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 surprized, 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 my self in this publick Controversie; (neither do I now intend 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 mis-represented 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 my Self, 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.

[Page 2] Fourth Narr. p. 21.A Quaker, call'd 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 Vn­truth. 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 Shewen, 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 mis-represent 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, call'd, 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 Lye) 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 [Page 3]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 Falshoods) 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 call'd, 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 Expell'd 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 own'd himself to be a Quaker; which is almost a Demon­stration to me, that he did not think Antichristian Doctrines Essential to Quakerism, so call'd. 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 call'd, 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 [Page 4] Quakers, &c. they thought him a Tool, as well qualified, to stir up Persecution against them, as any.

But to return, to what more immediately concerns my self, 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 observ'd, that there is but one Meet­ing amongst Friends, that doth actually concern themselves about Printing, &c. 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, &c. 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 Meeting-House 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 [Page 5]the Second-Days-Meeting at London, or are generally allowed to be sold next Door to their Meeting-House 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 replyed,

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 Justifie or Condemn a Book, meerly 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 consider'd 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 Antient Friends Books, that Bishop Kid­der takes in defending the Holy Scriptures against the Jews; I doubt not, but we may easily defend our Antient 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?

[Page 6] D. P. Yes indeed, we can sometimes use Neco, other times Occido, and yet intend 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 Parallell'd, 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 Tryed, 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 Termes, G. K. is no Stranger.

How easie is it for a Critick 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 consider'd 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 pick'd 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 Intituled 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.

[Page 7] 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 unbiassed 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 [Page 8]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 Errata's are an undeniable Witness thereof, either from the unfairness of the Copy, or from the heedlesness 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 Messias; Part II. p. 129. where he produces some Quotations out of the Holy Scriptures, where he saith, the word only is vertually inclu­ded, tho' not verbally express'd: 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 Rabbies of this Age, that hath so Clear and so Logical a Head, as to be able to word his matter so nicely, that a Critick 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 Dream'd of; who then can imagine that the Illiterate Man's Sayings 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 [Page 9]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 casie 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 surprized 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, Entituled, A Serious Call to the Quakers, &c. under the head of Vile and Monstrous Doctrines, Prin­ciples, and Uncharitable Sayings, hath cited this saying of G. W. viz.Count. Conv. 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 School-Masters, &c. who daily teach their Scholars not to use the same Term, or reiterate the same Phrase in any Epistle [Page 10] Theme, Copy of Verses, or Declamation they Compose; but as often as they are barren of Synonymous Terms or Phrases, to ferti­lize their Mind, they are order'd to have recourse to Gra­dus ad Parnassum, Winchester Phrases, &c. 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 Vertue in some, should be a Vice in others; or that which is Laudable in a Church-man, 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 answer'd, 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 deliver'd 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 Controversie, between G. Fox and Mag­nus Bine, and then the Unbiassed 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 [Page 11]Senses, which are, There is a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul, which is not Infiniteness it self. 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. Bine 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 dissent from him in this Mat­ter: for I am induced to believe, that Opponents oftner 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 meer­ly Verbal; amongst which I am satisfied, several Objections that have been lately revived by G. K. and others against the [Page 12] 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 formed by the Organs of Speech, Account, Command, Doctrine, Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word of God, &c. This Monosyllable being li­able to be taken in such various Significations, it is no ways surprizing to me, that Disputants should endlesly 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 con­cern'd, 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 no 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 Sayings 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, [Page 13]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 cites 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 Weather-Cock, 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 [Page 14]& Spiritu Sancto. Want ons Evangelium en is onder uni­et alleen in Woorden gheweest, maer oock in Kracht, ende 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 my self 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 my self 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) op dat het woort vervult worde, dat 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 [Page 15]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 Controversie between G. K. &c. 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 Hereticks, 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 expresly delivered in the Scriptures, in plain express Scripture Terms.

The Term Logos is variously used, and translated in the New Testament; G. K. recitesPresb. and Inde. 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 above-cited: If he will but please to Read Bishop Kidder's Demonstration of the Messias, 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 call'd; but allow his ipse dixit sufficient to Patronize this In­terpretation.

The third and last Quotation (which I shall now examine) [Page 16]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 e'en 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 aPresh. & Inde. 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,

Before I leave this subject concerning the Equivocalness of words, I shall concisely Anatomize one Query G. K. exultantly relates he put to John Whiting, 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 School-men 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 Morbifick Matter is by the strength of Nature expelled from the Center to the Circumfe­rence, as in the Eruption of the Small Pox, Measles, &c. 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 [Page 17]parts naturally organized 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, &c.

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 organized like other Men. That this was their meaning, is demonstrable from their own words, as cited by G. K. in hisP. 39. fourth Narrative, where G. Whitehead (as the Narrator affirms) doth severely blame John Horne and Thomas More, in his P. 11, 12. He Goat's Horn, &c. for saying, Christ took upon him, their (i. e. Sinful) Nature. Ed. Burroughs is very plain, in distinguishing the subject of the Controversie, 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 Lyars; 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 Lyars, which is the thing E. B. here opposes.

W. Penn saith, ThatPrim. 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 [Page 18]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 Lyars 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 organized, 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. wouldNarr. p. 40. infer, and then cry out from a false Consequence, this is a most vile and gross Heresie.

If G. K. thinks I have, by saying that I am of J. Whiting's Faith in this matter, rendred my self 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, &c. as I have been informed. But as to the Judgment 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 [Page 19]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, &c.—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 dis-respected 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 then 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 School-Boy did know, seeing he was a Scholar, and did not long ago Commence Doctor of Physick 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 alter'd 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 consider'd, is not the Meritori­ous cause of our Salvation; but that it is the whole Offering whereby Believers are justified.

[Page 20] Ibid. I farther asked him, what he did mean by the Offering?

Observ. 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.

Observ. Here were some things by him said, which I am apt to think some of his Friends have since acquainted him with, and shewed 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 wouldest 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, &c. As he was going on, and making an Harangue concerning Substance, I stop'd him, by saying,

D. P. George, this is little to the purpose, I only desire a Definition of Substance.

[Page 21] 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 Physick to be ignorant what Substance is. Here he run into a Passion, and shewed 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 Beings.

G. K. They are produced Beings. And presently desisted Querying, and went on another Subject.

Observ. 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 re-united to his Soul, that he had at the time of his Death: If this is admitted, then it necessarily follows, that he that died an Infant, shall rise in Stature like an Infant; he that dyes Hydropical, shall rise with a Belly not much less than a Tun; he that dyes of a Con­sumption, shall rise extreamly emaciated, resembling a Skeleton; he that dies without his Legs and Arms, shall arise without them; and he that dies Gibbous, shall arise Hunch-back'd. This is so gross an Opinion of the Resurrection, that I am subject to believe G. K. doth not incline to Patronize 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, &c. that might be out of Policy, not being [Page 22]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 orders his Janisaries 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 complement them with the grateful Titles of Fool, Madman, Lyar, &c. especially when he is foiled by his Opponent.

He will not be more Civil when he invites them into his Friends 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 grosly misrepresented me, desiring his Answer; but with none could I be favoured to his day. Some time after, I accidentally met him in Cornhil; 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 shewed 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 authorize Books; consequentially it could be no great Lye 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, [Page 23]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 Mad-man, Lyar, &c. 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 Mens Judgment, is a tacit Approbation.

Thirdly, What concerns his Definition of Substance, it is defi­cient, having no differentia specifica, whereby, one Classis of Beings, is discriminated from another. But why should I spend time in anatomizing the Defectiveness, &c. 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, &c.

Ibid. I ask'd 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.

[Page 24] 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 School-men talk of it, as a Being that hath neither Length, Breadth, Thickness, Figure, Colour, nor as an Object perceptible by the Eye, &c. 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 endlesly dispute about it, till the precise Signification of that Term is settled, when that is done, this Controversie may then appear to be a Strife, meerly thro' 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. [Page 25] 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 Idea's; 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 Kinds of Substances, because, without knowing what precise Idea's 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 [Page 26]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, &c. 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, &c. and may also serve G. K. now,1 Cor. 15.36, &c. 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 [Page 27]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, thatP. 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 our selves.

Nevertheless, tho' we do not affect School-Terms, which have been Midwiv'd 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 unfainedly 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.

[Page 28] Having thus answered what is said concerning me in G. K.'s Fourth Narrative, I submit to the unbiassed 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 foyled 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.