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
by telling us in this 4th Aphorism That nothing that hath in it any real Turpitude or Immorality can justly be pretended to be Gods command and therefore he hopes that we cannot charge him with making God the Authour of Sin in man by reason of any such false perswasions conveyed by him into mans minde But alas this shift will not serve for it God may be the Authour of what is not true who can be assured that what all the World hath hitherto counted real Turpitude and Immorality is so indeed the Rule by which the World judges of Turpitude and Immorality is the Light of Nature and the Moral Law and who is the Authour of this Rule but God how then shall the World certainly know that this is a True Rule not because God made it for by the Doctors new Divinity God may be the Authour of that which is not True Nor by the assistance of any creature for doubtless it is as possible for the creatures to deceive us as for the Creatour nor can they inform us of any thing more then their Creatour who may deceive them also is pleased to let them know Talk not then of Real Turpitude all Turpitude will prove but Imaginary and founded onely upon supposition That God who might have made the Moral Law a false Rule did make it a true one but how to evince that supposition to be an absolute Truth is perfectly impossible upon the Doctors Principle of which Principle the consequents are full of such portentuous universal confusion as excuses the whole rabble of former Heresies and indeed affrights and amazes my Meditation Sect. 3. He propounds this by way of question Whether a full and firm conviction of conscience in the sincere touching a Religion in which some things are incorporated that be false but without any moral Turpitude and of that nature that no moral sincerity may be able to discover the the falseness of them can be rightly said to be the command of God to that Soul whether for tryal or Punishment Then after a sally from it in the 4th and 5th Sect. he saith in the 6th That this Question will necessarily put as upon these three Disquisitions 1. Whether it be competible to the nature of God to convey a false perswasion into the minde of his creature 2. Whether it be competible to him to convey a false perswasion as may oblige the perswaded to act or profess according to this perswasion Religiously and Conscientiously this will come up very close to the 7th Objection to be propounded 3. Whether this false Conviction or Perswasion may rightly be called the Command of God to such a person thus perswaded Of these three why might not the Doctor have spared the third which seems plainly enough included in the second for if such a false perswasion conveyed by God obliges man to act accordingly it must needs be the Law or Command of God to that man But the multiplying of disquisitions makes but the mist the thicker which he studies to cast about the 7th Objection And yet the truth is his question is lyable to some other Disquisitions which he was not willing to discover For first I ask why he supposes such falsities in a Religion as no moral sincerity may be able to finde out Moral sincerity is able to ask seek and knock and they who ask shall have they who seek shall finde to them who knock it shall be opened And divine wisdom saith Prov. 8. 17. Those that seek me early shall finde me 2. Why he supposes that God may convey a false perswasion into the sincere Soul and that either for Tryal or Punishment for why should God Try or punish by falsehood when he may as well do it by Truth And of all men why should he thus try I mean by falshood or why thus should he punish him whom he knows to be sincere already These supposals are little to the Honour of the Divine Majesty nor could they possibly be made but by such a Theologue as Dr More But I now follow whether he leads me Against the first of his 3 Disquisitions he grants 2 considerable Arguments the the first That it is repugnant to Gods veracity the second that it is destructive of our belief of God in all things if we once admit that he will convey a false perswasion to us in any thing In order to answer these Arguments he first produces several Texts of Scripture touching this point with expositors opinions of them he begins with Rom. 11. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But how doth this concern Gods conveying a false perswasion into mens Souls Let the end or intent of this Act of God interpret the act it self the end is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might have mercy upon all and doth God convey a false perswasion into them that he may have mercy upon them especially that false perswasion being in points of Religion whatsoever then is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it cannot be a conveying into them falsity of religion But he adds Upon which Text Vatablus sub imperio saith he potestate Incredulitatis sinit esse facit ut ad tempus repugnemus gratiae ut rubore tandem perfusi sitiamus ejus misericordiam The Apostle here treats of the Jews incredulity touching Jesus his being the Messias It seems he liketh this comment which onely of all others he produces and yet he confutes it by what he annexes of his own to it for Vatablus restrains not the words as he ought and the Doctor doth to the incredulous Jews Ut sitiamus includes himself and other Christians Secondly if God facit ut repugnemus gratiae God is the Authour of sin unless the Doctor dares say that it is no sin to resist Grace Thirdly to resist Grace cannot be the way as Vatablus pretends to make us thirst after mercy but quite the contrary Hath not this Text and comment done the Doctor good service His next Text is S. Iohn 12. 39. 40. Therefore they could not believe because that Esay had said He hath blinded their eyes and hardned their hearts that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their hearts and be converted and I should heal them Here he falls upon the same impertinency as in his former Text for these words are spoken not of sincere persons who are propounded in his Question but of the unsincere and wicked Jews Besides was there no Moral Turpitude in these mens obstinate resisting the means of Salvation if there were it is not pertinent to his Question Lastly there needs no other Answer but Clarius his comment added here by the Doctor himself significat illos non potuisse credere ob excoecatam mentem obstinatum animum idque Deum suo ipsorum vitio culpâ permisisse Doth this infer that God conveyed into them a false perswasion and that so as to make it his command and oblige them to act sutably thereto
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
Command be not issued by the Keeper surreptitiously or of his own head and against the Princes Minde and Laws but so as the Prince himself prudens sciens doth wittingly and willingly as the Doctor here supposeth give way to the issuing of it this is as much to all intents and purposes the Princes Positive Commission and Command as if he had Orally in the most express words imaginable joyned his Keeper to Seal and Issue it This example therefore affords not the least parallel to the Doctors Chimera of a Permissive Command from God nor doth it prove the terms to be good much less very good and warrantable sense Had I leisure to be sportfull I would scan those pretty words of his invented as if on purpose pro Ridiculo Delectamento I mean not Permissive in contradistinction to Injunctive for that indeed were not so good sense but an obliging Injunction from their Prince yet coming to them onely by his Connivance and Permission this I understand to be a Permissive Command Wherefore let some body else ask him First How Permissive can be understood to be Permissive and yet not contradistinct to Injunctive Secondly How that can be an obliging Injunction which comes but by Permission and Connivance That the sequel involves him in inextricable non-sense who can help it seeing the Doctor will rather venture to speak any thing then yield that he hath spoken amiss Sect. 17. He saith Wherefore having rightly stated and cleared the three Particulars of the Question propounded we shall now be bold to infer the whole Conclusion in this 5th Aphorism Reader how rightly and clearly he hath performed what he here boasts do thou judge mean while I follow him to his 5th Aphorism which runs thus That a full and firm conviction of Conscience in a soul that is sincere touching a Religion into which some things are incorporate that be false but without any moral Turpitude and of that nature that no moral sincerity may be able to discover the falseness of them is rightly said to be the Permissive Command of God to that soul for either punishment or trial I see how loath he is to leave his trick of intruding more terms in the Conclusion then he propounded in the Question for instead of these words in his Questistion Sect. 3. Can be rightly said to be the Command of God here he saith Is rightly said to be the Permissive Command of God But let this pass Having produced his Aphorism he presently falls a crowing in this fashion This Assertion I hope to all indifferent Judges will appear both true and modest That it is true is falsly said which appears by what I have alledged against his Proofs of it That it is modest whatever the Doctors hopes be it will never seem such till the world can so far dote as to believe that one repugnant thing doth signifie another that to Command is to Permit and to Permit is to Command That Permissive may signifie Injunctive and Injunctive Permissive That Boldness of Innovations may signifie Madesty vice versâ and that therefore the one may without impudence be used for the other Well but as True and Modest as it is he dares not trust it abroad in that garb which in his foregoing Sections he took such large pains to trim it in His Conscience pricked the man on to say something more though God knows just nothing ad rem He pleads that he understands not this Perswaswasion or Command of God in any false Religion in a Positive sense but onely Permissive and means not that in such a case God as it were riseth off from his Seat to act or speak but onely by letting the course of things go on and giving no stop to secondary causes such a perswasion as from God is conveyed into the minde of man permissione certâ efficaci Doth not this interfere with his alledging Abrahams example as most unexceptionable for his purpose did God there onely let the course of things proceed without putting a stop to secondary causes But that which I chiefly observe here is his staggering quite from his principle in those words Such a perswasion as from God is conveyed into the minde c. Now it seems it is but as from God not from God As from God and that onely by his letting of the course of things go on and thus Gods conveying of a false perswasion into the mindes of men is defended by denying it by conveying it away out of that which he will defend and yet that perswasion must still be conveyed that Dr More hath not conveyed any errour in his Writings Nor stays he here but by a strange giddyness reels again to his former fancy for he adds in the later part of this 17 h Sect. That God conveyeth a false perswasion into the minde of his Creature Not by a positive particular exertion of his power upon the Creature but onely by an effectual permission of secondary causes But this onely intangles him in a farther absurdity as I have somewhere hinted before and must since the Doctor here leads me to it declare again For if Gods permission of secondary causes be Gods Command then God Commands all the sins in the world The Doctor therefore must be content to grant that Gods Permission is no more then permission and not jumble Permitting and Commanding together in his contradictious Notion of Commanding Permissively For if he thinks to get off by calling this Permission an effectual Permission his device will fail him seeing the sins which God permits are effectually permitted if he will so speak else they could not be acted upon his Permission But this effectualness is not from any positive operation of God but of those the Doctor terms the secondary causes namely finners themselves Now though God knows that if he withdraws his restraining Goodness those secondary causes will certainly produce sinfull effects yet he may in his Justice and for reasons known to himself withdraw that his restraining Goodness nor can he therefore be charged to be an effectual concurrer to those sins seeing those second causes are supposed to be free Agents and onely biassed to perverseness by their own prevailing Corruptions In his 18th Sect. he sums up what he had premised in five Particulars in the fourth whereof he falls upon a new shift to palliate the odiousness of his Position viz. The Injunction and Command may rightly be conceived to lye rather upon that part of the Religion that is unexceptionably true then upon what is erroneous He supposeth thus much truth in the false Religion conveyed by God as to acknowledge one true God and life to come and a blessed immortality for those that serve him in sincerity and truth As for other points it may be erroneous but saith he Gods Command may rightly be conceived to lye rather upon that part which is true then upon what is crroneous I will grant him more then thus for I affirm that
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