George Keith's VINDICATION From The Forgeries & Abuses OF T. Hick, & W. Kiffin, With the rest of his Confederate Brethren of the Barbican-Meeting, held London the 28th of the 6th Month, 1674.  
Printed 1674.   

George Keith's VINDICATION FROM THE Forgeries and Abuses of T. Hicks, W. Kiffin, etc.  
HAving waited long for an Opportunity to vindicate my Innocency from the Forgeries and Abuses of T. Hicks and W. Kiffin, with the rest of the Confederates of the Barbican-Meeting, held at London the 28th of the 6th Month, 1674. In which Meeting they publicly abused me behind my Back, when I was not present to answer for myself, nor could be present, having gone out of England into another Nation several Days before any Thing was published of their Barbican-Meeting: And seeing I was publicly injured both by T. H. and them, as others of my Friends and Brethren were, I judged it reasonable to desire a public Meeting with them, that I might have an Occasion as publicly to clear myself, as I was publicly abused; therefore I joined Issue with my Friends G. Whitehead, W. Penn and S. Crisp, who were also publicly abused with me, in divers Letters to desire them to give us a public Meeting for clearing ourselves of the Forgeries of T. H. One Meeting they granted us at Barbican, the 9th of the 8th Month; but so loath were they to hear us make good our Charge against both him and them, that the Meeting of that Day was spent, and yet our Proof of the very first Artiole of our Charge not taken by them into Consideration: Another public Meeting we appointed ourselves, which was reasonable, seeing they still deferred to hear us prove our Charge against T. H. but T. Hick● did not come to this Meeting, though he was greatly concerned in it, and had timely notice given him thereof, only some other Baptists▪ with Jeremy Ives, as personating T. H. did appear; but neither at this Meeting (by Reason of their most unreasonabl● evading our Charge) got we over the first Article; and since that time they seemed to yield to another Meeting, wherein my Charge against T. H. might be heard; but withal told our Friends and us, that they would not hear any other Thing until T. H. should be heard in what he could object against the Quakers, as being No Christians: And though I had a great Desire to have a public Opportunity to clear my Innocency, yet seeing I could not have it, but upon that unreasonable Condition, invented by them only to evade the Pursuance of our Charge against T. H. I yielded rather to want that Opportunity, especially seeing the Meeting they yielded unto was not a Public Meeting as the former, but a private Meeting of some select Persons on each Side: And indeed, such a private Meeting hath but little Service in it to clear one publicly from a public Abuse, which I have found in Part by Experience; for having had a private Meeting with T. H. before divers Witnesses on each Side, wherein I had openly proved him to have grossly abused me, and brought him to that Strait, that he had nothing to answer, but that he referred himself to the Hearers; and some of the Hearers openly affirmed, who were neither of the Baptists nor Quakers, that T. H. had abused me: Yet after all this I find T. H. and his Confederate Brothren renew the former Abuse: And having now for a long Time waited the Opportunity of a public Meeting with those Baptists, to clear myself of the Abuse of T. H. and his Confederates, and yet cannot obtain it; I find it lying as a Weight upon me, to take an Occasion of this Nature to clear myself, not so much for myself or my own Reputation, I can truly say, as for the Truth●s sake, and to remove the stumbling-Block out of the Way of the Simple.  
My first Charge against T. H. is of Forgery, in his Continuation of the Dialogue▪ p. 49 where forgedly he brings me in saying thus, This Christ came to seek and save, and all his Ministers preached People to this, the lost in Man, that it might be found, a lost God, a lost Christ; this was the Sum and Substance of their Doctrine, In Rev. p. 75, 76. Upon which he thus discanteth (after he hath abused my Words both by adding and diminishing) Blush O Heavens, and be astonished O Earth! was ever such a Thing as this hear● of before, That Jesus Christ came to seek and save a lost God, a lost Christ? Was ever God and Christ in a lost Condition?  
Now Friendly and Impartial Reader, if thou lovest to be undeceived, and be but willing to see the Abuse and Forgery of T. H. in this Particular; do but read the Words of my Book, as they stand entirely therein, and without any more Pains thou wilt see the Deceit and Forgery, first, by adding the Word THIS, saying, This Christ came to seek and save; and then by alleging on me, that I say, Jesus Christ came to seek and save a lost God, a lost Christ, which Passage is gross Forgery and Abuse; for I no where say in my Book, That Jesus Christ came to seek and save a lost God, a lost Christ: It's true, in p. 76. I cite the Words of Christ, That Jesus Christ came to seek and save that which was lost; but I do not say that Lost, which Christ came to seek and save, was God, nor indeed is it deducible from my Words by any just or reasonable Consequence and God, who searcheth my Heart, knoweth, I never intended any such Thing, as that Christ came to seek and save a lost God. I cited the Words of Christ, and I hope there is no Blasphemy in them, viz. Jesus Christ came to seek and save that which was lost; but these Words I do not apply to God and Christ, as if God and Christ were that lost which Christ came to seek and save; and this may appear from my Words themselves, which run by Way of Parallel or Comparison, viz. And as Jesus Christ came to seek and save the lost; so all his Ministers ever preached People to this, the lost in them, that it might be found, that they may find a lost God, a lost Christ, whom they had lost, and from whom they were separated by their Sins; This was the Sum and Substance of their Doctrine, to turn them to God, and to his Son Jesus Christ, near them: Now in these my Words I draw a Parallel, wherein two Propositions run parallel, in both which the Word Lost is; but it is not, nor cannot in both Propositions be understood of God and Christ; but only in the last Proposition by Lost is understood God and Christ, whom they had lost, and from whom they (viz. Men) were separated by their Sins: I say, in these two parallel Propositions, by lost cannot be meant one & the same thing, no more then in Rom. 5. 18. where it is said, As by the Offence of one Judgement is come on all to Condemnation; so by the Righteousness of one the free Gift is come upon all to Justification of Life: Here the Word One in both Propositions is used; but in the one it signifieth the first Adam, in the other it signifieth Christ the second Adam; so by Lost in the first Proposition, I mean Men, who were lost, or lost Sinners, as also that pure Formation or Creation in Men, which by Man's Fall came to be vailed and slain in him, but not annihilated; and by Lost in the second Proposition. I understand God and Christ, whom Men had lost, and so all the true Ministers of Christ preached Men to God and Christ whom they had lost, that they might find him, to wit, God and Christ, who was near them in their own House, that is, in their own Hearts; and so the plain and open Sense of my Words is this, That as Jesus Christ came to seek and save the lost Souls of Men, and to raise up and recover the Image of God in Men again; so all the true Ministers of Christ preached People to God and Christ near them, whom though Men had lost, yet were near unto them, to save them, and to bring them again into the Enjoyment of him, and Fellowship with him.  
The second Part of T. H. his Forgery in this Particular, is by diminishing from my Words, and cutting off from a perfect Sentence the last Part of it, which is explanatory of the first, viz. from this perfect and entire Sentence— That they may find a lost God, a lost Christ, whom they had lost, and from whom they were separated by their Sins; which Words [whom they had lost, and from whom they were separated by their Sins] do clear me, that I did not mean that God or Christ was in a lost Condition, or that God had lost himself, but that Men by their Sins had lost God and Christ: And indeed, that which gave me Occasion to use the Word Lost, was the Parable of Christ concerning the Woman having lost her Pieee of Silver in her House, Luke 15. 8, 9 And she lighteth a Candle, and sweepeth the House, and seeketh diligently till she find it, and when she findeth it, she calleth her Friends and maketh merry with them, through Joy that the lost Piece of Money is found: And this House (say I) where the lost Piece of Money was lost, and is found, is Man's Heart; it was lost by Adam's Fall, yet it remained still in the House, and in the House in Man's Heart it's to be found; and the Candle is lighted in this House, and it must be swept to find it: By all which Christ Jesus points at this Principle, his Kingdom or Appearance by his Light in Man's Heart; and the Scope of all these Parables is, to turn in Man's Mind to the Kingdom, the Light of Christ in the Heart, to find the Treasure, the Pearl, the lost Piece of Money there, to find it where it was lost, and is hid; for there it is to be enjoyed and possessed; no Man possesses more of God or Christ but what is revealed in himself: See my Book, Im. Rev. p. 75. Now of this twofold Abuse and Forgery, I charge not only T. H. but W. K. and his Confederate Brethren of the Barbican-Meeting, who in their Book, called, The Quakers Appeal Answered, fall into the same Error with T. H. both adding and diminishing: first adding, as where they say. This Christ came to seek and save, and all his Ministers preached People to this, the Lost in Man, a Lost God, a Lost Christ; where they make the Word This relate to God and Christ; this is an absolute Forgery; for neither in p. 75. nor p. 76. do I use the Word, This Christ came to seek and save, far less do I apply it to God. And secondly, diminishing, a lost God, a lost Christ, leaving out the last Part of the Sentence [whom they had lost, and from whom they were separate by their Sins.] In a Meeting with T. H. before many Witnesses I accused him of this Forgery, telling him, that if he would take this Liberty to add to, and diminish from a Man's Words, he might as well allege from the Scripture, that it saith, There is not a God, by leaving out the Words, The Fool hath said in his Heart: But to this T. H. answered three Things in that private Meeting I had with him, which he there setteth down in the Book called, The Quakers Appeal answered; to all which three▪ I did particularly answer, whereof he saith nothing, and in that hath dealt unfairly and cowardly: But seeing he telleth them over again, I shall now take them into Consideration; First, saith T. H. It's true, those Words were added, viz. Whom they had lost; yet they were no otherwise serviceable to him, then as a Blind to deceive his unwary Reader; for first, by Lost in his whole Discourse in that Book cited is intended of God and Christ, which he there calls, the Principle, Kingdom or Appearance of Christ by his Light in Man's Heart. To this I answer, If I had used these Words but as a Blind to deceive the unwary Reader, as he allegeth, that is no Excuse for him to leave them out; he ought to have set down the perfect Sentence, and if there had been any Deceit in it, to have shown it; but it is manifest that these Words were wilfully and deliberately clipped off by him, because they do so apparently cross his naughty Design of abusing me: But next I say, it's but a sorry and unreasonable Allegiance, that I use these Words only as a Blind to deceive the unwary Reader; his Reasons are too void and empty of Reason to prove any such Thing, as first, that by Lost in his whole Discourse in that Book cited is intended of God and Christ. I answer, This is utterly false, and a most gross Untruth; for in several Places in my Book I speak expressly of lost Man, and the Soul of Man, as lost and saved; for Proof of which, see these following Quotations out of my Book of Immediate Revelation, as p. 39 within two Lines of the End I say, The Gospel is the preaching the glad Tidings of Salvation unto poor lost Man by Jesus Christ himself immediately in his Heart: Mark here two Things; first, that I expressly speak of lost Man; secondly, that the Gospel is the preaching the Glad Tidings of Salvation unto poor lost Man, whereas according to T. H. his Forgery it had been, the preaching the glad Tidings of Salvation unto lost God, which is Blasphemous. Again, see p. 13. line 35. where I say, So that as the Lord remembreth Mercy unto lost Man in the midst of Wrath, etc. Mark again, here I speak of lost Man. Again, in this same p. 13. lin. 5, 6, 7, 8. I speak expressly of the Salvation of the Soul, and of its Delivery from the Bondage of Corruption, line 13. Again in this same p. 13. about the middle of the Page I say, Whereas the Mercy goeth forth in the Judgement towards Man in the fallen State to recover and convert him: Mark, I do not say, according to T. H. his base Forgery) whereas the Mercy goeth forth in the Judgement towards God in a lost Condition, to recover and convert God; but towards Man in the fallen State to recover and convert him: Also I do very plainly and expressly distinguish betwixt the Soul or Mind of Man, and the Seed of God in the Soul: see p. 8. lin. 9, 10, 11, 12. and p. 23. lin. 28, 29, 30. etc. I need not cite more Places, these being sufficient to show T. H. his ba●e Forgery. Secondly, saith T. H. The Sense I put upon the Word Lost, is no other than what W. P. allows, Lost, saith he, as taken by T. H. is meant of Man's lost Condition, and as there used by G. K. is understood of God and Christ, whom Man had lost, Reas. ag. Rail. p. 61. To this I answer; This Cover of T. H. is as narrow and weak as the former; for W. P. saith true, that by Lost I understand God and Christ whom Man had lost, when I say that they may find a lost God a lost Christ, etc. But when I say, Christ came to seek and save that which was lost; by Lost in this Proposition, neither I, nor W. P. say, that by Lost, which Christ came to seek and save, is meant God; so that by the Word Lost in my Book, I do not mean only God and Christ, nor always, but sometimes Man, and sometimes that pure Creation or Formation of Holiness & Righteousness which God placed in Man in the Beginning, and sometimes God, whom Men had lost; and so impudently wicked is T. H. that he blames me for an Expression, and yet useth the same Expression himself, and commendeth it as safely spoken, viz. If you had said, that Jesus Christ came to seek and save Sinners who were in a lost Condition, and to stir them up to seek after God whom they had lost, you had spoken safely: And in very deed, I speak all this upon the Matter, as is clear from the aforesaid Quotations: But I desire the Reader to take notice, that the whole Stress of T. H. his Allegation against me is, that by lost in all my Book, I intent only God and Christ, as appeareth not only from what he saith in the Quakers Appeal answered, but what he saith in his third Dialogue, p. 35. It's true (saith T. H.) George Keith speaks of People finding a lost God, whom they had lost; but still if Lost be meant only God and Christ, how can Christ be said to seek & save a lost God? Here T. H. supposeth a gross Untruth, which is a Forgery, to wit, That by Lost I mean only God and Christ; I have shown the contrary above by plain Citations out of my Book.  
The third Reason of T. H. for▪ his Allegation is, That the Sense in which he represented me, was according to the Opinions of others of my Friends. To this I answer (as I formerly did) that now, since he could not prove his Forged Sense from my own Words, and he goeth about to prove it from the Words of other Men, is not fair, nor answerable to his Undertaking, which was to prove that G. K. said so: And how doth he seek to prove this? Because W. P. or J. N. said so: But by this beggarly Evasion he may run round in a Circle continually, and do nothing, but manifest his own Impudence; for how will he prove, that W. P. I. N. or any real Quaker said so? he may as well say, Because G. K. said so: But I challenge him to produce the words of any of my Friends that ever said, That God and Christ was in a lost Condition, and that Christ came to seek and save a lost God.  
There remaineth another Citation out of my Book of Immediate Revelation, made use of by T. H. not in his Dialogues, but in The Quakers Appeal Answered: But surely he could not have fallen upon a Place in all my Book that doth more manifestly clear me, and demonstrate T. H. to be a vile Forger, in alleging on me, that I say, Christ came to seek and save a Lost God, a Lost Christ: For none of all these words cited by him, speak any thing of Christ his seeking and saving a Lost God; but, That God sent his Son into the World, to seek and save the Work of his own Hands, that of the pure Creation in man, which though shut up in Death, yet it remained, and perished not, as to its being. Now I challenge T. H. to show me where I, or any of my Friends say, That the Work of God's own Hands is God, or that the pure Creation in man is God. It is true, according to the Scripture express Terms and way of speaking, we say, The Seed is Christ, and that Christ doth suffer, and is crucified in some; and that he is form, or hath a spiritual Formation in his Saints, by which he lives and indwelleth in them; and this spiritual Formation of him is called Christ by way of Synecdoche, as being a Member of him; or by way of Metonymy, as being that Immediate Principle, in which he dwelleth, and through which he revealeth himself unto his Saints; who is the Eternal, the Infinite and Uncreated Word and Light, who is God over all, blessed forever. But that ever I, or any have said, that this Formation is God himself, or Christ as he is God, I put T. H. to show it, and if he cannot, he is a Forger. And when we say, Christ is crucified or slain in Wicked Men, let T. H. show where we say, that Christ, as in himself, or as he is God, is or can be crucified or slain in any man or men: This I am sure he cannot produce from any words of mine; nor do I think he can from any words of any man upon Earth, called a Quaker; yea, T. Hicks clears me sufficiently of this Charge, by citing my words, where I say (Immed. Revelat. pag. 77.) That Christ, as he is and lives in himself, being an Eternal Incorruptible Life, he cannot be crucified, but in his Appearance he may be. This cleareth me, that I hold it to be true, that Christ as God cannot be crucified or slain in men; and yet the Scripture speaketh in divers places of his being crucified in them, as Rev. 9 Gal. 3. 1. Heb. 6, 6. which therefore must be understood in respect of his Appearance or Manifestation in men, and not as God, or as in himself; for to affirm, that Christ as he is God, can be crucified or die, I hold it one of the greatest of Blasphemies.  
Thus, Reader, having cleared myself of the Forgeries of T. H. as to this Particular, I refer it to that which is noble, ingenuous and impartial in thy Conscience, to judge whether T. H's Blush O Heavens, and be Astonished O Earth, be not applicable to himself for his so grossly and impudently Abusing both me and the World, by his so base and impudent Forgery.  
One thing more I shall take notice of here, and that is T. H's alleging, That G. K. affirmed to him (in the hearing of many credible Witnesses) That the Book entitled, Imm. Revelat. was written by the Immediate Inspiration of the Spirit of God. But to what Purpose T. H. produceth this here (granting that I had said these words) is evident, to wit, That he may cast an Odium upon me, it being a great Crime in his Esteem, for any man in these days to pretend to the Immediate Inspiration of the Spirit of God. But T. H. may in this be disappointed, as in other his base Designs: However, he doth clear himself (to give him his due) sufficiently, as to this Matter, to wit, That he is not guilty of the least Pretence to the Inspiration (or In-breathing) of the Spirit of God, which Inspiration of t●e Almighty giveth Understanding, as the Scripture saith expressly; and he who speaks or writes of the things of God without Inspiration, he doth it without a true and right Understanding, as is manifest in the scribble of this Forger T. H. And surely he that writeth Lies, Perversions, Forgeries and Slanders against any man or men, it is easy to determine what Spirit hath inspired him so to do, even the Spirit of him who was a Liar and Murderer from the beginning. And as to the Inspiration of the blessed Spirit of God, it is that by which my Soul was first made alive unto God, and by which it is preserved alive unto this day, to serve him, and give Honour and Glory to his Name: And by the same did I receive a true Understanding from God of what I did write in that Book, and had his Direction therein, in some measure; which Inspiration of the Spirit I do not appropriate to myself; for I know that it is given in the several Measures of it, according to the good Pleasure of God, to every true Christian; and every true Minister of Christ hath it to lead him and direct him what to Say, Preach and Write for the Service of others; and they who have it not, and believe not such a thing, but deny it, and are Enemies to it, I testify for God, they are neither true Ministers of Christ, nor true Christians I remember a good Saying of Bernard, concerning the Necessity of Inspiration unto Prayer▪ Tepida est omnis oratio, quam non prevenit inspiratio, i. e. All Prayer is Lukewarm, which doth not proceed from Inspiration. And said Augustine, Tractat. Ep. John 3. There is an inward Master, who teacheth; Christ teacheth; his Inspiration teacheth; where his Inspiration and his Unction is not, the Words outwardly make a Noise in vain. Many other Places could I cite, both out of Scripture and Antiquity, concerning the Necessity of the Inspiration of God to be with his People in all Age. But when we speak of the Inspirations of God, that are given to us of God in our waiting upon him, and by which we are directed and helped what to Speak, or Pray, or Write, we do not hereby Equal ourselves, our Writings or Labours unto the Apostles, and their Labours and Writings: But a Measure of the same Spirit we have received, which they had, which Spirit is one; and it is not idle, or without Operation in them who receive it; and its Operation is, to breath (or inspire) Life, Light, Power, Virtue, Holiness and Righteousness, Wisdom and Knowledge in them who attend unto the same.  
Thus having cleared myself of the weightiest Abuse of T. H. I proceed to give the Reader a small Hint at other 2 or 3 Particulars, which are also very abusive and gross: One is, that because I say in my Book of Immed. Rev. pag. 4. That there is a Necessity for these under the New Covenant-Dispensation to have things revealed unto them from the Lord (that are not Essentials of the Christian-Religion, but things relating to our Conversation in the World, see pag. 3.) which are not to be found in Scripture particularly, not so much as by Consequence: T▪ H. brings in these words as a Proof, That according to the Quakers Principle they may excuse the Payment of a Just Debt, under Pretence it is not revealed unto them, Contin. Dial. pag. 69. But surely had not Impudence come to a wonderful Excess in T. H. he could never have committed such a gross Abuse on my words, which are so far from giving the least seeming Colour for a Ground to build his Forgery on, that in the same place I expressly say, pag. 4. That the Spirit of the Lord never can nor doth command us to do things which are intrinsically, or in their own Nature Evil, or contrary to the Scriptures: But refusing to pay a just Debt is contrary to the Scriptures; As also, it is particularly found in the Scripture, that we owe nothing to any Man but Love; therefore we should pay our Debts: This Consequence is clear, and therefore none but such a wretched Forger as T. H. could have cast such a Groundless Calumny on my innocent words. And like unto this is that other mentioned by T. H. of a Woman's casting off her relation unto her Husband, as warranted by our Principle, and my words before cited, Contin. Dialog. p. 62. But that no such thing is to be done, is particularly to be found in Scripture and therefore T. H. is an abusive Forger and Perverter. Another Abuse of T. H. against me is, that he doth quote me as a Proof, That the Seed of God only in man is taught, and nothing else, Contin. Dialog. pag. 66. Also, That God preacheth to himself, and is obeyed only by himself, Contin. Dialog. pag. 84. His alleged Proof is, that I say, The Great work of the Ministry is, to point the Hearers to this (that is, the Seed) in them. Now let any of the weakest Capacity judge if there be any thing in these words, giving the least Colour of Proof, that either the Seed only in man is taught, or that God preacheth to himself: Surely, a Blush O Heavens, and be astonished O Earth, may very deservedly be given at the Wickedness of T. H. for his so gross Perversion: Who but one of the most wretched Impudence would draw such a Conclusion, The Work of the Ministers was, to point and direct the Hearers to the Seed in them, and to Christ in them, and God in them; Therefore only the Seed in them, and only God and Christ in them is Taught? whereas the plain contrary doth follow, viz. That God and Christ in that pure and divine Seed in men is the Teacher, and not the Taught; and this is the very Aim and Design of my Book, that God and Christ is the Immediate Teacher of his People in their Hearts. Another of his Abuses is, That because I say, Jesus Christ is both the Seedsman, the Seed, and also the Precious Fruit; he allegeth on me, that I say, The Work of Sanctification in us, is Christ himself, Contin. Dialog. pag. 57 Now when I say, Christ Jesus is the Fruit, I speak according to plain Scripture, which speaketh of Christ form in the Saints; so Christ form in the Saints is the precious Fruit or Product, which he himself, as he is that Eternal and Divine Word, bringeth forth in them: But the Work of Sanctification, is the Effect of Christ thus form, and not Christ himself, unless we speak metonymically, as when the Cause is sometimes called by the Name of the Effect; as, when Paul said, That he, to wit, Christ, is made unto us Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification, etc.  
Thus, Reader, having briefly cleared myself of T. H. his Forgeries and Abuses, unjustly put upon me, I shall conclude with giving thee a small Hint, to let thee see, that notwithstanding T. H's Pretence so much to Logic, how weak he is therein, and that is, his Illogical and Unreasonable Conclusion, that because G. F. saith [A man by the Spirit may discern where the Seed is in Death, and where it is not in Death; and where the Soul is living, and where it is in Death] From this Thomas Hicks infers, That, according to G. F. there is no Distinction betwixt the Seed and the Soul, but the Seed is the Soul: Observe, saith T. H. he speaks the same of the Seed he doth of the Soul. Now let us improve this sort of T. H's Logic and by the very same way of Reasoning we may prove Thomas Hicks to be an Ass or a Horse: as thus, An Ass or a Horse is a Living Creature, but Mortal, and T. H. is a Living Creature, but Mortal; an Ass hath a Head, a Nose, Face and Ears, and so hath T. Hicks; an Ass can Eat, Drink, Sleep, and so can T. Hicks; here I speak the same of an Ass that I do of T. H. and so I may do of an Horse, a Toad, a Viper, a Dog, a Rat; the Conclusion therefore is, according to T. H's Logic, that T. Hicks is an Ass, a Horse, etc. But true Logic, and indeed true Understanding, as we are men, teacheth us, That it is not the Agreement of some, but of all essential or necessary Attributes, that make Two to be one and the same Thing. Now though some things may be said in common, both of the Soul and the Seed; yet other things cannot: As, the Soul is Corruptible, can and doth sin; but the Seed of God is Incorruptible, sinneth not, nor can sin; therefore the one is not the other. But that the Seed is burdened, or laden as a Cart with Sheaves, by the Sinner, will not prove, That the Seed can sin; for Christ Jesus bore our Sins, and they were a Load and Burden upon him, who yet sinned not, nor ever could sin.  
Another Instance I shall give of his Weakness and Shallowness in another of his Reasonings against G. F. as where he thus reasoneth pag. 21. Dial. 3. But if every spiritual Substance be Infinite in itself (as Fox concludeth) then either there are no Angels, or Angels are no spiritual Substances; or if they be spiritual Substances, they are no Creatures, but Infinite in themselves; and consequently, as many Angels as there are, so many Gods there must be.  
But note, Reader, G. F. spoke but of a spiritual Substance in the singular Number; Now if G. F. or any other should affirm, that Nothing is purely a Spirit or spiritual Substance, properly and strictly so considered simple & without all Composition of Body, but God only, what hath T. Hicks to say against it, why, then it will follow, that an Angel is not a spiritual Substance? Well! But how will he prove, that an Angel is a spiritual Substance (I say, strictly and properly considered) that is to say, That an Angel hath no sort of Body or Corporeity; but is altogether Spirit, without all sort of Body, however subtle or spiritual? Surely, many Learned and Pious Men, both ancient and modern, hold that Angels and Souls of Men have some subtle or spiritual Body; and so are not altogether simple, uncompounded Being's, but consisting of Spirit and Body. But these Contemplations (I confess) are too high for T. Hicks' weak and shallow Brain.  George Keith. 
THE END.