that are in this Tabernacle do groan being burdened. And Verfe, 8. We are confident I fay, and wiling,rather to be abfent from the Body and prefent with the Lord. The Apoftle, 'tis plain, plac'd his Happiness in an Abfence from this grofs Earthly Body; is it then in any wife probable that that he fhould look for, and expect a Reunion to that fame Body of which he says, V. 6. Whilft we are at Home in the Body we are abfent from the Lord? The contrary we think is evident from his own exprefs Declaration. V. 1. For we know that if the earthly House of this Tabernacle were diffolved, we have a building of God, an Houfe not made with Hands, eternal in the Heavens. Which directly concludes the Change not of Accidents but of Bodies; though the Vicar afferts fuch Conclufion to be most false, p. 238. but dogmatically, and without Proof.

C

6

He truly acknowledges p. 229, that there is a Refurrection of the Dead mentioned in Scripture, that is to be understood in a Spiritual Senfe, of the Resurrection of the Soul from the Death of Sin, to a Life of Righteoufnefs.' but adds, p. 230. This feems to be all that many of them [the Quakers] at leaft underftand by the Refurrection of the Dead, and fo are in the fame Error with Hymeneus and Philetus, who faid, The Refurrection was already past. 2 Tim ii. 18.' How fond is he of making the Quakers Erroneous; who concludes pofitively, they are in an Error, from what he fays, it feems many of them understand. So that from premises at moft but feemingly true, he draws a Conclufion directly falfe, for the Quakers do firmly believe, that befide the Refurrection of the Soul from the Death of Sin, to a Life of Righteousness while here, there will be a Refur

•rection

rection of the Dead hereafter, and that we must • all appear before the Judgment Seat of Chrift that every one may receive the Things done in his Body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 2 Cor. v. 10. What therefore our Opponent says, and this is what many of the Quakers have been heard to fay, that they expected no Refurrection but what they had already within them, or what they were to receive immediately after Death,' we decline the Belief of, till he fhall fatisfy us :

·

<

I. Whether ever he heard any Quakers say fo?

II. Who they were?

III. If he did not hear them himself, who did? IV. How many were heard to fay fo, and where they dwell?

WE can affure him that there are many Perfons, whofe Acqaintance and freedom of Conver fation with the Quakers must needs have far exceeded his, that never heard from them any such saying, 'tis much they should discover to a profeffed Adversary, what they conceal from their moft Intimate Friends.

P. 230. And they have in their Books ex• prefly oppofed the faying, that the glorified Saints in Heaven do yet hope for the Refur⚫rection of their Bodies.'

WHEN he fhall prove by plain Scripture that the glorified Saints in Heaven, do hope for the Refurrection of the fame Bodies that they had here on Earth, we fhall acknowledge thofe to be mistaken who oppofe that Notion, which the Text he produces, viz. Rom. viii, 23, 24. is ve

ry

ry far from proving. The Words of the Apostle are; We our felves groan within our felves waiting for the Adoption, to wit, the Redemption of our Body. But 'tis a moft unnatural Confequence to infer, from the Saints here on Earth waiting for the Redemption of their Bodies, that fo must the glorified Saints in Heaven too; seeing they are already delivered from the Bondage of Corruption into the glorious Liberty of the Children of God. Verfe. 21.

As to Richard Hubberthorn, whom in p. 338. he cites as faying There is no fuch Doctrine in Scripture as that the Saints have not received the Redemption of their Eodies. R. Hubberthorn's Words are, If the People mind the Scripture, there is no fuch Doctrine in it, as the Saints in Heaven have not the Redemption of their Eodies. Now the Vicar left out the Words in Heaven, that he might make R. H's Affertion feem oppofite to that of the Apostle, Rom. vii. 23, 24. who plain, ly fpeaks of himself and other Saints then on Earth.

P. 231. IT is very plain that the Refurrecti

<

on from the Dead joined with the laft Judge-. ⚫ment can be no other than the Refurrection

of the Body that died. For 'tis the Body only that dies, and that can be raised again. And therefore when the Queftion is put, How are the Dead raifed up? it immediately follows; And with what Body do they come 1. Cor. xv. 35.

BUT the Answer to that Question, which he has modeftly omitted, directly contradicts what he has afferted; Thou foweft not, fays the Apostle, that Body which fhall be. Whence 'tis plain, that 'tis not the fame Body that dies that fhall be

Sect. XVII. Of the RESURRECION.

raised again. But the Vicar is too apt to run away with Texts which speak of the Resurrection of the Dead, and include they intend the Refurrection of the fame Body: Why elfe doth he mention 1 Cor. xv. 58. 1 The iv. 18. in neither of which the famenefs of Bodies is mention'd.

<

P. 232. AND we have many Instances in the Scripture, of the Refurrection of the Bodies of ⚫ the Dead to Life again both in the Old and New Teftament; and particularly of the Resurrection of Chrift's own Body which was laid in the Grave; which is made an undeniable Proof, Earneft, and Pledge of ours.'

<

BUT that the Inftance of Chrift's Resurrection with the fame Body does not neceffarily prove, that our Bodies are to be raised the very fame we now have; we fhall do the Vicar the Honour in this Place to produce against him the Teftimony of the learned and judicious John Lock, who in his fecond Reply to the Bishop of Worcefter thus writes,

(q) THE next Text of Scripture you bring for the fame Body, is, If there be no Refurrection of the Dead, then is not Chrift raised,. From which your Lordfhip argues, It feems then other Bodies are to be raised as his was. I grant, other Dead as certainly raised as Chrift 6 was; for else his Refurrection would be of no ufe to Mankind. But I do not fee how it fol

<

⚫ lows

(q) See his Work Vol. 1. p. 438, 439.

lows, that they fhall be raised with the fame • Body, as your Lordship infers in these • Words annexed; And can there be any doubt, whether his Body was the fame material Substance which was united to the Soul before? I answer, not at all, nor that it had the fame undistinguished Lineaments and marks, yea and the fame Wounds that it had at the Hour of his Death. If therefore your Lordship will < argue from other Bodies being raised as his was, that they must keep Proportion with his in Sameness; then we muft believe that every • Man fhall be raised with the same Lineaments, and other Notes of Diftinction he had at the Time of his Death, even with his Wounds yet open, if he had any, because our Saviour was fo raised; which feems to me fcarce reconcileable with what your Lordship says of a fat Man falling into a Confumption, and dy⚫ing.

6

6

<

·

་

BUT whether it will confift or no with your Lordship's meaning it that Place, this to me ⚫ feems a Confequence that will need to be better prov'd, viz. That our Bodies must be raised the fame juft as our Saviour's was; because St. Paul fays, If there be no Refurrection of the Dead, then is not Chrift rifen. For it may be a good Confequence, Chrift is rifen, therefore there fhall be a Refurrection of the Dead; and yet this may not be a good Confequence, Chrift was raised with the fame Body he had at his Death, therefore all Men fhall be raised ⚫ with the fame Body they had at their Death, contrary to what your Lordship fays concerning a fat Man dying of a Confumption. But

(

<

$

• the