Page 235. HE proposes this

Queft. Is not the Belief of the Refurrection <of the fame Body for Subftance, a precarious • Fundamental of the Chriftian Faith? And as his Authority for fo doing, cites Daniel Philips's Proteus Redivivus, p. 29.

WHAT Reader, fufpecting no Artifice, would not hence conclude, that D. Philips had called the Belief of the Refurrection of the fame Body for Subftance a precarious Fundamental of the Chriftian Faith? But, 'tis no fuch Matter: That Author's Writings have no fuch Solecifms. 'Twas G. Keith, not D. Philips, that called the Belief of the fame Body, a Fundamental Article of the Chriftian Faith; and the Term precarious was used, to fhew his doubtful Manner of expreffing himfelf concerning it,

THAT Our Reader may the better judge for himself whether the Vicar has attempted to impose upon him, and abuse Dr. Philips, or not, we shall transcribe the entire Paffage as it is in Proteus Redivivus, not p. 29. (as the Vicar has it) but p. 24, 25, 26, 27.

6

Page 24. G. Keith is quoted, faying, I told the Auditory how the Quakers Ignorance • and falfe Notions of Philofophy deftroyed their Faith, and hindered them to believe that neceffary and fundamental Article of the Chriftian Faith, that Chrift's Body that he had on Ear ths the fame in Subftance it was in Heaven for if it is not the fame in Subftance, it is in no Respect the fame'.

C

Z4

Upon

Upon which Saying of G. Keith, D. P. thus obferves,

.

We are not, fays he, of the Opinion of a a great Man among the Romans, who faid, If they had been deprived of Aristotle's Philofophy, they fhould have wanted feveral Articles of their Faith. We do not efteem Heathenish Phi· lofophy effential to our Religion, neither do we matter how ignorant we are in that, our principal Care being to make our Calling and Elec<tion fure.

·

·

<

THAT the Quakers Ignorance and falfe Notions of Philofophy destroyed their Faith, G. K. dogmatically afferteth; but how doth he prove it? Why, he faith, They do not believe that Chrift's Body that he had on Earth is the fame in Substance it was in Heaven. How doth he make out, that the Sameness of a Spiritual Body, which was once a natural Body confifts only in its Subftance, may not his Ipfe dixit (when fupported with a great Affurance) be credited? Then he hath another notable Argument, which is referved till laft, and probably, as he thinks the moft conclufive, viz. If it be not the fame in Subftance, it is in no respect the fame. How precarious is this Fundamental Article of the Chriftian Faith, (as G. K. terms it) if it hath no better a Foundation than an IF to fupport it.

6

I HAVE TWO Queries to propofe to G. K. on this Head, to which I fhall expect his Anfwer, when he thinks fit to reply.

<

First, I defire him to demonftrate, wherein the Sameness of a Natural Body doth confift'? Becaufe, if he cannot demonftrate wherein that • confifts,

confifts, I fhall give little Heed to what he magifterially afferteth, concerning the Identity of a Spiritual Body.

Secondly, WHETHER he doth apply the Term Substance, to God, finite Spirits, and Body, in the fame, or different Significations? If it ftands for the fame Idea, when it is predicated of fo different Subjects; Whether it will not follow, that God, Spirits and Body, agree in the fame ⚫ common Name of Substance? Which, in my Opinion, is a very odd Doctrine. But if he faith, it ftands for three different Ideas; for one, as God is faid to be a Subftance; for another, as an Angel is faid to be a Subftance; and for a third, as Matter is called a Substance: Then I fhall defire him to make known, how we may distinguish these several Kinds of Substances, be• caufe, without knowing what precife Idea's Subftance ftands for, it is impoffible to difcourfe about it intelligibly.

<

WHATEVER G. K. and his Affociates falfely infinuate, the Quakers fincerely believe, that the fame Jefus Chrift, which died without the Gates of Jerufalem, is rifen from the Dead, and af cended into Heaven, from whence he will at the last Day, come with Glory and Majefty, and judge the Living and the Dead, according to their Deeds done in the Body. The Sub• ftance 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 fay Thee and Thou, and not pull off the Hat, makes a Quaker. This Paffage I do not find in his Narrative; whether it was omitted defignedly, or accidentally, he is beft able to inform the Querift.

6

6

WE

We likewife believe the Refurrection of the Dead, both of the Just, and of the Unjust; though we do not pofitively determine, what Qualities, &c. are altered, or what remains the fame, when a Natural Body is changed into Spiritual Body; therefore we determine nothing magisterially, concerning the Change the Refurrection Body fhall receive at the Sound of the laft Trumpet, but what the Holy Ghost hath been pleased to reveal in the Scriptures, viz. • That this Corruptible, fhall put on Incorruption. • That this Mortal, fhall put on Immortality.

How great an Alteration there is in a corruptible Body, when it hath put on Incorruption; or in a Mortal Body, when it hath put on Immortality; I am not afhamed to acknowledge my Ignorance therein.

G

་

6

WITH What Body fhall the Dead arife? was a Query in the Apoftle Paul's Time: What Anfwer he gave the curious Inquirer then, may. be feen 1 Cor. xv. 36, &c. and may alfo ferve • G. K. now, Thou Fool, that which thou foweft

<

·

is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou foweft, thou foweft 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 pleafed him. An Anfwer, that, in my Opinion, fhould deter all Chriftians from determining any thing dogmatically, wherein the Sameness of the Refurrection Body, doth, or ⚫ doth not confift; conceiving, that we should reft fatisfied in what the Scriptures fay on this Subject, which is, That the Dead fhall arife.

6

<

་

In this Chapter the Apoftle discourseth very largely concerning the Refurrection of the Dead,

yet

C

C

< yet feemeth very cautious here in wording his Matter about it; neither in this Chapter, nor in any other Place of his Writings, affirming, • In totidem terminis, the Refurrection of the fame Body. But where he speaks of the Resurrection, he doth not fay, of the dead Fodies, but fimply of the Dead, as a dsasis vexgv, the Refurrection of the Dead; notárásACIS TWV OWμÁTWY Tav vexgav, the Refurrection of the Bodies of the • Dead; of vengòr (not vexpa') ix yepovrat, if the • Dead are not rifen; dév)es (not å xoqundérlæ) they that fleep πάντες (not πα τα) ζωοποιήσονται, all fhall be made alive: Here is vengooC TÁVTES two Adjectives and an Article, all three of the • Mafculine Gender; if they had any Reference to Euala, Bodies, they must have been of the • Neuter; whereby it demonstratively follows,

C

،

.

6

IT hath always been our principal Concern, to word our Difcourfes (efpecially when we fpeak 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 Profeffors of Christianity, than now there are. We think it a great Piece of Prefumption, and Arrogance, in any Mortal, Dictator-like, pofitively to determine, 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

•

6

C

the Apostle did not predicate these Terms of Bodies; neither do I find in any Place of my Bible, in exprefs Words, the Refurrection of the fame Body affirmed.

.

fidently affirmeth, that the Change was not Page 93, in Subftance, but in Accidents: For (faith he) Take away the Subftance of any thing, and no Accidents can remain of any thing. Suppofe I

fhould