catching at and perverting expressions Again to our saying they reproached us for owning our selves part of the Nation guilty of sin with them He taxeth us For finding fault with the Teachers and people and yet now we are joyned with them and guilty of sin with them and that I joine my self with the blind watchmen and dumb dogs and then taxe us with hypocrisie and deceit for one while declaring against the Teachers and people of the Nation and another while to joine with them But marke Reader that I said not we joined our selves with them in their sinning but in confessing sins that is we consesse ours with theirs nor say we that we are guilty of all their sins but guilty of sin And will not his charges of us for this fall upon the Prophet Isaiah did not he one while inviegh against the watchmen and the people yea many times and yet another while joine in himself among them in confessing the Nations sins in Isa 59.10 11 12 13. when he said we grope for the wall like the blind and we grope as if we had no eyes and our transgressions are multiplyed before thee and our sins testifie against us Did Isaiah speak those things of himself and the Disciples as a distinct party from the body of the Nation or as joining in the Nation with themselves If as a distinct party would not George say then they were hypocrites for faulting others and being as bad themselves If as joining themselves in with the Nation were they not guilty of the same that George throwes upon us if we be therefore guilty as he saies Surely all that read these things may see herein G. W.'s weaknesse My charges of them denying Christ to have that body glorified in heaven in which he suffered is not disproved by my saying they granted the same body that suffered was glorified at Gods right hand because as elsewhere we have cleared it they meant equivocally in that saying and not of the personal body of Christ but to that and their denyal of the resurrection of mens bodys we have spoken fullyer in our answer to their book against us Nor will my saying they are persons of no judgement in these things save them from being guilty of indeavouring to subvert the faith about them seeing judgement in Scripture expression signifies right understanding as in Isa 42.14 and 59.8 and they that have no understanding to do good may be wise to do evil as the Prophet saies Jer. 4.22 To that of our Saviour Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect alledged by G. W. to proove that some men are without sin here I noted That men may in Scripture sense be said to be perfect that have sin in them Instancing in Job and Asa And 2. That exhortations to things prove not those things to be perfectly attained by any here nor doth the Scripture ever say Let not sin be in you c. The first of these George passes over which would he have defended himselfe to purpose he should not have done To the 2. he saies To what end or effect then was his exhortation What must men be under the commands after death which they had in their life time and not till then fulfill them here 's darkeness indeed saith he made manifest and the command put a far off To that consider are all commands to no end and effect that are not fulfilled by them to whom they are given Sure then many commands given of God must be concluded to be so for how many commands of his are broken by men not fulfilled of them Neh. 9.29 Jer. 32.23 Shall we say therefore they were to no end or effect Sure his end is that we should presse in his strength after what is commanded to our ability knowing that he accepts through Christ our endeavour though we attain not here its perfection and that where we are short we acknowledge it and in the sense of it being humbled in our selves give glory to God in and for Christ in whom we are and by whom we shall be made perfect as Paul said of himselfe to will was present with him even to will all that the commandment requires but how to perform it he found not yet was not the commandment without end or effect in as much as in the inner man he delighted in it and groaned for the day of perfect liberty when there should be no let to do it perfectly and thanked God in Christ Jesus in whom he being perfect was not under condemnation for what he found not as for being under commands after death I say men shall fulfill commandments after death given in this life for must not the spirits of just men love God after the bodily death and in the resurrection yea shal they not then love him with all their heart more perfectly than now they do when they more perfectly injoy him And yet they are commanded now to love him So that the darknesse appears in G. W. To the other that the Scripture saies not any where Let not sin be in you He saies Is it not all one to say be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect or wash you make yee clean keep Gods commandment love and serve him with all the heart which must be fulfilled then what part of man must be a subject for sin to dwell in while he lives here To the first of these the saying Be ye perfect c. Is not the saying Let not sin be in you Those words are not these no more necessarily included in them than Let no weaknesse infirmity or mortality be in you or no ignorance of any thing in heaven or earth seeing God is as perfectly free from them as from sin but the sayings of Scripture are to be interpreted according to their scope which there appears to be perfect in testifying or extending love to enemies as well as friends as God doth As God is so perfect in charity as to love and do good to the evil and good so would Christ have his disciples in an answerable sense which how G. W. and the Quakers faile in their bitternesse and reproaches sufficiently evidence Nor is it all one to say Wash you make you clean and let no sin be in you for these phrases alluding to the washings under the Law as it was not one and the same there to say Wash you from some uncleannesse defiling the flesh and let no such unclean or defiling humor as of blood or other matter be in your bodies for the cleanest body had such humors in it as issuing out upon it would defile it So neither is it all one to say Wash you from your sins and defilements which is done in confessing and denying them and let no sin be in you the being of sin in men being not imputed were not consented to or sided with no more than the being of unclean humors within the body were accounted to men when they did
he acknowledges even he among others that they had sins and iniquities but they being kept from serving and living in them God dealt not with them after them but after the righteousnes and cleannesse found according to the spirit or inward man even as Paul when he had said he served with his mind the Law of God but with his flesh the law of sin yet adds there is therefore no condemnation to them that walke not after the flesh but after the spirit God therein deals with them according to their cleannesse in Christ and in their walking after the spirit and not after their sin in their members so that quotation also clearly failes him It is true too that God promises that his people shall be all righteous and clean from all their filthinesse yea and they are righteous in Christ and his blood actually and continually cleanseth them but that proves not that the Saints and Prophets ever boasted themselves to be without sin But even they that said the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin say too imediately after if we say we have no sin we deceive our selves nay seeing Gods afflicting his people is to purge away their sin as Isa 27.8 9. and the temptations he tries them with are to try and purifie their faith from the mixtures therein both of them being as baptizings with water and fire to those ends it appeares that so long as they are subject to afflictions and tryals which is so long as they live death it self being one way of afflicting and trying they have drosse and uncleannesse to be purged from and God is performing his promises to them therein that they may be all perfectly righteous even in themselves in the new heaven and earth and new Jerusalem where shall be no unclean thing and where shall be the full accomplishment of Gods righteousnesse upon them to which also Isa 60. alludes As for those that John saw Rev. 14. that were without fault before the Throne of God and that could sing to the Lord a new song I say all that heartily believe in Christ and are not moved away from the hope of the Gospel it is Christs office to present them holy unblameable and without reproof in Gods sight Col. 1.22.23 not because they are sinless in themselves but because they are in him who is their perfect righteousnesse nor is that the new song they sing that in us is no fault or blame but while they accuse themselves and confesse their sins he is just and faithful and forgives them and so presents them in himself without blame before God and their song is praises or salvation to the Lord as in Psal 40.23 David sung that new song and yet complained of innumerable sins and evils compassing him about in himself See else Psal 40.11 12 13. So that still here appears in George nothing but ignorant mistakes or the spirit of deceit He adds that that song cannot be sung by those that are in their iniquities and pleading for sins being enemies to the state of the new creature But he herein grosly prevaricates and deceives his Reader confounding mens having sin in them and confessing their sins with men being in sin and pleading for it between which is a vast difference Paul was not in his sin but in Christ nor did he plead for sin but strive against it and deny it when he said sin was in him and bewailed that he did what he would not We say not then that the true Apostles and Prophets were in sin and pleaded for it but had sin in them and bewailed their sins nor do we in so saying plead for sin no more than they did Therefore George herein bewrayes his great ignorance and mistake and his conclusion is meer vanity and deceit viz. That they have a cloud of witnesses and many evidences for their testimonie that it is of God and that what they hold is truth and that all that own God must own them herein Which is all false as by what is said may be seen I sayd that when John said 1 Ioh. 4.17 As he is so are we in this world he could not mean it we are without sin because that 's contrary to his own expressions 1 Ioh. 1.8 This G. W. railes on me for and adds That John who knew the state in which they had sin and in which if they said they had no sin they deceived themselves c. did not say they should have sin so long as in the world for he saith little children let no man deceive you he that doth righteousnesse is righteous as he is righteous 1 John 3.6 7. Plainly implying that they are deceivers that say men cannot be without sin while they are in the World c. Mind Reader the wildness of his answers how he leaves my saying undisproved do what he can for what if Iohn did not say in expresse words that they should have sin so long as they were in this world Seeing that Scripture speaks of what they were at present as he is so we are in this world it's enough to proove that what Iohn said there of their present state may not be interpreted as the Quakers do that they were then without sin seeing it crosses what he said before of their present estate in that respect And what though he that doth righteousnes is righteous even as he is righteous that proves not that he that doth righteousnesse hath no sin in him for he that confesses his sins doth righteousnesse therein otherwise how is it righteousnesse and faithfulnesse in God to forgive him 1 Iohn 1.9 So then he that in such a sense as in that 1 Iohn 1.9 confesseth his sins is righteous as Christ is righteous for Christ is his righteousnesse and yet he that confesseth his sin is not without sin in himselfe for then he should confesse a falsehood And what though as he adds that in 1 Iohn 4.17 have relation to their dwelling in God and God in them that 's but George's affirmation do not they that walke in the light as he is in the light dwell in God and God in them and yet have sins that the blood of Christ cleanseth them from and if they sayd they have no sin they deceive themselves 1 Iohn 1.7 8. I say the true Apostles Prophets used not to glory in their perfection and finlesnesse He answers Then they used not to glory in Christ and who is it that will believe this deceit for Christ was their righteousnesse and persection See Reader what a deceitful man is this that leaves out the word sinlesnesse which I added on purpose to shew what perfection I meant of and then to ask if the Apostles gloried not in a perfection which he was sure I meant not of for though Christ be by the gift of God their perfection yet he is not their personal sinlesnesse or selfe perfection that I spake of these men are good at little but at crafty
not issue out to touch and ly upon the body As Rom. 7.17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. and 8.1 Nor is it all one to say Keep the commandments love God with all the heart for that requires no more as to Gods gracious acceptation than that as he is in the light we walk in the light and love him with all the ability of knowing and loving here given us which is not while here so perfect as to have no ignorance of God and so no sin in us however those sayings are not that To that question In what part must sin dwell c. I say sin will whither we will or no dwell in our members while they be mortal Rom. 7.17.20 with Psalm 143.2 So as no man living should God enter into judgement with him can be justified in his sight which â—he saies nextâ— Proves not that the Prophets and Apostles had sin in them while they lived and seeing the Scripture it selfe doth not prove it he saies it 's no matter of my word who he saies perverts the Scripture therein both belying me and the Scripture for the Scripture gives this as the reason wherâ—oâ—e David would not that God should enter into judgement with him though his servant that no man living should be justified in his sight Doth not no man living include no Prophet or Apostle as men while here living Suitable to that Psal 130.3 if thou Lord mark iniquities Lord who shall stand as implying none should So that Scripture proves what I asserted unlesse the Apostles and Prophets could be proved not to have been men so long as they lived He saies That Scripture includes not the Saints as to prove them unjustified who were changed from that state wherein no man living could be justified in the sight of God and were come through the death and the many tryalls and tribulations into the life and righteousnesse of Christ See here Reader if this man hath any thing but deceit And is it a matter for his words without Scripture proofe Was not David a Saint when the servant of the Lord and desires God to answer him in his faithfulness and righteousnesse who is the accuser of the Saints here but G. W. that implies that David was not a Saint or is no man living a Saint Must they stay from being Saints till they are dead and Canonized by the Pope If the Saints while they live here be men that live then cannot they be justified if God should enter into judgement with them either then say that the Saints are not men living while here alive or that David said false or else that G. W is a deceiver and not to be listened to by us And yet we say not that the Saints be so included as to be unjustified while here but that is not because they could be justified should God enter into judgement with them though he may judge them through him he deals not with them immediately as or according to what they are in themselves or according to their sins Psal 103.10 11. But in and according to his good will in Christ what he speaks of a state in which they are come through the death c. What be they but his additions to the Scriptures of which Davids saying gives no intimation Is there any Saint living here in any state that is not a man living or is it said no man in the death or that is not yet passed through the death can be justified Alas what be these things but sorry deceitful evasions from plain truth He saies I relate part of our discourse deceitfully and imperfectly and yet after questions whether I relate it or not and then laies down part of what is related about Pauls groning to be delivered c. But wherein I relate it imperfectly much lesse deceitfully he showes not only saies I have belyed and wronged his words and left out the greatest part of them that cleared his answer and yet afterwards saies he could not have liberty to open what he said so much there as here and yet if the Reader compare what I related with the sum of what he saies here where he took his own liberty assuredly without molestation from us he will find that besides his quotations and perversions of what he quotes from John Jeremy Isa of which he then made no mention I clearly laid down the substance of his sayings and that he could not have liberty there to clear his sayings is so far from truth that we often urged him to answer and he was so void of any clearing answer that he would have left the argument to read on our book what did nothing concerne it And that I have cast no lye nor scornfull slander upon him in saying he was baffled as he here charges me may be evident from this that to my demand of him Whether the Apostles and Prophets were not Apostles and Prophets when as he granted they confest they had sin he denies not that he granted yea nor that to my questioning what state it was then of which he said they had a time and state that they had no sin he replied when they were born of God nor that to my question whether they were not born of God when Apostles and Prophets he answered that they as Paul for instance had a time when not born of God viz. when he groaned and travelled waiting for the adoption nor doth he deny that he went about to clear up that that he was not born of God while he so waited for the redemption of the body only faults me for not giving a full relation of what he said to it now then I do demand if he was not baffled to what purpose did he upon my quoting 1 John 5.1 to prove that he was born of God all the time he was an Apostle fly to another answer that Paul spake to conditions below his own If he was not quite beat off his other answer why fled he to this which cannot be true and the other too For if Paul was but then groaning to be born and not born of God then spake he of his own state and if he spaek to others states below his own then then is it not true that he had while an Apostle or then when he said he so waited a time in which he was not born of God so these two shifts clearly overthrow one the other And whereas he saies many that heard the dispute can witnesse against me for impudent belying and slandring him I call God to witnesse in whose presence I am and dare appeal to all indifferent and understanding Auditors that I have not in any thing belyed or slandered him much lesse impudently Let us see what he himself saith he said Paul witnessed saith he the groaning and travelling in pain before the birth was born in him or before he was born of God or in the state of him that was born of God Mark Reader his own inconstancy and
Pharisees rejected the counsel of God and were not baptized of him Mat. 3.5 6. with Luke 7.30 I distinguished the people both from his friends and our selves but are his friends no sober minded men that they are distinguished from them I speak of the generality of the people if there were one or two did otherwise it 's more then I observed To that of 1 John 5.1 Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God he cavils that I did it without understanding and without distinction whereas it was his part being the answer to have distinguished if he understood any ground for it and not mine who was opponent but something he will say though to no purpose how much more truly might I have said what he charges me with of the generality of his own quotations in his answer as that in 2 Sam. 22. 1 Joh. 3.9 and 1 John 4.17 and yet when in my postscript I distinguished of that in 1 John 3.9 He snatches at the first part of my distinction viz. that whosoever is perfectly born of God as the spirits of just men made perfect and the men themselves in the Resurrection cannot sin at all but none so perfectly born of God here taking no notice of the other propositions that speak of men as here born of God and then cries out Oh what pittiful stuffe is here to imagine men are not perfectly born of God so as not to sin till deceased this would make the worke of God imperfect here when all his works are perfeci then taxes me as if I had said that those that were born of God in the Apostles daies were some that were deceased and risen again Whereas I in the other part of the distinction shewed how those that are born of God while here may be said not to sin and that they cannot sin but why is it such pittifull stuffe to say that the spirits of just men deceased the men themselves when raised are or shall be more perfectly born of God the while here living do they gain no degree of perfection by death where then is the advantage they have by it Nor shall they gain none in the resurrection neither when seeing him as he is they shall be like him 1 John 3.2 or have the present propositions of truth all their fulfilling at the present He that hath the Son hath life 1 John 5.12 Have they not so that are deceased in him and shall they not have him and life more fully in the resurrection if G. believe it And why must the work of God be imperfect if men be not perfectly born of God here was the work of God all whose works are perfect imperfect when Paul said not that I am already perfect or have already attained Philip. 3.12 or because the Fathers dyed in the faith not having received the promises God having provided some better thing for us that they without us should not be made perfect Heb. 11.39 Were the works of God therefore imperfect till these last ages If so then why not so too till the resurrection If they were perfect alwaies and in all generations then mens not being perfectly born of God while here hinders not their perfection no more then Pauls or the Fathers being not perfect did Surely G. W. is very silly if he think as he writ here and a very deceiver if he thought otherwise and they be simple that are catcht with such chaff or worthy to be blind still that will not see it but let us see what distinction he hath devised upon 1 John 5.1 to save his credit He saies It 's true according to Johns testimony of a true believer who by faith hath victory over the world and so being born of God is not under the bondage of corruption c. But such he saies I. H. doth not own while men are here Folly and falsehood folly for he implies that Johns saying is not true without distinction and yet John said it without distinction for he said not whosoever so or so believeth that Jesus is the Christ but in general expressions whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God True it is that he saies ver 4. whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world and this is the victory that overcometh the world even our faith but then in ver 5. he explicates what their faith was answerable to ver 1. saying who is he that overcometh the world but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God which is all one with whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ clearly fignifying that he that believeth that is born of God and so overcometh the world even the spirit rudiments and pollutions of the world so as none else and that they who believe not that is with their heart believe not that Jesus even that Jesus of Nazareth whom the Jews crucified bodily and God raised from the dead for hesides him the Apostles did preach no other Jesus name or thing within men or without men to be the Saviour or salvation of God to be believed on Acts 4.10 11 12. is the Christ the Son of God the Saviour of the world the annointed one to bring us back to God the propitiation for our sins the righteousnesse and life given us of God I say he implies that they who believe not him to be the Christ or annointed Saviour in and through what he hath done and suffered for us in the body of his flesh and is become for us therethrough and is doing for us in heaven on Gods right hand as the great Mediator and high Priest for us and from heaven to and in us as the great Apostle and Prophet of our profession and Lord of all and in what he is appointed to do and will do at his glorious descent from heaven and appearing and kingdome then to be revealed in glory they have not nor do overcome the world But whatever be their pretences and appearances to men of being out of and above the world they are overcome of the world and are in the worlds state being led of and by the god of the world and rudiments of it which lead men that seek after righteousness and hope toward God to seek it in themselves and their doings mortifications and frames but not to go out of themselves into Christ and his name to accept of him even that Jesus of Nazareth as made sin for them and raised again for their justification and glorified at Gods right hand for their wisdome righteousnesse holynesse and redemption and so to have their rejoycing in him and expectation from him and of him at his appearing they who have so received him and abide in him are indeed born of God and have overcome the world But they that do not so receive him are in and of the world who neglecting him and counting faith in him foolishnesse live and rejoice in their own good meanings honesty zeal blamelesnesse mortifications
set up for a Teacher by us when of any woman set up to teach by us I know none who turned Ranters is known so be some of their lusts c. as also his charging me as speaking of G. Rose as a distracted man and yet bringing his words against them when as I said but that the people heard him begin at a distance like a kind of distracted man to call out not that I counted him a distracted man these personal and untrue reflections I say I passe as impertinencies And as for his saying We would not suffer him to read in our Book and yet we read out of theirs and his vain and false insinuations therefrom the ridiculousnesse thereof is sufficiently cleared in the relation of our discourse though he take no more notice of it than if no such thing had been mentioned His asking questions when he should have answered were meer diviations from our businesse and yet I know of none that I answered not then except that what death came in by sin which he sought in subtilty as I conceived to put me upon that he might wind out from the thing that puzled him As for his feeling the power of God over us He might feel it over us indeed to protect us and inable us to baffle him for which we blesse the Lord but otherwise it appeared not with him in his answers nor yet appeareth with him in what he hath written in his own vindication He saies The Apostles wept with them that wept and waite for the Redemption of the body where it was not redeemed as he travelled for the Gallatians c. Which are nothing to the purpose for a man may weep with those that weep without saying falsly that he is exercised with the same trials in himselfe and of his own as others weep under Cannot I weep with such as weep for the absence of Gods spirit from them or for the losse of some neer relation unlesse I say I am in the same condition with them Nay if I say it s so with me as with them then do I not shew such charity to them for then it may rather be judged that I weep for my own afflictions than with them for theirs one saying of the Apostle any where that his body was already redeemed from that bondage the redemption of it from which he there saies he waited for were more then and hundred such shifts his proofs alleadged in our discourse from Rom. 8.2 2 Cor. 13.8 He was then so answered to and beaten from that he hath here passed them over as not able to relieve him For the Apostles travelling for the Galatians as I remember in the dispute he disclaimed it then for making for his purpose when T. M. was answering him to it thinking he had had some reference to it in what he spake about Pauls travelling and that it s not to his purpose is evident because the Apostle saies not there as in the other place of the Romans that he waited or travelled for the redemption of his own body no nor for the redemption of their bodies but till Christ was formed in them not coupling in himselfe together with them as condescending in such a manner to their states Setting down two or three of my questions together without his answer to them he then taxes me for omitting the word bondage in speaking of the redemption of the body which word he saies he used a great matter is it not when as the very word redemption implies some bondage to be redeemed from nor doth the Apostle use the word Bondage in speaking of the redemption of their body the creatures groaning to be delivered and the Saints waiting for the redemption of the body we before shewed at the dispute also to be distinct things and not the same He saies here again That the Saints had that redemption of the body from the bondage of corruption when the creatures were delivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God before their decease But he proves it not nor could do at the dispute 't is proofs we looke for and not bare assertions upon his own authority which without proof from Scriptures weighs with us nothing The Scripture neither saies that the creatures had the deliverance into the liberty of the Sons of God nor that the Saints had the redemption of their body before their decease but speaks of both as things future and therefore groaned and waited for see else Rom. 8.19 20 21 22 23. And indeed they could not be before those Saints deceased for evident it is that the Apostle ver 17.18 speaks about their sufferings with Christ and reigning with Christ and speaks of the sufferings with him as first and the Reigne as a thing afterward the sufferings are of this present time or life but the glory is to be after revealed and therefore spoken of as in the future to this present time shall be revealed in or upon us and about that glory and revelation of it and the redemption of the body from the sufferings that go before it speaks ver 19 20 21 22 23. Now seeing the glory could not be revealed nor the redemption of the body from the sufferings be before the sufferings be accomplished and their sufferings even the sufferings of the present time were to bodily Death therefore it followes that the redemption of the body from the bondage it was under in and by those sufferings could not be till after their decease except the Redemption be before the bondage and the glory thereof before the sufferings contrary to the Apostles order in speaking of them which one consideration to those that can and will see may suffice to shew that it 's no error or absurdity in me as G. W. after reckons it to say that the corruption which Paul waitted and groaned for the Redemption of his body from is the corruption of mortality in part though he hath belyed me by his addition in saying as part of my assertion in which the body is in death when it is in corruption for I had no such non-sensical expression That the Apostles waited for the Redemption of the body from all the bondage and misery that the sufferings of this time or life could bring it to and so from bondage to death and grave also and in that hope and expectation yeilded up their bodies to sufferings for Christs sake is evident in the Scriptures It was the hope of the Resurrection even of that resurrection of the dead in which what is sown in Corruption is raised in Incorruption that led them into Jeoperdies to fight with Beasts after the manner of men 1 Cor. 15.30 32 42 53. that made them speak though death therethrough wrought in them 2 Cor. 4.12 13 14. Oh how wicked and corrupt concerning the faith are these men that deride the looking for and hope of that Redemption of the body because a thing so many hundreds of yeares off as
again and ascending is not available to the taking away or procuring pardon for their sins for by their rejection of him to teach and lead them into all truth they make his blood and all his works unto them as of none effect To thy sixth Query wherein thou asks whether I do believe there are any Angels or created spirits distinct from men and from what is in man and other visible creatures Answ Whether wouldest thou have any to believe above what is written or where dost thou read that there is any created Angels or created spirits distinct from God which is in man and from all other visible creatures if thou canst shew me any such Angel or created spirit which is distinct both from him which did create it and from all other things created then thou shewest some ground for such a faith but the Scripture is not a rule for any such faith neither doth it speak any such thing and herein thou wouldest appear wise or manifest thy self a fool above what is written and not as one that would be instructed though thou be ignorant Answ To the seventh Query That which shall rise again after death out of the graves is the Seeds and each Seed with its own body for there are two seeds and two bodies which shall arise the one into Everlasting life the other into condemnation Answ To the eighth Query The Souls of the wicked at death go to a Hell where torment is felt which is the eternal wrath of God the just recompence of reward to all hypocrites hirelings and deceivers who have not only refused to receive the truth in the love of it but have also set themselves in enmity against it and this shalt thou also know hereafter better than thou dost now and here is an answer returned unto thee without railing according to 1 Pet. 3.15 Richard Hubberthorne The Reply to Richard Hubberthornes Answer THough there is no end of controversing with evil spirits nor the answers sent by R. Hubberthorne need no Reply the very comparing them with the questions they relate to being a sufficient discovery of Richards erroneousnesse in them to those that are intelligent yet for the sakes of some weaker ones and to stop the mouths of the deceived I shall note his falshoods and deceits therein 1. His falshoods as 1. It 's false That I had in my paper a Preface of lies My Preface was thus Richard Hubberthorne I once received a letter from thee and I gave thee an answer to it in which I noted thee guilty of 7 or 8 falshoods thou didst return me an answer to it but didst neither therein confesse thy evils nor disprove them so that I might slight thee as a proved lyer In that answer I remember I took notice of some corrupt passages about the Resurrection of Christ by which I am satisfied in part that thou art out of the truth yet because thou shouldest not think nor thy party vapor as one of them yester night began to suggest that I am afraid to answer thee 〈◊〉 Thou having not multiplyed thy questions to very many I shall be willing for this once to returne thee an answer to them provided that thou wilt plainly and nakedly answer me in the like number propounded by me to thee and when thou sendest thy answers to them to me thou shalt God willing have mine to thine returned by me this was what he calls my preface of the truth of which in every particular I call God to witnesse between us 2. It 's false that it 's my usual and accustomed manner and the marke of the beast in all my papers to make prefaces of lies a thing said of him without proof 3. It 's false that I said he is guilty of 7 or 8 falshoods for my words were not so but that in his former letter which was some years since sent me I noted him guilty of 7 or 8 falshoods that he is guilty now of them and repented none of them since I affirmed not 4. It 's false that his paper proves to the contrary for neither is his paper in being and so now proves nothing nor did it when in being take notice of those falshoods that I charg'd him with so as to disprove them 5. It 's false that I brought as a reason to contradict G. Whitehead's indeavoured proof that the Apostles and believers were but forms of godly men because transformed in the renewing of their minds Rom. 12.2 for that was not my reason nor my assertion but by saying was my way of question Might it not as well by the same reason be avouched that the Apostles were but formes of men or of Godly men because transformed into the renewing of their minds 6. It 's false that in that saying of mine I appeared very ignorant void of reason true comparison for I appeal to all intelligent men whether the word transformed applyed to the believers signifies not every jot as much that they were before or then also but forms as that the word transfigured applyed to Christ proves that he was or his coming in the flesh a figure or but a figure Besides that he left out part of my saying for I said forms of men or of godly men 7. False it is too that the Apostles or believers before that transforming of them in the renewing of their minds mentioned and exhorted to were neither in the forme nor power of godly men but were children of wrath and in the power and form of wicked men for when the Romans were exhorted to be transformed in the renewing of their minds which as it was a thing but exhorted to they had not as then for exhortations respect things things yet to be done when such exhortations are given they those Romans were believers and Saints and in part renewed as appears in Rom. 1.7 8 12. 8. It 's a grosse falshood that he saies in his answer to Qu. 4. that I do nor believe myself what I query therein of him and as 9. False too that he charges me with querying whether Christ in that very body of flesh blood and bone in which he suffered did arise again My words were not so but whether in a real and very body of flesh he dyed and rose in the same real and very body the third day 10. False it is again that he saies I say with flesh and bone without blood he is in heaven for I have no such saying nor have so determined of it 11. False it is too that he in his next words implies that if he be not in heaven with flesh blood and bones then not with that real and very body born of the Virgine for he was laid into the Sepulchre in that very body born of the Virgin and not with another when as yet his blood was before shed out of that body the body and blood are spoken of as distinct things and his body was his body and the same body in which the
figure and why is it translated image instead of figure if the word there used is none of those words elsewhere in the Scriptures translated by the word figure besides that he corrupts the text and saies the figure of his substance instead of the image of his person but what if it had been read the expresse figure of his Fathers substance doth that prove his coming was a figure too so then to prove him a Deceiver I have denyed and do deny what he saies to be true if in his question he imply affirmatively either that those words be so read or that they prove Richards saying that he defends the falsenesse of what he adds to what he calls my reason is before spoken to 2. His answer to my third question prevaricates for Rich. Hubberthorne by G. Whiteheads pleading for his saying said more than he supposes that Christ was an example or the expresse figure of the Fathers substance but what is it all one to be an example and the expresse figure of the Fathers substance that they are put so together as if they amounted to the same thing are all examples then in the Scripture the expresse figure of the Fathers substance but besides that he in answering leaves out and durst not touch the tearms of my question as that Jesus was a real man consisting of a real humane body and Soul and that he was really conceived and born in the natural womb of a corporal Virgin in such fence a Virgin as other Virgins be c. he durst not speak so distinctly but hides himself in such general tearmes as might keep him from being so easily seen 3. He gives the go by to the fourth question too and plaies the prevaricator in the last clauses of it as is before sufficiently noted 4. He hides himself in his answer to the 5th and leaves out the latter part of it for in the former part the word◠by which their sins are taken away those words by which are equivocal and are so subtilly placed as he may mean that by their receiving him their sins are taken away and not by the suffering and dying of the man Jesus c. 5. In his answer to the sixth he plainly enough casts mists before his readers eyes to dazle him that he might not discerne that he believes no Angles or created spirits distinct from God and the spirits of men and that are in other visible creatures and yet his intimate joyning with the Sadduces in denying them appears clearly enough to those whose eyes can see through his mists for he implyes it 's to believe above what is written to believe that there are Angels or created spirits distinct from men and what is in man and in other visible creatures and by his question where I read that there is any created Angels or created spirits distinct from God which is in man and from all other visible creatures what doth he but imply his unbelief or denyal of any such thing To answer briefly to the question I say that though I do not read in just so many words put together that saying yet I find it clearly in the Scriptures in every part of it as to say 1. That there are Angels and Spirits I read in Heb. 1.7.14 that they are created is also both there implyed and in Ephe. 3.9 where it is said that God created all things by Jesus Christ and in Col. 1.16 all things were created by him that are in heaven and that are in earth whether visible and invisible c. so then there being such things as Angels and spirits those Angels things in heaven Mark 13.32 Angels in heaven and all things in heaven and earth being created of God by Christ it necessarily followes that they be creatures and created also 3. That they are distinct from God whether as in man or in heaven as more usually he is said to be is as evident if we first shew what it is to be distinct now that is distinct from another thing that is not that thing as the Soul is distinct from the body because it is not the body and the body is distinct from the Soul because it is not the Soul and the eye is distinct from the sight because the eye may be without sight and the servant is distinct from the master because he is not the master so the Angels are distinct from God and Christ because they are not God nor Christ but created by God and Christ and made ministring spirits and sent forth from God to such purpose and that they are distinct from all other visible creatures is evident because they are not any of the other creatures visible or invisible but are a distinct kind of creature themselves distinctly named from them and that have distinctly some of them appeared when made visible to the sight of men without the bodys and beings of all other creatures as in those that ministred to Christ and that appeared to Daniel to Peter to Paul to Cornelius and divers others which were neither properly men nor women nor any other creature distinct from Angels or ministring spirits c. So that that question implies great ignorance and unbelief of the Scriptures as also his adding that if I can shew him any such Angel or created spirit that is distinct both from him which did create it and from all other things created then I show some ground for such a faith this with his changing my words which were distinct from men from what is in man in other visible creatures into another form viz. distinct from him that made them and from all other creatures implies that he thinks there is no creature but what is visible or may be seen sure his other senses may confute such a fancy for did he ever see any mans Soul or see the wind that blows and yet I trow these be creatures but why will he not believe more then I can shew him Angels be of themselves invisible pitch their tents about men who yet see them not as Ps 34.7 with 2 Kin. 6.16 17. but I have shewed him in the Scripture if he have any eyes of understanding to see with that there was and truly is an Angel Gabriel sent of God and not God himself who is distinct from all other men Angels and creatures besides him they none of them being him yea many thousand such shal Christ appear with at his coming as in Mat. 16.27 2 Thes 1.7 so that his falshood and impiety appears in what followes in the answer as that the Scriptures is not a rule for any such faith nor doth speak any such thing 6. And his Answer to the 7th Query joyned with his former answer proves him a direct Sadducee to them that can understand him for as his answer to the 6th denies intimately and yet plainly enough that there be many such Angels and Spirits as the Scripture declares so his answer to the 7th denies the resurrection of the body as will appear if he will clearly speak out his minde in explication of his said answer for to that query what it is of men that shall rise again after the bodily death he answers That which shall rise againe after death out of the grave is the seeds and each seed with its own body for there are two seeds and two bodies which shall arise the one into everlasting life and the other into condemnation which though it be the most positive answer of any he gives freest from reviling language yet cannot be understood unlesse it be known what be those two seeds whether they be not the wheat and the Tares spoken of Mat. 13.37 38 or what else they be and who sowes or sowed them and when and where they be sown and what be the graves they be in and whether they be but two seeds in all the world over or two in every man one the incorruptible seed the other the corruptible seed and whether they be sown or raised after the bodily death of men or only after some spiritual death of the feeds for I named after the bodily death and he leaves out the word bodily and so speaks equivocally and whether be each of these seeds a man seeing the Apostle saies not every seed but every man shall rise in his own order and whether did the Apostle forget one of those seeds when he saies it is sown in weaknesse it is raised in power when of two he should have said they are sown in weaknesse they are raised in power and whether is either of these seeds when it s sown a natural body and either of them when they rise a spiritual body seeing the Apostle saies it is sown a natural body it is raised a spiritual body and what be the two bodies they shall rise with are they two in every man or be they humane bodies or bodies of men and why saies he the one into everlasting life the other into condemnation and why not unto everlasting life and unto condemnation and why is not the condemnation said to be everlasting by him as well as the life Those things I challenge him for explaining his answer before it can be seen to agree with the Apostles Doctrine of the Resurrection 7. For the eighth query he in his answer leaves out the word Bodily again and so tels us not of any hell men go into or their souls after the death of their bodies but prevaricates and hides himself again nor proves that eternal wrath shall give up any that shall be in it as it 's said hell and Death shall 〈◊〉 20.13 But if Hell be the reward of all Lyers Deceivers Hirelings and Hypocrites what will become of Richard Hubberthorne who hath told so many falshoods and delt so deceitfully and hypocritically in those his answers if he repent not let the Reader judge John Horne FINIS