Page 235. He proposes this of the fame Body for Substance, a precarious < Fundamental of the Christian Faith? And as his Authority for so doing, cites Daniel Philips's Proteus Redivivus, p. 29. What Reader, suspecting no Artifice, would not hence conclude, that D. Philips had called the Belief of the Resurrection of the same Body for Substance a precarious Fundamental of the Chriftian Faith? But, 'tis no such Matter : That Author's Writings have no such Solecisms. 'Twas G. Keith, not D. Philips, that called the Belief of the same Body, a Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith ; and the Term precarious was used, to shew his doubtful Manner of expressing himfelf concerning it, That our Reader may the better judge for himself whether the Vicar has attempted to impofe upon him, and abuse Dr. Philips, or not, we shall transcribe the entire Passage as it is in Proteus Redivivus, not p. 29. (as the Vicar has it) but p. 24, 25, 26, 27. Page 24. G. Keith is quoted, saying, "I told • the Auditory how the Quakers Ignorance and falfe Notions of Philosophy destroyed their Faith, and hindered them to believe that ne cessary and fundamental Article of the Christio an Faith, that Christ's Body that he had on « Ear ths the same in Substance it was in Heasvenfor if it is not the same in Substance, it is in no Respect the same'. Upon which Saying of G. Keith, D.P. thus observes, - We are not, says he, of the Opinion of a a great Man among the Romans, who said, If they had been deprived of Aristotle's Philosophy, they should have wanted several Articles of < their Faith. We do not esteem Heathenish Phi• lofophy essential to our Religion, neither do we o matter how ignorant we are in that, our prin« cipal Care being to make our Calling and Eleç tion sure. THAT the Quakers Ignorance and false Notions of Philosophy destroyed their Faith, G. K. dogmatically afferteth ; but how doth he prove it? Why, he faith, They do not believe that Christ's Body that he had on Earth is the same in Substance < it was in Heaven. How doth he make out, that the Sameness of a Spiritual Body, which ! was once a natural Body consists only in its Sub ftarce, may not his Ipse dixit (when supported « with a great Affurance) be credited? Then he hath another notable Argument, which is re ferved till last, and probably, as he thinks the « moff conclusive, viz. If it be not the same in Sub stance, it is in no respect the same. How preca« rious is this Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith, (as G. K. terms it) if it hath no better a Foundation than an IF to support it. I HAVE two Queries to propose to G. K. on & this Head, to which I shall expect his Answer, when he thinks fit to reply. « First, I desire him to demonstrate, wherein the Samene's of a Natural Body doth confift? Because, if he cannot demonstrate wherein that • consists, ? consists, I shall give little Heed to what he ma gisterially asserteth, concerning the Identity of a Spiritual Body. Secondly, WHETHER he dath apply the Term • Substance, to God, finite Spirits, and Body, in ? the same, or different Significations ? Ifit stands for the same Idea, when it is predicated of so, dif ferent Subjects ; Whether it will not follow, { that God, Spirits and Body, agree in the same common Name of Substance ? Which, in my Opinion, is a very odd Do£trine. But if he faith, it stands for three different Ideas; for one, as God is said to be a Substance ; for another, as an Angel is said to be a Substance ; and for a third, as Matter is called a Substance : Then I shall desire him to make known, how we may distinguish these several kinds of Substances, be« cause, without knowing what precise Idea's Sub stance stands for, it is impossible to discourse a• boutit intelligibly. WHATEVER G. K. and his Asociates falsely insinuate, the Quakers sincerely believe, that the same Jesus Christ, which died without the Gates of Jerusalem, is risen from the Dead, and af· cended into Heaven, from whence he will at the last Day, come with Glory and Majesty, and judge the Living and the Dead, according • to their Deeds done in the Body. The Sub< stance of this, I told G. K. at Turners-Hall, was my Faith. To this he replied, Thou art no more a Quaker than I am ; to say Thee and Thou, ? and not pull off the Hat, makes a Quaker. This Passage I do not find in his Narrative; whether • it was omitted designedly, or accidentally, he is best able to inform the Querist. WE « We likewise believe the Resurrection of the « Dead, both of the Just, and of the Unjust ; though we do not positively determine, what Qualities, &c. are a!tered, or what remains • the same, when a Natural Body is changed into • a Spiritual Body; therefore we determine no thing magisterially, concerning the Change the • Resurrection Body shall receive at the Sound of • the last Trumpet, but what the Holy Ghost hath • been pleased to reveal in the Scriptures, viz. (That this Corruptible, shall put on Incorruption ; (That this. Montal, pall put on Immortality. How great an Alteration there is in a corrupti« ble Body, when it hath put on Incorruption ; or in a Mortal Body, when it hath put on Immortality; I am not ashamed to acknowledge my lgnorance therein. • With what Body shall the Dead arise ? was ‘a Query in the Apostle Paul's Time: What Answer he gave the curious Inquirer then, may • be seen 1 Cor. xv. 36, &c. and may also serve • G. K. now, Thou Fool, that which thou fowelt • is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou forest, thou fowest not that Body that shall be, but bare Grain, it may chance of Wheat, or of fome other. Grain. But God giveth it a Body, asit hath pleased him. An Answer, that, in my • Opinion, should deter all Christians from de * termining any thing dogmatically, wherein the • Sameness of the Resurrection Body, doth, or • doth not consist; conceiving, that we should • rest satisfied in what the Scriptures say on this Subjett, which is, That the Dead shall arise. In this Chapter the Apoftle discourseth very • largely concerning the Resurretion of the Dead, yet on, < yet seemeth very cautious here in wording his he doth not say, of the dead bodies, but they that leep πάντες (not παντα) ζωοποιήσονται, two Adjectives and an Article, all three of the Neuter ; whereby it demonstratively follows, Bible, in express Words, the Resurre&tion of the · IT hath always been our principal Concern, speak of the Principles of our Faith) as much like, we are inclined to believe, there would be mine, wherein the Sameness of a Natural Body, « when it is changed into a Spiritual Body doth, < and wherein it doth not confift. As G. K. con fidently affirmeth, that * the Change was not Page 93. • in Substance, but in Accidents: For (faith he) « Take away the Substance of any thing; and no Accidents can remain of any thing. Suppose I • Thould |