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
which the Objection relates touching Episcopacy not that it is a faction but that it may be factiously and partially managed that is unmeasurably and disproportionably prized as this Paragraph imports as if the whole Millenian happiness consisted in Episcopacy that is to say That People may so dote upon one good thing that they may be dead to and careless of the flourishing of all the rest and set up their staff in that one Which though it were Episcopacy it self it would be a factious and partial affection and would fall short of the end of the Gospel which does equally aim at the cherishing of all things that are essentially and indispensably Christian such as I have enumerated in this Paragraph in my description of the happy ages to come Thy patience good Reader whilst I survey these extravagant impertinent lines Still the Doctor is at his old trick his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and slinks from the Point in hand The Question is not whether out of that Paragraph it may be elicited that Episcopacy Is a Faction but whether the Doctor calls it so or no in that Paragraph and this by his favour may be elicited out of it 2. Episcopacy as such denotes nothing less then Partial or factious management but the Doctor in that Paragraph speaks of Episcopacy As such namely as different from Presbytery Independency c. How then can he here pretend that he meant onely the factious management of it Besides is it not worthily said and Doctor like that the factious management of Episcopacy is Episcopacy 3. That he saith It may be immeasurably and disproportionally prized that is in his language factiously would be well considered for peribit sorex indicio suo If you will trust himself for his meaning it 's this that people may so dote upon one good thing that they may be dead and careless of the flourishing of all the rest c. as is before cited And what in Gods name is all this ad Rem He is here speaking of Episcopacy as a government of the Church and he would have us think that he believes now and did believe when he wrote that Preface That this is the Right and true Government and that therefore though in his Preface it stands in the List of Factions yet he meant thereby no more then that it may be factiously managed that is immeasurably prized Excellent It may be factiously managed therefore it is to be rank'd amongst the grossest Factions But what may be may not be Episcopacy may not be factiously managed and in the essence of that Government there is nothing factious but signally the contrary It would pose the Doctor to shew any time wherein it was factiously managed the very constitution of it being the properest Antidote against faction Nay to give him his own interpretation of factiously let him shew if he can when or where it was Immeasurably prized by the People Particularly I demand was it so prized and factiously managed at the time when he wrote his Preface he cannot sure have the face to affirm this Why doth he then obtrude this supposal for his Apologie Yea but though it were not then so overprized haply it may be hereafter May it so God giant say I that it ever be prized so much as it ought to be But I deny that it can ever be Immeasurably prized for the highest value that can be set upon it is to esteem it The most incomparably excellent Church-government and of divine Institution Now this estimation of it is no more then due and just as will upon Occasion be verified malgrè all that Dr More can muster up to the contrary Nor will this estimation render People dead and careless as he slanderously intimates of the flourishing of all or any of the rest of the things that are essentially and indispensably Christian. For the due esteem of a Divine Institution is no hinderance to Faith Devotion Purity Innocency Faithfulness Charity Obedience mutual Condescention unspotted Righteousness Peace c. which are the Duties he mentions in his description of the happy Ages to come People therefore may set up their staff in this one without any danger for the Question here is of Church-government and if People imbrace that which is incomparably the best they may and ought to set up their staff in that and in that alone notwithstanding any of his Arguments to deter them from it For as for his Cavil in the former Section drawn from 1 Cor. 1. 12 One saith I am of Paul another I am of Apollos and therefore A good thing may be factiously followed it 's but another of his wonted Cheats 1. He makes following of Persons in that Text to be following of things 2. He substitutes that for the Corinths fault which was not They were not to blame for following Paul Apollo Cephas or Christ but that some of them followed some one of these in contradistinction from the rest Now to follow Paul in opposition of Apollo Apollo in opposition to Cephas yea or Christ himself in opposition to his Apostles is plain faction For as God sent Christ so Christ sent his Apostles and the Church is built upon Christ as the corner stone and on his Apostles as foundation stones laid next to him Wherefore he that holds not Communion both with Christ and his Apostles but picks out some one of them to adhere to in Contradistinction to the rest is guilty of faction Now Bishops succeeding Christ and his Apostles if any shall adhere to this or that Bishop in contradistinction to the rest it is faction but to adhere to Episcopacy in contradistinction to any other Church-government or to prize it as the most excellent above all other is so far from being factious that it is perfectly the contrary If the Doctor will still reply that some men may so far Dote upon Episcopacy as to think that their magnifying this onely Government will serve their turn as to Religion without Faith Hope or Charity I must retort that I am not to answer for Doaters and as for men in their wits they can never think so I have heard of some who fancied that Faith alone would save them but never of any who dreamt they should be saved merely for preferring and adhering to Episcopacy before any other Church-government Sure I am that the noblest examples of Piety in all ages of the Church have been those who were Honourers of Episcopacy and if some Episcopal men as they call them be now vitious it springs from some other root then their being Episcopal Lastly I observe that all this part of the Doctors Apologie runs upon the Peoples immeasurable prizing of Episcopacy and this he will have to be the partial or factious Management of Episcopacy Risum teneatis I for my part thought that the management whether good or bad of Episcopacy had been by the Bishops but Dr More informs me that the people manage it In his 5. Sect. I
his Tub he thinks himself fit to direct the whole Christian Church and sutably inscribes the 19th Chapter of the 6th Book of his Mystery Advertisements to the Guides of Christendom but though he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God be thanked he is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none of those whom it concerns to manage the Government for this belongs to the Bishops not to him or to the People Which being notorious and clear doth the Doctor fear that these Governours themselves will so overscrupulously examine the outward form of the Government as to disturb thereby the Peace of the Church Logi He proceeds And again in the same page at the end in this parag reaching also into the following page That the first and chief point is to make a right choice of the Object of this Church-discipline which is to comprehend nothing but what is sound and purely Apostolical that is The indisputable Truths of our Religion such as we are sure to be the minde of Christ and his Apostles namely The generally acknowledged Articles of the Christian faith and plain and indispensable Duties of life For these are such as deserve to be held up with all possible care and strictness Other things so gently recommended that no conscientious Man may be pinched thereby If the Reader here ask The first and chief point of what he may guess if he can for the Doctor tells him not either here or in his Preface He cannot reasonably mean The first and chief point of Church-discipline for the Object of that Discipline must be made choise of and fixed by the Authour of that Discipline before the Discipline it self can be exercised and is therefore in the nature of the thing precedent to the Discipline it self Yet what else he should mean who can divine But what if he asks also Who should make the right choise of the object of Church-discipline I see not upon the Doctors grounds what possible Answer he could give without first supposing That the Church was for some time without Government and Discipline and in that time was to deliberate what Object to choose for till she had an Object of Government resolved on she could have no Government Indeed by the obvious sense of the Doctors words one would think that when he wrote them the choise of this Object was not made or not made aright But whether the Doctor knows or will know so much or no the Christian Church never stood at a gaze or muse touching the Object and the right Object of her Government and Discipline Yet let us hear from this Oracle what that Object must be he saith It must comprehend nothing but what is sound and purely c. i. e. The generally acknowledged Articles of the Christian Faith and plain indispensable Duties of life What he means by Articles of Faith generally acknowledged who can tell If he means such as were received by all Churches and Councils reputed sound Members of the Church Catholick he should have done well to have expressed it But he hath so ordered his words that if it may serve his turn at a pinch hereafter he can notwithstanding what he writes here wave or deny any such Articles when the Church shall require his Assent because some Hereticks or other have opposed them and so they were not Generally acknowledged As for indispensable duties of life which is the second part of his object it is but just to ask him what are such or how there can be any such for if as he lays for a Principle the main End of Church-Government and Discipline be the countenancing and promoting the Christian Life in an holy Observation of such Precepts of Christ as do not make men obnoxious to the secular Power by transgressing them Then in case a secular Princes Laws shall lay hold of a Christian by reason of any one or of all Christs Precepts the main end of the Church-Governours Office makes it not their duty to countenance and promote the Observation of any such of Christs Precepts And is not this in effect to make all the Precepts of Christ dispensable upon occasion Could the prime Visier now perswade the Emperors Subjects to imbrace this Doctrine it would much easier bring the grand Signiours designe to pass then all his Armies Now I can devise no imaginable Evasion for the Doctor but in that word the main end Whence perhaps he will pretend that one end though not the main of Church-Government is to promote the Observation of Christs Precepts whether they make men obnoxious to the secular Power or no. But will he dare to stick to this Will he profess that to promote the Observation of Christs Precepts is a petty end of Church-Government and by the by If he doth yet even this fetch will not clearly carry him off For First He makes a distinction of such of Christs Precepts as render men obnoxious to the secular Power from such as do not Secondly In respect of the later sort of Precepts he teacheth that it is the main end of Church-Government to promote their Observation Thirdly Therefore he necessarily leaves the former sort in a looser condition and dispensable by the Governours For certainly what is indispensable belongs to the main end of their Government But if they may take their liberty touching those costly and dangerous Precepts of Christ and be not indispensably bound to promote and press their Observation and that so they are not bound the Doctor signifies by his Distinction it follows that they may in this case dispense and leave the people to save their skins or purses by making bold with Christs Precepts Well but however the Doctor grants the ground of the Objection to be truly alledged onely he would perswade us that this overthrows not all Authority in things Indifferent For Sect. 7. he saith The premised passages administer matter for a due solution And then he adds That in saying the object of Church-Discipline is to comprehend nothing but what is sound and purely Apostolical viz. the generally acknowledged Articles of the Christian Faith and plain indispensable Duties of Life His meaning is That we should not make the lesser things and the more dispensable and such as are but of humane Institution and Determination the main object upon which Church-Discipline is exercised but the general acknowledged Articles of the Christian Faith and plain and indispensable Duties of Life such as we are exhorted to by Christ and his Apostles For this is really for the Glory of the Gospel the security of mens souls in the conduct of them to Heaven and also for their comfortable abode here upon earth Is not this pretty His Position was That the Object of Church-Government must comprehend nothing but the generally acknowledged Articles of Faith and indispensable Duties of Life Doth not this apparently exclude all things else Yet he professeth here that he meant onely That those should be the Principal and main Object So he said
One thing and if you will believe him he meant Another But that he meant not thus is evident enough by the words he added in that former Paragraph viz. Other things suppose the lesser and more dispensable as being of humane Institution are to be so gently recommended that no conscientious man may be pinched thereby Now if all things besides Articles of Faith and indispensable Duties of Life must onely be Recommended then must they not be Commanded and so they will prove no object of the Churches Discipline Nay the Doctor will have them Recommended yet but Gently doth not this look like an Act of Discipline and so as not to pinch conscientious men I know who will owe him immortal thanks for this Doctrine which if it be sound any Non-conformist may pretend Conscience and cry out of being Pinched and then he ought to have his liberty But the Doctor forgets not to interpret this passage also and in effect he tells us that by Gently Recommended his meaning was Commanded For thus he expounds these words Other things so gently recommended that conscientious men may not be pinched thereby that is to say That the like severity is not to be used in things that are not of so indispensable a nature And who doubts of this but to Recommend and Gently and so gently as no man may be pinched is I take it No severity at all nay no Discipline at all so far is it from being a like degree of severity to that which is used in points indispensable Nevertheless by Gently Recommending the Doctor meant a less degree of severe Discipline He hath most aenigmatick meanings Nor can I pass by those other words of his without a note For this viz. that the Articles of Faith and indispensable Duties of Life should be the object of Discipline is really for the glory of the Gospel the security of mens souls in the conduct of them to Heaven and also for their comfortable abode here on earth It seems then in the Doctors Judgement That the due observance of Ecclesiastick Laws in things indifferent is not really for the glory of the Gospel nor for security of mens souls in the way to Heaven Tell the people this and with what better Argument for Schism and Faction can you furnish them for why should they trouble themselves to submit to that which is not really for the Gospels glory nor their safe passage to Heaven Dr More teacheth them if they will but have wit enough to understand him right that their Disobedience to the Churches Laws is no real impediment of their salvation or of the Gospels glory Nay this is not all Do the people desire a comfortable abode on earth the same Doctor hath kindly signified to them that the like Disobedience is no real impediment to this neither And let him not pretend that I here wrest his words to an odious sense for if there be any sense at all in that part of his Argumentation I have done him no wrong If obedience to the Churches Laws be really for the Gospels glory the promotion of our salvation and our comfortable abode upon earth as in truth it is Then ought it to be held up with all possible care and strictness and to be a part of the main object of the Churches Discipline But the Doctor argues That the Articles of Faith and indispensable Duties of Life are onely that main object For this viz. that they onely should be the main object is saith he really for the glory of the Gospel c. which Reason of his is no Reason unless less he means That the other is not really so seeing if it were really so it might by his own very Reason be part of that main object In the same 7th Sect. he thus proceeds I think it is pretty plain already that I do not affirm that Church-Discipline should comprehend onely the generally acknowledged Articles of the Christian Faith and plain indispensable Duties of Life His words were That it is to comprehend Nothing but them These words are more then pretty plain and he cannot deny that so he wrote How pretty plain then is it which he saith here let any one judge who is capable of understanding a Contradiction But still he is confident that he did in his former Book establish and leave intire Church-Authority in things Indifferent Which saith he Sect. 8. No man could make any question of did he but compare one part of my Preface with another as that which occurs Sect. 13. at the close c. Had it been true That in some part of his Preface he doth establish that Authority or leave it intire which he will hardly prove yet the Objection was justly made for why may he in any part of his Book undermine or deny this Authority I could weary the Reader with instances where this Doctor writes repugnantly to himself Is it therefore justifiable in him to write what he lists in one place against the Church because in another place he doth or may seem to write for her What is this but to give his Mother a Bit and a Knock But in these Repugnancies his Proselytes know well enough which is indeed his meaning They are not to seek where he speaks what he would have them believe and where he speaks what may preserve him from being obnoxious to the secular Power Or if any of them be so dull as not to discover this and therefore may take offence the Doctor may full as rationally Apologize for himself to his offended Brethren out of one sort of passages in his Writings as he doth to his Reader here out of the other sort But let us see what he would have us here compare in his Preface viz. That which occurs Sect. 13. at the close thereof There shall be nothing held essential or fundamental but the indispensable Law of the Christian Life and that Doctrine that depends not upon the fallible Deductions of men but is plainly set down in the Scripture other things being left to the free Commendation of the Church ensnaring no mans Conscience nor Lording it over the Flock of Christ and still holding on in the next Section which certainly they do that call those things Antichristian that are not and thereby make more Fundamentals then Christ and his Apostles Which Errour is the very effence and substance of Antichristianism and of that grand Apostacy of the Church Having said this he falls into his wonted fit for he adds Can there be any thing more express and pertinent for the Vindication of the Power and Liberty of the Church in appointing things Indifferent then this Yes surely good Doctor there may All that you leave here to the Church touching things Indifferent is to Recommend them It had been more express and pertinent if you had left her Power to Command them But to see the unluckiness of it The Doctor here makes the Doctrine touching the Churches Authority in things Indifferent to