But your lordship proves it to be the fame body by these three Greek words of the text, Tido opa, which your lordship interprets thus, That proper body which belongs to it.' Answer. Indeed by those Greek words to do opa, whether our tranflators 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 feed, God continued every Species diftinct; fo that from grains of wheat fown, root, ftalk, blade, ear, grains of wheat were produced, and not those of barley; and fo of the reft, which I took to be the meaning of to every feed his own body.' No, fays your lordship, thefe words prove, That to every plant of wheat, and to every grain of wheat produced in it, is given the per body that belongs to it, which is the fame body with the grain that was fown. Answer. This, I confefs, I do not understand; because I do not understand how one individual grain can be the fame with twenty, fifty, or an hundred individual grains; for fuch fometimes is the increase. pro But your lordship proves it. For, fays your lordship, + Every feed having that body in little, which is afterwards fo much enlarged; and in grain the feed is corrupted before its germination; but it hath its proper organical parts, which make it the fame body with that which it grows up to. For although grain be not divided into lobes, as other feeds are, yet it hath been found, by the most accurate obfervations, that upon feparating the membranes, these feminal parts are difcerned in them; which afterwards grow up to that body which we call corn, In which words I crave leave to obferve, that your lordship fuppofes that a body may be enlarged by the addition of an hundred or a thoufand times as much in bulk as its own matter, and yet continue the fame body; which, I confefs, I cannot understand. But in the next place, if that could be fo; and that the plant, in its full growth at harveft, increased by a thousand or a million of times as much new matter added to it, as it had when it lay in little concealed in the grain that was fown, was the very fame body; yet I do not think that your lordship will fay, that every minute, infenfible, and inconceivably fmall grain of the hundred grains, contained in that little organized feminal plant, is every one of them the very fame with that grain which contains that whole feminal plant, and all thofe invifible grains in it. For then it will follow, that one grain is the fame with an hundred, and an hundred diftinct grains the fame with one: which I shall be able to affent to, when I can conceive, that all the wheat in the world is but one grain. And For I befeech you, my lord, confider what it is St. Paul here fpeaks of: it is plain he fpeaks of that which is fown and dies, i. e. the grain that the husband man takes out of his barn to fow in his field. of this grain St. Paul fays, that it is not that body that shall be.' Thefe two, viz. that which is fown, and that body that fhall be,' are all the bodies that St. Paul here fpeaks of, to reprefent the agreement or difference of men's bodies after the refurrection, with thofe they had before they died. Now, I crave leave to ask your lordship, which of these two is that little invifible feminal plant, which your lordship here fpeaks of ? * 2d Anfw. + Ibid, Does your lordship mean by it the grain that is fown? But that is not what St. Paul fpeaks 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 says muft die: but this little embryonated plant, contained 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 fhall be,' can St. Paul be fuppofed 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 shall be. And therefore, 1 confefs, I cannot fee of what ufe it is to your lordfhip 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 thofe which St. Paul fpeaks of, are, as I humbly conceive, these two vifible sensible 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 infenfible body can be the fame body with a fenfible body, and a little body can be the fame body with one ten thousand, or an hundred thoufand times as big as itself. So that yet, I confefs, I fee not the refurrection 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 fhall 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 fown at feed-time, is the very fame with every grain of wheat in the ear at harvest, that fprang from it: yet fo I must understand it, to make it prove, that the fame fenfible body, that is laid in the grave, shall be the very fame with that which fhall be raised at the refurrection. For I do not know of any feminal body in little, contained in the dead carcafe 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 improved by the Providence of God,' whereby the fame plant or animal fhould beget itfelf; 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 fame fpecies. Your lordship's next words are, And although there be fuch a difference from the grain itfelf, when it comes up to be perfect corn, with root, ftalk, blade, and ear, that it may be faid 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 fame 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 feminal and organical parts contained in the grain it fprang from, but with the whole fenfible grain that was grown. Microfcopes had not then difcovered the little embryo plant in the feed: and fuppofing it fhould have been revealed to St. Paul (though in the fcripture we find little revelation of natural philofophy) yet an argument taken from a thing perfectly unknown to the Corinthians, whom he writ to, could be of no 2d Anfw. + Ibid. manner manner of use to them; nor ferve at all either to inftruct or convince them. But granting that thofe St. Paul writ to, knew it as well as Mr. Lewenhoek; yet your lordship thereby proves not the raifing of the fame body; your lordship fays, it is as much the fame [I crave leave to add body] as a man grown up is the fame' (fame what, I befeech your lordfhip) 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 fay; unless he can perfuade himself, that a body that is not the hundredth part of another, is the fame 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 ufed to prove, that a man is not the fame, becaufe life, which depends upon the course of the blood, and the manner of refpiration, and nutrition, is fo different in both ftates; yet that man would be thought ridiculous, that fhould feriouly affirm, That it was not the fame man. And your lordship fays, 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 fay, + (fomewhat differently from what your lordship fets down as my words here) That that which has fuch an organization, as is fit to receive and diftribute nourishment, fo 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 ftraw, 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 Foreft, 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 fame plant; but nobody, I think, will fay 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 fignalize himself by faying, That that is the fame body, which has a thoufand 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 thousand different particles; a thoufand times a greater abfurdity, than to fay 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 expreffus it) fo much enlarged, as to make that mighty tree, For this embryo, if I may fo call it, or oak in little, being not the hundredth, or perhaps the thoufandth part of the acorn, and the acorn being not the thfandth 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 • ad Anfw, + Effay, b. 2. c. 27. §. 4. A a 4 pretended 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 reafoning, it will follow, that a nurfe and her fucking child have the fame body, and be paft 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 fays 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 quote out of my Ellay thefe words, That partaking of one common life, makes the identity of a plant;' fince the queftion 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 confifting of the fame numerical particles of matter. And therefore your lordship's inference from my words above quoted, in thefe which you fubjoin*, feems to me a very ftrange 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 fame body with the grain that was fown.' 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 fyllogifin, 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 fame body. The connexion of your lordhip'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 queftion were about raifing the fame plant, I do not fay but there might be fome 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 thofe words of mine that fpeak only of the identity of a plant, your lordship infers, there is no more required to make the fame body, than to make the fame plant, being too fubtle for me, I leave to my reader to find out. Your lordship goes on and fays, That I grant likewife, That the identity of the fame man confifts in a participation of the fame continued life, by conftantly fleeting particles of matter in fucceffion, vitally united to the fame organized body.' Anfwer. I fpeak 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 thefe two founds, man and body, to ftand for the fame thing, nor the identity of the man to be the fame with the identity of the body. But let us read out your lordship's words. So that there is no dif ficulty as to the fameness of the body, if life were continued; and if, by • 3d Anf. + Ibid. + Ibid. Ibid. divine power, life be restored to that material fubftance 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 fame body, that is raised at the refurrection. If fo, my lord, your lordship has then proved, That my book is not inconfiftent 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 fhall 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 ftill fuppofes, that it must be that material fubftance to which the foul was before united. For, faith he, "it is fown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is fown in difhonour, 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 fpiritual body." Can fuch a material substance, which was never united to the body, be faid to be fown in corruption, and weakness, and difhonour? Either, therefore, he must speak of the fame body, or his meaning cannot be comprehended.' I anfwer, Can fuch a material fubftance, which was never laid in the grave, be faid to be fown,' &c.? For your lordship fays, + You do not fay the fame individual particles, which were united at the point of death, shall be raised at the laft day;' and no other particles are laid in the grave, but fuch as are united at the point of death; either therefore your lordship must speak of another body, different from that which was fown, 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 fhall be raised, which was fown, in these following words, For what does all this relate to a confcious principle?" Anfw. The fcripture being exprefs, that the fame person should be raised and appear before the judgment-feat of Chrift, that every one may receive according to what he had done in his body; it was very well fuited to common apprehenfions (which refined not about particles that had been vitally united to the foal') 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 fpeaks of his body as the fame, though in a strict and philofophical fenfe, as your lordship fpeaks, it be not the very fame. Thus it is no impropriety of speech to fay, this body of mine, which was formerly ftrong and plump, is now weak and wafted,' though in fuch a fenfe as you are fpeaking here, it be not the fame body. Revelation declares nothing any where concerning the fame body, in your lordship's fenfe of the fame body, which appears not to have been thought of. The apoftle directly propofes nothing for or against the fame 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 necessary for them to believe, viz. a day of judgment and retribution to men in a future ftate; and therefore it is * 2d Anf. † Ibid. Ibid. no |