1800.] 



Memoirs of the Rev. Samuel Bold. 



151 



cafe of anotlier friend of your's, that 

 ' in the wav of icafon they arc not to be 

 dealt \\ith." Writing to .Mr. CoUins 

 again, on the 21th of tlie fame inontli, 

 lie renews liis expreifions of concern on 

 tliis fubject : " I wilh (fays he) tlie books 

 ' vou mention were not gone to tlie prefs, 

 and that tlicy might not be printed: for 

 i\hen tliey arc printed, I am lure tliey 

 will get abroad, and then it will be too 

 Lite to wilh it had not been lb. IJow- 

 cvcr, if the fates will have it fo, and their 

 printing cannot be avoided, yet, at lead, 

 let care be taken to conceal his name. I 

 doubt not oi' his reafoning riglit, and 

 making good his points: but what will 

 tiiat boot, if he or his ^ family ihould be 

 difturbed, or difealed* .''" 



The delign of the Dilcourfes of which 

 wc are now fpeakiiig, and the appearance 

 ■of which Mr. Locke's concern for the au- 

 tiior's cafe would have prevented, was 

 not to prove either. That the railed body 

 will not be phiiofo))hicullythe fame which 

 was before vitally united to the foul : Or, 

 fccondly. That Cod has fnperadded a 

 power of thinking to fome fyllem of mut- 

 fer firiv difpofecl; but to inquh'e into the 



:euglh of thofe arguments by which Dr, 



, iiitby and foiric other authors endea- 

 voured to p?ove the rcllirrection of the 

 fame body, philofophically conlldcred, to 

 be a necelfary Article of the- C'liriftiiui 

 ^faith. it uas 3Ir. Bold's deep' couvic- 

 tion, that Chriliiatnty fuH'crs much in the 

 V. orld by advancing into thenink of Nc- 

 'cfliiry Articles human interpretations of 

 (Jofpel doctrines : and that uufpeakably 

 many imd great advantages \vould arife 

 from culling out all dottrmcs whifh are 

 purely huuuui ii;terpretations, thouah 

 iligniiied with the title of ISeccll'ary Ar- 

 ticles, from thofe which Chrifl had 

 tuughtf. • ' 



Auot'icr objc6t of thefe Difcourfes was, 

 to e.\auiinf the force of thofe " coulider- 

 ations which Mr. Ijroujihton and th.o in- 

 gciiious Mr. Norris had infdled on as dc- 

 Jnonitrative proofs that God cannot iidd 

 a [jower of thinking to any ilyilcm of 

 matter, in what manner foever difpofed.J 



(Jno point which Mr. Bold aims to 

 pro\ c in thefe Difcoui fes is, " Thut the 

 Scripture doctrine of the' Refun-ettioii of 

 the Dead refers to purfons. Tlie term 

 Repa-rc^lon," he fays, " when the ralf- 

 Uig tho.deud is fpoken of, doth uot pro- 

 perly belong cither to tlie foul or to the 



• Locke's V/oiks, 4tu. " i,etli;;s to ^jr. 

 Collins." Vol. iv. p. 6(W, Note. 



t Inlrodui^ion, p.'i, and Picicc, p. 2, 3. 



t I'lci.uc, p SI. 



body, but only figjiifios fuch a vituUmioa 

 of the lame fou! v.ithabodv, as is net-tl- 

 I'arytothe rc-produrtion of tlic- vcrylume 

 perl'on who died'." He obfencs, iliat 

 by the tenor of the Apoltlo's diitwude, 

 1 Cor. XV. it plainly appears tiua he was 

 fpeaking of porfons, and jprov«d that 

 dead perfons Ihould li\e agtiin : ii/r as ii« 

 v»as arguing agaiulc thole who denied th€ 

 rcfurrection of the dead, he mull uuaa 

 the rel'urrectiou of the dead iu the fume 

 fenlc; in which they denied itK Nor 

 fhould it be tliought iliitngc that he ufcs 

 adjettives in the neuter gejidcr, in Lis 

 argument, v. M and jj, to liguiiy per- 

 fons, for he does the fame witii refi>ef:^ 

 to the perfons of Adam asid Clirift, 

 V. 4(5. Mr. Bold fuppole.s, thcrefue, 

 that as it is the purpofe of the Apoflie, 

 V. 4'.!, 4.*?, to fpcak of ysn^ei, mortitl men, 

 being dead and railed again, and made 

 inuuortat, the nominative to be fupphed 

 to tlie verb .rxsigslaii, v. 4'2, is not aufAat, 

 body, but anSa-Ti-j, man, the pcrfoii.J — ; 

 " If," he obfwves, " kokko; is the fub^ 

 ftantivc to tiic pronoun to, v. "G, 37, 

 and unto ccCj;, v. ,S!j, where the .Vpoftle 

 fpeaks of grain fown, what Jiinders thai 

 'aySeuiro^ may not be tlie fubllantiveaii the 

 other places r" To Lllulb-ute and cuii- 

 flrni his reafoning, oiu- author quotes 

 u line from Virgil, where, by finding tJie 

 nominative cnfc to the two verbs in it, it 

 may be ' difcovered that pei fonalit .-, as 

 contra-dillinguidied both to b^dy and 

 foul, mny be the nominati-.e cafe to 

 verbs. B.g. 



" L;nquebant dulces animas, aut aegra tia- 



hebanc 

 Corpora." JE^zio, ViU. 3, v. 140.5 



Thejuftnefs and foundnefs of this cri- 

 ticihu are left to the judgment of the 

 reader; but the lingularity of it may jus- 

 tify its being given at Ibnie length, as I 

 do not perceive that it lias focgeite.i it- 

 (olf to our commentators, and the tract 

 fioin \yheace it is taken is little knowa 

 and IcLaicC. 



Anotlier critique, in whicli, indeed, he 

 was anticipated by the great i\Ir. Locke, 

 but wiiicliJ do not iind has been adopted 

 by other expolitors, and v,hich ])r. Dod- 

 diid:e has ccnlured. nsan unnatural glofi, 



* Difcourfo, p. 2B. f V 43. 



X Suice the above iv.i3 written, I find that 

 Mr. Wake.'ielfJ has fupplied th; clliplcs, v. 4'i, 

 &c. agreeably tothe above criiicifm : " So will. 

 the refurreftjon alio be j Ktin is fown unlo c >r" 

 ruption," &c. In his note he'fays, " i\u- 

 tMy the foiuiag is e-'sni^fui.i : of whom ?— oP 

 mankind. 



§ P. U, 45, 47. 



may 



