Truth with Time, Answers · Answer 7
Anſwer to the eighth Reaſon.
At the first glance, this out of Rev. 15.6. may go for very good, till it be well weighed; and then we ſhall ſee, 1. That the Witneſſes, during their Sackcloth or ſuffering eſtate, have power to ſmite with plagues, Rev. 11.6. or Vials, Chap. 15.1.
Repl. 1. I have (I think) ſaid enough, in making it evident and clear, that the Sackcloth-Witneſſes, and Angel-Vials, are diſtinct both to their works and times; and therefore I ſhall not reply ſtill onelyonly to words. Herod holding the opinion of Pythagoras, Plato, and other Heathen men, that the ſouls of the dead come again in other bodies, could not but think, (believing that John Baptist was riſen) but that great wonders would be done by him now, though John in his life-time wrought no miracle. If the Witneſſes, in their Sackcloth and ſuffering eſtate were the Angels, Rev. 15. that is, had gotten the victory over the Beast, had the harps of God, ſung the ſong of Moſes, had the Tabernacle of the Testimony opened to them, poured out Vials, &c. I ſee very little what their Reſurrection-ſtate will ſignifie or amount to. The Nations need not (if the caſe be ſo) to be frighted, (as Herod was) when they ſhall hear they are ſtanding upon their feet. See Rev. 11.11, 12, 13.
Anſw. 2. By white, is not always meant a Change of rayment; but by white (I conceive) is meant uprightneſs, innocencie, truth, integrity: and ſo, Rev. 19.8. for the fine linen, is the righteouſneſs of Saints, or the Generation-righteouſneſs, which is as the holy Ghost ſaith, Rev. 15.6. the ſeven Angels come out clothed with pure and white linen; by which I think may be meant the Generation-righteouſneſs, purity, and ſanctity: and ſo the two Witneſſes may have the ſackcloth for ſuffering, and white robes for uprightneſs, innocencie and truth too: what ſhould hinder? And ſo the Waldenſes, Lollards, Huſſites, Lutherans, &c. in their Generation, were clothed in white.
Repl. 1. Were it true, (as you ſay) viz. by white is not always meant a change of rayment, that is, of condition and State; yet it may be meant ſo, Rev. 15.6. and I think both you and others, obſerving well the place, will not take it otherwiſe.
But 2. Grant farther, by white ſometimes is meant uprightneſs, innocencie, &c. why in the very ſame place may not change of State be meant likewiſe? I do believe, let the Scriptures be ſearch'd, never is pure and white linen given to Saints, but a change of State is always meant, whatever is meant beſides.
3. For Rev. 19.8. it is to be underſtood of the Jews preparing as a Bride adorned for her husband, which is by caſting off her own righteouſneſs which is by the Law, and no other then filthy rags, Iſa. 64.6. to put on the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which is of God by faith. A most glorious change of State.
4. For Generation-righteouſneſs, innocencie, &c. attributed to the Waldenſes, Lollards, &c. whatſoever they had of theſe graces; all Saints before them (and ſince) have had the like. Conſidering therefore, that in Rev. 15. nothing is ſet down, but things high, eminent, ſingular; I much marvel the place ſhould be brought ſo lowe; as if nothing were there meant, but what is ordinary and common to every Chriſtian.
Laſtly, That the two Witneſſes ſhould have ſackcloth for ſuffering, and white robes for righteouſneſs; here I think Mr. Tilling. ſays better, who underſtands ſincerity, uprightneſs and integrity to be meant by the golden girdles upon their brests; according to Paul, Having your loyns girt about with truth, Eph. 6.14.
Anſw. 3. The word here, Rev. 15.6. which is foreign, is not the word that is uſed for change of rayment, but ſignifies a plain, eaſie, ſoft, cotton-whiteneſs; which may well be worn with ſackcloth: but the change of rayment is rather foreign, a brave ſilken whiteneſs, or Princely Robe, Ezek. 16.13. and ſo in the places you name, as Gen. 41.42. Eſth. 8.15. therefore it is not here meant ſuch a change of Robe as cannot be received till the Sackcloth is put off.
Repl. It is true (as you ſay) the word is foreign but for the explanation and application, I like neither of them. Firſt, not the Explanation; as if the word foreign ſhould ſignifie onelyonly ſome plain and courſe cloth: whereas rather, it is fine flax, (as the Greek tranſlateth, Iſa. 19.9.) whereof in the Eaſt they made their richeſt and choiceſt linen.
Nor 2. the Application: for the holy Ghoſt (who knew beſt his own meaning) beſides foreign hath foreign, which is not onelyonly bright and reſplendent, but gorgeous, Prince-like, ſuch as was worn by Kings and Nobles. Hence Godwyn well obſerves, that Purple, above other colours, was affected by the Emperours and Nobility of Rome, and White by the Nobility of the Jews: whence the Hebrews termed their Noble-men Chorim, albatos, men clad in white: On the contrary, men of mean rank, Chaſchucim, men clad with foul garment, Jam. 2.2. Pilat his ſouldiers clad Christ in purple, Matth. 27.28. and Herod the Tetrarch of Galilee put on him (foreign) white garments, Luke 23.11. both therein applying themſelves to the cuſtoms of their own Countries, clothing him as King, though in deriſion. Moſes and Aaron, lib. 1. cap. 4.
Beſides, in Jam. 2.2, 3. the word foreign is taken for apparel, quite differing to a plain, eaſie, ſoft cotton, which may be worn with ſackcloth, &c. So that (I conceive) if any weight lie in the words, it is not in foreign the cloth, but in foreign, (the colour or kinde) which is gorgeous, Royal, Prince-like linen.
Anſw. But 4. Were it meant of ſuch a Robe, yet thoſe (forementioned) brave Champions of Christ, in their generation, might be ſaid to be clothed therewith by faith, whilst they trampled, and had the generation-victory over the Beast, (as we ſaid before) being above him, and beating him before them, by a most noble and notable ſpirit of faith, courage, and undaunted reſolution, that would not yeeld an inch unto him; and ſo were (as it were) Princes, (in ſpirit) and above ſufferings. But ſo far for your eighth Reaſon, which I take for the most conſiderable and ſerious.
Repl. 1. I have ſeen what is extant concerning the perſons (ſpecially Grosthead and Armachan) ſo often mentioned; but am not of your opinion, that they were ſuch brave Champions, as trampling the Beast, and beating him before them, &c. I do not judge their Generation-work amounted to ſo much.
Neither, 2. had they any victory over the Beast, as Rev. 15.2. For that place intends more then Generation-victory, viz. by ſpeaking or writing againſt the errours and evils of men, or beating the adverſary in ſuch a kinde: it is an execution of temporal judgements; which they never did, and therefore could not be the Angel of the first Vial.
But 3. Should it be granted they were ſuch brave Champions, had generation-victory, &c. all this might be, and yet not clothed in Prince-like white, becauſe Rev. 15.6. is to be underſtood of the time after the riſing of the Witneſſes, whereas they were before.
Laſtly, taking the Grounds and Principles of ſome men to be true, I do not ſee, why the fourth and fifth Vials ſhould not be poured out, as are the firſt, ſecond and third. For in my opinion, there hath been as much of Vials poured out upon the ſun, and throne of the Beaſt, as upon the earth, ſea, and fountains of waters: I ſay, as much as can be ſaid of the other three: And therefore I ſee no reaſon why there is a ſtand at the third Vial; and why no Vial poured out upon the houſe of Auſtria, or Germane Emperor; yea, and why not upon Rome it ſelf. If there be no more to make up the effects of a Vial, in trampling and beating the Beast, and to have Generation-victory over him, then a bare Teſtimony againſt his Idolatries and Blaſphemies. Beſides, more Reaſons, (I think) and better too, may be given, that in the Swethen and Britain Wars, the Sun and throne of the Beast were ſmitten, then either Sea, or fountain of waters.
That there is no Anſwer made to the ninth Reaſon, the Reaſon is, becauſe that Argument was not ſent with the reſt to my friend. Beſides, there are ſome paſſages added to the Reaſons as they are printed, which were not in the Copie ſent to the Anſwerer.