Some Reflections On some Remarks upon a Book, entitled Christ's Lambs Defended from Satan's Rage; Written in Answer to a Malicious Book styled, The Quakers Unmask'd.  
They speak not as Friends, but they imagine deceitful words against the quiet in the Land,  Psal. 35.20. 
— Full of Envy, of murder, of Debate, of Deceit, taking all things in the evil part,  &c. Rom. 1.29. 
FOrasmuch as John Pennyman hath been so Officious as to Promote the said Remarks by his particular Recommendations thereof in his Letters to certain Persons, with his desires, That it might be of some service to them, and that they might be the better by it, especially by that part of it that concerns Oaths and Fighting, as appears by his Letters, Dated the 23d of the Month called July,( as he saith) 1691. I must therefore in these few Reflections on the said Remarks or Libel, apply myself to J. P. the person designed to be Vindicated thereby, as the Espouser and owner thereof; his Advocate, the Author, being obscure under a nameless A. C. to a nameless E. S. Esq; for an empty flourish and pretext, to cover his own mischievous Work of Darkness and Envy, so fully Detected in our late Book entitled, Christ's Lambs Defended from Satan's Rage, that I am satisfied he's never able to hid or clear himself on that Account.  
Now then John Pennyman we perceive thou art hard put to it for a Refuge to fly to, that thou art fain to accept and promote such a Pamphlet for thy defence, as instead of an Answer or Reply, is only some impertinent Remarks, stuffed with Envy, Reviling and Abuse still favouring of thy Dark envious Spirit, which the Lord will farther rebuk.  
And 1st. That the Publication of thy Book against the People called Quakers, tho now in a time of Liberty, yet looks as if thou envied our present Liberty by thy pernicious Book, and that it has a tendency in it to bring Persecution again upon us, by rendering us obnoxi Jealousy against us) as much as in thee lies; is both sufficiently proved in our said Book in Answer to thee, and apparent from the tenor of thy Q. Unmask'd, and not that thou art glad of our present Liberty, as thy obscure Advocate pretends. How agrees this with thy railing against us, as double Dealers, false Hearted Temporizers, liars, Deceitful Workers, as great Dissemblers, Deceivers and Deluders, as have appeared in our Age? And thus with relation to the Government, to aggravate the matter against us, thou hast put this charging Question, viz. How dare these Men Appeal to the King and Councils Consciences that they are harmless, and would do them no harm? How now John, do these Passages bespeak that thou art glad of our present Liberty, as thy Advocate saith? And yet thou art the Man that hast pretended to Abhor that practise of rendering us obnoxious to the Government. Thus contradictory thou art in thy Envious attempts, as well as thy Advocate, whose seconding thy Reviling by his slanderously Aspersing Quakerism with Teaching to use the basest Equivocations and sleights that can be found, &c. will not cover thy dark implacable Envy and Confusion.  
2. His Instance to prove that the Quakers formerly Exhorted Men to Fight, and would Fight themselves. Bring thy Quakers Unmask'd, and a Quakers Minister, not telling us his Name, saying, If the Spirit of God in them lead them to Fight, I had nothing against it. I deny the Authority of the first, i.e. e. thy Book being fully confuted, and still Question the last; however we disown the words, as unbecoming our Holy Profession, or any of our Ministers, and know no such Record or Book, kept( of Foreign Letters) by the Quakers.  
( in contempt) upbraid me for Instancing Righteousness, Prayers, Faith, the Fear of the Lord, &c. For the Defence of the Government and the Nation, as beyond Wars and Fighting? Are these no Defence pray? Does not Righteousness Exalt a Nation, and Mercy and Truth Establish the King's Throne? If there had been but Ten Righteous persons in Sodom, had they signified nothing for its Preservation? If we propose a Defence to a Government by Righteousness, the few Prayers of the Faithful, &c. tho we cannot Fight nor Kill Men, is this all one with Perjury in those that can both Swear and Fight? When as we can do neither: Is there no other Defence than Swearing and Fighting? What's become of Christianity then? May not the Heathen say of such Faithless Christians, where is their God? And what Returns does he make them to all their pretended Fastings and Prayers, & c?  
4. How cam'st thou J. P. to suffer thy notorious false Charge against the Quakers to be reassumed and Vindicated by thy Advocate, as being so deeply concerned and engaged in the late Wars as much as others( or more)? Whereas thou knowest in thy own Conscience, or at least may easily know,( as it has been plainly  told thee) that in the time and heat of those Wars, the People called Quakers were not a People, nor Gathered or Constituted as a People under that Name, nor the Name Quakers heard of between Anno 1641. and 1648. And what tho Worcester Fight was in the Year 51, 'tis true, still the People called Quakers were not concerned there. And when they were gathered into Meetings, and publicly become a People, and as such known; there were no Wars in England, tho some few there were about Nottingham, before that time Convinced of the Light Within, but went not under the Name Quakers for some time, but Children of Light, as they owned themselves; yet then wholly unconcerned in the late Wars, either at Worcester or elsewhere. The Name Quaker was first given to a few, by one Justice Bennett, a Persecutor in Darbyshire. Where's now the cunning falsehood or Deceit of G. W's Answer in the case,( uncharitably cast upon him?) Thy Advocate also very Enviously and Unjustly saith, That their chief Leaders approved of the greatest things done in the late Wars against the King, and to his Person. 2. Of Sir G. Booth's Insurrection in 1659. That the Quakers gave Intelligence, calling them Rebels for but endeavouring to bring in the King. Art not thou ( John) ashamed of promoting such bitter Envious stuff as this to render the Quakers( so called) offensive? When wilt thou 〈◇〉 off thy deadly ter Invective Charges against us, as a People that know nothing of them? God in mercy to his Innocent Heritage rebuk the Rage of such bitter Envious dark Spirits. Moreover John, an indefinite and general Charge cannot Justly affect us generally more than others( as thy Advocate saith) unless it be justly and Naturally deduced from such matter of Fact or Proposition, as is generally acted, owned or agreed upon by us as a People. For to deduce a general Charge from every particular or private Action, is no just way of Arguing, and no better than to Argue, that because J. P. once esteemed a Quaker, is an Apostate and turned from them into a dark Spirit of Envy, therefore all the Quakers are such, which is altogether inconsequent.  
5. That thou ( J. P.) and thy Party and Followers have made Disturbances and Interruption many times in our public Meetings, is not unknown to many, how careful soever thou now pretendest thou hast always been, never to interrupt us, nor to give us any disturbance, &c. Recollect thyself better: Thou hast often come in a Spirit of Envy and Opposition with thy Smitings, itis well known: Thy matter hangs not well together in this Point; why shouldst thou find thyself in much danger from the Quakers, or frequently done violence to thee themselves? p. 2. If thou hadst been always careful never to Interrupt them, nor to give them any Disturbance( as thou sayest) what reason have we to believe that thou wast in so much Danger, or that the Quaker have frequently done Violence to thee, if such a quiet inoffensive man?  
6. We did not dote upon Charles II. Nor do we believe that Earthly Kings ought to Rule over Christ's Kingdom or Church, whom he himself is King over; and yet when Earthly Kings are set over us, 
* See p. 11. and 15. Of Christ's Lambs Defended.  we ought to be Innocent towards them, Love and Honour them in their places as Kings of the Earth in outward Government, tho not as Kings or Lords over Christ's Spiritual Kingdom or God's Heritage. I see no Inconsistency, temporising or Change of our Principles herein, as is enviously suggested.  
7. The Case of the Prophet Samuel is so far from being far different from that of the Quakers as stated, that it exactly suits it in their Vindication from the Charge against them, contrary to thy Advocates supposition, wherein he mistakes the Case to svit thy envious turn: The Case of Samuel was urged to Vindicate the People called Quakers from 〈◇〉 Persons among them did caution Professors against their coveting to set up a Kingly Government,( or an Earthly King over the Church) in the Commonwealths days; and yet after Charles II. was Restored, did Address to him, expressing their Innocence and Respect to Him; upon which the Instance of Samuel was alleged, When Israel cried to have a King set over them, like other Nations; this thing displeased Samuel, or was evil in the Eyes of Samuel; and yet for all this, when the Lord had Commanded him to harken to their Voice, and show them the manner of their King, &c. Samuel in Obedience to the word of the Lord anointed Saul and Kissed him, and said, is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee, &c. see Sam. 8.5, 6. and 10.1. Dare you say that Samuel was a temporising Hypocrite herein, or Insincere in this matter? One while he disliked their Eagerness for a King, another while he owned a King when the Lord would have one set over them,( tho it was for a judgement or Scourge upon them) and yet no Hypocrite in either, which suits our Case as to the Persons unjustly Charged by J. P. and his Advocate, therefore his supposition is unjust; supposing Samuel their Representative, and the Heir made King( when the Lord shewed it him) it was not contrary to his mind, nor would he have opposed his Kingship, nor vehemently exhort the people from subjecting themselves to his Power, but rather have patiently suffered under it, as we have done; for when did ever the Quakers, or a Samuel for them, so oppose or exhort People as is suggested? Therefore Samuel, as Representing them, might both pled Innocence, Love, Honour, or Respect to the King( as they have done) without Hyppocrisie, Equivocation or Deceit; and you might as well have so accused the Prophet Samuel, who after he was displeased with Israel's calling for a King to be set over them, like other Nations; yet when he saw it was God's Pleasure to set a King over them, he not only submitted to God's Providence therein, but Addressed, Saluted and owned him as the Lord's anointed, without Deceit or hypocrisy, according as our Christian Principle hath Taught, and enjoined us to a peaceable Submission( as well as Non-resistance) to the Power and Providence of Almighty God under the various Revolutions of Government ever since we were a People; and we humbly thank God that he has enabled us patiently to suffer when called thereunto, for his Name sake. Nor have we writ bitterly against K. Charles II. as we are falsely Accused,( but Faithfully warned him, &c.) but some did Declare against Professors doting on an Earthly King 〈◇〉 to be 〈◇〉 over Christ's Church and how Earthly or Sensual soever you seem to suppose he was, or at least, not a Heavenly King, it could not be inconsistent with our Christian Principle, nor insincere in us to Honour him in his Station as King; for that we and many others actually did( by submission and rendering to Caesar his deuce) tho not by feigned compliment.  
8. My persuasion that the Reason of reproving O. C. for turning such as feared God out of the Army for their Conscience, was more upon his breach of Promise, than with an intent to have them always continue in it, in order to War and Fight. This Argues not that it was Written with any intent to have had them continue in the Army, or for any such end as to War and Fight, as 'tis disingenuously Argued against me on the comparative word More, being but a manner of speaking in stead of rather, my intent being according to the tenor of our Answer to J. P. against Fighting, That O. C. was reproved for turning honest Men out of the Army upon his breach of Promise, and not with an intent to have them continue in it for War and Fighting, who might have a Fear and Conscience toward God, and yet not be at first so far Convinced or enlightened as presently to lay down their Arms and Places; therefore it could not be consistent or just in O. C. to turn them out for any matter of Conscience, but rather to have suffered them to have continued until they had been so far Convinced and enlightened as to have voluntarily laid down their Arms and Commissions from a Conviction in themselves, as many then did in Conscience toward God, choosing rather to take up the across and to suffer for( and with) Christ, than to Fight for him, or to Enjoy their worldly Profits or Preferments.  
9. Where did Christ bid his Disciples to sell their Garments and buy Swords, and consequently to wear Swords?( As the obscure Remarker Writes, p. 3.) I am persuaded he has put a wrong Remark on Christ's words; who( speaking of Pag or Scrip) saith, He that hath none, let him sell his Coat and buy a Sword, Luk. 22.36. And when they  told him here are two Swords; He said unto them it is enough, ver. 38. Yet they said unto him, Lord shall we smite with the Sword? ver. 49. Did Christ encourage them herein to wear material Swords, or to Fight? No sure, they meant Literally, but he Spiritually. He spake Allegorically( as some of the Commentators declare) and had a Spiritual meaning in sending his Disciples into a Spiritual Warfare, not with Carnal Weapons, but with Spiritual; for he did not only bid Peter put up his Sword, but gives this Reason For all 〈◇〉 take the Sword, shall Perish with the Sword, Mat. 26.52. And expressly Testifieth, My Kingdom is not of this World, for if my Kingdom were of this World, my Servants would surely Fight, John 18.36. But his Kingdom not being of this World, therefore his Servants or Disciples may not Fight; and what should they were Swords for then? What, to provoke their Persecutors to Kill them? What sayest thou now John Pennyman? Art thou of thy Remarkers mind, That Christ bid his Disciples to sell their Garments and buy Swords to wear them? Dost thou think it was proper or suitable to their Spiritual Ministry and Warfare to wear Swords and Carnal Weapons, and to Fight with them, when Christ sent them as Lambs among Wolves, among their Persecutors when they Preached the Gospel? If thou art of this Opinion speak out, and tell us plainly, and give us thy Reason; if not, why didst thou promote, spread or recommend his Pamphlet to any? When Christ said to his Ministers, Behold I sand you forth as Lambs among Wolves; would it be consistent to add, But you must wear outward Swords? Or when he said, be ye wise as Serpents, but innocent as Doves, would it be suitable doctrine to add, But you must wear Swords? Or when his Ministers said, Our Weapons are not Carnal, but Spiritual, Did they then disobey Christ's Command in not wearing Swords or Carnal Weapons? Answer directly John.  
10. As for avenging ourselves in word and Print, railing, Reviling, &c. which he casts upon the Quakers, bringing G. W. for an instance, wherein I have opposed some envious Apostates in Truth's Vindication, from their Peevish, Malicious Invectives; I do declare Conscientiously that it was not for Revenge that I have dealt plainly with them, but in a Holy Zeal for God's Truth and People, whom they had grievously Defamed, and I know no Characters I have put upon them, but such as I steadfastly believe are very suitable to their ill-Natures and dark envious Spirits, and also warrantable according to the Holy Scriptures: And thou J. P. having charged us with Dissimulations and Temporizings, Deceivours, not to be trusted in our Applications to the King and Government, and as like the Whore wiping our Mouths by Proclaiming ourselves an Innocent and Harmless People: What worse Characters could we put upon thee? And yet thou hast gone about to wipe thy Mouth, by pretending thy Abhorrence of rendering us Obnoxious to the Government, as appears more at Large in thy Quakers Unmask'd. My Reflecting on thy self-Contradiction, Deceit, Hypocrisy, and Implacable Envy herein above Thirteen Years ago in Answer to thy said Book in Manuscript, I see no just cause to thee thereupon in these words, God will Smite thee thou Malicious Hypocrite, our Innocency shall outlive thy Envy and causeless Revenge, and rise up in judgement against thee. I am still of the same Mind, and really believe this judgement was and is Just and True, and will stand over thy Head, and over thy dark envious Spirit, and thy Associates therein, and that it proceeded from the Spirit of the Living God, shuffle it off as long as thou canst.  
11. I am made concerned again to take notice of John Pennyman's Observation upon a Declaration from the People called Quakers, directed to the present Distracted Nation of England, in the Year 659. because his Remarking Advocate has very unjustly charged G. W. with an Equivocating Answer in its Vindication, p. 4. The passage observed by John Pennyman is this, viz. We have chosen the Son of God to be our King, and he hath chosen us to be his People; and he might command Thousands and ten Thousands of his Saints at this day to Fight in his own Cause— and give them Victory over all their Enemies, and turn his Hand upon their Persecutors; but yet his Kingdom is not of this World, neither is his Warfare with Carnal Weapons, &c. neither hath he chosen us for that end, neither can we yet believe that he will make use of us in that way; but for the present we are given up to bear and suffer all things for his Names sake, &c. Whereupon John Pennyman has this Observation in his Quakers Unmask'd, viz. So that they were not then of that mind that the Spirit would never move them to Fight. And this he brings to contradict their Declaration to the King in 1660. Testifying that the Spirit of Christ, which leads into all Truth, will never move them to Fight and War against any Man with outward Weapons. Which is so far from a Contradiction to the former, that tis rather a Confirmation, and bespeaks they still persevere in their Belief that the Spirit of Christ would never move them to Fight and War against men with Carnal Weapons. Though Quakers did not then believe he would, neither do they now believe he ever will, but the contrary. The aforesaid Declaration Printed in 1659. J. P. saith, was Subscribed by many; but tells not the Reader that he, even John Pennyman himself was one of those many who subscribed it: as I am sure his Name is to it, with Fourteen more, wherein he hath dealt most Disingenuously and Deceitfully, thus to Reflect upon the Quakers about it, without giving any notice how far himself was concerned in it by mind, if his Malice did not befool him to overlook, or not to heed the Subscriptions. And tho his Remarker grants that to that Declaration Mr. P— 's( why not Pennyman's) Name was among the rest Subscribed; yet to excuse his said Observation, ( That the Quakers were not then of that mind, that the Spirit would never move them to Fight.) His Remarker seconds it with this Remark, viz. We must needs conclude that this is one of those things that God hath made no Decree to the Contrary; but that he may will it to be done, even by us in the Future, tho he hath not done it at present.  
Now John Pennyman, I must apply the matter to thy own Conscience in this Case. Didst not thou in the said Declaration plainly confess our choice of the Son of God to be our King, and his choice of us to be a People, and that his Kingdom is not of this World, and that his Warfare is not with Carnal Weapons? As also, that neither is his Victory by murdering and Killing Mens Persons, nor hath he chosen us for that end, &c: With divers other Passages to the same purpose, viz. We do not War against any with Carnal Weapons, neither shall we ever provoke the Nation against us, otherwise than by our Righteous and Holy Walking, &c. Now if when thou Signedst this, thou believedst that the Spirit of Christ might( for all this) move thee( or the rest of the Signers) to Fight contrary to the very Sense and Substance of the Declaration; Wast thou not guilty of gross Dissimulation and abominable Hypocasie therein?  
1. To proclaim to the World that thou and the rest are become Subjects of such a King as will never allow you to Fight?  
2. And yet to have this Private or Mental Reserve, that he may move or will thee and them to Fight in the Future,( as thy Advocate words it,) I am persuaded the rest of the Signers had no such Deceitful Reserve, if thou wilt now maintain it that thou hadst. Wast not thou very Deceitful to be upon such Equivocation and Mental Reservation in such a plain Case? Wilt thou stand by thy Advocate's Remark in the Case, That God might will thee to Fight in the future, when thou proclaimd'st to the World thy innocency and freeness from a Fighting Spirit, as having made choice of the Son of God to be thy King, whose Kingdom is not of this World, and that he has not Chosen thee for any such end as Fighting, Killing, & c.? Oh! John, with what Conscience couldst thou admit of any such Observation or Remark, as that either the Spirit of Christ might( for all this) move thee to Fight to it in the Future? Oh! be ashamed of such perverting Remarks so palpably contrary to thy former Christian Innocent Testimony.  
Suppose that the Government should have Questioned the People called Quakers( as some did) how shall we be secured on your own Principle of your Peaceable Living and Innocency under the Government? May not the Spirit move you to Fight, & c.? John Pennyman and the rest who subscribed the said Declaration, should have thus Answered and Declared, viz. Though we have chosen the Son of God to be our King, and he us to be his People, and we know his Kingdom is not of this World, neither is his Warfare with Carnal Weapons, nor hath he chosen us for that end, nor can we yet believe that he will make use of us in that way: We do not War against any with Carnal Weapons, neither shall we ever provoke the Nation against us otherwise than by our Righteous and Holy Walking;( which is our Christian Principle and persuasion) yet nevertheless we are not of that mind that the Spirit will never move us to Fight; God may will us thereunto in the Future, though not at present; which if his Spirit doth, we must obey, we must Fight and Avenge ourselves; we intend to Live very Peaceably and Quietly, unless you provoke us by Persecution or Injury done us; which if you do, then we may be moved to Fight and Avenge our own Cause and Quarrel; and then you'l find us Religious, and not Mercenary Fighters. What a gross Contradiction would this be to our Christian Principle and Profession, as if we could not trust God to pled or Avenge his own and our Innocent Cause? And what an Affront would such an Answer be to the Government, and what Security would it bespeak thereunto? Might not the Magistrate justly thereupon Reflect, and say, Nay, if you be upon these contradictory and uncertain Terms and Reserves, you are not to be Trusted in your pretences of Innocency and Peaceable Living; we had need to look to ourselves, and timely restrain and suppress you. Is this all the Security you'll grant us? Had not this been the ready way to bring extreme Persecution upon us? Oh John! Dost thou think thou hast well Personated the People called Quakers, or justly represented their Case, viz. That the Spirit may move them to Fight, God may will it to be done by them in the Future? As if their Principle and persuasion not to Fight, but to live Peaceably and Inoffensively, were but Pro tempore, but for the present time, and not for the Future. servation in Signing the aforesaid Declaration, 1659? I am satisfied the rest of the Subscribers had no such Mental Reservation or meaning, but the contrary, as some of them have  told me, it did never enter into their thoughts to imagine the Spirit of Christ should move them to Fight, so expressly contrary to their declared Innocency to the Government, as being Subjects of such a King,( viz. Christ Jesus) as will not admit them to Fight or destroy Mens Lives, which he came not to destroy, but to save. I question not but those of the Subscribers that yet remain( except J. P.) would give it under their Hands( if desired) that they intended no such thing or meaning, as he and his Remarker has put upon the said Declaration, for being moved in the Future to Fight. And John, thy Remarker his Criticising upon the Particle, [ yet] and [ for the Present] as opposed to the time to come, and Importing that Fighting may be Commanded us in the Future, p. 5. This will not excuse thee, neither in concealing thy Name, nor in reflecting upon others concerned in Subscription with thee; nor yet in Clouding the Simplicity and Innocency of that Declaration aforesaid, by such contrary Observations and Remarks thereupon by thee and thy Advocate, who both appear very unfair and disingenuous; for though the word [ present] be opposed to the time to come, and not very proper in that place of the said Declaration, as was hinted in our Answer, Christ's Lambs Defended, p. 37. The words [ Neither can we yet believe that he will make use of us in that way, as to War with Carnal Weapons] are not necessary opposed to the time to come, [ neither that he will so make use of us] being In futuro, expressly relative to the time to come, and consequently far enough from Importing, that Fighting may be commanded us for the Future.  
12. And now John, thy Advocate charges us with many Falshoods, too many here to repeat, but that of Exalting ourselves, affecting singularity in most things, accustomend in England how Innocent so ever; these are unjustly deduced from our saying thou, not you to a single Person, calling no man Master, condemning the putting off the Hat to any, &c.  
John, I am persuaded that thou wast once sensible that these proceed not from any affencted Singularity or self-exaltion among us, but from a humble Submission to the across of our Lord Jesus Christ and self-denying Spirit; however, thou art now so far alienated and depraved from that Simplicity and Plainness of Truth, that thou canst comform to the World in Language and gesture, and then on thy part, even in those things wherein thou once had Testimony among us? didst not thou bear Testimony against putting off the Hat and Bowing to Men? But hast thou not made thyself a Transgressor in falling into the same practise again, in building up what thou once destroyest, and that according to that excellent Principle of Reformation, the Light in every Man?( as thy Advocate confesseth it to be, p. 5.) by which excellent Principle we are( and thou wert) lead, even in those things slighted by him and thee, wherein we are not( nor may be) conformable to the World. But he would not be understood to Impute these Immoralities to the Quakers in general, nor to all their Teachers and Leading Men, but to the Foxonian Party that love to Govern, p. 5. We deny this scornful Distinction of Parties. Here he makes Exception, and yet Vindicates thy Quakers Unmasked. What Quakers and Teachers among them dost thou and he own, so as not to impute any such Immoralities unto them? Whilst he is Accusing the People called Quakers over and over in terminis: What Fallacy and self-contradiction is this, and how Immoral and Unjust is it in him and thee again to upbraid us with a pretended Order from Berbados? Seeing when it first came over it was Disowned by Us and our Friends in general, especially wherein it imports a contrary Distinction or Division between the Spirit in a particular Member, and the same Spirit in the Church, or opposing the particular Measure thereof in myself, to the Spirit of God in Meetings, which we cannot make good sense of; for the same Spirit cannot be Divided; and the judgement that rises in the Church of God from the Spirit of Truth in any matter, comes from the same Spirit in particular Members, before it be received in the General; and we have understood that the aforesaid pretended Order was then Disowned by some particular Friends, even in Barbados, and afterwards revoked by them in general, and therefore not justly to be made a Charge against them or us.  
13. Your joining W. Muckloe with F. Bugg and others, as Witnesses against us, and as Grieved and Mournful to see that excellent Principle of Reformation, the Light in every Man so grossly perverted and undermined, &c. I am persuaded W. Muckloe did not give you leave to rank him in the List with such as F. Bugg, and that you have not therein appeared his Friend, and that he has attained to more Wisdom and Justice than to own or countenance thee J. P. or F. B. either in your works of Envy and Persecution 〈◇〉 render us Odious and Obnoxious to the Gov●…  
14. Another Charge is, That the Quakers will Fight in a just Cause, p. 6. His instances for Proof are, That one Defended himself against three Highway-men, having only a Staff in his Hand,[ not a Sword nor Gun then; and upon a sudden surprisal: But did he place this upon the motion of the Spirit of Christ, or Principle of the Quakers, or only as a permitted Human Act happening on such an Immergency? If not on the first, How doth this overthrow the Principle or affect the People with the Charge before? Was this any more than a private and particular act? How then does it affect the Quakers in general?] And the two Ship-Masters carrying Guns, and Fighting until overpowered by the Turks the Enemy, &c. And what follows? Ergo, the Quakers will Fight.  
I deny the consequence, it being unjustly deduced, and 'tis a Fallacious way of Arguing a Particulari ad Universale, as to Argue thus, Two Ship-Masters, called Quakers, carried Guns, Fought in their own Defence, Ergo, all Shipmasters Quakers carry Guns and Fight, &c. when the contrary is evident by many Instances.  
15. The Charge against S. Crisp, of forcing the Man to Sign and Seal the Paper, being denied by S. C. what if it be affirmed by J. P.? Surely we have more reason to give Credit to S. C. than to J. P.( in the case) who is become our open Enemy and Persecutor to his Power.  
16. I am not convinced by what J. P. and his Remarker saith, That the Quakers are mistaken about the Nature of an Oath; let's a little examine his Definition of an Oath, where he tells us, That he that Falsifies in the Presence of God calling him to Witness, incurs the greatest Punishments of Divine Vengeance, as one that makes God a Partner to a lie: And what's the Consequence? Therefore calling God to Witness, is as much an Oath as any other form of Words. And so to Testify the Truth in the Presence of Him that knowleth all things; or to say, God is my Witness. I call God to Record on my Soul. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows I lie not, &c. These he calls Forms of an Oath: Wherein I think the Remarker is mistaken.  
For 1. No Falsifying whatsoever, though in any Unsworn Testimony can be Excluded either the Sight or Presence of an Omnipresent God; he is really all seeing and present every where, even among false Witnesses, a swift Witness against them.  
2. If any will Falsify in an unsworn Testimony or Promise; if it be but his bare yea or nay, without any Asseveration, and would have it accepted on the Credit of his Religion or Christianity, he does as really make Christ or God a Partner to a lie, as he that expressly saith, I speak in the Presence of God, or God is Witness, &c.( Is there no difference between Asseveration and Imprecation?) And as much incurs the Penalty of Divine Vengeance by Falsifying his unsworn Testimony.  
3. God is really Witness to every Truth sincerely Declared, whether we call him to Witness thereunto, or not; so he is Witness against every lie and False Testimony, though it be unsworn, and it is as Punishable by him; if all liars be Excluded the Holy City, and the Lake that burns must be their Punishment, what greater Punishment is there for false Swearers? Are all lies therefore Oaths? No sure, though every false Oath be a lie, yet every lie is not an Oath.  
4. The Remarker's Description of an Oath, Reflects on the Apostle Paul, for Swearing and using several Forms of Oaths in his Epistles to the Churches of Christ; as if they were so Incredulous as not to believe his Christian Testimony, without using several Forms of Oaths, or without breaking Christ's Command; and his Apostle James his Exhortation against all Swearing, Mat. 5. Jam. 5. We'll rather believe that the Apostles of Christ observed his doctrine not to Swear, than that they contrary thereunto, did Swear several Forms of Oaths; for God being Witness to every Testimony of Truth, though unsworn, I cannot apprehended that simply Declaring either in the Presence of God, or that God is witness to the Truth Declared, can be either an Oath, or the Form of an Oath, without some Imprecation or Curse, or Invoking of God to Vengeance, conditionally contained or included in the Form of an Oath; and is there not also some overt Act or Ceremony required in a formal Oath, and done by him that Swears? For farther Answer in this Case, I refer you to a Book entitled, The Case of the Quakers Defended, as Evangelical, Printed Anno. 1675.  
17. The Reflections upon us in Conclusion, as mistaken about the Payment or non-Payment of Taxes is mis-stated, as if designed to render us Obnoxious. And if the Remarker will please ingenuously to show his Face, and Condescend to admit us some Amicable Discourse with him upon his Remarks, we doubt not but to show him his Mistake in that, and several other things therein, more than are herein taken notice of,  
By a Servant of Christ, 
 G. WHITEHEAD. London, the 1st 
 of the 6th Month, 
 1691.  
FINIS.