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 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 , It s 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 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 . 'T is 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 ; 't is these that are in the Difference , 't is these that have made and caused it , t is 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 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 : T is a wrong to God , t is a wrong to the Truth of God , t is 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 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 ? T is 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Untruth 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 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 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 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 his Memory from their envious Cavils and Defamations .