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
think that he had written in his Mysterie sterie what is tantamount and this it is That the same men that dye and are buryed shall as truly appear in their own persons at the day of Judgement as if those bodies that were interred should be presently actuated by their souls again and should start out of their Graves And to give an Instance they shall be as truly the same persons as Lazarus when he rose body and soul out of the Grave after he had lien there Four daies together And I think Lazarus was sufficiently the same both soul and body Yes he was so and Numerically the same which I pray good Doctor take notice of and withall of your own Contradiction You will not grant That the bodies at the Resurrection shall in the Schools strict sense be Numerically the same with those in this life Yet you affirm That the same persons shall as truly rise as Lazarus when he rose body and soul and that was in as strict a sense Numerically the same as the Schoolmen can possibly imagine But now I consider it again I doubt not but the Doctor smiles at my charging him here with Contradiction though I think most Readers would have done the same The truth is antiquum obtinet his Concession which at first blush seems frank and ingenuous is but a demure piece of fraud First He instances here not in all that dyed but in all that dye and are buryed This was the very thing he cavilled at in his first Answer but here it is for his purpose to use it that his pretence of holding that men shall be as truly the same persons at the Resurrection as was Lazarus when raised body and soul from the Grave might be glibly swallowed and thereupon he be thought to have granted sufficient concerning the Resurrection of the same body Secondly He saith those men shall as truly appear in their own persons at the day of Judgement He saith not In their own bodies Nay he intimates the contrary by adding as if those bodies that were interred should presently be actuated by their souls again and should start out of their Graves As if they should is in plain English that they shall not For to say Those men shall as truly appear in their own persons as if those bodies that were interred should be reactuated with their souls c. doth not acknowledge but rather deny that those bodies which were interred shall either presently or ever at all be actuated by their souls again in the Resurrection What is his meaning then you will say in affirming that they shall appear in their own persons I will tell you and I must thank himself for giving me the scent by which I smell it out in what he delivered before in his 4th Section There he informs us That though the same Numerical matter were not congested together to make the same body at the Resurrection the stable personality being in the soul this body that is united with her and built as it were upon that stable and unchanging ground doth ipso facto become the same body as before Thus you see how in the Doctors Theologie men may at the Resurrection be the same persons and as truly consisting of the same body and soul as was Lazarus when raised from his Grave and yet they may have other bodies united to their souls then those which dyed and were buryed because those other bodies by vertue of their union to the souls in which is the stable Personality ipso facto become the same bodies as before In his 10th Sect. he finally pleads thus for what he wrote in his Mystery It was necessary for my designe who to the Philosopher avow my Religion to be Rational not to make my self look like a fool to him to whom I pretend my self so rigid an Adherer to Reason by swallowing down needlesly such things as I can finde neither faith nor reason to require of me I should be glad to hear for as yet I cannot of any one Philosopher whom this Doctor hath converted but that he hath perverted many Christians is too true or he is grosly slandered Suppose that what he saith were necessary for his designe in that Book of his Mysterie yet I cannot see what necessity he had in this Apologie which he makes not to unbelieving Philosophers but to Catholick Christians to contradict the Belief of the Catholick Church and to profess touching the perfect Numerical Identity of the body at the Resurrection that it is needless to swallow it and that neither faith nor reason require it of him Not faith so he denies what I noted and proved above That this Point is necessarily included in the Creed Not Reason though it be a Contradiction to say That the same singular body for of such is the Question riseth again and yet not the body most truly and Numerically the same that dyed The truth is there was all the reason in the world that even in dealing with his Philosopher he should plainly have owned and asserted this Point for no Philosopher who enjoys the use of his Reason can ever imagine the Resurrection of the dead body to be possible unless the body raised be supposed to be one and the very same with that which dyed Yet the Doctor if you will believe him had he not done as he did thinks he should have made himself look like a fool to his Philosopher What he hath now made himself look like both to Philosophers and Christians who shall consider these passages I forbear to say and shall rather advise him seeing he is so jealous in this Point of making himself seem a fool to Philosophers to remember That the foolishness of the Christian Faith is wiser then the gravest Philosophy and that it will be found at last that all Innovations in any Belief of any Article of our Creed is the short reasoning of unreasonable men But his very last words are these For my own part I doubt not according to my private thoughts but there will be a Recollection of as much of all that corporeal substance we wore in this life as will be requisite to make our bodies again the same And what is this to the Objection what are his private thoughts he tells us of now to what he publickly delivered in his Mysterie some years since Is there any such thing there as he seems to profess here If so then these were not his private thoughts at the Writing of his Apologie but published to the world with his Mysterie if not his Apologie here is insignificant unless he maintains and makes good what he wrote there which he neither hath nor can or else Retract both that there and a good confident word in his Preface here namely that he doth Demonstrate in his Apologie That he hath committed no errour in what he hath written before Indeed this his last Concession bears a shew of much more then he hath hitherto granted and may
the same body this he gravely calls a Curiosity and thereby again prompts us to conjecture what is his bosom sense of the Article of the Resurrection Nay he pronounces it to be so far from Asserting it that it plainly saith it is not the same body If S. Paul saith so and saith it plainly how dares the Doctor say plainly as he often doth though in a fraudulent sense that It is the same body But his saying so is in other places and he can take the liberty to say one thing in one place and the contrary in another In this place he makes the Apostle say that God will give the Soul a Body quite different from that which was buried as he gives the blades of Corn grains quite different from that which was sown And hereby he makes S. Paul compare not onely the Body to the Grain but also the Soul to the Blade Yet bate him this ridiculous boldness with the Apost'e his whole comment upon the Text forceth the comparison beyond the due bounds the words are these sect 37. That which thou sowest thou sowest not that body that shall be but bare grain c. If this be strictly to be taken it will necessarily follow that the Body of Man sown in the earth shall not be that is shall not rise again but this cannot be the Apostles meaning for this he saith sect 44. It is sown a natural body it is raised a spiritual body Raised therefore again it is His scope evidently is this to make the Corinths understand that by virtue of the Resurrection our bodys shall of Animal become spiritual of corruptible and mortal incorruptible and immortal for this cleerly appears by the sequel of his discourse To facilitate this he premises a simile and tells them that in sowing of grain they sow not the body that shall be but for example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bare grain of wheat or other corn this seed comes not up again bare corn for there lies the stress of the simile but in another condition clothed by God with all the furniture and ornament of the spica Yet the Apostle adds that it hath still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God gives it its own body wheat comes up wheat and rie rie Semblably when Mans body is buried 't is not the body that shall be for 't is sown an animal corruptible mortal body but at the Resurrection God makes it a spiritual incorruptible immortal body and gives to every Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still his own body his own though refined and spiritualized And thus far the simile fairly holds and being but a simile must not be pressed in all respects as if it were a mathematical Parallel For if the Doctor will thus urge it he must make it appear how corn is sown in Corruption and comes up in Incorruption for so also is the Resurrection of the dead V. 42 which also will force him to grant that corn comes up Incorruptible supposing the simile were strictly to be pressed in every particular All therefore that can be proved from hence is that Mans body at the Resurrection is not the same in condition and Qualities that it was when it dyed though it be numerically the same in kinde and substance Besides the Doctor makes bold to affirm in the Apostles name that of the body of Man viz. it is not the same body he should have said It is not that body that shall be which the Apostle speaks of the body of Grain and which he brings not as a perfect parallel to demonstrate but as a simile to illustrate according as I have noted above Now therefore I return to his challenge which was this I dare challenge him to produce any place of scripture out of which he can make it appear that the Mysterie of the Resurrection implies the Resuscitation of the same Numerical body The Challenge as daring as it is I lay hold of though not made to me and besides what I have said already in asserting the place in Iob could well and safely enough Answer it in St Ieroms words in his Comment upon Ezekiel Chap. 37. where speaking of the Resurrection of the body and he understood the same Numerical body he saith Scimus Testimonia in quibus nulla sit dubitatio in Scripturis sanctis reperiri Ut est illud Jobi suscitabis pellem meam quae ista sustinet Et in Daniele Multi qui dermiunt in terrae pulvere resurgent isti in vitam aeternam isti in opprobrium confusionem aeternam Et in Evangelio Nolite timere eos qui corpus interficiunt animam autem non possunt occidere timete autem eum magis qui potest animam corpus perdere in gehennam Et Apostolus Paulus Qui suscitavit Iesum Christum à mortuis vivificabit mortalia vestra Corpora propter inhabitantem Spiritum ejus in vobis Et multa alia So far St Ierom and far enough to gravel our confident Doctor I might add that signal place which I have formerly mentioned St Io. 5. 28 29. All that are in the Graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth they that have done good to the Resurrection of life and they that have done evil to the Resurrection of condemnation Is not this Text plain or can the Doctor tell us what can be plainer if all who are in their graves shall come forth at the last day then doth the Mysterie of the Resurrection imply the Resuscitation of the same Numerical bodies namely of those very bodies which were interred in those Graves But I will rather insist upon 1 Cor. 15. that very Chapter which if you will credit the Doctor plainly saith It is not the same body Consider therefore the 53. V. This corruptible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must put on incorruption and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this mortal must put on immortality Those words this corruptible and this mortal for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both places makes them Determinative and Emphatical must be meant of that Individual Numerical body which shall dye or be changed But this Numerical body shall put on incorruption and immortality that is shall be invested with those Modifications instead of corruption and mortality Therefore this Numerical body after the Resurrection or change must needs be the same Numerical body that it was before Else this corruptible and this mortal cannot truly be said to put on incorruption and immortality if the body it self in its individual substance be another as well as the array Sect. 8. he saith Wherefore to this Objection I now briefly and particularly answer First that it is not of faith to believe a pretty phrase if you mark it but I guess his meaning that every body that is said to rise at the last day should rise out of the Grave since all bodies had not burial Will the Doctor yield concerning such bodies as had burial if not what is this Answer but an