William Penn's RETURN To John Faldo's REPLY, CALLED A Curb for William Penn's Confidence, &c.
Writ in Defence of his Answer to John Faldo's Printed Challenge.

MY Answer to J. Faldo's Challenge was in terms so Modest, that no man not bent to be A­busive, and resolv'd against all Candor and Moderation, could have taken such Pains as he hath done, to bedirt it. Would I so ill bestow my Time, I could well nigh fill as great a Compass with the Hard Names he flings upon it; The Refuge and Practice of Petulant and Empty Adver [...]aries. His Title charges it with False Inf [...]a [...]s and Juglings: I seriously pro [...]ess, I never intended any thing with more Tr [...]th, Plain­ness [Page 2] and Softness then that short Answer. And truly, that which renders this Usage at any time [...]neasie, is the fa­stening unjustly that Character upon me & my Friends, which is most deservedly their own, thereby concealing and securing the Offender, and substituting the Inno­cent in his room, to the Deceiving of the Simple, and exposing us to the Bate of the rude and ignorant Mul­titude: But it is our Lot, and mine at this time more particularly; I was treated at another rate whilst I could cry Hosanna to his Order.

But let us hear what he sayes to prove that my An­swer contains f [...]lse Insinuations and Juglings. I told him, ‘That it was unfairly done of him to chuse the Barbican-Meeting, to divulge his Challenge to me, which I had receiv'd no notice of.’ To this he replies; That the Meeting was occasion'd by the Quakers Appeal: Which, beside that it is nothing to the Purpose, is a great Untruth: Did we occasion any Meeting, where­in we were concerned to be present without our Notice and Consent, either as to Matter or Manner, Time or Place, taking the word Occasion in the common Ac­ceptation of it? No-body surely, but J. Faldo, and such Prejudgers can think so. For Shame be Just!

But he believes such a Critical Season seldom happens, wherein both G. W. and I before so long a Season out of the Reach of so publick a Concern. What then! Therefore were we not then out of Reach? What would he be at? Lamentable Weakness! Is this to justifie his Cowardly Brags? I will call them so now, since softer Terms fair'd so ill at his hands. But let J. F know, that for that Glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, our Lord, he with as much Envy as Untruth s [...]ggests us to deny, we are frequently engaged in re­mote [Page 3] Places, and that for Weeks, and sometimes Moneths, where no Letters can be sent to us with any previous Knowledge where to find us; insomuch as that our nearest and dearest Relations may have taken their Leave of this World, and exchanged their House for Grave; before our Return, or Knowledge of their Condition; which might have better bee [...] considered by this Stipendiary Resident, who though he gets more Money by it, is not exposed to that and many other Hardships.

But to palliate the Injust Procedure of the Baptists against us at their first Barbican-Meeting, he tells us a Tail of G. Whitehead's surprizing him with a Dispute upon three dayes Notice, which he saith, was not ac­cording to the Agreement made betwixt him and some of our Friends, to wit, Mutual Consent; which gran­ted to him, neither helps the Baptists, nor hurts us: for first, G. Whitehead went principally to a Meeting of our Friends, and if he might have Opportunity, to allay the Heat of this Vapouring Adversary. 2dly, It was so far left with J. Faldo, either to accept or reject, as that it was most remote from the Thoughts of G. W. upon his Refusal to assemble the Inhabitants of the Place, and in his Absence exclaim both against his Faith and Pra [...]tice; our manifest Suffering from T. Hicks and his Confederates 3dly, There can be nothing well falser then his insinuating the Issue of that M [...]eting to have been his Q [...]iet from the Quakers; if by Quiet he understands any Fear upon them from his Force of Ar­gument to encounter him; since he could neither re­cover our half Proselyte, as he is pleased to call that Person once a Hearer of him; nor did he re [...]t one Moneth without a fair offer of another Meeting from [Page 4] some of our Friends near the Place of his Residence, which, as I am informed, he declined: I blame him not for doing so. But suppose G. W. was as culpable as he represents him, who so little deserved his Reflecti­on; how doth this excuse T. Hicks, or extenuate his own Injustice, who without any Notice given to G. W. or my self, did so publickly at Barbican in our Ab­sence abuse the one, and challenge forth the other in Defence of himself and Friends, from a Charge then exhibited by him against our Faith and Prin­ciples, suggesting to the Auditory, as if what were in Reality but his own crooked Consequences (detest­ed of us) had been the express Articles of our Creed. If yet he can presume to believe himself Modest, Just or Christian, his Case is desperate, and I heartily pitty his Mistake.

But he faults me for saying, ‘He could not but know of my being at a great Distance;’ telling me, That I either make him an Extraordinary Gnostick, or my self such an Over-Lasher as needs to have my words well measured after me. Truly if J. Faldo hath the Doing of it, I am sure to be wronged, unless he hath changed his Wont. How near a kin he is to the Gnosticks in other Respects, I will not undertake to determine; only if what Epiphamus writes of their Self Conceit, be true, J. F. has printed himself one of the Extraordinariest Gnosticks of this Age: But I will stand to my words, that he must needs know of my Absence; for they that gave him notice of the Meeting, being some of the Per­sons concern'd, might also inform him, that I was at a great distance, they receiving that Answer: But left he should deny all this, as proba [...]le as it is, the Prolo­cutor's [Page 5] Gloss upon the Word EAST, doth the Busi­ness to an Hairs breadth; for unless J. Faldo's Ears happen like J. Ives's, to be all of a sudden thick of Hearing, or to have as great an Impediment as T. Hick's Tongue (that is, in Cases unpleasant to them) he could not but observe, that W. K. insinuated, as if I had Voyag'd to the East-Land, or the East-Indies, too far for the Noise of J. Faldo's Charge to be heard, as Empty as it was▪ But I must not forget, and yet take no Delight to remember, that Grave Person purpose­ly left out England, joyn'd to East, in the Letter, that he might better break his Jest.

But be it as it will, I cannot but return J. Faldo an Allusion in his first Book, it may be, not in the very Words, yet the same Sense, viz. That he doth with me in this as nicely and unjustly, as some Physitians, who strictly prohibit that to their Patients they eat them­selves with great Gusto.

I further told him, as he observes, ‘that I had twice Defended our Faith in Print against him, and that a considerable Book lay at his Door unanswer'd.’ To this he gives me several Returns, worth noting, for some­thing or other: one is this, That he perfectly knows the Contrary; To what? That I have twice defended our Belief: The Quibble is here; I have twice Writ, but not twice Defended; notable! but he goes of late for a Critick. however, who say so? John Faldo. Doth he prove as well as say? No such matter. He would not be mistaken, yet in asserting he transcends; for he further tells us, That I have not overthrown one Line of his books; in which, as he explicitely proves his own Impudence and Ostentation, so implicitely he calls [Page 6] many, far from Quakerism, as he terms it, Fools or Knaves for the [...]r contrary Judgment.

But to the next Reason; My Prints have confirmed him; which, though no Evidence to others of the Rea­sonableness of his Belief, yet a great one to me, that that Scripture is fulfilling upon him, Wicked Men shall wax worse and worse. But this is not all:

He tells us, That it is not a Considerable Book. Who expe [...]ted J. Faldo should say any other? But doth he not hold himself oblieged to help others to the same Creed▪ if his Heat be any better then Mercenary? should he not endeavour to disintangle those that other­wise opinionate of the Matter? Doubtless he thinks it not less deserving his Pains, then those his first Book pretended to refute: If he doth, he would have done well to point in what; if he doth not, why doth he not answer me as well as them? Or why did he begin at all, if he intended no to make good what he said? But I would not be tho [...]g [...]t to imitate Pharaoh's putting the People to make Brick without Straw, by urging him to defend that which indeed is indefensible: Only, it is worth our Notice, that the Book is not considerable; but prethee, why? I think so. Ergo, what? It is not consi­derable. This Way of arguing calls J. Faldo an Idle Meddler, for ever writing an Half-Crown or Three Shillings Book, to terminate here, My Adversary is not Consid [...]rable. So much Wit, Folly, or Shuffle, call it what he will, would have saved him much Brain­work in the beginning; but it may do the Man some good: Fol [...]s [...]ay so of Experience dear bought; and better Rep [...]. late then never, though its commonly judg'd to be a Repentance per force.

Well, but ther's more behind, viz. Whatever Qualities [Page 7] my last Book had, he tells me, it is more then I knew, that ever he saw it; He is sure, I never laid it at his Door, by sen­ding one of them to him. If he had said, by receiving one of them it had past him; for I might have sent it, & it might have many ways miscarried: But I will not press him with this, nor talk either of Gnosticks, or Over-Lashers to Lash him with. And that I may right my self, and shew him how willing I was it should lie at his Door, I did to the best of my remembrance, order him one, and if it came not to his hand, it neither accuseth me, nor excuseth him. J. Faldo sent me none of his, and I think I never gave that for a Reason why either of them lay at my Door.

But it seems J. Faldo hath lately been at Bedlam, and one would think so by the Story he tells; an Impertinent one it is Some Body said something of W. P. &c. but Who he knows not; here is the Upshot. What I should say I know not; for he neither directs me to the Person, nor House: So I must be contented to leave it as I found it, with J. Faldo and Bedlam, a Place that suits the Relation.

He hath not yet done: My Book is said to be printed in 1673. and it stuck in the Birth till many Months were past of the Year 1674. This hits the Book in the Head, provided the Title-Page may stand for one▪ But how doth J. Faldo know it stook so many Moneths in 1674? Which way came he so well acquainted with the Secrets of the Press? But let us see what this Objection amounts to. The Title is either printed first, or last: If first, say in 73. would he have the Printer foresee all those Diffi­culties that may obstruct the coming forth of the Book till 74. in order to set down 73, 74? This were to make a Gnostick of him with a Witness; or if he doth not, his Book shall be charg'd with an Vntruth: If the Title be [Page 8] printed last (which I suppose is not common) say in 74. and he sets down 74. he tells an Vntruth of the Book, though not of the Title: Should the Printer then have set it down 73, 74. because some of the Book was prin­ted in 73. this had been an Vntruth respecting the Title Page; for that was all and only printed in 74.

That ever a man that loved Reputation at the rate they that know him say he doth, should be so Idle in Print! Suppose his Observation true; Is the Book therefore not Considerable? or doth it not lye at his Door? or is W. P. to be blamed, which is the Business in hand? What he would be at I know not; unless he design'd to shew that he is a Critick and well skill'd in Annals: but I am of Opinion that Baronius (after the old Proverb) may sleep in a whole Skin for all J. Faldo's Attempts.

His next Reason for not giving my Rejoynder any Re­turn, is, as he sayes elsewhere, Magnipotent. I have two Thousand Pounds per ann. in Possession, as reported: I may waste Paper, but he (Alas for him!) must write no more then is deem'd Convenient and Satisfactory.

I perceive that J. Faldo is govern'd much by Reports, and that may be one Reasen why the Man reports so much Vntruth: But if he will make the Report good, I will give him a Years Rent, and let him waste Paper, or waste it in Paper, and then call it an Answer to W. P. if he pleaseth. I observe that his Want of it is the Rea­son of his not being a better Friend to the Printer; for his words, that He must write no more then what is deem­ed convenient, imply, that had he wherewithal, he might Write and Waste, and Waste and Write. But what is the true English of this Apologetical Sentence? It is to be suspected this, viz. I must write no more then can be sold: The Book-sellers do not deem more of my Writings Conve­nient [Page 9] and Satisfactory; For I cannot believe that J. F. could not write what he deems both Convenient and Satisfactory. But what is become of that greedy Appe­tite in Learned and Vnlearned after his Books, not only certified by the Book-sellers, but with a most nauseous Self Glorying proclaimed by himself in his Vindication? For my part, I know not what else to infer from all this then that his Books are become a Drug; at least, they so far stick undigested in the Peoples Stomachs, if not un­sold in the Booksellers Shops, as there is neither Appetite enough in the one, nor Room enough in the other for more of the Labours of the Author of Quakerism No Christianity.

But he thanks me that I have put one Argument into his Mouth, viz. Wherefore hath W. P. made such a Bussie against Mr. Hicks and me, seeing he hath not toucht, or much less answer'd the far greater part of my first Book?

Oh that J. Faldo would but learn to write Truth, and not cover great Weakness and Baleness with so much Vntruth! Have I not answered to every Charge in the first Book? Examin'd 2, 3, 4 or 5. of his Witnesses at a time to each Charge; that is, Testimonies out of our Friends Books, he brought to justifie it? It seems then that my not fully Answering of his first Book is one Rea­son why he hath hitherto declin'd Publishing something against my second; but had the Man been of this Mind before, doubtless he would never have writ a Second.

But what saith J. F. to my second Book, wherein I charge him in Point of Fact with so many horrid Abuses or our Principles and Writings? Not one word, unless that it is a considerable Book for Railing, Confidence, abusing Authors, Impertinences, Falshoods, and unfaith­ful Gi [...]ng what I pretend to confute. What sence can be [Page 10] had against such a Flail? Is this through the aboundings of the Man's M [...]desty? Am I not like to be cur'd of my Confidence by a Curb made up of such Links? Certainly unless J. Faldo hath as little Brains, as this Character of my Book shows him to have of Honesty, he cannot think tkis Entertainment should prevail with me to step over the Kennel to meet such A—. If ever Man was wrong'd, I am in that Expression; though his Saying and Not Proving helps it a little. I will at present overlook all but the last Ill Quality he fastens upon my Rejoynder, and that is, Not fairly citing his Reply: I think I may say, I have quoted the better half of his Reply into my Re­joynder, and that with such Distinction as any Capacity may discern his Matter from mine; And where he hath quoted One Line of mine, I have quoted Three of his. But I cannot think this the Way to Carb my Confidence; or to Act the Modest Man, To Charge and Not Prove; Nay, to Overlook so much Charg'd and Proved against him in my Rejoynder, That is, Vnfairly Citing us, grosly Perverting what is cited, Adding or Diminishing, as best answer'd his Ends; overlooking my Matter & Arguments, and evading the Strength of most of what he cited; Char­ging Consequences unfairly drawn upon us for our Princi­ples, and abusing our Writings to maintain that Abuse; which is not only prov'd in the Body of the Discourse, but summ'd up at the End of my Rejoynder, to help the Readers Memory. And so far hath the Man been from Defending himself Do [...]trinally, that he suffers himself to remain without all Defence against my Charges.

But he hath told us very seasonably, His farther Wri­ting is not deem'd Convenient or Satisfactory; A great deal of Wi [...]dom, believe me, in the D [...]emers; and a great [...]hare of Submission in t [...]is Adversary. I confess it [Page 11] is no Argument to do Indiscretly a third time, because a Man hath done so twice before. Had I return'd him a Seurrilousc Frothy & Evasive Pamphlet (like his Reply) to his great Book, I should have blam'd my self, not him; but I did conscientiously consider it, and bestow'd a large & grave Discourse upon it, faithfully citing, and (I hope) as fully enervating it. But to this he objects, & that seems the Strength of his Sheet, if there be any in it; that is, That he made 12 Citations out of our own Books, and brought 13 Texts of [...]cripture to prove (one Point of many) & that I took bu [...] 2 of each; which granted, makes nothing against me, but proves himself Weak to say no worse: For ei­ther each of them he brought was pertinent, or not; If not, then his urging them calls him Impertinent; If per­tinent, I answer'd the Law that saith, In the Mouth of two Witnesses, &c. for I examin'd Two, I thought of his Considerabl [...]st, and sound them nothing to his Purpose, but that he had aggravated his Evil by grosly Abusing our Books, to prove his Infamous Charge: Now I would fain know, if it became not J. Faldo rather to have shown how weakly I invalidated his Evidence, and prov'd him as Abuser of our Words, then to tell the World I took but Two into Consideration; for if he be gone upon them, he is gone upon all; for they are not a Jot more to his Purpose, if so much, as those examin'd: And I did not holy my self oblieged to answer every impertinent Line in his Book: If I skipt the Strength of his Evidence, or that those I left had something not exprest or implyed in the other, it had been proper for him to have particular­ly and expresly excepted against me; all which he not doing, his Objection is frivolous, and amounts to no more then a mean Shuffle.

But he tells the World, That also a whole Chapter of [Page 12] Apostolical Inspirations lye at my Door untoucht, and that they may judge at what rate I have answer'd his Book.

Poor Man! Is this all he can do, after he hath thought fit to give us a second Book? Must his first be his Asy­lum still? Why did he not tell T. H. and W K. so to ex­cuse his coming to Barbican? Is he for Disputing not­withstanding, and yet not for Writing? It seems then that it is not deem'd Inconvenient to Dispute, but Write. Well! But why will J. Faldo drop things against him­self, and, as he terms it, put Instances in my Mouth, to prove him a most Disingenuous and Impudent Person? for did I not tell him, ‘That what concern'd us upon the Point of Inspiration, I had treated at large else where, and there was no need of a Repetition?’ Now hath he shown or attempted an Enervation of that? Nothing less. Or that we were concern'd in that more then in his 4th Chapter? No such Matter. Or hath he given us one Reason, why I ought to have consider'd it? Or dare he say, the other contain'd not the Matter of it? What more can we say to a Man of this Fore-head? I told him of Scores of Passages given by him under our Name, he had not so much as cited Person or Book for, as well as abun­dance willfully abused by him, that he did cite: To all which he is as mute as if I had never accused him, or he had nothing to say in his own Vindication. Is his Recri­mination (suppose a Reason for it in its place) a valid Answer? Would he have thought this enough to his two Books? How easily could we have told J. F. Thou hast abused our Religion, Books and Persons; but would he have accepted this as a sufficient Answer or Rejoynder? He tells the World of our Denying the Man's Nature, or Man Chirst Jesus, and brings a Company of wrested and misapplyed Sentences to vail his Abuse from the [Page 13] Vulgar; who most faithfully and honestly believe it, and never speak or write undervaluingly of it: But because we press and exalt his Spiritual App [...]arance, or Christ as come in Spirit to the Soul for its particular Redemp­tion, the Work of our Day; the other being granted on all hands; therefore men of his Leaven inser, That we make void the ourward Coming & Sufferings of Christ, and utterly deny and reject him, as he is the Man Christ Jesus. I wish for their sakes that thus traduce us, they were as far from drawing such Consequences, as our Faith is from countenancing them. Of this I have spoak so largely both in my Answer and Rejoynder disingenu­ously overlookt by this Adversary.

But he faults me for saying, That W. Smith's Cate­chism is scripturally written, &c. but never takes no­tice of his unworthy Assertion, nor my Answer, as he ought to have done. The Matter was this: J. Faldo making use of this Instance, to prove we preferr'd our own Writings before the Scriptures, viz. That we call'd our own Sayings & Books, The Voice of the Son of God was uttered forth by him, &c. Truths Principles; Shield of Truth, &c. I answer'd, that those Titles were given with respect to that Divine Truth they declar'd of and testifi­ed unto; not in Comparison with the Scriptures: That not one of those Books were destitute of Scripture; but it either generally writ in a Scriptural Styl, or particularly defended by express Scripture cited; therefore of neces­sity the Scripture must also partake with them in com­mon of those famous Titles: And thus far have they the Preference that they are quoted on purpose to give the Truth we write of greater Credit; What is that greater Credit then to be exactly agreeable with them?

This and more I gave for Answer; He replieth thu:

[Page 14] I leave it to my Reader to give a Name to this Passage, the like to which for a daring Vntruth the World hath scarcely been acquainted with; yet the Man pretends, be­sides all other Graces, to * Infallibility.

It is frequent with him, and that Sort of Adversaries, to fling Infallibility in our Teeth; and here he doth it with manifest De­rision, as if it was a greater Evil to be Infallible, then to Err; but let the Reader know, that we do not so much as pretend to any such Thing, as meer Men; for as such, Humanum est crrare; but in our Judgment of the Things of God, so far as we receive it from the Grace of God. And if this be a Piece of Quakerism in Op­position to Christianity in J Faldo's Account, the Scripture must answer for it; only I cannot but take Notice how he beats the Air, who either defends or opposeth any Religion upon Fallible Grounds.

In many a large Libel I could produce, where there is not one Quotation of Scripture. W. Smith in his Directo­ry for Religious Principles, consisting of above 200. Pages, hath not one Scripture quoted, not one Exhortation to read the Scriptures; but as his main Scope, denyes and throws Dirt upon them.

This was J. Faldo's Reply, I shall now contract the Substance of my Rejoynder to it.

First, I did not say that there was not one Book with­out plenty of express Scripture, but that those Books (whose Titles he quoted) were either generally in a Scripture Style, or particularly defended by plenty of express Scriptures.

Secondly, To confute me, he produceth one of those Books, wherein he saith, one Scripture was not quoted; as if that was sufficient to prove, it was not written gene­rally in a Scripture Style one half of the [...]uestion; Upon which I made him this Challenge, to give me one Book out of a Scripture style, that is not Controversial, or any Controversial Book without express Scripture cited: If he could not, his vain Insulte should fall upon [Page 15] his own Head. In this particular, though he has ove lookt all the rest of my Discourse in Defence of our Faith, Writings and Principles, he undertakes me in his pretended Curb to my Confidence, in these words, To accept W. P's Challenge is no bold thing; and to shew his unparallel'd. Falsehood and Confidence, I shall need to give you but a few Instances out of W. Smith's Cate­chism and Primer.

But J. Faldo, Three instances, few enough to be sure, prove 200 Pages generally unscriptural, the Terms of the Question? Methinks this shews more Confidence then a Man that undertakes to Curb another Man's Con­fidence ought to have: but all J. Faldo's sayings are to be construed cum grano salis. But to the first Instance.

Child. ‘I would know Father, how it is concerning those things call' Ordinances, as Baptism, Bread and Wine, which are much used in their Worship?’

Father. Why Child, as to those things, they rose from the Pope's Invention—And then the Priest gives it to the People, and tells them that it is the Blood of Christ shed for them, when it is Wine, and not Blood, Smith's Cate­chism, pag. 39.

I see nothing unscriptural in either. Question or An­swer; unless J. Faldo quibbles upon the Pope. 'Tis true, he rose not till several hundred years after the Scriptures were written; but if there be a use of those things call'd Sacraments, invented by the Pope, after another manner then they were ever practised by the ancient Christians, which is undeniable with J. Faldo, and that scuh an unscriptural use may be called an In­vention, and that the Pope be a Man, [...]ea, the Man of Sin, as also J. Faldo, I suppose, and many more do [Page 16] conceive, and all this Scripturally; then, I hope, it can­not with any sober Pretence be deny'd but that W. S's Answer is very Scriptu [...]l. But what makes this great Pretender to Truth and Modesty decline taking any no­tice of that Charge I publisht against him upon occasion of his most gross Abuse of W. Smith upon these words? who would needs have it, that W. Smith calls the Lord's Supper the Pope's Invention, when I expresly proved out of the same place, that W. Smith intended it of the present Practice of them, and not of any primitive In­stitution? W. Smith's words are these: ‘The whole Practice of those things as THEY USE them, had their Institution by the Pope, and were never SO ordained of Christ; for he did not ordain Sprinkling of Water in a Child's face, or to make a Sign of a Cross in his forehead, nor God-fathers and God-mothers to under­take for it; neither did he ordain Bread and VVine to be SO (or after that Manner) used and received. If this be to make Baptism and the Supper Popish, what becomes of his Antipaedobaptists and all Protestants, that maintain the same respectively? But most evident it is, VV. Smith intended not that Baptism and Supper used by the Ancient Christians; but most true it is, that J. Faldo made VV. Smith to intend so. I leave the Reader to give a Name to this Carriage; the like to which for a Daring Perversion I yet know nobody guilty of, J. Faldo and T. Hicks excepted.

Now for the next Instance brought to prove our Books unscripturally written.

Child, Then the Scriptures are to be owned and be­lieved as a true Testimony of what the Saints were made Partakers of in that Day.’

[Page 17] Father, Yes, they are to be owned and believed, and they that do not so they are to be denyed.

An admirable Confession to the Scriptures: Is this the way to prove W. Smith's Book unscripturally writ­ten? That there is not an Exhortation to read the Scrip­tures, and that the whole scope of it is, to throw Dirt up­on them, yea, to deny them, though J. Faldo himself tells us, that W. Smith, teacheth that those ought to be denyed that do not own them; but the Truth is, J. Faldo's Proofs against the Quakers are like Hebrew to be read backwards; He hath a Faculty beyond the common rate of men, to facilitate his own Confutation. But he makes W. Smith further to Answer.

Thou must take heed Child, of giving more unto the Scriptures, then unto them belongs, lest in so doing thou di­minishest from the Glory of Christ.

What of all this? May not People Idolize, as well as undervalue the Scriptures? Ought they to be put in the room of Christ? Or is it ill done, to exhort People to prefer Christ before the Scriptures? How can J. Faldo call this part of W. Smith's Answer Unscriptural, and yet believe those words of Christ be any part of Scripture? Search (or rather, ye search) the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have Eternal Life, & they are they which testifie of me, & ye will not come unto me that ye might have Life, Joh. 5. 39, 40. I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, Joh. 14. 6. Christ himself here teacheth us, to give him the Preference; and implicitely rebuketh the Jews from expecting Eternal Life in the Scriptures rather then in Him, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

His last Instance is this:

Child, I am sensible that there is something in my Conscience that lets me see my [...]ecret Thoughts, & the [Page 18] Intents of my Heart; but I have not known what it hath been, nor hitherto have much regarded it.’

Father, That is the true Light, &c.

Child, ‘But if I should turn to it, and obey it when it reproveth me for Sin, is there Power in it to save me from Sin, and to deliver me from Iniquity?’

Father, Yes, Child; All Power in Heaven and Earth is in it, &c.

Now judge Reader, saith J. F. If all these things are contain'd in the Scripture. But I will help the Reader to judge rightly in this matter; and question not if by Con­taining he means as he ought, the Substance of such An­swers, and not that they are so laid down, to prove them, to be according to Scripture; and therefore Scriptural.

Ist, That it is God, who searcheth the Heart, tryeth the Reins, and telleth unto Man his Thoughts, the Pro­phet affirms; and I know no body that pretends to Christianity, denyeth it.

2. The Apostle asserts, That which may be known of God is manifest men; for God hath shown it unto them, Rom. 1. 19.

3. That it was the Apostolical Message, That God is Light, 1 Joh. 1. 5.

4. That whatsoever doth make manifest is Light, E­phes. 5 13.

5. That Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever, is that True Light, which (thus) enlightneth every man.

6. That all Power in Heaven and in Earth belongs to Christ, the true Light.

Now unless he denyes, Christ to be God, or Christ to be Light, or, that He, the true Light, so searcheth, &c. or that all Power in Heaven and Earth belongs to Him it will naturally follow, that to say, All Power [Page 19] in Heaven and in Earth belongs to God, Christ or the Light of the World, is Equivalent: For we do not as­sert, as some Ignorantly, and some Malitiously have printed & reported, That all Power in Heaven & Earth is in the Ma [...]ifestation; but in him that g [...]ves the Ma­nifestation. I have taken great Care with several others, to explain our Belief in this matter, if possible, to pre­vent such Evil-minded Men as this Adversary, from making so Ill and Use of our Innocent Expressions, and giving their own monstrous Consequences for our Scri­ptural Principles.

Thus much to evidence to my Reader, how ground­lesly J. F. flung Vnparall [...]l'd Falshood and Confidence u­pon me for asserting, that those Books before mention'd were generally written in a Scripture Style; and with what Weakness he hath endeavour'd to disprove me.

I shall among a multitude of Instances that might be given, produce 10. to show to my Reader with what Truth those Imputations belong to J. Faldo, and how exactly he character'd himself when he bestow'd that Reflection upon me.

1. J. Faldo affirms that W. Smith not only quoted ne­ver a Scripture & writ unscripturally, but that he had not one Exhortation to read the Scriptures, nay, that the main Design of the Book was to deny them, and throw Dirt upon them; yet J. F. thus cites him concerning the Scriptures:

‘Child, Then the S [...]riptures are to be own'd and be­lieved, &c.’

Father, Yes, they are to he OWN'D & BELIEV'D, and they that do not so are to be DENIED.

To this let me add another notable Passage in the same Discourse, cited by me in that very Page of my [Page 20] Rejoynder, where my Challenge lay (which he thought no Boldness to accept) though he was so modest, as not to be so bold with this Passage.

Quest. Of what Service are the Scriptures as they are given forth and recorded without?’

Answ. MUCH EVERY WAY unto those than have receiv'd the same Spirit from whom they were given forth; for unto such they are PROFITABLE, and MAKE WISE unto Salvation; and are unto them of Service, for INSTRUCTION, EDIFICATION & COMFORT, Rejoynd. pag. 61. Is there no Exhortation lodg'd in these words? And is this to Deny or throw Dirt upon the Scriptures? If any shall object W. Smith's making the Spirit necessary to the profitable Reading of the Scri­ptures, let them go to W. Tindal, J. Bradford, Bp. Jewel, J. Philpot, Luther, Calvin, Peter Martyr and others, they will preach them the same Doctrine; which I have ob­serv'd in my Rejoynder, and may easily be found in my Catalogue of Authors.

2. My second Instance shall be this, That he makes W. Smith call the Scriptures Traditions of Men, Earthly Root, Darkness, Confusion, Corruption; All out of the Light and Power of God; which he only asscrib'd to de­generated men, their Worship, Imaginations and Tra­ditions. See Quakerism no Christianity, pag. 117, 119. Vind. p. 41, 45. My Rejoynder from pag. 141. to 157.

3. That the Quakers understand by Knowledge ac­cording to the Flesh, the Vse of the Vnderstanding, though santified, Qu. no Chr. pag. 41. Vind. p. 24, 25, My Answer. p. 35. Rejoynd. p. 424.

4. That I. Penington should call Visible Worship as sub, the City of Abomintion, Vind. p. 50. Rejoynd. l. 194, 195.

[Page 21] 5. That by Traditions of Men, we understand the Scripture, or written Word, Qu. no. Chr. part 3. p. 86. My Answer, pag. 250.

6. That the Quakers mean by the Vail that is over People, their Belief of the Man Christ Jesus born of the Virgin Mary to be now existing in Heaven, Ibid. p. 87. Vind. p. 93. My Answer, pag. 251, 252. Rejoynd. pag. 395, 396.

7. I take occasion to censure mens adding their Com­ments and Glosses fram'd from Study TO any part of the Scripture; and J. Faldo cites me, as complaining of such as frame them from the Study OF the Scriptures; as if Studying OF the Scriptures, and mens Adding their own Glosses TO the Scriptures, were one and the some thing, Vind. pag. 42, 43. My Rejoynd. p. 159.

8. From E. Burrough's making the Light of Christ within to be one in Nature with the Spirit of Christ; J. Faldo infers, That the Quakers hold the Soul to be God, as if that had been said of the Soul which was said to the Light of Christ shining in the Soul, or that they were Synonymous, Vind. from p. 75. to 87. Rejoyndr, p. 348, 349, 350.

9. Because E. B. rejected that Carnal Notion that confines the Infinite, Omnipresent God to a Residence only above the Stars, he makes no Difficulty of inferring that we deny the Manhood of Christ Jesus. As most absurd as base! Q. no C. p. 9, 10. My Answer, p. 14. Vind, p. 9. Rejoynd. p. 420.

10. From our affirming that such a kind of Reading of Scripture as the Pharisees used, and to those Ends, makes men harder to be wrought upon to true Conver­sion then the Heathen, J. Faldo infers, that reading the Scriptures, and getting Knowledge thence puts Men into a [Page 22] worse Condition then the Heathen; and that there's scarcely anything more Dangerous then reading the Scriptures: Yea, he accuseth us of Charging the Miscarriages of Mens Souls on the Knowledge the Scripture by God's Blessing both convey, Vind. p. 21, 37. Rejoynd. p. 126, 127, 425.

Thus much, and I wish here had been no occasion for this, to evidence the false and unworthy Practice of J. Faldo against the Writings and Sayings of our Friends, in order to compass his Designes I shall now give some touch upon his Confidence. since he hath intituled me to an unparallel'd share, and counts himself the fit Person to Curb me for it.

J. Faldo began with us in a great Book called Qua­kerism No Christianity; I answered him in a Book, in­titled Quakerism a New Nickname for Old Christianity; against this he put forth his Vindication, unto which I made my Rejoynder consisting of TWENTY THREE CHAPTERS, in which I vindicated our Principles, stri­ping them of those frightful Vizards and hateful Dis­guises he put upon them, confirm'd them by many Scri­ptures and Reasons, and to compleat our Defence, pro­duc'd iin favor of the whole above TWO HUNDRED TESTIMONIES out of both ancient and modern Au­thors.

Besides all this I faulted his Conduct and Behaviour in this Controversie, in above FOUR HUNDRED PAR­TICULARS, and that under distinct Sections, most of which were not less unworthy of a good Christian, yea, an honest Heathen, I will say, of any fair Controvertist, then the Ten I just now mention'd. Notwithstanding this great Obligation upon him, either to answer my Book, or ente Muter to any farther Proceed in this De­bate; [Page 23] in my Absence at the first Barbican Meeting, be­ [...]ore a great Concurse of People, after T. Hicks had won the Goal by running Alone, the Man, as one in Love with such Romance-Trophys, starts up like some Herald at Arms, bids Defiance to the Quakers and their Reli­gion, gives forth his Challenge to W. Penn, to dispute him, I that he would; and instead of his Glove, flung a Paper to bind it, which when all came to all, was but some of the Contents of his first Book twice largely answered; and because no farther Notice was taken of this Giant, partly by not receiving his Paper so soon as might ex­pect, and partly by reason of these other Contests that claim Precedency; That he might not be thought No­Body, when so many strove to be Some-Body against us, he prints it, without all consideration had to my Rejoyn­der, or so much as an Apology for his Silence to it, which at least had become a Modest Person to give: After all this can any man think J. Faldo Bashful, or one that is so out of Love with Confidence in himself, as that he is fit to Curb it in others? Me thinks he should not believe that repetitious Farthing or Half-penny Paper feat e­nough toi excuse him; or so sufficient to acquit him of old Debts, as that without any Breach of Modesty or common Honesty, he might encrease his former Score by fresh Charges: It is but reasonable that he should make good what he hath done first; and not, that we should gratifie every importinent, tautological Humor of J. F.

But what saith John Faldo, to this part of my Answer to his Challenge? viz. ‘But that I may acquit my self of that Duty incumbent on me for the Truth, I do hereby signifie, That in as much as the Controversie depending between T. Hicks, &c. and us, takes in the most of the particulars of his Charge, we freely [Page 24] consent, that he should come in with them for a Share as Confederate in the same work, and use his utmost Abilities to maintain his Accusations; And, if in any thing his Charge is singular, we shall be ready to hear and fairly debate it at the same Meeting or Meetings, to avoid fresh and unnessary Contests, as much as justly may be. To this he thus Replieth:

1. I must fall into a Confederacy which the Antipaedo-baptists, in the same Work: Hold a little Mr. Penn! If I have my Option, I must deal with you singly; More confuse rather then assist: But it seems I must be wholely at your Appointment; for, although you had consented that in your Contest about Mr. Hicks's Dialogues there should four of each Party have Liberty to speak; yet I no sooner began to oppose you (being desired to be one of the four) but you told me, you were not to dispute with me, but Mr. Hicks, and call'd to T. Hicks, and were follow'd by the Quakers Clamours of Hicks, Hicks, which answer'd your End, and forc'd my Silence.

Contradiction and Falshood make up this Paragraph. Was he not of the Confederacy, when he tells us him­self, that he was not only a Party with them, but One of the four pitcht upon to mannage their Cause?

But if he have his Option, he must deal with me singly.

It is time for him indeed, who hath been a double-dealing so long: But certainly, if the man were not more then ordinarily fond of hearing himself talk, or ex­travagantly ambitious of a single Crown, he would be con­tented with a Partner; but this Option holds no Concord with his Adoption into the Confederacy: He hath begun already as one of the four, what hinders that he should not continue so? But he thinks that more then one con­founds rather then assists: If so, what made T. Hicks, have [Page 25] three to help him? And why did J. Faldo attempt it? Certainly he did not design to confound T. Hicks. To all this Confusion of his let me add his Vntruth: He chargeth me with telling him at the Barbican-Meeting when he began to speak, I was not there to dispute with him, which is false to a Title; Either his Ears were as infirm, as his Voice was low, or else he saith this to serve his present occasion: however, I said no such thing; but understanding it to be him that spoak from some better acquainted with his * person, I answered,I never saw him before; and he asserts in his this printed Paper, that he never saw me till the Barbican Meeting, yet several Moueths before in his printed Vindication he saith, he had spoaken with me▪ Thus the Noise of the Multitude was so great, We could not hear what he said; Though had I given that Answer he made for me, I think it had been very reason­able, since he never told us, That he was One of the four; besides, more then that fixt Number had spoaken before him. That the Quakers should clamour, Hicks, Hicks, to answer my End, and force his Silence, is as true as the rest; It was the Multitude that frequently and importu­nately cryed, Hicks, Hicks, Hicks; as looking upon it unreasonable that one who had shown himself so arch in abusing us, should pretend such Inability to answer our Charge, as that other Folks must mostly mannage his Affair. But that to silence him was to answer my End, is both to tell A—and proclaim the good O­pinion he has of himself, as if it stood our Cause so much upon, to have him silent, and T. Hicks speak, Poor T. Hicks! this was not kindly done of J. F. but perhaps he meant it of his better Elocution and Skill in stating the Question, recommended to us in his Curb to my Confidence: Modest Man that he would be thought!

[Page 26] But what saith he to this part of my fair Offer, That if in any thing his Charge be singular, we should be ready to debate it at the same Meeting or Meetings with the Baptists, to avoid Vnnecessary Contests; since most of the Particulars of his Charge are taken in by the Con­troversie depending between us and the Baptists: It is not only an Vntruth (sayes J. F.) but a meer Shift; for in the One and Twenty Proposals to be debated by them, there is not one of the Particulars of my Charge: Besides in Position to be disputed on, not only the Matter, but the Form, and each Term is of great Consideration. Which is as much as to say, if I understand J. Faldo's Mean­ing, that after we have disputed the Matter of the same Questions with T. H. and his Three Assistants, they must be disputed over again upon J. Faldo's new Mo­del, which one Nice and Humorsom Impertinency shall make Disputes both Endless and Useless: Let him be­stow his Skill upon T. Hicks, his Cause wants it, and do their utmost together. But he would fasten an Untruth upon me, for saying, that most of the Parti­culars of his Charge are taken into that Controversie, affirming, That in our One and Twenty Proposals there was not one of the Particulars of his Charge; To which I need say no more but this, The Charge we exhibited against T. Hicks contain'd so many particular Charges: I grant they related to Matter of Fact, and in that sense the Particulars of J. Faldo's Charge against us, were not explicitly there; yet they that please to read what follows the One and Twenty Particulars, as given in to the Baptists, exhibited and read at Barbican, and since printed in our first Account, they will find that we offer after a full Consideration and Determination upon the foresaid Particulars, to come to Doctrinal Points, which [Page 27] are chiefly in Controversie between us and them upon T. Hicks's Three Dialogues; and I hope J. Faldo is not grown quite so desperate as to deny that most, if not all the Particulars of his Charge, fall in with T. Hicks's Attempts against us, and that materially too. I have heard as if such a Confession was one part of his Speech at the first Barbican-Meeting: However, if he denyes their Endeavours to have been so harmonious, I offer to prove them so; but could I not do it, yet I made Provision for him, wherein his Case is singular. Besides, I desire the Reader to take notice, I did not say, the Particulars of J. Faldo's Charge were exprest in the Catalogue of our Charge of Matter of Fact a­gainst T. Hicks, but that they fell in with the Contro­versie, which word Controversie takes in both Fact and Doctrine: And since he could fall in with T. Hicks up­on Matter of Fact at Barbican, wherein he was not concerned there can be no just Pretence for him to re­fuse falling in with T. H. in Matter of Doctrine, where­in he is concerned: So that, in short, I am neither guil­ty of Vntruth. who never said, that most of the Par­ticulars of his Charge were concerned in the One and Twenty Particulars of Fact exhibited against T. H. but in the Controversie, which is most true; nor yet of Shis [...]ng, in referring him to our Meeting with T. Hicks, since I therein only offer what his own Words and Practice countenance me in especially, since I fur­ther added (as before said) That if in any thing his Charge was singular from that Controversie, we should be ready to hear and fairly debate at the same Meeting, to avoid fresh and unnecessary Contests. One would think this were pretty fair to a Man under J. Faldo's Circum­stances with us. I leave the Reader to say where the [Page 28] Shift and the Vntruth lieth. Only let me add Two Passages more, that will not a little help him to make a true Judgmenr of the Man.

The one is his telling the World, That by my Manu­script Letter to him, I do in effect unsay all again, that I said of accepting his Challenge in my Printed An­swer, and yet neither prints the Letter, though but short, nor that Passage he fastens his Consequence upon. Its true, I told him, that it was our present Resolution to stick to the Matter of Fact against T. H. and so much he prints; but what is that to the Purpose? Will any scuh Passage bear an Ergo, W. Penn unsaith all he said of Accepting the Challenge, &c? Or, therefore W. Penn will never proceed to Matter of Doctrine, because he first resolves to stick to Matter of Fact, the Method agreed upon?

The other Passage is this: For my part, though I shall not refuse any Opportunity offered to defend the Christian Religion from its Adversaries; yet I expect that Mr. Penn shall undertake to defend the Quakers (and himself especially) from my Charge, intire as it is exhibited, and until then I shall look on him as declining it.

At what rate I decline a Meeting, and how well J. Fal­do, proves it, impartial men may judge: But one would think by what he saith, as if he were another Tertulli­an, and the Quakers a pack of obstinate Heathens, He is unfit to defend Christianity, whose Works prove he doth not understand it, unless the Jew outward with all his Envy, be the Jew inward; or a froward Pharisee, a good Christian: No, No. J. Faldo we affirm hath first charged impious Errors upon us, and then abused our Writings to countenance them with; And though this be largely and effectually discovered in not only my [Page 29] Answer (at which he let fly a squibbing Reply) but in my Rejoynder too (being a more particular Resumpti­on of the whole Controversie, and unto which he ne­ver yet made any Return) we see he hath Forehead e­nough to insinuate as if the Quakers still remained un­defended. This is the man that undertakes to Cure my Confidenct, who begs so unreasonably and importunate­ly, and doth as good as threaten, if I refuse his Terms; and which aggravates the Matter, he would have Peo­ple believe, that I shift defending the Quakers, whilst he is yet so manifest a Debtor to our Defences.

Well, but for all this, that it may sufficiently appear we neither did not do decline a Meeting with him; Let it be observed, 1st, That I gave him timely Notice of our Wheeler street-Meeting, with an Invitation to be there, and went more in Expectation of him then T. Hicks, from a Report that T. H. would not, but that John Faldo intended to be present, though both thought fit to be absent. 2dly, If he yet thinks it con­venient to imbrace that [...]ffer already made, viz. To be one of the four, a Place he confesseth to have accepted at the Barbican-Meeting, even about another man's Fact. Or Lastly, If through the Apprehension he hath of T. H's ill Elocution, and great Conceit he hath of his own Oratory, with his better Skill at Forming and Ter­ming the Question, he can prevail with the Baptists, to be their Mouth in the present Controversie, we shall through God's Assistance be ready to embrace any con­venient Time and Place for a free and publick Meeting.

And that he may not think himself unconcerned in this Proposal, nor want any Encouragement we can well give him to accept it, I do hereby offer at such a Meeting or Meetings, first, To prove him as well as T. [Page 30] Hicks, an Abuser of us and our Writings by Forgery and Perversion; And next, to maintain those Doctrines which are indeed believed and asserted by us, to be Scrip­tural, and therefore Christian. And if this will not please him, I shall not think my self oblieged to grati­fie every nice and critical Humor he is troubled with; but leave him to tire himself with the Pain of his own manifest and merited Disquiet: Though my Soul be­seecheth Almighty God, if it please him, to turn him and the Hearts of our Enemies, that they may see how much they wound Christianity, in pretending to defend it, and grieve that Holy Spirit which would lead them into Holiness, Meekness, Patience and Love, by these Tempestuous Assaults upon the Faith, Practice and Persons of their Harmless Neighbours.

I am a Real Friend in the Vni­versal Principle of God to all men, and therein seek Peace with all men,
William Penn.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.