Your lordship goes on: *St. Paul indeed saith, That we sow 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 say, That the same identical sensible grain of wheat, which was sown at seed-time, is the very same with every grain of wheat in the ear at harvest, that sprang from it: yet so I must understand it, to make it prove that the same sensible body, that is laid in the grave, shall be the very same with that which shall be raised at the resurrection. For I do not know of any seminal body in little, contained in the dead carcass of any man or woman, which, as your lordship says, in seeds, having its proper organical parts, shall afterwards be enlarged, and at the resurrection grow up into the same man. For I never thought of any seed or seminal parts, either of plant or animal, "so wonderfully improved by the Providence of God," whereby the same plant or animal should beget itself; nor ever heard, that it was by Divine Providence designed to produce the same 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 such 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 same body; yet with regard to the seminal and organical parts it is as much the same as a man grown up is the same with the embryo in the womb." Answer. 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 sensible grain that was grown. Microscopes had not then discovered the little embryo plant in the seed: and supposing it should 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 serve at all either to instruct or convince them. But granting that those St. Paul writ to knew it as well as Mr. Lewenhock, yet your lordship thereby proves not the raising of the same body: your lordship says, it is as much the same [I crave leave to add body]" as a man grown up is the same" (same 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 same 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 same. Your lordship goes on, "And although many arguments may 2d Answer. + Ibid. + Ibid. be used to prove that a man is not the same, because life, which depends upon the course of the blood, and the manner of respiration and nutrition, is so different in both states; yet that man would be thought ridiculous that should seriously affirm that it was not the same man." And your lordship says, "I grant that the variation of great parcels of matter in plants alters not the identity: and that the organisation 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 same man, but the same body. For though I do say (somewhat differently from what your lordship sets down as my words here), "That that which has such an organisation 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 consists the vegetable life, continues to be the same plant, as long as it partakes of the same 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 say, That a plant, which was once no bigger than an oaten straw, and afterwards grows to be above a fathom about, is the same body, though it be still the same 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 same oak, the very same plant; but nobody, I think, will say that it was the same 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 same body which has a thousand particles of different matter in it, for one particle that is the same; which is no better than to say, That a thousand different particles are but one and the same particle, and one and the same particle is a thousand different particles; a thousand times a greater absurdity than to say half is whole, or the whole is the same with the half; which will be improved ten thousand times yet farther, if a man shall say (as your lordship seems to me to argue here), That that great oak is the very same body with the acorn it sprang from, because there was in that acorn an oak in little, which was afterwards (as your lordship expresses it) so much enlarged, as to make that mighty tree. For this embryo, if I may so call it, or oak in little, being not the hundredth, or perhaps the thousandth part of the acorn, and the acorn being not the thousandth part of the grown oak, it will be very extraordinary to prove the acorn and the grown oak to be the same body, by a way wherein it cannot be pretended that above one particle of an hundred thousand, or a million, is the same in the one body that it was in the other. From which way of reasoning it will follow, that a nurse and her sucking child have the same body, and be past doubt that a mother and her infant have the same 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 desire your lordship to consider of what use it is to you in the present case to quote out of my Essay these words, "That partaking of one common life makes the identity of a plant;" since 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 same plant, and to be the same body. For that which makes the same plant does not make the same body; the one being the partaking in the same continued vegetable life, the other the consisting of the same numerical particles of matter. And therefore your lordship's inference from my words above quoted, in these which you subjoin*, seems to me a very strange one, viz. "So that in things capable of any sort of life, the identity is consistent with a continued succession of parts; and so 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 so the wheat grown up is the same body with the grain that was sown," were put into a syllogism, this would hardly be brought to be the conclusion. But your lordship goes on with consequence upon consequence, though I have not eyes acute enough every where to see the connexion, till you bring it to the resurrection of the same body. The connexion of your lordship's words t is as followeth : " And thus the alteration of the parts of the body at the resurrection is consistent with its identity, if its organisation and life be the same; and this is a real identity of the body, which depends not upon consciousness. From whence it follows, that to make the same body, no more is required but restoring life to the organised parts of it." If the question were about raising the same plant, I do not say but there might be some appearance for making such an inference from my words as this: "Whence it follows, that to make the same plant, no more is required but to restore life to the organised 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 make the same body than to make the same plant, being too subtle 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 same man consists in a participation of the same continued life, by constantly fleeting particles of matter in succession, vitally united to the same organised body." Answer. I speak in these words of the identity of the same man, and your lordship thence roundly concludest: So that there is no difficulty of the sameness 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. + Ibid. "So that there is But let us read out your lordship's words. 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 see nothing your lordship has said to prove it to be an article of faith. 6 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, "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 raised, which was sown, in these following words, § "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 judgment-seat 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 * 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, is his opposing and condemning such curious questions about the body, which could serve only to perplex, not to confirm what was material 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 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. see. 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 |