The invalidity of John Faldo's vindication of his book, called Quakerism no Christianity being a rejoynder in defence of the answer, intituled, Quakerism a new nick-name for old Christianity : wherein many weighty Gospel-truths are handled, and the disingenuous carriage of by W.P.

CHAP. XII.

Of the Resurrection of Dead Bodies, and Eternal Re∣compence. Our Doctrine maintained by Scripture, Reason and Authorities.

IN his former Book he charged us with the De∣nyal of the Resurrection of the Dead, and Eternal Recompence. The Testimonies he brought for Proof were such as rendred him very weak, or something worse, I hope they were sufficiently dis-engaged from his Service, unto which, according to his old Custom, he hath not thought fit to reply: He only takes notice of two or three short Passages out of six or seven pa∣ges of Answer, on which he bestows a few Squibs, and concludes with that Contempt and Rudeness no Man pretending to Religion or Humanity would have vented, especially against a Man that he provok't to answer him, by beginning to abuse his Friends in ge∣neral, and him in particular; considering withal, that his Profession is to suffer, not to insult. Strange! that my Religion and Conscience should subject me to so much Contempt, with a Man that pretends to both. But W. P. I dare say, had not been thus treated by J. F. could he threaten the Law, and Flant and Swag∣ger at the rate J. F. doth. But it is like such Folk, to insult where he may do it safely.

One of his Testimonies was this, Christ is the Resurrection, to raise up that which Adam lost, and to

destroy him who deceived him; So Christ is the Resur∣rection unto Life of Body, Soul and Spirit, and sore∣news Man, Princ. pap. call. Quak. p. 34. I will not trouble my self, nor spend my Reader's time in trans∣scribing what I said in Defence of this Passage, as to the End he designed it; Nothing can be clearer, then that this concerns Regeneration, so sayes J. F. him∣self, pag. 132. consequently the Resurrection of Dead Bodies is not concerned in it.

His second Testimony fell from G. Whitehead in these words, if we may believe him; I do not believe this Body shall rise again after it is Dead. I told him of his Disingenuous Catching, and put him in mind of the Apostles own Expression that justifies the Say∣ing, if it was ever said—Thou Fool—Thou SOW∣EST NOT that Body that shall be. But unto whatever I urged for the clearing of our Friends Words and Writings from his ill Constructions, like an unfair, if not a fearful Adversary, he makes no Return.

I will now set down what he thought fit to give us.

Reply, p. 88.

Take W. P's own words (acknowledging the Truth of my Charge) Either the Resurrection of the Body must be without the Matter, or it must not; If it must, then it is not the same numerical Body, and so their proper and strict Resurrection they must let go; although this allows my Charge true, and so enough to its Vindication; yet I shall Answer P's Arguments against the Resurrection, wherein be opposes Philosophical Con∣clusions to the express Doctrine of the Scriptures.

Rejoynder.

If I have herein vindicated his Charge, it must fol∣low that he charged us with Denying the Resurrecti∣on of the Body without any Allowance of Change as to that Matter and Corruptibility it was buried with; consequently, That J. Faldo believes a Resurrection of the same Carnal Bodies that are interred without any Alteration whatever; for that allowed, they cannot rise properly and strictly the same Bodies. If our rejecting this Carnal Dream of his, is that horrid Principle he charged us with Denying, we have no Reason to be much concerned about the Success. But he proceeds.

Reply, pag. 88, 89.

The latter part of W. P's Dilemma is the Horn with which he pushes at the Resurrection (viz.) If it must not be without that same gross matter it dyed with, then I affirm it cannot be incorruptible, because it will carry with it that which will render it corruptible ad in∣finitum.

The Body must necessarily be the same Matter is al∣lowed, but W. P. calls it in his assumption of the 2d part of his Dilemma, the same gross Matter, which makes his Argument Falacious in the Form of it. But to let that pass, it shall be the same Matter and nu∣merical, though not of the same Grosness; and shall have the same Substance and Essential Form, though not the same Accidents.

Rejoynder.

Is this the Scripture-Doctrine, he says I oppose with Philosophical Conclusions? Would he would give us but one Scripture that looks but favourably towards this Reply; I never read one yet of a Body's having the same Matter, and not the same Grosness, the same sub∣stance and Essence, and not the same Accidents. For shame; must our Denyal of Physical Nicities, or ra∣ther J. Faldo's Absurdities be branded for horrid Do∣ctrine. 'Tis true in Philosophy, that a Substance may loose its Accidents, and yet remain the same Substance. Things may be discolour'd, yet the same Beings they were before: But that Matter should be such, and not gross, is incongruous with Scripture and Philosophy. Matter and Grosness or Corruption are Synonimous in Philosophy and common Speech: But that Grosness, or the Substantial Part of any Man's Body should be but an Accident, that the Accidence teaches all Boyes in a Noun-Substantive, deserves a Lash at least. Are Flesh, Blood and Bones Accidents, or that of them which is gross and corruptible an Accident? I wonder what a fearful sort of a Noun-Substantive J. F. would be in case he were condens'd and rarefied of such gross and cor∣ruptible Accidents, Indeed one would think his Head, if not all the rest, had been near akin to them, when he writ this piece of new Philosophy. But this abun∣dantly proveth upon what Foot his Resurrection standeth, if it may be said to have any, or to stand at all.

Faellacious is but one of his hard words; for if the Body rifeth with the same Matter it carried to the Grave, it riseth with gross Matter, unless it carried no

gross Matter thither. Let him chuse of the two which to deny. But is this to answer my Argument, to tell us with so much unwarranted Confidence, that the Bo∣dy shall be the same Matter, Substance and Essence, &c. the very Question? What is this but to say, It shall be so, because it shall be so? If he would have done any thing, he should have demonstrated how Matter can be without Grosness, and the most gross and Material part of the Body to be but the Accidents. But he thinks he hath said something to the Point.

Reply, pag. 89.

To talk that it (the Body) cannot be incorruptible because beyond the Nature of Matter it self, is to talk like an Atheist, making Nature to be God, and not ac∣knowledging the God of Nature.

Rejoynder.

Did I dare sport in Religion, scarce ever Man gave a fairer Occasion in his Compass; But he practises it, and I abhor it. This is such a riddle me, riddle me, as I never heard of before.

W. P. sayes, The Nature of Matter admits not of Incorruptibility, ergo, W. P. is an Atheist, ergo, he makes Nature to be God, and ergo, he acknowledges not the God of Nature.

This is the very Man, that not a page off reflects Ignorance upon my Philosophy: Doubtless a Peerless Disputant, one way or other. May he evermore thus confute me? which is all I will say to such subtil Rea∣soning and losty Argumentation in this place. Yet he has not done.

Reply p. 89.

If God be omnipotent (which he is, or he is not God) he is able (as the Apostle speaks) to subdue all things to himself, with which words he answers all Cavils from Im∣possibility in Nature.

Rejoynder.

The Question was not about God's Power; nor was it so much as any Part of the Question; But whether Matter is not by Nature corruptible, and how that which is corruptible by Nature, may be by Nature incorruptible. This Scripture he urges to prove his carnal Resurrecti∣on, will as well prove the Popish Transubstantiation, or any the most unreasonable Conceit in the World; for it is but saying, All things are possible with God, and God is able to subdue all things unto himself; and the Busi∣ness is done at J. Faldo's rate of arguing. But the Question is not about what God can do, but what he hath done and has declared he will do.

I know there are Impossibilities in Nature, which God's Omnipotency makes possible; but if J. Faldo doth not know that there is a Difference between Im∣possibility in Nature, and Contrariety to Nature, I now tell him there is one, and that so wide, as though Al∣mighty God frequently supplies Nature's Want of Power, yet he rarely, if ever, acts contrary to and inconsistent with the Nature of his own Creatures; What is spiritual remains spiritual, what is material material, and what is corruptible corruptible. But let us see how much better he acquits himself of another Passage, which he ventures to cite, and in my Opinion doth no more.

Reply, p. 89.

W. P. proceeds farther in this vain Reasoning and wicked too, p. 202. I say, we cannot see how that which is of the Dust should be eternal, whilst that from whence it came, is by Nature but temporal; and that which is yet most of all irreconcileable with Scripture and right Reason is, that the Loss and Change of Nature from corruptible to incorruptible, natural to spiritual should not make it another Body. That it is according to Scripture I have given large Proof in my Book, to no one of which he replyeth, as also how unreasonable it is to call that a Resurrection, which is not of the same numeri∣cal Body.

Rejoynder.

We may guess how well he proved it in his first Book by the Strength he hath employed to maintain it in his second. But let all sober Men judge if this Reply be pertinent to this Part of my Answer; yet he promised he would answer my Arguments. For the Scripture, it is clear, That Corruption shall not inherit Incorruption; neither can Flesh and Blood inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15. 50. Thus Anota. cert. Divin. anno 1645. upon the Place; and if he will know the true Resurecti∣on, set him learn to understand this weighty Passage: For we know, that if our Earthly House of this Taber∣nacle were dissolved, we have a Building of God, an House not made with Hands, Eternal in the Heavens, 2 Cor. 5. 1. And I cannot but wonder, my Adversaries Understand∣ing should be so benighted, as that contrary to express Scripture he should assert a Resurrection of the same Body that is buried, properly and strictly so; the Apo∣stle

teaches us to believe that it is not that same Body that is sown that shall be; for though we shall be changed from Mortality to Immortality, Corruption to Incor∣ruption; 2 Cor. 5. 1. and 1 Cor. 15. 37, 50. yet (mens Bodies of) Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the King∣dom of God: For the Word Resurrection, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth hot strictly imply a taking up of the same Numerical Body, as he would have us believe from his new found Relative IT (first Book, 2. Part, p. 138.) for which Beza shall give him a Release both from the Latin and original (Greek) there being no Word in either for (his Relative) IT on which he and his factious Brother Hicks have so relatively insisted; Indeed as their last and best Refuge. The Text lyeth thus:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Seritur corpus animale, resuscitatur corpus spirituale. i. e. Anatural Body is sown, a spiritual Body is raised; that is, They lay down a natural, and take up a spiritual Bo∣dy, or in lieuof a Natural receive a spiritual Body; not that the Natural Body shall be transubstantiated into a Spiritual Body, or that admitting of such an Exchange, that the Spiritual is the same Numerical Body, that was the Natural; for so the Natural and Spiritual Bo∣dy would be one and the same; but suppose J. Faldo's Relative IT to hold, I do utterly deny that this Text is concerned in the Resurrection of Man's Carnal Body at all. I will recite it with the five following Verses as they ly in our English Translation.

It is sown a Natural Body, it is raised a spiritual Bo∣dy; There is a Natural Body, and there is a Spiritual Body; and so its written, The first Man Adam was made a Living Soul, the last Adam was made a Quick∣ning Spirit; howbeit that was not first which is spiritual,

but that which is Natural, and afterward, that which is Spiritual; The first Man is of the Earth Earthy, the second Adam is the Lord from Heaven; As is the Earthy, so are they that are Earthy; and as is the Heavenly, so are they also which are Heavenly; and as we have born the Image of the Earthy, we shall also bear the I∣mage of the Heavenly, v. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49. I say this doth not concern the Resurrection of carnal Bo∣dies, but the two States of Men under the first and se∣cond Adam, Men are sown into the World natural, and so they are the Sons of the first Adam; but they are raised spiritually, through him who is the Resurrection and the Life, & so they are the Sons of the second Adam, the Lord from Heaven, the quickning Spirit. The very Words of the Apostle undeniably prove this to be the Scope; how else could the first Adam's being made a living Soul, and the second Adam a Quickning Spirit, be a pertinent Instance to prove Natural and spiritual Bodies; upon which follows, that the Natural was first, that is, the first Adam, and then that which is spi∣ritual, which is the second Adam, the quickning Spirit, the Lord from Heaven, who came to raise up the Sons of the first Adam, from their Dead to his Living, their Natural to his Spiritual Estate.

But perhaps it will be objected that the 47th Verse, The first Man is of the Earth Earthy, and part, of the 9th. Verse, We shall also bear the Image of the Heaven∣ly, seem to imply a bodily Resurrection; But let the whole. Verses be considered, and we shall find no such thing. The first Man is of the Earth, Earthy, The se∣cond Man is the Lord from Heaven; who sees not that this is rather spoken of the Earthy-Mindedness, then the Earthy Body of Adam? It was mentioned to show

the great Disparity, that is between the Nature and Qualification of the first and second Adam; the fol∣lowing Verse puts this Interpretaion out of Doubt, as is the Earthy, such are they that are Earthy; and as is the Heavenly, such are they also that are Heavenly.

For those Words, We shall also bear the Image of the Heavenly. I cannot see how they should relate to the Resurrection of the Carnal Bodies of Men; for the Image of the Heavenly, is a renewed State to God, through the Operation of the Spirit and Power of Christ, the first Part of the Verse clears it; and as we have born the Image of the Earthy, we shall (or ra∣ther, let us bear) the Image of the Heavenly) as Am∣brose and Theophilact read it, and six or seven Copies besides have it) which is as much as to say, That as we having born the Image of the God of this World, by be∣coming his Children; so may we bear the Image of the True and Living God, by being redeemed from a vain Conversation, having our Consciences sprinkled from dead Works, and being born again of the incorruptible Seed by the Word of God which lives and abides forever. Had this concerned the Resur∣rection in our Adversary's Sense,* 1.1 the Image would be changed wholy (Accidents would not serve his Turn) therefore not the same Image, unless the Earthy could be the Heavenly Image, which were Impossible; for we should loose our Earthly Bodies, at what time we be∣come the Image of the Heavenly, in this World, if this conceit had

any Truth in it, and if of the o∣ther, they to be sure must never enter; for another takes Place: But as it was never understood so by any that I know of, but e∣vermore of that Earthly Image which came by transgression, and the Heavenly Image that comes in obeying the Truth by the Spirit, according to what the Apostle saith, Col. 3. 8 9, 10. But now you also put off all these, Anger, Wrath, Blasphemy, filthy Fornication out of your mouths, lye not one to another; seeing that you have put off the old Man with his Deeds, and have put on the new Man, which is renewed in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him: So till the natural Man that is sown, comes to dye to his own Image, Will and Affections, he can never be quickned into this Glorious Image of the second Adam, the quick∣ning Spirit, who is the Lord from Heaven.

But suppose, it were to be understood rather of Bo∣dies then Souls,* 1.2 the Text may be as well translated a Living as a Natural Body is sown; yea rather so, for the Word is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Animale, that imports as much as a Soul••-Body, and such an one, I dare say, J. Faldo would not be willing to sow, except he had a Mind to be buried alive: So Clarius both translates it, and interprets it, Corpus animale accipiendum est, cui anima vitam prestat ne intereat. i. e. A Souly or Living

Body is that, to whom the Soul gives Life that it doth not dye.

But to go farther; suppose the Apostle treated of a natural Change, and not only of the spiritual State of the Soul in this Life, yet can it be extended no farther then this; when good Men lay down this Earthly House or Tabernacle of Clay, the Image that came to us from Adam's Loyns, we shall be cloathed upon of Immor∣tality, received into the Building that is Eternal in the Heavens, and be made like unto his glorious Body, 2 Cor. 5. 1. Philip. 3. 21. We sow a natural, we reap a spiritual, and we sow not that Body which shall be; but God giveth a Body as pleaseth him, 1 Cor. 15. 37, 38.

I also parralelled my Adversary's Change yet Same∣ness of Bodies with the Popish Transubstantiation, showing, that the Absurdity Protestants Charge upon this, is equally chargeable upon that; only with this Distinction, that the Papists deny it to continue a Wafer after Consecration; but J. Faldo asserts, the spiritual Body to be the same carnal Body after Mutation, which is a Kind of Consubstantiation, and far more ridiculous: But of this he took no notice, and his Silence is pru∣dent: Things unanswerable are better unmedled with, then cited and not confuted; He knows who pas•• for wise Men by holding their Tongues; I wish that were his greatest Fault.

I will conclude this Head with a few Testimonies in Defence of what we have said against J. Faldo's Carnal Resurrection, referring my Reader to my Chapters of the Resurrection both against him in my Answer, and my Book against T. Hicks, entituled, Reason against Railing; and particularly the second Part of a Dis∣course

(that we hope will suddenly be publisht) call'd, The Christian-Quaker, for his fuller Satisfaction of our Scriptural Judgment, and our Adversary's fleshly Ap∣prehension concerning the Resurrection.

H. More, Myst. God. p. 221, 224, 225.

Dr. H. More, the Cantabridgian Philosopher, be∣gins his Discourse of the Resurrection with this Cen∣sure of J. Faldo's.

We come now to the second par∣ticular propounded, the Resurrection of the Dead, which I dare say the Atheist will listen to, with more then ordinary Attention, and greedily suck in the Do∣ctrine, provided it be stated with the most curious Cir∣cumstances that the RIDGIDEST OF THEOLO∣GERS will describe it by, that we shall have the same NUMERICAL Bodies, in which we lived here on Earth, and that those very Bodies (the Molds being turned aside) shall start out of the Grave. This Do∣ctrine the Atheist very dearly hugs as a Pledge in his bold Conceit of the Falsness and Vanity of all the other Articles of Religion; wherefore he fancying the up∣shot of Christianity to be so groundless and incredi∣ble, he fairly quits himself of the Trouble of all, and yields himself up wholely to the Pleasures of this present World.

To the Objection of Atheists, who play hard upon J. Faldo's Carnal Resurrection.

First, In that Canables proper Bodies are made up the Flesh of other Men, so as if every one had his own, he would have never a Body in the Resurrection. Se∣condly, That it implies that all Men are buried, when as Myriads are drowned in the Sea, and eaten by Fishes.

Thirdly, That Men's Bodies are passing like Rivers, consequently no more the same Numerical Bodies, then the Water that runs away is the same River; and upon this score the Body of an Old Man must pay for the Sine of a Young Man, whose youthful Body felt the Pleasure, and is gone.

He thus answers out of the best sort of Philosophers,

That the Soul of every Man is his individial Person, and that she alone it is that sees, hears, enjoyes Plea∣sures and undergoes Pain, and that the Body is not sen∣sible of any thing, no more then a Man's Dublet when he is well Bastinado'd; and this Answer (sayes he) takes away all the first and last Cavil (he goes on) and why do Men plead for the Consociation of the Soul's numerical Body in Reward or Punishment, but that they fancy the Body capable of Pleasure & Pain; but they err, not knowing the Nature of things; the Body being utterly uncapable of all Sense and Cogitation, as not only the best Platonists, but also that excel∣lent Philosopher Des-Cartes hath determined, and is abundantly demonstrated in my Treatise of the Im∣mortallity of the Soul. See Book 2. Chap. 2, 4, 5, 6. To the second Cavil I answer, That the Universal Expression of Men's rising out of the Grave, is but a Prophetical Scheme of Speech, the more strongly to strike our Sences, as I have already intimated in my Exposition on the 1 Cor. 15. against the Psichopan∣nachites, see Book 1. c. 6. §. 3. This Succour, saith he, we have against the Atheists out of Philo∣sophy; but I answer further as concerning the Scrip∣ture it self, That I dare challenge him to produce any place of Scripture, out of which he can make it appear,

that the Mystery of the Resurrection implies the Re∣cessitation (or raising up) of the same Numerical Body; The most Preg∣nant of all is,* 1.3 Job 19. which late Interpreters are now so wise, as not to understand at all of the Resurrection: And for 1 Cor. 15. that Chapter is so far from asserting this Curiosity, that it plainly sayes, it is not the same Body. But the Atheist will still hang on and object further, That the very Term Resurrectio implies, that the same Body shall rise again; for that only that falls can be said properly to rise again;

(Where let the Reader take notice, that D. More calls J. Faldo Atheist, for it his Obje∣ction against me, Rep. p. 89.) But sayes D. More▪

The Answer will be easie, the Objection being groun∣ded meerly upon a Mistake of the sense of the word, which is to be interpreted out of those higher Origi∣ginals, the Greek and Hebrew, and not out of the La∣tine, though the word in Latine doth not alwayes im∣ply an Individual Restitution of what is gone or faln; as in that Verse in Ovid,Victa tamen vinces subversa{que} Troja resurges

But this, faith he, is not so near to our Purpose (yet it excludes the same numerical Troja) Let us ra∣ther consider the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which resur∣rectio supplies in Latine, and therefore must be made to be of as large a sense as it. Now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so

far from signifying (in some places) the Reproduction, or Recovery of the same thing that was before, that it ••ears no sense at all of Reiteration in it, as Mat. 22. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and shall raise up Seed unto his Brother. Also Gen. 7. 4. there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies meerly a living Sub∣stance, and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in an active significa∣tion, according to this sense will be nothing else but a giving or continuing Life and Substance to a thing. The word in the Hebrew that answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Translators translate a living Substance; whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to this Analogy may ve∣ry well bear the same latitude of sense that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they being both words that are rendred Resurrectio, but simply of themselves only Vevification, or Ere∣ction unto Life.

Thus far D. H. More against John Faldo's Carnal Resurrection, of whose Philosophy, Scripture-Chal∣lenge and Criticisms let him clear himself if he can I shall also produce a Testimony out of T. Collier.

T. Coll. Works, pag. 169.

This Doctrine of the Resurrection of this Body is by some denyed, & by others too Carnally looked upon; some thinking that our Bodies of Flesh shall be raised in the same Form in which it dyed; others, that it shall be spiritual, yet question, whether it shall be of the same Substance; therefore it will be necessary to con∣sider two Particulars for the clearing of it: First, By what Power we shall be raised; Secondly, With what Bodies.

1. By what Power.

Answ. 1 st, By the same Power by which Jesus Christ was raised, which was by the Power and Spirit of God, 2dly, By the same Power and Spirit that the Saints are raised from the Spiritual Death of Sin and Self, Phil.. 3. 10. Rom. 8. 11. This being a Truth, that they shall be raised by the same Power, it may some∣what direct us to the Form in which they shall be rai∣sed, which is the second Particular, that is, in a spi∣ritual Form, not in a Fleshly; for as the Spirit of Christ raiseth us up in the Spirit, while we are here, so shall it raise up our Spirit in the last Day: It is sown a Natural Body, it is raised a Spiritual Body: Our vile Bodies shall be changed and made like his Glorious Body.

D. H. Hammon also denyes a proper and strict Re∣surrection of Bodies, and consequently is guilty of that horrid Principle, as J. Faldo calls it, which may be seen at large in his Comment 1 Cor. 15. Among o∣ther things, he tells us of one Synesius out of Vossius, who was made Bishop, not withstanding he refused to subscribe the Article of the Resurrection of the Body, which shows how much greater Charity they had for Dissenters, then our rigid Adversary, whilst a Dissen∣ter; for indeed it was very diversly, thought on, and very obscurely laid down in the beginning of the third Century, sayes P. D. Huetius in Origenianis, p. 132.

Farrellus, Calvin's Predecessor at Geneva, and one to whom that eminent Reformer writ many Loving and Respectful Epistles, usually beginning with Claris∣sime, Charissime, and such like, did both deny the Re∣surrection

of the same numerical Body, but defended his Opinion and disputed strenuously against the vul∣gar Notion, which plainly opposeth John Faldo's, But more especially* 1.4 The Vincent's gross Notion of The Resurrection, who hath taken upon him in a large Discourse, called, Christ's Certain and Sudden Appear∣ance to Judgment, p. 48. 49. to write the History of it, wherein he is so punctual, that he doth not only tell. them what Bodies they shall have, but what En∣counters and Dialogues are like to pass, even to Scold∣ing, Railing, Scratching, and I know not what besides; so vain and ridiculous is that Author.

I will wrap up these Testimonies with two Passages out of Origen in Jerome, Non easdom Carnes nee in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 formis restinent quae fuerunt Sermina: i. e. The Seed shall not restore the same Flesh, nor in the same Form—Again, Non oculis videbimus, &c. We shall not see with Eyes, hear with Ears, act with Hands, walk with Feet in that Spiritual and Ethereal Body that is promised, that is not subject to be toucht or seen with Eyes, nor to be weyl'd, &c. This and much more is urged by Je∣rome against John of Jerusalem, Epist, cap. 8.

These Testimonies I have produced, to shew the Arrogancy and Uncharitableness of J. F. in counting it an horrid Thing to reject his Carnal Notion of the Resur∣rection of the Dead, and that to such a Degree destroyes

(if you will believe him) all Hope of Immortallity; most absurdly placing Eternal Felicity therein.

The Resurrection we own, and for the Manner of it, we are not inquisitive; and as I told him before, so again,

because these things run men into unprofitable Questions, and a Philosophical Way of Discoursing, no wayes tending to God's Honour nor the Soul's Profit and Comfort, I shall decline any further or ni∣cer Disquisition, and content our selves with this, that if we live holily, we shall dye happily; and if we walk in his Fear, we shall depart in his Favour; and at being unclothed of Mortallity, we shall be clothed on with Immortallity and Eternal Life:

For God will raise all such into Immortal Life and Glory, who truly dye in the Lord; But we cannot but take notice of the Subtilty of God's Enemy, who by casting curious in∣trical and unprofitable Questions, about what Bodies the Dead shall rise with, and bringing us under vulgar Reflections by not consenting thereto, endeavours to divert the Minds of People from our most frequent and fervent pressing a part in the first Resurrection, that on∣ly saves from the Power of the second Eternal Death; of which let my Reader receive this friendly Warning; for besides that it is a Satanical Decoy, Thou Fool be∣longs to none more, then him, who acquiesses not with all humble and contented Submission in the Good Will of God, whose Will be done in Earth as it is in Heaven.

To the Second Part of his Chapter, which concer∣neth our Denyal of Eternal Rewards; although it de∣serves not our notice, for the Folly and Falshood it con∣tains; yet that he may not make my Silence to yield his Charge, and to show that in every Point he

behaves himself dishonestly towards us, I shall consi∣der that little he sayes.

Reply, p. 89.

Concerning a Reward in the World to come, which I af∣firm they did not profess, W. P. opposes rather because he would not be thought to subscribe to me, then that he believes not what I say to be true.

Rejoynder.

This Man pretends to judge Hearts not only with∣out Words, but also contrary to Words. I did most expresly tell him, that though we own the Beginning of Heaven and Hell to be in this World (who charged us with the Denyal of them any where else) yet that they were but Earnests of that Compleat Joy or Torment that Men should receive as their Eternal Reward or Recom∣pence hereafter; But this passes for Hypocrisie with John Faldo's present sort of Conscience. And He proceeds.

Reply, p. 89.

W. P. tells me, p. 203. None ever read so; J. F. quotes no such thing; nay, he sayes he hath searcht, but to no purpose, My Charge was, not that they de∣ny a Reward in another World, but that they profess no such thing; yet being silent to it, hath a full Consequence that it is none of their Belief.

Rejoynder.

How could his Charge imply no such thing, who makes our Silence (upon which he grounded it) to have this full Consequence, that a future Heaven and Hell

are none of their Belief, and if not believed, denyed However, it makes not a little for us, that he not on∣ly never read so, quotes no such thing, and says, he hat•• searcht to no purpose, but that he hath made no Reply to these words, he recites out of my Answer, which hath this full Consequence, that for J. Faldo to charge what he has never read, what he hath searcht for and could not find(p. 141, 142.) and therefore could not quote upon us to our Scandal) is unworthy of any Man pre∣tending to Common Honesty.

But what doth he mean by our not professing Eternal Rewards? Our not daring to enter into the secret of the Almighty? What, how and by whom they are to be di∣stributed? What other End have our Meetings, Wri∣tings and Sufferings? Must I alwayes deny Eternal Recompence, where I do not expresly declare I own it? How many Times in Religious Discourses will J. Faldo come under the like Imputation? he cannot show me one Book that was ever wrought by any of us, in which it is not abundantly implied, if not most plainly expressed: Were there no such thing, it would belong to us, above all other People, to use the Apostles Words, We are of all Men most miserable; but God hath fixed that Hope of Immortality and Eternal Life in our Souls, which all J. Faldo's Clamours will be too weak to shake. But were we darker in this Point (then whom none are clearer) we and our Books have Moses, the Prophets and their Writings to keep us company, who mention it but obscurely, and not so frequently and unquestiona∣bly as we do. J. Faldo loves to hear talk of Heaven, but despises and shuns the Way which leads to it; and because our greatest Pains are imployed in bringing People into that streight and narrow Way that leads thi∣ther,

rather then by delicious Fables to preach them in∣to an Hope of Heaven, whilst in a State of Disobedi∣ence to God's Holy Spirit, therefore is it that he con∣cludes us not to believe Eternal Rewards, that is, to deny them. Never did Man catch at such broken Reeds to save himself from the just Abhorrence of all sober People. We deny his Carnal Refurrection, therefore we must needs deny Eternal Rewards. Again, We do not believe Eternal Rewards (if he may be credited) yet he never read so, much less found it so by his own Con∣fession; and therefore could never quote it so. If we speak of Salvation, unless we put future or eternal to it, he confines it to this World; he deals so with Heaven and Hell; boldly concluding, from what we say, Men feel and know of those things here, our Dis-Belief of any such thing hereafter. I told him of B. Hall and T. Brooks, their Books entituled, Heaven upon Earth, but he sayes nothing to that. In short, he seems to have made it his Business to render us but as odious, as his Wits and worse would let him, but let him go with this Character, no Man having charged so home, proved so weakly, and abused so grosly, as this Adversary hath done.

Because I concluded my Answer to the two first Parts of his former Book, though contrarily to what he did, yet in the same Method, he is pleased thus to treat me.

Reply, p. 90, 91.

Set how good W. P. is at APING MY Logick If Quakerism (so called) sayes he, be not another Dis∣pensation then that of Christ preached and setled by the

Apostles; If it deny not the Scriptures; if it deny not all nor any of the Ordinances of the Gospel, &c. And so he goes on with his Negatives; by the same good Logick. I will prove Geometry, Logick or Philosophy to be Christianity. If Geometry, &c. deny none of these Things, Geometry is Christianity; but it doth not, therefore Christianity; yea, if we will pass to the Concrete, you may prove a HORSE or a GOOSE a Christian by the same Argument; for they deny none of these things.

Rejoynder.

Take away his idle Carps and Cavils and he would have nothing to say, and he rarely sayes any Thing, but something is against himself. Who any whit intel∣ligent or candid, considering that I refumed the Argu∣ment in opposite Terms, could think I intended it not to opposite Ends? That is, when J. Faldo tells us, that we deny the Scriptures and all the Ordinances of the Gos∣pel, and we answer, that we do not deny the Scriptures or any Ordinance of the Gospel, that we thereby do not mean; or these Words do not imply an Acknowledging of the Scriptures and every Ordinance of the Gospel; for In∣stance: Suppose any Man charges J. Faldo with a De∣nyal of the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and Baptism and the Supper to be Ordinances of the Gospel, and he shall answer, I do not deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, nor Baptism nor the Supper to be Ordinan∣ces of the Gospel: Are we to conclude, that J. Faldo acknowledged the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and those Ordinances to be Gospel, no more then an Horse or Goose? I will form it into an Argument for his Sake.

He that denyes the Scriptures and Ordinances of the

Gospel, is no true Christian; But W. P. (sayes J. Faldo) denyes the Scriptures and Gospel Ordinances; Therefore W. P. is no true Christian.

I deny the Minor, or second Proposition; I query then, if I ought not to be understood, to own the Scrip∣tures and Gospel Ordinances? If not, there is no Disputa∣tion: If I ought to be so understood, was it ingenuous or just in him so to cavil? But that his Honesty and Lo∣gick may yet more clearly appear, I will give his Re∣ply in this plain Argument, wherein I wrong him not one Tittle. Whosoever denyes not the Scriptures and Gospel Ordinances is a true Christian: But an Horse or a Goose doth not deny the Scriptures and Gospel-Ordi∣nances; Therefore a Horse or a Goose, according to J. Faldo, is a true Christian. I know he would fling this Absurdity upon me; but he right well deserves it him∣self, who would extend the Major Proposition beyond its Bounds; for it was not Who or Whatsoever did not deny Christianity, thereby including all Sorts of Beings and Things (which made a Gap for his Horse and his Goose) but if Quakers or Quakerism so called (of whom was the Controversie, and must either deny or own) do not deny the Scriptures, &c. it follows, they own the Scriptures, &c. for by the same Rule that his owning the Scriptures includes no Denyal of the Scriptures, it holds e contra that our not denying of the Scriptures, includes an ••owning of the Scriptures, or else his Argu∣ment proves nothing; for if it stands not upon the Rule of Contraries, it will follow, that we may deny them, and yet own them, for not denying them (though there be no Medium) is with him no owning them. But what Part is not that Man fitted to act, who can argue against his Adversary at such a Rate as this.

W. P. denyes not the Scriptures, yet for all that, he owns them no more then an Horse or a Goose, and why? because they do not deny them.

Next to this Injustice, his Logick in these Attempts excells. But above all the rest, that the first, Piece of my Argument, as formal as any thing can be, should not e••cape this Man's Abuse, viz. If Quakerism (so called) be not another Dispensation then that of Christ preached and settled by the Apostles, then the same, said I, though not another, yet not the same, sayes he; Let the Rea∣der judge in this Case: My Adversary in his first Book, 2d Part, p. 144. begins thus, If Quakerism be an other Dispensation then that of Christ settled and preached by the Apostles: Now what is plainer, then that this is a Negative, as well as mine; for another Dispensation is not the same. Next, doth it not imply, that Qua∣kerism (so called) is not Christianity, if another Dispen∣sation? And why may it not follow, if it be not another Dispensation, that it is the same with that of Christiani∣ty? Is not this implyed as strongly and clearly as his Consequence in the contrary Proposition? Why should his Negative pass, and mine be stopt; or his Conse∣quence hold, and not mine? He will have, That if Quakerism be another Dispensation, then not the same; but I must not be allowed to infer, If Quakerism (so called) be not another Dispensation, it is the same; as if it were not alike to say, If Quakerism (so called) be not another Dispensation then the same: Or thus; If Quakerism (so called) be the same Dispensation, then not another. Our Controversie lay upon absolute Con∣traries, not upon things only indifferent, as Geometry, &c. for they are neither for, nor against Christianity, nei∣ther do they own or deny them. But if J. Faldo will

be understood of his Saying; The Quakers deny the Scriptures, that the Quakers do not own the Scriptures; Why should not we be understoo•• when we say, we do not deny the Scriptures, to mean that we do own the Scriptures. His Objection is, we run upon Negatives, whose first Proposition of nine Parts hath eight Nega∣tives in it; unless, If the Quakers deny Scriptures, Or∣dinances, Christ, &c and affect not a future Blessed∣ness, &c. are no Negatives; or that we must not there∣by understand, They do not own them; for if he sets it not in Contradiction, but at the Distance of Geometry on∣ly, how can he conclude, The Quakers deny the Scrip∣tures; yet so he concludes per fas per nefas: What can be said to a Man of this hardy Stamp? whom neither Logick, Reason nor Modesty can bound, yet a preten∣ded Master of them all. Had I used him at this toyish, gibing and illogical Rate, I had been an airy Sophister, of no more serious Conscience or Religion then Punche∣nello; but being his Adversary I must be a Dunce, an Ignoramus, and something else (he was so wise as to hide from us) which are the Epithetes he is pleased out of his great Store-House of Ill Language to bestow upon me at parting. But which is stranger, if any thing be strange that he doth; after all the Perversion, Addi∣tion, Diminution, Wresting, Misquotation, Evasion, and School-Boy Puns and Gibes, he hath the Confidence thus to end this Chapter, and his Defence of the first and second Part of his first Book:

Thus I have honestly & clearly vindicated every Charge in that Part of my Book which intends the Proof of Qua∣kerism to be no Christianity.

How honestly and how clearly he hath vindicated his Charges belongs not to either of us to judge, whatever we think; but is le•••• with every impartial Reader to determine; though, if it be as he saith, I am yet to learn what an Honest and Clear Vindication meaneth; for according to that Sense, I have had of him through this whole Controversie, and the most upright Ob∣servation I could make of his Management, it seems to me a moral Impossibility that he should not be conscious to himself, of exhibiting. Charges he hath not proved; of abusing our Writings to endeavour it; of declining the Strength of our Answers, and Vilifying of our Persons for writing them. To the Righteous God I recommend the whole, and accor∣ding to our Truth and Honesty in this Matter, may we receive the Sentence of Well or Ill done, &c. I hope my Conscience will abide the Search; for God that knoweth all Hearts, is Witness, I have not the least Guilt upon me for my Concern & Carriage in this Affair, having done to him, as I would all Men should do unto me, and therein fulfilled the Royal Law.

Notes

• * 1.1

  If it be objected, that Adam is not mentio∣ned as degenerated, but as created, and there∣fore this Interpretation will not do. I answer; 'tis true he is said to be made a living Soul; but first, this makes not for the Resurrection of dead Bodies, and so far our Ad∣versary gets no Strength. 2ly, Though the Apo∣stle beings with the first Adam's Creation, yet he orderly comes to the Earthly Image, that the living Soul put on by Disobedience, which in∣troduceth the Necessity of the coming of the se∣cond Adam, and his Quickning Spirit to cre∣ate a new, bring into the Image of God. So there is Adam as sown and his Posterity representa∣tively in him, and his and their Laps, and then the Restoration by him that is the Resurrection and the Life, the second A∣dam, the Lord from Hea∣ven however
• * 1.2

  Annot. cert. Divin. anno 1645.
• * 1.3

  Note, Reader, that our Translation is erroneous, Iob 19. 32. whom mine Eyes shall behold. In the Hebrew thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. mine Eyes have seen; the Sep∣tuagint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vidit, doth see, as Drusius and Cadurcus observe.
• * 1.4

  Oh the Angry Counte∣nances the Wicked will have on that Day!—Oh the Angry Speeches!—It may be, from Words they fall to Blows, and tear one another Hair, and spurn at one anothers Bellies, bite one anothers Flesh, and even claw out one anothers Eyes.