« AnteriorContinuar »
how it was tied to a certain system of fleeting aniinal spirits; or whether it could or could not perform its operations of thinking and memory out of a body organized as ours is : and whether it has pleased God, that no one such spirit shall ever be united to any one but such body, upon the right constitution of whose organs its memory should depend : we might see the absurdity of some of those suppositions I have made. But taking, as we ordinarily now do, (in the dark concerning these matters) the soul of a man, for an immaterial substance, independent from matter, and indifferent alike to it all, there can from the nature of things be no absurdity at all to suppose, that the same soul may, at different times, be united to different bodies, and with them make up, for that time, one man: as well as we suppose a part of a sheep's body yesterday should be a part of a man's body to-morrow, and in that union
make a vital part of Velibous himself, as well as it Ervar did of his
did of his ram.
s. 28. To conclude: Whatever substance The difficul. begins to exist, it must, during its exist- ty from
use of names, ble ence, necessarily be the same : whatever
compositions of substances begin to exist, during the E RES
union of those substances the concrete must be the
same: whatsoever mode begins to exist, during its tervet pas existence it is the same : and so if the composition be
of distinct substances and different modes, the same di laki rule holds. Whereby it will appear, that the difficulty
or obscurity that has been about this matter, rather ielaidh rises from the names ill used, than from any obscurity SCTVO in things themselves. For whatever makes the speciI NDALL fick idea to which the name is applied, if that idea be ser vos steadily kept to, the distinction of any thing into the
same and divers will easily be conceived, and there can mell. arise no doubt about it. 3. If I . 29. For supposing a rational spirit be Continued that it the idea of a man, it is easy to know what is existence vegetaste the same man; viz. the same spirit, whether
tity. separate or in a body, will be the same man. of the time Supposing a rational spirit vitally united to a body of a certain conformation of parts to make a man, whilst
that rational spirit, with that vital conformation of parts, though continued in a ficeting successive body, remains, it will be the same. But if to any one the idea of a man be but the vital union of parts in a cer. tain shape; as long as that vital union and shape remain, in a concrete no otherwise the same, but by a continued succession of fleeting particles, it will be the same. For whatever be the composition, whereof the complex idea is made, whenever existence makes it one particular thing under any denomination, the same existence, continued, preserves it the same individual under the same denomination. (1
| C H A P,
(1) The doctrine of identity and diversity contained in this chapter, the bishop of Worcester pretends to be inconsistent with the doctrines of the Christian faith, concerning the resurrection of the dead. His way of arguing from it, is this; He says, The rcason of believing the resurrec. tion of the same body, upon Mr. Locke's grounds, is from the idea of identity. To which our author * answers : Give me leave, my lord, to say, that the reason of believing any article of the Christian faith (such as your lordship is here speaking of) to me, and upon my grounds, is its being a part of divine revelation : upon this ground I believed it, before I either writ that chapter of identity and diversity, and before I ever thought of those propositions which your lordship quotes out of that chapter; and upon the same ground I believe it still; and not from my idea of identity. This saying of your lordship's, therefore, being a proposi. tion neither self-evident, nor allowed by me to be true, remains to be proved. So that your foundation failing, all your large superstructure built thereon, comes to nothing.
But, my lord, before we go any farther, I crave leave humbly 10 represent to your lordship, that I thought you undertook to make out that my notion of ideas was inconsistent with the articles of the Christian faith. But that which your lordship instances in here, is not, that I yet know, an article of the Christian faith. The resurrection of the dead I acknowledge to be an article of the Christian faith : but that the resur. rection of the same body, in your lordship's sense of the same body, is an article of the Christian faith, is what, I confess, I do not yet know.
In the New Testament (wherein, I think, are contained all the articles of the Christian faith) I find our Saviour and the apostles to preach the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection from the dead, in many places : but I do not remember any place where the resurrection of the same body is so much as mentioned. Nay, which is very remarkable in the case, I do not remember in any place of the New Testament (where
* In his 3d letter 10 the bishop of Worcester,
the general resurrection at the last day is spoken of) any such expression as the resurrection of the body, much less of the same body.
I say the general resurrection at the last day: because, where the re. surrection of some particular persons, presently upon our Saviour's resur. rection, is mentioned, the words are *, The graves were opened, and many bodies of saints, which slept, arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the Holy City, and appeared to many : of which peculiar way of speaking of this resurrection, the passage itself gives a reason in these words, appeared to many, i. e. those who slept appeared, so as to be known to be risen. But this could not be known, unless they brought with them the evidence, that they were those who had been dead; whereof there were these two proofs, their graves weso opened, and their bodies not only gone out of them, but appeared to be the same to those who had known them formerly aliye, and knew them to be dead and buried. For if they had been those who had been dead so long, that all who knew them once alive were now gone, those to whom they appeared might have known them to be men ; but could not have known they were risen from the dead, because they never knew they had been dead. All that by their appearing they could have known, was, that they were so many living strangers, of whose resurrection they knew nothing. It was necessary therefore, that they should come in such bodies, as might in make and size, &c. appear to be the same they had before, that they might he known to those of their acquaintance, whom they appeared to. And it is probable they were such as were newly dead, whose bodies were not yet dissolved and dissipated ; and therefore, it is particularly said here (differently from what is said of the general resur. rection) that their bodies arose ; because they were the same that were then lying in their graves, the moment before they rose.
But your lordship endeavours to prove it must be the same body : and let us grant that your lordship, nay, and others too, think you have proved ir must be the same body ; Will you therefore say, that he holds what is inconsistent with an article of faith, who having never seen this your lordship's interpretation of the scripture, nor your reasons for the same body, in your sense of same body; or, if he has seen them, yet not un. derstanding them, or not perceiving the force of them, believes what the scripture proposes to him, viz. That at the last day the dead shall be raised, without determining whether it shall be with the very same bo. dies or no?
I know your lordship pretends not to erect your particular interpreta. tions of scripture into articles of faith. And if you do not, he that believes the dead shall be raised, believes that article of faith which the scripture proposes ; and cannot be accused of holding any thing incon. sistent with it, if it should happen, that what he holds is inconsistent with another proposition, viz. That the dead shall be raised with the same bodies, in your lordship's sense, which I do not find proposed in Holy Writ as an article of faich.
But your lordship argues, It must be the same body; which, as you explain same body t, is not the same individual particles of matter, which were united at the point of death ; nor the same particles of matter, that the sinner had at the time of the commission of his sins :
* Matt, xxvii. 52, 53.
+ 2d Ans,
350 Of Identity and Dirersity. Book 2. but that it must be the same material substance which was vitally united to the soul here ; i. e. as I understand it, the same individual par. ticles of matter, which were some time or other during his life here, vitally united to his soul.
Your first argument to prore, that it must be the same body in this sense of the same body, is taken from these words of our Saviour, * All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth. + From whence your lordship argues, That these words, all that are in their graves, relate to no other substance than what was united to the soul in life ; because a different substance cannot be said to be in the graveś, and to come out of them. Which words of your lordship’s, if they prove any thing, prove that the soul too is lodged in the grave, and raised out of it at the last day. For your lordship says, Can a dif. ferent substance be said to be in the graves, and come out of them? So that, according to this interpretation of these words of our Saviour, No other substance being raised, but what hears his voice; and no other sub. stance hearing his voice, but what being called, comes out of the grave; and no other substance coming out of the grave, but what was in the grave; any one must conclude, that the soul, unless it be in the grave, will make no part of the person that is raised ; unless, as your lordship argues against me I, You can make it out, that a substance which never was in the grave may come out of it, or that the soul is no substance.
But setting aside the substance of the soul, another thing that will make any one doubt, whether this your interpretation of our Saviour's words be necessarily to be received as their true sense, is, That it will not be very easily reconciled to your saying ll, you do not mean by the same body, The same individual particles which were united at the point of death. And yet, by this interpretation of our Saviour's words, you can mean no other particles but such as were united at the point of death; because you mean no other substance but what comes out of the grave'; and no substance, no particles come out, you say, but what were in the grave; and I think, your lordship will not say, that the particles that were separate from the body by perspiration before the point of death, were laid up in the grave.
But your lordship, I find, has an answer to this, viz. $ That by comparing this with other places, you find that the words (of our Saviour above quoted] are to be understood of the substance of the body, to which the soul was united, and not to (I suppose your lordship writ, of) these individual particles, i. e. those individual particles that are in the grave at the resurrection. For so they must be read, to make your lord. ship's sense entire, and to the purpose of your answer here : and then, methinks, this last sense of our Saviour's words given by your lordship, wholly overturns the sense which we have given of thein above, where from those words you press the belief of the resurrection of the same body, by this strong argument, that a substance could not, upon hearing the voice of Christ, come out of the grave, which was never in the grave. There (as far as I can understand your words) your lordship ar. gues, that our Saviour's words are to be understood of the particles in the grave, unless, as your lordship says, one can make it out, that a sub. stance which never was in the grave, may come out of it. And here your
The next te: s body, in Iz we must * may receive 4, shether is * guestion: me, but that z may suspere iterer sha? susi med them; be i shen he sus
done in h Sateen, was, gs in ar fifov,
at those diff ke the resurrect
, which he had ore on the w! what he did in
core, be not To of matter, ti
four lord hi sebe is, which z body, your loro
so in the wor
32w.te, and whe 2ll have after either of them be Barfarther, to yo tzv other mater
te done? I arse oor het material sub nie, because your
ziderstand them. une particles of me wenigsion of hi: sin Eres this reason for wandering the conti
bid, if the apostl sterstood of any othe dies were done ; ar in de particles that a
lordship expressly says, That our Saviour's words are to be understood of the substance of that body, to which the soul was (at any time) united, and not to those individual particles that are in the grave. Which put together, seems to me to say, That our Saviour's words are to be understood of those particles only that are in the grave, and not of those particles only which are in the grave, but of others also, which have at any time been vitally united to the soul, but never were in the grave,
The next text your lordship brings to make the resurrection of the same body, in your sense, an article of faith, are these words of St. Paul;' * For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. To which your lordship subjoins +' this question: Can these words be understood of any other material substance, but that body in which these things were done? Answer: A , man may suspend his determining the meaning of the apostle to be, that' a sinner shall suffer for his sins in the very same body wherein he com-' mitted them ; because St. Paul does not say he sh:11 have the very såme' body when he suffers, that he had when he sinned. The apostle say's indeed, done in his body. The body he had, and did things in, at five or fifteen, was, no doubt, his body, as much as that, which he did things in at fifty, was his body, though his body were not the very same body at those different ages : and so will the body, which he shall have after the resurrection, be his body, though it be not the very same with that, which he had at five, or fifteen, or fifty. He that at threescore is broke on the wheel, for a murder he committed at twenty, is punished for what he did in his body, though the body he has, i. e. his body at threescore, be not the same, i. e, made up of the same individual paí-' ticles of matter, that that body was, which he had forty years before." When your lordship has resolved with yourself, what that same immu., table he is, which at the last judgment shall receive the things done in his body, your lordship will easily see, that the body he had when an embryo in the womb, when a child playing in coats, when a man marrying a wife, and when bed-rid dying of a consumption, and at last, which he shall have after his resurrection, are each of them his body, though neither of them be the same body, the one with the other."
But farther, to your lordship's question, Can these words be understood of any other material substance, but that body in which these things were done? I answer, These words of St. Paul may be understood of another material substance, than that body in which these things were done, because your lordship teaches me, and gives me a strong reason so to understand them. Your lordship says, I That you do not say the same particles of matter, which the sinner had at the very time of the commission of his sins, shall be raised at the last day. And your lordship gives this reason for it ;' || For then a long sinner must have a vast body, considering the continued spending of particles by perspiration. Now, my lord, if the apostle's words, as your lordship would argue, cannot be understood of any other material substance, but that body in which these things were done ; and no body, upon the removal or change of some of the particles that at any time make it up, is the same material sub.