Answer. True; and then it follows, that they who are in this covenant relation, are those that live to him, whom he is the God of. Wherefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all partakers of the same covenant, live unto God, in union of spirit, and with the spirits of all just men, though in a more full enjoyment of glory hereafter; as, Abraham, &c. is not dead, because God is his God, and he in possession of eternal glory.

2. "Not the God of the dead." He saith, "that might be meant either of them who are dead simply, or of them that are so dead that they shall never return to life; not in the former sense, therefore in the latter."

Are we therefore to read the words thus, viz. "God is not the God of the dead, that are so dead that they shall never return to life; but of the dead that shall return to life?" And then what are those dead that shall never return to life; or those dead that God is not the God of, if the living and dead must all be applied to the outward or earthly bodies? But had he been sensible of his sense before, that to be a God to Abraham, (and so of the living,) notes a covenant relation,” and that Christ speaks of such as shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection, (Luke xx. 35,) he might have understood that the dead, whom he is not the God of, are such as are strangers to that covenant relation, and live not to God, however their souls be immortal.

3. But of the living, that is (saith he) of them whom God intends to restore to life, or whose bodies live potentially; not only of them whose souls live actually; for all live to him," &c.

If "the living" must intend the terrestrial bodies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then that denomination living, is given to those that are truly dead, as he hath; and then I ask, if it be good doctrine, or proper, to say that all those dissolved bodies do live unto God? whereas in Christ's words there is no mention of their elementary bodies, but that the dead are raised, and that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And these were they that lived unto him, who were counted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection. And it is further evident, that when the Sadducees, who said, "there is no resurrection, angel, nor spirit," asked Christ about the wife, "whose, of the seven, she should be in the resurrection?” their thoughts were carnal, and upon the carnal or earthly bodies, which Christ's answer did not gratify in his asserting the resurrection, as to the state of the righteous after this life. He said, "the children of this world marry, and are given in marriage; but they which shall be counted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." Luke xx. 35, 36.

1. Note here, that he speaks of a resurrection state in the world to come, wherein the children of God so much excel in their beings, that they are equal unto the angels," whose bodies are not such as these earthly ones of the children of this world, wherein they marry. In that world they are in another capacity, more sublime and spiritual; even “equal unto the angels:" whereby Christ doth not only assert the resurrection and an immortal state, but also the spirituality and glory thereof, far transcending this earthly state and body. 2. Thus considered, it is plainly implied, that there are but some that are "counted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection," that is, the children of God, who live unto him ; as Paul saith, "if by any means I might attain unto the resur-rection of the dead." Phil. iii. 10, 11. Now, to apply this resurrection to the terrestrial body of the righteous, and hence to argue for immortalizing that dust, to which that body returns, it implieth, that only the bodies of the children of God, (who are counted worthy,) shall rise. And how agrees this with our opposer's intention?

3. Moreover, while Christ intended by his answer, that those that were counted worthy, &c. even the children of God, and such as lived unto God, were the children of the resurrection ; and that they cannot die any more, &c. this agrees with his answer to Martha, (John xi. 24, 25, 26,)“ I am the resurrection, and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." Though this be a plain asserting of the resurrection, yea, and that of the dead; yet it is as plan a diversion, as far remote from the carnal and gross thoughts and apprehensions that the Jews in that age had of the resurrection, as his answer to the Sadducees was from their gross thoughts about it.

Concerning the scope of these words of Christ before cited, T. D. saith, there are different apprehensions; some conceive, that Christ hereby proves the immortality of the soul, [which the Sadducees denied, as appears, (Acts xxiii. 8,) for if there be no soul of a spiritual nature in man, it must needs be mortal, as his body,] and, by consequence, the resurrection of the body. The Sadducees denying the resurrection of the body, because they denied the immortality of the soul.* Others, that Christ intends only to prove the resurrection of the body. So Calvin. Others, that Christ intends both directly. So Beza Diodati." And from these differences T. D. differently frames his argument several times. p. 76. Hence it is observable, that this man not seeing with his own eyes, proceeds to argue

* As these interpreters conceive.

doubtfully from the different apprehensions and conceptions of others, viz. some conceiving,

1. That Christ hereby proves the immortality of the soul, and by consequence only, the resurrection of the body.

2. Others, that Christ only intends the resurrection of the body.

3. Others, that he intends both directly."

See how these learned men and students differ and oppose each other in their apprehensions and conceivings. And what eertainty can we expect from T. D. their scholar? And how came he to undertake such a controversy, about such a weighty and mysterious point, upon such dubious and uncertain grounds as only men's different apprehensions, conceivings, and consequences can amount to? This argues more confidence than knowledge in him. And T. D. varies his arguments thereupon, from his uncertain conjectures and fallible judgment, as, with him it is either thus, or else thus, or more plainly thus," &c.

1. "They whose God, God is, shall rise from the dead. God is Abraham's, Isaac's, and Jacob's God. Therefore they (and all other believers) shall rise again." Or else thus:

2. They whose God, God is, after death shall rise again, &c. 3. Or the argument, may be framed more plainly thus, viz. If God be under a promise to glorify the persons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then their bodies must rise again. But God is under such promise. Ergo. p. 77.

Answer. 1. God is the God of the living, both of Abraham and all believers.

2. They all live unto God in righteousness here, and glory hereafter.

3. He that liveth and believeth in me, saith Christ, shall never die.

These prove the blessed resurrection of the children of God, who are children of the resurrection. But what proof hath he produced of the self-same earthly, numerical body's rising? His assertion is the resurrection of the body in general. His proof is the resurrection of those whom God is the God of, viz. believers; and that their body must be glorified: which so far as Christ intends, is granted, that in the world to come they are equal unto the angels," what is this to the earthly, elementary bodies of all in general, which angels far surmount and transcend in glory? Neither hath he by all that he hath said, proved, that the promise of eternal glory, he mentions, extends to the same earthly body of flesh and blood, that now is, after being dissolved to dust, or its first elements. Or, that it is capable of that glory which is eternal, though the believer be as in his spirituality, or spiritual body glorified.

Now, as touching the promise of God to Abraham and his seed, it was not only of a temporal inheritance or outward Canaan, but also of an eternal inheritance of life and glory; for the enjoyment whereof they had a two-fold capacity, an outward and an inward, a natural and a spiritual; and so far God was their God in each. But that the eternal glory was promised to the terrestrial or natural body of Abraham, &c. T. D. (though he runs on with it, and takes it for granted.) merely begs the question, as if Abraham in his new spiritual and glorious state were but a part of Abraham; and consequently not fully capable of absolute felicity, without the dust of his dissolved clothing being immortalized. I understand not that they will admit of any new creation of it, to make it a complete body, who are of the Anabaptist's mind. And after the same manner he may as well say, that all the saints, who are said to be in glory, are not perfectly in glory, but only in part; as, but part of Abraham, part of Isaac, part of Jacob, part of Moses, part of Elias, part of Paul, &c. are in heaven, in glory, or in the rest which is glorious, and so of all the others. As if, when Moses and Elias appeared with Christ in the Mount, to Peter, &c. it were not proper or true to say, Moses and Elias; but part of Moses and Elias appeared. And what bodies appeared they in? Were they human, earthly bodies, or angelical? And by this [doctrine] they are not as yet absolutely happy, or at rest, without their little earthly mansions or tabernacles, when they must needs enjoy far better, viz. an heavenly clothing and mansion, or house eternal in the heavens ;" being the more spiritualized, they are in a higher and more meet capacity for that enjoyment.

T. D. 2. "God were not fully Abraham's God, or did not fully make good his promise, if he glorified one part of Abraham, and not another."

Answer. God, in glorifying Abraham in a spiritual state, and body that transcends all earthly bodies, or that part (as he calls it) of Abraham, which is spiritual, and therefore most capable of an eternal glory, he shows himself to be Abraham's God; he being the God of the spirits of all flesh," and most eminently of his children, and who hath all souls in his hand. But in answer to what he saith hereafter, let us inquire, whether the promise of God to Abraham and his seed, of eternal glory and happiness, cannot be made good without the earthly and perishing organs.

T. D. 3. "Nor were the promise, to glorify Abraham's soul, made good, without glorifying his body too; for the happiness of the soul is not perfect without the body, its dear and beloved companion; the soul having a strong desire and inclination to a re-union to the body, as the schools, not without

good ground, determine. Vid. Calvin Harm. Evang. in Matt? xxii. 31, 32. Luke xx. 38."

Answer. It is evident that this man gives this account, "that the happiness of the soul is not perfect without the body," not from any spiritual sight of the soul's happiness or glory; for, in page 81, he confesses, that "the different disposal of the spirits of man and beast is not visible to the eye of sense, and but dimly to the eye of reason and faith;" although he has taken upon him, by tradition from Calvin, &c. to assert, that the happiness of the soul is not perfect without the body. It may be understood, that they have neither clear reason, nor perfect faith for this. And to be sure, while he and others assert it without either, we have no reason to believe them. But to answer him elosely, both Calvin, T. D., the schools, and divers Anabaptists, are mistaken in this very matter, and see not with the eye of true faith, either" that the happiness of the soul is not perfect without the body ;" or, "that the soul hath a strong desire to a re-union to the body," while they intend the terrestrial, elementary bodies. For this implies the soul to be in a kind of purgatory or disquietness, till the supposed resumption of the body. And their assertion and determination herein is contrarary to what the apostle saith:-2 Cor. v. "For we know, that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." ver. 1. "For we that are in this tabernacle, do groan, being burdened," &c. ver. 4. "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord," ver. 8. And, said he, "I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart," &c. Phil. i. 23.

See now where the stress of the controversy lieth. It is not only between these our opposers and us, but also between them and the apostle Paul. Thus, Calvin, the schools, Presbyters, and Anabaptists, determine and conclude that the happiness of the soul is not perfect without the body; and that the soul (when separate) hath a strong desire and inclination to a reunion to the body." But, the apostle Paul, knowing that when their earthly house was dissolved, they had a far better, namely, a building of God, eternal in the heavens." Therefore, in the earthly tabernacle, they "groaned, being burdened, as willing rather to be absent from the body." By which it appears, they expected a more full fruition or felicity in the heavenly tabernacle, than in the earthly. Their souls did not desire after the flesh, as these opposers imply; neither had they any such delight therein, as fleshly minds and carnal contenders have. Moreover, the apostle from the visions and revelations of the Lord, saith: "I knew a man in Christ, about fourteen years ago, whether in the body, or out of the body, I can