An essay on the identity and general resurrection of the human body : in which the evidences in favour of these important subjects are considered, in relation both to philosophy and Scripture

Front matter

AN

ESSAY

THE IDENTITY

CHAPTER I. Page

On the State of Man before the Introduction of Moral EviL

Sect. I. — General View of the Subject - - - 1

Sect. II. — On the Immutability of God - - 5

Sect. III. — That the Human Body must have been originally Immortal^ proved from the primeval State of Man^ and the Immutability of God considered together - -- - - -11

Sect. IV. — On the primitive and elementary State of Matter f and the nature of simple and compounded Bodies 18

Sect. V. — Arguments tending to prove^ That the Immortality of the Body of Adam^ was secured by the Efficacy of the Tree of Life^ notwithstanding the natural Tendency of the Parts to Dissolution 24

Chapter II

On the Introduction of Moral Evil^ its Influences on the Human Body^ and the removal of the Tree of Life 43

Chapter III

On the Annihilation of Moral Evil^ considered separately^ and in connexion xvith its Causes^ Effects^ and Consequences, The Result highly favourable to the Resurrection of the Human Body from the Grave.

CONTENTS.

Page

Sect. I — If Moral Evil shall be annihilated^ the Resurrection of the Human Body must be presumed to be a necessary Eff'ect - - . . . 65

Sect. II. — Arg-uments tending- to prove., That the Annihilation of Moral Evil^ can only be effcQted by a vicarious Sacrifice ------ 85

Sect. Ill — On the Effects -which -will result from the Destruction of Death^ -when considered under the Idea of a Person - - - - - 97

Sect. IV.- — On the Effects which may be expected to result from the AmiihilatioJi of Death ^ xuhen considered as having only a relative Existence, Probation confined to the present State - - - 108

Sect. Y.-—O71 the Difference between the natural Effects and moral Consequences of moral Evil ; xvith arguments tending to prove^ that the former must ceascy and the latter continue for ever - - 125

CHAPTER IV. 071 Identity iyi Gerieral

Stct, 1.-— On the Evidences of Identity - - - 132

Sect. II. — On our distifict Ideas of Identity y founded upon the Diversity of its Nature - - 141

Sect. III. — General Observations on the Identity of

the Human Body -,,.-- i4g

Sect. IV. — The Identity of the Human Body more

i?n?nediately considered. - - - - - 156

Chapter V

On the Analogy betweeji Vegetation^ and the Resurrection of the Human Body.

Sect. I. — That the Doctrine of the Resurrection has fewer Diffculties than the Doctrine of Vegetation - - - - - - - -171

Sect. It — That all Objections^ usually advanced against the doctrine of the Resurrection may be advanced against the Doctrine of Vegetation - 179

CONTENTS. XXXI.

Page Sect. III. — That the Analogy between Vegetation and the Resurrection of the Body is not destroyed by the Inequalities of Time, during which the Bodies of different Men repose in the Grave - - 1 89

Sect. IV. — Arguments to prove. That the Resur^ rectioh of the Body can no more take place immediately, than Seed-time and Harvest can be blended together _-._--- 203

Sect. V — In which it is proved. That St. Raul, when illustrating the Doctrine of the Resurrection by the Process of Vegetation, speaks the language of Philosophy and Reasoyi - - - • 209

Chapter VI

Arguments tending to prove. That the Identity of the Human Body must co7isist in some Germ, or Stamen, which remains Immoveable*

Sect. I. — In which it is argued. That the Identity of our future Bodies cajinot consist in all the numerical Particles, nor in the Majority of them, which occasionally adhered to the Vital Mass, in any given Portion of the present life - - - - 218

Sect. II. — Arguments tending to prove. That the Sameness of our future Bodies must be constituted by some Germ, or Stamen ; and that we novj possess all the Evidence of a Resurrection, which we can rationally expect in the present State - - 2oT

Sect. III. — The Objections against the Idea of a Germ as constituting the Identity of the Body hereafter, no Argument against its certainty. Several Objections considered. Several Changes of our Bodies highly probable - - . - - - 245

Sect. IV. — Probable Arguments, That the Changes through xvhich our Bodies have already passed, are a Groundxvork of our future Expectations, and ensure upon Principles of Analogy, the Resurrection of the Human Body 2<)5

CONTETMS.

Page

Sect. y. — Argiimejits to prove^ That Gravitation must he inapplicable to our future Bodies iti another World, and that the Loss of Gravitation rvill make a considerable Distinction between these Bodies 7uhich xve Jiozv have, and those which shall be hereafter 283

Sect. VI. — Arguments to prove. That though our future Bodies must be formed of parts, the Peculiarity of their situation will place them beyond the reach of Dissolution, Reflections on our present and future Condition ----- 30I

Sect. VII. On the Origin of bodily Identity. Arguments to prove. That the Identity of the Body can have no Existence prior to the formed Existence of the Body. That Abortions are perfectly reconcileable with the Theory which has been advanced 315

Sect. VIII. — Summary of that direct Evidence by which rue are assured, that the Identity of the Human Body, must consist in some radical Principle, or Germ, xvhich can neither expire nor change -------- 334

Chapter VII

That the Resurrection of the Human Body, is Possible, Probable, and certai?i, proved both from Philosophy aiid Scripture.

Sect. I. — That the resurrection of the Human Body is Possible, proved from the Nature of infinite Poxver, and the unobstructing Nature of Matter 347

Sect. IT. — That the Resurrection of the Human Body is highly Probable, from a Train of presumptive and analogical Evidence - - - - 355

Sect. III. — That the Resurrection of the Human Body is Certain, proved from the Principles of Philosophy, the Justice of God, and compounded Nature of Man - - - - -574

Sect. IV. — Observations on several Passages of the Fifteenth Chapter of the First Book of Corintliians, in xvhich Philosophy and Authority, arc combined atid considered together - - - 404

AN

ESSAY

ON THB

IDENTITY AND GENERAL RESURRECTION

OF THE

HUMAN BODY.

Chapter I

ON THE STATE OF MAN BEFORE THE INTRO- DUCTION or MORAL EVIL.

SECTION I. General Fievj of the Subject

.S no being can be infinite but God, no doubt can be entertained that all finite intelligences had a beginning ; and those which had a beginning, must owe their origin to another. This remark is appropriate to man, and is not confined to any detached light in which we may view him, but is equally applicable both to his body and his soul.

But though both matter and spirit must have had a beginning, it will not thence follow that tlVey must have had an end. They may change their modes of being, and their relations to each other, in all the variety of forms which is within the reach of possibility, and yet remain at the same distance from the real absence of being as they were when God first called ihem into existence.

That a spirit, though created, cannot die, is plainly demonstrated to us by the deathless state of angelic natures, and by the immortality of the human soul. And we plainly discover in these two instances, that beginning of existence does not include an end. We also discover in all the modes which any given portion of matter is capable of assuming, that it is always at an infinite distance from a perfect nonentity. Something and nothing are extremes which never can meet together ; and the distance which lies between them, no approaches can possibly fill up : and therefore the real absence of being which is a nonentity, must always be at an equal distance from all given substances to which these possible modes of existence are ascribed.

The combinations which the particles of matter form with one another, are indeed, continually dissolving; new unions are constantly taking place in regular succession to each other : and the modifications of matter, seem to undergo perpetual changes. But we can trace no more analogy between the real absence of matter and a world, because a world and an atom must be at an equal distance from the real absence of all that is material. Jf therefore, neither the infinite divisibility of matter, nor the various modes which it undergoes and is capable of undergoing, can reach the internal constitution of matter, or otherwise affect it, than by altering its configuration, while its essence remains untouched, and while its substance is entire, we may safely infer, unless God should alter the laws of nature, that matter itself will be as perpetual as spirit ; and that it must continue for ever, under such forms and in such modes, as God in his infinite wisdom shall think proper.

That man is formed of matter and spirit, will admit of very little doubt. While in union with each other, these substances partake of one common life, and are cemented together by ties which are at once permanent and unknown.

That the spiritual part of man shall never die, is to be inferred from the properties of the human soul.* The soul therefore, from its superior nature, must be capable of subsisting without the aid of the body, in a distinct and separate state. And that the body, when separated from its union with the soul, must cease to act, we are convinced of by the most unquestionable proof. In that state of separation, all compact seems to be dissolved ; the spirit retires into another region, to mix with beings whose natures are analogous to its own ; while the body is consigned over, and apparently for ever, to darkness and corruption.

The compact being thus dissolved, all union en-

* See my Essay on the Immateriality and Immortality of the Hmnan Soyi, 8vo. 180.'?, 2nd edit.

tirely broken off between the spiritual and material parts of man, and even the constituent parts of the body ceasin^ to adhere to each other, and the particles of which it was composed incorporating with other particles of matter, it becomes a question of the most serious importance, whether this body shall rise again or not ?

To inquire into this fundamental article of our belief; — to know what evidence we have in favour of this doctrine ;— what the nature of that evidence ought to be, which we might rationally expect on such a subject ; — how far difficulties should be permitted to operate against conviction, and to lay an embargo on belief; — to know whether Revelation is our exclusive guide, or whether God has furnished us with strong intimations of a future resurrection from other sources : — to know what these sources are, whence we derive our evidence, and how far the proofs may be deemed conclusive which may be adduced in favour of this important point, — are questions which I propose to discuss in the following sheets, and which will occasionally become the subjects of investigation.

As we admit that man must have had a beginning, and as his material part is the subject of our present inquiry, it is necessary that we first turn our thoughts to his original state. It is in that state alone that we can view him detached from these extraneous circumstances which now involve the evidences which lam about to examine ;"and which lie scattered over that pathless desert which I shall attempt to explore. In order that the mind may be

Sect. II.J OF THE HUMAN BODY. 5

detached from its local views and partial percep. tions of man, we must take a survey of creation, since we can only infer his primary state, and the real nature of his original condition, from the relation in which he then stood to his Maker. And therefore to those attributes of God, which we conspicuously discern in all his conduct and actions towards his creatures, and particularly in that whuch applies to man, we must necessarily appeal.

SECTION 11.

On the Immutability of God.

That the human body cannot have been eternal, is a truth which will admit of no doubt, and can require no proof ; it must therefore owe its origin to a superior cause, and that cause must be God.

That God. from his nature and attributes, must profess all possible perfection, it will be needless to prove, because it is a truth which it is useless to deny. And if all possible perfections are possessed by him, immutability must be included among the essential attributes of his nature.

Without entering into any formal proof of this truth I shall assume it as an admitted point, because those by whom it is denied, are under the necessity of undeifying his nature, and ultimately denying his existence. The existence of God is a ground- work which I presume no intelligent mind will hesitate to grant me, and from those who refu&f me this point, I shall take the liberty to appeal.

If then, the existence of the divine nature be admitted, the existence of all possible perfections are inseparable from the* divine essence ; and, in conjunction with each other, they are truths which must stand or fall together. To admit the divine nature, is to admit the divine attributes; and to admit the divine attributes is to admit the divine perfections ; and the instant we attempt to separate them, we involve ourselves in palpable contradictions.

Taking therefoie the infinite perfections of God as an admitted point, I contend, that these perfections must include immutability as an essential property of his nature. For could we imagine that God possesses all possible perfections, and yet suppose immutability not to be included in the list of these perfections, we must suppose him capable of changes which are incompatible with those attributes and perfections which we ascribe to him. A being who sees reason to counteract to-day, what ^Yas accomplished yesterday, must be wiser now than he was then. And the action of to-day, plainly tells us that the action of yesterday must have been erroneous, though it then appeared right and just. But if the knowledge of the eternal God, be greater now than it was then, it is a certain fact that his knoweldge was not perfect yesterday, and it is highly probable that it is yet in a state of imperfection. A knowledge which can admit of in-

Sect. IT.] OF THE HUMAN BODY. 7

crease in any stage of progression, cannot in those stages be perfect ; and consequently cannot be infinite ; and that which is not infinite can neither apply to God, nor belong to his nature. But as God must be infinite in all his perfections, and as perfect knowledge must be included in those perfections, no increase or diminution of his knowledge can possibly be admitted. And therefore, perfectly acquainted as he must be with past, present, and future, with all contingencies, and all possible circumstances, no changes can take place in him, his immutability therefore necessarily arises from the nature of his other perfections, and the nature of his existence.

That apparent changes, are however perfectly consistent with absolute immutability, must be admitted, because apparent changes are perfectly consistent with God. Immutability may seem to change in its actions towards changeable creatures, while in itself it remains perfect, unaltered and entire.

We are furnished with evidences on this point from our constant observations of the heavenly bodies ; since we behold in them an apparent and a relative change through every succeeding day. But the stations which the fixed stars hold in the regions of space, are permanent and immutable, notwithstanding the perpetual revolutions which they seem to undergo. And were the orb which we inhabit as fixed as they, all would appear as they really are ; and the various revolutions which describe our days, oar months, and years, we should tJien inquire after in vain.

The changes which we perceive, reside not in them but in us. The stars are fixed, while the earth is perpetually revolving ; and it is the inaccuracy of popular observations which induces us to transfer the changes we perceive from ourselves to them, and to charge upon the fixed stars, that change of place which belongs to the globe which wc inhabit, and which in them has no existence. In like manner, it is perhaps not impious to transfer the analogy, to the immutability of God, and the mutability of ourselves, we can then with safety "assert eternal providence, and justify the ways of God to man."

That there is in God an immutable hatred to vice must be unquestionable, vice being the reverse of his nature ; and that there must be in him an immutable attachment to holiness, it being congenial to his essence, must be admitted on the same ground. And as God is thus immutable in himself, so long as his rational creatures hold their respective stations, in which his goodness had previously placed them, so long are his perfections bound to protect them from every evil ; and consequently to preserve them from dissolution and decay. But n^hen his creatures change their stations through the mutability of their natures, they change their relation to God ; and a change in their condition must be the necessary result of their departure from him.

Sect. 11.] OF THE HUMAN BODY. 9

But this change arises not from any mutability in God, but from the immutability of his nature ; for, as the perfections of God were bound to protect and preserve those who were dependent upon him, so, by the same immutability of his nature, God was bound to withdraw his protection from them, when they departed from that station in which his goodness had placed them, and engaged to protect them. As God manifests his love to all who are found in the way of holiness, and manifests his hatred to all who are found in the way of vice, it is evident that a continuance in the way of holiness is necessary to the continuance of his favour: and we can no more conceive that these casescan be reversed while the nature of God remains immutable, than we can conceive the same thing to be and not to be in the same instant.

If God directs his love to A. and to the inhabitants of A. and his hatred to B. and to the inhabitants of B. we have the case precisely laid down before us ; and we see v/ith exactness the true situations of the respective inhabitants both of A. and B. But i^ the inhabitants of A. should retire from their station, and depart to B. it is evident that they would go from love to hatred, and yet be under the same God, who was, and is, and ever shall be, unchangeable in all his ways. And hence we may clearly discover, that apparent changeableness, and real immutability, are perfectly compatible with one another as they refer to God. But as they affect man, the conduct of God is really changed towards him, notwithstanding God is in himself eternal and unchangeable, in all his ways. u

Nor are these reasonings confined exclusively to a moral view of man. They will apply with equal force to all his bodily as well as mental powers. For as the human body formed a conspicuous part of creation, and as the life of man was guaranteed to hini, on condition of his abstinence from moral evil, the perpetuity of the human body must have been included under this guarantee, and its dissolution on this ground must have been for ever unknown. The promise of lif was suspended upon humnn obedience ; and it extended no further. For as perpetuity of life was the reward of obedience, so death was in part the punishment of disobedience ; and as man by his departure from obedience, forfeited his claim to perpetuity of life, so by his disobedience he subjected himself to that dissolution of body, which was included in the punishment annexed to immoral action.

Thus may we see in one view, the origin of the dissolution of our bodies, while we contemplate the immutability of God. We see our dissolution originating in ourselves, while the immutability of God stands detached from every charge ; we see his immutability engaged to pr tect rectitude, but nothing more ; we see man departing from it, and thereby sinking into that dissolution, which, abstractedly from this circumstance, could never have existed.

If God, under the existence of present circumstances, were to perpetuate our bodies, he must depart from those rules of invariable rectitude, which are always inseparable from his ways; and his immutability, under the various changes of man, would

Sect. III.] OF THE HUMAN BODY. U

appear in a very questionable light. He must in this case change with his changeable creatures, and immutability will then no more attach to him than it does now to us. The conduct of God must in this case appear dependent upon the actions of man ; controlled by caprice, and subjected to those directions which the wayward sallies of our passions would impose.

But the conduct of God is fixed upon principles of a more permanent nature. The irregularities which are visible both in the moral and the natural world, are attributable to other causes ; while the immutability of God stands unimpeached. It is because we have retired from that station in which his goodness had placed us, and in which his immutability had engaged to protect us, that our bodies die. And the evils of which we complain, do not overtake us because God is changeable, but because God is immutable in all his ways, and because we are changeable.

Section III

That the Human Body must have been originally JntmortaU proved from the primeval State of Man, and the Immutability of God considered together.

From those general views, which, in the preceding section, we have taken of the immutability of God, and of those changes with which it is compat-

IS IDENTITY AND RESURRECTION [Chap. I.

able, kt us now turn our attention to the same attribute, and consider it in connection with man in his primeval state ; and the e\ idence in favour of primative immortality, will perhaps appear in a conspicuous light. And, therefore, without inquiring into the motives or cause which induced God to ereate the world, 1 shall fix on the fact itseii', and only presume that creation did take place. For whatever the cau-^e or motives were, certain it is, that such cause and motives did exist, and hence x\lmighty Power and goodness called the universe into being. That a design to create man did exist in God at the time of creation, is demonstrated by fact ; and therefore a design to destroy the human body could not then have had a being. For if we suppose that a design to destroy the human body, did exist in God at the moment in which he created it, we must suppose him to have been actuated by two opposite designs, the one to create, and the other to destroy the thing created. But in thus supposing, we place the designs of God, not only in a state of hostility to each other, but in a state of hostility to his attributes ; and we make a principle of immutability to produce designs, which, in the same moment, are destructive to each other. But since these suppositions are contrary to the divine perfections, and perfectly incompatible with the immutability of his nature, we must conclude, that those suppositions which are irreconcileable with the nature of God, are at once iniipplicable to him, and false in fact. Hence then the conclusion appears to be inevitable, that no design to destroy the human body, could, at the moment of creation, have existed in God ; and while we retain our idea of his immutability, we are precluded from admitting the possibility of any such subsequent design from taking place. For since, under our present consideration, man is presumed to sustain the same relative situation to God, which he sustained in the moment of his creation, no cause of a design to destroy him could originate widi him. And as God must be immutable in his nature, as has been proved in the preceding section, we are forbidden to suppose that any such design could possibly originate with him. And hence it follows, that as no design to destroy the human body, could, under actual and existing facts, have originated either with man or God, so no such design could possibly have existed; and, therefore the human body must have been exempt from dissolution and decay.

Indeed, while we admit God to be the creator of man, we must view him as an infinite being, and consequently as one that is immutable ; and uhile we consider him thus as an immutable being, it will be impossible for us to admit the possibility, either of dissolution or death. For a man, standing precisely in the same situation in which he stood, when God first called him into existence, must have sustained the same relation to his maker ; to suppose that he can be both created and destroyed, and yet uniformly in both cases sustain the same relation to the cause of both ; while we admit, at the same time, the cause of both to be absolutely immutable, wilj amount to something more than a simple contradiction.

A being which continues the same after it is created that it was when called into existence, can inckide no more cause of ics dissolution, the moment after, than it did in the moment of its creation. The same reasonings which will hold good to day, will, upon the same principle, hold equally good to-morrow ; they will be equally available the day following, and we may extend our observations through the whole progress of duration. If, therefore, the human body can possibly be destroyed, during any period of existence subsequently to creation, without containing within itself any cause of that destruction, it is evident that this cause must be lodged in some other source. But since no other source can possibly be found but God, if the destruction of the human body were possible, we must, under these considerations, either attribute to him the destruction of the human body upon the same identical principle which gave birth to creation, or we must suppose the Almighiy to be actuated by contradictory designs. But as we can no more conceive it possible that the Almighty can be actuated by contradictory designs, than we can conceive that destruction and creation can arise from the same principle, (which is making two opposite effects to result from the same cause,) the destruction of the human body, under present circumstances, cannot possibly be imputed to God. And since the supposition, in either case, involves a plain and positive contradiction, the result is incvitable, namely, that the human body must necessarily have been immortal.

The same moral causes which exist when the body is destroyed, must have been in existence when it was created ; because God is necessarily immutable, and the creature is presumed to have undergone no change. If, therefore, under these given circumstances, the body could have been dissolved, we must presume, either that creation and dissolution are the same thing, or that two opposite effects have resulted from the same cause. To suppose the former we are forbidden by fact, and to suppose ' the latter is a contradiction. The final result must therefore be, that the human body must have been immortal. And hence also, since this theory and present fact are at variance with each other, the dissolution which the human body undergoes, must be attributed to some other cause; a cause distinct from any which has hitherto been explored ; a cause which could not have existed when man was first called into being ; a cause which did not then reside in man, and which could not at any period whatsoever reside in God.

What the precise state of Adam's body was, previously to his fall, is a question, which has employed the pens of many writers, and has been productive of a multitude of conjectures. And, indeed, in cases where we are left without decisive evidence, conjecture and probability must become our only guides.

With some, the body of Adam has been supposed luminous^ with others transparent,, and with others again light, aerial and spiritual. And thtsc conjectures seem to have been adopted purely to account for that immortality, which has been so uniformly attributed to it. The various arguments which have been adduced in favour of these diiFerent theories, it would be useless to detail. Every opinion will have its abettors, and every argument its proselytes; error will have its advocates as well as truth.

Bat on this point the book of God is silent ; and from this circumstance we feel an assurance, that it is a case in which philosophy can afford us little or no assistance, conjecture must be the only foundation on which these opinions rest. The principal facts v/hich wc learn from the sacred records on this subject, are, that God formed the maferial part of man out of the dust of the earth, and then breathrd into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. But why the body of Adam should be supposed luminous, transparent, or aerial, are conjectures, the probability of which I have yet to learn.

Indeed, I can have no conception how a body, which is aerial, can include within it those solid parts which we denominate bones, from which class the rib was taken, out of which woman was afterwards formed. Neither can I have any conception how transparency can become a property of particles, which are in themselves opaque, and disposed as they are in a substance so multiform and complex as the body of man. Nor can I discover, admitting his body to have been transparent, what advantages would have accrued from such a property. A bodythat is transparent can be no further removed, in consequence of that transparency, from dissolution, than if it were opaque, like those which we now possess ; so that the very end for which the conjecture is introduced must be defeated, because no connection can be traced between the premises and conclusion. For if the body ot Adam were as volatile even as light itself, still the union of its component parts would stand upon the same principle upon which ours now rest. And certain it is, that the volatile particles which we have supposed, would require the power of adhesion to preserve the con« nection between them, as much so as if we were to suppose them to be more nearly related to those of our own. Whether, therefore, we suppose the body of Adam to be volatile or gross, to be trans^ parent or opaque, to be luminous or dark, as the same power must be alike necessary in each case to make the different particles adhere, we shall still be obliged to claim the assistance of some quality to establish that adhesion of the parts which is necessary to ensure perpetuity. This, therefore, must be a quality, which neither transparency nor opacity can possess, and which can reside in no external appearance whatsoever. The immortality of Adam's body,must, therefore, have depended upon other causes than Ctin be derived from a mere combination of particles, in what fOrm soever we suppose them to be modified.