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
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 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
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
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
the sensible World is limited by the Clouds His second Chapter is an Account concerning his bringing Pre-existence into play in this Age. As also a Vindication of a certain Passage for he would have the Reader think there was but One though indeed there were divers in his Cabbala from the suspicion of Anthropomorphitisme as he calls it Now though Objections were ready framed concerning these Points also yet they not hapning to be any of those Ten which were delivered to him out of my List I shall at present forbear to examine this part of his Defence and the Weakness of it and choose rather to hasten to those Ten which are the chief subject of his Apologie and with which he begins his third Chapter Upon CHAP. III. Touching the First Objection THese Objections says he were sent me from an able hand digested into that Number Order and Words which I shall set them down in They are in number Ten and all taken out of my Mystery of Godliness To profess that 't was an able Hand that sent them is no more than he had signified in his Preface but he must needs be at it again partly for the magnifying of his own Victory aforehand and partly under pretence of commending his Antagonist to expose him as he hopes to the greater scorn For if all be true which he alledges in his following Apologie the Objector can never escape being accounted the most pitifull Fellow that ever perused a Book 'T is fit therefore that this be referred to the Readers judgment between us His solemn saying They are in Number Ten is to those who know the story sufficiently ridiculous for these Ten were not sent him as the whole Number but onely as a part or specimen of the Objections Many Tens were then in readiness collected out of his Mystery of Godliness but 't was thought fit by a few and those hapned to be Ten to try what he meant to do it being friendly signified to him by that Person who delivered them that many other Particulars were prepared to be Objected And indeed had I foreseen that Dr. More would presently hasten to Print those Ten I should have drawn them up in form more suitable for the publick View and have pressed them something closer than I have done Yet let him enjoy that advantage as they are it will appear that I had just ground for the Objections and he none at all for his confidently pretended Justification Thus much is evident already that the Doctor would have the world imagine that these Ten were all that could be picked out of his whole Book He will finde it much otherwise when occasion serves The first Objection he sets down thus L. 5. C. 3. Sect. 1. He says It cannot be conceived but that Christs Body assimilated it self to the Regions through which it passed in his Ascension and became at last perfectly Celestial and Aetherial Organized Light not Flesh and Bones C. 4. Sect. 1. In Answer to this he says Sect. 3. If the Objector understand Terrestrial flesh and bones is it a fault to deny it The question here ought to have been What Dr. More not what the Objector means by flesh and bones The Objector knows there are Bodies Terrestrial and Bodies Celestial but he denys that Christs Body though now Celestial consists not of true flesh and bones He denies that it is now turned to Organized Light But the Doctor will needs be proving what was not denyed namely That Glorified Bodies cannot be Terrestrial Flesh and Bones And thus he argues in relation to his Philosophers for whom he mightily pretends to fish How harsh will it seem to them that are for the Prolomaick Hypothesis that a Body of Terrestrial Flesh and Bones should bore its way through the sphears more hard than Crystal for many myriads of miles together till at last it may ascend above all Heavens and sit at the right Hand of God And for them that are Copernicans or Cartesians and hold the Heavens all of them of a fluid subtile substance how incongruous must it needs seem to them also that an heavy Terrestrial Body of Flesh and Bones should inhabit and live in so subtile and piercing an Element whenas the Air upon the top of some Mountains is too thin for our Lungs and that the purer Heavens are so subtile that they would nimbly take apieces and consume to Atoms any such Terrestrial consistency of Flesh and Blood as is here spoke of To say nothing of the incongruity of so earthy and heavy a Body having no proportionable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to walk upon Is not this very goodly Argumentation especially in a Professor of Theologie Could Dr. More forget that both the Resurrection and Ascension and residence of Bodies in Heaven are not atchieved by any natural ways or means but solely by the supernatural Power of God Let the Heavens then be solid or fluid this can be no barr or hinderance to what God is pleased to effect Nor can his Philosopher whether Ptolomaick or Copernican count it Harsh unless he thinks it rational to question Gods Omnipotencie Which if he doth the Doctor may fish long enough before he will catch him into the Belief of any of these Points But by the way Is the Doctor sure that Ptolomy did ever assert the sphears to be more hard than Chrystal Or must Copernicus or Cartesius be counted the Fathers of the Opinion concerning the fluidity of the Heavens which was maintained not onely before Cartesius but before Copernicus was born Again How came the Doctor so well acquainted with the fierceness of the subtile Heavens as to affirm that it will so nimbly take apieces and consume to Atoms a Terrestrial Body since St. Paul knew not whether 't were in the Body or out of the Body that he was rap'd into the third Heavens which by the Doctors Philosophy he might have known for had he been rap'd in the Body his Body must have been turned to Atoms Lastly If Christ living here in his Terrestrial Body found the Water a proportional 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why might he not by the same divine Power finde the liquid Heavens a proportional 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also This third Section he concludes thus I thought fit according to my first Rule not needlesly to deny any thing rationally solid in my Antagonist but to grant that the Body of Christ in Heaven is not Terrestrial Flesh and Bones but of a more refined nature For the Apostle saith expresly 1 Cor. 15. That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God And what 's all this to the Objection Doth that charge him with saying That Christs Body now in Heaven is Terrestrial Flesh and Bones No but that he says 'T is not Flesh and Bones but Organized Light He might have dealt with his Antagonist according to the Rule he talks of though he had not denyed Christs Body to be still Flesh and Bones or affirmed it to be
Organized Light But the truth is those words of his are slye the Body of Christ in Heaven is not Terrestrial Flesh and Bones but of a more refined nature Why saith he not but Celestial Flesh and Bones Even because he would not retract his Errour charged in the Objection So that I cannot believe he means any thing else by a more refined nature than Organized Light Hereupon he concludes with that of the Apostle Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God But had he added the next words which are part of the Apostles sentence Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption he had betrayed how little St Paul favours his design For by Gods Power the Terrestrial Body shall of corruptible be made incorruptible and then it may inherit the Kingdom of God For corruptible flesh and blood cannot inherit and such is our flesh and blood before the Resurrection there being no proportion between Corruption and Incorruption But as he adds V. 53. this Corruptible must put on Incorruption and this Mortal must put on Immortality Whence 't is evident by the Apostles Doctrine that the same Flesh and Blood which before was Corruptible and at the Resurrection or final Change is made Incorruptible shall reside in Heaven For he says not This Corruptible shall vanish or perish but It shall put on Incorruption remain therefore still it must So that the Doctor needed not to have amused his Reader with a tedious Discourse as he doth in the following part of this Chapter to prove That Glorified Bodies are Angelical Spiritual and Celestial for still they may nevertheless be the same Flesh and Bones they were here in this life though never so much Refined Immortalized and Beautified by the Power of God Sect. 4. Christ argues thus Luk. 20. 36. They cannot dye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they are equal to the Angels which would be scarce an Illustration much less a Proof and convincing Illation unless it be understood in the sense I above intimated For it would be but a Languid kinde of reasoning and of small satisfaction to conclude the sons of the Resurrection immortal because they are immortal as the Angels are immortal that looks like the proving idem per idem And yet this would be all if they were equal to the Angels onely in that thing Be it granted that Christ compares not the sons of the Resurrection to Angels onely in respect of Immortality for the comparison stands also in perpetual celibate which alone is mentioned S. Matt. 22. 30. Yet still by this acute Doctors leave 't is no languid Reasoning nor looks it like the proving idem per idem to argue that the sons of the Resurrection cannot die that is are Immortal by asserting them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for seeing Angels are Immortal These also must needs be Immortal who in reference to their Duration for the text in S. Luke which the Doctor hath chosen instances in this as well as in celibate are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ argues not that they are therefore Immortal because they are Immortal as Angels are Immortal this is the Doctors saucy and blasphemous detortion of our Lords Argument but that they are Immortal because they are exalted to that condition of life which Angels enjoy and which doubtless is Immortal To say that such a thing cannot sink for 't is just like a cork such a thing cannot rot for 't is equal to an Adamant would be no languid reasoning nor proving idem per idem That which the Doctor drives at in this 4th section is to prove that humane Bodies after the resurrection shall become equal to the Bodies of Angels and he saies expresly Nor can the condition of their Bodies be left out as touching the nature and glory of them but a Son of the Resurrection and an Angel must be in every such regard all one Now if it be granted him that mens bodies shall become of the same Nature with those of Angels he presumes that they cannot be flesh and bones But first I must ask him who talks so confidently of Angels Bodies where he findes in Scripture that they have any proper and natural bodies of their own that they assume bodies in which they appear to Men and that their actions or offices are represented to us by corporal Descriptions is in condescent to our weakness whose apprehensions depend so much upon sense But if this would prove Angels to be naturally clothed with Bodies the like may be concluded of God himself to whom scripture in compliance with our Infirmity attributes corporeal parts Again if the Doctor will fix upon the Bodies of Angels mentioned in Scripture upon the account I have intimated he may do well to remember that in those descriptions Angels are generally represented with wings and some of them with 4. some with 6. wings apiece That Ezechiel ch 10. affirms that the living Creatures which he saw by the river of Chebar were Cherubims which Cherubims had the soles of their feet like those of Calves their hands under their wings like those of a Man and for their faces each of them had 4. one of a Man one of a Lyon one of an Ox one of an Eagle Now to which of the Angels will the Doctor have the sons of the Resurrection be like to those who wear one pair of wings or to those who wear two or to those who have quadruple faces But if he fancies for the Angels any other shapes or vehicles then what he findes mentioned in Scripture why must we believe that he does not dote or what reason have we to build any thing upon his Imagination of matters so far above his reach But all this while he forces the Text in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is plainly restrained in the Evangelists to celibate and Immortality Nor does the word it self require the sense he pins upon it for men in heaven may be Equal to the Angels though not in all respects and we know that Christ is Equal to the Father touching his Godhead yet inferiour to the Father touching his Manhood that when the labourers S. Matt. 20. 12. tell their Master 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou hast made them equal to us they meant no more then Equal in Wages Besides if as the Doctor affirms the nature of humane bodies in heaven must be all one with that of Angels it will be hard for him to shew that he leaves any distinction between Angels and Men hereafter Nay it will follow that though Christ at his Incarnation took not on him the Nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham yet that distinction is now out of date and instead of the seed of Abraham he is joyn'd to the race of Angels wearing no longer the body derived from Abraham but one of the same nature with those of the Angels Which seems to me a new Transubstantiation and for ought I have yet heard first minted by Dr. Henry More
And yet after much needless talk about the Lucidity and Angelicalness of Christs glorified Body in the 7th Section he seems in good part to have forgot what he wrote in the 4th for he saies Calvin seems to be afraid of the Opinion of the Body being spiritual as imploying a substantial change or as the schools speak a specifical one which would most certainly clash with our Saviours having the same Numerical Body he suffer'd in But according to the truth of Philosophy there is no specifical change in the most contrary Modifications of Matter imaginable but onely Accidental And what then means all this long stir about Terrestrial flesh and bones If the change be not specifical then the Nature of humane Bodies is not changed to the Nature of Angelick Bodies And if the change be onely accidental then the glorified Bodies of Men in Heaven are and must be the very same Flesh and Bones they were on earth onely enriched with nobler Accidents then is Christs Body the same Flesh and Bones which it was in this life Indeed the Doctor himself Sect. 8. grants upon what ground let himself look that The Body which is now truely Earthy may if God will become in a moment as perfectly and physically Heavenly and remain still the same Numerical Body If it so remain it must remain Flesh and Bones and the same Flesh and Bones it was before One would now expect that what he hath here granted should perswade him to acknowledge his rashness in saying as was objected Christs Body in heaven to be Organized Light not Flesh and Bones Yet Sect. 11. where he comes to solve as he saies the Objection his words are What harshness is there to call that Body Light that is to say a Luminous or Lucid Body which for its brightness exceeds the Sun it self according to testimony of holy Writ Or what Incongruity to say it is Organized it being so according to the common consent of the whole Church and the meaning of the Scripture You see the Doctor will needs maintain that 't was not Harsh to call Christs Body Light that is to say a Lucid or Luminous Body So that in his Dictionary Light and Lucid or Luminous Body are one and the same thing and they must signifie accordingly in an high Point of Religion rather then he should seem to have spoken so much as Harshly Christs Body is granted to be Lucid and Splendid but it is not therefore Light or splendor Dr. More is philosophical but no man especially if he reads this passage will yield that he is Philosophy it self Yet admit it were not Harsh meerly to call Christs Body Light that 's not the case here for the Doctor not onely calls it Organized Light but affirms also that it is not flesh and Bones Which in effect is to affirm that instead of Flesh and Bones it is now nothing else but Organized Light And whether this sounds not Harsh let Christian Ears judge To say That Christs Body is Organized is indeed as the Doctor pleads no Incongruity at all But with fine Legerdemain he would make his Reader think that this was part of the Question Wherefore he very gravely vouches it by the Common consent of the whole Church and by the Meaning of Scriptures Whereas the Question is whether if Christs Body be Light it can be Organized for Light is a similary thing but an Organized Body must consist of parts Dissimilary nor can the Doctor with all his cunning make out though he attempts it afterward in this Chapter how Christs Body can consist of Flesh and Bones with other corporeal Ingredients and be furnished with humane Organs if his whole Bodies mass be Light Luminous and splendid it is but that this Brightness swallows up the proper distinctions of his Parts and Members which he had here on Earth and Organizes him anew in Heaven this I deny Moses his Bush when all of a flame continued the same Bush with all its several branches and twigs When Moses his own face shined it was not become Light but onely Lucid still the distinct parts of it remained as really and truly the same as before In Christs Transfiguration on the Mount his face did shine as the Sun and his Rayment was white as the Light S. Matt. 17. 2 But still it was his face both of the same substance and Organized in the same manner as before though it so shined as not before For if it were turned to Organized Light was not his Rayment turned to Light also and will the Doctor venture to say that this Rayment was not at that time of the very same substance and matter and of the very same distinct parts it was of before But in short the Description of Christs glorified Body taken out of Apoc. 1. 13. which the Doctor cites as for his own purpose Sect. 6. mentioneth his Head and Hair to be white as wooll or snow his Eyes as a flame of fire his Feet as burning brass his Countenance as the sun shining in his strength What mean these several Comparisons of divers parts of his Body to such several things if all his Body had been nothing but Light Wooll Snow yea and burning Brass are far short of the Sun shining in his strength but supposing all his Body to be Light his Head Hair and Feet must have shined like the meridian Sun no less then his Countenance However the Doctor cannot deny but here remained Christs Head Face Feet and consequently his other Parts wherefore all these in Him who was then also truly Man must needs be of humane substance Flesh and Bones Sect. 12. Upon a fancy of his own he thus proceeds It never came into my minde to imagine that his Body melted into mere Air but that it being terrestrially modified and organized kept the exact shape still and feature but that all cloggings of the terrestrial modification were quelled and abolished The Objection was that he made Christs Body Organized Light as that is opposed to Flesh and Bones and being now well warm in his Apologie touching this Point he professes that he did not make it mere Air. Is not this mightily pertinent Yet indeed I must confess that he who puts Organized Light for a Luminous Organized Substance may as well be allowed to put mere Air for pure Light But Sect. 13. touching his having denyed Christs Body to be Flesh and Bones he thus apologizes Where I oppose a Body of Flesh and Bones to that lucid Body of our Saviour I understand Natural flesh and bones not Glorified and therefore I doe not deny that there is Glorified flesh and bones in this illustrious Body of Christ Thus he saies he understands now But did he so when he wrote his Mystery If he did ought he not to have expressed that this was his sense especially seeing his Words on which the Objection is founded carry a sense quite contrary Might he not here with more credit have acknowledged Rashness
or Indiscretion in that expression touching Organized Light not flesh and bones But notwithstanding this Interpretation of himself the truth is he is far enough from a just defence of what he wrote in his Mystery for though he would now seem to grant Christs Body to be glorified flesh and bones yet this proves not that Body to be Organized Light and if he will needs stick still as he does to that phrase of Organized Light he destroys what he grants for that which is Light cannot be flesh and bones Besides how little the Doctor gets by his distinction of Natural flesh and bones and Glorified flesh and bones in this case does readily appear seeing not flesh and bones and Glorified flesh and bones are still a contradiction after all is said Indeed in his very next words he plainly discredits so fickle is his judgement what just before he pretended to profess for he adds I demand by what Creed that hath the assent of the Universal Church we are required to believe that the glorified Body of Christ consists of Flesh Blood and Bones it seeming at the first sight so contradictious to the express words of the Apostle as well as unsutable to the nature of the Heavens which Philosophers now a days conclude to be universaly Fluid and if they were not the Incongruity would seem to them still more harsh as I noted at first Here the Objector is silent That the Creeds are the Comprehensions of the Points of Faith to be believed and not the Laws or Canons which Require us to believe is known even to the Mundus Plebeiorum though the Doctor here supposes otherwise but I urge not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What thinks he of the Apostles Creed hath not that the assent of the Catholick Church There 't is said that he whas Born of the Virgin Mary and born surely with flesh blood and bones that he was Crucified dead and buried and rose again nor will the Doctor deny but he rose with the same flesh blood and bones but He that rose Ascended into Heaven He that ascended into Heaven sitteth on the right hand of God There therefore according to the Creed He sitteth with Flesh Blood and Bones else he that sitteth there is not the same who was Born Crucified Buried Rose again and Ascended It follows then in the plain and natural sense of the Creed that the glorified Body of Christ consists of Flesh Blood and Bones And let the Doctor when he hath better consider'd it tell me whether he will grant or can deny this I need not add that both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds exactly follow that of the Apostles in these particulars Nor did I make account it was any ways requisite for me to signifie thus much in the Objection or that the Doctor would ever have propounded any such Demand concerning the Creeds Which makes me something wonder at his triumphant conclusion Here the Objector is silent That Christs glorified Body consists of Flesh Blood and Bones seems saies the Doctor at first fight contradictious to the express words of the Apostle He must here mean the words he cited sect 4. namely flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 5 c. But if he takes in the following words neither doth Corruption inherit Incorruption and those ver 53. this Corruptible must put on Incorruption and this Mortal must put on Immortality it will be so far from seeming Contradictious to the Apostles Doctrine that it will appear to be by that very Doctrine clearly confirmed As for his other pretence that it seems unsutable to the nature of the heavens I have noted the Vanity of it already in the former part of this chapter Immediately after his crowing over the Objectors silence he thus proceeds Nor can I well divine where the stress of this opposition will be fixed unless upon the 4th Article of our English Church which yet he viz. the Objector hath prudently declined as of doubtfull Interpretation The Doctor is mistaken I declined not the Article at all much less as judging it to be of doubtfull interpretation no more then I declined the Creeds though I urged them not in the Objection But that Dr. More can make any thing though never so clear to be of doubtfull Interpretation if he may but be the authorized Interpreter will appear by the Colours he puts upon this Article which runs thus Christ did truly Rise again from death and took again his Body with flesh and bones and all things appertaining to the perfection of Mans Nature wherewith he ascended into heaven and there sitteth untill he return to judge all men at the last day And the Doctors descant upon it is this sect 14. That this Article may make any thing for the inferring or affirming that the Glorified Body of Christ hath flesh blood and bones it must imply that Christ from his first Ascension into heaven to the last day doth sit there with a Body of flesh and bones But this is but one sense of the Article for it may onely signifie that c. I cannot but note here by the way the wildness and repugnancy of this Doctors discourse He grants the premised sense to be one sense of the Article and yet immediately adds that the Article may onely signifie what he is now about to tell us If it may onely signifie this how is the premised Interpretation one sense of it But he proceeds For it may onely signifie that Christ did indeed as is most certain take again his Body with flesh and bones as appears in that experiment of Thomas and that he did Ascend therewith into Heaven But the Article doth not say that He doth sit therewith that is with a Body of flesh and bones untill he return to judge all men at the last day And if it do not say this it does not gainsay but that the Body of Christ which shone so radiantly about S. Paul when he went to Damascus had neither flesh nor bones properly so called Wherefore the sense of the Article not determined by any Authority leaves us free in this point nor do I think that the Penmen thereof observing how cautious and considerate they are in that Restriction of all things that appertain to the perfection of Mans Nature did ever intend that the Belief of flesh and bones in the now glorified Body of Christ should be an essential part of this Article Nor does Mr. Rogers number it in the Propositions which he lays out as comprised in the same These last words concerning Mr. Rogers are so extravagant and impertinent as nothing can be more for who ever believed Mr. Rogers his Analyse of the Church Articles to be authorized or owned by the Church Besides will Dr. More himself own and profess all that Mr. Rogers delivers in his exposition of the Articles But the spite is in this very Particular Mr. Rogers makes against him for the 2d Proposition he draws from
the 4th Article is this Christ is ascended into Heaven which having named his very next words are In saying how Christ with his Body is ascended into Heaven and there sitteth and abideth we do agree with the Prophets Evangelists c. the evident meaning whereof is that Christ with the same Body with which he ascended into heaven doth sit and abide there And this Mr. Rogers presumed to be the sense of the Article though he formed it not into a Proposition by it self But for the Doctors Comment upon the Article what indifferent man will not straight conclude it to be most unreasonably forced for What Body of Christ now sits in heaven but that which Ascended into Heaven and the Body that Ascended thither the Doctor himself grants to be flesh and bones by the experiment of Thomas If he fancies that this Body was changed into Organized Light after its Ascension as here he must do to make good this Interpretation he then clashes with his own professed Tenet that Christs Body assimilated it self to the Regions it passed in his Ascension That which was changed after his Ascension was not changed in his Ascension But though contradictions are no news in the Doctors Theology he might have dealt more mannerly with the Church Article then I shall now shew he hath He pleads that the Article doth not say that Christ sitteth in Heaven with a Body of flesh and bones till he return to judgement This first is a slander for the Article having said that Christ rising truly from the dead took again his flesh and bones yea and all things else whether blood or spirits or any other parts appertaining to the perfection of Mans nature it adds Wherewith he ascended into heaven and there sitteth untill he return to judge all men at the last day This one would think were plain enough But see how the Doctor infers And if it do not say this it does not gainsay but that the Body of Christ that shone so radiantly about S. Paul when he went to Damascus had neither flesh nor bones properly so called The best of it is the Article God be thanked does say what the Doctor says it does not say But admit it had not in express terms said it yet still in sense and by necessary consequence it might have gainsaid that Christs Body which shone about S. Paul had neither flesh nor bones properly so called besides if Glorified flesh and bones be not properly flesh and bones what are they then are they properly any thing else and yet still flesh and bones But if they be properly flesh and bones why may they not properly be so called Would the Dr speak out there is small question to be made but he would still affirm that Body of Christ not to be a Body of flesh and bones consisting seeing he ventures to conclude that the Article leavs us free in this point and that the Penmen of it never intended the belief of flesh and bones in Christs glorified Body to be an essential part of this Article of which Conclusions the former appears already to be grosly calumnious and I shall by and by shew the latter to be little better Mean while I little doubt but if this liberty of wresting and publickly perverting the Church Articles be permitted to this Doctor there are few Heresies which his sceptical Theology may not finde a way to patronize and that under colour still of fair and plausible Consent to those very Articles The Reason he intimates for his saying that the Penmen of the Article intended not the belief of flesh and bones in Christs glorified Body as an essential part of it is that cautious and considerate Restriction of all things that appertain to the perfection of mans nature But if this were a just argument so to perswade him there should be contained in that Restriction something to fignifie that there was no such Intent in those Penmen but neither is there any such thing there contained nor indeed could there be for first in that General All things pertaining to the perfection of Mans nature the Particulars of flesh and bones had they not been premised would naturally have been included and therefore 't were very strange to Imagine them shut out by those Words but secondly the Penmen had in the former part of the Article most expressly by name professed that Christ at his Resurrection reassumed his Body with flesh and bones Wherewith they after say he Ascended and sits in heaven Wherefore it is impossible that the Restriction should prove that they intended not the Belief of flesh and bones in Christs glorified Body should be included in the essence of the Article It is plain their intent was to deliver here the Doctrine of Christs Resurrection Ascension and session in Heaven and as plain that they meant to determine with what Body Christ Rose Ascended and sits in heaven and this Body they tell us was his Body of flesh and bones Unless therefore we believe Christs glorified Body now in Heaven to be flesh and bones we believe not that with his Body of flesh and bones he Rose Ascended and sate down in Heaven If we believe not this certainly we believe not something that is essential in the Article And now whether the Penmen intended this point of Christs glorified Bodies being flesh and bones as essential to this Article or no let the Reader judge But all this while the Doctor abuses us or rather the Article by calling that clause all things appertaining to the perfection of Mans nature a Restriction for the Article having named Body with flesh and bones it immediately subjoyns and all things appertaining c. which surely in common sense is rather an Ampliation then a Restriction Having thus mocked the Church Article he would in the next the 15th Section seem pretty good friends with it for he saith But suppose the intent of the Article was to take in this also That the Glorified Body of Christ had not onely in its Ascension but still hath and ever will have till he return to judgement a body of flesh and bones provided they be Celestial and Spiritual flesh and bones as it is without Controversie a Spiritual and Celestial body that would break no squares with my Apprehensions and Concessions For I do in the very Text of my Treatise acknowledge this Glorified Body of Christ to be Organized Light But this is in truth onely a new Mockery of the Article to say That because he acknowledges a well-favoured word that as if the Thing had been propounded to him or any body else had held that Opinion when indeed 't is a Whimsey of his own Christs Body to be Organized Light therefore it sollows that this Body hath bones and flesh If it be Light let the Doctors fancy organize it as he pleaseth he can never prove it to be flesh and bones And yet immediately after his saying that he Acknowledges it to be Organized Light
he adds as an exposition of Organized Light That is to say Though at distance Christ be surrounded with gleams and rays of inaccessible Light and Glory which invelops his Body as an Atmosphear of perspired Vapours are rightly conceived to surround the body of every man especially being a little more then ordinary warmed yet if any Mortal could get within this so refulgent Photosphear as I may so call it or Orb of Glory and Brightness and approach so near as to see the frame and feature of so divine a Body c. What 's this but to overthrow in effect what he acknowledged before by making a Body of Organized Light to be a Body incompassed at a distance with with an Orb of Light and Glory A stock or a stone may be surrounded at distance with an Orb of Light but that stock or stone is not therefore a body of Organized Light Wherefore this kinde of Talk argues the Doctor to be at a loss what to say pertinetly and therefore he flutters about in repugnant expressions being onely resolved not to say what he ought that is Never to acknowledge that he hath spoken amiss In the Sixteenth which is his last Section after a most needless pudder to shew that there is a Spiritual or Celestial Flesh as well as Natural which who denies he adds For my part I must confess I do not know but the Celestial and Spiritual Flesh according to a known Aphorisme of the Hermetick Philosophy is more truely flesh then that we wear in this life Let the Doctor grant it to be but as truely flesh and I am content But then he must grant That his calling it Organized Light not flesh and bones is inconsistent with this or any Concession which is an Affirmation That 't is truely fiesh much more that 't is more truely flesh then that we wear in this life For whatsoever is truely flesh is truely flesh and therefore cannot be truely said to be Light or to be Not flesh One thing more I must observe namely That the Doctor upon every Page of this long Chapter sets this in Front as the Title of it His Answer touching the Lucidity of Christs Body after his Ascension But was that Lucidity the Point in question Doth the Objection charge him with delivering that as an Errour No such matter in the least The Objector is as forward to profess Christs Body to be Lucid as the Doctor 'T is pretty sport then that he should so solemnly proclaim all the way That he Answers what was never Objected And now to conclude It appears touching this First of the Ten Objections 1. That the Doctor admits the words charged upon him to be his own 2. That in his Asserting them he runs deeper into the mire and plunges into several Absurdities and Contradictions 3. That he shamefully perverts the Article of our Church concerning the Point in Controversie 4. That though he would seem to allow Christs Glorified Body to have flesh and bones which he expresly denyed in his Mysterie as is noted in the Objection yet still he overthrows what he so allows by adhering to his beloved Fancy of Organized Light Nevertheless he stoutly rubs his Fore-head and doubts not to Conclude That his Apprehensions concerning the nature of a Glorified body are in every regard Unexceptionable and that he hath sufficiently cleared this first Objection Wherefore he marcheth Victoriously to the Second Upon CHAP. IV. Touching the Second Objection HERE he Prefaceth by an Account of those Four Chapters in his Mystery where he Treats of the Resurrection The drift and scope of which Chapters he saith Sect. 2. is onely this Namely To defend the Article of the Resurrection in the Substantial Usefull and Indispensable Sense thereof Viz. That we shall at the last day be revived into visible and corporeal Personality wherein we shall feel our selves to be the self same men and as really to have the self same bodies and seem as much to others to have so as ever we felt our selves to have the self same body or appeared to others to have so in this life Which without all Controversie is the most plain palpable and indispensable substance of this Article and the onely sense that is evidently comprised in any of the Creeds of the Church or any Articles of them This therefore is the Province that I undertake to make good against the assaults of the Atheist This the solid and indispensable Truth that I defend in these Chapters against all his Cavils and Objections Not denying in the mean time that it is the same numerical body that riseth again in the Resurrection according to the nicest Notions of the Schools Suppose his drift and scope were as he here now professes yet if in his Discourse he vent any thing contrary to the Truth of the Resurrection his pretended Drift or Scope will not excuse him unless he thinks it enough to say What soever I wrote yet I meant well Nay though in some places he should deliver the true Doctrine touching this Point it were no Proof that he hath not delivered the False but onely an Evidence of his being a Contradictous Writer We shall saith he at the last day be revived into visible and corporeal Personality and feel our selves to be the self same men c. This he saith here in his Apologie but he said it not in his Mysterie and therefore it answers not the Objection But this is not all for having affirmed this to be the onely sense which is evidently comprised in any of the Creeds of the Church or any Articles of them He adds That in the mean time he denies not that 't is the same Numerical body that rises again according to the nicest Notions of the Schools He pleads that he denies not this and that 's all but even in this his Apologie he is carefull not to profess it though the Objection pressed him to do it Nay he plainly distinguisheth the sense of the Schools from the sense evidently comprised in any of the Creeds Thus therefore I argue The Notions yea the nicest Notions of the Schools in the Article of the Resurrection cannot amount to more then this That the very same Numerical body that dyed shall really truely and perfectly rise again Now if this Notion or Sense of the Resurrection which he cunningly would appropriate to the Schoolmen and that as a superlative Nicety be plainly and necessarily collected from the Creeds then 't is evidently enough comprised in them that it is so collected I prove thus The Apostles Creed and so the rest avows the Resurrection of the body but the body riseth not again if it be not the very same Numerical body that dyed take Numerical in the strictest sense it is capable of for the body that dies is really truely and perfectly a Numerical body And how can the same body rise again as here the Doctors own words acknowledge it doth unless it be really truely and perfectly the