our own heads, and of presenting the apparent difficulties of a paltry sheet of salt water before Him "who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with a span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance" (Isaiah xl. 12). But there is another solution which may help to free the subject from all such literal difficulties. Amongst other purposes which the materials of our globe are designed to serve, one is for the fabrication of the human body. We have shown it to be a point of revelation that Adam's body was made of these pre-existing materials: nor can we believe that, chemically speaking, none but those identical portions which were actually made use of could have produced that organized frame with all its constitutional peculiarities. We cannot bring ourselves to imagine that any peculiarity exists in the decomposed materials of any two human bodies to constitute essential identity—that is, that there is something essentially peculiar in the "dust" of one which there is not in that of the other. The actual and distinctive framework of Adam and of every human being is something real, and altogether arbitrary of any parental arrangements; but we do not suppose that the "dust" of one might not serve the purpose of the re-organization of another, if re-animation were required. Certainly, this hypothesis presents no practical difficulties to the reason, though the peculiarities of individual physical organization present such as might be fairly used to show abstractedly the limits of even guessing. The colour of the complexion and the hair, and those nameless differences where even the strongest family likeness between brother and brother is seen upon close investigation being but superficial, manifest a contriving power that rules with perfect mastery a complicated and subtle machinery, which, though limited to our knowledge, is yet thus proved to be unlimited in its appliances; but still, it is beyond the power of human science to prove that these differences and varieties depend in any way upon the qualities of such definite earthly materials as could be replaced, in individual cases, by no others. Personal identity, we think, may depend more upon the filling up of that peculiar mould, which is an universal differentia of individuals, than upon any native difference between the "dust" which may be taken up in one hand from a church-yard in England, and in the other from a burial-ground in any country across the seas. We should judge it to be far more likely that it is the original and distinctive mould, constituting, as has been said, an universal differentia, which deter mines such definite characteristics of individuals, as the relative quantity of blood, the disposition of the nerves, &c., than any distinguishing qualities of the mere earthly materials which fill out these moulds. So far as this theory is probable, so far are we justified in rejecting the popular difficulties raised upon the doctrine of the resurrection, on the ground of the apparent impossibility of restoring to each that identical body he laid down at death; for, until it can be proved that the individual's bodily identity depends upon the inherent qualities, and not, as we judge, upon the disposition only of the earthly materials of which it is composed, the popular difficulty rests upon no foundation. We deem it quite enough to say that, as the human frame is composed of earthly materials in general, when the soul of each requires for its body that exact quantity which shall suffice to constitute its former identity, according to the original mould, not a single difficulty will exist on the ground of ownership, unless it can be proved that one portion of earth, or air, or water, is generically different from, and better or worse than another. We may further illustrate this view by asking whether it is supposable that the physical organization of an individual, who had been reared from infancy to manhood in one locality, would have been in any way different, if he had been reared in a lo cality twenty miles distant? And yet it is certain that the precise earthly materials of which the body would have been formed in the one case would be different from those of which it would have been formed in the other. Our conclusion from this is the same as before-that personal identity does not depend upon the quality of earthly materials, but rather, as we are led to suppose, upon some definite quantity taken according to no rule of what we call ownership, and the composition of it into wholes after given moulds. As to the physical difficulties which are presented to some minds by what are deemed mechanical impossibilities, the whole must disappear before sober views of the miraculous (according to our present laws) powers which the general resurrection implies. For though it is contrary to any laws with which we are now acquainted, yet, upon our introduction at death into new departments of the universe, the circumstances of the resurrection will appear then as natural as the conception, birth, and growth to manhood of individuals does now. Indeed, such we are sure will be the case; for it is certain that the laws under which the inhabitants of this globe are to exist hereafter have not now to be enacted, or changed, or repealed. His laws are, like himself, unchangeable. One of these laws experience has established that the spirit of man should be clothed for a definite period in a material dress, which shall be capable of certain functions, and then be dissolved into the "dust" from whence it was taken. Another law has been revealed concerning the future, that after a period of separation the soul shall be again united to an earthly body, on which divine power shall effect such transforming changes as shall qualify it for some new definite position and duties in the universe, which, though clearly alluded to, are yet veiled under negations and images. Attempts have been made to get rid of the physical difficulties suggested by the apparent impossibility of a restoration to each soul of the identical body actually laid down at death, by supposing some germ to exist in it, which, like other seeds, would contain within itself the miniature body to be enlarged by growth or some other unknown means. If, however, this idea were received and carried out, it would tend to a result similar to our own, only encumbered with the difficulty of conceiving how that germ, and myriads of others, could be preserved from sharing the fate of their kindred dust. We would fain hope that the theory we have sketched might be made use of for allaying those painful doubts about the possibility of the future resurrection which have arisen in certain minds from the proved fact that portions of earth, which belonged to one human body, must have been converted by the processes of nature into materials appropriated by another; and, as these processes can be carried on without assignable limit, ownership must be out of the question. Our hypothesis tends to set aside all such difficulties, by showing that they are unfounded in nature. But upon this view, that sacred regard for our own body, which is the main purpose of Mr. Evans's book to inculcate, may seem unnecessary, as it is to be manifested towards materials none of which may fall to our share at the resurrection. We might at once cut this knot by a reference to our former remark upon the impertinence of demanding the literalities of a fact, which has been revealed without its modes. But a similar objection belongs to personal identity after the lapse of years; for, as Bishop Butler observes of "large quantities of matter in which we are very nearly interested," they "may be alienated, and actually are in the course of succession, and changing their owners, whilst we are assured that each living agent remains one and the same permanent being."* But one remark (it is impossible to discuss such a subject in the pages of a Review) may suffice. In demanding peculiar veneration either for soul or body, the Analogy, part i., chap. i., sect. ii. true foundation of the respect must be made to rest upon their divine origin and revealed destiny. When, therefore, we urge the solemn duty of using our bodies as "vessels of sanctification and honour," we imply that they are a specific kind of divine workmanship, which, after its earthly destiny has been fulfilled, we believe will, to all intents and purposes, be restored identically at the resurrection; for if the entire change of substance, which occurs after the lapse of many years, during the earthly existence, does not destroy the peculiarities of identity, why should any such entire changes at the resurrection destroy it? The body of our blessed Lord was certainly raised with the peculiarities which had marked it during his former life, otherwise his disciples and friends would have been unable to establish his identity. Indeed, we know it bore even the scars of the crucifixion: nor can we believe that that sacred body presented after its resurrection its former emaciated appearance, occasioned by such sufferings in life and on the cross as must have reduced it to the minimum of size compatible with existence. We speak with reverence; but there can be no doubt that this view is true. In like manner, as Christ's resurrection is to be the pattern of ours, so we conclude will each individual body, of whatever materials it is composed, exhibit after its resurrection those natural and original peculiarities which distinguished it from the myriads of others scattered over all the generations of time; and, to our apprehension, this characteristic physical re-organization appears to be altogether independent of the popular requirement that the materials of the heavenly body should be taken from the burial-ground of the earthly body. The potter hath power over clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another to dishonour; but the same clay which was used to make the vessel unto dishonour would have served equally well to make the vessel unto honour. Just, then, as the sameness of the materials of two vessels made from clay of the same lump does not constitute their identity, no more, as it appears to us, will the sameness of the materials be required to constitute personal identity at the resurrection. This has already received an illustration from the consideration that the sameness of the materials does not constitute the personal identity of an individual at any two consecutive periods, since, by the ceaseless natural processes of rejection and addition, which are going on in all human bodies, interchanges must occur periodically. Hence this objection to especial sanctification of the earthly body, on the ground of (possibly) total changes in the materials of the heavenly body, is without force. But it is time to pass on from principles to their application. There can be no doubt that the religious views of the compound man presented by our popular theology are mainly limited to what is called the soul. We cannot, as we write this, recall to our remembrance one of our own acquaintances, educated or uneducated, who entertains any such definite views of the "ministry of the body" as are explained and defended by Mr. Evans. If we desired to embody the vague notions of the place assigned to the human body in the popular creed, we should say that it is regarded as the clog of the soul-its encumbrance; or, treating it with a little more respect, as the scaffolding of the building, which not only forms no part of it, but disfigures it, and therefore must be thrown down as soon as its purposes have been served. The enquiry, however, is seldom instituted, how the body has been made a clog and an impediment, if such it is felt to be. "Orandum est, ut sit mens sana in corpore sano. He who, by following the laws of nature and revelation, has obtained this answer to prayer will never speak thus wickedly of that divine workmanship, the human body. The lines following the above verse will partly explain what we mean: nor needs the Christian misinterpret us in adding the following: "Monstro quod ipsi tibi possis dare semita certe The Stagyrite teaches us that prudence is the progenitor of all the virtues; and, with comparatively few exceptions, it will be found that imprudence in earlier years in overtaxing the body, whether as students or as pursuers of gain or pleasure, is the sole cause of its being felt to be a clog and a wearying burden, instead of a perpetual source of boundless gratitude. The joy with which a body in perfect health responds at times to the appeals of nature abroad is known to none but such as have carefully used it according to the divine laws. It is said by the biographer of the poet Crabbe that he could never read steadily those lines of Shakspeare's good old Adam :— "Though I look old, yet am I strong and lusty; Hot and rebellious liquors to my blood; *Juvenal, Sat. x, 356, VOL. XXIV.-D |