Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	body_n	consist_v	whole_a	3,665	5	5.7620	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85397	Impvtatio fidei. Or a treatise of justification wherein ye imputation of faith for righteousness (mentioned Rom: 43.5.) is explained & also yt great question largly handled. Whether, ye actiue obedience of Christ performed to ye morall law, be imputed in justification or noe, or how it is imputed. Wherein likewise many other difficulties and questions touching ye great busines of iustification viz ye matter, & forme thereof etc are opened & cleared. Together wth ye explication of diuerse scriptures, wch partly speake, partly seeme to speake to the matter herein discussed by John Goodwin, pastor in Coleman-street.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.; Glover, George, b. ca. 1618.	1642 (1642)	Wing G1172; Thomason E139_1; ESTC R15925	312,570	494

which follows close upon the former observation that either there was such an opinion then ruling in the Reformed Churches or at least taught and maintained by some eminent man one or more amongst them that held iustification to consist in Remission of sins onely otherwise those deep-advised sages of the Councel should have but put a dead slie into their box of oyntment by boltring into the ayre and indeed rather have forged a weapon for their adversaries then taken any from them If it were any particular and eminent man they struck at as an abettor of that opinion there can none be pitched upon with greater probability then Calvin who still carried matters of Religion against them at that time with a higher hand then any other And Bellarmine as we heard ingenuously confessed Calvin by name to be the man Thirdly and lastly from this passage observe how some mens either learning or memory misuseth them by suggesting to them that the opinion pleaded and contended for in this Treatise viz. the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse or which is the same that iustification stands in Remission of sins onely is an opinion confederate with Popish errors Certainly those great Agents and Factors for the Roman party would never have bin so farte overseene in their solemn and sacred assembly to have poured out the vials of their wrath upon the head of an opinion that was their owne The importune striving and contendings of some men to make Galvin for them in an opinion wherof doubtlesse his learning was never guilty have compelled us to make somewhat the longer labour and discourse of it for his rescue and to set him cleere upon his own principles and foundations If any man remains yet unsatisfied touching this Authors judgement in the point now under examination and desires rather an heape then enough it were an easie matter to make the pyle of testimonies from his own pen yet farre greater even to the wearying and punishing of such a man with his own desire Somewhat more then hath bin here delivered may be found in the first Chapter where also you may see this worthy Champion of the truth accompanied and seconded in this service with many of his fellows not much inferiour to him And this bv way of Answere in the first place to the objection that Remission of sins SECT 6 was not the whole but only a part of our Iustification Secondly I Answer that from the Scriptures themselves that were alledged it may be evidenced as by expresse demonstration that there is no more no other part or member of iustification but onely forgivenesse of sins that the nature and substance of it is fully comprehended in this What can be more pregnant then that Rom. 4 6 7. c. Even as David also describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne If there were any thing more belonging to this righteousnesse which is by imputation then only the forgivenesse of iniquity or the covering of sin would the Holy Ghost wholly have omitted it and left it out when he intended a description or declaration if it Especially would he have omitted that which is the maine and principall and formall part of it as the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is pretended to be If a man should prefix such a Title as this before a Book or over the head of a Mappe A description of the world c. and never so much in all his Book or Mappe as once mention Europe or Asia the chiefe parts of the world but onely some obscure and lesser Countries would it not argue that either he wanted wit himselfe or else hoped that his Readers would want it altogether Or if a Limner should be set on worke to draw a mans picture or portraicture and should only draw the trunk of his body without a face or head upon it were this the portraicture or description of a man No more would Paul or rather the Holy Ghost have called the forgivenesse of sinnes a description or declaration of the righteousnesse which is imputed by Faith if it had bin only a part and that the lesser and lesse materiall part of it It is true SECT 7 sometimes in Scripture by a Synechdoche a part is put for the whole as the persons of men and women consisting of bodies and soules are called soules Act. 7.14 and elsewhere But 1. this is never done in descriptions or declarations of things as when the Holyghost describes the creation of man expresse mention is made both of the materiall part the dust of the earth and likewise of the formall Gods breathing in his face the breath of life Neither in reason is that to be called the description of a thing which conceales and silenceth that which is best and the most beautifull part of it and onely mentioneth somewhat of inferiour consideration in it Secondly when such a figure is used a part put for the whole it is seldome or never that the worser and more ignoble part is mentioned but still the formall and better part as bodies are no where put for the persons of men but onely Soules Except happily in two cases 1. when the whole comes under consideration and is spoken of by reason of the inferiour part as somtimes the body of Christ or flesh of Christ is put for Christ himselfe as man and for the whole humane nature of Christ namely when that which is spoken of him hath its relation to him in respect of his body or flesh Or else 2. when the Holy Ghost would represent the weaknesse and contemptiblenesse of the condition of the whole then somtimes he calls the whole by the name of that which is the weakest part of it and the ground or cause of the vanitie and weaknesse of the whole As when it is said that All flesh is grasse c. by flesh meaning Men in respect of their weake and vanishing condition in this world Neither of which cases can be pretended in that description of Iustification Thirdly and lastly when this Figure Synechdoche is used in any of these or the like cases a part being put for the whole it is when things are plaine and evident so that by the part which is named and expressed that may readily be understood which is implyed as easie to be made out either by other places of Scripture or by common sence as in the instances given All flesh is grasse by flesh here no man can understand any thing else but men cloathed with flesh So Acts 7. where Iacob is said to come down into Egypt with threescore and fifteen soules no man can think that these soules came with him without their bodies But now it is farre otherwise in this description of iustification commended unto us by Paul That by forgivenesse of sins should be meant both

fundamentall yet do they dispose more or lesse unto apostacie and absolute unbeliefe so on the other hand a cleere and sound and comprehensive understanding of any one cariage or passage of the Gospell according to the Scriptures contributes much towards the setling and establishing of the heart and soule in a firme beliefe and confidence of the whole The truth is that the body and frame of the Gospell is so compacted so neerly related in the severall parts and passages of it one thing looking with that favourable and full aspect upon another all things set in that methodicall order of a rationall connexion and consequentiall dependance one upon another that if a man be master in his judgment of any one passage thereof he may by the light and inclination hereof rectifie his thoughts otherwise and worke himselfe on to a cleere discerning and upright understanding of other things Therefore a thorough and full explication of any one point of the Gospell is of precious consequence and use But Sixtly the weightinesse and high importance of the subject of the discourse pleads the usefulnesse and concernment of it with an high hand For what can be of a more rich and solemne concernment to a man then cleerely to see and fully and satisfyingly to understand from the Scriptures how and by what meanes and upon what termes he either is or is to be Justifyed in the sight of God Doubtlesse the prospect of the promised Land from Mount Nebo was not more satisfactory and pleasing unto Moses then a cleere beholding of the Counsell and good pleasure of God touching the justification of a sinner is to the soule and conscience of him that either hopes or desires to be justified Therefore to search and inquire into this with all possible exactnesse cannot seeme needlesse to any man that savours never so little the things of his own peace Add we Seventhly in further prosecution of the same plea that there is no veyne in all the body of the Gospell no point whatsoever in Christian Religion more tender and wherin the least variation from the truth and mind of GOD may endanger the soule then this of Justification An haires breadth of mistake in this is more to be feared then a broad error in other points The truth is that if a man be of a sound and cleere judgement in the Doctrine of Justification and shall so continue he may finde a way into life through the midst of many errors and mistakes in other Articles and arguments of Christian Religion but if he stumbles or enterfires with the counsell of God about his justification he is in danger of perishing for ever neither will the cleerest knowledge of all other mysteries relieve him Behold I Paul say unto you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing Gal. 5.2 A small addition we see to the Counsell of God for our justification may cause our part to be taken away out of the Booke of life If an error in other points of Religion as about election reprobation freewill discipline or the like be to be redeemed with thousands doubtlesse an error in justification is to be redeemed with thousands of thousands In so much that all possible exactnesse and diligence in pensiculation of Scriptures and reasons and arguments to lay this corner stone aright in the building of our Faith may rather seeme negligence and loosenesse then any impertinencie or superfluitie of labour And though I have no commission from Heaven to judge that opinion touching the imputation of Christs active obedience which I oppose in the ensuing Treatise to be inconsistent with the favour of God and acceptation unto life and salvation yet in the bowells of Iesus Christ I humbly and heartily and seriously beseech all those that build their comfort and peace upon that foundation seriously to consider and lay to heart these 4 things which I shall very briefly mention desiring their respective inlargments rather in the soules and consciences of those whom they so neerly concerne First that the bridg of Justification by which men must passe and be conveyed over from death unto life is very narrow as hath in effect bin said already so that an heedlesse or carelesse step may be the miscariage and losse of the precious soule for ever Secondly that to promise our selves justification and life in any other way or upon any other termes then upon the expresse word and will of God revealed is to build upon a sandy foundation and may and ought to be abhorred and trembled at by us as the first-borne of presumptions Thirdly and with neerer relation to the great businesse in hand that to seeke justification by the Law is by the determination and sentence of Scripture it selfe no lesse then an abolishing from Christ or a rendring of Christ of none effect to salvation Christ is become of none effect unto you saith Paul whosoever of you are justified by the Law that is that seek or promise unto your selves justification by the works of the Law Gal. 5.4 Fourthly and lastly that that distinction which you commonly make between the Law or workes of the Law as performed by your selves and as performed by another meaning CHRIST to salve the danger as you conceive of your being justified by the Law is but a devise of humane wisdome at the best and no where warranted much lesse necessitated unto in the Scriptures and consequently must needs be a dangerous principle or notion to hazard the everlasting estate and condition of your soules upon I have in the Discourse it selfe and that more then once demonstrated the insufficiencie and danger of this Distinction and withall shewed that the Scriptures doe no where ascribe the Justification of a sinner to the works of the Law no not as performed by Christ himselfe but only unto his death and sufferings Therefore I content my selfe heere only to mention it Eightly and lastly the usefulnesse of the Discourse will abundantly appeare in this The opening and through Discussion of that great and noble Question therein handled concerning the Active and Passive obedience of Christ in Justification hath an influence into many other great and master veynes and passages of the Gospell and tends much to the rectifying and cleering of our judgements in these The difference betweene the two Covenants the communication of Adams sinne to his Posteritie and the equity of Gods proceedings in making the world subject unto death and condemnation thereby the consideration in Faith which makes it justifying the non imputability of the works of the Law to the non-performers of them the necessitie of Christs death the righteousnesse whereby we stand formally just before God with many other particulars of sweet and precious consideration will receive much light and cleering and confirmation hereby So that to charge the Treatise with fruitlesnesse or impertinencie is an accusation framed by the same line of equitie and truth whereby Joseph was accused of incontinencie by his

increase or soment the troubles of it And thus much more then enough by way of Apologie I have only two things to require of thee good Reader by way of courtesie in reading this Discourse which I hope will recompence thee for them though they be both faire and equall to be granted even without demand much more without recompence First in case thou meetest with the same sense or substance of matter cloathed with differēt expressions one or some whereof thou canst well beare and understand others being more hard and offensive unto thee which I conceive may be a case frequently incident in the perusall hereof my request is that thou wilt reduce that which seems crooked to that which is streight and make an attonement of the better for the worse Secondly whereas one and the same proposition or assertion in words may admit of different explications and meanings in the one whereof it may be true and accordingly either affirmed or granted by me in another false and so by me denyed my request in this place is that thou wilt not judge me a man of contradictions though in one place I denie that assertion in words which in another I affirme or grant but that thou wilt relieve me in such passages and reconcile me to my selfe by the mediation of mine owne distinctions and particular explications of my selfe elsewhere I give thee notice in one place (a) Part. 2. c. 3. soct 9. p. 57. that there is scarce any proposition can be framed wherein the word impute or imputation is used indefinitly and without speciall limitation and explication but may both be granted and denied according to a different sense and acceptation thereof And who knoweth not but that assertions and sayings otherwise are very frequently thus conditioned Now to grant a proposition in one sense and to deny it in another is so farre from being contradictions that it can hardly be avoyded in any close reasoning upon any theme or subject whatsoever But for the greatest part of ambiguities incident to matters discussed in the subsequent Treatise I explaine my selfe and mine own apprehensions in two places chiefly viz. in the first Chapter of the first Part but especially in the third of the second If any man shall please publiquely to oppose and write against what is here published I have two requests to make unto him likewise First that he will bend the maine body and strength of his discourse against the maine of mine and not brouze or nibble upon some twiggs or outward branches but strike at the root or maine body of the tree or at least at some of the principall arms and limbs thereof A tree may stand firme and be choyce timber and yet the smaller boughs and branches thereof being tender easily broken It is no damage or prejudice to a Discourse though some sentences or expressions may be pick'd out here and there which being separated from their trunck or stemme wherein they grow seeme weak and very capable of opposition My other request to such a man is that hee will please to interdict his pen all passionate language and expression and returne no worse measure in this kinde then is here measured unto him Truth is not to be drawne out of the pit where she lieth hid by a long line of calumnies reproaches and personall aspersions upon him who is supposed to oppose her but by the golden chaine of solid demonstrations and close inferences from the Scriptures The readiest way to overtake her is to follow after her in love When men are fierce and fiery in their disputes it is much to be feared that they want the truth or at least the cleere and comprehensive knowledge of the truth to coole and qualifie them I take little notice in the ensuing Treatise of that passionate piece of Discourse lately published and styled by the Author Socinianisme Discovered and confuted a title better fitting the work then the Author was aware of or intended For herein he discovers Socinianisme in his own opinion and then crosseth and confuteth it when he hath done This I have made appa●ant in the Answere to part of that Discourse which I sent unto him and which since hath bin thought meet it seem's to some to be made more publique In consideration whereof as likewise by the advise of some friends otherwise I tooke off my pen and suspended the finishing of a full and particular Answere to that Discourse which I began immediatly upon the publishing thereof after I had made some considerable progresse therein As upon advice I desisted so upon advice I may be brought on againe to perfect and publish those beginnings In this Treatise I no where trouble the rest and peace of Mr. Walkers Socinianisme but only in the fourth Chapter of the second Part nor here doe I meddle with any other particular thereof but only with that which is the heart and soule such as it is of that whole discourse viz. his delineation or description of the whole Doctrine of Justification I have detained thee somewhat long in the entrance but thou seest there was cause I desire now to open the door unto thee which leadeth into the Discourse it selfe by earnest prayer addressement of my heart and soule unto God on thy behalfe that he will give thee a spirit of discerning a sound and upright and unpartiall judgement in all things that thou mayst call no man Master on Earth but reserve the glory and honour of this Name whole end entire for thy great Master in Heaven that he will so blesse and sanctifie the Discourse unto thee that in the reading of it it may poure thee out a blessing of knowledge for thine understanding of establishment for thy judgement of peace for thy conscience of joy and gladnesse for thine heart and soule and all this and much more through Jesus Christ by whom he is able to doe it to whom be everlasting confessions and acknowledgements of all Grace and Glory and every excellencie by every Creature AMEN Thine in the LORD IESVS assured J. GOODWIN From my Studie in Colemanstreet A briefe view of the Method and cariage of the whole Discourse of the first PART CAP. 1. THe Question stated and declaration made in what sense the Discourse either affirmeth or denieth the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse in Iustification From p. 1. to 18. CAP. 2. Those Scriptures Rom. 4. ver 3.5 9 22. c. managed for the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in a proper not a metaphoricall or metonymicall sense with the testimonies of many Authors both ancient and moderne standing by this Interpretation From p. 19 to 54. CAP. 3. Severall Scriptures wherein the works of the Law are absolutely excluded from Justification as Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2 16. c. not admitting the Imputation of the Active obedience of Christ in the sense opposed in this Discourse with severall objections against such an Interpretation of them propounded and answered From p. 55

justification I propound after this manner That righteousnesse which will not fit and furnish all beleevers with all points or parts of that righteousnesse which the Law requires of them cannot be imputed unto them unto justification But the obedience that Christ performed to the mor all Law is such a righteousnesse as will not fit and furnish all beleevers with all points of righteousnesse which the Law requires of them Therfore it cannot be imputed to beleevers for their justification The reason of the former Proposition is because a perfect and compleat legall righteousnesse and such certainly I meane perfect and compleat that that justifieth must of necessity be requires a precise punctuall and through obedience unto all things in the Law which any way concernes a man to doe If there be but a letter jot or title wanting in any man righteousnesse of all that was his duty to doe that righteousnesse is not at any hand for his iustification The curse of the Law and eternall vengeance will breake in upon a man body and soule aswell through the smallest and least-imaginable defects of a legall righteousnesse as through wider breaches and greater transgressions in case a man hath not wherewith to secure himselfe otherwise Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them Gal. 3.10 Therfore there is no escaping the curse of the La●● by the law except a mans obedience be absolutely absolute aswell for constancie as univ●●se in ad things that are written viz. with reference to him and 〈◊〉 calling For otherwise there may be a struct and compleat I 〈◊〉 righteousnesse with 〈◊〉 the doing 〈…〉 Law in ca●e they have no 〈…〉 As for instance Adam might have performed and accordingly have hin still Justified by a compleat Legall righteousnesse and yet never have performed many duties which the Law required of Eve for the continuance of her iustification So Christ ful●filled all righteousnesse as himselfe faith it became him to doe and consequently held an exact conformity with the Law so that neither Man nor God himselfe could rebuke him of sinne and yet the Law requires many things of many others both Men and Women which Christ never performed as will appeare in the demonstration of the latter Proposition which is at hand For the truth therfore of this Proposition that the righteousnesse performed by Christ unto the Morall Law SECT 2 will not sit and furnish all beleevers with all parts of such a righteousnesse as the Law requires of them it is so full of its owne light that further proofe will but runne over How many duties are Servants indebted unto their Masters after the flesh by the obligation of the Law which Christ never discharged or performed as namely that they should be obedient unto them with feare and trembling Eph. 6.5 Againe Wives charged by the Law with many points of obedience towards their Husbands yea and Husbands with some towards their Wives which certainly Christ never performed for them yea he expressely declined and refused the doing of some things as lying without the verge of his Calling which the Law requires as matters of speciall dutie from others When he was desired Luk. 12 13.14 to do Justice or take up a controversie betweene a man and his Brother his answere was Man who made me a Judge or divider over you Implying that he would meddle with no acts of righteousnesse that lay without the precincts of his Calling And indeed if he had though it was unpossible that ever his foote should have been taken in that snare it had overthrowne the infinit benefit that now redounds unto the world from those acts of righteousnesse which were performed by him in his Calling So when the people would have taken him and made him King Joh. 6. he absolutly refused and refusing the office of a King doubtlesse he would not take upon him the execution Therefore what righteousnesse should Kings and Magistrates have imputed unto them from Christ to make them just and righteous in their Callings when Christ himselfe refused to performe those acts of righteousnesse which are proper thereunto That which never was done or acted by Christ cannot be imputed that which never had a being is not capable of an act of imputation to passe upon it It may be some will object SECT 3 that Love is the fulfilling of the Law for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law Rom. 13.8 and this fulfilling of the Law by Love is such a righteousnesse as will fit all persons of all Callings and relations in the world whatsoever Therefore the perfect Love of Christ may be imputed for righteousnesse unto all though particular and proper acts of obedience otherwise be wanting But to this I Answere First howsoever Love may be termed an Evangelicall keeping or fulfilling of the Law because God accepteth of it graciously wheressoever he findeth it in truth and rewar deth it accordingly yet is it not a strict literall and legall fulfilling of the Law it is not such a fulfilling of it as will hold out weight and measure for any mans justification in a Covenant of works For first the Law requires many duties from men and seizeth upon them with the Curse immediatly upon the first nonconti● 〈…〉 ●al t●in●s N●w Love is but one duty 〈…〉 and therefore cannot be many much 〈…〉 Love were such a fu filling of 〈…〉 ●●q●ired in a legall justification 〈…〉 beleevers be justified not by an 〈…〉 by a pers nal righteousnesse because no 〈◊〉 is a true beleever but he that ●oves his Brother truely and whose Faith worketh by such love Thirdly and lastly if the Love of Christ were capa●le of that imputation for righteousnesse that is pretended then will it follow at least according to the principl ● of that Opinion against which we disput● that the whole active obedience of Christ I meane all that righteousnesse of his which stood in holy actions conformable to the Law was in vaine be cause there is no other possible necessity granted of this righteousnesse of Christ by these men but only for imputation Therefore Secondly to the objection I answere yet againe that where the Scripture calleth Love the fulfi ling of the Law it speaketh only of that part of the Law which we call the second Table as is no whit lesse then evident in the place last named Rom. 13.8.9 But that fulfilling of the Law which claimes the honour of a justification whether by imputation or personall performance must comprehend as well a fulfilling of the first as of the second Table Thirdly and lastly that proposition Love is the fulfilling of the Law is not propositio sormalis but causalis consecutiva as Logiciaxs speake that is such a proposition wherein one thing is said to be another not because it is precisely the same in nature and being with it but because it is the cause of it and so hath the being of the other vertually in it

person but only for him that spake them Those which were words full of grace and truth in that mouth that spake them and for which they were fitted would be words of presumption and blasphemie in any other if they were conceived to be spoken either in the Name or concerning the person of the speaker So that you see clearly SECT 3 that one maine reason why we deny the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the propriety or formality of it in justification is not because we deny the righteousnesse it selfe nor because we deny the necessity of it nor yet because we lesse honour and magnifie it then others but on the contrary because we desire to establish it upon better foundations and shew a plainer and greater necessity of it and give more honour and glory to it then the adverse opinion can do If men will needs understand that Esay 42.21 of Christs fulfilling the Law The Lord is well pleased for his righteousnesse sake he will magnifie the Law and make it honourable there is no such way to raise the interpretation of the words on high as to make the righteousnesse of Christ in respect of the letter and formality of it incommunicable He that should have taken the Reed out of Christs hand that was put into it instead of a Scepter and have broken it in pieces and given him a Scepter 's of gold instead of it should have honoured Christ more then they that gave him the Reed So he that shall overthrow a pretended use and feigned necessity of Christs righteousnesse and demonstrate a true and reall necessity of it indeed he no waies derogates either from the righteousnesse it selfe or from the necessitie of it but addeth weight and authority unto both It is a speciall circumstance or qualification much insisted upon and required in the honour we ascribe or give unto God that it be precisely that honour which is due unto him or due unto his Name Psal 29.2 and Psal 96.8 because indeed upon a true account that would be found no honour at all unto him which is not due unto him He that shall deny that ever any man lay in that womb of the Virgin wherein Christ was conceived and fashioned by the Holy Ghost besides himselfe shall neither disparage the womb that bare him nor him that was conceived in it but should rather honour both And so he that shall say there was never man buried in the Tomb wherein Christs body lay disparageth neither No more is it any dispargement or prejudice cast upon the righteousnesse of Christ to say that there was never any man formally justified with it but himselfe alone that it is a righteousnesse sit for no man to weare or assume to himselfe but only for the person of him that wrought it Nay he that here speaketh these things exalteth the righteousnesse of Christ on high and mainteineth the honour that belongeth to it Therefore by the way to charge the crime of Arrianisme upon this opinion which some have much adoe to forbeare is to frame an accusation against it upon the like termes that Potiphars wife proceeded upon in her inditement against her Servant Joseph the foule crime of incontinencie was layd to his charge whereas his vertuous offence was nothing else but a high streine of a chast behaviour Gen. 39. Or it were as if a man should be accused of want of love to the Brethren who were now ready to lay downe his life for their sakes greater love then which as our Saviour saith no man hath There is no opinion that can more deerely sympathize with the Divinity of Christ then that that denieth the imputation of his righteousnesse in the sense so frequently disallowed But some perhaps will think sufficiently to salve the congruity or sitnesse of this righteousnesse of Christ for imputation to beleevers SECT 4 from the consideration of the union that is betweene Christ as the head and beleevers as the body or members and reason after this manner Though the righteousnesse of Christ be too glorious and excellent to be appropriated unto men or to be accompted unto them for their personall actions as they are men or as they are sinfull yet as they are members of Christ and he their head they see no inconvenience in it they may be ascribed unto them May not that which is done by the head be ascribed or communicated to the whole body To this I Answere two things First that Christ and beleevers are a mysticall body that is a body only by way of a secret resemblance or similitude with a naturall body Therefore an universall concent or agreement in all things betweene them cannot be thought on because then a similitude would be no longer a similitude but an identitie and a mysticall body would be no longer a mysticall body but a naturall Now one difference betweene them is this what any one member of the body naturall doeth as head eyes eares c. the whole may be said to do when the head studieth the man may be said to study So when the eye seeth or eare heareth c. yea it is more proper to ascribe these and such like acts which are exercised by the particular members of the naturall body severally and the whole person then to the members themselves by which they are acted it is more proper to say the man seeth by the eye then to say the eye seeth But in the mysticall body it is otherwise When Christ the Head of this body wrought miracles the body could not be said to have wrought them So when Paul a speciall member of this body reproved Peter the whole body cannot be said to have reproved him because some of the members joyned with Peter in his sinne against Paul in his reproofe The Reason of which difference is this because in the naturall body the members make but one Suppositum as the Schoolemen speake or one personall being and so have but one and the same numericall principle of all their actions and motions viz. the reasonable soule but a mysticall body being made up of many persons or personall beings which have every one entire natural substantial beings in themselves besides their relation of members one to another and so have every one principles of their actions really distinct each from other One mans will is not really and numerically the same with anothers nor one mans grace really the same with anothers And hence it cometh to passe that what one of these members doe is not necessarily to be ascribed to the whole body but to that member only which doth it inasmuch as it hath a principle within it selfe which is not numerically the same with the rest But secondly I answere more briefly and plainely to the objection Though the benefit of what the head doth be communicated to the whole body and every member for every member in the naturall body fareth the better for the Head and the operations of it yet that