same Numerical body which dyed So that what he craftily terms the sense of the Schools must unavoydably be the sense of the Creed and therefore is unreasonably that I say no worse by the Doctor distinguished from it The truth is the bare word Resurrection in the Creed doth naturally and irrefragably import the perfect and absolute Numerical Identity of the body that riseth which if the Doctors Theologie cannot digest he had best mend the Creed and instead of those words I believe The Resurrection of the body put in I believe the Resurrection of some part of the body or in some respects or what else he fancies Indeed in his 4th Sect. of this Chapter he pretends to prove that Resurrectio hath no such necessary importance his words are The Atheist makes a fresh assault from the sense of the word Resurrectio as if it implyed the rising again of the very same Numerical body in the strictest Scholastick sense To which is answered First That Resurgere in Latin implies no such thing necessarily but that as a City or Temple suppose being rased to the ground and from the very foundation if you will is truely said to be rebuilt and so is deemed and called the same Temple and City again though not a stone were used of the former Structure provided onely that they be rebuilt upon the same ground according to exactest Ichnography That being a stable character of their Identity that they are built upon the same lines they were before So though the same Numerical matter were not congested together to make the same body at the Resurrection yet the stable Personality being in the Soul this body that is united with her and built as it were upon that stable unchanging ground doth ipso facto become the same body as before as it was said to be the Temple or City that is rebuilt upon the same plot of ground again and in the same lines as before Which is consonant to the generous Assertion of that learned Knight Sr Kenelm Digby who I well remember somewhere in his Writings speaks to this sense That the soul being once devested of her present body if she had afterwards a body made out of one of the remotest Rocks of Africk or America this body upon vital union with the soul would be the same Numerical body she had before Which is also agreeable to the sense of several considerable Philosophers and Schoolmen Avenroes Durandus Avicenna and others who contend That Individuation is from the Form onely and that the Matter and suppositum is individuated from it Doth not this look like the Discourse of one who clearly believes the sense of the Catholick Church concerning the Resurrection I shall make bold a little to scan it What he saith of the Latin Resurgere I deny not Eversaque Troja resurges is Ovids words and Res Romanae resurgent Livies but are such Resurrections proper or figurative if proper they must needs import the restitution of the same Numerical things and not of things like them or things in their stead I demand therefore Are the words in the Creed to be understood figuratively or properly I hope not figuratively This would let the Latitudinarians loose to make rare sport with all the Articles of our Faith but if properly then doth Resurrectio necessarily signifie what I before affirmed Sutable whereunto is that of Tertullian adv Mar. l. 5. Resurrectionis vocabulum non aliam rem vindicat quà m quae cecidit Wherefore to the Doctors Comparisons of a City or Temple rebuilt upon the same lines but of other Materials I answer Such a City or Temple is properly and more truly said not to be the same but another City or Temple in their rooms then to be the same And if another body be raised again for thus repugnantly must I speak to follow the Doctor instead of that which dyed it may more truly be said not to be then to be the same body Suppose the second Temple at Ierusalem were erected upon the very same lines with the first can it properly and truly be said to be Solomons Temple and not rather another in its stead Suppose Aelia to have been built upon the same Ichnography where Ierusalem formerly stood Hadrian the Emperour who named it Aelia would hardly have been convinced by the Doctors discourse to believe that this City was properly and truly Ierusalem and not Aelia 2. Whereas he saith The stable Personality is in the Soul 't is most true that it could not be the same Person after the Resurrection without the same soul but the Question is not concerning the sameness of the soul but of the body and if the Person who dyed consisted of two essential parts viz. soul and body it cannot be the same Person after the Resurrection unless it consists of the same two essential Parts 3. To say that a new body not of the same Materials with the old but quite other doth by being at the Resurrection united to the soul become ipso facto the same body as before is in all common sense and reason an evident Contradiction for it makes it to be the same and yet not the same 4. Whether Sr Kenelm Digby ever wrote what the Doctor affirms of him I know not He cites not the place but leaves us to trust his memory which I should the willinglyer do did I not know how apt the Doctor is to forget himself 5. In making this fancy of his consonant to the sense of great Philosophers and Schoolmen he abuseth both them and his Reader For the reason he alledgeth is because they contend That Individuation is from the Form onely and that the Matter and Suppositum is individuated by it But this is far enough from proving what he pretends For the soul being the principal part of the suppositum it may justly be said to Individuate it and if we should grant that the soul is invested at the Resurrection with a body new and of quite different Materials from that which dyed there were no doubt in that case but the Individuation were from the soul. But it follows not that because it Individuates that body into which it is then put that therefore it makes it the same Numerical body with that into which it is not then put Upon the Doctors hypothesis of Another which yet he thinks he hath here found a trick to make the same bodies being united to the soul at the Resurrection there is no doubt but there emerges an Individuum and that by vertue of the soul thus united but is it the very same Individuum it was before that 's the Point in Question now If it be the very same it must consist of the same essentials the same body and soul it did before it dyed but that it doth not for the soul is supposed to Individuate another body and not that which dyed This Fancy therefore is a meer Sophism and would with indignation have been exploded even
the same body this he gravely calls a Curiosity and thereby again prompts us to conjecture what is his bosom sense of the Article of the Resurrection Nay he pronounces it to be so far from Asserting it that it plainly saith it is not the same body If S. Paul saith so and saith it plainly how dares the Doctor say plainly as he often doth though in a fraudulent sense that It is the same body But his saying so is in other places and he can take the liberty to say one thing in one place and the contrary in another In this place he makes the Apostle say that God will give the Soul a Body quite different from that which was buried as he gives the blades of Corn grains quite different from that which was sown And hereby he makes S. Paul compare not onely the Body to the Grain but also the Soul to the Blade Yet bate him this ridiculous boldness with the Apost'e his whole comment upon the Text forceth the comparison beyond the due bounds the words are these sect 37. That which thou sowest thou sowest not that body that shall be but bare grain c. If this be strictly to be taken it will necessarily follow that the Body of Man sown in the earth shall not be that is shall not rise again but this cannot be the Apostles meaning for this he saith sect 44. It is sown a natural body it is raised a spiritual body Raised therefore again it is His scope evidently is this to make the Corinths understand that by virtue of the Resurrection our bodys shall of Animal become spiritual of corruptible and mortal incorruptible and immortal for this cleerly appears by the sequel of his discourse To facilitate this he premises a simile and tells them that in sowing of grain they sow not the body that shall be but for example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bare grain of wheat or other corn this seed comes not up again bare corn for there lies the stress of the simile but in another condition clothed by God with all the furniture and ornament of the spica Yet the Apostle adds that it hath still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God gives it its own body wheat comes up wheat and rie rie Semblably when Mans body is buried 't is not the body that shall be for 't is sown an animal corruptible mortal body but at the Resurrection God makes it a spiritual incorruptible immortal body and gives to every Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still his own body his own though refined and spiritualized And thus far the simile fairly holds and being but a simile must not be pressed in all respects as if it were a mathematical Parallel For if the Doctor will thus urge it he must make it appear how corn is sown in Corruption and comes up in Incorruption for so also is the Resurrection of the dead V. 42 which also will force him to grant that corn comes up Incorruptible supposing the simile were strictly to be pressed in every particular All therefore that can be proved from hence is that Mans body at the Resurrection is not the same in condition and Qualities that it was when it dyed though it be numerically the same in kinde and substance Besides the Doctor makes bold to affirm in the Apostles name that of the body of Man viz. it is not the same body he should have said It is not that body that shall be which the Apostle speaks of the body of Grain and which he brings not as a perfect parallel to demonstrate but as a simile to illustrate according as I have noted above Now therefore I return to his challenge which was this I dare challenge him to produce any place of scripture out of which he can make it appear that the Mysterie of the Resurrection implies the Resuscitation of the same Numerical body The Challenge as daring as it is I lay hold of though not made to me and besides what I have said already in asserting the place in Iob could well and safely enough Answer it in St Ieroms words in his Comment upon Ezekiel Chap. 37. where speaking of the Resurrection of the body and he understood the same Numerical body he saith Scimus Testimonia in quibus nulla sit dubitatio in Scripturis sanctis reperiri Ut est illud Jobi suscitabis pellem meam quae ista sustinet Et in Daniele Multi qui dermiunt in terrae pulvere resurgent isti in vitam aeternam isti in opprobrium confusionem aeternam Et in Evangelio Nolite timere eos qui corpus interficiunt animam autem non possunt occidere timete autem eum magis qui potest animam corpus perdere in gehennam Et Apostolus Paulus Qui suscitavit Iesum Christum à mortuis vivificabit mortalia vestra Corpora propter inhabitantem Spiritum ejus in vobis Et multa alia So far St Ierom and far enough to gravel our confident Doctor I might add that signal place which I have formerly mentioned St Io. 5. 28 29. All that are in the Graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth they that have done good to the Resurrection of life and they that have done evil to the Resurrection of condemnation Is not this Text plain or can the Doctor tell us what can be plainer if all who are in their graves shall come forth at the last day then doth the Mysterie of the Resurrection imply the Resuscitation of the same Numerical bodies namely of those very bodies which were interred in those Graves But I will rather insist upon 1 Cor. 15. that very Chapter which if you will credit the Doctor plainly saith It is not the same body Consider therefore the 53. V. This corruptible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must put on incorruption and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this mortal must put on immortality Those words this corruptible and this mortal for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both places makes them Determinative and Emphatical must be meant of that Individual Numerical body which shall dye or be changed But this Numerical body shall put on incorruption and immortality that is shall be invested with those Modifications instead of corruption and mortality Therefore this Numerical body after the Resurrection or change must needs be the same Numerical body that it was before Else this corruptible and this mortal cannot truly be said to put on incorruption and immortality if the body it self in its individual substance be another as well as the array Sect. 8. he saith Wherefore to this Objection I now briefly and particularly answer First that it is not of faith to believe a pretty phrase if you mark it but I guess his meaning that every body that is said to rise at the last day should rise out of the Grave since all bodies had not burial Will the Doctor yield concerning such bodies as had burial if not what is this Answer but an
Impertinency Indeed he was conscious and therefore presently waves it himself and thus proceeds Secondly therefore I say that I do not affirm that it cannot be proved out of Scripture that the same body shall rise again but the same Numerical body for I acknowledge that would take away the Resurrection indeed if the body that is said to rise were not in a very due sense the same And I think it is very duly the same if it be acknowledged as much the same with the body that was buryed as that body was with it self during this terrestrial life Which I do freely acknowledge it to be though I decline the averring it to be the same Numerical body in the ordinary sense of Numerical according to the more rigid sort of School Divines This is his main answer Now it had been but fair if mentioning the Schoolmens Notion of Numerical body and making it his Fence so often as he doth he would at length have told us what that Notion is and how the rigider and the softer sort of School Divines differ about it But he was shie of exposing himself more openly to the lash That Notion as I have noted already cannot amount to more then this That one and the self same body that dyed shall really and truly rise again and if it doth not so rise I have proved that there cannot truly be a Resurrection of the dead It is therefore a vain Doff to pretend that he onely declines the rigid sense of the Schools Yea but he grants the body shall be as much the same as it was with it self during this terrestrial life And what would you more so much more as would amount to plain and ingenuous Dealing for I question not but this is a trick and a ready out-let when need shall require by the help of which he may comfort his Proselytes and tell them they need not boggle or be troubled at this his seeming Concession which he meant but as a blinde wherewith to fool such rigid men as the Objector for they must remember that the body in this life is often changed and between daily spending and repairing is no more the same in a few years then that Ship which was so often mended and patched that none of her first Materials were left Wherefore to grant that the body at the Resurrection is as much the same with that which dyed as that was with it self in this life is in effect to grant no sameness at all Wherefore to drive him from this starting hole first I demand of him Whether his own body be Numerically one and the same to day that it was yesterday I easily imagine he will not affirm that he hath every day a new body Numerically distinct from the former How many weeks then or moneths or years is it since he had not the very same body which he now wears I suppose his Answer will be That the change was made by such insensible degrees that the precise time when it was finished cannot be named yet nevertheless sure he is that in the decurse of time his body is so changed that it remains not Numerically the same it was before Here therefore it will be convenient to consider the condition of a still-decaying still-renewing body and what is the true Numerical Identity of it Some things naturally persist in their beings without capacity of decay and therefore need not the help of any Reparation such we suppose Angels and the souls of men to be Other things are made by the Creatour in a condition subject to spending and wasting so as it is requisite to their Continuance that they be supplyed and maintained by nutriment Whence as the nature of Angels and souls of men is Permanent so the nature of these things is fluent and it is truly said of man in respect of his body that he never continues in one stay for this mutability is sutable to his very nature Hereupon it follows That the Identity of the body may in this corruptible estate well consist with nay doth properly include in it this fluency no less then the Identity of the soul includes in it constant Permanency Nor can the body cast off this corruptibility or mutability till by the Resurrection it puts on incorruption as well as immortality and becomes fixed in an undecaying Consistence For any one therefore to infer that the body continueth not the very same all the life long because all the life long it spends and is anew repaired is to infer that it is not the very same body because it perfists in a condition proper to its nature whilst a natural and not yet a spiritual body If then it be the same fluent Creature all the life long it must be Numerically the same seeing the Identity of any singular thing can be no other then Numerical but it is all the life long the same fluent Creature and the individual body of one and the same man whereby it is apparent that during this terrestrail life as the Doctor speaks it is the same yea and Numerically the same with it self But I argue further In what age condition or stature the body shall at the last day be raised I pretend not to define But certain it is that it must be raised in some one age condition and stature as it shall seem good to God Almighty Let the Doctor now ingenuously tell us Whether he believes that the body so raised shall be at the Resurrection as much the same body that dyed as that body was the same with it self in this life whilst it was actually in that very age condition and stature in which the raised body appears For example suppose the Doctors body at the Resurrection be just such bating imperfections of distempers and the like as it was at his age of 30 years shall that revived body be as much the same with that which the Doctor wore at his age of 30 years as the body which at that time he wore was then the same with it self Surely it was then Numerically the same with it self in the strictest School sense of Numerical which is imaginable Wherefore the Doctors specious acknowledging it to be as much the same body as that body was the same with it self during this Terrestrial life is pitifully vain if he denys the body to be truly and Numerically the same body all this life long and much more if he denys the raised body to be most perfectly and Numerically the same accidental imperfections corruptibility and mortality excepted with that which the body was in this life at that age and in that condition and stature in which that raised body shall happen to be restored But all this while what he hath alledged in this his Second Answer is new nor doth he pretend those words to have been in his Mysterie as they ought to have been if they must serve for his Apologie In the progress therefore of this 8th Section he would have us
think that he had written in his Mysterie sterie what is tantamount and this it is That the same men that dye and are buryed shall as truly appear in their own persons at the day of Judgement as if those bodies that were interred should be presently actuated by their souls again and should start out of their Graves And to give an Instance they shall be as truly the same persons as Lazarus when he rose body and soul out of the Grave after he had lien there Four daies together And I think Lazarus was sufficiently the same both soul and body Yes he was so and Numerically the same which I pray good Doctor take notice of and withall of your own Contradiction You will not grant That the bodies at the Resurrection shall in the Schools strict sense be Numerically the same with those in this life Yet you affirm That the same persons shall as truly rise as Lazarus when he rose body and soul and that was in as strict a sense Numerically the same as the Schoolmen can possibly imagine But now I consider it again I doubt not but the Doctor smiles at my charging him here with Contradiction though I think most Readers would have done the same The truth is antiquum obtinet his Concession which at first blush seems frank and ingenuous is but a demure piece of fraud First He instances here not in all that dyed but in all that dye and are buryed This was the very thing he cavilled at in his first Answer but here it is for his purpose to use it that his pretence of holding that men shall be as truly the same persons at the Resurrection as was Lazarus when raised body and soul from the Grave might be glibly swallowed and thereupon he be thought to have granted sufficient concerning the Resurrection of the same body Secondly He saith those men shall as truly appear in their own persons at the day of Judgement He saith not In their own bodies Nay he intimates the contrary by adding as if those bodies that were interred should presently be actuated by their souls again and should start out of their Graves As if they should is in plain English that they shall not For to say Those men shall as truly appear in their own persons as if those bodies that were interred should be reactuated with their souls c. doth not acknowledge but rather deny that those bodies which were interred shall either presently or ever at all be actuated by their souls again in the Resurrection What is his meaning then you will say in affirming that they shall appear in their own persons I will tell you and I must thank himself for giving me the scent by which I smell it out in what he delivered before in his 4th Section There he informs us That though the same Numerical matter were not congested together to make the same body at the Resurrection the stable personality being in the soul this body that is united with her and built as it were upon that stable and unchanging ground doth ipso facto become the same body as before Thus you see how in the Doctors Theologie men may at the Resurrection be the same persons and as truly consisting of the same body and soul as was Lazarus when raised from his Grave and yet they may have other bodies united to their souls then those which dyed and were buryed because those other bodies by vertue of their union to the souls in which is the stable Personality ipso facto become the same bodies as before In his 10th Sect. he finally pleads thus for what he wrote in his Mystery It was necessary for my designe who to the Philosopher avow my Religion to be Rational not to make my self look like a fool to him to whom I pretend my self so rigid an Adherer to Reason by swallowing down needlesly such things as I can finde neither faith nor reason to require of me I should be glad to hear for as yet I cannot of any one Philosopher whom this Doctor hath converted but that he hath perverted many Christians is too true or he is grosly slandered Suppose that what he saith were necessary for his designe in that Book of his Mysterie yet I cannot see what necessity he had in this Apologie which he makes not to unbelieving Philosophers but to Catholick Christians to contradict the Belief of the Catholick Church and to profess touching the perfect Numerical Identity of the body at the Resurrection that it is needless to swallow it and that neither faith nor reason require it of him Not faith so he denies what I noted and proved above That this Point is necessarily included in the Creed Not Reason though it be a Contradiction to say That the same singular body for of such is the Question riseth again and yet not the body most truly and Numerically the same that dyed The truth is there was all the reason in the world that even in dealing with his Philosopher he should plainly have owned and asserted this Point for no Philosopher who enjoys the use of his Reason can ever imagine the Resurrection of the dead body to be possible unless the body raised be supposed to be one and the very same with that which dyed Yet the Doctor if you will believe him had he not done as he did thinks he should have made himself look like a fool to his Philosopher What he hath now made himself look like both to Philosophers and Christians who shall consider these passages I forbear to say and shall rather advise him seeing he is so jealous in this Point of making himself seem a fool to Philosophers to remember That the foolishness of the Christian Faith is wiser then the gravest Philosophy and that it will be found at last that all Innovations in any Belief of any Article of our Creed is the short reasoning of unreasonable men But his very last words are these For my own part I doubt not according to my private thoughts but there will be a Recollection of as much of all that corporeal substance we wore in this life as will be requisite to make our bodies again the same And what is this to the Objection what are his private thoughts he tells us of now to what he publickly delivered in his Mysterie some years since Is there any such thing there as he seems to profess here If so then these were not his private thoughts at the Writing of his Apologie but published to the world with his Mysterie if not his Apologie here is insignificant unless he maintains and makes good what he wrote there which he neither hath nor can or else Retract both that there and a good confident word in his Preface here namely that he doth Demonstrate in his Apologie That he hath committed no errour in what he hath written before Indeed this his last Concession bears a shew of much more then he hath hitherto granted and may
the Pythagorean School it self for what had their Metempsychosis signified if upon the souls change of bodies the same Individuum had remained or how could Pythagoras have said Trojani tempore belli Panthoides Euphorbus eram But the Doctor annexes a second Interpretation of Resurrection and will have it signifie onely Vivification or Re-vivification and thereupon without any more ado pronounces That the Objection from the word Resurrectio is utterly defeated No haste Sir it is so far from being utterly defeated that 't is plainly confirmed by this your Interpretation What I pray is that which is Revived at the Resurrection Is it the soul or the body Not the soul I hope and if the body be revived it must be that body which dyed unless you will have us believe that another body is revived which never dyed and that whatsoever dyed of the body never lives again But you will scarce ever prevail with men in their right wits to profess That the old body is revived because a new body exactly like it is substituted in its room and united to the soul of that old body which is the Principle of Individuation Sect. 6. He produceth certain passages out of his Mysterie to prove that he contradicts not nor decrys the more curious and nice Opinion of the Schools in the Numerical Identity of the body His first is the Description of the Scholastick state of the Resurrection namely That we shall have the same Numerical bodies in which we lived here on earth and that these very bodies the molds being turned aside shall start out of the grave To which saith he I presently subjoyn This Doctrine the Atheist very dearly hugs as a pledge in his bold conceit of the falseness and vanity of all the other Articles of Religion Then he concludes Wherein 't is manifest by my inserting in his bold conceit that I am so far from denying the Doctrine of the Schools that I check the Atheist for doing so Yes marvellously manifest surely those inserted words in his bold conceit may by very easie and natural construction refer to them which follow of the falseness and vanity of all other Articles of Religion for 't is a bold Conceit in the Atheist to think all other parts of Religion vain though he should esteem this Doctrine of the Schools so to be But how heartily the Doctor checks his Atheist here for his bold Conceit against the Schoolmen may be guessed by those words of his in the Eighth Section of this Chapter I decline the averring it to be the same Numerical body in the ordinary sense of Numerical according to the more rigid sort of School Divines To his next passage he proceeds thus Again Sect. 7. where speaking of this more punctual Position of the Schools I write thus These and such like are the Arguments of those that would overthrow Religion upon this advantage as they deem it and something they drive at that seems to tend to a perswasion of some kind of Incongruity and Incredibility in the matter but it will not all amount to an utter Impossibility Here again I am so far from rejecting or condemning the Opinion of the Schools from being altogether untenable that I intimate that the advantage that the Opposers have is not so great and down-bearing in it self as in their esteem and conceit for I say upon this advantage as they deem it Besides that I suggest that all the force of their Argument against this Position is but a Tendency and that a seeming one toward a perswasion of but some kinde of Incongruity and Incredibility but I flatly deny that it will at all amount to a real Impossibility of the thing And what is at all possible with God is with him easie for as much as he is infinitely Omnipotent The Result of all this doth onely afford us another Argument against the Doctor for if the Opinion of the Schools hath in it no real impossibility If the advantage the Atheist takes from it be onely imaginary and built on his own Conceit If all the force of his Arguments against it amount but to a Tendency and that a seeming not real Tendency towards a perswasion of but some kinde of Incongruity and Incredibility Then 't is evident that the Doctor hath no just ground to decline it unless he can produce something against it out of Scripture for what could be pretended from Reason is presumed to be in the Objections he makes the Atheist propound and they by his own confession come in effect to just nothing But had he been provided of any thing out of Scripture for this purpose I doubt not but we should have heard of it from him in tono tertio But he proceeds And again in the very last clause of this Chapter I express a special care of reserving the Notion of the Schools untouched and intire in these words But what I answer I would be understood to direct to the Atheist and Infidel permitting them that already believe the substance which I have righty stated above to vary their fancies with what circumstances they please Truly I believe that in some sense he hath special care to leave to the Notion of the Schools Untouched Indeed he professeth as I have noted already to Decline it But whether this be out of Tenderness or out of Dislike 't is easie to discover Onely he would seem wonderous kinde and generously gives us leave provided we believe the substance to vary our fancies as we please about the Circumstances And what if he had not vouchsafed thus to Permit us did our Liberty depend upon his Permission when that appears we will thank him for it Mean while I must be bold to note here a piece of the Doctors fraudulent Art The Point in hand is Whether the same body riseth again I mean Numerically the same in the sense of the Schools the very same it was before it dyed and was consumed in the earth air water or elsewhere Now the Doctor makes this Point no part of the substance of the Article touching the Resurrection but onely a Circumstance So that a man may rightly believe whatsoever is substantially and indispensably the sense of that Article though his faith be not determined in this as the Doctor would have it esteem'd Circumstantial Particular For though in the Account he gave us of the Articles substance Sect. 2. he seems to say That we shall at the Resurrection have really the self-same bodies which we had in this life yet in the Fourth Section touching the word Resurrectio he blurted out what he truly means by any such Expressions namely That though the same Numerical matter be not congested to make the same body at the Resurrection the stable Personality being in the soul this body that is united with her doth ipso facto become the same body as before Wherefore let a man but believe that at the last day the soul shall be united to a body of the same
form and fashion with that which dyed and by Dr More 's Theologie he believes all the substance of the Article concerning the Resurrection for he believes that the same body riseth again because this new body by being joyned to the soul becomes ipso facto the very same body which was joyned to it in this life And let such a man never scruple that this new body is not of the same Numerical matter or substance with the Old for that 's onely Circumstance and no substantial Part of the Article of the Creed Let but the Doctor have a Patent thus to Interpret the Creed and I see not but he may soon Interpret away the whole Truth and Substance of the Christian Faith Yet in his Conclusion of this 6 section he doubts not to say This is enough to clear me from all suspicion of Heterodoxness in point of the Resurrection and it would be but superfluous farther to alledge how expressly I declare chap. 7. sect 2. that I do not deny the possibility of the same numerical body no not in the most strict though needless meaning of the Schools I believe the ingenuous Reader will scarce be of his opinion that what he hath hitherto said is enough to clear him But why do I call it an Opinion when in the style of it it is a definitive sentence passed by himself for his own justification and that which is the sport of it before he hath so much as set down the Objection made against his Heterodoxness in this Point much less applied his Answer to it for this he does not till he comes to his 7th section of this chapter But if the Doctor be not heterodox in this Point how shall we maintain the holy Fathers of the Church to be Orthodox Take a specimen of their Judgements S. Iren. l. 5. c. 13. In quibus vidue Filius Lazarus resurrexerint corporibus in iisdem scilicet in quibus mortui fuerant si enim non in iisdem ipsis nec iidem ipsi qui mortui erant resurrexerunt And a little after Quod est humilitatis corpus quod transfiguravit Dominus corfirmatum Corpori gloriae suae Manifestum est quoniam Corpus quod cst Caro quod humiliatur cadens in terrâ Tertul. lib. 5. adv Mar. Si Carnis resurrectionem negantes retundit Apostolus utique adversus illos tuetur quod illi negabant Carnis scilicet Resurrectionem and again Corpus est quod amittit Animam amittendo fit Mortuum ita Mortui vocabulum Corpori competit porro si Resurrectio Mortui est Mortuum autem non aliud est quà m Corpus Corporis erit Resurrectio surgere potest dici quod omnino non cecidit quod semper retro jacuit Resurgere autem non est nisi ejus quod cecidit And lib. de Resurrect Praecipit cum potius timendum qui Corpus Animam occidat in gehennam id est Dominum solum non qui Corpus occidant Animae autem nihil nocere possunt id est humanas Potestates Adeo hic Anima immortalis natur a recognoscitur quae non possit occidi ab hominibus Carnis esse Mortalitatem cujus sit Occisio atque ita Resurrectionem quoque Mortuorum Carnis esse quae in gehennam nisi resuscitata non poterit occidi Theodoret Heret fab l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again upon those words of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Epiphanius in Ancorat sect 92. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And heres 64. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrys. de Resur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Jerom in his Epist. to Pamach Quoniam spiritus carnem ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere propriè ad Thomam Infer digitum tuum in manus meas manum tuam in latus meum noli esse incredulus sed fidelis Sic nos post resurrectionem eadem habebimus membra quibus nunc utimur easdem carnes sanguinem ossa I might be infinite in Citations of this kinde out of the Fathers but these may suffice And whether theirs or Dr Mores judgement in this Point be more venerable I leave to the Christian Reader to resolve For what he saies it would be superfluous to alledge out of his 7th chapter sect 2. I have again perused that section and all I finde looking this way are these only words The very point and sting of this scoff against the Conflagration is also a presumptuous mistake as well as that against the Resurrection though I deny the Possibility of neither This is short of what he points us to But his words immediately there preceding in the close of the first section are these We having plainly shewed that the Mystery of the Resurrection implies nothing more then this That the same individual Persons shall be revivificated body and soul and made happy with eternal life But the same individual Person does not involve any necessity of the same numerical Body as hath been shewn at large By which it is not difficult to discover what his judgement is concerning the Resurrection of the same numerical Body that is as I and any man understands One and the same Body You see he here professeth that the same individual Person involves no necessity of the same numerical Body and in the forementioned passage he terms the meaning of the schools a Needless Meaning if it be with him as he affirms first and last needless and of no necessity then he affirms that it is not nor ought to be held any point of faith That one and the same Body shall rise again Touching his saying that the Resurrection implies that Body and Soul shall be made happy with eternal life I must minde him that he makes very bold with Christ who teaches us that the Resurrection is the way to Misery as well as to Happiness S. Iohn 5. 28 29. All that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth they that have done good unto the Resurrection of Life and they that have done evil unto the Resurrection of Condemnation After the Doctor hath made this long prefacing flourish he now at length is pleased to set down the second Objection which is this He faith That it cannot be proved out of scripture that the same Body shall rise again from the grave This takes away the Resurrection of the Body for this cannot be except the same Body rise again Then he adds The Quotation of the place from whence this Objection is taken is here omitted but I question not but that it aims at that passage chap. 4. sect 3. book 6. which runs thus I answer farther as concerning Scripture it self that I dare challenge him to produce any place of scripture out of which he can make it appear that the Mystery of the Resurrection implies the Resuscitation of the same Numerical Body The most pregnant of all is
Iob 19. which later interpreters are now so wise as not to understand at all of the Resurrection The 1 Cor. 15. that Chapter is so far from asserting this curiosity that it plainly saith it is not the same body but that as God gives to the blades of Corn grain quite distinct from that which was sown so at the Resurrection he will give the Soul a Body quite different from that which was buried as different as a spiritual Body is from a natural Body or an Heavenly from an Earthly First I desire the Reader to take notice that this last clause as different as a Spiritual Body is from a Natural Body or an Heavenly from an Earthly is not in his Mystery but here demurely thrust in by the Doctor he knows why Touching the Place in Iob and the wise Interpreters who understand it not at all of the Resurrection he confesses sect 9. That in that speech he had an Eye to Hugo Grotius his gloss upon the text He is all the Interpreters he is pleased to mention yet that very Hugo Grotius is the Man whom in his Interpretation of the 13th and 17th of the Apocalpys the Dr in his late Book of Antichristianism extremely vilifies for example lib. 2. cap. 3 sect 1. he saith That Grotius his expositions of these chapters are harsh and unapplicable and that he hath left the plain road and rushed through hedge and ditch and pull'd up all fences to gather a nosegay of flours that both smell ill and immediately wither in his hand in the very gathering of them Yet though Grotius be an Interpreter that can leave the plain road as indeed he does upon this place of Iob yea and behave himself in his Comments like a man right down frantick the Doctor to serve his own turn and bolster up his own innovating fancy can put him in the balance against all ancient Interpreters Now against Grotius his authority in this Point I offer not onely the Ancients for example S. Ierom who in his Epistle to Paulinus speaks thus of Iob Resurrectionem corporum sic prephetat ut nullus de eâ vel manifestius vel cautius scripserit Scio inquit quod Redemptor meus vivit in novissimo die c. where he repeats this whole place Also in his Epistle to Pammachius having set down the Text he subjoyns Quid hâc prophetiâ manifestius nullus tam apertè post Christum quà m ille ante Christum de Resurrectione loquitur Also S. August de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 29. Ruffinus in Symbolum with Origen Philippus Presbyter S. Gregory the great venerab Bede upon the place but after them Aquinas Lyra Hugo Card. Munsterus Castalio Clarius Codurcus Dionys. Carthusianus Borrhaeus Oecolampadius Brentius Pellicanus Osiander and that I tell them not by the clock one for all the moderns the most learned and judicious Bp. of Winchester Bp. Andrews Nay Mercerus himself though he open'd Grotius the way to his Opinion yet honestly confesses in his Comment upon Iob that Nostri fere omnestam veteres quà m recentiores hunc versiculum cum duobus sequentibus ad resurrectionem referunt quam hoc loco Iob astruit Here 's almost all both old and new of the Christian Commentatours granted us Besides the Church of England in her office of Burial useth those words of Iob as meant of the Resurrection though the Doctor in his 9th section endeavours to evade her Authority by making those expressions bear onely a Type and similitude of our Rising again not considering that they who thus divert this famous Text from the antient Interpretation to their own new fancies not onely take from our Church one of the most ancient and venerable proofs of the Resurrection but also of our Redeemers Incarnation whom Iob saith he shall see with his eyes and not another For matter of Authority then we have abundantly enough against what the Doctor produces Consider we therefore Grotius his Reasons for his Interpretation as the Doctor cites him His gloss upon the Text Scio quod Redemptermeus vivit c. is this Haec verba quae sequuntur Iudaei nunquam ad Resurrectionem retulere cùm tamen omnia rimentur quae aliquaam in speciem eò trahi possunt This is first but a Negative Argument if it were true that it is not true may appear by Mercerus whom in this question me thinks the Doctor might trust who upon the place saith thus Quòd side Resurrectione futurâ hic loqueretur Iob non erant haud dubiè id praetermissuri Hebraei qui ipsiâ— Resurrectionem credunt At ne unum quidem ex sex aut septem Hebraeorum Commentariis invenies qui eò referat This implies that though there be not one of six or seven Comments of the Jews which thus apply it yet some few there are who do and this is contrary to Grotius his assertion that Iudaei Nunquam ad Resurrectionem retulere But Grotius goes on Christiani non pauci eo sunt usi 〈◊〉 probandam Resurrectionis fidem sed ut id facerent coactâ—…sunt in versionibus suis multum ab Hebraeo discedere ut notatum Mercero aliisque Hebraea sic sonant Scio ego Redemptorem meum vivere illum postremò staturum in campeâ—… Etiamsi non pellem tantùm meam sed hoc nempe arvinaâ—… quae sub pelle est consumerent morbi scilicet in carne tamuâ—… meâ videbo Deum i. propitium experiar Deus Redempta dicitur quia pios ex multis malis liberat And presently after Postremum in campo stare est victoris Sic Deum dicit victo rem fore adversariorum suorum neque verò ei esse impossibile corpus ejus putredine prope exesum restituere in priorem formam quod fecit Deus One would have expected here from Grotius a most punctual version of the Hebrew but such it is not in the 26th verâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being exactly rendred sound in Latin thus Et postquam pellem meam contriverint hanc which â—… Arias Montanus his version with which if we compare thaâ—… of Grotius etiamsi non pellem tantùm meam sed hoc consumerent it is obvious to see that he himself doth multum 〈◊〉 Hebraeo discedere Indeed let Montanus his translation of the 25 26 27. verses which is the whole place in controversie be examined and it will appear a close and exact Translation and yet by that version of his the place may very aptly be understood of the Resurrection so little need they who thus understand it be Coacti as Grotius would have us believe in versionibus suis multum ab Hebraeo discedere Lastly Grotius his interposition of several words which certainly are not in the Hebrew to make out his sense look back something unhandsomely upon his premised words Hebraea sic sonant Now for the 1 Cor. 15. the Doctor affirms it to be far from asserting this Curiosity The point was The rising of
perhaps by some be thought a sufficient Profession But if it be sincerely said and be sound and Catholick why without more ado had we it not at first Why spared he not those prolix needless Discourses in this Chapter to assert the integrity of his belief in this Point For my part according to my private thoughts I doubt all is not right Latet anguìs in herba and I am the rather inclined to this jealousie because upon narrower Examination of the Words I finde them truly capable of such a sense as shall not in the least signifie what in their outside they may seem to carry namely That of the corporeal substance we wore in this life there shall be a Recollection sufficient to make our bodies again the same they were before they dyed but on the contrary shall import that not any parts at all of our former corporeal substance shall need to be recollected at the Resurrection For the wary Doctor hath in this specious Concession contrived a Trap-door by which he may at his pleasure give us the slip and satisfie his Disciples that he hath said nothing here but what is consistent enough with the Principle they wot of That Trap-door lies in those words as will be requisite for it is evident by what I have noted above that the Doctors Opinion is That no Recollection of the corporeal substance or any parts of it which we wore about us in this life is requisite to make our bodies again the same seeing stable Personality proceeds from the soul and to use his own words Sect. 4. though the same Numerical Matter be not congested together to make the same body at the Resurrection yet the body that is united with her doth ipso facto become the same body as before Whereas therefore he grants That as much of the corporeal substance as will be requisite to make our bodies again the same shall be Recollected he grants nothing at all to the purpose since his declared Judgement in this very Chapter is That no such recollected substance will be Requisite Nevertheless in the front of the next Chapter he bravely pronounceth We have I hope by this time produced more then enough in satisfaction to the Second Objection More then enough indeed but whether satisfactorily to the Objection the Doctor must not be Judge no more will I but leave it to the Reader Upon CHAP. V. Touching the Third Fourth and Fifth Objections WIthout any Preface and we are much beholden to him for that kindness he sets down the Third Objection thus Object 3. He makes Episcopacy a Faction and so against Gods word Praef. Sect. 19. To this he Answers first It is a short Objection but a very smart one were it true and plainly contradictious to several passages in my Preface Suppose that several passages in his Preface did contradict this yet that argues not but what is here objected may be true for Contradictions are no News in this Doctors Writings as hath and shall farther appear But he proceeds For in the 21th Sect. I write thus That Episcopacy simply in it self is not Antichristian Excellent The Doctor hath Notions of Antichristianism by himself as may appear by his Mysterie of Iniquity And in what sense he will here have Antichristianism understood if he be put to a pinch is uncertain However by the way Episcopacy is very much beholden to him for pronouncing it to be not Antichristian nay Not simply and in it self Antichristian And because he hath pronounced a difficult point and of great consequence he goeth on to prove it The summe of his Proof is Because it was in use in the most pure times of the Church when she was most pure and exactly Symmetral By which Argument he ought positively to have pronounced it to be simply and in its self Christian. But this would have proved a trouble some block in the way of what follows in that Preface and is here repeated by him as a second step of his Answer Viz. That upon an Account of Reason and of the nature of the thing it self Episcopacy joyned with Presbytery is better then Presbytery alone Why saith he not That Episcopacy alone is better then Presbytery alone and better then Presbytery joyned with Episcopacy if he would not be by some understood to prefer Presbytery Besides who ever heard of that Hodgpodge which the Doctor here commends Namely The Government Episcopal and the Government Presbyterian which are repugnant the one to the other jumbled into one Government Yet this Thesis concerning his Chimaera to wit That Episcopacy joyned with Presbytery is better then Presbytery alone he goes on to prove at large in his Preface and right tediously repeats it here in his Apologie Which done he crows thus If any one hath any thing to say more material for Episcopacy then this let him speak So that if you will believe Doctor More he presumes That no mortal man can produce any thing more material for Episcopacy then to prove First That it is Not simply and in it self Antichristian Secondly That If joyned with Presbytery it is better then Presbytery alone His third step is in these words Lastly At the close of Sect. 22. I do expresly declare That there is not any effectualler means imaginable to make the people believe in good earnest that Religion is worth the looking after then to finde themselves looked after so carefully and affectionately in reference to Religion by persons of so honourable Rank and Quality In that Section of his Preface he speaks of the ample and honourable Revenues of a Bishop and then gives a large Character of high personal sanctity in him after which he closeth with those words before cited But the Doctor may please to know that this Discourse comes not home to Episcopacy I mean to the Order and Government it self For Episcopacy is Episcopacy though it be not adorned with ample honours and Revenues yea though those who are admitted into it happen to be persons no waies admirable for vertue and holiness of Life If therefore he asserts and magnifies a Bishop onely as he is a person of honour and of vertue he will not be seen at all to acknowledge any single Reverence due to his Office and him as he is a Bishop which is very wisely done Besides suppose Presbytery erected and publickly professed may not many of the Elders be persons of honourable Rank and Quality and of ample Estates And would not the People be highly affected to finde themselves taken care for in reference to Religion by the chief Burgers the Justice the Lord of the Manour the Knight the good Lord or Earl Wherefore the Doctors arguing for Episcopacy upon such accounts as those will but make Presbyterians smile Well but for all this he will needs conclude this first Section of this Chapter with this Affirmation All which passages viz. the three I have noted are perfectly Contradictious to the Charge this third Objection lays against me
that Nestorius his Heresie was in that he held No real and physical Union as I may so speak such as is betwixt Body and Soul betwixt Christ and the Word but that the Word and Humanity of Christ were really disjoyned Observe how shie the Doctor is As if it were some question whether he might so speak and how is that it is indeed but as S. Athanasius speaks in his Creed As the reasonable Soul and Flesh is one man so God and man is one Christ and what is this but a real and physical Union such as is betwixt the Body and the Soul the reason of this shiness will appear hereafter Mean while suppose Nestorius held no real and physical Union of Christs 2 Natures such as is of our Body and Soul i. e. an union into one Person Yet he professes in his forementioned Assertions produced in the Council an Union and that a very close one his words are tetradio 15 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us therefore hold the inconfused conjunction of the natures let us confess God in Man let us adore Man who by conjunction to God Almighty is together worshipped with him Which I here set down that we may by and by see upon examination whether what the Doctor writes in his Mystery will amount to any nearer Union then that which Nestorius himself pleads to have acknowledged He adds other Citations 1. Out of Photius 2. Out of the Collection of the 6 Oecumenical Councils by an uncertain Authour 3. Out of the Synodicon and then concludes thus in the close of his 7th Section Out of all which it is exceeding plain that the Heresy of Nestorius consisteth in this that he divided and cut quite asunder the Humanity and Divinity of Christ into two separaâ—e Hypostases making Christ a mere man and so denying the Incarnation of the Word the Godhead of Christ and the honour that accrewed to the Blessed Virgin c. I see so little to our Question in his Citations that I will spare my self the trouble of searching whether he hath faithfully produced them or no and be content to take them upon his word For by the Doctors leave these passages affirm not that Nestorius held two separate Hypostases in Christ though the Doctor would pin that sense upon them All that may seem to favour his Assertion is in the first Citation which saith That Nestorius cut and divided Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into two Hypostases but it saith not Into two separate Hypostases Nor could it truly say so seeing it appears by Nestorius his own words which I have alledged above that he professed a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the two Hypostases and where there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there may be distinction indeed but not separation Wherefore those following words in the Citation out of Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie onely distinction and by no means separation namely that God and man were not united in one Hypostasis though otherwise they did most closely cohere unless Photius understood Nestorius his minde better then Nestorius himself In the next place Sect. 8. for perfectly quitting himself of Nestorianism which heresie he falsly presumes that he hath truly stated he brings several passages opposite as he saith thereunto out of the 1 Book of his Mysterie cap. 5. Book 5. cap. 17. Book 10. cap. 6. But what is all this to the 6th Objection founded upon Book 6. cap. 15 If he happens to speak Catholickly in some places is that a justification for his speaking the contrary in others Let us therefore now see what he saith after this long Proem to the Objection it self which is this as he sets it down in the 10th Sect. of this Chapter Object 6. He brings in an humane person of Christ lib. 6. c. 15. sect 1. p. 258. and afterwards without any mincing calls it so ten times in that Chapter and several times afterwards The Doctor having produced this Objection falls upon a piece of ingenuity which being a rarity I will do him so much right as to note it For he saith I will also add what was hinted to me at second hand out of Book 9. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. where I declare How that the Humanity of Christ and the eternal Word may be Hypostatically united without any contradiction to humane Reason unsophisticated with the Fopperies of the Schools and both their Hypostases remain still entire And afterward in the same Sect. I bring in Christ as made up if one may so speak of the second Hypostasis of the Trinity and of that Humane Person that conversed at Ierusalem Where by the way I must minde him That in this ingenuity he also betrays a piece of boldness which I know not how he can answer Namely in his Magisterial stamping upon the Schoolmens Writings the name of Fopperies and such as sophisticate humane Reason For though those Authours were men who could have answered for themselves with more acute and solid Reason then the Doctor could oppose them yet that is not all King Iames of blessed Memory a Prince of as great judgement surely as Dr More hath recommended and enjoyned the Reading of the Schoolmen to our University The same injunction was renewed by the glorious Martry K. Charles the First and also by our present Sovereign K. Charles the Second Which makes me much wonder with what face this Doctor could tax the Schoolmen with Fopperies and sophisticating of humane Reason in the matter of the hypostatical union of the Word and Humanity of Christ. For be it will he say in the matter of Transubstantiation and Worship of Images c. they have sophisticated Yet to turn off every thing when he wants a starting hole as the same Numerical body raised again and in Christ but one Person not two Persons under the Notion of School Fopperies is as good as to leave nothing wherein these three Kings could well recommend them to our studies Who knows not that there is an allowance or abatement to be made for humane Errours in most humane Authours recommended to us And though our University Statutes order Platos Aristotles and Plinies Books to be publickly taught yet they suppose them not to be in all parts free from Errours We understand therefore that those sacred Kings commended the Schoolmen to our studies so far as they clash not with the Doctrine of ours and the Catholick Church But in his next the 11th Section he undertakes to shew all these passages to be blameless but saith he must first settle the true Notion of Persona and Hypostasis To do this he first defines Suppositum to be A singular individual substance compleatly existing by it self but not incommunicably though incommunicately i. as yet not actually concurring as a potential principle to the making up of Eni unum per se. Truly he takes a fair liberty to make definitions of his own and then examine his Doctrines by
say not separate as I have noted above for Nestorius professed a Conjunction though not a Personal Union and if the Doctor stands strictly upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if Nestorius had cut the whole and rendred one part here and another there he obtrudes upon him what he never thought of Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Hesychius tells us and this Nestorius did though he did not separate them and this Dr More seems to do in his Answer to the Objector if he justifies as he doth justifie all in his Preface what he saith he wrote lib. 9. cap. 2. I bring in saith he there Christ as made up if one may so speak of the second Hypostasis of the Trinity and of the humane Person that conversed at Ierusalem If one may so speak is but a necessary mollifying of the foregoing word made up of not of what follows without any mollifying of the second Hypostasis of the Trinity and of the humane Person that conversed at Ierusaelem Now whosoever distinguisheth really though he do not separate the second Hypostasis i. e. Person of the Trinity from the Humane Person that conversed at Ierusalem speaks that which is Heresie and if after idoneous admonition he doth defend and say he demonstrates that he hath therein writ no Errour may be judged an Heretick though he do add that Christ is made up of these two but as one may so speak for Nestorius himself would have forwardly concurred in such a modification Made up of them but as one may so speak But the Doctor pretends that in naming the humane Person of Christ alone he doth no more divide Christ into two Hypostases then he that names Christs Humane Nature alone doth divide him into two Natures which were it done that is were his two natures cut asunder it would most certainly dissolve the Hypostatical Union I cannot say whether this Plea be more bold or vain Most bold it is to dally in such great Points and childishly to argue from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used about Christs Person as if they imported such a cutting asunder as is made by a knife when it divides a stick into two pieces And most vain it is for first Christs two natures though united in one Person are still two really distinct Natures wherefore he who names one of them alone doth not thereby cut asunder the Personal Union of both no more then he who names Dr Mores Body alone or his Soul alone cuts asunder the Union of his Body and Soul in one Person but he who names an Humane Person of Christ alone in distinction from a Divine Person of Christ as the Doctor here doth most undenyably divides Christ into two persons and infers as much as lies in him the dissolution of the Hypostatical Union of two natures in one person And should any Man so far dote as to speak of the Person of Dr Mores Body and the Person of his Soul who doubts but such words would import a dissolution of that one Person which results from the Union of the Doctors Soul and Body Sect. 14. he adds Though I say that the Hypostases remain intire yet my so expressly affirming them Hypostatically united shews plainly that they do not remain Intire separately but united unconfoundedly And doth not Nestorius himself acknowledge that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Unconfounded Conjunction of the two Natures How differs this from the Doctors conclusion that the two Hypostases remain not Intire separately but united unconfoundedly Nestorius was as far from separating the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Humane Nature as Dr More Nor can the Doctors affirming that the two Hypostases are hypostatically united though those two Hypostases remain Intire be any excuse for him unless he will bring an impossibility for his Apologie for to be hypostatically united is to become One Hypostasis but if the two Hypostases remain Intire they are certainly two Hypostases and not onely One unless the Doctor hath any trick to prove that two in the very same Notion can be one and one two Sect. 15. he concludes with this jolly vaunt I have not departed from the very language and sense of the Councils and Athanasius his Creed in adventuring to say that the Humane Person of Christ Jesus concurs with the Divine Hypostasis which confessedly all men will grant to be well rendred here the Divine Person for the making up one Christ Truly to use the language of the Councils and S. Athanasius his Creed was no such high valour in a Doctor of Divinity that he should term it an Adventure But to prove his Consonance with the Councils he shews that the Greek Church calls the three Hypostases as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence he infers that the Council of Chalcedon manifestly allows a concurse of the Divine and Humane Hypostases for the making that one Person which is called Christ. The Councils words he cites are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in Binius his Copie it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Binius omits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense he pins upon the Council he draws from those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where he will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this I answer though some Greek writers be granted to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It follows not that the Council of Chalcedon uses it so here Nay that it doth not use it so here is evident by comparing the premised words with these in question those words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then immediately follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which later words are an Illustration and Assertion of the former the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Difference of the Natures viz. of the Divine and Humane is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken away by the Union but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. the Property of each Nature by which they are differenced from one another namely the one being impassible the other passible c. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserved and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is concurring into one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Council must understand that to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preserved which it saith was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken away that which was not taken away was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Difference of the Natures therefore this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Difference of the Natures is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preserved and concurring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one Hypostasis Observe then the Doctors boldness who in his Translation of this Citation which he subjoyns to the