The Question about which my thoughts are desired being this; Whether to believe the Resurrection of the Dead, which the Christian Religion teaches, be not to believe an Impossibility? I shall, before I proceed any further, crave leave to state the Question somewhat more clearly and distinctly; that, being freed from Ambiguities, you may the better know in what sense I understand it in my Answer; in the returning whereof, your Friend need not desire me to insist but upon my own Thoughts, unless he could do me the favor to direct me to some Author, which I have not yet seen, that has expresly treated, upon Philosophical grounds, of the Question he proposes.
First then I take it for granted, that he does not mean, whether the Resurrection is a thing knowable, or directly provable by the meer Light of Nature. For, if God had not, in the Scripture, positively revealed his purpose of Raising the Dead, I confess, I should not have thought of any such thing, neither do I know, how to prove that it will be, but by flying, not only, to the Veracity, but the Power of God; who having declar’d that he will raise the Dead, and being an Almighty Agent, I have reason to believe, that he will not fail to perform what he has foretold.
Nor do I (secondly) understand the Question to be, Whether the Resurrection be possible to be effected by meerly Physical Agents and means. For that it is not to be brought to pass according to the common course of Nature, I presume; after the universal experience of so many Ages, which have afforded us no instances of it. And though perhaps in Speculation it seems not absolutely repugnant to Reason, that the scatter’d parts of a dead Body might be reconjoin’d, soon after the death of the Man; yet I think you will easily grant it to be morally impossible, that this should happen to any one person, and much more, that it may, nay, that it will, happen to all the persons of Mankind at the worlds end: So that when I treat of the possibility of the General Resurrection, I take it for granted, that God has been pleas’d to promise and declare, that there shall be one, and that it shall be effected, not by or according to the ordinary course of Nature, but by his own Power. On which occasion, I remember, that when our Saviour, treating of the Resurrection, silenc’d the Sadduces that deny’d it, he conjoins, as the causes of their Error, the two things I have pointed at in this Observation, and in the first that preceded it: You err, says he, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God. And when an Angel would assure the blessed Virgin, that she should bare a Child without the intervention of a Man, (which was a case somewhat akin to ours, since ‘twas a production of a Humane Body out of a small portion of humane substance in a supernatural way,) he concludes his speech by telling her, That nothing shall prove impossible to God.
In the third place, I suppose, that the Article of the Resurrection, taught by the Christian Religion, is not here meant by the Proposer in such a latitude, as to comprize all that any particular Church or Sect of Christians, much less any private Doctor or other Writer, hath taught about the Resurrection; but only what is plainly taught about it in the holy Scriptures themselves. And therefore, if besides what is there so deliver’d, the Proposer hath met with any thing that he judges to be impossible in its own Nature, he hath my free consent to deal with the Authors and Abettors of such unreasonable Opinions, (which I declare my self to be not only unconcern’d to defend, but sufficiently dispos’d to reject,) as rashnesses unfriendly to the growth of Christianity.
- And now, that I may yet further clear the way for the Discourse that is to follow, and obviate some Objections and Scruples, which I think ‘tis better seasonably to prevent, than solemnly to answer; I shall desire your leave to lay down in this place a couple of Considerations; of which I shall begin with this, that ‘tis no such easie way, as at first it seems, to determine what is absolutely necessary and but sufficient to make a portion of Matter, consider’d at differing times or places, to be fit to be reputed the same Body.
That the generality of Men do in vulgar Speech allow themselves a great latitude about this affair, will be easily granted by him, that observes the received forms of speaking. Thus Rome is said to be the same City, though it hath been so often taken and ruin’d by the Barbarians and others, that perhaps scarce any of the first houses have been left standing, and at least very few remain in comparison of those that have been demolished, and have had others built in their stead. Thus an Vniversity is said to be the same, though some Colledges fall to ruine, and new ones are built; and though once in an Age all the persons that compos’d it, decrease, and are succeeded by others. Thus the Thames is said to be the same River, that it was in the time of our Forefathers, though indeed the water that now runs under London-bridge, is not the same that ran there an hour ago, and is quite other than that which will run there an hour hence. And so the Flame of a Candle is said to be the same for many hours together, though it indeed be every minute a new body, and the kindled Particles, that compose it at any time assign’d, are continually putting off the form of flame, and are repaired by a succession of like ones.