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
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