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 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 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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