William Penn's RETURN To John Faldo's REPLY, CALLED A Curb for William Penn's Confidence, etc.  
Writ in Defence of his Answer to John Faldo's Printed Challenge.  
MY Answer to J. Faldo's Challenge was in terms so Modest, that no man not bend to be Abusive, and resolved against all Candour and Moderation, could have taken such Pains as he hath done, to bedirt it. Would I so ill bestow my Time, I could well nigh fill as great a Compass with the Hard Names he flings upon it; The Refuge and Practice of Petulant and Empty Adversary's. His Title charges it with False Inf 〈…〉 a 〈…〉 s and Juggle: I seriously pro●ess, I never intended any thing with more Tr●th, Plainness and Softness than that short Answer. And truly, that which renders this Usage at any time ●neasie, is the fastening unjustly that Character upon me & my Friends, which is most deservedly their own, thereby concealing and securing the Offender, and substituting the Innocent in his room, to the Deceiving of the Simple, and exposing us to the Bate of the rude and ignorant Multitude: But it is our Lot, and mine at this time more particularly; I was treated at another rate whilst I could cry Hosanna to his Order.  
But let us hear what he says to prove that my Answer contains f●lse Insinuations and Juggle. I told him, That it was unfairly done of him to choose the Barbican-Meeting, to divulge his Challenge to me, which I had received no notice of. To this he replies; That the Meeting was occasioned by the Quakers Appeal: Which, beside that it is nothing to the Purpose, is a great Untruth: Did we occasion any Meeting, wherein we were concerned to be present without our Notice and Consent, either as to Matter or Manner, Time or Place, taking the word Occasion in the common Acceptation of it? Nobody surely, but J. Faldo, and such Prejudgers can think so. For Shame be Just!  
But he believes such a Critical Season seldom happens, wherein both G. W. and I before so long a Season out of the Reach of so public a Concern. What then! Therefore were we not then out of Reach? What would he be at? Lamentable Weakness! Is this to justify his Cowardly Brags? I will call them so now, since softer Terms fair'd so ill at his hands. But let J. F know, that for that Glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, our Lord, he with as much Envy as Untruth suggests us to deny, we are frequently engaged in remote Places, and that for Weeks, and sometimes Months, where no Letters can be sent to us with any previous Knowledge where to find us; insomuch as that our nearest and dearest Relations may have taken their Leave of this World, and exchanged their House for Grave; before our Return, or Knowledge of their Condition; which might have better bee● considered by this Stipendiary Resident, who though he gets more Money by it, is not exposed to that and many other Hardships.  
But to palliate the Injust Procedure of the Baptists against us at their first Barbican-Meeting, he tells us a Tail of G. Whitehead's surprising him with a Dispute upon three day's Notice, which he saith, was not according to the Agreement made betwixt him and some of our Friends, to wit, Mutual Consent; which granted to him, neither helps the Baptists, nor hurts us: for first, G. Whitehead went principally to a Meeting of our Friends, and if he might have Opportunity, to allay the Heat of this Vapouring Adversary. 2dly, It was so far left with J. Faldo, either to accept or reject, as that it was most remote from the Thoughts of G. W. upon his Refusal to assemble the Inhabitants of the Place, and in his Absence exclaim both against his Faith and Practise; our manifest Suffering from T. Hicks and his Confederates 3dly, There can be nothing well falser than his insinuating the Issue of that Meeting to have been his Quiet from the Quakers; if by Quiet he understands any Fear upon them from his Force of Argument to encounter him; since he could neither recover our half Proselyte, as he is pleased to call that Person once a Hearer of him; nor did he re●t one Month without a fair offer of another Meeting from some of our Friends near the Place of his Residence, which, as I am informed, he declined: I blame him not for doing so. But suppose G. W. was as culpable as he represents him, who so little deserved his Reflection; how doth this excuse T. Hicks, or extenuate his own Injustice, who without any Notice given to G. W. or myself, did so publicly at Barbican in our Absence abuse the one, and challenge forth the other in Defence of himself and Friends, from a Charge then exhibited by him against our Faith and Principles, suggesting to the Auditory, as if what were in Reality but his own crooked Consequences (detested of us) had been the express Articles of our Creed. If yet he can presume to believe himself Modest, Just or Christian, his Case is desperate, and I heartily pity his Mistake.  
But he faults me for saying, He could not but know of my being at a great Distance; telling me, That I either make him an Extraordinary Gnostick, or myself such an Over-Lasher as needs to have my words well measured after me. Truly if J. Faldo hath the Doing of it, I am sure to be wronged, unless he hath changed his Want. How near a kin he is to the Gnostics in other Respects, I will not undertake to determine; only if what Epiphamus writes of their Self Conceit, be true, J. F. has printed himself one of the Extraordinariest Gnostics of this Age: But I will stand to my words, that he must needs know of my Absence; for they that gave him notice of the Meeting, being some of the Persons concerned, might also inform him, that I was at a great distance, they receiving that Answer: But left he should deny all this, as probable as it is, the Prolocutor's Gloss upon the Word EAST, doth the Business to an Hairs breadth; for unless J. Faldo's Ears happen like J. Ives', to be all of a sudden thick of Hearing, or to have as great an Impediment as T. Hick's Tongue (that is, in Cases unpleasant to them) he could not but observe, that W. K. insinuated, as if I had Voyaged to the East-Land, or the East-Indies, too far for the Noise of J. Faldo's Charge to be heard, as Empty as it was▪ But I must not forget, and yet take no Delight to remember, that Grave Person purposely left out England, joined to East, in the Letter, that he might better break his Jest.  
But be it as it will, I cannot but return J. Faldo an Allusion in his first Book, it may be, not in the very Words, yet the same Sense, viz. That he doth with me in this as nicely and unjustly, as some Physicians, who strictly prohibit that to their Patients they eat themselves with great Gusto.  
I further told him, as he observes, that I had twice Defended our Faith in Print against him, and that a considerable Book lay at his Door unanswered. To this he gives me several Returns, worth noting, for something or other: one is this, That he perfectly knows the Contrary; To what? That I have twice defended our Belief: The Quibble is here; I have twice Writ, but not twice Defended; notable! but he goes of late for a Critic. however, who say so? John Faldo. Doth he prove as well as say? No such matter. He would not be mistaken, yet in asserting he transcends; for he further tells us, That I have not overthrown one Line of his books; in which, as he explicitly proves his own Impudence and Ostentation, so implicitly he calls many, far from Quakerism, as he terms it, Fools or Knaves for the●r contrary Judgement.  
But to the next Reason; My Prints have confirmed him; which, though no Evidence to others of the Reasonableness of his Belief, yet a great one to me, that that Scripture is fulfilling upon him, Wicked Men shall wax worse and worse. But this is not all:  
He tells us, That it is not a Considerable Book. Who expected J. Faldo should say any other? But doth he not hold himself obliged to help others to the same Creed▪ if his Heat be any better than Mercenary? should he not endeavour to disentangle those that otherwise opinionate of the Matter? Doubtless he thinks it not less deserving his Pains, than those his first Book pretended to refute: If he doth, he would have done well to point in what; if he doth not, why doth he not answer me as well as them? Or why did he begin at all, if he intended no to make good what he said? But I would not be tho●g●t to imitate Pharaoh's putting the People to make Brick without Straw, by urging him to defend that which indeed is indefensible: Only, it is worth our Notice, that the Book is not considerable; but prithee, why? I think so. Ergo, what? It is not considerable. This Way of arguing calls J. Faldo an Idle Meddler, for ever writing an Half-Crown or Three Shillings Book, to terminate here, My Adversary is not Considerable. So much Wit, Folly, or Shuffle, call it what he will, would have saved him much Brain-work in the beginning; but it may do the Man some good: Fol●s ●ay so of Experience dear bought; and better Rep 〈…〉. late than never, though its commonly judged to be a Repentance per force.  
Well, but there's more behind, viz. Whatever Qualities my last Book had, he tells me, it is more than I knew, that ever he saw it; He is sure, I never laid it at his Door, by sending one of them to him. If he had said, by receiving one of them it had passed him; for I might have sent it, & it might have many ways miscarried: But I will not press him with this, nor talk either of Gnostics, or Over-Lashers to Lash him with. And that I may right myself, and show him how willing I was it should lie at his Door, I did to the best of my remembrance, order him one, and if it came not to his hand, it neither accuseth me, nor excuseth him. J. Faldo sent me none of his, and I think I never gave that for a Reason why either of them lay at my Door.  
But it seems J. Faldo hath lately been at Bedlam, and one would think so by the Story he tells; an Impertinent one it is Some Body said something of W. P. etc. but Who he knows not; here is the Upshot. What I should say I know not; for he neither directs me to the Person, nor House: So I must be contented to leave it as I found it, with J. Faldo and Bedlam, a Place that suits the Relation.  
He hath not yet done: My Book is said to be printed in 1673. and it stuck in the Birth till many Months were passed of the Year 1674. This hits the Book in the Head, provided the Title-Page may stand for one▪ But how doth J. Faldo know it stook so many Months in 1674? Which way came he so well acquainted with the Secrets of the Press? But let us see what this Objection amounts to. The Title is either printed first, or last: If first, say in 73. would he have the Printer foresee all those Difficulties that may obstruct the coming forth of the Book till 74. in order to set down 73, 74? This were to make a Gnostick of him with a Witness; or if he doth not, his Book shall be charged with an Untruth: If the Title be printed last (which I suppose is not common) say in 74. and he sets down 74. he tells an Untruth of the Book, though not of the Title: Should the Printer then have set it down 73, 74. because some of the Book was printed in 73. this had been an Untruth respecting the Title Page; for that was all and only printed in 74.  
That ever a man that loved Reputation at the rate they that know him say he doth, should be so Idle in Print! Suppose his Observation true; Is the Book therefore not Considerable? or doth it not lie at his Door? or is W. P. to be blamed, which is the Business in hand? What he would be at I know not; unless he designed to show that he is a Critic and well skilled in Annals: but I am of Opinion that Baronius (after the old Proverb) may sleep in a whole Skin for all J. Faldo's Attempts.  
His next Reason for not giving my rejoinder any Return, is, as he says elsewhere, Magnipotent. I have two Thousand Pounds per ann. in Possession, as reported: I may waste Paper, but he (Alas for him!) must write no more than is deemed Convenient and Satisfactory.  
I perceive that J. Faldo is governed much by Reports, and that may be one Reasen why the Man reports so much Untruth: But if he will make the Report good, I will give him a Years Rent, and let him waste Paper, or waste it in Paper, and then call it an Answer to W. P. if he pleaseth. I observe that his Want of it is the Reason of his not being a better Friend to the Printer; for his words, that He must write no more than what is deemed convenient, imply, that had he wherewithal, he might Write and Waste, and Waste and Write. But what is the true English of this Apologetical Sentence? It is to be suspected this, viz. I must write no more than can be sold: The Booksellers do not deem more of my Writings Convenient and Satisfactory; For I cannot believe that J. F. could not write what he deems both Convenient and Satisfactory. But what is become of that greedy Appetite in Learned and Unlearned after his Books, not only certified by the Booksellers, but with a most nauseous Self Glorying proclaimed by himself in his Vindication? For my part, I know not what else to infer from all this than that his Books are become a Drug; at least, they so far stick undigested in the People's Stomaches, if not unsold in the Booksellers Shops, as there is neither Appetite enough in the one, nor Room enough in the other for more of the Labours of the Author of Quakerism No Christianity.  
But he thanks me that I have put one Argument into his Mouth, viz. Wherefore hath W. P. made such a Bussie against Mr. Hicks and me, seeing he hath not touched, or much less answered the far greater part of my first Book?  
Oh that J. Faldo would but learn to write Truth, and not cover great Weakness and Baleness with so much Untruth! Have I not answered to every Charge in the first Book? Examined 2, 3, 4 or 5. of his Witnesses at a time to each Charge; that is, Testimonies out of our Friends Books, he brought to justify it? It seems then that my not fully Answering of his first Book is one Reason why he hath hitherto declined Publishing something against my second; but had the Man been of this Mind before, doubtless he would never have writ a Second.  
But what saith J. F. to my second Book, wherein I charge him in Point of Fact with so many horrid Abuses or our Principles and Writings? Not one word, unless that it is a considerable Book for Railing, Confidence, abusing Authors, Impertinences, Falsehoods, and unfaithful Gi●●ng what I pretend to confute. What sense can be had against such a Flail? Is this through the aboundings of the Man's Modesty? Am I not like to be cured of my Confidence by a Curb made up of such Links? Certainly unless J. Faldo hath as little Brains, as this Character of my Book shows him to have of Honesty, he cannot think tkis Entertainment should prevail with me to step over the Kennel to meet such A—. If ever Man was wronged, I am in that Expression; though his Saying and Not Proving helps it a little. I will at present overlook all but the last Ill Quality he fastens upon my rejoinder, and that is, Not fairly citing his Reply: I think I may say, I have quoted the better half of his Reply into my rejoinder, and that with such Distinction as any Capacity may discern his Matter from mine; And where he hath quoted One Line of mine, I have quoted Three of his. But I cannot think this the Way to Carb my Confidence; or to Act the Modest Man, To Charge and Not Prove; Nay, to Overlook so much Charged and Proved against him in my rejoinder, That is, Vnfairly Citing us, grossly Perverting what is cited, Adding or Diminishing, as best answered his Ends; overlooking my Matter & Arguments, and evading the Strength of most of what he cited; Charging Consequences unfairly drawn upon us for our Principles, and abusing our Writings to maintain that Abuse; which is not only proved in the Body of the Discourse, but summed up at the End of my rejoinder, to help the Readers Memory. And so far hath the Man been from Defending himself Doctrinally, that he suffers himself to remain without all Defence against my Charges.  
But he hath told us very seasonably, His farther Writing is not deemed Convenient or Satisfactory; A great deal of Wi●dom, believe me, in the D●emers; and a great ●hare of Submission in t●is Adversary. I confess it is no Argument to do indiscreetly a third time, because a Man hath done so twice before. Had I returned him a Seurrilousc Frothy & Evasive Pamphlet (like his Reply) to his great Book, I should have blamed myself, not him; but I did conscientiously consider it, and bestowed a large & grave Discourse upon it, faithfully citing, and (I hope) as fully enervating it. But to this he objects, & that seems the Strength of his Sheet, if there be any in it; that is, That he made 12 Citations out of our own Books, and brought 13 Texts of scripture to prove (one Point of many) & that I took bu● 2 of each; which granted, makes nothing against me, but proves himself Weak to say no worse: For either each of them he brought was pertinent, or not; If not, than his urging them calls him Impertinent; If pertinent, I answered the Law that saith, In the Mouth of two Witnesses, etc. for I examined Two, I thought of his Considerabl●st, and sound them nothing to his Purpose, but that he had aggravated his Evil by grossly Abusing our Books, to prove his Infamous Charge: Now I would fain know, if it became not J. Faldo rather to have shown how weakly I invalidated his Evidence, and proved him as Abuser of our Words, then to tell the World I took but Two into Consideration; for if he be gone upon them, he is gone upon all; for they are not a Jot more to his Purpose, if so much, as those examined: And I did not holy myself obliged to answer every impertinent Line in his Book: If I skipped the Strength of his Evidence, or that those I left had something not expressed or employed in the other, it had been proper for him to have particularly and expressly excepted against me; all which he not doing, his Objection is frivolous, and amounts to no more than a mean Shuffle.  
But he tells the World, That also a whole Chapter of Apostolical Inspirations lie at my Door untouched, and that they may judge at what rate I have answered his Book.  
Poor Man! Is this all he can do, after he hath thought fit to give us a second Book? Must his first be his Asylum still? Why did he not tell T. H. and W K. so to excuse his coming to Barbican? Is he for Disputing notwithstanding, and yet not for Writing? It seems then that it is not deemed Inconvenient to Dispute, but Write. Well! But why will J. Faldo drop things against himself, and, as he terms it, put Instances in my Mouth, to prove him a most Disingenuous and Impudent Person? for did I not tell him, That what concerned us upon the Point of Inspiration, I had treated at large else where, and there was no need of a Repetition? Now hath he shown or attempted an Enervation of that? Nothing less. Or that we were concerned in that more than in his 4th Chapter? No such Matter. Or hath he given us one Reason, why I ought to have considered it? Or dare he say, the other contained not the Matter of it? What more can we say to a Man of this Forehead? I told him of Scores of Passages given by him under our Name, he had not so much as cited Person or Book for, as well as abundance wilfully abused by him, that he did cite: To all which he is as mute as if I had never accused him, or he had nothing to say in his own Vindication. Is his Recrimination (suppose a Reason for it in its place) a valid Answer? Would he have thought this enough to his two Books? How easily could we have told J. F. Thou hast abused our Religion, Books and Persons; but would he have accepted this as a sufficient Answer or rejoinder? He tells the World of our Denying the Man's Nature, or Man christ Jesus, and brings a Company of wrested and misapplyed Sentences to veil his Abuse from the Vulgar; who most faithfully and honestly believe it, and never speak or write undervaluingly of it: But because we press and exalt his Spiritual Appearance, or Christ as come in Spirit to the Soul for its particular Redemption, the Work of our Day; the other being granted on all hands; therefore men of his Leaven infer, That we make void the ourward Coming & Sufferings of Christ, and utterly deny and reject him, as he is the Man Christ Jesus. I wish for their sakes that thus traduce us, they were as far from drawing such Consequences, as our Faith is from countenancing them. Of this I have spoke so largely both in my Answer and rejoinder disingenuously overlookt by this Adversary.  
But he faults me for saying, That W. Smith 's Catechism is scripturally written, etc. but never takes notice of his unworthy Assertion, nor my Answer, as he ought to have done. The Matter was this: J. Faldo making use of this Instance, to prove we preferred our own Writings before the Scriptures, viz. That we called our own Sayings & Books, The Voice of the Son of God was uttered forth by him, etc. Truth's Principles; Shield of Truth, etc. I answered, that those Titles were given with respect to that Divine Truth they declared of and testified unto; not in Comparison with the Scriptures: That not one of those Books were destitute of Scripture; but it either generally writ in a Scriptural Still, or particularly defended by express Scripture cited; therefore of necessity the Scripture must also partake with them in common of those famous Titles: And thus far have they the Preference that they are quoted on purpose to give the Truth we write of greater Credit; What is that greater Credit then to be exactly agreeable with them?  
This and more I gave for Answer; He replieth thu:  
I leave it to my Reader to give a Name to this Passage, the like to which for a daring Untruth the World hath scarcely been acquainted with; yet the Man pretends, besides all other Graces, to * Infallibility.  
It is frequent with him, and that Sort of Adversaries, to fling Infallibility in our Teeth; and here he doth it with manifest Derision, as if it was a greater Evil to be Infallible, then to Err; but let the Reader know, that we do not so much as pretend to any such Thing, as mere Men; for as such, Humanum est crrare; but in our Judgement of the Things of God, so far as we receive it from the Grace of God. And if this be a Piece of Quakerism in Opposition to Christianity in I Faldo's Account, the Scripture must answer for it; only I cannot but take Notice how he beats the Air, who either defends or opposeth any Religion upon Fallible Grounds.  
In many a large Libel I could produce, where there is not one Quotation of Scripture. W. Smith in his Directory for Religious Principles, consisting of above 200. Pages, hath not one Scripture quoted, not one Exhortation to read the Scriptures; but as his main Scope, denies and throws Dirt upon them.  
This was J. Faldo's Reply, I shall now contract the Substance of my rejoinder to it.  
First, I did not say that there was not one Book without plenty of express Scripture, but that those Books (whose Titles he quoted) were either generally in a Scripture Style, or particularly defended by plenty of express Scriptures.  
Secondly, To confute me, he produceth one of those Books, wherein he saith, one Scripture was not quoted; as if that was sufficient to prove, it was not written generally in a Scripture Style one half of the question; Upon which I made him this Challenge, to give me one Book out of a Scripture style, that is not Controversial, or any Controversial Book without express Scripture cited: If he could not, his vain Insult should fall upon his own Head. In this particular, though he has ove looked all the rest of my Discourse in Defence of our Faith, Writings and Principles, he undertakes me in his pretended Curb to my Confidence, in these words, To accept W. P 's Challenge is no bold thing; and to show his unparallelled. Falsehood and Confidence, I shall need to give you but a few Instances out of W. Smith's Catechism and Primer.  
But J. Faldo, Three instances, few enough to be sure, prove 200 Pages generally unscriptural, the Terms of the Question? Methinks this shows more Confidence than a Man that undertakes to Curb another Man's Confidence ought to have: but all J. Faldo's sayings are to be construed cum grano salis. But to the first Instance.  
Child. I would know Father, how it is concerning those things call' Ordinances, as Baptism, Bread and Wine, which are much used in their Worship?  
Father. Why Child, as to those things, they rose from the Pope's Invention— And then the Priest gives it to the People, and tells them that it is the Blood of Christ shed for them, when it is Wine, and not Blood, Smith's Catechism, pag. 39  
I see nothing unscriptural in either. Question or Answer; unless J. Faldo quibbles upon the Pope. 'Tis true, he rose not till several hundred years after the Scriptures were written; but if there be a use of those things called Sacraments, invented by the Pope, after another manner than they were ever practised by the ancient Christians, which is undeniable with J. Faldo, and that scuh an unscriptural use may be called an Invention, and that the Pope be a Man, ●ea, the Man of Sin, as also J. Faldo, I suppose, and many more do conceive, and all this Scripturally; then, I hope, it cannot with any sober Pretence be denied but that W. S' Answer is very Scriptural. But what makes this great Pretender to Truth and Modesty decline taking any notice of that Charge I published against him upon occasion of his most gross Abuse of W. Smith upon these words? who would needs have it, that W. Smith calls the Lord's Supper the Pope's Invention, when I expressly proved out of the same place, that W. Smith intended it of the present Practice of them, and not of any primitive Institution? W. Smith's words are these: The whole Practice of those things as THEY USE them, had their Institution by the Pope, and were never SO ordained of Christ; for he did not ordain Sprinkling of Water in a Child's face, or to make a Sign of a Cross in his forehead, nor Godfathers and Godmothers to undertake for it; neither did he ordain Bread and Wine to be SO (or after that Manner) used and received. If this be to make Baptism and the Supper Popish, what becomes of his Antipaedobaptists and all Protestants, that maintain the same respectively? But most evident it is, W. Smith intended not that Baptism and Supper used by the Ancient Christians; but most true it is, that J. Faldo made W. Smith to intend so. I leave the Reader to give a Name to this Carriage; the like to which for a Daring Perversion I yet know nobody guilty of, J. Faldo and T. Hicks excepted.  
Now for the next Instance brought to prove our Books unscripturally written.  
Child, Then the Scriptures are to be owned and believed as a true Testimony of what the Saints were made Partakers of in that Day.  
Father, Yes, they are to be owned and believed, and they that do not so they are to be denied.  
An admirable Confession to the Scriptures: Is this the way to prove W. Smith's Book unscripturally written? That there is not an Exhortation to read the Scriptures, and that the whole scope of it is, to throw Dirt upon them, yea, to deny them, though J. Faldo himself tells us, that W. Smith, teacheth that those aught to be denied that do not own them; but the Truth is, J. Faldo's Proofs against the Quakers are like Hebrew to be read backwards; He hath a Faculty beyond the common rate of men, to facilitate his own Confutation. But he makes W. Smith further to Answer.  
Thou must take heed Child, of giving more unto the Scriptures, then unto them belongs, lest in so doing thou diminishest from the Glory of Christ.  
What of all this? May not People Idolise, as well as undervalue the Scriptures? Ought they to be put in the room of Christ? Or is it ill done, to exhort People to prefer Christ before the Scriptures? How can J. Faldo call this part of W. Smith's Answer Unscriptural, and yet believe those words of Christ be any part of Scripture? Search (or rather, ye search) the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have Eternal Life, & they are they which testify of me, & ye will not come unto me that ye might have Life, Joh. 5. 39, 40. I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, Joh. 14. 6. Christ himself here teacheth us, to give him the Preference; and implicitly rebuketh the Jews from expecting Eternal Life in the Scriptures rather than in Him, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.  
His last Instance is this:  
Child, I am sensible that there is something in my Conscience that lets me see my secret Thoughts, & the Intents of my Heart; but I have not known what it hath been, nor hitherto have much regarded it.  
Father, That is the true Light, etc.  
Child, But if I should turn to it, and obey it when it reproveth me for Sin, is there Power in it to save me from Sin, and to deliver me from Iniquity?  
Father, Yes, Child; All Power in Heaven and Earth is in it, etc.  
Now judge Reader, saith J. F. If all these things are contained in the Scripture. But I will help the Reader to judge rightly in this matter; and question not if by Containing he means as he ought, the Substance of such Answers, and not that they are so laid down, to prove them, to be according to Scripture; and therefore Scriptural.  
Is't, That it is God, who searcheth the Heart, trieth the Reins, and telleth unto Man his Thoughts, the Prophet affirms; and I know no body that pretends to Christianity, denyeth it.  
2. The Apostle asserts, That which may be known of God is manifest men; for God hath shown it unto them, Rom. 1. 19  
3. That it was the Apostolical Message, That God is Light, 1 Joh. 1. 5.  
4. That whatsoever doth make manifest is Light, Ephes. 5 13.  
5. That Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever, is that True Light, which (thus) enlighteneth every man.  
6. That all Power in Heaven and in Earth belongs to Christ, the true Light.  
Now unless he denies, Christ to be God, or Christ to be Light, or, that He, the true Light, so searcheth, etc. or that all Power in Heaven and Earth belongs to Him it will naturally follow, that to say, All Power in Heaven and in Earth belongs to God, Christ or the Light of the World, is Equivalent: For we do not assert, as some Ignorantly, and some Maliciously have printed & reported, That all Power in Heaven & Earth is in the Manifestation; but in him that g●ves the Manifestation. I have taken great Care with several others, to explain our Belief in this matter, if possible, to prevent such Evil-minded Men as this Adversary, from making so Ill and Use of our Innocent Expressions, and giving their own monstrous Consequences for our Scriptural Principles.  
Thus much to evidence to my Reader, how groundlessly J. F. flung Vnparall●l'd Falsehood and Confidence upon me for asserting, that those Books before mentioned were generally written in a Scripture Style; and with what Weakness he hath endeavoured to disprove me.  
I shall among a multitude of Instances that might be given, produce 10. to show to my Reader with what Truth those Imputations belong to J. Faldo, and how exactly he charactered himself when he bestowed that Reflection upon me.  
1. J. Faldo affirms that W. Smith not only quoted never a Scripture & writ unscripturally, but that he had not one Exhortation to read the Scriptures, nay, that the main Design of the Book was to deny them, and throw Dirt upon them; yet J. F. thus citys him concerning the Scriptures:  
Child, Then the Scriptures are to be owned and believed, etc.  
Father, Yes, they are to he OWN'D & BELIEVED, and they that do not so are to be DENIED.  
To this let me add another notable Passage in the same Discourse, cited by me in that very Page of my rejoinder, where my Challenge lay (which he thought no Boldness to accept) though he was so modest, as not to be so bold with this Passage.  
Quest. Of what Service are the Scriptures as they are given forth and recorded without?  
Answ. MUCH EVERY WAY unto those than have received the same Spirit from whom they were given forth; for unto such they are PROFITABLE, and MAKE WISE unto Salvation; and are unto them of Service, for INSTRUCTION, EDIFICATION & COMFORT, rejoined. pag. 61. Is there no Exhortation lodged in these words? And is this to Deny or throw Dirt upon the Scriptures? If any shall object W. Smith's making the Spirit necessary to the profitable Reading of the Scriptures, let them go to W. Tindal, J. Bradford, Bp. Jewel, J. Philpot, Luther, Calvin, Peter Martyr and others, they will preach them the same Doctrine; which I have observed in my rejoinder, and may easily be found in my Catalogue of Authors.  
2. My second Instance shall be this, That he makes W. Smith call the Scriptures Traditions of Men, Earthly Root, Darkness, Confusion, Corruption; All out of the Light and Power of God; which he only asscribed to degenerated men, their Worship, Imaginations and Traditions. See Quakerism no Christianity, pag. 117, 119. Vind. p. 41, 45. My rejoinder from pag. 141. to 157.  
3. That the Quakers understand by Knowledge according to the Flesh, the Use of the Understanding, though santified, Qu. no Chr. pag. 41. Vind. p. 24, 25, My Answer. p. 35. rejoined. p. 424.  
4. That I. Penington should call Visible Worship as sub, the City of Abomintion, Vind. p. 50. rejoined. l. 194, 195.  
5. That by Traditions of Men, we understand the Scripture, or written Word, Qu. no. Chr. part 3. p. 86. My Answer, pag. 250.  
6. That the Quakers mean by the Veil that is over People, their Belief of the Man Christ Jesus born of the Virgin Mary to be now existing in Heaven, Ibid. p. 87. Vind. p. 93. My Answer, pag. 251, 252. rejoined. pag. 395, 396.  
7. I take occasion to censure men's adding their Comments and Glosses framed from Study TO any part of the Scripture; and J. Faldo citys me, as complaining of such as frame them from the Study OF the Scriptures; as if Studying OF the Scriptures, and men's Adding their own Glosses TO the Scriptures, were one and the some thing, Vind. pag. 42, 43. My rejoined. p. 159.  
8. From E. Burrough's making the Light of Christ within to be one in Nature with the Spirit of Christ; J. Faldo infers, That the Quakers hold the Soul to be God, as if that had been said of the Soul which was said to the Light of Christ shining in the Soul, or that they were Synonymous, Vind. from p. 75. to 87. Rejoyndr, p. 348, 349, 350.  
9 Because E. B. rejected that Carnal Notion that confines the Infinite, Omnipresent God to a Residence only above the Stars, he makes no Difficulty of inferring that we deny the Manhood of Christ Jesus. As most absurd as base! Q. no C. p. 9, 10. My Answer, p. 14. Vind, p. 9 rejoined. p. 420.  
10. From our affirming that such a kind of Reading of Scripture as the Pharisees used, and to those Ends, makes men harder to be wrought upon to true Conversion than the Heathen, J. Faldo infers, that reading the Scriptures, and getting Knowledge thence puts Men into a worse Condition than the Heathen; and that there's scarcely anything more Dangerous than reading the Scriptures: Yea, he accuseth us of Charging the Miscarriages of men's Souls on the Knowledge the Scripture by God's Blessing both convey, Vind. p. 21, 37. rejoined. p. 126, 127, 425.  
Thus much, and I wish here had been no occasion for this, to evidence the false and unworthy Practice of J. Faldo against the Writings and Sayings of our Friends, in order to compass his Designs I shall now give some touch upon his Confidence. since he hath entitled me to an unparallelled share, and counts himself the fit Person to Curb me for it.  
J. Faldo began with us in a great Book called Quakerism No Christianity; I answered him in a Book, entitled Quakerism a New Nickname for Old Christianity; against this he put forth his Vindication, unto which I made my rejoinder consisting of TWENTY THREE CHAPTERS, in which I vindicated our Principles, striping them of those frightful Vizards and hateful Disguises he put upon them, confirmed them by many Scriptures and Reasons, and to complete our Defence, produced iin favour of the whole above TWO HUNDRED TESTIMONIES out of both ancient and modern Authors.  
Besides all this I faulted his Conduct and Behaviour in this Controversy, in above FOUR HUNDRED PARTICULARS, and that under distinct Sections, most of which were not less unworthy of a good Christian, yea, an honest Heathen, I will say, of any fair Controvertist, than the Ten I just now mentioned. Notwithstanding this great Obligation upon him, either to answer my Book, or ente Muter to any farther Proceed in this Debate; in my Absence at the first Barbican Meeting, be●ore a great Concourse of People, after T. Hicks had won the Goal by running Alone, the Man, as one in Love with such Romance-Trophys, starts up like some Herald at Arms, bids Defiance to the Quakers and their Religion, gives forth his Challenge to W. Penn, to dispute him, I that he would; and instead of his Glove, flung a Paper to bind it, which when all came to all, was but some of the Contents of his first Book twice largely answered; and because no farther Notice was taken of this Giant, partly by not receiving his Paper so soon as might expect, and partly by reason of these other Contests that claim Precedency; That he might not be thought NoBody, when so many strove to be Somebody against us, he prints it, without all consideration had to my rejoinder, or so much as an Apology for his Silence to it, which at least had become a Modest Person to give: After all this can any man think J. Faldo Bashful, or one that is so out of Love with Confidence in himself, as that he is fit to Curb it in others? Me thinks he should not believe that repetitious Farthing or Halfpenny Paper feat enough toi excuse him; or so sufficient to acquit him of old Debts, as that without any Breach of Modesty or common Honesty, he might increase his former Score by fresh Charges: It is but reasonable that he should make good what he hath done first; and not, that we should gratify every importinent, tautological Humour of J. F.  
But what saith John Faldo, to this part of my Answer to his Challenge? viz. But that I may acquit myself of that Duty incumbent on me for the Truth, I do hereby signify, That in as much as the Controversy depending between T. Hicks, etc. and us, takes in the most of the particulars of his Charge, we freely consent, that he should come in with them for a Share as Confederate in the same work, and use his utmost Abilities to maintain his Accusations; And, if in any thing his Charge is singular, we shall be ready to hear and fairly debate it at the same Meeting or Meetings, to avoid fresh and unnessary Contests, as much as justly may be. To this he thus Replieth:  
1. I must fall into a Confederacy which the Antipaedobaptists, in the same Work: Hold a little Mr. Penn! If I have my Option, I must deal with you singly; More confuse rather than assist: But it seems I must be wholly at your Appointment; for, although you had consented that in your Contest about Mr. Hicks' Dialogues there should four of each Party have Liberty to speak; yet I no sooner began to oppose you (being desired to be one of the four) but you told me, you were not to dispute with me, but Mr. Hicks, and called to T. Hicks, and were followed by the Quakers Clamours of Hicks, Hicks, which answered your End, and forced my Silence.  
Contradiction and Falsehood make up this Paragraph. Was he not of the Confederacy, when he tells us himself, that he was not only a Party with them, but One of the four pitched upon to manage their Cause?  
But if he have his Option, he must deal with me singly.  
It is time for him indeed, who hath been a double-dealing so long: But certainly, if the man were not more then ordinarily fond of hearing himself talk, or extravagantly ambitious of a single Crown, he would be contented with a Partner; but this Option holds no Concord with his Adoption into the Confederacy: He hath begun already as one of the four, what hinders that he should not continue so? But he thinks that more than one confounds rather than assists: If so, what made T. Hicks, have three to help him? And why did J. Faldo attempt it? Certainly he did not design to confound T. Hicks. To all this Confusion of his let me add his Untruth: He chargeth me with telling him at the Barbican-Meeting when he began to speak, I was not there to dispute with him, which is false to a Title; Either his Ears were as infirm, as his Voice was low, or else he saith this to serve his present occasion: however, I said no such thing; but understanding it to be him that spoke from some better acquainted with his * person, I answered, 
I never saw him before; and he asserts in his this printed Paper, that he never saw me till the Barbican Meeting, yet several Moveths before in his printed Vindication he saith, he had spoken with me▪  Thus the Noise of the Multitude was so great, We could not hear what he said; Though had I given that Answer he made for me, I think it had been very reasonable, since he never told us, That he was One of the four; besides, more than that fixed Number had spoken before him. That the Quakers should clamour, Hicks, Hicks, to answer my End, and force his Silence, is as true as the rest; It was the Multitude that frequently and importunately cried, Hicks, Hicks, Hicks; as looking upon it unreasonable that one who had shown himself so arch in abusing us, should pretend such Inability to answer our Charge, as that other Folks must mostly manage his Affair. But that to silence him was to answer my End, is both to tell A— and proclaim the good Opinion he has of himself, as if it stood our Cause so much upon, to have him silent, and T. Hicks speak, Poor T. Hicks! this was not kindly done of J. F. but perhaps he meant it of his better Elocution and Skill in stating the Question, recommended to us in his Curb to my Confidence: Modest Man that he would be thought!  
But what saith he to this part of my fair Offer, That if in any thing his Charge be singular, we should be ready to debate it at the same Meeting or Meetings with the Baptists, to avoid Unnecessary Contests; since most of the Particulars of his Charge are taken in by the Controversy depending between us and the Baptists: It is not only an Untruth (says J. F.) but a mere Shift; for in the One and Twenty Proposals to be debated by them, there is not one of the Particulars of my Charge: Besides in Position to be disputed on, not only the Matter, but the Form, and each Term is of great Consideration. Which is as much as to say, if I understand J. Faldo's Meaning, that after we have disputed the Matter of the same Questions with T. H. and his Three Assistants, they must be disputed over again upon J. Faldo's new Model, which one Nice and Humorsom Impertinency shall make Disputes both Endless and Useless: Let him bestow his Skill upon T. Hicks, his Cause wants it, and do their utmost together. But he would fasten an Untruth upon me, for saying, that most of the Particulars of his Charge are taken into that Controversy, affirming, That in our One and Twenty Proposals there was not one of the Particulars of his Charge; To which I need say no more but this, The Charge we exhibited against T. Hicks contained so many particular Charges: I grant they related to Matter of Fact, and in that sense the Particulars of J. Faldo's Charge against us, were not explicitly there; yet they that please to read what follows the One and Twenty Particulars, as given in to the Baptists, exhibited and read at Barbican, and since printed in our first Account, they will find that we offer after a full Consideration and Determination upon the foresaid Particulars, to come to Doctrinal Points, which are chiefly in Controversy between us and them upon T. Hicks 's Three Dialogues; and I hope J. Faldo is not grown quite so desperate as to deny that most, if not all the Particulars of his Charge, fall in with T. Hicks' Attempts against us, and that materially too. I have heard as if such a Confession was one part of his Speech at the first Barbican-Meeting: However, if he denies their Endeavours to have been so harmonious, I offer to prove them so; but could I not do it, yet I made Provision for him, wherein his Case is singular. Besides, I desire the Reader to take notice, I did not say, the Particulars of J. Faldo's Charge were expressed in the Catalogue of our Charge of Matter of Fact against T. Hicks, but that they fell in with the Controversy, which word Controversy takes in both Fact and Doctrine: And since he could fall in with T. Hicks upon Matter of Fact at Barbican, wherein he was not concerned there can be no just Pretence for him to refuse falling in with T. H. in Matter of Doctrine, wherein he is concerned: So that, in short, I am neither guilty of Untruth. who never said, that most of the Particulars of his Charge were concerned in the One and Twenty Particulars of Fact exhibited against T. H. but in the Controversy, which is most true; nor yet of Shis●●ng, in referring him to our Meeting with T. Hicks, since I therein only offer what his own Words and Practice countenance me in especially, since I further added (as before said) That if in any thing his Charge was singular from that Controversy, we should be ready to hear and fairly debate at the same Meeting, to avoid fresh and unnecessary Contests. One would think this were pretty fair to a Man under J. Faldo's Circumstances with us. I leave the Reader to say where the Shift and the Untruth lieth. Only let me add Two Passages more, that will not a little help him to make a true Judgmenr of the Man.  
The one is his telling the World, That by my Manuscript Letter to him, I do in effect unsay all again, that I said of accepting his Challenge in my Printed Answer, and yet neither prints the Letter, though but short, nor that Passage he fastens his Consequence upon. It's true, I told him, that it was our present Resolution to stick to the Matter of Fact against T. H. and so much he prints; but what is that to the Purpose? Will any scuh Passage bear an Ergo, W. Penn unsaith all he said of Accepting the Challenge, & c? Or, therefore W. Penn will never proceed to Matter of Doctrine, because he first resolves to stick to Matter of Fact, the Method agreed upon?  
The other Passage is this: For my part, though I shall not refuse any Opportunity offered to defend the Christian Religion from its Adversaries; yet I expect that Mr. Penn shall undertake to defend the Quakers (and himself especially) from my Charge, entire as it is exhibited, and until than I shall look on him as declining it.  
At what rate I decline a Meeting, and how well J. Faldo, proves it, impartial men may judge: But one would think by what he saith, as if he were another Tertullian, and the Quakers a pack of obstinate Heathens, He is unfit to defend Christianity, whose Works prove he doth not understand it, unless the Jew outward with all his Envy, be the Jew inward; or a froward Pharisee, a good Christian: No, No. J. Faldo we affirm hath first charged impious Errors upon us, and then abused our Writings to countenance them with; And though this be largely and effectually discovered in not only my Answer (at which he let fly a squibbling Reply) but in my rejoinder too (being a more particular Resumption of the whole Controversy, and unto which he never yet made any Return) we see he hath Forehead enough to insinuate as if the Quakers still remained undefended. This is the man that undertakes to Cure my Confidenct, who begs so unreasonably and importunately, and doth as good as threaten, if I refuse his Terms; and which aggravates the Matter, he would have People believe, that I shift defending the Quakers, whilst he is yet so manifest a Debtor to our Defences.  
Well, but for all this, that it may sufficiently appear we neither did not do decline a Meeting with him; Let it be observed, 1st, That I gave him timely Notice of our Wheeler street-Meeting, with an Invitation to be there, and went more in Expectation of him then T. Hicks, from a Report that T. H. would not, but that John Faldo intended to be present, though both thought fit to be absent. 2dly, If he yet thinks it convenient to embrace that ●ffer already made, viz. To be one of the four, a Place he confesseth to have accepted at the Barbican-Meeting, even about another man's Fact. Or Lastly, If through the Apprehension he hath of T. H's ill Elocution, and great Conceit he hath of his own Oratory, with his better Skill at Forming and Terming the Question, he can prevail with the Baptists, to be their Mouth in the present Controversy, we shall through God's Assistance be ready to embrace any convenient Time and Place for a free and public Meeting.  
And that he may not think himself unconcerned in this Proposal, nor want any Encouragement we can well give him to accept it, I do hereby offer at such a Meeting or Meetings, first, To prove him as well as T. Hicks, an Abuser of us and our Writings by Forgery and Perversion; And next, to maintain those Doctrines which are indeed believed and asserted by us, to be Scriptural, and therefore Christian. And if this will not please him, I shall not think myself obliged to gratify every nice and critical Humour he is troubled with; but leave him to tyre himself with the Pain of his own manifest and merited Disquiet: Though my Soul beseecheth Almighty God, if it please him, to turn him and the Hearts of our Enemies, that they may see how much they wound Christianity, in pretending to defend it, and grieve that Holy Spirit which would lead them into Holiness, Meekness, Patience and Love, by these Tempestuous Assaults upon the Faith, Practice and Persons of their Harmless Neighbours.  
12th 9th Mon. 1674. I am a Real Friend in the Universal Principle of God to all men, and therein seek Peace with all men, William Penn.  
THE END.