« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
brought with them the Evidence, that they • were those who had been dead, whereof there • were these two Proofs; their Graves were opened, and their Bodies not only gone out of them, but appear'd to be the fame to thofe who had known them formerly alive, and known them to be dead and buried; For if they had been those, who had been dead fo long, that all who knew them once alive were now gone, thofe to whom they appeared might have known them to be Men, but could not have known they were rifen from the Dead, ⚫ because they never knew they had been dead. All that by their appearing they could have known, was, that they were fo many living Strangers, of whose Resurrection they knew nothing. 'Twas neceffary therefore, that they 'fhould come in fuch Bodies, as might in Make and Size, &c. appear to be the fame they had be fore, that they might be known to thofe of their Acquaintance whom they appeared to. And 'tis probable, they were fuch as were newly Dead, whofe Bodies were not yet diffolv'd and diffipated; and therefore 'tis particularly faid here (differently from what is faid of the general Refurection) that their Bodies arofe: becaufe "they were the fame, that were then lying in their Graves, the Moment before they arose.
THE Vicar's 3d. Inftance is, And our Saviour us'd it as an Argument to fear God more • than Man, that they are able only to kill the Body, but after that have no more that they can do; • but he hath power to caft Body and Soul into Hell • Fire. But as that Text makes no mention of the Sameness of the Body, it has nothing in it to our Opponent's Purpofe.
His 4th. Inftance, too is as much befide the the Bufinels, And he, Chrift, told the Sadducees • who denied the Refurrection, that they erred not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God. Matt. xxii, 29. Mark xii. 24. And if they might have known that there was to be a • Refurrection of the Body from the Scriptures of the Old Teftament; much more may we from the Scriptures of the New Teftament, where we have it more frequently and plainly delivered • to us.'
As if theError of theSadducees had been their dif belief of the Refurrection of the fame Body, whereas their Error was in holding there was no Refurrection of the Dead at all; and that our Saviour's Answer was not to convince them of the Refurrection of the fame Body, is evident, by his Inftancing Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, as rifen from the Dead; which could not be intended of their Bodies, for they (upon this Opponent's own Principles) were not to be raised again till the general Refurrection at the last Day.
BUT the Vicar backs his Inftances with thefe Words, And the Power of God is fufficient to answer all the Objections that can be brought ⚫ from human Reafon and Philofophy, against the poffibility of it. And he is Faithful who has promised to do it, and as he is able will undoubtedly do it. Heb. x. 23.
WE neither Question the Power,nor Will of God, to do whatsoever hehath promifed; but that he has any where promifed, that the fame Lodies of ours fha ll be raised again at the laft Day, the Vicar has not hitherto prov'd and that he is fenfible he cannot prove it from the Writings of the New Teftament
we may reasonably fuppofe by his producing that Text Heb. x 23. where no fuch Matter as the Refurrection of the Body is in any wife treated of.
To our Opponent's Expofition of the Text, 1 Cor. xv. 36. in Page 233. We oppose that of the learned Author laft before cited, where he fpeaks of those,
(r) WHO raife Questions and make Articles ‹ of Faith, about the Refurrection of the same Body, where the Scripture fays nothing of the fame Body; or if it does it is with no fmall Reprimand to thofe who make such an Enquiry. • But fome Man will fay, how are the Dead raifed • up? And with what Body do they come? Thou Fool, that which thou foweft is not quickened except it die. And that which thou foweft, thou Joweft not that Body that sball be, but bare Grain, chance of Wheat or of fome other Grain: but God giveth it a Body as it hath pleafed him. Words, I fhould think, fufficient to deter us from determining any thing for or against the fame Body being raised at the laft Day. It fuffices, that all the Dead fhall be raised, and every one appear and answer for the Things . done in this Life, and receive according to the Things he hath done in his Body, whether good < or bad. He that believes this, and has faid nothing inconfiftent herewith, I prefume may, and must be acquitted, from being guilty of any thing inconfiftent with the Article of the Refurrection of the Dead.'
(7) Lock's Works, Vol. I. p. 488,
THE Vicar proceeds, p. 233.
Queft. Shall the fame Body for Substance be • raised again.'
Anfw. Yes, it fhall be the fame Body for Subftance, for this the Refurrection of the Body neceffarily implies, but it fhall not be the fame, but greatly changed, as to its Qualities.
HERE he tells us within the Compafs of three Lines, that it fhall be the fame Body, and that, it fhall not be the fame; to reconcile this feeming Contradiction, it might be neceffary for him to fhew, how far the Qualities of a Eody may be changed without any Alteration of its Subfiance. But that is a Tafk he feems not qualified for. He tells us however, 6 They fhall be fpiritual Bodies not of a fpiritual Substance, for then they could not be Bodies, but endued with fpiritual Qualities. Here, though perhaps he may have adapted his Speech to his own Understanding, yet if others cannot difcern how that which is not of fpiritual Subftance can be a fpiritual Body, he ought in Condefcenfion to their Weaknefs farther to explain himself.
BUT to his Affertion that, The Resurrection of the Body neceffarily implies the fame Body for Subftance, Let him take the following Answer from Dr. H. More, as cited by William
(5) BUT the Atheift, fays the Doctor, will ftill hang on, and object farther, That the very · Term RESURRECTIO implies that the fame Eody Ball
() W. P's Works, Vol. II. p. 441.
fball rife again; for that only that falls can be faid properly to rife again. But, fays he, the Answer will be ealy, the Objection being grounded merely upon a Mistake of the Senfe of the Word, which is to be interpreted out of thofe HIGHER ORIGINALS, the GREEK and HEBREW, and not out of the LATIN, though the Word in LATIN doth not always imply an individual Reftitution of what is . gone or fallen, as in that Verfe in OVID,
Victa tamen vinces, fubverfaque Troja refurges.
BUT this faith he, is not fo near to our Pur(yet it excludes the fame numerical Troja.) • Let us rather confider the Greek Word ávásætis which Refurrectio fupplies in Latin, and there⚫fore must be made to be of as large a Sense as it. • Now avasaris is fo far from fignifying (in fomè Places) the Reproduction, or Recovery of the fame Thing that was before, that it bears no Senfe at all of Reiteration in it, as Mat. xxii. 24. Kai • αναστάσει σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῶ αὐτῷ and fall raife up • Seed unto his Brother. Alfo Gen. vii. Alfo Gen. vii. 4 there • ἐξαναστάσει! and ανάστημα fignifies merely a living Subftance, and therefore 'av'astaσis in an active Signification, according to this Senfe, will be nothing else but a giving or continuing Life and • Subftance to a Thing. The Word in the Hebrew that answers to 'avasTnua is 'p' which Tranflators tranflate a living Substance; whence
ph according to this Analogy, may very well bear the fame Latitude of Sense that they being both Words that are rendered Refurrectio, but fimply of themselves, only Vivification, or Erection unto Life.