« ForrigeFortsæt »
" I am the resurrection and the life, he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die.” John xi. 24, 25. But our opposer was not pleased to take notice of this answer of Christ's, but only of Martha's words and belief, and thence to argue after this manner.
Arg. 5. - The word resurrection implies to rise again." Answer. And can this be applied to nothing, nor any otherwise, than to that very flesh, or gross body, that returns to dust? Is not Christ the resurrection and the life? And doth not to rise again, imply, that man was fallen before? and that “as in Adam alí die, so in Christ shall all be made alive ?” And is not (the term] resurrection applicable to that which is quickened? and must this be understood only of the dust of dissolved bodies without any creation ? For he saith : “ If God give another body, and raise not again that body that before was in being, then it is a creation, and no resurrection.” So that, from bence, it is a reg. urrection of the same dust of the gross bodies dissolved, that seems to be expected by these men, and not any creation; and therein is their great mercy and comfort, though they do not acquiesce herein from contention and quarrelling. But in tbat resurrection, quickening, reviving, changing, translation, do not signify creation, therefore they are not applicable to the dust of bodies after dissolution, though both resurrection and new cre. ation be to renewed man. « Behold, I make all things new;" new man, new creation, new heavens, and new earth, &c. But this is a mystery hid from corrupt tlesh, so much contended for by our present opposers.
The rest of his arguments and doctrines are mostly very weak and ignorant about this point, yet comprehensively answered in this book.
Here follow some passages out of a manuscript by W. B. against
me, with a reply, detecting his ignorance in confounding the carnal body and the spiritual.
W. B. “ Indeed, if G. Whitehead hath found out a body for Christ that is not a carnal body, (which implies only a fleshly,) it is such a body that I never read of in the scriptures. I would know what in scripture is called the body, but the flesh ? Now take but away the flesh, and where is the body ? Aye but, saith G. W. it is a spiritual body; as if a body of flesh and a spiritual could not stand together. This is his great mistake. The apostle could have borne his testimony to this truth, that it is the body of flesh that shall be raised spiritual. 1 Cor. xv. 14, 43.
• It is sown a natural body, it is raised spiritual.' Here the apostle still keeps to the word it,” &c.
Answer. The nonsense and contradiction that may be gathered from these passages, is, that Christ's body is a carnal spiritual body, as if carnal and spiritual were both one. Or, that the spiritual body that is raised or given to the seed, is carnal. Let these passages be kept in record, as the Baptists' doctrine and testinony; whereas the apostle's own testimony' proves the contrary. And W. B. has belied the apostle : “ For it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual ; and there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” Here the apostle clearly makes a distinction and a difference between the natural body and the spiritual. He doth not say, it is sown a natural body, and raised a natural or carnal body also," but a spiritual body.
He also distinguisheth between the bodies celestial and the bodies terrestrial; as those of sun, moon, and stars differ from those of men, beasts, and fishes. Now you would count him a very blind philosopher, that should make no difference, but say, they are all one and consistent; or that the bodies of sun, inoon, and stars, were all one with those earthly bodies of men, and other creatures. So blind, and such ignorant divines are these Baptists. He understands not the difference between the natural body and the spiritual, any more than if a person should be so ignorant as to ask, when he sees the sun, or moon, or stars, if these were not men, or birds, or beasts, or fishes, in the firmament. Or, on the contrary, if he should see men, beasts, and fishes, to ask, if these are not the sun, moon, and stars ; or rather to conclude that they are, because he knows not which are celestial, and which terrestrial, just as this Baptist doth not discern between bodies natural or carnal, and bodies spiritual. But how should he do other, or gee better, while his mind is so much upon flesh, and so little upon spirit; ur so much upon flesh and blood which cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and so little upon that spiritual birth or seed that doth inherit the kingdom of glory and peace.
And as for the Baptists' argument, “That the apostle still keeps to the word it, as, . It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual ;' or . God giveth it a body as it pleaseth him, and to every seed his own body :'” how evident is it, that as the particle it is used as a relative to both the natural and spiritual body, it is a mutable it ; * for “ there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body," which therefore are not the self-same. The very parable, or instance, of the wheat and other grain, may confute his opinion herein? For is it the very self-same grain
*He takes it for idem, the self-same body; but where hath he this either from the Greek or Latin on the place cited.
of wheat that is in the ear that was sown in the ground? Let the husband men judge bim herein. To him we may say, as the apostle did in the same case to such: “O fool! thou sowest not that body that shall be,” &c. 1 Cor. xv. And now the words, “ It is sown,” imply a seed sown, in order to a sprouting and bringing forth increase. Upon which it may be queried, is that body of man, to wit, that of flesh, blood, and bones, that is laid in the grave, or drowned in the sea, or devoured by fire, and some by beasts, &c. be the seed that the apostle intended, to which God giveth a body as it pleaseth bim, yea, or nay? If it be answered in the affirmative, then what body is it that God giveth to it, as it pleaseth him? If it be answered in the negative, that overthrows the Baptists' doctrine of the 6 same flesh, blood, and bones, &c. which W. B. has not distinguished from a spiritual body,
RESURRECTION, FUTURE GLORY,
FELICITY OF TEE SAINTS, FURTHER ASSERTED, ACCORDING TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ;
HOW FAR SHORT OF THE TRUE VISION, SIGHT, OR REVELATION
THEREOF, OUR PRESENT OPPOSERS ARE, IN THEIR CROSS THOUGHTS AND TRADITIONAL CONJECTURES.
Examination of Thomas Danson's arguments and doctrines about the resurrection, future state, and glory of believers,
IN HIS SYNOPSIS.
The resurrection, as plentifully asserted in the scriptures, is not in the least questioned by us, however we be unjustly censured for denying it. Therefore there is no necessity of his argument to evince that, which, as he saith, the scripture is so plentiful in asserting. Nor doth he evince it according to the scriptures, but varies from them, as will appear.
His argument. “ If the bodies that have done good or evil, must receive their reward accordingly; then the same bodies that die must rise again. But the antecedent is true ; therefore the consequent.
Answer. This argument, (both antecedent and consequent,) appears neither clear, nor grounded upon truth, as it places an eternal reward upon the body, for its teniporal acts, in putting the body, (on this account,) for man that hatb acted therein, who must receive the things done in the body." 2 Cor. v. 10. The mere terrestrial body is neither the subject retaining perpetual love or enmity to God, nor is it the original cause of good or evil actions, therefore not the object of eternal love or wrath. But man, in his spiritual existence, or being, as spiri. tually and suitably organized, (as it pleaseth God,) is to receive the things done in his body, according to what he hath done, whether good or evil, proper and natural to the image he bears, which the soul carries along with it out of the earthly body or house that turns to dust. But see the proof of his antecedent, " That the bodies, that have done good or evil, must receive their reward accordingly, is evident by 2 Cor. v. 10, and then the consequence is firm," &c.
Reply. He hath manifestly perverted the text. It doth not say, the bodies must receive their reward accordingly,' (though in some sense it may be granted, according to their temporal actions.) but, " we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” 2 Cor. v. 10. And but a few words before he saith : "we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” ver. 8. Wherefor he knew that they were capable both of a being, and reward with the Lord, when absent from the body ; and that as when in the body they had found acceptance with him, they received the deeds done in the body when out of it; to die being gain unto them.
Every man's works shall follow hin; the nature of them shall remain in him, whether it be good or evil, that he lives and dies in. The soul spiritually hath its proper organ, vessel, or body, wherein either the habit of good or evil, holiness or filthiness cleaves to it; and wherein accordingly it retains either mercy or wrath, love or hatred from God, when the earthly mansion or bouse is destroyed and turned to dust, as it was; there being a house or clothing that cleaves more closely to the soul than dust can. And it will come to pass, that " he that will be filthy, must be filthy still; and be that is holy, let him be boly still.” • Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” Rev. xxii, 11, 12,Rom. ii. 6. And therefore “wo will be to their souls who reward evil to themselves," (Isa. iii. 9,) and whose souls delight in their abominations; and tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.” Rom. ii. 8, 9, 10. But to proceed to T. D.'s further proof of his antecedent and consequent, which to " ordinary readers," he saith, smay seem inconsequent," by which it would seem he must be more than an ordinary writer. The place he cites, is Mat. xxii. 31, 32.
T. D. For the further proof of antecedent and consequent, I shall first explain the terms of Christ's argument, &c. The place is. Mat. xxii. 31, 32. • As touching the resurrection from the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.'” And it is added, Luke xx. 38, " for all live unto hin.”
This passage he thus explains, viz.