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 pub­lickly abus'd me behind my Back, when I was not present to answer for my self, nor could be present, having gone out of England in­to another Nation several Dayes before a­ny Thing was published of their Barbican-Meet­ing: [Page 4] And seeing I was publickly injur'd both by T. H. and them, as others of my Friends and Brethren were, I judged it rea­sonable to desire a publick Meeting with them, that I might have an Occasion as pub­lickly to clear my self, as I was publickly abused; therefore I joyned Issue with my Friends G. Whitehead, W. Penn and S. Crisp, who were also publickly abused with me, in divers Letters to desire them to give us a publick Meeting for clearing our selves 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 publick Meet­ing we appointed our selves, 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 personatin [...] T. H. did appear; but neither at this Meet­ing (by Reason of their most unreasonabl [...] evading our Charge) got we over the first [Page 5] 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 publick 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 Publick 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 publickly from a publick 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 grosly 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 [Page 6] I find T. H. and his Confederate Brothren re­new the former Abuse: And having now for a long Time waited the Opportunity of a pub­lick Meeting with those Baptists, to clear my­self of the Abuse of T. H. and his Consede­rates, and yet cannot obtain it; I find it ly­ing as a Weight upon me, to take an Occa­sion of this Nature to clear my self, not so much for my self 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 preach'd 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) 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 [Page 7] 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 alledging 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 [Page 8] 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 Judgment 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 [Page 9] 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 intire 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 [Page 10] 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 its 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. [Page 11] 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 alledge 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 [Page 12] 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 alledgeth, 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 shewn it; but it is manifest that these Words were wilfully and deliberately clipt off by him, because they do so apparent­ly cross his naughty Design of abusing me: But next I say, its but a sorry and unreasona­ble Allegance, 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 [Page 13] is utterly false, and a most gross Untruth; for in several Places in my Book I speak ex­presly 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 expresly 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. lin. 5, 6, 7, 8. I speak expresly 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 Judgment towards Man in the fallen [Page 14] 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 Judgment 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 ex­presly 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. &c. 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 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 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, [Page 15] nor alwayes, 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 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 & 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 [Page 16] 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 faln upon a Place in all my Book that doth more manifestly clear [Page 17] me, and demonstrate T. H. to be a vile Forger, in alledging 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 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 Vncreated Word and Light, who is God over all, blessed forever. But that ever I, or any have said, that this Formation [Page 18] 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 dye, I hold it one of the greatest of Blasphemies.

Thus, Reader, having cleared my self of the Forgeries of T. H. as to this Particu­lar, I refer it to that which is noble, inge­nuous [Page 19] 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 grosly and im [...]u­dently 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 alledging, That G. K. affirmed to him (in the hearing of many cre­dible Witnesses) That the Book intituled, 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 dayes 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 Vnderstanding, as the Scripture saith expresly; and he who speaks or writes of the things of God without In­spiration, he doth it without a true and right [Page 20] Understanding, as is manifest in the scrib­lings of this Forger T. H. And surely he that writeth Lyes, Perversions, Forgeries and Slanders against any man or men, it is easie to determine what Spirit hath inspired him so to do, even the Spirit of him who was a Lyar 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 my self; 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 testifie 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▪ [Page 21] Tepida est omnis oratio, quam non preve­nit inspiratio, i. e. All Prayer is Luke-warm, 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 Vnction 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 our Selves, 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, Vertue, Holi­ness and Righteousness, Wisdom and Know­ledge in them who attend unto the same.

Thus having cleared my self of the weigh­tiest Abuse of T. H. I proceed to give the Reader a small Hint at other 2 or 3 Particu­lars, [Page 22] 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 Impude [...]ce 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 ex­presly say, pag. 4. ‘That the Spirit of the Lord never can nor doth command us to do things which are intrinsecally, 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 [Page 23] 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 al­ledged 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 iudge 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 [Page 24] 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 Seeds-man, the Seed, and also the Precious Fruit;’ he alledgeth 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 metonymically, as when the Cause is sometimes called by the Name of [Page 25] the Effect; as, when Paul said, That he, to wit, Christ, is made unto us Wisdom, Righ­teousness, Sanctification, &c.

Thus, Reader, having briefly cleared my self 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 Logick, 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 Logick 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. [Page 26] 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 Logick, that T. Hicks is an Ass, a Horse, &c. But true Logick, 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 burthened, 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 Burthen 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 Infinit in it self (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 Infinit in themselves; and consequently, [Page 27] as many Angels as there are, so many Gods there must be.

But note, Reader, G. F. spoak 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 consider'd 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 consider'd) that is to say, That an An­gel hath no sort of Body or Corporeity; but is altogether Spirit, without all sort of Body, however subtil or spiritual? Surely, many Learned and Pious Men, both ancient and modern, hold that Angels and Souls of Men have some subtil or spiritual Body; and so are not altogether simple, uncompounded Be­ings, but consisting of Spirit and Body. But these Contemplations (I confess) are too high for T. Hicks's weak and shallow Brain.