for my fiery zeal that wears no mask the Apostle says Gal. 4. 18. It is good to be zealous in a good matter and as good to be zealous against a bad one And is not the spirit of God resembled to fire Which where it appears in truth it will burn off all masks of Hypocrisy and make men walk in all simplicity of Conversation before God and before men But why is my disputing open railing If I speak any thing false witness of the falâ—hood But if the corruptions of your Church be such that they cannot be named by their proper Names such as all solid Theologâ— Philosophy and ordinary humane Laws would call them in calling them so am I a Rayler or you very great and enormous sinners I speak of those two grand crimes Idolatry and Murder which are interwoven into your Religion And whetâ—er my Arguments be blustering words or solid Reason let any indifferent Reader judge by what has passed â—itherto in your pretended Confuration of this Antidote against Idolatry and in my â—o clearly proving my Reasonings therein to remain sound and unshaken for all the Battery you could lay against them And whereas you add not always too much concerned whether true or false it is such an equivocating Imputation that look one way on it it says less than is true For I confess I am never too much concerned whether I speak true or false especially considering of what moment the things are I write of But if you mean I am not always enough concerned whether what I affirm be true or false The tree is known by its fruits â—â—ow me where I have trip't or if I have any where trip't prove that it was out of carelesne's whether it was true or false which I uttered And this I think he pretends he will show in this Dehortation of mine For immediately he adds Witness the Contents of this Chapter whereof I shall give my Reader a brief Extract drawn up in the Form of an Homily yet in the Doctors own words and charitable Dialect Thus then begins the Dissuasive Repl. This is a Dissuasive of my Adversaries own making whom though I acknowledge a man of Wit and Eloquence yet I will not trust him in making speeches for me and seâ—ing his Dissuasive is pretended but an Epitome of mine and mine being already under the eye of the Reader I hold it altogether impertinent to set down his especially he putting his for mine and calling it so adding at the end of it This is Mellifluous Dr. Mores sweet harangue c. The truth is he has made as dry and lank an Homily as he could and heaped up those Titles their Church is adorned with in the Apocalypse barely and nakedly without the Occasions and circumstances I bring them in upon to make himself and his party merry and to make my serious Exhortation to deceivable People that they take heed of the frauds and danger of that Church to look ridiculously But this is one Artifice of theirs amongst the rest when the weight of Reason and Religion presses on them to any purpose to slip from under it by some ludicrous jest or profane raillery Wherefore letting this drollery pass let us observe what in good earnest he would weaken my Exhorration by or where is that place in it where he will make good that Imputation against me that I am not enough concerned whether what I say be true or false Now I would gladly know says he what there is in all this discourse which an ingenuous Son of the Church of England will not be heartily ashamed of and even blush for the Doctors sake Repl. Why did you then make such a silly Oration in my name that all the ingenuous Church-men in England should be ashamed of it as well they might if I had made such a jejune lank piece of stuff as your officiousness has made for me But for mine I dare say there is no ingenuous Son of the Church of England unless â—ou measure the Iâ—genuity and Disingenuity of men by their affection and disaâ—fection to the errors of your Chuoch as you seem to do in Dr. Taylor much less any genuine Sons of our Church but will approve of the firmness reasonableness and seasonableness of such an Exhortation Here is I confâ—ss quoth he stout railing Disingenuity more than is necessary for a Doctor c. Repl. Here the Reader may be pleased to take notice of the special sense of Disingenuity with my Antagonist namely that it is the plainly speaking such Truths as argue the gross errors and perillous Enormities â—f the Church of Rome Whenas it is ten thousand times more disingenuous according to the law of God and Nature to smother Truth to the great and real injury of both the Church of Rome and our own And then for my stout Railing which else where he calls that â—nmanly Rhetoâ—ick of Railing let us put them together The stout unmanly Rhetorick of Railing I demand If it be either ferine or womanish with a plain open Constancy to declare those Truths that are of such vast Concern and of so perspicuous a clearness to those that do not wilfully wink against them Or if the propriety of language and to declare according to the nature and true Notion of things and that without all ill will be any form of Rayling Unless Adam in the state of Innocency railed when he gave names according to the natures of the Creatures And this great Clamour against me of Railing is because I call Idolatry Idolatry and the killing of men because they will not commit Idolatry with the Church of Rome barbarous murder But if he mean because I call the Church of Rome by those Titles the Spirit of God calls her in the Apocalypse my Apology is already made in the twenty fourth Paragraph of this 10th Chapter Which I desire my Antagonist and every one it may concern in the fear of God toâ— peruse and to consider the latter part of it touching those eight last Chapters of the first book of my Synopsis Prophetica and my Exposition of the seven Epistles to the seven Churches of Asia In both which Expositions I challenge any diligent searcher to show any considerable flaw that will lessen the certitude of them for the main or if they think there is the least faultering in this proposal let them show any flaw at all if they can For as for my self though I have been an anxious searcher after Truth I was never yet satisfied concerning any more palpably than of these I speak of Which God knows I do not speak in the way of Boasting but merely to excite the ingenuous to try the strength and evidence I find them that they may thereby after a manner whether they will or no feel it also themselves and find it Nor do I use those Names of Infamy wherewith the Spirit of God has branded the Pontifician Clergy nakedly and without occasion as my Antagonist has
no man can maintain it by Truth And therefore to bring a true Argument against us in defense of it would be to bring an impertinent one For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truth always agrees with never clashes with Truth as Aristotle has noted And therefore it is not to be imputed to the weakness of my Antagonist but of his Cause that with undeniable evidence I have perpetually confuted his Answers though I believe he has brought as good as the Cause is capable of and managed them and intermingled them with such circumstantial Rhetorical humours slights and tricks to make something of nothing and to make a show of Answering and confuting me that I must freely confess he is a complete Artist in that Roman Sophistry whereby they become cunning Anglers for poor deceivable Souls And thus much in short upon his Title-page and Advertisement We come now to his Introduction which I shall cast into so many Paragraphs and so Answer them in order Paragraph the first Dr. Henry More is a Person whose Learning and Parts have brought him into a name among the Professors of the refined Arts and Sciences Fame speaks him a great Philosopher And his Publick works are said to avouch no less Nay some have passed so far in favour of his Character as to term him The great Restorer of the Platonick Cabbala And truly if this be so I conceive the Gentleman had done himself a great deal of right if he had still kept to his own Element for as much as his late unlucky ingaging in Controversial Disputes cannot but prove a blot to his former undertakings For the Learned world must needs acknowledge that Dr. More the Controvertist is much degenerated from Dr. More the Philosopher The Answer Here observe the art and smooth cunning of my Adversary who drives at these two things First to make show of a great deal of equity and candor of judgment in acknowledging notwithstanding the Controversie betwixt us that I am not altogether nothing in matters of Philosophy but have writ with some success and acceptance on such Subjects that he thus seeming so impartial and indifferent a man and so readily acknowledging any thing well done by me he may the more easily be believed where he gives judgment against me and says That though I be something succesfull indeed in Philosophy yet I am very unlucky and unskilfull in Theological Disputes a tolerable Philosopher but a very mean Controvertist in points of Divinity The other drift is to make me if it were possible to melt and relent that I have thus lessened my credit in the world by my unfortunately ingageing in Controversies betwixt us and the Church of Rome as if he bemoaned my misfortune therein who if I had kept to my own Element of Philosophy might have been gratious and acceptable with all the world with the Pontifician party as well as vvith the reformed and kept up my Credit in force with all when as now I have hugely impaired my repute at least with those of his Party But to the first I Answer That though this Intimation of his own Impartiality be craftily enough managed yet that general acknowledged Testimony of my suffering in Philosophy is a witness against himself For if I have been so usefull and succesfull in my Philosophical demonstrations of the existence of God and Immaterial Beings in the vindication of Divine Providence in the proving of the Immortality of the Soul and in finding the ancient Iudaical Cabbala which the Platonick Philosophy is so near akin to so artificially couched in the Text of Moses and the like all which tend to the honour and safety of the Christian Religion the same clearness of sight which helps me to discern and judge of these things cannot but inable me to judge also in those concerning points that are betwixt you and us As that eye that can see one colour right is not confined to that colour but by the same faculty and soundness of sight can see another And it is more my impartialness and unprejudicedness than any thing else that makes me see so clearly and so truely in any thing As to the second my Adversary has suggested no more nor so much as I have diverse times reflected upon my self and was well aware of before I meddled with these kind of Controversies namely that it would lessen my repute and favour with many But if I seek to please men how shall I be the servant of Iesus Christ as the Apostle speaks Gal. 1. 10. And as for the business of Repute and Esteem in the world I thank God I am convinced even from my very Heart and Soul that I ought to be utterly dead to all Self-joy and Self-gloriation and therefore if any thing happen cross to that life that ought to be mortified in me if it moves me not I am at peace if it does it is yet the gift of God to me and I am admonished thereby to advance furthâ—r into that death by the power and Spirit of Christ that will at length lay asleep all such disturbances in my Soul for ever And there are greater matters than the esteem of men which I am not insensible but have always been well aware that I run the hazard of and such as that wisdom which is according to the Spirit of this world sets the greatest esteem of all upon But this I thank God could never affright me into the neglect of so undispensable a duty as the declaring so important truth so exceeding clear to my self and of so unspeakable consequence for the Church of God and for the settling of a true grounded peace in the Christian world That there might be truely one flock and one Sheepfold and Jesus Christ the true Shepherd over all which cannot be till such Barbarous and Idolatrous Laws and Instituâ—es be reversed as obtain still in the Papacy But for my part my great Fort and Shelter against all the Inconveniences I expose my self to by my just liberty of speech is to keep as near as I can in that frame of spirit which our Saviour commends to us in that Precept of his Matth. 5. 44. Love your enemies bless them that curse you do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despightfully use you and persecute you Father forgive them for they know not what they do Luk. 23. 34. This is the Sanctuary I desire to take shelter in even in that ineffably profound and humble Spirit of unself-interessed Love which I infinitely prefer before all the keenness of wit and crafty prudence of the Spirit of this world that so subtily shifts for it self which I envy no mans use or injoyment of may but my Soul sufficiently incorporate with this lovely Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ may that be the lot of mine inheritanec both in this life and for ever For this is that which is truely invincible indeed and will easily put by any such thrust as my
no necessity of the granting of the production of a new Body which was not before but onely that the Body begins to be where it was not before As in the augméntation of our Bodies there is no need of a new Soul but the same Soul occupies those parts of matter that have accrewed to the Body in its augmentation The first is verbatim out of him The second Answer contains the full strength of his own words The Reply To the first Answer I Reply That it has no basis For Physicks exhibit no such probability nor has he nor can he produce the least Instance thereof But in the mean time it is worth the taking notice of in this Answer how well assured in his own mind for all his external cavilling before my Adversary is That the meaning of that Proposition of mine That that individual thing that can be and is to be made of any thing is not was intended by me of such things as which once made are not to be destroyed or in such a sense as this That that individual thing that can be made or is to be made of any thing in that point of time that it is to be made is not Which is an Axiome noematically true And therefore to say that a Body is by a first production but yet still remaining produced is to be again produced entirely even while it remains produced that is to say that it remains produced already in that very point of time that it is to be produced is plainly to confess that the very same individual thing is produced and not produced or unproduced at the same time For the terminus productionis is one and the same individual body A. Now according to Aristotle and the common sense of all men all production whether Accidental or Essential has its contrary termes and proceeds à Privatione ad Actum from Privation to Act. So that let A be Accident or Essence A must be supposed not to be that it may become A or be made A supposing A such an Individual Body when it is to be produced the Termini Productionis are non-A and A. That which is to be made A from not being A it becomes A. Otherwise it being the same Individual Body and being before it could not of not being this Individual Body become this Individual Body A but onely A would be in a new place Which is no Essential production as is here supposed but onely local mutation and consequently the Individual Body A is not produced when it is thus supposed reproduced And therefore if it be really reproduced as is pretended it is a demonstration that it then was not Wherefore it being certain that our Saviours Body does not cease to be if Transubstantiation be true that pretends it reproduced it necessarily implies that it then is not And therefore it plainly is and is not according to that doctrine at the same time Besides if it were possible that A suppose Socrates could be produced while Socrates is in being it can be no otherwise then thus that is to say That another man exquisitely Socrates to whom Socrateity is fully and essentially communicated in all points is also produced But then this will also follow that Socrates is now become a Genus and this and that Socrates are the species infimae of it which we usually call Individuals and so they will not be idem numero but diversa numero and consequently not the same Persons And so the same Individual Socrates or the same Individual A will be produced and not produced at the same breath For things that differ numerically cannot be the same Individuals So impossible every way is this first Fiction and implies still the same Repugnancy For iâ— in the second production the individual Body of Christ be produced it necessarily argues that Body before not to be his individual Body so that his Body then was not according to the doctrine of Transubstantiaâ—ion which yet certainly was and therefore if that doctrine be true it is again true That the Body of Christ is and is not at the same time To the second Answer I Reply First That it is apparently repugnant to the very Definition of Transubstantiation by the Council of Trent Which saith ' That there is a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ. Which say they is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation But if there were no production of the Body of Christ but onely the causing of it to be where it was not before this would not be properly Transubstantiation but mutatio Localis But in the action of Transubstantiation the terminus is substantia not Locus it being the transubstantiating one substance into another Secondly If the Body of Christ be not produced but there be onely mutatio Localis the substance of the Bread either remains or is annihilated That the Bread remains is expresly against the doctrine of the Roman Church That it is annihilated is to give the power of Annihilation to a creature which is onely proper to God and to supose that every consecration of the Host annihilates so much of the matter of the Universe which mustneeds seem very harsh and absurd to any unprejudiced Judgement Besides that there is this palpable repugnancy in it That whereas Transubstantiation is said to be the conversion of all the substance of the Bread into Christs Body this plainly implies that there is the conversion of none at all into it it being all annihilated and exterminated out of the Universe To say nothing of the Accidents of the Bread remaining after this Annihilation it being unconceivable where they should be subjected or that any modes of substance should be separated from their substance and exist without it And then to what end it should be that the species of the Bread should appear by the Divine Omnipotency the substance of Bread being annihilated When it would conduce far more to our belief of the corporeal Presence of Christ in lieu of the annihilated Bread if those species did not appear or were so changed that they seemed much above the nature of ordinary Bread Which things being not it is a plain Judication to the unprejudiced that the Bread is still Bread after the Consecration Else God would be found exercising his Omnipotency in exhibiting such perfest species of Bread and Wine in such a way as is most effectual to drive all Christians to the misbelief of the pretended Mystery of Transubstantiation Which were a grand absurdity and incompeâ—ible to the Divine Wisdom and Goodness if that Mystery were true And thirdly and lastly for his quaint allusion to the Soul which being the same yet extends it self into new parts of matter accrewing to the Body in its augmentation it is a pretty offer of wit but in my apprehension it extremely falls short of the present Case For the Soul being still one and the same Spirit undistanced from it self