صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

But let us read out your lordship's words. ** So that there is no difficulty as to the sameness 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 re-union of the soul to it, there is no reason to deny the identity of the body, not from the consciousness of the soul, but from that life which is the result of the union of the soul and body.”

If I understand your lordship right, you in these words, from the passages 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 resurrection. If so, my lord, your lordship has then proved, that my book is not inconsistent with, but conformable to, this article of the resurrection of the same 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 same bodies shall be raised at the last day, yet

I

ee nothing your lordship has said to prove it to be an article of faith.

But your lordship goes on with your proofs and says, + "But St. Paul still supposes that it must be that material substance to which the soul was before united. • For,' saith he, it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. Can such a material substance, which was never united to the body, be said to be sown in corruption, and weakness, and dishonour? Either, therefore, he must speak of the same body, or his meaning cannot be comprehended." I answer, “ Can such a material substance, which was never laid in the grave, be said to be sown,” &c.? For your lordship says, I “You do not say the same 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 same body shall be sown, in these following words, g“ For what does all this relate to a conscious principle?" Answer. The scripture being express, that the same person should be raised and

appear

before the judgmentseat of Christ, that every one may receive according to what he had done in his body; it was very well suited to common apprehensions (which refined not about “ particles that had been vitally united to the soul”) to speak of the body which each one was to have after the resurrection, as he would be apt to speak of it himself. For it being his body both before and after the resurrection, every one ordinarily speaks of his body as the same, though in a

which was

* 2d Answer.

+ Ibid.

# Ibid.

§ Ibid.

strict and philosophical sense, as your lordship speaks, it be not the very same. Thus it is no impropriety of speech to say, “this body of mine, which was formerly strong and plump, is now weak and wasted,” though in such a sense as you are speaking here it be not the same body. Revelation declares nothing any where concerning the same body, in your lordship's sense of the same body, which appears not to have been thought of. The apostle directly proposes nothing for or against the same body, as necessary to be believed: that which he is plain and direct in, iş his opposing and condemning such curious questions about the body, which could serve only to perplex, not to confirm what was mater rial and necessary for them to believe, viz. a day of judgment 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 suited to vulgar notions, from which it would be hard positively to conclude 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 determine, 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 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 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 any where said, that the identity of body consisted in self-consciousness.

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 believed) 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." Answer. These words, I doubt not, have some meaning, but I must own I know not what; either towards the proof of the resurrection of the same body, or to show that any thing I have said concerning selfconsciousness, is inconsistent: for I do not remember that I have

see,

* 2d Answer.

+ Ibid.

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: “ nd so if the scripture, and your lordship's interpretation 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 to 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 understand the scripture, cannot but find himself obliged to believe as expressly, “ 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 discourse of St. Paul + 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 verpol, wavles, oi are the nominative cases to $ syei portal, ζωοποιηθησονται, εγερθήσονται, all along, and not σωμαία, bodies και which one may with reason think would somewhere or other have been 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, ş“ raise the dead, quicken or make alive the dead, the resurrection of the dead." Nay, these very words of our Saviour, || urged by your lordship for the resurrection of the same body, run thus : Πανλες οι εν τοις μνημείοις ακεσονίαι της φωνης αυτ8, και εκπορευσονται οι τα αγαθα ωοιησαντες εις αναςασιν ζωης, οι δε τα φαυλα πραξαντες εις αναςασιν κρισεως. Would not a well-meaning 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, wavla ta owuala

EY TOIS MY Lelois, 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

* 2d Answer. t I Cor. xv. I V. 15, 22, 23, 29, 32, 35, 52. § Matt. xxii. 31. Mark xii. 26. John v. 21. Acts xxvi. 7. Rom. iv. 17. 2 Cor. i. 9. 1 Thess. iv. 14, 16.

|| John v. 28, 29.

these words of the apostle, * “ But some men 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 run 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, quickening, rising, resurrection, &c. of the dead,” where the resurrection of the 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 flesh of beasts, fishes, and birds; or as the sun, moon, and stars are different one from another; or as different 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 flesh and blood cannot,” says St. Paul, in this very place, + inherit the 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 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 meanest capacities, nor for contest 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 gospel (who

* Ver. 35.

+ V, 50.

| 2nd Answer.

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? Now 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 can, with a guess, I will conjecture (which, in disputing with learned men, is not very safe) your lordship's meaning is, that “my idea of personal identity 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 “but” should, in the ordinary construction of our language, introduce, to make the proposition clear and intelligible: 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 ambiguity in any particle, fill up pages

in

my answer, to make my book look considerable 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: But any material substance 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;

* 2nd Answer.

« السابقةمتابعة »