BUT what a Liberty does the Vicar take in interpreting these Words of the Apostle, but God giveth it a Body as it pleafeth him, 1 Cor. xv. 38. The Bodies of the Saints, fays he, fhall be raifed again, much altered as to their Condition and Qualities, and clothed with new Ornaments fuitable to them, as it pleateth God.' By which he represents the Apostle fo improperly fpeaking, as to ufe the Term Body for new Ornaments fuitable to the Body.

BUT the Vicar adds, p. 234. That it fhall ⚫ be raised the fame Body for Substance that was fown, he plainly afterwards declares, when he fays, This corruptible shall put on Incorruption; which cannot be meant of another, but of this fame numerical Body that is fown.'

BUT if this Corruptible, while here in a corruptible State, be not the fame numerical Body, why muft it be the fame numerical Body when it fhall put on Incorruption?

Philofophers will tell us that a Man's Body while here in the different Stages of his Life is not the fame numerical Body.

AMAN, faith (t) John Lock, may fufpend his ⚫ determining the Meaning of the Apoftle to be ⚫ that a Sinner fhall fuffer for his Sins in the very • fame Body wherein he committed them, because St. Paul does not fay he fhall have the very fame Body when he fuffers, that he had when he finned. The Apostle fays indeed, done in his Eody. The Body he had, and did things in Z 3

(t) His Works, Vol. I. p. 486.

at

at five or fifteen, was no doubt HIS Body as much as that which he did things in at fifty was • HIS Body, tho' his Body were not the very fame Eody at thofe different Ages: And fo will the Body, which he fhall have after the Refurrection, be his Body, though it be not the very fame with that which he at five or fifteen, or fifty. He that at threefcore is broke on the Wheel, for a Murder he committed at twenty, is punished for what he did in his Body; tho' the Body he has, i. e. his Body at threescore, be not the fame, i. e. made up of the fame indi•vidual Particles of Matter, that that Body was, which he had forty Years before. When your Lordship has refolved with your felf what that fame immutable He is, which at the laft Judgment fhall receive the Things done in his Body; your Lordship will easily fee, that the Body he had when an Embrio in the Womb, when a Child playing in Coats, when a Man marrying a Wife, and when bedrid dying of a Confumption, and at laft which he fhall have after his Refurrection, are each of them his Body, though neither of them be the fame Bo6 dy, the one with the other.

.

By this the Vicar may perceive that a Body may be a Man's true Body, and yet not the fame Body; fo that what he fays, p. 235. that Whether thefe Bodies of ours will be properly Flesh and Blood in Heaven, or not, it is enough that that they will be our true Bodies,' is no Proof of their being the fame Bodies; for if our Bodies while yet Flesh and Blood, in different Stages of Life, are not the fame, how is it to be fuppofed they fhall be the fame in Heaven, though not Flesh and Blood.

Page

Page 235. HE proposes this

Queft. Is not the Belief of the Resurrection 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 Solecisms. '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.

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'.

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 Ariftotle's Philofophy, they fhould have wanted feveral Articles of their Faith. We do not esteem Heathenish Philofophy 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 deftroyed 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 Antwer, ⚫ when he thinks fit to reply.

First, I defire him to demonstrate, wherein the Sameness of a Natural Body doth confift'? Because, 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 stands 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 Subftance: Then I fhall defire him to make known, how we may distinguish these several Kinds of Substances, becaufe, 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 Ferufalem, is rifen from the Dead, and afcended into Heaven, from whence he will at the laft Day, come with Glory and Majesty, and judge the Living and the Dead, according to their Deeds done in the Body. The Subftance 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 Querit.

WE