stance, 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 vi tally 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 an 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 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, 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 an 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 suc cessively 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 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.

* 2d Ans.

says

Again, your lordship says,*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. + That you do not say the same particles the sinner had at the very time of 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 con'tent 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 vi tally united to the soul? For it must be so, as your lordship says, 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 bigger, 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 de'manded.

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 || to those who make such an inquiry. • But some men 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 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 suffices, that all

* 2d Answ. + Ibid. VOL. I.

Ibid.
A a

1 Cor. xv. 35, &c.

the

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 said nothing 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, 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?' Answ. Just as it may be said of a man at an 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.' Answ. 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, † If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is not Christ 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 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 be lieve, 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 scarce reconcileable with what your lordship says, || of a fat man falling into a consumption, and dying.

But whether it will consist or no 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 body they had at their death, contrary to what your lordship says concerning a fat man

* 2d Answ. + 2 Cor. xv. 16. † 2d Answ.

|| Ibid.

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 intire as it was laid there, had been to destroy his body to fame him a new one without any need. But why with the remaining particles of a man's body long since dissolved and mouldered 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 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 Sa+ viour'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 shewed himself, and who were to be witnesses of his re sur rection, 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 satis faction that it was really he, the same, and not another, nor 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 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 intire, 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 ap pear, 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.

Your lordship asks, Were 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 rei, ther be seen or known to be the same; 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 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 give to every one of them a body, just of the same figure, size, and features, and made up of the very same individual parti cles 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 resurrec tion of the dead, I shall leave to the judgment of others.

Farther, for the proving the resurrection of the same body, to be an article of faith, your lordship says, 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; + because he rose, as the first-fruits; Christ, the first-fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming' Answ. 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 con curred to the making up of our body here, without the mixture of any one other particle of matter? I confess I see no such consequence.

But your lordship goes on: 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 under. stand, what it is for the seminal parts of plants to be wonderfully im proved 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, 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 your lordship, is an identity of the ma terial substance supposed.' It may be so. But to 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 all together, run thus, That which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body which shall be, but bare grain;' and so on, as your lordship has set down in the remainder of them. From which words of St, Paul, the natural argu ment 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.

2d Answ.

+ Cor. xv. 20, 23.