XXI. DIVINES( Whose Names are here-under affixed) CLEARED, Of the Unjust Criminations of Will. pen; IN HIS Pretended JUST REBUKE for their Epistle to a Book, entitled, QUAKERISM NO CHRISTIANITY.  
And William pen proved neither Christian, nor a man of Common Modesty, or Honesty.  

The Names of the Divines vindicated,  
Dr. Tho. Manton,  
Dr. Tho. Jacomb,  
Dr. John Singleton,  
Mr. Thomas coal,  
Mr. Tho. Doelittle,  
Mr. Samuel Smith,  
Mr. Ben. Needler,  
Mr. Richard Baxter,  
Mr. Thomas Gouge,  
Mr. John Yates,  
Mr. John Sheffield,  
Mr. Anth. Palmer,  
Mr. Richard Mayo,  
Mr. Andr. Parsons,  
Mr. Will. Jenkyn,  
Mr. Geo. Griffith,  
Mr. Matth. Barker,  
Mr. Tho. Watson,  
Mr. Will. Co●●er,  
Mr. Stephen Ford,  
Mr. Will. Ca●… e.   
By JOHN FALDO.  2 Tim. 3. 9 
For their folly shall be made manifest unto all men.  
Similia loquentes( haeretici) fidelibus, non solum dissimilia sapiunt, said & Contraria; & per omnia plena blasphemiis, per quae interficiunt eos, qui per similitudinem verborum diss●mile assertionis corum in se trahunt venenum. Ir●n adv. haer. l. 3.  
LONDON: Printed by J. D. for Dorman Newman, and Jonathan Robinson, at the Kings-Arms in the Poultry, and at the Golden-Lyon in S. Paul's Church-yard. 1675.   

One and twenty Divines cleared, of the unjust Criminations of William pen.  

Christian Reader,  
IF I were addicted to controversy, and took pleasure therein for its own sake, it were an Affection enough Culpable: And to choose the Quakers Principles and Concerns for the Objects of my Inspection, and Opposition, to that end, would sufficiently detect me of Imprudence. But duty to God, and love to Truth and Souls, hath engaged me in that Work, which( howsoever unpleasant in itself, and below the notice of men, who cannot relish any thing relating to those they esteem( and that justly) a Brain-sick People) would be a just reflection upon the Generation wherein we live, if none should industricusly undertake, and thoroughly manage it; so many thousands being infected with that Mortal Delirium.  
When I first entred upon the Detection, and Confutation of the Quakers Principles, I was not so ignorant of their Distemper, as to promise myself an Immunity from the highest affronts, that their vilifying and reproachful Reflections could put upon me. But as my design was not only just, but also necessary; so my Conscience in its management, hath been so clear from doing that People any injustice, that all the briars and Thorns of their Invectives have not made the least scratch in my inward Tranquillity. The Lord is my witness, how careful I was to represent their Principles and Manners with all candour, and to produce proofs proper, faithful, and convincing. How many tedious hours were spent to that end, let the Work itself inform thee.  
I have once vindicated my Book, entitled, Quakerism no Christianity, from William Penn's pretended Answer; not because his Answer merited a Reply, but rather to confirm my first Charge, by exposing the weakness, and shuffling( to say no worse) of my Adversaries Defence and Criminations. I have offered my Citations, and the most horrible Principles I have charged the Quakers with, to a personal debate with William pen, the greatest Undertaker for the Quakers. But this, though tendered with the most prudent Circumstances, for avoiding Inconveniences, and rendering the Contest effectually satisfying; he hath as industriously avoided, as if the day were a terror to him: And hath rather chosen with Shimei, to keep his distance, and so go on Cursing, Reviling, and castong stones.  
Many Worthy Persons, whose Reputation is above the reach of will, Penn's Calumnies, having written an Epistle, as well Monitory to all professing Christianity, as Recommending my Book; William pen hath given them a taste of his gull, and loaded them( so far as his credit will pass) with crimes to be abhorred; besides his usual Exclamations to beget an opinion of their undoubted guilt, with such as can hear and understand a noise, better than Demonstration. And in very dead, the greatest advantage of pen, and other Quakers, lies in their high Professions, vehement Protestations, and seemingly most serious Appeals; there remaining that innate Charity in most of Mankind, as will hardly permit them to believe, that any man should be so vile, as to cover Fraud and Wickedness under such Pretences. But as the most guilty Malefactors( having learned that Maxim, That Impudence is the Perfection of 'vice) do most abound with Protestations of their Innocency, and Exclamations on their Accusers; so wary persons will not have their judgments thereby determined, omitting that Test which will better enable them to give a just Sentence.  
The like Wisdom and Justice I entreat of all men, who are concerned to judge between us in this controversy; which I should hardly have repeated, but for the Vindication of so many Divines, whose Reputation pen hath endeavoured to wound through my sides, and whose Works praise them in the Gates. I desire those who have my Books by them, to compare Mr. P's Accusation and them together, according to his directions in his margin, and let their own eyes be their Judges. To reproach, is an easy way to confute; and Satan hath changed his nature, if he rage not most, where his cloven foot is most discovered. My labour herein is my duty; my reproaches for well-doing, will be my crown. And now Reader, I leave thee a Spectator, and address myself to William pen, the man of my present controversy.   

IN your Preface to your Work, as all your good Notions( in themselves) are abused to set off a bad Cause, and put Deformity on those you intend to bait; so some parts of it( though fronted with Confidence) have that apparent untruth and miscarriage, as calls for Detection.  
You say, The invincible Faith, and Patience, 
page. 3.  and Hope of those holy Ancients, that so hearty espoused it( the Quakers Cause) stand before you as so many bright Examples and Encouragement●.  
I presume you mean by these holy Ancients, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, the Prophets, and Apostles, Primitive Christians, and the Martyrs for Christianity, and its Purity in Queen Maries days; or at least you would have us understand you so. But is it not strange that all these should be Quakers, and but your Precedents, and not one of all the inquirers into Antiquity should be ware of it, till you had found it out? But how came you by this Invention, especially you Mr. pen, if you practise your own Doctrine? For you say; But I will assure them, 
W. Penn's Spirit of Truth, &c. p. 23.  they shall yet grope in the dark, till they come into the daily obedience of the Light; and there rest contented to know only as they experience; and not from a ravening comprehending brain, that would in its unregenerated state, grasp at the clear Mysteries,( or Clean Mysteries, as you  told me it should have been) of the Kingdom, into which fleshly Comprehensions and Notions can never enter: But all must be as unlearned from their First-birth, Education, and Traditional read-Knowledg, as he is unmanned, that is again become a little child, before the secrets of God's Work come to be made known.  
Is this the voice of William pen? If what you say be true, as you would have us to think; I doubt you are as counterfeit a Quaker, as you are a Christian. Have you been unlearned from Education, and Traditional read-Knowledg? I think not; unless, as your Bedlam Quaker Bookseller  told me, you writ all against me by Inspiration( if you would be better informed where he dwells, than in my last, I now tell you, he dwells right against the Burial-place wall) but then 'tis what you can give us no evidence of. But I must needs conclude, That seeing you know only by experience, you cannot know that those holy Ancients were Quakers, or bright Examples of what is your Religion, they being dead before you were born. But if you know them to be such any other way, we have your own word for it, that you grope in the dark: And so let it pass.  
Mr. pen, these, and such-like things of you and your party, make you the wonder of Wisemen: And if they have so much Charity for you, as to believe you say as you mean, or mean as you say,( which must be a great deal) yet at least, they judge of you to be an infatuated People. And if W. P. be such an one, what are the puny Quakers?  
I must not let pass your next words, without an Arrest for Defamation;( I mean your words, not your body, for I must be so careful, having to do with the Captious, and such an one as will create ex musca Elephantem:) So neither 
P's Reb. &c. p. 3.  have the many and great attempts of men of divers, yea opposite Interests, to render us unfit for the Earth. Where have they  told you, that this was their design? Where did they say, they would have the World persuaded, that 'tis not fit the Quakers should be suffered to live? Sure I am, you must red me backward, if you intend to fix this Charge upon me; for I have  told you, That it is far from my Principle, and 
Fald. Ep: to quake. no Chri. in fine.  natural temper also, to intend your Persecution; and that I know nothing that men who are your Adversaries can do more, to promote your Tenets and Party. Tell me, if you can, where I have retracted, or contradicted those words. It seems 'tis a Crime to interpret your words, who speak Barbarisms enough; but 'tis your right to interpret our hearts as you list. But thus you are an Usurper of his Throne, who is the only Searcher of hearts: And that which is worse, you pretend his Authority for it. I shall prove what I say, from no less Author than your instar Papae, George Fox; who saith, And you that have not that which is infallible to 
Great mystery of the great Whore, p. 5.  judge in you, know not the Spirit of Christ; neither can you judge of persons or things, that have not the infallible judgement, nor have the spiritual man; neither have you the Word of God in your hearts, nor Christ which is Eternal and Infallible: All which the Quakers have to judge persons and things. No wonder if the Quakers believe all you say, how apparently soever untrue. I do not judge a Turk, a Heathen, or a Jew not fit to be suffered to live upon Earth; though I judge them not fit to be esteemed Christians, and know them to be Enemies to Christianity as well as you; but yet something more fairly, as they are openly such, and you Treacherously. But I proceed to your Self- magnifying news, which never reached our eyes or ears, till your Pamphlet reported it; viz. We have been long 
P's Reb. p. 4.  threatened with a report of the joynt-endeavours of many Ministers— But we no sooner received and looked into the Book, than we saw ourselves under a very great Disappointment. For, instead of some new Essay, behold an old Discourse new-vamp'd; or a new Impression of a Book twice largely considered, and as some think, effectually answered: I mean, John Faldo's Quakerism no Christianity.  
It is more than possible, that this Report is but the Figment of your own brain. And if you dream, that the overthrow of your cause is so difficult a task, that it requires the joynt-endeavours of such in a new Essay; you may gratify yourself with your ungrounded fancy, and thank your selves for your disappointment. I think I have the means to know their minds and motions concerning your affairs better than you, or any of you, or all of you: And I assure you, I have never heard that it entred into their thoughts; but on the contrary, they are so well satisfied that your cause is determined, by what hath been done already, that they have thought fit to give their Attestation in the Epistle you have attempted to bespatter.  
Yet 'tis strange( but like yourself) that you should pretend an expectation of a new Essay, a new Book, containing the joint endeavours of many Ministers; and then tell us you looked for it: But where? in my old one new-printed and upstart( as you phrase it:) But why should such gnostics as you look for a new Book in an old one; and one that carried in its forehead the old Inscription of Quakerism no Christianity, and by the single old Author John Faldo? Who can suppose you not guilty of wilful mistakes, and free from the affronts of such disappointments, who go to work thus blind-fold-like? and lay your words so well together, that your next line calls you— for that which went immediately before it;  Oportet— esse memorem. 
Having past your Preface, which deserves such a Censure; I now meet with your REBUKE OF ONE AND TWENTY DIVINES, and must in the future passages of your Pamphlet, have still in my eye, that nauseous impar & Congressus, W. pen, One and twenty Divines; W. pen against One and twenty Divines; and that at no more fair, and modest a Weapon than a REBUKE. A rebuk from W. pen a Quaker, a Youngling, a Boy, comparatively, to One and twenty men, to One and twenty Ministers of the Gospel, Elders by Office; such, whose Office set aside, are many of them, for Learning and Parts, men of Name; scarcely any of them but of years enough to be your Father, and near one half of them old enough to be your Grand-father. And not an implicit, or a rebuk in general terms, but a down-right rebuk to them by name, a rebuk to their teeth.  
I am sure if the Scripture had been your Rule( if not their Office, yet) their Age, and the hoary-heads of some of them, would have commanded a more respective behaviour, though putting off the Hat be accounted by you an irreligious and uncivil Ceremony. Methinks it had become you rather, to have fronted your Reply with a modest Enquiry into their Epistle; or a sober Expostulation. But nothing could svit your unbridled Passion, and scornful Spirit, but a REBUKE. If the Light of Nature forbid a Saucy Deportment to our Elders, by far, this carriage is no Commendation of your Morality, which you presume we will allow you, while denying you to be a Christian.  
Your Porch and Title being so Faulty, I suspect a foul house within. And your first Entertainment consists of Quibbles, and impious Censures and Insinuations: But let us hear 
P's . Rebu. p. 5. ( say you) what use, you the great Men of Uses make of this Introduction. I say no more to you for this, but wish for your own sake, and theirs whom you influence, that you were rather a great Man of Uses, than a man so guilty of many, and the greatest Abuses; as will not be only said, but proved.  
In the same page. you are at your sport again: Render the Quakers better than they are! There is little fear you will. You may turn Pelagian in the case, and exclude all Divine assistance: For I hope none are so ignorant in this Age, as to think Men of your Stamp need special Grace to keep you from the sin of rendering the poor Quakers better than they are. Verily Mr. pen, if those Worthy Persons you scoff at were turned Pelagians, it would advance them by many steps nearer to Quakers. For herein the Pelagians and you are agreed: They held, That the powers of Nature 
Voss. in hist. Pela. lib. 3.  were sufficient to preserve them from all sin, yet cried up Grace to keep them from public hatred; while they meant no more by Grace, than God's bestowing on all men such a virtuous Nature: And you cry up Inspirations, and Divine Assistance; and yet mean no more by it, than the Light and Power within, which every man hath; and is indeed no more but the Natural Faculties by you improved at a lower rate than the Heathens. This Principle of yours, you express out-right, in your ungodly Mockery at special Grace in these words; It is the Presbyterians special Grace that saveth; for Moralities 
P's . Rebu. p. 31.  part, alas! she is a poor Heathen, an Alien, an Infidel, without the Pale of the Church, and Mercies of the Covenant; but then it is to be understood of the Scotch one. Whether you learned this Christian Drollery of your Admired Ben. Johnson, or our more Modern Railers, I know not: But the Scab is catching, especially by those nigh of Kin. I perceive corrupt Principles, and profane Wit are your Darlings; and your Nature is as greedy to suck in the poison of the one, as of the other.  
Your Censure of their Prologue( and their design in it) to the Epistle, little commends your Modesty or Charity: scil. Or else to give a greater 
Ib. p. 5.  credit to your Work, than yourselves perhaps believe it deserves. What is this but to insinuate, That they deserve to be suspected for a pack of gross and impious Hypocrites, who designedly abuse the holy and reverend Name of God; and pretend to a sense of it, but to cover their wilful lying? If this take with your Readers, and they believe their good words, excellent sayings to be( as you phrase it a little after) but a trick to decoy people, your work is done. But I doubt not ere I have done with you, to set this Brand on him who more deserves it, and discharge you with the Character of Homo literatus.  
Now I come to those things of yours, which look like Arguments; but not being animated with truth, they will be of small strength. The first is no less than a pair of dilemmas; but all your storms cannot wreck the Objects of your Fury upon the Scylla or Charibdis of those dangerous straits: Either( say you) you have red, or 
Ib. p. 5.  not red the Book ye recommend. Very right; and what of either? If you have not, certainly you have done ill to recommend it. Thus far you are pretty fair: But what if they have red it? Why then you say, They manifestly entitle themselves to all the evil of it. But now Mr. pen, I must stop your Career: For, if the Book answer the Recommendation, and have not in it, any thing that may be otherwise mischievous to the Reader, though there should be some lesser evils in it, they do not entitle themselves to them. And the most they say of the Book is, That in it the Quakers and their Principles 
Min. Ep. to quake. no Christ. in fine.  are more thoroughly investigated, than in any Book which they have seen— And that for Matter, Proof, and style, they judge it to be especially useful for those who need or desire Information about the Quakers and their Principles. Now I will confess to you( if it will do you any service) that I have shewed much infirmity in the Management of it, to which I should be loth to entitle those Worthy Persons, you would deform with any Scars you can find there; and who, if they had undertaken that Work, might have managed it much better than I, and to the greater exposing your evil Cause. But for all the faults you have really found in it, they may give you your saying, without reaping to themselves any cause of shane or repentance; which will be proved, as the matter comes to hand.  
Now I shall consider your second Dilemma; 
Reb. p. 6.  which amounts to thus much, That if they have not compared the Citations, which are the strength of the Book, with the Books themselves, their Recommendation is by root. If they have, you will prove, That they have offered great violence to their Understandings, in giving their Approbations. Great words! which will shortly vanish into smoke and vapour. For the first of your Consequences( if I should grant that which I neither know,[ nor you have proved) it is lame: For if they have not made that Compare, they may have red some, or many of your numerous Pamphlets, containing the same things. And they might have been present at the numerous Meeting, August 28. 1674.( I am sure some of them were.) They might have heard there, or from sure Testimonies, that I there offered my Citations to a personal Test, and a public, whenever the Quakers would call for it: Whereas you have hitherto accounted it your prudence, not to take me at my word. They may also have red your Answer, or rejoinder, wherein you acknowledge all you are pleased to recite, except three or four. They may have red my Vindication, wherein I provoked you to meet me with impartial Judges, and I would undertake to prove my Faithfulness, against the worst of your Calumnies: To which you are silent. Moreover, the truth of the Citations depends on matter of Fact; wherein to deal untruly, so oft as must be to enervate any of my Charges, must be so wilful a Treachery, as no man ought to suspect a Professor of Godliness guilty of, till he have merited it by some apparent miscarriage to discredit him. And I protest seriously, that if I did not certainly know, that ungodly Crime were your frequent Guilt, I should hardly be persuaded to disbelieve many falshoods in point of Fact, which your Books are crammed with: But all this is said ex gratia. They have prudence enough to conduct their own affairs in this matter, and need not you or I to tell them what Evidence is a ground for them to go on; and you having proved nothing, I might have let this pass without further notice.  
Your second Consequence you refer the proof 
Ibid.  of till anon; and I shall attend till then for it. In the next place you charge me, That the most 
Ibid.  of the Principles I charge upon you to be yours, are not so laid down by any one of you; nor say you, Sayable by any of you upon your real Principles. But should you not have proved this? You instance only in one Charge; which you say, I will defend but by Consequence; scil. That there is no other judgement, Heaven or Hell, than what is within us in this life. And you add, That it is so far from being your Principle in your words, that it is as inconsistent with the truth of your Creed, as darkness is with light. But what a set are you at for an instance, out of the most of the Principles I charge you with, that you give one( and but one) which I no-where find charged upon you in those words, which you pretend to be mine. I have examined my Catalogue of your errors, and there they are not; I have taken some pains in searching the Book for them, and there I find them not. And though you give us but a single instance, and in a different Letter, you tell me not where I may find it by quotation of Chapter, or page.. Is not this striking your own sword into your own bosom? Yet let me tell you, that though the matter of those words of yours( not mine) being in your Creed, render your Creed untrue with a witness: I shall not balk at proving it to be necessary your Creed, much more consistent with it.  
If I prove, That neither the Bodies, nor the Souls of men shall be subjects capable of any reward after this life by your Principles; then I prove, That it is not only consistent with your Principles, but apparently necessary by your Principles, That men shall have no other judgement, Heaven or Hell, but what they shall have in this life. And in the first place I shall prove, That you deny the Resurrection of the Body; and so, that that part of man shall be no more capable of a Heaven or Hell after its death, than that which is, and ever shall remain without life.  
George Whitehead, in the presence of about an hundred persons, acknowledged, That he did not believe, that his Body should rise again after its death. This is plain English, and from a Quaker of no less esteem, but far longer standing among the Quakers than your self. These 
Part 2. p. 136. Answ. to Faldo, p. 200.  words of his I cited in my Quakerism no Christianity, and you repeat them in your Answer, without denying them to be his words; which you would have done no doubt, if he had denied them to you. But on the other hand you say, But what if he did say so, and I should second him? would it follow that we deny a Resurrection? I acknowledge, that you profess the belief of an Allegorical Resurrection: But this is but a shuffle, and a silly evasion; the Question being of the Resurrection of the Body, and his Unbelief being of the Resurrection of his Body. Before I proceed any farther, I shall open the Readers eyes to the A Resurrection( which you say is not denied by Whiteheads words) from the Learned Fisher the Quaker, who went to Rome for somewhat. Ye have( saith he) Moses and the Prophets within; viz. This written, spoken, manifested in you, Quod tibi ne vis fieri, alteri ne seceris. And( retro) Whatever 
Fisher. Velata quaedam revel. p. 4.  ye would that men should do unto you, so do ye even to them. This( saith Christ) is the Law, or Moses, and the Prophets. But if ye will not be admonished nor persuaded by Moses and the Prophets, neither will ye be persuaded by such of us, who were once dead in sin with you, but are now risen to life, by the Power of God, which is his Light, and in the same sent to speak unto you from the DEAD. Here your Resurrection is set out to the life, whither some other fine knacks of the Quakers, that serve for a shelter in a time of need. But I shall plow no farther into your infidelity in this point, but with your own Heifer.  
Having thus far revolted from Christianity to Heathenism, or Atheism; you lay hand on their Weapons, where-with to fight against the power and revealed Truth of God, and the Religion you are apostatised from: Either( say you) the Resurrection of the Body must be without that( gross elementary) matter, or it must not: If it must, then it is not that same numerical Body, 
Penn's Answ. to fall. p. 201.  and so their proper and strict taking of the word Resurrection they must let go: If it must not be without that same gross matter it dyed with, then I affirm it cannot be incorruptible; because it will carry with it that which will render it corruptible ad infinitum. It is not now my business to examine the Philosophy or logic of your Argument; but to discover your Opinion. And take you which way we will, you here deny the Resurrection of the Body. But you say further, that you may not be thought of our Opinion, after all this: I say, we cannot see, how that which is of dust should be eternal, whilst that from whence it came is by nature but temporal. And I believe you, so long as you leave the Light without, and above you, and are guided only by the Light within you, which is natural, and receiveth not th●se things of God.  
Being thus plunged in the Dungeon of Darkness, you have the wit to tell me that, which a Boy understanding his Accidence, would be ashamed of; viz. And that which is yet most of all irreconcilable with Scripture, and right Reason, is, That the less and change of Nature from corruptible to incorruptible, natural to spiritual, should not make it another Body. In vain do such 
Ib. p● 202.  dispute against the Popish Transubstantiation as an absurd and impossible thing, who themselves are guilty in a case of the like nature.  
I wonder the less at your other absurdities, and your confidence wherewith you countenance them, seeing you talk so ignorantly of the Popish Transubstantiation. They say, That the 
Bell de ●uch. l 3. c 18. C●●●ch. ad P●r●ch. ex 〈…〉 n. frui. p. 830.  substance of the Bread is changed into the real Body of Christ, and into his Divinity; and that it ceaseth to be Bread, while the accidents of Bread remain: And we say, That in the Resurrection of the Body, the substance of the Body is raised, or quickened again; but its qualities and accidents are altered, or changed. I know not any of us are so ignorant, as to affirm. That by being made spiritual ( i.e. e. rarefied and made more subtle) that, it is changed into a Spirit.  
Let it be observed also, That the Resurrection of the body which I affirmed they deny, and which Opinion you oppose, I gave an account of in these words: The raising again to life 
quake. no Christ. part. 2. p. 122. last impres. p. 238.  and from the dust and corruption, the bodies of men and women, however disposed of after their natural death or dissolution. This you have denied; and show me if you can in any Quakers Writings, that they believe the body, after dissolution, or any part of it, shall be quickened, and raised to life in any manner or form whatsoever. Thus I have made good my first task, That you deny the Resurrection of the Body. I shall now prove, That you deny their Souls, after the death of their Bodies, to be subjects capable of reward.  
My first Argument I shall draw, from what you affirm the Spirits and Souls of men to be. And first, I shall give you the testimonies of Fisher, 
Fisher. Velata quaedam revel. p. 17.  an early Quaker, and a man able to tell his tale as punctually as any of you: And whereas ye Query,( saith he) Whether the said Spirit of manis mortal, or immortal? I answer, It is immortal, and neither mortal nor corruptible; but that immortal and incorruptible Seed of God, even something of that living Word which is said to be made flesh. And this he saith is essentially constitutive of Adam in his pure state, and of every Regenerate man.  
But yet plainer and more general: And is 
Fox great M●st. &c. p. 16.  not( saith Fox, your great Oracle) that of God, which comes out from God? is not that of his Being— and so Divine?( speaking of the Soul.) Again( saith the same Author) Is not the Soul without beginning come from God?— It is not horrid Blasphemy to say, The Soul is a part of God, for it came out of him; and that which came out of him, is of him. Magnus been saith, The 
Id in eod. p. 29.  Soul is not infinite in itself: And Richard Baxter saith, It is a spiritual Substance. Now consider 
Id. in eod. p. ●  what a condition, these called Ministers, are in: They say that which is a spiritual Substance, is not infinite it its self, but a Creature. The same Oracle saith moreover, Is not the Soul without beginning, coming from God, returning INTO God again?— Hath this beginning or ending? And is not this Infinite in its self?  
Now I will put it to the verdict of any rational man, Whether you in affirming the Spirits or Souls of men to be something of that living Word, which is said to be made flesh; to be of the Being of God, and so Divine, without Beginning, a part of God, Infinite in it self, not a Creature, do not render it a subject uncapable of any rewards; especially, considering, that 'tis said by you to be returning INTO God again. I shall not take notice here of your Blasphemies in talking of a part of God, &c.  
Many of these passages, among others, I cited in my Book; and some of them you took notice of in your Answer; and but some, which you thought you could best warp to a tolerable sense; though when you had done all, a halfwitted man might pronounce you guilty from your own evidence.  
I pray review the strong Contradiction of 
P's Answ. to quake. no Christ. p. 192.  your own, to what I charged you with: We do for ever( say you) renounce any such Principle, as that the Soul of man, simply as such, is the very Essence and Being of God. Do you deny here, the Soul of man to be the very Essence and Being of God? No; your Simply as such, is too simplo a shuffle to blind a Reader, not blind before.  
I having given you the matter of my Argument, I now give it in form thus; If( according to the Quakers Principles) the bodies of men after death shall never be quickened, and raised to life again, much less to a life that shall never end; and the Souls of men are of God's own Being, a part of him, and shall return into him again: Then( according to the Quakers Principles) there is no part of men, which after death, shall remain subjects capable of a Reward, a Heaven, or Hell: But the former hath been proved; threefore the latter.  
When I had from undeniable grounds concluded by Consequence, That the Quakers deny or disown a blessedness or misery in another World; yet finding them confidently asserting, That they owned eternal Rewards: For the curing of my mistake( if I were under such a thing) I made this fair Proposition to them; Let them profess that they believe a happiness 
quake. no Christian. part 2. p. 141. impr. ult. p. 248.  to be enjoyed by men or women, after their bodies are rotted to dust, distinct from the Being of God, or that which they had not a thousand years before they were born( i.e.) to be IN God, from whom( as of his Being) they say the Soul came; and it will be news to me, and all that are acquainted with them. And was not this enough to engage you to profess your Faith in this matter, if you had any beyond what I apprehended? But all your Evasions being by this Proposal prevented, and the true state of your Faith about eternal Rewards, exposed, in your Answer you take no notice of my Proposal. In my VINDICATION I charged you with the neglect of it; and after I had repeated the former matter, I added, This 
Vindic. of quake. no Chr. p. 90.  I proposed for the evading of all their delusive terms, and that I might draw out of them an acknowledgement of the genuine truth, if they had any such in the Treasury of their Divinity. But as I charged pen before, so I do now again( and with him all thorow-Quakers) that his silence to this matter, concludes them guilty of not owning a future Reward in another World, or a Life to come. One would have thought all this more than enough, to provoke you to speak out, if you had any thing to say to the purpose. But you overdo in a Book of 437 pages, and are as dumb to this Proposal as ever, though as streperous as ever in Rants and Reflections. This being a matter of such moment, that it alone determines the controversy, I took the occasion you gave me, to be thus full in its discussion. And now let sober men, yea, let the Lord judge between you and me, who of us are guilty of injury in this matter.  
I shall now farther defend the justice of my laying down your Principles not always in your own words, although the like dealing with others would be really unjust.  
Most Professors of Religion, and all that are not ashamed, or afraid to have their Principles generally understood, are plain and open in their expressions of them, and industriously design to be understood, and use such terms as others use, and understand by them what they mean: But you walk in the Clouds, and like Gypsies, have a Canting of your own, in which you speak to one anothers understandings; while strangers to your Opinions and ways, may as well understand Welsh, or Hebrew( though never bread or learned therein) as they can understand you. I know you have boasted of miraculous Gifts and Tongues too; but this plotted way of clouding your meaning, is all the Tongues that ever I could find you attained by Quakerism; and by which, your Conferences with persons unacquainted with you, hath rendered you deservedly Barbarians to them, while you esteem them Barbarians in spiritual knowledge, for not understanding your uncouth phrases.  
Some-newcoyn'd phrases you use, which are your proper and peculiar Mintage( except you had them from Jacob Behem) ex. gr. Miracles in Spirit, The Seed in captivity, A measure of God From the Spirit inwardly ravening, Ravening Comprehending Brain, fleshly comprehensions, Traditional 
Penn's Spirit of Truth, p. 23. page. 14.  read-Knowledg, Vulturous eye; with many more. The four last are your own, and three of them are jumbled together within the compass of five lines. To these I may add a multitude of words and phrases you use in common with others, but your meanings by them, are not the same with the generally-received import of the words. For instance, By persons in Covenant with God, you mean such persons as are without sin; yea, that have no sin remaining in their natures, and no other.  
This is verified by a great man among you( with most of your Leaders in their Writings:) Now( saith he) where sin is remaining in the Nature, 
Crisp's Alarm, p. 16.  there the Covenant with Hell and Death is not broken, neither are such in Covenant with God. A hard, cruel, and untrue saying. By the being under the Devils power, you mean the same thing, as appears by the words next following the fore-cited: But are yet under the power of the Prince of the air, whatever they profess. So by being in sin, you mean such as have any remains of sin in their nature: And the death of Christ is of no value unto them, because they are yet in sin. These words are annexed to the former, and applied to the same persons. I shall give you one loud proof more of this falsehood, and fallacy. Be it known unto you, in the Name of the God of Heaven, that where sin remains, there the Devil is Prince and 
Id. in eod. p. 13.  Ruler. Who understand these terms so, but yourselves?  
Let me give you a Demonstration, that such abused terms force me to give your Principles not alway in your own words. I find one of your chief Ministers writes thus, For this end is Christ manifested, to destroy the works of the Devil, and to redeem OUT OF the fall. And this 
Parnel Shield of the Truth, p. 48.  we witness, who through the Lamb our Saviour, do reign above the World, Death, Hell, and the Devil; but none can witness this, whose eye is outward, looking at a Redeemer afar off, and still live in sin. Now, Reader, suppose I were to give their Principle from these words, it will bear according to their true meaning, that they hold, That none can be redeemed from the Devil, from the fall, who look to a Redeemer afar off, which is no otherwise to be understood, but of the the Person of Christ ascended. But there being added these words, and yet live in sin: If we take it in our sense it clear them; for we hold, all that live in sin, to have no Gospel sincerity, no true faith; and so though they expect Salvation from the true Christ who is ascended, are not delivered and redeemed from the Devil and Law. But take living still in sin, in the sense of the Quakers, for a not-being being freed from all remains of sin in our natures, and the cover is taken off, and the blind removed.  
And that I may show you how full of such strange meanings a short Sentence of theirs may be, take notice, that by We witness, they mean not a testimony to others; but their own experience, or having it by Inspiration: None of them will deny this. But there is a worse Snake in the grass: For by the Lamb their Saviour, they mean not the same numerical man, Jesus the Son of Mary, who was crucified at Jerusalem, for he is the Redeemer we look at afer off; but they mean, the Light within them. And because 'tis very strange, as well as very corrupt, I shall give a proof of it: Here was the Light shone out of darkness in John( John 1. 9.)— Then God sent him to bear witness unto 
Morning Watch, p. 5.  the Light which in him( these two last words are put in a different Letter in my Author) was made manifest, that all in the Light might believe, and he called to others to behold him, and said, he was the LAMB OF GOD, &c.  
Who that gives their Principles always in their own words, can possibly render many of their Tenets( especially those they most industriously hid from such whom they would not have to understand them) intelligible to others? What I have said are their own words, are such; and what I charge them with beside, I give in their sense, though not in their words; which is as necessary, as it is to render that in English to a more English Reader( that he may understand it) which is spoken or written in another Tongue. And I have so far considered the Contexture of their sayings, as that I am very well armed to prove each particular to be their sense in the same place, whenever I am called thereunto.  
By Election and Reprobation, they mean God's choosing of Christ, and rejecting the Devil and sin; which is proved by the following Citation. Quest. And doth Election and Reprobation 
●mith's Catech. p. 9.  stand in the Natures, or Seeds of Light and Darkness? Answ. Yes it doth so; for the Seed of Light is Christ, whom God hath elected and chosen before the Foundation of the World; and the Seed of Darkness is the Devil, and Enmity, which is reprobated for ever. Is it not clear here as Sun-beams, what kind of things are the subjects of eternal Rewards or Punishments by their Principles? I should be too tedious, if I should here enumerate their illmeant phrases, and give the proofs at large; as, that by Carnal Understanding and Imaginations, they mean the use of human Reason; by the Will of the Flesh, our choice and derermination, however rational, or according with the Scripture, if not by the Motion and Inspiration of the Light within; by Christ, the Light within; by being out of the Power of God, not adhering to the motions and impulses of what they call Christ, or the Light within; by the Man Christ, the spiritual Man, the Light within still; by Christ crucified, a Christ crucified within; by the Righteousness of Christ justifying them, the works done in their bodies by the strength( they say) they receive by the Light and Power within; by Christ's flesh and blood in their flesh, a body of spiritual flesh, blood and bones, which( they say) came down from Heaven, and tabernacled in the Son of Mary, while he was upon earth, and now dwells in the Quakers.  
If they would please to give us a Dictionary of their Words, Phrases, and Interpretations, all their murder would out: But in the mean time their Adversaries( I mean to their Opinions) must study them out of their Writings, and converse as they do, who give us the Interpretations in English of Foreign Languages; and this I have done faithfully( so far as I have expressed) in my Key to the Quakers phrases.  
Now Mr. pen, I shall follow you at the 
P's Reb. p. 7.  heels, with less pains, and more advantage. You quarrel with the Reverend Divines( never the less Reverend for all the dirt you can fix upon them) for not consulting your Answers to my Book. I assure you, if you wish they all had red and weighed them thoroughly, you and I are agreed in somewhat: For I know not any more sure way to my Vindication, and your Condemnation, than a due comparing our Writings. But yet you only tell them what they should have done to render them blameless( at least with you) but you prove nothing with your Ifs and Ands, though you make bold Conclusions. But what should we expect more from a man, whose mettal is no where but in his words and flourishes?  
They had been prudent indeed by the rule of Contraries, if they had followed your advice, and upon your strong Reasons; viz. But if you must needs be so liberal, methinks your Recommendation had better been bestowed upon his VINDICATION, since his writing that, proveth this wanted it; and if it wanted then, its wants 
page. 7.  it still, and yet it seems the Book vindicated, must be the Defence of the Vindication, and all the return I am like to have to my rejoinder, bating the Epistle, &c. Can you be sober, and believe that men of Reason will account this your reasoning sober? Must a Vindication be taken for a Condemnation of what it vindicates, without more ado? Are you not a cast and a condemned man, and the Quakers Cause with you, by your own logic? For your writing in their Vindication, proves they want it. And doth not your attempts to vindicate your Answer, show by this Figure of yours, that it was a defective or faulty thing? But farther, must not a Book be reprinted, but for its own Vindication? By your logic, the oftener Books are reprinted, the worse, and more faulty they are proved to be. This came into your head, and then it must be let drop on your Book for a piece of wit that the World had need of, to fright them from reprinting good Books, especially against the Quakers. Why do you complain of my not answering your rejoinder? Is this the way to provoke me to it, seeing such a thing must be for a Vindication of my first Book, and you tell me such a course proves it wants it? Well then, seeing I do not believe my Book wants a Vindication, or your rejoinder deserves an Answer, I may take my rest with more prudence than you scribble; especially considering, that your credit will be Vindication enough of any thing against your reproaches.  
You might with more prudence have  told such a Block-head as I, you generally fling Infallibility 
page. 7.  at us— as if it were a Capital sin to be assured, than so many Learned men: For your making Infallibility and Assurance to be the same thing, is a broad Symptom of your Ignorance. The next passage you transcribe( with your Reply to it) hath undone your Cause. The Quakers preach another Gospel, and endeavour to seduce well-meaning Souls, to whom they speak in unintelligible words; and from whom they hid the poison of their Antifundamental Doctrines. What say you to this? Why, Here is a great deal in a little: And so say I too. But you say, 'tis very sourly said: And I say, 'tis very truly and soberly said. But shall we take you at your next words, Were it as true, as it is false, the day were yours.  
If it were no more true than you would have it accounted false, it were false and black enough. But I shall not be beholding to your grant; we are rich enough in Truth and Evidence, to live without your Alms; and strong enough to turn the Quakers out of their Usurpations, against their wills.  
You may say, They make not the least offer to prove it. But you anticipate their Answer, of John Faldo's having done it for them, and make your Exceptions against him; as first, an Irreverent abuser of God. God forbid! But what God? Alas 'tis of the Quakers Gods or Idols, the Light within them, their Souls and Spirits, which they call by that name. Pardon me Mr. pen, if when you set up a stock, and call it a God, I do not presently fall down and worship it. But you say again, I am an abuser of the Christian Religion. And who will expect you should say otherwise of any, who writ against yours? But I suppose the greatest abuse you stomach is, my not reverencing the Quaker-Dutch woman's declaring in Dutch, to a Meeting of English Quakers, who confessed they understood not a word she spake, yet were confident she spake by the Spirit, for they all found refreshings. I pray pardon me this wrong, though I never repent it to my dying day.  
But in the third place you say, And which is more to my contentment, whatever it be to his and yours; some, and no Quakers too, think I have proved him such. More to your Contentment! why was it at all to your Contentment, that I should abuse God, and the Christian Religion? But it seems, that some thinking you had proved me such, who were not Quakers, is exceeding grateful and contenting to you. Verily a small Approbation of your attempts, contents you greatly; for I doubt not but there are other silly people in the World besides the Quakers, who may at least, be so good-natured, and be so credulous as to think so. But would you not think it very strong and pertinent for me to tell you, that some, and neither Presbyterians nor independents did tell me; that you did not writ to confute me, but merely to show your wit; so remote were you either from the matter, or the truth; and so much in love with Witticisms, that no hedge of exact Expressions would hold you, but you would break out the stake of one Substantial word or another for a passage. Yea, should I tell you, that some such said, that your Friends were so confident of all you said to be true, and well, that if you put out my Book in your name, they would take it to be a very good Book, and all in it very true: And I assure you, 'tis no less than some have said, and would not be persuaded to the contrary.  
Give me leave in the next place to answer your Question, and I shall not need to be beholding to 
rebuk, &c. p. 8.  any to take my word that I answer you truly: And let me ask you( say you) if it be another Gospel to own Remission of sin, and Eternal Salvation by the Son of God; and both as he appeared above 1600 years ago in the flesh, and as he reveals himself within in Power and Spirit? If your Opinions in these matters, were the same with what is received by the generality of understanding and serious Christians, you would have expressed them in some or other of their Forms of Confession; but you love the Clouds and By-paths, that your sense may not be discerned. And in truth, you not only may, but do hold another Gospel, than what we affirm is the Gospel of Christ, for all the truth that is expressed or meant by you in this form of words. It is a sad thing that your Principles and Manners are so bad, that they that know them, will take all your words with suspicion.  
What your Eternal Salvation is, I have proved already. That by the Son of God, you understand the Divinity only, or Godhead, is so common in 
●ox's ●reat my●ery, p. 71.  your Prints, that none who are acquainted with them, are ignorant of it; yet for the Reader's satisfaction, I shall city some of your Authors. And first, George Fox thus: And Christ's Nature is not human, which is earthly, for that is the first Adam's. Next to him, take Pennington's verdict in these words: This we certainly know, and can never call the bodily Garment Christ; but that which appeared and dwelled in the body. Here, that which dwelled in the body, which was the Godhead, and that only, is allowed to be Christ. And in the former, Christ's human Nature is denied in so many words: Yea, you hold those to be false Ministers, that preach a 
●mith's primer, ●. 8. 9.  Christ without us; and those only true Ministers, who preach a Christ within. All this your great Author W. Smith saith in so many words, They that are false [ Ministers] preach Christ without, and bid people believe in him as he is in Heaven above; but they that are true Ministers, they preach Christ within, and direct people to wait to feel him in themselves, and so to believe in him, as he makes himself manifest in them. The Child is made to reply( for you are to take notice, 'tis a primer or Catechism:) This is a great difference in their Doctrine, for one to preach Christ without, and another preacheth him within. The Father answers, Yes, it doth make a great difference, and hath no more fellowship than the East and the West. What think you of your Gospel now? or what do you judge those against whom you writ will censure it to be, wherein such a Salvation, and such a Saviour is preached? and to preach Christ without, and Christ within too, hath no more Fellowship than the East and the West? What can you say, to put a colour on this, consistent with owning Jesus the Son of Mary, who rose, and is ascended above the visible Heavens, to be Christ? You know I gave you this Citation in my first Book; but you thought good( with most of the greatest weight) to let it pass without any notice. Let the Reader judge, if this be not excellent Doctrine to teach to young Children. While you tell us we must harken to the Light within, to teach us what is necessary to believe and practise, and that is sufficient, you have primer and Catechism without, to teach your Children to deny the Fundamentals of the Gospel.  
I shall now examine the other part of your Gospel; scil. And both as he appeared above 1600 years ago in the flesh, and as he reveals himself WITHIN in Power and Spirit. Your great fallacy lies in the word AS, which is a word of Likeness, or Comparison.  
But to evidence as clear as light, that you hold that the Son of God appeareth now. AS he did then; and that you, or some others of you are, according to your Opinions, as truly, I say as truly, Christ, as Jesus the Son of Mary, I shall give suffificient proof.  
In my first Book I wrote these words, They do 
Quaker. ● Christian part 2. p 70. impr.  not deny that there was such a man as Jesus the Son of Mary; and that God was in him, or rather Christ was in him: But this is no more than they profess of themselves, that Christ, as God, and the Eternal Word is in them. Would not any one judge, that you should deny this Charge with as great violence and exclamation, as any in the Book? and that many impertinent, frothy, and clamorous passages in your Answer, ought to have given place and room, for your clearing yourselves of this charge, if it were not your due? You cannot say, you did not observe it; for in your Answer you repeat my words thus, He says they do not deny, that 
●s Answ. quake. ● Christ. 155.  there was such a man as Jesus the Son of Mary; and that God, or rather Christ, was in him: But this is no more than they profess of themselves, that Christ, as God, is in them.  
When I red this Repetition of my Charge, I expected to be overwhelmed with a flood of Revilings; but contrarywise, I am not so stroked by you for any passage in my Book: He hath done us( say you) right in two respects, which may a little answer for the ill language he giveth us in our Charge: First, That he acknowledgeth we own that there was 
Ib.  such a man as Jesus the Son of Mary ( in contradiction to abundance of our Adversaries) and that God was in him, which makes up our Christ. Here you are so far from denying this Charge, that you own it to do you right. And let it be observed, that God dwelling in Jesus, doth not make up( as you call it) your Christ numerically, as excluding any other than Jesus the Son of Mary; but specifically, which answers to my saying of your Opinion, which saying you commend. This were enough, but I proceed to Burrough's testimony.  
A Christian soberly, and seriously proposing this Question to him, Whether the Word was made flesh more or oftener than once? He replies to him in this rude 
Burrou● Works Folio, p 29, 30.  manner; In this Query thou art manifest what thou art, and where thou art, and what spirit thou art of, a Reprobate, a Child of Darkness.— this Query comes from thy polluted mind. The Light condemns thee, and all thy Generation eternally. The Word made flesh we witness, which dwells amongst us, and we behold his glory, whereby we witness thee, and all thy Generation to be in the Sorcery and Witchcraft.— But thou Dragon, that would devour the man-Child; thou the Dragon, with thy Angels, art cast into the Earth. For thy other nineteen Queries, thou hast conjured them up in the Black-Art, out of the bottonles pit. I shall not animadvert on every part of this Text, so pregnant with the Quakers mischievous Principles, and monstrous Manners. But was not this furious railing Reply, instead of answering the Question negatively, a strong evidence that you hold that the Word was made flesh more than once, as truly as he was at any one time? Moreover, if the phrase, We witness, be rendered into the English you mean by it, one Clause of his Answer should be thus red; The Word made flesh we experience, which dwells among us, and we behold his glory. This evidence amounts to no less than yours before cited.  
I shall add one evidence more, out of your own Writings, which scarce needs an Interpreter: And 
W. Penn'● Re●oynder to Faldo, p. 311.  those who at this day do feed upon the history of the bodily appearance( yet honourable in its place and know not a breaking through the veil, by witnessing a measure of the same Divine Wisdom, Power, Righteousness, Grace, and Truth, revealed and born forth in themselves; they are but carnal, fleshly Christians, being unacquainted with the formation of the Christ of God IN THEMSELVES; which is the opening of the mystery of Christ, GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. The same Divine Wisdom relates to these words a few lines foregoing, Of which he is the fullness, whose transcending glory was veiled by that body of flesh he wore; i.e. the Divine Nature which dwelled in the Body of Jesus. What can be a more full proof that God manifest in the flesh( or appearing in the flesh, which is the same sense) spoken peculiarly of Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 3. 16.( and of him as his peculiar) is by you in your own words, made common to all, who are not( as you call them) Carnal, and Fleshly Christians. And you leave out the word WAS in the Text, to hid your Blasphemy.  
I remember, that in some of your Answers to me( though I cannot readily find the place) you say, That you do not say that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in you. To which I answer first, that your phrase of a Measure of God, respecting his Essence, is your( peculiar) Blasphemy; for wherever God is essentially, there is whole God, the infinite God. But farther, I will prove, that you hold the Light in you to be as infinitely God, as can be expressed. Will. Smith tells his Child in his primer, of the Light within the Child, the Light in its Conscience, that All power in Heaven and 
●ith's ●immer, 14.  Earth is in it. So that here is the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in your bodies( by your Principles). But that I may give you full measure, pressed down, and running over, I will give you one Citation more: We believe( saith Smith) that Christ 
●ith's ●techis. 64.  in us doth offer up himself a living Sacrifice to God for us, by which the wrath of God is appeased to us— and this is he in whom our Faith standeth, the one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.  
Now let all impartial men judge of your hypocritical Equivocations, to hid your Anti-Gospel, and Antifundamental Doctrines. With what a forehead did you writ such a rebuk to such men, for writing so very a truth? I esteem this your unspeakable folly to be, what God hath permitted as a farther occasion to open your hidden things of darkness; for which I bless him, and I hope many others may do the like, for these Snares being more manifestly discovered: The wickèd is snared in the work of his own hands, Higgaion Selah, Psal. 9. 16.  
The next work that comes to my hand is, to consider what you say hath a very bad Consequence. But I will transcribe your own words; viz. For the other part of your Accusation, That we should say 
P's Reb. p. 8.  one thing, and mean another, it is by Consequence to call us the worst of Knaves: By how much a deception in matters of Eternal moment, is more impious than any cozenage about things of this life.  
They have said it, I shall now prove it, and you have given us the Consequence. I doubt not but the Reader is so well satisfied already of the truth of this, That you say one thing, and mean another, that he will think farther proof needless. But I will add a little ex abundanti: The Quaker saith, That 
P's Answ● to Faldo '● Quaker. ● Christ. p. ●  Light is in the Scriptures, prove that; or tell me what one Scripture hath Light in it. Here is the greatest denial that may be of the Scriptures, or any one Scripture having Light in it. But W. pen gives the meaning to be, There is not spiritual, living, essential Light in the Scriptures; but a descriptive, and declarative Light they carry with them of the true Light. Now would any man take the Quakers phrase to mean as you say? What need had he to tell them there was not liying and essential Light in them, every body knows that; and his saying was a universal Negative in the highest terms.  
Quaker: So amongst the words, you find how the Saints in some things walked, and what they practised; 
●… orning-●… atch, ●… 45.  and then you strive to make that thing to yourselves, and to observe it, and do it as near as you can: and here you are found Transgressors of the just Law of God, who saith; Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved Image, nor the likeness of any thing: Now what difference is there in the ground betwixt you and the Pope, though in the appearance there seem to be so great space. This, one would think, were very plain English. But you tell us, that he means 
●… s Answ. ●… quake. ●… Chri. ●… 98  quiter other things: For say you, Take Will. Smith in his own sense and belief, and all is well.— He intended, that all those real Experiments of other persons( of which the Scriptures are full) talked unexperimentally over by ungenerated spirits, can be no ways beneficial. Nay, that what ideas and Notions they may have to themselves of the holy Ancients enjoyments, while altogether unacquainted with them; are but a kind of Images, which their believing in, and bowing to as indispensible Gospel-truths, is to be reputed nothing below Idolatry itself.  
Either he or you, must notably dissemble here. How doth what you say is Smith's sense, appear in his words? W. Smith speaks expressly of the Saints practices, and how they walked; and you give his meaning to be of their experiments and enjoyments. Smith calls their doing like them as near as they can Idolatry; and you give his meaning to be of unregenerate persons talking them over. If this were his sense, which is so far off from the true import of the words in the English Tongue, and we must have such Interpretations to understand the Quakers meanings, it is past all doubt, that you say one thing, and mean another.  
But you say farther, And if you measure us by 
P's . Re● p. 9.  our words, you must grant that either you understand us not, or we mean very good things; for you say elsewhere, that our obnoxious Tenets are usually masked under expressions doubtful, unintelligible, or under Scripture, and Orthodox phrases.  
Either you are very ignorant of your own sayings, or your understanding doubly dark and vicious. When you say, The Soul is not a Creature, is a part of God infinite in itself; That all power in Heaven and Earth is in the Light within; That they are false Ministers that preach Christ without us: Must we needs say you mean very good things, if we measure you by your words? yea certainly, if saying you abound with Blasphemies, be to say you mean very good things.  
But in your Report, you let drop a material word, for you repeat it, That our obnoxious Tenets we usually mask, &c. whereas they say, Their Tenets which are most obnoxious to censure. There are many of your Tenets obnoxious to Censure, which you speak plain enough, about Perfection, the Scriptures not being the Word of God, or a Rule; also against the Sacraments. This is not fair dealing, but repeating your crimes, while you stand upon your Defence. And your inferences of their not being certain of your Principles, from their calling your Expressions doubtful and unintelligible, forget that which you repeat of their words; scil. that they are usually so; which leaves room enough for your Expressions to be sometimes plain and intelligible.  
And they can tell you( for all your Illogical Triumphs) how they come to know your meanings to be contradictory to your sayings: And that the Conscience of a Quaker( granting you to be one) is not to be name with that of a Presbyterian, or independent, or of any sort of People who pretend to Christianity.  
But you are gotten into a vein of Self-applauding rhetoric, and seem to be so airy, as to believe your wortb to answer your words; it cannot possibly arise from any other cause( if you mean as you say) that you dare meet with them upon a public Test, 
Ib.  to prove your integrity to God and men. What a strange briskness and confidence have you attained to on a sudden, who to all the Solicitations, and Provocations you have received from me, to meet me in the Debate of Thirteen of the most horrid Principles I charge you with, have been as cowardly as a Hare, and as could as death? Canes timidi vehementius latrant quam mordent.  
Is it your Ignorance, Pride, Arrogance, or the lax your pen hath catched? or is it all of them together, that makes you talk at this rate? or is it the courage you take from the consideration, that it may be, that One and twenty more of them cannot show 
●age 15.  so much wit as Ben. Johnson? which is a Reflection of yours, favouring more of Ben. Johnson's Comical humour, than of either Wit, Modesty, or Honesty. Do you think yourself a Match for One and twenty Divines, many a one of whom would think himself very idle to attend your wandring motions, and shuffling tricks? But I suppose you know that as well as I can tell you, and that makes you talk without fear.  
Mr. pen, I here tell you again, That I shall( if the Lord give me life and liberty) save them the trouble of contending with you, so far as proving what I have charged you with will amount unto. Or if you will, to make but one Question of it, and prove that you, and such as you, are no Christians. But I proceed.  
You say, And though you would have the people 
P's . Rebu● &c. p. 10●  think very severe things of us, with respect to the Scriptures of truth; by telling them the Quakers hold, That the Scriptures are not the Word of God, nor a Rule of Faith and practise; yea, that we readily assert it in so many words. I must tell you, you have acted with us herein far from men of common Ingenuity. A man might at this rate by Scripture prove, There is no God, if he would but leave out, The Fool hath said in his heart.  
But if this Charge of theirs( with others you as confidently contradict, and as vehemently decry) be proved true, and that out of your own Writings in your Defence; will it not be sadly implied, that you are the Fool that have said in your heart, There is no God? Certainly your carriage bespeaks you Atheum judicio; or at least, one who believes God seeth not, or regardeth not what you say or do? It is a most burdensome and nauseous thing, to have to do with a man, that will say any thing to slander and abuse his Antagonists and deny his own professed Principles, rather than fail of that end.  
In your Answer to my Charge, That the Quakers deny the Scriptures of the Old and New-Testament to be the Word of God; you say, I will 
P's Answ. to Faldo, p. 24.  allow to him, without going any farther, that the People called Quakers, do deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and therefore shall take for granted what he quotes out of J. N. i. e. James Naylor, &c. Dare you say I have left out any thing of your Sentence? I dare not promise you will not say, the most gross and wilful untruth; I am too well acquainted with you, to have better thoughts of you.  
If you flee to your owning in another place, That Christ is the Word of God, and in that sense you deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, it will by no means help you: For the Question is about the Scriptures, and those you peremptorily deny to be so in any sense. And for the Christ you own to be the Word of God, when all comes to all, it is but the Light within; as will appear by the next evidence I shall produce against you. Whatever your own Friends( as you call them) may think of the matter, all wise-men will see you butted under the ruins of your lofty fabric, built without the Foundation of Truth.  
I charged you in the Contents of my Fifth Chapter, with denying the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Life: But you, after many words, 
Quaker. no ● Chri. p. 65.  nothing to the purpose, confirm my Charge thus stoutly, Wherefore, said the Prophet, Hear the Word of the Lord. What word? That nigh in the heart, which Moses and Paul preached. Still the outward 
●'s Answ. ● Faldo, ●. 56.  Instrument is not the Rule, much less are the Writings, being they are but all external Instruments. And this I will abide by against all the insults of our Enemies( by God's assistance) that both they are but such Instruments, and that such Instruments are not the Gospel Rule; but that Light, Life, Power, or Spirit which useth them. And who attributes that honour to the Instruments, which is due to the chief Mover in it, or by it, commits downright Idolatry.  
Have you not here loaded them with a witness who take the Scriptures to be their Rule, by charging them to be no less than Idolaters for so doing? What can you say or add to make the sense of your Expressions tolerable? You tell us indeed, that you believe and know they contain many godly 
P's Reb. &c. p. 10.  Rules. But will this mend the matter? I well remember, that one of your Prophets, who lived not long since( if not now) at the Peal in St. John-street, when I asked him, If that Text, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, were obliging to me, having red it in the Bible? I could not persuade him to 
P. M. W. H. M. F. W. W. &c.  acknowledge it, or that it was my duty to love God; he having before denied, that I was an inspired person. This was before divers witnesses, both Quakers and others, some of the first letters of whose names are in the Margin.  
It would be little for your Credit, that I should tell the World the occasion of that Conference, and how it issued. But it being a lewd practise( though pretended from your Principles) I shall forbear till it be farther called for, and conclude the present point with James Naylor's testimony( whom you 
Naylor's Light of Christ, &c. p. 19.  own and honour still as none of your small Prophets) God is at liberty( saith he) to speak to his people by them[ the Scriptures] if he please, and where they are given by Inspiration, he doth so. And so he is at liberty to speak by any other created thing, as 
P's Answ. to Faldo's Quaker. no Chri. p. 53.  to Balaam by his Ass. These words of Naylor you own and justify. Now let the World judge, whose ingenuity is to be preferred, yours, or those Worthies whom you have slandered? or, Whether your guilt is no better proved, than the Scriptures affirming, There is no God, by a disingenuous leaving out, The Fool hath said in his heart?  
I find you in the next page., over-head and ears in your sportive-humour, upon the occasion of the phrase, Honey, or sweetness of Spirit, in the Ministers Epistle; which to make a jingle with, you turn into money by Interpretation: They[ the people] toil, and you talk; they are the Bees, and you, so many cunning Hivers; at the tinkling of whose bells the silly Bees assemble, and when you have safely hived them, your next business is to take their honey from them. Here you smite the standards by, instead of the men of your controversy. As the Madman, Prov. 26. 18. you cast fire-brands, not at the Non, but Conformists, who only have the Bells to ring-in the Bees( as you call them:) But you care not whose head you break, so you may but break your jest.  
How they can say, that honest well-meaning souls may be judicially deserted of God, is not hard to reconcile; seeing they oppose them to you, and your crafty Leaders; they believing you, and the Principles they receive from you to be very good, while you( and many more of you) cannot but know that you delude. They follow you in the simplicity of their hearts, who( many of them) believe not that you hold what you do; and therefore hold not with you in many things. And the Ministers construe their word Honest, by well-meaning.  
But this Apology is more than their Expressions need; for when they speak of honest well-meaning souls, they say, Divers of them( so far as we can understand) 
P's Rebuk. p. 13.  who are honest well-meaning souls. But in your Report, you leave out the whole Parenthesis, which abundantly alters the sense. And where you say, That Christians, while such, may be judicially deserted of God, and hived by the Devil: Methinks such a contradiction beconceth not men of your style and pretences. You take your own false consequence of their words, and put it into a different letter as their words, that they may fall under the burden which you treacherously create out of your own brain. Moreover, they say not absolutely, that they are deserted of God, but that they seem to be so. And so did Peter while he denied his Master.  
All this put together, renders you a habitual Falsifier in your Reports of your Adversaries words and sense; for were it not become natural to you, you would not be guilty of it in the very instant of accusing others for that crime.  
In the next place, I find you much offended, 
Ib.  that they should so much as imply that there may be some Socianiz'd Persons, or Papists among you, under the disguise of Quakers: And that is all that their words import. You affirm, That ye are neither Socinians nor Papists; and require at their hands, to produce one Socinian, or Papist that goes under the 
page. 13.  name of a Quaker.  
If there be either Papists or Socinianiz'd persons among you, the suspicion they imply proves a truth. Although common famed say, That you have had jesuits, or Romish Priests, helping under your disguise, to promote the Quakers work, I shall not build upon that Foundation: But certainly, your Principles for Doctrine, and your Resolves( as you call them) for Discipline, are so much of the Foundation and Superstructure of Rome, that he that suspects not the hand of the jesuit in the Plot, is very ignorant in either the Romish, or the Quakers Principles.  
I shall not repeat here what is done already in Quakerism no Christianity, Chap. 4. Sect. 6. and Chap. 12. Sect. 3. Thither I refer my Reader for farther satisfaction: These two Sections consisting of fourteen pages, being wholly taken up in the comparison of the Quakers and Papists, as such, in their Foundation and Doctrines. And for your Resolves for Discipline, I have printed it verbatim in my Appendix to the foresaid Book, with my parallel in your Order and Disciplines, as like almost as two Eggs of the same Crow.  
I suppose you cannot be ignorant of the meeting of some of the chief Quakers and Papists in London, designed for a Consult to save the Romish Priest lately convicted; which hath done your Cause so much service, as to confirm many in the belief, that you are rowing hard to Tybur. I can tell you the place of meeting, and names of the Consulters, and also what great and rich man among you, stormed sufficiently, that you made thereby the smoke of Suspicion to flamme out into a clear evidence, that your Leaders and the Papists are Confederates.  
I know also, who among your Great ones, confessed the fact, but excused the guilt; by saying; that they were against the suffering of any upon the account of Religion, and did it upon that common Principle. But let me tell you, that your choosing the Papists, rather than any other who are liable to sufferings by the Law, doth loudly prove, what I  told you of in my former Book, of a Romanist's saying, being demanded, which of all the 
Quaker, no ●hri. p. 54. ●lt impr.  Sects in England came nearest the Church of Rome? he replied, The Quakers.  
For a Socianiz'd Person, I will seek no farther, when I find you; nor for other testimony than your Book, entitled, Sandy Foundation shaken; where you make it the scope of your Book to deny, The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, Justification by imputed Righteousness, Original sin, and the Satisfaction of Christ for sinners. Though these Socinian Principles fill up the Volume of the Book, I will quote three of your Sentences: If God( as the Scriptures testify) hath never been declared, or believed, but as the Holy One, then it will follow that 
P's sand. ● Found & p. 12.  God is not a Holy Three — Neither can this receive the least prejudice from that frequent, but impertinent distinction, That he is one in Substance, but three in Persons or Subsistences. The Second Person of the imagined 
page. 16●. Title.  Trinity. So much for your denying the Trinity.  
Imputed Righteousness, and Original sin you deny in one breath thus: Because sin came not by Imputation, but actual Transgression— therefore must the Righteousness 
Id. p. 29.  be as Personal for Acceptance. In denying Christ's Satisfaction, you go beyond the Socinians; for you say, Nor let any fancy, that Christ hath so fulfilled it[ the Law] for them, as to exclude their obedience from being requisite to their Acceptance, but only for their pattern. 
Id in Eo● p. 26.  Let this be added to your saying of Justification, and it will explain you. Is not here enough to render you not only Socianiz'd, but also a Socinian? If you say, the Socinians deny the Godhead of Christ, but so do not you: I answer, That if it were so, it would only render you not a complete Socinian, but not clear you from being Socianiz'd. But let me tell you, that you deny the Godhead of Christ as well as they; for, they deny him to be God by Nature; and you affirm, the Light within( which is indeed but a natural Faculty, or Qualification) to be Christ, or God.  
So that the difference lies thus wide: The Socinians will have Christ to be but a Creature; and you will have that which is but a Creature, to be Christ. Verily, they who call you Socinians, and stop there, do you a great deal of undeserved honour: For your Religion and Principles are made up of almost all Ancient errors, with such a Superfetation, as if Quakerism were the sink into which they empty themselves, and the womb that brings them forth more monstrous than their Progenitors.  
I shall not be so idle and frivolous, as to give instances of the Quakers ensnaring ignorant persons to their Principles, by the good opinion their morosity in Garbs and Manners first obtained: For this were but to set up a Candle to mend Day-light. And that a Devotion to any pretended Religion, upon the consideration of more outward appearances, is Monkish, Nunnish, and Irrational, needs as little proof.  
If you think the little Bands, Cropt-locks, exceeding 
●… 's Reb. ●… c. p. 14.  plain Apparel, severe Aspects of the Ancient Puritans, render them as obnoxious to Censure as the Quakers; you either know not them, or yourselves. For that Garb was common in those days to men professing, or not professing the Puritanical Principles; yea, generally used by the Clergy, even by those who were most Prelatical, and the keenest Censors of the Puritans. Neither did they put so much of Religion into those Garbs, as to condemn such as were not so accoutred, for profane and irreligious persons; which is your case: There being none esteemed Quakers with you, who wear any Lace, or ribbons, or that will salute by putting off the hat; or that will put I and No, in the room of Yea and Nay; or that will say You to a Single person, and not Thou. And your account of all that are not Quakers, is no better than Infidels, Heathen ( or Hypocrites, if professing the Christian Religion) out of the Life, and the Power. Phrases of yours, which by Interpretation import, ignorant of Christ, and Rebels to the Light, or no true Christians.  
For your Aspects, the name of Severe is much too good; for they are generally Supercilious, Elate, Sullen, or Wanton. The three first are every mans experiment that hath to do with you. And if you take the Wantonness of your Aspects sometimes, to be a slander; I need no other evidence to clear me, than the frequency of your Females( whether Maid, Wife, or Widow) when they meet their Men-friends, in the room of the more Civil Salutations, which you decry, taking them by the hands, or wrists, continuing a considerable space, wringing them hard, and looking steadfastly in each others faces, without one word speaking: And as they meet, so they part, having taken their fill of this ugly and bad-natur'd Ceremony.  
I doubt not but you will put a very good Construction upon this uncivil Posture, as you attempt to do upon the worst the Quakers say or do: But when you have said all you can to excuse, it will be esteemed a wanton temptatious thing, and an Ordinance from an ill Author, to destroy Modesty, and train you up to that Confidence and Fore-head your cause hath need of.  
I know you make a great noise about your sufferings, which you render so inseparable from a Quaker, that you give us the Construction of the 
Ibid.  word to be, to expose themselves to the bitter anathemas of such High-Priests as yourselves( the One and twenty Divines) the severity of their dearest Relations, the penalties of Magistracy, and to the general reproach of the multitude. When you have said thus much, you think you have said a great deal, to persuade people 'tis an inward Principle, and not outward appearance that prevails with persons to become Quakers. But what are all these sufferings you mention, but in themselves outward appearances? And yet your often glorying of them, is mostly but hanging out a sign of the Goodness of your Principle, and thereby to draw in Proselytes. But they who will take up in their Religion, wherever they see the Sign of Sufferings at the door, may make a very ill choice.  
I know you are not much afflicted with the anathemas of the High-Priests( as you call them;) but if they should stir the old man, you can soon pay them in their own coin with interest, and avouch that kind of Retaliation to be from the Spirit, though from a very Revengeful one. For your other sufferings, paint them out in the bloodiest colours you can device, and I will produce you a Papist, a jesuit, a Turk, a Heathen, who hath equalled you, or outdone you in the behalf of their Delusions.  
If we set aside an erroneous Conscience, which may produce violent and preternatural heats, to act and suffer in the behalf of its false Sentiments; experience teaches us, that men will maintain their more apparent Vices at a very costly rate. How many sacrifice their Health, Time, Parts, Estates, Wives, Children, Credit, and their Souls; and all for the gratifying those brutish lusts of Drunkenness, Uncleanness, and other voluptuous Appetites! Although they more certainly know, those Iniquities will produce such ruins, than any of you are assured, that Quakerism will cost you any considerable losses?  
How many run the like hazards to please an envious, malicious, or ambitious Humour? And I know not why Pride and Self-will( so predominant in most of you, and inseparable from your Principles) may not engage you to adventure your share of sufferings, without any Religion concerned in the business, much-less the true Religion. What think you of your haughty tenants, of having in you the Light which is infallible, the Power that hath all the Power of Heaven and Earth in it: That your Souls are not Creatures, but a part of God, infinite in themselves: That you are perfect, without any remains of sin, so much as in your Natures: That you have somewhat, by which you are enabled, and privileged to judge both persons and things: That all are Infidels, Ignoramuses, and Hypocrites( respecting Spiritual and Religious things) excepting your selves: That you must show honour and respect to no man, by the usual tokens of Hat, and Leg, or Sir, or any other Titles or Names of respect, except what is Relational: By which every Clown, and very mean person, who is a Quaker, mounts all on a sudden upon even ground( in this case) with Elders, Betters, Magistrates, yea the Prince himself; with whom he will go Cheek by jowl, without any apparency in his Deportment, that he is his inferior?  
Would it not amaze a Reader to find your haughty opinion of yourselves, and contempt of others, expressed in the following words? And here is the ground of all true Nobility, Gentility, MAJESTY, 
Parnel Shield o● Truth, p. 25.  Honour, Breeding, Manners, courtesy, and Civility; no more after the flesh, but after the Spirit. A few lines after, he gives us the practical Improvement ye make of this Elate Principle: Who are not sprung from the noble, gentle Seed; and to those honour is not due, neither can we bow unto them; for if we should, we should set the Devil in the room of God, and give unto him that which is due unto God. What do you conceit, according to the sense of these words( which never any of you disowned that I could hear or red, but the Book is owned by you, without exception, and its Author greatly praised:) Surely the sense of the words, without giving of Consequences, is, That you conceit yourselves to be Gods, and others of all sorts and ranks, to be but Devils. What a blasphemous Bait is here to a proud man to become a Quaker!  
It is become a Proverb, That not the Suffering, but the Cause makes the Martyr: Neither will the pretence of Conscience serve the turn, but a real good Conscience; which is a Conscience espousing Truth, and suffering for it in a righteous way. I have said the more upon this head, because I find that men espouse their Religion too often, upon the more evidence of the sufferings of its Professors.  
In the next Paragraph your pen runs glib, while your Reason halts, and stumbles at your common rate. The one and twenty Divines say, as you repeat it. And yet some of them being rich, and 
Reb. p 16.  growing into Estates in the World, can, and do live in as flesh-pleasing fullness, as others, whom they have condemned. Now I shall repeat your Consequence, and leave it to the Reader to conclude, whose credit is in danger, yours or the Ministers. You say( say you) we condemn all but ourselves. What is the Consequence but 
abide.  this, if you speak true? That there is not a person in the World, that is not a professed Quaker, hath either more ability to live flesh-pleasing, or that actually doth indulge himself more to a sensual life, than some Quakers can, and do. By others, you will needs understand all others: By being rich, that there is not a person in the World of greater ability: By some of you, indulging to a sensual life as well as others, that no man lives more sensually than some of you. If you can wrest words at this rate, which are under your Readers eye; how much more, when the words you construe are out of their reach?  
I wonder( but why should I wonder at any thing you say) that you should tempt us to bring the names of your Grand-men on the stage, by your first Reply to the Ministers true Expressions; scil. I would willingly know( say you) these persons, who 
Ibid.  they are? and where they live? Did you love the Truth, and your own Credit, ye would scarce be so lavishing of your words. Is there no flesh pleasing, but in a ribbon; or Lace, or Hat, or Congy? Are not your houses as stately, your meats and drinks as plentiful, various, and pallatable, your apparel as costly( ribbons and Lace excepted) as some others whom you have condemned? Is this a matter hide in a corner, that we need to bring particular instances for a proof? But if I must needs be at namely, Let yourself( who ride in your Coach, and have your men following, and standing bare to you, who live plentifully, and can bring out store of bottles of Wine for Entertainments, bidding your Guests to use their freedom:) I say, let yourself be one instance.  
Let John Osgood, William Mead, Roberts, be other instances; whose houses are large, furnished richly with Plate, and Tables with Provisions. I blame neither them nor you for living suitably to your Estates: But certainly, set those baubles of ribbons, &c. aside, you are not guilty of much self-denial in your bodily accommodations, which is a thing you so much pretend to above others.  
I had like to have let slip a passage of your Creed, which you boult out, not very like the Doctrine of the Gospel; viz. And this I affirm, That all these 
●ge 15.  endeavours many vigorously employ to vilify an inward Principle, and dissuade persons from believing in it, waiting upon it, and being guided by it, center in the rankest Atheism. How now Mr. pen! Is this a time for you to profess faith in an inward Principle? Is it the truest Creed that renders Faith to be an inward Principle, and the Object to be without, and above us? or that which makes somewhat within to be its Object. farewell then the Jesus that died at Jerusalem, and all your disguising pretences of owning him; for surely he is not so far metamorphosed, as to become a Principle within you. What should we expect of a Leper, but the breakings out of his Disease, yea, when he is most deeply engaged in defending his cleanness?  
In the next place, you say your pleasure of those words, wherein they recommend my Book; viz. Wherein the Quakers Principles are more thoroughly 
●ebuke, ●. 16.  investigated, than in any Book which we have seen. And we judge it for matter, proof, and style, to be especially useful for those who need, or desire Information concerning the Quakers, and their Principles.  
Upon these words you trumpet your Triumphs before the battle, and would have it taken for granted upon your word, that the Divines have given you the h●lt, and themselves the point of the sword at their own breasts: Had we no other Weapon( say you) this were enough to wound your cause incurably. But let us see what your Cockle-shel Triumph comes to. Your first is, He hath laid down about twenty Principles in the Quakers name, eighteen of which are not only none of theirs, as so expressed, but not so much as by Consequence.  
You have said it, and that is all. You said near as much once before, and attempted the proof by 
page. 6.  only a single instance; wherein you so far failed, as not to give any Principle of yours, as it was laid down by me, but somewhat of your own in its stead; and as being conscious of your own guilt, you give neither page. nor Chapter where it might be found; which was as much as to say, if you would have me prove these to be his words, you may go look( for me) where to find them. But now, as if you suspected before the hard-hap your first attempt would meet with, you hid your head altogether, and suffer not one of the eighteen Principles( you say I have wronged you in charging upon you) to come into sight.  
I commend your prudence now, in leaving the proof to the more Authority of your denial, and reflections upon those who will not afford it credence. But let us hear you: That they are none of ours, it 
page. 17.  is enough we say so, unless our Faith is not to be taken at our mouths, but at our Adversaries: He that tells me, I believe that which I do not believe, is either foolish or dishonest; and his Confutation is not of me, but of himself. That they are not our Principles by Consequence, I have abundantly proved, both in my 
Ibid  Answer and rejoinder.  
But what if this fine Harangue be proved both foolish and false, yea, and dishonest too; Have you not forfeited your credit? That your case is no better, I shall demonstrate so plainly, that common Reason and Sense will be my Compurgators. That your Faith is not( alway) to be taken at your own mouths is apparent; not only from your denying at one time what you profess vehemently at another( which I have already evinced) but also from your industrious hiding your Principles from such, who you believe will have no very good thoughts of them. What means that rude dealing of E. burrow with the sober Querist, who desired to be informed from his own mouth, what his Principles were in these, and such-like Questions?  
Whether the Word was made Flesh more, or oftener than once?  
To this( instead of better Satisfaction) he returns 
●urrough. ●orks in ●l. p. 29, ●0.  railing, and calls him Reprobate, Child of Darkness, of a dark polluted Mind, a stranger to the Life, without God in the World, the Light condemns thee, and all thy Generation eternally, thou art Darkness itself, in the Sorcery and Witchcraft, thou Dragon, thou the Dragon, thou hast conjured up thy Queries in the Black-Art, out of the bottonles Pit.  
The second Query was Whether did the man Christ slain( in respect of God's Decree and Efficacy) from the Foundation of the World, really and indeed suffer death, as upon the across at Jerusalem, more or oftener than once?  
Take his Reply to this entire( for the first I gave it you before, and therefore spared to repeat the whole) as follows: In this Query thou Diviner art 
●d. in eod. ●. 30.  found adding to the Scriptures, the Divination of thine own brain, whereupon the plagues of God are to be added to thee, O thou liar! Where doth the Scriptures speak as thou speaks here? But in the Light thou art seen, and art for the Condemnation. The man Christ we own, and witness, and the Lambs Book of Life, which was slain from the Foundation of the World: We witness the Lamb of God, and thee to be the Beast that makes war with the Lamb; and thou Antichrist, which looks at Christ's death at Jerusalem alone: So let all thy Congregation see what they hold up that follows thee.  
What think you of this? have we not great encouragement to expect an honest, plain account of your Principles at your own mouths, upon our most serious enquiry? Think not to put us off, and excuse this impertinent raving-way of Reply, by telling us, That they are Trepanning Questions; for so you will call any that we are capable of framing for your discovery. I shall add no more of Burroughs here; his Replies to the other Eighteen Questions are of the same make. And Burroughs( after all his Rant and Railing) concludes, Thy 
Burroug● Works in fol. p. 34.  Queries are answered lovingly and plainly, and in the Scripture-Language and Terms; and with the eternal Light of God, set thee in thine own place, which thou shalt eternally witness. I believe my Reader will have no very good thoughts of your loving, plain Answers about your Principles.  
I shall now produce out of W. P's own Writings, your great plainness to have your Tenets and way understood by us. You say upon the occasion 
Penn's rejoinder to Faldo. p. 177.  of my obtaining your Resolves for Discipline, If such inoffensive, nay Christian and necessary Resolves for the right disciplining the Church of Christ in the ways of Peace and Righteousness, cannot escape John Faldo's cruel hands, instead of rendering us Papists, I shall not wonder, if from a Non-conforming Priest, he turns a Spanish Inquisitor, or any thing else that can be worse. By this it appears, that for all the good Characters you give of your Resolves for Discipline, you would have them by all means escape my hands; and it grieves and angers you at the heart, that they cannot escape my Inquisition.  
George Whitehead( as I have said before) could not with much importunity be brought to declare the Quakers Principle about the Resurrection of the dead. But at length he professed, He did not believe that his body should rise again. Yet this 
●enn's ●nsw to ●ldo, p. ●00.  extorted Confession you would have licked up again, and imply in your Answer to me, that it slipped out of his mouth at unawares. But to conclude, your great James Naylor hath sealed up your mouths, from an honest liberty to vent your minds to us, and that under a Curse: But the Mystery( saith he) 
●amess ●aylor's ●ove to and lost, p. ●9.  is sealed with the sons of God, nor can any ever know with what bodies they shall arise; but who comes to the flesh of Christ, and discerns his body, the sight whereof in the life slays the Serpent, and opens the Mystery. Till then, cursed is he that reveals that which God hath sealed up, and hidden from the Serpents wisdom.  
Here I have abounded with evidence, that your Faith is not by us to be sought at your own mouths; and that it is neither foolish nor dishonest to tell you, that you do believe that which you say you do not believe, and that my Confutation is of you, not of my self. And if you ask me how I come to know your hearts, if not at your mouths? I let you know, that I have it especially from your Writings; which were designed either for your own party, or for such Ignorants among others, who finding the great words, The Light, Life, Power, Manifestations, Measures of Christ, &c. think all the rest must needs be very good. And for all your Contradictions, I have in my Writings laid down your Principles in your own words; and aver nothing, but what I give my ground for in the same words to a syllable, which I find in your owned Authors.  
I am now come to the main push; where you 
P's Reb. &c. p. 17●  say, I will produce you ten Instances of notorious perversions, any one of which were unworthy of such poor Heathen as ye think us to be. I am very unwilling to tell you in plain terms, that you make no more Conscience of telling untruths, than the veriest Rake-hell, whose time is divided betwixt Cursing, Swearing, Drunkenness, and such reproachful Vices; or that your untruths have no cover but Confidence, which renders your heart hardened from the fear of God. But if a virulent Accusation of your Adversary will condemn him, and clear you, the present day's your own, and we must languish till the Day of judgement, under your unjust prevalency. Yet, blessed be the Lord, my Integrity will find an evidence in your very Tests of my faultiness.  
I expected, after such huge Criminations, that when you came to proof and instances, somewhat would have been offered at ( at least) to prove me an Irreverent Abuser of God, and the Christian Religion, 
Id. in eod. p. 8.  which you stoutly charged upon me; or that I had forged matters, and given them as your words, which yet were but my own invention. If you had found such a Crime in my Writings, it were as easy to be proved, as reading English. But behold, a few pretended Perversions, or false Consequences; all which will prove to be Will. P's Perversions, and worse too. In the Vindication of the Divines and myself from your Accusations, I shall distinguish your part from mine, by the titles of W. P's Accusation, and J. F's. Vindication, and dispose of your Quotations and mine in the margin respectively.   

1. William Penn's Accusation.  
JOhn Faldo affirms, That W. Smith had not one 
p. 17.  Exhortation to red the Scriptures. Nay, that the main design of the Book was to deny them, and 
●●k. no ●rist. p. ●.  throw dirt upon them; Yet J. F. cites him concerning the Scripture thus:  Child. 
Then the Scriptures are to be owned and believed, 
●y Answ. 42.  &c.  Father. 
Yes, they are to be owned and believed, and they that do not so are to be denied.  observe. 
Can any thing be more inconsistent than 
●ejoynd. ● 60, 61, ●.  your Reverend Author? Is it this sort of proof you commend? Can you think this the way to convert such Infidels as you deem us to be?   

John Faldo's Vindication.  
ALthough I knew your Accusations to be false at first view, yet I little expected so careless a management of them by you; for the more defective the cause itself is of honesty, the more need. it stands in of all other possible supports. But both in matter and manner you seem to be desperate. If it come to a Test, all your wit cannot make so bad a cause appear good: But if it never come to a trial, it will pass, though in all respects very bad.  
I consulted the page. and Book which your Quotation directed me to, but the words are not there. I examined both Impressions, and also my VINDICATION( supposing you might name one of my Books instead of another) and in page. 45. of either of them, there are no such words. And indeed I know not where to find them; and it cannot be supposed that I have all I writ by root. 'Tis an ill Omen of your success, to have such a flaw in your first attempt; and I might very fairly on this ground( if I had been guilty) have given you the go-by, and yet stood rectus in curia. But Truth needs no such shifts; I therefore say I do believe, that( for the substance) there are those words in some one of my Books, and I suppose in my Vindication of Quakerism no Christianity.  
For my Citation which you say is so inconsistent with those words, you direct your Reader to find it in your Answer, p. 42. which when looked into, the Reader must seek somewhere else, or never find it. You direct also to your rejoinder, p. 60, 61, 62. but you may as soon find it in your almanac, as in any of these places, or in any of my Books: But had it been fair, if this troublesone fault had not been committed by you, to direct your Reader to your Books, and not my own, to see what I cited, and how consistent I was with myself? If my Arguments must be red with your Spectacles, to be sure they will be found very cracked ones: And here as you have repeated my Citation, there is unpardonable Treachery.  
After much search, I find the Citation not in any of my Books, but in a single open sheet, entitled, A CURB FOR WILL. PENN'S CONFIDENCE, p. 3. which it may be did so gull you, that you hated to repeat the very name of it. The Citation was of these words; Child. Then the Scriptures are to be owned and believed:( thus far you repeat my proof, but let drop 
●ith's ●immer, 11.  all these following words in the Question, which explains the Answer) as a true Testimony of what the Saints were partakers of in that day.  
Is not here a large Thong cut out of my Argument, to make it too scanty for its end? What building can stand, if so much of the foundation be stolen away? But this only can do your work; and therefore you repeat the same crime in the Answer to this Question: Father. Yes, they are to be owned and believed; and they that do not so, are to be denied:( Here you stop, and leave out these words following) But thou must take heed Child of giving more unto the Scripture, than unto them belongs, lest in so doing, thou diminish from the glory of Christ;( i.e. The Light within) and give it to another. And if thou lookest upon the Scripture to be for a Rule, and for trying, thou givest that unto them, which belongs to Christ; for he is the Rule, and leads his people, and he alone searches the heart, and tries the reins, and not the Scriptures.  
Now Mr. pen, Whether are my Rationals, or your honesty of better proof? And to turn your Arrows upon your own head: Can any thing be more consistent? Is it this sort of proof which is to be condemned? It is this treacherous course you take to pervert persons into, and harden them in Infidelity. Moreover, these passages were not in the Book to which the Ministers affixed their Epistle; and therefore your Accusation is as impertinent as false.  
Your passage of Smith's of the service the Scriptures are of unto those that have received the same spirit from whom they were given, is no more an Exhortation to red them, than it is to attend to an Ass, according to Naylor before cited: For by the same Spirit, you intend no other than that Inspiration of the Spirit, by which the Prophets and Apostles received them. And if any thing be so inspired, whether it be in the Scripture or not, 'tis all one.   

William Penn's Accusation. 2.  
MY second Instance shall be this, that he maketh W. Smith call the Scriptures Traditions of 
P's. Rebu. p. 18. Quaker no Christ. p. 117, 119.  men, Earthly-root, Darkness, Confusion, Corruption, all out of the Life and Power of God; which he only ascribed to degenerated men, their Worship, Imaginations, and Traditions. Shall this be called a Proof? doubtless a proof of nothing, but that hateful sort of Perversion.   

John Faldo's Vindication.  
FIrst of all, I must tell you, that you abuse me, by making me to affirm that to be said of the Scriptures only, which I said was spoken of the Scriptures, and the Doctrines from thence received: And my words were these; Of vilifying and reproach to the Scriptures, and the Doctrines from 
Quaker. no Chr. p. 119.  thence received.  
You may remember, that in my VINDICATION, &c. to which you rejoined, I  told you 
Vindicat. of quake. no Chri. p. 45.  concerning this very Accusation, That if pen dare give me a meeting with impartial Judges, I will( if God permit) produce the Book, and prove it to his face. But this offer you never yet accepted.  
Yet, for my Readers satisfaction, I shall give him this large account in the words of the Quaker-Author whom you would vindicate. But who 
●orning●atch, ●. 16.  knows not him to be come that is true, they are not in the Saints life: So runs into their words, and gets their words, and sows them together, and makes themselves coverings; but abides in the Darkness, and brings forth that which is false, then searches the Scripture for words to prove their Image a lawful Son: And this is the bottom and foundation of all Religions this day, centring in the Letter, and running thither for shelter; but are all from the Life, &c.  
And knows not the Life of Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles; but stands clothed and decked with their words, and there seem to be something, and to stand above others in their show of godliness, and willworship, but knows not the Life revealed: So their 
Id. p 21.  strength lies in the Letter, and what the Saints have declared, who were in the Power of God redeemed.— And this is but the same which all will acknowledge in words, and differs nothing in the ground from the Faith of those they are separated from; but branches forth of the same root, and all their practise springs out of the same ground, and is the Harlots Child, though dressed with a fairer covering.  
And what was by the Saints given forth, and appears in Writing without them, that their life is in, and that they contend about: And all strives to set 
Id. p. 22, 23  up their own Conceivings, and teach for Doctrines mens Traditions; and mind not the measure of God in themselves, but stretch beyond it in the Comprehension, and run into other mens lines and labours, and are all upon the earthly root, and in Darkness and Confusion in their practise and Worship.  
To this is added in the same page., and applied, all those execrable Names which I repeated in QUAKERISM NO CHRISTIANITY.  
His Conclusion of this part of his Book begins thus: So all watch to the morning, that the day may 
Ib. p. 24.  break upon you, and the Light shine out of Darkness in you, that your eye may look into the glass of Righteousness, the pure Light of Christ in your own Consciences. I shall add but one instance more out of the same Book, which will render my Vindication down-weight.  
So amongst the words you find how the Saints in some things walked, and what they practised; and then you strive to make that thing to yourselves, and to observe it, and do it, as near as you can. And 
Morning-Watch, p. 45.  here you are found Transgressors of the just Law of God, which saith, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved Image, nor the likeness of any thing. Now what difference is there in the ground betwixt you and the Pope, though in the appearance there seem so great a space?  
By these Citations you may observe, that his scope is to decry the Scriptures as our Rule, and what Doctrines have their foundation in them. Charging those with Idolatry, who set up the Scriptures as their Rule; pretending that it is a placing them in the room of the Light within: And although he allows a great difference between us and the Pope, yet we come all under the same Condemnation, because we are the same in the ground of our Profession( as he speaks) which is, a not-being-guided by the Inspirations of the Light within, but pretending( at least) to the Scriptures.   

William Penn's Accusation. 3.  
THat the Quakers understand by knowledge according to the flesh, the use of the understanding, 
●uaker. no ●hri. p. 41.  though sanctified, which is also a gross abuse both of our words and sense.   

John Faldo's Vindication.  
ONe would think that so thundering a Charge as W. P's, would have produced out of so many thousand passages as were in my Book, far greater crimes than these ten you have pitched on; some of which are about your meanings of words. And no man will doubt, but that you were resolved( in such a Piece as yours) to detect the worst of mine. Herein you highly commend my Book, whose Reports of my travels into your so unknown a Land, shall be guilty of no greater mistakes. Yet those you pretend to be such gross ones, will be proved none at all.  
You yourself call the understanding of such who are unregenerate( in your sense) a ravening Comprehending 
P's Sp. of true. p. 23.  Brain— fleshly Comprehensions. But who are your unregenerate persons? Verily all such as give not themselves up to the conduct of the Light within; or in your words, who do not come into the daily obedience of the Light, and there rest contented to know only as they experience. Now unless you can prove, that no man's understanding, except a Quakers or Enthusiasts, is sanctified, you intend their understandings to be fleshly understandings, which yet are really sanctified: For many have their understandings sanctified, who are neither Quakers nor Enthusiasts.   

William Penn's Accusation. 4.  
THat 1. Pennington should call visible Worship, 
Vindic: p. 50.  as such, the City of Abomination. This is a down-right Forgery, and your praise of his proofs makes you Accessaries, look on it as you will.   

John Faldo's Vindication.  
LEt those worthy Divines look on it as they ought, and will; that is, compare your Accusation with the Book and page. you quote, and they will find you the Forger, even in those words wherein you pretend me to be guilty of Forgery. If you can find the words Visible Worship, as such, among my words, I will never trust my eyes more. There are indeed those words in the next page., but they are your words which I cited out of your answer, and not mine. But if I were to make proof that you hold visible Worship( as such) to be an error, your admired George Fox would bring me off clear; for 
Fox. Myst● &c. p. 65.  he saith, Paul brought the Saints off from the things that are seen, and Water is seen and its Baptism. Now if things that are seen, are not visible, I have failed; if they are, Fox saith, that Paul brought the Saints off from them, and by Consequence from Baptism by water.  
Indeed such virulent fashoods, and confident slanders being made apparent, will very much praise the Book, but much more dispraise you. Look on it how you will, God and good men will abhor your doings.   

William Penn's Accusation. 5.  
THat by Traditions of men, we understand the Scriptures, or written Word; a base abuse of our 
●aker. Christ. ●rt 3. p.  words!   

John Faldo's Vindication.  
WHat I said, I will prove out of the Writings of W. Smith: Have you felt his Power( saith he) to take away your sin? If yea, then why do you 
●orning-●atch, p. ●  teach for Doctrines mens Traditions? and build upon other mens Labours, and stretch yourselves beyond your own Measures, running into the Lines of what others have written?  
Although all that are acquainted with the Quakers phrasifying, will no more question the words Traditions of men, in this place, to be understood of the Writings of the Pen-men of the Scripture, than that two and two make four: Yet I shall give farther evidence of it, out of your own words; viz. Whereas J. F. runs back two or three thousand years 
●'s Re●ynder to ●aldo, p. ●65.  a pilferring for his Hackney Sermons, out of them[ the Prophets words] which are so well known to be other mens lines and labours. Smith explains mens Traditions, by other mens Labours, and Lines, and Writings: And you tell us, that the Prophets words( and a little after the Bible) are other mens Lines, and Labours. But if we consider this passage of mens Traditions, &c. to be out of the same Book and Author, from whom I quoted such contemptuous passages against the written Word upon my Second Vindication a little before, there will be no room left for doubting to the Intelligent, though they are unlearned in the Quakers double Tongue.   

William Penn's Accusation. 6.  
THat the Quakers mean by the Veil that is over 
Quaker. Chr. p. 8●  people, their belief of the man Christ Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, to be now existing in Heaven. An Impiety of his own inventing, and your approving!   

John Faldo's Vindication.  
YOu are still in the meanings of words, which if I should have mistaken, were no great Crime, seeing we have no Dictionary wherein you expressly tell us, what the meanings of your new-coined phrases, and new-meanings of old ones are. But it seems I am as able to make one as any of you, seeing that of about three hundred words and phrases of yours, which had peculiar meanings of your own, whose meanings I gave, your chief Objections are against these three, and yet without cause. Why did you not charge me here with forging words, and fathering them upon you? or pretending those Citations of mine to be in your Books, which were not there? This had been of some weight, and easily discovered. But this you dare not attempt, and without it all my Charges stand firm; and I have 
P's Reb. &c. p. 6.  your word for it, who say, Since the strength of the Book depends upon Testimonies out of our Writings. But seeing I must combat your trifling Forces, or you will brag of the Victory, I shall clear myself of the falsity of this meaning also.  
I have found the meaning I gave of, The Veil is over them; and have also found you very unfaithful in your report of it. I beg of my Reader to compare our Reports in this, and all others which are within his reach, that he may be able to determine on whose part faithfulness lies. My words are these to a syllable: The belief of the man Christ 
●ak. no ●r. impr. ●. p. 324.  Jesus, which was of our nature, to be the Christ; and now existing in Heaven, in that body of flesh of our Nature, which he took of the Virgin Mary.  
Thus was I bound to word it, to express the human Nature of the true Christ, distinctly from your fallacies: For you fancy a man Christ Jesus, flesh, blood, and bones to be in you; yea, and who was born of the Virgin; yea, that Heaven is within you; and so your man Christ in your Heaven, is quiter another thing than ours.  
That the meaning I gave is genuine, your own words shall prove, The phrase you deny not; Because 
●. Penn's ●ejoynder Faldo, 309. ( say you) the Apostle Paul desired not thenceforth to know Christ after the flesh, but spiritually as he was the Son of God revealed in himself. It is but a more blind, for you to construe this saying of yours to intend a fleshly knowledge, for that is the quality of the Faculty, or its Act; for you intend it of the flesh, or body of Christ as the Object. And you bring in this Argument, among others, to back a saying of J. Pennington's, and another of yours; which were these, This we certainly know, and can 
●'s Rejoy. ● Faldo, ● 296.  never call the bodily Garment Christ, but that which appeared and dwelled in the body. This is Pennington's. But say you, In short, Christ qualified that body for his service, but that body did not constitute 
●d in eo●. ●. 300.  Christ. He is invisible, and ever was so to the ungodly World.  
All this I produce, to give light to your sense, in what I shall produce farther out of the same Chapter, and relating to the same subject.  
In your seventh Reason, So must all know a death 
Id. p. 3●  to their fleshly ways, and Religion, yea, their knowledge of Christ himself after the flesh, or they stick in the veil. You proceed in your eighth Reason, And these who at this day do feed upon the history of the bodily appearance( yet honourable in its place) and know not a breaking through the veil by witnessing a measure of the same Divine Wisdom, Power, Righteousness, Grace and Truth, revealed and born forth in themselves, they are but carnal and fleshly Christians. Here is enough and to spare for the proof of the meaning I gave of your phrase, The veil is over them. I shall be shorter in the rest.   

William Penn's Accusation. 7.  
FRom W. Smith's saying, That the present practise 
Quaker. n● Christian● p. 163.  of the Sacraments, as baptizing with a across, and counting the Bread and Wine the Flesh and Blood of Christ, arise from the Popes invention; you in the person of John Faldo give out, that W. Smith calls the Lords Supper the Popes invention. At this rate, what will your testimony be worth? Little certainly, with such as know good coin from bad.   

John Faldo's Vindication.  
IF what you here report Smith to say be scanned, neither he nor you can be guiltless; for there is not a greater opposition in any thing betwixt the Pope and us, than about the sense of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament being the Body and Blood of Christ. But what you say; scil. That I conclude that W. Smith calls them the Popes Invention from the words you offer, is a great untruth: For first, I do not city divers of them. And secondly, Smith saith in so many words, They arose from the Popes Invention. And for my Readers satisfaction, I will recite him out of his own Book, where I quoted him: And it will appear, that he said it of both the matter, and our use of it.  
Child. I would fain know how it is concerning 
●ith's ●immer, 163.  those things called Ordinances; as, Baptism, and Bread and Wine, which are mucb used in their Worship?  
Father. Why Child, as to those things, they rose from the Popes Invention, who hath had power in the night of apostasy, and hath set up his devices, which are yet continued in England. Where was your fear of God when you wrote this slander?   

William Penn's Accusation. 8.  
FRom Edw. 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 
●indicat. ●. 75. to p. ●7.  Soul to be God: As if that had been said of the Soul, which was said of the Light of Christ shining in the Soul, or that they were Synonimous. What cannot a man of skill in this Black-Art do? yet this is your own Reverend Author, who for his proof against the Quakers, is not a little in your Books.   

John Faldo's Vindication.  
THis is as like the rest of your slanders, as the Child of their Father. You make my Consequence from Burrough's words to take up 12 pages. In looking for matter relating to Burrough's words, according to your Quotation, I almost despaired of finding any: At length I found somewhat in p. 80. and all I said to it, took up not eight lines. And you leave out a material part of the Citation( for you use not to be guilty of but one fault;) viz. Even as good as the Spirit of Christ.  
I shall give a better, and truer account of my reasoning, which will prove you an unworthy Traducer: Burrough's words, as cited, and as you recite 
P's Answ to Faldo, p. 194.  them in your Answer, were these to a letter: Every man has that which is one in union, and like the Spirit of Christ; even as good as the Spirit of Christ, according to its measure. Now I will repeat my Conclusion both from Burrough's words and yours in my VINDICATION, which your Quotation saith took up twelve pages: If( said I) what 
Fald. Vin● of quake. no Christ. p. 86.  every man has, be as good in kind as the Spirit of Christ( which he [ Pen] confesseth) it must be God; for there is nothing so good in kind as the Spirit of Christ, which is God, but God himself. But by its measure, pen will have, 'Tis as good, but not so great, or so much as the Spirit of God.  
Here is not a word of the Light of Christ in my Citation, nor of the Soul in my Conclusion.  
Whether yours or mine be the Black-Art, let all sober men judge. It is not such revilings, and weak( though Confident) slanders, will make those Reverend Divines you traduce and scorn, ashamed to own their Author's proofs against you.   

William Penn's Accusation. 9.  
BEcause G. F. rejected that Carnal Notion, that 
quake. no ●hrist. p. ● 10.  confines the Infinite, Omnipresent God, to a residence only above the Stars; he makes no difficulty of inferring, That we deny the human nature of Christ. As absurd as base!   

John Faldo's Vindication.  
I Find you as tardy in this, as any man can wish, who must prove you a Deluder, or abide under the burden you load me withal. There is not one word of the human Nature of Christ in both those pages; nor do I attempt to prove your denying it, till Chap. 16. which is near 200 pages off. I find indeed these words of G. Fox's, cited p. 10. Your imagined God beyond the Stars. But I infer from thence in that place, your Blasphemy, and that is all. And in Chap. 16. I have produced such, and so many proofs of your denying the human Nature of Christ, as you will never clear yourselves of, till you repent, and change your Religion.   

William Penn's Accusation. 10.  
FRom our affirming, that such a kind of reading of 
quake. no Christ. p. 190.  Scriptures as the Pharisees used, and to those ends, makes men harder to be wrought on to true Conversion, than the Heathen: John Faldo infers, That reading the Scriptures, and getting knowledge thence, puts men into a worse condition than the Heathen; and that there is scarcely any thing more dangerous, than reading the Scripture. Yea, he accuses us of charging the miscarriages of mens souls on the knowledge the Scripture by God's blessing doth convey.   

John Faldo's Vindication.  
I Have sought for the matter of your Charge where you direct me: But in the first Impression there is no page. signed with 190, because the figures begin at the several parts. In the last Impression, page. 190 I find, but no more of the matter you charge me with, than is on the back-side of the Book. Do you not by such shifts as these, design to burrow your Falshoods from Discovery; and to tyre me with following an — used to the Wilderness? I greatly suspect it.   

I might fairly upon these accounts have declined farther notice of many of your Charges but Truth and Evidence takes pleasure in a trial. After 
Quaker. no Chr. impr. ult. p. 102.  much search, I find somewhat of it in my ninth Chapter. Let us now compare notes, and behold your Justice.  
What I inferred, was from these words; Making him wise and able there[ in his head] to oppose Truth, and so bringing him into a state of Condemnation, Wrath, and Misery beyond the Heathen; and making him harder to be wrought upon by the Light and Power of Truth, than the very Heathen.  
But will not your Reader think you out of your honesty, or me out of my wits, in reading what you say I infer from the Quakers words? viz. That reading the Scriptures, and getting knowledge thence, puts men into a condition worse than the Heathen, &c. No such matter: But I conclude, If it be so as the Quaker-Author saith, then I scarce know what is more dangerous than reading the Scripture; and this is every word of my Conclusion.  
But suppose I should take your word, that the Quaker spake it of reading the Scriptures as the Pharisees used, and to those ends; What shelter from the storm will it afford you? This is but a common trick you have to hid your sense from the Reader, unacquainted with your sense of your words; for all that you intend by it, is but such a reading as depends not upon Apostolical Inspiration, or rather the Conduct of your Light within. And so we all red as the Pharisees used.  
Yet that I may not make an empty sound without proof of its truth, I will demonstrate out of the most Learned Author that ever was yet a Quaker, how you understand the manner and ends of the Scribes, or Pharisees( which are all one in the case) reading the Scriptures.  
And( saith he) to such wise Sayers and Knowers 
Fisher Re●ata quae●dam Rev. p. 6.  as these( and such were the Scribes) who were ever scraping in the Scriptures to find God and his Life, yet never knew him at any time, nor saw his shape, because they heard not his voice, nor headed his Word in themselves, John 5. 37.] What think you, or rather what will my Reader think of this? For the manner and frequency of reading the Scriptures as the Scribes, is to be ever scraping in the Scriptures. A most scornful phrase! Their ends were to find God and his Life: Is this the end that makes reading them so mischievous? But the Reason he gives why they missed of their end is, because they heard not his voice, nor headed his Word in themselves; that is, they headed not your Christ, the Light within.  
Now if you allow Fisher's Explanation of the Scribes or Pharisees reading the Scriptures( which you dare no more to contradict, in so many words, than the Bible) you yourself affirm, that our reading the Scriptures makes us harder to be wrought o● to true Conversion than the Heathen. And it is o●● mercy that they do so, if we take true Conversion in your sense; for they preserve us( by the Grace of God) from turning QUAKERS.  
And now let the sober Reader judge, if my inference be not as clear as Sun-beams, and somewhat illustrated by what you say to mend your sense. Thus by the good-hand of the Lord upon me, I have wiped off all the dirt your utmost virulency and cunning could throw upon my Book, and thereby upon those Reverend Divines for their Recommendation of it.  
Let us now see what bold Reflections you make from such a heap of bold Untruths and Forgeries. Behold( say you) at what a rate your Reverend Author 
P's Rebuk●. p. 19.  hath investigated our Principles! you have said truly, in saying he did it thoroughly; for he hath scarcely touched any thing, that he hath not thoroughly abused: Yet this is the man whose attempts, so obnoxious as you see, you have adventured to commend. You say, you judge it( among other things) for the PROOF of it, to be especially useful for those who desire information concerning the Quakers, and their Principles. That ever men of your Age, Experience and Reputation, should precipitate themselves into any thing so foul and scandalous: Can you believe this is imitating of God, and being just to the Quakers? I hope your condition is not yet so dangerous.  
Have you your Peer for Confidence, and no Conscience, who can reflect in this manner upon so many persons of Worth and Integrity, from the slanders and untruths of your own devising? Certainly you have hereby deserved to be remarked for the most abusive Impostor that hath pretended to Christianity. At this rate you manage your controversy against me in all your Writings. I doubt not but all judicious men will take your behaviour to be a sufficient discharge to me, or any other, from considering or regarding what you say or writ. You take a course not only to destroy Religious true Principles, but all civil Converse: For if the highest Pretences and Protestations of Sincerity, shall be found but the cover of Falseness; and Truth and Honesty trampled under foot by those who cloth their Assertions with them, whom shall we believe? to what shall we trust? The Lord discover both you, and your Principles, whose hateful Properties, need such kind of falsities for their Refuge.  
You are pleased to tell me( according to the 
P's Reb. ●. 22.  usual violence of your phrasifying) that I most horribly abuse you, in saying, you pretend all your Ministers to be infallible: And you explicate yourself thus, We ascribe not an infallibility to men, but to the Grace of God; and to men, so far as they are lead by it; for that it certainly teacheth what it doth teach.  
But if this Charge against you be true, and your 
P's Answ. ●. 36, 43.  Defence but a shuffle; have you not horribly prevaricated? How often have you scornfully thrown in my teeth, This is your fallible, errable John Faldo! This fallible, errable Priest! Did you intend this of my person, or not? Surely you intended it of the man John Faldo. But if you ascribe not infallibility to any man, why do you make my Fallibility my Reproach?  
Let us hear your greatest Oracle in the case: Now he that is not infallible in his counsel, and judgement, 
Fox's mist. p●  and advice, is not be in error? And are not the Ministers of Christ, the Ministers of the Spirit?— And are they Ministers of Christ that are fallible? Again, How can ye be Ministers of the Spirit, and 
page. 82  not of the Letter, if ye be not infallible? And how can they but delude people, who are not infallible?  
What can be said more, unless you will allow that your Ministers are not men, or women, or not Ministers of the Spirit, and that they delude people? Which two last, though certainly true, you will hardly aclowledge. Doth Fox speak this to and of the Grace of God? No sure, 'tis to and of the men and women whom you call your Ministers. You show ignorance enough, in ascribing Infallibility to the Grace of God, it not being an intelligent Subject. But such faults may pass, without much notice, in the crowd of your far greater.  
The remaining part of your Piece is mostly taken up in raking into old matters, and removing the Grave-stone under which the Kings Favour and Wisdom had butted them in perpetual Oblivion: But as your design therein is no symptom of your meek and innocent temper; so I shall not serve your humour with a wind, by taking farther notice of your Provocations therein.  
The Worthy Divines are far from Culpable, in advising against undue Separation. That it is an evil in itself, and mischievous in its consequence, is a matter of no great doubt; who they are, or who they have been, that lie under the guilt of it, is sub Judice: But of all others, we shall not expect its Determination from a Quaker; whose estimate of all beside THE FRIENDS, is, that they are no Christians, and so in the greatest incapacity for Christian-Communion: The consideration of which might render it no very hard and strange measure, that we should esteem you unworthy of that name, having such grounds for so doing.  
You often cry out against our uncharitable Censures, as if there were no such things in the World as the evils you are charged with. The Grace, or the virtue either of Charity is no such blind thing, as to shut its eyes against the clearest evidences of Guilt; or to call poison by lovely names, that persons might not abhor to be tampering with it; or discern the difference between the things that accompany Salvation, and those which shut the Gate of Heaven, and the favour of God against the souls of men.  
It would be a token of Insolency, as well as Ignorance, for Malefactors convicted by the clearest Evidence, to cry out, O your Charity! Is this your Charity! when they are justly censured. If this were a good Plea against all Accusations; it were a merry World with the greatest Offenders, who would have an easy remedy against those sufferings, which alone( with them) can secure others from their injuries.  
At special Grace you scoff, in a pretended favour of Morality. If you were qualified with either, 
●'s Reb. ●. 12.  you were by far a better man than you are. I cannot take Pride, Lying, Dissembling, Revenge, Deluding, Slandering, Immodesty, to be the Symptoms of the one or the other. You have little to show for your Morality, except your preferring it before special Grace, by an undue Commendation. If to be possessed of such a good thing, were but to talk on its behalf, many would be enriched with it, who have scarce a rag of it to show.  
I suppose your design herein was, to carry favour with some who have of late vented things of that nature, as bespeak themselves to be none of the Ornaments of the Church they pretend to. But while you seem to hug Morality, your Kindness for it is as deceitful, as for the Christian Principles you in words embrace.  
Though Morality is a word, whose sense is hardly defined, yet 'tis generally understood to be, what is within the reach of the light and powers of Nature, without the Auxiliaries of Divine Revelation, and special assistance of the Spirit of Grace. But that Light which you say is in every man and by which, and whose powers only, they ought( as you say) to be informed and moved, you abhor to call a Natural Light, or that which is less than a Divine and increated thing. You hold it to be at such a distance from human Reason, that wherever it rules, Reasonings have no place. So that here you and your Moralists, and your Morality too, must part to as great a distance, as human Reason is from the highest Enthusiasm.  
The truth is, your fawnings on Persons or Principles( except your own) are as treacherous, as your Invectives are virulent. You flatter a Worthy Person, whose Learning and Discretion you magnify, 
page. 28.  because he was not of the number of the One and twenty Divines: Yet while you kiss him, you betray him, by fastening a Sentence on him as its Author, not very grateful to the Church of England. Perhaps you intended to smite him under the fifth rib, for applying to the Quakers so roundly( in his late Sermons) the Contents of that dreadful Text, Heb. 6. 6. If they shall fall away, to renew them again to Repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shane.  
The close of your Pamphlet, is a magnifying the 
●eb. p. 31.  Universal Principle in the Conscience, or Light within, and ascribing to it those things, which are only applicable to the Spirit, or Christ of God. This is your Alpha and Omega, the sum and substance of your Gospel; according to the saying of your beloved W. Smith, And this is the end of our Doctrine, 
●atechis. ● 95.  to bring people to the everlasting Word of God in themselves; or a Christ within, which is all one with you.  
I must not let your Postscript pass without a Censure, which is very fit to be the tail of your Book, it being as plain and evident a tale, as you could likely utter.  
As for his Appendix( say you) it is an arrant cheat, obtruded on the Reader. These are hard words, and a very unfriendly parting. But 'tis a comfort when yourself bring the Antidote so near the poison, in the Reason you give for your Rashness: The Title-page( you say) bespeaks it a new Piece, when it is no other in the matter, and for a great part of the words of it, than what hath been answered by me again and again; 1. Two Letters of our Friends, &c.  
That the Title-page bespeaks it new, any farther than every Title-page bespeaks the matter of the Book it relates to new, is untrue; and that the matter of it is no other but what you have answered, is as false.  
You do not honour your Creed, by showing so much displeasure at its Repetition( if it were such.) But for the words being a great part the same you have answered; you might as well say the Letters are the same of which the Words are composed, and you had confuted the Alphabet. Away with this vanity!  
You say, you have justified the two Letters: The more is your shane. Tell me, if you can; what one passage in all the Books which I have cited Testimonies out of, which you have not justified? or at least, which you have condemned as guilty of Infirmity, though they are stuffed with Blasphemy, as well as error. I shall here repeat one of your justified Letters to G. Fox, because this may fall into the hands of some, who may not meet with it elsewhere.  
DEar George Fox, Who art the Father of many Nations, whose Life hath reached through us thy Children, even to the Isles afar off; to the begetting of many again to a lively Hope, for which Generations to come shall call thee Blessed; whose Being and Habitation is in the Power of the Highest, in which thou Rules and Governs in Righteousness: And thy Kingdom is established in Peace, and the increase thereof is without end.  
Josiah Coal.  
Now let others, who are yet in their wits judge, how just those things are which you dare undertake to justify; and what there is of injustice in the things you condemn? The righteous God hath said, He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just; even they both are abomination to the Lord.  
I have done with your Unjust REBUKE, &c. and shall now take a little notice of your carriage in your Writings, and what manner of Censure they deserve. You have made a huge noise of 400 things you have faulted me with in the Conduct( as you call it) of my Books against you. You might as easily have said 4000; for I doubt not but you counted every word and letter therein, under an ill Conduct, while managed against Quakerism; but what your word is worth, I have already made manifest. And now being a clear man, I am the more competent Witness against you.  
First, I charge you with three bulky, wilful Untruths, which I will not call Lies for civility sake. The first was a plot to spoil the credit of my Books, within three months of their first Impression: Or else( say you) what means his great pains to be made wast paper of already? QUAKERISM NO CHRISTIANITY, has exchanged the Booksellers 
●n●'s ●nsw. to ●ld. p. 67.  stalls, for the Tobacco shops: Poor man! Perhaps he will writ another Book to complain of the deadness of Professors hearts, that they make so ill use of the Labours of painful Ministers. I am confident, nothing but his fear of losing by it, could divert him from such a Lamentation.  
This passage carries its name in its fore-head. But the booksellers have given it a sufficient Confutation, and a broad brand for an impudent falsehood, in their Certificate signed by Jonat. Robinson, and Rob. bolter, and printed with my Vindication of Quakerism no Christianity.  
The second is a bloody one, and looks like a 
●. P's ●nsw. to ●l. p. 199.  blood-thirsty one: Not Garments rolled in the blood of Kings, Princes, Rulers, and People, no worldly Armies, Battels, Victories, Trophies, Spoils, Sequestrations, Decimations, and the like Blood-thirsty, and Tyrannical Projects; in which John Faldo, and his poor Non-conforming Ministers, have had their hands over head and ears, till they had well-nigh lost their ears, and their heads too.  
Here is the Comment on the Quakers boasted Innocency, Meekness, Patience, and Truth. And that you are not only mischievous herein, but false, I being now but entering on my forty second year, will render the truth of what you say concerning me impossible.  
The third wilful untruth I charge you with is, your saying, Let it be observed; 1. That I gave him 
P's Retu● to Faldo● kerb, p. 2●  timely notice of our Wheeler-street Meeting, with an Invitation to be there; and went more in expectation of him, than T. Hicks, from a report that T. H. would not, but that John Faldo intended to be present.  
That you gave me any notice of it at all, I need no other testimony but my own Conscience, that it is a falsehood; much less did you give me timely notice, and an invitation to be there.  
Having the occasion of once more encountering you in Print, and intending not to let pass this untruth of yours, I fairly sent a Letter to you; wherein I desired you( that I might do you no injustice) to let me know by what means you sent me the foresaid timely notice and invitation, and by whom it was reported, that I intended to be there. To which you replied first, by an untruth; viz. That I did not deny either that I was informed, or invited. But I 
Adv. be●fore Qu● no Christ  had denied it, if my saying in Print, I take it to be a plotted untruth, be a denying it.  
But although you took two days time to return me an Answer, the most certain intelligence you could afford me, and the best you had to say for your self was, My Message to thee by J. Robinson, if I mistake not, expressed the substance of the matter, that I invited thee to the next Meeting with the Baptists, and fairly promised thee time to say out thy say. Let Mr. Robinson's Certificate determine this.  

OF the Wheeler-street Meeting, and Mr. Penn's Invitation of Mr. Faldo to be there, I never had the least order or notice from Mr. pen, or any other.  
Jonat. Robinson.   
4. Untruth. But what is become of that greedy appetite 
●s Retur. ● Faldo's ●rb, p. 9.  in Learned and Unlearned after his Books, not only certified by the booksellers, but with a most nauseous self-glorying proclaimed by himself in his VINDIDICATION. Not one word of this is true, nor is there any such thing in the booksellers Certificate, nor any thing like it in my VINDICATION: 'Tis too true of you, Aut inveniam aut faciam.  
5. But he hath  told us very seasonably, his farther writing is not deemed convenient or satisfactory. A 
●d. p. 10.  gross Forgery!  
6. But this Age hath no kindness for Good-works, the more the pity; loose men slight them in Life, and 
●eb. to 21 ●ivines, ●. 30.  you in Doctrine. A man cannot pled for them, but at the hazard of being counted a Papist. Untruth and Treachery wrapped together! A Whip for all Protestants, and a Curry-favour with those you are too near of Kin to, the meritorious Romanists: Whom we never desire should practise their Good-works on us. And I fear you will prove Co-workers with them in works bad enough.  
7. He affirms, That he quoted forty places out of 
P's Rej● to Faldo ● p. 425.  our Friends Books, that would prove the Light( within, as within us) to be the only Lord and Saviour, and very God. This is a down-right Forgery, and as easily proved to be such, as looking into the place in my Book you pretend to transcribe. Who 
fall. Vin● p. 6.  finds the words Within, as within us there, must have a faculty with P. to red the words were never written.  
8. Preaching, Praying, and that Scripturally too 
P's Ans● p. 130. 12● quake. ● Christ. p● 155. imp● last. ( by him called Christian-Ordinances) are by him made natural to all Nations. An Untruth, built upon both a corrupting my words, and foisting in some of your own: A practise to be abhorred, and by which you may say what you list, and make me prove it.  
9. He confidently affirms, God to be more concerned 
P's Answ p. 130. quake. n● Christ. p● 156. last impres.  to vindicate the former; and take vengeance for the breach of his positive exterior Precepts; as the Ceremonial part of the Jews Worship, and the Bread, Wine, and Water Sacramentally used now-a-days( if yet, as such, they may be accounted Precepts) which the Devil himself can creep into the Profession of, and cannot cleanse as concerning the Conscience; then of his Fundamental, Natural, and Substantial Laws and Ordinances, without which God cannot be worshipped, nor one Soul saved. All this you say, I affirm, and give it as my own words, as well as my sense, in a different Letter, except what is in the Common Letter in this passage. M. P. you writ at random, no ground will hold you, nor the Boundaries of Truth be any Law to you.  
10. Another of the like nature, or a worse, you have in the same page.: From whence( say you) John Faldo infers against us, that the Body Christ took upon himself of our nature, is not the Christ. My inference was in these very words; This is a plain denying the man Christ Jesus, whose body of flesh was of our nature. But the truth is, you were so put to it in answering my Chapter of your denying the Christ of God, that you wrote like a man beside yourself: And as you past by ten Citations I produced to prove my Charge, and attempted to take off two only; so to those two you talked so idly, as signified you knew not what to say, nor well what you did say. And any body will conclude with me, who shall find your Chapter in answer to this Charge, almost wholly taken up in proving, that the more body of Christ, is not the entire Christ; which was to confute John a Nokes, and not John Faldo.  
But it is a small thing for you to slander and forge, to the abuse of such an insignificant thing as I; seeing those great men, Dr. Hammond, and Dr. More cannot escape you.  
You tell me, that Dr. More saith, But the Atheist will still hang on, and object further, 
●r. Hen. ●ore, ●yst. God. ● 222.  that the very term Resurrectio implies, That the same body shall rise again: for that only that falls can be said properly to rise again. Here you make your Application to me in these words; Where let the Reader take notice, that Dr. More calls 
's Rejoy. ● Faldo, ● 374.  John Faldo ATHEIST; for it is his Objection against me, Reply, p. 89.  
Here are two things you are to be indicted for; first, making my Opinion to be the Atheists about the Resurrection, which the Atheist mostly objects against, and is stumbled at. Doth Dr. More say, that the Atheist holds such a Resurrection, who denies any Resurrection at all? Unhappy Writers would the most Learned be, if there were no more able, careful, and faithful Readers and Reporters of what they red than W. pen!  
But the second which I intended by this of Dr. More( which you abuse) is, that you say Dr. More calls me Atheist in this Section; whereas the Dr. saith expressly, by way of Caution, before this Section; This I say to the Atheist, not to those who hold the substance[ of the Resurrection.]  
The Learned and much-respected Dr. Hammond, 
Penn's overdo. Faldo, p● 378.  you make a partaker of your heresy; in telling me, that Dr. Hammond also denies a proper and strict Resurrection of bodies, and consequently is guilty of that horrid Principle as John Faldo calls it: Which may be seen in his Comment, 1 Cor. 15. O horrible Defamation! Neither the Doctor nor I call it a Strict, &c. And he saith there as much as can be said for my Opinion, but not one word against it.  
Mr. pen, I have here given twelve of your Forgeries, or Falshoods in fact: If you will adventure to clear yourself of these, without your usual defending of one untruth( in point of fact) by adding more of the like ill qualities; I will promise to furnish you with an account of forty more of the like nature. I never red any man who replied to your Defences, who have not accused you of wilful untruths in point of fact, which is an ill symptom of your guilt.  
I do not greatly wonder, that you writ so extravagantly against those who oppose you, when 'tis so apparent, that besides the defect of Truth and Conscience, your Writings have not the Conduct of common Prudence; but you are as inconsistent with your self, as you are with Truth, and need no other Condemnation but what proceeds out of your own mouth. For the proof of which, compare your self with your self, in the following passages.  
I will rather( say you) betake myself to single 
●n's ●sw. to ●ldo, p. ●6.  out the strength of his Objections, if any there be, and bestow my time in Vindication of the Truth, than to rail, revile, undervalue, and stigmatize with I know not how many disgraceful epithets; a way that never yet reached any man's Conscience— A Bannian is a Saint to a Congregation of such Christians. Bravely said! and that's all.  
Would not any man expect( who knows you not) to meet with most calm and candid lines from so fair a Talker? yet the very next words of yours, calls my Book a Discourse interterlined with babbling and Prattle. I hope no man will think you overvalue your Adversaries Writings, who in your best mood, can give them such a Character, and be at the charge of giving yourself the— in the same breath.  
Let us hear you once more proclaim your sweet temper. I omit( say you) more than an hundred 
●'s Spirit ● Truth, ●. 8.  things, that would engage to a personal reflection; for my Soul hath no pleasure in striving therein, as knowing the inconsistency of that uncharitable virulent temper with a Christian spirit; which I am sure is quiter another thing for what is Verbose, Abusive, Cavilling, Airy, and merely Notional. Truly I have more Charity for you, than you have for your self: For although I take not very uncivil Language, and undue personal Reflections to be your goodness; yet had I no other Arguments against you but your bad Carriage in this kind, I might hope you were a Christian notwithstanding. But let us see at how cheap a rate you will forfeit your Christianity, and the good effects of your Writings on the Readers Conscience.  
I shall rak into but one of your Books for all the following good Language, and leave large gleanings. All these lovely Titles and epithets you afford me, and my work, Behold your Priest! 
W. pen. Answ. t● fall. Pre. ● p. 43. 65. 79. 64. 209● 117. 190. 208. 216. 74. 107. 11● 49. 46. 110● 157. 204. 213. 214. 203. 215.  Fallible, errable Priest. Scoffing, Independent Priest. Ungodly Priest. busy Priest. Cavilling Priest. Overdoing Priests. Antichristian Priest. Mountebank Priest. This Taunting Priest. Stingie Priests. Mercenary John Faldo. A Quack. A Religious Bone-setter. The Priests Break-neck. The Priest and his Puppe●-play Doctrine. Vaunting, strutting John Faldo. Insolent Vilifier. Ignorance, or Malice itself. Our malignant Adversary J. Faldo. Ignorance, Malice, and Revenge, Black as Hell itself in malice. Impious Scoffs. Impudence. Strange Impudence. The impudence of his Wickedness. Sordid Pedantry. He Vomits. His Scriptures he brings, no more to purpose, than toby and his Dog. Oh Doctrine of Devils! A lie. A lie to be sure. A very lie. Devilish Falsities. A downright lie. An arrant lie. A wicked lie. The last great lie of his second part of lies. A wicked lie minted out of Hell.  
Is not here enough to advance you to be Master of the Ceremonies, or Gentleman of the Black rod, to the Confusion of all Railers? yet these are but your Retale-vent; for such mildred, melting Language, you have also a Wholesale-Trade, by which you discharge whole Loads, or volleys together, enough to make a man out of breath with repeating them.  
Behold two examples: Such Covenant-breaking, 
●… Answ. Faldo, ●20.  Self-seeking, Club-law( hitherto you are very pregnant, and bring forth your kind Epithets by couples) Proud, Covetous, Tyrannical, Persecuting Priests we could never own; but EVER did, and ever shall bear our faithful testimony against them, as the Locusts, Caterpillars, Serpents, and Dragons of the Earth; whose Cruelty, Self-seeking, and Falseness hath grieved good-men.  
Again, But in the Earth there is not any thing so fantastical, conceited,, proud, railing, busy-body, and 
●. p. 165.  sometimes ignorant, as a sort of Priests, to me not unknown( among whom our Adversary is not the least) who think their Coat will bear out their worst expressions for Religion, and practise an haughty reviling for Christ, as one of the greatest Demonstrations of their zeal. An ill-bred and pedantic Creco, the bane of Reason, and pest of the World, the old Incondiaries to mischief, and the best to be spared of mankind.  
Is this the man whose Soul hath no pleasure in Revilings, and personal Reflections? Dost thou teach others, and teachest not thyself? Is there a plainer evidence of a down-right Hypocrite? But methinks the innocency, candour, peaceableness, and good-will which you pretend to all men, has but a poor evidence in these lines. And your saying, that I especially am one of those who are the pest of the World, and the best to be spared of Mankind, is no other in the true English of it, than that I ought to be preferred to the Gallows, or any other execution, rather than a Thief or murderer. The Lord be merciful to us, and deliver us out of your hands, whose tongues and pens being at liberty, are so sharp a sword, and sentence us to death, while your hands cannot execute the thoughts of your hearts.  
You commend yourselves for an innocent people, and you close your Answer to me with this. Subscription, 
Id. p. 9●  Who am a lover of all men, for I seek the Salvation of mine Enemies, William pen. But did you mean as you say, it will not hold always. But if you be once in the angry spirit, their Salvation must be interpnted their ruin and destruction. What else mean these lines, and what I shall further add out of the same Book, wherein you break through the Law of God and man, to be revenged on me, and many more who( for ought you know) never lift up a tongue against your culpable Tenets.  
But why poor Nonconformists( say you) after all 
Id. p. 109●  their preached up Battels, Spoils, Plunders, sacrileges, Decimations? Again, Not Garments rolled in 
Id. p. 119●  the blood of Kings, Princes, Rulers, and People: no worldly Armies, Battels, Victories, Trophies, Spoils, Decimations, and the like blood-thirsty and tyrannical projects, in which John Faldo and his poor Non-conforming Ministers have had their hands over head and ears, till they had well-nigh lost their ears, and their heads too.  
What is the sense of this? itis base and cruel countenance speaks the spirit from whence it came, to be a mischievous one. The Lord forgive you, and give you the knowledge of yourself, and your deluded Votaries, a deliverance from your Conduct, and others from your Power.  
This puts me in mind of your glorying, that you had killed an old Priest( as you call him) with your Answer to his Book written against your Principles: And you tell me the story thus; There was an old peevish Priest in Ireland, T. Jenner, who writ an envious Book against us— who lived long enough to vex himself to death with our Answer ( as we are credibly informed) not long surviving its arrival. rejoined. to Faldo, p. 172.  
Is not this a piece of Vanity, which rather informs us what you would do, and how pleasant the conceit of killing your Adversaries is to you, than of the effects of your Writings? for the good-man was about seventy years old, and therefore very likely that he died no such untimely death.  
4. You are no such Basilisk to kill at that distance, and I am like enough to be safe from your close encounters. Your Writings may be like what the Poets feign of Pandora's Box, which when opened, filled the World with many plagues: But the Grace of God, and a few grains of right Reason, is defensative enough against the danger. If you thought I would die too upon the conceit of your story of Mr. Jenner, you are much mistaken: I am not such a Milk-sop, but I hope I shall be a better soldier of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, than to fall or faint under all your Rage, Reviling, and Reproaches.  
I intended to have gratified my Reader, with the Counter-Scuffle you make with your own self, in all or most of the main points I charge you as erring in: But to keep within the bounds of a few sheets, I shall only present your contrary Aspects on the holy Scriptures, and that briefly, in your following Sayings.  
But also as we acknowledge them to be the Words of 
Penn's Answ. to Faldo, p. ●53.  the holy, living, and powerful word of God, so that they express and declare unto us many holy Rules for godliness— And I declare, in the name of all the right Quakers in the World, that we utterly reject all such as deny the Scriptures to be profitable for Reprehension, Instruction, Exhortation, and Edification.  
By this a common Reader would think you have a huge respect for the Scripture: But let us see the other side of your Countenance.  
This chokes John Faldo( say you) and the rest of his Partners— who dread the Consequence of having their 
Id. p. 7●  literal knowledge of the Scriptures laid aside.  
No Command in the Scripture is any farther obling upon any man, than as he finds a conviction upon 
Id. p. 7●  his Conscience: Otherwise men should be engaged without, if not against conviction, a thing unreasonable in man; therefore the Apostle when he wrote to the Churches, exhorted them not to do those things whereof they were ashamed, &c.  
Then if they were not by a convicted Conscience ashamed, they could not sin: Right Ranter.  
Dry cavilling Lettermongers. 
P's Spiri● of Truth, &c.   
But to think to run us down, by exalting them; or to lessen what we are, by increasing their praise, is an old Artifice of the Devil.  
But let it suffice, that John Faldo steals as bad as 
Penn's Answ. to Fald. p. 38●  Jeremiah's neighbours did, and thus far more boldly and notoriously, in that they perhaps got the true Prophets words so soon, that some might not know who 
P's Re●oy. to Faldo, p. 156.  had them first; whereas J. F. runs back two or three thousand years a pilferring for his hackney Sermons out of them, which are so well known to be other mens lines and labours. Methinks people should not suffer themselves to be so miserable gulled, nor lye at the expense of maintaining a Priest to tell his tales, &c.  
Not boasting of things beyond our measure, that 
Id. p. 151.  is of other mens labours, 2 Cor. 10. 15. Of this sort of boasters is John Faldo, who hath nothing for his Religion but the more Bible, and but an usurped title to that.  
Faith in John Faldo's sense, rises no higher than so many Articles laid down( suppose truly) according to the bare letter of the Scripture, which the Devil 
● p. 71.  ean believe as well as he. A slander to boot.  
They could not run their Canon higher than the 
●et. Soan. ●fau. p. ●2.  Council of Laodicea; which, as we said before, was 364 years after Christ: At what time, says a great Author, Ambition prevailed with the Doctors of the Church, and they began to think of holy 
●. Penn's ●ejoynder ● Faldo, ● 37.  Cheats, and would have their Doctrines pass for Laws, not Counsel. This wretched saying you oppose not, but embrace as your very dear Friend.  
I cannot but observe after what a suspected rate the Scriptures have been first collected, and then conveyed 
●d. p. 38.  through the several succeeding Ages.  
From hence we may observe the uncertainty of John 
●d. p. 39.  Faldo's Word of God.  
Yet the running Title of your ANSWER is, The Quakers own the Scriptures. I will not concal, that you say after your unworthy detractions, Far be it from me to writ this in any undervalue of that holy Record. But 'tis as small amends, as to say to a man, after you have stabbed him to the heart, far be it from me to hurt you. And indeed the Scripture must be valued at a very low rate, for you to say of them they are undervalued.  
There remains now only one Question to be determined; and that is, Whether Mr. pen or I have dealt faithfully in matter of fact, and made true Reports of what depends only on so much Reason, as to know whether we red such and such words; and so much honesty, as not to report contrary to our knowledge? If what Mr. pen hath charged on me in the most of his Ten Instances be true, I may pass for an Idiot, or worse; but if false, I am loth to call him by his proper name.  
Those who have my QUAKERISM NO CHRISTIANITY, and my VINDICATION by them, may as easily determine of most of them, as to red English. With those who compare them with his Charges, he will be known to be what he is; and that is worse than most mens charity will give them leave to censure, till undeniable evidence hath left no room for better thoughts.  
It is in vain to trouble the World with an answer to every thing a man writes, who doth not so much as intend honesty, nor makes any Conscience of wilful abusing his Adversary by perfect Forgeries. He that is thus guilty, frequently and designedly, deserves to be hissed out of Christian, yea human Society, as one against whose Injuries there is no defence, but a detection of his hateful qualities.  
I have for determining matters of fact, provoked him in print, to give me a meeting in these terms.  
In the close of my VINDICATION I say, To conclude, I shall desire Mr. pen( if he dare 
Vindic: quake. no Christian. p. 95.  come to that test) to appoint some of his Friends,( that can but red English) to give me a meeting, and I do promise to make it appear to them, that he hath in abundance of places egregiously played the Forger, foisting into my Sentences words of his own, to serve his design; yea, and framing whole Sentences, and calling them mine, which were never in my Book, nor the sense of them. This offer was 18 months since, but never accepted.  
Before this Answer passed the Press, I engaged divers persons, of no mean Consideration, to spend a little time in examining his ten things he charged upon me, to beget an opinion in the Reader of my ignorance and dishonesty. And being thereto advised, I gave him a friendly Invitation by Letter, to be present at nhe Examinarion, that he might have opportunity to make the best of his Cause, and prevent my misrepresenting him to the World, by any mistake on my part, if such there should have been. What passed by such a way betwixt him and me, I here faithfully recite.  
Mr. pen,  
I Have been obliged to consider your rebuk, &c. to One and twenty Divines; in which you have endeavoured to render both them and me so criminal, that as we tender our own Reputation( beside the concern of Christianity) it stands us upon to vindicate ourselves, so far as we are guiltless. In order to which( your Charges being chiefly about matter of fact, and therefore easily determined by comparing our Writings) there are engaged divers Divines, and others, persons of Integrity, Wisdom, and Reputation, to examine them, at Mr.— house, &c. on Tuesday next, at three in the Afternoon. I thought meet to give you this Account, and invite you thither; where you will find nothing contrary to candour, and genuine Christianity.  
Yours, John Faldo. Jan. 21. 1674 / 5  
J. Faldo,  
NOt to be so rude as to take no notice of thy Letter, of Invitation, nor yet to be injurious to other previous occasions, I thought good to let thee know, that this day, and hour, pitched upon by thee, has been fixed for the dispatch of an affair, above four years standing: And had not that otherwise engaged me than to meet thee, the Interment of a loving Friend( punctually given out to be at the same hour intended by her Relations) I should gladly have embraced that opportunity: For I heartily love peace, and despair not of some of the 21 better information; though I confess it looks strainge, to examine a Book after recommended. Be it as it will, all your prosperety is sincerely wished; and particularly a disposition to cander and quiet. By  
Thy Friend, W. pen. 26 11th Month.  
I have given you his Letter exactly. If there be both bad sense, and no very good Orthography, I cannot help that: Nor have I time to catch Flies. But you may observe how critically his great affairs fall out for an excuse; and how ceremoniously he is addicted( very strange in a Quaker) that his following a dead Corps to the grave( if there were no other consideration) is preferred by him, before so great a Concern. No doubt but he had Reasons more Cogent stood in his way, but they were not to be proclaimed by him. ●●s Intellects were not very quick about the unseasonableness of examining a a Book after Recommendation, unless his and mine were to be compared before his had a being. But however, saith he, Be it as it will( a desperate case) he wishes us now to be quiet. He hath had the last word, and laid all the dirt at our doors( but of his own making) there let it lye, and 'tis as he would have it. If he had a mind indeed to the opportunity offered, he should have desired some other time; But no mention being made of that. I sent him the following Epistle.  
Mr. pen,  
YOurs to me, excusing your meeting at the time I proposed( I being desirous that the matters of fact you charge upon me might be examined fairly) I do now propose to you to appoint your own time on any day betwixt this and Friday next, or at any hour of the day betwixt eight in the Morning, and seven at night: Provided you give me notice of your resolution therein by to morrow twelve at Noon— The place of meeting may be the same proposed in my last: You may bring four persons with you, and I shall do the like,  
Yours, John Faldo. Feb. 1st, 1674 / 5  
P's Answer.  
J. Faldo,  
THough I know not to what purpose such meeting will be; yet since it is so much desired on thy part, I will endeavour to bend my affairs to a compliance: But to pitch the day and hour, I can't well do, yet shall endeavour to limit it to this week, and if I can, to let it be on the 5 day of its about 10 in the morning, at the same place. Perhaps thou mayest interpret this a shyness in me to meet thee, being very unhappy at drawing of Consequences: But they that both know and believe me, are well satisfied that very important affairs obstruct. No more occurring, I remain,  
Thy Friend, Will. pen. land. 2d 12th Month.  
This hesitating, irresolute, and excusive Reply, being the most I could procure, I sent him notice that I should not attend his uncertainties; I having other matters to mind as well as he, and at a distance from London. And that he might hear further from methe next week; i.e. e. by this Book coming forth.  
It is worth the notice, that in his first Letter he saith, he would gladly have embraced the offered opportunity, were it not for the lets mentioned; but when they were vanished, and I importune him again, he tells me, he knows not to what purpose it would be( thus true is the man to himself:) Yet that he might seem willing, he saith somewhat; but that he might not be obliged, he takes great care to say nothing to purpose. But I must not interpret it a shyness in him to meet me, least I should be guilty of drawing an unhappy Consequence; that is( as sometimes understood) hit the nail oth head. Whether there be any such persons as both know him, and believe him( in matters of this nature) I will not say; but sure I am he hath taught me, as sure as Sense itself, that they that believe him, do not know him. But if it be so, that important affairs still obstruct, and his coming to the test must be encouraged by some vacant hours, wherein he can find nothing else to do, or say; I do hereby assure him( the Lord sparing me life and liberty) that whenever he is at leisure, and shall give me notice of his inclination to a meeting, with tolerable circumstances, I shall gladly embrace it without a contradiction; and shall prove, that in in his ten Instances of my failings, he hath committed almost, if not altogether, ten Falsities in point of fact, to the reproach of his honesty.  
You among the People called Quakers, who are so honest as to mean well( of which number I am persuaded there are many) 'tis time to look about you, and not trust your Faith, on which depends the honour of God, and his Truth, and your Souls eternal Concerns, upon the words of deceitful men. Be so industrious, as to try them; and so impartial, as to believe your own eyes. Think me not your Enemy, who would be glad to be at the cost of many a suffering to undeceive you. The holy Scriptures tells us of some who speak lies in hypocrisy, and who deceive, and are deceived. It will not ease you of your misery in another World, to find your Perverters having the greater share, as they have been the greater sinners. Be not so charitable to others, as to be cruel to yourselves. Quickly after the Apostles days, there were men of the same Complexion with your Leaders; of whom Irenaeus gave that account, the Latin of which I put into the Title-page, and with its English I conclude the Book.  
While that heretics speak like the faithful, they not only mean otherwise than they say, but clean contrary. And by their Tenets full of Blasphemies, they destroy the Souls of those, who with their fair words, suck in the poison of their foul opinions. Irenaeus in his 3 Book against Heresies.    

ERRATA.  
page. 36. line 30. for specifically, red generically, page. 38. line 13. for hid, red countenance.  
FINIS.