Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 be 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 resurrection) that their bodies arose; because they were the same that were then lying in their graves, the moment before they arose.

"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 it 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 understanding 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 bodies or not?

"I know your lordship pretends not to erect your particular interpretations of Scripture into articles of faith. And if you do not, he that believes the dead shall be raised, believes that article of faith that the Scripture proposes; and cannot be accused of holding any thing inconsistent 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 faith.

"But your lordship argues, It must be the same body; which, as you explain same body, (a) 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: 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 particles of matter which were some time or other, during his life here, vitally united to his soul.

"Your first argument to prove that it must be the same body, in this sense of the same body, is taken from these words of our Saviour, (b) All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth:' (c) 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 graves, 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 different 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 substance 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, (d) 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 necessary to be received as their true sense, is, that it will not be very easily reconciled to your saying, (e) 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. (ƒ) 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 wrote, of) those individual particles, i.e. those individual particles that are in the grave at the resurrection. For so they must be read, to make your lordship'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 them 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

(a) Second answer.
(d) Ibid.

(b) John, v. 28, 29.
(e) Second answer.

(c) Second answer.
(f) Ibid.

the grave, which was never in the grave. There (as far as I can understand your words) your lordship argues, 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 substance which never was in the grave may come out of it. And here, your 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 which 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: (a) '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: (b) 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 committed them; because St. Paul does not say he shall have the very same body when he suffers, that he had when he sinned. The apostle says, 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 broken 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 particles of matter that that body was which he had forty years before. When your lordship has resolved with yourself, what that same immutable 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 petticoats, 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, (c) 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; (d) 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 substance, or the same body, it will, I think, thence follow that either the sinner must have all the same individual particles vitally united to his soul when he is raised, that he had vitally united to his soul when he sinned; or else St. Paul's words here cannot be understood to mean the same body in which the things were done. For if there were other particles of matter in the body, wherein the things were done, than in that which is raised, that which is raised cannot be the same body in which they were done: unless that alone, which has just all the same individual particles when any action is done, being the same body wherein it was done, that also, which has not the same individual particles wherein that action was done, can be the same body wherein it was done; which is, in effect, to make the same body sometimes to be the same, and sometimes not the same.

"Your lordship thinks it suffices to make the same body to have not all, but no other particles of matter, but such as were some time or other vitally united to the soul before; but such a body, made up of part of the particles some time or other vitally united to the soul, is no more the same body, wherein the actions were done in the distant parts of the long sinner's life, than that is the same body in which a quarter, or half, or three quarters of the same particles, that made it up, are wanting. For example, A sinner has acted here in his body a hundred years; he is raised at the last day, but with what body? The same, says your lordship, that he acted in; because St. Paul says, he must receive the things done in his body. What, therefore, must

(a) 2 Cor. v. 10.

(b) Second answer.

(c) Ibid.

(d) Ibid.

his body at the resurrection consist of? Must it consist of all the particles of matter that have ever been vitally united to his soul? For they, in succession, have all of them made up his body, wherein he did these things: No,' says your lordship, (a) that would make his body too vast; it suffices to make the same body in which the things were done, that it consists of some of the particles, and no other, but such as were, some time during his life, vitally united to his soul.' But, according to this account, his body at the resurrection being, as your lordship seems to limit it, near the same size it was in some part of his life, it will be no more the same body in which the things were done in the distant parts of his life, than that is the same body in which half, or three quarters, or more, of the individual matter that then made it up, is now wanting. For example, let his body at fifty years old, consist of a million of parts; five hundred thousand at least of those parts will be different from those which made up his body at ten years, and at a hundred. So that to take the numerical particles that made up his body at fifty, or any other season of his life, or to gather them promiscuously out of those which at different times have successively been vitally united to his soul, they will no more make the same body, which was his, wherein some of his actions were done, than that is the same body which has but half the same particles: and yet all your lordship's argument here for the same body is, because St. Paul says, 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 soul when the action was done.

[ocr errors]

“Again, your lordship says: (b) · That you do not say the same individual particles [shall make up the body at the resurrection] 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.' Because, it is likely, your lordship thinks, these particles of a decrepit, wasted, withered body, would be too few, or unfit to make such a plump, strong, vigorous, well-sized body, as it has pleased your lordship to proportion out in your thoughts to men at the resurrection; and, therefore, some small portion of the particles formerly united vitally to that man's soul, shall be reassumed 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.: (c) That you do not say the same particles the sinner had at the very time of the commission of his sins; for then a long sinner must have a vast body.'

"But then, pray, my lord, what must an embryo do, who dying within a few hours after his body was vitally united to his soul, 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 resurrection? Or, must we believe he shall 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 resurrection of the very same body, i. e. made up of only such particles as have been vitally united to the soul? For if it be so, as your lordship says, (d) 'That life is the result of the union of soul and body,' it will follow, that the body of an embryo, dying in the womb, may be very little, not the thousandth part of any ordinary man. For since from the first conception and beginning of formation it has life, and life is the result of the union of the soul 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, must, 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 soul, to make him larger, and no other can be made use of to that purpose: though what greater congruity the soul hath with any particles of matter which were once vitally united to it, but are now so no longer, than it hath with particles of matter which it was never united to, would be hard to determine, if that should be demanded.

"By these, and not a few other the like consequences, one may see what service they do to religion and the Christian doctrine, who raise questions, and make articles of faith, about the resurrection of the same body, where the Scripture says nothing of the same body; or, if it does, it is with no small reprimand (e) to those who make such an inquiry. 'But some man will say, how are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest, is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain; it may chance of wheat, or 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 suffices, that all the dead shall be raised, and every one appear and answer for the things done in this life, and receive according to the things he hath done in his body, whether good or bad. He that believes this, and has said nothing (a) Second answer. (b) Ibid. (c) Ibid. (d) Ibid. (e) 1 Cor. xv. 35, &c.

inconsistent herewith, I presume may, and must, be acquitted from being guilty of any thing inconsistent with the article of the resurrection of the dead.

"But your lordship, to prove the resurrection of the same body to be an article of faith, farther asks, (a) How could it be said, if any other substance be joined to the soul at the resurrection, as its body, that they were the things done in or by the body?' Answer. Just as it may be said of a man at a hundred years old, that hath then another substance joined to his soul, 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 see. "Your lordship adds, 'and St. Paul's dispute about the manner of raising the body, might soon have ended, if there were no necessity of the same body.' Answer. When I understand what argument there is in these words to prove the resurrection of the same body, without the mixture of one new atom of matter, I shall know what to say 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 said, that there was a necessity of the same body, or that it should be the same body.

"The next_text of Scripture you bring for the same body is, (b) If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is not Christ raised.' From which your lordship argues, (c) 'It seems, then, other bodies are to be raised as his was.' I grant other dead, as certainly raised as Christ was; for else his resurrection would be of no use to mankind. But I do not see how it follows, that they shall be raised with the same 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 same material substance which was united to his soul before?' I answer, None at all; nor that it had just the same distinguishing lineaments and marks, yea, and the same 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 sameness; then we must believe, that every man shall be raised with the same lineaments and other notes of distinction he had at the time of his death, even with his wounds yet open, if he had any, because our Saviour was so raised, which seems to me scarcely reconcilable with what your lordship says, (d) of a fat man falling into a consumption and dying.

"But whether it will consist or not with your lordship's meaning in that place, this to me seems a consequence that will need to be better proved, viz. That our bodies must be raised the same, just as our Saviour's was: because St. Paul says, if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is not Christ risen.' For it may be a good consequence, Christ is risen, and, therefore, there shall be a resurrection of the dead; and yet this may not be a good consequence, Christ was raised with the same body he had at his death, therefore, all men shall be raised with the same bodies they had at their death, contrary to what your lordship says concerning a fat man dying of a consumption. But the case, I think, far different betwixt our Saviour and those to be raised at the last day.

"1. His body saw 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 since dissolved and moulded into dust and atoms, (whereof, possibly, 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 serve to show, why, though the materials of our Saviour's body were not changed at his resurrection; 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 several new particles in it, and that without any inconvenience: since whatever matter is vitally united to his soul, is his body, as much as is that which was united with 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 Saviour'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 Saviour, the same they were at his death, to be a conviction to his disciples, to whom he showed himself, and who were to be witnesses of his resurrection, that their master, the very same 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 satisfaction that it was really he, the same, and not another, not a spectre 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 (a) Second answer. (b) 2 Cor. xv. 16. (c) Second answer. (d) Ibid,

drink after they are raised from the dead; which seems 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 souls, without the least mixture of any one single atom of new matter. But at the last day, when all men are raised, there will be no need to be assured of any one particular man's resurrection. It is enough that every one shall appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, to receive according to what he had done in his former life; but in what sort of body he shall appear, or of what particles made up, the Scripture having said nothing, but that it shall be a spiritual body raised in incorruption, it is not for me to determine.

[ocr errors]

"Your lordship asks, (a) Where they (who saw our Saviour after his resurrection) witnesses only of some material substance then united to his soul?' In answer, I beg your lordship to consider, whether you suppose our Saviour was to be known to be the same man (to the witnesses that were to see him, and testify his resurrection) by his soul, that could neither be seen or known to be the same: or by his body, that could be seen, and When your by the discernible structure and marks of it, be known to be the same? lordship has resolved that, all that you say in that page will answer itself. But because one man cannot know another to be the same, but by the outward visible lineaments, and sensible 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 gives to every one of them a body just of the same figure, size, and features, and made up of the very same individual particles he had in his former life? Whether such a way of arguing for the resurrection of the same body, to be an article of faith, contributes much to the strengthening the credibility of the article of the resurrection of the dead, I shall leave to the judgment of others.

[ocr errors]

"Farther, for the proving the resurrection of the same body, to be an article of faith, your lordship says, (b) But the apostle insists upon the resurrection of Christ, not merely as an argument of the possibility of ours, but of the certainty of it, (c) because he rose as the first-fruits; Christ the first-fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming.' Answer. No doubt, the resurrection of Christ is a proof of the certainty of our resurrection. But is it, therefore, a proof of the resurrection of the same body, consisting of the same individual particles, which concurred to the making up of our body here, I confess I see no such conwithout the mixture of any other particle of matter?

sequence.

"But your lordship goes on: :(d) 'St. Paul was aware of the objections in men's minds about the resurrection of the same body; and it is of great consequence as to this article, to show upon what grounds he proceeds: 'But some men will say, how are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?' First, he shows, that the seminal parts of plants are wonderfully improved by the ordinary Providence of God, in the manner of their vegetation.' Answer. I do not perfectly understand, what it is for the seminal parts of plants to be wonderfully improved by the ordinary Providence of God, in the manner of their vegetation;' or else, perhaps, I should better see how this here tends to the proof of the resurrection of the same body in your lordship's sense.

"It continues, (e) 'They sow bare grain of wheat, or of some other grain, but God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. Here,' says But to your lordship, is an identity of the material substance supposed.' It may be so.

me, a diversity of the material substance, i. e. of the component particles, is here supposed, or in direct words said. For the words of St. Paul taken altogether run thus: (f) "That which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain:' and From which words of St. so on, as your lordship has set down in the remainder of them. Paul, the natural argument seems to me to stand thus: If the body that is put in the earth in sowing, is not that body which shall be, then the body that is put in the grave is not that, i. e. the same body that shall be.

"But your lordship proves it to be the same body, by these three Greek words of the text To lolov σwua, which your lordship interprets thus: (g) That proper body which belongs to it.' Answer. Indeed by those Greek words, rò totov oua, whether our translators 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 seed, God continued every species distinct: so that from grains of wheat sown, root, stalk, blade, ear, grains of wheat were produced, and not those of barley, and so of the rest, which I took to be the meaning of to every seed his

(a) Second answer. (e) Ibid.

(b) Ibid.

(ƒ) V. 37.

(c) 1 Cor. xv. 20. 23. (d) Second answer. (g) Second answer.

R

« PreviousContinue »