however sinful yet say they have no sin And count themselves Lords and disdain to have any over them and judge revile and likely would destroy if in their power at their pleasure this principle leads to it But it is manifest the sence and import of the word is according to the businesse the Apostle is treating of and his scope and end therein And that is as beforesaid for no man hath seen God at any time but he hath manifested himself in his love and his love to us in the gift of his Son and this declared in the Gospel that being believed we might love him and one another And such as have so received the Gospel he makes his instruments according to the measure of his Grace received to declare it to others and they that in Faith and love so do are in their measure in this respect as he in this World as Scripture also elsewhere sheweth they being by his Grace framed to his mind are set to pursue his designe And so 1. They are his Ministers of his Word and Grace put into their hearts and so in his place and stead to bear forth his Name and carry on his work and he by them displayes his love and beseeches men and convinces and brings in to himself and so they are the Light of the World and edisiers of their brethren in the World 2 Cor. 5. 14. 21. and 6. 1. 2. Mat. 5. 14 15 16 Phil. 2. 15. 16. Thes 5. 11. And so they are as he is in this World though he be still above them They Ministring the Epistle of Christ and he by his Spirit therein writing it in their hearts 2 Cor. 3. 2 and 3. 6. 2. As any of the World receive their Testimony so they receive the Spirit and Christ therein and loving him they love them for his sake and being won out of the fellowship of the World they come into onenesse in love fellowship and approbation with Christ and them and as Christ owneth and approveth and delights in them their Faith love fellowship c. So do these for Christ his sake also and so according to their measure they are as he in this World Mat. 10. 40. 41 42. Luke 10. 16. John 13. 20. 2 Thes 1. 10. 2 Cor. 3. 2. 3. Phil. 4. 1. 3. As any of the World refuse and dispise them in and for their Testimony born forth with Gracious Words and Deeds they refuse and dispise Christ and as they defame hate persecute them so they defame hate and persecute Christ and so as he is so are we in this World Luke 10. 16. Acts 9. 4 7. John 15. 18. And with the two former this last sence is especially here meant Now knowing this that as he is received known loved by any in the World so are we And as he is unknown dispised hated persecuted in his Doctrine and judged by any of the World so are we 1 John 3. 1 This gives us boldnesse in the day of judgement upholds and makes us fearlesse in such incus revilings condemnings judgings and affords us strong consolation that when he comes to Judge he will justifie us that were condemned for his Truth and condemn them that condemn us for it Surely George and John Whiteheads and George Fox intended us no such consolation against all their revilings and judgings of the Truth and us but any impartial Reader may see their miserable wrestings and abuse of this place upon which we have been the larger Reader for thy instruction and helpfulnesse it being a Scripture much made use of by them as countenancing their conceit of their sinlesnesse and we being very brief to things in our following answer in the rest we shall be briefer 3. Quoting 1 John 2. 1. in their p. 3. My little Children these things writ I to you that you sin not and if any man sin we have an Advocate They stop their leaving out and he is the Propitiation for our sins which plainly imports that the Apostles and Believers he couples himself with owned that they had sins when he so writ in that he says not he was onely but he is the propitiation for our sins what but fraudulency and shuning of the Light there was in their so quoting it 4. Quoting Prov. 20. 9. fore quoted by us they p. 3. leave out the last clause too viz. Who can say I am pure from my sins because directly making against their wrong apprehension of their sinlessenesse 5. Their nonsencical glosses put upon that Text Eccles 7. 20. and 1 Kings 8. 46 in their pages 3. and 4. Thou mayest see spoken to by us p. 6. So also their wrong reading of Ephes 5. 30. adding to it of their own heads p. 9. thou mayest see spoken to p. 7. Likewise whereas in Phil. 3. 21. it is said our conversation is in Heaven whence we look for a Saviour they turn it about and say there not thence they looked for the Saviour 8. Their like abuse of Acts 17. 11 â—2 thou hast it spoken too p. These amongst many other may suffice to shew what abusers of the Scriptures they be at their pleasure in their quotations of them and glosses upon them 3. They maintain their false conceits by falacious or sencelesse reasoning syllogizings and inferences as at the dispute at Lin George Whitehead to prove all sin to be guil brought this falacy All sin is a transgression of the Law guile is a transgression of the Law therefore guile is all sin which any that understand the rules of Syllogismes know to be a Paralogisme or false reasoning such as the Apostle in the Greek Text of Col. 2. 4. Expresly faults and warns us of and in their Book G. W. turning about denying and falsifying his own former Syllogisme sets down a more vitious and corrupt Argument then it to beguile the simple with being but his own and his brethrens three wayes asserting the same thing in divers formes or with very little alteration and that without any Scripture proof for any of them viz. Every transgression of the Law is guile or sin and all guile includes all transgression of the Law therefore every sin is guile Like as if one should prove every Beast to be an Asse thus Every Beast is an Asse or a living Creature and all Asses includes all Beasts Therefore every Beast Foxes and Wolves to as an Asse p. 5. Again in the same page they prove all sin to be guile thus Any one sin makes a man guilty and so he hath guile in him a foolish inconsequence as if guile and guilt were one and the same thing whereas George Whitehead being a Scholler knows the contrary and therefore therein he wilfully playes the Jesuite or Sophester to delude the Ignorant with seeming like tearmes So pag. 1. to prove the perfection of sinlessenesse in themselves they say the perfection of sinlessenesse is in the witnesse of God as if that and themselves were one and the same and pag. 6.
perfect in knowledge and then they are wretchedly unhappy that take them for Oracles that are so ignorant If they know this then dealt they guilfully and intended to deceive simple ignorant people that cannot distinguish things that differ by their Sophistry and then the case of their followers is yet more wretched which things being so 4. Their conclusion cannot follow from those premises viz. So that he that had no guile in him had no sin in him but the contrary so that he that had no guile in him might have ignorance and other sins in him G. W. They accuse J. H. also of turning George Whiteheads words in saying he said guile is a transgression of the law therefore guile is all sin which they say is falsly framed and that the words were to this effect Every transgression of the law is guile or sin and all guile includes all transgression of the law therefore every sin is guile Rep. I call God and men to witness whither George Whitehead be not herein a notorious lyer who hath shamefully turned his own words and belyed both himself and me why else should I match it and detect his Sophistry in his syllogisme by this as like it all sin is a transgression of the law but lying is transgression of the law therefore lying is all sin It is true that syllogism of his was falsly framed and so much I told him then but it was of his own framing nor does he repeate it here as I writ it rightly and as he framed it but leaves out the word all in the minor and the whole major proposition as any that compare our books may discern And when they say their words were to suâ—â— effect as they repeat why say they not directly they were their words may they not as boldly lye and falsifie in one thing as in another and what kind of argument have they framed here sure as corrupt as that he framed then for here is but onely the same falshood affirmed in three severall forms of words to the same sense and none of them proved and yet they would infer the last form of them from the two former just like this every transgression of the law is anger or sin and all anger includes all transgression therefore every sin is anger but why saies the first proposition every transgression of the law is guile or sin t is true it s one of them if their or disjoyn then they distinguish sin and guile if it but explicate then they beg the question instead of proving it Oh! Lord deliver this Nation and the poor ignorant people from such sophisters as these be that lead men to destruction They aske G. W. What sin can we prove that Nathaniel had in him when he had no guile in him and tell us we must prove some sin then in him or see our selves confuted Rep. They may as well say seeing the Scripture witnesses that the children of Korah dyed not in the judgement that befell Korah and his company what disease dyed they of and if we cannot prove that they dyed of some disease then we are confuted if we believe and hold that they dyed For as there are many diseases they might dye of though not in that judgement so there be divers sins besides guile secret sins distinct from presumptuous sins as David implies Psal 19. 1. When they tell us what were those secret sins David prayed to be cleansed from distinct from presumptuous sins then may we tell them what sins Nathaniel had distinct from guile David implies sins in them though forgiven and covered in whose Spirits is no guile Psal 32. 1 2. Which we also quoted and that will save us from being confuted though we can prove no one particular sin in Nathaniell but that Scripture they skip over in silence as afraid to meddle with it because thereby they are confuted To our Quotation of Ed. Borroughs saying that saints upon earth may be perfectly freed from the body of sin and death and our concluding them from their doctrine of sinlesness to be deceivers They say W. and F. Here we might as well have accused the true Prophets and Apostles Rep. It seems then by their own intimation they be not such but false Prophets and Apostles what needed that word true by way of distinction of them from themselves else if not to imply that they also be Prophets and Apostles but not true Mind this Reader and beware of them then for say they they witnessed to the same the Quakers witnesse to Rep. Here they own themselves Quakers too so that we may call them lawfully so whereas they traduce us by many Nick names that we own not as Moorians Manifestarians Freewillers c. Did the true Apostles and Prophets ever so nickname their Opponents as these false ones do But let us see their proof that the true Apostles and Prophets witnessed to the same things that the untrue ones the Quakers do They adde as said the Prophet Blessed are the undefiled in the way they also do no iniquity Psal 119. 1 2 3. And saith the Lord ye shall be clean from all your filthiness Ezek. 36. 25. And Christ exhorted his to be perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect Math. 5. 48. And every one that is perfect shall be as his Lord and the same Apostle who said ye are compleat in Christ said also in whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh Col. 2. 10. 11. Rep. Here is no place yet saies that either those Holy men themselves or any others then living were without sin in themselves which is the thing should have been proved 1. As for the Prophet David lived not he under the old Testament as well as Solomon whose saying there is no man that sinneth not they would therewith have eluded but undefiled in the way may signifie either in Christ who is the way John 14. 6. And that we granted or in the way of their walking so as Zachariah and Elizabeth were blameless in their walking in all the statutes and commandements of the Lord and yet Zachary had sin in him which discovered it self when tried with the vision for he believed not the Angel and therefore was punished with blindness Luke 1. 6. 20. And they do no iniquity perverse evil as the word signifies is all one with they do not commit sin yet even such as do not commit sin have sin in them yea and with their flesh serve the Law of sin as we may read Rom. 7. 20. 25. 2. In that of Ezek 36. 25. They confound things distinguished for it is not said as they quote it in one and the same period you shal be clean from all your filthiness but the words are distinguished thus I will sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean there 's a half stop and then follows from all your filthiness and from all your
us or with any that know and believe the Scriptures but they imply That if Adam was under a covenant of works do this and live then he should not have lived when he was in innocency till he had done some thing to merit life Rep. The mistake of this is shewed above in that that covenant was not for the first giving but for the continuance of his life in the favour of God and that though he could not merit by any works and obedience was to be continued upon his working that that was good sinlesly otherwise he was to die as appeared in that he lost it by his sinning and fell under death from which that covenant afforded no Redemption as the covenant in Christ doth so that we have not spoken ignorantly as they charge us but the ignorance is found with them that confound what covenant Adam was under with what was given to the people of Israel for convincement of their sin when fallen The covenant of works or Law as given to fallen man in the hand of a Mediator entred because of transgression till the seed came and so was given with subordination to the covenant of grace even the grace of God in the Redeemer from the fall and the death that came by sin as the naturall death also did though they erroneously imply the contrary and no marvaile for if that death be by sin then there must be a Redemption out of that death and so a Resurrection of the body from it which seeing they deny how can they grant it comes in by sin and that the seed should Redeem the creature out of it So that herein also their iniquity and corrupt judgement is seen and the root of their deniall that the naturall death came in by sin namely their deniall of the Redemption by Christ from that death and so the Resurrection of the body from it as after will more appear so that here Reader we have a complication of errours in them Thus much to their defence of their first errour about their sinlesness let us see how they defend their second Our second charge of them was about the personall body of Christ in which he suffered which that it is ascended into Heaven the Heavens without all men and above the clouds opposed to the visible earth we say they would not be brought to acknowledge touching which whether we questioned severall times altering our words as they charge us let them judge that read our book But they say W. and F. We contradict our selves because we say that they said the same body that suffered was glorified at Gods right hand in heaven Rep. Nay not unless by that body and that Heaven we say they meant as we expressed in our question which we said they did not and they in their book clearly manifest the truth of what we therein said so that it 's but another falshood added to the former to say that we are stifled in our own confusion and another yet to say that we charge them ignorantly with what they meant for here they plainly say W. and F. It appears we hold Christ hath two bodies in telling of a mysticall body and not receiving that as in answer that his body is the Church the fulness of him that filleth all in all and in that from our words they say we would have Christ to have a body besides or distinct from the fulness of God when as the Scripture doth not say that Christ hath two bodies or that his body is a body of flesh and bones without the blood in it as they say we told them Rep. See here Reader did we ignorantly charge them that by the body they said was glorified in Heaven they meant his Church do not they here speak it out while they tax us with holding Christ hath two bodies because we say he hath his personall body in which he suffered and which he shewed to have flesh and bones in it as a Spirit hath not And is it more absurd for Christ to have in two senses a body or two bodies in different senses of the word body then for the believer to have two heads in two distinct senses hath not George Whitehead and the rest each of them their personall head in which they have tongues with which they smite them that are more righteous then themselves And if they were believers in truth should they not have Christ for their head too And why then may not Christ have a body of his own as a man the man Christ Jesus in which he shewed his Disciples flesh and bones and yet have a body mysticall or body signifying a Church society or congregation as he is the Ruler and Governour of them and in them by his Spirit And doth not the Scripture set forth both these to us as distinct bodies though those very words two bodies it hath not was it his body the Church in which he shewed his Disciples his flesh and bones hands and feet that were pierced with Nailes and in which he bare our sins on the tree And was it his personal body for which Paul filled up the remainder of the sufferings Col. 1. 24. Is there not expresly the body of his flesh mentioned Col. 1. 22. In which he reconciled us to God his now glorious body in the Heavens to which the body of his Church is to be fashioned into the likeness of it Phil. 3. 20. 21. And the body his Church Col. 1. 24. See here how these men broadly deny Christ as man and onely make him a Spirit filling the Church and so the Spirit and the Church to be Christ and is not that all the Christ they confess now to be And whereas they say we would have Christ to have a body besides and distinct from the fulness of God Col. 2. 9. We say we acknowledge a body in which dwells the fulness of the Godhead which we say is distinct from the fulness of the Godhead that dwells in it and is distinct too from the Church the fulness it is not said of God as God but of him that filleth all in all that is of Christ as Mediator in the power of God Ephes 4. 9 10. Yet that his body is a body of flesh and bones in Heaven without blood in it we determined not but that that body of flesh and bones or in which he shewed his Disciples flesh and bones is ascâ—nded up into Heaven and he as in it is glorified against which they reason thâ—â— W. and F. It 's not proper to say a body of flesh and bones is in the Heavens as if it were in many places at once for Heavens are more then one a silly reason for by that reason it 's not proper to say a body of flesh and bones is in the waters or a stone sinks in the waters for waters are more then one Heaven and Heavens are indifferently used in the Singular or Plurall number as water and waters be as we
sure these men have the imperfection of irrationality if they cannot understand this difference We accused John Whitehead for arguing against the Redemption of the body to be expected after death and for saying the Apostles had it before death W. and F. Here they fault us for not expecting the Redemption of the body and our discharge from sin till after death because we said also p. 10. that the nature of man in the Resurrection is discharged of sin which we spake of Christ made under sin and Law and death for us and in the Resurrection namely his resurrection discharged thereof sayes that any thing of our not being discharged of sin as to forgivenesse of it till the resurrection What grosse abuses be these But they plead for John Whiteheads corrupt sayings reproaching our W. and F. expecting the redemption of the body after death as contrary to the Saints expectations for they waited and groaned they say for the redemption of the body from under corruption when they were upon earth and the creature it self was to be brought into the Glorious Liberty of the Sons of God which state was witnessed by as many as were led by the Spirit of God who were sanctified throughout in body in Soul and in Spirit and put not redemption afar off till after death as they say we do Reply Oh monstrous blind corrupted stuffe one would think that all men that read these things should abhor to listen to these Preachers for first they bely the Saints in saying the expecting the redemption of the body after Death is contrary to the Saints expectation did not the Saints expect that after death their bodies should be raised incorruptible Did they look to have their bodies immortal incorruptible powerful and glorious before their death read 1 Cor. 15. and see if these men be not lyars in grain and wofully corrupt like Hymeneus and Phyletus that said the resurrection was past Phil. 3. 20. 21. 2 Tim. 2 17. 18. 2. They aequivocate in saying they waited and groaned for the redemption of the body from under corruption when they were upon earth in one sense it is true and in another false It is true while they were upon earth they exercised their patient waiting and expectation but false that they expected that the redemption of their body should be proved by them before death the redemption of it I say either from all the being of sin therein or to the being of sin in it till death we spake before and proved it from Ps 143. 2. for they say it s sown in corruption and raised in incorruption if it be sown in corruption when it dies then it is not redeemed from corruption before it die 3. That the Creature it self is to be brought into the liberty of the Sons of God is true but that that state was witnessed that is proved by as many as were led by the Spirit of God is false for the Apostle was led by the Spirit of God and so are the Sons of God but if they witnessed the Creatures being brought into the liberty of the Sons of God and the Redemption of their bodies from corruption how sayes he then that the earnest expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the Sons of God seeing what they waited for they did not see and prove and so could not witnesse it for if they see it why did they yet wait for it Rom. 8. 14. 19 20. 23 24 25. Why say they the creature it self shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption and not rather is delivered from it yea and why say they expresly we that have the first fruits of the spirit even we our selves groaning within our selves wait for the Adoption the Redemption of the body for we are saved by hope c. Were not the Apostles led by the Spirit that had the first fruits of it And Paul sayes The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the Law of Sin and Death Rom. 8. 2. And were not they sanctified throughout in Body Soul and Spirit at least in good measure And yet we see they did but wait for the Redemption of the Body they did not witnesse it as a thing which they had nor do we ever find them say they had it but they confound the Redemption of the body with the freeing it from sin in it as G. W. in his late dispute with J. H. declared himself alleadging Rom. 8. 2. his being set free from the Law of sin and death for proof that Paul witnessed the Redemption of the body when as Paul had that before he said he waited for this nor doth it prove any absolute freedom from the being of sin in his body Rom. 7. 26. shews So see all men how corrupt the Quakers be and how miserable out of the Apostles Doctrine and Faith And yet fourthly We say not that either we or the Apostles put Redemption far off till after death It is God that hath Ordered the Redemption there spoken of to be after Death that we might first bear the image of the Earthly in a vile Mortal body before we bear the Image of the Heavenly in a Glorious body it was their part and so is ours to groan after it and waite for it till the time of Christs descending from Heaven to change our vile body that it may be fashioned into the likenesse of his Glorious body was ever any mans body redeemed from Corruption and Death and Rottennesse before it died They may as well contradict the Apostle and say that which thou sowest is quickened before it die All men may see these be deniers of the Resurrection preached by the Apostles and therefore Teachers that are to be accounted accursed Gal. 1. 8. Note by the way Reader that these men never attempt to answer our Question propounded to them at both our former disputes whether that that shall rise a Spiritual body was ever dead surely they by their shunning it do declare that they do not believe it and therefore by consequence deny the Resurrection of the dead To our charge of them with Antichristianisme in intimately not confessing Christ come in the flesh while they make not the knowledge of him as so come the knowledge to Eternal Salvation but the knowledge of him after the Spirit as he was before the World was in Ed. Burroughs declaration of their faith which charge we managed against them and they could not make good their faith or prove it by Scriptures though they assayed it from 2 Cor. 5. 16. 1 John 1. 1 2 3. And therefore stood concluded Antichristians To this upon further thoughts they give now this answer That W. and F. To know Christ as he is the Power of God is to know him in the Spirit as he was before the World was and that we trust in the living God who is the Saviour of all men especially of them that believe but as he is
stand by themselves and say God I thank thee I am not as other men are I am not as this Publican c. The Hypocrites use not to be sencible of and own their sins but rather boast themselves to be holy as if they had no sin Search the Scriptures and see if the Scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites or the true Apostles and Prophets rather use to confesse their sins and take shame to themselves for them You may finde David Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Daniel Paul James John c. but never the Scribes and Pharisees so doing let all see whether they or we be in the steps of the Hypocrites then do they walk directly in them lifting up themselves as if they had no sins to confesse when indeed they be most deceitfull and abominable Hypocrites in the inside of their Doctrine turning the Truth of God into a lie But 3. What would they have done had they lived with the true Apostles and Prophets from whom they distinguished themselves above Would they not have fallen fowlly upon them and reproached them as they do us Had they heard Davids saying innumerable evils have compassed me about mine iniquities have taken such hold upon me that I am not able to look up they are more then the hairs of my head therefore my heart faileth me Would they not have called him Hypocrite for faulting his enemies and persecutors as evil doers and yet he himselfe so burthened with iniquity Had they heard Isaiah say we grope for the wall like the blinde we grope as if we had no eyes we stumble at noon day as in the night c. Isa 59. 12 13 14. for our transgressions are multiplyed before thee our sins testifie against us for our transgressions are with us and as for our iniquities we know them in transgressing and lying against the Lord and departing away from our God speaking oppression and revolt c. Would they not have said Oh thou Hypocrite hast thou been crying out against us as blind and bruitish and such as have no understanding and dost thou grope like a blinde man and as if thou hadst no eyes people had need take heed of thee least thou lead them blind-fold into the ditch Do you lie and transgresse and speak words of ravolt from God Should we or any of us then take heed to you Consider your own conditions c. Do not those words speake as high as neglect of Christ and abuse of his Truth Revolt from him signifies more then simply neglect of him and how would these have reproached him had they heard him say we are all as an unclean thing and all our Righteousnesses are as filthy rage c. Isa 64. 6. Would they not have cryed out upon him unclean wretch and bid him leave preaching and told the people they had need to take heed of following such an unclean wretch Had they lived in Agurs dayes and heard or seen him publish his prophecy with Jehiel c. and how he begins with this confession Surely I am more bruitish then man and have not the understanding of a man I neither learned wisdom nor have the knowledge of the Holy Would not such proud Pharisees as these have cryed out upon him for a beast what should he be heard for And warned people not to take heed to his sayings seeing he confesses he hath not the knowledge of the holy Prov. 30. 2 3. The like I might observe of Ezra and Nehemiah Job confessing their sins and Daniel that they had done wickedly rebelled by departing from Gods precepts judgments Daniel says expresly that he confessed his sins as well as the sins of his people Dan. 9. 20. Yea and this too after they were holy men and Prophets and born of God as was made good lately against G. W. at our later dispute with him he not being able to maintaine the contrary What would they have said had they lived when Paul that wrote against the Antichristians that made a fair shew in the flesh and gloried in appearance comes out with an acknowledgement that he was a chief of sinners and lesse then the least of all Saints Eph. 3. 8. Would they not have concluded him to be an Hypocrite to give out himself to be an Apostle and Preacher of Christ and yet not so much as the least Saint Would they not have concluded him then one of the World and so led by a worldly deceitful spirit not to be believed and followed Reader judge indifferently between us if they in thus reproaching us for joyning our selves with the people and confessing our selves faulty in that we have too much neglected Christ and abused his Truth not so contended for Christ against these deceivers and false prophets as we should nor so used and walked in his Truth as we ought and are not like the Pharisees that pretend themselves perfect and to have no sins to own and confesse Judge whether of us tread more in the steps of the Prophets and Apostles who said if we confess our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness Judge whether of us have the beame in our eye to hinder us from seeing we that pull it out by owning and confessing our evils with the evils of the people or they that hide their wickednesses and justifie themselves as no sinners though guilty of such horrid damnable deceits as we have herein in them discovered They bid give over our Teaching of others Reply Ay that 's the thing they would have that 's it grieves them that the sheep should not be left to the Wolves that they might devour them but is that wholesome Counsel and the way for us to do better we confess we have too much neglected Christ and they would have us neglect him more let him look to his own affairs c. We confess we have been guilty with the Nation in the abuses of truth and they would have us abuse it worse by suppressing it that God might take it from us and give us up to their delusions Nay nay that 's not the way to do well that 's counsel from the Devil Did not the holy men above mentioned condemn and reprove the false Prophets and enemies of the Truth of Christ in their several ages because they confest themselves guilty of such evils bruitishness iniquities no whit below our expressions See what Agur sayes notwithstanding his foresaid confession Prov. 30. 12 13. There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes are not these Quakers such and yet are not washed from their filthiness There is a Generation Oh how losty are their eyes and their eye-lids are lifted up Are not the Generation of the Quakers such haughty and proud boasters Did not David Isaiah Jeremiah Paul John c. Preach against and reprove the false Prophets hypocrites and Antichrists of their times too though they confest sins in themselves Should they not have done thus
Ear rings and Ornaments they were faulted and Aaron too for their casting them off to make an Idol of and sure men and women had better wear such things soberly as these men Pharisaically condemn then make an Idol or false Christ or righteousness to themselves of their casting them off as they led them to do as the false Apostles led their Disciples to do with their observations of times and dayes c. VVhat they say of J. H. he leaves to the Lord to judge the truth of and as for condemning our selves in what we judge others we say we desire to judge our selves and them too in what we are guilty but not in what they foolishly fault us like the Pharisees superstitiously faulting Christs Disciples for things he faulted them not That the Deceivers and Subverters of Souls spake things that the peoples Consciences became in bondage to and many things that through the effect of the Law in their Consciences they could not deny but close with is falsly denyed by them For how else were they transformed into Ministers of Righteousness if they speak nothing suteable to the Letter of the Law of Righteousness so as that the Consciences of people bearing witness to the truth of some of their sayings might be brought to listen to them and receive also their delusions They say The Law in men is Light and it is the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus that freeth men from the power of sin and death VVherein still they play the juglers for First neither doth the Apostles say the Law is in every man or in all the Gentiles but he sayes the effect or work of the Law Rom. 2. 14. Secondly The Apostle sayes The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus had made him free from the Law of sin and death not onely from the power of sin and death but from the law that convinces of sin and holds in bondage for it and sentences to death as Rom. 7. 4. Gal. 3. 13. and 4. 4. clearly shew even from under that Law that is in it self holy and just and good yet by reason of the flesh could not justifie or save Now these to hide their deceit seeing that had they cited the Apostles words they insinuate that something reproves of sin that is not Christ as we said they subtilly change his phrase and turn it into another thing How they set themselves masters in mens Consciences for all their feigned humility in denying that title we have before shewed often in this Treatise and therefore here shall wave it W. and F. They say They suffer much for righteousnesse sake and for bearing Testimony against unrighteousnes and we oft cause it c. Who do they here commend themselves and the Jesuites for we said to get themselves a party as the Jesuites do they expose themselves to some sufferings c. and they deny not for they know its true that the Jesuites do so too and think we they do not say its for Righteousnesse sake and for witnessing against unrighteousness and that they may thank the Teachers often for it T is likely the Quakers and they are either the same or of very great affinity yet both their ends shall be according to their works as well as other false Apostles and false Prophets who have exposed themselves too to great sufferings partly of voluntary devotion and will-worship and partly from people against their wills for their falshood as Baals Priests and Prophets did 1 Kings 18. 28. 40. 2 Kings 10. 25. Collossians 2. 20. 21. 22. W. and F. That we have not God nor abide in the Doctrine of Christ they endeavour to prove against us because we say we of this Nation joyning our selves with them as not without guilt have neglected Christ and long abused the Truth But we deny their inference for every neglect of Christ and abuse of his truth deprives not of God nor is accompanied with such transgression as not to abide in his Doctrine for who then should stand as Psal 130. 3. the Apostles had fellowship with God and Christ when yet they had sins to confess and so neglects of Christ and abuses of truth to be cleansed from for in every sin is some neglect of Christ sure and abuse of Truth in some degree or other and such things David Daniel Isaiah and others confessed in effect and yet in so doing that is confessing their sins kept in with God receiving daily forgiveness of them and cleansing from them and though they had some failings in the way yet they abide in it and transgrest not so as to leave the way It is the Deceivers and deceived Generation who leave the Doctrine of Christ for some corrupt mysterie and false imagination that are guilty of such transgressions and abide not in the truth nor have either Father or Son whatever their false boastings be or selfe justifications they are fallen from Christ and be accursed And G. W. knows that the Quakers were proved to be such in our late dispute with him to that purpose The Pharisee that pleaded no sinner was out of the Doctrine of Christ when the Publican that durst not look up because of his sins was nearer in it they that say they have no sin deceive themselves the truth is not in them and so they have not God and Christ when they that confesse their neglects of Christ and abuses of his truth shall find him faithful to forgive their sins and to cleanse them from all unrighteousnesse they are in Gods Doctrine and way to life when the others are far wide of it for he that humbleth himself shall be exalted he that acknowledgeth his sin shall find Mercy when he that hides and dissembles it and lifts up himself as if innocent is out of God and Christ and shall be abased and confounded The rest being frothy and disdainful reproaches we leave them to the judgement of the Lord and shall look to him to plead our cause against them which also blessed be his holy Name he hath in some measure done since the first draught hereof in our latter conflict with G. W. to his no small confusion and to keep people from their strong delusions and specious but most pernicious deceits having we trust so laid open their nakednesse that all that will may see their folly manifest and avoid them and all their Serpent-like windings and insinuations Nor fear we to proceed against them in Print for ought that they threaten us with or can do against us for the more they Print the more shall their folly be made manifest as the Spirit of God hath before signified 2 Tim. 3. 6 7 8 9. In the strength of God therefore and of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall stand against them and all their assaults that their printing can make against us blessing him that he hath counted us worthy who in our selves are most unworthy to be made his instruments to draw out
of men set up before 6. Our Christ is by his Word and spirit and the riches of his Grace in the hearts of his people by faith quickening and inlivening them which these perverters deny and jeer at and say Their Christ in all the reality of his Body with his Flesh and Blood is wholly within them for so some of them have said even sensibly bearing their sins in them though not willingly as Christ bare ours on the Tree but desiring to be free and so is rising in them and reigning in Glory So as the Redemption and Resurrection of the Body others wait for these say they have in this body within a pleasing fancy 7. Our Christ will come again personally in his own Glorious Body and every eye shall see him in which coming he will not by degrees or one after another but at once together in one moment in the twinkling of an eye change the surviving and raise the dead bodies of all that sleep in Jesus so as they shall be all mortal and meet him in the air and appear in Glory with him freed from all Hunger Persecution Sorrow and death for ever and blessed in the enjoyment of him with whom they shall reign for evermore and when he is set on his Throne he will gather all Nations before him raising all men not leaving out these Deceivers but all shall appear before his Judgement Seat even those that rebel against him and in this day deny him then shall they acknowledge him Lord and his People that have now confest him the beloved of the Lord when themselves shall be judged by him and sent into the Lake of Fire c. all which coming of his and the Resurrection of the dead and judgement after death the bodily death is by those Perverters also altogether denyed they owning no other coming of Christ then some of them enjoy now nor other Resurrection then is now sometime of one and sometime of another and yet they of them that enjoy the Resurrection of the body they talk of sometime bunger and feel pain and cry out of Persecution and must die the bodily yea and rise again to the second death too 8. Our Christ hath by his spirit so fully discovered himself in the Testimony of the Gospel that is the written verity that in and according to the plain import of the saying thereof he is to be known so far as we may know him till his coming again and by and wit that the Holy Spirit doth witnesse of him to and teach the hearts of the believers and they from the same spirit and according to the same Gospel do conside in him confesse him and hold him sorth to others and for that are opposed by these perverters Of whose Christ and their Doctrine of him though whatever is said of the true Christ or of his Church in the Scripture they apply to their false Christ and to themselves as if they meant no other Christ nor faith then the Scriptures speak of perverting them to that end Yet the scripture writing indeed speaketh not but to the condemnation overthrow and confusion thereof warning all believers not to hear or follow them nor receive them to house nor bid them God-speed But hold them accursed beware them and avoid them as Wolves false Apostles and Reprobate concerning the Faith Such the Doctrine and Principles which these men call the truth which indeed is errour and darknesse let the Scriptures be compared 2. For the manner of their managing and maintaining their doctrine let these particulars amongst divers others be noted 1. They come in their own name or authority boasting of themselves and witnessing to and of themselves and so obtruding things upon men not by and in the light and evidence of the spirit in and according to the Scriptures as the true Apostles use to do but upon their own authority and the authority of their sayings and witnessings which therefore they say also are of equal authority with c. Better than the saying of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures as appeares by George Whiteheads answers to the Cambridge Queries To this purpose is their saying in their Title Page that what they have written and made manifest in their Book is they say by the Truth they say not which is in Christ or in the Gospel of Christ but which is in George Whitehead John Whitehead George Fox the younger to which three witnesses in their own names We oppose the three in Heaven the Father the Son or Word and the Holy Ghost and the truth that is in and is witnessed by them much of this their way of self-witnessing and obtruding things in their own name word or authority the Reader may see in their Book p. 8. 13. 18. 20 21 22 23. 26. In which they are such as the false Christs and the false Prophets of whom our Lord said to the Jews if another come in his own name him ye will receive John 5. 43. And like the Idol worshippers and preachers of whom the Lord says by the Prophet Isaiah that they were their own witnesses Isa 44. 9. And though they say the Lord saith yet they do therein as the false prophets affirming the Name of the Lord to their own words dreames fancies or deceits as in Jer. 23. 16. 25 26 27. Ezek. 13. 7. As we might also instance in some they have said of that they were Priests and Hirelings and took Tythes that were never exercised in such away as a certain woman said of Thomas Moor junior at Glentworth in Lincoln-shire and George Fox said in Bury Goal of one Disbrough brother in law to Joseph Hagger being a trads-man in London yet they pretended that they speak by the Revelation of the spirit of them in which their imposture and deceit was made manifest 2. When they do quote Scripture they usually pervert and corrupt it altering leaving out something or adding thereto corrupt and false glosses we may instance some few particulars in their book against us As 1. Alleadged 1 John 5 10. He that believeth hath the witnesse in himself bâ—ing out on the Son of God without which it is not true for the Devils believe yet have not the witnesse spoken of in 1 John 5. in themselves Jam. 2. 19. 2. They alleadge 1 John 4. 17. as he is so are we in this World to prove that they are without sin here as well or much as Christ is though its evident that contradicts the Apostle himself who says 1 John 1. 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves touching which quotation because they make some specious use of it to deceive the simple We shall note some things here further about it for the help of the weak let the Reader mind then that 1. He saith not as he was besore the World was so are we in this World for so he was glorified with the Fathers own self equal to God and in his forme the same with
Epistle to the Reader as ours in which they shew their ignorance and deceit they be thus T. Moor say they affirmed That sin is a natural heritage in the beleevers while they be here To which T. Moor saith Ans This is falsly expressed his sayings were That sin is in the beleever as a natural heritage from Adam while he is in this mortal body And in noting this as erroneous they intimately deny the natural uncleanness of man by sin entring into the world by one mans sin and so that all have sinned in him and are fallen short of the glory of God in and unto which they were created Or else with the Papists imagine that its taken away by Baptism or Regeneration so as no more to be in men here But note that T. M. says its in them as a natural heritage from the first natural root fallen Adam in which is implied a distinction between what is the beleevers by nature as a son of the first Adam a man and what is his by grace as in Christ the second Adam and the Apostle tells us That by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and that it abides in the beleever after beleeving is plain in that Paul says sin dwelt in him even then when he says it was not he that did sin but sin in him Rom. 7. 17 20. For I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing there his natural heritage In which also he implies that in his Spirit was that that is good dwelling as also he after says vers 22. and that sin abides not in the beleever till death we find no Scripture saith but the contrary That no man living shall be justified in the sight of God if he enter into judgement with him Psal 143. 2. If no man living but by Gods not entring into judgment with him then no man living here is without sin for if there were though God did enter into judgement with him he should be justified for God certainly cannot in judgment or will not condemn him in whom is no sin so that their ignorance and error herein appears in accusing T. M. of Error herein 2. T. M. say they affirmed that their nature is restored in Christ speaking of their own nature and that their nature is a filthy nature and Christ took upon him their nature Ans This also is falsly expressed and perverted for his sayings were to this effect That the nature or kind of man is perfectly redeemed and restored in one for all even in Christ the second Adam while yet sin is in and death upon the Individuals or particular persons of men for whom such Redemption is obtained in and by Jesus Christ Yea even the beleevers body is yet vile while not changed by death and they all waiting for the redemption of the body but here they confound things together and deal deceitfully they might as well have taxed the Apostle of confusion for saying men by nature do the things contained in the Law Rom. 2. 14. and yet by nature are children of wrath Eph. 2. 3. The word Nature signifies diversly when we say our nature is restored in Christ we speak of the nature or kind of man as it is distinguished from the nature or kind of Angels and other creatures which whole nature by reason of sin committed by it in Adam was fallen under wrath and curse but being assumed by Christ who was made flesh and man and not in the nature or kind of Angels he hath redeemed it even mans nature or being which is ours too inasmuch as we are men and restored it to favour and fellowship with God in himself and yet we say our nature kind or being as in us not in Christ for the same common nature kind or being of man is in every man though in divers persons diversly is corrupt and filthy in it self by reason of sin in it Isai 64. 6. and death upon us further then purified and purged by him yet Christ took upon him our nature as before not as it is filthy in us by sin in it but as it was under bondage to death and ourse without filth in him he being sanctified in his conception so as to be the Holy One even in his Birth Luke 1. 35. whereas others are conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity Psal 51. 5. so that there is neither error nor confusion in what is said by T. M. hereabout but they have mis-related his sayings and therefore tax them because they agree not with their Errors concerning mans natural sinfulness called Original sin and the humanity of Christ denied by them 3. John Horn they say holds that they that had no guile in them had sin in them that every sin is not guile Answ T is well they dared not to put in David with him as holding the same error for he says that man is blessed whose sins are covered and to whom the Lord will not impute sin and in whose spirit there is no guile so then it seems some men in whose spirit is no guile have sins in them though covered and not imputed to them there needs no cover for what is not yet John Horn did not say that every one that had no guile in him had sin in him for he excepts Jesus Christ who neither did sin nor had guile in him not that Principle then but the contradiction of it is the Error 4. T. M. say they affirmed That the blood of Christ shed is not in his person in heaven but the vertue of it To which T. M. saith Ans That herein also they have altered and falsified his sayings which in Answer to their Question where the blood of Christ is was to this effect That the material blood was shed and the vertue or preciousness thereof or of his bloodshedding is now with the Father in the person of Christ in Heaven forasmuch as by means and for the worth thereof he is raised from the dead and entred into heaven it self there to appear in the presence of God for us having by it obtained life from the dead even eternal life and redemption for us Mind also Reader that they say p. 15. that they blame us not nor did blame us for not asserting that the bloodshed is in the body of Christ Why then note they this as a dangerous principle had T. M. so said 5. T. M. say they affirmed That the blood of Christ shed is the foundation of their faith but where it is they answered not nor could they tell Ans The forementioned Answer to their Question was first often given and urged else what meant their reply to it to this effect That the vertue of a thing cannot be separated from the thing it self that it may be where the thing it self is not in a present reall sensible existence or being the contrary to which was then proved as is shewed in the Book they pretend to answer And further T.
in his members and these two warring the one against the other but their arguing is like as if they should say the beleever hath no flesh or blood in his body because he hath a spirit in his body that hath neither flesh nor blood in it or that they be guilty of the imperfection of witlesness because they have something in them their gutts suppose that be witless and they are not divided from their nature they adde John said speaking of Christ as he is so are we in this world 1 Joh. 4. 17. and therefore that we have manifestly wronged them and the Apostles Rep. That we have either wronged them or the Apostles is false for that they hold what we said they do they deny not and that the Apostles so held they prove not the place they quote says not as Christ is without sin in himself so are we in this world no more then he saith as Christ is without a natural corruptible body or without pain ach or bodily death so are we in this world they may as well gather the one as the other from that saying and that the Apostle meant it not in respect of sinlesness as men is evident by comparing it with 1 John 1. 8. where he saith If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us we may not strain Scriptures beyond their scope nor may we say we are in every respect as Christ is either in himself or to the world or to beleevers Christ is God over all so are not the beleevers Christ is the second Adam a quickning spirit so are not the beleevers Christ is the only begotten Son of God so are not the beleevers on him The only begotten Son of God and they that beleeve on him are distinct and different persons Christ is the Saviour of the world so are not the beleevers not the Saviour though instruments of saving men Christ is the propitiation for our sins and for the sins of the whole world so are not the beleevers Christ is the Head and Husband of the Church so are not the beleevers but as Christ is so are the beleevers and in an eminent sense so were the Apostles in the world in the judgement knowledge account of the world as also in a measure set to be lights in the world But the main scope is that in respect of judgement account and estimate as Christ is so are we in this world for he says Herein is our love or love with us made perfect that we may have boldness in the day of judgement when we are judged of men here because as he is so are we in this world as to their receit approvement rejection or disapprovement we have our fellowship therein with him which also gives us strong consolation and confidence that when he comes to judge he will justifie us that were here condemned with him but what is this to their being sinless in themselves They add That they say not there is any perfection themselves without Christ who is their righteousness and they the righteousness of God in him Rep. That Christ is their righteousness c. is but their own testimony of themselves which we cannot receive because the true Christ whom we with the Apostles look for from heaven so to come again as they see him go up they say p. 10. they desire not the knowledge of nor doth their not saying that there is any perfection in them without Christ suffice to excuse them for its an Error to say that through Christ they have perfection in themselves so as to be perfectly sinless even the beleever in Christ though in Christ perfect is not as yet perfect in himself through Christ while here Paul though in Christ said he was not perfect nor had attained Phil. 3. 12 13. no not to be sinless Rom. 7. 20. 1 Tim. 1. 15. That Christ was manifested to take away our sin and in him is no sin we granted but added that its never said so of any else no where said by any of the Saints of themselves or of any of their brethren that they had no sin in them or were not sinners But they bid W. and F. mark how fairly we contradict our doctrine by telling its said indeed that he that abideth in him sinneth not and he that is born of God doth not commit or work sin because the seed of God abides in him neither can he sin that is commit work or yeeld up himself to sin because he is born of God which they render as inconsistent with our counting their maintaining a perfection of sinlesness in this life as a great error and say we would accuse the Saints or brethren with being sinners Rep. 1. Is this to accuse the Saints or brethren to observe what they have said or not said of themselves or one another If so then all are accusers of them that observe their sayings and so it seems they to avoid accusing of them observe them not If it be not then are they lyers and so not sinless that call our observing what they said or said not of themselves an accusing of them for we did no more in those sayings they have quoted as any impartial Reader may see 2. What we observed they said contradicts not what we noted they said not if they can find that they said of themselves or of their brethren that they had no sin in them or were not sinners they should produce it and prove us lyers if not then have they falsly charged us with self-contradiction These two contradict not John said He that abideth in him sinneth not and John said not he that abideth in him hath no sin in himself or is not in that respect a sinner or that any doth perfectly abide in Christ in every operation and act so as never to wander in his minde out of him Paul abode in Christ in the main and did not commit sin for he says It s no more I but sin that do it and yet Paul then had sin in him for he adds but sin that dwelleth in me Yea and said that with his flesh he served the law of sin and yet with his mind served the law of God Rom. 7. 20 25. Did Paul then contradict himself If yes then will we be counted contradictors of our selves also with him if no then neither do we contradict our selves but either they are ignorant of the nature of contradictions and so not perfect or else knowingly say falsly and so are vitious We then yet account what they maintain a great Error and yet say what the Apostle John said because he said not what they say that he that is born of God hath no sin in him but on the contrary If we say we have no sin in us we deceive our selves and yet they were born of God sure they beleeved Jesus to be the Christ and whosoever doth so is born of God 1 Joh. 5. 1. so that any that
are not blind may see the confusion and deceit in themselves that they would perswade them they may see in us and we have not broken our selves as they say falsly of us against any stone nor can any stone we war against in them break us being but such as are to be removed out of Gods Vineyard Isai 5. 2. they adde W. and F. If Christ be made manifest to take away sin then they in whom he is made manifest are not to have sin in them so long as they are in this life and if he that is born of God cannot sin nor yield up to sin then he is not a sinner but clear and perfect from sin Rep. We deny these inferences the latter we have spoken to and disproved above to the former we say I'ts not their duty to have sin as their phrase may seem to imply Nor do we say it is their duty but their infirmity even as to be weak and mortall is not their duty but their burthen but if by are to have sin in them they mean they have or will have sin in them so long as they are in this life we deny that inference till they prove that Christ was manifested to take away sin so as to take it wholly out of the nature of man in some of the particular persons in this life and that too absolutely infalibly we are not to build our faith upon their inferences but upon Gods sayings and God by his Apostle saith not Christ was manifested to take away sin therefore in us is no sin as their Inference imports therefore their Inference is denied by us nor slumble we much less do we break our selves at that stone They adde Whosoever sinneth hath neither seen Christ nor known him now they that affirm that the Saints or they that be born of God are sinners they might as well say that the Saints have neither seen Christ nor known him Rep. True if by saying they are sinners they mean they be in their sins and live in their sins he that so sinneth hath neither seen him nor known him but to be in sin and to have sin in men to live in sin and to have sailings or be overtaken with faults as Gal. 6. 1. Are very different things and in such sense he that saies the Saints are sinners that is have sin in them and in some things offend doth not all one as to say they have not seen or known Christ a man may be a sinner by having sin in him and yet not sin as Rom. 7. 20. Paul did not the evil yet saies of whom namely of sinners I am the chief by your inference Paul might have said he neither had seen Christ nor known him and Isaiah might have said I a man of polluted lips therefore mine eyes never see the Lord of hosts whereas he sayes the contrary for mine eyes have seen the King the Lord of hosts which he spoke of Christ when he saw his glory Isa 6. 5. Joh. 12 41. See Reader how there runs a constant streame of mistake in all their writings To those phrases He that is born of God cannot sin we said it 's no more then to say that a man acted of God cannot therein sin To this they say It 's no more then to say that a man acted of God cannot sin in being acted of God or he that doth righteousness doth not sin in so doing Rep. Yes it 's some thing more viz. That mens sinnings are not of God nor can be and so that they that sin do not do righteousness nor are born or acted of God thereunto contrary to many that pretend that whatever they do they are led of God thereunto even then when they sin and to that purpose I was told by one whether it be true I know not that some of the Quakers should say that what ever they do after they are believers or born of God in their sense they cannot sin in it the Apostle Argues the root from the fruit as in James 1. 13. Let no man say when he is tempted I am tempted of God for God is not tempted with evill nor tempts he any man 's but a man is tempted when led away by his own lusts c. As for reserving an accusation against him that 's born of God as they charge us it 's answered before we accuse not whom God justifies nor contradict we what John saith that He that doth righteousness is righteous as God is righteous for he saith not he that doth righteousness is as righteous as God is righteous in whom there is no sin similitude there is but not perfect equality yea therefore is righteous as Christ is righteous not because there is no sin in him but because Christ is made to him of God his righteousness and in him he is righteous as Christ is righteousnot in himself through Christ as ighteous as Christ is in respect of being without sin they adde See here how they have accused the Apostle Paul I. H. and T. M. words are these yea in 1 Tim. 1. 15. He saith he was then when an Apostle the chief of sinners Rep. Here again they say falsely of us unless to say what the Apostle said of himself be to accuse him that the Apostle even when an Apostle said not I was but I am the chief namely of sinners see the Scripture quoted by us nor follows it as they imply that because the same Apostle in 1 Tim. 1. 12. Sayes that Christ counted him faithfull and put him into the Ministry that we might as well say he that is faithful to Christ is the chief of sinners no it only follows that he that said he was counted faithfull by Christ also even then acknowledged himself the chief of sinners and that 's true unless they can blot out the words of Scripture and prove them false read else and see if he that in verse 12. Saith that Christ counted him faithfull c. Sayes not verse 15. Christ came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the chief is it we that said thus of Paul or Paul that said thus of himself let all men judge or can they deny that Paul said of himself what we say he did and when we say he said it surely no but they say when as it is said Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am chief and saith he had obtained mercy now doth it not follow that Paul was one of the chief or greatest sinners but he was one of the chiefest sinners that was saved by Christ who saveth his people from their fins and doth not suffer them to remain the greatest sinners when they are saved from sin Rep. To this their glosse we say doth Paul say of whom I was the chief or of whom I am the chief of his obtaining mercy he saith in the time past I obtained mercy but of his being the chief of sinners that Christ came to
save he saith not in the time past I was but in the time present I am the chief For though he did not sin so grosly as before yet he was still the same sinner or sinfull man that Christ came to save yea and might possibly account every small neglect or failing a greater sin now then his greatest sins before because sensible now of his more ingagement to Christ for his having shewed him such favour a smaller offence against greater knowledge and mercy may be greater then a greater sin against less knowledge and mercy however what he said of Paul we proved and prove yet from the Text that is that he said of himself even then when an Apostle that then in the present tense he was a chief sinner if he said falsely of himself then was he therein a sinner if true then have not we said falsely of Paul nor accused him W. F. They say As for the Scriptures we bring 1 Joh. 1. 8 9 10. and Jam. 3. 1 2. These prove not that we would have them that the Saints were not perfectly freed from sin in this life they did not preach up sin and imperfection to remain in this liâ—e as they say we do for both James and Joh. exhort them otherwise for said James let patience have her perfect work that you may be perfect and intire wanting nothing James 1. 4. And John said if we walk in the light as he is in the iight we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. and Chap. 2. 1. My little children these things have I writ unto you that yee sin not and if any man sin we have an advocate with the Father so he did not include them all as to remain sinners for they were all sinners while they were not cleansed by the blood of Christ Rep. 1. That these Scriptures prove not that the Saints were not perfectly freed from sin in this life it 's but their saying so for are they perfectly freed from sin as to the being of it in them that have it as these say they had and David saith no man living and sure men are living while they are in this life is so free from sin as to be justified if God enter into judgement with them Psal 143. 2. And as for preaching up sin and imperfection that is falsely and slanderously said of us do we preach them up because we say they remain sure then David preacht them up when he said as above 2 James and John exhort to the contrary they say is this a good argument or a piece of sophistry John and James exhorted against sin therefore they did not sin is it not as good to say God commands all men every where to Repent therefore no man is impenitont all do repent James said let patience have its perfect work that ye may be perfect c. Therefore it seems they were not yet perfect nor intire but wanted something why else would he have so exhorted them Nor doth that prove they ever were so perfect and intire as to have no sin in them while here seeing Asa was perfect all his dayes yet had sin and sinned 2 Chron. 15. 17. and 16. 7. 10. 12. Do the Apostles say let no sin be in you any where Men are perfect and intire and want nothing when they have all things that may further them to their glorifying God here in their generation though they be not perfectly possest of all things they are capable of attaining hereafter may they not as well say men may have all their happiness and glory here before their decease the resurrection and whatever they may have in the world to come because James saith that ye may be perfect and intire wanting nothing Again can patience be said to have its perfect work in any so long as it hath any further exercise for it and hath it not something further till death be over 3. To Johns saying What need of cleansing from all sin where is no sin to be cleansed from He saith not it hath cleansed us already but cleanseth us what cleanseth now finds something to be cleansed from and doth not the Apostle plainly say so much when he immediatly adds If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves let all judge how these Quakers and the Apostles cross one the other They say because it cleanseth us from all sin those that it so cleanseth have no sin the Apostle says immediately after that saying If we say we have no sin we deceiâ—e our selves doth not prove these men to be deceived and so to deceive others seeing they are of such as say so 4. What made them stop in their next proof at we have an Advocate when the Apostle adds and be is the propitiation for our sins they see the words our sins mentioned there and that scared them from the quoting it so far Oh do not their Consciences accuse them as juglers and deceivers in this Argument and that they are afraid of the light it shines so full against them 5. And how follows their Conclusion then So then he did not include them all as to remain sinners c. Whom did he exclude seeing the blood of Christ cleanseth them that have fellowship with God and had not the Apostles so by their own confession yet they say our sins and if we say we have no sin even we that have fellowship with God we deceive our selves But they ask W. and F. What one sin or sins we can lay to Paul or James or Johns charge or to any of them that they were not perfectly freed from sin before their decease let them prove some sin say they of us which was not destroyed in any of those before their decease and who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect let them speak out and answer directly or for ever be silent from pleading for sin or accusing the righteous as they have done Rep. It is enough that we beleeve Paul and James and John that they had sin and did in many things all offend though we cannot name their particular offences as it is to believe multitudes to have died though we know not of what particular diseases would it not be a fine argument to say prove of what particular diseases Ezra and Nehemiah and Esther died or else be for ever silent of accusing them to have been mortall That in many things they all offended we believe because James tells us so but what were their many offences we know not because they tell us not we can tell some sins these men are guilty of if they had asked us namely of lying deceit guile sophistry taking up a reproach against their neighbour as they do in the conclusion of their Book Thomas Moore Sen. But what John and James in particular were guilty of besides naturall infirmity we cannot tell because the Holy Ghost hath not told us nor do we
lay any thing to their charge nor did God because he forgave justified and owned them through Christs death and intercession for them which he needed not to have made for them or been the propitiation for their sins had they had no sins then yea it was their abiding in the faith of Christ and living upon him as the propitiation for their sins in which they sinned not and the ceasing to live upon that as of no need for a man as having no sins for Christ to be the propitiation for is one way of going out from Christ into a mans self and so of not abiding in him not say we their sins were not destroyed as to the dominion of them over them much less that they were not freed from them through Christs mediation as to the imputation of them they were covered though they were there to cover they adde W. F. John did not say if we are not all sinners we deceive our selves but if we say we have no sin and have not sinned which if the little children that John wrote to that they might not sin had sin then John might say we have sin for he numbred himself with them as friends or those whose sins were forgiven and yet the yong men and Fathers he wrote to had overcome the wicked one and had the word of God abiding in them 1 Joh. 2. Rep. What confused deceitfull stuffe is this for 1. What doth that word which belong to and agree with And how come in those words or those whose sins were forgiven or how hang they with what went before them 2. Are they not all sinners that have sin and that have sinned What call they them then And if they had sin then how were they sinless as they plead 3. And what if John say not so yet Paul said of whom viz sinners I am the chief and said so When he wrote to Timothy and was an Apostle and James says in many things not onely we have sinned but in the presenttense we offend all are not offenders sinners 4. If the little children wrote to that they might not sin had sin what becomes then of their former argument from exhortations to be perfect or not to sin c. 5. And if John might thence say we have sin as numbring himself with them as friends what hypocrites be they then to fall so foul upon us because numbering our selves with the Nation we said we have neglected and long abused the truth But yet 6. How prove they that it was onely the little children that might have sin seeing James sayes in many things we offend all if we all then not the little children only for they were not all the body of them 't is but a presumption without proof that he onely numbred himself with the little children without any ground for it in themselves Nay it is contrary to what James saith 7. They say or those whose sins were forgiven why then be they not blind guides to say they whom the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin have no sin in them if those that had their sins forgiven might have sin in them they that had their sins forgiven had they not all forgiven and is not forgiveness of sin cleansing from sin and that cleansing too most properly from it which is by the blood of Christ Rom. 5. 9. And if persons that have all their sins forgiven may have sin who then may not that are here They imply the young men and fathers who had overcome the wicked one and had the word of God a biding in them but then 8. Had not the little children that had their sins forgiven them overcome the wicked one and had they not the word of God abiding in them They had the same thing in substance with the Fathers for the Fathers knew him that was from the beginning and the little children knew the Father is not the Father he that was from the beginning Were they children without the word of God abiding in them or without overcoming the wicked one David says he had hid the word of God in his heart that he might not sin against him and yet how often complains he of sin and praies to have removed from him the way of lying and implies that his eyes wandred after vanity and that his waies were not yet so directed as to keep his statutes and have respect to all Gods commandements What else means Oh that my waies were directed that I might keep thy statutes and then shall I not be ashamed when I shall have respect to all thy commandements Psal 119. 5 6. 11. 29. 36. And had not Paul overcome the wicked one when he sayes sin dwelt in him Nor James when he said in many things we offend all surely they had so that their reasonings are very aiery and without any proof from Scripture or any thing but their own authority to warrant them W. and F. To Prov. 20. 9. Who can say I have made my heart clean they say this is not against them for they themselves do not say that they have made their hearts clean it being Chrsts work to cleanse and ever to have perfected them that are sanctified and Solomon saith the just man walketh in his integrity and the righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way Rep. They are shrewdly driven to their shifts for they durst not repeate the whole Scripture we all edged because they know not how to stare in the face of it and find out an handsome glosse to elude it what could they not think of one shift to evade that clause I am pure from my sin Yea their shift for the other is like Adams fig leaves for what though it be Christs work to cleanse yet the Apostles exhort believers to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of flesh and Spirit may not a man as well collect from thence that a man may cleanse himself from all filthiness of flesh and Spirit and so make his heart clean as from other exhortations to be perfect to infer that a man may be free from all inherency of sin here Again Peter saies seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit and in such a sense who can say I have made my heart clean so as that I am pure from my sin And surely though Solomon saies the just man walketh in his integrity yet he speaks not of a just man that hath no sin or sinneth not for he saies there is none such upon earth Eccles 7. 20. Which Scripture next you shamefully elude for because it s said there is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not they sâ—y W and F. Mark for there among those that were in their changeable State nor among them that are born of God for they cannot sin Rep. Ah fie for shame where speaks he of such a the◠〈…〉 in their changeablâ— State Doth not George Whitehead en 〈…〉 and doth the word
to be confounded and not to have confounded us with their Sophistry or if they will their dreams and Dominions which all faile them then say W. and F. John Horn added It is not said there that there was no sin in Nathaniell to which they say Iohn Horn here would accuse Nathaniel to have sin in him when as Christ said there was no guile in him Ioh. 1. 47. Rep. 'T is no accusation against a man to observe what is said of him in the Scripture but they further charge Iohn Horn as erring in affirming as much as that all sin is not guile which is Negative not an affirmative and fault his distinstuishing hypocrisie and envy from guile and yet confessing that guile is a deceitfull hiding a mans sin or deceit Rep. Well if guile be a deceitfull hiding a mans sin then all sin is not guile for that implies there is some sin beside guile that guile would hide or lead men to hide but they add as a demonstration of our ignorance What is not hypocrisie a deceitfull hiding a mans sin and is not every sin deceit and deceit guile To this we answer and let all men judge of it that can understand 1. That not we onely but the Apostle Peter distinguishes between guile and envy and hypocrisy c. When he says lay aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and envy and evill speaking unless they will make the Apostle Peter to speak Tautologies and multiply words without cause for what need to say all malice and all guile if all malice and all guile are one and the same and what need to adde after all guile and hypocrisy and envies c. If all guile be all hypocrisy and envies and all sins else Judge Reader whether the Apostle would speak idle words and needless Again 2. To their question is not hypocrisy a deceitfull hiding a mans sins Answer nay rather its a deceitfull counterfeiting vertue and goodness as they do though where it is there is also guile to hide a mans sin yet these two are distinct 3. They say is not every sin deceit and deceit guile Answer every sin is not that which is called deceit or fraud nor every deceit guile there is sin of ignorance and mistake without intention to deceive or double heartedness or deceit fulness of heart when a thing is not known to a man a man would do better if he knew as when Paul reviled the high Priest Act. 23. And so that ruler of his people it was not deceit his so doing or out of a mind to do deceitfuly but out of mistake or ignorance nor was it sin that he was deceived in his thoughts about him for it is no sin for a man not to know the Person of another that he knows not but his rashness and reviling him as he did though mistaking him was his sin so that neither was that his sin guile nor was his being deceived about his Person or Office his sin much less guile in him Let the understanding judge of what is said They adde G. W. This being Iohn Horns reason to prove all sin not guile because it is said in 1 Pet. 2. 1 2. Laying eside all malice and all guile Mark all guile and hypocrifie the word and being his distinction he might as well say envy is not malice because there is and between them To which Iohn Horn replies 1. Why say they Mark all guile doth the saying all guile make it to be all sin no sin but guile Why then all malice should be Marked too that that 's all sin and so no sin of ignorance but all sin is malice because it s said all malice and by the same reason because its said Ephes 4. 31. All bitterness bitterness too should be all sin 2. Why Mark all guile rather then Mark and hypocrisy as distinguishing hypocrisy from guile for and uses to couple things distinguished most usually 3. Why say they the word and is my distinction when it was the Apostle Peters too as well as mine 4. I may say that envy is not all malice though it have malice in it yet malice may be without it in some cases I may say my elbow is not my arm though it be in my arm so I may say envy is not malice though malice be in it there is a distinction between them envy is a looking at anothers prosperity with grief at it malice is an evill will towards a Person whence envy proceeds you adde That in that thing many see my folly at the dispute in affirming that all sin is not guile when as all guile doth onely include one sin as I would have it but all sin and any sin makes a man guilty and so he hath guile in him so that he that had no guile in him had no sin in him Rep. Who would not pitty and bewaile the miserable case of those people that are carried about by such silly deceitfull men as these be for in this 1. They say falsly in saying many see my folly at the dispute in saying all sin is not guile for how is that folly that stands against all their deceit some possibly might not understand the truth of what I said through their own folly but that any could see my folly in what it was not to be seen is impossible I am sure divers see their folly in affirming all sin to be guile and the sorry waies they took to prove it and that they may see yet for 2. When as all guile they say doth onely include one sin as I would have it then it is as I would have it it seems and then where is the folly to be seen but in them that charge me with it and then say it is as I would have it but I suppose the word not is omitted in the printing for I will be ingenious though to an adversary they should have said all guile doth not onely include one sin as I would have it but if that be their minde yet they bely me in saying I would have all guile include but one sin I would rather say it is one spring or kind of sin and is included in many or divers sins and yet is not the divers sins in which it is nor is it included in every sin much less includes it all sin no more then all malice or all bitterness includes all sins because they include divers acts of sin 3. When they say any one sin makes a man guilty and so he hath guile in him they speak very ignorantly or very guilefully for I distinguish them ignorantly if they think guile and guilt of one denomination and guilty to come from the word guile and so all that makes guilty to make guily Guilty is said of guilt I trow and not of guile though guile produces guilt yet a man is not denominated guilty from guile but from guilt and guilfull from guile If they know not this they are very ignorant and not
idols will I cleanse you And as God promised to do so doth and will he do the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin and yet it follows If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and he is the propitiation for our sins 1 John 1. 7 8. and 2. 2. As was before noted he that forgives and cleanseth us by way of pardon from all sins bids us also pray as duly as for our daily bread forgive us our trespasses c. 3. As for exhortations to be perfect they prove not the being of the thing exhorted to They supposed above the little children to whom the Apostle wrote that they might not sin might have sin in them not withstanding Nor is all perfectiom perfection of sinlesness in mens selves Asa was perfect hearted all his daies and yet had sin and sinned 2 Chron. 15. 17. and 16. 9. And yet every one that is perfect shall be as his Lord he saies not he is so yea in saying he shall be he implies he is not yet so but when he shall appear we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is This we granted but they skipt it over 4. The Apostle said they were circumcised with the circumcisiou made without hands in the putting off the body of sins of the flesh but it was in Christ he saies for so much the words in whom signifies And the same Apostle in the same Epist Col. 1. 10. 11 to the same people therefore he saith but now you also Mark now also put off all these anger wrath malice blasphemy filthy communication c. Col 3. 8 9. it seems then they had those things yet to put off still for can any put off what is not So to the Ephesians too when he had said they had learned to put off the old man and put on the new he addes wherefore putting away lying speak every man truth to his brother a lesson these men have not yet learned To the Corimbians also he saith purge out the old leaven that ye may be a new lump even as ye are unleavened so that in some sense in Christ they were unleavened and yet in other sense needed to purge out the old leaven which implies it was yet in them for how can a man purge that out of him that is not in him but they through ignorance confound these things and run themselves and Auditors into delusion Again p. 5. l. 36. They distinguish the true Prophets Christ and his Apostles from themselves that are accused by us and so again imply that they be neither the true Christ nor his true Prophets or Apostles Reader mind it they give out themselves for Prophets and Apostles and some of them say they are Christ but they are false ones and why then plead they for their false prophecyings and witnessings But they indeed shew their confusion and rayling against us as after will appear to their own delection and shame as for their innocence no liers are innocent but they be over and over proved liers that perfect heartedness and compleateness in Christ may consist with sin being in men in this life we have shewed And they cannot disprove unloss they will blot out Col. 2. 10. with Chap. 3. 8. 2 Chron. 15. 17. so 1 Cor. 5. 8. 9. Which we noted above either let them say those Scripture sayings are false or else own their own words to be false in saying that we fight against our own words and that they that are compleate in Christ are perfectly freed from sin namely as to all inherency of it in themselves or they say nothing to purpose that sinners are out of the compleatness of Christ which though in some sense true viz. Of sinners out of Christ yet is not universally true except Paul when he said of sinners I am the chief was out of Christs compleatness that the heart that hath sin dwelling in it is not perfect contrary to 2 Chron. 15. 17. with 16 17. Where Isaiahs heart is said to have been perfect all his daies and yet he is charged with relying on the King of Asyria and not relying on the Lord his God and those were heart-sins surely and they dwell there too for some time as the verses before manifest p. 6. They accuse us of confusion that we say believers are come to a further state and covenant then Adam was in before his fall who then had no sin in him and yet accuse the believers they say with having the body of sin or not being perfect while here Rep. Here they shew their own confusion for the believers being in a better state or convenant in Christ hinders not their having sin yet in themselves to purge out as is evident in Col. 2. 10 11. with 3. 5. 8 9. No more then it hinders them from having infirmides and death which Adam unfallen had not besides they have added a lie or two as that we accuse the believers with having a body of sin then Paul accused them when he said the believers old man is crucified with Christ that the body of sin might be destroyed the words might be plainly imply it a thing not then done but to be done as in all like expressions is evident and that we accuse them with not being perfect when in divers respects we grant them to be perfect as perfect in Christ Jesus and many of them perfect with Christ in their Spirits without guile there and perfect comparatively to some others c. In the same page they wrong us in giving it as our saying that Adam might possibly sin and die but not so the believers whereas we added what they suppress to not so the believer not under a covenant of works here nor hereafter the resurrection capable of sinning and dying as Adam before his fall was again they say we would accuse the Quakers of being sinners because of their dying which is false let any man read our book p 3. What we said is thus that the Quakers are not in Adams state before the fall because Adam had no death then upon him as the Quakers have for they must die but they say here our darkness appears for believers dying the natural death doth not prove them sinners while here for through death they gain more of the peace and glory of God which they partake of in their life time which is both confused and inconcludent for what if the believer gain by his death may it not therefore argue he had sin in him while he lived is not the being freed from the body of death and inherency and combating with sin again think they Though we did not bring it for an argument to prove what they charge us with as we before discovered and for their confusion their words sound as if they believed that the greater gain by their death they have it all in this live for they say not more of the peace and glory of God then they partake of in
this life but which they partake of in this life but where can they shew us any that ever died that either had not sin in him or sin imputed to him They imply p. 6. l. 25 26. By their taxing us with the contrary that Adam might have died the naturall death if he had not sinned and to prove it adde for Christ died who had no sin To which we reply 1. Did Christ die a naturall death was it naturall to Christ to die 2. Had Christ no sin of ours upon him which occasioned his death or should he have died though he had not them laid upon him He bare our sins in his own body on the tree therefore he had sins though none of his own he did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth see there guile and sin distinguished as if all sin is not guile or guile not all sin yet he bare our sins 1 Pet. 2. 22 24. 3. Is this a good inference Christ died that did not sin yet had our sins charged or laid upon him therfore Adam should have died a natural death though he had not sinned let the reader judge they say Christ died to destroy the death that came by sin Rep. 1. If death came by sin as the Apostle testifies in Rom. 5. 12. What death was that if not the naturall death Or where doth the Apostle distinguish and say there is a death of men that came in by sin and the death of men that came not in by sin and that 's the natural death Or where find we mention of Adams dying before and without respect to his sinning in any kind of death 2. Did not Christ by death destroy the naturall death both in taking away its force for taking us out of favour and fellowship with God and in becoming the Resurrection and life from death by whom men shall be raised up out of it at the last day Did he not destroy that kind of death which he died and if that was the naturall death as they say the bodily death we may say then that he also destroyed and so destroying that death that came in by sin it follows that the naturall or bodily death came in by sin too and so that Adam should not have died had he not sinned Do they think that we will worship them and call them the masters of our faith to receive their dictates without proof Let them shew that Adam might have died the natural death or the believers either if they had not sinned They say They who die in the Lord are blessed and to die is gain to them Rep. True but it s by vertue of the Lord in whom they die that turns their curses into blessings death into life Nor is it natural to die in the Lord though to die be It s true too that the righteous mens dying was not charged upon them as a reward for their sin and yet true too that had they never been sinners or sinned in Adam they had never died for as much as by one mans sin death passed upon all as the Apostle witnesses as a reward of Adams sin and theirs in him it first was denounced and though through Christ the weight and destructiveness of it is removed yet the carcass of it remains upon men generally though through Christ turned to the believers gain W. and F. They say God said to Adam in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die but Adam lost not his naturall life in the day he eat of the tree of knowledge for after that he lived in the body Rep. Herein again they shew their confusion for what though Adam lived in the body after he eat of the tree of knowledge follows it he had not lost his life that day he eat A man my loose or forfeit that which may not presently be taken from him men loose their lives in a Law sense when they do such things as subject them to the Law so as they are thereby condemned to die though death be not presently executed upon them That day he died then in the sentence of the Law though not as to its execution upon him which yet had been then executed too its probable had not Christ the Mediator interposed between him and death to die for him Besides that a thousand years being to the Lord but as one day and he dying in that space he might be said in that sense to have died on the day he sinned They say The covenant Adam was in before his fall was a covenant of life for he was in the image of God and a living soul having the breath of life in him and had dominion in it while he stood in his habitation c. Rep. That Adam was under a covenant of life before the fall is true nor opposes our sayings but their own that Adam might have died the naturall death though he had not sinned But they have weakly proved that it is so for sure the covenant made with him was with him alive and as a creature and not made with him before he was a living man and therefore his being in the image of God a living soul having the breath of life in him and dominion in it as they speak are not to the purpose The covenat might concern their continuance to him not his being made first in them they adde this state have the believers proved and witnessed that life and nature and image that was in man before the fall though they become further in the second Adam who is greater then the first Adam Rep. Still they dictate magisterially where have the believers proved that state of Adam and witness it let them shew it in all the Scriptures for as for their witnessings they are of no Authority with us it s the truth of their witnessings we would have them prove and not onely tell us they are true for we are not of the mind with some simple that believe every of their words to believe that their sayings are as good or better then the sayings of the Prophets and Apostle in the Scriptures have any believers ever witnessed that they were without sin as Adam under no more sentence of death then Adam while in his innocent condition let them shew us that that we may believe it have any believers proved that state of Adam to have life in themselves and not in Christ crucified as Adam had And how are they come further in the second Adam are they led to that and the second Adams state too Where prove they that Into the naturall life of Adam as earthly and fallen full of sin and death such as Adam fallen derived to them they are born and through it are led yea and out and beyond that in Christ in a measure here and fully hereafter but that Christ leads them first into the state of Adam innocent and then into the state of Christ they must prove and not onely dictate before it find credit with
that he should even so come again in like manner as they had seen him go up into Heaven for that was in a body with flesh and bones in it and was visible to the eye till a cloud received him out from their sight and that this you deny appears in what you have said before of the Church being his body onely and by what follows viz. That as he who is the Word became flesh so when the days of his flesh were finished he was translated into his own glory which he had with his Father from eternity and so the second Adam is a quickning Spirit for in those words you imply that his flesh or the substance of his body in which he bare our sins is ceased and so that his humanity or what he took of the Virgin and of the seed of David after the flesh is gone so as he is onely a Spirit without any human body but how then did the Apostle oppose Christ in his ascending into Heaven unto David Acts 2. 34 45. For by that David ascended as much as Christ for his Spirit went to God when his body went to the dust Eccles 12. 7. And it seems by your sayings Christs body is not ascended but by the Apostles saying Christ is opposed to David in ascending in what he David ascended not whose body he says is the sepulchre therefore it follows that the body of Christ is ascended and is taken up into glory and is called the glorious body of Christ to which the believers body is to be conformed and changed into its likeness not into the Churches likeness sure which as yet is much of it in a suffering state and not a glorious body yea the Apostle tells us that of the fruit of Davids loines according to the flesh Christ is raised up to sit upon his throne Acts 2. 30. Is he the man Jesus the Mediator of God and us the propitiation for our sins as a Spirit merely Or is he the man Christ as he is God in us or a Spirit in Union with his Church And is so as he the propitiation for our sins then he bare his own sins in his body and is the propitiation for himself seeing the Church is he or part of him his body that was offered up for us It 's true the second Adam was made a quickning Spirit yet abides a man and hath a glorious body dictinct from his Church to which our body is to be conformed even as Adam was a living soul yet had a natural body W. and F. To your question you aske us viz. Whether we believe that body the saints upon earth do discern and which the world cannot discern is a body of flesh and bones yea or nay We answer it 's the body that was broken for us and is to be fed upon by us as is plain in 1 Cor. 11. 24. 29. not discerning the Lords body it 's that that is remembred and communicated with in the supper of the Lord which ordinance you have denied in your queries to us and that body was the same that Christ shewed to have flesh and bones in it and in which he went up into Heaven as before think you the Church was given and broken for us and is the breaking of the Church that which we are to have communion with and remember as the matter of our seeding in that Ordinance Though the body mysticall of Christ his Church is also to be discerned by the believers and is not by the world but if the Church be the body discerned which in the supper we have the communion of and which was broken for us then the flesh of Christ which we eat is something of the Church the flesh and substance of the Church and so the Church is to eate itself what confused stuff is this that is insinuated by you to us But by the reason you give off your propounding that question viz. seeing we own the believers or Church to be the body of Christ and plead for another body of Christ distinct from them it 's plain without contradiction that you deny the personall body of Christ to be and abide in the Heavens and to deny the man Jesus to be the Object of the believers faith and why shamed you to speak out this so broadly at the dispute Was you then more bashfull and are since grown more audacious and impudent W. and F. They say It 's grosse confusion to say that believers are Members of Christs flesh and bones and then to say they are not flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone as if Christ had two bodies of flesh and bone one of which the saints are not Members when the Apostle says as much as they were flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone in saying no man ever hated his own flesh but nourisheth it and cherisheth it even as the Lord the Church for we are Members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Ephes 3 30. Rep. Surely the grosse confusion is clearly in themselves here as is easie to demonstrate 1. They bely us in saying of us that we said what we said not viz. That believers are Members of Christs flesh and bones we said the Apostles preached that the believers are Members of his body of his flesh and of his bones neither the Greek nor the Latine as G. W. At least as to the Latine may know will bear that construction Members of his flesh and bones but Members of his body of that is out of his flesh and of or out of his bones ex carne ejus ex ossibus ejus 2. Is his Church flesh and bones said they not above that a body of flesh and bones cannot be said to be in the Heavens but if believers be a body of flesh and bones as they are if they be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones must they not needs be then a body of flesh and bones in Heaven seeing they grant his body to be in the heavens yea to be the fulness of God that filleth all in all both in Heaven and earth is flesh and bones the fulness of God filling all in all both in Heaven and earth 'T is true that the Church consists of Members that each of them have personall heads and bodies of flesh and bones as men but are they flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Is our flesh of Christs flesh and our bone of Christs bone How then hath not Christ flesh and bone of his own distinct from the body his Church if our flesh be flesh of his flesh and our bone be bone of his bone Doth not that phrase speak plainly of flesh and bones of his distinct from the Church which they say too is flesh and bone is not the confusion then in these men that deny Christ to have a body of flesh and bones distinct from his Church and then to say his Church is flesh of his flesh and bone of
what was spoken by him though yet their defence That the light was the same in nature in both the Apostles and them they preach to is unsound too For what Light was in the Ephesians who were darknesse before the Apostle preached to them The Light the Apostles Preacht was the Light of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ that the Ephesians while darknesse had any measure of that in them we want their proof G. W. Should have done well to have vindicated his own corrupt Gloss upon that saying Ephes 5. 8. ye were sometimes darknesse viz. they had some darkness in them but he sneaks away from that and takes no notice of it Sure here it behoved him to have proved what light the Ephesians had in them of the same nature with what the Apostles brought them before their coming to them We accused them that as a main piece of their corrupt Doctrine that they say All have the Light of Christ in them and that that is whatsoever reproves any sin in men to which they bid men look for all their Light and teaching To this they say We might as well have accused Christ and the Apostles but mention not one Saying of theirs that jumps with their Doctrine for though Christ Saith I am the Light of the World yet he saith Not every man in the World hath me or my Light in him and that 's it that reproves and checks them John saith Christ is the true Light that lighteth it is not enlightneth every man coming into the World But he saith Not that that light is in every man that cometh into the World and continues in him so long as he is in the world and whatsoever he find reproving sin in him is that Light The Apostle Saith That which may be known of God was manifest in them that detain the Truth in unrighteousnesse but that it still continues in them that like not to retain it but put it from them and say to God Depart from us we desire not the knowledge of thy wayes somewhat like these mens saying That they desire not the Knowledge of that Christ we look for from Heaven and whose minds are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without judgement the Apostle sayes not Can they be without judgement that have Christs light in them seeing its his judgement that he makes to rest for a Light of the People Isa 51. 4. The Grace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men it s said But that all receive and so have it abiding in them it s not said much lesse that whatsoever reproves sin in them is it that it s given to all we deny not And therefore men are condemned because when given them they accept it not They ask What it is in men that must leave them without excuse And we say but what of it have they in them whom it hath left or leaves without excuse is that in a man which hath left him They ask How can we shew that have not a Light of Christ in them to reprove them And we say George Whitehead George Fox and such impudent lyars if they be as much without reproof within as they seem to be without in their brazing out their lies before men and in the Scriptures those that being past feeling have given over themselves to all licentiousness to work iniquiry with greediness Ephes 4. 19. But they say We have wickedly wronged them for they do not say what soever reproves any sin is the Light of Christ But that here they themselves are the lyars and do wrong we appeal to those that heard and remember what John Whitehead said in his discourse at Gedney about the Covenant of Light how after he had told them it is given to every man and that that 's the word in men by the hearing of which comes Faith corruptible enough then propounded where it is and asked if they found not something in their consciences reproving them for sin and told them that was it they should heed that was that light and much to that purpose which when we opposed and said Satan transforming himself into an Angel of Light could for his own ends reprove for sin they exclaimed of us till we brought diverse arguments from Scripture about it And surely if Satan know that men have such principles he is so Subtile as to put himself into the form of a Reprover for many evils that so he may gain credit with them to receive his delusions as the run-about Pharisees also could do many of these steps these men walk in whether their way exposes men to follow their own Spirits on the Grounds aforesaid or onely to follow the the Light of Christ we leave it to the judgement of all that understand things that differ or that have read the relations of John Toldervy and John Gilpin and others of that way They charge it as a lye of ours that we say Geo. Whitehead derided at mens faith in the Death and Bloodshed of Christ beyond the Seas We added as if that was a good foundation of faith which they subtilly suppresse and herein we appeal to all that heard our dispute that remember and have the honesty to say what they heard and what else do they in their Book when they say our faith that is not grounded in Christs appearing in us is to be turned up by the roots Yea and again in p. 15. in what they say against our affirming the Death and Bloodshedding of Christ to be the foundation or of the foundation of our faith yea and here they shew their corruption in saying that the faith they own they know the word of it to be in the heart they mean before outward Preaching heard and that they have it not to fetch from beyond the Sea nor from above nor from beneath but it s nigh in the heart and in the mouth refusing still to take notice of what follows though with that we charge them in our Book and shewed from what follows the scope of the Apostle therein and how it favours not their corrupt conception which here they have clearly past over as not daring to meddle with it we refer the Reader then to what our Book says about it as being left unanswered by them That the light wherewith Christ lighteth every man is both Natural and Spirituall in diverse streams of it we said and explicated largely which here they dissemble here they cavil that we called not the light he lightens men with lights but light If a man should ask what peace God is Author of and we should say of all true and good peace both Temporal and Eternal outward and inward VVere not he a very caveller that would cavel at us for not saying all peaces but all peace such is their folly here As also in faulting us for not proving one light to be both Natural and Spiritual when as we never affirmed it no more then one peace to be
given and broken for us and so alwayes to be remembered and fed upon by us Luke 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11 24. John 6. 5â— Again by his Blood as distinguished from his flesh is meant that blood of his Crosse which was shed for us for the Remission of sins Col â— 14. 20. Mat. 26. 28. Not only nor so directly his being sometime partakers of material and mortal blood in that body of his flesh that is included in the forementioned sence of his flesh as distinguished from his blood and when mentioned together with it such blood being in and with his flesh all the dayes of his mortallity untill his death in which it was so fully shed forth and powered out that water followed but by his blood as distinct from his flesh is directly meant his humbling himself to that death in the finishing of his sufferings wherein that blood in which was his natural life in the flesh as of man was shed and so therein his Soul or Life in the flesh powered out yeilded up and laid down for our sins that were caused to meet together upon him that so he might by means of that his death in the flesh take his Life again in the Power of God and live for ever in the Glory of his Father even in that raised body of his flesh And this is very usual in the Scripture by blood to signifie the shedding of blood to Death or the natural and bodily death by any other means so Abels death by Cain called his blood Gen. 4. 10. with Heb. 12. 24. So Naboths death by stoning called his blood 2 Kings 9. 2â— generally the Martyrdom and death of the Servants of God for his sake 2 Kings 9. 7. Deut. 32. 43. Psal 72. 14. with Psal 116. 15. Yea the natural or bodily Death however it come on a man is called his blood Psal 30. 9. Heb. 12. 4. So also that by Christs own blood the blood of his Crosse by which peace was made Redemption obtained and so by which he entered into Heaven it self and so by the Spirituall sprinkling of which in the Preaching of the Crosse he purgeth the conscience is meant his Death his shedding of his blood his once suffiring even to the death of the Crosse his being put to death in the flesh see it in the foreceited Scriptures Col. 1. 14 20. Mat. 26. 28. with Phil. 2. 8. 1 Pet. 2. 24 and 3. 18. so also in Heb 9. 2. 14. with ver 15 16. 22. 26. Again Secondly By the distinct mention of his flesh and blood is signified some distinct considerations of the ends and powerfull efficacies of his own suffering in that body of his flesh for our sins As 1. For making peace and atonement with God for our sins in which we have all sinned in the disobedience of one and in which we are from thence become altogether filthy and as such justly banished and dead at Law and so it s said he gave his flesh for the life of the World and by suffering the judgement of this World and being made a Curse for us he hath abolished death obtained a Redemption and release of mankinde from under the power of that judgement that came on all in and by the first man Adam and so from the curse of the Law to be under his dispose and judgement by whom the Kingdom of God is brought unto us that through him we might be saved As the offence of one was unto all to condemnation so the Righteousnesse of one in laying down his Life that he might take it again is unto all to Justification of Life from under the power of the first death and banishment that they may not perish therein or be held out from God thereby but that they might live to him that dyed for them and rose again Rom. 5. 18. 2 Cor. 5. 1â— 15. 19. Col. 1. 20. John 6. 51. and 12. 31 32. Gal. 3. 13. 11. His shedding of his blood laying down his Life or powering out his Soul unto death for our sins was also to obtaine into himself for us a better life yea better then that we lost in the first Adam even Eternal Life Yea all fulnesse of all things pertaining to life and Godlinesse even the fulnesse of the Godhead bodily that of his fulnesse we might receive And so the immeasurable fulnesse of that Holy and Eternal Spirit to rest upon him in that body in which he so suffered that he should Teach sinners in the way and guide the meek in Judgement Yea further he hath by his blood or by means of that his death which was for the Redemption of the Transgressions under the first Testament obtained plentious and Eternal Redemption even the forgivenesse of such sins as are after the similitude of Adams transgression he hath received power in the name of the Father and as the fruit of his sufferings to take away such sins by his dayly appearing in the presence of God for us and so all such gifts as may serve for the good of the Rebellious while it is to day for forbearing and renewing mercies to them that yet through him they might be saved and that he might be just and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus even from such sins yea from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses And so he is a Saviour from the wrath to come being now by means of his death a Mediator and propitiation for such sins as deserve it John 17. 4 5. 1 John 5. 11. Heb. 9. 12. Col. 1. 14. 19. and 2. 9. Acts 2. 33. Psal 68. 18 19. with Ephes 4. 8. 10. Heb. 9. 15. 1 Thes 1. 10. 1 John 2. 2. He was bruised wounded and put to death in the body of his flesh for our transgressions that through death he might abolish death in his Resurrection and make such peace and healing for us that through him we might be delivered and saved that were all our life time through fear of death subject to bondage Yea therefore also he shed his blood and powered out his Soul unto death that he might by vertue thereof obtaine and receive into himself a better even Eternal life for us with all such gifts for men yea for the Rebellious also as was needful that yet while it is to day they might be brought back to God and that he might be able to save to the utmost them that come to God by him 2. This his flesh and his blood was evidenced to be meat indeed and drink indeed for men spiritually to feed upon by the Resurrection of Christ from the dead and his offering up his spotlesse body a Ransom or price of Redemption once for all as being made perfect through sufferings and his being accepted and set down on the Right hand of God and Glorified with the Fathers own self Immeasurebly filled with all gifts in the man for men as before we have shewed all as the fruit of
is that blood if not in Christs flesh as you affirmed seeing that men must drink the blood of Christ as well as eat his Flesh or else they have no life in them Answ They have hitherto intimated their corrupt minde against the personall and now Glorious body of Christ and against the heavens in which it is as onely designing to cast him down from his Excellency now they proceed to imply and privily cast out their venom against the blood of Christ as if that blood that was shed is personal sufferings to the sheding of his blood and death of the Cross were not the drink indeed and purger of the conscience for so in their supposition they imply that as a question whether that blood of Christ that was shed be the drink indeed c. And then frame their following question of purpose to deny or make it void from being so for if it be so say they then where is it c In which as in the former they imply that men cannot eat his flesh and drink his blood except it be in a sencible being present with them nigh to or in them and so consequently deny that blood of his Cross that was shed for the Remission of sins to be the drink indeed and the purger of the conscience because it is not now shedding and so as much deny his flesh that was broken and the preparing and giving it to be bruised wounded and broken for our transgressions to be meat indeed because those works and sufferings therein are finished and past and not doing or to be done over again in that person or any other and so cannot be in a present or sencible being nigh to in or with any man 2. They still to cast reproach upon it further imply that if that blood that was shed be the drink indeed and so consequently if that body of his flesh be meat indeed then the eating or drinking must be in a natural or sensual manner like as natural meat and drink is eaten and drunk For this they fully signifie the blood that was shed cannot be drunk except in its material being it be in Christs flesh or somewhere else nigh to men in a present material existence For if that blood that was shed say they be the drink indeed then where is it if not in Christs flesh as they say we affirmed but they say falsly for we oft declared that as the Blood of Christ is the bottom ground or foundation of our Faith or that by means of which he is so and so as it is the drink indeed c. Even so it is in Heaven with the Father even in Christs personal Glorious Body But that is not in a material and mortal existence or being of it in his flesh and with it as here he was partakers of Flesh and Blood but in the infinite vertue and preciousness of its being shed and so his sufferings once suffered in the flesh are for ever accepted and remembered with the Father and his Body Glorified and immeasurably fil'd with the Eternal Spirit yea he therein made a quickening Spirit for and to us and all by means of his death the vertue and preciousnesse of which remains for ever and so the Fruit of it and grace in and through it which also as we hinted before may be called his Blood as being the Fruit of it and things procured and purchased by it But then also in this their reproach 3. That which they add as a Reason why Christs Blood that was shed must be in his flesh if it be the drink indeed c. Namely that men must drink it shewes their folly for the necessity of drinking his Blood can be no Argument that his Blood is in his flesh as before it was shed for as so it was in a materiall being in his flesh and mixed with it it cannot be drunk in a sensuall or naturall way of drinking as they would signifie it must if that be the drink indeed it is rather to be drunk as shed and powered out for us We read of eating flesh with the Blood in it a thing forbidden in the Law but of drinking Blood in the flesh we read not but in their nonsencical language Yea 4. In the whole of this question they imply an immagination that there is some other Blood of Christ besides that which was shed or his Blood shedding and death once suffered in the flesh and that that other Blood is the drink indeed and the purger of the conscience and so consequently that there is some other flesh or Body of his flesh besides that which was broken for us which and not the former is the meat indeed And so they in their immagination make void his once suffering in the flesh in that one body so prepared for him as before as of no abiding vertue or efficacy with the Father for the taking away our sins and so for the Spiritual feeding of the believer now to this they render the Crosse of Christ of no effect that they may lift up something else in the name and place of it For further answer therefore to this Question and for the help of others we here add to what former demonstrations we have given of the flesh of Christ that is meat indeed and of his Blood that is drink indeed 1. That there is no other flesh of Christ that is meat indeed but that one Body of his Flesh that was prepared given and broken for us even his Flesh that he gave for the Life of the World nor any other Blood of Christ that is drink indeed but that Blood or death of the Cross that shedding of his Blood and powering out his Soul unto death which he once suffered in that his own Body for our sins without which we could have had no remission of them that he obtaining by it plenteous Redemption even the forgivenesse of sins might therein also seal and confirm the new Testament of precious promises and become himself in the man the Mediator of it and so an high Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedeck It is onely his being made flesh in that one Body prepared for him and his works and sufferings finished in that his own body in which he appeared once in the end of the World to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself which the Father hath found out and accepted as a ransom or price of Redemption for sinful and fallen mankind and by means of which he hath given him glory in that his own Body in which he so Suffered that our Faith and Hope might be in God and therefore also it is onely that Cross of Christ because of the infinite grace therein testified which is commended and shed abroad by the Holy Ghost in his evidencing it as already past as to the actual enduring and suffering it in that in due time Christ dyed for the ungodly c. Rom. 5. 5. 10. and because of the Infinite vertue and