صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

to a Senfe that was none of theirs, for Inftance, T. Ellwood fays, And if he was truly Man,

before he appeared in that outward Body, < which was nailed to the Cross, to be fure he is not lefs truly Man now, fince that outward • Manhood became (as I may fay) a cloathing to that divine and heavenly Manhood which he had before, and is glorified with it.' But is fo far from expreffing himself, as our Adversary puts it, which was ONLY a Cloathing to his heavenly Manhood, that he ufes great Caution, (as I may fay) and his Words, Divine and Heavenly Manhood, are grounded on the foregoing Suppofition of his (Christ's) being truly Man, before he appeared in that outward Body.

R. Barclay alfo doth affert, that Christ had a spiritual Body and Flesh.

Ifaac Penington alfo diftinguishes between the Flesh and Blood of our Nature, which Christ honoured in taking upon him, and the Flesh and Blood of his own Nature which he had before.

BUT they do not either feparately, or collectively, exprefs themselves in the manner our Opponent would represent them.

Now that Chrift had an Heavenly Manhood. a Spiritual Body and Flefb, Flesh and Blood of his own Nature, before he was born of the Virgin, they thought warrantable by Scripture, For,

1. Christ himself faith, John vi. 51. I am that living Bread which came down from Heaven, if any Man eat of this Bread, he fhall live for ever, and the Bread that I will give is my Flefb. This • faith Robert Barclay, was not the Flesh he took • from

[ocr errors]

from the Virgin Mary, for that came not down from Heaven, but he had a Spiritual Body, in which his Soul exifted long before he took Flesh of the Virgin.'

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

2. THE Apostle Paul fays, that the Fathers [viz. the People of Ifrael] did all eat the fame Spiritual Meat, and did all drink the fame fpiritual Drink: For they drank of that fpiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Chrift, i Cor. x. 3. 4. Now this Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink they took to be the fame which Christ fpeaks of, John vi. 55. My Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed, of which he had faid ver. 33. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you. And certainly, faith (q)G. K. if the Saints before Chrift came outwardly in the Flesh, had not eat of the Flesh of Chrift, and drunk of his Blood, they could not have had Life by him, but they hadLife by him, and therefore they did ⚫ eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. And there⚫fore Chrift had Flesh and Blood, to wit, Hea.

[ocr errors]

<

venly and Spiritual, even from the Beginning, on which the Saints in all Ages did feed, even from the Beginning, fuch as Adam and Eve, • Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, &c. And feeing Chrift had Flesh and Blood from the Beginning, he was Man from the Beginning; for as God fimply he cannot have Flesh and Blood, for God is a Spirit; therefore it is the Flesh and Blood of Chrift as he is Man, or ⚫ the Son of Man, as Christ said, unless the Flesh of the Son of Man, &c.' Many more Texts might be produc'd, which plainly favour

ye eat

the

[ocr errors]

<

[ocr errors]

(q) The Way caft up, p. 95.

the Distinctions thofe Authors make, but 'tis needlefs, to an Adversary, who neither truly ftates what they hold, nor takes the leaft Notice of one of their Arguments to fupport it.

Pag. 120. he puts this Query,

DID Chrift the Word, or Son of God, take our human Nature, Soul and Body, into a ⚫ perfonal Union with himself, fo as to be both God and Man in one Perfon? for which he quotes G. W's Son of Perdition reveal'd, p. 11.

BUT G. W. in that Place has no fuch Words. For having firft quoted his Adverfary (Jofeph Wright) faying of Christ, It is he that hath two diftinct Natures in one entire Perfon, no • Perfon else hath the like in him, in him only dwelleth the Fulness of the Godhead bodily, <in no Man befides him dwelleth the Godhead

6

<

in any measure bodily. Replies, Yes the • Saints were made Partakers of the divine Na< ture alfo, and fuch received of the Fulness of God in Chrift, Grace for Grace, and God hath promised to dwell and walk in his People, John ì. 16. 1 Cor. iii. 16. 2 Cor. vi. 16. and ⚫ can that State be attained by any, and nothing ⚫ of the Divine Nature be in them? Is God in his People, and his Nature divided ?' These are G. W's Words; let the Reader judge, with what Justice our Adverfary could form his Query from them: But he alfo quotes Sword of the Lord drawn, p. 5. a Paffage we have already, fpoke to in pag. 68. foregoing.

[ocr errors]

Pag. 121. Is this Queftion,

Did Chrift the Word, though he had a Body of Flesh, take it into his Perfon as a Part of him whereof he

• confifted?"

⚫ confifted?'
Quaker, p. 139, 140.

IN ftating this Queftion, our Opponent has alter'd the Terms of the Affertion which George Whitehead there oppofed, which was, That FeJefus Chrift is a Man, confifting of a Body of Flefb and Bone, to which G. W. anfwers p. 130. Now

·

for Jefus Christ to have Flesh and Bone, and for ⚫ him to confift of Flesh and Bone in his Senfe, are two differing Things; for to have Flesh and Bones, implies a Diftinction between him the Son of God, (as to his being) and the Flesh and Bones which he had: but to confift of Flesh and Bones, implies he could not have a being without them, but that he is made up merely of human Flesh and Bones. And p. 140. If Chrift confifteth, or is made up of human Flesh and Bones, and be the Chrift only as fo confidered, then how is he the Son of God by Eternal Ge<neration, even before (as well as fince) he took < upon him that Body which was prepared for him, or partook of that which theChildren had, to wit, Flesh and Blood? If the Son of God before, was he not then Chrift before? Or was he the Son of God when he was not Chrift?'

4

6

To which is cited G. W's Chriftian

[ocr errors]

6

[ocr errors]

Or

BUT our Opponent goes on querying, did not he only take a Body of Flesh, as a • Veil or Garment, which he was to wear for a

<

6

while, and afterwards to lay afide, and fo only • dwelt in the Body of Jefus for a Time, and infpired him as he doth other good Men, tho' ina higher Degree?' Here he cites J. Penington's Queft, to Frofeffors pag. 3, 20, 27. After Examination of the Pages cited, we are yet to feek where 7. P. ufes the Expreffions in this Query, fuch as to wear for a while, and afterM wards

<

wards to lay afide; we find him in one of the Pages quoted (viz. pag. 20.) propofing these Queries. • What was he for whom the Father prepared a Body, and who took it up to do the Will, and did the Will in it? Was he not the Arm of God, the Power of God, the Saviour and Salvation of God, the Jefus and Christ of • God?

،

6

C

• To whom, do the Names and Titles, Jefus, and Christ, chiefly, and in the first Place, belong? • Do they belong to the Body which was took by him, or to him who took the Body? The Body hath its Nature and Properties, and the • Eternal Word or Son of God, (the pure fpotlefs Lamb, the Fountain of Innocency) its Nature and Properties. Now the Query is, which was the appointed Saviour of the Father, which ⚫ was the anointed of the Father, chiefly and in the first Place? Whether the Body prepared, or he for whom the Body was prepared to do the Will, and offer up an acceptable Sacrifice • in?'

6

C

THESE are pertinent Queftions, and proper for our Adverfary to give a direct Anfwer to; but 'tis obfervable, that though he feveral Times, in this Section, pretends to quote J. Penington's Questions to Profeffors, yet he never attempts to anfwer any of them, till he has firft adapted 'em to his own Purpose, either by omitting or changing the Author's Terms, or adding his own.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

HIS Question pag. 120,
How could Chrift
the Word take our Nature which is finful and
corrupt, into his own Perfon, for then he must
have been corrupted and defiled?' we have
fought for in the Places he directs to,

viz. G.

1

« السابقةمتابعة »