Billeder på siden

said, "He that cometh from above is above all, he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth. He that cometh from heaven is above all." John iii. 31. And the flesh of the Son of man, which he gave for the life of the world, is that bread which came down from heaven. John vi. 50, 51. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." ver. 53. Yet that the name Son of man was applied to him as a sufferer, and as he said, "so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," (Math. xii. 40.) I deny not. But this doth not limit him from being called the Son of man, in a higher state. Each of God's prophets might be called, (as divers were,) a Son of man ; but Christ, the great prophet, the Son of man. The apostle distinguishes between the first man and the second man thus: "The first man is of the earth earthly, (or human,) the second man is the Lord from heaven.” 1 Cor. xv. 47. Therefore the second man is not human in their sense, nor consisting of a human or earthly body as the first man. And Eph. iv. 9, 10, "now that he ascended, what is it, but that he also descended, first into the lower parts of the earth-he that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things" And Phil. iii. 21, "who shall change the body of our lowness, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," &c. Now, if it should be read according to these Baptists' sense, it must be, who shall change our vile bodies, that they may be fashioned like unto his human body; as if they were not such already. And how disproportionable is it to say, Christ consists of a human body of flesh, blood, and bones in heaven; but the saints must have a spiritual glorious body in the state of glory hereafter! Yet to prevent these men's scruples concerning our owning the man Christ, or the Son of man in glory,I tell them seriously, that I do confess both to his miraculous conception by the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowing the virgin Mary, and to his being born of her according to the flesh, and so that he took upon him a real body, and not a fantastical one; and that he was real man, come of the seed of Abraham; and that he in the days of his flesh preached righteousness, wrought miracles, was crucified, and put to death by wicked hands; that he was buried and rose again the third day according to the scriptures; and that after he rose, he appeared diversely, or in divers forms and manners*-He really appeared to many brethren, (1 Corinth. xv.) and afterwards ascended into glory, being translated according to the wisdom and power of the Heavenly Father, and is glorified with the same glory which he had with the Father before the world began, being


Mark xvi. 12. Luke xxiv. 36, 48. John xx. 19, 23, 24, 29. Mat. xxviii. 9, 10.

"ascended far above all heavens, that he might fill all things," whose glory is incomprehensible, and beyond the apprehension of human capacities.


H. G. cavils at my speaking distinctly of the body of Jesus, in that Joseph of Arimathea begged the body of Jesus; and to confute me herein, he instances that of the body of Saul, and saith, that the case is the same, and the body of Moses, which the devil disputed about. p. 39, 40, 41. But in this I cannot see any valid matter to his purpose, nor wherein he can intend it, unless he believes that the soul, or spiritual existence of man, dies with the body. The devil appeared wiser than he, concerning this distinction, in that his disputing about the body of Moses, implies a distinction between Moses, as to his immortal existence, and the body of Moses. And that he did not confound them, as this man does, who concludes Jesus Christ to consist of a human body of flesh and bone, which the original being of no man properly consists of. Though to prevent cavils, and for quietness' sake, I will grant him thus much, that the name Jesus Christ is indifferently and mutually applied, both to his spiritual being, and to the body he took upon him, and that distinctly in scripture, although the names Messiah, Jesus, Christ, the Anointed, the image and glory of the invisible God, the Word, the Light, the Life, &c. do more eminently, and more originally belong to him, as he was before he took that body upon him, which he called "this temple," and it was called the body of Jesus."

H. G. says, "What a strange epitaph would this man write upon a tomb-stone; he cannot write, here lies the body of Thomas or William, &c. but rather thus, here lies the Thomas of Thomas." p. 41.

Reply. This more properly falls upon himself, in not admitting that distinction touching Jesus and the body of Jesus. But by concluding and confining Jesus Christ, to consist of the mere body of flesh and bone, and that he could not be Jesus Christ, the Saviour, before he took upon him that body, this man cannot write, "Here lies the body of Thomas or William," &c. (which implies a belief of an immortality of the man, as to his spirituality,) but rather, "Here lies the whole man Thomas or William," without admitting of any such immortality. And yet I will grant him as before, that the word man is indifferently applied to either the spiritual being or body of man, as there is an inward man and an outward man. 2 Cor. iv. 16.

"God created man in his own image ;" and yet it is said, "he formed man of the dust of the earth." Gen. i. 27,

and chap. ii. 7. It is said, that "the rich man died and was buried," which was his body, "and in hell he lift up his eyes," &c. which could not be that part which died and was buried, but the immortal part or soul, (Luke xvi. 22, 23.) yet the word man, most properly and originally, (as God created man in his own image,) belongs to his spiritual existence or being; for the earthly body was not the image of God.

But farther, let the reader observe how evidently H. G. has contradicted his foregoing stuff, (for a human Christ consisting of a body of mere flesh and bone, against my distinction concerning Jesus and his body that was put to death and buried, which was also raised,) as where he speaks distinctly of Jesus and his body, (p. 23.) and confesses that Christ came in the flesh-(p. 36.) that he hath an outward glorified existence”— that he hath a body, (p. 46, 47.) "Christ's crucified body," (p. 50.) "the body that was prepared for him." (p. 79.) "He did assume our nature.” p. 80. He had the very form, shape, and fashion of a man." p. 81. And what He or Him was this he speaks of. Was it not Christ, the Son of God, the anointed?


And to his arguing, "that if Jesus Christ continues a man for ever, then he hath a body of flesh and bone for ever:" this doth not follow, but is falsely deduced, as before is proved, that man both did and doth exist when he hath not such a carnal body as he intends. Although I do own Christ to be the Heavenly and Spiritual man glorified, and, (in a more sublime and heavenly sense,) his flesh and bone, of which the saints are members, and that the true Christ is not without blood to communicate, of which the spiritual communicants drink.

H. G. also further adds, "unless it can be proved, that man can exist and have a being without flesh and bone, which I suppose, all will conclude is impossible." p. 47.

To which I say, this is not only confuted by what I have said before, but also by himself, where he confesses the coming of the Spirit into his heart, for the binding of the strong man satan. p. 16. Here he hath found out a man, and that a strong one too, to wit, satan, whom I suppose he deems not a man made up or consisting of flesh and bones, though he be called the strong man. But the Heavenly and Spiritual man Christ Jesus is stronger than he.


As for his insinuating against us, that we deny the resurrection of the dead, or of the body, (p. 41, 42, 43.) this accusation is not only in general terms, but it is notoriously false, as may be evinced not only in many of our books and writings, but also by our deep sufferings for Christ; so that if in this life only we

had hope, we were of all men most miserable. It is true, there hath been, and is, a controversy between us and some others about that, or the like unlearned question, which they have been busy to obtrude upon us, viz. "How are the dead raised, and with what body?" Which we have answered, as the apostle did such, "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die, and thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, &c. but God giveth it a body as it pleaseth him, and every seed his own body," or its proper body.. 1 Cor. xv. 35, 36, 37, 38. &c.

But to prove the arising of the same bodies buried in the graves, he perverts and miscites Phil. iii. 21, thus, "he will change our vile bodies, and fashion them like unto his glorious body;" whereas Phil. iii. 21, is in the singular, vile body, or rather, "he shall change the body of our lowness." or our suffering body, "that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body."* Now the body of their lowness, or humility, τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώ.

EWS μ comprehended the whole suffering estate of the church. I confess that the resurrection, change, and translation, or transfiguration, (as some render it,) of the just or righteous, extends not only to a resurrection from sin, corruption, and weakness, but to an arising out of a suffering state into glory. And as God knows how to deliver and raise up the righteous, out of temptations, trials, and sufferings, so he knows how to reserve the unjust unto punishment, and unto the day of destruction. For both shall rise to their several ends and rewards; yea, the sea, death, hell, and the grave, shall "deliver up their dead" to be judged, &c. and he giveth to every seed his own proper body, as he pleaseth." And we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle be destroyed, we have a building given of God, that is, a house not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor. xv. 50. H. G. says, "by flesh and blood the apostle doth intend corruption," (p. 44.) whereas the apostle spake of them distinctly, viz. " flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." To say that by flesh and blood he intends corruption, is no answer to their question, "with what body are the dead raised?" &c. Which though reproved as foolish, yet not so foolish as to ask whether corruption be raised? And more absurd it is to imply, that by flesh and blood he doth not intend body, but only corruption.

[ocr errors]

Again, H. G. to prove the rising of the same bodies, cites Job xix. 25. "In my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold," &c. p. 44, 45.

And so he hath dealt with Acts i. 11. saying, "in the same manner;" (p. 21.) instead of "in like manner."

By this his instance it appears what gross apprehensions he hath of God, while he thinks to see him with his bodily or carnal eyes, to which no being nor thing is visible or obvious but what is of an outward or corporeal substance, or formal limited matter, which an infinite eternal Spirit is not. For God, who is that Spirit, is invisible; therefore Job did not speak of his bodily eyes, but of his spiritual, who afterwards said unto the Lord, I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee," (Job xlii. 5.) which cannot be understood of his seeing him with his bodily eye. H. G. pretends to know the state or manner of the saints' being in glory, telling us that all deformity shall be done away," (p. 44.) and that these vile bodies shall be fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body." How then shall they be these very same earthly and numerical bodies many whereof are not only deformed, but greatly defective, both as to infants and aged, that die. And his confessing to 2 Cor. v. 1, 2, doth appear a contradiction to himself plain enough, if rightly considered. It is probable this man has as strange conceits about the resurrection, as T. Vincent in his book of the coming of Christ to judgment, and of the resurrection. But I cannot look upon either him or the Baptists to be such divine philosophers, as either to know or define the manner of the saints' existence in heaven and glory; but rather that they are imaginary, and intruders therein, though it would better become them to acquiesce with God's will and pleasure concerning such mysteries as are beyond their capacities. I expeet some of them, in their busy minds, will give me further occasion to speak to this weighty point of the resurrection, though it be a matter I never desired to make public controversy of, it being beyond human capacities.


H. G. "There is a great difference between the essence and body of the sun, and its beams or rays; for though the sun by its rays doth give light to all, yet is not the essence or body of the sun in them. So in like manner, though the Word be the true light which lighteth every man, yet is he not essentially in their hearts." p. 48, 49. 1

Answer. He hath strained his simile too far, and thereby hath denied the omnipresence and infiniteness of God, whose presence filleth heaven and earth. The sun and its rays and beams are finite and limitable; but so are not God and his illumination. And thus to limit and circumscribe God and his light or shining to be as the sun and its beams, doth manifest

« ForrigeFortsæt »