A Synopsis of Quakerism, Error 9
Errour 9. That there is no Reſurrection from the Dead Rob. Turner in a Letter of his to the Baptiſts, and George Whitehead, in his late Anſwer to W. Burnet, and George Fox, Jun. in his Works bound up together.
THe Scripture is plentiful in aſſerting the Reſurrection. I ſhall only ſingle out one Argument to evince it.
Arg. If the bodies that have done Good or Evil, muſt receive their reward accordingly, then the ſame bodies that dye muſt riſe again. But the Antecedent is true, therefore alſo the Conſequent.
That the bodies that have done Good or Evil, muſt receive their reward accordingly (which Propoſition is the ancecedent) is evident by 2 Cor. 5. 10. And then the Conſequence is firm, becauſe thoſe bodies receive not their Reward, till the univerſal Judgment, and then they cannot receive it (having been once diſſolved) unleſs they riſe again.
For the further proof of antecedent and conſequent, I ſhall firſt explain the Terms of Chriſt's Argument to prove the Reſurrection from the …ead, which to ordinary Readers may ſeem inconſequent, and then ſhew how the Argument is …educed.
The place is Mat. 22. 31, 32. As touching their Reſurrection from the Dead, have ye not Read that …hich was ſpoken unto you by God, … Saying, I am …e God of Abraham, and the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob: God is not the God of the Dead, but …f the Living. And tis added, Luke 20. 38. For all …ve unto him.
To be a God to Abraham, notes, a Covenant…elation, and ſo an Obligation to confer all the Bleſſings of the Covenant; among which, E…ernal Glory is, though the laſt, yet not the leaſt, Not the God of the Dead, that might be meant …ither of them who are dead, ſimply, or of them …hat are ſo dead, as that they ſhall never return …o life: Not in the former ſence, for God pro…laimed himſelf the God of Abraham, &c. long …fter he was dead; therefore in the latter ſence: …ut of the living, that is of them whom God in…ends to reſtore to Life, or whoſe bodies live Po…entially, not only of them, whoſe Souls live …ctually: For all live to him, that Clauſe ſeems to …mport a reaſon of that Denomination living, given to thoſe that were truly dead, viz. That God calls the things that are not as if they were, Rom. 4. 19. Becauſe of his Omnipotency, and Immutability of his Counſel.
Concerning the Scope of theſe Words, the… are different apprehenſions, ſome conceive tha… Chriſt hereby proves the Immortality of th… Soul, (which the Sadduces denied, as appears by Acts 23. 8. For if there be no Soul of a Spiritu… Nature in man, it muſt needs be Mortal, as hi… body) and by conſequence only, the Reſurrection of the body.
The Sadduces denying the Reſurrection … the body, becauſe they denyed the Immortali… of the Soul, (as theſe Interpreters conceive▪ others, that Chriſt intends only to prove th… Reſurrection of the body, ſo Calvin. Other… that Chriſt intends both directly, ſo Be… Diodati. And hence the Argument of our Lor… is ſomewhat differently framed. Either thus;
They whoſe God, God is, ſhall riſe from the Dea… God is Abraham's, Iſaac's, and Jacob's God.
Therefore they (and upon the ſame ground▪ all other Believers) ſhall riſe again. The conſequence he proves, becauſe God is the Go… only of the Living, and ſo ſeeing they live i… Soul, they ſhall live in Body too. Or elſe thus▪
They whoſe God, God is after death, ſhall riſe again. But God is the God of Abraham, &c. (an… conſequently of all Believers) after death; therefore Abraham, &c. ſhall riſe again.
The reaſon of the conſequence is, becauſe otherwiſe God were not the God of Abraham's Iſaac's, and Jacob's (and ſo other Believers) perſons, but of their Souls only; whereas to be …he God of their Perſons, is to be under a Co…enant to give them (as other things, ſo) Glo…y; and ſo their bodies muſt be glorified, as …ell as their Souls (their Perſons being con…ituted or made up of thoſe two Eſſential …arts:) or the Argument may be framed more …lainly thus, in the ſence of Chriſts Words:
If God be under a Promiſe to glorifie the Perſons of Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, then …heir bodies muſt riſe again; But God is under ſuch a Promiſe, therefore, their bodies muſt riſe again.
The antecedent is evident by the Explication of the Terms above. The conſequence depends upon a double ground, partly Gods Fidelity in making good his Promiſe, and partly becauſe Abrahams, &c. body is uncapable of the benefit of the Promiſe of Glory, made to it, without … Reſurrection. And the Argument thus phraſed, ſuggeſts a fuller anſwer to the Exception made againſt it, as firſt laid down, (viz.) That God might be the God of Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob after death, if there were no Reſurrection; becauſe their Souls live, in reſpect of which, God were their God.
Anſw. Firſt, God is ſaid to be the God of Abraham, that is, of his Perſon, for his Soul is but part of his Perſon, not the whole; and to be the God of the Perſon includes the glorifying of the whole Perſon, not only of a part.
2. God were not fully Abraham's God, o… did not fully make good his Promiſe, if h… glorified one part of Abraham and not another.
3. Nor were the Promiſe to glorifie Abraham … Soul, made good, without glorifying his body too: for the Happineſs of the Soul is not perfect without the body, it's dear and belove… Companion; (the Soul having a ſtrong deſi… and Inclination to a re-union to the body (a… the Schools not without good ground determine) Vid Calvin. Harm. Evang. in Mat. 22. 31▪ 32. Luc. 20 38.
4. It whole Abraham be not the correlate i… the Cōvenant, or party Covenanted with, ho… is any thing (as in the Text a Reſurrection) attributed to him, in reſpect of a part of him▪ There cannot be a ground for a Limitation i… reſpect of a part, (as here; that …braham ſhou'd riſe as to his body) unleſs the Whole be in Being [either Actually as to his Soul, or Potentially as to his Body, in reſpect of the Decree and Covenant of God] Vid. Vedel. Rationale Theolog… cum, l. 2. c. 6.
To apply the ſum of Chriſts Argument, for the proof of the antecedent, and conſequent o… my Argument for the Reſurrection, which was this:
If the bodies that have done Good or Evil muſt receive their Reward accordingly, then the ſame bodies muſt riſe again, &c.
That the bodies that have done good muſt receive their reward, is evident, becauſe God is under a promiſe to reward them. And riſe again they muſt, becauſe elſe God's Promiſe to the bodies muſt either not be made good at all, or not to t…e ſame body to which it was made (which is contrary to the whole Scope of Chriſt's Argument.)
If any ſhall ſay that Chriſt's Argument and my Application of it, proves but the Reſurrection of the good, and their Reward in their bodies. I anſwer two things;
1. That the Sadduces and Quakers Propoſition being, That there is no Reſurrection from the dead, which is an univerſal Negative, therefore a particular Affirmative, that ſome [the good] ſhall riſe again, is contradictory thereto, and overthrows their Negative; and therefore to prove that all ſhall riſe again, is not ſtrictly needful: for that were Oppoſitio contraria, not Contradictoria (as the Logicians ſpeak.) Yet Ex abundanti, I anſwer,
2. Chriſts Argument ſuggeſts another to us, for the proof of the Reſurrection of the ba…. For by the ſame Reaſon, that the good muſt …iſe, becauſe of God's Promiſe to Glorifie their Bodies; the wicked alſo muſt riſe, becauſe of God's threatning to torment their Bodies. For God is not more bound to fulfill his Promiſes, than his threats, when they have ſome ſtamp or character upon them; (as an Oath for inſtance, Heb. 3. 18. Chap. 7. 21.) whereby they may be known to be ſigna beneplaciti, diſcoveries of God's ſecret will or decree. Which limitation I add, becauſe 'tis evident, that ſome promiſes and threats have a tacite condition, upon which, though not the act of Divine will, ye… the things willed depend, as 1 Sain. 2. 30. Jonah 3. 4, 10. and in the non-performance of them God does not croſs, but comply with his ſecret will.
Turner's Argument againſt the Reſurrection, are:
Arg. From Eccleſ. 3. 19, 20, 21. Whence he concludes, the fleſhly Bodies of Men riſe not again, for if the fleſhly Bodies of Men riſe again, and not the fleſh of Beaſts; then Mens Bodies have a preheminence over a Beaſts Body: and to affirm the Bodies of Men ſhall riſe again, were to give Solomon the lie.
Anſw. Men are ſaid to be Beaſts foreign not ſimply, but in a certain reſpect, (viz.) in reſpect of the mortality of the Body, which being compoſed of the ſame materials with bruit Beaſts, is as lyable to a diſſolution. In reſpect of the immortality of Mans Soul, and the Reſurrection of his Body, He hath preheminence above a Beaſt. As for Verſe 21. if they be the Atheiſts words, perſonated by Solomon, they note the Reaſon of his Opinion, becauſe the difference between Man and Beaſt, as to their future ſtate, is not viſible, as their agreement in their diſſolution is, If they be Solomon's own words, he cannot be ſuppoſed to mean any more, than that the different diſpoſal of the ſpirits of Man and Beaſt, is not viſible to the eye of ſence, and but dimly to the eye of reaſon and faith; and ſo may be an occaſion of the Atheiſts conceit, that that difference in their future ſtate, is but talk, and uncertain conjecture. For Ch. 12. 7. Solomon tells us, that The Spirit of Man returns to God that gave it, [viz. to be diſpoſed of, as Juſtice, or Mercy ſhall ſee meet.]
Arg. 2. From Job 7. 8. The Fye of him that bath ſeen me, ſhall ſee me no more. But if all riſe again, then the Eye that hath ſeen him, may ſee him again; which Opinion giveth Job the lie.
Anſw. The meaning of Job can be, but that the Eye that had ſeen him, ſhould after his death ſee him no more in ſtatu quo, not with ſuch worldly comforts about him, as now he had; Verſe 10. he inſtances, in a return to his Houſe. They that had ſeen him and Inhabitant in the Land of Vz, ſhould never ſee him there again in that capacity. Verſ. 7. He ſays his Eye ſhould ſee no more good; compare that paſſage with this in hand, and they amount to this, that Job ſhould after death no more in joy the accommodations of this life, and therefore no Eye could be witneſs of any ſuch in joyment. That Job did not intend a denial of the Reſu…ction of his Bod…, unleſs we will make Job give himſel… the lie, is evident by Chap. 19. 26, 27. And though after my Skin, worms deſtroy this body, yet in my Fleſh ſhall I ſee God; whom I ſhall ſee for my ſelf, and mine Eyes ſhall behold, and not another, though my Reins be conſumed within me. Of which place, he that would ſee a full explication, let him read the Learned Caryl Comm▪ on Job. All that I ſhall infer from the ſumme of the words, diſcernable by an ordinary judgment, is, that if Job had the ſame body after the Reſurrection, that he had before, then he was as viſible after, as before it.
Arg. 3. From 1 Cor. 15. 50. Fleſh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; then not the body of Man (ſays the Quaker) for that is fleſh, and in it is blood.
Anſw. The latter Clauſe of this Verſe explains the former, Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption; where the Apoſtle gives us to underſtand, that a corruptible Body ſhall not inherit a ſtate of immortality [the adjunct being put for the ſubject, in both words:] And the Quakers interpretation croſſes the whole drift of the Apoſtle in a great part of the Chapter, which is to ſhew that the ſame Body ſhall riſe, but with ſo different qualities, that it ſhall be as unlike to what it was before, as the ſtanding Corn, to the Seed p…t into the Earth; or as one Star is to another in brightneſs and luſtre, Verſ. 37, 38, 41. And the Apoſtle enumerates thoſe qualities, Verſ. 42, 43, 44. The ſum whereof is, that that body which was before mortal, i. e. liable to death, natural, i. e. ſupported by food, reſt, &c. diſhonoured by being uſed as an Inſtrument of ſin; and by weakneſſes, blemiſhes, the fruits of ſin, ſhall become immortal, i. e. not liable to death; ſpiritual, i. e. not needing nor uſing its former props; glorious, neither ſubject to ſin or the puniſhment of it.
I might have been much larger on theſe points; but I know great Books finde ſew buyers, and fewer Readers, and therefore I reſolved not to exceed Six Sheets. I wiſh what I have done, may prove profitable. If my Anſwers ſeem not ſo cleer as the Objections (which I hope I need not fear, unleſs in the point of the Trinity, that being a myſtery ſo high, that it re…ates the ſharpeſt edge of humane underſtanding) I deſire the Reader to ponder upon this grave ſaying of a learned Man: It is eaſier to oppoſe, than to defend the Chriſtian Religion; for it having ſomething in it above the capacity of Man's underſtanding, 'tis no hard matter by reaſon to oppoſe ſuch a Religion. Villeroy, in his Counceller of State.
FINIS.