« PreviousContinue »
to a Sense that was none of theirs, for Instince; T. Ellwood says, And if he was truly Man, < before he appeared in that outward Body, < which was nailed to the Cross, to be sure he is
not less truly Man now, since 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 so far from expressing himself, as our Adversary puts it, which was only a Cloathing to his heavenly Manhood, that he uses great Caution, (as I may say) and his Words, Divine and Heavenly Manhood, are grounded on the foregoing Supposition of his (Christos) being truly Man, before he appeared in that outward Body.
R. Barclay also doth assert, that Christ had a fpiritual Body and Flesh.
Ifaac Penington also distinguishes between the Flesh and Blood of our Naturė, 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 separately, or collectively, express themselves in the manner our Opponent would reprelent them.
Now that Christ had an Heavenly Manhood, a Spiritual Body and Fles, 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 shall live for ever, and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh. • This ' faith Robert Barclay, was not the Flesh he took
< from the Virgin Mary, for that came not s down from Heaven, but he had a Spiritual
Body, in which his Soul existed long before he < took Flesh of the Virgin.
2. The Apostle Paul says, that the Fathers (viz. the People of Israel] did all eat the same spiritual Meat, and did all drink the same spiritual Drink: For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ, i Cor. x. 3. 4. Now this Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink they took to be the same which Chriit speaks 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 bis Blood, ye have no Life in 204. • And certainly, faith (9)G. K. if the Saints before
Chrift came outwardly in the Flesh, had not < eat of the Flesh of Christ, 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 Christ had Flesh and Blood, to wit, Hea.
venly and Spiritual, even from the Beginning, ę on which the Saints in all Ages did feed, even
from the Beginning, such as Adam and Eve, • Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, &c. And
seeing Christ had Flesh and Blood from the
Beginning, he was Man from the Beginning ; • for as God simply he cannot have Flesh and • Blood; for God is a Spirit ; therefore it is the « Flesh and Blood of Christ as he is Man, or • the Son of Man, as Christ said, unless ye eat • the Fless of the Son of Man, &c.' Many more Texts might be produc'd, which plainly favour
(9) The Way caft up, po 95.
the Distinctions those Authors make, but 'tis needless, to an Adversary, who neither truly states what they hold, nor takes the least Notice of one of their Arguments to support it.
Pag. 120. he puts this Query,
· Dip Christ the Word, or Son of God, take our human Nature, Soul and Body, into a • personal Union with himself, so as to be both · God and Man in one Person? for which he quotes G. W's Son of Perdition reveald, p. 11.
But G. W. in that place has no such Words. For having first quoted his Adversary (Joseph Wright) saying of Christ, “It is he that hath
two distinct Natures in one entire Person, no
Person else hath the like in him, in him only • dwelleth the Fulness of the Godhead bodily, < in no Man besides him dwelleth the Godhead « in any measure bodily: Replies, « Yes the « Saints were made Partakers of the divine Na(ture also, and such received of the Fulness of < God in Chrift, Grace for Grace, and God • hath promised to dwell and walk in his People,
John i. 16. 1 Cor. ii. 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
Adversary could form his Query from them : But he also quotes Sword of the Lord drawn, p. 5. a Passage we have already, spoke to in pag. 68. foregoing.
Pag. 121. Is this Question, Did Christ the · Word, though he had a Body of Flesh, take 6 it into his Person as a part of him whereof he • consisted?' To which is cited G. W's Christian Quaker, p. 139, 140.
o confifted ?
In stating this Question, our Opponent has alter'd the Terms of the Affertion which George Whitehead there opposed, which was, That Jefus Christ is a Man, consisting of a Body of Fles and Bone, to which G. W. answers p. 130. Now • for Jesus Christ to have Flesh and Bone, and for • him to consist of Flesh and Bone in his Sense, are ' two differing Things ; for to have Flesh and
Bones, implies a Distinction between him the
Son of God, (as to his being) and the Flesh and • Bones which he had : but to consist of Flesh and • Bones, implies he could not have a being with
out them, but that he is made up merely of human Flesh and Bones. And p. 140. If Christ • consisteth, or is made up of human Flesh and
Bones, and be the Christ only as so considered, " then how is he the Son of God by Eternal Ge
neration, even before (as well as since) he took upon him that Body which was prepared for
him, or partook of that which the Children had, • to wit, Flesh and Blood? If the Son of God be
fore, was he not then Christ before? Or was i he the Son of God when he was not Chrift?"
But our opponent goes on querying,
« Oč • did not he only take a Body of Flesh, as a • Veil or Garment, which he was to wear for a · while, and afterwards to lay aside, and so only • dwelt in the Body of Jesus for a Time, and in
spired him as he doth other good Men, tho'. • in a higher Degree?' Here he cites 7. Penington's Quest
. to Irofessors pag. 3, 20, 27. Aftet Examination of the Pages cited, we are yet to seek where 7. P. uses the Expressions in this Query, such as to wear for a while, and after
wards to lay aside; we find him in one of the Pa. ges quoted (viz. pag. 20.) proposing these Queries. • What was he tor whom the Father pre• pared 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 Jesus and Christ of « God?
• To whom, do the Names and Titles, Jesus, ' 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 Bo
dy hath its Nature and Properties, and the « Eternal Word or Son of God, (the pure spot« less Lamb, the Fountain of Innocency) its Na
ture 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 6 in?'
These are pertinent Questions, and proper for our Adversary to give a direct Answer to ; but 'tis observable, that though he several Times, in this Section, pretends to quote 7. Penington's Questions to Profesors, yet he never attempts to answer any of them, till he has first adapted'em to his own Purpose, either by omitting or changing the Author's Terms, or adding his own.
His Question pag. 120,
« How could Chrift « the Word take our Nature which is sinful and
corrupt, into his own Person, for then he must have been corrupted and defiled ?' fought for in the Places he directs to, viz. G.