the Eternal Destruction of and Hatred to the greater part of Mankind or the Passing them by with Displeasure for that End Whereas T.H. quotes me for saying That I cannot believe that he Christ hath a Personal Being at the right hand of God without all Men To this he subscribed G. Whitehead Christ ascended p. 18. Those are not my Words he hath falsly cited them but these are mine I cannot believe his Body to be a Carnal Body in Heaven or that he consists of a Carnal Existence See Christ Ascended p. 18. It seems that by Personal Being he means such a Carnal Body but he doth not vindicate his Brother Newman his asserting Christ to be a Body of Flesh and Blood in Heaven a Personal Being at the right Hand of God without all Men remote c. and this to prove that Christ doth not dwell in any Man Which I opposed The â—oâ—ition as Uâ—scriptural the Consequence as false as not only confining and limiting Christ from his Saints but God and his right hand also unto a remoteness from his Temple how then doth his Right Hand save and uphold us In all which thâ—se Baptists shew their too carnal and mean Thâ—ughts of Jesus Christ as in Glory and of God and is right hand of Power wherein they are fully answered as also about Christ's Second Coming to Salvation Christ ascended p. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 and 69 But when T.H. can neither vindicate his Brother Newman's Limitation or Confinement put upon Christ and Gâ—â—'s Right Hand nor answer my Objections against him he Queries viz. Is Christ no â—tâ—â—rw scâ—â— God's Right Hand then as he is in you p. 43. and wiâ—h this agrees the Socinians false Inference drawn from my Words Controversie ended p. 48.49 his Words are It seems then that Jesus Christ is no otherwise in Heaven then he is in the Saints which is as false as his Saying that we do absolutely deny Christ to be a Man p. 47. herein both the Water-Baptist Socinian have drawn a false Inference upon my Objection for though I 〈…〉 that Christs being in Glory at God's râ—â—â—thâ—â—d of Power is no Proof that he is not in Man 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 be proved that God and his right hand are 〈◊〉 only to a remoteness from all Men and so that he is not Infinite God or that his right hand is meerly to be taken Literally as a Man's hand It follows not that I intend that Jesus Christ is not otherwise in Heaven at God's right hand then as in the Saints on Earth for his Exaltation and Glory into which he is ascended not only into the Heavens but far above the Heavens Transcends that Degree attained in these Suffering Earthly Tabernacles his inaccessible Glory is above Men and Angels above all Suffering Natures and Conditions he is made higher then the Heavens in all things hath the Preheminence yet not excluded nor limited from his People so far as they are made capable to receive him nor from being touched with the feeling of their Infirmities And it is said whilst we are at home or Strangers in the Body we are absent from the Lord. 2 Cor. 5. which though it cannot be as remotely separate from his Presence yet in Comparison of that more Full and Glorious Enjoyment that we shall have of him when absent from the Body there is a Degree of Absence while Strangers in the Body howbeit by Faith whereby we now walk we have both a living Knowledge and Enjoyment of him and walk with him being the Sons of God though it appears not what we shall be The Socinian tells uâ— of a Personal Christ Con. End Pag 47. and that the Man Jesus our Lord although he is the Eternal God has in Heaven a place remote from Earth a Humane Body p 49. But doth he believe that Jesus Christ is the Eternal God I cannot think it while he imagins him to be a Personal Christ or Humane Body so â—â—â—â—ted or confined into a Remoteness But seeing these Anabaptists Socinians do so much concur in their opposing us because we cannot own their Limitations and Unscriptural Terms about Christ's Being I ask both the Author of Controversie Ended and Tho Hicks If they really believe that Jesus Christ is a Humane Body of Flesh Blood and Bones and in that Sense a Personal Being not in Man according to J. Newman or that he consists of a Humane Body of Flesh and Bones according to Henry Grigg in his Light from the Sun p. 30 31.33 But is it good Doctrine to say that his Glorious Body that we shall be fashioned like unto is a Humane Body If in thâ—se things they agree as they seem to do then doth it not follow that they must concur in the Consequences viz That though they own three distinct Persons in the Deity yet not Coeternal Persons but that Jesus Christ is a meer Creature a Personal Being or Humane Body of Flesh Blood and Bones and therein limited But if Socinians do not look upon Christ's Personal Being in that gross Sense but rather with respect to his Spiritual Existence then is not Christ confined to a Remoteness from the Saints for they have received of the Spirit of the Son but then what mean these Men by Humane Body in Heaven Is not Humane Body an Earthly Body Hence it seems we must look upon Personal Being as applicable to the Father Son and Spirit in a different Sense viz. 1. To the Being of God 2. To the Being of Christ as a Creature 3. Else to the Body that he took upon him in time whereas Christ the Son of God who took upon him that Body that was prepared for him did pre-exist or was before that Body and therefore he himself consists not of such a Personal Created Being or Humane gross Body as is limitable like our Earthly Bodies the Asserters of a Trinity of three distinct Persons do not call them so many Personal Beings but distinguish the Personallity from the Being and though Christ was made a little lower then the Angels in his Suffering State in the dayes of his Flesh on Earth yet he is above Angels in his Glorified Estate and surely then his Glorious Being and Body must not be inferiour to their's If T.H. would strictly limit us to confess our Creed in his terms 't is meet they should be strictly defined and he to be at some Certainty without varying therein as from Jesus Christ God Man a Person without thee to Jesus Christ hath a Personal Being at God's Right Hand without us I question whether he rightly knows either what Person Being Essence or Substance is In the first he concludes God as well as Man under the Limitation of Person without in the second that Christ hath a Personal Being without us how then doth God and Christ consist thereof or is that Personal Being But if by Personal Being he intends an Intelligent Being or Rational Substance I grant Christ is such a Being
cited in Defence of his gross Conceit of the Râ—surrection are either relative of another Matter or directly opposite to and inconsistent with his Assertion 1. And this Mortal shall put on Immortality this Corruptible shall put on Incorruption 1 Cor 15.53 I grant that this implies a Change but I deny that it so much as intimates that Men shall rise with those very Carnal Bodies that were buried No the Apostle not only tells us that the Body sown is not the Body that shall be but that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God vers 50. If the Flesh and Blood be transmuted or changed into no Flesh and Blood I query and I think I may do it safely too Whether It be the same Flesh and Blood that is changed into no Flesh and Blood that is the Body raised O Absurd Dark and Carnal Man Nor am I afraid to tell him that the Scripture cannot rationally be taken strictly as translated neither ought many more for there are certain Figures Modes and Wayes proper to that Language in which this Epistle was written which are to be understood with Allowances for how can the Mortal taken for Mortality and not him who in part is Mortal put on Immortality It is Impossible Can Mortality be cloathed with Immortality then it seems that Mortality is the Person and Immortality the Garment If Thomas Hicks should tell me No it is meant that the Mortal Body should be changed into an Immortal Body it follows that he is gone from the Letter of the Text into an Interpretation as well as that it contradicts his absurd Identity or Sameness of Body If so it is as Lawful for me and more if in the Right to construe It thus That we who are Mortals respecting our Bodies put off the Mortal Part and put on instead thereof Immortality suitable to that weighty Passage of the Apostle Paul For We know that if our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with Hands Eternal in Heavens which as directly concludes the Charge not of Accidents but Bodies from an Earthly House or Tabernacle to an Heavenly House or Building as ever any thing can be spoken by Men or Angels To conclude Since Mortality can not properly put on Immortality but Man that is cloathed with Mortality may put off or exchange Mortality for Immortality because otherwise Mortality would have Immortality for its Garment a thing impossible and absurd I do infer that this place yields no Strength at all to Thomas Hicks's gross Apprehension of the Resurrection 2. His next Scripture is that in the Romans But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead dwell in you he that rais'd up Christ from the Dead shall also quicken your Mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you But this is nothing to T. H's Purpose in the least For the Apostle treats not here of the Resurrection of Dead Carnal Bodies in our Adversary's Sence as the whole Chapter seriously read proves but of the Inward Work of the Spirit in order to the making Man's Body a fit Temple for the holy Ghost to dwell in as he writ to the Corrinthians 3. The third place he brings is out of the Epistle Paul writ to the Philippians He shall change our Vile Bodies Upon which he sayâ—s This cannot be meant of a New-created Bodâ— because such a Body cannot be said to be either Vile or Changed But what makes this for his Conceit Surely nothing For if the Vile Body he changed then it is not that Vile Body therefore not the same Body Again to say that Scripture can't be meant of a New-Created Body because such one can't be said to be either Vile or Changed makes much against him For 1. It is to say that the Body that shall be is Vile else what means his Saying Because such a Body cannot be said TO BE not to have been either Vile or Changed 2. Though the Body That shall be may not be said to be either Vile or Changed yet it may be given of God in lieu of a Vile Body and so the Vile Body Changed for one that is Glorious It was either Ignorantly or Sophistically done in Thomas Hicks to imply That Body that shall be could not be said to be Changed since the Change lies on the side of the Vile Body that is exchanged for a more Glorious Body Therefore all along we must conclude it is not the same but another Body But how Disingenuous is Tho Hicks to repute G. W's Answer in the Apostle's Words a pressing the Metaphor too far and yet by so doing runs himself into this Dark Imagination of a Fleshly Resurrection But Tho. Hicks thinks The Joyes of Heaven Imperfect else I Answer Is the Joy of the Ancients now in Glory Imperfect or are they in Heaven but by halfes If it be so Unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joyes Celestial Is it not in measure Unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held by many Baptists or I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widdow and so in a State of Mourning and Disconsolateness to be without its Beloved Body which State is but a better sort of Purgatory See T.V. and T.D. What made the Apostle willing to be absent from the Body that he might be present with the Lord if such a Dissolution brought Sadness instead of Joy as our Adversaries in the Point of the Resurrection suggest if not boldly affirm In short If the compleat Happiness of the Soul rests in a Re-union to a Carnal Body for such it is sown then never cry out upon the Turks Alcoran for such a Heaven and the Joyes of it suite admirably well with such a Resurrection The Reasons I have to give against this Barbarous Conceit I thus Contract 1. Because that the Scripture speaks of a Dissolution and no Resurrection of that which is dissolved being Earthly and Unfit for a Celestial Paradice and therefore holds forth a Building of God and House Eternal in the Heavens 2. If the Body be the same it must have the same Nature otherwise not the same Body But if it have the same Nature it will be Corruptible still Mortal Seeds bring forth Mortal Natures not Immortal Neither can Mortal be Immortal and yet the same Nature as before for that Change made tell me What remains of the Old Earthly Body 3. It makes the Soul Uncapable of Compleat Happiness without a Fleshly Body as if Heaven were an Earthly Place to see walk in and all our Outward Senses to be enjoyed and exercised as in this World though in an higher Degree which I call Mahometism For what Spiritual Happiness the Body now can have
or Substance or if by Personal Being he means a Body distinct from our's I believe he hath a Spiritual Glorious Body distinct from all these Earthly Sublunary Bodies But for T.H. he hath as little Knowledg of Christ's Personal Being as he calls it in Heaven as he hath Scripture for this Phrase or Faith in his Light within if by Personal Being he means the Manhood of Christ our confessing the Man Christ as Mediator is sufficiently evinced and the Socinian clears me in his Controversie Ended pag. 50. where he saith Geo. Whitehead useth the word Manhood viz. he took upon him the Manhood in time Is the Heavens that must retain him only the Hearts of Men p 43. It is not the Heavens must retain him but whom the Heaven must receive c. Acts 3.21 and this is above and larger then the Hearts of Men. Where proves he by Scripture that Christ's Second Coming without Sin to Salvation is a Personal Coming while he answers not this he sayes nothing to purpose about it p. 43 44. and answers not what I have writ Christ Ascended p. 20 21 22 23 24. But is it a Contradiction in me to confess that Christ arose with the same Body that was Crucified and put to Death and that he ascended into Glory and yet either to say that I cannot believe his Body to be a Carnal Body in Heaven and these words are not Scripture-Language viz. to say that Christ is a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones a Personal Being at God's Right Hand remote and not in Man or that his Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation is seen Spiritually not Carnally and that they are like to be disappointed of their Hope and Expectation who are expecting that Christ's Second Coming or Appearance to Salvation will be such a Personal Coming and his Reign a Personal Reign The Believers in the primitive Christians dayes who looked for him were not thus disappointed of their Hopes and Expectations But to say I cannot believe that Christ ascended 〈◊〉 the same Body which rose from the Dead c. p. 44 〈◊〉 one of my Words though he cites them for mine O gross Forgery 〈◊〉 then to infer upon is that I did but dissemble in the first viz. in saying that Christ arose with the same Body that was crucified and put to Death and that he ascended into Glory God who knows my Sincerity will judge this Forger of Falshâ—â—ds and Slanders against me my Conscience bears me Record in the Sight of God I speak my Belief sincerâ—ly without Dissimulation Touching the Body of Christ he answers not the Objection he layes down in my name viz. Where doth the Scripture say that Christ's Glorified Body in Heaven is of an Humane Nature p. 45. Whereas T.H. queries Doth not the Scripture say that the same Jesus that went away shall in like manner come again Acts 1.10 11. And then frames the Answer for us thus viz. Quak. I deny he shall come visibly and though it be said in like manner yet every like is not the same And to this he subscribes Whitehead pag. 22. of Christ Ascended And then for Answer saith Is not this a plain Denyal of the Second Personal Coming of Christ Contin p 43. To all which I answer In his subscribing my Name to these as my words viz. that I deny he shall come visibly he hath abused me and my Name with a Forgery of his own they are not my words But I quoting Rev. 1.7 8 13 14 16. about Christ's Appearance I said In none of which is Jesus Christ called a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones visibly to come again but that he is Alpha and Omega the First and the Last vers 11. he proves not by Scripture that Christ's Second Coming to Salvation is such a Personal Coming as he imagins but in like manner he shall come again It s true I said every like Manner is not the very same nor all Clouds the same Christ Ascend p. 22 23. and therein I would be understood that though I own Christ's Coming again the second time to Salvation as certain and manifest as he was seen to ascend when the Cloud received him out of their Sight who stood gazing up into Heaven yet he after that came again and signally appeared variously to divers and in a more glorious Manner then he was seen to ascend for he ascended into Glory which his Coming again doth not divest him of and he shall be universally seen to some Men's Terror and Sorrow and to others great Comfort and Joy To Paul he appeared in a Heavenly Vision or Light from Heaven above the Brightness of the Sun in so much that he fell down to the Earth and was without sight for three dayes So that he could not stand gazing at his Coming as the Men of Gallilee did at his ascending And when John was in the Spirit he appeared to him so that his Eyes were as a Flame of Fire his Countenance as the Sun shineth in his Strength insomuch that he said When I saw him I fell at his Feet as Dead Rev. 1.13 14 15 16 17. So that John could not stand gazing at this Appearance which is like unto the Angel's Appearance unto Daniel in his great Vision insomuch that he said there remained no Strength in me see Dan. 10 5 6 7 8. compared with Rev. 1.13 14 15 16 17. And I must own Christ's Coming universally in his Kingdom and the Glory of his Father to be after a more Transcendent Manner and Higher Glory then Men shall be able to stand Gazing at as they did at his Ascension And must conclude that 't is a Design of Satan to keep some Men in Carnal Imaginations and dark Thoughts of an Humane Personal Christ consisting either of Flesh Blood and Bones like theirs or of Flesh and Bones without Blood and so of God's Right Hand as limited to that Remoteness that they neglect to wait for Christ's Inward and Spiritual Appearance and the Knowledge of God's Right Hand near them to save aâ—d preserve them from Sin and Death In this the Enemy hath deceived them and the Devil blinded them from the Spiritual and Saving Knowledge of Christ and his coming in his Kingdom But why must I be counted guilty of vile Hypocrisie Is it for saying Every Man has not the Son that is revealedly and unitedly in Possession which was my very Intent and yet a Light of the Son appears in every Man in some degree or for denying that this Light is a meer Creature and asserting that in him was Life and the Life was the Light of Men and this Life and Light is Divine and Increated p. 46 47. I am still of the same Mind and though the Man repeats some of my Words he hath brought me no Argument to Convince me that this Life which is the Light of Men is but a meer Creature But if it be Divine and Increated he takes it for granted it must