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
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
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
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 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. 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 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
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
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Reâ—…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 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 CHAP. IX HAving undertaken to be brief touching the two laâ—… 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
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