Proteus Redivivus: OR, THE Turner of Turners-hall Truly Represented; And the ABUSES and FALSEHOODS OF George Keith's Fourth Narrative, So far as they concern the Author, EXAMINED and DETECTED.  
By Daniel Phillips, M. D.  Proverbs 24.8. 
He that deviseth to do Evil, shall be called a mischievous Person.  
Can any thing be spoken or written in words, so clear from Ambiguity, which a Perverse or Prejudiced Mind shall not be able to vex, and force to another Meaning?  Archbishop Tillotson 's Works, P. 680. 
Qui aliquid statuit, parte inaudita altera,  
Aequum licet statuerit, haud aeqitus fuit.  Sen. Tragoed. 
LONDON, Printed and Sold by T. Sowle, in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-street, 1700.   

THE EPISTLE TO THE READER.  
Christian Reader,  
WE are so far from affecting Obscurity in our Credenda, that could there be found a way to render our Principles as easily obvious to thy Understanding, as there is of our Actions to the Eye, we should be extremely well satisfied; not doubting but thou wouldst have as favourable an Opinion of the first, as of the last. But if thou dost only see with other men's Eyes, and judge by other men's Understandings, even those whose Interest, it may be, is, to put a Bear's Skin on us, I am no ways surprised, if thou hast ill Sentiments of Quakerism, so called. Did I believe that People held such Tenets as their Adversaries insinuate, I should abominate it from my very Soul; but I do certainly know, they are grossly misrepresented, and so may'st thou, if thou hast but so much Patience, or canst spare so much time, as to read and consider their approved 
* R. B is Apology. W. P 's Key, etc.  Authors, as many have done (since G. K. the Snake, etc. began their Malicious Clamours against them) to their entire Satisfaction; saying, What False Stories have we heard of the Quakers! We could not have believed that they are so Sound in the Christian Faith, had not we discoursed them about their Principles, and read their Books; therefore for the future, we are resolved never to credit any Reports concerning them, till we have examined the Truth of them. This Examination of our Principles, and reading of our Books, hath been of singular Service; for many thereby have been lately convinced of the Truth, amongst which numbers, are several Ministers, and other Learned Men, of divers Professions. By this it is evident, that what our Enemies designed for an Obstruction to the Truth, through Divine Providence is turned extremely to the Advantage of it.  
Haddit G. K. or any other of our Adversaries, that have lately written against us, intended it only in order to reform us in such Tenets, as they imagined, we were Erroneous, they should, in my Opinion, have considered our Principles, as explained by ourselves, and our words, in the Sense we use them; and in that Sense have demonstrated their Opposition to the Doctrines contained in the Holy Scriptures. Had they done thus, we might have acknowledged their Kindness towards us; but if they think, by their false Inferences, to persuade us, that we hold Principles, whereof we were altogether Ignorant, till they affirmed that they were our Tenets; or to alter our Sentiments, by the apparent Glosses and false Turns they give our Say, they will be mistaken, because we are satisfied, this is a Method calculated by some designing Persons, rather to raise Heats and Animosities, and to excite the Magistrates to Persecution, that to reform our Judgements, wherein they suggest we are Erroneous.  
To leave the Truth of their Allegations against us, to the Decision of some Moderate Men, that are either Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, or Baptists, hath at the first glance some show of Fairness: But if we seriously consider the Proposal, nothing is more Unreasonable, than to expect that we should leave the Determination of our Cause, to those Men that are, or have been, our Accusers, and have long since pre-judged both it and ourselves. Will the Episcopalians stand to the Award of the Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, whether there were any Lord Archbishops, Lord Bishops, Priests, Deacons, (as an Order Prior to Priesthood) Arch-Deacons, etc. or any Common-Prayer-Book, Sprinkling of Infants, Signing of them in the Forehead with the Sign of the Cross, and the Use of Godfathers and Godmothers, as they call them, in the Apostles days? Or any Fonts, Surplices, Organs, Choristers, etc. in their Times? Will the Presbyterians stand to the Arbitration of the Episcopalians, whether Bishops are an Order distinct from, and superior to Presbyters, Jure Divino? Will the Baptists abide by the Determination of the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents, whether Water-Baptism ought to be administered by Dipping only, and not by Sprinkling or Pouring also? Or whether Adult Persons only, aught to be admitted to Water-Baptism, upon Profession of their Faith, and not the Infants of Professing Parents? If none of these will admit one Party's Judgement conclusive against the Opinion of the other, what reason then is there for the Quakers to admit Men of another Persuasion to be their Judges, as long as they submit their Doctrines to the Test of the Holy Scriptures? I confess I see none; what thou may'st, Reader, is difficult for me to determine.  
Possibly, Reader, thou may'st be one of those, whose Opinion is, that we should Retract some Passages in our ancient Friends Books, (as G. K. hath done in his) and then all would be well, not doubting but thou wilt allow, as one of the Norfolk Priests as West-Dereham did, that the Quakers of this Generation are Orthodox; and that thou desirest nothing more of the Quakers, but that they should Retract some Expressions in their old Writings, and then thou wouldst recognize them as Protestant Dissenters. To thee I reply, That as long as most of the Sentences oppugned by our Adversaries, and justified by us, have either been sufficiently explained already in some other part of the same Author's Works, or in some other Books of our Friends, there can be no need of an Index Expurgatorius.  
And as G. K. hath vindicated most that hath been formerly objected against us as Erroneous, so I am confident the latter pretended Discoveries may be; if our Opponents will but grant us the same liberty to defend our deceased Friends Writings, that Bishop Kidder takes, to defend the New Testament against the Objections of the Jews. If this may be admitted, as 'tis presumed no Christian will deny it, then 'tis not doubted, but a Sense Analogous to the Doctrines contained in the Scriptures, may be given to all our Ancient Friends Writings.  
What concerns G. K's Retractations, whereof he now makes a great Noise, I imagined that the Bishop which Ordained him, would have obliged him to a more particular Recantation; especially as to his former Severe Censures of that Church, whereof now he is a Pretended Member, e'er he would have employed him as an Itinerant Preacher; because, should they be but superficially surveyed, his particular ones, which are but few, would appear little more than Explications adapted to his Private Designs; and his general one (
* Retrack. p. 42.  I submit all that I have at any time given forth, in Word, Writ or Print, by way of Doctrine in Religious Matters, to the Test, Touchstone and Rule of the Scriptures— Renouncing, Revoking, Retracting, Disowning and Denying, whatever is contained in any of my former or latter Books, that doth not perfectly agree with the Holy Scriptures,) is no more, as I verily believe, than any Quaker will readily do.  
Haddit G. K. been really convinced, he had acted the Part of a Sophister, in defending the Quakers Opinion, by putting false Glosses on the Scriptures, or by using any inconclusive Arguments; he should (as I conceive) have been as particular in his Retractations, as he was in his Vindications of them; and ingenuously have demonstrated, wherein each particular Perversion of the Scriptures, and every Numerical Sophism did consist. Till this is done, his former (now the Quakers) Arguments, are as good a Defence for them, against him, or any other Adversary, as formerly when he was one of them. 'Tis not enough, in my Thoughts, for G. K. (when his own Arguments are urged against him) in general, to say, I have Retracted, I have Retracted them; and that 'tis great Impudence in any, to object against me, what I have long since Retracted. We do not consider them now, only as G. K's, but as our own Reasons; and might have used them, had he never been known, nor any of his Books seen by us; and we may presume to use any, or all the Arguments (which he hath formerly Printed) in our Defence, let him mutter never so much, till he, or some of his Adherents, shall show their Inconclusiveness.  
I am sensible, Reader, that many are (perchance thou art also) of opinion, that G. K. hath discovered monstrous Errors amongst the Quakers, that were never detected before; and indeed he seems to insinuate as much, in his Advertisement to his Fourth Narrative, by saying, It is my purpose to detect and discover Gross Errors, and Antichristian Principles, etc. Whereby thou mightest be apt to infer, he was an Original, and not a Transcriber. To undeceive thee in this matter, I shall subject to thy Consideration, what one (tho' I might, what one Hundred) of their Opposers said of them, above Forty Years since, conceiving thou canst discover Ex ungue Leonem. And that thou may'st the more easily perceive the Harmony (not to say Plagiasm) of G. K. with one Jonathan Clapham, (who writ a Book, styled, A Full Discovery, and Confutation, of the Wicked and Damnable Doctrines of the Quakers, etc. and dedicated it to Oliver Cromwell, than Lord Protector, Printed Anno 1656.) I shall set Eight of G. K.'s Ten Calumnies, as they are Printed in an Advertisement prefixed to his Fourth Narrative, in a Column opposite to what J. C. also falsely affirmed, that their Agreement may the easier be perceived.  

J. C. in the abovesaid Book, pretends to prove the Quakers guilty of,  
1. Being Enemies to the Holy Scriptures.  
2. Denying Christ come in the Flesh, his Death, Resurrection, etc.  
3. Denying the Doctrine of the Trinity.  
4. Holding Equality with God, and the Soul to be one Being with God.  
5. Corrupting the Doctrine of Justification.  
6. Denying the Resurrection of the Body, last Judgement, Heaven and Hell.  
7. Being Enemies to all the Ordinances of Jesus Christ.  
8. Being no Friends to the Lord's day, making all days alike.  
9 Pretending to Miracles.  
10. Being not truly Mortified Persons, notwithstanding Pretences thereunto; and how Popish Monks have outstripped them therein.  
11. Destroying the True Doctrine of Sanctification.  
12. Being the common Sink of all the Heresies of our Times; and how they agree with former Heretics in many Particulars; and are Enemies to all Civility and good Manners; and to avoid them, as Pernicious Enemies to the Souls of Men, and to have no Communion with them, etc.   

G. K. Insinuates, that the Errors he intends to discover the Quakers guilty of, 
* In his Advertisement to his 4th Narrative.  are,  
1. Concerning the Scriptures.  
2. Concerning Christ's Incarnation, his Soul, and Body, and Blood, his coming to Judgement at the last day.  
3. Concerning the Holy Trinity.  
4. Concerning the Soul.  
5. Concerning Justification.  
6. Concerning the Resurrection.  
7. Concerning Outward Baptism and the Supper.  
8. Concerning doing Servile Work on the Lord's day.   
The Analogy that here is between the Contents of G. K's Fourth Narrative, and J. Clapham's Book, is so conspicuous, that some may be induced to think, he borrowed a great deal of his Darkness from this Book, in composing his last Narrative: But waving that, 'tis undeniable that the Principal Errors pretended, which G. K. and others now advance against the Quakers, are mostly contained in this Treatise of J. C. If so, it consequentially follows, that they were forged long before G. K. was a Quaker. How then it should happen, seeing these Objections were so publicly Printed, that he should live (as now he pretends) Thirty Years in Ignorance of them, is so surprising, that it gains little Credit with me; how much it doth with thee, I shall not determine.  
In fine, It may be obvious to any, that have the Opportunity of reading our old Adversary's Books, that there is little now objected against the Quakers, but what is a Reiteration of things falsely affirmed of them, and answered by them, Thirty or Forty Years since. If G. K. (who is, by some, thought to have made the greatest Discoveries of their Errors) should have his Writings deplumed of all the Feathers, which his Envious Predecessors have made use of against them, his Circumstances would not be much unlike that of the Crow in the Fable; and under the same Predicament, may be comprehended most of the Modern Writers against them: As can be demonstrated by thy Sincere Friend  
D. P. London, Septemb. 4. 1700.   

Proteus Redivivus: OR, The TURNER of Turner's-Hall Truly Represented, etc.  
THAT Persons who have been Banished a Society, whether Civil or Religious, for their Irregularities, should afterwards use their utmost Efforts, to excite the Enemies of such a Communion, to disturb its Peace; is (as History relates) so natural to Exiles, that I am subject to imagine, few will be surprised, either to hear, or see G. K. so Sedulous in perverting the Quaker's Books, violating their Sense, and ridiculing their Persons; when they have a true Idea of the real Motives, which induced him to be so maliciously Clamorous against them.  
It was not my Design, to have concerned myself in this public Controversy; (neither do I now intent to go much farther than I am actually concerned) would G. K. have answered my Letter delivered to him, or given me a Meeting as he promised, or Personally acknowledged he was Mistaken, and had not designedly misrepresented my Words: But seeing this could not be obtained, to undeceive his Reader, I shall here expose to his view and consideration, a brief Account of the Substance of the Discourse, that passed between G. K. his abetting Ministers, and myself, at Turner's Hall, with some Observations on his Fourth Narrative, relating thereunto. And that I may not be altogether Immethodical. I shall consider every Paragraph (wherein I find my Name specified) in the same order as they are printed in his Narrative, beginning with p. 21.  

* Fourth Narr. p. 21.  A Quaker, called D. Phillips, standing by, near where I stood, said, That Book (i. e. The Way cast up) was approved by the Second-Days-Meeting at London, which was a great Untruth. I told how I wrote that Book in Scotland, and from Scotland sent it to a Correspondent in Holland, who printed it there; and when it come over to London, in the Year 1678. it met with great Opposition from divers of the Preachers of the Quakers, at London; as Steven Crisp, William Shown, William Mead, and Samuel Newton.  
Obser. I could deny what he asserts of me here to be True, because of some Additions. This Mistake I would rather impute to that Officious Person, that gave him the Relation of what I said, than to any design in G. K. to  my Words; being well satisfied, he cannot say, he heard me speak any thing like it. For, when I spoke to some that were by me, concerning that Book, I stood in a Corner behind him; so that he could neither conveniently see or hear me, because he was then directing his Discourse to his Auditory, that was before him.  
But, admitting it for granted, that I did say his Book, called, The Way cast up; was approved by the Second-Days-Meeting at London: I am apt to think, no unprejudiced Person will assert I am guilty of a great Untruth (i. e. great Lie) for saying, that That Book was approved by the Second-Days-Meeting at London; when he hath Read what G. K. saith concerning that very Book, in the Defence of the Snake, and duly considered the Reasons advanced by him, here to prove it.  
The First. Reason whereby he would insinuate, that I am guilty of a great Untruth, seems to run thus; That Book was Writ in Scotland, Printed in Holland; and therefore could not be Censured by the Second-Days-Meeting at London. Is it not possible, that a Book may be Writ in the East-Indies, Printed in the West-Indies, yet may be approved or disapproved of in London? The inconclusiveness of this Argument is so obvious, that I am of Opinion it would be nauseous to the Reader, to detain him any longer thereon: Therefore shall proceed to his  
Second, When it (i. e. The Way cast up) came over to London, in the Year 1678. it met with great Opposition from divers of the Preachers of the Quakers, at London. Under this extensive term, Divers, only Four are here included, and that is the greatest number that I have heard, did then object against any of the Expressions contained in that Book. Should all that he asserteth on this Subject be Credited as Truth, (tho' at the same time, I have great cause to suspect his Sincerity in this Matter, because in other Relations he has Printed Notorious Falsehoods) it would affect the whole Body of Quakers no more, than if any should prove there were Four Ministers of the Church of England, so called, that were Socinians, would affect the whole Episcopal Clergy in England; neither do I conceive he would have continued Fourteen Years after this, Strenuously defending their Principles as Orthodox, or have said, as he doth in his Preface to his Serious Appeal, Printed in Pensilvania 1692. which is Fourteen Years after the Conference about this Book was managed, viz. 
* Preface to the Serious Appeal.  It never yet hath been proved, nor ever will be, that the Religion professed by the Sincere and Faithful People, called in Scorn Quakers, is either Paganism, or any other thing than real Christianity, had he not been Convinced; that they held no such Errors, as by wresting of their Words he would now insinuate.  
Had he deserted their Society immediately after this Conference, it might have had some shadow of Reason, to induce some to Credit this Story concerning our above-nominated Four Friends; but I can scarce have so hard Thoughts of him, as to imagine he would have tarried amongst them so many Years after this Conference, had these Men Opinions, as here related by him, been the avowed Principles of the Quakers, as now he seems to assert. I am so far from an Opinion, that he deserted them on this Account, that I believe, had he not been Expelled their Society, he would not have divested himself of the Title of a Quaker to this Day; because several Years after he was Exiled their Communion for some Irregularities, he owned himself to be a Quaker; which is almost a Demonstration to me, that he did not think Antichristian Doctrines Essential to Quakerism, so called. My Sentiments are, that he kept that Title as long as he was in any hopes of gaining a Party of them, or any others, to side with him; but finding his greatest Endeavours to divide them Fruitless, and it may be his Necessities very pressing, partly out of Revenge, and partly through the Charms of a good Stipend, he makes his Intentions known to some of the Church of England, so called, who willingly received him; not, as I am subject to believe, out of any great Esteem of his Sincerity; but having a design against the Quakers, etc. they thought him a Tool, as well qualified, to stir up Persecution against them, as any.  
But to return, to what more immediately concerns myself, viz. to prove that Book (i. e. The Way cast up) was approved of by a Meeting of Friends, I could produce a Cloud of Witnesses; but doubting the Narrator will insinuate his Old Friends are now become his Enemies; and therefore their Evidence against him is not to be Credited; I shall omit theirs, and only recite what G. K. saith (conceiving he will not eat his own Words) concerning this Treatise, in the Defence of the Snake: his Partiality therein I shall not now determine, but shall suspend till I have seen his Opponents Answer; his Words are, 
* Defence of the Snake, p. 25.  In the Conclusion (after there had been two Meetings about it) the Persons that had accused me, were desired by the Meeting, to desist from their Charge, and say nothing against the Book (i. e. The Way cast up;) and whereas some Friends that were dissatisfied at my Book, had forbidden the Stationer in George-yard to sell it, because it was Unsound: Order was given by the Meeting, that the Stationer might be encouraged to Sell it, that it might have its Service in City and Country, as according was done. It is to be observed, that there is but one Meeting amongst Friends, that doth actually concern themselves about Printing, etc. of Books; if this Relation of G. K. is true, how am I guilty then of a great Untruth, I leave to the Consideration of the Unprejudiced to give in their Verdict.  
I shall conclude my Observations on this Paragraph, with one Argument, ad hominem, whereby I am induced to believe, that if one of G. K's. Inferences is conclusive; it will undeniably follow, that all the Orthodox Doctrines, etc. contained in any of his Books, that have been Countenanced by the Second-Days-Meeting at London, and have been allowed to be sold by the Quakers there, are to be Esteemed as their Principles from these following Words: 
* Ancich. and Sadd. p. 5.  Seeing the Second-Days-Meeting at London hath Countenanced his (i. e, Caleb Pusey 's) Book, and the Quakers generally at London, allow it to be sold next Door to their Meetinghouse in Grace-Church-street; they make his Ignorance, Unbelief, Sadducism and Antichristian Doctrine, to be theirs: Then with a parity of Reason, all the Knowledge, Orthodox Faith, and Christian Doctrine, that is contained in G. K. or any other person's Books, that have been Countenanced by the Second-Days-Meeting at London, or are generally allowed to be sold next Door to their Meetinghouse in Grace-Church-street, are theirs.  
I asked D. Phillips what he said to my former Question, 
Fourth Narr. p. 58.  Did Men by their Sins really wound God in them, as some of their Preachers have affirmed? After some demur, he said, he would not give a positive Answer, but take it into further Consideration; whereupon some of the Auditory did commend him.  
Obser. My Answer to his Query, is here mis-stated, whether Designedly or Accidentally, I shall not positively affirm; but this I can say, He hath not related one Sentence in Terminis, as it was delivered by me: Therefore to undeceive his Reader, I shall give him a Summary Account, why a Priest did speak favourably of an Answer I gave, which was on this occasion; G. K. holding a little Book in his Hand, read a Passage in it; as soon as he had done reading it, he asked my Opinion thereof: I replied,  
D. P. I must take time to Consider it.  
Minist. That is Modestly said.  
Another Minister, But you should either have owned or disowned it.  
D. P. Would it have been Prudence in any Man, either to Justify or Condemn a Book, merely on the reading of one or two Lines of it, without considering the Context, Scope, or Drift of the Author?  
Minist. But you should have considered this Book.  
D. P. I do not know where to procure it.  
Minist. You may have it at Mrs. Sowle's:  
D. P. I am satisfied of the contrary; because most of these Books here produced, were out of Print before I was Born; and if I would give Ten times their value, I do not know where to buy them.  
If thou wilt but oblige us so far, as to give us the same liberty to defend our Ancient Friends Books, that Bishop Kidder takes in defending the Holy Scriptures against the Jews; I doubt not, but we may easily defend our Ancient Friends Writings against all the Cavils of our Mercenary Adversaries.  
Minist. But who can tell where to have you, seeing you may hereafter see cause otherwise to Word the Matter, and yet your Intentions the same?  
D. P. Yes indeed, we can sometimes use Neco, other times Occido, and yet intent the same thing; conceiving Neco and Occido to be Synonymous Terms: and I am apt to think, that variety of Synonymous Expressions, is acceptable to most Readers.  
Obser. I always was, and yet am of Opinion, that it was, and also is a great hardship, for any Subject to be tried as a Criminal, without a Copy of his Indictment, even for a Fact that he himself hath Committed: But a Barbarity, nay, a Tyranny not to be Paralleled, to impeach a Man, and try him as an Offender for a Fact, his Ancestors, or some Friend of his Communion perpetrated, and it may be before he was Born, without favouring him with the sight of what he is in particular, not in general Terms to be tried for. This was the State of the Case of the Poor Quakers at West-Dereham; they were there to be Tried, Judged, and Condemned by their professed Enemies, for pretended Blasphemies, which their deceased or absent Friends were affirmed to be Guilty of; and most, if not all, their pretended Proofs, were to be taken out of certain Old Books, and Manuscripts: A Copy whereof was often (and in the Opinion of very Judicious Persons, justly) by the Quakers desired, nevertheless it was as often by the Arbitrary Priest denied. To this Method of indicting People in general Terms, G. K. is no Stranger.  
How easy is it for a Critic to pick and cull a Sentence, or by splitting it in two, to render it thereby Obnoxious to the Ears of an Auditory; to which as I conceive, it would not be Prudence for any Man to give a present Answer, until he had maturely considered the Context, Scope, and Intent of the Author? How Unjust, how Illegal, how Arbitrary then is it for G. K. or any other, to demand a direct Answer, to a particular Sentence picked out of a Book, which his Respondent never saw before; I leave to the Determination of every moderate Man.  
Would our Adversaries grant us that favour, which I am confident they would expect (if not demand) from their Opponents, being as it appears to me, nothing but a right. All Authors are Entitled to, viz. where a Writer treats on any Subject Concisely or Dubiously, if the same Person Writes on the same Matter, more Prolixly and Perspicuously in some other part of his Works, that is to be the Standard, whereby the former is to be regulated.  
If this would be admitted, I doubt not but to demonstrate, that all our Primitive Friends were sound in the Christian Faith, even in express Terms, as worded by themselves; but it hath been our Lot, to have our Writings wrested by our Enemies, to the worst (whereas Christian Charity should have given them the best) Sense they will bear, and many times directly contrary to the Scope, Intent, and formal Expressions of the same Author, in some other Page of his Writings. The very Errors of the Press, I am satisfied, are imputed to us, as often as they render the Sense Obnoxious.  
Should any without Prejudice, seriously consider that noted Expression of G. F. which was objected against him as a vile Error, about 45 Years since by his Adversaries; and as I am subject to believe, hath been Reprinted against us, with the greatest Aggravations imaginable, a Hundred times as a most horrid Error, viz. 
* Saul's Errand, p. 8.  He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ, is equal with God; may easily by considering the Context, and the Text of Scripture, there cited in the Margin (Rom. 8.11. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead, dwell in you; he that raised up Christ from the Dead, shall also quicken your mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you) determine what he meant, and that there is a word or two, either Redundant or Deficient; take away what is Redundant (i. e. he that hath) and it will read thus, The same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ, is Equal with God; or supply the Deficiency with the Addition of (hath what) and it will run thus, He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ (hath what) is Equal with God. I am induced to imagine, that there rather is a Deficiency than a Redundancy, because the Book is very ill Printed, and I observe there are several Words omitted in it, to make the Discourse Sense; in the Line precedent to this, is a Quotation out of the Scriptures, in which there is a word omitted, which could not be designedly, because it doth not any ways alter the Sense of the Text; that G. Fox attributes an Equality with God, to nothing in Man, but to the Holy Spirit, is obvious to any  Person, that will attentively read, 
Saul's Errand, p. 5.  and duly consider the drift of his Discourse in this, or any other of his Books; look back to p. 5. of the same Treatise, and there, ex professo, he answereth the same Objection. He being then accused by the Lancashire Petition, that he professed and avowed that he was Equal with God; His own Answer there is, It was not so spoken that G. F. was equal with God, but that the Father and the Son is One. Six Lines under this G. F. saith, The same Spirit, where it is, is equal with God. And in p. 10. he repeats again almost the same words, near the foot of that Page. Being accused of the same thing, i. e. That he was equal with God, by one C. Wade. His Answer was, 
* Great Mystery, p. 248.  All that have the Son and the Holy Ghost, have that which is equal in Power and Glory with the Father. And by the Text of Scripture cited by G. F. in the Margin, and these Quotations out of his own Writings it is undeniable, that he attributed Equality solely to the Spirit of God and Christ in Man, and not to any thing in Man, simply considered as Man, without the Indwelling of the Holy Ghost. They that have been concerned in Printing, will not think it impossible for an Error to happen in a Book; the Printed Erratas are an undeniable Witness thereof, either from the unfairness of the Copy, or from the heedlessness of the Corrector, especially in the absence of the Author; and it is not unknown to many, that G. F. was generally in Prison, or in the Country, when his Books were a Printing.  
I see no occasion to deny, that some of our Writings may be Elliptical, seeing the Scriptures are also under the same Predicament, if we may credit Bishop Kidder in his Demonstration of the Messiah; 
* Part II. p. 129.  where he produces some Quotations out of the Holy Scriptures, where he saith, the word only is virtually included, tho' not verbally expressed: If the Quakers have in like manner, in some places omitted the word only, I hope they are not guilty of an unpardonable Error: Neither is a Book to be rejected (if I were to give in my Verdict) because there may be some Difficulties, or seeming Inconsistencies in it. Where is that Author, even amongst the Learned Rabbis of this Age, that hath so Clear and so Logical a Head, as to be able to word his matter so nicely, that a Critic cannot observe a Flaw in his Writings? If they that have all the advantages of Education, are liable to have their words wrested to a Sense they never Dreamed of; who then can imagine that the Illiterate Man's Say will be exempted from the like Inconveniencies?  
Are the Scriptures (which by all Christians are allowed to be dictated by the eternal Spirit) totally free from Difficulties or seeming Inconsistencies? For deciding this Matter, Let us hear what the Learned Bishop Kidder saith: 
* Demon. Mes. P. II. p. 129.  They are very weak and foolish Men, who will renounce the whole Religion, because there are some things said or taught in it, which they are not able to comprehend, or give an account of. There are many Difficulties in the Old Testament, and seeming Contradictions, and yet both the Jews and Christians, do with great Reason receive those Books with great Veneration. It were a very easy thing to perplex a learned Jew with many Difficulties, to be found in the Books of Moses, of Samuel, the Kings and Chronicles— but he will not therefore doubt of the whole, because he is not able to give a clear account of those difficult Passages which are found therein. What he saith here of the Old, he grants the same of the New Testament.  
That lately common (tho' in my Opinion) silly Objection i. e. That I may see cause otherwise to word the Matter, and yet my intention be the same; Were they only illiterate Creatures that Objected this as an Heretical saying against the Quakers, I should not be surprised at it: but for Men of Letters, who have been Educated at the Universities (as most of the Ministers of the National Church have been) to recite this as a Notorious Crime in them, is a sign of a disingenuous Nature, if they are found tardy in the same thing.  
G. K. to expose the Quakers, or Himself, in his late Broad Sheet, Entitled, A Serious Call to the Quakers, etc. under the head of Vile and Monstrous Doctrines, Principles, and Uncharitable Say, hath cited this saying of G. W. viz. 
* Count. Conu. p. 12.  I may see cause otherwise to word the Mat, and yet my Intention be the same; Is this a Vile and Monstrous Doctrine? Is this a Vile and Monstrous Principle, or an Uncharitable saying? Under which of these three Heads to reduce it, I do confess I am at a loss; and if G. K. would so far oblige me, as to tell me under which of them it is to be placed; I shall acknowledge it as some part of a Satisfaction, for telling his Auditory at Turner's- Hall, That I was a Fool. A few Lines under this Citation, G. K. (it may be fearing his single affirmation would not be Credited) borrows the Names of Three Doctors, and Five Masters of Arts, of the Church of England, so called, to Co-attest the Truth of this, and some other Citations.  
I am satisfied, the Quakers will never see Cause to retract this saying of G. W. viz. I may see cause otherwise to word the Matter, and yet my intention be the same: if wording a Subject differently is an Antichristian act; how Guilty then are your Schoolmasters, etc. who daily teach their Scholars not to use the same Term, or reiterate the same Phrase in any Epistle Theme, Copy of Verses, or Declamation they Compose; but as often as they are barren of Synonymous Terms or Phrases, to fertilise their Mind, they are ordered to have recourse to Gradus ad Parnassum, Winchester Phrases, etc. which are Books Composed only for that intent. If these Treatises are Pernicious to the Christian Religion, let them be exiled the Schools; and let those that presume to Print them be Excommunicated. But should we view G. K's Writings, or these Eight Minister's Sermons; I am subject to believe they will be found Wording their Matter differently, when they would represent the same Notions to their Auditory. I am far from Censuring them for it, because in my Opinion 'tis a qualification necessary for all Authors and Orators. I doubt not, tho' they reprehend this as an Error in the Quakers; yet they esteem copiousness of Expressions commendable in others: But why that which is a Virtue in some, should be a Vice in others; or that which is Laudable in a Churchman, should be culpable in a Quaker, is so absurd a Notion, that I think it needless farther to consider it here; But shall proceed to p. 63.  
Here a Quaker D. P. Objected, That Disputants might differ about the Subject of the Dispute, so as the Opponent might mean one thing, and the Respondent another: But I answered, They might so, when the Matter is intricate and obscure by ambiguities of Words: But it could not be so here, the Subject of the Dispute being so clearly proposed, that none but a Sot or Cheat could, or would mistake the Subject.  
Obser. These Words were not repeated here by G. K. as they were delivered by me; nevertheless I shall not much blame him, as long as he gives my meaning, tho' not my Words. I was then, and am now of Opinion, that Disputants might, and often did differ, more through the Equivocalness of Terms by them used, than through any real difference in their Sentiments, when the precise Signification of their Words was once settled; and G. K. here grants, That Disputants might differ about the Subject of the Dispute, when the Matter is Intricate and Obscure, by ambiguities of Words: But saith, It could not be so here. For which Reason, it will be necessary to consider the Subject of the Controversy, between G. Fox and Magnus Been, and then the  Reader may Determine, whether there is any Obscurity in M. Bines Words; and whether there is not a possibility they might be taken in several Senses, which are, There is a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul, which is not Infiniteness itself. If the Term Infiniteness is not Obscure and Ambiguous, I know not what is; who is there amongst the Sons of Men, that can say he hath a clear and comprehensive Idea of Infiniteness, or of the Soul of Man? If any have, let them Demonstrate it in intelligble Terms; if they grant they have no determinate or clear Notion of either of them, consequently they must acknowledge they are Obscure Terms; and I doubt not, but he that duly considers the various Subjects the Word Infiniteness may be predicated of, will not deny that it is Ambiguous, viz. of God, his Eternal Power, Wisdom, Goodness, and also of all his other Attributes; besides these, the Schools talk of the Infiniteness of space, number, duration, divisibility of material Substances: And M. Been here speaks of another kind, or species of Infiniteness, viz. in the Soul; but how properly, I shall not now Determine.  
If G. K. intends, by saying Disputants might differ about the Subject of a Dispute, when the Matter is Intricate and Obscure by Ambiguities of Words, that there is no possibility for them to differ about the Subject of a Dispute; but when there is a perceptable Intricacy, Obscurity, or Ambiguity in the Terms, I shall take leave to descent from him in this Matter: for I am induced to believe, that Opponents oftener disagree about the Subject of the Dispute, when they use common Sounds, whereof the Hearer it may be imagines it almost as an Affront, to suppose that he hath not the same precise determinate Idea in his Mind, that the Speaker hath in his, when he useth this or that familiar Term; whereas did the Hearer observe any Intricacy, Obscurity, or Ambiguity in the Speaker's Words, no doubt but the Respondent would have the precise meaning of such Terms, as appeared to him Obscure and Ambiguous, settled, before he would proceed any further: But after the Disputants had once agreed, what determinate Notions this or that Articulate Sound, did or should for the future represent, it would be Morally impossible for them afterwards, to differ about its Signification.  
Should we nicely examine the Disputes now on Foot, I am apt to think a great number of them would be found to be merely Verbal; amongst which I am satisfied, several Objections that have been lately revived by G. K. and others against the Quakers, may be enumerated. For Example, The Quakers say, The Scriptures are not (their Opponents say, They are) the Word of God. Let us but once settle the precise Conceptions, the Term Word excites in the Quaker's Minds, and what Ideas it represents to their Adversary's Intellect, when they read, or hear it pronounced; for the best way to determine this, is for all to explain the determinate Sense they take it in; because Word, signifies any Sound that is form by the Organs of Speech, Account, Command, Doctrine, Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word of God, etc. This Monosyllable being liable to be taken in such various Significations, it is no ways surprising to me, that Disputants should endlessly Jangle about it, till they do actually explain the limited Sense they take it in; when that is once determined, 'tis not doubted, but the Difference will soon be adjusted.  
For which Reason, it will not be unnecessary for me to determine what the Quakers mean, when they deny that the Scriptures are the Word of God, being Conscientiously concerned, not to attribute that to the Scriptures, which properly belongs only to Jesus Christ their Saviour, whom they (as the Scriptures) do term the Word of God; their Sentiments being, That the Scriptures Collectively taken, are not where, in the Old or New Testament, called the Word of God; neither can that Term, in their Opinion, properly be Predicated of any substantial Being, but of Christ Jesus.  
Their Adversaries in Opposition to this, Affirm; That the Scriptures are the Word of God: but when they are desired to demonstrate, what they mean by the aforesaid Terms, their Answer generally is, That the Scriptures are the Words or Say of God, delivered to us by Holy Men Livinely inspired. By this & what follows, I hope it will be evident that we agree in Substance, tho' differ in the form of Expressing it; for we always have, and now do own, That the Scriptures are the Words of God, viz. Great Mystery, p. 18.68, 75, 2●6, 302. And in Robert Pa●clay's Works, p. 747. We also Sincerely believe, that they are of Divine Authority, that they are a Declaration of the Will of God, and that they were Dictated by the Holy Ghost, speaking through his Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles: this we attribute to them in a formal Sense, i. e. as they contain the Doctrines of Truth; yet in a material, Acceptation, i. e. as they are Composed of Ink and Paper, we do not deny, but they are subject to Corruption.  
Before I proceed any farther, I conceive it may not be impertinent for me to consider here, the Reasons G. K. advances to prove the Scriptures are the Word of God; because in reading his Fourth Narrative, I met with a Passage, where he positively asserts, p. 22. The Scriptures are the Word of God, 
Fourth Narr. p. 22.  and the Word most frequently so called in Scripture: To confirm his Reader in a belief, that he had good Authority to prove so bold an Assertion, he citys Three Texts of Scripture out of the New Testament, viz. 1. Thes. 1.5. John 15.25. Acts 1.1. May I presume to look into the 7th. page of G. K. Presbyterian and Independent Visible Churches in New England, printed Anno 1691. I doubt not but I shall find George there in, Opposition to Parson Keith; because in that Book he positively saith, That Logos, 1 Thes. 1.5. Signifies word of talk or discourse. Now by Logos there, is meant Doctrine; and that Logos, Acts 1.1. Signified Treatise, but now it signifies Word; how to reconcile these seeming Contradictions of this Weathercock, I profess I am in a Quandary. On the other hand, should I say (as it appears to me) that he is Guilty of a perfect Contradiction, he might thereby imagine that I did Insinuate, That he was stark Mad, and Crazed in his Understanding; because he lays it down as a Maxim, in his Preface to his Exact Narrative, That none but stark mad Men, and Crazed in their Understanding, will hold perfect Contradictions.  
That things may be put into a true Light, and that the Reader may be capable to judge for himself: I shall here subject to his Consideration the original Texts, and their Translations into Latin, Dutch, French, and English, whereby it may be the more facile for him to determine, whether G. K. hath not, to serve a turn, given them a Sense different from all others; nay, from himself a few Years since; is not this in effect to make a Nose of Wax, a Lesbian Rule, of the Scriptures, by giving them this Year one signification, the next a different one? What advantages this may give to the Enemies of Christianity, I shall not now Demonstrate. The first of these Texts is, 1 Thes. 1.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quoniam Evangelium nostrum constitit apud vos non locutione dunt●●●●, sed etiam Virtute & Spiritu Sancto. Want on's Evangelium en is onder uniet alleen in Woorden gheweest, maer oock in Kracht, end in den Heyligen Grest. Car nostre Predication de l'Evangile n'a point este en vostre endroit seulement en Parole mais ausi en vertu, & en Saint Esprit. For our Gospel came (or more properly was) not unto you in Word only, but also in Power, and in the Holy Ghost. It may be observed, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not Translated came, in the Latin, Dutch or French Versions, neither in the Bible that was Printed in Queen Elizabeth's Time, Anno 1578. Should I confine myself solely to the Modern English Translation; I do not perceive any advantage, that G. K. will get thereby, seeing the Apostle Paul's Sense of this Verse, is (obvious to any unprejudiced Person) that the Gospel which he Preached to the Thessalonians, was not only to be believed, because of the perswasiveness of the Word, Talk or Discourse he made use of, when he Preached the Gospel to them; but principally, because the Power and Efficacy of the Holy Ghost accompanied it; that this is the literal Sense of this Text, I conceive none will deny: By what figure then, this 1 Thes. 1.5. proves that all the Books of the Old and New Testament, are the Word of God, I confess myself Ignorant, and am likely so to remain, unless G. K. or some of his Disciples, can inform me better.  
The Second Text of Scripture (that I shall consider) is, John 15.25, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sed oportet ut impleatur, Sermo qui in lege ipsorum Scriptus est. Maer (dit gescheit) open dat het wort vervult word, that in hare wet geschreven is. Mais c ' est a fin-que soit accomplie la parole, qui est ecrite en leur Loi. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their Law. It is evident from all these Translations of the Greek Text, that G. K. hath seen cause otherwise to word the Matter here, than either the Latin, Dutch, French or English Translators have; but whether his Intentions are the same, I shall leave that to the uninterested to determine.  
As G. K. in his former Proof, gave us only the English version of the Text, so here he omitteth that, (being little for his purpose) and favours us only with a scrap of the Original, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and translateth it Written Word, should it be admitted for a Genuine interpretation (though different from all others) of the Original, it would only prove that Sentence in their (i. e. the Jews) Law, was called the written Word; yet it is altogether insufficient to prove the Bible collectively, i. e. as it contains all the Books of the Old and New Testament, to be the Word of God: because the Evangelist restricts it here to Four Words, which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hated me without a Cause. The Controversy between G. K. etc. hath not been, whether one particular Sentence in the Bible, but whether all the Books therein contained, are the Word of God; all Citations of the Scriptures that do not prove that, are in my Opinion, far remote from the subject of this Dispute: and till this is proved in express Scripture Terms by him or some other, I hope he will be so favourable to us, as not to Stigmatize us with the Name of Heretics, especially if he hath not forgot what he lately said, viz. 
* Retract. p. 34.  I still adhere to my former Advice, that nothing be required by one sort from another, as an Article of Faith or Doctrine in common to be believed, but what is expressly delivered in the Scriptures, in plain express Scripture Terms.  
The Term Logos is variously used, and translated in the New Testament; G. K. recites 
* Presb. and Ind. Vis. Chur. p. 7.  Ten different Significations it hath. Had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 been translated in John 15.25. as it in 1 Cor. 15.54, the saying that is written, there would be scarce any shadow of an Argument to be deduced from that Citation, to have proved that the Scriptures are the written Word of God; unless wheresoever the Term Written is to be found in the Scriptures, he will say Word is there meant, tho' not expressed. Perchance G. K. may have so much Effrontery, as to deny that Logos signifies Saying; because he hath not given that Sense of it, in the Book and Page : If he will but please to Read Bishop Kidder's Demonstration of the Messiah, 
p. 11. p. 251.  there he may see the Bishop affirming, that Legos signifies Saying or Thing, and translating the very Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Saying that is Written, or the Thing that is Written; tho' the Quaker's Affirmation may be now of little Authority with him: Yet I conceive, he will not presume to contradict his Right Reverend Father in God, so called; but allow his ipse dixit sufficient to Patronise this Interpretation.  
The third and last Quotation (which I shall now examine) to prove the Scriptures are the Word of God, is brought by him from Acts 1.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, primum Librum, het Eersse Boetk, Le premier Traitte, the former Book; but in the Greek, saith G. K. it is Word: He might even as well have said, but in Greek 'tis Christ, 'tis Communication, 'tis Utterance, 'tis Reason, 'tis Preaching or Doctrine; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in all these and several other Significations, one whereof I remember G. K. makes mention of, and that is, Treatise; and quoted Acts 1.1. to prove it (in a 
* Presh. & Ind. Vis. Churches.  Book he writ about ten Years since) notwithstanding G. K. the Episcopalian now asserts the contrary, which brings to my remembrance an old Saying, 
☞ Conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipse.  Cato.  
Before I leave this subject concerning the Equivocalness of words, I shall concisely Anatomize one Query G. K. exultantly relates he put to John Whiteing, which was, 
* Fourth Narr. p. 41.  whether he was of G. Whitehead 's and Edward Burroughs 's Faith, who said, Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature; or that of W. Penn 's, who said, Christ took our Nature, and triumphed in our Nature. 'Twill be necessary here, before I proceed to explain, at least summarily, a few of the many Senses the ambiguous Term Nature is used in, because on the Equivocalness of that Term, is hinged the Opposition that G. K. would insinuate there is between G. W. E. B. and W. Penn.  
The word Nature is variously sensed.  
By the Schoolmen it is used as a Synonymous Term with God; and is called by them, sometimes, Natura Naturans; by Seneca 'tis affirmed, to be one of the Names of God.  
By Physicians it is considered as an Aggregate of Powers existing in a living animal Body, as when they say, Nature is strong, or weak; or that the Morbific Matter is by the strength of Nature expelled from the Centre to the Circumference, as in the Eruption of the Small Pox, Measles, etc. and also for an Essential Property, as Alees naturally Purges, Creeus Metallerum naturally Vomits.  
By Natural Philosophers, the settled order of things is understood; as Fire naturally burns, the Blood naturally circulates out of the Arteries into the Veins, after a Summer naturally follows a Winter, the Children of all Women have their solid parts naturally organised alike; and in the texture of their Fluids, naturally there is no visible difference.  
The Terraqueous Globe is also comprehended under this Term, as there is no such thing in Nature, as a Salamander, Phoenix, etc.  
By Theologists, the State our first Parents, by disobeying their Creator, fell into, wherein the Unregenerate Man now is, is typified, as the Ungodly Man is in the State of Nature, but the Godly is in the State of Grace. Besides these here recited, there are several other Significations of this ambiguous word Nature, too long here to be enumerated.  
By what hath been said, it is certain that there is a possibility the Term Nature may be variously considered, and it is as clear as the Sun at Noon, from G. Keith's Quotations out of their Books, that when G. Whitehead and E. Burroughs said, Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature, (as G. K. would infer from their words) they spoke it of sinful, wicked, Devilish Nature; but W. Penn, when he said Christ took our Nature, and triumphed in our Nature, considered him as the Son of Mary, a true and perfect Man, having a Body organised like other Men. That this was their meaning, is demonstrable from their own words, as cited by G. K. in his 
* P. 39  fourth Narrative, where G. Whitehead (as the Narrator affirms) doth severely blame John Horn and Thomas More, in his 
† P. 11, 12.  He Goat's Horn, etc. for saying, Christ took upon him, their (i. e. Sinful) Nature. Ed. Burroughs is very plain, in distinguishing the subject of the Controversy, by answering his Opponent as follows, 
* E. B's Works, p. 301.  Thou sayest in that Answer, that Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father in your Nature: Mark now thy Nature, and your Nature, who are one with thee, is sinful and wicked, and of the Devil, for so are all Liars; and it is Blasphemy, to say sinful wicked devilish Nature— is at the right hand of God in Heaven. If G. K. hath different thoughts of Christ being in Heaven, than E. B. here demonstrates he hath, let him plainly declare it: I do acknowledge I am not of opinion that Christ is in Heaven, in the Nature of Liars, which is the thing E. B. here opposes.  
W. Penn saith, That 
* Prim. Christ. p. 85.  Jesus Christ took our Nature upon him, and was like us in all things, Sin excepted. What Shadow of a Contradiction is here in these Proofs, even as cited by G. K. he that can perceive it, must have a more penetrating sight than I pretend to? I acknowledge, that I see nothing but a perfect Harmony. G. Whitehead blames some for saying, Christ took their (i. e. sinful) Nature on him: E. Burroughs saith, Christ is not at the right hand of God, in that Nature which Liars are in. W. Penn faith, Christ took our (i. e. as he was the Seed of the Woman) Nature upon him, and was like unto us in all things, Sin excepted. The two first consider Nature as it is predicated of the Unregenerate, as they are in a State of Enmity to God: The last considers Nature, as 'tis predicated, of a Being that hath the Essential Properties of a Man, and a Body organised, as our Bodies are.  
Note, G. K. did not propose his Question to John Whiting in the terms of G. W. who said their Nature; nor of E. B. who said your Nature, thy Nature, his Nature; the alteration of a material word in a Proposition, savours very much of Sophistry.  
If G. K. had demanded an Answer of me to this Query, I am subject to believe, that I might have given him the same Reply, that J. W. did, tho' it may be with a distinction, viz. That I was of the Faith of both, for I do not favour any Opinion, that would insinuate that Christ was, or is, in Heaven, in sinful Nature: Yet I do believe that he was a true and perfect Man, not imagining Sin to be Essential to our Nature, or deducible from the abovesaid Premises, as G. K. would 
* Narr. p. 40.  infer, and then cry out from a false Consequence, this is a most vile and gross Heresy.  
If G. K. thinks I have, by saying that I am of J. Whiting's Faith in this matter, rendered myself very Ridiculous and Obnoxious to the general Censure of his Auditory; he may rest satisfied that I am not ambitious of his Favour, experimentally knowing, that it is a discredit to be praised by some. And as for the Censure of his Auditory, some of his Associates that understood Philosophy, were ashamed of his Definition of Substance, etc. as I have been informed. But as to the Judgement of his ignorant Mobb, he may depend on it, that I never have, nor will court their Applause. Having said thus much of the Ambiguity of words in a formal Acceptation, I shall pass on to his Page 92.  
I asked D. Phillips who was present, 
4th Narr. p. 93.  and sat near. where I stood, (this is false, for I stood amongst the Crowd, when this Query was proposed to me) and is one in Unity with the Quakers, whether that Blood (that was let out of Christ's Side by the Spear) was in being, etc.— but he gave no reply.  
Obser. I do not remember what Answer I gave to this Query, because sometimes G. K. would ask me one Question; at the same time one or two of his Ministers would ask me another; and sometimes I answered one, sometimes the other; but if I disrespected him so far then, as not to oblige him with an Answer; if he will not be Angry, nor call Names, I will do it now. My Opinion is, that the Blood which was let out of Christ's Side by the Soldier's Spear after he was Dead, is not now existing under the same form of Blood, as than it was: Nevertheless, I do not conceive, that any Particle of it is Annihilated, tho' it may be wonderfully changed, as to those parts the Schools term its Accidents.  
Ibid. I asked him (i. e. D. P.) again, Whether he believed that the Blood that was outwardly shed was Meritorius to Justification, 
4th Narr. p. 92.  and that True Believers were justified by it? He said, he knew not what I meant by the word Merit or Meritorious; I told him, It was a Shame for him to pretend to be so Ignorant of the Signification of the Word, that an ordinary Schoolboy did know, seeing he was a Scholar, and did not long ago Commence Doctor of Physic at Leiden, and had there a Latin Oration.  
Obser. The Narrator here is guilty of two Untruths, the First, is in saying, that I said, That I did not know what he meant by Merit or Meritorious: The Second is, That I had a Latin Oration at Leiden. As to the First, I am satisfied he hath designedly altered my Words, by what he hath since told me; whether the Second is to be attributed solely to his Ignorance of the Method of that University, I shall not determine.  
Ibid. I asked again, Were Believers justified by the Merit of the Blood that was outwardly Shed? He answered, It was a part of the Offering.  
I do conceive, that that Act of the Soldiers piercing our Saviour's Side, and letting out his Blood by the Wound made by the Spear, abstractly considered, is not the Meritorious cause of our Salvation; but that it is the whole Offering whereby Believers are justified.  
Ibid. I farther asked him, what he did mean by the Offering?  
Observe. By the Offering I mean, what the Author to the Hebrews hath left on record, Chap. 9.14, 15. in these words, How much more shall the Blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without Spot to God, purge your Consciences from dead Works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of Death, for the Redemption of the Transgressions that were under the first Testament, they which are called might receive the Promise of the eternal Inheritance.  

* P. 93.  And on this Head also I queried D. Phillips, Whether Christ's Body was the same in Substance now in Heaven, that it was on Earth? And whether it was, when on Earth, a terrestrial Body? He said, he did not know what I meant by Substance.  
Observe. Here were some things by him said, which I am apt to think some of his Friends have since acquainted him with, and shown him the Absurdity thereof, which hath inclined him so notoriously to vary the state of the Query; to undeceive the Reader, I shall give him a more particular account thereof, which was after this manner.  
G. K. Daniel, hath Christ now in Heaven, the same Body that he had when here on Earth?  
D. P. I do desire to know, whether thou wouldst have me give my Opinion, whether I do believe that Christ hath now in Heaven, the same Flesh, Blood and Bones, that he had when here on Earth; because here is a Minister of the Church of England, that told me, he did believe that Christ hath now in Heaven the same Flesh, Blood and Bones, Stomach and Guts, that he had when here on Earth. To this he gave no answer, but Queried:  
G. K. Is the Substance the same, tho' its Accidents are changed?  
D. P. I have no Notion or Idea of Substance, without Accidents, therefore prithee give me a Definition of such a Substance.  
G. K. Substance is a Being, or thing that doth depend on God Almighty, and is the subject of Accidents, etc. As he was going on, and making an Harangue concerning Substance, I stopped him, by saying,  
D. P. George, this is little to the purpose, I only desire a Definition of Substance.  
G. K. Thou art a Fool.  
D. P. If I am a Fool, few will admire thee for proposing thy Queries to me.  
G. K. 'Tis a Shame for a Doctor of Physic to be ignorant what Substance is. Here he run into a Passion, and shown his Admirers what a Man of Temper he was.  
Min. A Minister reproving him, said, Personal Reflections are not commendable. Another Minister endeavouring to divert me from the Subject under debate, said, The Definition of Substance is little to the purpose.  
D. P. How can any Person positively determine, whether any Substance is the same, when all its Accidents are changed, unless he can have a distinct Idea of Substance, separated from its Accidents? Here G. K. having a little moderated his Passion, replied,  
G. K. Substance is a created Being:  
D. P. So are Accidents created Being's.  
G. K. They are produced Being's. And presently desisted Querying, and went on another Subject.  
Observe. Here are three things that I shall briefly consider: First, The Absurdity of this Clergy-man's Resurrection. Secondly, How G. K. treats his Opponents. Thirdly, The Learnedness of G. K's Definition of Substance.  
As to the first, Those that do assert, that Christ hath now in Heaven, the same Flesh, Blood and Bones, that he had when here on Earth; do consequentially grant, that every Man, at the Resurrection, shall have the same numerical Particles vitally reunited to his Soul, that he had at the time of his Death: If this is admitted, than it necessarily follows, that he that died an Infant, shall rise in Stature like an Infant; he that dies Hydropical, shall rise with a Belly not much less than a Tun; he that dies of a Consumption, shall rise extremely emaciated, resembling a Skeleton; he that dies without his Legs and Arms, shall arise without them; and he that dies Gibbous, shall arise Hunch-backed. This is so gross an Opinion of the Resurrection, that I am subject to believe G. K. doth not incline to Patronise any such Carnal Notions of the Resurrection of the Dead, tho' he did not condemn it in his Brother Priest, who said, at Turners-Hall, that he believed Christ was now in Heaven, with the same Stomach, Guts, etc. that might be out of Policy, not being willing to disoblige any of them, into whose Society he daily expected to be initiated.  
Secondly, As to his Civility towards his quondam Friends, if he dislikes their Discourse, being, perhaps, better Orators than himself, he order his Janissaries to pull them down, if they do not do it without a Command; as soon as they are down, they are hurried out of Doors with Violence, scarce admitting them to speak a word in their own defence, altho' it may be he bespatters them at the same time with some personal Reflections. Thus Thomas Kent was served at Turners-Hall, a partial account thereof may be seen in the ninth Page: Other times, tho' (it may be) he was the Aggressor, he will compliment them with the grateful Titles of Fool, Madman, Liar, etc. especially when he is foiled by his Opponent.  
He will not be more Civil when he invites them into his Friend's House: In confirmation hereof, I will give the Reader a brief account, how he treated me. A few days after his pretended fourth Narrative came out, I writ to him, intimating, that he had grossly misrepresented me, desiring his Answer; but with none could I be favoured to his day. Some time after, I accidentally met him in Cornhill; he told me, that he had received my Letter, and if he had done me any Wrong, he would give me Satisfaction; inviting me into his Bookseller's Shop; without any Hesitation I followed him, where some of his Fraternity were, who would have; Catechised me. I replied, I am come in with G. K. in order to receive Satisfaction from him, for some things he hath Printed concerning me, in his last Narrative. I charged him with misrepresenting me first, in Page 21. concerning his Book, called, The Way Cast up; and shown them what he said concerning it, in the Defence of the Snake, how that Book was approved by a Meeting of Friends, and that by his own Concession then, there was no Meeting, but the Second-days-Meeting, that did authorise Books; consequentially it could be no great Lie in any Person (that had read his Books) to say, that his Book, called, The Way Cast up, was approved by the Second-days-Meeting, they assented to it. I also there told him, That I did not say, that I did not know what Meritorious signified. He replied, He thought I meant so. I told him, If he had done candidly by me, he should have given my own Words, and not his Conjectures of my Meanings. Insisting a little warmly on this Subject, to clear himself of this apparent Forgery, he said, He did verily believe that I spoke as 'twas Printed. I replied, 'Twas abominable False: He fell into an Exorbitant Passion, calling me Madman, Liar, etc. One that belonged to the Shop, seeing the little Man in so great a Disorder, and People gathering about the Shop-door, pulled me from the place I stood, and with violence thrust me into the Street. Perchance some may have so favourable Opinions of him, as to say, he did not order his Friends to abuse me: To them my Answer is, Neither did he reprove them in my hearing, for their Incivilities, which in some men's Judgement, is a tacit Approbation.  
Thirdly, What concerns his Definition of Substance, it is deficient, having no differentia specifica, whereby, one Classis of Being's, is discriminated from another. But why should I spend time in anatomising the Defectiveness, etc. of his Definition, when it is obvious to all that know the Nature of a Definition: I could not have imagined, that G. K. who would be esteemed a Philosopher, would have entertained his Auditory with such a nauseous Dish of Philosophy. Perhaps some, may think I am too Censorious, that are of Opinion he is introducing a new System of Philosophy, from his saying at Turners-Hall, My Philosophy teacheth me this, and my Philosophy teacheth me that. Whatever Sentiments any of his Admirers may have; of his Philosophy, I shall have a mean Esteem of it, till I have seen a Vindication of his late Definition of Substance, etc.  
Ibid. I asked him (i. e. D. P.) again, Was our Lord's Body Earthly when it was on Earth?  
D. P. It was like unto ours in all things, Sin excepted.  
G. K. But was it Earthly or Terrestrial?  
D. P. The Scriptures are very plain in this matter, for which reason I do not conceive there is any necessity for me to use any Unscriptural Terms; nevertheless I do sincerely believe, that it was (as the Scripture says) like ours in all things, Sin excepted.  
Min. By his confessing it was like ours, he hath confessed it was an Earthly Body.  
G. K. To them that are Sound in the Faith, 'tis so, but not to the Quakers; for they will not allow, that an Earthly Body, and a Heavenly Body, can be the same in Substance; or that a Natural Body, and a Spiritual Body, are the same in Substance.  
Obs. The unsettled Sense of this Term Substance, is, as I conceive, the sole Cause of several Differences that arises amongst them, that Discourse about it: Those that have not been Tinctured with the Notions of the Schools, concerning Substance, consider it as a material Being, having Length, Breadth, Thickness, Figure, Colour, and as a thing Cognizable to the External Senses. G. K. and the Schoolmen talk of it, as a Being that hath neither Length, Breadth, Thickness, Figure, Colour, nor as an Object perceptible by the Eye, etc. but only as a Substratum of certain Qualities, commonly called Accidents: But what this Substratum is, I never could yet meet with any that could give me a clear distinct Idea of it.  
If G. K. hath a clear, distinct, and comprehensive Idea of the Term Substance, and would communicate it to G. W. it is very probable their Notions about it, might easily be reconciled; but if one talks of it as a Creature of the Mind, invented by the Schools, to support their Notions of Accidents, actually existing, per se, no where, unless it doth in the Mind, as Substance distinct from all Accidents really doth not: And the other considers it only as a visible material Being, as the Scripture does, Gen. 7.4. They may endlessly dispute about it, till the precise Signification of that Term is settled, when that is done, this Controversy may then appear to be a Strife, merely through the Ambiguity of words.  
Ibid. I told the Auditory, how the Quakers Ignorance, and False Notions of Philosophy, destroyed their Faith, and hindered them to believe that necessary and Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith, that Christ's Body that he had on Earth, is the same in Substance it was in Heaven— for if it is not the same in Substance, it is in no respect the same.  
Obs. We are not of the Opinion of a great Man among the Romans, who said, If they had been deprived of Aristotle's Philosophy, they should have wanted several Articles of their Faith. We do not esteem Heathenish Philosophy Essential to our Religion, neither do we matter how Ignorant we are in that, our principal Care being to make our Calling and Election sure. That the Quakers Ignorance, and false Notions of Philosophy, destroyed their Faith, G. K. dogmatically asserteth; but how doth he prove it? Why he saith, They do not believe that Christ's Body, that he had on Earth, is the same in Substance it was in Heaven. How doth he make out, that the Sameness of a Spiritual Body, which was once a Natural Body, consists only in its Substance; may not his ipse dixit (when supported with a great Assurance) be credited? Then he hath another notable Argument, which is reserved till last, and probably, as he thinks, the most conclusive, viz. If it be not the same in Substance, it is in no respect the same. How precarious is this Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith (as G. K. terms it) if it hath no better a Foundation, than an If to support it?  
I have two Queries to propose to G. K. on this Head, to which I shall expect his Answer, when he thinks fit to reply.  
First, I desire him to demonstrate, Wherein the Sameness of a Natural Body doth consist? Because, if he cannot demonstrate wherein that consists, I shall give little heed to what he magisterially asserteth, concerning the Identity of a Spiritual Body.  
Secondly, Whether he doth apply the Term Substance, to God, finite Spirits, and Body, in the same, or different Significations? If it stands for the same Idea, when it is predicated of so different Subjects; Whether it will not follow, that God, Spirits and Body, agree in the same common name of Substance? Which, in my Opinion, is a very odd Doctrine. But if he saith, it stands for three different Ideas; for one, as God is said to be a Substance; for another, as an Angel is said to be a Substance; and for a third, as Matter is called a Substance. Then I shall desire him to make known, how we may distinguish these several Kind's of Substances, because, without knowing what precise Ideas Substance stands for, it is impossible to discourse about it intelligibly.  
Whatever G. K. and his Associates falsely insinuate, the Quakers sincerely believe, that the same Jesus Christ, which died without the Gates of Jerusalem, is risen from the Dead, and ascended into Heaven, from whence he will, at the last day, come with Glory and Majesty, and Judge the Living and the Dead, according to their Deeds done in the Body. The Substance of this, I told G. K. at Turners-Hall, was my Faith. To this he replied, Thou art no more a Quaker than I am; to say Thee and Thou, and not to pull off the Hat, makes a Quaker. This Passage I do not find in his Narrative, whether it was omitted designedly, or accidentally, he is best able to inform the Querist.  
We likewise believe the Resurrection of the Dead, both of the Just, and of the Unjust; tho' we do not positively determine, what Qualities, etc. are altered, or what remains the same, when a Natural Body is changed into a Spiritual Body; therefore we determine nothing magisterially, concerning the Change the Resurrection Body shall receive at the Sound of the last Trumpet; but what the Holy Ghost hath been pleased to reveal in the Scriptures, viz. That this Corruptible, shall put on Incorruption; that this Mortal, shall put on Immortality.  
How great an Alteration there is in a Corruptible Body, when it hath put on Incorruption; or in a Mortal Body, when it hath put on Immortality; I am not ashamed to acknowledge my Ignorance therein.  
With what Body shall the Dead arise? was a Query in the Apostle Paul's time: What Answer he gave the curious Inquirer then, may be seen 1 Cor. 15.36, etc. and may also serve G. K. now, 
1 Cor. 15.36, etc.  Thou Fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bear grain, it may chance of Wheat, or of some other grain. But God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased him. An Answer, that, in my Opinion, should deter all Christians from determining any thing Dogmatically, wherein the Sameness of the Resurrection Body, doth, or doth not consist; conceiving that, we should rest satisfied in what the Scriptures say on this subject, which is, That the Dead shall arise.  
In this Chapter the Apostle discourseth very largely concerning the Resurrection of the Dead, 
1 Cor. 15.  yet seemeth very cautious here in wording his matter about it; neither in this Chapter, nor in any other place of his Writings, affirming, In totidem terminis, the Resurrection of the Same Body: But where he speaks of the Resurrection, he doth not say, of the dead bodies, but simply of the Dead, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Resurrection of the Dead; 
1 Cor. 15.13.  not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Resurrection of the Bodies of the Dead; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ver. 16. Ver. 18. Ver. 22.  if the Dead are not risen; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) they that sleep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all shall be made alive: Here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, two Adjectives and an Article, all three of the Masculine Gender; if they had any reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bodies, they must have been of the Neuter; whereby it demonstratively follows, the Apostle did not predicate these Terms of Bodies; neither do I find in any place of my Bible, in express words, the Resurrection of the Same Body affirmed.  
It hath always been our principal Concern, to word our Discourses (especially when we speak of the Principles of our Faith) as much as may be in Scripture-Terms; if others did the like, we are inclined to believe, there would be more Love and Unity amongst the Professors of Christianity, than now there are. We think it a great piece of Presumption, and Arrogance, in any Mortal, Dictator-like, positively to determine, wherein the Sameness of a Natural Body, when it is changed into a Spiritual Body, doth, and wherein it doth not consist. As G. K. confidently affirmeth, that 
* P. 93.  the Change was not in Substance, but in Accidents: For (saith he) Take away the Substance of any thing, and no Accidents can remain of any thing. Suppose I should say, Take away all the Accidents from a Material Substance, and what remains, G. K. may put in his Eye, without injuring his Sight, not doubting to prove this my Supposition, when G. K. in intelligible words, demonstrateth the Truth of his Assertion? But wherein to place the Sameness of a Spiritual Substance, that was once a Natural One, we suspend dictating any thing positively concerning it; conceiving that we shall never have a certain, adequate and comprehensive Notion, of the Qualities of a Resurrection-Body, till the last Day, we actually experience it in ourselves.  
Nevertheless, tho' we do not affect School-Terms, which have been Midwived into the World by Heathen Philosophers, as Substance and Accidents; nor Magisterially determine, wherein the Identity of the Resurrection-Body shall consist; yet we do unfeignedly believe, as our ancient Friend J. Crook, in his Treatise, called, Truth's Principles, Printed Anno 1663., saith, The Dead, shall be raised with the same Bodies, as far as a Natural and Spiritual, Corruptible and Incorruptible, Terrestrial and Celestial, can be the same.  
Having thus answered what is said concerning me in G. K.'s Fourth Narrative, I submit to the  Reader's Determination, how great his Victory is, and what Reason he hath so Boastingly to say, 
* Page 92.  That in all his Answers he (i. e. D. P.) gave on this, or other Heads, he greatly foiled himself. In the Opinion of some, this Boast had been more becoming a Man that had put off his Armour, than one that is putting it on.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
BEsides what is related by G. K. in his Narrative, concerning his Discourse with me, there are several things omitted; and I remember, among other things, he told his Auditory after this manner.  
G. K. It is a Custom among the Quakers, to advise their Proselytes to read none of their Adversaries Books.  
D. P. That is False, George.  
Min. How long have you been a Quaker?  
D. P. My Parents were Quakers, and I may denominate myself one from my Cradle, being always educated in the way of Truth; and in all my Life, I never heard any such Caution given to me, or to any other Person.  
Obser. Had this been a General Maxim, I am confident, I should not have lived so long in Ignorance of it, having had the Curiosity for several Years, to read most Books that were Printed against the Quakers, not privately, but publicly, even in the presence of some of their Chiefest Preachers; but never was blamed for so doing, nor advised to the contrary by any of them. G. K. would not oblige me a little, if he would favour me so far, as to tell me, how many he had advised, not to read Adversaries Books, in 25 or 30 Years that he was amongst them; it is not to be doubted, but if it was a common Method, he (who thought himself not one of the least of their Advocates) can remember some of them by Name, to whom he gave such Advice; if he doth not give us the Name of one of our Friends, now in Fellowship with us, it will be reputed by me, as a Fiction of his own Brain.  
As G. K. was giving his Auditory an account of the extraordinary Success he had, in reclaiming the Quakers from their Gross Errors, as he falsely calls them, I put one Query to him, he having proposed several to me before; and this is the only Query, as I remember, that I started all the time I was there, after he had been glorying in the number of his Proselytes about Reading.  
D. P. Now thou hast given us an account of thy Proselytes at Reading, Prithee let us know how many thou hast in other places?  
G. K. About Huntingdon there is Robert Bridgeman and Margaret Everard, who was a noted Preacher amongst the Quakers.  
D. P. Now thou hast given us a Catalogue of thy Country Proselytes, Prithee give us an account of thy City Converts? Here he demurred, and tho' urged to give an Answer; yet would not name one, being ashamed (as I am subject to believe) publicly to own, that he had not got one Quaker (who was in Fellowship with Friends, when he came to England, and had not forfeited it by some Irregular Act) to join with him in exposing of their quondam Friends in this populous City.  
Obser. The number of his Proselytes are in reality (whatever he Bounces) very small, if such only as were in Fellowship with the Quakers, and owned by them as such (when he came into England) were enumerated; all these, I am fully satisfied; will not exceed the number of his Narratives, which are but Four: But if all those who have been ejected their Society, for some notorious Immoralities, etc. should be included, the number would be greater, by his carrying away those rotten Branches, they freely acknowledge; and are apt to think, he would have no great cause to boast, if he could persuade more such to unite themselves to his Lax Communion; because by their Scandalous Lives, when amongst Friends, they brought a public Disrepute to their Holy Profession. I saw one of G. K.'s chiefest Converts at his right hand, on the Stage at Turners-Hall (when G. K. was Comically delivering his last Narrative) who had been banished their Society, for Actions that were extremely Scandalous.  
Tho' G. K. omits reciting the Number and Names of his new Adherents in its proper place, yet in the Postscript I observe, there is mention made of Two Men, and as many Women, that he hath been instrumental in reconciling to the Church of England, so called, viz. Robert Bridgeman, Margaret Everard, William Mather and his Wife; the two first we shall not deny, that they were once reputed as our Friends: But as for William Mather, we have not owned him as one these many Years, long since he appeared publicly in Print against us. It is much, that he, who hath been so Industrious these five or six Years, to Sow the Seeds of Dissension amongst the Quakers, in all that time, should not be able to nominated Four of that Communion by Name, who were once reputed one's; but to fill up that Number, should be forced to crowd in William Mather, an elder Adversary, than himself.  
Should the Benefit and Prejudice be weighed in equal Scales, wherewith G. K. hath affected the Quakers; I am well satisfied, the former will considerably out-ballance the latter. He did them a notable Service, First, In dividing the Separate Meeting in Harp-lane, whereby it was dissolved; upon its Dissolution, several of its Members, that were honest and well-meaning People, returned to Truth and their former Friends. Secondly, By carrying away some scandalous and disorderly Persons, whose Immoralities, etc. were a daily Exercise to them. Thirdly, By freeing them from some turbulent and unruly Members, that did too often disturb the Quiet of their Meetings. Now these are become Nominal Members of another Society, they presume that their Immoralities will never more be thrown in their Teeth. Fourthly, By his Clamours, he hath excited a Curiosity in some, to read their Books; who probably without them, would never have been so Inquisitive: And in others, to go to their Public Meetings, to hear and see for themselves; who have thereby been so entirely well satisfied in their Principles, that many lately, of several Professions, have united themselves to their Communion.  
FINIS.   

Books Printed and Sold by T. Sowle, in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-street, and at the Bible in Leaden-Hall-street, 1700.  
TRuth and Innocency Vindicated; and the People, called Quakers, Defended, in Principle and Practice, against Invidious Attempts and Calumnies. Being a Just Examination of two Books against the said People, Entitled, I. A Brief Discovery, etc. by three Norfolk Priests. II. Some few of the Quakers many Horrid Blasphemies, etc. Being a Scandalous Libel. Containing also many of the Repeated Abuses in John Meriton's Antidote, and Francis Bugg's Pilgrim's Progress. Examined by G. Whitehead, a Servant of Christ. Price Stitched 9 d.  
The Rector Examined, About his Book Scandalously styled, An Antidote against the Venom of Quakerism, By John Meriton, who calls himself A. M. Rector of Boughton in Norfolk. And his Observations Remarked, and the Christianity of the People, commonly called Quakers, Reasserted and Vindicated, from his Perversions and Assertions. By George Whitehead. Price Stitched 6 d.  
A Rambling Pilgrim, or Profane Apostate, Exposed: Being an Answer to Two Persecuting Books, Falsely Entitled, I. The Pilgrim's Progress from Quakerism to Christianity. II. A Modest Defence. With an Epistle Dedicatory to his Bountiful Benefactors. By G. W. a Servant of Christ. Price Stitched 6 d.  
The Creed-Forgers Detected, in Reply to a Pamphlet, Falsely called, The Quakers Creed, containing Twelve Articles, Published by some, who have not joined with Geo. Keith in his Pride and Contradiction, but Testify against both him, and them that join with him therein. Price Stitched 2 d.  
Some Observations on the Remarks upon the Quakers: Or, the Busy Priest's Envy Detected, and Folly Manifested; and his poor Ability for his Languishing Church proved Ineffectual. Price Stitched 3 d.  
The Weakness of George Keith's Reasons for Renouncing Quakerism, and entering into Communion with the Church of England, etc. Manifested, and Replied to. By John Feild. Price Stitched 3 d.  
Robert Bridgman's Reason for leaving the Quakers, (upon Examination) proved Unreasonable; being only a Demonstration of his Envy. By W. Rawlinson. Price Stitched 3 d.  
The Trial of Spirits both in Teachers and Hearers. Wherein is held forth the clear Discovery, and certain Downfall, of the Carnal and Antichristian Clergy of these Nations. Testified from the Word of God, to the University Congregations of Cambridge. Whereunto is added, a plain and necessary Confutation of divers Gross Errors, delivered by Mr. Sydrach Sympson, in a Sermon preached to the same Congregation at the Commencement, Anno MDCLIII. Wherein (among other things) is declared, that the Universities (according to their present Statutes and Practices) are not (as he affirmed) answerable to the Schools of the Prophets in the time of the Law; but rather to the Idolatrous High Places. And that Humane Learning is not a Preparation appointed by Christ, either for the right Understanding, or right Teaching the Gospel. With a brief. Testimony against Divinity-Degrees in the Universities. As also Luther's Testimony at large upon the whole Matter. And lastly, The right Reformation of Learning, Schools and Universities, according to the State of the Gospel, and the Light that shines therein. All necessary for the Instruction and Direction of the Faithful in these last times. By William del, Minister of the Gospel, and Master of Gonvil and Caius College in Cambrige. Price Bound 1 s. 6 d.  
The Defence of the People called Quakers: Being a Reply, to a Book lately published by certain Priests of the County of Norfolk, under the pretended Title of The Quakers Challenge. And containing some brief and modest Animadversions upon the Book itself. Several Certificates, which Detect the Errors in those of West-Dereham, and Clear the People called Quakers of the said Challenge. The Letters that passed between Them and the Priests. Price Stitched 6 d.  
No Cross, No Crown. A Discourse, showing the Nature and Discipline of the Holy Cross of Christ. By W. Penn. In Two Parts. The Fifth Edition. Price Bound 3 s.  
The Harmony of Divine and Heavenly Doctrines, Demonstrated in sundry Declarations on Variety of Subjects. Preached at the Quakers Meeting in London, by Mr. W. Penn, Mr. G. Whitehead, Mr. S. Waldenfield, Mr. B. Coole, Taken in Shorthand as it was delivered by them; and now Faithfully Transcribed and Published for the Information of those, who, by reason of Ignorance, may have received a Prejudice against them. By a Lover of that People. Price Bound 1 s. 6 d.