Truth Defended AND THE Friends thereof Cleared, FROM THE ●alse Charges, Foul Reproaches, and Envious Cavils, cast upon It and Them, by George Keith, &c.  
●T is an old Observation, That none prove more angry and implacable Enemies to any Society of People, than they that, for their ●orders and unruly Behaviour, have been dis●ned by the Society they once were of; a cer●n Vindictive Enmity usually getting up in 〈◇〉, and stirring them up to load that Society, which they were denied, with all the Re●ach and Infamy they can: Thereby both gratifying a revengeful spirit in themselves, and thinking also, by criminating others, to extenuate at least their own Crimes. That thus it was in the early times of Christianity, may be gathered from the Writings of the Apostles, particularly 2 Tim. 4 14. 2 Pet. 2. 1 John 2.18, &c. 3 John 9, &c. judas vers. 4. Among those in this Age, whom Satan has drawn to this degree of Malice and Madness, George Keith, a Scotchman, is the latest, but not the least, whether with respect to his Anger, or his Envy. He, having been bread a Scholar, before he came amongst the People called Quakers, and having acquired more of School-Learning than most( it may be, in his own Opinion, than any) of that People have, hath given, in himself, a demonstrative proof of the Apostles Proposition( 1 Cor. 8.1.) Knowledge puffeth up, where edifying Char●ty is not joined with it. For human Knowledge is apt of itself to lift up mens minds, that have, or think they have it, in any degree of Eminency; and makes them think better of themselves, then of others, or then themselves deserve: whereas true Charity useth knowledge to Instruct, and thereby build up; not to Puzzle, and confounded, and thereby destroy, Others. But that Charity this man not having, but being vainly puffed up in his fl●shly mind, from a proud conceit of his own Abilities; and b●ing gotten into Amer●ca( among a Plain People, who better unde●stood the Plain and simplo Truth, then the Nice Distinctions and subtleties of the Schools) and there advanced to the Office of a Schoo master, with a standing salary( as I have been informed) of an Hundred and Twenty Pounds by the year, he soon began, like Dio●rephes of old( 3 John 9.10.) to Affect Pre-eminence in the Church; a●d nothing less would serve his turn, then to Rule, and Over-rule all. And that he might not want matter to work upon, and some pretence to begin on, he not only found fau●t with Friends Ministry, and Discipline there; b●t having, in private Discourses, put some Captious and Ensnaring Questions to some particular Persons there, whose Simplicity he thought he might most easily betray, he( by wresting their Answers to a wrong sense) took advantage to complain against them, for holding, as he said, Gross and Vile Errors: and with Impetuous Heat, prosecuting his Charge, and not being so fully, nor speedily Answered, as he expected; by those Friends to whom he complained, who seeing the Innocency of the Accused, and his evil design in Accusing, could not Countenance him therein, he Involved them also in the like charge of Cloaking, or Covering Gross and Vile Errors, Damnable Heresies, and Doctrines of Devils, &c. Nor gave he over, till by continual Clamours, and frequent Disturbances, he had filled Friends Meetings with Strife and Contention; and at length, having leavened a Party to himself, made an open Division and Separation from Friends, setting up Separate Mee●ings for himself and his Party, in opposition to the Meetings of Friends before settled there. And having got the Printer to his Party, and thereby the only Press there at his command) he maliciously put the difference into Print, and thereby spread it, not only in those parts of America, but these of Europe also. These things drew the Friends there, after much Patience and long Forbearance, to deal with him in a Church-way, and give forth at length a Testimony against him; Which proving uneasy to him, he came over from thence to England, about the beginning of the year 1694; of which some Friends of Pensilvania having notice, came over also; and at the Yearly meeting of the People called Quakers, holden at London, in the Fourth Month that Year, the Matters relating to that Difference being fully heard and considered, the sense of that Meeting was, That the Separation l●y at G. K.'s Door, and that he had done ill, in Printing and Publishing those Differences, as he had done. And the Advice of the Meeting to him thereupon, was, to call in those Books of his, or publish something innocently, and effectually to clear the Body of the People called Quakers, and their Ministers, from those gross Errors charged on some few in Am●rica; and retract the bitter Language in them, so far as he was concerned: and sincer●ly to use his utmost Endeavours with his Friends concerned, to remove the Separation, &c. Which Sense and Advice, being drawn up at large in Writi●g, was then, in that Meeting, delivered to him, and soon after printed by one of his Party, with very e●vious Reflections upon it, as may be seen in a small Pamphlet, called A true Account, &c. to which I refer. But so far was G. K. from regarding the Sense, or following the Advice of that Yearly Meeting, that in several printed Books, by him soon after published, he rejected it, denying it to be the Sense or Advice of the Yearly Meeting, or that to be the Yearly Meeting which gave it. Which Abuse, this last Yearly Meeting( in the Third Month past) taking notice of, and upon further Dealing with him, finding him, instead of being humbled and sorry for the Evil he had done, more hardened therein, justifying himself, both by word & writing, and rejecting the Meeting; that Meeting( after it had heard him patiently, till he of his own accord with-drew) gave forth a Testimony against him, which he hath since printed, with his Answer thereunto: As he hath also( in another Pamphlet) a Copy of his Paper which he red in the Meeting; together with a Narrative( of his making) of the Proceedings of the Meeting with him, and a List of Errors charged by him on some particular Persons. To each of these I intend to speak, now that I have premised this short Introduction; which I thought needful for the Information of any such Reader as had not before heard the Rise of the Difference, nor the Course of Proceedings thereupon.  
The first of his Pamphlets now under my consideration, is that which he calls, The true Copy of a Paper given into the Yearly Meeting of the People called Quakers, &c. And the first Line of that Paper( next to the Title of it) contains a foul falsehood: For he begins it thus, I come here before you in a Spirit of Love; Whereas the Paper itself( which he then brought, and red) plainly shows, he came in a Spirit of Wrath, Envy, Contention and Deceit, as by the Parts thereof, herein recited and answered, will appear.  
His Paper is cast into divers Heads; the First and Second of which contain particular Complaints against particular Persons, for Writing and Printing, or Speaking in public against him. To which I intend to Answer particularly; but not till I have spoken to his Third Head, which should in right have been the First; but he has Craftily post-poned it, and made it his Third.  
In this Third Head, p. 4. he takes hold of a passage towards the Close of that Paper, which was given him in the Yearly Meeting, 1694. wherein, he says, that Meeting gave it as their Advice, that Friends should be tender and kind to him, as he should approve himself to be a Man of Peace and Charity towards all, and answer their Christian Advice therein; and to avoid all public and apparent Reflections on both sides. Upon this he writes thus, Now that it may appear ye are for doing Justice impartially, let it be impartially examined by you, as well whether they on the one side have not kept to that Advice given in that Paper, as whether I have kept to it on the other side; and let it be duly weighed in the Balance of Truth, which of us are more or less guilty, or whether they or I be most, or altogether Innocent. To which I Answer, That Meeting, though sensible and fully satisfied, that George Keith was wrong, and gone out from Friends, yet was desirous that( if possible) he might have returned, and not have been utterly lost; and for that Reason expressed their desire in that Paper, that as G. K. should approve himself in Charity and Reconciliation with Friends and Brethren in London, and elsewhere,( which Clause he left out in reciting the words) they are desired accordingly to be tender and kind to him, as he should sincerely approve himself to be a Man of Peace and Charity towards all, and should answer the Christian Advice of the Meeting therein, that is, in that Paper. So that the Advice to Friends to be tender and kind to him, depended on a Twofold Condition to be performed by him: The one more general, the other more particular. In general, That he should approve himself in Charity and Reconciliation with Friends, and to be a Man of Peace and Charity towards all, and that sincerely. This plainly speaks that he was even then, and in the judgement of that Meeting, out of Peace and Charity, and unreconciled to Friends. The more particular Condition, That he should answer the Christian Advice of that Meeting, given him in that Paper; which was, That he should either call in those Books of his, by which he had exposed the Differences in Print to the World, to the view of our Enemies both in America and Europe( which had been of great disservice to the Truth, &c.) or, at least should publish something innocently and effectually, to clear the Body of the People called Quakers, and their Ministers, from those gross Errors charged on some few in America, and retract the bitter Language in them, so far as he is concerned. And that he ought now to use his utmost endeavours with his Friends concerned, to remove the Separation in America( which was declared to lie at his Door) and to help forward a re-uniting, &c. as may be seen in their Pamphlet, called, A True Account, &c. p. 4, 5.  
Here is both the Advice or Desire of the Meeting, that Friends would be Tender and Kind to G. K. and the Conditions to be performed by him, on the performance whereof, that Advice or Desire,( of being Tender and Kind to him) depended. The next thing in Course to be enquired, was, whether he performed these Conditions, or not? This the last Yearly Meeting enquired, and found he had not. And indeed, so far was he from endeavouring to approve himself in Charity, Reconciliation and Peace, and from calling-in those Books of his, or writing any thing for the clearing of Friends, or endeavouring to remove the Separation in America: That he acted contrary in every particular. For it was not many days after the Meeting was ended, but a Copy of that Paper, which was given him by the Meeting, was( with his, at least, privity) published in Print, by one of his Party( who came out of America with him) with a most Scandalous Preface before it, and Queries of like import behind, carrying apparent and roll Reflections upon the Meeting that gave it forth. And quickly after that, came forth in Print another Book, with George Keith to it, called, The causeless Ground of S●rmises, &c. removed, leveled also( though more covertly) against the Yearly Meeting, and containing many slighting and scornful Reflections upon the Advice given him by that Meeting. And finally, in that, and some other subsequent Books of his, he rejected the sense and advice given him, as not coming from the Yearly Meeting; and disowned the Meeting itself to be a Yearly Meeting, or any Meeting duly and regularly Constituted, calling it a Party, or Faction. Thus, instead of calling in his former scandalous Books, he published new ones. Instead of clearing the Body of the People called Quakers from those gross Errors he had Charged on some Particulars in Am●rica, he, by sly Insinuations, spread his false Charges further. Instead of endeavouring to remove the Separation he had made in America, he, by Letters to his Party there( as I have been informed) endeavoured to confirm and strengthen them therein. Instead of approving himself in Charity, Reconciliation and Peace, he proved himself, by his unruly and turbulent Behaviour, both in Meetings and out, to be in a Spirit of Enmity, more irreconciled to Friends, and seeking and catching all Occasions to make War, and give Disturbance. Yet would he lay claim to the Benefit of the advice of the Meeting to Friends, to be tender and kind to him, though he hath broken all the Conditions, upon which that advice was grounded. Can any thing be more Unreasonable! Nay, is it not an Argument of great insincerity in him, to claim the Benefit of the Advice of that Yearly Meeting, and yet at the same time deny it to be the Yearly Meeting, and call it a Party or Faction? By this time, I suppose, the Reader may apprehended the Reason, why I answered this Third Head before the First and Second. For they containing Complaints against Particular Persons, for writing, or speaking publicly against him, it was necessary, that which he makes his Third Head should be first Answered, that thereby his state being rightly opened, and the terms he stood upon towards Friends, and Friends towards him, plainly discovered, it might appear upon what just and reasonable Grounds he was opposed, or testified against, by them he complains of in his first and second Head.  
I come now to the First Head in his Paper, which contains, in the first place, a Complaint against me, for defaming him,( as he says) and grossly, and unchristianly representing him in some late printed Books. To which I answer; First, I have not misrepresented him. And if to represent him as he is, be to defame him, it is his own fault; I cannot help it. Secondly, in what I have written, relating to him, I have been but on the defensive part,( as I am now) he was the Aggressor. For soon after the Yearly Meeting in 1694. he, and his Friend R. Hannay, published two very defaming Pamphlets( as is briefly hinted before) against that Meeting. I, in an Epistle directed to Friends, wiped off the Dirt thrown upon the Meeting. and m●nifested his Insincerity and Deceit. nettled therewith, he sent forth a Printed Sheet, which he miscalled, A Loving Epistle; in which( with Language far enough from being Loving or Christian) he charged me by the Lump, with Fifty Perversions, Forgeries, and false Accusations, without naming one. And some time after, he sent forth a larger Book,( which he called, A Seasonable Information and Caveat, &c.) wherein he retailed his Fifty Charges against me, which he had before exposed by wholesale: To those two Books I replied in another Epistolary Treatise,( called, A further Discovery of that Spirit of Contention and Division, which hath appeared of late in G. Keith, &c.) wherein I vindicated myself from his Fifty Charges, and laid the Forgeries, Perversions, and false Accusations upon his own Head, where he hath thought fit to let them lie, rather than attempt to cast them off. Surely, if I have defamed him( as he says I have) in Print, it had better becomed him, to have famed himself again in Print, than lie under the defamation five or six Months, to complain of me to a Yearly Meeting. But how ridiculously idle is it in him, to complain to that Meeting against me, for defending that Meeting against him!  
His Complaint against John Penington is a like unreasonable; for what he Printed was chiefly some Certificates received from America, in Vindication of Samuel Jennings( a Friend that lives there) whom G. K. had notoriously abused in Print, after S. J. was gone for Pensylvania, and could not make his own Defence. And this too was after G. K. had in Print rejected the Advice of the Yearly Meeting, and given unquestionable Proofs, that he was not a Friend, but an Enemy. This also justifies those other Friends( D. Wharley and W. pen) whom in his Second Head he complains of, for interrupting him, in that which he calls his public Testimony, in several Meetings. For when a Person shall have so far dis-joined himself, from the Society he was once of, as to act the part of an open Enemy, not only endeavouring, to his utmost power, to break, disturb, and( if possible) to overturn the Peace, Quiet and Concord of the Society; but shall reject, and trample on the Authority of the Society, and expose, in the most reproachful manner, not only the Professors, but the Profession itself, to the Contempt and Scorn of the World: And shall also have joined himself to another Society, as this Man hath done( who hath joined himself to another People( if they deserve to be called a People) who upon another sort of humorous Discontent, have dis-joined themselves from us and our Society some Years ago, and set up, and continue up, separate Meetings for themselves, in opposition to ours) what colour or pretence, I wonder, of Reason, can such a Person have, to expect a liberty to preach, undenied, in any of the Meetings of that Society, which he so departed from, and which he hath treated so ill? Nothing, I think, can excuse the Confidence and Presumption of such a Person, unless it be a favourable Supposition, that he is delirious, and non merely mentis. As for W. P's calling G. K. an Apostate, I know not what apt word he could have expressed himself by: Nor do I think any Considerate Person, that shall red G. K's own Books, and understand his Carriage at that Meeting, will think him wronged by that Term.  
His Fourth Complaint is against W. Bingley, J. Vaughton, and others indefinitely, without Name, or Number. And these he Charges with endeavouring to hinder his Speaking in Meetings, and with speaking closely one after another, and sometimes making Signs, and pulling by the Coat to stand up and speak, on purpose to prevent his speaking: These Charges are too general, to be true; too idle, to be regarded. Did all those he mentions make signs, and pull by the Coat? Or but some? And if some, which? 'Tis a sign his mind was not very well exercised, if he sat watching what others did. But supposing( not granting) any one did pull another by the Coat, could there be no occasion or reason for so doing, unless it were to excite him to speak? It is common,( he knows) in such great Assemblies, for one to pull another by the Coat, to offer him the Conveniency of a Seat to rest himself, when( the number of Persons exceeding the number of Seats) they are fain to sit and stand by turns. If therefore one did pull another by the Coat, how knows he, that it was done to have that other speak? And that too on purpose to prevent his speaking? Did any of them tell him so? Did he hear them say so? What proof has he of the Intention, who gives no Proof of the Fact? He has decried inward sense and discerning, in the same place where he makes this Charge; saying, p. 4. Whatever pretences some make to judge me to be wrong, and of a wrong Spirit, from their inward sense and discerning, without outward proof and evidence in matter of Fact against me, will bear weight with none of a sound judgement; no more then will this Charge of his, without proof. He says they did it manifestly, and to the Observation of the Meeting. But it is manifest to every ones Observation, that he speaks at random: For if the matter of Fact, that one had pulled another by the Coat, had been manifest to the Observation of the Meeting; yet could the Intention of the Party therein be manifest, to the Observation of the Meeting, viz. that it was done to cause the other to speak, and that on purpose to prevent G. K's speaking? But if any had endeavoured to hinder his Preaching in Friends Meetings,( how blamable soever such might have been, if they had done it by undue means) yet they had done no wrong therein to him, who, since he turned from being a Friend, to be an Enemy, had no right, nor colour of right, to Preach there. And therefore if W. B. or S. W. did break up a Meeting( as he says they did) before its usual time,( which never had, nor should have any certain, set, fixed, limited time to break up at) or, if W. B. or any other Friend, when G. K. began to speak, after the Meeting was broken up, did desire Friends to pass away,( which is another Limb of G. K's Charge they therein gave a seasonable Testimony to the People, that G. K. was none of us, but an intruding Adversary, whom none, I think, in their right Wits, could think the Meeting under an Obligation to stay to hear. Nor had the Yearly Meeting any reason to take notice of these Complaints of G. K's, seeing he had long before rejected the Advice of the Meeting to him, and denied the Meeting itself.  
In his Fifth Head he alleges, that it is said by some, and particularly by Jo. Vaughton and Jo. Field, that those who denied him in Pensylvania, their d●nying him, and disowing his Ministry, was enough for Friends to deny him here, &c. Upon this he puts several Questions thus, Now if this be so( says he) and that it be your Sense, how is it that it was not expressed in that Paper, called, A true Account, given out at the last Yearly Meeting? Answer, The last Yearly Meeting dealt more gently with him than he deserved, being desirous to have reclaimed him, if it might have been; and in order thereunto did, in that Paper then given him, propose several things, as the Sense and Advice, or judgement of that Meeting, for him to do: Which had he, with a right Mind, received and observed, he might have been restored, and reconciled to Friends here, and there also. And that Meeting being thus tenderly disposed towards him, did forbear to express in that Paper, their Sense of the validity and force of the judgement given against him by the Friends in Pensylvania; which, had he sincerely repented and returned, the Friends there,( I doubt not) would have been more forward to have taken off, than they were to lay it upon him. But he not repenting of the Evil he had done, but persisting and hardening himself therein, and rejecting the Advice and Sense of the former Yearly Meeting to him, has drawn the judgement of the last Yearly Meeting also upon him; of both which he may one day feel the weight. He asks also, How it is, that Friends generally joined with him in Prayer, about the time of the last Yearly Meeting,( viz. in 1694.) and were uncovered when he prayed? I Answer, he infers their joining with him in Prayer, from their being uncovered when he prayed; but that was not intentional, nor voluntary in them; but accidental, as to them, however craftily designed by him. The occasion and manner thereof was thus; A Day or two before that Yearly Meeting began, some Friends had a desire to have a Meeting in private with G. K. that they might sit down together in a weighty retirement of Spirit to the Lord, to feel the stirrings of the Divine Power, and the Arisings of the Heavenly Life, and ancient Love amongst them, that therein they might Travail in Spirit for him, and hold forth a friendly Hand of Love to him, to draw him( if possible) out of the Snare of the Wicked One, in which they were sensible he was entangled and held. And having signified their desire to him, accordingly they met; but could not have such a Meeting as they desired, by reason that he ( whose Life lay in Contention and Debate) broke often in upon them with wrangling Discourses, which they, mindful of the end of their Meeting, endeavoured to avoid, but in vain. Before that Meeting ended, a Friend kneeled down to Prayer, with whom the rest joined, which occasioned the whole Meeting to be uncovered. No sooner had that Friend done, but G. K. began, and that so closely, that without an indecent and hurrying hast, the Friends could not have been covered when he began. So that it is true indeed in Fact, that they were uncovered when he prayed; not that they were uncovered because he prayed, as thereby joining with him in his Prayer. See now what Tricks, Devices and Fetches he has, and what weak Props he Builds upon. Which brings to my remembrance a Saying he used afterwards in the Yearly Meeting, when some took notice of his insisting on things of little or no Moment, viz. That his Case was like that of a drowning or sinking Man, to whom it is natural to catch hold of any thing, though but the least Twig or Rush, to hang by.  
He mentions here again the Meetings recommending to Friends to be tender and kind to him, and to avoid all public and apparent Reflections on both sides. From which he infers, If it had been their judgement that he ought not to speak in Meetings, it had been improper to advice him to avoid all public and apparent Reflections, &c. I noted before, that this Advice to Friends to be tender and kind to him, &c. was under the Conditions of his approving himself in Charity and Reconciliation with Friends, a Man of Peace, &c. and his answering the Christian Advice of that Meeting to him; which had he done, there might have been room for him to have spoken in Meetings, without occasion of reflecting, or being reflected on. And while he stood upon probation, it was a necessary Caution, that if he would Preach( which, his Opinion of himself, and Natural Propensity to Taikativeness, considered it was not likely he would forbear) he should do it without Reflection, and Friends would bear with him. In which it is evident, the Meeting condescended much farther than he deserved, out of an earnest desire that he might not have been utterly lost. But if he should reject the Sense and Advice of the Meeting, and run further from Charity, Reconciliation and Peace,( which he soon did) it cannot reasonably be supposed to be the judgement of that Meeting, that he had right, or ought to have liberty, to Preach in Friends Meetings.  
His Sixth Head is a Complex, or Miscellany of many things jumbled together not very agreeably. First, he takes for granted, that divers owned by the Meeting, as Members of their Society, both in City and Country, do still own him, as a Friend of Tr●th, and his Ministry and Testimony,( wherein I think he rather speaks what he wishes, than what he knows, or has ground to believe) Others, he says, disown him, and a third sort are in suspense, &c. Thence he desires the Meeting to be plain and express, in giving their unanimous Sense and judgement concerning him, either to own or disown him,( it seems not much matter to him which) then he takes upon him to direct the Meeting thus, What Paper ye give out concerning me, let it be signed with all your hands that give judgement in the Case, and not laid on the clerk, that it may appear all, present are unanimous in the said judgement. Next, he objects against the Meeting's Power to give out any Paper against him, for any New Matter since the last Yearly Meeting, until, &c. After that, he excepts against such indefinitely, as( he says) have sufficiently discovered themselves to be prejudiced against him, &c. Then he excepts against the Meeting in general. And lastly, against half a dozen Friends by Name. To all which, I think, there needs no distinct Answer; nor other Observation upon it than this,( which is obvious to every Eye) that the design of that whole Paper of his was, by multiplying Complaints and Exceptions, to clog the Meeting so, that it might not proceed at all, to give judgement against him: For if the Meeting had undertaken to hear all his Complaints( which did not properly lie before that Meeting) instead of being a Yearly Meeting, it might have been a Years Meeting, or of a Years Continuance. If the Meeting would have admitt●d all his groundless Exceptions, there would have been few, if any, left to make a Meeting. And when all had been done, his Exception against the Constitution of the Meeting, would have made voided whatsoever had b en done or concluded by the Meeting,( had that been allowed) for that was destructive of the Power, and very Being of the Meeting.  
His Seventh Head desires, That what Sentence should be passed concerning him, might be made public, and he have a true Copy of it, with the particular Reasons of the Censure, &c. A Sentence and Censure then, it seems, he expected,( as he knew he deserved it) and in that, I think, he was rightly answered, the judgement of the Meeting concerning him, being made public, in the first place to him, by sending the first Copy thereof to his House for him: Which he having made more public in Print, the Reader may satisfy himself thereby of the particular Reasons it is grounded upon.  
In his Eighth and last Head he desires to know what the Meeting means by the Body of the People called Quakers. So long as he continued a Member of the Body, he understood what was meant by the Body; and he required no Explanation of the Term then: But now, being gone from the Body, and having dis-jointed himself from any Membership therein, he pretends not to understand what is meant by the word Body, that he may get fresh Occasion to Cavil, and make himself more Work. But since, in his following Narrative, in p 12. of the same Pamphlet, he acknowledges G. W.  told him, in the Meeting, what was meant by the Body; I think it needless to say more of it here, especially since it is a word common to all Societies, Religious and Civil.  
Having passed through the several Heads of his Paper, I come now to the Narrative he has given of the most material passages( he says) of Discourse betwixt several Friends and him in the Meeting; which how fair and exact it is, the Reader may guess, being written by himself, a Party, in his own Cause and Favour; and after he was gone from the Meeting, by a dependence on his Memory( he not writing in the Meeting, nor any for him, that was observed).  
He bagins his Narrative, p. 8. with an Account of his Coming to the Meeting, Offering to enter, and being stopped, &c. which he doth by way of Reflection on the Meeting, as not fairly held, because the Door was not open to every Comer. How unfit and unreasonable that had been, shall be shewed anon, when I come to speak to his Answer to the Yearly Meetings judgement concerning him. In the mean time, the Reader may take notice, that when he offered to enter the Meeting, and was stopped; they that stopped him, gave him a Reason why they stopped him. Thus he relates it; I offering to enter, was stopped by the Keepers; I inquiring the Reason, they  told me, I was not in Unity with Friends. This was such a Reason, as, I think, every reasonable Man will think sufficient, on which to deny him entrance into that Meeting, as a Member of the Meeting, on which score he would have entred. Now mark his Reply; I replied, says he, I know no Meeting as yet, in England, that hath disowned me. He could not say indefinitely, he knew no Mee●ing that had disowned him; but no Meeting in England. He knew( and he knew they knew) he had been disowned by a Meeting in Pensylvania, yea, by several Meetings in America, before he came from thence; therefore he alleged he knew no Meeting as yet, in England, that had disowned him. On the same foot, though he now knows that the Yearly Meeting in England has disowned him, he may yet go into Ireland, and there allege, that he knows no Meeting in Ireland, that has disowned him as yet. But that would not bear him off there; nor yet, I suppose, in his own Nation of Scotland, should he attempt it. Besides, if he knew no Meeting in England that had disowned him; yet he knew he had disowned several Meetings of Friends in England, and those none of the least, even the Second Days Morning Meeting, consisting of ministering Friends, and the Yearly Meeting, comprehending the Faithful Friends of England and Wales: And that those Friends, who stopped him at the Meeting Door, knew also; which was sufficient ground for them to tell him, he was not in Unity with Friends. Yet, from his own Rela●ion, it appears, They were civil and courteous to him; for he says. One of them preffered to go in, and acquaint the Meeting, that he desired to have entrance; and did so. Nor did the Meeting return a bare and blunt denial, by the same Pe●son that acquainted them with his desire, but sent him their Answer by some Members of the Meeting, and that quickly. For( says he) a little after some came out and  told me, I was not to have entrance; but if I had any Paper, they would carry it to the Meeting. Very reasonable and justifiable was this, on the Meetings part, as not to admit him, as one in Uni y with Friends,( on which account he prest to come in) so neither to reject what he had to offer, if he had any thing committed to Writing. But he was peremptory, and( as himself says)  told them that brought him the Message, He had a Paper, but not having a Copy of it, would not give it out of his Hand; and though he had another Copy, yet he was resolved to give no Paper to them, to be red in their Meeting, unless he were present. Such an heady and surly Resolution, might perhaps have justified the Meeting, if they had refused to hear both his Paper and him. But the Meeting condescended, and he acknowledges that that Evening two of the Meeting came to his House, and  told him, The Yearly Meeting agreed he should come next day, about the sixth Hour in the Evening, and have entrance to red his Paper, or hear it r●ad, provid●d he would withdraw when desired. This Proviso was very needful; for in the Meeting the Year before, he was very unruly and disorderly; sometimes refusing to withdraw, when the Meeting desired him, and at one time positively decl ring, He would not go out, unless he were carried out by force. And at another time, in that Yearly Meeting, desiring that he might but look into a Paper( which had been then red concerning him) on pretence to satisfy himself of some passage in it, and it being handed to him for that end; he not only refused to deliver it back again, after he had looked into it, but put it up into his Pocket, saying, He would not part with it, unl ss it were taken from him by violence:( Though, through much importunity, he was at length prevailed with to return it). So that, from the Experience the Meeting had of his unruly Carriage the Year before; they had good Cause to provide now for his withdrawing at their desire, before they admitted him in; for which yet they required no other than his own Promise. Now I appeal to any considerate and indifferent Reader, whether, according to G. K's own Relation hitherto, the Meeting did not deal better with him, than he deserved from them.  
He goes on to relate his Coming in, and the Posture he found the Meeting in, in describing which he is rather scenical than serious. and bewrays at once both his Envy and his Folly. He says, At the time appointed I came in, and was allowed to sit at the great square Table, among the Ministers and Commissioners, that can hold about it, either fully, or near double, to the number 24, whether by Allusion to the 24 Seats and Elders mentioned, Rev. 4. but doubling the numbers, I do not determine, &c. His thus particularly noting the Fashion and Size of the Table, denotes in him a Disposition to Cavil at any thing, how inoffensive soever. In such an Assembly, where occasions occur for both Reading and Writing, that a Table is useful and needful, no Man, I think, that is not as senseless as a Table, will deny. What Figure, or Fashion, such a Table should be of, whether Square, Round, Long or Oval, Sexangular, or Octangular) or of what Size, is too impertinent and immaterial, for any, but a mere Caviller, to Quarrel about.  
His Insinuating an Allusion in that Table, and those that sate about it, to the 24 Seats and Elders mentioned, R●v. 〈◇〉 shows an envious and scoffing Mind in him, as well as Folly, and want of Consideration, in grounding his Imagined Allusion upon the Number which may sit about that Table, which he says is fully, or near double the number 24; so that according to him, a Table, with 48 Persons about it, may be an Allusion to the 24 Seats and Elders in Rev. 4. This shows he was under an Illusion, when he made his Ridiculous Allusion.  
He goes on thus, I think it suits not with their crying out so much, as they were wont, against Chief Seats in the Synagogues, to Erect such a stately fabric in their Meeting-house at th●t time, it little differing from the manner of a Throne, but that it is low upon the Floor, covered wi●h Green Cloth, &c. With what a Pomp of words has this idle Man clothed his empty Matter, to amuse an unwary Reader, as if indeed some stately fabric had been really Erected in the Meeting-house, in manner of a Throne! When as indeed, when all comes to all, 'tis nothing else but a Table of common height, covered with a piece of Green Bays, and standing on the Floor. By what Scotch-figure be calls a Table a stately fabric,( which signifies a Building) and says, It is Erected( that is, raised, set, or lifted up, and advanced) and little differing from the manner of a Throne, and yet confesses, it is low, upon the Floor, I know not. But this I know, that this is a shameful stumble for a Wise Man, and such a Scholar to make. What greater Blund●r could the greatest Dunce have made? But it is just with God, to consound the Wisdom of the Wise, when, with their Wisdom, they set themselves to Fight against his Truth and People, as this Man hath done.  
In his comparing the Table to a Throne, he also shows an evil Mind, as if he would have it believed, that some Body sate upon the Table; for Thrones are set up, and raised on purpose for some Prince, or great parsonage to sit upon. But that Table had only Persons sitting about it on Forms, and that without any difference of Place. For his saying, Few take liberty to sit there, but the Chiefest in respect among them, implies that liberty is not denied to any. All have that liberty, but few( he says) take it. This shows a modest and humble Mind in such, as so prefer others before themselves, agreeable to that good Exhortation of the Apostle, Phil. 2.3. In lon liness of mind, let each esteem others better than himself; which I suppose is not G. K's practise. And that to fit at that Table, was not appropriated to such only, as he calls the Chiefest in respect, may appear by his saying, That He was allowed to sit at it. And when all is said, that Table is no other, either for Fashion, Size, or Standing, than it was the Year before, when he sate at it, without showing any dislike to it; as it is probable he would not now have done, had not the judgement of the Meeting been given forth against him.  
He goes on to set forth his proposing the Reading of his Paper, and what G. W. said thereupon to him; wherein, though he hath not fairly and fully given G. W.'s words: yet he hath given more of them than he knows how to answer: And being a man voided of sincerity,( one that says, and writes, what he thinks will help his Cause, without regard to speaking Truth) he often interferes with himself, and and bewrays his own falsehood; as he doth even here. For having reported G. W. to have said to him, That he Printed a Paper reflecting on the Yearly Meeting the last Year; and though he mentioned not the Yearly Meeting in that Paper, called, The Causeless ground, yet it is apparent he meant them, for he recites some of their words, &c. He says he replied to this thus, page. 9. As in that Paper I mentioned not the Yearly Meeting, so there were no words in that Paper Answered by me, but were spoken by other Persons before and after the Yearly Meeting; therefore ye cannot prove that I r●flected on the Yearly Meeting. Besides, adds he, I do not own, that that Paper, called, A true Account of the Proceedings, &c. was the Yearly Meetings Act, but of a prevailing Party or Faction in it. Observe now, here was a two-fold Dodge: he had his divers Meuses, or starting-holes, that if he missed one, he might escape through the other. First he says there are no words in that Paper Answered by him,( which was the Yearly Meetings Paper, called, A true Account, &c.) but were spoken by other Persons before and after the Yearly Meeting: Therefore, says he, ye cannot prove that I reflected on the Yearly Meeting. As much as to say; Seeing the Words in the Yearly Meeting's Paper, which I recited and Answered, were spoken by others, as well as well as written by the Yearly Meeting, I might in my printed Paper, reflect on those other Persons, not on the yearly Meeting. There is one of his Meuses. Besides, says he, I do not own that that Paper called, A true Account, &c.( and which I answered) was the Yearly Meeting's Act, but of a prevailing Party or Faction in it: And therefore in reflecting upon those that gave forth that Paper, called, A true Account, &c. I did not reflect on the Yearly Meeting, but only on that Party or Faction that gave it forth. There is his t'other Meuse, And between these two, he thought to dodge, and play with the Meeting, as he pleased. But in these two latter Pamphlets of his, he has unawares let fall his Visor, and must now appear bare-faced. For in the first of these Pamphlets, called A true Copy, &c. page. 9. he hath spoiled his first M●use, by acknowledging that his printed Paper, called, The Causeless Ground, was written in Answer to that Pape●, called, A true Account of the Pr●ceedings, &c. which was given him in the Yearly Meeting. This acknowledgement of his is in these words, page. 9. l. 16, &c. As in that Printed Paper,( to wit, his Book, called, The Causeless Ground) I mentioned not the Yearly Meeting: so there are no words in that Paper Answered by me,( to wit, the Yearly Meeting's Paper, called, A true Account of the Proceedings) but were spoken by other Persons, &c. Now he having thus owned his Book, called, The Causeless Ground, to he written in Answer to that Paper given him in the Yearly Meeting,( and called A true Account, &c.) Whatever Reflections are in that Book of his called, The causeless Ground, upon any Words or Passages contained in that Paper called A true Account, must be construed to relate, and be intended by him to relate to those Words and Passages, as contained in that Paper; not to the same or like words, as spoken by other persons; because that Book of his called, The causeless Ground, was( by this acknowledgement of his) written in Answer to that Paper, not to words spoken by other persons. Thus he hath marred his first Meuse. And although he alleges, that he doth not own that Paper called, A true Account of the Proceedings, &c. to be the Act of the Yearly Meeting: Yet inasmuch as it was delivered to him in the Yearly Meeting, as the Act of the Yearly Meeting, and by him then so Received, whatever Reflections he hath since made upon any Words or Passages in that Paper, must be construed to be, and to be intended by him, as Reflections upon that Yearly Meeting. And thus his other Meuse is marred also. Besides, in his last Pamphlet called, The Nameless Bull,( wherein he hath Printed this last Yearly Meetings judgement against him, with his Answer thereunto) he says, p. 11. Another great Cause of their passing this Unjust Sentence against me is, That I refused to call in the Book Printed since the last Yearly Meeting( he means that in 1694.) Called, The causeless Ground; wherein( says he) I Expostulate the Case; not only with respect to their too great Connivance of the Vile and Gross Errors, &c. but, &c. the word THEIR in this place must needs relate to the Yearly Meeting, mentioned just before, in Answer to whose Paper he writ his Book called, The causeless Ground; and in which he says, he Expostulates the Case with respect to their too great Connivance of Vile and Gross Errors. This also shows that the Reflections in that Book( of which this, of Conniving at gross and vile Errors, was one, and oft repeated) was intended by him against that Yearly Meeting. And this further shows his gross Hypocrisy and vile Deceit, in Surfting, Shuffling, Dodging and Equivocating, as he hath done, to hid it.  
Manifest also it is, that he dissembled with the last Yearly Meeting, concerning the Paper he then red, and hath since Printed. For when G. W.  told him( as he reports the words, in p. 9. of his True Copy, &c.) If thou hast any Paper to offer to this Yearly Meeting, to give Friends satisfaction, that thou wilt harken to the Advice of the last Yearly Meeting, and disown what thou Printedst in that called, The Causeless Ground, reflecting on Friends; the Meeting will hear thy Paper: he says, he replied, As to my Paper giving satisfaction to the Meeting, I cannot say whether it will actually satisfy the Meeting; but I judge there is enough in it to be just Cause of Satisfaction to them. The satisfaction mentioned by G. W.( and to which he answered) was, that he would harken to the Advice of the Yearly Meeting before; and disown what he had Printed in that Book of his, called, The causeless Ground, reflecting on Friends. But he knew there was nothing in that Paper, which he red in the Meeting, that could give any satisfaction in that respect; nor did he intend it should. And therefore in saying, as he did, that he could not say whether it would actually satisfy the Meeting or no, but that he judged there was enough in it to be just cause of satisfaction to them, he answered very deceitfully and falsely.  
In what he says of his Friend Hannay's Paper, he falters, and halts downright. He says he desired him he would not Print it; which proves he was privy to the Printing of it: And it is evident, he must furnish him with the Copy, either directly or indirectly. He says again, as formerly, He had no Hand in Printing it. And he is angry with me, for construing his meaning thereby to be, that he did not work at the Press. This he calls one of my gross Perversions of his words; but doth not attempt to clear himself of it. In my Book, called, A further Discovery, &c. p. 20, 21. I gave sufficient Reasons for my putting that Construction on his words: And I noted there also, upon his saying he had no Hand in the Printing it, that he did not say he had no Hand in the Writing it. Had he been clear, he had now a fair opportunity to have cleared himself, by declaring that he had no Hand in the Writing, Composing, Contriving, or Dictating that Paper, which goes ( in his style) under H●●nay's Name. But I verily think he durst not say so: Not that I think he fears to speak falsely; for I am sensible he is too apt to that: But that he feared to be trapp'd, and discovered in a matter of Fact, to the utter ruin of his little Credit. And indeed, I am now more strongly persuaded, from the general Observation I have made, of the liberty he takes in Equivocating, and from his not offering to clear himself, from having had a Hand in Writing, Composing, or Contriving it, that I hit the mark before; and that when he said he had no Hand in the Printing it, he meant, he did not work at the Press.  
In the next place he falls foully and rudely upon an Ancient Friend, Charles Marshall, whom I suppose he will aclowledge to be his Elder, both in Profession of Truth, and Exercise of Ministry therein; him he brands for one that abounds with his Prophesies and Predictions; and adds, But I know not if ever any of them came to pass; but surely, many have failed apparently. Ay! what, many failed, and that apparently too, and yet name never an one! I think, in this he has apparently erred from both Christianity and Civility, and from his own Rule too, viz. That nothing is more deceitful than bare Generals. A Stranger may wonder what high provocation C. M. had given him, that should cau●e him to fall so foul upon him. Why, C. M.( he says) stood up, and said, He had some few words of Exhortation to him from God. Could one have thought this had been so great an Offence! Doubtless, had he been a Man of God, he would not have been so angry at a few words of Exhortation from God. They were called of old Sons of Belial, who would not bear the Yoke. What will he be called, who will not bear the Word of Exhortation, which the Author to the Hebrews beseeches the Saints to suffer? Chap. 13, 22. And G. K. himself, in his causeless Ground, p. 7. says, Without Breach of Unity we ought to hear and receive the Word of Exhortation, or Reproof, that any have from the Spirit of Truth to deliver unto us, without Gainsaying, Strife, or alienation of Mind. Besides, both the Matter and Style of the Exhortation given him, was so soft and inoffensive, that it could not have stirred so sharp and angry an Humour in any but a very choleric, or Guilty Man. For, as himself relates it, it was but thus, To exhort him to come down to the Witness of God in his Heart, and return to that which convinced him at first, and gathered him out from among the Professors, and leave all these Imaginations, and bury them, and be reconciled to Friends. Yet this gentle Exhortation, as gently delivered, could not pass then, without a huffing Reply; nor since, without foul Reflections on him that gave it. He stood up, he says, to Reply; but there was great Opposition in divers to hinder him. Pray, what was this great Opposition? Why, says he, They said, There was no need of a Reply to a few words of Exhortation. They that said so, no doubt, said right. But that would not stop him. He is one of them that, like froward Children, will and must be heard, or else the whole House shall be disturbed. And as he loves to hear himself talk; so he is ready at feigning Occasions for it. Although therefore th●re was no need of a Reply to the others Exhortation: Yet, I hope( says he) I may have the like liberty to exhort him, as he had to exhort me. And under that pretence falling on, instead of exhorting, he charges C. M.( p. 10.) with having poured out many Curses and false Prophesies against him to divers public Meetings, since the last Yearly Meeting, as( says he) is known to many. This is a common thing with him, to let fly a general Charge, and for proof only say, It is known to many. But as this is unjust in him; so( in this Case) it is idle in itself: For if Curses or Prophesies had been uttered in public Meetings, how should it be known to many, that they were spoken against him, unless they had been directed, or applied to him by Name? And how should many, or he either, know such Prophesies were false, unless their Accomplishment was restrained to a certain time, and that time expired; neither of which, I suppose, G. K. dares affirm. I should not have taken such particular notice of this Paragraph of his, but that I observed how much it tends to discover the virulency of his Nature, and his intractable Temper, not to be handled in any sort, though never so gently, without danger to him that attempts it; in that, resembling that sort of Animal, which, at the approach of Man, circumvolving itself, erects on every side such sharp and prickly Bristles, as render it unsafe for human Hands, unless well guarded, to touch it.  
Here G. K. ends his Narrative of the First Days proceeding; and then begins to relate what Discourse passed in the Meeting, between some Friends and him, the next day. He says G. W. began, and made a long Speech; but when himself began, he made a much longer; his Answer taking up more than double the room, in his own Book, that G. W's Speech doth. He says, he replied in great Coolness; but as they who were present know the contrary, so any that shall red his Reply, in his own Book, may find it came from an heated Spirit, and in an angry waspish style. And indeed, though on the First Day( to give him his utmost due) he kept his Passion within tolerable Bounds: Yet on the next day he let it loose to a degree( I thought) near Raving; and the Account himself gives of what he said that Day, hath more of Railing than Reason in it; for which Reason I shall take the less notice of it. He complains of the length of G. W's Discourse, and that he could not remember all the Particulars. But if his Memory was so short and weak, as not to remember what had been spoken, in the same moment( as it were) wherein it was spoken; how, durst he rely upon such a Memory, for compiling a Narrative afterwards, of what had been said in the Meeting that Day, both by himself and others, with which he has filled well near six Pages. What Credit can a Considerate Reader give to such a Narrative!  
He denies that he hath as yet judged all Friends. And he might as well deny that he hath judged any; none being owned by him to be Friends, but such as he think join and side with him. He has not indeed judged his Friend Hannay, for the Scandalous Preface and Queries, published under his Name, against the Yearly Meeting; therefore he hath not judged all Friends, in his Sense.  
He reserves, he says, to himself a judgement of Discretion, as a private Person, the due privilege of every true Christian. It were well he would reserve also to himself some Discretion, and exercise it in Judging, which is the Duty of every true Christian; which had he done, he had not flung about his rash, indiscreet and false Judgments against some others, for holding gross and vile Errors, who are sounder i● the true Faith than himself.  
He asks, Why is it thought such a Crime in me, to lay my Complaint before this Meeting, against some particular Persons, who have greatly injured and abused me. Answer, He stood charged before in Print, with having rejected the Advice and judgement of the last Yearly Meeting, and denied that Meeting also; and therefore it was unreasonable in him to offer, and expect this Meeting should receive his Accusations against the Members of this Meeting, till he had given this Meeting satisfaction for the Abuse and Contempt offered to the last Yearly Meeting. Besides, it is evident from the Paper he red in this Meeting, and which contained his Complaints and Accusations against several Members of it, that his design therein was first to retard, and finally to disable the Meeting from proceeding against him; for, besides that he excep●s in that Paper, against many Members of the Meeting by Name, and others indefinitely, he therein excepts against the Meeting itself, as not having a true, free, and due Constitution. Now for him to complain to a Meeting, against some Members of it, and expect, and demand to have his Complaint heard and redress●d by that Meeting, and yet at the same time deny that Meeting, to which he so complains, to be a duly or rightly Constituted Meeting, is one of the highest degree● of Extravagant, Unreasonableness, and I think, next to Madness: Yet thus did he.  
Again he asks, p. 11. Why ought not my Complaint to be heard against them, as theirs is heard against me? I ask, whose Complaints were heard against him? The Meeting meddled not with particular Complaints from, or against particular Persons; nor do such Complaints use to be laid before that Meeting. Therefore I, who perhaps had as much Cause of Complaint as any( having been charged by him, and that in Print, with Fifty Perversions, Forgeries and false Accusations) did not complain thereof to that Meeting; but, having my way open thro' the Press, have cleared myself thereof in Print, to his shane.  
He repeats here again the Advice, given by the Yearly Meeting before, that Friends should be tender and kind to him; but conceals the Conditions ann●xed thereunto, viz. As he should approve himself in Charity and Reconciliation with Friends, a Man of Peace; and should answer the Christian Advice of the Meeting then given him; on performance whereof that Advice to Friends, to be tender and kind to him, depended: All which Conditions he apparently and contemptuously broken soon after that Meeting was e●ded. And it is a known Rule, Where the Condition is not observed, the Benefit depending thereuppn cannot of right be claimed. Very idle therefore it is in him to mutter against others, for interrupting him in his Testimony in Meetings, after that he, by openly turning against Friends as he had done, and joining himself to a separate Party and Meeting,( not owned by Friends, nor owning Friends) had devested himself of all Right, or reasonable pretence of Right, to bear any Testimony, as a Friend, in any of Friends Meetings. And more idle yet it is( if more can well be) for him to quarrel with W. pen, for calling him some Weeks ago in Ratcliff Meeting, Apostate, and Enemy to Truth and Friends; when he had many Months before that, as well as just then, publicly given undeniable proofs that he was so.  
To save himself from a just Censure, for not answering the Contents of the Yearly Meetings Paper to him, he alleges that it is expressed by the Word Advice, not Command; that Advice is one thing, Command another; that he doth not find the Yearly Meeting Paper gave him any Command in this Case, and therefore no Transgression: The Answer which he says, p. 12. G. W. gave to this, is such as he himself cannot answer, namely, That the Word Advice hath a Twofold signification; one, when it related to an indifferent Matter( for G. K. had urged what the Apostle Paul writ about single Life and Marriage, 1 Cor. 7.25, 40.) Another, when it related to that which was a Command of God, to wit, to keep in Unity with Friends, and in Charity and Peace, and not to break the Peace of the Church by Contentions, and exposing Friends to the World. To this he could make no other Reply, than to confess( in his 12th page.) he ought to live in Unity, Charity and Peace with sound and faithful Friends; under which two equivocal Epithets he shelters himself, not reckoning any to be sound and faithful Friends, but such as side and join with him against Friends.  
As to the word Advice, under which he seeks shelter, I could show him also( if it were worth the while) that though the Meeting in tenderness used those words( Advice and Sense) rather than some other words which might have been thought more severe and harsh; yet those words, as used by the Meeting, carry in them the force of a Command: For in that part of the Paper, which mentions the Separation in America,( and which by Copulatives is connected with the former Sentence) the words are, And how far soever G. Keith hath been concerne● therein,( which the general Sense of Friends here is doth lie at his Door) He ought now sincerely to use his utmost Endeavours, and Interest with his Friends concerned, to remove it, and to help forward a reuniting, &c. The words ( He ought) there plainly show, that the words( Sense and Advice) as used by the Meeting, differed not so much from the word ( Command) in nature and signification, as in softness of Expression. But to what purpose is it to observe this to him, by whom Advice and Command are alike disregarded and rejected, if they answer not his Will, or End.  
He carps also again at the word ( Body) & says, p. 11. I want to know what ye mean by The Body of the People called Quakers, and their Ministers; If( says he) only the Faithful, I never charged them, and have again and again cleared them in Print. Here again he dissembles most horribly: For by the Faithful, he means not the Body of Friends, but such as, like himself, have broken themselves off from the Body of Friends. The Answer he reports G. W. to have made to his Question, what the Meeting meant by the Body of the People called Quakers, is this, p. 12. That they meant all who walked in Unity with Friends, in the same Profession with them, and were Charitable and Peaceable. This descriptio●●f the Body of the People called Quakers, comprehends the Faithful, and them only: for the Unity of the People called Quakers, stands in that in which the Unfaithful cannot walk. And G. K. was fain to shift the Terms, before he could make a Reply to it. For, having first made an Excursion to set forth how long he hath been a Preacher, Writer, and Labourer among the Quakers, which he says is Thirty years,( though I believe he must discount some of those years for having been a Preacher, Writer, and Labourer against the Quakers) he says, I never understood that all deserved to be called the Body, that did but outwardly profess Unity with Friends; and I am not such a Novice as not to know that it was the sense of many Friends, as well as my sense, that many professed Truth with us, and made a Profession of Unity, that were not in it, &c. But can he think Others are such Novices, as not to know a difference between Walking in Unity with Friends, and but Outwardly Professing Unity with Friends? He himself hath outwardly professed Unity with Friends, since he ceased to walk in Unity with them. This shows he is but a Shuffler, not a fair Reasoner, and has not sincerity in his Undertaking. Now that it may farther appear he uses this Cavil about the Word ( Body) but as a shifting Subterfuge, to save his Head, let it be observed, that in his other Pamphlet, called the Nameless Bull, p. 12. speaking of those of Story's Separation, with whom he is now joined,( though sometime after his coming from America, being  told by some( which did not prove a false Prediction) that he would fall in with the Separatists of Harp Lane, he disdainfully answered, No, They might come to him, but he should not go to them) he makes no difficulty to call them a Body, and a considerable one too, and that from their supposed Number; saying, There is a considerable Number and Body of them. I am not out of hope, that his dropping in among them, may make their boasted Number less considerable, by Awakening the more simplo among them, and Driving them back to the True Flock again. But since he boggles so at the word ( Body) with respect to Friends, and yet can so readily ●se it with respect to those Separatists; I would gladly know, whether he looks upon his consi●erable Number and Body of them he there mentions, to be all Faithful, all in the Possession of the Life and Power of Truth, whereof they make an outward Profession; if he does, that's more, I am persuaded than they all do of him. But if he does not, does he not Egregiously Play the Hypocrite, in gi●●●g that Title to them by the Lamp, and yet pretend he dare not use it to Friends, because he never understood, that all deserved to be called the Body, that did but Outwardly Profess Unity with Friends, and that many Professed Truth, that were not in the Life and Power of it.  
In the Paper he red, p. 11. and also in his Discourse, he calls it a most unfair and unjust thing, that he was required( so it seems, he understood the word Advice, for all his Cavilling about it) to clear the Body of the People called Quakers from those Gross Errors charged on some few in America; and he gives two Reasons for it; One, that he knew not one of many hundreds of that People in divers places, nor their Faith, whether it be sound or unsound in these matters; this Reason seems to me to have no Force in it: for surely, as he ought not to Charge any, but such as he certainly knew to be Un-sound; so he very well might, and ought to Clear, all whom he did not know to be Un-sound: His other Reason is, that he certainly knew W. P. G. W. and J. W. were Guilty of some of those Gross Errors Charged on some in America. This Pretended knowledge of his he mus● have had before he writ his Book, Called, The causeless Ground, Printed soon after the Yearly Meeting in 1694. because he gives it as a Reason why he did not answer the Advice of that Meeting in that Race. Nay he must have had it before that Yearly Meeting, because he gives it as a Reason why he could not expect Justice at that Yea●●y Meeting, where these( he says) were Lea●ing Men. These are his words( in his Narrat. p. 11.) What Justice could I expect, that these being the Leading Man at the last Yearly Meeting, should fairly or sufficiently condemn these Mens gross Errors in Pensilvania, &c. This I desire the Reader only to take notice of, and bear in Mind, till I shall come to speak hereafter to his List of gross Errors, charged by him on those Friends.  
The rest of his Narrative is mostly spent in quarreling with W. pen, which he doth in such a rude and railing manner, as manifests the heat and rage he was in, which was so apparent, that himself cannot but take notice of it, p. 14. confessing he was much moved, and had scarce patience to hear: yet in another place would excuse that, which he says some are pleased to call Passion and Railing, with the soft Terms of Free and Bold Speech. But as Railing deserves not to be regarded, so I shall take the less notice of the remaining part of his Narrative; only touching here and there a passage, and so leave it.  
In his 13th page., he very malapertly tells W. P. I am thy Elder Brother, and was a Preacher among the Quakers, before thou wast a Quaker: W. P. very gently replied, Thou boastest of thy Antiquity, which 〈◇〉 should not do, were I in thy case. This soft Answer a little checked him, so that his rejoinder was in somewhat a lower strain; I answered, says he, I boast not of my Antiquity, but by thy own words, and the words of G. W. Ancient Brethren should be regarded, &c. That Ancient Brethren should be regarded, is very true, and seasonable; but that False Brethren, or Apostates, because they had antien●ly been Brethren, should therefore be regarded as ancient Brethren, is a false Inference, and very unreasonable: Antiquity in the Truth is honourable; The hoary Head is a Crown of Glory; but it is with an IF, if it be found in the way of Righteousness, Prov. 16.31. But if it be found in the way of Unrighteousness, as he is, it is not a Glory, but a shane; and he in glorying therein, doth but glory in his shane, as some of old did, Phil. 3.19.  
In the same 13th page., he says, If ye pass any judgement against me, by your pretended inward sense, ye will be sufficiently discovered, what unjust Men ye are: Yet in his 14th and 15th pages, when W. P. had declared, that at that Meeting at Ratcliff, wherein he gave Testimony against G. K. he was in no Passion, but transported by the glorious Power of God, G. K. calls that Transport, a sinful Passion, and passes sentence that W. P. had blasphemed, in fathering his most sinful Passion upon the glorious Power and Spirit of God; for which he censured others also,( and that indefinitely) saying, It is a thing but too familiar with him, and many others of his Associates. Now Reader, consider on what doth G. K. ground this Sentence of his, but ●●s pretended inward Sense? Outward Evidence he brings none: And the outward Evidence that was given by others, was direct against him: For divers Friends who were present at that Meeting at Ratcliff, did in the Yearly Meeting, and in G. K.'s presence, declare that the Power of God was very eminently upon W.P. at that time when he denied G. K.( though this, and their Testimony also, that the Relation W. P. had then given of that matter, was true in Fact, G. K. leaves out of his Narrative; which shows his Narrative is not true, but partial.) Now- seeing G. K. hath given his judgement here against W. P. for Blaspheming, and that by or from his own pretended inward Sense, has he not thereby( to use his own words) sufficiently discovered what an unjust Man he is?  
Now, although no judgement was passed upon him by the Meeting, from inward Sense only, but upon outward Evidences, with respect to matters of Fact: Yet seeing he makes so light of inward sense, both in this and his other lately printed Pamphlets, I will remind him of something he formerly writ in behalf of inward Sense and Discerning, when his Sense( both inward and outward) was truer and clearer than it is now. In his Book called Immediate Revelation not ceased, p. 179. Answering an Objection, That a Man can be assured of his Estate before God, if he be justified by certain Signs, Characters and Marks, &c. He says, But seeing there are semblances of all these, a counterfeit h●ve both to God and Man, Meekness, Patience, ●c. For the Hypocrite, who has nothing of the true Love, Patience, Meekness, &c. yet he hath a likeness of them, and will proceed as far in the outward Actions of Devotion, Charity, Equity, &c. as the other that is the true Believer; yea, and even according to their own Confession, they may go beyond him. And so, whereas they say, The three is known by its Fruits, and so it is, but by what are the Fruits known? Two Men may be doing the same outward work, which has the same outward Appearance, and yet the one a mere Hypocrite, and the other a sincere Christian. Then by what can their Works or Fruits be judged?— These Works, which carry in them an appearance to be good, and yet are not good, but dead works, empty, without Life; though they have a fair show, yet they are rottenness within:— How shall a Man judge of these? Now he who has Life in himself, the Birth begotten of God, he has a spiritual sense and discerning, whereby he can savour, smell and taste, of the Works; the Fruits of the good three; for they have a good savour, a living spiritual savour; they smell and taste of the three of Life on which they grow: Hence they are called Living Works; and these, in the Light which reveals them, and makes all manifest, are seen to be good. And the Works having but the Appearance, they also are seen and discerned to be such, and being evil, they cast an evil savour, by which in the Light, which begets the Discerning, t●●y are felt, and he can have no Union with ●hem, nor with the three on which they grow. And this Man discerneth, in the manifestation of the Light, both his Own, and his Neighbours Works, of what nature they are; by the tasting and smelling of the Fruit, the three is known, both in himself and his Neighbour. And this is a great Mystery, and hard to be received with such, who have not got that taste and discerning, begot in them of the Lord, which tasteth Words, as the Mouth tasteth Meat. But hereto I give my Testimony, that there is such a thing, and I do witness it in my measure. This is it which enters into the Kernel, and pierces through the outward appearance, and searches what is in the Center, and brings to Light the hidden things of Dishonesty, and discovers the ravening Wolf in the Sheep's clothing, whether in a Mans Self or his Neighbour.  
And in p. 188. speaking of the Children of God, he says, If they did not know Infallibly one another, they could not have that Peace, and Unity, and Concord one with another. How could they discern the true Friend from the Enemy, the secret Enemy, the Deceiver, which is the most dangerous Enemy, and can come into all Outwards, and Appearances with Friends; can put on the Sheeps clothing, and a Form of Godliness, but deny the Power, and be an Enemy to it? A ravenous Wolf can speak fair, yea, profess all the Words and Principles of Truth, and come the whole length of all Outwards, as is said, and yet be a rotten Hypocrite, a Limb of Satan a Brat of Babylon, voided of all fear of God: So, how shall he be discerned? See Mal. 3.18. Then shall ye return, and discern between the Righteous and the Wicked, between him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not.  
Again, in p. 190. Seeing Babylon's Children, the Whore's Brats, as is said, can come into all outward Forms and Appearances, either of Words or Practices, then there is no way possible, how the Children of the true Mother, can be known from the Children of the Whore, or how the true Mother her self, can be known from the Whore, Mystery Babylon, but by the Revelation of the Light and Life of Jesus Christ. Again, p. 191. The false Prophet that comes in the Sheep's clothing, and is inwardly a ravening Wolf, that comes in the form of Words, the form of Godliness, he cannot deceive the Elect; they can beware of him, and fly from him, Joh. 10.4, 5. Mat. 7.15. And how could they beware of him, if they could not discern him to be such? And these who say they are Ministers, and are not, they can try their Spirits; it is more than their words, the Anointing teacheth them, 1 Joh. 4.1, 5, 6. and 1 Joh. 5.27. And so can know, not the Speech of them that are puffed up, but the Power, wherein the Kingdom standeth, 1 Cor. 4.19, 20.  
Now, not to Transcribe more, I desire the Reader to observe from the foregoing, how exactly G. K. in describing the Hypocrite, the Evil three, the Ravening Wolf, the false Prophet, &c. hath d●scrived himself in his present state. And whether he has not said enough, in the Quotations before given, to have justified the Meeting, had they given judgement against him, only by that inward Spiritual Sense, Savour and Discerning he speaks of; which yet they did not, but with respect to Matters of Fact, proceeded upon outward Evidences, as I noted before.  
I have now gone through his parti●l Narrative, and made some Observations on the most material par●s of it. There follows in the same Pamphlet, A List, he says, of Errors, which he pretends to have gathered out of some Books of Friends, on which it might be expected I should now enter. But in as much as( for what across Reason I know not, unless it were to multiply Books; though in his Postscript to that called, A Loving Epistle, he pretended to dislike that way, alleging that the Scripture saith, Of making many Books there is no end) he hath Printed the judgement of the last Yearly Meeting concerning him, with his Answer at length thereunto, in another distinct Pamphlet, dated but two days after the former,( which he needed not have done: For that Paper containing the judgement of the Yearly Meeting was sent him above a Week before the date of his first Pamphlet) I shall make bold( either with, or without his leave) to Connect his Answer to the Meeting's judgement, with his foregoing Narrative, and thereby carry on the whole Matter in a continued Series, which he, for some odd or evil end or other, hath dis-joined, and partend into two Pamphlets. Afterwards I intend to take notice of his List of Errors.  
He gives his latter Pamphlet this false and envious Title, The pretended Yearly Meeting of the Quakers, their Nameless Bull of, Excommunication given forth against George Keith, from a Party or Faction of Men that call themselves the Yearly Meeting, which they would have to be received, as the general judgement, and Sentence of the Quakers. With a brief Answer to the same, showing, that for his Zealous and conscientious opposing their gross Errors, and reproving the evil and wicked Practices of them in Pensylvania, whom they own to be their Brethren, particularly their Persecution of G. K. and some of his Friends, that Party has Excommunicated him. This Title I call false and envious. Envious, in calling the judgement of the Yearly Meeting, A Bull, which is a Term appropriated to the Pope's Mandates. False, in calling it Nameless, which hath to it the Name of the Clerk of that Meeting, who signed it by appointment of that Meeting, that gave it forth. False also, in saying it was given forth from the pretended Yearly Meeting of the Quakers, when as it was( and he knows it was) from the real Yearly Meeting of the Quakers, if ever the Quakers had a Yearly Meeting. False again, in saying it was given forth from a Party or Faction of Men, that call themselves the Yearly Meeting, whereas it was given forth by the who●e entire Yearly Meeting, fully and unanimously concurring and agreeing, not one dissenting. False yet further, in saying, That Party has Excommunicated him for his Zealous and Consci●ncious opposing their gross Errors; whereas he had not charged the Yearly Meeting with any gross Errors, when the judgement of that Meeting was given forth, nor yet hath: Though he hath since charged Three Friends that were Members of it. And lastly, both false and envious, in saying they have Excommunicated him, for reproving the Evil and Wicked Practices of them in Pensylvania, &c. Titles of Books usually bespeak the Contents thereof. If this doth so, the Reader may guess by this Title, made up of falsehood and Envy, what he may expect in the Body of the Book, in to which let us now look.  
Having first printed the judgement of the Yearly Meeting, which in large Print ta●es up about a page. and half; his Answer thereunto follows, which he calls Brief, though it fills between eight and nine pages. He begins it thus, A Paper bearing this Title, A● the Yearly Meeting in London, the 17th of the 3d Month, 1695. And having at the end of it these following words,[ signed by appointment of the Yearly Meeting, and in behalf thereof, as their Act, which is to my certain knowledge, Benjamin Bealing] came to my House, and was delivered to some in my Family the 17th of this instant 1695. the which Paper mentioneth no sort of People, nor what sort of Yearly Meeting it came from. This he makes his first Cavil, and as idle as it is, he spends some time upon it. He had been in the Meeting but the day before,( and the day before that also) as the Narrative he has Printed of passages therein, sets forth. Now this Paper being sent to him, who knew beforehand the occasion of it, the Person that signed it, and brought it him, and the Meeting from which it came, it was needless to give any descriptive Character of the Meeting for his Information; and so it appears: For after he hath wrangled a while about it, he says, I do not in the least pretend Ignorance, so as not to know some particular Persons, who have had a main hand in it, &c. He knew from what Meeting it came, and he knows that to be the Yearly Meeting of the people called Quakers; which is no other, as to its Constitution, or manner of Being, than it has been these many Years, or than it was when he seemed well enough to like it, and as a Minister to be of it; which shows, his Exception now against the Constitution of it, proceeds rather from Prejudice and Envy, than from sound Reason or true judgement. And if he will take the pains to red the judgement that was given by the Church at Jerusalem upon the dissension that arose about Circumcision, Acts 15. he shall find the Direction or Inscription of that to be less particular, than this which he excepts against. For this is directed from the Yearly Meeting, the place name, where it was held, viz. in London, and the Day of the Month and Year, whereon it was held, added; whereas that expresses neither Meeting, Place, nor Time; but only thus, The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren, sand greeting unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, &c. yet we red not that that judgement was excepted against for this. So that herein G. K. hath shewed himself a more Impertinent Caviller than those Cavilling Jews.  
Now the Exception which he makes ●oth here in his Answer, and in the Paper he red in the Yearly Meeting, against the Constitution of that Meeting, is, itis consisting of two Persons sent up from every County or Quarterly Meeting in England and Wales, together with them they call public Friends, excluding generally others of the same Profession, &c. If this, says he, is meant by the Yearly Meeting, that hath sent this Paper to me, I disown all such Constitution of a Yearly Meeting, p. 4, and 5. And so I make no doubt, he would any Constitution of any Meeting, that should have disowned him. But for all his disowning the Constitution of that Meeting, and disowning it also to be the Yearly M●eti●g 〈◇〉 the People called Quakers; yet that Paper of his which he red in the Yearly Meeting, was directed, To the Yearly Meeting of the People called Quakers, met at London, such a day; and he hath so printed it since. And in the Title of that Book in which he hath printed it, he owns that Meeting which that Paper was given to, to be the Yearly Meeting of the People called Quakers. So that he can own the Meeting, and the Constitution of it, when he pleases, and so long as he thinks it may make for his advantage so to do, and disown it when he pleases again. How sincere he is in this, let the Reader judge.  
But that he might seem to have the fairer pretence to except against the Meeting, and the Constitution thereof, he suggests divers things against them, which he cannot prove; As that they assume a Power to make Laws, and give forth Edicts and Decrees to bind and oblige the Consciences of all these many Thousands in the Three Nations, and other Places of the World, that go under the outward Profession of Quakers, &c. Nameless Bull, p. 4. This is Charging, by a sly way of suggestion, without Proof. What Proof can he bring,( for he doth bring none) that ever the Yearly Meeting did assume such a Power? What Instance can he give of any such Law, Edict or Decree made and given forth by that Meeting, to bind and oblige the Consciences of all those many Thousands in the Three Nations, and other parts of the World, & c? Let him produce those Laws, bring forth those Edict●, name those Decrees, if he can. So also speaking of Chosen Members from the several Counties, he says, they are in great part Ministers, and Pensioners paid by the respective Counties for that service, and oft designedly chosen to bring to effect something contrived beforehand by a particular Cabal, &c. These are mere slanderous Reproaches, voided of Truth, and designed for defamation only. Was he ever such a Pensioner, or doth he know any that are? So again, for excluding( as he says) generally others of the same Profession, &c. This is a known falsehood, contradicted by constant practise. When did he ever know a Yearly Meeting so held, that only two from a County, and Ministers, were admitted, and others of the same Profession, whom they own●d to be in Unity with them, were generally excluded? It is well known to be otherwise; and that Sober, Grave and Weighty Friends, who are known to he in Unity with the Meeting, are not excluded from the Meeting, nor from giving their Judgments in the Meeting, in Matters relating to the Meeting, though not public Ministers, nor chosen by the Quarterly Meetings they belong unto. What therefore G. K. quotes out of R. Barclay's Book, called, The Anarchy, &c. and applies against the Yearly Meeting, is not against it, but agrees well with the practise of that Meeting, and that Meeting with it, viz. That the People called Quakers exclude no Member of the Church to give his judgement. And it is also to be observed, That the Yearly Meeting now is the same in its Constitution and practise, as it was when R. B. writ that Book, and before; therefore R. B. who lived and died in Unity with the Yearly Meeting, and who writ that Book chiefly in defence of that Meeting, and of the Order of Truth established amongst, and practised by Friends, against the Cavilling Exceptions of other Apostates, was not likely to writ any thing therein against the Constitution of the Yearly Meeting, nor did. And though G. K. often Cites R. B's words out of that Book, called, The Anarchy; yet it is seldom that he can draw any thing from thence to answer his purpose, without misciting the words, o● perverting and wresting them from their true sense and meaning: Of his doing which, I have formerly given some Instances in Print, which he neither hath cleared, nor ever can clear himself from. And whereas he now says, in his Nameless Bull, p: 5. For any Number of Men to assume a Power, in an Assembly, to extend to all others, as suppose many Thousands, that what judgement, or Sentence they shall pass, r●lating either to things of Religion, or Persons, shall oblige the Consciences of all these Thousands under the same Profession, is directly contrary to that Christian Liberty wherewith Christ hath made every true Christian free, and is a Popish and Tyrannical Invasi●n, and Usurpation over Mens Consciences, &c. If by this he means the Yearly Meeting at London, he had no ground thus to speak: For that Meeting hath never assumed such a Power, that I know of. That Meeting, being gathered in the Name of Christ, and endowed with his Power, is thereby guided and enabled to perform those Services, to his Honour, and h●s Churches good, for which it is gathered. And they that are preserved by the same Power in Unity with it, and with the Meeting in it, need no other Obligation upon their Consciences, than what that Divine Power in themselves lays, to engage them to consent to, and join with, what in the movings of the same Power, is concluded on and agreed to. But if G. K. means, That the Church of Christ hath not Power to give forth a judgement or Sentence, relating either to things of Religion or Persons, that may oblige the Consciences of those under the same Profession; he therein flatly contradicts contradicts both the Scriptures and R. B. in that Book which he so often applauds, and hath them both directly against him. The Scriptures in that great Instance of the judgement give● by the Church at Jerusalem, in the Case of Circumcision, Acts 15. and R. B. in that Book, called, The Anarchy, p. 48. where, having put the Question, Whether the Church of Christ have Power in any Cases that are Matters of Conscience, to give a positive Sentence and Decision, which may be Obligatory upon Believers? He says, I answer Affirmatively, she hath, and shall prove it from divers Instances, both from Scripture and Reason; which he hath done. And in p. 53. he again says, I affirm, and that according to Truth, that as the Church and Assembly of God's People, may, and hath Power to decide by the Spirit of God in Matters Fundamental and Weighty( without which no Decision, nor Decree in whatever Matters is available) so the same Church and Assembly also in other Matters of less moment, as to themselves, yet being needful and expedient with a respect to the Circumstance of Time, Place, and other Things that may fall in, may, and hath Power, by the same Spirit, and no other ways, being acted, moved and assisted, and lead by it there, to, to pronounce a positive judgement, which no doubt will be found Obligatory upon all such as have a s●nse and feeling of the mind of the Spirit, though rej●cted by such as are not watchful, and so are out of the feeling and unity of the Life. And in p. 68. he says, That their de Facto, or effectually meeting together, and giving a positive judgement in such Cases, will not import Tyranny and Usurp●tion, or any inconsistency with the Universal privilege that all Christians have, to be lead by the Spirit. &c. Nothing can be more opposite to G. K's last recited Sentence, if he thereby mean the Church of Christ; and if he doth not so mean, he says nothing to the purpose.  
His Exceptions in p. 5. against the Me●ting, because the Door was shalt, and some Fri●nds stood at it, to put by such from going in as had no business there, is not less Idle than his former. Would he have Meetings of that kind, in such a Populous City, and in such a pu●lick Place, stan● open to all Comers, or Passers-by, as the Meetings for Worship only, do? This shows his great want of disrcection, to distinguish the different Natures, End and Services of Meetings. But whereas he says, They refused to let in some that desired to come in, and yet were opened by them; There is not much heed to be taken to what he says in any case; none at all in that case: For he is not a proper Judge who are owned, and who not. If he mi●ht judge in that case, there is not perhaps any so open an Enemy as he would not bring in. For it is observable in the entrance of his Narrative, that when he himself offering to enter, was stopped, and  told he was not in Unity with Friends; he replied, I know no Meeting as yet in England that hath disowned me. Now if he could have the confidence to have thrust in, who himself had denied that Meeting the Year before, trampled with contempt upon the judgement of it, and behaved himself as an open and common Enemy; whom may we suppose he would have judged unfit to have been let in? Not any of that Separa●e Company to be sure, amongst whom he is of late fallen, divers of whom have not been particularly, a●d by name disowned by any Meeting. For what necessity is there, that a Meeting should formally disown those to be of us, who by turning against us, and separating themselves from us, have openly disowned us, and declared themselves not to be of us? But it is evident from the Methods he proposes, his design is to render such Meetings either impracticable to be held, or unprafitable and useless, if they could be held For first, the Door must stand open to all Comers,( whatever, either Curiosity, or captious Humour, draws them;) and all that are in the Profession of Truth, how little soever of it they possess; nay, all that have professed to be of us, though they are departed from us, if they have not been formerly disowned, must( according to his method) of right be admitted( if they desire it) to be present to hear, see, and give judgement; and if a J●dgment be given, all these must s●verally set their names to that judgement, or else it is with him, but a Nameless Bull. Now it is worthy of a considerate and attentive Man's thoughts, how such a Meeting as he proposes could be obtained; or of what good use it could be, if it were obtained? He mentions himself, the Many Thousands, that go under the outward Profession and Denomination of Quakers. And what if I should multiply by Ten, and call it the Many Ten Thousands? Now suppose all these( without distinction of Age or Sex, which he provides not against) should have equal desire, as apprehending themselves to have equal right, by virtue of Profession, to be present in such a Meeting, to hear, see, and every one give judgement; what place could be capable of receiving such Multitudes? To come nearer to the matter, I doubt not but there are, under the Profession of Truth, within the Cities and Suburbs of London and Westminster, more Persons than the largest Meeting-House we have is capable to contain. Add to them but half so many out of the adjacent Counties; and where should they be disposed? But overlooking all this, and supposing such Number assembled somewhere; how is it conceivable that all those could so hear and see, as thereby to receive such satisfactory Information as therefrom to give judgement in a case Propounded? And next, how that judgement should be given? He excepts against taking silence for consent; saying in his Narrative, True Copy, p. 15. It is not always true. If every Individual must express his judgement, in what time can that be done? Or how shall it be known whether all do express their judgement, unless the whole Multitude be called over by Name? And how should that be done without a List or Roll of names; both which he seems to be offended at. But this is not all. If the Sun would stand still, to lengthen a Day long enough for such a Multitude, severally and distinctly to pronounce their Sentence, yet would not this serve his turn: they must all set their hands to it two; and in what time could that be done, or in what Paper could the Names be contained? He is express in this, in that Paper which he red in the last Yearly Meeting, wherein he took upon him thus to direct the Meeting; What Paper ye give out concerning me, let it be Signed with all your hands that give judgement in the Case, and not laid on the clerk, that it may appear all present are unanimous in the said judgement, True Copy, &c. p. 5. And because the Meeting did not observe his Order therein, but ordered their clerk to Sign it on behalf of the Meeting, he is impatiently angry, and calls it, The Nameless Bull; a work of Darkness, acted and brought forth in the dark; a Birth without a legitimate Father; a nameless Child, &c. which shows his Wrath and Envy, not Reason, much less Christianity. In this also he has out-done those troublesone Jews of old, that raised the Controversy about Circumcision; for we red not that they excepted against the Churches judgement in that case, though it doth not appear from the Text, that the Apostles, &c. did sign it themselves, or appoint any other to sign it in their name. The reason he gives, why he would have such judgement Signed by every individual, shows his design in proposing it. It is, That it may appear all present are unanimous in the judgement. This is his masterpiece: A sure way( if allowed) by which any, to whom such judgement is due, may prevent it's ever being given. For first the Door must be open for all Comers. Next, All that make any profession of Truth( or that have done, and have not been formally disowned by a Meeting) must have liberty to be present, to hear, see, and give judgement, though never so many Thousands such should come;( else, with him, the Constitution is nought.) And lastly, All that are present( be they never so many) must to a Man be unanimous in the judgement( else, with him, the judgement is voided.) And truly, as the Proverb says of an ill Singer, He that is in the Fire, and would not come out, to hear such an one Sing, would deserve to be burnt: So one might say of G. K. were he in danger to be condemned by such a Meeting, and would not provide to have some one, at least, there, to dissent from the rest, and thereby keep the Meeting from being( in his Sense) unanimous, he would deserve,( by that Proverb) to be condemned; which, I dare pass my Word, he will never be, in a Meeting of his Constitution. How easy had it been, upon the Term he proposes, for him to have brought one or two from Harp-Lane, to have fetched him off at the Yearly Meeting, by their dissenting from the concurrent Sense of that Meeting? I have taken this small pains, partly, to Answer G. K's Cavils; partly, to lay open his Design, and the Folly of it; and partly, by this brief Description, to set forth the deformity of Disorder and Confusion. Of which, and the inconveniences and dangers that attend it, Wise Men in all Ages, have been so apprehensive, that in all Civil●zed Nations( at least) and where freedom is retained, when any thing, whether Civil or Religious, relating to a multitude, has been to be treated of, considered, debated and concluded, it has been referred to a competent number of the same Society, Body, or People, chosen by free and joint Consent of the rest.  
He suggests also, Nameless Bull, p. 5, and 6. that the Meeting takes ways, either by persuasions or Terrifications, to gain the Universal and Unanimous Consent of them, called the Commissioners, or Chosen Members from every County. Of this he pretends to give an Instance, going on thus— As doth plainly appear by the late most absurd and insolent Method, more like the Spanish Inquisition, than a free Assembly of sincere Christians, they did take with a Preacher, one of their Commissioners, or Chosen Members; who having said in private, out of the Meeting, he could sooner Die, or lose his Right Hand, than sign to a Paper disowning G. Keith, which coming to their Intelligence, that there was such a Person, but not knowing who he was, they were so earnest to find ●im out, that they caused call over the Roll, a● List of the Names of the Persons sent from the respective Counties, to find out this Person, asking them one by one, to find him out; and the poor Man, not daring to lye, owned he was the Person; and being terrified, lest he should be severely proceeded against by them, he came( with some others to be Witnesses to his Recantation) and disowned to me what he had formerly said, though a few Hours before, he professed so great a Concern and Tenderness of Conscience towards me. That this Story is partly true in Fact, I grant. But G. K's suggestion, which he brings this to prove, viz. That Endeavours were used by the Meeting, either by persuasion or Terrification, to gain the unanimous Consent of the Members, I utterly deny, as altogether false. 'Tis true, that the Person mentioned by him, did, during the Meeting, speak some such words as G. K. here reports him to have said, and this I suppose was privately said, for it was at G. K's own House: And though he designedly conceals how, and by whom this private Communication came to be divulged, saying only, ( which coming to their intelligence) yet he himself is ( Lupus in Fabula) the Person that brought it to their Intelligence. For he coming into the Meeting the same Day, did in a braving manner tell the Meeting, he did not believe they would be unanimous enough to give forth a Testimony against him, for that one who was a Member of that Meeting,( and whom he called a Commissioner, a term not used by us) had  told him within six Hours before, that he would rather Die, or have his Right Hand cut off, than sign a Paper to disown him. Hereupon the Meeting desired G. K. to Name that Person, that if he were then present, he might be heard, if he had any thing to say in his behalf. But G. K. refused to name, and said he did not know whether he was present, or no. This gave occasion for that Proposal, which, in the close of his Narrative, G. K. says Fra. Campfeild made, That silence should be made, and if any were dissatisfied with the Last Years judgement, let such declare their dissatisfaction; and if they did not, they were not honest Men. Which G. K. opposed, and in an uneasy Heat starting up, said he would be gone, and went. After he was gone, a Concern came upon many members of the Meeting, as did of old, in another Case, upon the Disciples of Christ, who, when he had said, One of you shall betray me, began every one to ask, Is it I? Mat. 26.21, 22. Friends, who knew themselves to be clear, were willing their clearness might appear. And because none knew, but the Person concerned, whether the Story was true or false, it was proposed by some, and followed by others, that in as much as it was charged on one, who was said to come up from a County, the Names of all that came up from the several Counties should be called over, that each might have opportunity to clear himself. Which Method being taken, the Party concerned, before it came directly to himself, acknowledged himself to be the Person that had spoken those words or words to that effect, to G.K. and withal, did then declare in the open Meeting to this effect, That he did not speak those words from an Approbation he had of G. K. but because, not having been at the Yearly Meeting the Year before, when G. K's Business was examined and opened, and by that means not having had a full Knowledge of the former Proceedings, he thought it not fit for him to set his Hand to a Paper against him. But that now having, since he spake so to him, seen him in the Meeting there, and observed his Behaviour, Speech, and Spirit, he was satisfied that G. K. was out of the way. Upon this account it was, that he readily and willingly went to clear his Intention to G. K. and let him know the sense he had now of him. That some went with him is true, and was both reasonable in itself, and desired by him: For otherwise, had he gone alone, G. K. might have wrested his words, or charged him with words he had not spoken. But that he was terrified lest he should be severely proceeded against by the Meeting, and therefore came to him,( as he suggests) is a malicious slander upon the Meeting; which I do not believe the Person himself will own. Now Reader, having heard the whole Matter, as it was,( according to the best of my remembrance) judge whether what the Meeting did in this Case, was any way like the Spanish Inquisition,( to which G. K. maliciously compares it) or whether the Method they used, deserved to be called, as it is by him, most absurd and insolent; or was any other than might very well become a free Assembly of sincere Christians. Yet such is the rancour of this Man's Spirit against us, that to draw the Hatred of the People, if not the Displeasure of the Civil Magistrate upon us, he again, in the close of that Story says, This Passage is so considerable an advance towards the erect ng the Spanish Inquisition among the Quakers, that I hope some will be awakened to take notice of it, and withstand it. But the best on't is, his Folly, as well as Envy, is so conspicuous in the Comparison, that I doubt not but every Considerate Reader will ridicule him for the one, as well as Condemn him for the other.  
He makes yet, in this 6th page. of his Nameless Bull, some feeble Attempts to invalidate, or weaken, the judgement of the Meeting against him; but through his hast, or heat, he( here, as in divers places of his other Pamphlet, called The true Copy, which is a sign his Head is more than usually discomposed) has left his Sentence imperfect, and thereby the sense so broken, that it is not very easy to understand his meaning: yet, so far as I can guess at it, it is, That he is willing to persuade himself, that among so many as were present in that Meeting, it may not be impossible that some might be there that did not own that Sentence, since every individual there was not asked; this is indeed playing at small-Game; and re-minds me of the Answer he gave at the Yearly Meeting before, to some that took notice what trifling things he insisted on, which was, That his case was like that of a drowning or sinking Man, who will naturally catch hold of any thing, though but a Twig, or Rush, to hang by.  
In the same page. he complains, That the Paper against him is to go over all places of the World, where the People called Quakers have their Meetings, &c. How knows he that? The Meeting did not Print it; and without Printing, it would be difficult to sand it to all places of the World where we have Meetings. But he by Printing it, has facilitated that work; so that now 'tis probable it may go further than otherwise it would have done. But what if it should go into all places where we have Meetings? What inconvenience is there in that? Why, it declares the sense of the. Meeting to be, That he ought not to Preach or Pray in any of Friends Meetings, nor be Owned or Received as one of them. Well, What then? That's still with a Limitation and Condition, viz. whilst he( who is gone from the Blessed Unity of the Peaceable Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hath thereby Separated himself from the Holy Fellowship of the Church of Christ) shall continue in an Unreconciled and Uncharitable State; and until by a public and Hearty acknowledgement of the great Offence he hath given, and Hurt he hath done, and Condemnation of himself therefore, he give Proof of his Unfeigned Repentance, and do his endeavour to Remove and Take off the Reproach he hath brought upon Truth and Friends. Doth he Resolve never to do this? he is then so much the worse: And indeed hitherto he has given no ground to hope or expect it: but sure I am, till he doth this, he is not fit to Preach or Pray in any of our Meetings, nor to be Owned or Received as one of us. And therefore I am Satisfied, how far soever this Sense of the Meeting be Spread, it doth no Wrong to him: yet fain would he bring some Odium upon the Meeting; and therefore he suggests that there is some Design in Sending this Paper out so generally, and Nameless as he fals●ly says it is( who, in contradiction to himself, has acknowledged; that Benjamin B●aling's name was to it, by the Appointment and on the behalf of the Yearly Meeting) Ye● see, says he, it is of an Universal Extent, without all Limitation of Places, which is to make their Yearly Meeting at London, consisting of a few Particulars, as Universal as the Church of Rome maketh her Self to be; I say, it is worthy of Enqui●y what the Design is, says he, that such an Edict or Sentence should go forth against me, &c. Here his Envy has made him again bewray his Folly, in the comparing Yearly Meetings to the Church of Rome, and calling the Paper sent to him by that Meeting, an Edict; which word in its proper signification, and common acceptation, imports a Command, ordinance, Injunction, and is so used by the Church of Rome; whereas that Paper, sent him by the Meeting, doth not Command, Ordain, enjoin, any thing: but only declares the sense and judgement of the Meeting: doth the Church of Rome do so, and only so? If She did, Christendom would have less cause to Complain of her. I think no Person, of common sense, will blame the Meeting for declaring their sense, how far soever that D●claration of it should go. The Meeting did not take upon it to Command, or enjoin all others under the same Profession, to Receive and aclowledge their sense; but being well Satisfied they had Received from God the sense and judgement they gave, they were Content to leave it to the witness of God in the Conscience of every one, to whom it should come; not doub●ing but such as have a True Savour of the Things of God, will Savour it to be of God.  
In Pag. 7. He says, As for the Contents of the said Bull, as it is nameless, so it may be said to have neither Horns nor Teeth. There's the less hurt in it then. But why doth he mention Horns and Teeth with relation to a Paper? Doth he do this to make Sport for himself, or for his Reader? And why doth he call that Paper, which the Meeting sent him a Bull?( which he repeats ad Nauseam usque) Is it to show his Wit, or vent his Anger? Since he delights so much in Bullish Metaphors, were it fit for me to imitate his folly, I could show him a Bull of his own making, when in his Narrative, he called the Table a slately fabric, Erected Low upon the Floor: This is such a fanaticism in Speech, as we in the Country call a Bull; and may pass for a stranger sort of Bull too, than that he calls Nameless; for if that( as he says) may be said to have neither Horns nor Teeth; this, of his own making, may as well be said to have neither Head nor tail. If he, or others, shall think this Passage too jocose, or pleasant, let him learn henceforth to handle serious thing seriously, and avoid invidious Reflections and Comparisons: And let others consider, that a Fool( which great scholars often times prove, when they turn against the Truth of God, the Spring of true Wisdom) may, in the judgement of a wise Man, be answered according to his Folly, Prov. 26.5. But if that which he calls a Nameless Bull, hath neither horns nor Teeth, what need he be so afraid of it? Why make such an Out-cry? Why fence so much against it? So harmless a Thing, as had neither Horns nor Teeth,( could neither bite nor gore) he might, one would think, have let pass, without so much ado, so great a clamour. Nor doth it bespeak Manhood in him, to let loose so many Dogs( if according to his own Metaphor, I may so call his snarling Reflections) as he has done, against such an Innocent Bull, as he represents this to be, which( if he sees aright) hath neither Horns nor Teeth to offend him, or defend itself. But, to draw off from this strain,( into which I did not step, either to please myself, or raise any lightness in my Reader; but to give G. K. a stroke of due Correction for his abusive Folly) since he allows that Paper, which he calls a Bull, to have neither Horns nor Teeth, I hope he will not complain of Persecution, or Severity, from it, nor liken it any more to the Bulls of the Romish Church.  
In the same page., having cited some words out of the Meeting's Paper, signifying they were satisfied both by his Printed Books, and other outward Evidences, with respect to matters of Fact, and by that Divine Sense, &c. That the said G. Keith hath been of late, and yet is acted by an Unchristian Spirit, he objects, This is only said, but no passages in any of his Books brought against him, to satisfy any moderate Enquirer, nor any outward Evidence, with respect to matter of Fact, so much as alleged, to prove their general Charge. I answer, Such Particularities were proper to the Examination of the Cause, not to the judgement or Sentence given thereupon. When or where did he ever see the particular matters of Evidence expressed in a Sentence or judgement? Evident it is, that as to matter of Fact, the Meeting had recourse both to his Books,( some of which were publicly red in the Meeting) and to other outward Evidences,( who in his presence gave their Evidence) and from both were fully satisfied to give forth that judgement they did. And therefore he doth not say true, in saying, No Passages in any of his Books, were brought against him, nor any outward Evidence, with respect to matter of Fact, so much as alleged to prove the Charge: For it was upon outward Evidence( both of his Books, and Eye and Earwitnesses) with respect to matter of Fact, that the Meeting proceeded, as is expressly alleged and and set forth in that Paper, which declares the Meeting's Sense concerning him. He is greatly to be blamed therefore for saying,( as a Reflection on the Meeting) As for the pretence to a Divine Sense, it is but vain and presumptuous, so to judge a Man to be of an Unchristian Spirit, without External Evidence in matter of doctrine and Fact brought against me, none of which they have brought: For External Evidence was brought against him, and is so expressed in the Meeting's Paper sent to him. And whereas he says, Seeing by that which they call a Divine Sense, they have falsely and unjustly judged me, without giving any proof of their Charge, I am bold and free in my Spirit to say their Sense is not Divine, but Carnal, and Sensual, for no Divine Sense will led any Man, or Men, to be false Accusers. I tell him, and all others, that in suggesting he was falsely accused, or judged by the Yearly Meeting, with respect to Matter of Fact, without outward Evidence, he himself is a false Accuser. And he is too bold and presumptuous in denying that Sense that opened in the Heavenly Life in the Meeting, to be Divine, and in calling it Carnal and Sensual. And in calling the judgement of the Meeting unrighteous, and saying, It hath neither the Divine Life nor Sense to Seal it, but that it's probable a Power of Darkness might run through the Meeting, and deceive many by its false appearance of Life, he hath impiously Blasphemed that Divine Life and Power, which was eminently seen and felt in the Meeting, and which he is departed from, and turned against; and for which the Displeasure of the Lord is gone forth in judgement against him; which he will one Day feel, though now he hardens himself.  
His taxing the Meeting with writing Nonsensically, in saying, The Divine Sense, in the Openings of the Heavenly Life, ran, as a mighty Stream, through the Meeting, is a Nonsensical Cavil of his own. It doth not confounded the Life with the Sense that the Life gives, as he( without, and against Sense) alleges; for since he grants the Life, which gives the Sense, may be properly said to run as a Stream, in the Assembly of the Faithful; the Sense which the Life so gives, may as properly be said to run with the Life, in the Openings thereof, and in the same Stream or Current, through the Meeting. And though to countenance his Cavil, he changes the Term from a Divine Sense, to Men's Sense,( which shows him to be a Sophister) saying, It is most improper to say, That Mens Sense runs through a Meeting; yet even in that he errs: For if Men's Sense could not run through an Assembly, an Assembly of Men could not have a concurrent Sense upon any Matter; for to Concur, signifies to run together.  
He says, p. 7. In my Paper I delivered to them at their Meeting, I demanded them to let me know what they had against me, either in Doctrine or manner of Life and Conversation, and was most willing to have been brought to a trial before them. What the Meeting had against him, was declared to him in the Meeting, and he hath given some Touches of it, in his brief and partial Narrative. But can any one believe he speaks sincerely, when he says, He was most willing to have been brought to a trial before them, whom he denied to be a duly Constituted Meeting, and calls a Party or Faction? Was he most willing to be brought to a trial before a Party or Faction? How ill doth this Matter hang together!  
Upon pretence that the Meeting's judgement is general, and that therefore it were but waste of Time and Paper, to give any other but a general Answer, he slides off from the business, and spends most part of the rest of his Pamphlet, in railing against some particular Friends, whom he grossly charges with holding and preaching gross Errors. But this being only what he delivers upon his own Credit, I shall not take notice of, farther than to observe, that what he says on that Subject, in this Pamp●let, is without all proof, or show of proof. Some few things remain to be touched on in his Pamphlet, relating to the Paper sent him by the Yearly Meeting, and then to his List.  
In p. 9. he says, Whatever human Authority they usurp, to cut me off from some particular visible Meetings, or Persons, they have no Divine Authority or Power to cut me off either from Christ, or his faithful Followers. To this I answer, The Yearly Meeting did neither usurp, nor pretend to exercise, or have any human Authority to cut him off; nor did they exercise the Divine Authority and Power they have, to cut him off. Their judgement is rather declarative, That he hath cut himself off from Christ, and his faithful Followers; for they therein say, It is the Sense and judgement of this Meeting, That the said George Keith is gone from the blessed Unity of the Peaceable Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hath thereby separated himself from the holy Fellowship of the Church of Christ.  
Again he says, Their Bull is but an empty blast of Air, that hath not killed, nor I hope, ever shall kill the Life of my Soul, or that holy Fellowship I have had, and still have with a faithful and sincere Remnant among that People. His Scornful Scoff, uttered in an airy vaunt, I pass by, and to the rest reply; The judgement given by that Meeting was not intended to kill the Life of his Soul,( understanding thereby that which is the true Life of a Soul) but to bring him back( if possible) to that, which could recover his Soul to Life, out of that Death and Darkness, which, by joining with the Spirit of the Wicked One in himself, and running out, through the Instigation thereof, into Prejudice, Bitterness, Enmity and Opposition to God's People, he hath brought upon his Soul. And as for the faithful and sincere Remnant he pretends to have Fellowship with, it may easily be understood what they are, both by his actual falling in with the old Separatists( though heretofore disowned by him) and by what he says, p. 11, 12. concerning them. Where speaking against the judgement of the Yearly Meeting, and that it ought not to be called the Act or judgement of the Body of that People; He says, Had all there present at the Yearly Meeting( so called) been unanimous in their unjust Sentence against me, and ten times more a greater number with them; yea, suppose they can get this their unjust Sentence against me, confirmed by all their Quarterly and Monthly Meetings in England ( which yet I think it will be a very hard, if not impossible thing for them to obtain) yet this doth not prove that they are not a Faction or Party, seeing it is sufficiently known, that for many Years past, there hath been a Breach among the People called Quakers, in relation to the Church Government of Women, and other circumstantial Things, imposed by a Party among them. None of them of the other side, says he, that oppose some human Impositions, &c. as many do well own me, &c. so I know not any that disown me, or that approve of this Sentence, &c. and yet there is a considerable Number and Body of them. See now the ground of his calling the Yearly Meeting a Faction or Party all along. He had in his Eye another Party, who had separated themselves from the Body of Friends before, and, by a Scotch Figure, he would make them to be the Body, who had rent themselves off from the Body; and the Body of Friends, from whom that Party is gone off, to be but a Party or Faction; whereas in Common Use, as well as Propriety of Speech, that's a Party, which parts itself from the Body, not the Body which it is partend from. But how faithful or sincere however he may account that Remnant he speaks of, and is gone to, he cannot rightly call them a Remnant among the People called Quakers, because they do not remain with or among that People, but have dis-joined and separated themselves from them. Neither do I think it any Credit to that Remnant( as he calls them) to be called faithful and sincere by him, who is so far from being faithful or sincere himself. But it is observable how he accommodates his Speech to Humour that Party, alleging the Breach on their Parts to have been in relation to the Church-Government of Women, calling the things opposed by them human Impositions, imposed by a Party. Thus, that he may make himself Head of a Party, he can forget his former Sentiments, join with what he has opposed, and to ingratiate himself with them, learn to speak their Dialect and Style. But since he frequently mentions R. Barclay's Book, called, The Anarchy, and that seemingly with great regard( though written chiefly as a Check to that Libertine Spirit, which then began to work and appear in that Party he is now fallen in amongst) I will here Transcribe a Passage out of it, by which he may see the ground of his own running out. It begins in the 11th page., and is thus.  
Now the Ground of all Schisms, Divisions, or Rents in the Body, is, when any Member assumes another place than is allotted it, or being gone from the Life and Unity of the Body, and losing the Sense of it, lets in the Murmurer, the Eye that watches for Evil, and not in holy Care over its Fellow-members; and then, instead of coming down to judgement in itself, will stand up and Judge its Fellow-members, yea, the whole Body, or those whom God has set in a more Honourable and Eminent place in the Body than itself; such suffer not the Word of Exhortation, and term the Reproofs of Instruction( which is the Way of Life) Imposition and Oppression, and are not ware how far they are in the things they condemn others for, while they spare not to reprove and revile all their Fellow-members; yet if they be but admonished themselves, they cry out as if their great Charter of Gospel-liberty were broken. And in p. 25. speaking of the same sort, he says, Such as are heady and high-minded, are inwardly vexed that any should led or rule but themselves, and so it is the high thing in themselves, that makes them quarrel with others for taking so much upon them, pretending a liberty, not sinking down in the Seed to be willing to be of no Reputation for its sake. Such, rather than give up their own Wills, will study to make Rents and Divisions, not sparing the Flock, but prostrating the Reputation and Honour of the Truth even to the World, ministering to them an occasion of Scorn and Laughter, to the hardening them in their Wickedness and Atheism. Had R. B. been now living, how could he have more exactly described and set forth G. K's condition, than these words of his do?  
There is but one thing more that I design to take notice of, in his Nameless Bull, before I go to his List of Errors; and that is, that after those Floods of Infamous Reproaches, he has cast forth, in the most virulent terms, not only against divers particular Persons, but the whole Yearly Meeting in general, whom he hath compared to the Church of Rome, the Spanish Inquisition, and whatever his Malice could suggest likely to bring the greatest Odium upon them, he hath the amazing Confidence to say, p. 9. For all their Enmity, Hatred, Reproaches, &c. I return them love and good-will, Blessing for Cursing, Good for Evil, &c. This argues in him such a deep-rooted hypocrisy, and such a seared hardness, as is rarely found in the most profane of Men.  
I come now to consider his List of the vile and gross Errors( which in his Pamphlet called, The true Copy of a Paper, &c. p. 17.) he charges upon G. Whitehead, J. Whitehead, and W. pen, to which he adds an Et-caetera; yet in the Introduction tells his Reader, I design only to give thee at present, this short List of these Mens gross and vile Errors. If that was his design, only to expose these three Men, he should not have added his Et-caetera to them, which has an unbounded extent. But he is in such Confusion, that he scarce knows his own design( save that, in general, it is to defame, and reek his Revenge upon all that stand in his way). For though he here says, I design only to give thee at present, this short List, yet in p. 23. of the same Book, he adds another List, which he there calls, An Additional List to the former, so little agreeing is he to himself.  
In his Introduction, which is long, as he threatens a more full Account of Errors( which he says he reserves to another Opportunity)( with a due and impartial Correcting of them: So he promises to publish something like Corrections, upon his own Books also, and to do it impartially. But what impartiality may be expected from him in that case, may be guessed from his manner of proposing it. The Errors he Objects to others, he calls gross and vile, and opposite to some of the Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity, and these he threatens with a due and impartial Correction. But on his own he looks with a more favourable Eye, some Explications, and them short ones too, and also Emendations,( where he sees need) of some Words and Passages in his former Books, will serve his turn. For upon a review, he freely acknowledges he has found some Passages and Words, that not only need some further Explanation, but even in some part an Emendation and Correction. And from this free acknowledgement of his, he takes occasion to extol his own humility of Heart, and love to the Truth, and regard to the Salvation of Souls, that he can freely both aclowledge and correct his former Mistakes.( But his pretended Humility smells of Pride, and an Ambition to rank himself among the worthy ancients; for he adds) after the Example of some worthy ancients. For what Argument is it of Humility of Heart, to make such an acknowledgement as he doth, who p. 18. says, Upon the most impartial search that I have made, I find not any cause to correct either my judgement or Books, as touching any of the great Doctrines and Principles of the Christian Religion; nor do I know that I am of another Faith in any one Principle of Christian Doctrine, contrary to what I believed, ever since I went under the Profession of a Quaker, so call●d. The words and passages generally, if not universally, that I find cause to correct, not being so much relating to the Truth of Principles of Christian Doctrine, as to some places of Scripture unduly applied, to prove, or defend things that were Truths, but did not really prove these Truths, either by express words, or yet by any real, and true and proper Consequence, or relative to some other Less r and more Circumstantial M●tters. But as to the Fundamental, and otherwise great Articles of the Christian Faith, I thank my Gracious God, that I have been well Preserved, and have not found any thing, in any of my former or latter Books, contradictory to any one Fundamental Doctrine of the Christian Faith. Thus he, in favour of himself, and then goes on to aggravate the supposed Errors of others. Which puts me in Mind of those Lamiae,( as the Ancients called them) who were said to be Blind at home; but very quick-sighted abroad. What show of Humility is there, in the acknowledgement he here makes? Nay, doth it not rather savour of Pride, in taking an occasion from thence, to boast of his own Soundness and Constancy. Besides, if his Errors or Mistakes,( as he mincingly calls them) be only in applying some places of Scripture unduly, to prove, or defend things that were Truth, but did not really prove those Truths, or be relative to some other lesser and more Circumstantial Matters; and that he finds no cause to correct either his judgement or Books, as touching any of the great Doctrines and Principles of the Christian Religion; how comes he to introduce his feigned acknowledgement with such Pomp of words, as he doth, saying, I thank Almighty God, that has not only given me to see them, but has given me that Humility of Heart, and Love to Truth, and Regard to the Salvation of Souls, that I can freely both aclowledge and correct my former Mistakes? Did the Salvation of Souls depend upon such little and circumstantial Matters, as he mentions? However, seeing he thought the Salvation of Souls was concerned in his acknowledging, and correcting his former Mistakes, as he calls them; why did he not really show his regard to the Salvation of Souls, by a particular Enumeration and acknowledgement of those Mistakes and Errors of his, and a Correction of them? Why did he defer this, a●d postpone it to another Opportunity( which he knew not whether he might ever have) and fall now upon the pretended Errors of others? If the Salvation of Souls be concerned in those Errors, or Mistakes, which he has formerly committed in his Books, how knows he but some Souls may be thereby lost, before he can get another Opportunity to warn them of his Errors? And then the Guilt thereof will lie upon him, and their Blood be required at his Hand. And therefore it had behoved him to have begun at home, and to have swept his own House clean, and cleared himself first, and cast the Beam out of his own Eye,( before he had meddled with Motes in others) and removed those Blocks, whatever they are, which he knew himself had laid, to the endangering the loss of Salvation to Souls, for which, if any Soul suffer loss thereby, himself must answer. But his not doing this; but instead thereof falling upon others, and exposing the pretended Errors of others, shows that his Malice and Enmity against them, and his desire of Revenge upon them, for giving forth Truths Testimony against him, was more forcible and prevalent with and upon him, and spurred him more eagerl● on, than his pretended Love to Truth, and regard to the Salvation of Souls, could do. Hath he not in this trod exactly in the Hypocrite's steps, whom Christ reproved? Mat. 7.3, 4, 5.  
This he seems to have had a foresight of, and fences, as well as he can( which is very poorly) against it. He says, p. 18. If any shall judge it to be an Act of Prejudice, or Malice in me, thus to expose them, after due warning given in private to most of them, and after they have thus publicly disowned me, I have this Comfort, that they judge amiss of me, and that nothing of prejudice or malice hath moved me to this Undertaking, but love to Truth, and Men; and next to the Honour of God, the regard of my Christian Name and Reputation, which these Men have sought to slay, and by so doing, to expose me, and my Family to outward want, and necessity. By this it is evident, beyond all his Glosses to the contrary, that Malice and Revenge moved him to this Undertaking; for, if it had been true, that he says, that these Men, whom he thus Charges, had sought to slay his Christian Name and Reputation, or to cover him( as he suggests) with a Cloud of unjust Infamy; he might in a Christian spirit( had he had it) have vindicated his Name and Reputation, and blown away the Cloud of unjust Infamy( he speaks of) if he could, without recharging them. For it is accounted amongst Men, both unmanly and unfair, for any one to justify himself, by recriminating another. But so far is this suggestion of his from being true, that the contrary is true; it is he that hath sought to slay their Christian Name and Reputation, by charging them with holding gross and vile Errors, contrary to the Fundamental and Principal Doctrines of Christianity. Whereas they have been very sparing of him; and the judgement of the Meeting concerning him, was delivered in no harsher terms than these, viz. That he is gone from the blessed Unity of the peaceable Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hath thereby separated himself from the Holy Fellowship of the Church of Christ, and that whilst he is in an unreconciled and uncharitable state, he ought not to preach or pray in any of Friends Meetings, nor be owned or received as one of us, &c. Nor can I see what ground he has to complain, that they have sought to expose him, and his Family, to outward Want and Necessity. Did he come among the Quakers for outward Advantages? Or hath his leaving the Quakers, and turning against them, that tendency to bring outward want and necessity upon him and his Family? If it has, and should produce that effect, both he and his Family may blame himself for it, as the cause thereof: there is a Justice with God, that such as have grown fat in his Service, and thereupon have grown wanton, or quarrelsome, and kicked against him or his, should be reduced to there former leanness, which he has secret ways to effect: I have made an Observation on some in my time, that have been greatly Blessed, and Increased in the things of this World, after they have come to Receive and Walk in the Way of Truth; who afterwards going from it, and turning against it, have insensibly; as it were, Lost what they had Gained, and been Reduced to a lower Condition in the World, than they were in at first. But to proceed,  
Since he says, nothing of Pr●judice or Malice hath moved him to this undertaking, but Love to Truth and Men, &c. I ask, Why did he not then enter upon this Undertaking sooner? How is it, that he charged not them with these Gross Errors, till after they had( as himself observes) publicly Disowned him? If Love to Truth and Men had moved him, that would have moved him before; But his Concealing those things, till they had Disowned him, and now bringing them forth immediately thereupon, manifestly shows that it was Malice and Revenge that moved him to it, not Love to Truth or Men. In his last Pamphlet, Called, The Nameless Bull, P. 8. He gives another Reason for his not Publishing these Errors sooner, which perhaps he had not invented when he wrote the former; it is this, Let none( says he) think strange that I have not made this discovery of their gross Errors till now, at least so to expose them in Print, for I sincerely declare that the worst and grossest sort of their Errors, whom I now expose to public view, I did not know they were guilty of them, or that they were to be found in their Books but of late Times; and after I had discovered them, to my own certain knowledge, I was willing to exercise Christian Patience, if by any means they might have been persuaded to have corrected them, having privately warned and admonished some of them. That this is but a false pretence, and feigned excuse, I have many Reasons inducing me to believe: For first, the Books he takes his pretended Errors out of, were written many Years ago, and some of them upon Controversies so remarkable and noted, with respect either to the Matters therein handled, or the manner of handling them, that few thinking or inquisitive Men in those Times, but perused, and attentively considered them. So that, it would be hard for him to beget belief, that those Books had escaped his perusal at the first, tho' he should say,( which is too formal a Speech with him) he sincerely declares it. Besides, how far he will extend those words of his [ of late times] or where he will bound them, I know not: But it is plain to me, from what himself says in his late Book, called, The true Copy of a Paper, &c. p. 11. That he knew these pretended Errors which he now charges on G. W. J. W. and W. P. before he writ that other Book of his, called, The causeless Ground, &c. about a Year ago) because he gives it as his Reason, why he did not, as advised by the Yearly Meeting, clear the Body of the People called Quakers, in that Book. Nay further, it seems he knew them before that Yearly Meeting in 1694. For he gives his Knowledge of their Errors as a Reason, why he could not expect Justice from them at that Meeting, against those whom he had Charged in America. What Justice, says he, could I expect, that these being the Leadi●g Men at the last Yearly Meeting,( viz. in 94.) should fairly or sufficiently condemn those Mens gross Errors in Pensylvania, charged on them, when th●y themselves are guilty of the same. And indeed it is most probable, that he had Collected his Exceptions against these Friends, out of their Books, while he was in America; for in his causeless Ground, p. 9. he boasts, That he had in readin●ss to Print, A Collection of Testimonies out of Friends printed Books, to prove certain Articles that he had elsewhere proposed which shows he had been hunting and searching in Friends Books before that. Now if he knew these things long ago, which he now Ch●rges,( which it is, at least, very probable h● did) how very false and insincere is he, in saying, I si●cerely declare I did not know them, but of late times! But however he be in that, certain it is he is extremely false in the Reason he gives, why he did not publish them so soon as he did know them; which Reason he thus gives, After I had discovered them, says he, to my own certain knowledge, I was willing to exercise Christian Patience, if by any means they might have been persuaded to have corrected them, having privately warned and admonished some of them( in his other Book he says, most of them) First, I do not understand he hath privately warned or admonished any of the three, Charged in his List of Errors, for holding the Errors he has now charged on them, or that he gave any of them a Copy of those Errors pretended. Secondly, It's manifest, his pretended forbearance, and exercise of Christian Patience, in order to have persuaded them to have corrected them, upon his pretended private Admonition, is but a mere Flam, without any thing of Truth and Sincerity in it; in as much as now that that Reason ceases, and( as himself expresses it) they have now cut off all hope or expectation, that they will receive any Brotherly Advice from me, by this their most hostile way of appearing against me; yet he hath not brought forth all his Charges against them, but pretends to have more Errors to charge them with, which he reserves( he says, p 17.) to another opportunity: and in p. 31. affirming that he has divers other gross and vile Errors wherewith to Charge G. W. and W. P. he says, But I shall keep these other to a further reserve; and in p. 8. of his Nameless Bull, says, As I ha●e occasion, may further demonstrate out of their own printed Books. Now as this shows he is not sincere, in alleging his Christian Patience for the reason of his not discovering those pretended Errors sooner; so it also shows he is not sincere neither, in the Motives he gives for his doing it now, which are, Love to the Truth, and the honour of it; and Love to the Souls of many ignorant Persons, whom he suggests they have blinded and darkened, and lead into these gross Errors, to the great danger of the Salvation of their Souls, that they might be undeceived. If there were any Truth in this, why did he not now, together with these, bring forth and lay open the rest of his pretended Errors, that he might thereby at once, and with the soonest, have fully cleared Truth, and fully secured those ignorant and deceived Persons from the danger he surmises of their losing the Salvation of their Souls. Neither Love to Truth, nor to the Souls of Men, prevailed with him, so long as he could keep the stroke from off himself; while he had any hopes of that, he could keep all these gross and vile Errors close in his own Breast, whatever became of the Honour of Truth, or the Salvation of Mens Souls. But when once it came to that, which he calls their hostile way of proceeding against him, that is, that the Meeting gave Testimony against him, then Enmity rose in him against them, and a strong desire to be revenged upon them; and that constrained him thus to appear, which he would deceitfully cloak and cover under the Name of Love to Truth, and to the Souls of Men. Now let us see what these gross and vile Errors are wherewith he Charges them.  
To usher in his Charges, he premises. p. 10. That All sincere Christians believe, that by that Bloody Sacrifice of Christ upon the across, through Faith in him, they are cleansed from their sins; and that, by the Blood of Christ, by which true Believers are said both to be justified and sanctified, is to be understood the real and true Blood of Christ's Body that suffered on the across. To which I say, Unless he were a more sincere Christian, than of late he hath appeared to be, I do not think him a competent Judge of the Faith of all sincere Christians. But if he would needs take upon him to set forth what all sincere Christians believe, he should have explained what he means by those general words of his [ that Bloody Sacrifice of Christ upon the across] whether( with some of our former Opposers, upon whose old Cavils he seems to build his new ones) he means the suffering 〈◇〉 ●f the outward Body upon the across; or 〈…〉 includes in that suffering Christ's 〈◇〉 ●th his Soul unto the Death, and his So●●●eing made an Offering for sin, Isa. 53.10, 12. His giving his Life a Ransom for many, Mat. 20.28. Mark 10.45. which G. K. himself( when he was more himself, though not so much acted by self) said was more than the visible Flesh, and that therefore somewhat more than the visible Flesh, is the Ransom and offering, by which Life of Christ we are saved, said he, when he undertook( about Fifteen Years ago) to Correct the Rector of Arrow. See his Book, called, The Rector Corrected, p. 21. And in p. 20. of the same, he said, Though Christ's Soul did not die; yet he suffered in his Soul, and that more heavily than the visible Flesh could suffer; so that, before he was Crucified, he said, My Soul is exceeding heavy unto death: And that these sufferings of his Soul are called the travail of his Soul, Isa. 53.11. So also he should have  told us, whether by those other words of his, ( By the Blood of Christ, by which true Believers are said both to be justified and sanctified, is to be understood the real and true Blood of Christ's Body that suffered on the across) he means only the Blood of the outward Body,( which was let out of Christ's Side by the soldiers Spear, and was visible to the outward Eye) abstracted from, and exclusive of that Spiritual Blood, which Christ spake of, when he said( before his Death) He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life, &c. John 6.54. And, he that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in m and I in him, Ver. 56. For the 〈◇〉 ●●●●ding of that Blood, makes a great 〈…〉 in his Proposition. And since he lays dow●●hat Proposition of his, of what all sincere Christians believe, in order to prove G W. and others, guilty of holding gr●ss and vile Errors, he should have been plain, full and express therein.  
The Charge he hereupon exhibits against G. W. is, That G. W. calleth the real and true Blood of Christ's Body that suffered on the across, visible and material Blood, and that he positiv●ly d●●ieth that the Saints are cl●ansed by that Blood. This he pretends to take out of a Book of G. W's, called, The Light and Life of Christ within, printed in the Year 1668. in Answer to W. Burne●, a Baptist Teacher. Now it is to be noted, that those Cavilling Baptists, with whom G. W. had then to do, did lay the whole stress of Justification, Sanctification, and Cleansing from Sin, upon the shedding of the Blood of that Outward Body that suffered on the across, in opposition to the Light and Life of Christ in Men, and excluding the Spiritual Flesh and Blood of Christ before-mentioned. And if G. W. did call that outward Blood, which came out of that outward visible and material Body, which was pierced with a visible and material Spear, visible and material Blood, and that with respect to the time when it was  shed, what Error I pray is there in that?  
Then whereas G. K. chargeth G. W. that he positively denieth that the Saints are cleansed by that Blood, I have red over all the pages which he quotes of that Book, viz. p. 38, 39, 59, 60. and do not find any positive denial thereof, either in any of those Pages, or any where else in that Book: neither hath G. K. set down in what words G. W. hath positively denied it: which, if he would have been a fair Adversary he ought to have done: Besides, since those Apponents of G. W. as I noted before, held Justification, Sanctification and Cleansing from Sin, to be wrought by the Shedding of that Outward Blood upon the across, in opposition to his Light within, they calling it an uncertain Guide, Excluding the Divine virtue and Efficacy of the Spiritual Flesh and Blood of Christ( which Spiritual Flesh, G. K. in his Rector Corrected, p. 21. saith, was Offered up together with the Visible Flesh) what Error had it been in G. W. if he had on that account positively denied it? for G. K. saith in his Rect. Cor. p. 25. It is very plain by the words of Christ, that by his Flesh and Blood, John 6.50.51. he meaneth only Spirit and Life; and p. 21. this Life of Christ is more than the Visible Flesh, and therefore somewhat more, says he, then the Visible Flesh, is the ransom and offering, by which Life of Christ we are saved: and a little lower in the same page., Christ's giving his Flesh for the Life of the World, is more than to offer up his Visible Flesh upon the across. And in p. 26. of the same, he saith, And thus we do not divide Christ, nor his Flesh and Blood, although a distinction there is, betwixt that Flesh which he had from the Beginning( and which the Saints fed upon in all Ages from the Beginning, otherwise they could not have had Life in them) and that which he took upon him in the Virgins Womb. If such a distinction there be, according to G. K. himself; how is it a Gross and Vile Error in G. W. to make that distinction and keep to it, and oppose those those Opposers that would Divide Christ, and Attribute that Great Work only to the Outward Flesh and Blood which belongs to both? G. W. denied not the virtue or Efficacy of that Outward or Visible and Material Blood, as it was a part of the Sacrifice, which Christ offe●ed to his Father, for the Redemption of Mankind: But only opposed them that would appropriate the whole virtue and Efficacy of the whole Sacrifice to that part of it only, excluding the rest. And therefore in this, G. W. is not guilty of gross or vile Error: But G. K. is guilty of grossly and vilely wronging and abusing him, and declining his own Testimonies for Christ's Spiritual Flesh and Blood.  
Nor is he less injurious in saying G. W. giveth divers Reasons of his positive denial; all which( he says) are most false and absurd. For I doubt not but it will soon appear, that he hath most falsely and absurdly urged those Reasons against G. W. He gives three; the first of which is, Because that Blood is not in being, giving for his Authority, W. Burnet, p. 40. of his( Burnet's ) Book. Now it is obvious to every Reader,( and therefore G. K. may not be supposed ignorant) that G. W. in urging against Burnet, that that Blood is not in being, did only argue ad homtnem, from Burnet's own Position or Concession. For Burnet, it seems, in the 40th page. of his Book,( which G. W. answered) had said, that that Blood was not in being; with which saying of his G. W. often gauls him in his Answer, tesling him, p. 42. The Blood of Christ which justifieth, which purgeth the Conscience, which cleanseth from all sin, and wherein he wash●th them that follow him, is still in being. So p. 52. I ask, is it not a Spiritual, Supernatural virtue, Power and Efficacy, that cleanseth, saveth and justifieth? If it be; how then doth it proceed from the shedding of the Blood outwardly,( which shedding by the soldiers Spear was a wicked Man's act) or from the Essence of the Blood, if it be perished, and be not in being, as is confessed,( viz. by Barnet). And is it good Doctrine to say, that that Blood( or Life) which sanctifies and justifies true Believers in all Ages, is not in being? So again, p. 57. upon the Baptist's saying, Though that Blood  shed be not in being, yet the efficacy of that Blood is still in being: G. W. replied, What efficacy? Is it Natural or Spiritual? If Natural, then how is the Blood lost, or not in being? And then where is the Spirit's Work? If the virtue be Spiritu●l that saves and sanctifies, &c. it never dies nor perisheth; neither was it derived from that which is not in being, nor was any corruptible thing its Original. Herein G. W. argued Dilemmatically. And from all the fore-recited passages it is evident, that he did not argue from a Thesis of his own; but from the Thesis( or at least Hypothesis) of his Oppon●nt, continually wounding him with his own Weapon, and showing that, in laying the whole stress( as it were) of Salvation upon the Blood that was outwardly  shed by the Spear, and yet saying, That Blood is not in being, suo se jugulaverat gladio, with his own Hand and Sword he had cut the Throat of his own Cause. Now G. K. in tur●ing this upon G. W. and charging him that he gave this as his Reason, when he only brought it to show that his Opponent did thereby contradict and confute himself, hath dealt very unfairly and falsely with him; and the rather, for that he saw this, and confesseth, p. 26. that this Argument of G. W's was but Argumentum ad hominem at most against W. B.  
Nor is he more excusable in the Second Reason he gives as G. W's, which is, Because the Blood that came out of Christ's Side, when pie●ced by the Spear, was not  shed by Christ, the shedding of it was no Act of Christ, but of a wicked soldier, and therefore not efficacious, or meritorious, for remission of sin, or cleansing from sin. For though he gives this, as G. W's Reason, yet he gives it not in G. W's words, but in his own words, contrary to G. W's fence. Neither hath he set forth the occasion or cause of G. W's speaking what he hath here misreported: Which was thus,( as appears in that Book of G. W's, Cited by G. K. called, The Light and Life of Christ within, p. 64.) The Baptist, in Dispute with G. W. said, You deny the shedding of the Blood upon the across, that was let out by virtue of the Spear being thrust into his Side, to be meritorious, or the meritorious Cause of Man's Justification( which the Baptist held in the Affirmative). Here the meritorious Cause of Man's Justification was laid, not simply and distinctly upon the Blood, or the Blood  shed, but upon the Act of shedding it; and that so highly, as to impute virtue to the Spear by which it was  shed. To this G. W. answering directly to the terms of his Opponent, said, The shedding of that Blood let out by the Spear, was an Act of a wicked Man, and the Spear an Instrument of Cruelty; which to lay the meritorious Cause, or stress of Justification upon, is false Doctrine. Observe here, he did not say, to lay the meritorious Cause, or stress of Justification, upon the Blood, is false Doctrine( though if any one should lay the meritorious Cause, or stress of Justification, upon that only, exclusive of the other parts of the Sacrifice, that would not be true Doctrine): But he said. It is false Doctrine to lay the meritorious Cause, or stress of Justification, upon the Act of shedding, or letting out that Blood by the Spear, which was the Act of a wicked Man, and the Spear an Instrument of Cruelty. And he added a Reason of his so saying; for there is a great difference ( said he) between Christ's Offering up himself by the Eternal Spirit, a Lamb without spot to God, and the Acts of wicked Men inflicted upon him; as it is said, by wicked Hands they put him to Death. Hence it appears G. W's words before-recit d( answering directly to the Terms of his Opponents Proposition) did not relate to the Blood itself, but to the Act of shedding, and Instrument, by which it was  shed. And therefore G. K. hath grossly abused him, both in misreporting his words, in his pretended Recital of them; and in urging that G. W. gave them as his Reason for his positive denial, that the Saints are cleansed by that Blood; both which are untrue.  
Yet so shameless is G. K. that in his 23d page., under a new Head of An Additional List to the former, reciting those words of G. W s,( which I have given before) he makes thereon this Observation, viz. Here not only he excludes the shedding of that Blood, but the Death of Christ, and all his Bodily Sufferings, from being concerned in that Offering; which is a false Consequence, and a malicious Inference, not deducible from those words; for his Death, and Bodily Sufferings, are included in those words of G. W's before recited, viz. Christ's offering up himself by the Eternal Spirit, a Lamb without sp●t to God, who, as the Apostle says, Phil. 2.8. humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the across. And Christ himself says, I lay down my Life for the Sheep, John 10.15. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my Life, that I might take it again, Ver. 17. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of my self: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This Commandment have I received of my Father, Ver. 18. Had the Offering been constrained and involuntary, that is, had he not laid down his Life of himself, but it had been taken from him by force against his Will, it would not have had that acceptance with the Father, that it had. But his Pure, Divine and Absolute Resignation of his Will to the Will of his Father, was that which endeared his Father's Love to him; Therefore doth my Father love me,( said he) because I lay down my Life, Ver. 17. This Offering up himself( and givi●● himself a Ransom for all) included all his Sufferings, both inward and outward, and made it a complete and perfect Sacrifice; in which his Blood was comprehended, and concerned, as well as his Flesh, before his Side was pierced by the Spear. For he had pronounced that great word ( Consummatum est) it is finished, had bowed his Head, and given up the Ghost, before his Side was pierced by the Spear. It is said expressly, that the Souldiers that broke the Legs of the Two Thieves which were Crucified with him, when they came to Jesus, saw that he was dead already, and therefore broke not his Legs, but one of them with a Spear pierced his Side, Joh. 19.32, 33, 34. Which as I do not believe to have been done by Chance, or at a Venture, but by a Divine Providence: So neither do I believe that it was done to complete the Offering, as if without this it would have been imperfect or defective. But the Text gives the reason of it expressly, Ver. 36. For these things( to wit, the not breaking of his Legs, and the piercing of his Side) were done, that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A Bone of him shall not be broken: And again another Scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced, Ver. 37. And whereas G. K. saith, The Holy Scriptures attribute the making Peace betwixt God and us, to Christ by the Blood of his across, called so, because it was that Blood that was  shed, when he suffered on the across. I ask for that Scripture that says, It is called the Blood of his across, because it was that Blood that was  shed, when he suffered on the across. Had Christ no Blood but wh●● was  shed when he suffered on the across? Or was no more of his Blood concerned in our Peace, but that which was actually  shed? I aclowledge that the Holy Scripture attributeth the making Peace between God and us, to Christ, by the Blood of his across, Col. 1.20. But that by the word ( Blood) there, is meant nothing else but the material Blood that was in that visible and material Body; or that no more of that Blood, than was  shed by the Spear; or that which was so  shed, only because it was so  shed, is called in Holy Scripture, The Blood of his across, requireth better proof than G. K's bare say so. Wilson, in his Christian Dictionary,( sixth Edition, printed in 1655.) on the words, ( Bood of Christ) saith, The Death and whole Sufferings of Christ, is to be understood, one part of his Sufferings being put for all; Citing for instance, Eph. 1.7. By whom we have Redemption through his Blood. And often, he says, in the Romans, and Hebrews, and throughout Paul's Epistles, is the Blood of Christ( one part of his Sufferings) put synecdochically for the whole Sufferings, visible and invisible. Therefore, adds he, it is absurd to stick to the Letter, concluding from thence, that Christ's outward visible Sufferings were sufficient. And he adds, because the Bloody Sacrifice of the Jews figured Christ's Death; hence so much mention of Blood in the New Testament. And G. K. himself says here, p. 24. Our blessed Lord's Obedience to the will of his Father, which was a most holy and perfect Obedience, in his most holy and perfect Resignation, and Patience, in his exceeding Love, both to his Father, and also to Men, in his most profound Humility, and all other most excellent Virtues, That God did regard in his Sufferings chiefly, and that was so highly meritorious, &c. And though his Death, and Sufferings, and Blood, were all valuable, and precious in God's sight, yet his Obedience was chiefly considered. And whereas he says, Christ's Obedience, Blood, Death and Sufferings, are jointly to be considered by us in that great Work of our Redemption: I say, so they are, and not his outward Sufferings only, but his inward Sufferings also; his pouring out his Soul unto the Death, and his Soul being made an Offering for Sin( which G. K. formerly said, was an heavier Suffering than the visible Flesh could suffer) and his giving his Life a Ransom for many,( which G. K. formerly said was more than the visible Flesh) I say, all these are jointly considered, and rightly and reverently regarded and esteemed by us. And therefore G. K. doth very wickedly, in Suggesting that G. W. undervalued Christ's Sufferings, Death and Blood, or denied them to be Meritorious, because he said,( as the Scripture saith) by wicked Hands they put him to Death. I am sure in a wicked Mind, and from a wicked Spirit, G. K. hath vented this wicked Slander.  
And whereas he says, p. 24. The Blood, and the shedding of it, is mentioned in Scripture, because he( Christ) could not be a true and proper Sacrifice, without his Blood had been  shed, for without shedding of Blood there could be no remission. It seems( seeing he speaks this with relation to that Blood which came out of Christ's Side, when the soldier pierced him, after he was dead) as if he thought, Christ's Sacrifice could not have been true and proper, his Offering complete and sufficient, unless the soldier had pierced his Side: For( upon the soldiers piercing the Side) he says, Without shedding of Blood there could be no remission. Where red he that? I do not find the Scripture says so. The Author to the Hebrews, I know, says, Without shedding of Blood there is no remission, Heb. 9.22. But he speaks it( as I take it) with respect to the First Testament, which in the 18th Verse, he says was not dedicated( or purified) without Blood. Then describing the manner how Moses sprinkled the Tabernacle, People, &c. with Blood, Ver. 19, 20, 21. he concludes, And almost all things are by the Law purged with Blood; and without shedding of Blood there is no remission, Ver. 22. That is, by, or according to the Law, which he had so long been treating of. But in the next Verse he adds, It was therefore necessary, that the patterns of things in the Heavens should be purified with these, but the Heavenly things themselves with better Sacrifices than these. And I might ask G. K.( as he formerly asked his Rector) Why cannot Spiritual Blood be  shed, as well as the Holy Spirit is said to be  shed? Acts 2.33. Tit. 3.6.( Rect. Correct. p. 25.) However, the material Blood of the outward Body, was with and in that Body, offered up by Christ to his Father, when he laid down his Life of himself, before his Side was pierced: And beside that Blood, which was let out of his Side by the Spear, and before the Side was pierced, it cannot be doubted but some of his Blood was  shed, when his Hands and his Feet were pierced, by being nailed to the across. The Efficacy and virtue of which Blood, whether actually  shed, or not  shed, is so far from being undervalued or slighted by the Quakers,( as G. K. maliciously suggests it is) that it is truly owned, highly valued, regarded and esteemed, by the People called Quakers, in general, and G. W. in particular, as a part of the Offering which Christ offered to his Father for the Redemption of Mankind. Yet not so, as to lay the whole or chief stress of Man's Redemption, Justification, Sanctification, Cleansing from sin, &c. upon that outward Blood only, much less upon the act of shedding some of it, by the soldiers Spear, after he was dead. For we may not divide Christ, nor his Offering; nor ascribe( with restriction) to a part( and that the outward part too) what is due to the whole. For that Christ had Spiritual Flesh, as well as outward or visible, which he had from the beginning, and which was offered up together with the visible, G. K. himself( as I have noted before) hath asserted in his Rector Corrected, p. 21. quoting also cyril, or( as he says) some think Origen, on Levit. lib. 9. speaking thus; Thou who art come unto Christ, the true High-priest, who by his Blood hath made God propitious unto thee, and hath reconciled thee to the Father, rest not upon the Blood of the Flesh; but rather look unto the Blood of the Word, and hear him saying unto thee, This is my Blood that shall be  shed for you unto the remission of sins. He that is instructed in the Mysteries, knoweth the Flesh and Blood of the Word of God. And a little after he Cites the same Author, saying, That in Christ there was a Twofold Sacrifice: And how that he sh●d upon the earth his material Blood; but that with the living virtue of his Body, he sprinkled the Heavens. Thus G. K. Rect. Correct. p. 28, 29. But quiter contrary to the before cited Authority, those Baptists( with whom G. W. had that controversy in 1668.) were not at all for looking to the Blood of the Word( which they neither owned nor seemed to understand; for Burnet said, He was not a Saviour, as he was the Word, see the Light and Life of Christ within, p. 47.) but would have all to rest upon the Blood of the Flesh, and that too as  shed by the soldiers Spear. An● because G. W. did therein oppose them, and argu●d against them from their own Principles( as I have shewed before) G. K. hath thence maliciously taken occasion to slander him, as denying the Efficacy or Merit of that Blood, for Remission of sin.  
Much after the like manner he deals with him, in making up a third Reason in G. W's Name, for his pretended positive denial that the Saints are cleansed by that Blood. Which third Reason G. K. hath formed in his Name thus, p. 19. Because as the New Covenant is inward and spiritual, so is the Blood of the New Covenant, but so was not that material Blood; and the material Blood of the Beasts that were offered in Sacrifice under the Law, was not a Type of that material Blood that was  shed upon the across, for that were to say, One Type was a Type of another. These are not G. W's words, but G. K's own, which he gives as if they were G. W's, and therein both abuseth G. W. and deceives his Reader. And as he hath not given G. W's own words, so neither hath he given the right and true Sense of his words, nor the occasion upon which they were spoken, which was this; the Baptist had argued thus, All things under the Law, in the Type, were purged with Blood, and this Blood was material Blood, and not Mystical: And that Blood that Christ  shed in order to the effecting the Salvation of Man, must needs be visible and material Blood. If by this the Baptist meant, that the Blood Christ  shed for the Salvation of Man, was the Antitype of the Blood wherewith the things under the Law were purged( as may reasonably be supposed he did) then the force of his Argument is, That such as is the Type, such must be the Antitype. If the Type be material, and not mystical, then must the Antitype be material also, and not mystical. Thus I observe G. W. took him, and thereupon answered thus, p. 59. Do but mark here what a sad Consequence 〈◇〉 has drawn; as if one should reason, that because the Type was material, visible, and not mystical; therefore the Antitype, or Substance, must needs be material, and not mystical. By this, all Mysteries, or Divine Things, are excluded from being either Spiritual, Antitype, or Substance: Whereas it was the Heavenly Things themselves that are in Christ, in which consists the substance and end of Types and Shadows. But to say, that material Blood was a Type of that which was material; this is to give the Substance no pre-eminence above the Type,( especially if neither of them be mystical, nor in being; which was the Baptist's Opinion) or like as if one should say, One Type was a Type of another; as to say, Because Circumcision, which was a Type, was material, or outward, therefore the Circumcision of the Spirit, which is the Antitype of it, must needs be outward too, and not mystical,( which would be sad Doctrine): And thus he might as well reason touching all other Types and Shadows under the Law, and the heavenly or good things to come, prefigured or shadowed by them; that because the Priests under the Law,( at the outward Tabernacle and Temple) were Ministers of outward or temporal Things, carnal Ordinances, Shadows, &c. Therefore those good things to come, those heavenly things which Christ was said to be the High-Priest of, must needs be temporal, and not mystical; which were absurd to assert. Whereas both the heavenly and more perfect Tabernacle and Altar, with the heavenly Things, are all a Mystery, and Spiritual. The Offering and Living Sacrifices are spiritual, the Passeover spiritual; the Seed spiritual; the Bread, the Fruit of the Vine, the oil, the Flesh and the Blood( which give Life to the Soul) yea, the Water and Blood,( which washeth and sprinkleth the Conscience) are all spiritual and mysterious, as the New Covenant itself is, which they belong to, and these things are known in. And this is the new and living way which Christ set open, through the veil of his Flesh, Heb. 10. Let them receive this who can. This was G. W's Answer; which those Baptists who were in the Types, could not receive. But G. K. received this,( if not rejecting, or showing dislike to it, may be called receiving it) and it passed for good and sound Doctrine with him,( at least without contradiction from him) for these six or seven and Twenty Years past; and longer probably might have done, had not G. W. with the rest of Friends, denied him,( as being out of the Peaceable Spirit of Jesus Christ) upon which he is stirred up, in a revengeful Spirit, to slander, bespatter, and falsely accuse him. For in all this Answer, G. W. saith nothing against the material Blood, nothing derogatory from it, doth not undervalue it, or deny the virtue and Efficacy of it; but shows the weakness and fals●ness of his Opponent's Argument and Inference, in urging a Ne●essity, that because Blood in the Type was visible and material, and not mystical: Therefore Blood in the Antitype must needs be so too. Whereas G. K. I suppose, will not say, that the Blood of that visible and material Body, which Christ took on him in the Womb of the Virgin, had nothing of spirituality in it, no mystical signification or operation, since that Body was not conceived in or after the ordinary way of Human Generation, but by the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost.  
Another Charge which G. K. makes out of the same Book, against G. W. is this, That he said, The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype, viz. neither to the outward Temple, nor yet to Jerusalem, either to Jesus Christ, or his Blood; knowing that neither the Righteousness of Faith, nor the word of it, doth so direct, Rom. 10. True Copy, p 19. These words were in Answer to the Baptist, who said, The Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the material Temple, that they make it but a vain thing to look to Jerusalem, to the Antitype of that Temple, viz. to Jesus Christ, as he was there Crucified, or to that Blood that was there  shed, for Justification. To this G. W. answered,( Light and Life of Christ within, p. 38.) The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype, viz. neither to the outward Temple, nor yet to Jerusalem, either for Jesus Christ, or his Blood. So it should have been Printed, the word ( to) there, next before( Jesus Christ) being, through mistake, set instead of ( for) which it should have been; and in the Book which I have, I find it hath been so amended with a Pen. And the former part of the Answer shows it should have been so; for there it is, the Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype,( mark, for the Antitype, not to the Antitype). And as it is so there,( to the Type for the Antitype) so it must be here also, to the Temple, or to Jerusalem, for Jesus Christ, or his Blood. Now where lies the Error, the gross and vile Error, in these words? Is it an Error to say, The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype, that is, to the outward Temple, or yet to Jerusalem, for Jesus Christ, or his Blood? Doth G. K. then hold, Men should be directed to the Type for the Antitype? Would he have the Quakers direct or sand Men to the outward Temple, or to Jerusalem, to find Jesus Christ, or his Blood? Does he think it is to be found there? Nay, does he think that that City Jerusalem, without the Gate of which Christ suffered, or the outward Temple that then stood therein, are now to be found there? Or any where else? Doth he think, the Righteousness of Faith, or the Word of it, doth so direct? The Apostle saith, The Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thy Heart, Who shall ascend into Heaven?( That is, to bring Christ down from above) Or who shall descend into the Deep?( That is, to bring up Christ again from the Dead): And Moses, to whose words Paul's here refers, adds, Who shall go over the Sea for us, to bring it unto us? Deut. 30.13.) But what saith it? The Word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. It was no Error in the Apostle Paul to direct( according to the Righteousness of Faith) to the word Nigh, in the Mouth, and in the Heart; though he knew well enough that Christ had suffered at Jerusalem, and that but a little before: Yet he did not direct Men to the outward Temple, or to Jerusalem,( though both then standing) to find Christ, or his Blood there. For he knew that Christ was not then to be found outwardly, either at the outward Temple, or at Jerusalem; but they that came to the word nigh in the Mouth, and in the Heart, would both find Christ, and feel the Virtue of his Blood( even of that Blood which he offered upon the across) nearer home. So neither is it any Error in G. W. to say, The Quakers see no need to direct Men to the Type for the Antitype, viz. neither to the outward Temple, nor to Jerusalem, either for Jesus Christ or his Blood: Nor in so saying doth he deny, or dis-esteem Jesus Christ, or his Blood,( for he directs, with the Apostle, where Men may both find Jesus Christ, and may feel the Virtue of his Blood): But he rejects the Notion of his Opponent, who( it seems) would have Men directed to the Type for the Antitype.  
And since G. K. is so forward now to fall in with our old Opposers the Baptists, and quarrel with G. W. for not directing Men now to the Type for the Antitype, to the outward Temple, or to Jerusalem, for Jesus Christ or his Blood: It will not be amiss to let him see, how flatly he therein contradicts himself in what he formerly writ, in his Book called Help in time of need, p. 63. where he saith expressly thus; And now we need not say, Who will go down into the Grave, and bring up Christ to us, or who will ascend to Heaven, to bring him down to us; or who will go over the Seas, and bring us tidings of him from Jerusalem where he suffered in the flesh; him( whose Name is the Word of God, Rev. 19.) we of a Truth witness nigh us, even in our hearts; so that we need not either ascend or descend, or go forth, &c. By this he may see how far he is degenerated and apostatised from his former Principles: Then he was not for ascending, descending, or sending to Jerusalem, to have Tidings of Christ brought from thence; because he then witnessed him, Christ, the Word of God, nigh him, even in his heart: But now, being gone from the Word in his heart, and turned against it, he is( it seems) for having men directed to the Type, for the Antitype, to the outward Temple, or to Jerusalem, for Jesus Christ, and his Blood.  
His Clamour at G. W. in p. 24, &c. about some words of S. Eccles, concerning the Blood that was let out of the Side of Christ's Body after it was dead, is a mere malicious Cavil; for G. W. did not undertake to defend S. E. but shew'd what S. E. himself said was his intention or meaning, in the words spoken by him, and excepted against. And yet said, I do not make S. is Expressions therein( especially as construed by our Adversaries) to be an Article of our Faith: For I own that in one sense the Blood sh●d was more than that of another Saint, &c. And though G. K. carps at those words ( in one sense) and says, He should have owned it so in a manifold sense, &c. Yet he might have seen that in the Enumeration G. W. made, his own sense comprehended a manifold sense: But if he had owned it to be more, but in one sense; that had been enough to have secured him from any stroke from S. is words. And therefore, if S. E. did let fall any unjustifiable Expression concerning that Blood that was forced out of Christ's Body by the soldiers Spear, after he was dead, as that it was no more than the Blood of another Saint,( meaning, as he explained himself, as to the Essence, not the spiritual virtue thereof) G. K. did basely and very enviously to cast this upon G. W. who had both disclaimed those words; by saying, I do not make S. is Expressions therein an Article of our Faith; and had also for himself declared, that he did own the Blood  shed to be more than the Blood of another Saint. And seeing S. E. in the same Letter, did speak highly in esteem of the Blood of Christ, and New Covenant, as more excellent, and living, and holy, and precious than is able to be uttered,( as in G. W's Book is expressed, p. 58.) that shows he had no light esteem of the Blood of Christ itself, as it was made by Christ a part of that blessed Offering for Man; and that what he spake of that part of the Blood which was let out by the Spear, was with respect to the Souldiers act, and the time of doing it, which was after his Death; common Charity would have made an Ingenuous Adversary have overlooked it, how weak soever he had looked upon S. E. to have been therein.  
Thus Reader, I have given thee an Account of the great and high Charges G. K. hath exhibited against G. W. of gross and vile Errors, and how greatly he hath wronged and abused him therein: By which thou mayst guess what thou art to expect in his other Charges of like nature against W. pen, into which let us now look.  
The first( and I think the main) thing he charges on W. P. is, That( in a Book called The Christian Quaker, and his Divine Testimony Vindicated, p. 97. which Book I wish every one would red) he said, This Seed,( viz. the one Seed Christ) must be inward and spiritual, since one outward thing cannot be the proper Figure or Representation of another: Nor is it the way of holy Scripture so to teach us; the outward Lamb shows forth the inward Lamb; the Jew outward, the Jew inward. Upon this he says, p. 19. If this be not as plain a denial of Christ to be any outward being, having any bodily Existence without us, I know no English. For a Scotchman not to know English, is not so great a wonder, as it would have been, if he had said he knew no Scottish. I believe he knows both: And yet( with his leave) let me tell him, this Sentence of his is not good Grammatical English: For to his Comparative Particle ( as) he hath not subjoin'd another ( as) to make his Comparison complete, but has begun a Comparison, and left it unfinished; saying, If this be not as plain a denial, &c. but does not say, as what. But of this, a Touch only by the by; nor, would I have touched it at all, had he not lead me to it, by boasting of his Knowledge of English.  
To the Charge itself, I say, The Scope and Design of W. P. in those words was, to prove against his Opponents, that the Son of God, who, in the fullness of time, took upon him a Body of Flesh, in which he suffered on the across, was, and was properly called, Christ, before he appeared in that outward Body; which his Opponents denied, not owning Christ, as Christ, to have had any Existence before that Body which was Born of the Virgin, but confining Christ to that Body. And because all aclowledge the promised Seed to be Christ, W. P. used that as a Medium, to prove, that Christ was Christ before that outward Appearance. Now his affirming Christ to be the Seed, and that Seed to be inward and spiritual, is not a denial of Christ's having a Bodily Existence without us; for he may have, and hath, a Bodily Existence without us, and yet may be, and is, spiritually in us. 'Tis true, he denied that that Body which Christ had from the Virgin, strictly considered as such, was the Seed; and he gave divers Reasons for it, which G. K. not being able to answer, calls Antichristian; yet himself is forced to grant, p. 20. that the Body of Christ, strictly considered, is not the Seed of the Woman, nor the Soul, or whole Manhood of Christ, strictly considered, without the Godhead. Was it then an Error in W. P. to say, Christ's Body, or what he had from the Virgin, strictly considered, was not the Seed? He did not deny the Manhood of Christ gloriously united with the Godhead, to be the Seed that was promised should bruise the Serpent's Head, Gen. 3.15. But he held, that that Seed, being of a Divine and Spiritual Nature, did inwardly work against the Serpent, and did bruise his Head, and break his Strength and Power, in some measure, in the Holy Men and Women in all Generations, before that visible Appearance of Christ in that Body of Flesh which he took of the Virgin. And although that Divine Seed, which was promised to bruise the Serpent's Head, is called the Seed of the Woman: Yet in as much as( according to G. K.) it is the Godhead and Manhood jointly considered, and most gloriously united, that is the Seed of the Woman; and since the chief Excellency, Nobility and Dignity lies in the Godhead; and what the Manhood partakes thereof, is derived from the Godhead thereunto, by the glorious Union it has therewith; I see not why that holy Seed may not be called, The Seed of God, as well as the Seed of the Woman. And although it pleased the Divine Wisdom, when upon Man's Fall, he promised Christ, the restoring Seed, to denominate him the Seed of the Woman, with respect to his fore-determined Purpose, that in the fullness of Time, he should take on him Flesh in the Womb of a Woman, and be made in the likeness of Men, that so he might bruise the Serpent's Head, break his Strength, subdue his Power, vanquish him, and triumph over him in that Form and Bodily Appearance, or Similitude of sinful Flesh, Rom. 8.3. in which Man had been tempted and overcome by the Serpent. Yet none, I hope, think, from his being called the Seed of the Woman, that he had not a Divine Existence and Being, before he appeared in that Body of Flesh which he took, in the Virgin's Womb; or that he received the Power, Might, Strength and Ability, by which he overcame the Serpent, from the Virgin, or any thing he tookf or from her; who her self, no doubt, felt that Holy Seed, as a Principle of Divine Light, Life and Power, working inwardly and spiritually in her Heart, before her Womb was impregnated, by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. G. K. himself confesses, p. 20. That the Seed did, in good measure, bruise the Serpent's head, in the holy Men and Women of all Generations, before that outward Appearance,( which was W. P's Assertion): But he denies the Consequence, and calls it a notorious falsehood, and a most Antichristian Doctrine, that therefore the Seed( he puts in, of the Woman, and of Abraham; neither of which Terms were used by W. P. but either simply, The Seed, or the Seed of the Promise) was not any outward Thing or Person, but an holy and spiritual Principle of Light, Life and Power. But since he grants, this Seed did bruise the Serpent's Head in the holy Men and Women of all Generations, before that outward Appearance of Christ in the Flesh,( which was some Thousands of Years after the Seed was promised) I would gladly know of him, what outward Thing, or Person, was that Seed, all that time; and whether it was not an holy and spiritual Principle of Light, Life and Power; and as such did bruise the Serpent's Head in the Hearts of Men and Women? He says, Christ did not become the Seed of the Woman, according to the sense of that place of Scripture, Gen. 3. until the fullness of time, that he was made of a Woman. How well this agrees with his former Doctrine, we shall see anon: Mean while he will not deny, I hope, that Christ was the Seed promised, Gen. 3. from that very moment wherein the Promise was made; and that the Promise immediately began to take effect, by his spiritual Operation, as a Seed or Principle of Light, Life and Power, in the Heart, bruising the Serpent's Head there, not only before he himself, as Man, was made of a Woman, in the fullness of time; but even in the Heart of that first Woman [ Eve] before there was any Seed of the Woman naturally Born into the World.  
This G. K. himself both knew and taught once, before Pride and Envy made him run retrograde: For thus he formerly writ of it, in a Book of his, called, The Way cast up, Sect. 8. wherein he asserts, p. 93. That Jesus Christ was the true Christ of God, before he took Flesh, and before he was the Son of Mary, &c. For( says he there) his being Born of the Virgin Mary made him not to be Christ, as if he had not been Christ before; but he was Christ before, even from the beginning, as( says he) I shall prove clearly out of Scripture, &c. And having brought divers Scriptures, and Arguments, from p. 93. to p. 99. to prove that Christ Jesus, as Man, was from the beginning, and had from the beginning an heavenly Manhood, and spiritual Flesh and Blood; he there concludes thus, This is the promised Seed, which God promised to our Parents after the Fall, and actually gave unto them, even the Seed of the Woman, that should bruise the Head of the Serpent. And therefore, though the outward Coming of the Man Christ was deferred, according to his outward Birth in the Flesh, for many Ages; yet from the beginning this heavenly Man, the promised Seed, did inwardly come into the hearts of those that believed in him, and bruised the Head of the Serpent, &c. Here he not only asserts that this heavenly Man, Christ, was the promised Seed, and did from the beginning inwardly come into the Hearts of Believers, and bruised the Head of the Serpent; but also calls him, The Seed of the Woman; and says, God not only promised him, but actually gave him, even the Seed of the Woman,( that should bruise the Serpent's Head) unto our Parents after the Fall, many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh. Surely, he that writ this, had no cause to quarrel with W. P. for saying, Christ's Body, or what he had from the Virgin, strictly considered as such, was not the Seed of Promise. He had more need to have reconciled himself to himself( if he could) in these two opposite Expressions of his, viz.[ That God gave the promised Seed, even the Seed of the Woman, actually to our Parents after the Fall, many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh]: Way cast up, p. 99. And( That Christ did not become the Seed of the Woman, according to the sense of Gen. 3. until the fullness of time, that he was made of a Woman). True Copy of a Paper, p. 20. And he should have done well to have informed his Reader, how God did actually give unto our Parents after the Fall( so many Ages before Christ's outward Birth in the Flesh) the Seed he promised them, Gen. 3. even the Seed of the Woman: And yet Christ not be the Seed of the Woman, according to Gen. 3. until so many Ages after he was actually given, as the Seed of the Woman.  
And in his Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation, p. 256. speaking of the Spiritual Generation and Birth of Christ in us, he says, Thus we become the Mother of Christ in a spiritual sense, or according to the Spirit, as the Virgin Mary was his Mother after the Flesh. And this spiritual Mystery Christ himself did Teach in the Days of his Flesh, when, he said, Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in Heaven, the same is my Brother, and Sister, and Mother, Mat. 12.50. And thus( says G. K.) Christ, according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints, is the Seed of the Woman; for that the Saints are the Woman that bring him forth after the Spirit, and are his Mother; as Mary brought him forth after the Flesh, and after the Spirit also; so that she was the Mother of Jesus in a double respect; for as she brought him forth in her Body, so she brought him forth in her Soul, otherwise he could not have been her Saviour, &c. Here G. K. calls Christ, the Seed of the Woman, according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints, and yet quarrels with W. P. for saying, The Seed, Christ, must be inward and spiritual.  
Again, In the Way cast up, p. 102. he says, And indeed, seeing he( Christ) is called as really Man, before his outward Birth in the Flesh, as afterwards, we have as good cause to believe him to be true and real Man, before his outward Birth in the Flesh, as after. For it is not the outward Flesh and Blood, that is the Man( otherwise the Saints that have put off the outward Body, should cease to be Men, and Christ should have ceased to be Man, betwixt his Death and his Resurrection) but it is the Soul, or inward Man, that dwelleth in the outward Flesh or Body, that is the Man most properly, such as Christ was even from the beginning. And therefore,( adds he, p. 104.) let all the Scriptures be preached, and it shall not be sound that Christ became Man, and took to himself the Soul of Man, at his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin Mary; but only that he took Flesh, and was the Son of Mary, David and Abraham, according to the Flesh. But, according to his heavenly Nature, even as Man, he was the Son of God, and was the Father and Lord of all the Faithful in all Ages, &c. What can be more contrary to what he now delivers?  
He goes on now thus, Though Christ did not become the Seed of the Woman, according to the sense of that place of Scripture, Gen. 3. until the fullness of time, that he was made of a Woman, yet seeing that Divine Power, that inwardly did destroy the Power of Sin, and Satan in true Believers, in him that was promised to come; was the real Power of him, that was to come, and the Gift of it, was the real Purchase of his most holy and perfect Obedience unto Death, when he came; it is truly said, That he bruised the Serpent's Head in all true Believers in all Ages. This is so obscure a passage, and so intricately worded, that, though I understand English pretty well, I do not well know how to understand this, unless he means, that Christ, as he was Man, made of a Woman in the fullness of time, did bruise the Serpent's Head in true Believers in all Ages, before he was Man made of a Woman. And that the Gift of the Promised Seed was not a free Gift, or did not proceed from the free Love of God to Man,( contrary to John 3.16. where Christ Jesus himself says, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting Life) but was the real Purchase of Christ's most holy and perfect Obedience unto Death, when he came. Which how well it sounds, let those who have a spiritual Ear open, judge. It is sufficient to my present purpose, that he hath granted enough to take off his Charge against W. P. in acknowledging, That Christ, the promised Seed, did bruise the Serpent's Head in all true Believers in all Ages; and that the Body which Christ took from the Virgin, strictly considered as such, was not the promised Seed: Which was the gross and vile Error he charged W. P. with, and made such an hideous Clamour about. What is now become of it? Where's the gross and vile Error? Was it not, that W. P. said, The Seed, Christ, must be inward and spiritual; that it bruised the Serpent's Head in the holy Men and Women of all Generations, and that Christ's Body, or what he had from the Virgin, strictly considered as such, was not the Seed? And doth not G. K. say the same? Namely, That it is truly said, He bruised the Serpent's Head in all true Believers in all Ages, p. 21. and that the Body of Christ, strictly considered, is not the Seed of the Woman, p. 20. Well, what shift has this shifter left? But one, that I find, and that truly a very sorry one, p. 20. viz. That W. P. by limiting the Question, by the Phrase( strictly considered) fighteth against his shadow: For( says he) I know no Baptist that ever said, the Body strictly considered, i.e. without the Soul of the Man Christ, &c. is Christ, or that promised Seed of Abraham, and Seed of the Woman. But First, If this be true, that he knows no such Baptist, what then? Doth it therefore follow, that there was no such? Is he such a Know-All, that nothing can be, but what he knows? He had best have a care he doth not run himself upon a Dilemma: For there is one just before his Nose, and that's this; That if he was not acquainted with that controversy, which W. P. handled in that Book, called the Christian Quaker,( out of which he has formed his deformed Charge against him) he doth but prevaricate and dissemble, in saying, He knows no Baptist that ever said so, &c. Or, if he was acquainted with that controversy, then either what he hath now charged on W. P. as gross and vile Error, was good and sound Doctrine with him till of late; or he hath  told a most horrible Untruth, and that with high Dissimulation and hypocrisy, in saying, in his Nameless Bull, p. 8. I sincerely declare, that the worst and grossest sort of their Errors, whom I now expose to public view, I did not know they were guilty of them, or that they were to be found in their Books, but of late Times. But, now I think on't, G. K. himself was personally concerned in that controversy, being present at those Disputes Friends had with those Baptists, and others, at London: And that renders his pretended sincere Declaration, the more justly suspected of Insincerity. But Secondly, Suppose no Baptist, or other, had said so; and that therefore W. P. had sought against his own shadow, as G. K. surmises he did: Would that have made him guilty of gross and vile Errors? I never heard before that it was a gross and vile Error, destructive to the very Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity, for a Man to fight against his shadow. But if it be so, I pity G. K. of most Men, who, as much as most Men, fights against his own shadow. For it is indeed but his own shadow he hath been all this while fighting against, while he pretended to fight against G. W. and W. P.  
Yet so vain and foolish is he, and puffed up in his own Conceit, that though he hath com'd thus poorly off, he breaks forth into this insulting scoff, p. 21. And thus, says he, having shewed the Antichristian Doctrine of these two great Champions, that have appeared against me, to give out this Nameless Bull of Excommunication,( There he has more plainly shown the falseness of his Nature, after his demure pretences, p. 18, 19. That nothing of Prejudice or Malice had moved him to this Undertaking, but love to Truth and Men, and the honour of God, &c. Whereas now he hath as good as  told us it is, because they have appeared against him, to give out, as he calls it, a Nameless Bull of Excommunication) I shall in short,( adds he) present to the Reader's view the Antichristian Doctrine of the Third Champion, John Whitehead, not only contradicting the plain Doctrine of the holy Scripture, in a Fundamental Article of Faith, but also contradicting his Brother W. pen. Now let us see what this Antichristian Doctrine is; and then consider, 1. Whether it contradicts the plain Doctrine of the holy Scripture, in a Fundamental Article of Faith. And, 2. Whether it contrad●cts W. P. John Whitehead's Doctrine, he pretends to take out of p. 40, 41. of a Book, called, The Quakers Refuge, printed in the Year 1673.( 22 Years ago) and he gives his words thus, That Christ hath a Body, or is in a Body, suitable to his Spirit, consisting of heavenly Flesh and Bone: This, I hope, is no Antichristian Doctrine; If G. K. thinks it is, let him show wherein. He adds, That J. W. doth not deny that Christ hath any Body now beside his Church. In that J. W. is not condemnable, but commendable: For that I am sure is no Antichristian Doctrine. He adds further, That J. W. confesseth he hath several times denied, That Christ hath now a Body of Flesh and Bones circumscript, or limited in that heaven which is above, and out of every Man on earth. Here he wrongs J. W. for the words of J. W. in the Book and page. before mentioned, are, I have several times denied T. G's Assertion,( this T. G. was one Thomas Grantham, whom I take to be a Baptist Teacher, with whom J. W. had had several public Disputes) wherein T. G. affirmed, That Christ hath now a Body of Flesh and Bones circumscript, or limited in that Heaven which is above, and out of every Man on Earth. And says J. W. perceiving that he stood conceited in his fl shly Apprehension and Knowledge, wherein he had conceived the Lord of Glory to be like unto corruptible Man, I asked him, Since he denied Christ to be in and with Believers whilst upon Earth, where that Body was he spake of, and how big, or what an one it was? To which he answered in his hast, That it was such an one as his, consisting of Flesh and Bones, and in yonder heaven which is above, pointing towards the Clouds;( who  told him, Nay; thy Flesh is sinful, and corruptible, and rottenness shall enter into thy Bones; neither can thy Body come in, the Doors being shut, nor appear in another form, as Christ did.) And though T. G. being driven out of that by J. W. did amend his words, and except Sin and Corruption, in comparing Christ's Body to his own: Yet I do not find he made any distinction in the Comparison, between his Earthly Body, and Christ's heavenly and glorious Body, consisting of heavenly Flesh and Bones. By which it appears what sort of Body it was that J. W. denied Christ now to have, and upon what occasion he denied it, to wit, such a Body as T. G. had, which was earthly, and not glorified, nor spiritual. But J. W. had before declared, That Christ is glorified with that Glory which he had with the Father before the world began, in a Body suitable to his Spirit, consisting of heavenly Flesh and Bone; which is true Christian Doctrine. And G. K. hath not so much as attempted to show, wherein J. W's Doctrine, in any part of it, is Antichristian, or contradictory to the plain Doctrine of the holy Scripture: Nor hath he brought any Doctrine of the holy Scripture, or any Fundamental Article of Faith, to oppose J. W's Doctrine with. But mentioning another saying or his, viz. That wheresoever the Spirit and Life of Christ is, it is in the Body of Christ( which J. W. alleged to show that the Spirit and Body of Christ are not divided;) he makes this Observation on the whole; And thus, as he( J. W.) owneth that Christ hath a Body that is not the Church, yet he owneth no other Body( besides his Church) that is Circumscript, and out of every Man on Earth. He should have added to Circumscript ( or limited in that heaven which is above): For so T. G's Assertion stands, That Christ hath now a Body of Flesh and Bones Circumscript, or limited in that Heaven which is above; not only limited to Heaven, but limited also in Heaven. If to deny that Christ hath now such a Body, as the Baptist said he had, and so Circumscribed, or limited in that Heaven above, as the Baptist said it was, be an Antichristian Doctrine, contradicting the plain Doctrine of the holy Scripture, and that in a Fundamental Article of Faith, G. K. should have shew'd it, as well as said it: Hitherto he has only said it, but has not so much as attempted to show it, though he said he would present it to the Readers view. He added indeed, that he would do it in short; but instead of doing it in short, he hath fallen short or doing it at all.  
It had been more Prudence in G. K. before he had fallen thus rudely on J. W. for denying that Christ hath now a Body of Flesh and Bones Circumscript, or limited in that Heaven which is above, and out of every Man on Earth, to have considered, that he himself had blamed the Presbyterian and National Church, for confining( which is limiting) Christ to some particular place. These are his words, in The Way cast up, p. 63. And although she falsely accuse us, as denying the true Christ, yet I hope to make it apparent, that she, and not we, are the deniers of him, who would exclude him out of the very Saints, and altogether confine him to some particular place. What odds, I pray, between the Presbyterians confining him to some particular place, so as to exclude him out of the very Saints: And the Baptists limiting him in Heaven, and out of every Man on Earth? And if he could charge the Presbyterians with denying Christ, by their so confining him; will he, without blushing, blame J. W.( and that so highly) for denying the Baptists limitation of Christ? If he shall think to shift it off, by saying, The one passage was spoken of Christ; the other, of his Body: Beside that he would thereby divide Christ from his Body, I shall put him in mind of what himself hath writ of the Body, in the same Book,( Way cast up, p. 131.) where speaking of that Body that was Crucified on the across at Jerusalem, and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven, he says, Which remaineth the same in substance, that it was on Earth, although it be wonderfully changed, as to the mode and manner of its being; it being( mark this) no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but a pure, Ethereal, or Heavenly Body, like unto which the Bodies of the Saints are to be at the Resurrection. This place affords variety of Matter for Observation. For, First, If( according to G. K. here) that Body that was Crucified on the across at Jerusalem, be no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but a pure, Ethereal Body; then J. Whitehead, in denying the Assertion of his Opponent( T. Grantham the Baptist) did not deny the Body of Christ, nor that Body that was Crucified on the across at Jerusalem: For in that Assertion, which J. W. denied, T. G. affirmed, That Christ hath now a Body of Flesh and Bones circumscript, or limited in that Heaven which is above. But G. K. says, That Body that was Crucified on the across at Jerusalem, is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones; but a pure, Ethereal, or Heavenly Body: So that J. W. was not guilty of any Antichristian Doctrine, in denying that Assertion of T. G. but was very sound and right therein, even according to G. K's own Doctrine: And therefore G. K. hath done very foolishly, as well as very wickedly, to Charge J. W. on this account, with Antichristian Doctrine, and with contradicting the plain Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, in a Fundamental Article of Faith. Secondly, It is observable, that G. K. says here, That Body that was Crucified on the across at Jerusalem, and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven, remains the same in substance, that it was on the Earth, although it be wonderfully changed, as to the mode and manner of its being: And yet he says, It is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but a Pure, Ethereal, or Heavenly Body. Now for my part, I confess, I was no wiser( before this profound Philosopher arose) than to think, that Flesh, Blood and Bones had been of the substance of an outward, visible, tangible Body, such as was that which was Nailed to the across at Jerusalem. But this Acute Doctor hath now  told us, that although that Body that was Crucified on the across at Jerusalem( which without all doubt consisted of Flesh, Blood and Bones, when it was so Crucified) doth remain the same in substance, that it was on Earth: Yet it is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but is wonderfully changed, as to the mode and manner of its being. So that the Change from being a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, to be no no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, is, it seems, with him, a Change but as to the mode and manner of its being; not as to its substance; but that, notwithstanding its being changed from being a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, to be no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, it remains the same in substance, that it was on Earth; by which G. K. hath plainly denied that Flesh, Blood and Bones were of the substance of that Body that was Crucified on the across at Jerusalem. When G. K. shall please to descend again into the Ditch of Philosophy,( as to fright me, he called it) he may do well to inform Mankind, what the substance of that Body was, which was Crucified on the across at Jerusalem, if it was not Flesh, Blood and Bones. Or, if upon second thoughts, he shall confess, that the substance of it was Flesh, Blood and Bones; then, how that Body remaineth the same in substance, as it was on Earth, and yet is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but a pure, Ethereal, or heavenly Body: And by what Figure, a Change from being a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, to be no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, is called a Change, as to the mode or manner of its being, but not as to its substance. Thirdly, His saying, It is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but a pure, Ethereal, or heavenly Body; and then adding, like unto which the Bodies of the Saints are to be at the Resurrection; plainly shows, that( according to him) the Bodies of the Saints at the Resurrection, shall be no more Bodies of Flesh, Blood and Bone, but pure, Ethereal, or heavenly Bodies.( But what an Ethereal Body is, he should have explained.) How long he will hold in this Mind, I cannot tell; it being so contrary to the common and carnal Notion of our other Adversaries, whose Cause he now Abets against us. Yet seeing he would not be understood now to be of another Faith in any one Principle of Christian an Doctrine, contrary to what he believed ever since he went under the Profession of a Quaker, so called; Nor to find any Cause to Correct either his judgement or Books, as touching any of the great Doctrines or Principles of the Christian Religion,( as he signifies, True Copy, p. 18.) Now if he esteems his Doctrine( of Christ's Body.( that was Crucified) being no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but a pure, Ethereal or heavenly Body, &c.) Either any Great Doctrine or Principle of the Christian Religion, or any Principle of Christian Doctrine; he is hereby obliged not to correct it, nor recede from it; or else if he does, he should have begun first at Home to correct himself therein; otherwise, if he sees no cause to Correct it, but stands by it, then how will he therein please or gratify our Adversaries, whose Cause he has Abetted? Or what cause had he to correct Error in any of us, for Believing Christ's Body to be either Spiritual or Heavenly, &c. contrary to the gross and carnal Opinion of our said Adversaries?  
But to return to his Charge against J. W. seeing he has not proved J: W's words either Antichristian Doctrine, or contradictory to plain Scripture; let us see, in the next place, whether they are contradictory to W. pen, which G. K. saith they are. The Contradiction he would make to be in that J. W. owneth no other Body of Christ( besides his Church) that is Circumscript, and out of every Man on Earth And W. P. saith, The Body of Christ is not so much as in any one. This he calls a plain Contradiction; but in plain truth it is no Contradiction at all. For J. W. speaks of the Body of Christ, as in one state, or capacity; W. P. speaks of it, as in another. J. W. speaks of it, as a Body consisting of heavenly Flesh and Bone, in which Christ was glorified with that Glory which he had with the Father before the World began. W. P. speaks of it, as that Body which he had from the Virgin, strictly considered as such. W. P. speaks of it, as in its sta●e of Humiliation and Suffering. J. W. speaks of it, as in its state of Exaltation and Glory: And I do not think G. K. himself will adventure to say, that Christ's Body, or what he had from the Virgin, strictly considered as such,( which admits not of any Change, in manner or circumstance) is the same Body J. W. speaks of, consisting of heavenly Flesh and Bone, and glorified in Heaven. That plain Contradiction then, which G. K. pretended to find, or make, between J. W. and W. P. is vanished into a plain Quibble, and a mere Cavil of G. K's own.  
But if he cannot make a Contradiction between J. W. and W. P. he'll try what he can do, to make an Appearance at least of Contradiction between J. W. and G. W. To effect this, he opposeth to those words of J. W. wherein he denied that Christ hath now a Body of Flesh and Bones Circumscript, or limited in that Heaven which is above, a passage in the Postscript to a Book, called, The Malice of the Independent Agent rebuked; which Postscript he ascribes to G. W. but why, or by what Authority, I know not: For I find not G. W's Name, or the Letters of his Name, to that Postscript, or to any part of that Book. But whosoever it be, I find in p. 24.( though he name it not) the words he Cites out of it, which he gives thus concerning the Flesh of Christ, It is so far circumscribed, or encompassed in the Heavens, as 'tis capable of, and as is proper to it; and though it be Spiritual and Glorious, yet a Body, therefore not in every place where God is. To be Omnipresent is only proper to God, and not to Bodies. But he hath left out a material passage, which is, It is not limited or confined to any one place, or corner( as it were) of Heaven. See now whether there be any Contradiction in these two sayings. J. W. says, It is not Circumscript, or limited in that Heaven which is above. The other says, It is so far Circumscribed, or enclosed in the Heavens, as 'tis capable of, and is proper to it; which how far that is, or whether at all or no, is not there determined: But it is there determined, that it is not limited or confined to any one place of Heaven, which is Synonimous to J. W's saying, It is not limited in Heaven. So that they are so far from contradicting each other, that they agree in sense, and as near as could be reasonably expected, in words also. No cause therefore had G. K. to say, as here he does, See how like Sampson's Foxes, though tied by the Tail, their Faces took contrary: But to show his scoffing Spirit.  
I thought I had gone through his List, because in the Introduction to it, he name only Geo. Whitehead, Jo. Whitehead, and W. pen, and  told his Reader, he designed only to give him at present this short List of these Mens gross and vile Errors. But whether he was conscious to himself, that he had fallen short in his Undertaking against them, and hoped to gall them from Another's Books, since he could not from their own; he now, toward the foot of his 21th page., falleth on the Collection of S●●●●en Crisp's Treatises, which he says, are rec●●●●●nded and signed by Geo. Whitehead, Jo. White●●ad, Francis Camfeild, Jo. Vaughton, W. Bingley, John Field, whom he calls his chief Opposers and Adversaries; and therein I believe he hath given the truest Reason of his Undertaking, which is, to revenge himself, if he can, upon them. Yet I observe he flies not quiter so high here, as in his former Charges: For there he talked at no less or lower rate, than gross and vile Errors, Antichristian Doctrines, &c. whereas now he is sunk to gross and absurd Passages, unsound and unsavoury Words; and yet calls them most offensive to Christian Ears.  
The particular Treatise, he pitches upon, is called, A Backslider reproved, &c,( not, as he Emphatically reads it, The Backslider; that Title being perhaps reserved for himself, who may probably, in a peculiar manner, and beyond others, deserve it.) Which Book( being Printed in 1669. 26 Years ago) was in Answer to one Rob. Cobbet. The pages out of which G. K. picks his first Cavil are( in the Collection) 194, 197, and the matter he carps at he sets down confusedly, thus, He( viz. S. C.) blameth the said R. C. for affirming that to be the Seed of Promise, which came by Generation, of and from the Properties of Mary. He further adds, Is not that the Seed of Promise mentioned in Isaiah 9.6. who is called the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. And what is Mary the Mother of God? This will please the Papists well; and where is thy Scripture to prove that Jesus th●●●●viour was Created? And p. 197. he( S. C. 〈◇〉, But indeed we never believed him to be pr●●●ced by Coagulation, as R. C. doth; nor by the Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary, for then some might have declared his Generation, which the Scripture saith, who can do? Thus far, in a sort of confused manner, G. K. hath Cited out of that Book of S. C's; and upon this he bestows certain Observations, to the number, as he figures them, of six; but that the Fifth is rather his Creed, than his Observation. Now before I meddle with G. K's Observations, I think it needful to give the Reader an account of some of the passages in R. Cobbet's Book, which occasioned the words above-cited from S. Crisp in Answer to them. R. C. had said, in his Book called, A Word to the Upright, p. 18. That the Soul of Christ was in Properties of and from Nature and Creature, made by Generation from the Properties of Mary, is that Seed God did promise to sand to break the Serpent's Head.( If it be Nonsense I cannot help it; for I take it as it is in R. Cobbet's own Book.) But the Soul of Man, he said, p. 4. is a spark of God! Eternal Nature, coagulated into a spiritual substance, for a Center of his insensitive Life, and as thus compacted, is a Creature of an Eternal Being, of an own self-subsisting Consistency, and having its abode in the Life of Time, is capable to be corrupted by Infection from the Life of Time, &c. It was such stuff as this, S. Crisp was to Answer to; and in his Answer, he said, p. 193. R. C. hath here described a Creature that subsists of itself contrary to the Scripture, that saith, All things are upheld by the Word. And besides, this Eternal Creature, as he calls it, this spark of God's Eternal Nature, this coagulated Substance, he says, was to be a Center for God's Insensitive Life. What, Robert, had it not a Center before? And after many Expostulations with R. C. about those strange Notions of his, S. C. said, p. 194. But what Man's Soul, or the Soul of Jesus either, is, thou knowest not; for if thou hadst, thou wouldst not have thus befooled thyself, to say, Man's Soul was a spark of God's Eternal Nature, and yet say, The Soul of Christ was but of the Properties of Nature made by Generation; nor yet have affirmed that to be the Seed of Promise, which came by Generation, of and from the Properties of Mary. I thought it not improper to make this Recital out of R. C's and S. C's Books, that the Reader might see what Notion R. C. had of the Seed of Promise, and whether S. C. did justly blame him or no, and thereby be the better able to judge, whether G. K. hath cause to complain of S. C. or no; or rather of R. C. But he rather spares,( and takes part with) our Adversaries than tis. Now let us hear his Complaints, which he sets down by way of Observations.  
The First he makes is this, It is denied here( says he) by S. C that that was the Seed of Promise, which came by Generation, &c. This, says he, is plain contrary to Mat. 1.1. The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, p. 22. Answ. Herein G. K. abuseth S. C. for S. C. did not deny that to be the Seed of Promise, which came by Generation: But that which came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary. And since G. K. blames S. C. for this, and urges Mat. 1.1. to prove the Generation of the Seed of Promise, he therein shows himself to be of a corrupt judgement, and contradicts his former saying, p. 20. which was, That neither the Body of Christ, strictly considered, nor the Soul of Christ, strictly considered, without the Godhead,— is the Seed of the Woman, or Seed of Abraham; but the Godhead and Manhood jointly considered, and most gloriously united, Should I not serve him rightly, if from hence I should conclude against him, that he holds the Seed of Promise, as consisting of Godhead and Manhood united, to have come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary, since he blames S. C. for denying it? Doth not he himself say in his next Observation, That Christ was the Son of God by an Eternal Generation before the World began? And both he and all aclowledge, that Christ is the Promised Seed, that should bruise the Serpent's Head: And must this Eternal Generation be dropped and lost, and the Promised Seed be restrained to a Generation by Coagulation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary? Doth not he himself say,( Rect. Correct. p. 27.) Even the outward and visible Flesh which Christ took of the Virgin, was not produced or formed by human Generation? And is he not ashamed to blame S. Crisp for denying that which he himself hath denied?  
H●s Second Observation is this, As it is evid●nt from Scripture, so it is the consent of all sound Christians, That Christ was the Son of God by an Eternal Generation, before the World began: And the Son of Abraham and David by Generation in the fullness of time; and though this Generation was miraculous, yet it was of and from Mary, &c. Answ. But was it of and from Mary in the terms de●i●d by S. C? Was the Generation of Christ in the fullness of time, by Coagulation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary?( As Cobbet had affirmed, p. 6.) Did not the Angel tell Mary,( when she asked, How shall this be, se●ing I know not a Man?) The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: Therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be Born of thee, shall be called, The Son of God? Luke 1.35. This was spoken, not of his Eternal Generation, but of his Generation in the fullness of time. The common Creed, called, The Apostles, says, Christ was Conceived by the Holy Ghost, though Born of the Virgin Mary. Now is it not a gross and vile Error to say, That holy thing, which was Conceived by the Holy guest, and by the overshadowing of the Power of the Highest,( and was therefore to be called the Son of God) was produced by Coagulation, or came by Generation, of and from the Properties of Man in Mary, especially considering that, as he was the Promised Seed, the Godhead was united with the Manhood,( as G. K. confesses) And is not G. K. then guilty of gross and vile Error, in blaming S. C. for condemning that Error in R. Cobbet, and in his joining with Cobbet therein?  
His Third Observation is, That S. C's denying that Jesus the Saviour was Created, or calling for Scripture to prove it, doth sufficiently prove, that he understands Christ only to be God, and wholly excludes the Manhood of Christ, from being Christ, or any part of him. Answ. Doth it so? Then let G. K. look to himself. For, by retortion, I return upon him, That his holding that Jesus the Saviour was Created( which he doth, by condemning S. C. for denying it) doth sufficiently prove, that he understands Christ to be only Man, and wholly excludes the Godhead of Christ, from being Christ, or any part of him. Which to hold, is a gross and vile Error. Let him acquit himself as he can. I confess, I did not think him so deeply drenched into Socinianism: Besides, did not G. K. tell us in his last Observation, That Christ was the Son of God by an Eternal Generation, and the Son of Abraham by Generation in the fullness of time? So that in each respect, and under each denomination, he is by Generation; and would he have him be created also, only that he might render him a mere Socinian Creature? Herein( not S. Crisp, but) G. Keith is condemnable.  
In his Fourth Observation, he says, That prophesy in Isa. 9.6. unto us a Child is Born, &c. which is a plain prophesy concerning Christ's Birth in the fullness of time, he( S. ●.) plainly denieth it to be understood of Christ, as he was Born of Mary. Answ. In this he says falsely, and greatly abuses S. C. For S. C. doth not deny that prophesy to be understood of Christ as he was Born of Mary; but brings that prophesy to show, that Christ was not( as Cobbet had affirmed he was) produced by Coagulation, or Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary in as much as in that prophesy he is called, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. But will G. K. say, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, was produced by Coagulation, or came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man 〈◇〉 Mary? But I observe G. K. in reciting that prophesy, left out those Divine and Glorious Titles given there to Christ, and recited only thus much, Unto us a Child is Born, covering the rest with an &c. which he knew would not svit well with his Socinian Notion of a Created Christ.  
His Fifth, as I noted before, is rather his Creed, than his Observation; and therein he declares his Belief, that he who was Born of Mary, is that Child or Son, given, who is both God and Man, and yet one Lord Jesus Christ. Well, S. Crisp believed this as fully as G. K. can do, and so do all that a●●●owned to be Quakers. He might have red in the same place of S. C's Book, out of which he picked a part of his Cavil, p. 197. that S. C. said, We never yet denied him that was Born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered under Pontius Pilate, to be the Lord and Saviour. And then added those words which G. K. carps at, viz. But indeed, we never did believe him to and produced by Coag●lation, as R. C. doth, nor by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary. Now since G. Keith blames S. Crisp, for his blaming R. Cobbet for this; and since G. K. declares his own Belief, that he who was Born of Mary is that Christ or Son, given, who is both God and Man, and yet one Lord Jesus Christ, I put it home upon G. K. whether he doth believe, that he who was Born of Mary, and who is both God and Man, was produced by Coagulation, or made by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary? If he doth believe this, let him speak it out, fully and plainly, that all may see and know him: But if he doth not believe this, let him not quarrel with S. C. for not believing that, which himself doth not believe.  
His Sixth and last, and perhaps t●e idlest, of his Observations on this Cavil, is, That he finds not only S. C. but G. W. quarrels with that Expression, calling Mary the Mo●her of God, as if,( says he) it were Popery. But, says he, are they wiser than the Holy Ghost, who giveth these Names to the Child that was to be Born, according to Isaiah's prophesy, Wonderful counselor, the Mighty God? &c. Answ. No; they never pretended to be wiser than the Holy Ghost 〈◇〉 but by the Wisdom they had received from the Holy Ghost, they might well except against that Expression, calling Mary the Mother of God, which the Holy Ghost hath no where used throughout the Holy Scriptures, nor is it a savoury ●●●nd Expression. And if it be not strictly Popery( which neither S.C. nor G.W. said it was: The one saying only, This will please the Papists well; the other, We do not red that Mary was the Mother of God, but in the Popes Canons, &c.) yet it is probable it first arose from those gross, dark and carnal App●●hensions the Papists have, or had, concerning Christ; and has from them been sucked in, amongst other things, by such Protestants, as did not discern Truth from Error. But since G. K. approves the Expression, of calling Mary the Mother of God, and takes upon him to defend it, from the Title given in Isaiah's prophesy, to the Child that was to be Born, I pinch him up here again, to declare, whether he believes Mary was the Mother of the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, which are some of the Titles there given unto that Child? Or whether that Child had those Titles given him, with respect to what he was to receive in and from the Properties of Man in Mary?  
He hath another Cavil against S. C. which he takes out of the same Book, p. 192. where S. C. Citeth two Sentences out of R. Cobbet's Book, one from p. 11. thus, Ye are bought with a Price, not of Blood of Bulls, &c. but by the Blood of God; the other, from p. 13. thus, Which Blood being the Bloods of his Humanity, as he was Creature, was that that did with God expiate for sin. Upon this S. C. asks, Which of these two Doctrines shall we believe, That we are saved by the Blood of God, or Blood of the Humanity? Or shall we suppose them to and both one; and so God to be human, and so the Doctrines indifferent? Then adds, R. C. will do well to clear up these things, or own his Condemnation upon his Folly and Presumption. G. K's Cavil at this is, That S. C. did blame R. C. for calling the Blood of God the Blood of the Humanity, as he was Creature. Answ. First, Let us observe what sort of Humanity R. C. spake of, or what he intended by the Humanity of Christ as he was Creature, namely, that which was produced by Coagulation, or came by Generation of or from the Properties of Man in Mary, Next let us observe how contrary this is to G. K's own Doctrine, laid down in his Rector Corrected, p. 27. thus, And indeed, even the outward and visible Flesh, which he( Christ) took of the Virgin, seeing it was not produced or formed by human Generation, but by a Divine Conception, through the overshadowing of the H●yl Ghost, and did far excel the Flesh of all other. Men that ever were since; insomuch also, that after Death, it was not subject to Corruption, the Name [ human] is but too mean a Title, whereby ●o express it; far less should it be so called now, when it is glorified, and it is altogether heavenly and spiritual; nor doth the Scripture any where give unto his Body such a Name, as human. The First Man is of the Earth, earthy; the Second Adam, the Lord from Heaven, heavenly, 1 Cor. 15. Thus G. K. then. And in p. 29. he quotes Hilarius,( of great esteem( he says) among the Fathers) saying, Lib. 10. de Trinitate, concerning the Body of Christ, that was Born of the Virgin, Jesus Christ was not formed by the Nature of human Conception, and that the Original of his Body, is not of an human Conception. And why, saith he, is the Flesh conceived of the Holy Ghost, judged by the Nature of an human Body? So that saith G. K. we see, he findeth fault with the Word human, as well as G. F. And why then, say I, might not S. Crisp find fault with the word human, as well as Hilarius, G. F. and G. K.( who we see, not long ago, found fault with it also) especially when used in such an acceptation, and to set forth such a sort of Humanity, as R. C. used it in? For by that Humanity which S. C. found fault with, R. C. meant something produced by Coagulation, or Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary. Whereas not only Hilarius of old said,( as G. K. Cites him) Jesus Christ was not formed by the Nature of human Conception, and that the Original of his Body is not of an human Conception. But G. K. of late hath said, That even the outward and visible Flesh which he took of the Virgin was not produced or formed by human Generation, but by a Divine Conception through the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost; and that the Name; human, is but too mean a Title, whereby to express it. So that I conclude G. K. both by this Testimony o● his own, and those which he hath adduced of Hilarius, hath sufficiently justified, S. Crisp in finding fault with th● word Hum●nity, and Blood of the Humanity, wi●h ●espect to Christ, especially in such a Notion of Humanity, as R. C. used it in. But as he has justified S. C. so he has condemned himself; and both Hilarius and G. K. are against G. K. How well G. K. will be able to defend himself, against Hilarius and himself, I know not. He, 〈◇〉 and Hilarius also) but even now, spake highly against the word human, as relating to Christ positively affirming the outward and visible Flesh, which Christ took of the virgin was not produced, or formed, by human Generation: Now he falls in with R. Cobbet, and even upon such a Notion of the Humanity of Christ, as R. C. had formed in his own Brain, owns the term Humanity, as respecting Christ and the Blood of his Humanity, and approving R. Cobbet's Ass●rtion, that the Blood of that Humanity did expiate with God for sin, says, This is as sound Assertion, and to contradict it is Folly and Presumption, p. 23. So that, according to R. C. and G. K. The B ood of that that was produced, or came by and cration of and from the Properties of Man in Mary, was the Blood of God, and did expiate with God for Sin. But this( according to G. K.) could not be the Blood of Christ: For G. K. saith expressly( as before-cited) that even the outward and visible Flesh which Christ took of the Virgin, was not produced or formed by human Generation, and brought Hilarius to vouch it. But though S. Crisp did justly reject R. C's unscriptural Notion of such an Humanity to Christ, and the Blood of such an Humanity to be the Blood of God, and to expiate for sin: And whereby his Church is purchased, Acts 20.28. Yet neither did he nor doth any one, owned to be of the People called Quakers, deny the holy Manhood of Christ, or the Blood of that Manhood, w●ich he offered as a part of the one Offering to his Father, or the virtue and Efficacy thereof with God to expiate for sin: Yet, Quest. If God's own Blood whereby his Church is purchased, Acts 20.28. intends only the Blood of Christ outwardly  shed, or the entire Christ the Son of God, as he was given a Ransom, &c.  
I have now done with his Cavils at S. Crisp, that Eminent Labourer in the Lord's Vineyard, who( like the other Stephen of old, Acts 6.5.) was full of Faith, and of the Holy Ghost; and who, to his extraordinary Endowments of Nature, had an extraordinary Addition of Divine. Wisdom, and heavenly Experiences, in the Work an● Way of the Lord, in which he was an early Traveller, and a diligent, faithful Labourer to the last; for which his Memory is blessed, and his Name Honourable, not only in the Church of Christ, but amongst many that are without; which renders this Detractor's work the more vile and base.  
But I have not yet done with G. K. who to his List of pretended gross and vile Errors, having added another, which he calls, An Additional List to the former( to the most material parts of which I have spoken already) raises another Cavil, p. 26. against both G. W. and W. P. about the words History and Mystery of Christ.( For he is a Word-pecker, a great Logomachist, like them the Apostle warned Timothy of, 1 Tim. 6.4, 5.) The words he quarrels with G. W. about, are these; We really own, and confess to the Blood of Christ, both in the History and in the Mystery.( Christian Quaker, 2d part, p. 243.) By this, says G. K. it plainly appears, that he did not own the Blood of Christ, as it was outwardly  shed, to have any Mystery in it; that Blood outwardly  shed, was Blood in the History, but the Life, or Spirit, or Light within, that's Blood in the Mystery. And p. 27. speaking of them both, he says, It's plainly evident, that they make not only Christ's Works and Sufferings without us, but History; but even Christ himself without us, is to them but History. Thus G. K. But what more perverse and false Construction could the most perverse of Men have put upon G. W's words, than this which G. K. hath put, viz. That G. W. did not own the Blood of Christ, as it was outwardly  shed, to have any Mystery in it, and that he makes Christ's Works and Sufferings without, and Christ himself without, to be but History? For most evident it is, that by those words,( we really own and confess to the Blood of Christ, both in the History and in the Mystery) G. W. intended no more nor other, but that we really own and confess to the Blood of Christ, not only in a Mystical Sense, but also according to that historical account of it, which we red in the Writings of the Evangelists. For it is to be noted, that those words of G. W's are part of an Answer to a Question. Our Adversaries, of one persuasion and another, had entertained a groundless jealousy against us, that we owned Christ, his Flesh, Blood, Sufferings, Death, &c. only in a Mystical Sense: But did not own them really and outwardly, as in the Letter of the Scripture is set forth. To remove this jealousy, the Question was stated and put,( Christian Quaker, part. 2. p. 243.) as in the Name and Person of such Opposers, thus; What did the Blood of Christ that was  shed bespeak? And what is our Sense of Christ's Blood, and for what end owned? To this G. W. answered thus. First, It( viz. The Blood of Christ that was  shed) did bespeak Remission of sin past, to all that truly repent and believe in him. Secondly, Our sense of the Blood of Christ is a living and spiritual sense of the virtue and efficacy of it,( viz. the Blood of Christ that was  shed) as through it we receive Redemption, even the Forgiveness of sins. Thirdly, We really own and confess to the Blood of Christ, both in the History( that is, according to the Scriptural or Written Account given of it by the Holy Evangelists) and in the Mystery( that is, according to our living and spiritual sense of the Virtue and Efficacy of it, as, through it, we have received Redemption, even the Forgiveness of sins) Now what but Malice itself, and that boiled up to the highest degree, could have inferred from hence, that because G. W. owned the Blood of Christ both in the History and in the Mystery, therefore he did not own the Blood of Christ, as it was outwardly  shed, to have any Mystery in it. The Question there was not, whether the Blood of Christ that was outwardly  shed, had a Mystery in it, or no,( for whoever doubted that?) But what that Blood did bespeak, and whether we owned it, or no. To this G. W's Answer was plain and full. It did bespeak Remission of sin past to all that truly Repent and Believe in him. And we really own and confess to the Blood of Christ, both in the History, i.e. e. according to the Account given of it, in the Scriptures; and in the Mystery, i.e. e. according to that living and spiritual sense we have of the Virtue and Efficacy of it, having received Redemption, even the filthiness of Sins through it: and he added, And the value of the one Offering, we do in the Sight of God confess, and own the Blood of Christ, both as  shed for us, and as Sprinkling and Purging our Consciences from dead wo●ks.  
The Words he Cavils at W. P. for,( taken out of his rejoinder to John Faldo, p. 336. 337.) The History is made the greatest Mystery, & to Believe the one, ma ter of greater Difficulty, then to Experience the other: and, 'Tis strange that should be Reputed most Mysterious, which was the Introduction to the Mystery, &c. This is so far from Rendering Christ in his Outward. Appearance or Manifestation, his Conc●ption. Birth, Life, Miracles, Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, &c. but History, or History only( as G. K. suggests) that it plainly acknowledges it to be a Mystery, and only blames the Opponent for Debasing and Lessening the great Mystery of Christ's being Formed and Brought Forth in the heart by Faith, and therein working those Great and Wonderful Works, which are wrought in the truly Regenerate Ones: which was the Mystery, W. P. then defended against his Opponent J. F. from those. Words of the Apostle, Col. 1.27. To whom God would make known what is the Riches of the Glory of this Mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you the hope of glory; which the Mystery of his Conception, Birth, &c. Outwardly, did make way for, and led unto: and J. F's opposing the Outward Mystery to the Inward, and preferring that to this, gave the occasion to W. P. to say, The History is made the greatest Mystery, and to Believe the One( which too many do, with a mere Historical Faith) is made matter of greater difficulty, than to experience the other,( which cannot be done but by & through a Living, Divine, Saving Faith) This W. P. blamed in his Opponents, saying, 'Tis strange that should be reputed most mysterious, which was the Introduction to the Mystery,( as the Outward was to the Inward) and those Transactions( outward Works, Miracles, Cures, &c. wrought by Christ in the Outward Body of Flesh) counted most difficult, that were by the Divine Wisdom of God, ordained as so many facile Representations of what was to be accomplishi●● in Man. In short, said he, it is to lessen, if no●●●ally to exclude, the true Mystery of Godliness, 〈◇〉 is Christ manifest in his Children, their Hope of Glory. And although G.K. doth now fall in with our old Opposer J. Faldo, and spends the Remainder of his Pamphlet in railing at W. P. for this; yet therein he doth but contradict himself in what he writ formerly, when he was of a sounder mind, concering this Great and Heavenly Mystery, Christ within; for in his Book called, The Way cast up, Printed in the Year 1677. he says p. 109. It was a great part of the Mystery that Paul Preached unto the Gentiles, to wit, Christ in the Gentiles, which( says he) Satan and his Ministers, labour●d to hid and obscure, as they do at this present, but Christ and his Ministers labour to make known( as W. P. did against one of those Ministers, who then laboured to hid and obscure it; for which G. K. being himself now become one of Satans Ministers, blames W. P. and falls in with that other against him) in the same place he quotes; Col. 1.27.( the very Text in Controversy between W. P. and I. Faldo) and 1 Tim. 3.16. applying the Mystery mentioned in those Texts, to the inwards Appearance and Formation of Christ in the Heart. and in p. 111. from Gal. 4.19. he saith, Christ is formed in the Saints, so that they are his Mother who bring him forth, by a Spiritual and Divine Birth( for which he Cites Mat. 12.49.) and adds, Thus the Church brought him forth, long after he was outwardly Born and Crucified, and Rose and Ascended,( for which he quotes Rev. 12.5.) is not this a most Sublime Mystery, that the Church should be Mothe● 〈…〉 wi●● by the Prophet is called The Eve●● 〈…〉 ●ther, Isa. ● 16. And in p. 134. having 〈◇〉 the fore-going page.) of the comfortableness of ●●is Doctrine, That we have the Man Jesus Christ so near unto us in Virtue of his Divine Life and Soul, of his Divine Seed and Body extended unto us, and that thi●● he is the Incarnate Word, or Word made 〈◇〉, dwelling in our Flesh, he saith, It is the Work in the Flesh, or 〈◇〉 manifest in Flesh, to wit, in the ●eavenly Flesh, or Manhood of Christ, that is the alone proper and adequate Object of the Contemplation and Enjoyment of the most glorious Angels, as well as of the most holy Souls, as( says he) Paul declared, Great is the Mystery of Godliness, God manifested in the Right, &c. seen of Angels. Observe here( says he) it is not God simply, but God manifest in Flesh, that is seen of Angels, and is believed on in the World. And to manifest that by the Heavenly Flesh, or Manhood of Christ, he doth not mean that Outward Body which Christ took of the Virgin, he adds, that He was both seen of Angels, and believed on in the World, long before he was manifest in that outward Body of Flesh, which was also a most glorious Manifestation, and excelleth in glory as the Outward Manifestations that ever were or shall be; but the Angels and Saints, he says, did ready see him, before that manifestation in Outward Flesh; and the Saints do now really see him, although his outward Body and external Person be not now present for us to behold. And he gives this reason of their seeing him, because he is in them: For, says he, The Word Incarnate, or made Flesh, and called by James the engrafted Word, we do really see, for it dwelleth in us; and unle●● it were made Flesh, or Incarnate, it could 〈◇〉 be i●grafted into us. And again, to prevent any ones mis-thinking, that by Flesh he means the outward Flesh which was taken of the Virgin, he adds, p. 135. The Word was first of all made Flesh, to be the Roo● and Foundation of all other created Beings, and for which they are created. From all which it appears, that G. K. then expounded that Great Mystery of Godliness which the Apostle spake of, 1 Tim. 3.16. to be meant of the manifestation of God in the heavenly Flesh, or Manhood of Christ, which was from the beginning,( long before he took, outward Flesh upon him in which he suffered) and the manifestation and indwelling of that heavenly Flesh, or Manhood of Christ, in the hearts of his People. In vain therefore doth, he cavil at W. P. for maintaining that, which he himself hath so plainly asserted.  
And very idle is he, in saying, p. 27. Seeing the Work of Regeneration and Sanctification in the Saints, is a great Mystery, must we not own him who is the Author, and great Cause of it, to be greater? For whoever questioned that? We all own the Workman to be Greater than the Work; the Author and great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification, to be greater than the Regeneration and Sanctification wrought. And this Author and great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification, we say is Christ; and that chiefly a he is manifested inwardly in the heart: for he works it not in any, but those in whom he is so inwardly manifested. Idle therefore is G. K. in saying, Unless W. P. will say, That it is not Christ without us, but only 〈…〉 the Author and Causes of Regene●●tion. For W. ●. doth not divide Christ without from Christ within,( as our Adversaries would ●o) but doth aclowledge Christ without to be the Author and Cause of Regeneration, but not barely as he is Christ without, and while he is only without; but as he, who is Christ without, is inwardly received by true Faith into the heart, and so comes to be Christ within as well as Christ without.  
Idle and silly he i●●n saying of W. P. Indeed if he can prov● that only Christ within Men, is the Cause of Regeneration, he hath gained his point; but this he will never be able to do. For by retortion, I put upon him, If he can prove, That only Christ, as without Men, is the Cause of Regeneration, he hath gained his point; but this he will never be able to do. For as it is certain that Christ within, where he is received unto the heart by the Faith, doth cause and work Regeneration and Sanctific●●ion there, for it is also certain, that Christ, without doth not work Regeneration or Sanctification in any heart, into which he is not received by Faith.  
Idle and false he is, in saying, p ●8. W. P. maketh Christ without but th● Introduction to the Mystery, Christ within: For the word ( but) is not W. B's, but G. K.'s.  
Idle and false again, in saying, W. P. sets things in opposition, which ought not to be opposed, but joined together: for it was not W. P. but his Opponent J. E. that set the Mystery of Christs outward Appearance and Manifestation in his Outward Body of Flesh, in Opposition to the Inward Mystery of his being 〈◇〉 ●ed and brought forth Inwordly; in the hea●●, of Believers.  
Idle and grossly false again, and self-confuting also, in saying, W. P. pe●●en●s most grossly those words of the Apostle, Paul, 1 Tim. 3.16. Without controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the Flesh, justified in the Spirit, &c. Jumbling two places of Scripture together, and confounding their sense,( viz. 1 Tim. 3.16. and Col. 1.27.) Whereas, 1st, W. P. is so far from jumbling those two places together, or perverting that first place, 1 Tim. 3.16. ●hat( so far as I observe) he doth not at all mention that place, 1 Tim. 3.16. or the words of it 〈◇〉 ●n any of those pages G. K. hath cited out of his rejoinder to J. Faldo. But 2dly, G. K. himself, in his Way cast up, p. 109. hath( if I may use his own word) jumbled those two places of Scripture together, and confounded their sense( that is, as I understand him, rendered them both of one sense) where he says, It was a great part of the Mystery that Paul preached unto the Gentiles, to wit Christ 〈◇〉 Gentiles: And says, See Colos. 1.27. To whom God would make known what is the Riches of the glory of this Mystery in the Gentiles; and Eph. 1.8. he preached the unsearchable Riches of Christ in the Gentiles. And 1 Tim. 3.16. God manifest in the Flesh, preached in the Gentiles; so the Greek( says he) in all these places, but the Translators of the Bible, not understanding this so blessed and comfortable a Truth, have Translated these places( among) and not( in) whereas if Christ was among them, he was also in them, seeing he was not outwardly present among them, in his Body of Flesh. Thus G. K. By 〈◇〉 is ●●●●n, that he did then Expound both ●●●se Text Job. ●. 27. and 1 Tim. 3.16.) 〈…〉 and 〈◇〉 Time sense and signification; and that he did apply the words of the Apostle, in 1 Tim. 3.16. to the inward mystery of Christ's inward Appearance, and Manifestation with 〈◇〉 in the Hearts of Believers, explaining the words( God manifest in the Flesh, as preached in the Gentiles.) And if so to Expound, or Apply them, be to pervert them, and that( as 〈◇〉 ●ays) most grossly; G. K. himself is the gross Perverter of them, having, as I have shewed, so expounded and applied them. He should therefore have first corrected himself which not having done, it is a most gross place of Impudence in him to fly thus fiercely, and fall thus foully on W. P. for that which himself is guilty of, and W. P. is not.  
Many more Passages might be brought out of that Book of G. K'●, called, The Way ●ast up, printed to the Year 1677. to show how much G. K. did formerly admire, and contend for, this great Mystery, Christ formed in the Saints, which now he seems to make so light of, in comparison of the Mystery of Christ's Incarnation, or only taking Flesh in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, as he expressed it, p. 104. In p. 157. he calls it a Wonderful Mystery; This wonderful Mystery, says he, Christ himself doth clearly hold forth; John 17.23. I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one. Observe here, says he, an excellent Order, Christ in the Saints, and God in Christ; so that as in respect of Union, God is not immediately in us, nor immediately united with us, not 〈◇〉 with him: But God is in Christ, and Christ is 〈◇〉 us; and so God through Christ is in us. And thus, says he, Christ doth declare himself to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man, as his is in them: Thou in me, and I in them. Here Christ is the Middle-man or Mediator, as being in the Saints, which confutes the gross and most comfortless Doctrine of the Presbyterians and others, who affirm that Christ as Mediator is only without us, in Heaven, and is not Mediator in us; whereas he himself in this place hath declared the contrary, Though me, and I in them, that they may be made perfect in one. And a little lower, in p. 158. he adds, If Christ be Mediator in the Saints, then he is Man, or the word Incarnate in them, &c.  
The rest of his Pamphlet is mostly made up of Railing, chiefly against W. P. and that in a style so scornful, scurrilous, and rude, as rather deserves Contempt than Answer. And therefore I intend at this time to return him no other, than what he gave his Opponent, in his Way cast up, p. 168. 169. viz. It were a needless labour to follow him, in all the rest of his Discourse, or to give a particular Reply to every Sentence, the whole containing no Arguments, to prove us guilty of such things. He had done more as a Man, and as a Christian, to have charged us with some things that we did truly hold, and if he did suppose them to be Errors, to have endeavoured to refute them with solid Arguments, brought from Scripture and sound Reason; nothing of which he hath done, but raileth on from the beginning to the end. It seemeth verily, that he is better skilled in the Art of Railing, than in the way of Disputing. But, says he, I shall take notice of one thing before I leave him. And so, say I, shall I take notice of one or two things, before I leave him.  
One is, that he says, p. 31. He hath divers other gross and vile Errors wherewith to Charge G. W. and W. P. but that he shall keep these others to a further reserve. To which I say, If he hath not others, but spake this only for a vapouring Threat, he has  told a positive Untruth. If he hath others, that he thinks to be gross and vile Errors,( though they shall prove as far from being so, as these are which he hath brought already) yet in concealing them, and keeping them to a further Reserve, he acts not charitably, nor honestly, nor like a Christian, with respect either to the Persons charged, or to others. For if he believes the things he hath to Charge on them, are gross and vile Errors, he ought with all speed first to have acquainted them with them, that they might repent of them, and explain or amend them, if they be such; which if they refused to do after due Conviction, then to have informed others of them, that they, being forewarned, might not be misled by them. This, Christian Charity( had it been in him) would have lead him to; ●nd common Honesty( had he had it) would have taught him, not to put Men under the imputation of gross and vile Errors, by a general Charge, and keep the Proofs back. But as the Reader may reasoanbly guess, by what has ●een already brought forth, what sort of Mouse and may expect; upon the next Delivery of this Caledonian Mountain: So he may plainly see, by these Political Reserves, that not Conscience● nor any thing of kin to a godly Concern; but Envy, Revenge, and crafty Contrivance, to do( as he thinks) the greatest mischief to the Persons and Profession he is turned against, have been the prevailing Motives on him, to this his evil Undertaking, though it be also to cloud and invalidate his own former Spiritual Testimonies.  
The other thing I take notice of is; the Demand he makes to W. P. of a public Meeting, in order to his being proved an Apostate, which he says W. P. called him in the Meeting at Ratcliff. And to countenance his Demand, he urges the Example of the Baptists, who( he says) having heard his Complaint against Thomas Hicks, will rise in judgement against W. P. if he will not hear this Complaint of his against him. How far W. P. might have condescended to have answered his Demand, in case he had found him in a composed Mind, and that Sincerity and Ingenuity had had any place in him, I know not: But I am persuaded if he had, he would not have been drawn to it by the reason t'other urges, of the Baptist's Example in the Case of T. Hicks, between which and this there is no parallel. For in that, there was a People concerned on each side: For T. Hicks had assaulted and slandered the whole People called Quakers, and was himself both of a People, and backed by a People. Whereas W. P's calling G. K. Apostate, affects no Body, that I know of, but himself, and himself but justly; neither is G. K. of any People now, so far as I can understand, though he hovers over a sort of scattered Company, for a while, till he can find where to settle more to his Advantage. Nor do I think W. P. would have thought the most public Meeting public enough, to have proved him an Apostate in, ( had that work been now to do) but rather have chosen to have done it by the Press; compared to which, the most public Meeting is but private. I say, had that work been now to do, because I reckon G. K. hath saved W. P. that labour ( which yet would not have been great) and in the two Pamphlets he hath since published,( to which this is intended for an Answer) hath so plainly, fully and effectually proved himself an Apostate, from the People called Quakers, from his own former Testimonies for them, and their Christian Doctrine; that it would be but a sort of Tautology, and a questioning the sufficiency of G. K's performance, ( which in that part has been most successful) for W. P. to add any thing to it. And indeed, it was but fit G. K. should do this necessary Office for himself; for as he has worded his Demand, he seems to have bespoke a public Meeting, that he might have done it himself there. Hear it in his own words thus. And now I propose this just Demand to W. pen, that whereas at Ratcliff Meeting, some few weeks ago, he called me an Apostate, and judged me so to be in the Name of the Lord, That he give me an Opportunity,( either at Ratcliff Meeting, where he passed this Sentence in a public Meeting against me, or Grace-Church-Street Meeting, or any other public Meeting of the People called Quakers, in or about London) to make good his Charge against me, &c. See here the Sum of G. K's Demand of W. P. viz. That he give me( says G. K.) an Opportunity, to make good his Charge against me, as if he wanted such an Opportunity to prove himself an Apostate;( for as for all that is interposed in the Sentence, relating to the Choice of Place, either at Ratcliff, or Grace-Church-Street, or any other public Meeting, &c. it is but, in Grammatical Construction, a Parenthesis,( as 'tis now marked above) and without injury to the sense, may be taken away, or transposed.) That ever such a Rabbi of the Rabbi's, such an Arch-Grammarian, should thus befool himself, and not see it! Whence may one suppose this to come, but from a strange Infatuation, and judicial Blindness, suffered by Providence to come upon him, for his little less than idolising his Learning and Parts? But as in this Demand he has discovered his Folly: So in the Book wherein he makes this Demand, and in the other he printed presently after it, he himself hath so thoroughly proved the Charge, of his being an Apostate, that there was no need for him to demand a further Opportunity for the doing it, as there is no Cause for W. P. to give it.  
The 12th of the 5th Month, 1695. T. E.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
THat it may further appear, how Injurious G. K. hath been to G. W. and W. P. in charging them with denying, or dis-esteeming the Man Christ, and the Virtue or Efficacy of his Blood, I have thought fit here to add some Passages, which( in reading) I observed in some of their Books, and in those chiefly, out of which he hath framed his Cavils against them.  
In the Book, called, The Light and Life of Christ wi hin, &c. G. W. says, p. 39. We never denied the Man Christ, nor that he took upon him Flesh, or was Born of the Virgin according to the Flesh, nor did we ever deny Christ to be the Saviour. But as for those Expressions, God-Man, being Born of Mary, we do not find them in the Scriptures, nor do we red that Mary was the Mother of God, but in the Pope's Canons, Articles, &c.  
In the same Book, p. 52. he asks his Opponent, Is it good Doctrine to say, that that Blood,( or Life) which sanctifies and justifies true Believers in all Ages, is not in Being? When Sanctification, purging the Conscience, &c. is a real Work, can it be done by a thing that is not? Then adds, ' And yet we know that Christ the One Offering, the Living Sacrifice, and the Blood of the Covenant, which cleanseth them that walk in the Light, 1 John 1.7. is still in being, and was throughout Ages, and he is said to be a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World, and made his Grave with the Wicked, &c. And that his Sufferings do all testify for God, his Love and Good-will; though being reconciled through his Death, we are saved by his Life, Rom. 5.10.  
Again, in the same Book, p. 59. Christ, the One Offering, was the Man peculiarly ordained, or appointed of God, both to bear the Sins of many, to end the many Offerings under the Law; and in all his Example and Sufferings, that were permitted to be laid on him, he both answered, fulfilled and ended the outward Part and Administration of the Law and Shadows, and performed the Father's Will therein; and was particularly Eyed and Prophesied of accordingly by the Holy Prophets; and through all his Sufferings in the Flesh, he gave an Universal Testimony, and Consecrated a New and Living Way, even through the veil, that is to say, his Flesh, that the Way into the most Holy might be manifest.  
And in the Book called, Christ ascended above the Clouds, p. 18, 19. G. W. saith, And further, to take off Objections and Scruples, I confess, that, according to the Flesh, Jesus Christ came of the Seed of David; and the Body that he took upon him, or that was prepared for him to do the Will of God in upon Earth, was a real( and not a fantastical) Body: And that, according to the Flesh, he was put to Death, or died for our Sins,( according to the Scriptures) and was butted, and rose again the the third day, and was after seen of the Disciples, and of above five hundred Brethren at once, &c.  
And in the Book called, The Divinity of Christ, &c. p. 45. G. W. saith, His( Christ's) Suffering as a Man, or in the Flesh, without the Gates at Jerusalem, was all acceptable to God; his Soul was also made an Offering for Sin, and he was a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World: But the Mystery, virtue, and Effects of his Sufferings none knows, but they that believe in his Name, and receive the Righteousness of Faith.  
In the same Book, p. 49. he saith, The Power of Christ, and his blessed Effects in his Death, acceptable Sacrifice, &c. we own, more than they( meaning his Opponents, Tho. Vincent, and other Presbyterian Priests) for he gave himself to redeem Man from Sin and Transgression, and the servitude of it; and his Blood purgeth the Conscience, Cleanseth from all Sin, his Flesh is given for the Life of the World, that man may come to rise out of Sin, and live again to God in Perfect Righteousness: God hath set him forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood, to declare his Righteousness for the Remission of Sins past, through the Forbearance of God, Rom. 3.25.  
And in the Second Part of the same Book,( in a page. unfigured, but it is the next but one to p. 72.) he says, Neither would we have any Unreverent and Slighty Contests entertained, on any hand; about the Sufferings, Afflictions and Death of Christ, in the least, to lessen or undervalue them.  
And in the Book called, The Christian Quaker, 2d. part, p. 97. G. W. saith. To prevent these Mens Scruples concerning out owning the man Christ, or the Son of man in Glory, I tell them seriously, that I do Confess, both to his Miraculous Conception by the Power of the Holy Spirit, Overshadowing the Virgin Mary, and to his being Born of her according to the Flesh, and so that he took upon him a Real Body( and not a Fantastical) and that he was Real Man, come of the Seed of Abraham; and that he, in the days of his Flesh, preached Righteousness, wrought Miracles, was crucified and put to death by wicked hands; that he was butted, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures; and after he arose, he appeared diversely, or in divers forms and manners, he really appeared to many Brethren, 1 Cor. 15. and afterwards ascended into Glory; being Translated according to the Wisdom and Power of the heavenly Father, and is glorified with the same Glory which he had with the Father, before the World began, &c.  
And in the same part of the same Book, p. 103. he saith, It is none of our Assertion, That Christ, in his Death and Sufferings, was but only a Pattern or Example of that which must be wrought over again in us,( which was the Adversaries Objection against us) for though we own him to have left an Example; yet he was more than an Example; and he did not only end the Types, but was a Sacrifice and Offering for Mankind, and opened the New and Living Way, giving Testimony of Gods free Love towards all, and making way for the enforcing of the New Testament, or Covenant of Life.  
Again, Ibid. p. 149. We never denied the Man Christ Jesus, nor him to be Christ, that was born of the Virgin, according to the Flesh.  
Again, Ibid, p. 150. Far be it from us to deny Christ being truly Man, because we confess his Divinity, or to deny him in any of his Appearances either in the Flesh or Spirit: For he was truly Christ, the Son of God, when miraculously conceived and born of the Virgin Mary; and his Name was also called Immanuel, God with us: Now, dare you say, That all these eminent Names, and Divine Appellations given to him, when in the flesh, did most properly and originally belong to the Flesh or Body, and not rather to something more Eminent and Divine therein?  
Again, Ibid. p. 223. Though the phrase, [ Merit of Christs Blood and Sufferings] be not a Scripture-phrase, yet the Worth and Value thereof, with respect to Mans Salvation, we never dis-esteemed, since we knew the true and spiritual Application, virtue, and Effects of his Blood, &c. through his Light and Spirit, to the purging our Consciences, Cleansing and Justifying, &c.  
Thus far out of G. W.'s Writings; and much more might be brought to the same effect.  
And in that Book called, The Christian Quaker, and his Divine Testimony Vindicated, out of which G. K. hath taken much of his Charge against W. pen, many Testimonies are born to that outward Appearance of Christ in the Flesh, of which these that follow are some.  
But notwithstanding the same Light and Life, with that which afterwards clothed itself with that Outward Body, did in measure inwardly appear for the Salvation of the Souls of Men; yet, as I have often said, Never did that Life so eminently put forth itself for that end, as in that Sanctified and Prepared Body; so that what he then Suffered and Did in that Transcendent Manifestation, may by way of Eminency assume the whole Work unto itself, that he ever did before, or might do afterwards. For doubtless, that very Light, Life and Power, which dwelled in that Fleshly Tabernacle eminently was the Convincer, Condemner, Saviour and Redeemer; yet not only as confined to that Body, but as revealed in the hearts of Men, &c. Christian Quaker, part 1st, p. 101.  
Ibid. p. 102. But I further confess, That his Righteous Life, with respect to his Appearance in that Body, was grieved by Sin, and that the Weight of the Iniquity of the whole World, with the Concernment of its Eternal Well-being, lay hard upon him, nor was his Manhood insensible of it. &c.  
Again, ibid. The invisible, Spiritual and Divine Life, Principle, or Nature, was the Root and Fountain of all, which is sometimes ascribed in Scripture to the Body, by that common Figure, or way of Speaking amongst Men, the Thing containing( which was the Body) for the Thing contained( which was the Eternal Power, Wisdom, Life, &c.) Not that we would irreverently rob the holy Body of whatsoever acknowledgement is justly due; nor yet separate that God joined: Though I confess, with holy Fear, I dare not attribute to an Eternal prepared Being, that which is the natural, proper and only Work of the Divine Light and Life to operate and effect.  
Again, ibid. p. 104. We do confess, that though the Eternal Power, Life and Light, which inhabited that holy Person, which was Born at Nazareth, was and is chiefly and eminently the Saviour,( For there is no Saviour besides me, saith God, Hos. 13.4.) Yet that it was Instrumentally a Saviour, as prepared and chosen for the Work which Christ had then to do in it; which was actually to the Salvation of some, and intentionally of the whole World, &c.  
Again, ibid. p. 107. But there is yet a further Benefit that accrueth by the Blood of Christ, viz. That Christ is a Propitiation and Redemption to such as have Faith in it; for though I still place the stress of particular Benefit upon the Light, Life and Spirit revealed, witnessed in every particular: Yet in that general Appearance there was a general Benefit justly to be attributed unto the Blood of that very Body of Christ, to wit, that it did propitiate. For however it might draw stupendious Judgments upon the Heads of those who were Authors of that Dismal Tragedy, and died impenitent: Yet doubtless, it thus far turned to very great Account, in that it was a most precious Offering in the sight of the Lord, and drew God's Love the more eminently unto Mankind, at least such as should believe in his Name, &c.  
Again, ibid. p. 108. Yet doubtless greatly did it influence to some singular Tenderness, and peculiar Regard unto all such, who should believe in his Name, among other of his weighty Performances, for the sake of that last and greatest of all his External Acts, the resisting unto Blood, for the Spiritual good of the World, thereby offering up himself upon the across, through the Power of the Eternal Spirit, that Remission of Sin( God's Bounty to the World) might be preached in his Name, and in his very Blood too, as that, which was the most ratifying of all his Bodily Sufferings. And indeed, therefore might it seem meet to the Holy Ghost, that Redemption, Propitiation and Remission should be declared, and held forth in the Blood of Christ unto all, that have right Faith therein,( Rom. 3.25. Eph. 1.7.)— because it implies a firm Belief, that Christ was come in the Flesh, and that none could then have him as their Propitiation or Redemption, who withstood the acknowledgement of, and Belief in his visible Appearance, which John tells us, some denied and withstood.  
Again, ibid. p. 109. Consider what I say, with this Qualification, that ultimately and chiefly, not wholly and exclusively, the Divine Life in that Body was the Redeemer. For the Sufferings of that holy Body of Jesus had an engaging and procuring Virtue in them, though the Divine Life was that Fountain from whence originally it came. And as the Life declared and preached forth itself through that holy Body; so who did come to the Benefit procured by the Divine Life, could only do it through an hearty Confession to it, as appearing in that Body, &c.  
Again, ibid. p. 110. It was never intended that any should barely rest in that( viz. the knowledge of the outward Appearance or Manifestation of Christ in the Body prepared for him;) but press after the Knowledge of Christ by Faith in some thing farther, and beyond that Body in which he appeared, not excluding our Belief in that too.  
Again, ibid. p. 111. By Christ's visible Appearance, and in his Name, was Remission, Pardon, or Forgiveness preached, or held forth to the whole World, upon their believing therein, more eminently than ever. And a few Lines lower,— ' Which hath been in all former Ages, but never so eminently held forth to the World, as by the Coming of Jesus Christ in the Flesh,  
Again, ibid. p. 112. Nor is this all the Good the Life and Sufferings of that blessed Manhood brought unto the World. For, having been enabled so effectually to perform the Will of God living, and so patiently suffer the Will of wicked Men dying, therein freely offering up his most Innocent Life for the World: He certainly obtained exceeding great and precious Gifts, which, as every Man comes to believe in the Light, wherewith Christ Jesus hath enlightened him, and to be lead by it, he shall assuredly feel a particular Benefit to him, accrueing from that general one, procured by him who so laid down his Life for the World.  
Again, in the same page., We cannot but aclowledge him a Saviour in that very Manifestation, or Coming in that prepared Body, &c.  
And again, in p. 113. In short, he was the general Saviour in that eminent Appearance at Jerusalem, in which he did so many great and good things for Mankind: And a particular Saviour, as we find him in our Hearts an Holy Light, showing Sin, reproving for Sin, and Converting from it into the holy Nature of the Light, to be Flesh of his Flesh, and Bone of his Bone. Thus far out of that one Book of W. P's.  
Now for a Close, let me add one Testimony from G. Keith himself; it is in his Appendix to his Book, called, Immediate Revelation not ceased, p. 243. where he says thus; And here I give the Reader an Advertisement, that although the World's Searchers,( I suppose it should be Teachers) and Professors of Christ in the Letter, accuse us as Deniers of Christ, at least as Man, yet that the Doctrine and Principles of the People called Quakers, as well as the People, do indeed more aclowledge the Man Christ Jesus, and do more impute all our Blessings and Mercies that are given us of God, as conveyed unto us through him, unto the Man Jesus, than any of them all, &c. This is so full a Testimony for the Quakers, and against himself, that I shall not need to add more; save only to observe to the Reader, that G. K. published this Testimony, on Behalf of the People called Quakers, long after those Books were printed, out of which he now picks his Cavils against them.  
T. E.   

ERRATA.  
page. 13. Line 17. for have r. had. p. 14. l. 31. r. sa●●. p. 29. l. 33. deal well as. p. 39. l. 1. after extravagant, deal the Comma. p. 43. l. 30. f. Lamp, r. Lump. p. 44. l. 26. f. Race, r. Case. p. 45. l. 29. f. seasonable, r. reasonable. p. 58. l. 12. d. contradicts. p. 59. l. 26. r. discretion. l. 30. f. opened, r. owned. p. 60. l. 29. f. formerly, r. formally. p. 62. l. 9. f. two. r. to. p. 63. l. 29. r. Terms. p. 70. l. 11. f. the comparing, r. comparing the. p. 71. l. 16. r. stately. l. 25. r. things. p. 73. l. 16. d. and. p. 86. l. 13. f. there, r. their. p. 93. l. 24. r. Opponents. p. 94. l. 21. d. those. p. 100. l. 29. r. Blood. p. 109. l. 26. f. Paul's, r. Paul. p. 111. l. 32. f. own, r. one. p. 115. last line r. t●●● of. p. 134. l. 21. r. where. p. 135. l. 11. r. God's.  
The END.