From your preceding words, your lordship concludes thus: ** And so if the fcripture be the fole foundation of our faith, this is an article of it." My lord, to make the conclufion unquestionable, I humbly conceive the words must run thus: "And fo if the scripture, and your lordship's interpetration of it be the fole foundation of our faith, the refurrection of the same body is an article of it." For, with fubmiffion, your lordship has neither produced express words of fcripture for it, nor fo proved that to be the meaning of any of those words of fcripture which you have produced for it, that a man who reads and fincerely endeavors to understand the scripture, cannot but find himself obliged to believe, as expressly, “that the fame 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 fee, that he plainly distinguishes between the dead that shall be raised, and the bodies of the dead. For it is νεκροί πανίες, ο are the nominative cafes to † ἐγείρονται, ζωοποιηθήσονται εγερGrovla, all along, and not equala, bodies; which one may with reason think would fomewhere or other have been expressed, if all this had been said to propose it as an article of faith, that the very fame bodies should be raised. The fame manner of speaking the spirit of God obferves all through the New Testa. ment, where it is said, § « raise the dead, quicken or make alive the dead, the refurrection of the dead." Nay, these very words of our Savior, urged by your lordship for the refurrection of the same body, run thus, Ilavs di Ev tõïs μνημείοις ἀκέσονται τῆς φωνῆς ἀυΐς· καὶ ἐκπορευσωνται, οἱ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες εἰς ἀνάςασιν ζωῆς, οἱ δὲ τὰ φαυλα πράξαντες εἰς ανάςασιν πρίσεως. Would not a well-meaning fearcher of the scriptures be apt to think, that if the thing here intended by our Savior were to teach, and propose it as an article of faith, neceffary to be believed by every one, that the very fame bodies of the dead should be raised; would not, I fay, any one be apt to think, that if our Savior meant so, the words fhould rather have been, πάντα τὰ σωματα ἃ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις, i. e. “ all the bodies that are in the graves," rather than "all who are in the graves;" which must denote perfons, and not precisely bodies? Another evidence, that St. Paul makes a distinction between the dead and the bodies of the dead fo that the dead cannot be taken in this, 1 Cor. xv. to stand precifely for the bodies of the dead, are these words of the apostle, ¶ " But fome 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 feems to have no very agreeable sense. This therefore being fo, that the Spirit of God keeps fo exprefsly to this phrase, or form of speaking in the New Testament," of raising, quickening, rifing, refurrection, &c. of the dead," where the refurrection of the last day is † 1 Cor. xv. * Ibid. § Matt. xxii. 31. 2 Cor. i. 9. 1 Theff. iv. 14. 16. || John v. 28, 29. ‡ V, 15, 22, 23, 29, 32, 35, 52. John v. 21. Acts xvi. 7. Rom. iv. 17. ¶ Ver. 35. spoken of; and that the body is not mentioned, but in answer to this question, "With what bodies fhall those dead, who are raised, come?" so that by the dead cannot precisely be meant the dead bodies: I do not fee but a good Christian, who reads the scripture with an intention to believe all that is there revealed to him concerning the refurrection, may acquit himself of his duty therein, without entering into the inquiry, whether the dead shall have the very same bodies or no? Which fort of inquiry the apostle, by the appellation he bestows here on him that makes it, feems 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 favor of the very fame 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 fun, 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, fays 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 fuppofed 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 fame bodies that they had before in this life;" which article proposed in these or the like plain and exprefs words, could have left no room for doubt in the meaneft capacities, nor for contest in the most perverfe minds. Your lordship adds in the next words, ↑ « And fo it hath been always understood by the Christian church, viz. That the resurrection of the same body, in your lordship's sense of the fame 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 fince the preaching of the gospel, (who 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 recourfe to the fcripture to find them there, I do not fee, that they will eafily find there this proposed as an article of faith, that there shall be a refurrection of the same body; but that there shall be a refurrection of the dead, without explicitly determining, That they shall be raised with bodies made up wholly of the fame particles which were once vitally united to their fouls 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 fuppofing your lordship to have demonftrated this to be an article of faith, though I crave leave to own, that I do not fee, that all that your lordship has faid here, makes it fo much as probable; What is all this to me? Yes, fays your lordship in the following words, "My idea of perfonal identity is inconsistent with it, for it makes the fame body which was here united to the soul, * V. 50. + 2d Anf. Ibid, not to be neceffary to the doctrine of the refurrection. But any material fubstance united to the fame principle of consciousness, makes the fame body." This is an argument of your lordship's which I am obliged to answer to. But is it not fit I fhould firft understand it, before I answer it? Now here I do not well know it is, " to make a thing not to be neceffary to the doctrine of the refurrection." But to help myself out the best I can, with a guess, I will conjecture (which, in difputing with learned men, is not very safe) your lordfhip's meaning is, that " my idea of personal identity makes it not neceffary," that for the 1aifing the fame person, the body should be the fame. Your lordship's next word is" but ;" to which I am ready to reply, But what? What does my idea of perfonal identity do? For fomething of that kind the adverfative particle "but" fhould, in the ordinary conftruction of our language, introduce, to make the propofition clear and intelligible: but here is no fuch 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 fo fevere a critic, that for the least ambiguity in any particle fill up pages in my answer, to make my book look confiderable for the bulk of it." But fince this propofition here," my idea of personal identity makes the same body which was here united to the foul, not neceffary to the doctrine of the refurrection: but any material substance being united to the same principle of consciousness, makes the fame body," is brought to prove my idea of perfonal identity inconfiftent with the article of the refurrection ; I must make it out in fome direct sense or other, that I may fee whether it be both true and conclufive. I therefore venture to read it thus: "My idea of perfonal identity makes the fame body which was here united to the foul, not to be necessary at the refurrection ; but allows, that any material substance being united to the fame principle of consciousness, makes the fame body. Ergo, my idea of perfonal identity is inconfiftent with the article of the refurrection of the same body." If this be your lordship's sense in this paffage, as I here have guessed it to be, or else I know not what it is, I answer, 1. That my idea of perfonal identity does not allow, that any material sub、 stance, being united to the fame principle of consciousness, makes the fame body, I fay no fuch thing in my book, nor any thing from whence it may be inferred; and your lordship would have done me a favor to have fet down the words where I say so, or those from which you infer so, and showed how it follows from any thing I have said. 2. Granting, that it were a consequence from my idea of personal identity, that" any material fubftance, being united to the fame principle of conscioufnefs, makes the fame body; this would not prove that my idea of personal identity was inconfiftent with this propofition, "that the fame body shall be raifed," but, on the contrary, affirms it: fince, if I affirm, as I do, that the fame person shall be raised, and it be a consequence of my idea of personal identity, that" any material fubftance, being united to the fame principle of consciousness, makes the fame body;" it follows, that if the fame perfon be raised, the fame body must be raised; and fo I have herein faid nothing incon fiftent with the refurrection of the fame body, but have faid more for it than your lordship. For there can be nothing plainer, than that in the scripture it is revealed, that the fame perfons shall be raised, and appear before the judgement-feat of Chrift, to answer for what they have done in their bodies. If therefore whatever matter be joined to the principle of consciousness makes the fame body, it is demonstration, that if the fame perfons are raised, they have the fame bodies. How then your lordship makes this an inconfiftency with the refurrection, is beyond my conception. "Yes," fays your lordship, * "it is inconsistent with it, for it makes the body which was here united to the foul, not to be neceffary." 3. I answer, therefore, thirdly, That this is the first time I ever learnt, that " not neceffary" was the same with "inconfiftent." I say, that a body made up of the fame numerical parts of matter, is not neceffary to the making of the fame perfon; from whence it will indeed follow, that to the refurrection of the fame perfon, the fame numerical particles of matter are not required. What does your lordship infer from hence? To wit, this: Therefore he who thinks, that the fame particles of matter are not neceffary to the making of the fame perfon, cannot believe, that the same person shall be raised with bodies made of the very same particles of matter, if God should reveal, that it shall be fo, viz. That the fame persons shall be raised with the fame bodies they had before. Which is all one as to fay, that he who thought the blowing of ram's horns was not neceffary in itself to the falling down of the walls of Jericho, could not believe, that they should fall upon the blowing of ram's horns, when God had declared it fhould be fo. Your lordship says, "my idea of personal identity is inconfiftent with the article of the refurrection:" the reafon you ground it on, is this, because it makes not the fame body neceffary to the making the same person. Let us grant your lordship's confequence to be good, what will follow from it? No lefs than this, that your lordship's notion (for I dare not say your lordship has any fo dangerous things as ideas) of perfonal identity, is inconfiftent with the article of the refurrection. The demonstration of it is thus: your lordship fays, "It is not neceffary that the body, to be raised at the last day, should confift of the fame particles of matter 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 confumption: you do not say the same particles which the finner had at the very time of commiffion of his fins; for then a long finner must have a vast body, confidering the continual spending of particles by perspiration." And again, here your lordship says, "You allow the notion of perfonal identity to belong to the fame man under feveral changes of matter." From which words it is evident, that your lordship supposes a person in this world may be continued and preserved the fame in a body not confisting of the fame individual particles of matter; and hence it demonstratively follows, That let your lordship's notion of personal identity be what it will, it makes "the fame body not to be neceffary to the fame perfon;" and therefore it is by your lordship's rule inconfiftent with the article of the refurrection. + Ibid. Ibid. * 2d Anf When your lordship shall think fit to clear your own notion of personal identity from this inconfiftency with the article of the refurrection, I do not doubt but my idea of personal identity will be thereby cleared too. Till then, all inconfistency with that article, which your lordship has here charged on mine, will unavoidably fall upon your lordship's too. But for the clearing of both, give me leave to fay, my lord, that whatsoever is not neceffary, does not thereby become inconsistent. It is not necessary to the fame perfon, that his body fhould always confift of the fame numerical particles; this is demonstration, because the particles of the bodies of the fame perfons in this life change every moment, and your lordship cannot deny it: and yet this makes it not inconfiftent with God's preserving, if he thinks fit, to the fame perfons, bodies consisting of the fame numerical particles always from the refurrection to eternity. And so likewise though I say any thing that supposes it not necessary, that the same numerical particles, which were vitally united to the soul in this life, should be reunited to it, at the resurrection, and constitute the body it shall then have; yet it is not inconfistent with this, that God may, if he pleases, give to every one a body confisting only of fuch particles as were before vitally united to his foul. And thus, I think, I have cleared my book from all that inconsistency which your lordship charges on it, and would perfuade the world it has wit' the article of the refurrection of the dead. Only before I leave it, I will fet down the remainder of what your lordship fays upon this head, that though I see not the coherence nor tendency of it, nor the force of any argument in it against me; yet that nothing may be omitted that your lordship has thought fit to entertain your reader with on this new point, nor any one have reason to suspect, that I have passed by any word of your lordship's, (on this now first introduced fubject) wherein he might find your lordship had proved what you had promised in your titlepage. Your remaining words are these: "The dispute is not how far personal identity in itself may consist in the very fame material substance; for we allow the notion of personal identity to belong to the same man under several changes of matter; but whether it doth not depend upon a vital union between the foul and body, and the life, which is consequent upon it; and therefore in the refurrection, the fame material substance must be reunited, or else it cannot be called a resurrection, but a renovation, i. e. it may be a new life, but not a raising the body from the dead." I confefs, I do not fee how what is here ushered in by the words “and therefore,” is a consequence from the preceding words: but as to the propriety of the name, I think it will not be much questioned, that if the fame man rife who was dead, it may very properly be called the refurrection of the dead; which is the language of the fcripture. I must not part with this article of the refurrection, without returning my thanks to your lordship for making me † take notice of a fault in my effay. When I wrote that book, I took it for granted as I doubt not but many others have done, that the scripture had mentioned, in exprefs terms, " the refurrec |