Изображения страниц

Page 235. He proposes this
Quest. Is not the Belief of the Resurrection

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'.

[blocks in formation]

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.

[ocr errors]

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,


[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]


< yet seemeth very cautious here in wording his
• Matter about it; neither in this Chapter, nor
s in any other Place of his Writings, affirming,
In totidem terminis, the Refurretion of the same
Body. But where he speaks of the Resurrecti-

he doth not say, of the dead bodies, but
simply of the Dead, as di satis v exçãv, the Re-
surre&tion of the Dead ; nor dresdois Táv.owerwy
o tão vexgãy, the Resurrection of the Bodies of the
- Dead ; ó vexeòe (not vexpe') sx égeéportal, if the
$ Dead are not risen ; or xospengéves (nor é xolundéra)

they that leep πάντες (not παντα) ζωοποιήσονται,
- all shall be made alive: Here is vexede bo trávtes

two Adjectives and an Article, all three of the
Masculine Gender ; if they had any Reference
to Esýucelee, Bodies, they must have been of the

Neuter ; whereby it demonstratively follows,
• the Apostle did not predicate these Terms of
« Eodies; neither do I find in any Place of my

Bible, in express Words, the Resurre&tion of the
same Body affirmed.

· IT hath always been our principal Concern,
< to word our Discourses (especially when we

speak of the Principles of our Faith) as much
as may be in Scripture-Terms ; if others did the

like, we are inclined to believe, there would be
« more Love and Unity amongst the Professors of
· Christianity, than now there are. We think
• it a great Piece of Presumption, and Arrogance,
• in any Mortal, Dietator-like, positively to deter-

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

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »