more make the fame body, which was his, wherein fome of his actions were done, than that is the fame body, which has but half the same particles: and yet all your lordship's argument here for the fame body, is, because St. Paul fays it must be his body, in which these things were done; which it could not be, if any other substance were joined to it, i. e. if any other particles of matter made up the body, which were not vitally united to the foul when the action was done.

Again, your lordship says,

"That you do not say the same individual particles [fhall make up the body at the refurrection] which were united at the point of death, for there must be a great alteration in them in a lingering difease, as if a fat man falls into a consumption." Because, it is likely, your lordship thinks these particles of a decrepid, wasted, withered body, would be too few, or unfit to make such a plump, strong, vigorous, well fized body, as it has pleased your lordship to proportion out in your thoughts to men at the refurrection; and therefore some small portion of the particles formerly united vitally to that man's foul, shall be reaffumed to make up his body to the bulk your lordship judges convenient; but the greatest part of them shall be left out, to avoid the making his body more vast than your lordship thinks will be fit, as appears by these your lordship's words immediately following, viz. That you do not say the same particles the finner had at the very time of commiffion of his fins; for then a long finner must have a vast body."

But thea, pray, my lord, what must an embryo do, who dying within a few hours after his body was vitally united to his foul, has no particles of matter, which were formerly vitally united to it, to make up his body of that size and proportion which your lordship seems to require in bodies at the refurrection? Or must we believe he fhall remain content with that small pittance of matter, and that yet imperfect body to eternity, because it is an article of faith to believe the refurrection of the very fame body, i. e. made up of only fuch particles as have been vitally united to the foul? For it must be so, as your lordfhip fays, "That life is the refult of the union of foul and body," it will follow, that the body of an embryo dying in the womb may be very little, not the thousandth part of an ordinary man. For fince from the first conception and beginning of formation it has life, and "life is the refult of the union of the foul with the body;" an embryo, that shall die either by the untimely death of the mother, or by any other accident, presently after it has life, muft, according to your lordship's doctrine, remain a man not an inch long to eternity; because there are not particles of matter, formerly united to his foul, tò make him bigger, and no other can be made ufe of to that purpose: though what greater congruity the foul hath with any particles of matter which were once vitally united to it, but are now fo no longer, than it hath with particles of matter which it was never united to, would be hard to determine, if that fhould be demanded.

By thefe and not a few other the like confequences, one may fee what fervice they do to religion, and the Christian doctrine, who raise questions, and make articles of faith about the refurrection of the fame body, where the scrip

ture fays nothing of the fame body; or if it does, it is with no small reprimand to those who make fuch an inquiry. "But fome men will fay, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou fowest, is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou foweft, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat or of some other grain. But God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased him.” Words, I should think, sufficient to deter us from determining any thing for or against the same body's being raised at the last day. It fuffices, that all the dead shall be raised, and every one appear and answer for 'the things done in his life, and receive according to the things he has done in his body, whether good or bad. He that believes this, and has faid nothing inconfiftent herewith, I presume may and must be acquitted from being guilty of any thing inconfiftent with the article of the refurrection of the dead.

But your lordship, to prove the refurrection of the fame body to be an article of faith, farther asks, †"How could it be said, if any other substance be joined to the foul at the resurrection, as its body, that they were the things done in or by the body?" Anf. Just as it may be said of a man at an hundred years old, that hath then another substance joined to his foul, than he had at twenty; that the murder or drunkenness he was guilty of at twenty, were things done in the body: how " by the body" comes in here, I do not fee.

Your lordship adds, " and St. Paul's dispute about the manner of raising the body, might foon have ended, if there were no neceffity of the fame body." Anf. When I understand what argument there is in these words to prove the refurrection of the same body, without the mixture of one new atom of matter, I shall know what to fay to it. In the mean time, this I understand, that St. Paul would have put as short an end to all disputes about this matter, if he had faid, that there was a neceffity of the fame body, or that it should be the fame body.

The next text of scripture you bring for the fame body is, "If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is not Chrift raised." From which your lordship argues, "It seems then other bodies are to be raised as his was.' I grant other dead, as certainly raised as Chrift was; for else his refurrection would be of no use to mankind. But I do not fee how it follows, that they shall be raised with the fame body, as Christ was raised with the same body, as your lordship infers in these words annexed; "And can there be any doubt, whether his body was the fame material substance which was united to his foul before ?" I answer, None at all; nor that it had just the same distinguishing lineaments and marks, yea, and the fame wounds that it had at the time of his death. If therefore your lordship will argue from other bodies being raised as his was, That they must keep proportion with his in famenefs; then we must believe, that every man shall be raised with the fame lineaments and other other notes of distinction he had at the time of his death, even with his wounds yet open if he had any, because our Savior was fo raised; which feems to me scarce reconcileable with what your lordship says, || of a fat man falling into a consumption, and dying.

* 1 Cor. xv. 35, &c.

† 2d Anf. 2 Cor. xv. 16. § 2d Anf.

Ibid.

But whether it will confist or no with your lordship's meaning in that place, this to me seems a confequence that will need to be better proved, viz. That our bodies must be raised the same, just as our Savior's was: because St. Paul fays, "if there be no refurrection of the dead, then is not Chrift rifen." For it may be a good confequence, Chrift is rifcn and therefore there fhall be a refurrection of the dead; and yet this may not be a good confequence, Chrift was raised with the fame body he had at his death, therefore all men fhall be raifed with the fame body they had at their death, contrary to what your lordship fays concerning a fat man dying of a confumption. But the cafe I think far different betwixt our Savior, and those to be raised at the last day.

1. His body faw not corruption, and therefore to give him another body new moulded, mixed with other particles, which were not contained in it as it lay in the grave, whole and entire as it was laid there, had been to destroy his body to frame him a new one without any need. But why with the remaining particles of a man's body long fince diffolved and moulded into duft and atoms (whereof poffibly a great part may have undergone variety of changes, and entered into other concretions; even in the bodies of other men) other new particles of matter mixed with them, may not serve to make his body again, as well as the mixture of new and different particles of matter with the old, did in the compass of his life make his body, I think no reason can be given.

This may ferve to fhow, why, though the materials of our Savior's body were changed at his refurrection; yet it does not follow, but that the body of a man dead and rotten in his grave, or burnt, may at the last day have feveral new particles in it, and that without any inconvenience: fince whatever matter is vitally united to his foul is his body, as much as is that which was united to it when he was born, or in any other part of his life.

2. In the next place, the size, shape, figure, and lineaments of our Savior's body, even to his wounds, into which doubting Thomas put his fingers and his hand, were to be kept in the raised body of our Savior, the fame they were at his death, to be a conviction to his difciples, to whom he fhewed himself, and who were to be witneffes of his refurrection, that their master, the very fame man, was crucified, dead, and buried, and raised again; and therefore he was handled by them, and eat before them after he was risen, to give them in all points full fatisfaction that it was really he, the fame, and not another, nor a fpectre or apparition of him; though I do not think your lordship will thence argue, that because others are to be raised as he was, therefore it is necessary to believe, that because he eat after his resurrection, others at the last day shall eat and drink after they are raised from the dead; which feems to me as good an argument, as because his undissolved body was raised out of the grave, just as it there lay entire, without the mixture of any new particles; therefore the corrupted and consumed bodies of the dead, at the resurrection, shall be new framed only out of those scattered particles which were once vitally united to their fouls, without the least mixture of any one fingle atom of new matter. But at the last day, when all men are raised, there will be no need to be affured of any one particular man's refurrection. It is enough that every one shall appear before the judgement-feat of Christ, to receive according to what he had

done in his former life; but in what fort of body he shall appear, or, of what particles made up, the scripture having faid nothing, but that it shall be a fpiritual body raised in incorruption, it is not for me to determine.

Your lordship asks, *« Were they [who saw our Savior after his resurrection] witneffes only of some material substance then united to his foul?" In answer, I beg your lordship to confider, whether you suppose our Savior was to be known to be the fame man (to the witnesses that were to see him, and testify his refurrection) by his foul, that could neither be feen or known to be the fame; or by his body, that could be seen, and by the discernible structure and marks of it, be known to be the same? When your lordship has resolved that, all that you say in that page will answer itself. But because one man cannot know another to be the fame, but by the outward visible lineaments, and fenfible marks he has been wont to be known and distinguished by, will your lordship therefore argue, That the Great Judge, at the last day, who gives to each man, whom he raises, his new body, shall not be able to know who is who, unless he give to every one of them a body, just of the same figure, size, and features, and made up of the very fame individual particles he had in his former life? Whether such a way of arguing for the refurrection of the fame body, to be an article of faith, contributes much to the strengthening the credibility of the article of the refurrection of the dead, I fhall leave to the judgement of others.

Farther, for the proving the resurrection of the same body, to be an article of faith, your lordship says, † "But the apoftle infilts upon the refurrection of Christ, not merely as an argument of the poffibility of ours, but of the certainty of it; because he rose, as the first-fruits; Chrift the first fruits, afterwards they that are Chrift's at his coming." Anf. No doubt, the resurrection of Christ is a proof of the certainty of our refurrection. But is it therefore a proof of the refurrection of the fame body, confifting of the same individual particles which concurred to the making up of our body here, without the mixture of any one other particle of matter? I confefs I fee no fuch confequence.

But your lordship goes on: §" St. Paul was aware of the objections in men's minds about the refurrection of the fame body;" and it is of great confequence as to this article, to fhow upon what grounds he proceeds. "But fome men will fay how are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?" First, he shows, that the feminal parts of plants are wonderfully improved by the ordinary Providence of God, in the manner of their vegetation." Anfwer. I do not perfectly understand, what it is "for the feminal parts of plants to be wonderfully improved by the ordinary Providence of God, in the manner of their vegetation :" or elfe, perhaps, I fhould better fee how this here tends to the proof of the refurrection of the same body, in your lordship's fense.

It continues, || "They fow bare grain of wheat, or of fome other grain, but God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased him, and to every feed his own body Here, fays your lordship, is an identity of the material fubftance fuppofed." It may be fo. But to me a diversity of the material substance, i. e. of the com * 2d Anf, 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23.

† Ib. $ 2d. Anf.

|| Ibid.

ponent particles, is here fuppofed, or in direct words faid. For the words of St. Paul taken all together, run thus, *"That which thou sowest, thou foweft not that body which shall be, but bare grain ;" and fo on, as your lordship has fet down in the remainder of them. From which words of St. Paul, the natural argument feems to me to stand thus: If the body that is put in the earth in fowing, is not that body which shall be, then the body that is put in the grave, is not that, i. e. the fame body that fhall be.

But your lordship proves it to be the fame body by these three Greek words of the text, ridion oua, which your lordship interprets thus, † "That proper body which belongs to it." Answer. Indeed by those Greek words tó idiov oua, whether our tranflators have rightly rendered them "his own body,” or your lordship more rightly "that proper body which belongs to it." I formerly understood no more but this, that in the production of wheat, and other grain from feed, God continued every species diftinct; fo that from grains of wheat fown, root, stalk, blade, ear, grains of wheat were produced, and not those of barley; and fo of the rest, which I took to be the meaning of "to every feed his own body." No, fays your lordship, these words prove, That to every plant of wheat, and to every grain of wheat produced in it, is given the proper body that belongs to it, which is the same body with the grain that was fown. Answer. This, I confess, I do not understand; because I do not understand how one individual grain can be the fame with twenty, fifty, or an hundred individual grains; for such sometimes is the increase.

But your lordship proves it. For, fays your lordship, *“ Every feed having that body in little, which is afterwards so much enlarged; and in grain the feed is corrupted before its germination; but it hath its proper organical parts, which make it the same body with that which it grows up to. For although grain be not divided into lobes, as other feeds are, yet it hath been found, by the most accurate observations, that upon separating the membranes, these feminal parts are discerned in them; which afterwards grow up to that body which we call corn." In which words I crave leave to observe, that your lordship supposes that a body may be enlarged by the addition of an hundred or a thousand times as much in bulk as its own matter, and yet continue the fame body; which, I confefs, I cannot understand.

But in the next place, if that could be fo; and that the plant, in its full growth at harveft, increased by a thousand or a million of times as much new matter added to it, as it had when it lay in little, concealed in the grain that was fown, was the very fame body; yet I do not think that your lordship will fay, that every minute, infenfible, and inconceivably small grain of the hundred grains, contained in that little organized feminal plant, is every one of them the very fame with that grain which contains that whole seminal plant, and all thofe invifible grains in it. For then it will follow, that one grain is the fame with an hundred, and an hundred diftinct grains the fame with one: which I fhall be able to affent to, when I can conceive, that all the wheat in the world is but one grain.

For I beseech you, my lord, confider what it is St. Paul here fpeaks of it is plain he speaks of that which is fown and dies, i. c. the grain that the huf† 2d Anf.

. ver. 37.