« AnteriorContinuar »
no wonder, that mentioning their bodies, he should use a way of speaking suited to vulgar notions, from which it would be hard positively to con. clude any thing for the determining of this question (especially against expressions in the same discourse that plainly incline to the other side) in a matter which, as it appears, the apostle thought not necessary to deter. mine, and the spirit of God thought not fit to gratify any one's curiosity in.
But your lordship says, * * The apostle speaks plainly of that body which was once quickened, and afterwards falls to corruption, and is to be restored with more noble qualities. I wish your lordship had quoted the words of St. Paul, wherein he speaks plainly of that numerical body that was once quickened; they would presently decide this question. But your lordship proves it by these following words of St. Paul: "For this corruption must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immor. tality;' to which your lordship adds, 'that you do not see how he could more expressly affirm the identity of this corruptible body, with that after the resurrection.' How expressly it is affirmed by the apostle, shall be considered by and by. In the mean time, it is past doubt, that your lordship best knows what you do or do not see. But this I would be bold to say, that if St. Paul had any where in this chapter (where there are so many occasions for it, if it had been necessary to have been be. lieved) but said in express words that the same bodies should be raised, every one else, who thinks of it, will see he had more expressly affirmed the identity of the bodies which men now have, with those they shall have after the resurrection.
The remainder of your lordship's period † is; ' And that without any respect to the principle of self-consciousness.' Ans. These words, I doubt not, have some meaning, but I must own I know not what; either 10. wards the proof of the resurrection of the same body, or to show, that any thing I have said concerning self-consciousness, is inconsistent : for I do not remember that I have any where said, that the identity of body consisted in self.consciousness.
From your preceding words, your lordship concludes thus: And so if the scripture be the sole foundation of our faith, this is an article of it.' My lord, to make the conclusion unquestionable, I humbly conceive the words must run thus: "And so if the scripture, and your lordship's intera pretation of it be the sole foundation of our faith, the resurrection of the same body is an article of it.' For, with submission, your lordship has neither produced express words of scripture for it, nor so proved that 10 be the meaning of any of those words of scripture which you have produced for it, that a man who reads and sincerely endeavours to under. stand the scripture, cannot but find himself obliged to believe, as (X. pressly, that the same bodies of the dead,' in your lordship's sense, shall be raised, as that the dead shall be raised.' 'And I crave leave to give your lordship this one reason for it. He who reads with attention this dis. course of St. Paul ý where he discourses of the resurrection, will see, that he plainly distinguishes between the dead that shall be raised, and the bodies of the dead. For it is vsupoi, wavles, oi are the nominative cases :0 | erysipovlan, (woTrombucovlar, eye broorlar, all along, and not omuzla, bodies i which one may with reason think would somewhere or other have becii
* 2d Ans. + Ibid. # Ibid. fi Cur. XV.
expressed, if all this had been said to propose it as an article of faith, that the very same bodies should be raised. The same manner of speaking the spirit of God observes all through the New Testament, where it is said, *raise the dead, quicken or make alive the dead, the resurrection of the dead.' Nay, these very words of our Saviour, +arged by your lordship for the resurrection of the same body, run thus, Πανλες οι εν τοις μνημείοις ακέσουλαι της φωνής αν και εκπορεύσονlαι, οι τα αγαθά ποιήσαντες εις ανάςασιν
Swñe, oi di tà Palace via Exsles siç árásuoi xepíosws. Would not a wellmeaning searcher of the scriptures be apt to think, that if the thing here intended by our Saviour were to teach, and propose it as an article of faith, necessary to be believed by every one, that the very same bodies of the dead should be raised; would not, I say, any one be apt to think, that if our Saviour meant so, the words should rather have been, wavle Tà chuala a én mois unzioss, i, e. all the bodies that are in the graves,' rather than' all who are in the graves ;' which must denote persons, and not precisely bodies ?
Another evidence, that St. Paul makes a distinction between the dead and the bodies of the dead, so that the dead cannot be taken in this, 1 Cor. xv. to stand precisely for the bodies of the dead, are these words. of the apostle, İ' But some man will say, how are the dead raised ? And with what bodies do they come ? Which words, dead' and 'they,' if supposed to stand precisely for the bodies of the dead, the question will Tun thus : How are the dead bodies raised? And with what bodies do the dead bodies come? Which seems to have no very agreeable sense..
This therefore being so, that the Spirit of God keeps so expressly to this phrase, or form of speaking in the New Testament, 'of raising, quick. ening, rising, resurrecijon, &c. of the dead,' where the resurrection of she last day is spoken of; and that the body is not mentioned, but in answer to this question, « With what bodies shall those dead, who are raised, come ?" so that by the dead cannot precisely be meant the dead bodies : I do not see but a good christian, who reads the scripture with an intention to believe all that is there revealed to him concerning the resurrection, may acquit himself of his duty therein, without entering into the inquiry, whether the dead shall have the very same bodies or no? Which sort of inquiry the apostle, by the appellation he bestows here on him that makes it, seems not much to encourage. Nor, if he shall think himself bound to determine concerning the identity of the bodies of the dead raised at the last day, will he, by the remainder of St. Paul's answer, find the determination of the Apostle to be much in favour of the very same body ; unless the being told, that the body sown, is not that body that shall be ; that the body raised is as different from that which was laid down, as the flesh of man is from the Aesh of beasts, fishes, and birds; or as the sun, moon, and stars are different one from another; or as dif. ferent as a corruptible, weak, natural, mortal body, is from an incorruptible, powerful, spiritual, immortal body; and lastly, as different as a body that is flesh and blood, is from a body that is not flesh and blood;
for Aesh and blood cannot, says St. Paul, in this very place, || inherit the het kingdom of God:' unless, I say, all this, which is contained in St. * Paul's words, can be supposed to be the way to deliver this as an article of
* Matt. xxii. 31. Mark xii.26. John v. 21, Acts xvi. 7. Rom. iv. 57. 2 Cor. i. 9. 1 Thess, iv. 14, 16. + John v, 28, 29, # Ver. 35. IV. so.
faith, which is required to be believed by every one, viz. ' That the dead should be raised with the very same bodies that they had before in this life;' which article proposed in these or the like plain and express words, could have left no room for doubt in the meancst capacities, nor for con. test in the most perverse minds.
Your lordship adds in the next words, *. And so it hath been always understood by the christian church, viz. That the resurrection of the same body, in your lordship's sense of the same body, is an article of faith.' Answer, What the christian church has always understood, is beyond my knowledge. But for those who coming short of your lordship's great learning, cannot gather their articles of faith from the understanding of all the whole christian church, ever since the preaching of the gos. pel, (who make the far greater part of christians, I think I may say nine hundred ninety and nine of a thousand) but are forced to have recourse to the scripture to find them there, I do not see, that they will easily find there this proposed as an article of faith, that there shall be a resurrection of the same body ; but that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, without explicitly determining, That, they shall be raised with bodies made up wholly of the same particles which were once vitally united to their souls in their former life, without the mixture of any one other particle of matter ; which is that which your lordship means by the same body.
But supposing your lordship to have demonstrated this to be an article of faith, though I crave leave to own, that I do not see, that all that your lordship has said here, makes it so much as probable ; What is all this to me? Yes, says your lordship in the following words, + My idea of personal identity is inconsistent with it, for it makes the same body which was here united to the soul, not to be necessary to the doctrine of the resurrection. But any material substance united to the same principle of consciousness, makes the same body,' .
This is an argument of your lordship's which I am obliged to answer to. But is it not fit I should first understand it, before I answer it! Nos here I do not well know, what it is to make a thing not to be necessary to the doctrine of the resurrection.' But to help myself out the best I car, with a guess, I will conjecture (which, in dispucing with learned men, is not very safe) your lordship's meaning is, that my idea of personal iden. tity makes it not necessary,' that for the raising the same person, the body should be the same.
Your lordship’s next word is "but;' to which I am ready to reply, But what? What does my idea of personal identity do? For something of that kind the adversative particle due should, in the ordinary construction of our language, introduce, to make the proposition clear and intel. ligible: but here is no such thing. But,' is one of your lordship's privileged particles, which I must not meddle with, for fear your lordship complain of me again, as so severe a critic, that for the least ambigay in any particle fill up pages in my answer, ro oake my book look coin siderable for the bulk of it.' But since this proposition here, ' my idea of personal identity makes the same body which was here united to the soul, not necessary to the doctrine of the resurrection : Eut any material subsuance being united to the same principle of consciousness, makes the same body, is brought to prove my idea of personal identity inconsistent
with the article of the resurrection; I must make it out in some direct sense or other, that I may see whether it be both true and conclusive. I therefore venture to read it thus : 'My idea of personal identity makes the same body which was here united to the soul, not to be necessary at the resurrection ; but allows, that any material substance being united to the same principle of consciousness, makes the same body. Ergo, my idea af personal identity is inconsistent with the article of the resurrection of the sathe body."
If this be your lordship's sense in this passage, as I here have guessed it to be, or else I know not what it is, 'I answer,
1. That my idea of personal identity does not allow, that any material substance, being united to the same principle of consciousness, makes the same body, I say no such thing in my book, nor any thing from whence it may be inferred ; and your lordship would have done me a favour to have set down the words where I say so, or those from which you infer so, and showed how it follows from any thing I have said.
2. Granting, that it were a consequence from my idea of personal identity, tható any material substance, being united to the same principle of consciousness, makes the same body ;' this would not prove that my idea of personal identity was inconsistent with this proposition, that the same body shall be raised;" but, on the contrary, affirms it : since, if I affirm, as I do, that the same person shall be raised, and ic be a conse. quence of my idea of personal identity, that any material substance, being united to the same principle of consciousness, makes the same body ;' it follows, that if the same person be raised, the same body must be raised ; and so I have herein not only said nothing inconsistent with the resurrec. tion of the same body, but have said more for it than your lordship. For there can be nothing plainer, than that in the scripture it is revealed, that the same persons shall be raised, and appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, to answer for what they have done in their bodies. If therefore whatever matter be joined to the same principle of consciousness makes the same body, it is demonstration, that if the same persons are raised, they have the same bodies. '
How then your lordship makes this an inconsistency with the resurrection, is beyond my concepcion. "Yes,' says your lordship, * it is inconsistent with it, for it makes the same body which was here united to the soul, not to be necessary.'
3. I answer, therefore, Thirdly, That this is the first time I ever learnt, that 'not necessary' was the same with inconsistent,' I say, that a body made up of the same numerical parts of matter, is not necessary to the making of the same person ; from whence it will indeed follow, that to the resurrection of the same person, the same numerical particles of matter are not required. What does your lordship infer from hence ? To wit, this : Therefore he who thinks, that the same particles of mat. ter are not necessary to the making of the same person, cannot believe, that the same person shall be raised with bodies made of the very same particles of matter, if God should reveal, that it shall be so, viz. That the same persons shall be raised with the same bodies they had before. Which is all one as to say, that he who thought the blowing of tams horns was not necessary in itself to the falling down of the walls of
Jericho, could not believe, that they should fall upon the blowing of rams horns, when God had declared it should be so.
Your lordship says, 'my idea of personal identity is inconsistent with the article of the resurrection: the reason you ground it on, is this, be. cause it makes not the same body necessary to the making the same person. Let us grant your lordship's consequence to be good, what will follow from it? No less than this, that your lordship's notion (for I dare not say your lordship has any so dangerous things as ideas) of personal iden. city, is inconsistent with the article of the resurrection. The demon. stration of it is thus; your lordship says, * It is not necessary that the body, to be raised at the last day, should consist of the same particles of matter which were united at the point of death; for there must be a great alteration in them in a lingering disease, as if a fat man falls into a consumption : you do not say the same particles which the sinner had at the very time of commission of his sins; for then a long sinner must have a vast body, considering the continualspending of particles by perspi. ration. And again, here your lordship says, + •You allow the notion of personal identity to belong to the same man under several changes of matier.' From which words it is evident, that your lordship supposes a per: son in this world may be continued and preserved the same in a body not consisting of the same individual particles of matter; and hence it demonstratively follows, That let your lordship's notion of personal identity be what it will, it makes the same body not to be necessary to the same person ;' and therefore it is by your lordship's rule inconsistent with the article of the resurrection. When your lordship shall think fit to clear your own notion of personai identity from this inconsistency with the article of the resurrection, I do not doubt but my idea of personal identity will be thereby cleared too. Till then, all inconsistency with that article, which your lordship has here charged on mine, will unavoidably fall upon your lordship's too.
But for the clearing of both, give me leave to say, my lord, that what. soever is not necessary, does not thereby become inconsistent. It is not necessary to the same person, that his body should always consist of the same numerical particles; this is demonstration, because the particles of the bodies of the same persons in this lise change every moment, and your lordship cannot deny it: and yet this makes it not inconsistent with God's preserving, if he thinks fit, to the same persons, bodies con. sisting of the same numerical particles always from the resurrection to eternity. And so likewise though I say any thing that supposes it not necessary, that the same numerical particles, which were vically united to the soul in this life, should be reunited to it at the resurrection, and con. stitute the body it shall then have; yet it is not inconsistent with this, that God may, if he pleases, give to every one a body consisting only of such particles as were before vitally united to his soul. And thus, I think, I have cleared my book from all that inconsistency which your lordship charges on it, and would persuade the world it has with the article of the resurrection of the dead."
Only before I leave it, I will set down the remainder of what your lordship says upon this head, that though I see not the coherence nor te. dency of it, nor the force of any argument in it against me ; yet that nothing may be omitted that your lordship has thought fit to entertain * 2d Ans.