to clear me? J. Raunce gives another reason of their in­tendment in this Charge against me, viz. And also to be as an Ad­monition for him (meaning me) to repent of his Evil doings, and no more to cover his Lies and slanderous reproaches with Impudence and crafty Subtilties. The meaning of this I take to be, that seeing they could make up nothing else to throw at me, they have thrown this with all their Might and Spight, in hopes they might thereby daunt and baulk me from appearing publickly any more, by Words or Wri­ting, to withstand and lay open their Wicked doings. But by their doing this, they have manifested not only their Envy and Revenge, but great Injustice. For suppose the Matter were true in Fact, that my Father had wanted, and had Asked Relief (as they affirm) yet how had I been to be blamed therefore, unless I had known thereof? it might indeed (did I believe it to be true) affect me with Grief, that my Father should reduce himself to such streights: But it could not affect me with Guilt, so long as I knew not of it. But these Men in their Envy run on at a Venture, and affirm, not only that my Father wanted, but that I suffered him to want. Did he ever tell them that he had made known his Wants to me, and that I refused to help him? Or did any of them ever tell me so? Let them say it if they can: I know it is false; and that they are false Accusers, in charging me with suffering my Father to want in case he did want.

In the next place, J. Raunce falls upon me for not being at my Fathers Burial, the Reason I gave in my last, for my absence, doth not satisfy him; though it doth others. It was this, viz. That my Father having received a Message in his Sickness, that my Sis­ter lay then sick in London, near unto Death, after I had waited upon him till he had finished his Life, and given direction for his Interment, I hasted up to my Sister at London, as thinking I might be more serviceable to the Living then the Dead. To this J. Raunce says, He need not have been in so much haste at that time. It [Page 16] may be so, but that was more then I knew. Had I been as skil­ful in casting Figures as J Raunce is said to have been (and perhaps yet is) I might, it may be, have better known (if it be that way to be known) what haste to have made, or leisure to have taken. I went simply and innocently upon the account received of her illness, not knowing how I should find her till I came there. She might have been in extremity of weakness, for ought I knew, and from the Message brought my Father, I had no ground to expect o­ther. But when I came to her I found her in a way of recovery, and before I left her she was able to go abroad. That also J Raunce Objects, though (as the rest) but upon report: for (says he) it hath been reported by some that knew his Sister, that she was not so ill at that time, but that she could Accompany her Brother to their deceased Fathers Chamber, to view what Goods he had left. I wonder truly, that they would allow my Father to have had either Goods or Chamber at the time of his Death: For this does not so clearly square with the rest of their Design for defaming him and me; and to considering Persons this may perhaps render the rest of their Story the less pro­bable. But this by the by. As to J. Raunces Objection, he seems methinks not much to credit his Skill in Physick, if he knows not that, in Acute Distempers, Ten days or a Fortnights time doth of­ten raise a Sick Body into a Condition to be able to go abroad. And such a space of time, I suppose, there might be between the Messengers being with her (who brought my Father the Account of her illness) and her going to his Chamber. J. Raunce says, It had been more Christian-like for them both (if in health) to have accom­panyed their deceased Fathers Body to the place of Burial, as the last Office Children ought to perform to their deceased Parents. I acknowledge that it becomes Children to accompany their deceased Parents to the Grave: But I do not look upon it to be such an Indispensible Du­ty, but that it may upon weighty and urgent Occasions, be omitted; without breach of Christianity, or Filial Piety. By his saying [if in health] he grants that want of health may excuse from the perfor­mance of that Duty: And want of health it was (in my Sister) that hindred both her and me But that it is not (at least always) the last Office Children have to perform to their deceased Parents, the present instance proves: For these men have furnished me with another Office, now ten Years after my Fathers Burial, to vindicate [Page 17] his Memory from their envious Cavils and Defamations.

Is it not strange, that after all the Endeavours J. Raunce hath used to disgrace my Father, he should pretend Friendship and Kindness to him? He was informed (he says) some Weeks after my Father died, that he was dead, and Buried in Holton Stee­ple-yard, where (he says) they usually Buried Beggars. (I per­ceive he accounts it an hainous thing to be Buried in the same Ground where Beggars are Buried. Had he then rather lye by Dives then by Lazarus? I wish it may not be his Lot.) And being troubled (he says) at what he heard concerning the Death and Buri­al of his old Friend Walter Ellwood, he enquired of the People at whose house he dyed, and they shewed him the Grave, and things ap­peared to be true as before he was informed, that is, that he was Dead and Buried in Holton Steeple-yard. Here he calls my Father his old Friend, and pretends to have been troubled at the hearing of his Death and Burial; yet endeavours thus many years af­ter his Death, to Disgrace him to the utmost. If this be the ef­fect of his Friendship, I shall not desire to be Numbred among his Friends. I observe he says the Enquiry he then made was some few Weeks after my Father died, which is ten years ago: So that what he then gathered, has been Treasured up ever since in a corrupt Heart, till it brake forth of late, in such apparent marks of Envy and Revenge, that even some, who in other things use to think well of J. Raunce, cannot but express their dislike of him in this. And indeed 'tis strange to observe the Pains and toyle these men have taken, the industrious care and diligence they have used, in hunting up and down, both in Ci­ty and Country; the subtile ways and crafty Wiles they have used in searching, enquiring, sifting, examining, questioning, try­ing and tampering with People of diverse sorts, to pick up (if possible) something against me, relating to this Business of my Father. Which shews they were resolved at any rate, and what­soever it cost them to defame me, if they could. They had sif­ted the people of the House where my Father died, some time ago: And not finding any thing there that answered their End, they perswaded the People not to be satisfyed with what I had given them, afeer my Fathers death, upon the Account of his be­ing [Page 18] there, though that was more than they then demanded. Though this did not Answer their main Design of Disgracing me, yet it was some pleasure to them to put me to further Charge. This Summer they ravelled and Travelled further; they have sought out the man whom my Father, when he was taken ill, sent to London to my Sister for Money. They have sifted him, and finding him poor, perswaded him to write what they would have him, under pretence of having shewed kind­ness to my Father, putting him in hopes of getting something thereby from me for him. What he writ they ordered him to leave with an Acquaintance of his, (one of their Party, and a great Agent of theirs, but one who was denyed by Friends some years ago, for marrying a Woman of the World, and by a Priest.) Accordingly the poor Man writ a Letter, as they would have him, (for he says he had no intention to have Writ or sent to me, but that they put him upon it) and left it (unsealed, and undirected) with their Agent for him to send to them, and they to me; and to me it came by Wickham, enclosed in a Letter from L. Key, and is that which L. Key now mentions. And some of them I understand, have sent the man half a Crown for his Information. Not resting there, they have also been hunting at London, to find out the Place where my Father Lod­ged: And from the Man (as is pretended) in whose house he had a Chamber, they have Squeezed out what they could or would; and what they have thus either found or made, and scrapt together from City and Country, L. Key hath patched up to­gether, to piece out J. Raunces Paper.

But as for the Account L. Key now gives, to confirm his for­mer Slander upon me, that I suffered my Father to want, the Reader may guess of what Credit it is, by the place where it was Minted, viz. The Mint London, the common receptacle of Peo­ple of broken Credits. He names a Shoomaker, at whose house he says, my Father had a Room. I do not believe, nor ever heard, my Father ever had a Room in the Mint: I am sure he had not at the time of his Death. L. Key makes that Shooma­ker say, that my Father went about the City a Begging, as a poor decayed Gentleman. But it is observable the Shoomaker doth not [Page 19] say that upon his own Knowledge, but pretends to have heard it from others, and to have believed it upon no other ground, but because he knew no other way he had for a Livelyhood. But doth it follow that he had no other way of Livelyhood, because the Shoomaker knew of no other way he had? Besides, their Stories do not hang well together. They represent him as going about the City a Begging, as a Poor decayed Gentleman: And yet they represent him also, as never having any Money either in City or Country. Sure he begg'd to little purpose then. But let them make the most they can of their Ill-gotten Informations. I think it will not, by any reasonable Persons, be expected, that I should prove the Negative, or say, I am certain he never did want (though I do not believe he did.) But this I can and do say, first, That if my Father had been so frugal of what he had, as it concerned him, for his own sake (not to say for his Chil­drens) to have been, he needed not have wanted (if he did.) Secondly, That when he had spent his Estate, if he had let me know that he was in want, he should not have wanted, while I had been able to help him. But he never discovered any such thing to me. And if the Testimony of a Friend, upon his own knowledge, may find equal Credit with the Surmises of Enemies, or Tales of Strangers upon Report, I think the following Letter (which I received from a Friend, who formerly kept one of the chief Inns in Ʋxbridge, and at whose house my Father, it seems did sometimes lye) will make it appear, that he was not so destitute of Money as these men would represent him to have been. That Letter says thus,

This could not be long before my Fathers Death: For he hath been dead above ten Years. And this Testimony Provi­dence has helped me to: For I knew not that my Father had ever used this Friends house, till the Friend himself (seeing my Enemies Envy) acquainted me with it, and sent me this, which I thought fit to insert here.

'Tis well known to many, that my Father was possest of a good Estate: And they that knew him well, know also, that he had the spending of it himself. How he spent it becomes not me to speak. He was my Father, to whom I ow'd, and always paid Respect and Honour while Living, and whose Frailties being dead, I desire to cover. It is enough for me to say, I did not help him spend his Estate; Nor was I much chargeable to him, after I was capable of shifting for my self. And when it pleased the Lord to visit me with the saving knowledge of his Truth, and bring me under the visible Characters of the Pro­fession thereof (which was about the 20th year of my Age) my Father, expressing a dislike to me on that account, by degrees withdrew his Care of me, not making any Provision for my Maintenance, save the giving me such of his Houshold Goods, as he could spare, upon his giving over House Keeping; though he had then a plentiful Estate Remaining. When afterwards he sold his Estate, I had no part at all of the Money, though (at his desire I joined with him in the sale, and at my own charge. I mention this only to shew, that I was not instrumental to bring him down in the World. After he had sold the last of his E­state, and had paid all his Debts, he had Eight hundred Pounds left clear to himself (as he told me) and no body to maintain out of it but himself. When I acquainted him with my inten­tion of Marriage, in order to have his Consent thereunto, he voluntarily offered to give me Two hundred Pounds present, upon my Marriage, and Three hundred Pounds more at his Death; and proposed the same to my Wife, before I Married her. After we were Married he refused to give me any thing, unless we would be Married by a Priest. From that time he so far withdrew himself from me, that he would not let me know where he Lodged, but if I found his Lodging he removed; nor [Page 21] did I know where his Lodging was at the time of his Death, though I knew he had a Lodging in or about London. Not­withstanding this, he would sometimes come to my House, which was always open and free to him, to come when he pleased, and to tarry as long as he pleased. Whenever he came, he was well habited, both for Linnen and Woolen, and made no appearance of Want, other then such as may befal any man, to have his Money fall short in a Journey: Upon which Occasion, (when he had, as he said, been longer from home than he expected, or when, being here he had a mind to go fur­ther then at his coming forth he intended) he has divers times asked me to lend him Money, which I always did, and never asked him for it again. And to the best of my Remembrance, it was not above two Weeks time before his last Sickness, that he had been at my House, and had Money of me on that account. As soon as I heard of his illness I hastened to him, and took the best care of his I could during his Life, and after his Death, de­frayed the Charge of his Sickness and Burial, and repaid to my Sister that Money which she had sent him before I knew of his illness. I could say more on this Subject than I intend, or at present think fit: But I forbear, and commit my innocent Cause to the Lord, not doubting but that, as I am clear in his sight from any undutifulness, or unkindness towards my Father, so he will clear my innocency in the hearts of his Peopls, and of all unprejudiced Persons.