MORE WORK FOR George Keith; BEING GEORGE KEITH's Vindication of the People Called QUAKERS As well in his Part of the Dispute held at Wheelers-Street the 16th Day of the 8th Month, 1674. As in his Treatise against Thomas Hicks, and other Baptists, with the rest of their Confederate Brethren at the Barbican Dispute, held at London the 28th of the 6th Month, 1674.  
LONDON: Printed and Sold by T. soul near the Meeting-House in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-street. 1696.   

THE PREFACE.  
READER,  
I Here present thee with George Keith's Vindication of the People called Quakers, and Himself, against the Abuses and Forgeries( as he calls them) of T. Hicks, and other Baptists, which is not to revive Old Controsies, but to show G. K. to himself and the World: By all which thou wilt find,  
1. That G. Keith did then profess himself a Quaker.  
2. That he Defended us as one with us, against the Clamours and unjust dealings of the Baptists. Which consisted in a dissatisfaction of our Faith to the World; As if we did not believe in Jesus Christ as born of the Virgin Mary, his Death, Sufferings, Resurrection, and Mediation; and denied the Divine Authority of the Scriptures of Truth; and the Resurrection of the Dead to Rewards and Punishments.  
3. That he came amongst us upon a Divine Call, and the Work of Gods Spirit; that he felt Life to his Soul in obeying it, and Gods presence with him, in defending of us, as his People. Thus far the following Treatise shows.  
4. G. Keith after all this, hath had Stomach Rank enough to lick up even T. Hicks Vomit, and Wrath enough to Spew it out at his Quondam Friends, saying the same things of us, that T. H. and other Baptists did; Terming us Antichristians, Sadduces,& heretics of the deepest die. Such as no Christian Country would tolerate. Worse then Popery, and which the Papists themselves are better Christians then to own or suffer: Calling upon Church and State, Conformists and Dissenters, whom once he esteemed Incompetent Judges of us and Religion( for he owned none for Ministers or Christians, but those that were so made and Commissioned by the Immediate Workings and Motions of the Spirit of God, which they deny) to red us, remark us, and writ against us, and to follow our Meetings closely, with Disputations to confounded us. For it seems nothing else but a total Subversion of us, as a People, can appease the rage of this angry Man. It is plain he threatens our Books, if not us, with a Judicial Sentence, perhaps the Fire; for his Words have smoke, if not Coals in them: See his Narrative of the Meeting at Turners-Hall; and especially a new piece since Published, called Antichrists, and Sadduces Detected. 'tis well for us the Law, de Haeretico Comburendo, is repealed; Else I fear, the Spirit that Acts this poor Man, if it had as much Credit as Bitterness, would quickly try the Experiment, and enact us to Smith-Field. But what is astonishing, and as incredible as Transubstantiation, G. K. for all this will have it that he is by no means altered, and at the same time finds fault with us, for being the same we were when he was so much in Love with us. If he be the same he was, and we are the same we were, why do we disagree? Why are we not one, as once we were? Is there any difference between being One,& being the same? Yet We, that he says are both of us the same we were, are not, it seems of the same mind we were, but as opposite as Light and Darkness, Truth and Error, Christ and Antichrist; for then we were his Beloved, his best Friends, and most dear Brethren; Blessing God for the Knowledge of his way we professed, and the Fellowship he had therein with us. Then we were sound, and the People of God, and true Christians; and our Adversaries Unjust in their Charges against us. He writ for us, disputed for us; and made it an argument, why he should be believed against them, because he knew us better, and what we held, and had writ, than they did; as he tells cotton madder, and the New England Clergy; and in our behalf, and in defence of our writings( his present, pretended, stumbling-block) as well as our profession, he Challenges, Opposes, and Exposes them as Zealously as he used to do Twenty Years ago, and this was but Four Years since, in his Book he writ against them; yet now we are Antichrists, Sadduces and the worst of heretics. And how Pray, did all this wonderful change come about? Who has better Informed him? How came he convinced? Why he has lately red our Books, and weighed them better then he had done. But Reader, is this Credible, of so Learned a Man, so ancient a Professor, and a Minister too, of our way? What! To be a Member of a Church, near 30 Years and a Teacher in it, whose Doctrines he did not know, till his resentment of the dissatisfaction of some of the People called Quakers, in America, with his uncooth Phrases and Jewish Fables, first opened his Eyes; the common Door at which most Apostates, in all Ages, have turned out from the Communion of the true Christian Society. Well! But if we are changed, whatever he be, he allows us to be better, that is, more Orthodox now than we were: We have mended a little then, and he would have us in management to complete the Work. But if we are more Orthodox, he ought then to be nearer us,& we better treated; and yet alas, he was never further from us, nor more envious to us, than now.  
But poor man, he would not be thought to be Changed, though he but too plainly and loudly proves he is not the same he was; yet we must be what we were, or he loses the advantage he thinks he has upon us, for it is with our older Books he findeth the most fault. A severe Dilemma! But Alas, who can help it? Can his Philosophy, at this dead lift, dis-entangle him from this difficulty? Surely not. His Spirit is altered, his apprehensions of our Principle are changed, both as to the Extent and Efficacy of it; and his Sentiments of us are altered. In vain then does he say he is the same G. K. he was, when with us; he is no more that G. K. than he is G. Whitehead, or W. pen, or T. Elwood, he once esteemed and embraced, and now inveighs against; tho' perhaps he is but too much, what he represents them to be. After all this, brag of him that will, Boast of him that please; Those that love Charity, Truth, and impartiality at any rate, can never think him a mighty Purchase: If yet he be any bodies, or can Stick at any Mark, or indeed be his own Man. A Person without judgement, with all his Learning; without Temper in his Converse, and without Stability in his Religion. To conclude, his Passion and Resentment, have overset him; and of a Friend, made him an open Enemy; and He that was always so, has embraced this opportunity, and Improves it against us; and throws this Bomb among us, to blow us up, now he can hunt us no longer with his Hiltons and his Collingwoods, those Notorious Informers; and that his other lesser Tools, lately employed by him, have spent their Ammunition, and are sunk in their Stock and Credit; As will this noisy froward Deserter in a little time, after all his threats and charges. I hearty wish th●● any thing may provoke him to Repentance; for what I writ, is for his Correction, and not for his Destruction. And one would think, if not hope, that beholding himself well what he was, whence fallen, and why and how; and considering his former Enjoymnets, when in fellowship with us, and his present vexation, and disappointment; having at last few, if any proselytes from among us. with the dismal prospect of the Consequence of so fearful a Lapse at last, as to the other World, might work some Remorse and Contrition upon him, before it be too late. Which I hearty wish he may find, to the glory of Gods Grace, the recovery and happiness of his own poor Soul, and the comfort of his Wounded and Sorrowful Friends; that stand much readier, after all his evil entreatment of them, to forgive, than retaliate or upbraid, his Grievous and Provoking Backslidings.  
Now Reader, I leave thee: Peruse, with Care, Temper and Justice, what follows, and then Judge if G. K. be a Competent Person to be received by any against us, or that we ought to be the worse thought of, for his Invectives who does but Actum Agere, do the same thing over again for he gives no new Discovery, what he does, is no more then what has been done to his Hand, by our common Enemies, and against which he hath so often Engaged in our common defence.   


See Brief Narrative, of the Meeting as Wheelers-Street, &c. Published by W. Mead, and others, Printed 1674. beginning at page. 46.   W. pen, 
Let us come to the Matter; I offer this to Jeremiah Ives; I will stand to all that T. H. hath instanced out of our Books, and prove him a Forger concerning them. Here hath been much Discourse beside the End of our Meeting; and this, I say, is the Matter of our Meeting, to prove T. H. guilty of Forgery, and if thou J. I. does personate T. H. let me go on, and I will prove thee a Forger; let me go on, and I will prove thee a Forger; red the Charge.  [ The People with one voice cry, red the Charge.] T. P. 
R. T. We will have no Charge red.  W. pen, 
Let T. Plant himself red the Charge.  [ The Baptists renew their Noise.] W. pen, 
My friendly Auditors, the Matter is, whether we are Christians or not; T. H. saith no, we are not, and he will prove it out of our Books: I charge him with Forgery therein, and am ready to prove it, ere I go out of this Place; Is not this fair?  [ The People generally cry out, This is fair, this is fair.] W. pen, 
If you do not intend to proceed upon the Charge as it is here, but T. H. must do it, let him come where we shall agree to meet, and let our Charge be red, and indifferent Persons ●ear what we have to say, and so let it be Published to the World.  T. Plant, 
The Quakers are offended that T. H. hath so writ; we begun upon the first Article of the Charge at Barbican; we come hither this day upo● the defence of that Article, Hicks opposing the christian to the Quaker; and therefore, because the Doctrines you hold are inconsistent with Christian Religion; we come to prove you no Christians; but a● to the particular Charge, T. H. himself must be concerned in it; therefore there must be such a Meeting; for if he should speak as much as we do here, he might be quiter spent or killed: So for as much as you do not consent to the Discourse as offered, to prove a Quaker no Christian, we will appoint such a Meeting as you say, and then let it be Printed to the World.  W. pen, 
T. Hicks hath writ such things, I grant, I come to prove him a Forger therein, and that he is no Christian: Will not this answer to every ones Expectation and Understanding? He saith, C●r●stian so, Quaker so: Wilt thou prove it T. H. say we? Yea, saith he, I will ●et b●te you one Word, as he said before: So then t●e Person grieved is the Quaker; here is the G●ie●an●e, that T. H. has Forged things under Our Name; we call upon the Baptists to hear us: If T. H. had Lungs and Voic● enough a● Barbican, surely he might have been one of ●●ur here; but seeing he has declined to appear, we do consent to such a Meeting, to hear the Debate, and when it is heard, before an Auditory agreed on, being taken by Writers, that it go forth to the World.  J. Ives, 
I would have added, as we met by Consent at first, so let us meet by Consent again, that you may not be encumbered with Propositions at the next Meeting; so will ye refer the Matter to such a Meeting? And will ye now closely fall to hearing the Proof, that ye are no Christians?  W. pen, 
Hath J. Ives Lungs enough now to go upon that, and not upon our Charge as it lieth?  J. Ives, 
There is some things in that which I cannot manage; that which I can manage is, that you are No Christians, and that I will manage against you.  W. pen, 
If J. I. will debate all here, let us begin; if n●● all here, then why any here? Is this to proceed methodically? Nay, but it offers Violence to the Order agreed upon.  J. Ives, 
I am well satisfied to enter into that Debate, to prove you No Christians.  W. pen, 
We are not afraid to meet with thee, nor to give an Account of our Faith and Belief in our Lord Jesus Christ, That he was born of the Virgin Mary, that he preached a Heavenly Doctrine, confirmed it by many Miracles, was crucified and rose again, and ascended into Glory, and is God over all, blessed for ever. But if all must not be debated here, for which we do arraign them, and have exhibited our Charge, which they refuse( so much as to have red) we might very justly refuse to answer to them in this Matter.  J. Ives, 
W. pen hath made a Confession of his Faith; I will prove that what he hath said is Equivocation, and that you are no Christians; but what you say is rather to accommodate your Party to the Vulgar: I do say, the Quakers are No Christians; but what they say is Equivocation: I am here now to prove you no Christians; if you will not consent to that, we will break up the Meeting.  W. pen, 
Well, let him then.  W. welsh, 
Take notice, this is a Condescension on our Part: The Charge on our part was to prove T. H. a Forger; this I say, is a Condescension.  J. Ives, 
It is no Condescension.  W. pen, 
It is a receding from the Matter, therefore a Condescension; but go on Jeremy, and do thy utmost Strength; we shall answer thee.  J. Ives, 
I say, it is no Condescension, that those that are charged to be no Christians, to hear themselves proved so. If W. P. be no Christian, then all that he hath said concerning Christ is Equivocation: But W. P. is no Christian; Therefore, &c.  [ Here the Baptists made merry among themselves.] G. Keith, 
Although, according to the Method of Dispute, we are not obliged to hear thy Proofs, until first our Proof be heard against T. H. that he is a Forger( we being the first plaintiffs) yet we will condescend to lear J. I. his Proofs in this Matter.  J. Ives, 
W. pen is my Adversary, not that Gentleman; I charge W. P. with Equivocation.  G. Keith, 
I do not interpose, as being diffident in W. P. for I believe he is able enough to answer thee; but I sympathise with him, because of his Bodily Strength.  W. pen, 
If T. Plant, R. tailor, and the Man that hath his Two Reasons yet behind, have had Liberty to speak one after another, I think I may have the Liberty to let another speak sometimes for me.  G. Keith, 
My Name is in all the Articles of Agreement concerning those Meetings, and am abused as well as W. P. so I may well, being a fresh Man, and having Regard to his Bodily Strength, be admitted to speak in this Matter.  J. Ives, 
Will you then undertake it?  G. Keith, 
Yea, I am ready to undertake it, and by the Lord's Assistance to debate it with thee for a Pair of Hours.  J. Ives, 
How say you? for a Pair of Hours? Yea, yea, six if ye will. Speak out, my Hearing is not good; and you being a Stranger, I cannot well understand your Dialect.  G. Keith, 
I shall repeat J. is Argument: If W. P. be no Christian, he is an Equivocator: But he is no Christian, therefore he is an Equivocator. I deny 
Then G. K. not only allowed W. pen, but the Quakers, to be Christians, and as such adheared to them, appeared with them, and defended them; they are not changed, then G. Keith must be changed, since now he calls them heretics, Antichrists and Sadduces; if so, an Apostate from them, and a Changeling to other Sentiments.  both his Propositions of his Argument: Let him prove the Consequence of his first Proposition; that is, That if he be no Christian, then an Equivocator.  
— Russel, That Man speaks so Scottish, that we cannot well understand him.  G. Keith, 
Though my Voice is small, yet it is clear and distinct: And I being a Stranger, not of the English Nation, but of another Nation, ye should be more civil to me, as a Stranger: I hope I shall speak intelligibly.  J. Ives, 
You have done well; Have you done like a scholar? like a Disputant?  G. Keith, 
show me wherein I erred or failed.  J. Ives, 
You have not repeated my Argument right: My Argument was founded upon W. P's Confession of his Faith, that he believed, that Jesus Christ is God and Man, and that he dyed for Sins. My Argument is this; If W. P. be No Christian, then all he hath said is Equivocation: But W. P. is no Christian; Ergo.  G. Keith, 
I deny both his Propositions.  [ Here J. Ives stirred up the People to Lightness, that G. K. thereby was interrupted.] J. Ives, 
Do you understand the Propositions?  G. Keith, 
I suppose I do, but I shall repeat them before the Auditory, that ye may know I understand them: Thy Argument is thus: If W. P. be no Christian, then he is an Equivocator: But W. P. is no Christian; therefore he is an Equivocator.  J. Ives, 
That was not my Argument.  G. Keith, 
I understood it so, to be the same upon the Matter.  J. Ives, 
My Argument was this; If W. P. be no Christian, then all his Confessions of Christ are Equivocations: But W. P. is no Christian; therefore, &c.  G. Keith, 
Well, the Argument is the same upon the Matter, as I said before: I deny both the Propositions.  [ Here J. I. stirred up again to Laughter, as if G. K. had given some ridiculous or unlawful Answer.] G. Keith, 
I desire to be heard, and I shall show, that my Answer is Lawful and Orderly, according to the Method of Dispute; for Arguments have two Propositions and a Conclusion; Now the Conclusion follows always the weaker Proposition; and so if one of the Propositions be false, the Conclusion is false: But sometimes both the Propositions are false, as in this Case; though I had denied only his second Proposition, it might suffice; yet the first Proposition being false, I also deny it; for it implies that all who are not Christians are Equivocators, which is false, for a man, from a true Conviction may confess both to the Divinity and Manhood of Christ, and yet not be converted to be a true Christian, and this Confession of his is no Equivocation.  J. Ives, 
I speak not in general, but in particular of W. P.  G. Keith, 
But the Proposition is founded upon the General, and so if it hold not in the General, it doth not hold in the Particular of W. P.  J. Ives, 
Will you lay the Stress upon the denial of the first Proposition?  G. Keith, 
Not the whole, but a part of it.  [ J. Ives again stirred up to Lightness.] G. Keith, 
I desire to be heard peaceably, I am a Stranger that liveth about four hundred Miles off this place; ye ought to be more Civil to me, that I am a Stranger, of another Nation; not seek to oppress me, because I am of little Stature: I ought to be heard without Interruption; for I have stayed about this Month, waiting on this Occasion. I say, I lay not the whole Stress upon the denial of the first Proposition, but a part of it; for the Conclusion leaneth not in whole upon one Proposition, but on both.  J. Ives, 
I prove the Consequence of the first Proposition: He who confesseth what he denieth, his Confessions are Equivocations; But W. P. confesseth what he denieth, &c.  G. Keith, 
I shall repeat the Argument, that ye may know if I have heard it aright: He who confesseth what he denies in his Heart, his Confessions are Equivocations; But W. P. confesseth what he denieth in his Heart, &c.  J. Ives, 
You repeat my Argument wrong; I did not say, what he denieth in his Heart, but what he denieth.  [ Reader, Take notice, J. Ives denies that he said, W. P. denieth in his Heart what he confessed; So it is but a Verbal denial, that J. Ives doth allege.] G. Keith, 
Well, I deny the second Proposition, to wit, 
Here G. Keith, thou clearest W. P. of Equivocation, and with him the People called Quakers, for J. Ives opposed the People in the Name and Person of W. P. yet now thou wilt have them deceitful and insincere in what they say as to Christianity; who can think thou wert Sincere then, and not Insincere now? But more of this anon.  That W. P. confesseth what he denieth.  [ Note, Reader, That because I did not commonly use the Terms mayor and Minor, J. Ives laughed and stirred up the People to Laughter: Whereto I replied, That I waved the Terms, mayor and Minor, for the sake of the Vulgar, because they were not so easy to be understood, as first and second Proposition.] J. Ives, 
I prove that W. P. confesseth what he denieth: If W. P. denieth Jesus Christ, he confesseth what he denieth; But W. P. denieth Jesus Christ, &c.  G. Keith, 
I deny the second 
If W. P. did then believe in Jesus Christ, as thou maintainedst; Pray when did he fall from that Faith? Wouldst thou defend what was not true? Who then should care, what thou sayest against him? And if true, of what value is thy present Clamour?  Proposition, viz. That W. P. denieth Jesus Christ.  J. Ives, 
I prove it thus: He who hath no Rule of his Faith and practise, denieth Jesus Christ: But W. P. hath no Rule of his Faith and practise; Therefore, &c.  G. Keith, 
I deny again 
If W. P. and the People called Quakers under that Name had not only true Faith in Christ, but also a Right Rule for their Faith, what more is requisite for a true Christian? And if true Christians, how are they now heretics, Antichrists and Sadduces? This shows thy fall, and not thou their Error.  the second Proposition, viz. That W. P. hath no Rule for his Faith and practise.  J. Ives, 
I prove the second Proposition: If W. P. have any Rule for his Faith and practise, it must either be immediate Inspiration, or the Scripture: But W. P. hath neither immediate Inspiration nor the Scripture for his Rule of Faith and practise; therefore, &c.  G. Keith, 
I deny the second Proposition; for he hath both, viz. immediate Inspiration, as the primary Rule; and the Scripture as the secondary.  J. Ives, 
I prove he hath not immediate Inspiration. He who hath immediate Inspiration for his Rule, must give an Evidence of it in his Ministry unto others, that he is a true Minister of Christ, such as no Impostor can give: But W. pen can give no Evidence of it in his Ministry unto others, that he is a true Minister; therefore, &c.  G. K. 
Here J. I. thou dost transgress the just Laws of Dispute, by an Error called in the Schools. {αβγδ}, that is to say, A Transition from one kind of Matter to another: For first, thou didst undertake to prove, that W. P. was no Christian, and now thou undertakest to prove him to be no Minister; he may be a true Ch●isti●n, and yet not a Minister, so as to be able in words to minister to others; for these two, christian and Minister, are not reciprocal T●rms: Every true Minister is a Christian; but every true Christian is not a Minister.  [ Here again J. I with ●●e Baptists his Confederates stirred up to laugh●er.] G. Kei●h, 
I desire to be heard: To defend W. P. to 
W. P. is again a Christian, and because G. K. beli●ved him so, he so def●nded him; but now denies him to be a Christian, and vilely entreats him for being the same M●n. Is this a Character to G. K's Honour?  be a Minister, is not my present Task, but to be a Christian, that is the present Matter in hand; when this is discussed, I shall not decline the other; therefore J. I. is unreasonab●e to go from the matter of the Dis●u●e to another Matter.  J. I. 
I am content to leave out the Term Minister.  G. Keith, 
I desire the Auditory to take notice of this Advantage against J. Ives, how he passeth from his last Argument; let us hear his next.  J. Ives, 
He who hath immediate Inspiration for his Rule, must have an Evidence, whereby to distinguish it from an Imposture; but W. pen hath no Evidence, whereby to distinguish it from an Imposture; therefore, &c.  G. Keith, 
I deny the second Proposition.  J. Ives, 
He hath no Evidence, because be can show no Evidence, so as to make it appear; for ye know the Maxim, Of that which appeareth not, and of that which is not, is the same Reason.  G. Keith, 
He hath no Evidence, because he can show no Evidence, I deny the Consequence; for a Man may have an Evidence of a thing which he cannot show; and as to that Maxim, De non apparentibus, et non▪ existentibus eadem est ratio, it holdeth not true Universally; but is false in many Cases; as it doth not appear to me, whether the Dutch or French have had the Victory in the last War, must I therefore conclude, that none of them had it?  J. Ives, 
It is true, the Maxim holdeth not in all Cases, but in this it holdeth; for if W. pen have any Evidence that he hath immediate Inspiration, he ought to give a Proof of it to others: Let W. P. prove himself to be a Christian, otherwise we are no● bound to believe him.  G. Keith, 
We do not impose upon you to believe that we are Christians, but recommend it to every Man's Conscience in the sight of God, as he shall witness for us; b●… that is not our present Wor●… 
Is G. K. consistent with himself now? will he allow W. P. and his Friends the same Latitude now, that they may be Cbristians from the Witness in themselves? Than no necessity for any of his new modeled Creeds to Evidence the●… Christianity; then he and the Baptists are still at the sa●… odds about the Evidence of Christianity; then the Quake●… are Christians; for all the Baptists clamours.  to prove ourselves to 〈…〉 Christians, but to answer 〈…〉 I. his Argument, where●… he undertook to prove th●… we are no Christians.  [ Here G. Whitehead offered to speak, but the●… would not suffer him, alleging, that it wa●… agreed upon, that the Dispute should only b●… betwixt J. I. and G. K.] G. Keith, 
I said, I was willing by God's Assistance to undertake it; and so I am ready still▪ finding the Lord present with me; but I did not engage, that none others should speak what they had 
Was GOD's PRESENCE with thee in defending of W. P. and the People called Quakers, against the clamorous Charge of the Baptists, and yet W. P. &c. are Antichrists for holding the very same things they then held: Either thou lyedst in the Name of the Lord, or thou art fallen from that Presence. Would the most Just and Wise God vouchsafe his Presence to encourage a bad Cause? Or would the Holy One so much as wink at Deceit? What dost thou make of God? But, O what, hast thou made of thyself! Either thou hadst no Savour and Discerning of God's Presence, or thou hadst. If thou hadst not, thy Presumption and Blasphemy is very great. If thou hadst, thy judgement now must be very false, for the Cause and People are the same. The Lord over-rule thy Passion, qualify thy Rage, humble thy Mind, and tender thy Heart, and by Contrition restore thee, if it be his Blessed Will.  upon them by any pressing necessity, nor did any others engage to any such thing; but seeing ye will not suffer others to speak, I answer the same with what G. W. hath said, that J. I. goeth again from his Matter, which was to prove W. P. to be no Christian; and instead of proving that, he putteth me to prove that W. P. is a Christian, or that we are Christians. Are all his Proofs come to this Beggarly Shift?  J. Ives, 
If ye can give no Evidence of it, ye are no Christians.  G. Keith, 
What Evidence wouldst thou have? Must I 
What thou saidst then for us against the Baptists, we say now against thee and them that abet thee. They that are gone from the Spirit or deny it, and profess Christ in their natural and prejudiced Estate, being Strangers to the Operations of it, or Rebellious against it, and Quenchers of it, are no Competent Judges of the Truth of our Christianity, for it is hide from them, and that Eye with which they see and judge, never did nor can see and judge of Spiritual things.  be no Christian, because I cannot express my inward Sentiment, to natural and prejudiced Men? We can at least give as good Evidence, that we are Christians, as J. Ives, or any Baptists on Earth can give, that they are Christians; if by Evidence he means a Li●e and practise, answerable to Christianity.  J. Ives, 
I am glad, that at least, ye will parallel ●● with you.  G. Keith, 
I speak modest●… 
Do we George, stand at least upon equal terms with the Baptists, as to Evidence of our being Christians? how cam'st thou then to App●al to the Baptists now, among other parts, against us now as heretics, Antichrists, and Sadduces? Nay, thou dost as good as tell the Baptists, that we can give greater, but what is become of it, I cannot tell, and am hearty sorry thou hast lost thine of being an humble, loving, honest, and tender-hearted Quaker.  we stand, at least upon eq●… ground with you, as to E●…dence: I say, we can give 〈…〉 good Evidence; I do not sa●… we cannot give greater: 〈…〉 you require another outwar●… Evidence, than a good Life o●… practise, as namely, eith●… Miracles, or a verbal Demonstration, then it will follow●… that no dumb Man can be a Christian, because he can give n●… Evidence of it by verbal Demonstration.  [ Here W. P. as having a stronger Voice, began to repeat my Argument, giving the Instance of a dumb Man.] J. Ives, 
I speak nothing of a dumb Man; why do you allege this?  G. Keith, 
I do not say, thou didst allege it; for it was not to thy Advantage; but I alleged it, as making against thee.  [ Here some Baptists denied that G. K. alleged the Instance of a dumb Man; but many of the Auditory that stood near him affirmed, they heard him give the Instance.] J. Ives, 
But 'tis well known W. P. is not a dumb Man: I speak not of Infants or dumb Men.  G. Keith, 
But if a dumb Man, who can give no verbal Demonstration, may be a Christian; it followeth, that others may be Christians, who can't verbally demonstrate it.  J. Ives, 
I speak of Things, not of Persons; I require you to give one Evidence of your Faith and practise.  [ Here T. Plant repeated this Distinction of J. I. that he spake of Things, not Persons; it seems the Man admired it, as a very Learned Distinction.] G. Keith, 
Thou dost vainly Distinguish; for thou speakest both of Persons and Things: Are not W. P. and G. K. Persons? Now thou requirest us ( to wit) W. P. and G. K. to give an Evidence of our Faith and practise, to prove ourselves to be Christians, which is not our present work to do, as is already shewed; and it is sufficient that we have the Witness in ourselves, as the Scripture saith, He that believeth, hath the Witness in himself. And Friends, and all People here present, I have one thing more of great weight to signify unto you, and that is, to tell you, That although the Baptists do falsely accuse us, as deriving our Pedigree from the Jesuits, yet it may appear how near a-kin they are to the Jesuits, seeing I can produce a Jesuit who hath used the very same Argument upon the Matter, against all the Protestants, which the Baptists have this day made use of against us: The Jesuit is one Dempster, his Argument and the whole Prosecution of it, together with the Answers thereunto by one, called a Protestant Minister, J. M. is in Print, the Title of the Book is Baptismus Lucifugus. See, People, how the whole Protestant Cause lieth at the Stake; in the Defence 
WE, WITH ALL TRUE PROTESTANTS, are concerned; shows we were then George, not more Papists than thyself; how comes it I pray thee now, that we must be less Protestants than we were? Do we hold now, what we denied then? Or dost not thou George, deny now, what thou heldst then? At least, thou lookest upon us with another Eye, an Evil Eye, and like the jaundice, it gives a false representation of Objects. This is thy Case, thy Malady; and Repentance must be thy Cure, or thy Case is desperate, and irretrievable.  whereof we, with all true Protestants, are concerned against the Jesuits and Bap●ists, to their own Overthrow, who take up the Papists Arguments against themselves.  J. Ives, 
Give me an Evidence how I may know that you have immediate Revelation for your Faith and practise, from Heaven or from Hell.  G. Keith, 
That is not my Task at present; I do not impose it upon thee so to believe.  J. Ives, 
Then we have done, not a word more.  [ G. Keith offered farther to proceed.] [ J. Ives refused.] W. pen, 
Then let me take up the Argument with T. Plant or Rob. tailor.  [ They refused.] [ G▪ Keith offered to proceed with J. Ives thus.] G. Keith, 
He is not a Jew that is one outwardly▪ but he is a Jew that is one inwardly: I offer to prove myself, by as good Arguments, that I am a Christian, as the best Baptists in the World can produce.  [ J. Ives would not hear, but refused to reassume the Argument.] W. pen: 
J. Ives, T. Plant, R. tailor, What mean you by this Evasive Carriage? Is this the Entertainment we receive from you after our condescension to your Importunities? First, You declined our Charge: Next, Though you pretend to prove us No Christians, you now clamour at us, to prove ourselves Christians; and because we tell you it is not our part at this time, since you undertook to prove us None, you set your Company a Bawling for a Retreat: But that you may see we will follow you into all your SHIFTS, I will undertake the Proof of our being CHRISTIANS, with any of you, upon such Evidences, as Christians and Martyrs have been wont to give; and if they happen to prove No Evidences in your esteem, I will make it appear, that you not only do conclude us, but yourselves, with the best of those you esteem Christians, gross IMPOSTORS.  G. Whitehead, 
Observe how far this Debate is gone.  
1st, The Result of J. Ives, his proving the Quakers no Christians, is turned to a putting it on us to prove ourselves Christians, and W. pen a Minister, which was not the Question.  
2d, That we must Evidence that immediate Revelation is our Rule, or else we are no Christians, but Impostors; but what Evidence that must be( whereby we may convince these prejudiced Opposers) he has not  told us: However be it observed, that if true Christians must show some Outward Evidence of their having immediate Revelation or Inspiration; it follows, that all, even Baptists and others, who now deny both, or say they ceased, are No Christians.  
3d, Suppose we do not, or are not called to give an Outward Evidence or Demonstration of our Christianity, to the Conviction of all who require it, or impose upon us therein; it follows not, that we are No Christians, much less Impostors; for there were some, among whom Christ himself co●ld not do many Miracles, because of their Unbelief; and others that said, He cast out Devils by Beelzebub.[ All true Christians were not Workers of Miracles.] Nor did the Apostles give such Evidence, as made all believe and confess they were true Ministers; for they were counted Deceivers, yet true; and so manifest in many Mens Consciences in the sight of God: And though we profess and experience immediate and Divine Revelation, as the Ground of our Faith and Testimony; yet we do not profess( or look on ourselves as obliged) to make all( that require Signs of us) believe and conf●ss to us, as such, especially, such as are in Enmity and Prejudice against us: However, we hav● a Proof or Evidence in Mens Consciences, &c.  [ Here the Baptists were earnestly urged by very many Persons to continue the Discourse; W P. calling upon them, Do not run away, do not run away; and adding] W. P. 
If so to believe as to have the Witness in a Man's self, be sufficient to render a Man a Christian, as holy Scripture imports; then a Man's b●ing a Christian, depends not upon a distinguishing External Evidence from what an Impostor may give, but the Evidence in himself; otherwise, because an Impostor may make as fair a show, a● a real Christian that hath the Evidence in himself, it would follow, that He is as good a Christian, though he hath no such Witness in himself.  
If He be not a Jew that is one Outward, but HE a true Gospel Jew that is one Inward; then since an Impostor can imita●e the Former, and not the Latter, it follows, that A Man may be a true Jew( that is, a true Christian) who may not exceed an Impostor, as to External Evidence, Words or Forms.  
If the Spirit of God witnessing with the Spirits of the Ancient Christians, that they were Children of God, was a sufficient Evidence thereof; then since no Impostor has that Evidence, and that Evidence is not visible, it follows that a Man may be a Christian by such a Testimony that doth not always distinguish him by outward Observation, to the Eyes of the World, from an Impostor.  
If Flesh and Blood could not reveal Christ, neither could Flesh and Blood see or reveal that Revelation: But will it therefore follow that Revelation was no Evidence in itself, and that Peter was No Christian?  [ Note Reader, whilst W. pen was speaking, J. Ives, T. Plant, R. tailor, &c. went their way; but the Auditory remained, bating it may be, of Two Thousand People, not One Hundred that went away with them.] 
In short, if Jer. Ives intended an Evidence, that is, such as should be convincing to some body, though this is not absolutely necessary in itself, as in the Case of a Man that is born Dumb, or one struck Speechless upon a sick-Bed, &c. yet will it not reach the Terms of J. Ives his Question: And if he intend by an Evidence, such as should be convincing to every Body, then I utterly deny it; for by the same Reason, the greatest of Miracles, and most excellent Argument that the Lord Jesus Christ bestowed upon the unbelieving Jews, would be no Evidence in itself, because not received by them. The Consequence is the horrid Blasphemy of the Pharisees, That he cast out Devils by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. This doth exclude all Martyrs from having a sufficient Evidence because they could not convince their Pesecutors of the Validity of that Evidence.  
I do not doubt the poor Woman that said, She could not dispute for Christ, but she could burn for him, had a sufficient Evidence, and better than an Impostor, that could have made a better verbal Defence. 
Book of Mart. 3. Vol. p. 298.  I remember that J. Bradford, that honest Martyr, gave this Answer to the Arch-Bishop of York, We do believe and know the Scriptures, as Christ's Sheep; not because the Church saith they are the Scriptures; but because they be so, being thereof assured by the same Spirit which spake them. This was all, I red, he gave to the Bishop, as an Evidence of his Faith concerning the Scriptures: Did therefore J. Bradford believe them no more than an Impostor, because an Impostor might say so? Or was there no better Evidence to Protestants of him, than that he was an Impostor?  
Also B. Jewel, one of the learnedst and most ancient Prelates of the Church of England, in his Book against Harding, p. 532, 534. asserts, That without the special Help, Prompting and Revelation of God's Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are to the Reader, be he never so wise or well learned, as the Vision of a Sealed Book: So that, 1st. Insperation was the Rule of their believing and understanding Scripture: 2dly, The Evidence that they and other Christians gave of their Christianity, besides good Words and Works, was, that internal Evidence of the Spirit, which gall. Cradock affirms, gives to know the Spirit, or Fruits of it, in other Men. To conclude, if Articles of Faith, according to Scripture, the Inspiration of the Spirit of Truth, fair Words, and sober Living, and Sufferings, are no Evidence, because imitable, or pretended to by Impostors; or that all such are Impostors, who cannot Evidence their Right to such things; not only Millions in Happiness are questioned, as to their Sincerity, by J. I. but the best among those he accounts Christians, now alive, must be concluded Impostors; and for himself, alas, poor Man! He will prove an IMPOSTOR with a witness.  J. Crook, 
It seems very unreasonable, that he that hath Faith, and is a true Believer, should give an Outward Evidence of his Faith to him that hath no true Faith, or else he must be No Christian; seeing the Scripture saith, and it is true, That there is a white ston, and a New Name written in it, which no Man knows, but he that hath it: And he that hath it in himself, knows ●t certainly to be the True Evidence, when he hea●s it from another; for it answers, as Face to Face in a Glass: And as Job saith, There is an Ear that trieth Words, as the Palate tasteth Meat, &c.  [ Much more was spoken by him to Evidence the Truth of this Assertion, to the Peoples great Contentment; but cannot so particularly and exactly be remembered.] G. Whitehead, 
I have been concerned in many Disputes and Controversies about Religion, and with divers sorts of People; but never met with such unfair Dealing, clamorous Work and hideous noise in Disputes, from any People, as from these Men, though we owe them no ill will; the Lord open their, and all your Understandings: I desire that Seriousness, Sobriety, and the Fear of God may possess all your Hearts, &c.  G. Keith, 
Friends and People, I desire you to take notice, that whereas I said, We had as great Evidences to show that we were Christians, as any Baptists on Earth: I spoken modestly, I could have said more, and now I do say more; for there are two Outward Evidences of a Christian unto others; one is Good Works; another is to Suffer patiently and boldly for the Principles of the Christian Religion: Now the Baptists dare not deny but our Works are as good as their own: And as for our Sufferings in times of Persecution, they commended them far above their own; then they could call us their WALL of Defence betwixt them and the Blows of Persecution; and  told us, they Prayed for us, as divers here present can witness. Note, Reader, if any object that Saying, Not the Suffering, but the Cause makes the Martyr; I say, the Maxim is true; but they have not yet proved, that our Cause is not good; this they did undertake, but have been shamefully foiled in their Pursuance of it, as doth appear to such indifferent and impartial Auditors, as were present both times; and may appear to all such impartial Men, who red these Relations of the whole Matter in Print.  [ J. Crook added a few words more to the People, and concluded the Meeting with his Prayer.]  

George Keith's VINDICATION FROM THE FORGERIES and ABUSES OF T. Hicks, and W. Kiffin, With the rest of his Confederate Brethren of the Barbican-Meeting, held at London the 28th of the 6th Month, 1674.  
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. pen, and S. Crisp, 
They were so indeed then, and are now the same Men, yet by thee opposed and basely exposed, in favour of T. Hicks, so that thou art Tho. Hicks revived.  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 loathe 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 Article 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. Hicks 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 unreasonable 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 straight, 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 Brethren 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 
That is, the Religion of the People called Quakers, which he is gone from▪  the Stumbling-block out of the way of the simplo.  
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, Im. Rev. p. 75, 76. Upon which he thus discanteth( after he hath abused my words both by adding and diminishing) blushy O Heavens, and be astonished O Earth! Was ever such a thing as this heard 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 beest but willing to see the Abuse and Forgery of T. H. in this particular; do but red 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 
And what art thou doing now thyself against that very People and way T. H. so grossly abused, and thou then defendedst miserable Man!  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. 79. I city 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 lose; 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 and the same thing, no more than 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 veiled and slain in him, but not amnihilated; 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; 
Do thy present abetting Ministers of the Church of England, Presbyterians, independents, Anabaptists do so? Thou knowest they do not. What are they then, by thy own assertion? O George, see whence thou art fallen and Repent.  so all the true Ministers of Christ Preached People to God and Christ near them, whom tho' 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 piece 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, 
Brave Doctrine George, what says the B. of H. the D. M. thy Scotch Presbyters, comforming Ministers, to this? What says thy Baptist Auditors to this? This itself must go at last, or thou wilt never do thy business, but they'l leave thee, as thou hast left us.  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 hide; 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 two fold, Abuse and Forgery, I charge not only T. H. but 
Which were Independents, and both sorts of Baptists.  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 
And art thou turned T. Hicks to thy Brethren? Oh uncertain Man.  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 across his naughty Design of abusing me: But next I say, it's but a sorry and unreasonable Allegance, that I use these Words only as a Blind to deceive the unwary Reader; his Reasons are too voided 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 
Thou v●n●uredst far; art thou of this mind still?  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, &c. Mark again, here I speak of lost Man. Again, in this same p. 13. line 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 
Thou canst call things sometimes by their right Names, I see.  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 expressy distinguish betwixt the Soul or Mind of Man, and the Seed of God in the Soul: See p. 8. line 9, 10, 11, 12. and p. 23. line 28, 29, 30, &c. I need not city more Places, these being sufficient to show T. H. his base Forgery. Secondly, Saith, T. H. The Sense I put upon the Word Lost, is no other then 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 
W. P. is mightily beholding to thee, and so thou hast been to him too, as coarsely as thou hast used him since.  understand God and Christ whom Man had lost, when I say, that they may find a lost God a lost Christ, &c. 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 and 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 
More plain dealing with T. Hicks.  Expression, and yet useth the same Expression, and commendeth it as safely spoken, viz. If you had said, that Jesus Christ came to seek and save Sinners who were ia a lost Condition, and to stir them up to seek after God whom they had lost, you had spoken safely: And in very dead, 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 
And could not his harms warn thee; thou seest how ill it was to pervert, how comest thou to lick up T. H's Vomit to spew it out upon thy Brethren?  in all my Book, I intend 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. Its 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 and 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 circled continually, and do nothing, but manifest his own Impudence; for how will he prove, that W. P. J. 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 
A Champion; who would think thou shouldst turn a Judas and Runnegado to thy Friends?  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 fain 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 
An odd Expression, as thou hast many, that were never approved by us, as more exceptionable than any of poor mechanic Writers; and which by not being red by us, but slid over from Scotland into Holland were closely, and hastily Printed.  though shu● 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 th● 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 formed, 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 for ever. But that ever I, or any 
That is, any of the Quakers have said so.  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 
A Defence for us against G. Keith, and the whole World in other Cases: For as T. H. did not distinguish between Christ and his Manifestation, and inferred upon us because the Manifestation could be clouded or extinguished, therefore Christ in himself might; and then say, we say, just so we are taxed with denying the Visible, because we press the Invisible Appearance of Christ, and because we Allegorize Scriptures that have a literal Sense in them, so that they are true both ways; therefore we deny the literal Sense, which is false.  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 blushy O Heavens, and be Astonished O Earth, be be not applicable to himself for his so grossly and impudently Abusing both me and the World, by his so base and 
What must we call this, George, since I hear thou setst up now for mighty soft Words to Adversaries, but I believe thee to have been as good a Man with these, as thy smooth Words to the World, and roughe● to thy Old Friends.  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 
Well George, but in good earnest thou hast said so, and dost as good as say so now, in what follows. How will thy Turners Hall Congregation of the 11th of the 4th Month called June, relish this Doctrine, must the best Book thou ever writst, be expunged the Catalogue?  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 Inbreathing) of the Spirit of God, which Inspiration of the 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 scribbling of this Forger T. H. And surely he that writeth lies, Perversions, 
George thou art warm, but I accuse thee not, for I think he deserved that at least, and thou a great deal more, though not my part at this time to give it thee.  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. 
Now George thou touchest upon the true string O hadst thou kept here, thou hadst been an Happy Man. This I truly believe, madest thee at first a Quaker, and then how beautiful was the way we walked in, and their very Feet that brought glad-tidings to thy Soul. How humble, low and little wast thou in thine own Eyes? How honouring and preferring of poor illiterate Men? How debasing and undervaluing of thy Accademical Education? Then the Tongues and Philosophy were not worthy to untie the shoes Latchets of the Living( though homely) Preachers among the Poor misunderstood, and therefore misrepresented Quakers. But we is me! thou art fallen, thou art degenerated; vain Wisdom, Pride and Passion have beguiled and bewildered thee; and now thou art become a Cage for every unclean bide; thou canst receive any Joque and Jest, and be merry with any, confederate with any, against thy old and once honoured and much valued Friends, and that Fellowship which stands in that Life which made thy Soul alive to God. O that thou mayst return and find space to repent; for at this Door thou must come in again, or never see the Face of God with Joy.  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 writ 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 led him and direct him what to Say, Preach and writ, 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 pervenit 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 city, both out of Scripture and Antiquity, concerning the Necessity of the Inspiration of God to be with his People in all Ages. 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 writ, 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 two or three Particulars, which are also very abusive and gross: One is that because I say in my Book of Immed. Revel. 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 Scripture: But refusing to pay a just Debt is contrary to the Scripture; 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 wretch●d 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 beforecited, 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 obeied 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 blushy 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 
That must be a good Book in my judgement, but what sayest thou now upon thy new topics? What will other Sincere Christians say? Thy new Associates and Abettors? Will this pass with them for Current coin or not? If this will not pass muster with thee, thou art depraved; and if it will, thou wilt not pass with them, or they must turn Quakers too.  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 Seeds-man, 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 formed in the Saints; so Christ formed 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 formed, and not Christ himself, unless we speak m●tonymically, 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, &c.  
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 prove 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 Load, a Viper, a Dog, a Rat; the Conclusion therefore is, according to T. H's logic, that T. Hicks is an Ass, a Horse, &c. 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. spoken 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, simplo, and without all Composition of Body, but God only, what hath T. Hicks 
Though this be Philosophically true, and G. F. so far defended; yet G. F's meaning was by Infinite, that which is opposite to Finite, or what ends. So that he intended by Infinite, in that Place no more than Eternal, which may be said of Angels and Souls of Men, for they live for ever.  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 simplo, uncompounded Beings, but consisting of Spirit and Body. But these Contemplations( I confess) are too high for T. Hicks's weak and shallow Brain.  
George Keith.   
THE END.