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 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 Laâ—… 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 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 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 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
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
One thing and if you will believe him he meant Another But that he meant not thus is evident enough by the words he added in that former Paragraph viz. Other things suppose the lesser and more dispensable as being of humane Institution are to be so gently recommended that no conscientious man may be pinched thereby Now if all things besides Articles of Faith and indispensable Duties of Life must onely be Recommended then must they not be Commanded and so they will prove no object of the Churches Discipline Nay the Doctor will have them Recommended yet but Gently doth not this look like an Act of Discipline and so as not to pinch conscientious men I know who will owe him immortal thanks for this Doctrine which if it be sound any Non-conformist may pretend Conscience and cry out of being Pinched and then he ought to have his liberty But the Doctor forgets not to interpret this passage also and in effect he tells us that by Gently Recommended his meaning was Commanded For thus he expounds these words Other things so gently recommended that conscientious men may not be pinched thereby that is to say That the like severity is not to be used in things that are not of so indispensable a nature And who doubts of this but to Recommend and Gently and so gently as no man may be pinched is I take it No severity at all nay no Discipline at all so far is it from being a like degree of severity to that which is used in points indispensable Nevertheless by Gently Recommending the Doctor meant a less degree of severe Discipline He hath most aenigmatick meanings Nor can I pass by those other words of his without a note For this viz. that the Articles of Faith and indispensable Duties of Life should be the object of Discipline is really for the glory of the Gospel the security of mens souls in the conduct of them to Heaven and also for their comfortable abode here on earth It seems then in the Doctors Judgement That the due observance of Ecclesiastick Laws in things indifferent is not really for the glory of the Gospel nor for security of mens souls in the way to Heaven Tell the people this and with what better Argument for Schism and Faction can you furnish them for why should they trouble themselves to submit to that which is not really for the Gospels glory nor their safe passage to Heaven Dr More teacheth them if they will but have wit enough to understand him right that their Disobedience to the Churches Laws is no real impediment of their salvation or of the Gospels glory Nay this is not all Do the people desire a comfortable abode on earth the same Doctor hath kindly signified to them that the like Disobedience is no real impediment to this neither And let him not pretend that I here wrest his words to an odious sense for if there be any sense at all in that part of his Argumentation I have done him no wrong If obedience to the Churches Laws be really for the Gospels glory the promotion of our salvation and our comfortable abode upon earth as in truth it is Then ought it to be held up with all possible care and strictness and to be a part of the main object of the Churches Discipline But the Doctor argues That the Articles of Faith and indispensable Duties of Life are onely that main object For this viz. that they onely should be the main object is saith he really for the glory of the Gospel c. which Reason of his is no Reason unless less he means That the other is not really so seeing if it were really so it might by his own very Reason be part of that main object In the same 7th Sect. he thus proceeds I think it is pretty plain already that I do not affirm that Church-Discipline should comprehend onely the generally acknowledged Articles of the Christian Faith and plain indispensable Duties of Life His words were That it is to comprehend Nothing but them These words are more then pretty plain and he cannot deny that so he wrote How pretty plain then is it which he saith here let any one judge who is capable of understanding a Contradiction But still he is confident that he did in his former Book establish and leave intire Church-Authority in things Indifferent Which saith he Sect. 8. No man could make any question of did he but compare one part of my Preface with another as that which occurs Sect. 13. at the close c. Had it been true That in some part of his Preface he doth establish that Authority or leave it intire which he will hardly prove yet the Objection was justly made for why may he in any part of his Book undermine or deny this Authority I could weary the Reader with instances where this Doctor writes repugnantly to himself Is it therefore justifiable in him to write what he lists in one place against the Church because in another place he doth or may seem to write for her What is this but to give his Mother a Bit and a Knock But in these Repugnancies his Proselytes know well enough which is indeed his meaning They are not to seek where he speaks what he would have them believe and where he speaks what may preserve him from being obnoxious to the secular Power Or if any of them be so dull as not to discover this and therefore may take offence the Doctor may full as rationally Apologize for himself to his offended Brethren out of one sort of passages in his Writings as he doth to his Reader here out of the other sort But let us see what he would have us here compare in his Preface viz. That which occurs Sect. 13. at the close thereof There shall be nothing held essential or fundamental but the indispensable Law of the Christian Life and that Doctrine that depends not upon the fallible Deductions of men but is plainly set down in the Scripture other things being left to the free Commendation of the Church ensnaring no mans Conscience nor Lording it over the Flock of Christ and still holding on in the next Section which certainly they do that call those things Antichristian that are not and thereby make more Fundamentals then Christ and his Apostles Which Errour is the very effence and substance of Antichristianism and of that grand Apostacy of the Church Having said this he falls into his wonted fit for he adds Can there be any thing more express and pertinent for the Vindication of the Power and Liberty of the Church in appointing things Indifferent then this Yes surely good Doctor there may All that you leave here to the Church touching things Indifferent is to Recommend them It had been more express and pertinent if you had left her Power to Command them But to see the unluckiness of it The Doctor here makes the Doctrine touching the Churches Authority in things Indifferent to
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 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Wâ—… and Law is therefore that Will and Law not promulgateâ— to that man till his Conscience is convinced A very strangâ— 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 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
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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 le ts 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
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 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 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 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 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
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