« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Theophyla&t, who follow him,) gives a Reason why St. Paul says, Quicken or give Life to our mortal Bodies, rather than raise them, viz. Because he here speaks only of those who should be raised to Life, (i. e. a blissful or happy Life,) viz. the Faithful, who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them ; not of the Wicked, who shall also be rais’d, but (fays he) unto Punishment, not unto Life. There is a third Text which hath so near a Resemblance to these, that it may well be join'd with them, viz. Phil. 3. 21. Who shall change our vile Body, that it may be conformed to his glorious Body. When shall the Saviour the Lord Christ effect this wonderful Change, that our vile Body Thall be made conformable to his glorious Body ? Surely then, when he shall quicken or raise it, and that will be when he comes from Heaven to judge the World, see v. 20. Here is not indeed the Word Raise, but it is plainly implyd. The Blessed Jesus when he comes from Heaven will raise our vile Body, and make it conformd to his own glorious Body.
Will Mr. Lock say that the general Resurrection is not spoken of in these Places? He cannot say it of the first, viz. Rom. 8. 23. without retraéting his own express Words in Reasonab. of Christian. p. 206. He cannot fay it of the third, viz. Philip. 3. 21. because the immediately foregoing Verse points us to the Time of Christ's coming from Heaven to judge the World. He may perhaps say it of the second, viz. Rom. 8. 11. because some before him have said that the general Resurrection is not spoken of in that Text, particularly Calvin and Pifcator.
Calvin in loc. hath these Words, Mortalia corpora vocat quicquid adhuc reftat in nobis morti obnoxium, ut mos illi ufitatus eft crajsiram nostri partem hoc nomine appellare. Unde colligimus non de ultima refurre&ione quæ momento fiet haberi fermonem, fed de continuat Spiritus operatione, que reliquias carnis paulatim
mortificans cæleftem vitam in nobis instaurat. He tells us, that by mortal Bodies is understood whatfoever remains still in us obnoxious to Death, which we may grant him, for our Souls are not obnoxious to Death, and therefore our mortal Bodies contain all that remains in us liable to Death. He tells us also, that it is the Apostle's usual manner to call the grosser part of us by that Name, i. e. by the Name of Body; and we may likewise grant him this, for every one grants that the Body is the groffer part of us. But now what would he gather from this? Whence (says he) we collect that the last Resurrection is not Spoken of. His Argument put into Form, is this, The Apostle by mortal Bodies understands whatfoever remains still in us obnoxious to Death; therefore the last Resurrection is not spoken of. Mr. Lock may try, if he pleases, whether he can find out any thing to tie this Antecedent and Consequent together, but I can pronounce that it will not be very easie for him to do it.
Pifcator's Words are these, Quum certum fit Apofolum-hic - non loqui de resurrettione corporum sed animarum. Tho'our own Eyes tell us, that the Apostle uses the word Bodies, (not Souls,) yet, if we will believe Piscator, it is certain that here he speaks not of the Resurrection of Bodies, but of Souls: And how is it certain ? Mr. Calvin hath said it, that is all the Assurance that I know of. He that raised up Chrift from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal Bodies, these are the Apostle's Words. If when he says he Yaised up Christ from the dead, he speaks of the Resurrection of his Body, not of his Soul, how can we be certain that when he says, Shall quicken your mortal Bodies, he speaks of the Resurrection, not of their Bodies but of their Souls? We fee then, that if Mr. Lock fly to this, to say that the general Resurrection is not spoken of, Rom. 8. 11. he will not be much help'd either by Calvin or Piscator.
I confess that there is one who makes the Words to be capable of a two-fold Sense, and that is Crellius. According to him they may be interpreted either of the future raising or quickening our mortal Bodies, or of the spiritual quickening them, which consists in this, that they live unto Righteousness and unto God.' But he makes the former the principal Sense, the latter only secundary.
As Mr. Lock says of the Resurrection of the Body, so he says of the Resurrection of the fame Body, viz. That he does not remember any Place in the New Testament where it is so much as mention'd; see his Third Letter, p. 166. And my Answer will be the fame, viz. That these very express Words, The Refurre&tion of the same Body, are not to be found, but there are Words that signifie so much, or from which it may be clearly and necessarily inferr'd. I may instance in the three Places abovecited, Rom. 8. 11, 23. Phil. 3. 21. where St. Paul by our Body, our vile Body, and our mortal Bodies, certainly understood the Bodies which he, and the Romans, and the Philippians, then had, and lays of these, that they fhould be redeemed, quickned, changed. Who Mall change our vile Body, that it (i.e. thạt vile Body) may be conformed to his glorious Body, Philip. 3. And as I have observd before ) Mr. Lock, Reasonab. of Christian. p. 206. says, That by the Redemption of our Body, Rom. 8. 23. is plainly meant the Change of these frail mortal Bodies inío Spiritual-immortal Bodies at the Resurrection, when this mortal shall have put on immortality, 1 Cor. 15, 54. Thus, he. It is observable also, that in his Third Letter, p. 197. when the Words of that Text, I Cor. 15, 53, 54. were 'urged to prove the Resurrection of the same Body, he returns no Answer to them, and did very prudently in returning none: For doth not St. Paul exprefly 'affirm, that this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal mult
put on immortality ? i. é. this corruptible, this mortal, must be rais'd to a Life of Incorruption and Im: mortality. And doth he not also repeat it, When this corruptible, &c. ? What can be more plain? This corruptible, this mortal, (which are the Apostle's repeated Expressions, these frail mortal Bodies, (which is Mr. Lock's own Expression) shall be rais’d, the Light of the brightest Day cannot be more clear.
Some perhaps will say, that Mr. Löck does by no means deny that the same Bodies shall be raised at the last Day; they are his own Words in his Third Letter, p. 195. To which I answer; 1. If he do not deny it, why doth-he dispute so earnestly against it? Why doth he endeavour, to the utmost of his Power, to baffle the Arguments that are urged for the Proof of it? A great many Pages of his Third Letter being taken up in the discussing this one Point. 2. He says he does by no means deny it, but does he believe it? If he do believe it, it is not upon the Account of any Argument drawn from Reason, for he tells us more than once in his Ejay, that the Resurrection of the Body is above Reason, Reáfon has directly nothing to do with it, but it is purely Matter of Faith ; see his Esay, 1. 4. C. 17. . 23. and c. 18. §: 7: He must then believe it upon the Account of fome Arguments drawn from Scripture, or being convinced by fome Texts of Scripture which teach this Truth. If so, he deserves to be sharply teprehended, for that he would not acquaint us what Texts of Scripture they are that teach it so clearly: Especially having taken so much Pains to shew that the Places of Scripture alledged by others did not prove it, he ought to have directed us to those Scriptures which did, and by the Cogency of which he was brought to believe it. But the Truth is, he says plainly, that there are no Scriptures that do prove it ; affirming that the Scriptures propose to ws,
that at the last Day the Dead shall be raised, without determining whether it shall be with the very fame Bodies or no; see his Third Letter, p. 168. Tho' therefore he does say, that he by no means denies that the same Bodies shall be rais'd at the last Day, yet it clearly appears that he does not believe that they shall; for, according to him, there are no Arguments either from Scripture or Reason to induce him to believe it.
Mr. Lock's Doctrine concerning Adam's Fall, and our Redemption by Christ, is this: God told Adam, that in the Day that he did eat of such a Tree he should surely die ; where, by Death, Mr. Lock can understand nothing but a ceasing to be, the lofing all A&tions of Life and Sense. Such a Death came on Adam and all his Pofterity by his first Disobedience, under which Death they should have lain for ever, had it not been for the Redemption by Jesus Christ, who will bring them all to Life again at the last Day; see for this, Reasonab. of Christian. p. 3, 6, 11. But then he tells us, p. 15. that this being the cafe, that whoever is guilty of any Sin, should certainly die, and cease to be, the Benefit of Life reftord by Christ at the Resurrection, would have been no great Advantage, if God had not found out a way to justifie Yome. The Reason of which he gives in a Parenthesis, For as much (says he) as here again (i.e. after the Resurrection) Death must have seiz'd upon all Mankind, (all Mankind must have died and ceas'd to be the second time,) because all had sinned; for the Wages of Sin is every where Death (which Death is a ceasing to be) as well after as before the Refurre&tion. This Death after the Resurrection is that which, p. 211. he calls the second Death ; which (says he) would have left Christ no. Subjects, if God had not found out a way to justifie fome. As to those who at the Refurrection Îhall be found unjustified, that fecond Death fhall seize upon them,