Some observations upon the apologie of Dr. Henry More for his mystery of godliness by J. Beaumont ...

Some observations upon the apologie of Dr. Henry More for his mystery of godliness by J. Beaumont ...

Table of contents

Title page

§

OBSERVATIONS UPON Dr MORE's APOLOGIE FOR His Mysterie of GODLINESS.

Upon CHAP. I. and II.

Upon CHAP. III. Touching the First Objection.

Upon CHAP. IV. Touching the Second Objection.

Upon CHAP. V. Touching the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Objections.

Upon CHAP. VI. His Answer touching Nestorianism.

CHAP. VII. Upon the 7th Objection. Touching Gods conveying a false Perswasion into the minde of his Creature.

CHAP. VIII. Touching Liberty in Religion.

CHAP. IX.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

SOME OBSERVATIONS UPON THE APOLOGIE OF Dr HENRY MORE FOR HIS Mystery of Godliness.

By I. Beaumont Master of St Peters Coll. and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty.

‘ [...]’ 2 Tim. 3. 9.

CAMBRIDGE, Printed by Iohn Field, Printer to the University. 1665.

§

§

[Page]

CVM pridem, procurante quodam Bibliopola Cantabrigiensi, in lucem prodierint perniciosa dogmata, eaque non pauca, cum Magistratuum Iure, Ecclesiae Anglicanae doctrina ipsaque Christiana Fide nimium pugnantia, sub specioso tamen vocabulo Mysterii Pietatis: ea propter, ne incautiores Tyronum in hac Academiâ animi fortè Corrumpantur, virusque latius serpat, opportunae istae observationes Antidoti ergo,

Imprimantur.

OBSERVATIONS UPON Dr MORE's APOLOGIE FOR His Mysterie of GODLINESS.

[Page]

MY chief purpose being to shew the Invalidity of the Drs. Apologie touching the Ten Objections made against his Mysterie; I shall trouble the Reader only with some few brief Notes upon what the Luxuriant Author hath premised before his particular Answers to those Objections.

First then, in his Preface to his Reader, he saies ‘[No ingenuous person will think the Repute of the Proposers any thing diminished by this just, but necessary Recovery of mine own: though I have so fully cleared the Objections, and that out of the very Treatise they are raised. For the Learning, Parts and Judgement of the Proposers are so confessedly eminent to all that know them, that nothing but want of leisure of reading my whole Treatise, and comparing one place with another, could have put them in a capacity of mis-understanding those passages they have objected.]’

Here he confidently pretends to have cleared all the Objections; and kindly speaks a good word to save the Objectors credit. His Confidence concerning his Performance, will [Page] soon appear ridiculous enough; and his Courtesie to the Objectors, no less insolent. For before he has fairly acquitted himself, he falls to apologize for them: and whats that Apologie, but under pretence of Courtesie, to brand them for busie medlers, in taxing an innocent Author before they have duely considered his book? But by this trick he would at once slily evade the whole Business, and make his Reader believe, that the Question in controversie is, what is the Result of his Opinions, upon Comparing the several Parts of his Book one with another. Whereas the Objector only challengeth him for delivering false Doctrines in the places cited in the Objections. If he has different Doctrines in other places, let him answer for enterfering with himself. In the mean while, the Objector knew not which of such repugnant Doctrines Dr. More did in his heart allow: but this he knew, that false Doctrines broached in any part of his Book, were truly scandalous, and deserved to be Objected against. However, I make no great doubt, but the Doctor will finde by this following Assertion of the Objections, That the Proposer of them had both leisure to read his whole Treatise, and to compare one place with another.

As for his Intimation [by which he vainly affects to make his Apologies Conquest the greater] That the Objectors were many, and eminent for Parts, Learning and Judgement: in both those Particulars he abuses his Reader, for the Objections were drawn up and framed by one Person, not by divers, and that one [I can assure him] very far from eminence in Learning, Parts, or Judgement: yet as mean as he is, he hopes to make it appear that the Doctor doth nothing less then Clear those Objections by this Apologie.

But did he in earnest account his supposed Objectors, to be Eminent for Learning, Parts and Judgement? how then could he think, that Men eminently learned and judicious, could have charged him with writing Doctrines seditious, desperate and heretical, in the Book wherein [as he vaunts in [Page] this Preface] there is nothing but sound and true? for, his excuse he makes for them, will neither serve his turn, nor theirs; seeing Men confessedly eminent for Learning, Parts and Iudgement, cannot be supposed to pass such a Censure, before they had fully read, and particularly Compared the parts of his Book.

He adds ‘[Wherefore Reader, whilst thou perusest the ten ensuing Objections with my Answers thereto, thou art not to phansie thy self a spectator of a Battel betwixt professed Enemies, but of an amicable Concertation betwixt such as are real friends, as well one to another as for Truth her self: They of the one part shewing nothing but a due zeal and commendable jealousie touching the Doctrines in my Mystery of Godliness, that it may appear to all that there are none other there delivered but such as are sound and true; and my self on the other part as diligently demonstrating that I have committed no errour in what I have written, and that the places objected against, have nothing in them contrary to Scripture, Reason, or the acknowledged Faith of the Catholick Church.]’

The Objector is indeed no professed enemy to Dr. More; but to his gross and dangerous errours, he is as hearty an enemy as the Dr. can imagine: and accordingly he was well content that a friend should privately acquaint him with the Objections, and christianly admonish him to retract, and satisfie the University [where his Book was conceived to have done the most mischief] by renouncing his erroneous Doctrines; which might have been done in a few ingenuous words: and more then so, would not have been required. But the Dr. would needs draw these private Objections to the publick stage; and here in his very entrance you see how he struts, quite forgetting humane frailty and common modesty. What he has got by it may appear in these ensuing Observations.

The Concertation which he proposes to his Reader betwixt [Page] the Objectors and himself, is wonderous pretty: namely that they on the one part zealously indeavour to make it appear, that he has deliver'd no Doctrines but such as are sound and true: and that he on the other part, diligently demonstrates that he has committed no errour in what he has written: that is, Both he and they are doing one and the same thing, and proving Dr. More to be perfectly Orthodox. Does not this look like a conflict betwixt two Parties? yet for such, his Reader must account it, and withall he must be content to swallow it for true, that the Objectors zeal aimed at no other end then what the Doctor here assignes. But I (who best knew my own intent) can assure him of the contrary: for being clearly satisfied that the Doctors book swarm'd with dangerous errours; my Zeal was kindled to object against it; and I doubt not but he will find by what follows, that I never meant (whatsoever he is pleased to tell his Reader) to endeavour the proving that there are no Doctrines in his Book but sound and true.

Yet in his jolly conclusion of his Preface, he tells us, that the Result of this Collision is A farther recommendation to the World of the Usefulness of the above said Treatise: so resolvedly fond is he of that Book; though as to a considerable part of it, the onely usefulness that any sober Reader can discover, is such as S. Paul intimates, 1 Cor. 11. 19. There must be Heresies among you, that they which are approved, may be made manifest among you.

Upon CHAP. I. and II.

IN his first Chapter he propounds certain Rules, by which he would have us believe that he govern'd himself in his management of the Truth of our Religion: though it be hugely suspicious, that those Rules were not minted till he hammerd [Page] this Apologie. However, I wonder the less at his wilde way of Writing, if he be so unlucky in his very Rules of Direction concerning it, as I find him in his first, which is this: ‘[1. He must be sure not to deny any thing which he whom he would convince, doth hold and alledge upon clear and solid Reasons: 2. And especially he must be tender of denying it as repugnant to the Christiam Faith; 3. Unless it be plainly and really contrary to the infallible Oracles of holy Writ.]’

Here he supposeth, That a Man may have clear and Solid Reason for what he holds; and yet that his Tenet may be plainly and really contrary to the infallible Oracles of holy Writ. The Scripture then may be contrary to Reason which is clear and solid: And if so; the Doctor can have small hopes of prevailing upon his Men of a rational genius, unless he grants them, that Scripture is not Infallible. Yet he adds, in his assertory Exposition of this Rule, That ‘[such Reason as is really repugnant to the Oracles of Divine Writ, is not true Reason; nor those Interpretations of Scripture true, that are thus repugnant to Reason.]’ And whats this, but Contradiction? viz. Clear and Solid Reason may be plainly and really contrary to Scriptures; and yet, That Reason that is truely repugnant to Scripture, is not true Reason. Why also, may not those Interpretations of Scripture be True, which are repugnant to True Reason, if clear and solid [that is, true] Reason may be plainly and really contrary to the infallible Oracles of holy Writ?

In the sixt Section, he affirms it to be demonstrable, out of Gen. 1. 6. That the Firmament reaches but to the upper Waters, that is, the Clouds: and that because the Firmament was made in the midst of the Waters to divide them. I am so well acquainted with the Doctors Logick, that I always suspect his Discourse to be impertinent, where he talks loudest of Demonstration. How can he Demonstrate, that [Page] by the upper Waters, is meant the Clouds? Is't not more likely to be Demonstrable, That as yet [namely on the second day] there were no Clouds, the Sun being not then created? Nay is it not said Chap. 2. 5. that there was then no Rain, but a Mist ascended from the Earth to water it? had there been Clouds on the second Day, what needed this Mist [be it what it will] afterwards to rise out of the Earth and perform the Office of Rain in watering the ground?

In the same Section, he defines the object of the Creations Story in Genesis, to be, not Mundus Philosophorum, but Plebeiorum; only suted to the sense and imagination of the ruder People. I make bold therefore to ask this profound Philosopher, Whether it be sutable to the sense or Imagination of the ruder People, that Fowles, as well as Fish, should be the Offspring of the water, V. 20. especially seeing many Fowls cannot live either in the water, or upon it? Also, That Day should be created with Evening and Morning, V. 5. and that there should be three such days before the Sun was made to divide the day from the night, Ver. 14, 15, 16? yet these Narrations are part of that Story. But who knows not Dr. More? and that this Fancy serves but to countenance his Cabbalistick Imaginations touching the Creation?

And yet, what if the ancient Masters of the Iews were of a quite contrary Opinion concerning this story; and accounted it written, not for silly Plebeians to read, but for men of acute and mature judgement? will their Authority bear no sway with the Doctor? That they so accounted, sure I am, S. Ierome [in the Proem to his Commentaries upon Ezekiel] doth abundantly witness: his words are [Aggrediar Ezechielem Prophetam, cujus Difficultatem, Hebraeorum probat Traditio. Nam nisi quis apud eos aetatem Sacerdotalis Ministerii, i. tricesimum annum impleverit, nec Principium Geneseos, nec Canticum Canticorum, nec hujus voluminis [Page]exordium & finem, legere permittitur; ut ad perfectam scientiam, & mysticos intellecius, plenum humanae naturae tempus accedat.] If the Object of the History of the Creation were [as the Doctor says,] Mundus Plebeiorum, and a Comprehension of the world no farther, nor in any other manner, than is agreeable to the sense and imagination of the ruder People: the Iews fouly mistook it, when they ranked it with the abstrusest and most difficult parts of Scripture; and permitted none [no not their very Philosophical Wits] to read it till 30. years of age.

Sect. 11. He says, ‘[If this be not the Rule that the sincere and discreet Christian is to take up touching Philosophy; it is indifferent for him to take the contrary.]’ I mention this, but as an example of the Doctors rational way of Arguing; which is just as good as this: If I may not make Avarice my Rule, 'tis indifferent for me to take the contrary, and follow Prodigality. Or this: If I cannot pass from Saint Maries to the Schools, by going Northward; 'tis indifferent for me to take the contrary way, and to pass thither by going Southward.

Sect. 12. In fine ‘[I have above noted the Object of the History of the Creation in Genesis, to be rather the Mundus Plebeiorum than Philosophorum, as plainly limiting the sensible World, by the distance of the Upper Waters or Clouds.]’ Since he hath forgot what he noted above, I must here minde him, That Sect. 6. he said expresly, That the Object of the Story of the Creation, was not the Mundus Philosophorum, but the Mundus Plebeiorum. Which I take it, is not the same with his present phrase, [Rather the Mundus Plebeiorum than Philosophorum.] But, bating him this his staggering from the Positive to the Comparative; since he will needs be repeating this Fancy, I must also add, That there is not any sorry man, even ex Plebe, but will loudly and justly laugh at him for it: For ask but the plainest Peasant [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] who hath eyes in his head, and manifestly sees that the Clouds interpose between the Sun and us; whether he beleeves not that the Sun is above the Clouds? If he beleeves this, (and 'tis impossible he should beleeve otherwise,) how can he once dream, that the Clouds are the outside, or limit of the sensible world? Nay farther yet: What will those Peasants say to this Position of the Doctors, who live upon such high Mountains as that they see the Clouds below them? can they be perswaded that 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.]’

[Page] To profess that 'twas 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. 'Tis 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 'twas 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.]

[Page] 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 [Page] 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 'twere 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, 'Tis 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 [Page] 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 'tis 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 [Page] 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, 'tis 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 'tis just like a cork; such a thing cannot rot, for 'tis 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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[Page]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 'twas 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 [Page]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, [Page] 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 [Page] 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 'tis 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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.]’

[Page] 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 [Page]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 [Page] 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 'twere 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.

[Page] 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 'tis 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 [Page] 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 'tis truely fiesh; much more, that 'tis 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. 'Tis 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 [Page] 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 [Page]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 'tis 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 [Page] 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 'tis 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 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 [Page] 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, [Page] 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, quàm 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: 'tis 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 'tis 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 [Page] Articles of Religion.] Then he concludes [Wherein 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page] 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 'tis 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, 'tis 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 [Page] 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 form and fashion with that which dyed; and by Dr More's Theologie, he believes all the substance of the Article concerning the Resurrection: for he believes that the same body riseth again, because this new body by being joyned to the soul, becomes ipso facto the very same body which was joyned to it in this life. And let such a man never scruple that this new body is not of the same Numerical matter or substance with the Old; for that's onely Circumstance, and no substantial Part of the Article of the Creed. Let but the Doctor have a Patent thus to Interpret the Creed; and I see not but he may soon Interpret away the whole Truth and Substance of the Christian Faith.

Yet in his Conclusion of this 6 section he doubts not to say ‘[This is enough to clear me from all suspicion of Heterodoxness [Page] in point of the Resurrection: and it would be but superfluous farther to alledge how expressly I declare (chap. 7. sect. 2.) that I do not deny the possibility of the same numerical body, no not in the most strict though needless meaning of the Schools.]’

I believe the ingenuous Reader will scarce be of his opinion, that what he hath hitherto said, is enough to clear him. But why do I call it an Opinion? when in the style of it, it is a definitive sentence passed by himself for his own justification; and that (which is the sport of it) before he hath so much as set down the Objection made against his Heterodoxness in this Point; much less applied his Answer to it, for this he does not till he comes to his 7th section of this chapter.

But if the Doctor be not heterodox in this Point; how shall we maintain the holy Fathers of the Church to be Orthodox? Take a specimen of their Judgements. S. Iren. l. 5. c. 13. In quibus (vidue Filius & Lazarus) resurrexerint corporibus? in iisdem scilicet in quibus & mortui fuerant: si enim non in iisdem ipsis, nec iidem ipsi qui mortui erant, resurrexerunt. And a little after: Quod est humilitatis corpus quod transfiguravit Dominus corfirmatum Corpori gloriae suae? Manifestum est quoniam Corpus quod cst Caro, quod & humiliatur cadens in terrâ. Tertul. lib. 5. adv. Mar. Si Carnis resurrectionem negantes retundit Apostolus, utique adversus illos tuetur, quod illi negabant, Carnis scilicet Resurrectionem: and again Corpus est quod amittit Animam, & amittendo fit Mortuum: ita Mortui vocabulum Corpori competit: porro si Resurrectio Mortui est, Mortuum autem non aliud est quàm Corpus, Corporis erit Resurrectio.—surgere potest dici & quod omnino non cecidit, quod semper retro jacuit: Resurgere autem non est nisi ejus quod cecidit. And lib. de Resurrect. Praecipit, cum potius timendum qui Corpus & Animam occidat in gehennam, id est, Dominum solum; non qui Corpus occidant, Animae autem nihil nocere possunt, id est humanas Potestates. Adeo hic [Page] & Anima immortalis natur a recognoscitur, quae non possit occidi ab hominibus; & Carnis esse Mortalitatem cujus sit Occisio: atque ita Resurrectionem quoque Mortuorum Carnis esse, quae in gehennam nisi resuscitata non poterit occidi. Theodoret Heret. fab. l. 5. [...] Again upon those words of the Apostle ( [...] &c.) [...]. S. Epiphanius in Ancorat; sect. 92. [...] And heres. 64. [...] S. Chrys. de Resur. [...] S. Jerom in his Epist. to Pamach. Quoniam spiritus carnem & ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere: & propriè ad Thomam: Infer digitum tuum in manus meas, & manum tuam in latus meum, & noli esse incredulus, sed fidelis. Sic & nos post resurrectionem, eadem habebimus membra quibus nunc utimur, easdem carnes, & sanguinem & ossa. I might be infinite in Citations of this kinde out of the Fathers: but these may suffice. And whether theirs, or Dr Mores judgement in this Point, be more venerable, I leave to the Christian Reader to resolve.

For what he saies it would be superfluous to alledge out of his 7th chapter sect. 2. I have again perused that section; and all I finde looking this way, are these only words ‘[The very point and sting of this scoff against the Conflagration, is also a presumptuous mistake, as well as that against the Resurrection, though I deny the Possibility of neither]’ This is short of what he points us to. But his words immediately there preceding, in the close of the first section are these: ‘[We having plainly shewed, that the Mystery (of the Resurrection) implies nothing more then this, That the same individual [Page] Persons shall be revivificated body and soul, and made happy with eternal life. But the same individual Person, does not involve any necessity of the same numerical Body; as hath been shewn at large.]’ By which it is not difficult to discover what his judgement is concerning the Resurrection of the same numerical Body; that is, as I and any man understands, One and the same Body. You see he here professeth that the same individual Person involves no necessity of the same numerical Body; and in the forementioned passage he terms the meaning of the schools, a Needless Meaning; if it be with him, as he affirms first and last, needless and of no necessity, then he affirms that it is not, nor ought to be held any point of faith, That one and the same Body shall rise again. Touching his saying that the Resurrection implies that Body and Soul shall be made happy with eternal life: I must minde him that he makes very bold with Christ, who teaches us that the Resurrection is the way to Misery, as well as to Happiness, S. Iohn 5. 28, 29. All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the Resurrection of Life, and they that have done evil, unto the Resurrection of Condemnation.

After the Doctor hath made this long prefacing flourish, he now at length is pleased to set down the second Objection, which is this: He faith, ‘[That it cannot be proved out of scripture, that the same Body shall rise again from the grave. This takes away the Resurrection of the Body: for this cannot be, except the same Body rise again] Then he adds The Quotation of the place from whence this Objection is taken, is here omitted: but I question not but that it aims at that passage chap. 4. sect. 3. book. 6. which runs thus: I answer farther as concerning Scripture it self, that I dare challenge him to produce any place of scripture, out of which he can make it appear, that the Mystery of the Resurrection, implies the Resuscitation of the same Numerical Body. The [Page] most pregnant of all, is Iob 19. which later interpreters are now so wise as not to understand at all of the Resurrection. The 1 Cor. 15. that Chapter is so far from asserting this curiosity, that it plainly saith, it is not the same body, but that as God gives to the blades of Corn grain quite distinct from that which was sown, so at the Resurrection he will give the Soul a Body quite different from that which was buried; as different as a spiritual Body is from a natural Body or an Heavenly from an Earthly.]’

First I desire the Reader to take notice that this last clause (as different as a Spiritual Body is from a Natural Body, or an Heavenly from an Earthly) is not in his Mystery, but here demurely thrust in by the Doctor; he knows why. Touching the Place in Iob, and the wise Interpreters who understand it not at all of the Resurrection; he confesses sect. 9. That in that speech he had an Eye to Hugo Grotius his gloss upon the text. He is all the Interpreters he is pleased to mention: yet that very Hugo Grotius is the Man, whom in his Interpretation of the 13th and 17th of the Apocalpys, the Dr (in his late Book of Antichristianism) (extremely vilifies: for example, lib. 2. cap. 3 sect. 1. he saith ‘[That Grotius his expositions of these chapters, are harsh and unapplicable; and that he hath left the plain road, and rushed through hedge and ditch, and pull'd up all fences, to gather a nosegay of flours that both smell ill, and immediately wither in his hand in the very gathering of them.]’ Yet though Grotius be an Interpreter that can leave the plain road (as indeed he does upon this place of Iob) yea and behave himself in his Comments like a man right down frantick: the Doctor to serve his own turn, and bolster up his own innovating fancy, can put him in the balance against all ancient Interpreters.

Now against Grotius his authority in this Point, I offer not onely the Ancients (for example S. Ierom, who in his Epistle to Paulinus speaks thus of Iob, Resurrectionem corporum sic prephetat,[Page]ut nullus de eâ vel manifestius vel cautius scripserit. Scio, inquit quod Redemptor meus vivit & in novissimo die, &c. where he repeats this whole place. Also in his Epistle to Pammachius having set down the Text, he subjoyns: Quid hâc prophetiâ manifestius? nullus tam apertè post Christum, quàm ille ante Christum de Resurrectione loquitur. Also S. August. de Civit. Dei. l. 22. c. 29. Ruffinus in Symbolum; with Origen, Philippus Presbyter, S. Gregory the great, & venerab. Bede, upon the place: but after them. Aquinas, Lyra, Hugo Card. Munsterus, Castalio, Clarius, Codurcus, Dionys. Carthusianus, Borrhaeus, Oecolampadius, Brentius, Pellicanus, Osiander; and, that I tell them not by the clock, one for all the moderns, the most learned and judicious Bp. of Winchester Bp. Andrews. Nay Mercerus himself, though he open'd Grotius the way to his Opinion, yet honestly confesses in his Comment upon Iob, that Nostri fere omnestam veteres quàm recentiores hunc versiculum cum duobus sequentibus ad resurrectionem referunt, quam hoc loco Iob astruit. Heres almost all, both old and new, of the Christian Commentatours granted us. Besides, the Church of England, in her office of Burial, useth those words of Iob, as meant of the Resurrection: though the Doctor in his 9th section endeavours to evade her Authority, by making those expressions bear onely a Type and similitude of our Rising again: not considering that they who thus divert this famous Text from the antient Interpretation to their own new fancies, not onely take from our Church one of the most ancient and venerable proofs of the Resurrection, but also of our Redeemers Incarnation, whom Iob saith he shall see with his eyes, and not another. For matter of Authority then we have abundantly enough against what the Doctor produces.

Consider we therefore Grotius his Reasons for his Interpretation, as the Doctor cites him ‘[His gloss upon the Text Scio quod Redemptermeus vivit, &c. is this: Haec verba, & quae sequuntur, Iudaei nunquam ad Resurrectionem retulere, [Page] cùm tamen omnia rimentur quae aliquaam in speciem eò trahi possunt.]’ This is first but a Negative Argument; if it were true: that it is not true, may appear by Mercerus (whom in this question me thinks the Doctor might trust) who upon the place saith thus: (Quòd side Resurrectione futurâ hic loqueretur Iob, non erant haud dubiè id praetermissuri Hebraei qui & ipsi [...] Resurrectionem credunt. At ne unum quidem ex sex aut septem Hebraeorum Commentariis invenies qui eò referat) This implies that though there be not one of six or seven Comments of the Jews which thus apply it; yet some few there are who do and this is contrary to Grotius his assertion, that Iudaei Nunquam ad Resurrectionem retulere.

But Grotius goes on ‘[Christiani non pauci eo sunt usi [...] probandam Resurrectionis fidem; sed ut id facerent, coact [...] sunt in versionibus suis multum ab Hebraeo discedere; ut notatum Mercero, aliisque. Hebraea sic sonant: Scio ego Redemptorem meum vivere, & illum postremò staturum in campe [...] Etiamsi non pellem tantùm meam, sed & hoc (nempe arvina [...] quae sub pelle est) consumerent (morbi scilicet) in carne tamu [...] meâ videbo Deum, (i. propitium experiar) Deus Redempta dicitur quia pios ex multis malis liberat. And presently after Postremum in campo stare, est victoris. Sic Deum dicit victo| rem fore adversariorum suorum: neque verò ei esse impossibile corpus ejus putredine prope exesum restituere in priorem formam; quod & fecit Deus.]’

One would have expected here from Grotius a most punctual version of the Hebrew; but such it is not in the 26th ver [...] [...] being exactly rendred, sound in Latin thus (Et postquam pellem meam contriverint hanc) which [...] Arias Montanus his version: with which if we compare tha [...] of Grotius (etiamsi non pellem tantùm meam, sed & hoc consumerent) it is obvious to see that he himself doth multum [...] Hebraeo discedere. Indeed let Montanus his translation of the 25, 26, 27. verses (which is the whole place in controversie [Page] be examined, and it will appear a close and exact Translation: and yet by that version of his, the place may very aptly be understood of the Resurrection: so little need they who thus understand it, be Coacti (as Grotius would have us believe) in versionibus suis multum ab Hebraeo discedere. Lastly, Grotius his interposition of several words, which certainly are not in the Hebrew, to make out his sense; look back something unhandsomely upon his premised words, Hebraea sic sonant.

Now for the 1 Cor. 15. the Doctor affirms it to be far from asserting this Curiosity. The point was, The rising of 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 [Page] 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, 'tis not the body that shall be; for 'tis 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 [Page] 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,[Page] [...], 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 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.]’

[Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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[Page]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 [Page] 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; [Page] 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 [Page] 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,) [Page] 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.

[Page]

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. [Page] 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 [Page] 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.]’ Contradictious! and perfectly Contradictious! Is it not strange, a man who trades so much in Contradictions, should mistake other Commodities for that Ware; and no better understand what passages are perfectly Contradictious? The words in the Objection are, (He makes Episcopacy a Faction.) Of his three passages, the summe of the first is, (Episcopacy simply is it self is not Antichristian.) Doth this contradict, and that perfectly the words of the Objection? If so, then by no [Page] means they can be both true. But I am of opinion, that the Doctor will grant me, That Episcopacy may be a faction, though it be not simply and in it self Antichristian. What thinks he of Calvinism, Arminianism, Presbytery? are none of these Factions? if any one of them be (and that all of them are so, I can force the Doctor out of his own Writings to confess.) I demand, Whether it be simply and in it self Antichristian? If he dares affirm this, how comes it to pass, that he discovered not the Mystery of Antichristianism (against-which he thunders in his late Book) in that Faction?

His second passage is (That Episcopacy joyned with Presbytery, is better then Presbytery alone.) Compare this with the Objection, (he makes Episcopacy a Faction:) are these two perfectly contradictious? Though the joyning Episcopacy with Presbytery, should make it better then Presbytery alone. Still for all this, (if nothing else hinders) it may be a Faction, namely, One Faction made up of two. Suppose Presbytery joyned with Independency (which are as capable of being jumbled together, as Episcopacy and Presbytery,) be better then Independency alone; that Presbytery will still be but an augmented Faction.

His third passage is so far from being Contradictious to the Objection, that all the Horses in the Town cannot draw it near being so. For it respects not Episcopacy it self, but such a particular Bishop as the Doctor Characters; and such an one as perhaps can no where be found.

But after all this, I must minde him, That though these his passages had indeed been perfectly contradictious to the Objection; yet had they not been any Answer to it, for the Objection was not founded upon them, (as he well knows) but upon another passage, which shall presently come in play. And though I should grant him, that he speaks right in one part of his Book; yet that justifies not what he [Page] speaks wrong in another, but onely manifests his own contradictions.

In his 2 Sect. he proceeds to the place out of which the Objection was raised: which having propounded with more Appertinences then needed, he makes this jolly challenge ‘[Now let any one judge whether I call Episcopacy a Faction or no]’ Content Doctor; let any one judge, provided he hath but the use of common sense and reason. These are your words, in the Preface to your Mystery, upon which the Objection was built: ‘[Every faction will be content to be Millenists (a pretty piece of presumption by the way, that all the parties he afterward recites, will swallow his Millenian opinion) upon condition that Christ may reign after their way or mode: that is, in Calvinism, in Arminianism, in Papism, in Anabaptism, in Quakerism, in Presbytery, in Episcopacy, in Independency, and the like]’ Is it not plain, that having named Faction as the General, he descends to enumerate Particulars; and among them, counts Episcopacy? If this be not to call Episcopacy a Faction what is? Indeed he offers at an evasion; which yet amounts onely to Dignum patellâ operculum. First he saith ‘[He propounds not all those ways as false and illegitimate]’ the more shame his: for if he counts them not all Illegitimate, why did he muster them all under the Title of faction? for whatsoever is faction, is doubtless Illegitimate. Besides, the Objection was, that he called Episcopacy a faction: and whether he counts all those ways false and illegitimate, the Objector regards not: it's Episcopacy onely on which he pitched.

But that he did not propound all these ways, as such, he would thus prove ‘[Since those that do so apparently contradict one another, as Calvinism and Arminianism, Episcopacy, Presbytery and Independency; some of them must be true. As either Calvinism or Arminianism, in such points as they contradict one another, must be true. And so of [Page] these ways of government, some of them must be Right: for it is intolerable wrong to have the Church destitute of all Government]’ If some of them must be Right, I demand again, what made him presume to brand them all with the name of Faction? But his way of arguing here, is wretchedly fallacious: for it follows not, that some of these ways which apparently contradict one another, must therefore be True or Right. Do not Independency and Presbytery apparently contradict one another in the point of Government. Is therefore one of them True and Right? Had he reckoned up all sorts of Government, he might plausibly have urged, that some one of them must be Right and True: but he knows his Enumeration is not complete; and therefore he closeth up his list with those words [and the like.]

Nor will his next clause (As either Calvinism or Arminianism, in such points as they contradict one another, must be true] serve his turn. For 1. though some points in one of those parties may be true; yet others may be false: and so that party, in the complex, not be true. 2. The Doctor, according to his wont, slips from the Question: for the Question is not of any particular Points of Doctrine in this or that sect; but of the whole sect it self, and that chiefly in Relation to Discipline and Government: and this he must needs grant me, or else recall his last clause (for it is intolerable wrong to have the Church destitute of all Government.) Now he that enumerates sundry kinds of Government, must not merely for so doing (especially when into the bargain he terms them factions) be thought to hold any one of them to be Right; because it's possible that all that he reckons up, may be wrong. Nor, in case any one of them so enumerated, happen to be indeed the Right; does it follow that he appears to believe it so to be; unless, having made his enumeration, he accordingly declares his Judgement about that particular: which how far Dr More was from doing, let the place in question speak.

[Page] It is true in the beginning of the next (the 3d) Section, he saith (he hath already affirmed Episcopacy to be in the number of good things) but where did he affirm this? In his Preface to his Mystery? why then does he not give us some inkling of the place? I confess in his Apology, in the foregoing Section, something he saith whence it may be collected that he there supposes Episcopacy to be a good thing: but he knows the Objection was never made against his Apology.

To come therefore to his next pretence; which follows in the 3d Section and runs thus ‘[This is all that can be elicited out of this Paragraph (he means the 19th Section of his Preface, to 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, [Page] 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 [Page]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 Churchgovernment: 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 [Page] 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 presume he found himself at very good leisure: for he gives us good store of verses out of Spencer, wherein he saith, he describes the effect of the extirpation of Episcopacy, upon the Presbyters themselves. And I care not if I be so idle upon this Opportunity of thrusting some verses also upon the Reader: which Dr More I hope will not take amiss, seeing I borrow them out of his own Poem intituled The Life of the Soul, and printed A. D. 1647. There in his 2d Canto he thus describes the Kings Chappel, representing the Altar, [Page] by a green Turf, Stanza 58. the Tapers, by Torchwort, and the Pulpit and Cushion by an hollow Oak and moss. Stanza 59. The Choristers on either side, and Boreas for the Organ above, Stanza 60. the Eagle, or King in his lofty Cabinet at the west end. Stanza 61. Then that he may not seem to forget the Bishops, he brings in one of them, for the Preacher, in these lines:

62

After a song loud chanted by that Quire

Tun'd to the whistling of the hollow Wind,

Comes out a gay Pie in his rich attire:

The snowie white with the black sattin shin'd,

On's head a silken Cap he wore ulin'd

When he had hopped to the middle flore

His bowing head right lowly he inclin'd

As if some Deity he did adore,

And seemly gestures make courting the Heavenly Power.

63

Thus cring'd he toward the East with shivering wings,

With eyes on the square sod devoutly bent.

Then with short flight up to the Oak he springs,

Where he thrice congied after his ascent

With posture chang'd from th' East to th' Occident;

Thrice bow'd he down, and eas'ly thrice he rose:

Bow'd down so low, as if't had been's intent

On the green Moss to wipe his swarthy Nose

Anon be chatters loud, but why himself best knows.

By this stuff, there will be no great question made, but the Doctor, was in reference to Episcopacy, the very same in verse An. 1647. which he is in prose in that Section of his Preface An. 1660. But now he hastens as he saith, to the 4th Objection, and I will be at his heels. ‘[Page] Objection. 4.’ [He affirms, that Church-discipline should comprehend onely the generally acknowledged Articles of the Christian faith, and plain indispensable duties of life. Which overthrows all authority concerning things Indifferent. Pref. pag. 18. 19.]

To this he answers ‘[All that those passages contain which are here referred to touching this matter, is in the 18 [...] h page in this paragraph: That the main end of Church-government and Discipline, is the countenancing and promoting the Christian life, and an holy observation of such precepts of Christ as do not make men obnoxious to the secular Power by transgressing them; to keep out also Idolatry and every Errour and superstitious Practise that tends to the supplanting or defeating the power of the Gospel; and that therefore we ought rather to be solicitous about managing this Government to the right end, then to disturb the peace of the Church by an overscrupulous examination of the exteriour frame thereof.]’

Before I follow him farther, I must needs set a note upon what he begins to broach here. The Churches power, he saith, is mainly intended to countenance and promote the observation of (such of Christs Precepts, as do not make men obnoxious to the secular power by transgressing them) Hence it follows, that such precepts, even of Christ himself, as do make men obnoxious to the secular power by transgressing them; are no part of those precepts whose observation the Church is chiefly to countenance and promote by her power and Discipline. In case therefore the Civil Magistrate, being a Religious and Godly Prince, laies his strict commands on his subjects, to be diligent observers of both Tables, and chiefly of the weightiest matters therein; injoyning them to live in all Godliness, Temperance, Justice, Charity, Peaceableness, and Obedience to that Government both civil and ecclesiastical; with addition of sanctions of severe punishments on all profane [Page] drunken, riotous, filthy, seditious, factious livers; Because these precepts of Christ (for that so they are, I hope the Doctor will grant) must in this case always make men obnoxious to the secular power by transgressing them; therefore the countenancing and promoting of an holy observation of such Godly Temperance, Justice, Charity, Peaceableness and Obedience to Governours ecclesiastical and civil, is no part of the main end of Church-government and Discipline. What a strange discipline pleaseth this Man! How much the more is the Church-discipline bound to countenance and promote the observation of those such Precepts of Christ, which the Magistrate knowing to be the chief, makes it his chief care also; although by transgressing them, the transgressours will be obnoxious to the secular power? Besides; why in promoting the observation of Christs Precept of fleeing, and keeping out Idolatry (which the Doctor in the next word instances as a part of the main end of Church-government) may not (by his leave) that very Precept (under Godly and religious Princes) make men obnoxious to the secular Power, by transgressing it? And so he would, and would not, almost in the same breath, have that a part of the main care of Church-governours. And now I will attend him in his Dance.

He adds ‘[To keep out also all Idolatry and every Errour and superstitious practise that tends to the supplanting or defeating the power of the Gospel.]’ Be it so: grant this a main end of Church-government. I hereupon demand, whether that Errour that infers Schisms, Distractions, and the greatest uncharitableness; be not a principal way of defeating the power of the Gospel? If it be, then those Governours who manage the Church-government so as to oppose strictly, and stoutly suppress that Errour that infers schisms, &c. do manage it sutably to a main end thereof. But the Errour of the Brethren who winch and kick against Church-government, most sadly hath of late, and always will in some degree hereafter [Page] after, infer Schisms, &c. Therefore strictly to oppose and stoutly to suppress that Errour, sutes a main end of the Church-government. How miserably impertinent then are the Doctors last words ‘[Therefore we ought rather to be solicitous about managing the Government to the right end, then disturb the peace of the Church by an overscrupulous examination of the outward form thereof.]’ The Right End of Church-government, is, the preservation of unity in the Church: and is Unity, or the Peace of the Church, disturbed by any, though the exactest examination, even of the outward form thereof? Let the Doctor examine it, as much as he will; the more the better; for had he duly examin'd it, he would have shewed more manners towards it.

But the sport is: the Doctor here supposes himself to be one of those that manage the Church-government. ‘[We ought, saith he, rather to be solicitous about Managing the Government to the right end, &c. ]’ and therefore whatsoever blame he casts upon the management; he casts upon himself. 'Tis true, when he is in 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, [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 be contradistinct from those Doctrines which are plainly set down in Scripture: Whereas Scripture Commands in several places, Obedience to our spiritual Governours; which Obedience necessarily includes in the object of it things Indifferent; unless the Doctor can shew us, where such Commands are limited and restrained to things Essential and Fundamental. And in truth, that is most properly said to be Obedience to our spiritual Governours, which is done in things Indifferent for things Necessary, are the express Commands of God; [Page] to which we owe Obedience whether our Governours urge them upon us or no.

The next passage he would have us compare, is in the close of the 14th Sect. ‘[But it is manifest, that all the zealous Corrivals, &c. ]’ What is here, to prove the Churches Power in Indifferent things? he blames those who decry things for Antichristian, which of themselves are innocent and of an indifferent nature: and those also, who obtrude Opinions that are worse then Indifferent. Where by the way you may observe, That this exact Doctor first speaks kindly of things Indifferent; for he vouchsafeth to stile them Innocent: yet in the next Line, talks of Opinions worse then Indifferent, that is, worse then Innocent. But his blaming either the one or the other, either the Decryers or the Obtruders; makes nothing for asserting the Power of the Church in things Indifferent; seeing either of those sorts of men may be blameable, whether the Church hath any such Power, or no.

Lastly he adds, ‘[And at the close of the 15th Sect. where having first suggested, that nothing can so well secure the peace of the Clergy, and make them impregnable, as the using of their Power, and the exercising of their Discipline, in the behalf of such Truths and Rites as are plainly and confessedly Apostolical; and the being more facil and easie in additional Circumstances, and quite cutting off all useless and intangling Opinions; I at last add, Which one plain and generous Rule of Government, is the most effectual means imaginable of making the world good, &c.—) which Clause cannot be made good, unless there be in the Church a Power of appointing and determining the Modes and Circumstances of publick Worship Which sith they may be various, and yet all sorts of them decent, and therefore indifferent which to choose; it is assuredly left to Authority to determine the choice, and others ought to submit thereto. [Page] Let all things be done decently and in order. So abundantly evident it is, That it never came into my minde to take away that Right of Commanding things Indifferent, from publick authority. And thus I think I have fully satisfied this 4th Objection.]’

Art thou not satisfied Reader; and fully, touching the 4th Objection? The Doctor would have the Church facil and easie in additional Circumstances: therefore he asserts her Power in determining things before Indifferent. Nay he would have her quite cut off useless and intangling Opinions: and is not this also, To exercise Power in Indifferent things? As for the Clause he speaks of, it may be made good, without granting any such Power in the Church.

For 1. Useless and intangling Opinions, are not in the class of things Indifferent, but plainly condemned by Scripture: wherefore to cut off these, supposeth not such a Power touching Indifferent Points.

2. The facility and easiness of the Church in additional Circumstances; argues not any such Power, but rather implies the contrary: namely, that she hath no right strictly to Command, but onely gently to Recommend.

But all this while, the Doctor onely manageth a slie juggle, and pretending to compare the places of his Preface, he gives us instead of a faithfull honest Citation, a mangled and adulterate one. Here you see his words run thus [—cutting off all useless and intangling Opinions, I at last add, which one plain and generous Rule, &c.] But in his Preface, next after intangling Opinions, and immediately before, which plain and generous rule, &c. he hath these Lines: ‘[For hereby will their Opposers manifestly be found to fight against God and his Christ, while they contest with his Ministers, who urge nothing upon the people, but what was plainly taught and practised by himself and his Apostles, whose ways and Doctrines are so sacred, that they ought to be kept up with all lawfull[Page]severity.’ The Doctor knew this passage would but ill-favouredly grin upon the Bravado he meant to conclude with; wherefore he wondrous wisely omitted it. For if Church-Governours are to urge nothing upon the people, but what was plainly taught and practised by Christ and his Apostles; then are they not to urge things in themselves Indifferent; and if they may not urge them, what doth their power signifie? ‘Object. 5.’ (He terms Christs Divine Nature, that Passive contemptible Divinity which lodged in him, lib. 5. c. 1. sect. 5.)

The Doctors own words were, That passive contemptible Divinity which lodged in him. Upon these the Objection was founded. His Answer here in the 9th Sect. is, That by Christs Divinity, he means Christs deiform Humanity. And that this was his meaning, he first appeals to his 4th Book, 12th Chap. Sect. 3. Now though he had spoke soberly in his 4th Book, this cannot justifie him for speaking wildly in his 5th Book. However let us hear his words, and see whether they will be his sufficient Compurgators. ‘[How should it ever come into the minde of a meer natural man, to think of an humble, passive, soul-melting, self-afflicting and self-resigning Divinity lodging in any person: or if it did, &c.] then he adds, [Can it come into the minde of any man to think, that I understand this humble, passive, self-afflicting and selfresigning Divinity, of the second Hypostasis of the Trinity, the eternal and immaterial logos? but I compare here the Character of Christ with that of Apollonius, who affected a kinde of Divinity: and philostratus indeavoured to set him out accordingly.]’

The Objector never charged him, That he spake those words, of the eternal logos; nor did it come into his minde, so to think. This clamour therefore of the Doctor [Can it [Page]come into the minde of any man, &c.] is impertinent. But I must be bold to tell him, That though in the next (the 10th Section) he expounds those words of (that most lovely and amiable Divine Spirit lodging in our Saviour) yet to term that Divine Spirit, by the name of Divinity, ill sutes with the Theological Dialect: and besides, may be very scandalous to his Philosophers, at whose Conversion he pretends that Book doth very much aim. Nor will it less scandalize them, that he calls Divinity, deiform Humanity; or deiform Humanity, Divinity. Such Notions and Phrases, are very likely to startle his rational Monsieurs; and perhaps cause the enemies of the Lord, not onely to mock, but to blaspheme, when they hear a grave Professor of Theologie, interpret Divinity to be Humanity, though with any annexed Epithete.

Next he repeats (in his 11th Sect.) the whole Section cited by the Objector; vouching it to have no other Meaning then what he declared touching the former place in his 4th Book. I will not swear for Dr More's Meaning, of all the men I know living. Look we therefore to the words, ‘[He whom they numbred amongst the Transgressours, and took to be the vilest of men, because he was not recommended by any thing that the Animal life likes and applauds, (as nobleness of birth, the power of popular Eloquence, Honour, Wealth, Authority, high Education, Beauty, Courtship, Pleasantness of Conversation, and the like.’)

Stay stay Doctor, you must not run away with this. What was not Christ recommended by Nobleness of Birth, who was descended of the noblest stock in all the Nation where he lived? Not by the Power of popular Eloquence, I mean, such Eloquence, as mightily, even to admiration, prevailed upon the people, though the Gospel notes that the people pressed to hear him, S. Luc. 5. 1. that the common people heard him [Page]gladly, S. Marc. 12. 37. that the Pharisees Officers sent to apprehend him, were so ravished with his discourse, that they durst not seize him, but acknowledged to their Masters, That never man spake like this man? S. Io. 7. 47. Not by Authority, though he taught as one that had authority, and not as the Scribes. S. Marc. 1. 22. Yea though he commanded and forced tempests and devils to obey him? Not by Beauty; who (though despectus & ignobilis quando pendebat in Cruce, as St Ierom notes upon that in Esay 53. 2. yet) was fairer then the children of men, Psal. 45. 2? Not by pleasantness of Conversation: though he came not in S Iohn Baptists severity, but eating and drinking, St Matt. 11. v. 18, 19? Nay more, Lib. 5. C. 11. S. 9. he denies, that Christ had the knowledge of Philosophy. It is strange how the Doctor should slump into this ugly humour of impudent vilifying our blessed Lord, even where he pretends to magnifie him! but now lets hear the rest.

‘[He is I say, notwithstanding this general contempt from men, very highly prized by him who is the infallible Judge, whose waies are not as our waies, nor his thoughts as our thoughts; but that he might conform our apprehensions to his own, raised Jesus from the dead, bringing that passive contemptible Divinity that lodged in him, into a deserved victory and triumph.]’ If by Divinity here, he means (as before he affirms he doth) Christs deiform Humanity: besides the wilde uncoothness, and unsavoury scandalousness of the Expression. I demand how Christs Humanity (dressed with the Epithete Deiform, or what else you will) can be lodged in Christ? for he saith this Divinity, that is, his Humanity was lodged in him. As the Soul and Body are one Man; so the Divinity and Humanity are one Christ. Now is it good sense to say, the body of such a man, is lodged in that man? yet just the same sense is that in the Doctors expression.

[Page] But the entire Section considered, he presumes that many passages in it will evince, That he could not mean the divine nature of Christ, by his Divinity: and if so, the Objection chargeth him unjustly. I answer, The Objection expresly chargeth him, not with what he meant, but what he said. He said, the Divinity lodged in Christ, was passive and contemptible: Now neither the Objector, nor any sound Catholick Christian knows of any [...], any Divinity in Christ, but his divine Nature. I grant, Christs Humanity abounded with divine Virtues; and that it was anointed (as the Doctor in his Reply mentions) with the Oyl of Gladness more eminently then his Fellows: Yet still it was but his Humanity, and not to be styled by that name which signifies his Nature as he is God. Again, I grant, that by these Virtues and this Unction, he was [...] as he was man; yet that participation of the divine nature, is no ground to call his Manhood, Divinity. For imagine Dr More never so virtuous, and thereby (in Saint Peters phrase) Partaker of the Divine Nature; were it tolerable therefore to say, That he hath [...] lodged in him? or that his Nature (which is Humanity) may therefore be styled Divinity?

Lastly, Concerning his calling the Divinity which was lodged in Christ, Contemptible; he answers, ‘[That he doth not term it, in the other sense, Contemptible, but condemn others for accounting it so.]’ What is that other sense? he hath not yet mentioned two senses of Contemptible; thither then it cannot be referred. Wherefore it must be the other sense of Divine Nature in Christ: and so I conceive his meaning is, That he called not the divine nature of Christ (or his Divinity) that is, his deiform Humanity, Contemptible. Now what is this, but plainly to deny, what he plainly said? for let him [Page] understand it in what sense he will, Contemptible was one of the Epithets which he clapped upon it. Had he said, Contemned, who would have quarrelled with him? for our Lords enemies did most notoriously contemn him: but their crime was, that they Contemned him who was not Contemptible. The Scripture tells us of some who despised God: will the Doctor therefore call God Despicable?

To conclude, The Doctor cannot deny the words which the Objection charges him with, to be in the place cited by the Objector. Nor did the Objector make any Comment upon or inference from those words; but barely represented them, upon supposal that Christs Divinity, was Christs divine nature. Whether the Doctor hath made all whole, by expounding and denying; viz. by expounding Divinity to signifie deiform Humanity, and by denying that he called it Contemptible, though he did so call it, is not difficult to determine.

Upon CHAP. VI.
His Answer touching Nestorianism.

HE begins this Chapter thus, ‘[It will contribute nothing to our purpose to take notice of Nestorius his person, how he was first a Monk, &c.]’ to the end of his first Section.

And I pray, is not this a very pertinent beginning, when he himself confesseth, It will contribute nothing to his purpose! What ayls the man then to abuse his Reader with stuff which he tells us aforehand hath not the least affinity with the business in hand? I see not what could move him to this pitifull vanity, but his ambitious humour of testifying his great Reading, [Page] and therefore of stuffing his Books with any Notes he hath pickt up (whether out of Authours or Indexes I will not determine) though nothing to the purpose.

But then Sect. 2. he prepares himself to give a punctual account of the nature of Nestorianism, out of the ancient Greek Collections of Ecclesiastical Canons, as they are in the Edition of Iustellus.

Surely had he intended an honest and punctual account, his readier way had been to take it out of Nestorius his own Assertions, produced and read in the Ephesinc Council, which condemned him.

Then having in the 3d Sect. brought a Citation ex lib. 1. Codic. Tit. 1. In Iustinians Rescript to the Constantinopolitans; he saith, Sect. 4. ‘[Out of which it is manifest 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 15to [ [...]. 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 [Page] 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 separa [...]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 [Page] 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: [Page] 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 them. And here he [Page] hath minted a very pretty one, witness those words (not actually concurring as a potential Principle,) but let him have it. He proceeds:

‘[I need onely add, That Hypostasis in the concrete sense, is the same that Suppositum; in the abstract, subsistentia: and that subsistere is sometimes in the very language of the Schools, said of an individual substance, although it exist dependently upon another Suppositum, as in the Humane Nature of Christ. And lastly, for Persona, it is nothing but Suppositum Rationale.]’ Let him have all this too, to please him.

Now he answers to the Objection, Sect. 13. thus: ‘[I do not bring in an Humane Person of Christ, without any mincing of the matter. For at the very first naming of the terms, I both modestly and cautiously ask leave in these words: Now that the Humane Person of Christ, (as I may so call it) is not to be laid aside, &c.]’ Most acutely! The Objector saith not, that Dr More brought in the Humane Person of Christ without any mincing of the matter, at the first naming of the terms; but expresly saith, That he so brings it in Afterwards. Now the Doctor proves, that he did not so bring it in, because at his very first naming of the terms, he inserts this Parenthesis (as I may so call it.) Is not this Answer direct and apposite?

But he would perswade us, that by this Parenthesis, he modestly and cautiously asked leave. How modest a Creature this Doctor is, appears, as by the general strein of his Writings, so by his particular censure of the Schoolmen, and impudent reflection upon three Kings at once, which I noted but now: And how cautious, is too too legible in those foul and dangerous Opinions into which he hath plunged himself, no man forcing him thereunto. Nay, to see the unluckiness of it, in this very particular, where he boasts of both, there is neither modesty nor caution. He saith he ask'd leave; but of whom [Page] did he ask it? or did he Modestly and Cautiously stay for an Answer, to know whether such leave would or might be granted him? suppose I should here say, That Dr More is (as I may so call him) a Nestorian Heretick: you will easily think the Doctor would be offended, though I should plead that. modestly and cautiously ask'd leave, in those words (as I may so call him) But the Doctor should have known, that it was not lawfull for him, or any other Christian, to use any expressions which are of an heretical import, especially in such high points: And for so doing no leave can modestly be asked; seeing it is Impudence to desire Liberty of speaking what is Heresie, or what may vehemently and justly be suspected thereof. Nor can any such leave justly be given, though it be asked.

He proceeds ‘[I interserted those words (viz. the Parenthesis mentioned) as being well assured in my own judgement, that whatsoever might otherwise be a suppositum of it self, if it once concur as a Potential Principle with some other Hypostasis for the making up one Hypostasis, it loseth then the proper Nature and Definition of an Hypostasis; it being then not actually such, but potentially, and in that sense onely it can be called an Hypostasis: and there is the same reason of Persona.]’

Reader, would you know the Doctors Drift in these words? It is to prepare you to swallow what he saith Sect. 14. viz. ‘[That though he names 2 Hypostases in Christ, yet he understands the Humane Hypostasis to be but improperly so termed]’ to wit, Because it concurs as a potential Principle with the Divine Hypostasis, for the making up one Hypostasis. A quaint Fetch! the Doctor frequently named the Humane Person of Christ: and now we must believe that he meant it improperly: yea though by his own confession he declared, in the forecited place Book 9. ch. 2. Sect. 6. that both the Hypostases in Christ remain still intire. Intire, and yet Improperly? But still, the very ground of his Fetch, fails [Page] him: For first it supposes, 2 Hypostases actually such; namely in this point, the Divine actual Hypostasis, and the Humane actual Hypostasis: for upon their Concurrence into one, he saith that they lose the proper nature and Definition of an Hypostasis. But they cannot lose what they had not; and if they had the proper Nature and Definition of an Hypostasis, they must needs be Actual Hypostases. Secondly he supposes these two Actual Hypostases to concur into one third Hypostasis; and that hereupon either of the two which did thus concur, though they cease to be actually two Hypostases, yet Potentially they continue such; and in that sense (i. e. improperly) may still be termed Hypostases. Now let the Doctor shew us, How Christs Humanity was once a complete intire Hypostasis by it self, and afterward concurrent with his Divinity to make up the Hypostasis of [...], by which Concurrence it lost the proper Nature and Definition of an Hypostasis, it being then not actually such, but potentially: otherwise his premised Devise will stand him in no stead.

His second Answer is, that he was necessitated to use this Term, because of the Familists with whom he disputed, &c. This necessity, if such, was made by himself: for who necessitated him to dispute with the Familists? But the Doctor can never perswade sober men that there is no disputing with Hereticks, unless the Disputer makes bold to speak like an Heretick himself. If the Familists would, as he here pretends, have melted the Catholick expression into a Mystical meaning; it concerned him, not therefore to change that Catholick expression, but so to fortifie it, that the Familists might not have been able justly and rationally to have avoided it. Yet this is not all: I must have leave plainly to tell him that his dispute with the Familists was not the thing that necessitated him to call it the Humane Person of Christ; and that this is both a frivolous and ridiculous excuse: for his dispute with them is in his 6th Book, from the 12. chap. to the end of that [Page] Book: but in his 9th Book, Chap. 2. Sect. 6. he again calls it the Humane Person of Christ, though he meddles not there with the Familists. Wherefore, for his using that phrase, there was some other motive, which I doubt not but himself well wots of.

His third Answer (in the same 13th Sect.) runs thus: ‘[It brings nothing of Nestorianism in with it, because though I name the Humane Person of Christ alone, yet I do no more [...], then he that names the Humane Nature of Christ alone, doth [...] which if they were cut asunder, would most certainly dissolve the Hypostatical Union also.]’ The ground of this Answer is Photius his saying that Nestorius did [...] but the meaning of those words, is onely this: That Nestorius acknowledged not the two Natures, Divine and Humane, united in one Person; but made them two Distinct Persons: Distinct, I 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, [Page] 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 [Page] 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. [...][Page](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 original; renders the word [...], the Hypostasis or proper subsistency. And let me add, that [...] when they are really divers and distinct in one and the same Divine Nature, each of them with that one common Nature or Essence, is a person by himself: but [...] [or [...]] may well be said [...] for there are three really distinct persons in one Nature: and here there are two really dictinct Natures [Page] in one Person; but not two really distinct Persons in one Person.

See now whether he hath any better luck in vouching his language to be sutable to the Athanasian Creed. He saith, Sect. 16. ‘[It is no Soloecism to call the Humane Nature of Christ an Hypostasis; the words of the Creed declaring him to be Perfect God and perfect Man, [...]. And then defining what is meant by [...], there is added [...], not [...], of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting, not consisting. And can there be [...] and not Hypostasis?—But I must confess [...] is used here in a less proper sense: but it being used, and I understanding [...] when I apply it to the Humane nature of Christ, in no other sense then the Creed, I think I am wholly irreprehensible for so doing. And thus the whole imputation of Nestorianism hath vanished into a meer [...], or less.]’ O impregnable Doctor!

First I note that he builds here upon the Greek of the Athanasian Creed, and if that ground be sufficient, I could furnish him out of it (as it is Printed in St Athanas. his Works A. D. 1627. at Paris,) with a place more express for his purpose then this he hath pitched on. For where the Latine reads it, Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed Unitate Personae: the Greek runs thus, [...], by unity of Persons, or Hypostases, in the plural. But Baronius, ad An. Christi 340. will tell him, That St Athanasius wrote this Creed originally in the Latine, not in the Greek language. Let him therefore who put it into Greek, answer it, if he differs from the Latine.

Secondly, Whereas in the Latine it is Perfectus homo, exanima rationali & humana carne subsistens: the word subsistens cannot properly or improperly be understood for Hypostasis or Persona; but must onely signifie what we mean in English [Page] by Being or Consisting, though in our Liturgie it be rendred subsisting. For it follows in the Creed (Unus non confusione substantiae, sed Unitate Personae,) which is spoken of Christ, as he is God and Man. Wherefore St Athanasius determining in this clause the Divine and Humane Natures of Christ to be one Person; he cannot be imagined in those precedent words (ex anima rationali & humanâ carne subsistens) spoken of the Humane Nature, to have any ways meant that Humane Nature to be Persona, unless we should fancy him to write Repugnancies in his Creed.

Thirdly, If the Doctor would justifie his calling Christs Humanity, the Humane Person of Christ, by this Creed; he should shew us where the Creed calls it so. Had he onely said that Christs Humanity is of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting: who would have quarrelled with him for that Expression? for, that Subsistere in the Primitive Churches Latine did often signifie no more then Esse, appears by Iob 7. 21. Lam. 4. 17. Esa. 17. 14. Ierem. 10. 20. Iob 8. 22. & 3. 16. & 7. 8. (to add no more) in the Vulgar Translation.

Thus the Doctor hath by his Apologie much mended the matter. Had not the better way been, to have honestly acknowledged his Unadvisedness and Errour in calling it the Humane Person of Christ? and to have imitated Him who ingenously said, Errare possum, Haereticus esse nolo? But this would have grated too fore upon his obstinate [...].

[Page]

CHAP. VII. Upon the 7th Objection.
Touching Gods conveying a false Perswasion into the minde of his Creature.

HERE the Doctor paves his way by certain Aphorisms of his own forging; and if he hath not made them home to his own purpose, it is pitty but he should hear of it. His first Aphorism is this, ‘[That nothing but Conviction of Conscience in a soul that is sincere, can be properly the Promulgation of any Law, Will, or Command of Gods to that soul.]’ And the reason he gives, is ‘[Because he that is sincere, is willing and ready to know and do any thing that is the minde of God he should do, and doth his best endeavour to know it and do it.—Whenas on the contrary, he that is not sincere, but false to the present light he hath, and knowingly and wittingly sins against his own Conscience; such a man may justly be likened to one that stops his ears and will not hear the Law of his Prince: which it being in his power notwithstanding to hear, the Law is justly deemed to be promulgated to him.]’

Because a sincere man is ready to know and do Gods W [...] and Law, is therefore that Will and Law not promulgate [...] to that man, till his Conscience is convinced? A very strang [...] Reason! How, in Gods Name, can any mans Conscience be convinced of Gods Law, before the Law be promulgated and made known to that man? Can he be convinced of he knows not what? If then he must first know it, before he can be convinced of it, then must it first be Promulgated. And it [...] must first be Promulgated, then his conviction of Conscience (which ensues thereupon) cannot properly be (as the Doctor affirms) the Promulgation of it. How else could the Doctor [Page] say, That the Law is justly deemed to be Promulgated to the Unsincere man, though he stops his ears and hardens his heart against it? for if to receive, and in conscience yield to the Law, be the proper Promulgation of it to any man; it must be so to every man: and the Doctor deals but hardly with his unsincere man, if he gives him not leave to plead, That because he is not convinced in his Conscience, therefore the Law was never Promulgated to him. Nor can the Doctor evade this, by his comparing the unsincere man to one who stops his ears, and so doth not actually hear the Kings Law Proclaimed, though he be present at the Proclamation. For first, did the Doctor ever know any man come to a Proclamation, and stop his ears when he is come? Secondly, Suppose him so vain and wilfull as to stop his ears; yet by that very act he acknowledgeth the Proclamation, and that the Law is Promulgated to him that he might hear it if he would. Thirdly, Though his ears were open, yet his heart mean while may be shut; and he may actually hear the Proclamation, and yet not count himself in conscience bound to obey the Law Proclaimed, as the Kings Law. This Law in that case is undoubtedly Promulgated to that man, though his conscience be not convinced: Indeed the Doctor grants as much himself in the close of the forecited words.

Wherefore that he may not be thought to overthrow his own Aphorism, he adds ‘[It is peculiar to the sincere and unfeignedly conscientious, that no Law or Command of God be deemed as promulgated to them, unless their consciences be convinced. As a man cannot in nature conceive, that any speech or voice came to any mans ear, who, though listning and expecting, yet could not hear the least whisper thereof.]’ Is this peculiar to the sincere? for what reason? Nay there you must pardon the Doctor, if you will be content to take a simile in lieu of a reason, he is for you. Well then, be it granted, That the voice came not to that mans ear, who [Page] listning for it, could not hear the least whisper of it. Apply this to the case in hand, and what will result? namely, That the Voice or Command of God came not to the sincere mans ear, because though he listned for it, yet he heard no whisper of it. And what then? why just so (by the Doctors inference) it is peculiar to the sincere man that no Command of God be deemed as Promulgated to him, unless his Conscience be convinced.

Reader you may laugh if you please; but the Doctor is still confident, and concludes ‘[This principle me-thinks is so clear, that no man should doubt of it.]’ What, not doubt of it? no; though it makes conviction of Conscience, which is naturally subsequent to the Promulgation; to be properly the Promulgation it self?

His 2d Aphorism is, ‘[That where there is no Law Promulgated, it is no sin or transgression to act or profess the contrary.]’ He restrains not this to his sincere person, as he doth the 1st and 3d Aphorisms. But if by Promulgation, he means such a conviction of Conscience as renders a man ready to obey; his Aphorism is false: For by this Rule, no obstinate Kicker at Gods declared Law, should be a sinner. He would be asked also, What is the sense of those words, [...] act or profess the contrary.) The contrary to what? to a La [...] not Promulgated? for that onely was premised to his Aphorism. Now a Law not Promulgated; is, as to us, no Law; and in this case, just nothing: here therefore the Doctors contrary, is, contrary to that which is not; or, contrary to nothing.

His 3d Aph. ‘[That a full and firm conviction of Conscience in a soul that is sincere, is the Promulgation of a Law or Command from God to that soul.]’ Sure the Doctor hath huge delight in multiplying Aphorisms. He had told us in his first, That nothing but conviction of Conscience in a sincere soul, can be the Promulgation of Gods Law to [Page] that soul. And here he erects a new Aphorism, to assure us, That this Conviction, is that Promulgation.

His subjoyned Reason also, viz. [That Conscience is the ear of the soul,] he had annexed to his first Aphorism: but it seems, not home enough; wherefore having there said, that it is As it were the ear of the soul; here he calls it the very Ear of the soul: and then adds, ‘[That the soul cannot receive a Command from God any otherwise, then by being fully and firmly convinced, that this or that is his Command. This is as it were the Kings Broad Seal, by which she is warranted to act.]’

Let us suppose Conscience to be the souls ear; and examine the case by Analogie: When the ear receives a command, that command must first be spoken or Promulgated to the ear; else how can the ear imbibe it? wherefore the ears receiving it, cannot be the speaking or Promulgating of it. Semblably, if the Conscience receives a Command of God (which it doth, faith the Doctor, by being convinced that it is his Command,) that Command must upon necessity be some way or other Promulgated and signified to the Conscience, before it can so receive it; for this ear of the soul cannot possibly hear that Command, before it be spoken. It follows then, That the Consciences conviction, or reception of it as the Command of God cannot be the Promulgation of it. The Promulgation is one thing, and precedent; the Conviction another thing, and subsequent. The Command is Promulged that the Conscience may be convinced: not the Conscience convinced, that the Command may be Promulged. At high-noon it is not day, because this man opens his eyes, and sees and is convinced that it is so: Nor night, because that man shuts his eyes, and perceives nothing but darkness. The Sun beams are displayed, though both of them should shut their eyes: and that one of them sees and is convinced that it is day light; onely argues, That the Suns [Page] Rays are diffused, but it is not the very diffusion of those Rays.

Lastly, Whereas he saith, that this conviction is as it were the Kings broad Seal, by which the soul is warranted to act: He saith, but what doth As it were confute himself; for doubtless conviction is something within us: but the Kings broad Seal which warrants a man to act, is certainly something without him.

His fourth Aphorism, ‘[That nothing that hath any real Turpitude or Immorality in it, can justly be pretended to be the Voice or Command of God; or that which is really and confessedly Moral, not to be his Command, either to the sincere or unsincere.]’ To prove this, he adds, ‘[For the Light and Law of Nature, and of eternal immutable Morality, cries louder in the soul of the sincere, then that it should admit of any such foul Motions; much less as from God; or be ignorant of what is so plainly Moral, as this Aphorism imports. And for the unsincere, sith he stops his ears against that most holy and evident Law, his false delusions and obduracy in wickedness, are most justly imputed to himself.]’

First, I see not why the Doctor here supposeth the unsincere man to stop his ears against Gods most holy and evident Law; seeing the Law he speaks of, is (by his own confession) the Light and Law of Nature: which Law the unsincere, though he obeys not, yet cannot but be convinced of, as truly as the sincere. Though he holds the truth in unrighteousness, yet still he holds it; because that which may be known of God, is manifest in him, for God hath shewed it to him, Rom. 1. Seeing it is the Law of Nature, and Light of Nature, it must be graved and displayed upon his Nature; and he cannot be ignorant of it, or avoid it by stopping his ears; but is, as the Apostle speaks, without excuse (not because he fortified himself, and left no passage for the Law to enter at; but) [Page] because when he knew God, he glorified him not as God.

Secondly, the Doctors Principle being, that it is not inconsistent with Gods Nature to convey into man false perswasions; least he should be urged with the horrid consequences of that Tenet, he indeavours here to prevent it by telling us in this 4th Aphorism, That nothing that hath in it any real Turpitude or Immorality, can justly be pretended to be Gods command: and therefore he hopes that we cannot charge him with making God the Authour of Sin in man by reason of any such false perswasions conveyed by him into mans minde. But alas, this shift will not serve: for, it God may be the Authour of what is not true, who can be assured that what all the World hath hitherto counted real Turpitude and Immorality; is so indeed? the Rule by which the World judges of Turpitude and Immorality, is the Light of Nature and the Moral Law; and who is the Authour of this Rule, but God? how then shall the World certainly know that this is a True Rule? not because God made it; for, by the Doctors new Divinity, God may be the Authour of that which is not True: Nor by the assistance of any creature, for doubtless it is as possible for the creatures to deceive us, as for the Creatour; nor can they inform us of any thing more then their Creatour (who may deceive them also) is pleased to let them know. Talk not then of Real Turpitude; all Turpitude will prove but Imaginary, and founded onely upon supposition, That God, who might have made the Moral Law a false Rule, did make it a true one: but how to evince that supposition to be an absolute Truth, is perfectly impossible upon the Doctors Principle: of which Principle, the consequents are full of such portentuous universal confusion, as excuses the whole rabble of former Heresies; and indeed affrights and amazes my Meditation.

Sect. 3. He propounds this by way of question ‘[Whether a full and firm conviction of conscience in the sincere, touching a Religion in which some things are incorporated [Page] that be false, but without any moral Turpitude, and of that nature that no moral sincerity may be able to discover the the falseness of them, can be rightly said to be the command of God to that Soul, whether for tryal or Punishment]’ Then, after a sally from it in the 4th and 5th Sect. he saith in the 6th ‘[That this Question will necessarily put as upon these three Disquisitions. 1. Whether it be competible to the nature of God, to convey a false perswasion into the minde of his creature. 2. Whether it be competible to him, to convey a false perswasion as may oblige the perswaded to act or profess according to this perswasion, Religiously and Conscientiously: (this will come up very close to the 7th Objection to be propounded.) 3. Whether this false Conviction or Perswasion, may rightly be called the Command of God to such a person thus perswaded.]’ Of these three why might not the Doctor have spared the third, which seems plainly enough included in the second? for if such a false perswasion conveyed by God, obliges man to act accordingly; it must needs be the Law or Command of God to that man. But the multiplying of disquisitions, makes but the mist the thicker which he studies to cast about the 7th Objection. And yet the truth is, his question is lyable to some other Disquisitions, which he was not willing to discover.

For first, I ask why he supposes such falsities in a Religion, as no moral sincerity may be able to finde out? Moral sincerity is able to ask, seek and knock: and they who ask, shall have; they who seek shall finde; to them who knock it shall be opened. And divine wisdom saith Prov. 8. 17. (Those that seek me early shall finde me) 2. Why he supposes that God may convey a false perswasion into the sincere Soul, and that either for Tryal, or Punishment? for why should God Try, or punish by falsehood, when he may as well do it by Truth? And of all men why should he thus try, (I mean by falshood) or why thus should he punish him whom he knows [Page] to be sincere already? These supposals are little to the Honour of the Divine Majesty: nor could they possibly be made but by such a Theologue as Dr More.

But I now follow whether he leads me. Against the first of his 3 Disquisitions, he grants 2 considerable Arguments: the the first ‘[That it is repugnant to Gods veracity: the second, that it is destructive of our belief of God in all things, if we once admit that he will convey a false perswasion to us in any thing.]’ In order to answer these Arguments, he first produces several Texts of Scripture touching this point, with expositors opinions of them: he begins with Rom. 11. 32. [...]. But how doth this concern Gods conveying a false perswasion into mens Souls? Let the end or intent of this Act of God, interpret the act it self, the end is [...] that he might have mercy upon all: and doth God convey a false perswasion into them that he may have mercy upon them, especially that false perswasion being in points of Religion? whatsoever then is meant by [...] , it cannot be a conveying into them falsity of religion.

But he adds ‘[Upon which Text, Vatablus, sub imperio saith he, & potestate Incredulitatis sinit esse, & facit ut ad tempus repugnemus gratiae, ut rubore tandem perfusi sitiamus ejus misericordiam. The Apostle here treats of the Jews incredulity touching Jesus his being the Messias.]’ It seems he liketh this comment, which onely of all others he produces: and yet he confutes it by what he annexes of his own to it: for Vatablus restrains not the words (as he ought, and the Doctor doth, to the incredulous Jews. Ut sitiamus includes himself and other Christians. Secondly if God facit ut repugnemus gratiae, God is the Authour of sin; unless the Doctor dares say, that it is no sin to resist Grace. Thirdly, to resist Grace, cannot be the way (as Vatablus pretends) to make us thirst after mercy, but quite the contrary. Hath not this Text, and comment, done the Doctor good service?

[Page] His next Text is, S. Iohn. 12. 39. 40. Therefore they could not believe, because that Esay had said, He hath blinded their eyes and hardned their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I should heal them. Here he falls upon the same impertinency as in his former Text: for these words are spoken, not of sincere persons: who are propounded in his Question, but of the unsincere and wicked Jews. Besides, was there no Moral Turpitude in these mens obstinate resisting the means of Salvation? if there were, it is not pertinent to his Question. Lastly, there needs no other Answer but Clarius his comment, added here by the Doctor himself, significat illos non potuisse credere, ob excoecatam mentem & obstinatum animum; idque Deum suo ipsorum vitio & culpâ permisisse. Doth this infer, that God conveyed into them a false perswasion, and that so as to make it his command, and oblige them to act sutably thereto?

Then he saith ‘[It is not altogether impertinent to add the example of Gods assisting Elisha, 2 Kings 6. 18.]’ It seems his conscience told him that it was something impertinent, though not altogether. Let the Reader consider the place, and he will soon find it so much impertinent to this question, as not to deserve an answer.

Next he comes to what he calls a more eximious instance (and so it may soon be) 1 Kings 22. touching Ahabs going up to Ramoth Gilead, v. 19. And Michaia said, hear thou, &c. to the end of the 22 Sect. ‘This saith the Doctor is a very notable example of what is declared in a more general way by the Prophet Ezechiel, chap. 14. 9.’ And if the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet. Upon the back of this he heaps a large comment of Cornelius a Lapide; which concludes thus Aliter ergo permittit mala Deus, aliter Homo; Homo Negative, Deus positivè. But I must pray the Doctor to excuse me, if I trouble [Page] not my Reader with answering that which concludes in terms apparently contradictious. However, sure I am, that S. Austins credit is better then Lapide's and he saith, lib de grat. & lib. Arb. cap. 23. Quando auditis dicentem Dominum, Ego Dominus seduxi prophetam illum; & quod ait Apostolus, Cujus vult miseretur, & quem vult, obdurat: In eo quem seduci Permittit vel obdurari, mala cjus merita credite: in eò verò cujus miseretur, gratiam Dei, &c. Whatsoever false perswasion was in Ahab, or in a false Prophet, God was not the Authour or conveyer of it into them, but the Iust Permitter.

Yet since the Doctor makes this such an eximious Instance, I will add something farther concerning it. First, was Ahab a sincere person? If not; how is his example pertinent to this Question? the like may be urged touching Ezechiels false prophets. Secondly, what was Ahabs perswasion of kin to any point of Religion? Thirdly. how could that perswasion be a command of God binding him religiously and conscienentiously to go up to Ramoth Gilead; when God sent Michaia a true Prophet, to assure him that if he went up, he should not return in Peace? I much suspect, that this Instance is eximious in a sense different from what the Doctor pretends, and that it will appear eximiously Impertinent.

The Description of the whole business from v. 19. to the 22. is in a theatrical form suted to humane apprehension; and must not be literally urged: the main drift being to shew that Ahabs Prophets were deceived by a lying spirit, upon Gods permission: and that as certainly, as if the transaction had been managed in such a manner and with such circumstances, as the Text represents it in, for the better complying with the capacity of them whom it concerned. Nevertheless, to gratifie the Doctor, I will put it upon the issue of the very literal sense of this story, whether God conveyed a false perswasion into Ahab, or no.

God being seated in his Throne, and his Court standing [Page] about him, he asks thus: [Who shall perswade Ahab that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead?] Here it is plain, that God meant not to convey that perswasion into Ahab himself: for he inquires for some else to do it. After several spirits had delivered their opinions, one on this manner and another on that; forth comes one who undertook the business. God asks him wherewith he would perswade Ahab? he answers, [I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets] here he plainly takes the whole Action upon himself: but yet he had no power to execute it, till God gave him leave: whereupon God replies [Thou shalt perswade him, and prevail also: Go forth and do so.] Thus the lying spirit offering his readiness (that is, if God hindred not) and God declares that he will permit it, and foretells the event. Ahab might have been perswaded by Truths; therefore God first propounded, who will goe and perswade Ahab, &c. But Ahab also might be perswaded by a lie, and that God permits, leaving a wicked spirit, to his own wickedness; and by permitting that, resolving to punish Ahabs wickedness with his Ruine. Nothing appears in all this transaction which proves Ahabs false perswasion to have been conveyed into him by God; but that it was solely performed by that lying spirit, who did but his kinde in deceiving. And seeing Ahab had for a long time despised Gods true Prophets, and hearkned to false ones, it was the decorum of divine Justice to suffer his Ruine to proceed from false prophets inspired by that lying spirit. Yet still at the same time God sent his true prophet Michaia, who informed Ahab of the false prophets lie; that it might appear (to the shame of all such as Dr More) That as the Devil indeavours to convey false perswasions; so God interesses his spirit onely in the conveyance of true. And I presume the Doctor will grant, that Gods spirit was in Michaia; that if Ahab had hearkned to him and been perswaded by him, this perswasion had been conveyed by God; [Page] That however, Michaia's prophecy was to him in the nature of a command from God not to go up to Ramoth Gilead: And if so; then the perswasion conveyed into him by the lying prophets, could be no perswasion or command of God: unless we dream that God at the same time, concerning the same thing, and to the same person, can be the authour and conveyer of perswasions or commands, expressly contrary to one another. Sutable to what I have said touching the carriage of this business, is the account Theodoret gives of it: Haec est Prosopopaeia quae docet divinam permissionem: non enim verus Dominus & veritatis Magister jussit ut deciperetur Ahab: per haec docuit Propheta quod spiritus Deceptionis impiis hominibus utens tanquam instrumentis, falso promittit Victoriam: hoc autem fit Deo permittente: nam cum prohibere potuit, non prohibuit quoniam indignus erat Ahab cujus curam gereret.

Now for the forementioned place in Ezech. 14. 9. If the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet] Though it appertains not to the Doctors Question, (as I hinted before) yet concerning the scruple it may seem to afford, I answer: Take it in the strictest sense the words will truly bear, it follows not that God did any more, deceive this prophet in Ezechiel, then he did those prophets of Ahab; namely by giving leave to a lying spirit to deceive them. It was his Justice upon that wicked Prophet, to leave him to be inspired and acted by the Devil. In brief, hear what Theodoret saith upon the place, At non est justi judicis proprium, & decipere prophetam, & errantem punire: non ergo secundum efficaciam ait se prophetam in errorem inducturum, sed secundum permissionem: i. e. Cum possim statim illius mendacium redarguere, sustineo, & divinâ lenitate usus permitto ut dolo utatur, quem voluntate non necessitate exercet.

The Doctors last instance, is that of Gods hardning Pharaohs heart ‘[Who, (saith he) was so intoxicated with a false perswasion that his Gods and his Magicians would be able to [Page] stand it out with the God of the Hebrews &c.’ God having given him up to this Delusion] I take him at his last words: God gave up Pharaoh to this Delusion. Pharaoh obstinately hardned his heart against God; and therefore God is said after that to harden Pharaohs heart. How? by conveying into him that false perswasion? No: but, as the Doctor here himself acknowledges, by giving him up to this delusion. I grant, our English chap. 7. 13. seems to say that God first hardned Pharohs heart: but rhe Doctor is not ignorant, that in the LXX it is [...] and that the original [...] is Roboravit se, or Roboratum est: which word occurrs again v. 22. and is there rendred by our Interpreters, not, He hardned Pharaohs heart; but, Pharaohs heart was hardned: Which version is nearer to the Original. So also it is, cap. 8. 19. & 9. 35. The Doctor therefore might have spared the long adoe he makes about this word: especially seeing, let this Hardning be how it will, yet Pharaoh was no sincere person, and to such alone the question is by him restrained.

After all this, as the result of his premised Citations and considerations, he thus concludes in his 11th Section ‘[God may, and sometimes doth, convey a false perswasion into the minde of man, certainly and effectually though permissively, which was the first Disquisition conteined in the main Question.]’ I wonder not that the Doctor thinks it lawfull for him to convey a false perswasion into the Readers minde, when he holds that it well enough becomes God himself so to do. That the Doctor indeavours thus to convey it, will appear if the Reader will but look back and mark whether this were (as here he affirms) his first Disquisition. He propounded it in his 6. Sect. in these very words whether it be competible to the nature of God, to convey a false perswasion into the minde of his Creature) Compare now and you will finde, first the former words of the Disquisition changed, and instead of (it is competible to the Nature of God) i. e. God may [Page] do it) these words (God may, and sometimes doth it.) Secondly you will find all those words, (certainly and effectually, though permissively,) thrust in here, of which there was not one syllable there. And yet he doubts not to say, that this was the first Disquisition. If he makes no bones of right down affirming what is false, I shall look how I build upon his words hereafter.

But the sense of this intruded Piece, is against all sense: for doth God operate that himself, which he doth not operate himself, but leaves to be operated by others? Though upon Gods Permission, the effect certainly follows, by the diligence of wicked Agents let loose; Yet to say therefore, That this is an effect operated by God himself, will fetch in God to be certainly the Authour of all the Sins in the world: Seeing no Sins are perpetrated but what God permits; and upon his permission, or leaving the Devil and wicked men to their own swinge, all Sins that are, do certainly and effectually come to pass. This Consequence of his Doctrine the Doctor may do well to think on at his leisure.

Lastly, I must agian minde him, That all his Examples produced out of Scripture, whether of the obstinate Iews, or the Assyrian Army, or Ahab, or the lying Prophets, or Pharaoh; are concerning men who were not Sincere. Yet his main Question was touching conviction of Conscience in the sincere: So that had these Examples indeed proved, That God conveys a false Perswasion into the Unsincere; yet they had been far enough from making for the Doctors purpose.

In his 12th Section he proceeds to ‘[The Objections against this Conclusion, as if it were repugnant with Gods Veracity, and destructive of our Trust and Belief in him.]’ To Answer this, he is put to his Reserve of Jugling, and strangely casts about. I must have patience to Transcribe his Tricks; which are these, ‘[As Gods exercising sometimes his Severity, sometimes his Mercy, which are two opposite Modes [Page] of the divine Justice, bears no repugnancy at all with either Attribute; it being upon several Occasions and Subjects: So for God to make use sometimes of his Veracity, sometimes of that Policy which his practical Wisedom (whereby he Acts in the Administration of the affairs of the world) thinks convenient, and which clashes not either with his Justice or Goodness, is not at all harsh or incongruous, provided it be upon distinct Occasions and Objects. For indeed the Occasion and Object altering, the Exercise of the Mode of this or that Virtue must change; or else it will hardly prove any Mode of Virtue at all. As if severity should be used upon one who was a fit Object of Mercy. If any Judge should act after this sort, it would loose the title of severity, and take on the face of Cruelty: So if Veracity should be used in such a case as required due Policy conformable to Justice and Goodness; it would loose the appellation of Veracity, and deserve the stile of Unpolitickness. As for example, if a man was throughly assured that such an one with his company came with a murderous intention to his house to kill an innocent Person, it may be his native Prince, that had made an escape from the murderers; and that he could not any way secure him from those barbarous Pursuers, but by making them by some device or other, to believe he was gone from the house; if instead of this necessary Artifice he should in plain terms tell him he was there, were this that virtue of Veracity, or not rather, at the best, an instance of most dangerous and mischievous folly. For it seems a strange Virtue that is devoyd of all Goodness, and that must needs be the Handmaid of the greatest Injustice, of Murder; yea, of the most execrable Parricide. Wherefore in such cases as this, it doth not clash with the Virtue of Veracity, not to speak the truth, since Veracity hath no due Object here, and so would prove no due moral Action. Nor can he hold his tongue (we will suppose) but by exposing his own life, [Page]and betraying the life of his Prince.]’

First, He makes Severity and Mercy, two opposite Modes of Gods Iustice. This is odd, for the Office of Justice is to do right to All, and give them what they truly deserve: If Severity doth no more nor less then thus, it is the same with Justice; if it doth more or less, it becomes Injustice. And for Mercy, how is that a Mode of Justice! for Mercy deals not with All as they deserve, but more kindly then they deserve. Those whom Justice would and must Condemn, Mercy finds a way to Save.

Secondly, He saith that Gods exercising sometimes his Severity, sometimes his Mercy (the Objects being distinct) bears no repugnancy at all with either Attribute. I suppose his meaning is, That thereby Gods Severity and Mercy are not mutually repugnant. And what then? Why then it follows in like manner, saith the Doctor, That his exercising sometimes his Veracity sometimes his Policy (provided it clash not with his Justice or Goodness) is not at all harsh or incongruous, the Objects being distinct. Why observes he not the due manner of the Apodosis in his Comparison, which should have run in this manner, [So for God to exercise sometime his Veracity, sometime his Policy, bears no repugnance with either Attribute,] but slips into those words, [It is not at all harsh or incongruous] I can at present imagine no Reason but this: He had intimated that Veracity and Policy are two of Gods Attributes, by naming Mercy and Severity to be so; for to them, as to this Point, he compares Gods Veracity and Policy, and with this he would slily have run away; wherefore he forbears expresly to term these later by the name of Attributes; least it should too much startle, and probably scandalize his Reader. For though we readily grant Veracity, yet we as readily deny Policy to be an Attribute of God. No true Christian, but adores God as Supremely Wise; but to call him a Politick God, he counts it a profane diminution. And Dr More, in making [Page] his God a Politician, will give some men occasion to suspect, that all his Religion is but Policy. Who knows not, that Craft or Policy is onely usefull to supply the defect of Power? for he who hath Power sufficient to effect whatsoever he pleaseth; needs no help of Policy to compass his Designs. Wherefore though to men it may seem usefull; yet it cannot be so to God, whom we believe to be Omnipotent. What we weak mortals want of the Lion, the Fox often supplies; but the Lion of Iudah cannot without blasphemous derogation be affirmed to need any such shift; and if he needs it not, why doth the Doctor obtrude upon him a needless Attribute?

Thirdly, Having made Mercy and Severity two opposite Modes of Gods Justice, and brought in as a parallei to them Veracity and Policy; he should have done but honestly to have told us, of what Vertue in God this Veracity and Policy are the two opposite Modes: But here he leaves us to seek.

Fourthly, Though Gods Mercy and Severity (as to different objects) be not repugnant, but may well consist in the same God: yet Veracity and Fallacity (for the Policy the Doctor fastens upon God, is neither better nor worse, would he speak it out, them down right Fallacity) can by no means be consistent in him. And the Reason is this; God exerciseth his Mercy, by forbearing to exercise his Severity or Justice; which forbearance infers no repugnancy: But he doth not exercise Fallacity by forbearing to exercise Veracity, if he deceives any one, he doth an act positively and essentially repugnant to his Veracity.

Fifthly, The Question here was, Whether it be repugnant to Gods Veracity to convey a false perswasion into his Creature. As an argument that it is not repugnant, the Doctor tells us that Policy is not repugnant to his Veracity; and what is this Policy, but his conveying of a false perswasion? So [Page] he very profoundly proves idem per idem: Namely, That to convey a false perswasion, is not repugnant to Gods Veracity, because it is not repugnant to Gods Veracity, to convey a false perswasion.

Sixthly, He supposeth that in some cases, there may not be a due object for Gods Veracity, and therefore it were unpolitickness in God, if he should exercise his Veracity there. Yet in his main Question, which occasioned this disquisition, the object is the sincere person; and it is strange that such a person, of all others, should not be a due object for God to deal Veraciously with.

Lastly, His comparison of a man harbouring his Prince when persecuted by bloudy Rebels; is most miserably impertinent in this Question concerning the most Wise and Almighty God; unless he will also suppose, that this God can be put to such straits, as he supposeth that man to be: which supposal includes such impudent Blasphemy as I tremble to think on. Surely were that man in Gods condition; were he Omnipotent, he could not be straitned by any necessity either of lying or speaking a lye, thereby to secure the life of his Prince lurking in his house.

After this, he distinguisheth between speaking a lye, and speaking what is false, and counts this the best distinction for salving their Credits, ‘[Who from the example of the Hebrew Midwives, whom God rewarded for the fair story they told the Infant-murdering Pharaoh, have concluded it lawfull in some cases to lye.]’ But how will he prove that God rewarded them for that story? The text is this, Exod. 1. v. 21, 21. (Therefore God dealt well with the Midwives; and the people multiplyed and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the Midwives feared God, that he made them houses.) Moses having Vers. 20. told us that God did therefore deal well with them: least we should presently fancy, that it was for telling that fained story; he gives us the true reason, Vers. 21. [Page] namely, Because they feared God. The fear of God made them forbear from murdering the innocent Infants; and this Piety God crowned with a correspondent reward; for he built them houses, that is, raised and established their Families, because they conscientiously refused to destroy the Families of the Israelites.

He adds ‘[Simply to speak what is false, hath no Immorality in it at all: otherwise, no man might dispute or pronounce a false Axiom. And if an Axiom spoken that hath neither any conformity with the minde of him that speaks, nor with the thing it pronounces of, is not morally evil; that Incongruity betwixt enuntiated falsity and the minde and the thing, hath no moral evil in it. What moral evil then can it have in it, when it is enuntiated for a good end, and in very congruous Circumstances?]’ Still extravagant. The Point in hand, is not concerning the meer simple pronouncing of what is false, but pronouncing it Ammo decipiendi, on purpose to convey a false perswasion into the hearer, and making him believe that to be true, which is not true; and this I trow, hath some Immorality in it: nor can the specious pretence of a good end, excuse what is morally evil.

‘[Wherefore, as it is said of unity, (which yet is one of the divine Attributes,) Nibil Boni est in Unitate, nist Umtas sit in Bono: So I say of Veracity, Nibil boni est in Veracitate, nisi Veracitas sit in Bonum.]’ I pray Doctor, was it ever said of that Unity which is one of the divine Attributes, that Nihil boni est in Unitate, nisi Unitas sit in bono? That Nisi supposeth it possible, that the Unity spoken of, may happen not to be In Bono: but is this possible touching the Unity of the divine Nature? You might therefore more wisely and mannerly too, have spared your ill-looking Parenthesis. Besides would you have imitated that sentence, as you pretend, you ought to have said, Nihil Boni est in Veracitate,[Page]nisi Veracit as sit in Bono. But you were aware that there would have been but small sense in those words, and nothing at all to your purpose: therefore notwithstanding your premised (so I say) you do not say so, but quite another thing, namely, In Bonum, for In Bono.

‘[And that goodness is the measure of all moral perfection in man, as it is certainly the most sovereign Attribute in God, and the measure of all what we may by way of Analogie, call moral Attributes in him. Neither can any thing be rightly termed an act of Severity, Mercy, Policy, Veracity or the like, unless it participate of his Goodness, and involve not in it more evil then good; so that in what objects or occasions that would happen, the goodness of God would not fail to make use of such a Mode of his Justice or Wisedom, as were opposite to that which would create so much Inconvenience.]’ How marvelously little makes this discourse of Gods Goodness, to the Doctors purpose! unless he supposeth, that the Divine Goodness may suffer, if we hold that God cannot convey a false perswasion into mans minde. But is God any thing the less good, because he cannot deceive man? If Gods Veracity be alwaies strictly exercised, and no Policy admitted in his Actions, what evil or inconvenience could hence ensue; seeing he is, notwithstanding, still Almighty, and can by no Exigence be forced to stand in need of Craft or Fallacity to maintain his Goodness?

Now at length, having cleared the field, (just as you have seen) the Doctor victoriously concludes, That what he hath said ‘[If duly considered is more then enough, for the proving that Gods conveying a false perswasion into the minde of his Creature, Permissione certâ & efficaci, may not clash at all with the Divine Veracity.]’ But first, Those words, Permissione certâ & efficaci, were not in the Question propounded, but jugled in here, he knows why. This is his [Page] old trick, but so pitifull an one, as will onely make him debere ludibrium pueris. Secondly, If they had been in the proposed Question, they had onely made the Question ridiculous, by supposing that to be Gods Act, which is but his Permission; for the appendent Epithets Certâ & Efficaci, will no way mend the matter; as I have proved already.

In his 14th Sect. he advanceth against the 2d Objection, and saith, ‘[As for the 2d Objection, as if this supposition were destructive of our faith and trust in God; as if this once admitted, we could never know when he spoke truth, or were in earnest with us, i. whether the Religion we are at present perswaded of be true; the Answer thereunto is not far to seek. I say therefore, that though a false Religion were the Command of God, it is no lett or hinderance to the sinding of the True: For though it be his Command, yet it is not with those circumstances that his absolute and enuntiative Command is. Such as the superlative Holiness and unimitable Miracles of the true Prophet, express voices from Heaven giving testimony to him; his rising from the dead, and his visible ascending into those mansions of Glory; and finally, the perfect congruity of the whole Religion to the exactest Reason, and its having nothing in it repugnant thereto; the being attested to by illustrious Prophesies, both many and at great distances from the event, with the like advantages, which no permissive Command of God can be circumstantiated with.]’

Indeed such Answers as this, need not be far to seek: for the Point is this; Whether, admitting a false Religion to be the Command of God, we can know when God speaks truth, and whether the Religion we are at present perswaded of, be true. He saith, The admitting this, is no lett or hinderance to the finding the true Religion: And why? Because such a command is not so circumstantiated as his absolute enuntiative Command[Page]is. Here I first demand, Why he thus distinguisheth Gods Commands? for the Command in Question, is by himself supposed to be a full and firm conviction of Conscience conveyed by God into the minde; this cannot be, unless the Command be given and signified to the minde, that is, unless it be some way or other enuntiated; and indeed it cannot be convinced how God can give a Command, if it be not enuntiative. Then for absolute, this Command is such also. For the Doctor supposeth it to be a Command touching Religion, nay to be Religion it self; and will he have it not absolute, but conditional? If he will, yet this cannot serve his turn; for he affirms, Sect. 15. that this false perswasion conveyed by God (which is the Command) doth necessarily oblige the party perswaded, to act conscientiously thereupon; and if it doth so it must be absolute. The Doctors distinction therefore is repugnant to his own Doctrine.

Secondly, It is easily evincible out of the Doctors own concessions, that the admitting of this Principle must needs be a [...]ett or hinderance to the finding the true Religion: for let this Command or false Perswasion be circumstantiated as the Doctor pleaseth, yet still it is a Command conveyed into the minde of man, and with such circumstances, that even in a sincere soul, it begets full conviction of Conscience, that it is indeed Gods Command. Now the Conscience being thus convinced, no Circumstances of any other Religion, can operate upon such a soul, to believe it to be true: and the reason of this is plain, for the soul is already satisfied, that the Religion she hath embraced, is Gods Command; she cannot therefore (especially if she be sincere) listen to any thing repugnant to the Religion she hath already entertained. For all Circumstances of that other Religion, cannot possibly mount higher then to prove it to be of God, and to be his Command strictly obliging the Conscience: But this soul being convinced that her present Religion is such, she can have no just reason [Page] to change it; and may well and honestly suspect, that the pretence which another Religion makes of proceeding from God, though never so full and specious, is yet indeed but fallacious, and a Train fairly laid to deceive her. And is this no lett or hinderance to the finding of the true Religion! for my part, I have been considering it, and must profess, that I am not able to fancy any hinderance so great.

As for the particular Circumstances which he mentioneth of the Christian Religion, (viz. The superlative Holiness, &c.) we may suppose the whole History of them known to an honest moral Iew. Now if this Iews Religion may be granted to be conveyed into his minde by God, and thereby be Gods Command to him; well may he neglect those Circumstances, and rest securely upon what is Gods Command, viz. his own Religion as it is opposite to the Christian: for why should he believe or regard any thing contrary to what he is convinced in his Conscience to proceed from God? If it be replyed, That in case this Iew would but hear such Reasons and Arguments as may be drawn from those mighty Circumstances, they would prove to him that he is in an Errour, and ought to reforme his erroneous Conscience: He may by Dr More's Principle readily Answer, That though his Religion could be proved an Errour, yet still it may be the Command of God; and that for his part, he is convinced that so it is: wherefore whilst Gods Command sounds in his soul, he holds it impudent impiety to disobey it. As for Reasons and Arguments, they can signifie nothing to him; for a perswasion conveyed by God himself, may include falsity; much more may any Reasons and Arguments which men can muster up to perswade him. For it is demonstrable, that if God may convey a false perswasion, then may any thing made by God, whether Angel or Man, whether Reason or Sense, make a false Representation. Thus except it be granted, that God be of immutable [Page] Veracity, and can neither deceive nor be deceived, there neither is nor can be any stable grounding upon any thing in the world as true. I might here minde the Reader, of the Doctors varying the terms of this Objection: but I hasten to follow him, for he immediately adds, That ‘[By purification of our mindes, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, and by free and unprejudiced Reason, a man shall (with Gods assistance) be fully able to distinguish the Permissive Command of God, from his absolute or enunciative; and know at last that the former was for trial or Punishment, but that now he is under his most perfect and absolute Command indeed.]’

The vanity of his distinction between Gods permissive, and his absolute or enuntiative Command, I have noted already. Now it was well the Doctor forgot not here to put in (with Gods assistance) else he who by his own industrious wit discovers a falsity in the perswasion introduced by God, might be thought cunninger then God the Authour of it; but if God must help him to do it, the case is altered. And yet perhaps the Policy of that God might notwithstanding be questioned, who contrives and conveys a false perswasion, and then assists men in discovering his own deceit.

But now the means which he prescribes for attaining the knowledge of the true Religion is such, as is not within the sphear of the Party concerned: for this Party is one in a false Religion, and conscientiously Convinced that it is true. Can he purifie his minde and perfect holiness? Can he attain to complete sanctity in a false Religion? If he can, then it is most certain that unprejudiced Reason (though indeed it be ridiculous to suppose, as the Doctor doth, that such a mans Reason should remain unprejudiced whilst he conscientiously holds a false Religion,) will rather perswade him to set up his rest in that Religion which he is already convinced to be Gods Command, then to seek another contrary to it. For what reason [Page] can move him to imagine, that a Religion conveyed to him by God, and such as by it he perfects holiness in the sight of God, is not that Gods absolute, but as the Doctor will needs have it, his permissive Command?

Again, What is the sense of Gods permissive Command in this case? is it that God effectually permits a lying spirit to instill that false perswasion into man? Even this will not amount to make it Gods Command, unless we grant every sin which the tempter perswades us to, to be Gods Command also. But if it be, (as the Doctor in the first Question propounded it) competible to the Nature of God, to convey a false perswasion; then may God do this immediately by himself: and how then is such a perswasion his permissive Command? Doth God permit himself to Command? Or doth he Command permissively? Or is that Command which obliges the Conscience religiously to act (for so the Doctor affirms this to do) onely a permission, or a Commanding permission; or what in Gods name is it?

Well, the Doctor nevertheless concludes, in the close of this 14th Sect. ‘[That this his supposition is no prejudice at all, but a mighty advantage to Christianity: for were but mankinde perswaded that for ought they know, the present Religion they are under, may be but a permissive Command imposed upon them for punishment or trial, it would ingage them not to immerse themselves so much into the world, but to live holily, and meditate seriously on divine Matters; to Pray servently, and seek diligently what is the true Religion indeed, which undoubtedly would confirme the Christian more strongly in his Religion, (truth the more it is tryed, gaining the greater Empire upon the minds of men) and were the next way to turn all men that made serious use of this Principle unto Christianity. Thus have I fully cleared the first particular disquisition comprised in the main Question from the chief Objections made against it.]’

[Page] Here the Doctor speaks of mankinde, Christians and not Christians; and affirms it advantageous to Christianity if they were all perswaded that for ought they know, their present Religion may be but Gods permissive command, i. e. not the true Religion: this prompts all the world to be Cartesians in Religion, and suspect all Principles which they had before believed, yea though Christian Principles for the doing of which, could the Doctor prevail with them, he doubts not but it would ingage them to abandon secularity, to live holily, to meditate seriously on divine matters, to pray servently and seek diligently what is the true Religion indeed. But how knows the Doctor that this effect will follow? his credit is not so good as that we take his word for a warrant: and doth not sad experience tell us that many Christians (seduced by such Leaders as the Doctor) growing thus disquisitive as to doubt that the principles of their Religion may be false, have instead of growing unsecular and holy, turn'd grossly carnal, prophane, and little less then atheistical: instead of serious meditation, fervent prayer, and diligent search for the true Religion; made a mock of Devotion, and sacrificed themselves to idleness, pleasure and vanity?

It is true, we are to Try all things: but that is before we receive them, not after. He who turns from any other Religion to the Christian, ought to try and be fairly satisfied concerning the Christian, before he ingages in it: but having so ingaged, then he is not to unravel all again by doubting of what he had upon just grounds imbraced; unless he means to be a perpetual weathercock. As for those who are educated in the Christian Religion, and never were ingaged in any other; it is very usefull to exhort them to so much meditation and study in it, as to inable them to give a reason of the hope that is in them, and to stop the mouths of gain-sayers: but to tell them that it is for their advantage to be perswaded that for ought they know their Religion may be false, is a certain [Page] way to make them for a while to believe no Religion; and a probable way to render them secure and perfect Atheists: for, upon such a perswasion, they are so far from being ingaged to live holily, to pray fervently, to wean themselves from the world, &c. (as the Doctor would pretend) that they are rather ingaged in the quite contrary. And my reason is: because all these and such like parts of piety, are parts of that very Christian Religion which such men are perswaded may for ought they know, be not Gods Absolute, but his Permissive Command, that is, not True but False.

If it be replyed, that such duties as those, are taught us rather as we are Men, then as we are Christians; I mean by the law of Nature and right reason; and that therefore our suspending our Belief of our Religion properly as Christian suspends not our Belief of being obliged to those Duties: I answer: First, those Duties are all incorporated in the Gospel and more expressly taught us in Christs Law, then in the l [...] of Nature. 2. As I suspend my Belief of the truth of Christs Law, so I may suspend my Belief of the truth of Natures Law, and suppose that this as well as that, is but Gods permissive command. 3. Not to be immersed in the world, is to be mortified: to live holily, or as he expressed it before, to perfect holiness in the fear of God, is to be intirely spiritualized: And these are properly Christian Virtues.

Now touching them who are not Christians, the Doctor affirms that the serious use of this his Principle [viz. That for ought they know, their Religion is false, i. e. onely Gods permissive command] is the next way to turn all men to Christianity.

Indeed to perswade them, that for ought they know their present Religion may be false, is a fair step towards their i [...] quiring after the true. But to perswade them so upon Dr More principle [viz. That their Religion may be false, though it be Gods command, and though their consciences be convinced [Page] that it is his Command] is not the way to Christianity, but to Atheism, or at least to an indifferency in Religion little better then Atheism. For, grant the Infidel this ground; and by what arguments will you press him to turn Christian? the best which Dr More can suggest are I guess, those which he hinted in this Section, i. e. The superlative holiness and unimitable miracles of Christ: voices from heaven giving testimony to him; his Resurrection, his Ascension, his being attested by prophesies at great distance. To these or any the like, the Infidels answer is ready, viz. Dr More hath assured me that God may be the conveyer of a false perswasion: why then should I not conclude that all these strange stories you tell me of Christ, may also be false? for why may not you, or any men whatsoever, deceive me, as well as God?

Yea but if you will purifie your self, and perfect holiness in the fear of God, and use free and unprejudiced reason, you shall by Gods assistance find those stories to be true. To this likewise his answer is at hand: How know I that all you now say, is not a train to convey a false perswasion into me? I cannot in any reason be more assured of your Veracity, then I am of Gods: and your pretended Veracity here, may be nothing else but Policy. But whereas you tell me I shall discover the truth by Gods assistance: what am I the nearer, or how can I trust to that staff, if God himself may be the Authour of a false perswasion; and if he, no less then you, may in this case, for ought I know, exercise his policy, and not his veracity?

The second Argument therefore (which I also take from Dr More, in the mentioned place) must be this: That Christian Religion holds perfect congruity to the exactest reason, and hath nothing in it repugnant thereto. To this the Infidel may thus reply: if God may deceive me, exactest reason may deceive me. Or if your God can deceive, and reason not; then shall reason be my God: onely I would desire you to inform me where exact reason dwells, and how I may come [Page] acquainted wit it. If it be that which cannot deceive, I am sure it dwells not in me, for I dare not think my self priviledged with that veracity which you deny to God: and how you can prove that it dwells in you, is past my imagination. Had you told me that God cannot deceive, and that he hath set up the candle of reason in mans soul; I should have counted the dictates of this reason to be infallible: but seeing you teach me that God the prime fountain of all things whatsoever, may convey into mans minde that which is false, you leave me no certain bottom to build upon: And therefore I had best even at a venture be content with the Religion I have hapned to be in, whether right or wrong; and not trouble my self about the needless entertaining of a new one, which for ought I know (or you either, upon this your ground) may prove a false perswasion.

And thus the oraculous Doctor hath cleared, yea and fully cleared (but we want some new Dictionary to teach us what clearing signifies) his first particular Disquisition. Sect. 15. he thus proceeds ‘[The second was, whether it be competible to the nature of God to convey a false perswasion in things practical, and which religiously and conscientiously oblige the party thus perswaded, to act accordingly, or abstain from acting.]’ This he decides affirmatively: for he adds, that ‘[Ahab was thus deceived by Gods effectual permission of that lying spirit that profer'd his service in that affair: for the belief of that sure success which he thought was promised him from God, was plainly of that nature as to oblige his conscience to fight the Lords battels against the uncircumcised.]’

Upon supposal of his former conclusion, viz. that it is competible to Gods nature to convey a false perswasion into the the minde of his Creature, (which conclusion I hope I have made appear to be shamefully false) I will grant him, that such a perswasion doth conscientiously oblige the party perswaded, to act, &c. But I have already proved that this was [Page] not Ahabs case, and that it was not God but the Divel who deceived Ahab: he must therefore give us some other instance: and that he doth in the very next words.

‘[Moreover that example of Gods conveying that perswasion into Abraham, that he would have him to sacrifice his son, is beyond all exception: for it is manifest that Abraham was so perswaded, by both what he did in the history, and what is said of him Heb. 11. 17. By faith Abraham when he was tryed, offer'd up Isaac, accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, from whence he also received him in a figure. And if he had not been perswaded that he was indeed to sacrifice him, it had been no tryal of his faith: but God never intended he should sacrifice him, and therefore this perswasion he conveyed into him was false, but did most indispensably oblige his conscience to act, for the giving of a proof of his wonderfull faith in God.]’

The Doctor may exercise his wonted confidence; but for all that, I must tell him, he is much mistaken, (as confident men use to be) and that this example is not beyond all exception. First he argues that Abraham was perswaded that he was to sacrifice his son, because unless this be granted, it was no tryall of his faith. I ask, of what faith? the Doctor would have us think, it was that faith, by which Abraham believed this to be Gods command: and was this such a singular exploit of faith, as to render Abraham so eminently famous? what is more frequent then for saints to believe that to be the command of God, which God commands them? the strangeness of the thing commanded alters not the case: it may perhaps stagger the person commanded in reference to the performance of it; but it obstructs not his belief that it is God indeed who gives such a command, unless the thing commanded be apparently repugnant to some known law of God. Here I easily imagine the Doctor will greedily reply, that this command was such, as being inconsistent with Gods [Page] Law against Murder. Now therefore I see I must tell the Doctor some news; and this it is.

That this command of God was not contrary to his Law against murder: nor had Abraham murdered Isaac, though he had actually sacrificed him: for, God had expressly promised him before, that in Isaac should his seed be called. Gen. 21. 12. This promise Abraham firmly believed, and doubted not but Isaac should infallibly propagate his seed: wherefore, chap. 22. upon Gods command (though most strange and unexpected) to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham in most noble confidence of Gods Veracity, makes no demurrs, but prepares to offer him; not having the least scruple but God could and would make good his word; for he fully accounted that he was able to recall his son from his ashes, and to raise him up even from the dead, as it is Heb. 11. 19. To Murder (which Gods Law forbade) is to take away mans life without just Authority, and so to take it away, as utterly to destroy it: but Abraham now had Authority given him by the Lord of all; and he knew and believed, by virtue of Gods promise, that though he sacrificed Isaac, yet he neither should nor could finally destroy his life. Certain he was, that this sacrificing of him, was not quite to make an end of him, but onely to open a way to Gods miraculous asserting his former Promise. And this, this was the signal tryal of Abrahams most steady and glorious faith: Not the trying whether he believed that command of sacrificing Isaac, to be the command of God; but whether he firmly believed the former promise, that in Isaac should his seed be called. And indeed thus much is clearly enough legible in the mentioned, 11 Heb. where the Apostle first sets this note upon Abrahams faith he that had received the promises, offer'd up his onely begotten son of whom it was said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called, v. 17, 18. and then he adds in what his faith consisted Accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, v. 19.

[Page] Secondly though the Doctor offers no other proof, that Abraham was to sacrifice his son; yet I freely grant it him. But was this a false perswasion? He believed that God commanded him thus to do, and that it was his duty to obey. Is there any falsity in this? I, but the Doctor urges that God intended not he should sacrifice his son actually; yet had conveyed into him a perswasion, that he did intend he should actually sacrifice him: and this perswasion of Gods intent was false.

I answer, 1. Abraham was perswaded that God commanded him so: and what reason had he to look any farther. 2. Suppose he were expressly perswaded that God intended he should actually sacrifice his son; which yet God intended not: nevertheless he knew and was perswaded also, that if God stopped him in the Act of sacrificing by a countermand; then he intended no more but that he should with unfeigned obedience willingly and readily offer himself to slay his son. Wherefore his first perswasion (viz. that God intended he should actually slay his son) was conditional; namely, provided that God himself did not interpose in the Act by a new command, and so accept the sincere will, for the deed. Now this conditional perswasion, had not the least falsity in it; nor was Abraham any ways Deceived by it. God did not deceive Abraham; but Dr More deceives himself.

Nay father; what if Abraham did actually offer up his son? what if God acknowledges, the scripture attests, that he did so? what then becomes of this false perswasion so eagerly pressed by the Doctor? But God saith to Abraham Gen. 22. 9. seeing thou hast not with held thy son, thine onely son, from me, and the Apostle saith expressly Heb. 11. 17. By faith Abraham offer'd up Isaac; and he who had received the promises offer'd up his onely begotten son: not (prepared to offer) but (did offer) that is actually: and this is here twice for fail affirmed in the same verse. Abrahams [Page] sincere will, is by God accounted for the very Deed.

If the Doctor still retorts, that Abraham understood not aforehand that God would accept the Will for the Deed; and that his willingness and readiness was all that God intended: but on the contrary that he was then perswaded that he ought to shed his sons blood on the Altar; and that in this perswasion he was deceived by God. To this, my former answer concerning Abrahams conditional perswasion, is sufficient, But I add, had he been perswaded, that he ought (absolutely, without any condition, and exclusively of any thing that might happen and intervene to the contrary) actually to shed his sons blood: how will the Doctor prove, that God conveyed into him this perswasion? for if God did convey it, then must God be supposed to perswade Abraham, 1. That the readiness of his will would not serve his turn. 2. That though any thing intervened, be it a countermand from God in the very Act, yet he was bound to neglect that countermand, and to execute the first injunction. Dares the Doctor suppose that God thus perswaded Abraham? Besides, what if Abraham came into such a perswasion as is premised above, by not considering the first or second now mentioned, neither affirming nor denying, nor thinking of either? must it be that God caused Abraham so not to consider them? Thus Abraham might possibly be perswaded that in event he should actually slay his son, and yet God not so perswade him, or any more then that it was Gods will he should really goe and obey by doing on his part what was commanded. Imperative words are spoken to the Will, what he should will to do, not predictive of what should in event be executed.

To conclude, God himself intended that Abraham should actually sacrifice his Son, unless he interposed a Command to the contrary, (for thus we are forced to distinguish in Gods Acting, to make it intelligible to our selves,) and of thus much was Abraham perswaded; in which perswasion there [Page] was no falsity. That God intended also to interpose a contrary Precept, the event assures us is true: But this argues not Abraham to have been falsly perswaded in this Point; for God had conveyed no perswasion into him touching it, either true or false. The sum is this: Abraham was certainly perswaded that God intended he should sacrifice his Son; unless before the striking the fatal blow, the same God interposed a countermand. Whether God would so interpose he knew not: and when God did actually interpose, Abraham found not himself any more deceived by God, then if he had not interposed.

The Doctors Addition out of Siracides, Chap. 4. Vers. 17. may well amount to what the Apostle saith, Heb. 12. 6. (Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth,) but can never prove that God tries men by impressing falsity upon their mindes. The Reader may please to view the place, for I hasten to his

16th Section, where he comes to his 3d Disquisition, and saith, ‘[The third is, Whether such an effectual, though permissive false perswasion from God thus obliging the Conscience to act, or abstain from acting this or that, may rightly be called the Command of God?]’ His old Art here again. In the 6th Sect. where he propounds this disquisition, it is in these terms, [Whether this false conviction or perswasion may rightly be called the Command of God to such a a person thus perswaded.] What terms he now inserts is evident. But however he resolves the question roundly and briefly, saying, [I think it is evident that it is of right so called,] viz. the Command of God.]

And truly well he might, if we grant him (what he presumes we cannot deny) his conclusion of his former Disquisition. His Tenet there is, That it is competible to the Nature of God to convey into man such a false perswasion, as doth of its own Nature necessarily oblige him to act conscientiouslly thereupon. [Page] These are the last words of his 15th Section. Now if it oblige a man, if of its own nature it oblige him, if it oblige him necessarily to act, it must needs be supposed to have the nature, and so to deserve the name of a Command. This 3d Disquisition therefore might (as I noted at first) have been well spared, did not the Doctor take much felicity in unnecessary Scribling.

But his word Permissive, which he hath crowded into this Disquisition, seems something to trouble his stomach; wherefore to ease himself, he makes his Reader object that, if it be Permissive, it is no Command. To this he makes this pretty Answer: ‘[Here I am very willing to compound with the Opposer, and to determine it onely A Permissive Command.]’ But the Compounder presently suspected that the Reader would count his Composition pitifull nonsence: immediately therefore he adds, ‘[Which is not so bad syntax, as it may seem at first sight, but very good and warrantable sense.]’ Alas, the syntax is not to blame, but looks well enough at first sight: all the fault lies in the Contradiction of the terms. Let us see therefore how the Doctor warrants and makes good (very good) the sense. Why this he saith he will do by this obvious Illustration, ‘[Suppose some mighty Prince should knowingly and wittingly by connivance permit the Keeper of his Broad Seal to Signe some Commission or Command, to such or such parties in some Province of his Empire to act thus or thus, but not contrary to any of his Laws promulgated to that Province, so that they cannot make the least scruple concerning the legitimateness of the Instrument. I demand if these Parties that receive this Broad Seal, do not receive a command from their Prince; and ask further, Whether it be any more then a Permissive Command. I do not mean Permissive in counterdistinction to Injunctive, (for that indeed were not so good sense) but an obliging injunction from their Prince, and yet coming to [Page]them onely by his Connivance and Permission. This I understand to be a Permissive Command, and such as will secure the Parties from all blame and harm from the displeasure of their Prince, they having his Broad Seal to authorize their Actions; nor have any other Authority violently to hinder their proceedings, till they have a certain and infallible injunction from the Prince himself, not onely Permissive, but Oral and Positive so to do.]’

It is a great part of this Doctors trade, when he is destitute of solid Arguments, (as needs he must be) to maintain gross Errours and Nonsense; to attempt the feat by Comparisons. But of all that I have happened to read, I remember no Writer who useth this kinde of Proof with so bad luck.

Here he first compares God to a Prince, who willingly and wittingly by connivance, permits the Keeper of his Seal, &c. This falls short of the Question, which is, Whether God himself conveys a false Perswasion or Command; not whether he Permits another to convey it. And by the Doctors instance in Abraham, his Opinion appears to be, That God himself immediately (without the intercurrence of any Keeper of his Seal) doth convey a false Perswasion or Command. Besides, what false perswasion is conveyed into him who receives Commission from the Keeper, as the Doctor supposes? Is it that he thinks it to be the Princes Command which he receiveth? Nothing less, for he were falsely perswaded, if he did not think so, seeing no Prince doth more certainly and legally Command, then by his Bread Seal. But the truth is, a Keeper of his Princes Broad Seal, may possibly set that Seal dishonestly to what he ought not. But Gods Broad Seal cannot be set to ought, but by himself. For Gods Broad Seal, are such Works, as none but himself can set or work; and therefore they are his Seal. So that the comparison comes not up to the main thing in Controversie, Whether God [Page] himself can convey a false perswasion into mans minde. What any other Officer doth (he not doing it,) is not in this case Gods Act or Conveyance, nor to be held as such, though in earthly Princes it may.

Yea, but the Doctor supposes that the Prince did not expresly bid his Keeper Seal such a Commission, but onely wittingly and willingly connived at it, and that therefore it is his Command no more then Permissively. I answer, If Commissions or Commands under the Princes Broad Seal, be (as they are) most truly and legally his Commissions and Commands; and if such a Commission or Command be not issued by the Keeper surreptitiously, or of his own head, and against the Princes Minde and Laws, but so as the Prince himself prudens & sciens doth wittingly and willingly (as the Doctor here supposeth) give way to the issuing of it; this is as much to all intents and purposes the Princes Positive Commission and Command, as if he had Orally in the most express words imaginable joyned his Keeper to Seal and Issue it. This example therefore affords not the least parallel to the Doctors Chimera of a Permissive Command from God; nor doth it prove the terms to be good, much less very good, and warrantable sense.

Had I leisure to be sportfull, I would scan those pretty words of his, invented as if on purpose pro Ridiculo & Delectamento; ‘[I mean not Permissive in contradistinction to Injunctive, for that indeed were not so good sense, but an obliging Injunction from their Prince, yet coming to them onely by his Connivance and Permission; this I understand to be a Permissive Command.]’ Wherefore let some body else ask him, First, How Permissive can be understood to be Permissive, and yet not contradistinct to Injunctive? Secondly, How that can be an obliging Injunction, which comes but by Permission and Connivance? That the sequel involves him in inextricable non-sense, who can help it; seeing the Doctor [Page] will rather venture to speak any thing, then yield that he hath spoken amiss?

Sect. 17. He saith, ‘[Wherefore having rightly stated and cleared the three Particulars of the Question propounded, we shall now be bold to infer the whole Conclusion in this 5th Aphorism.]’ Reader, how rightly and clearly he hath performed what he here boasts, do thou judge; mean while I follow him to his 5th Aphorism, which runs thus; ‘[That a full and firm conviction of Conscience in a soul that is sincere, touching a Religion into which some things are incorporate that be false, but without any moral Turpitude; and of that nature that no moral sincerity may be able to discover the falseness of them; is rightly said to be the Permissive Command of God to that soul for either punishment or trial.]’ I see how loath he is to leave his trick of intruding more terms in the Conclusion, then he propounded in the Question, for instead of these words in his Questistion, Sect. 3. [Can be rightly said to be the Command of God,] here he saith, [Is rightly said to be the Permissive Command of God.] But let this pass. Having produced his Aphorism, he presently falls a crowing in this fashion, ‘[This Assertion, I hope, to all indifferent Judges, will appear both true and modest.]’ That it is true, is falsly said, which appears by what I have alledged against his Proofs of it. That it is modest, whatever the Doctors hopes be, it will never seem such, till the world can so far dote as to believe, that one repugnant thing doth signifie another; that to Command is to Permit, and to Permit is to Command. That Permissive may signifie Injunctive; and Injunctive Permissive: That Boldness of Innovations may signifie Madesty, & vice versâ; and that therefore the one may without impudence be used for the other

Well, but as True and Modest as it is, he dares not trust it abroad in that garb which in his foregoing Sections he took such large pains to trim it in: His Conscience pricked the man [Page] on to say something more, though God knows just nothing ad rem. He pleads that he ‘[understands not this Perswaswasion or Command of God in any false Religion, in a Positive sense, but onely Permissive: and means not that in such a case God as it were riseth off from his Seat to act or speak, but onely by letting the course of things go on, and giving no stop to secondary causes, such a perswasion as from God is conveyed into the minde of man permissione certâ & efficaci.]’

Doth not this interfere with his alledging Abrahams example as most unexceptionable for his purpose? did God there onely let the course of things proceed, without putting a stop to secondary causes? But that which I chiefly observe here, is his staggering quite from his principle, in those words, [Such a perswasion as from God is conveyed into the minde, &c.] Now it seems, it is but as from God; not from God. As from God, and that onely by his letting of the course of things go on; and thus Gods conveying of a false perswasion into the mindes of men, is defended by denying it, by conveying it away out of that which he will defend, and yet that perswasion must still be conveyed, that Dr More hath not conveyed any errour in his Writings.

Nor stays he here, but by a strange giddyness reels again to his former fancy; for he adds in the later part of this 17h Sect. That God conveyeth a false perswasion into the minde of his Creature, ‘[Not by a positive particular exertion of his power upon the Creature, but onely by an effectual permission of secondary causes.]’ But this onely intangles him in a farther absurdity, (as I have somewhere hinted before, and must, since the Doctor here leads me to it, declare again:) For if Gods permission of secondary causes be Gods Command, then God Commands all the sins in the world. The Doctor therefore must be content to grant, that Gods Permission is no more then permission; and not jumble Permitting [Page] and Commanding together, in his contradictious Notion of Commanding Permissively. For if he thinks to get off by calling this Permission an effectual Permission, his device will fail him, seeing the sins which God permits, are effectually permitted, (if he will so speak,) else they could not be acted upon his Permission. But this effectualness is not from any positive operation of God, but of those the Doctor terms the secondary causes, namely, finners themselves. Now though God knows that if he withdraws his restraining Goodness, those secondary causes will certainly produce sinfull effects; yet he may in his Justice, and for reasons known to himself, withdraw that his restraining Goodness: nor can he therefore be charged to be an effectual concurrer to those sins, seeing those second causes are supposed to be free Agents, and onely biassed to perverseness by their own prevailing Corruptions

In his 18th Sect. he sums up what he had premised in five Particulars: in the fourth whereof he falls upon a new shift to palliate the odiousness of his Position, viz. ‘[The Injunction and Command may rightly be conceived to lye rather upon that part of the Religion that is unexceptionably true, then upon what is erroneous.]’ He supposeth thus much truth in the false Religion conveyed by God, as to acknowledge one true God, and life to come, and a blessed immortality for those that serve him in sincerity and truth. As for other points it may be erroneous, but saith he, Gods Command may rightly be conceived to lye rather upon that part which is true, then upon what is crroneous. I will grant him more then thus, for I affirm that Gods Command cannot rightly be conceived to lye upon any part of the Religion, but that which is true. But if the Doctors Position were true, it must be granted to lye not onely on the true part, but on the erroneous also; for he holds that conviction of Conscience touching a Religion in which some falsities are incorporated, [Page] is the Command of God: this Command therefore respects the whole Religion of which the Conscience is thus by God convinced; and how can a man so convinced, be able to understand that Gods intent was to Command him this part of it, rather then that, when he is perswaded in his Conscience that all of it is Commanded? The greatness or the smallness of Points in that Religion will not vary the case; the Question being not which Articles are of chief consequence, but whether all, both great and less are true and obligatory, as proceeding from God.

But the Doctor will needs be declaring this his fancy by a knack, in which I have observed him marvellously unfortunate; I mean, by a simile. Wilt thou have patience Reader, till I repeat it? ‘[If the command of a Master to his Servant should run in this form of a discreet Axiom; I will have you wait on me at such a Meeting, though your cloths be old or out of the Mode. The great stress of the Command lies upon that indubitable point of duty the serving his Master, which he will not dispense withall, though the Servant be not in the best mode accommodated for it, and it may be it is his Masters pleasure that as yet he should not. But he hath a full warrant, and no man ought to hinder him from serving in that garb he is. The like may be said of that habit of minde it a Religionist which is not yet devoid of errour and ignorance, but joyned with an irreprehensible sincerity that he is to serve God, though in that less seemly and less perfect habit, and that his Master hath so commanded him to do, and that therefore no man may rightfully hinder him.]’

That which the Doctor calls, The habit of minde in the Religionist, not devoyd of errour and ignorance; he should by his own Doctrine have called, That perswasion of Conscience instilled by God touching a Religion into which [Page] some falsities are incorporated; which perswasion religiously obliges the party to act accordingly. But this would have spoyled the Play, and too much disfigured his fine simile. However, there is no help but thus it must be, or else his example of the Master and Servant cannot be applyed to the present case. Hereupon he must suppose, that the servants old unfashionable Clothes, are such as his Master purposely put upon him, and such as in putting on him, he commanded him to wear at such a Meeting. Now upon this supposal, how indiscreet and ridiculous is that Command in form of a discreet Axiom, [I will have you wait on me though your Clothes be old and out of the Mode?] that is, (I will have you wait on me in those Clothes, though they be the Clothes I have put on you; and in putting them on, commanded you to wait upon me in them.) But much more ridiculous will the counter-part be; for by the Laws of this simile, God must be supposed to say thus: (I will have you serve me in this false perswasion, though it be a false perswasion which I have conveyed into you, and in conveying it Commanded you to serve me in it.)

After he hath abused the Reader (and indeed himself,) with eighteen tedious Sections of this kinde of stuff; he saith, Sect. 19. ‘[Now I conceive my self well appointed for a sufficient Answer to the 7th Objection in terminis, which is this.’ ‘Object. 7.’ [He saith, That God may and doth infuse into men false perswasions in matters of Religion; instancing in Turcism and Judaism, which contradict the Christian Faith, t. 10. c. 10. p. 517, 518.]

To this he first Answers thus, ‘[I no where in those Pages, nor any where else, affirm that God infuseth a false [Page] perswasion into men. That Scholastick word infusion sounding quite contrary to my meaning; as if he infused falshood, as he is said to infuse Graces, by a special and positive operation upon the minde; whereas I have already fully declared my self, that I understand all that which I have spoken concerning Gods conveying a false perswasion into a man, in a Permissive, not Positive way.]’

Seeing the Doctor is thus nice, I will suppose the word convey to be in the Objection instead of infuse; for certain I am, that he here makes a distinction where the Objector made no difference. And what hath he now got by it? for God may as truly be said to convey Grace as to infuse it; and as truly to infuse a false perswasion as to convey it. Nay his conveyance of falshood into the minde, must needs be an operation, and a special positive operation; no less then his infusing of Grace into the minde: if that falshood by him conveyed doth as the Doctor affirms, oblige the Conscience; for no obligation can arise from a permission, but from some other word of him that can oblige us, or something impressed or infused into the minde.

As for his adding, That he understands (and hath fully so declared) all he hath spoken about Gods conveying a falsity, in a Permissive, not Positive way: Besides the repugnancy of the thing it self, I ask where he did thus declare himself? In this Apologie I grant, but not in that place of his Mysterie, where he delivers the Objected Doctrine. I finde not there so much as the mention of Permission, to mitigate the business. But these words I finde, ‘[When can God be said to Command a person, if not then when he conveyeth a practical perswasion so unto him, that there is no place left to doubt, but that it is his Command? for if he spoke to him face to face, there could be no greater assurance of receiving a Command from him.]’ And these: ‘[The [Page] simple falsities in Religion, are not sufficient to detect that such a Religion is not Commanded to such and such persons by God himself.] And these: [If thou wilt be so humoursome for all this, as to deny that such a conviction of Conscience so stated as I have stated it, is the Real Command of God in every particular, namely, in the apprehensions which are false, &c.]’ By which last words it is plain, That the Command may not rightly be conceived to lye rather upon that part of the Religion that is unexceptionably true, then upon what is erroneous, (which yet was the Doctors last shift, Sect. 16.) but must equally lye upon the whole.

Let us suppose then, that the Doctor hath now found it the safest course (the Laws being settled as they are,) to declare himself in his Apologie as he saith he hath done. What is this to his former Book? unless he also professeth, that in it he delivered Doctrine which cannot be maintained, and which is indeed incapable of the sense he saith he now understands that Doctrine in? Since a Command it was, if any thing can be called a Command; for so he said, When can God be said to Command a person, if not then when he conveys a practical perswasion so into him, that there is no place left to doubt but that it is his Command?] These words now justified in his Preface (with all that he hath Writ) cannot be minced as now he would in his Apologie, without Retracting them; of which honour it seems he judgeth himself unworthy.

Touching Turcism and Iudaism mentioned in the Objection, he answereth thus, ‘[Though I do not stick to instance in Turcism and Iudaism, nnd that in such things as they contradict the Christian Belief in; yet again I reply, That it is onely in things that have no moral Turpitude in them, and that I suppose an invincible ignorance in them that are thus perswaded, and that the conveyance of this perswasion [Page] in respect of God, is not Positive but onely Permissive.]’

I must also again Reply, That there is not the least intimation in the place where he handles this in his Mysterie, of Gods conveying such a perswasion not Positively but Permissively. Secondly, Touching moral Turpitude, (of which I have said enough before,) it is easie to drive him from that starting hole, though he makes frequent use of it, and wonderfully pleaseth himself in it. He instanceth in Turcism, as a false Religion conveyed by God into his Creature; but this Religion includes some points of moral Turpitude as gross as any imaginable, no less then Points of bare falsity. And this Assertion, though the Doctor would here seem so squeamish as to abhor it; yet I desire no other witness then himself to affirm it: for in the next Chapter, Sect. 9. he tells us that this is a Precept in the Turks Luna, Occidite homines quoúsque omnes Mauri fiant; which he saith, Is a Precept against the Light of Nature and indispensable Law of Morality. And in the 5th Book of his Mysterie, Chap. 10. Sect. 1. he saith, That this Precept is both in the Luna and Alcoran, and argues from it, That Mahomet was no true Prophet, because of his Laws to butcher all men that would not presently turn to his Religion.

If the Doctor here retorts, That the particular instances he made in his Mysterie of Turcism and Iudaism, onely respect Christs dying on the Cross, and his Resurrection; in the former of which the Turks Belief, in the later the Iews, is opposite to the Christians; and that those particulars include not directly any moral Turpitude. I Answer, Though that be granted him, yet he denies not in his Apologie that his discourse in his Mysterie supposeth, that the Turks Religion may be conveyed into men by God; and if so, then may all the Precepts of that Religion be conveyed by him. Indeed no Turk who truly professeth Mahomets Religion, and sincerely [Page] seeks God in it, (as the Doctor supposeth men in a false Religion may do,) but is perswaded that Mahomet was a true Prophet; and being so perswaded, he must needs imbrace all Mahomets Precepts, (even such as this we speak of,) as the Precepts of God. Whence it follows, that if God may be the conveyer of Turcism, he may be the conveyer of what includes moral Turpitude: wherefore for the Doctor to suppose that God may convey Turcism, and yet to pretend that God doth not convey what hath in it moral Turpitude, is apparently to contradict himself.

Thirdly, Concerning invincible ignorance in the persons thus perswaded, he is not content with what he had said, but to make all sure adds, ‘[Here I suppose invincible ignorance, and that the Iew or Turk had lived out of all opportunity to be rightly instructed in the Christian Religion, but are sincerely minded toward the truth where ever they finde it.]’ What will not this Doctor say, rather then acknowledge that he hath erred! His instances in the Turk and Iew, were (as I even now noted) That the one denies that Christ dyed on the Cross; the other, That he rose again from the dead: which perswasions were by his own Doctrine, conveyed into them by God. And here he tells us, that he supposeth invincible ignorance in this Turk and Iew; why so? namely, because though they had a sincere minde to the Truth, yet they lived out of all opportunity of being rightly instructed in the Christian Religion. Did they so? how then came they to know these two Articles of the Christian Creed, the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, and so stiffly to oppose them, as peremptorily to conclude them false? Certainly they must have heard of them before they could condemn them; and if they had opportunity to hear of two Articles, they might at the same time have had opportunity to have heard of the rest; nay, upon their supposed sincerity towards the Truth, they would diligently have sought full information; whereupon, [Page] they from whom they heard the two Articles, might have instructed them, or directed them to instructers. If therefore they were ignorant of the other Articles, it is evident that their ignorance could not be invincible, but was plainly wilfull. And the truth is, the Doctor fowly enterfers with himself, in supposing those men to deny two Articles of the Creed, and yet mean while to be sincerely minded toward the Truth wherever they finde it; for in these two Articles they met with it, and yet obstinately opposed it. And sure there is moral Turpitude in the Iews, by moral wickedness, forgery and subornation, endeavouring to suppress the witness of Christs Resurrection: and the present Iews are the justifying heirs of their Ancestors rampering with and debauching witnesses. Unless we think, that to bear false witness (against the witness of God Almighty) concerning his raising his Son, be no moral Turpitude.

Yet for all this, the Doctor concludes in an high Rant, ‘[So that this 7th Objection, though it seems at first sight of a dangerous aspect, yet is easily, safely, and sufficiently answered out of what I have premised:]’

Whether so or no, let the Reader now determine; and withall observe, That the Doctor rather then confess himself to have written an errour, will needs maintain that God can be the Authour of falsity. Though the truth is, by his own Tenet, he cannot be sure but all his own Doctrines are false, and conveyed into him by the same God, who may be the conveyer of errours in Religion.

[Page]

CHAP. VIII.
Touching Liberty in Religion.

THis chapter he begins thus ‘[the 8th Objection is touching Liberty of Conscience: which right I confess is a very close consectary from the 5th Aphorism of the foregoing chap.]’ And what wonder? for he that is acquainted with Dr Mores Theologie, will easily perceive that the drift of his desperate and blasphemous Opinion in the 7th Objection, is chiefly, if not solely, to usher in this Liberty of Conscience. That 5th Aphorism was this (that a full and firm conviction of Conscience in a Soul that is sincere, touching a Religion into which some things are incorporate that be false, but without any moral Turpitude, and of that nature that no moral sincerity may be able to discover the falseness of them, is rightly said to be the permissive command of God to that Soul, for either punishment, or tryal.]

Now, saith the Doctor, if such a man as this ‘[whom he also supposes to be of a peaceable unpersecutive temper] may not enjoy his own, because the spirit of God hath not so throughly illuminated him, as to bring him to the full and exquisite knowledg of the truth; it will bring in a principle of badder consequence then the protection of innocent men from perfecution for conscience sake, namely that of Dominion being founded in grace.]’

How full of fraud this supposition is, will in good measure appear hereafter. Mean while I wonder how this should bring in the principle of Dominion being founded in Grace: the Doctor is so far from telling us how, that he offers not one word about it. Let me ask therefore: May not the Magistrate who urges the law upon the Doctors sincere unconforming [Page] brother, and thereby denies him this Liberty of Conscience, be himself a wicked ungratious person? Dr More must by his own principles think him so, for that his very Urging of the law. Is this man therefore not truly and lawfully a Magistrate? I guess the Doctor dares not say so. Well then, if he be a true and lawfull Magistrate, this his very pressing the Law upon that sincere Brother, proves that Dominion is not founded upon Grace. But on the contrary if he be not a true and lawfull Magistrate, because he ungratiously uses his Power against that Brother, let but the Doctor say so, and I will soon evince from thence, that in the Doctors own judgement, Dominion is founded in Grace. Nay it is too apparent, that, were the Doctors grand principle allowed, and were his sincere unpersecutive Brethren to be exempted from the Magistrates coercive power in things indifferent; this were no unlikely way to introduce the tenet of Grace being the foundation of Dominion. They who might not be commanded, would soon think it belong'd to them to command: if their sincere piety sets them above the Laws of their Governours, it may readily prompt them to think they are above their Governours themselves.

But to make sure of a back-door by which to evade the ugly and unsufferable consequences of his Doctrine; he very gravely, in his 3d Section gives us a long Character of his sincere person whose Conscience he would have left free, which also he thrusts upon the stage again, though (as he saith) in a more contracted draught, Sect. 11. Whilst his Thesis sounds high for faction and sedition, he plots to bring himself off by contracting the subject of that Thesis to so small a point that he might seem to leave in it no room for Danger or Disturbance. And this he doth, by presenting his sincere person in such a strange dress, that in the close of his 11th Sect. he professes ‘[Very few such are to be found in a whole province, yea in a whole kingdome: scarce so many in number [Page] as the gates of Thebes, or the mouths of the River Nilus.]’ So then there are scarce seven such sincere brethren in a whole Kingdome: and the number being so inconsiderable, what danger of any seditious consequences from them, though they be allowed their liberty?

A very well-favoured plea! But, first, Had the Doctor this Opinion when he wrote his Mysterie of Godliness? did he then so largely patronize the point of liberty, onely in intuition of six or seven persons who possibly might be found (and possibly not) in the whole Kingdome? this he will scarce perswade any part of the Kingdome to believe.

Secondly, Who seeth not that such a person as he describes, is a mere figment? he makes him unblameable in his conversation; and yet supposes him out of Conscience not to submit to imbrace the Church Discipline: if so, then he must be a Separatist: if a Separatist, he gives offence to all honest obedient conformable Men; he breaks the Churches Unity; he opposes his private judgement against the publick judgement of his superiours even in things of an indifferent nature: and therefore by the Doctors leave, he is not of unblameable conversation. He makes him also impregnably loyal and faithfull to his Prince: yet supposes that his Conscience leads him, not to observe his Princes Ecclesiastical Laws. He makes him of complying Conscience in all things that his Conscience discerns to be indifferent and not against Gods Word: and in saying so, he necessarily supposeth that his sincere Brother finds something commanded by our Church (for I hope he will not deny but he includes our Church in his discourse: else why did he not except it?) which is against Gods Word. And yet sect. 11. pag. 546, 547. whereas he would have an oath taken by pretenders to sincerity, That nothing moves them to depart from the Church, but mere conviction of Conscience; he adds, that upon search in the Church of England, no man could in judgement and conscience take that Oath, and leave the Church: which must needs suppose that this [Page] Church commands nothing against the Word of God. Lastly, He makes him of an unshaken Belief in all the essentials of Christian Religion; and yet not satisfied that he must obey the Church exercizing that authority in things Indisterent, which Gods Word hath given her, although he onely thinks, but cannot prove the Churches commands to be against Gods Word.

If there be any such sincere Brother amongst us; what can we imagine he boggles at, but some Ceremony, a Surplice or Hood, the use of the Cross, a set Form of Worship; or some such thing Indifferent in it self, and determined by his lawfull Superiours whom God hath injoyned him to obey? In this case, if that Brother be perswaded (as the Doctor supposeth) that such or such a particular is against Gods Word; this perswasion hath no just and reasonable ground: yet the Doctor will have him left at liberty, because the perswasion is conveyed into him by God, and so obligeth his Conscience. I wish the Doctor would here be so ingenuous as to tell us in sober sadness, whether he believeth that God would thus deceive so excellent and accomplish'd a Christian in all other points, as he characters this Brother to be?

But that is not all: for I think it not amiss fully here to declare the gross absurdity of this Tenet. The same God in his Word commands that all things be done decently and in order: but they cannot be so done, unless some in the Church have power to determine things Indifferent: those therefore who are the inferiours are bound in Conscience to submit to their Governours in such determinations: this is plainly and undenyably Gods will. But this sincere Brother is perswaded that the things so determined, are against Gods Word: not that he can make it appear either by sound reason, or by any clear place of Gods Word so to be, (for then it might appear so to others) but that his Conscience tells him so. And the Doctor would have us believe, that this false perswasion of his Conscience, was conveyed into him by God. Observe now [Page] what follows hereupon, viz. That God by some fallacious reason, or some obscure piece of Scripture, or some pretence of such obscure Scripture; perswades this highly virtuous man to believe contrary to sound reason, and to plain scripture, is this [...]? Also, that God perswades this sincere Christian, to boggle at the authoritative definition of a Christian Church, grounded upon his evident command. Lastly, that God who injoyns humility to all christians, doth nevertheless perswade this Christian to oppose his own private judgement, (though founded upon no just and true ground either of reason or scripture) against, and prefer it before the publick and well-grounded judgement of the Church.

Sect. 4. he saith ‘[The drift of my whole discourse, is more properly directed toward a Decision of such causes as concern nations of several Religions. And therefore they do very distortedly who misinterpret my management of this controversie which doth really include in it so notable an interest of Christian Religion in general, to the particular disinterest of any church whatsoever, unless it be the Roman: which is so exceeding corrupt, and yet so pretendingly infallible, that I must confess nothing can be so formidable to her, as this right of Liberty of Conscience, though in such unexceptionable circumstances as I did even now describe it.]’

His description with unexceptionable circumstances, I can no where finde: this therefore is but one of his usual bold sayings. Indeed all he hath talked here, is but another of his shifts; and as vain as the rest. For, 1. How can the proper drift of his discourse tend to the decision of cases touching nations of several Religions? The liberty of conscience he pleads for, is liberty, not for nations of several Religions, but for particular men under the Christian Religion, and that in some particular Church: else what means his long Character of his sincere person, whom he makes a Christian, and who must [Page] therefore be in some Christian Church or other, which may allow him that liberty the Doctor presses for? yea and this sincere person, he himself grants to be Rara Avis; so far was his drift from aiming at whole Nations.

Secondly, How can Nations of several Religions be concerned in this point? What is the liberty of conscience in Turks, to that in Christians; & vice versâ? should Dr More have that liberty granted him or denyed him here, what would that be to the Mahometans? Nay suppose such liberty allowed among the Lutherans; how would that concern the Calvinists?

Thirdly, Though the Doctor would have the contrary believed; yet I must tell him, that this liberty would prove a great disinterest to some (nay to any) Church, besides to the Roman. For let his position once be granted: That the sincere brother must be allowed liberty of conscience. Surely it is fit the magistrate should know whether he whom this liberty is to be allowed to, be indeed sincere, and not a demure dissembler, How shall he know this? the Doctor I presume will answer, that he may know it, by the other part of that persons character which represents him for eximiously vertuous: or by the oath (which he mentions pag. 547.) that he departs from the Church in meer conviction of conscience, and not on secular design, &c.

For the first [...], it is not sufficient. He that keeps the whole Law and offends in one point, is guilty of all: for he that said do not commit Adultery; said also do not kill: now if thou commit no Adultery, yet if thou Kill, thou art become a transgressour of the law. It is S. Iames's doctrine c. 2. 10, 11. He that sincerely fears God, hath respect to all his commandments, and is most certainly far off from continuing wittingly in disobedience of any one; for all of them being given by one and the same God, he who imbraces one and rejects another cannot be thought to submit to that which he imbraceth, out of sincere loyalty to his Master, but for some [Page] ends of his own: else why doth he not obey in this as well as in other particulars? Now God hath plainly commanded obedience to our spiritual Governours; nor is there any exemption from their commands but where they evidently appear to be against the word of God. (And that any commands of the Church of England are clearly repugnant to Gods word, the Doctor is now wise enough, and we know why, most hugely to deny) I infer therefore: He who keeps the whole law, and yet offends in this one point of obedience to lawfull superiours in things not forbidden by Gods word; is guilty of all: (especially if it be not one act, but an obstinate habit of disobedience.) For he who said thou shalt do such and such things, said also thou shalt obey thy lawfull superiours; now if thou doest such and such things, and yet obeyest not thy lawfull superiours, thou art become a transgressour, that is, guilty of all. If then S. Iames's Logick be good, this sincere brother of the Doctors, who deliberately and peremptorily refuses obedience to his superiours, cannot be thought a truly sincere and cordial servant of God; whilst under pretence of a law conveyed into him by God (which it is impossible he should prove to the Magistrate,) he opposes an evident known Law of the same God.

2. As touching the Oath; the Doctor saith (in his Mystery of Godliness pag. 525.) That it is very usefull and justifyable, upon mens relinquishing the publick worship of God in the Churches. But against this way of tryal, it may be objected: That the same sincere person holds not himself free to take an Oath. I know the Doctor in the same page sternly pronounces, that if any one refuse thus to swear, Without question, it is not Religion but some fathomless depth of knavery that lies at the bottom. Will his friends, the Bartholomew Coniessours, thank him for this censure. But hereby he contradicts his own grand principle, that the Dictate of conscience is Gods command to every man: for I hope Gods command is not a [Page] fathomless depth of knavery. Such refusers may alledge this for their refusal, that Christ plainly said, swear not at all. How knows the Doctor, that these men doe not believe in their Conscience that these words of Christ are by them truly understood, and rightly applyed? if so: then they are Gods immediate obliging command to them, to refuse that Oath. If he will renounce his dogma, and grant that all dictates of conscience are not conveyed by God, so as to prove his commands and become obligatory, (for surely some consciences are erroneous and ought to be rectified,) he may have ground to condemn those refusers: otherwise he condemns himself: for these refusers do nevertheless believe a Creatour, a providence, a life to come with rewards and punishments, &c. which are the conditions he requires in him to whom he would have liberty of conscience allowed. ibid. pag. 516.

It remains then, that if the magistrate cannot certainly know, whether such a brothers pretended sincerity, be real or no; he can have no just reason to allow him his liberty of conscience against the just law; nor can this liberty of conscience, be such a brothers Right (as the Doctor affirms) seeing it is inconsistent with that authority of the Magistrate, which by Gods word is a lawfull authority. And it being Gods revealed will, that all men should be subject to that authority in things not contrary to his own declared commands; this brother is necessarily subjected to Gods power in the Magistrate; nor may he disobey, but where he is sure that the Magistrate commands contrary to God: and sure he cannot be, but by the plain dictate of scripture, or of Natural Reason: if he alledge either of these, it is presumed that the Christian Magistrate will hear him: if not, he can plead no right of freedome against the Magistrate.

Perhaps he will here object, that we finde in scripture, liberty of conscience allowed to the weak, Rom. 14. 1. &c. 1 Cor. 8. 7. & 12. To which I answer: was that liberty [Page] allowed in points which the Church had then decreed to be obeyed by all her members? If it were, let him shew it to have been so. If it were not: (and who ever said it was?) what is that objection to the present case of the Christian Churches? Again; when men were converted from other Religions to the Christian by the first preachers of Christianity; what wonder if they were not totally converted at the first: but retained their former perswasions for a while in some particular points? But as for such who never were of another Religion, but were always brought up in the Christian Church; the case is different: if these mens conscience be debauched by corrupt perswasions, it is their own fault; nor is there reason for them to expect such liberty as may be indulged for a while to converts from another Religion: but rather like truants who run from the school, they are to be reduced by the discipline of the school.

But before he concludes his 4th Section, the Doctor is again at his comparisons, though he hath the worst luck in that trade of any Man I know: he saith ‘[It is no more unseemly for Governours to permit something to them (viz. the sincere brethren) peculiarly, then for a tender Mother to indulge something to a child that breeds teeth, or any other ways weak and sickly: or a master of a family to permit, if not to provide, some proper accommodation for those of his family apart, whose infirmities or constitutions make them less fit to dine and sup at his common table: for this is no diminution of his authority, but a more discreet and commendable exercise thereof.]’

The Question is touching liberty of conscience, which the Doctor vouches to be the right of a sincere person. Now by these comparisons he would shew, that it is not unseemly for the Governours to permit him that liberty: that is, If the Governour permits such a Man that which is his right, he doth not unseemly. Can any thing be more impertinent! the Governours [Page] part, is, not to permit and indulge, but to defend and assert men in their right: and when he doth thus, it is but a cold commendation to say, he doth not unseemly; for indeed he doth most seemly.

But I would ask the Doctor, whether in any secular Oeconomicks he hath read or heard of, he meets with a law prescribing all children and members of the family to be used alike in all the respective parts of the domestick discipline, without making allowance for sickness and infirmities which they cannot help? I presume he never did. But in the family of the Church, the laws of discipline relating to several orders of Christians, are notorious; and none of them make any allowance for sincere weak-conscienced Brethren; because the Church is well assured that her laws are consonant to Gods word, and therefore even in conscience to be obeyed by all her children; whose pretended infirmities are onely such as they may themselves help when they will but vouchsafe to be rightly informed that the things commanded were indifferent, and not against Gods word. So that if the case be duly considered, here is no ground at all for the Doctors comparisons.

At length, Sect. the 5th not denying but this his tedious preamble was onely talking at large, he comes to the ‘Object. 8.’ Which is in these words, [He saith, That Liberty of Religion is the common and natural Right of all Nations and Persons, l. 10. c. 11. p. 521. And the sovereign Power of God sets the sincere Religionist free from external force and power, ibid. p. 520. By the sincere Religionist he understands, Every one that really believes there is a God, and that he is a Rewarder of them that seek him. But more is required in such a sincere Religionist, then is to be found in the Turks. This overthrows all Laws for Church-government and Discipline.]

His Answer he thus begins, ‘[First I confess it is my Opinion, [Page] That Liberty of Conscience is the common and natural Right of all Nations and Persons. But I have also added, That this Right is forfeitable; and I have restrain'd this Liberty to such conditions, that I think it is impossible to doubt but that so much Liberty as I have left is their most unviolable Right.]’

It seems the Objector hath not wronged him in the first Particular, he confesses it; but he pleads his adding that this Right is forfeitable. This perhaps might be plausibly pleaded for the Right of particular Persons, but is the Right of whole Nations, nay of all Nations forfeitable? Good Doctor teach us to what Magistrates they can forfeit it, or who will be left to take the forfeiture.

Yea, but he hath Restrained this Liberty to such Conditions as will make it most unviolable. Truly I remember not, that either in this Apologie, or in the Chapters of his Mysterie, which he Apologizeth for, he hath at all restrained the Liberty of Nations, which yet is the first part of the Liberty he here speaks of. As for his restraining the Liberty of particular persons, how little that will help him, I have partly shown already, and shall have occasion to declare farther when I come to his 8th Sect. of this Chapter.

Next he sallies out to some sayings of the ancient Fathers, which he counts more free and full touching this Subject then any thing that he hath said. They who know any thing of the Discipline of the Primitive Church will easily suspect that the Doctor here slanders the ancient Fathers. But lets view his Citations, one is out of the Council (he tells us not which) of Toledo, another out of Tertullian. The first forbids any one to be forced, i. to be a Christian. The second professeth That Christianity doth not revenge it self by the Sword. What he crowds these sayings in for, I profess I know not. After this he tells us that Grotius, out of whom he borrows these Quotations, ‘[Cites also the constitutions of Clemens, Athanasius [Page] and Chrysostome to the same purpose, who expresly exclude force and compulsion in bringing men over to Christianity.]’ And what of this! Did those Fathers therefore think Liberty of Religion to be the common and natural Right of all Nations and Persons? [...]! Have Infidels Right to be of a false Religion, because Christians have no Right to compel them to the true? The Church judgeth not those who are without, but those who are within: Those who are without God judgeth, for all their pretended Right to Liberty, and to him they must answer it for their adhering to a false Religion in spight of all the means his universal Grace and Providence useth to reclaim them. But how palpably all this discourse of the Doctor is extravagant from the Question, appears by the close of the Objection, (This overthrows all Laws for Church-government and Discipline.) The Objector meant not to trouble him farther then by hinting to him, That if Liberty of Religion be all mens Right, Church-Government must signifie nothing, for then might Christians shake off that yoke at their pleasure. And how is the not persecuting and compelling of Infidels pertinent to this Point?

Sect. 7. He thus proceeds, ‘[Secondly, As for that Addition out of Pag. 520. it is no new Charge, but contains Reasons for the former Assertion; namely, That considering the sincerity of the Religionist, wherein he is so faithfully and unfeignedly obliged to the Sovereign Power of God, he is not harshly to be dealt with by any inferiour Power; he having that integrity and sincerity, which I understand all along in this Subject, and have more explicitly described in my Proof of my first Aphorism in the foregoing Chapter; as also where the case is more particular in the 3d Section of this.]’

What is this, but to suppose, and run away with, what neither hath, nor can be proved; namely, that the Sovereign [Page] Power of God obligeth mens Consciences (by conveying false perswasions into them) to resist the Truth, and to oppose that Power which the same God himself hath confessedly instituted. The Doctor also falls here from Nations to particular Persons, and yet pretends that this Addition contains Reasons for the former Assertion, which Assertion related to all Nations as well as to particular Persons: But it is plain, by his references to his first Aphorism of the former Chapter and the 3d Section of this, that he laies the main stress of his Apologie upon the sincerity of the Religionist. And how I pray shall the Magistrate be assured that this Religionist is indeed sincere? It is the Question I asked before, and must repeat where I meet the Doctor obtruding his crambe.

But he adds Sect. 8. ‘[By the sincere Religionist, I understand more then is recited in the Objection; for a man may not cast off the Belief of a God, and of a life to come, and yet be exceeding far from being sincere, as you may easily understand out of the formentioned description.]’

What reason the Objector had to describe the Doctors sincere Religionist, as is set down briefly in the Objection, appears out of his own words in his Mysterie, lib. 10. cap. 10. In the Contents of which Chapter, his first is this in terms: ‘[That in those that believe there is a God, and a Life to come, there is an antecedent Right of Liberty of Conscience, not to be invaded by the Civil Magistrate.]’ And in the beginning of the Chapter he explains himself thus: ‘[For those that seriously make a profession of the existence of God Creator of all things, and of his Providence, and acknowledge that there is a life to come, wherein the wicked shall be punished and the vertuous rewarded; it seems to me that there doth naturally accrew such a Right to these men of freedome in their Religion as is inviolable, and such as the Power of the Magistrate ought not to invade, unless there be some perverse mixture in it that forfeits their Right.]’ [Page] Where by the way, observe how the Doctor confounds himself in his sincere Religionist; for he supposeth that there may happen to be some perverse mixture in his Religion, that is, he may be perverse, and yet sincere.

To his pretence here alledged, I must crave his leave to reply; That whereas he now in his Apologie gives us a new Character of his sincere Religionist; and then wipes his mouth and saith, (He understands more by the sincere Religionist then is recited in the Objection,) is meer Boys play. The Question is not, what he now understands, but what he wrote in his Mysterie. Had he now acknowledged that what he wrote there was rashly written, it had been something.

He proceeds, Sect. 9. ‘[I willingly grant, that it will be hard to finde any such sincere Religionist, as I understand and describe among the Turks, it being a Precept in their Zuna, Occidite homines quousque omnes mauri fiant. Slay and kill, till all men have become Mahometans; which is a Precept against the light of Nature and indispensable Law of Morality, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris.]’ This Answer respects that part of the Objection,) but more is required to such a sincere Religionist, then is to be found in the Turks.) And the Doctor tells us it is hard to finde such a Turk. Hard? why not Impossible? For if their Religion contains Precepts contrary to the Light of Nature and indispensable Law of Morality, (as he grants it doth,) they who sincerely profess that Religion, must endeavour the practice of such Precepts. And yet the Doctor in this 10th Chap. Sect. 3. of his Mysterie instances in the Turk and Few, as persons whose Religion was conveyed into them by God.

Indeed he here adds, ‘[That this Turk forfeits his Right of Liberty of Religion, by this poisonous and wretched Principle.]’ If so, no Religious Turk can have any such Right; and would the Doctor have that Right belong onely [Page] to such Turks as are not true to their Religion, that is, to Hypocrites? are these the sincere ones?

To that in which the main force of the Objection (he saith) consists, and which runs in these words, (This overthrows all Laws for Church-government and Discipline,) he thus models his Answer, Sect. 10. ‘[First, That there is a marvellous incommensurability of things in humane Affairs; and that we may as well expect that the Diameter of a Circle should be Symmetral to the Periphery, and the Diagonal of a square to the side thereof; as that one thing, or one truth should serve all turns and all occasions: nay, though it were in our power to mint Truth as we please, and to set that stamp and title upon whatever Proposition would serve our turn best; yet we should finde that it would not serve all emergencies, nor fit all occasions, nor be exempt from all exceptions.]’

He Cants! he Cants! will many an honest Reader here cry out. Indeed we may well wonder what he means; for though one thing will not fit all occasions, yet one Truth will and must; for Truth is and can be but one. But those last words, That though we had power to mint Truth, yet it would not be exempt from all exceptions; minde me of what I have read in a modern Authour, which I think it not unseasonable here to insert. That Authour though a private person, having minted and delivered for current certain Rules for publick Worship in a Christian Church; doubts not to conclude, That if those be observed, (It will not be easie to imagine what is wanting to a due and unexceptionable filling up of all comely Circumstances of that publick Worship that is fit to be practised by professed Christians, unless you would bring in also Images and Pictures.) In this mans Judgement it is possible enough (at least for him) to mint something which is unexceptionable, that is, Exempt from all Exceptions. And if the Reader longs to know this so wise and able Authour; truly [Page] it is even Dr Henry More in his Mysterie of Godliness, lib. 10. cap. 14. sect. 16.

But I ask the Doctor, What are the Truths here in Question? They must be either touching the Fundamental and Indispensable parts of Religion; or concerning things in themselves Indifferent, and variable upon just occasion, Touching the former, I hope there can be but one Truth, which must alwaies persist the same: And touching the later, The Church doth not determine and appoint them irreversibly, but suits them to time and place as she sees most expedient; never imagining, that one Form is by absolute necessity fit to serve all occasions and possible Emergencies. Yet still this one thing is true, this one Truth will serve in all change of occasions, that the Church hath a Power in all occasions and all turns to judge what is fit; and hath Power in things Indifferent to determine and command what she sees meet; And they who are given to change, must not make their own changeable humours (sincerely changing very oft) a plea of Exemption from their Superiours Lawfull Commands. Hitherto then the Doctors Answer amounts to nothing. Let's see what follows.

‘[As for example, because this Proposition, That Liberty of Religion is the common Right of all Nations and Persons, doth not please; take the opposite to it, That no Nation or Person can claim Liberty of Religion as their Right. Will not this prove as Incommensurable to humane Affairs, and be laden with as great Inconveniencies?]’ Here he slips the Collar, and leaves the Question. For the Question was, Whether that former proposition of his were true or no; and now he would onely have it supposed, that it doth not please, and therefore he neither styles nor pretends to prove the opposite proposition false, but inconvenient and incommensurable to humane Affairs. But how proves he this Inconvenience? why he makes account thus.

[Page] ‘[For if no Nation or Person have any Right to profess any Religion but what is in all Points True, then will every Nation (since they are perswaded of the truth of their Religion, otherwise they would not be of it,) presume they have Right of Persecuting any other Nation that differs in Religion from them, they so easily conceiting every different Religion false, which is to set the world together by the ears.]’

It was kindly done of the Doctor to help me to an Answer to this his proof in the proof it self. If every Nation be perswaded of the Truth of their Religion, because otherwise they would not be of it: then cannot this Nation imagine but that other Nations professing Religions different from this are perswaded that the Religions they profess are true. And why should the Doctor think, that one Nation should count it either reasonable or advantageous to it self, to persecute another Nation for professing what their Conscience tells them is the Truth? What were this but to make that persecuting Nation utterly stupid and insensible of what is for her own Peace and Interest? for by this Principle, such a Nation publickly professes it lawfull for all other Nations of different Religions to invade and persecute her.

But he adds, ‘[Again, If no private Person have the Right of Liberty of Religion, then is he bound up to the Religion of his Prince and Nation, be it what it will; for if he may judge, his Right is reserved to him.]’ I grant, that every man ought to be satisfied in his Conscience (and the Doctor may if he will call this Iudging,) of the Religion he professeth. Yet this reserves him not a Right of Liberty in Religion; but onely supposeth that he hath a Right of trying, examining, and using his best judgement in order to the satisfying of his Conscience: which Right if he duly useth, it will certainly fix him in the True Religion, whether that Religion be professed by his Prince and Nation or no. [...] [Page] Prove, or Try all things; Hold fast that which is good, saith the Apostle, 1 Thess. 5. 21. Here is a Right to Try, Examine and Judge; but no Right of Liberty in Religion for all that. This tryal is onely in order to the Holding fast that which is good. God will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the Truth, 1 Tim. 2. 4. If this be Gods will; (and I hope Dr More when he thinks well of it, will not deny it) that all men should come unto the knowledge of the Truth, i. e. of the Christian Religion, then is the pretended Right of liberty in Religion, flatly against Gods will. To fancy then that private persons are bound up to the Religion of their Prince and Nation, be it what it will, because such persons have no right to be of what Religion they list, is ridiculous: seeing the King of Kings hath determined the case, and signified it to be his royal pleasure that all men should come to the true Religion, which can be but one.

His last inconvenience is that ‘[All Atheists and profane Persons will make their Markets to the full; there being no Obstacle to them to what ever enjoyments of this life; but the sore and unsupportable burden not onely of falling short in their fortunes, but of cruel persecution, will light upon those onely that are conscientious, and have the fear of God before their eyes.]’

First, Touching Atheists and profane men, I demand how this follows? If it be granted that No man can claim Liberty of Religion as his Right, then saith the Doctor, Atheists and profane persons will make their markets to the full, there being no obstacle to them to whatever enjoyments of this life. A marvellous clear consequence, and suitable to the Doctors Logick! Take therefore the opposite Position which is his own, viz. (Liberty of Religion is the common and natural Right of all Persons.) And tell me if that Consequence will not be much clearer; for hereupon the wicked Person having Right to what Religion he lists, will never scruple to profess any thing [Page] that may best consist with his temporal Advantage; for still he professeth no more then he hath Natural Right to profess.

As for the Conscientious, this will expose them (he saith) to persecution. Suppose so. Is therefore the Position (That no Nation nor Person can claim Liberty of Religion as their Right) incommensurable to humane Affairs? St Paul saith, All that will live godly in Christ Iesus shall suffer persecution, 2 Tim. 3. 12. Dr More would prevent this, and therefore likes no Positions that will occasion Conscientious men to be persecuted. But what thinks he of the Religion planted by Christ? was that Incommensurable to humane Affairs? I hope not. Yet he assured his Apostles, that it would expose them to the hatred of all the world. Did Christian Religion not teach us a reward in the life to come, the Doctor might count it, (as he doth this later Position,) to be of very partial and injurious consequence; but upon supposal of this future reward, neither this Religion nor that Position can be justly so accounted.

In the next, the 11th Section; though I were so well aware of the Doctor, that I thought he could not have cheated me, yet I must confess I was down right gulled; for thus he begins, [But to answer more closely and satisfactorily to the purpose.] This Preface rowzed me to an expectation of something not impertinent at least; but the sum of all I finde is but this that he himself saith, [That Right of Liberty of Religion, as he hath stated it, overthrows not any due Laws of Government in any Church, nor opposeth any Interest but the Romane; and that Reformed Churches need not fear, but it will rather enlarge their Iurisdiction then overthrow their Laws;] And the Reason he subjoyns is this, ‘[For what hinders men from coming over to the Truth, but those Babylonish Chains of barbarous and Antichristian Persecution?]’

Is this close and satisfactory to the purpose, as was promised? First, Let me ask the Doctor, Whether he ever heard of [Page] greater complaints of Persecution from those who lived under the Romane Church, then from those who lived under the Reformed Church? yea under the Reformed Church of England, which he, tacking about, hath of late so highly magnified? Secondly, If this Right of Liberty in Religion were granted, let us consider how the Jurisdiction of the Church of England would be thereby inlarged. Did the Doctor never hear of such things as Presbyterians, Independents, Quakers, Latitudinarians here in England? Are not these a pretty round company? make they not a great (I dare not say, how great) part of the Nation? and are they not sincere and hearty enemies to our Church-government, or proud despisers of it? Now let all these be allowed a Right of Liberty, and who doubts but they would soon have Governments and Disciplines of their own? whereby so vast a part of the Subjects of our Churches Discipline being taken away, it is very strange how her Jurisdiction should by this device be Inlarged. And how cordially Dr More desires the inlargement of it, let it be guessed by the goodly means he would have used for that purpose.

I, but he will tell you now, That he means not that all those Sects should be allowed their Right of Liberty. Indeed he may tell us so now, when he sees it is not safe for him to say the contrary. But I have already shewed, that his sincere Religionist (for whom he pleads this Liberty) is not the same here in his Apologie with him whom he holds forth in his Mysterie. Besides, if this Liberty be (as he saith) the Natural Right of all Persons; none of all the Rabble I have named, but will make good his Title to it, against any forfeiture the Doctor can pretend. For what is every mans Natural Right, is his Right given him by God the Authour of Nature, and therefore part of Natures Law. How then can any man forfeit what he holds by the Charter and Law of God and Nature, onely because he conforms not to the Churches [Page] Order in things which were in themselves but Indifferent; unless he makes the Churches Law more sacred then Gods? I say, in things in themselves but Indifferent; for which of those forementioned Sects will not readily profess that they imbrace all the Essentials and indispensable Precepts of Religion? And to tell them that Obedience in things Indifferent is Commanded by God, will nothing prevail with them, seeing they are taught, that this is inconsistent with the exercise of their Natural Right of Liberty; and therefore any such Command infers no Indispensable Duty, because this would destroy that Original Right which they have by the Law of God and Nature. They may obey if they please, but if they have no minde so to do, that Natural Right will bear them out.

His next pretence in the Clause immediately subjoyned is this, ‘[Again, when there was no external force nor compulsion to make men Christians, as there was not for some hundreds of years, were there no Laws for Church-government and Discipline all that time? Wherefore Liberty of Religion doth not take away or overthrow all Laws for Church-government and Discipline, but rather keeps men from making any disallowable and scandalous ones, which was one reason that kept the Church from that Antichristian Lapse all the time before the Empire professed Christianity. But external force imprints Truth and Falshood, Superstition and Religion alike upon the dawed spirits of men.]’

Marvellous close and to the purpose still! for I see, that in the Doctors Dialect, Close signifies Extravagant, and To the purpose, quite beside it. His business was to have shewed us, That the Laws for Church-government are not frustrated, though men be allowed Liberty of Religion. By which men, who understands not men entered into Christianity and living under Christian Governours? To prove there is no such Frustration. [Page] he appeals to the Primitive times, when Infidels were not compelled to turn Christians; which notwithstanding, there were in those Times Laws for Church-government and Discipline. Whereas his Proof should have been, That the Primitive Church compelled none of her Members by Censure to obey her Commands; but gave Dissenting Brethren their Liberty, and onely exercised her Jurisdiction upon Assenters. But he knew he could never make out this Proof, and therefore wonderous wisely and demurely walked aside from the Question. At length he concludeth, That External force imprints Truth and Falshood alike, &c. But what he means, or how this sentence coheres with what was premised, let them divine who are more at leisure then I.

To his Thirdly; in which he refers us to his Answer to the 4th Objection I will repeat nothing, but make the like reference; desiring the Reader to review if he pleases my Reply to that his Answer.

In his Fourthly he saith, ‘[That this Right of Liberty of Religion is forfeitable, by mixing therewith such Principles as are contrary to good manners and civil Right, or repugnant to the very Principle of Liberty we speak of. Which forfeiture is so large and in a manner Universal, that in the very Chapters of this Subject I acknowledge the Theory I plead for hugely unpracticable. So that there is room enough and too much left in the world, for the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.]’

Enough, and too much room for the Churches Jurisdiction? God desires that the Church may reach to all Nations; which cannot be, except her Discipline and Jurisdiction be co-extended to the same limits. Dr More grudges, and thinks this Jurisdiction hath enough, yea, and too much room already Perhaps he will expound his meaning to be, That in regard of the great multitudes of such men as mix with their [Page] Liberty Principles contrary to good manners, and are thereby liable to Ecclesiastical Censures, the Churches Jurisdiction hath a larger Subject then would be wished. But this will not excuse him, for though there were no men professing Principles contrary to good manners, yet the Churches Jurisdiction would not be of the less extent: seeing her Power is exercised, not onely in the Censuring of the Bad, but also in the Incouraging, Meliorating, and Perfecting those that are Good. For God gave some Apostles, some Prophets, &c. for the perfecting the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ. But grant this Expression of his were of no such ill aspect, yet his other words will sufficiently betray him. For

First, If his Theory be hugely unpracticable, what meant he to trouble the world with it; especially so largely as he hath done? Secondly, If the forfeiture be in a manner universal, then by the Doctors Censure, it is in a manner universally true, That men hold Principles contrary to good manners and civil Right. But I must take the boldness to think, That his charging in a manner all the world with this foul Crime, is so far from good manners, that it favours neither of Modesty, Truth, nor Charity; but is indeed, what Michael durst not bring against the Devil himself, A Rayling accusation. Yet I wonder not much at it; for since he patronizeth Liberty of Religion, what marvel is it that he assumeth such Liberty of Censure? But abate him all this, and examine his device of forfeiture, which he seems to have provided as his safest back-door.

First, He who holds a Principle repugnant to this Principle of Liberty needed not have been counted among those who forfeit their Right in this Liberty; but should rather be reckoned among those who will not allow it. [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] For if he pretends such Liberty to be proper to himself alone, he onely renders himself ridiculous. Consider we then, (Those who mix with it Principles contrary to good manners and civil Right) And it will easily appear, that by so doing they forfeit not that supposed Right of Liberty in Re [...] gion, for this their Right the Doctor makes to be natural: Now no Right of Nature (nor indeed any other Right that is truly such) is forfeitable, but by some offence to which some Law appoints that forfeiture as a Punishment. Let the Doctor then shew us, what Law either of God or man is extant, by which the mixing Principles contrary to good manners or civill Right, makes any man forfeit his Right of Liberty in Religion. Many Laws may be produced, which appoint other Penalties for those who profess any thing contrary to civil Right or good Manners; which Penalties such Professours must undergo, be they the forfeit of part or of all their Estate, or of their civil Liberty, or of any of their Limbs, yea, of their Life also: but till some Law appears, which makes their Penalty to be the forfeit of their Liberty in Religion; that Liberty cannot truly be said to be forfeited. The truth is, The Doctor cannot in all his huge reading shew us any such Law: for why should any Law ever be made for the forfeiting of that which is not? Wherefore this back-door is a meer figment, nor can the Doctor ever make his escape through it.

His Fifthly; onely thrusts in his repeated Character of his sincere Religionist; by which it is evident, that all this Right of Liberty in Religion, for which he makes himself the Advocate, must concern such as are Christians: and that therefore all his Discourses against forcing men to the Christian Religion, were nothing of kin to his present Question, but crowded in onely to amuse unwary Readers.

[Page] His Lastly contains his own devised knack of an Oath, whereby to discover Hypocrites and Pretenders to Sincerity. But of both these I have spoken sufficient, upon occasions given me by the Doctor already.

His 12th Section is an Applauding of himself, that he hath wrote nothing, but what tends to the more successfull Management of the Churches Authority. His Thirteenth, A Discourse touching the Knowledge of God. His Fourteenth and Fifteenth, A Redargution of those who pretending the Unction of the Spirit, disobey the Churches Authority. His Sixteenth, An Invective against Persecuting Men for Heresie, who hold all things plainly determined by Scripture. In which Sections, though the Doctor be sufficiently repugnant to himself, yet because all of them are either so pitifully loose, or so miserably remote from the propounded Objection, (to which he ought to have confined his Reply,) I forbear clogging my Reader with any Observations upon them. And this the rather, because the Doctor himself being Conscious of his unreasonable Extravagance, hath by the power of unusual sudden Ingenuity been forced to acknowledge in the Front of his next Chapter, That he fears he hath overmuch expatiated in his Answer to the eighth objection.

[Page]

CHAP. IX.

HAving undertaken to be brief, touching the two la [...] Objections, he thus sets down the 9th. ‘Object. 9.’ He sharply inveighs against all Church-government and Governours, no where excepting ours; nay directly saith that our Church is not quite emerged out of the general Apostacy, lib. 5. cap. 17. sect. 7. pag. 206. and pag. 211. The Reformers having separated from the great Babylon, have built less and more tolerable ones, but not to be tolerated for ever.

Here being weary, it seems (and well he might) of his own preambulatory ambages, he arms his forehead, and without any more adoe, answers ‘[First, that I do not speak against any Church-government, no not so much as Presbytery, much less Episcopacy; but on the contrary I have spoken for it in my Preface. So far am I from sharply inveighing against that Government, or any else.]’

The Objection was, for his inveighing against Church-government, and Governours. In his answer he takes no notice of the second part of the charge (viz. the Governours) but slily passes that over; as if reviling lawfull superiours were a thing inconsiderable. But I shall by and by make it appear, that his Invectives strike at both Government and Governours, and that, with as contumelious unsufferable Impudence, as I think the heartiest Schismatick or Fanatick could wish, But first, because he confidently appeals to his Preface, let me reminde the Reader, that there the Doctor ranks Episcopacy with the worst of Factions, Presbytery, Independency, Quakerism, &c. That he professes (pag. 19.) that Episcopacy simply in it self is not Antichristian: And pag. 20. [Page] That Episcopacy joyned with Presbytery, is better then Presbytery alone. Is not the Authour of these passages, one who speaks for Episcopacy?

Now for his bold affirmation, that he speaks not against any Church-government, I crave the readers patience till I rake up some of his dirt. Page 526. of his Mystery, he saith ‘[Now our Religion is wrapt up in so many wreaths of hay and straw, that no man can see nor feel the edge of it.]’ And if thus wrapt up; by whom is it done but by the Governours of the Church? Doth not this strike at both the Government and the Governours? Again pag. 492. ‘[Freely to profess what I think in my own conscience to be true: The most universal and most fundamental mistake in Christendom, and whence all the corruption of the Church began, and is still continued and increased, is, That conceited estimation of orthodox Opinions, and external ceremony, before the indispensable practise of the precepts of Christ, &c. Instead whereof there is generally substituted curiosity of Opinion in points imperscrutable and unprofitable; obtrusion of Ceremonies numerous, cumbersom, and not onely needless, but much unbeseeming the unsuspected modesty of the spouse of Christ, &c. This self chosen Religion in all the parts of Christendome (though it be such as a wicked man may perform as dextrously and plausibly, as the most truly righteous and regenerate) being so highly extolled and recommended to the people, is almost an irresistible temptation to make them really and morally wicked.) And pag. 496. [That I may not seem to slander the state of Christendom, I mean of the whole visible Church in what nation soever under heaven, if we may believe Historians, there is none, neither Greek nor Roman, Lutheran nor Calvinist; but will be found guilty of this fault.]’

If this be not to inveigh against Church-government; and universally too; for all Christendom is his scene; What is? [Page] seeing the tragical miscarriages he thus charges upon all the Christian World, must lie at the doors of the Church-government, and Governours; or no where.

Again, in his Preface, page 28. falls he not foul upon the Governours, ‘[Who, saith he, instead of holy love, &c.— with zeal scalding hot seek to hale and force other men by external compulsion to their foolish and useless Opinions and Ceremonies, &c.]’ for here he must mean the Church-Governours, seeing they alone have power of compulsion, Ibidem ‘[It is injustice and barbarous cruelty to afflict men for what they cannot help, and in what they do not sin: and it is plain rebellion against God to wrest the sceptre out of his hand, by which he rules in the Consciences of Men, and to usurp this Empire to themselves.] Here he makes the Churches censuring her factious,’ schismatical, or heretical members, to be Rebellion against God. Yet this man in| veighes not (if you will take his own word) against any Church-government. More such stuff I could rake up out of his Mystery; but that I am loath too much to turn the Readers stomach.

But he goeth on, and in his second Sect. of this 9th Chapter, pleads thus: ‘[If any one will call my free and zealous Advertisements to the guides of Christendom, sharp invectives; that doth not change their nature: they are still wholesom reproofs and advertisements, not Invectives: forasmuch as they proceed from no Hatred nor Ill will, but out of a sincere affection to the truth, and a desire of promoting the true interest of the Kingdom of Christ in the world.]’

Truly a spade must be called a spade; and if any one will call it a fan of feathers, that doth not change its nature; for it is still a spade, and not a fan of feathers. If the Doctor will call Invectives, Reproofs and Advertisements, that doth not change their nature; they are still Invectives, and not Reproofs or Advertisements. And indeed if this kinde of language [Page] be onely Advertising or Reproving, it is impossible there should be any such thing as inveighing.

I, but it was not out of Ill will, but out of sincere affection to the Truth, and a desire of promoting the true interest of Christs kingdom. Doctor, I know not your heart; I leave that to God: but this I know, that a good meaning and intent cannot justifie a bad action: and therefore you may do well to consider, how you will answer for having spoken evil of Dignities, to him who is the authour of them. What you add for your justification out of scripture, is so far from mending the matter, that it onely shews how boldly you dare abuse Gods sacred word.

First you tell us, that S. Paul bids Titus exhort and rebuke with all authority, chap. 2. And charges him to rebuke the Cretians sharply. chap. 1. And what of this? I pray did S. Paul give any such kinde of charge to Dr More? Titus was Bishop of Crete; and S. Paul commanded him to exhort and rebuke offenders in his Diocess: what could be properer? Doth this authorize you, who are no Pope, I trow, no pretending Universal Bishop, but a private person, Fellow of Christs Colledge, and not Master of his whole Church, to Rebuke all the Bishops of the Christian world?

Then you go on thus ‘[Is it not also said Isa 11. He shall smite the earth with the Rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. Which our Saviour Christ doth even in his true and living members also, as well as in his own Person; his spirit in them kindling their zeal, and directing their words to the just reproof of ungodliness. And I am sure I inveigh against nothing (if it can properly be called inveighing) but what is confessedly wicked and ungodly.]’

Here you presume, that you are a true living member of Christ, and that Christs spirit kindled that zeal, and directed your words in these Invectives. If so; then your words are sacred, and infallibly true, because proceeding from the Direction [Page] of the Holy Ghost: but that they are such, all the wit you have, will never perswade men in their wits, to believe. May not any rayling sactary say as much for himself, if this will serve? may he not vouch himself for a true living member of Christ? may he not call his passion, zeal, and father it upon the Spirit of God? and yet will not all sober persons count that such a one Blasphemes? Because some lymphatick Pulpiteers of late, were wont to broach what wilde rebellious, antichristian Invectives would seem most to promote the Cause; and then in their concluding Prayer, tell God Almighty that he had taught them thus and thus: was the Auditory therefore bound to believe that Gods Spirit was the Authour of such stuff? I hope not. Christ may indeed, when he pleases, Commissionate his true living members to do him such service as you intimate: but for all that; if you can shew no Commission for such imployment, but the zeal of your private spirit, kindled (as you are pleased to imagin) by the Spirit of God, you will be counted no better then a furious Enthusiast. As for your jolly vaunt, that you are sure you inveigh against nothing but what is confessedly wicked and ungodly: it is but like your self: for it is apparent enough by the foregoing Passages which I cited out of your Mystery, that you inveighed against the Government of all the Churches in Christendom and that the Government of all the Churches in Christendom, is confessedly wicked and ungodly, who but Dr More would affirm?

His next words are ‘[Is it not the command of God to Isaiah, Cry aloud, spare not, list up thy voice like a Trumpet and shew my people their transgression, and the House of Israel their sins? And doth not the same Prophet complain of blinde and ignorant watchmen, of dumb Dogs that cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, and loving to slumber? And if it be a fault to be thus dumb, certainly it is a vertue to bark and give warning; though that canine eloquence must [Page] needs sound harsh to their ears of whom our Saviour hath foretold (The thief cometh not but to steal kill and destroy) answerable to those [...] and [...] mentioned in the Apocalyps.]’ Is not this wonderously to the Doctors purpose? God commanded Esay, a known Prophet to shew Israel her sins: but when or were did God command this Doctor to do the like; or is he a known Prophet, sent to the Christian Israel? Esay complains of Watchmen, who were dumb dogs; for Watchmen were in publick office, and ought to have given warning: But doth he complain of private Persons for being silent, and refraining from publick Invectives against all the Governours and Government of Gods whole Church! And here take notice of the Doctors strong Logick: If, saith he, it be a fault to be dumb, certainly it is a vertue to bark and give warning: and hereby he would prove that it was a vertue in him thus to inveigh or bark. What fresh-man will not smile at this wretched sophism; and presently retort, that it is a fault to be dumb, in those who ought to bark, but not in those whose duty calls them not to it: That it is no vertue in such an one to bark who was not appointed to that imployment, but both by barking usurp the office that belongs to others: That if Dr More were commissionated to bark, it were a fault in him to be dumb, and certainly a vertue to bark: That if he be not commissionated, silence would better have become him then barking.

Now touching his last clause (though that canine eloquence must needs sound harsh to their ears, of whom our Saviour hath foretold, The thief cometh not but to steal, kill and destroy,) Are not all the guides of Christendom much beholding to him for it? for he makes no bones at all, of pointing them out as the very men of whom Christ foretold; namely as thieves, whose business is to steal, kill and destroy. Those they were, against whom he used his canine eloquence; and who but they are the men who, above all others, must count [Page] that eloquence harsh? They therefore (if you will believe the Doctor) and every one of them without exception, are murderous destroying theives.

But he adds ‘[And again in Isaiah, Those that say to the seers, see not, and to the Prophets, prophesie not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things; they are stigmatized with the title of a Rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the Law of the Lord. For the Law of the Lord is as fire, and the word of God, a sharp two-edged sword. All which I think, is Apology sufficient for sharpness of rebuke if it be rightly placed.]’ They are stigmatized, who forbade the seers to see, and the Prophets to prophesie right things. This I grant: and what then? Those seers were by their office bound to see; and those Prophets to prophesie right things: hence it follows that they were much to blame who forbade them to doe their duty. And how doth this concern Dr More? Is he a Prophet, or a seer, or any thing analogous, constituted over all Christendom? If he were so; (as, God be thank'd, he is not) did any one command him not to see? did any one command him not to prophesie right things, but smooth things? Again, I grant Gods Law is as fire, and his word a sharp two-edged sword: are Dr Mores dictates and expressions such? Yet he very manfully concludes, that in his opinion, what he hath here produced out of scripture is a sufficient apology for sharpness of Rebuke, if it be rightly placed: his meaning is, that it is a sufficient apology for his own Invectives. First he should have proved (what he onely supposeth) that his Invectives are rightly placed. Secondly though this justifies those who had due commission sharply to rebuke and inveigh, where there was just reason so to do; yet it is far from being a sufficient apology for those who arrogate to themselves the liberty of being universal Censors.

Sect. 3. To that part of the Objection, that he no where excepts[Page]our Church; he answers ‘[That as he no where excepts her, so he no where nominates her.]’ This he needed not to have told us: for that he no where nominates her is plainly enough supposed in the very words of the Objection. But because he did not except her in his taxing all Churches in general, he therefore plainly and undenyably included her. If I should take upon me generally to stigmatize all presumptuous and illogical impertinent writers; though I nominate not Dr More who is apparently enough one of that tribe; yet if I except him not, I doe certainly comprehend him in the number of those whom I stigmatize.

Sect 4. He saith, that he farther answers ‘[It was needless for me to except our own Church; for providence it self had excepted her, in that she disappeared, & was wholly under the hatches, when I wrote those Advertisements to the Guides of Christendom.]’ Sutably to this he saith in his 6th Section, upon the same account, ‘[That the English Church was out of sight, if not out of being, that is, politically dead, when he wrote this.]’ Good God! where is this Doctors ingenuity! for it matters not when he wrote this stuff; but when he Printed and Published it. The Book the Objections were framed against, is his Mystery of Godliness, Printed and Published, after his Majesties return; which return he mentions in his Preface to that Book, dated from his Study at Christs Colledge in Camb. Iun. 12. 1660. Did the Church of England then disappear; was it wholly under the hatches? Did not his Sacred Majesty; did not the venerable Bishops; did not the Universities; did not the Cathedral and Collegiat Churches; did not Millions of the People publickly own and profess it? Under the hatches then it was not: at least not wholly under and out of sight. The Doctor is not so pur-blinde but he might have discovered it, had he had a minde. Yet here he thinks to put off all, with this putid shift, that the Church appeared not at the time when he wrote. [Page] Suppose he had, during the Rebellion, wrote a Book against the King; and for the asserting him who was much of his Opinion concerning liberty in Religion, and touching the Government and Governours of the Church, I mean the most infamous Oliver (whom I doubt not but the Doctor knows who it was that affirmed to be the most wise, valiant, and religious Prince in Christendome.) Suppose also that he had ventured to publish that Book, after the Kings Return, it had been strange impudence, you will say: But the Doctors Apologie had been ready against any Objector, viz. That when he wrote that Book, the King disappeared, was wholly under hatches, was politically dead. But more of this point, when I come to his 6th Section.

To that part of the Objection, which chargeth him with saying that (our Church is not quite emerged out of the general Apostasie,) he answers ‘[Though those words may seem at first sight to intimate so much, viz. (wherefore out of a due humility and modesty, suspecting our selves not to have emerged quite out of this general Apostasie of the Church) yet I am sure it is a mere [...], like that which follows, (Again as for Idolatry, cannot we finde also that among our selves? I do not mean covetousness onely, &c.) Where I think no man will say, I am one of the number, if he read the whole paragraph. Wherefore I do not speak of the English Church, of which I profess my self a member, but of such faults of the reformed Churches in general, whether common to them all, or not, as occurred to my minde, the English Church then disappearing, both in such a sense as I intimated before, and also as Alcibiades his patrimony in Socrates his Map of the World: so universalized were my thoughts in that meditation, nor could they be fixed on our English Church, since the things that I alledge, are incompetible to her, as I have proved in my vindication of her’.

[Page] A pretty fetch, or Cheat if you will! to say, we may finde Idolatry among our selves; doth not argue that I am one of the Idolaters: Therefore, To suspect our selves not to have emerged quite out of the general Apostasie of the Church; argues not a suspicion that Our Church is still in that Apostasie. What Consequence is this, where the expressions run not parallel? Had the Doctor said (We may suspect our selves not quite emerged out of the general Crime of Idolatry, it had answered to the former expression viz. (We may suspect our selves not quite emerged out of the general Apostasie of the Church:) but then, by his leave, he had given just occasion to suspect that he himself was not quite free from Idolatry.

Again, whereas he saith ‘[I do not speak of the English Church, of which I profess my self a member,]’ what can be more ridiculous? The Question is, touching what he spake, lib. 5. cap. 17. sect. 7. of his Mystery. Now I demand: Did he when he wrote that, profess himself a member of the English Church? if he did not; though since then he findes it more for his ease and safety to speak in a contrary strain, and mightily to extoll this Church, what is this to the purpose? If he did, let him prove it; for I have great reason to believe otherwise. Besides it is not very probable that he professed himself a member of that Church which to him appeared not, but was wholly out of sight, and politically dead.

As vain is that which follows, viz. (that he speaks of such faults of the Reformed Churches in general, whether common to them all or not, &c.) can any faults be not common to all, that is, particular to some Reformed Churches; and yet be the faults of the Reformed Churches in general?

To his pretence that the Church of England was then disappearing, I have answer'd already; and shall reply farther, in his 6th Section. But whereas he professes that his thoughts [Page] could not be fixed upon the English Church; I expected he would have given her disappearance and dead condition, for one reason: but that had spoil'd his plot, as being inconsistent with that reason which he annexes, viz. (that the things he alledges, (namely the crimes generally charged upon the Churches) are incompetible to her: as he hath proved in his vindication of her.) For herein he must suppose our Church to be then extant: else how could any thing be said to be either incompetible or competible to her, by any man who meant to speak intelligibly? Lastly, the sport still is, that he refers us, not to his Mystery, which is the sole subject of our controversie, but to his vindication publish'd divers years since: might he not abuse her there, though he extols her here?

But now after all his shifting, I shall plainly prove that in the mentioned place of his Mystery l. 5. c. 17. sect. 7. he understood also the Church of England: and that by his own words precedent, and subsequent. First in the close of the 6th Section of that Chapter, he saith ‘[Those divisions of Churches which were made about an hundred years agoe, and which immediately became the Churches of this or that Polity; if those alterations then had been into a way purely Apostolical, it had plainly been the enlivening of the witnesses, and the calling of them into heaven many years before the expiration of the 1260. days. Which is a strong presumption all is not yet right, and that the witnesses are not yet alive, nor the Woman yet out of the wilderness.]’ Then immediately follow those words of his 7th Section (Wherefore out of a due humility and modesty suspecting our selves not to have emerged quite out of this General Apostasie, &c.] I grant he may comprehend other Reformed Churches, in those words (our selves) but the Church of England he necessarily must include, if he speaks after the rate but of common sense especially considering the time he premised of the divisions of the Churches of which he discourses.

[Page] Secondly, to make all clearer yet, by his subsequent words in the 8th Section of that 17th chapter ‘[We will be prone enough to acknowledge this against others, viz. in those dominions where Popery hath so great a stroke: but it is more to our advantage to examine also what is amiss at home: for it doth not follow that because the number of the Beast is not upon us, that we doe not bestianize; nor is it the purple spots, but the disease, that is mortiferous.]’ What is amiss at home, surely cannot point at Churches abroad; at least so as to exclude our own.

Sect 5. He grants he hath said something wherein she may seem consequentially concerned, viz. (his concluding from the highest Epoche of the 1260. years, &c.) I have discovered enough wherein she is directly concerned: and therefore mean not to trouble my self with tracing him in his Apocalyptick computes, to examine what he calls a concernment consequential. Onely the Reader may take notice that the Doctor here in some measure grants, what hitherto he hath indeavoured to Deny.

This Section he concludes thus ‘[If I have been injurious either to the Protestant Reformation in general, or to our English Church in particular; I have, I think, made abundant amends in my Synopsis Prophetica (Pref. sect. 16. 17. 18. and Book 2. chap. 22. Sect 13.) to which I refer the Reader for fuller satisfaction.]’ The Doctors conscience heaved fair, and would fain have made him ingenuous: but that unlucky If, (if I have been injurious) blasted the Credit of his acknowledgement: for I hope it appears by what I have said in these Observations upon his Apologie, that his If, might and ought to have been spared. As for the abundant amends he boasts of; I easily believe he talks high things of our Church now, and would not stick to be hyperbolical in her encomium; for there is main reason for it: the winde is turned. But I must tell him, that if he obstinately persists in defending all that he [Page] wrote in his Mystery, (particularly, those things which these Objections point to) without the least confession plain and direct, that he hath said divers things rashly and falsly; his professions in his Synopsis (be they what they will) can signifie little to any sober men who are acquainted with his Mystery.

Sect. 6. In answer to that part of the Objection (The Reformers having separated from the great Babylon, have built less and more tolerable ones, but not to be tolerated for ever.) He brings upon the stage the whole Paragraph out of which it was cited: (and which being prolix, and, God knows, little to his purpose, I forbear to transcribe) after which he adds, ‘[What ill construction can be made of this Paragraph or any part of it, in reference to our English Church, I must confess, I cannot easily divine: for the English Church was out of fight, if not out of being, when I wrought this, that is to say, it was politically dead.]’

Though I have touched already upon this pitiful disingenuous evasion, in his saying that [when he wrote this] (not, when he printed and published it) our Church was out of sight: yet seeing he will needs offer it again, it is not amiss to say something farther. It seems, had the English Church been in sight when he wrote this, the ill construction made of it in reference to that Church had been just: what condition therefore it was then in, let us now consider. I suppose, in favour to the Doctor, that he wrote his Mystery during the time of our Churches famous Persecution. If it were then persecuted, it was not quite out of sight; and dead and gone: for no man persecutes that which there is no hope to discover: the Persecutors saw their game, and reach'd it too; and that, till the very year of his Majesties Return. The Doctor cannot be ignorant that the Church stood all that while established by law, and was therefore, by his favour, not Politically dead, but alive. It was notorious also that the Bishops, notwithstanding the flagrancy of the persecution against them, did [Page] every one of them nobly stick to their profession: so did very many of the rest of the Clergie; and thousands of the Nobility Gentry and Commons; choosing rather to part with their Estates and Liberties, then with their Religion: in which holy bravery they persisted, till Peace, together with his Majesty, returned to the Church and Nation. It is true, the free exercise of their Religion was violently overborn; Horses, Presbyterians, Independents, and such like things having invaded and taken possession of the publick Churches: yet still it was well enough known, that the Religion was professed (and that with more then ordinary zeal) in private Congregations; that the Churches daily service was there solemnly used, and the Sacraments reverently administred: still many were ordained by the Bishops: still the Fasts and Feasts of the Church were observed by thousands: still some Proselytes, much moved by the pious Constancy of our Confessours, were gained to our Religion; And had the question been then asked, where is the Church of England? it might truly have been answered, it was in England still, though unworthily and sadly oppressed: had the Doctor then sought for it, or any else who had lost it, they might have found part of it in the Tower, part in Newgate, part in Winchester-house, part in Elyhouse, part in Peter-house, and other Prisons: to say nothing of several constant Congregations in and about the City. Nay all the country over they might have retrived parts of it, had they but inquired for Persons notorious enough, I mean those whose profession of our Religion had exposed them to tyrannous sequestrations and plunders. Yet because our Church (though still by Law established, still maintained by so many religious Confessours) was barbarously persecuted, Dr More could take no notice of any such thing as the English Church: with what Church did he [who was then in Orders, and had solemnly ingaged himself to the Church of England) communicate all that while? Not with ours, that is plain enough: [Page] though he be now, upon the reflouirshing of it, fallen into a fit of magnifying it more (I believe) then ever they did who suffered so much for it.

But he proceeds ‘[For other Reformed Churches, which also are so laudably repurgated from the grosser corruptions of the great Babylon; of what ill interpretation can it be to exhort them to perfect the good work which is begun, and more carefully to cleanse out of the old leaven, &c. for thus they shall cease to be any longer so many lesser Babylons, cities of division and confusion, and so clear up at length (according to the design of him that called them out of that great Babylon) into one holy City of God.]’

I profess not to meddle with other Reformed Churches: nor do I count the Church of Englands case and theirs to be one and the same. Yet I cannot but observe the weakness of this Apologie: First, by Old leaven, he must needs understand Popery; and this he supposes still to remain in those Churches. I believe they will scarce thank him for his supposal; but rather give him flat defiance for it. Secondly, He taxed those Churches for having built less Babylons and more tolerable, but not to be tolerated for ever. What did they Build, but the frames and constitutions of their Government and discipline? These, saith the Doctor, are little Babylons, and not to be tolerated for ever. And yet he would have them perfect the good work they had begun, that is the little Babylons: but were these good works? and must they be perfected? why, this may make them great Babylons: the wiser course, sure, is to leave them imperfect, and little as they now are. I, but his following words (more carefully to purge out the old leaven) argue that he would have whatsoever is Babylonish, be purged out. Be it so: but then let him look how to reconcile those words with them which precede, viz. (to perfect the good work they had begun) for that work (as the Doctor hath ordered the business) was, the building of less Babylons; which [Page] work cannot be perfected, if all that is Babylonish must be rooted up.

In his 7th Section, he goeth on touching the Reformed Churches, presaging that God ‘[will not tolerate nor connive any longer at their childish squabling about nutshels, counters and cherrystones.]’ These, if there be any dependence and sense in his discourse, must be their little Babylons: so that his long tragical Invectives were, upon the matter, made onely against Boys-play. Mean while those Churches are much beholding to the Doctor, who makes them a company of silly coxcombs, whose most serious business (for such sure, is their Reformation) amounts to no more then squabling about such childish toys and trifles, as nutshels, counters and cherrystones.

His 8th Section he thus begins ‘[I have, I hope, by this time abundantly satisfied the 9th Objection, we come now to the tenth and last.’ It is well he doth not define, but onely hope so. Whether his hopes fail him or not, I leave to indifferent Judges; and follow to the 10th Objection, to which he replies in this 9th Chapter. ‘Object. 10.’ He saith that the Laws of God, are like words in an unknown tongue, till the conscience be convinced, lib. 10. cap. 10. as I take it. Whence it necessarily follows, that it is no sin to act against those Laws, if a man believe it lawfull. Then those who thought they did God good service in killing the Apostles, were no sinners in doing it.

(As I take it) said the Objector: which he would not have said, nor trusted his memory, but reviewed the place and set it down positively, if he had intended that his Objections as they were given to the Doctor should have been published. What the Doctor hath got by his publication of them he may thank himself for. In the mean time, it so happens that the [Page] Objector charged him not wrongfully in that particular: else he should have heard of it.

This, saith the Doctor, ‘[seems to be a smart and stinging Objection]’ and he saith so with scorn enough: for he presently adds ‘[That it reacheth not the right state of the Question]’ A great fault, I grant, If true: the very fault which I have so often detected in Dr Mores writings. To prove it therefore, he cites that passage in his Mystery, whence the Objection is taken, and subjoyns thus: ‘[where it is plain that the most essential part of the state of the question is omitted, by leaving out (in those that are sincere) and that therefore the Objection, though very strong, yet cannot touch or harm any position of ours by those formidable consequences, according as the question is by me stated in this 10th chapter, both in respect of the person, and also in respect of the matter of the command. Sect. 9 For I suppose the person sincere, and what I mean by sincerity I have fully explicated under my first Aphorism, and it is needless here again to repeat it. And for the matter of the command, I suppose it to be such things as are not discoverable by the light of nature, such as the belief of matter of fact done many ages agoe, and Religious precepts and ceremonies thereupon depending. But I have expresly declared in my 4th Aphorism extracted out of this 10th chapter, that nothing that hath any real turpitude or immorality in it, can justly be pretended to be the voice or command of God, to either the sincere, or unsincere. Out of all which we are abundantly furnished to answer this last Objection. I say therefore, that such Laws of God as are meerly positive, or depend upon historical or miraculous Revelation, are like words in an unknown tongue to him that is truly sincere, till his conscience be convinced. This I say, and this is all I have said in that 10th Chapter.]’

How his sincere person serves the Doctor for a subterfuge I have shown already, and need not repeat it. And that what [Page] he affirms to be all that he hath said in that 10th chapter, is not all, I could easily evince, were it requisite to the present point. But fully to gratifie him, I will take into the question both the person, and the matter of the command, which he desires; viz. the sincere, and that which hath turpitude and immorality in it: and then I hope the formidable consequences mentioned in the Objection will touch the Doctors position.

For the person; his Tenet is (which he repeats in his 10th Sect. of this 9th chapter) ‘[That the light and law of Nature and of eternal and immutable morality cries louder in the soul of the sincere then that he should admit of any such foul motions, much less as from God, or be ignorant of any indispensable morality, as if it were not his command.]’ But what thinks he then of S. Paul before his conversion? Was not he zealous and hearty in his Religon? he saith himself, Phil. 3.6. that he was touching Righteousness which is in the law blameless; that is, according to the knowledge which he then had of Religion, his deportment was so exact that it could not be taxed with any wickedness. Whereupon he faith 1 Tim. 1. 13. that though he had been (a blasphemer and a persecutor, and injurious; yet he obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly in unbelief) he did it not for want of sincerity and uprightness of heart in his present perswasion but onely for want of knowledge. Well, and what was it he then did? one particular was persecution of the faithfull, and that to the death: Act. 22. 10. he confesses that he assented to S. Stephens death: and doubtless he verily thought that herein he did God good service; accounting S. Stephen an enemy to the true Religion. Yet this act of his was a sin; for which (it being done ignorantly, notwithstanding the moral law printed in his heart) he afterwards obtained mercy. It appears then, that a person most sincere in his way may in blinde zeal run upon hainous sins, and such as Dr More holds to be against the moral law; viz. (to use his own words,) The killing of good [Page] men under pretence of heresie against the Iudaical Religion. Now what can be the reason of such zeal, but because this sincere Zelot counted that he obeyed Gods Will in this Action? It follows therefore, That the Law of Nature cries not so loud in the sincere soul, but that such a soul may sometimes admit such foul motions, and that, as proceeding from God. This for the Person.

Now for the Matter of the Command, viz. Things not discoverable by the Light of Nature; and these he supposeth to be such as have no real Turpitude or Immorality in them. For saith he, Any thing that includes such Turpitude or Immorality, cannot justly be counted the Command of God. Here I must reminde him of the example of Abrahams being commanded to kill his innocent son. This Act in the Doctors Opinion (for I have declared mine own about it already) was against the Moral Law; and therefore by his Rule Abraham could not justly count it the Command of God, but must have judged it a Trick of the subtile Tempter. I may add, Gods commanding Israel to plunder and spoil the Egyptians, which was against the 8th Commandment; as also his commanding them to invade the Countrey, seize the Possessions, and destroy the lives of the Canaanites, who never had done them injury. Would the Doctor have allowed the Israelites to dispute these Commands; to object that they were against the general Law of Nature, Quod tibi fieri non vis, &c. and that therefore they included Turpitude? I hope not. God is Lord of all things, and may do what he will with his own; yea, even with his own Laws. He hath not bound his own hands by binding ours, and giving Laws to Nature; and if at any time he thinks fit to countermand such Laws, his infinite Wisdom and Justice have sufficient reason for so doing, whether man understands it or no. The Moral Turpitude of violating the Law of Nature, is not imputable as such to any man who hath certainly received Gods Command to violate it; for [Page] whatsoever is Gods Command, is by being so necessarily free from inferring any Turpitude, and most undoubtedly Just and Right. So that though the Action examined by the standard of the Moral Law common to all men, would include Turpitude, yet Gods particular Law to the contrary doth wholly justifie it. (But then we must alwaies remember, that the Moral Law being his revealed known Will; it must be our Rule till we assuredly have his Will revealed unto us to the contrary.) Now I infer, ad hominem, I mean, as to Dr More, If God be above the Laws he hath made for us in general, and may in particular cases (for such onely concern this Querie) command contrary to those Laws; then doth that contrariety not at all prove such a Command not to be the Command of God. This for the Matter of the Command.

And now having premised this, I will as I promised (that the Doctor may have as fair play as himself can with) take into the Question his sincere Person; and such Matter of the Command as is not discoverable by the Light of Nature, viz. as himself terms it, The belief of matter of fact done many ages ago, and Religious precepts and Ceremonies thereupon depending; and Laws meerly Positive, or such as depend upon History and miraculous Revelation, and not the eternal Moral Law of God, (for these also are his phrases.) Nay, I will take in whatsoever else he can desire me, provided it be but a Command of God derived to the ears of the supposed sincere Man. His Position will then be this at least, namely, [That the Laws or Commands of God (such as are described, or any else that are certainly his Laws and Commands) are to the sincere man like words in an unknown tongue, till his Conscience be convinced.] And what hath the Doctor got by this new Model of his Position? for still the consequence mentioned in the Objection will be good, viz. [That it is no sin in that sincere man, to act against those Laws of God till his Conscience be convinced.] And [Page] so will the result of that consequence added in the Objection also, viz. [That those men sinned not, who thought they did God good service in killing the Apostles.]

For first, it appears by the example of St Paul, that those men might be sincere and right-heartily zealous in their Religion 2. The Laws of Christian Religion were in the Doctors sense Gods Positive Laws, for which those men persecuted the Apostles; and which they themselves ought to have imbraced, having heard them from the Apostles. 3. Though they heard them, they were not convinced in Conscience that they were Gods Laws, but quite the contrary; and this appears in that they thought they did God good service in persecuting the Apostles for them. 4. Being not convinced in Conscience that they were Gods Laws; by the Doctors Principle those Laws were but like words in an unknown tongue, and therefore obliged not these men to obey them. 5. If these men were not obliged to obey them, then they sinned not in disobeying and resisting them; nor in persecuting the Apostles to the death, for asserting those Laws against the Iewish Religion, which they were in Conscience perswaded to be of God; and for the defence of which their Religion, they were likewise perswaded in Conscience, that this their persecuting them, was doing of God good service.

But the Doctor tells us also, ‘[That invincible ignorance makes an Act involuntary, and that therefore there is no inconvenience to admit, that the transgression or non-observance of these kinde of Laws in him that is thus invincibly ignorant and unconvicted of them, (as we suppose the truly sincere to be) hath not the proper nature of sin in the sincere, though in the unsincere it may. This non-reception of Truth or Inconviction may be Trial, Punishment, or fatal Defect; but the nature of sin it properly hath not, as being wholly and perfectly involuntary, and absolutely out of [Page] the reach of the party to help it. For the nature of sincerity is to do all we can, and no man can do any more. Whence I will easily admit, That it is no sin to act against, that is, to transgress or not observe such Positive Laws of God, while a man stands unconvinced in such circumstances as I have described, firmly believing that it is lawfull for him not to observe them, and being fully perswaded that they are not his.’

First, Is it not pretty sport, that he makes the transgression of Gods Positive Laws to be sin in the unsincere persons, but no sin in the sincere? I have heard of an Opinion, that God sees no sin in his Children, and I have often wondered at it; but this fancy of the Doctor goeth much higher: God not onely doth not, but cannot see sin in them, for there is none in them to be seen; that which is sin in others, being no such thing in them.

Secondly, He saith, That non-reception of Truth in the sincere (which is indeed, as himself is forced to confess, the transgression of Gods Positive Laws) may be Trial, Punishment or fatal Defect.

1. For Trial, Can any sober man believe that God would make that a trial of his faithfull sincere Servant, which puts him necessarily upon resisting Truth, and not believing but transgressing his own Laws? This the Doctor holds that God doth by conveying into that person a false perswasion. But if he narrowly examineth the business, he will finde that this cannot possibly be any trial of such a mans Obedience, more then conveying a true perswasion would be; so that he makes God the Authour of falsity meerly gratis. Besides, this trial which the Doctor supposeth, is in truth no trial at all; for is any mans Obedience to God tried by his non-reception of Gods Truth! gerrae.

2. For Punishment, It is very strange, nay down right incredible that God should punish his sincere and excellent Servant [Page] (for such the Doctor makes him,) who doth all he can to know the Truth, by putting him in such a condition through false perswasion that he cannot receive the Truth; and this that God who hath promised that they who ask, seek, and knock, (that is, do what they can) shall not do it in vain.

3. For fatal Defect, what means the Doctor by this! Is his fate any thing different from Gods Providence? if not, why doth he make this a distinct branch from Gods proceedings with men? but if it be, he may in Mahomets School finde patronage for it, but not in Christs.

Touching the invincible ignorance in his sincere man, what could more vainly have been pretended? for in the close of the words I last cited out of the Doctor, he represents this man as one who firmly believes that it is lawfull for him not to observe such or such Positive Laws of God; and is fully perswaded that they are not his. If he so believes, and be fully so perswaded, it is certain that those Laws came to his knowledge; for he cannot believe or be perswaded touching any thing of which he is wholly ignorant. All the Question that remains is, Whether these Laws which he now hears and knows be Gods Laws or no? And what hinders him from believing them so to be if he hath a minde? What invincible Obstacle stands in his way? Not fate, I trow; nor any perverseness of his own, for he is supposed to be sincere, and to do all that he can for imbracing the Truth; which Truth is now before him, and ready for his acceptance. I cannot imagine what the Doctor can here reply, but that God himself interposeth by an irresistible false perswasion in that mans soul, and thereby bars out his own Laws which stand ready at that souls door, else the mans ignorance was plainly vincible. Now if God thus interposeth, (which no Christian ears will hear without horrour) I have no more to say.

The Doctor adds, ‘[It is not the firmness of our conviction [Page] or inconviction, that will warrant an act from becoming sinfull, but the perfect sincerity of the party; in that this conviction to what is false, or inconviction to what is true, ariseth not from any fault of his, but is invincible ignorance, and in such things as the most exquisite morality of minde cannot arrive to the knowledge of.]’

Here he very fairly overturns his own foundation. His Principle was, ‘[That nothing but conviction of Conscience that this or that is the Will of God, is properly the promulgation of his Will to every particular soul; otherwise it is but as the recital of a Law in a language the people understand not, and therefore can take no hold upon them.]’ They are his own words, and those which occasioned this 10th Objection. Now the proper promulgation of Gods Will, doth certainly warrant an Act from becoming sinfull. But this promulgation is, saith the Doctor, nothing but conviction of Conscience; wherefore nothing but conviction of Conscience warrants an Act from becoming sinfull. And what is this but point blank contrary to his present Affirmation, [That that which will warrant an Act from becoming sinfull, is not the firmness of our Conviction.]

The onely warrant he will allow, is the perfect sincerity of the Party. I had thought, that Gods Law it self had been both the Rule and warrant in this case. But that Rule and warrant, the godly Doctor makes no bones to slight and throw aside. But what reason gives he why that sincerity must be the warrant? namely, because [This conviction to what is false or inconviction to what is true, ariseth not from any fault of his, but is invincible ignorance, and in such things as the most exquisite morality of minde cannot arrive to the knowledge of.] Touching that fond pretence of invincible ignorance, I have said enough already. But were that ignorance really such, and truly invincible, and in those things which the most exquisite morality of minde cannot arrive to know; I see not [Page] how it concerns the present Controversie, for the Question is not touching such Commands of God as never come to the sincere mans ears; but such as though he hears them (and thereby knows them) yet he believes them not (as the Doctor states the case) to be Gods Commands. If he would use all exquisite moral diligence, he might finde cause to believe them; but because he hearkens rather to a contrary perswasion in his own minde, therefore he believes them not.

But after all this, I must minde the Doctor that in his Reason for his 4th Aphorism, chap. 7. sect. 2. He saith expresly, That the souls being convinced that this or that is Gods Command, is as it were the Kings Broad Seal, by which she is warranted to act. How will this consist with his Affirmation here, That it is not conviction or inconviction that will warrant an Act from becoming sinfull? If conviction be the warrant by which she may Act, inconviction also is the warrant by which she must refuse to Act. Nor can this warranty proceed (as here he saith it doth) from the perfect sincerity of the party. But as I have already often observed, contradictions are in this Doctors Writings so frequent, that I am past wondering at them.

He concludes thus, ‘[This (namely what I last cited out of him) is the true state of the Question, from which therefore the killing of the Apostles can fetch no excuse, for it is impossible that one of so sincere a heart and moralized minde as I suppose in this Controversie, should be invincibly ignorant, that to kill such holy and harmless men as the Apostles would be Murder, or something extreamly like it; and for those that are unsincere and immoral, sin alwaies lies at their own door. And this I hope will fully satisfie this last Objection.]’ Plaudite, Murder or something extreamly like it? How comes the Doctor so kinde to the not invincibly ignorant slayers of the Apostles, as to allow them this disjunction? [Page] surely it was down right murder, and not something extreamly like it.

But the Question was, [Whether the Laws of God are like words in an unknown tongue, till the Conscience be convinced, and that in a person sincere.] Here he makes the true state of the Question to be [Not that the firmness of conviction or inconviction will warrant an Act from being sinfull, but the perfect sincerity of the party.] Whether this be not a palpable varying of the Question let any man judge. Let us see therefore, Whether the killing of the Apostles may not fetch an excuse from that which is indeed the Question, or rather from the Doctors Position which is the ground of that Question.

First, Those who killed the Apostles might be (as St Paul was before his Conversion) sincere in the Jewish Religion. Secondly, If they were in Conscience perswaded of the truth of their Religion in opposition to the Christian, (as the Doctor upon his own Principles cannot deny but they might be,) then they believed in their Conscience, that the Apostles were not holy and harmless men, but deceivers, opposers of Gods true Religion, and introducers of a false one. Thirdly, if they so believed, they did not count it murder but justice to kill the Apostles; or (as the Text saith) they counted they did God good service by it. Now for their excuse or rather justification, I produce the Doctors Position, [That in sincere men, Gods Laws are like an unknown language, till their Conscience be convinced.] What will the Doctor object against them? any Law of God which forbade them to kill the Apostles? but they were not convinced that such Law was the Law of God: their Conscience told them the contrary, namely, that they fulfilled Gods Will, and did him gratefull service in killing them. Will he reply, That this errour of theirs was not invincible ignorance, but such as by true sincerity they might have helped, and that therefore they sinned? This will not serve, for how if that errour were conveyed into them by God [Page] for trial or punishment, and obliged them to act accordingly? that so it might be, the Doctor upon his own premised Principles must not deny; and if so, then no sincerity could withstand that effect. Or will he pretend, That they ought to have believed Gods Will preached to them by the Apostles, his true commissioners for that purpose? This will not do neither, for their Conscience being not convinced that what the Apostles preached was Gods Will or Law, it was (to use his own words) but like an unknown language, and therefore could take no hold upon them.

In his 10th Chapter the Doctor looks back upon his Atchievments, surveys his Conquest, and counts his Spoils; particularly magnifying himself in his reflection upon the sheer Baffle he hath given to each Objection. Then (as a wonderous pertinent Close to his Apologie for himself) he falls upon a huge Expostulation with the Sectaries, who yet need not desire any better weapons for their own defence, then he hath furnished them with in his Mysterie. If the Reader will follow him in that his glorious March, he will shew as much patience in so doing, as I profess indignation in forbearing.

FINIS.

Information about this book

Title statement

Some observations upon the apologie of Dr. Henry More for his mystery of godliness by J. Beaumont ...

Beaumont, Joseph, 1616-1699.

Edition statement

1665

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A27214

ID [STC]

Wing B1628

ID [STC]

ESTC R18002

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12257922

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12257922

ID [VID]

57586

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A27214)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 57586)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 166:15)

Source

— Some observations upon the apologie of Dr. Henry More for his mystery of godliness by J. Beaumont ..., Beaumont, Joseph, 1616-1699..

Extent

[2], 194 p.

Printed by John Field ...,. Cambridge [England] :: 1665.. (Reproduction of original in Newberry Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.