bandman takes out of his barn to sow in his field. And of this grain St. Paul fays, "that it is not that body that shall be." These two, viz. " that which is fown and that body that shall be,” are all the bodies that St. Paul here speaks of to reprefent the agreement or difference of men's bodies after the refurrection, with those they had before they died. Now, I crave leave to ask your lordship, which of these two is that little invisible seminal plant, which your lordship here speaks of? Does your lordship mean by it the grain that is fown? But that is not what St. Paul speaks of; he could not mean this embryonated little plant, for he could not denote it by these words, "that which thou foweft," for that he fays muft die: but this little embryonated plant, con-tained in the feed that is fown, dies not; or does your lordship mean by it, "the body that fhall be?" But neither by these words, "the body that shall be," can St. Paul be supposed to denote this infenfible little embryonated plant; for that is already in being, contained in the feed that is fown, and therefore could not be spoken of under the name of the body that flrall be. And therefore, I confess, I cannot fee of what ufe it is to your lordship to introduce here this third body, which St. Paul mentions not, and to make that the fame, or not the fame with any other, when those which St. Paul speaks of, are, as I humbly conceive, these two visible fenfible bodies, the grain fown, and the corn grown up to ear; with neither of which this infenfible embryonated plant can be the fame body, unless an insensible body can be the fame body with a sensible body, and a little body can be the fame body with one ten thoufand, or an hundred thousand times as big as itself. So that yet, I confefs, I see not the resurrection of the fame body proved, from these words of St. Paul, to be an article of faith.

Your lordship goes on: *"St. Paul indeed faith, That we fow not that body that shall be; but he speaks not of the identity, but the perfection of it." Here my understanding fails me again': for I cannot understand St. Paul to fay, That the fame identical fenfible grain of wheat, which was sown at seed-time, is the very fame with every grain of wheat in the ear at harvest, that sprang from it: yet fo I must understand it, to make it prove, that the fame sensible body, that is laid in the grave, shall be the very fame with that which shall be raised at the refurrection. For I do not know of any feminal body in little, contained in the dead carcass of any man or woman, which, as your lordship fays, in feeds, having its proper organical parts, fhall afterwards be enlarged, and at the refurrection grow up into the fame man. For I never thought of any feed, or feminal parts, either of plant or animal, "fo wonderfully improv ed by the providence of God," whereby the fame plant or animal should beget itself; nor ever heard, that it was by divine Providence defigned to produce the fame individual, but for the producing of future and distinct individuals, for the continuation of the same species.

Your lordship's next words are, +" And although there be fuck a difference from the grain itself, when it comes up to be perfect corn, with root, stalk, blade, and ear, that it may be said to outward appearance not to be the fame body; yet with regard to the feminal and organical parts it is as much the fame, as a man

grown up, is the same with the embryo in the womb." Anfwer. It does not appear by any thing I can find in the text, that St. Paul here compared the body produced, with the seminal and organical parts contained in the grain it sprang from, but with the whole fenfible grain that was grown. Microscopes had not then discovered the little embryo plant in the feed: and supposing it fhould have been revealed to St. Paul (though in the scripture we find little revelation of natural philosophy) yet an argument taken from a thing perfectly unknown to the Corinthians whom he writ to, could be of no manner of use to them: nor ferve at all either to instruct or to convince them. But granting that thofe St. Paul writ to, knew it as well as Mr. Lewenhoek; yet your lordship thereby proves not the raising of the same body; your lordship says, it is as much the fame [I crave leave to add body]" as a man grown up in the same" (fame what, I beseech your lordship?) "with the embryo in the womb." For that the body of the embryo in the womb, and body of the man grown up, is the fame body, I think no one will say; unless he can persuade himself, that a body that is not the hundredth part of another, is the same with that other; which I think no one will do, till having renounced this dangerous way by ideas of thinking and reasoning, he has learnt to say, that a part and the whole are the fame.

Your lordship goes on, *«And although many arguments may be used to prove, that a man is not the fame, because life, which depends upon the course of the blood, and the manner of respiration, and nutrition, is fo different in both ftates; yet that man would be thought ridiculous, that should seriously affirm, That it was not the fame man. And your lordship says, I grant that the variation of great parcels of matter in plants, alters not the identity: and that the organization of the parts in one coherent body, partaking of one common life, makes the identity of a plant." Answer. My lord, I think the question is not about the fame man, but the fame body. For though I do say, † (fumewhat differently from what your lordship fets down as my words here) “That that which has fuch an organization, as is fit to receive and distribute nourishment, so as to continue and frame the wood, bark, and leaves, &c. of a plant, in which confifts the vegetable life, continues to be the fame plant, as long as it partakes of the fame life, though that life be communicated to new particles of matter, vitally united to the living plant:" yet I do not remember, that I any where fay, That a plant, which was once no bigger than an oaten straw, and afterwards grows to be above a fathom about, is the fame body, though it be ftill the fame plant.

The well-known tree in Epping Forest, called the King's Oak, which from not weighing an ounce at first, grew to have many tons of timber in it, was all along the fame oak, the very same plant; but nobody, I think, will say that it was the fame body when it weighed a ton, as it was when it weighed but an ounce, unless he has a mind to signalize himself by saying, That that is the fame body, which has a thousand particles of different matter in it, for one particle that is the fame; which is no better than to fay, That a thousand different particles are but one and the fame particle, and one and the fame particle is a Effay, b. 2. c. 27. § 4

* 2d Anf.

thousand different particles; a thousand times a greater abfurdity, than to say half is whole, or the whole is the fame with the half; which will be improved ten thousand times yet farther, if a man fhall fay (as your lordfhip feems to me to argue here) That that great oak is the very fame body with the acorn it fprang from, because there was in that acorn an oak in little, which was afterwards (as your lordship expreffes it) fo much enlarged, as to make that mighty tree. For this embryo, if may fo call it, or oak in little, being not the hundredth, or perhaps the thousandth part of the acorn, and the acorn be ing not the thousandth part of the grown oak, it will be very extraordinary to prove the acorn and the grown oak to be the fame body, by a way wherein it cannot be pretended, that above one particle of an hundred thousand, or a million, is the fame in the one body that it was in the other. From which way of reasoning, it will follow, that a nurse and her fucking child have the fame body, and he past doubt, that a mother and her infant have the fame body. But this is a way of certainty found out to establish the articles of faith, and to overturn the new method of certainty that your lordship says, “ I have started, which is apt to leave men's minds more doubtful than before."

And now I defire your lordship to confider of what ufe it is to you in the prefent cafe, to quoté out of my effay these words, "That partaking of one common life, makes the identity of a plant;" fince the question is not about the identity of a plant, but about the identity of a body; it being a very different thing to be the fame plant, and to be the fame body. For that which makes the fame plant, does not make the fame body; the one being the partaking in the fame continued vegetable life, the other the confisting of the same numerical particles of matter. And therefore your lordship's inference from my words above quoted, in thefe which you fubjoin, * seems to me a very strange one, viz. "So that in things capable of any fort of life, the identity is confiftent with a continued fucceffion of parts; and fo the wheat grown up, is the same body with the grain that was sown." For I believe, if my words, from which you infer, "And fo the wheat grown up is the fame body with the grain that was fown," were put into a fyllogifm, this would hardly be brought to be the conclufion.

But your lordship goes on with confequence upon confequence, though I have not eyes acute enough every where to fee the connexion, till you bring it to the refurrection of the same body. The connexion of your lordship's words † is as followeth ; "And thus the alteration of the parts of the body at the refurrection, is confiftent with its identity, if its organization and life be the fame ; and this is a real identity of the body, which depends not upon consciousness. From whence it follows, that to make the fame body, no more is required, but reftoring life to the organized parts of it." If the question were about raising the fame plant, I do not say but there might be some appearance for making fuch an inference from my words as this, "Whence it follows, that to make the fame plant, no more is required, but to restore life to the organized parts of it." But this deduction, wherein, from those words of mine that speak only of the identity of a plant, your lordship infers, there is no more required to * 2d Anf. + ibid.

make the same body, than to make the same plant, being too fubtle for me, I leave to my reader to find out.

Your lordship goes on and says,* That I grant likewise, "That the identity of the fame man confists in a participation of the fame continued life, by con ftantly fleeting particles of matter in fucceffion, vitally united to the fame organized body." Anfwer. I speak in these words of the identity of the fame man, and your lordship thence roundly concludes; " fo that there is no difficulty of the fameness of the body." But your lordship knows, that I do not take these two sounds, man and body, to stand for the same thing, nor the identity of the man to be the same with the identity of the body.

But let us read out your lordfhip's words. "So that there is no difficulty as to the fameness of the body, if life were continued; and if, by divine power, life be restored to that material substance which was before united, by a reunion of the foul to it, there is no reason to deny the identity of the body, not from the consciousness of the foul, but from that life which is the refult of the union of the foul and body."

If I understand your lordship right, you in these words, from the paffages above quoted out of my book, argue, that from those words of mine it will follow, that it is or may be the same body, that is raised at the refurrection. If fo, my lord, your lordship has then proved, that my book is not inconsistent with, but conformable to this article of the refurrection of the fame body, which your lordship contends for, and will have to be an article of faith: for though I do by no means deny that the fame bodies shall be raised at the last day, yet I fee nothing your lordship has faid to prove it to be an article of faith.

But your lordship goes on with your proofs and fays, " But St. Paul still fuppofes, that it must be that material substance to which the foul was before united. For, faith he, " it is fown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption, it is fown in difhonor, it is raised in glory: it is fown in weakness, it is raised in power it is fown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Can fuch a material substance, which was never united to the body, be faid to be sown in corruption, and weakness, and dishonor? either, therefore, he must speak of the fame body, or his meaning cannot be comprehended." I answer, " Can fuch a material substance, which was never laid in the grave, be faid to be fown," &c.? For your lordship says, § "You do not say the fame individual particles, which were united at the point of death, shall be raised at the last day;" and no other particles are laid in the grave, but such as are united at the point of death; either therefore your lordship must speak of another body, different from that which was sown, which shall be raised, or else your meaning, I think, cannot be comprehended.

But whatever be your meaning, your lordship proves it to be St. Paul's meaning, That the fame body shall be raised, which was fown, in these following words, "For what does all this relate to a conscious principle?" Anf. The fcripture being express, that the fame person should be raised and appear be

fore the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may receive according to what he had done in his body; it was very well suited to common apprehenfions (which refined not about "particles that had been vitally united to the foul") to speak of the body which each one was to have after the refurrection, as he would be apt to speak of it himself. For it being his body both before and after the refurrection, every one ordinarily speaks of his body as the fame, though in a strict and philosophical sense, as your lordship speaks, it be not the very fame. Thus it is no impropriety of speech to fay," this body of mine, which was formerly strong and plump, is now `weak and wasted,” though in such a fense as you are speaking here, it be not the fame body. Revelation declares nothing any where concerning the fame body in your lordship's sense of the fame body, which appears not to have been thought of. The apostle directly proposes nothing for or against the same body, as neceffary to be believed: that which he is plain and direct in, is his oppofing and condemning fuch curious questions about the body, which could ferve only to perplex, not to confirm what was material and neceffary for them to believe, viz. a day of judgement and retribution to men in a future state; and therefore it is no wonder, that mentioning their bodies, he should use a way of speaking fuited to vulgar notions, from which it would be hard pofitively to conclude any thing for the determining of this question (especially against expreffions in the fame difcourfe that plainly incline to the other fide) in a matter which, as it appears, the apostle thought not neceffary to determine, and the spirit of God thought not fit to gratify any one's curiofity 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 immortality;" 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 exprefsly it is affirmed by the apostle, shall be confidered by and by. In the mean time, it is past doubt, that your lordship best knows what you do or do not fee. But this would be bold to fay, that if St. Paul had any where in this chapter (where there are so many occafions for it, if it had been neceffary to have been believed) but faid in express words that the fame bodies should be raised, every one elfe, who thinks of it, will fee he had more exprefsly affirmed the identity of the bodies which men now have, with those they shall have after the refurrection.

The remainder of your lordship's period † is; "And that without any refpect to the principle of felf-confcioufnefs." Anf. These words, I doubt not, have fome meaning, but I must own I know not what; either towards the proof of the refurrection of the fame body, or to fhow, 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,