TO excuse himself from prevarication, where he saith, he hath cited my Fathers Testimony, All together, as it lay, Word for Word, and not by parts and pieces; he would evade the matter by saying, (pag. 19. of the said sixth part) that he cal­led it part of a discourse, which I grant him: But yet he gives this part of a Discourse as an entire Testimony, calling it par. 3. pag. 88. A Testimony, this Testimony, and the said Testimony, not part of a Testimony; and in the next page, the Title is, The Testimony of the said Isaac Penington, which I urged against him in my Complaint, as an additional demonstration of his un­fairness, and he in his Rejoynder takes no notice of.

He goes on in the same page, saying, he began at the begin­ning of a Paragraph, and so quoted about 8 or 10 Sides, without adding or diminishing a Word. (Why did he not tell us so before in his third Part; if he had no design of imposing upon his Reader?) This is far from taking All as it lies, to take the middle and leave both ends, which did more immediately explain the sense of the whole: And so his Reader would have seen at first had he expressed himself as he doth now. He would be ac­counted a very unfair, dealer between man and man, that had bargained to take a Commodity all together as it lay, and yet should cull out the middle. Surely the middle lies not next to hand. No, no, William, all thy Sophistry will not turn this off: It is too manifest an untruth.

Again, why should he take so much pains, to Copy our 8 or 10 Sides word for word, and at last leave off at the last Sen­tence, if he did not apprehend that Sentence would marr his Cause? What, could he take so much pains with those 8 or 10 Sides, and be at last so spent, he could not afford to give us two [Page 2] or three Lines more, which wound up the rest, and belonged to it? Thy Ʋnderstanding Reader thou appealest to, must be a very soft natured man, to believe thou wast without guile herein.

He saith, page 20. ‘We put no construction on his Fathers words; but left the Reader free without endeavouring to im­pose any sense relating to these words: and yet his weakness (if not wickedness) is so great, as to declare that my Dedu­ction (which in reality was none at all) was not genuine, &c.’ In contradiction whereto, he but a few lines before, to manifest that no perversion can be proved against him, quotes this pas­sage of his out of his former Book, viz. ‘Our end in citing this Testimony (to wit, my Father's) is that the impartial Reader may consider whether the said Testimony hath any coherence with that part of the Book of Government, which is objected against by us, &c.’ Now if citing a Testimony for a certain end, implies not a Deduction or Inference therefrom, I am weak indeed. What, oppose him to R. B. and yet make no Deduction at all? Say, J. P. saies thus, and R. B. thus, and no Inference in all this? Nor is it probable he would bestow the Copying of Eight or Ten sides upon us, without drawing any consequence at all.

And now I am upon this Subject, let me examine him yet further, and see whether I cannot produce more instances, that he hath made a Deduction, and a false one too, from the said Testi­mony. And first I betake my self to his Title-page of his third part, which I referred to in my Complaint, to make my Charge good. It runs thus:

‘The third part of the Christian-Quaker, &c. manifesting that there is but two sorts of Government owned by the Children of the Light, or Christian-Quaker. One is, the outward Government, &c. The other is, the inward Government of Christ (who alone is Lord over the Conscience) which is not represented by persons (visible by carnal eyes) invested with power from him to execute outward Laws, Prescriptions, Orders, Edicts or Decrees in an outward form of Govern­ment, visible as aforesaid. And for the better Illustration of our meaning, an Answer to a part of R. Barclay's Book of Go­vernment is cited; to which is added a Testimony given forth in Print in the Year 1660. by Isaac Penington the Younger.’

[Page 3]From whence these Three Consequences naturally flow.

1. Printing a Testimony for better Illustration, shews that that Testimony was to make some Illustration. Now if no Deducti­on or Inference were drawn therefrom, nor that it had no refe­rence to make good his foregoing Position, how could it be said to Illustrate at all?

2. If this Allegation of W. R's be repugnant to my Father's sense delivered in that Testimony, and he have laboured to in­sinuate the contrary, my charge of his Deduction not being ge­nuine, and of his traducing, abusing, mis-representing, and per­verting my Father's words, will stand the Test. Which that it is so, give me leave to repeat three passages out of the said Testi­mony, whereof two of them were over-look'd, the last cited by W. R. himself. The words are these:

‘Thus the Apostles and other Ministers of Christ, had likewise in the Spirit the care of the Churches, and Authority in the Lord by his Spirit to Govern the Spirits of his people—Again, Every one feeling a measure of the Spirit in himself, is thereby taught to own and Subject to a greater measure of the same Spirit in another; (see part 1. page 238. of my Father's Works.)’ This is far from W. R's Position, that the inward Government of Christ is not represented by persons visible by carnal eyes, because he alone is Lord over the Conscience, as if the Government were out of Christ's hands, when his Spirit and Power acts through his Mem­bers. But alike truly may it be urged, that because God pro­mised to teach his people himself, which John saw fulfilled when he told the Churches, Ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you, 1 John 1.27. therefore no per­sons (visible by carnal Eyes) are invested with power from him to teach, he being the Bishop and Shepherd of the Soul: and so exclude the Office of Pastors and Teachers, as entrenching upon Christ's Prerogative.

Yet does W. R. himself (part 3. page 94.) bring in my Fa­ther, saying, And every Member is to wait in the measure of the Spirit which he hath received, to feel the going forth of the same Spirit in him that teacheth and Governeth; and so to Subject not to man, but to the Lord, &c. From whence two things are observable (which contradict the scope of W. R.'s con­test, and manifest the wrong use he would make of my Father's Writings.) The first is, That the Spirit so goes forth in some, as [Page 4] in them to teach and Govern; and Secondly, Those that Subject to men thus qualified (which is far from denying any are so) Subject not to man, but to the Lord.

3. A Third consequence which occurrs from the premises is, that notwithstanding his endeavouring, page 22. to suggest my wronging him, because I tell him, his Title-page imports, that the drift of that part of his Book is to tye up all to an inward Government of Christ, exclusive of any outward form of Govern­ment, Order or Discipline: yet that from thence the same is very obvious. For what else can be the meaning of those words, That the inward Government of Christ is not represented by persons (visible by carnal eyes) invested with power from him, to execute outward Laws, Prescriptions, &c. in an outward form of Go­vernment; if he did not intend under the Notion of inward Go­vernment of Christ, to exclude all manner of outward form of Government, Order or Discipline, except he would have it re­presented by persons invisible to carnal eyes.

Nor have I done with him yet upon this Subject, for I must a [...]d one Instance more to prove he hath made Deductions and Inferences, from that which he Cited of my Fathers, which thought it be pretty long, am willing to give my Reader, for a further taste of my Adversaries false covers, and in order to my own Vindication. It begins thus:

‘Having now done with the Citation of what was writ in Answer to the aforesaid Book of Government, and consi­dering that in the First Section, the Author wrote of a sort of Persons that would needs be Innovators, and given to change, and introducing new Doctrines and Practices, not only dif­fering, but contrary to what were delivered in the beginning; and in page 13. seems reflectingly to treat on such kind of lan­guage as this, I must stay till I be convinced, as if such lan­guage was knockt down in the beginning: and as may rea­sonably be taken from the scope of the said Book, to reflect on such among the People called Quakers, who are not so zea­lously affected with the outward form of Government under the Notion of Church Government, pretended to be esta­blish'd amongst them, as the Author or Approvers of his Book were: We think it necessary to cite a Testimony publish'd in Print, by Isaac Penington the Younger, &c.’

[Page 5]If in all this there be no Deduction, when he gives such a large account why he thought it necessary to cite my Father, op­posing him and Friends in the beginning, to what is received now amongst Friends, then I confess I am to seek for the Ety­mology of the word. Nay, doth he not tell us that his first Motive was, considering the Author wrote of a sort of Persons that would needs be Innovators, and introduce new Doctrine to what was in the beginning? But what then? what is that to us? or how doth it concern us, if W. R. hath made no De­duction or Inference with relation to my Father's sense for or against it, but hath left his Reader free, without putting a con­struction on it? which is not constent with telling us, that upon such and such Considerations he thought necessary to cite it: for this is a manifest declaring the construction he would make of it.

Another Consideration he draws from page 13. of the said Book, upon which he thought necessary to cite my Father's words, or at least some of them, is, That his Author (as he alledgeth) seems reflectingly to treat; as if such kind of lan­guage as, I must stay till I be convinced, were knocked down in the beginning. Well, what of all this? What have we to do with his Author, if there be no reference made thereto, in citing part of my Fathers words, of his allowing or disallowing such kind of Language? But then why was it brought here, as one of the Inducives to the Citation? Is not this manifest Contradicti­on, William? Dost thou not apparently thwart thy self? Was not thy third part writ to another end, than thou wilt own in thy Sixth.

But he goes on with a Third Consideration, opposing scope to scope, and telling us the scope of the said Book, seeming to be to reflect on such among the people called Quakers, who are not so zealously affected with the outward forms of Government under the Notion of Church-government, we think it necessary to cite a Testimony, &c. Entituled, The Authority and Government, which Christ excluded out of Church, &c. And what, no De­duction in all this neither? Doth he not hereby endeavour to insinuate my Father's sense in those daies concurred not with the zealously affected persons now adaies? especially when we consider that after he hath promised to take it all together, word for word, and not by parts and pieces here and there; yet he [Page 6] left out the most remarkable passages, which could no waies admit of, but directly impugned such a construction, as he (notwithstanding his endeavouring now to palliate it) sought to wrest therefrom.

Yet further on this occasion, I would ask him one Question, Whether he himself be one of those zealously affected persons to the outward forms of Government, under the Notion of Church-Government, or no? For if he be not, he hath no rea­son to take it ill of me, that I inferred he would tye up all to an inward Government of Christ, exclusive of any outward form of Government, Order or Discipline: and if he be, he hath an ill way of shewing it, when he would make Friends in the begin­ning to be of another mind. O the changeableness of this man, one while one way, another while another way; (like the foolish Woman) pulling down his House with his own Hands! O that he could see whither he is run, through spurning at counsel, and be warned for the future!

But suppose (saith he, page 20.) I had not-worded my mean­ing so cautiously, as to have signified only a part of his Father's discourse, &c. Why hadst thou so done, and ingeniously have confessed it, I would never have trod upon thee. But what if the case be otherwise, and that thy design was to traduce, and now thou art pinched, wouldst seek a hole to creep out at, must not I tell thee, thy way is hedged up, and this and the other passage makes against thee. It would be well for thee, thou couldst at length learn to distinguish between weakness and wil­fulness, ignorance and premeditated abuse.

He adds, Might not all publick Preachers or Writers by the same Rule be reflected on, when they have quoted by way of Testi­mony or Illustration a part only of another's Testimony? Answ. Yes, if they affirm that part to be the whole, and to be taken all to­gether as it lies, and not by parts and pieces, and wrest that part as an instance of their opposition to their Brethren they are in unity with. The like Answer may serve for his Marginal Note, where from my citing but part of my Father's Testimo­ny, and not declaring 'tis only a part (saith he, but is mi­staken) though I never said 'twas the whole, he would prove me worthy of worse reflections, than, he saith, I gave him.

[Page 7]I do also acknowledge that some passages of my Fathers, quoted even by W. R, do make against W. R, nor do I wonder at it, he being not the first Adversary by many, that hath given occasion to be beaten with his own weapon.

What he terms, page 21. undeserved reflections, as if I and others had our Educations at Billingsgate among the Scolds, I re­turn as frothy, envious and unsavoury; who though I had a just disrelish of the man's unworthiness, yet wrote those lines in great calmness and serenity of mind, and was never scurrilous to him in my language; nor yet sharp, but where my matter spoke for me. And better were it for him to clear himself of my Charge of dealing fallaciously, surreptitiously, and unrighte­ously, than to term it Billingsgate language, which I believe he never heard there.

In the same page he quibbles at my saying, He leapt over some leaves Explanatory of the rest, as if it were Non-sense, but it is true enough, for the beginning shews the occasion of what followed, and surely a Question and the first part of an Answer, must needs be explanatory of the rest of the Answer: as well as that it did not become one who promised to take it all, as it lay, to begin his quotation with the latter part of the Answer. Surely by this means his quotation, whatever he pretend (see page 21.) cannot reasonably be termed Explanatory of what did precede, but what did precede might open that which did succeed.

Now to that last clause of my Father's, which he left out, he (after he hath told me he made no Deduction from it, of which let the unbyassed judge) urgeth in excuse, that the words are Prophetical, signifying what will come to pass, not what was come to pass, page 21. and adds in the next page, Since the occa­sion of my citing his Father's words, was only in relation to a Dis­course touching what had been, I should have shewn my self very impertinent, to quote his words Prophetically spoken. O William, this is a false gloss in God's sight, and I fear thou belyest thy own Conscience herein: for how can it be said to Prophesie what shall be, any more than to tell what hath been? The words are these, And the Ʋnity being thus kept, all will come into one outwardly al­so at length, as the Light grows in every one, and as every one grews into the Light, &c. which is as much as to say, This is the natu­ral tendency and effect of keeping the Unity, both where it [Page 8] hath been as well as where it is kept. And what Prophecy is there in all this? Cannot he distinguish between a consequence upon a thing premised, and a prediction, or foretelling a thing to come from the Mouth of the Lord? But he would fain have it so, which if it were granted, would neither help his cause, nor lessen his guilt, in leaving out the last Sentence, when he pro­mised to give us all together word for word: For how shall that (which he terms a Prophecy) be fulfilled, if the means be rejected and withstood? How shall all come into one outwardly also at length, if the diversities of administrations, gifts and operations (which jar not, are not contrary though various; for the same fountain cannot send forth sweet water and bitter) I say, how shall it be effected if these Diversities must be urged, as opposing the breaking forth of that day (W. R sayes, He should rejoyce to see) wherein we might all so be led by the appearance of Christs spirit in us, under his Government, &c. as that this oneness might be witnessed among all the Families of Gods people? See par. 3. pag. 83. To what end should these things be prophesied of, if none are to press after the mark, or that diversities of Gifts, wrought by the same Spirit, hinder this work? What is this but to say, the Spirit of God, through bringing forth these diversities of Gifts and Operations in the body, obstructs that oneness, which his Soul should rejoyce to see? O Confusion! O Darkness, that may be felt!

I wave the reflection and Marginal Note that followes, pag. 22. on G. F. and others, not being privy to the matter; nor do I know what he would be at, it being only in general terms, and he may remember the old Maxime, Sub universalibus latet dolus. And I presume it is Answered elsewhere, by another Pen.

Now to come to his Observations on what is Written in Rela­tion to my Mother M.P. which he toucheth very lightly, and wholly waves my Postscript, which summed up the thing.

He begins pag. 23. thus, ‘The Title Page imports, That I have suggested that Mary Penington did shun suffering for Truth. 'Tis a very false Representation of what I have said concer­cerning her: For there cannot be a shunning of Suffering for Truth, unless one shun that Suffering which Truth requires, which I never did charge Mary Penington with.’ And yet in pag. 5. he saith, ‘Witness his (viz. G. F's) advice to Mary Pen­ington to secure Worldly Estate from the Spoiler, when 'twas likely to be seized for obedience to Christs Commands, &c. [Page 9] What is Suffering for Obedience to Christs Command, no Suffe­ring for Truth?’

But hear him once more at the letter end of pag. 23. and pag. 24. ‘We cannot forsake the Assembling of our selves to­gether, and in pursuance of Christs command we cannot swear, and in BOTH THESE our Testimony for Truth is concerned: And therefore I cannot but conclude, that as it related to avoid Sufferings, by reason of obedience to Christs Command, George Fox's Counsel to her was not justifiable in him, &c.’ Here's strange work, say and unsay, give and take; one while, I never did charge Mary Penington with shunning that Suffering which Truth Requires; another while, Suffering for not Swearing, is Suffering for Truth, as well as Suffering for Meeting: Even now, It was a very false Representation to say, he suggested M. P. did shun Suffe­ring for Truth: Anon, He cannot but conclude, that as it related to avoid Sufferings by reason of obedience to Christs command, G. F's Counsel to her was not justifiable in him. O whither doth not pre­judice and envy carry men? What blindness is happned to him, thus to grope at Noon-day? and so palpably to lay himself open to the lash of every half-sighted Reader?

But to return to pag. 23. where he saith, G. F's Paper of Queries reflects so far as Queries could, on such as secured any part of their Estates from the Spoiler. What upon any Consideration whatever? Consult them again. (Or did thy Credible Friend in Truth inform thee so: Bring out thy Informer, and let us know) Did he imply 'tis in no Case lawful to secure an Estate from the Spoiler, without any limitation what­soever? What, not from a Thief, nor from a man that claims by a false Title? For he told us but a Line or two above, that my Mothers Suffering was not a Suffering for Truth in his account; and consequently he could not mean that. But then he must needs wrong G. F. exceedingly whose words in those Queries (as himself sets them down, par. 5. p. 24.) are, ‘All you that do make away or over your Estates for fear of the Spoilers in time of Persecution, for the sake of Christ and his Gospel, and the Worship of God, &c.’ And to this effect he expresseth himself over and over in those Queries. So that if he should see he hath overshot himself, and would recal his words again: Yet he ought (as Tho. Lawrence told him) to explain how much Goods may be hid, what sort of Goods, who may [Page 10] do it, and in what cases it may, in what it may not be done, or he confounds things.

Yet to open the thing more plainly, I will take the pains to repeat the substance of that part of my Postscript in my Complaint, which handles this matter, that thou mayest see G. F. allows not in one, what he disallowes in another, as

1. My Mother was not the person under Prosecution for the Wor­ship of God.

2. Nor did she go to secure her Estate from any Prosecution against her upon that account.

3. It was a Trapan; and the occasion not from any supposed Offence of my Fathers; relating to Religious Worship, but a Strata­gem to the Estate.

4. My Mother secured not my Fathers Estate, but her own, in order to save the right of Possession in her own hands, from any ille­gal seizure; which was her sole property, and not seizable for my Fathers pretended Offence, which is no ways parallel to any ones making over their own proper Estate, to shun suffering for their own particular Testimony in Meeting to Worship God.

This he never touches upon, nor endeavours to invalid, but jumbles things confusedly together to darken the thing; for this shewing what G. F. smote at, and stating your two Cases, as they are, served not his turn. And now I am past wondring that I find him an unfair Adversary, for he hath inured me to expect no other.

He adds, ‘Whereas Mary Penington hath accused me, that I have Aspersed Innocent Servants of the Lord, and have brought forth nothing to prove that I have so done; I return it as a false Charge, unbecoming the Pen of one that pretends to an Innocent and Righteous Conversation, as she doth.’

Ans. Their being manifest to her Conscience in the sight of God to be his Faithful Servants (had she no other ground for what she saith) is an undenyable proof with her, that they are no Lyars, Double-minded men, Forgers of False-Certificates, &c. with many other Scandals cast upon such, whom W. R. himself, had not prejudice deeply entred him, could not but give a far different Character of.

[Page 11]I must also tell him, that though he be offended at the re­proof given him under the Instances of Ham, &c. (of which he treats largely from pag. 5. to 9.) yet they are very pat, and re­tain their force still: Nor will his flinging dirt on G. F. in a thing he cannot prove, but brings Certificates under the hands of such as are parties against him, take off the edge of the blow. For if Ham was not to take advantage of a real weakness against his Father, even before his Brethren (though Noah being over­come with Wine, did what was unseemly) how can W. R. be ex­cused in exposing the pretended failings of an Elder or Elders, (whom he ought to entreat as Fathers, 1 Tim. 5.1.) to both Bre­thren and Adversaries: For let him say what he will, that'twas never his Practice, Order or Advice to publish it amongst Priests, pag. 8. Yet it is plain from the Book it self, and objections he obviated, not to be started by any Friend, that it was designed to go abroad among Foes as well as Friends.

And as to the instance of Davids care to conceal Saul's death (who was his Enemy, and had lost his condition God ward) from the Ʋncircumcised, lest they should insult over Israel; it answers the matter in hand, notwithstanding his labour to evade it, and extenuate his offence. And how W. R. whatever Name he arrogate to himself, can be a Christian-Quaker, while he endeavours thus to bespatter the people he joyns himself to, and would be taken to be one of, and not a false Brother, to me seems a Paradox. For if the Quakers are so and so with thee, Be seperate, go out from among them, renounce the Name Quaker, assume another Name to thy self; and do not keep with them; Meet with them as one of them, and call thy self a Quaker, yea a Christian-Quaker too; and yet say, they are not Gods Israel. O this is shameful among men! and they will be ready to say, It is an ill Bird that bewrays his own Nest.

But he saith, pag. 9. That Saul acknowledged his sin, and prayed that his sin might be taken away, &c. Thereby rendring him a better man than G. F. and consequently deserving more favour­able dealing. But did he forsake and find mercy, as well as con­fess? read 1 Sam. cap. 28. (the last place where any mention is made of Saul, before that of his falling upon Mount Gilboa) and then thou wilt see he had so provoked the Lord, and was so much another man to what thou rendrest him, that the Lord would not Answer him either by Dreams, or by Ʋrim, or by the [Page 12] Prophets, so that he sought to a Witch, and the Answer Samuel made, gives no Character of Saul's acceptance with God, but foretells his overthrow. What Repentance was there in all this? O William, had G. F. made such a lame and false deduction, wouldst not thou have made work with it; But thy Folly must be made manifest. And seeing thou insists so on 1 Sam. 15.24, 25. I am to tell thee, it makes not at all for thee, nor gives any ac­count of Gods accepting Saul again; but only that through his importunity Samuel was prevailed with to turn again after him and Worship the Lord, that Saul might not be dishonoured be­fore the Elders of the people, as v. 30, 31. nay the last verse of that Chapter, and the first of the next do imply the contrary.

And for a further justifying himself in publishing pretended miscarriages to the World, he urgeth that Paul did the like by Peter, and said unto him before all men, if thou being a Jew, &c. pag. 5. But how doth he understand that word all men? Was it not all that Auditory, before whom the offence was given? And was it not fitting he should do so? Is this parallel to W. R's Case? Doth this justify publishing Offences in Print among Unbe­lievers, not otherwise privy to it? Besides he cannot prove that that Auditory consisted of a mixt number of Believers and Un­lievers. It might, for ought he knows, be only an Assembly of such as were at least convinced, and the miscarriage being so publick, the reproof ought to be so too. Again, where did he meet with that Translation all men: My Bible hath it them all, nor is the word Men in the Greek; it is [...] before all, or them all; which very thing shews clearly, that he did not go to sow Dissention among the Churches, or hinder the passage of Peter's Ministry among Unbelievers, that had no knowledge of the offence, and so not lyable to be stumbled or hurt thereby; for then it had been suitable to W. R's case and practice.

And whereas Thomas Crisp and himself have publish'd that as Edward Burroughs, which, though each of them hath ap­peared in Print since, and that I publickly required them to make it good; yet neither of them hath either confessed their fault, or made good their Allegation herein, I must needs tell him as I did T. C. That it greatly detects the meanness of his Spirit, and shews the little regard he hath to deal justly and equally with those he opposeth: so unfair an Adversary is he. [Page 13] Besides that it is an injury to the memory of E. B. to have such a Paper laid at his door, who was known to be a man of a clearer understanding and judgment in the Truth, than diverse things in that Paper import: and moreover there is cause given to believe, that John Perrot was the Author of it, of which a fur­ther Confirmation is expected.

To Conclude, As this work is a work of Darkness, so is the peace that attends it, and which he so much boasts of, the peace which is obtained when the strong man Armed keeps the House (or rather when he re-entreth with seven worse Spirits then be­fore) from which peace, the Lord keep all that have not sinned out their day.