Henry More: A Biographical Essay

  • Robert Crocker
Part of the International Archives of the History of Ideas/Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Idées book series (ARCH, volume 127)


Henry More was born in Grantham, Lincolnshire, in October 1614, the seventh son of Alexander More, a scion of a large and honourable northern landed family.1 Brought up in a large Calvinist gentry household, More was sent as a child to the local grammar school in Grantham. After revealing something of his intellectual abilities there, at fourteen his education was taken in hand by a learned uncle, Gabriel More, sometime Fellow of Christ’s College in Cambridge, and sent to Eton ‘to perfect his Latin’.2 In a little autobiography included in the General Preface to his Opera omnia (1679), More describes how his rather thoughtful and studious nature early led him into conflict with his uncle and brother over the doctrine of predestination -he was the chastised for ‘a forwardness in philosophizing’.3 Entered under Robert Gell at Christ’s in Cambridge in late 1631, More shows himself to have been a gifted poet and an acute and sensitive student, early taking up the difficult subject of metaphysics as the main focus of his energies.4 However, by the time he graduated, like a number of other intellectual Puritans of his generation, he had become disillusioned with the scholastic masters of his metaphysical studies, and particularly with the apparent incompatibility between their teaching on the nature and origin of the soul and the doctrines of the Church.5


Natural Theology Number Symbolism Metaphysical Argument Philosophical Theology Absolute Goodness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    More’s family and lineage is discussed by A. Grosart, in his introduction to his Complete Poems of Henry More, and by J. A. Peile, Biographical Register of Christ’s College, 1: 239. His father, Alexander was Alderman of Grantham, while his grandfather, Richard, had been the MP (1585) for the town. Henry More was the seventh and youngest son. See also Richard Ward, Life, 1–10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    On Gabriel More, D.D., see Peile, Register, 1:238. Three of Henry’s elder brothers also went to Christ’s - Richard (the eldest son, matriculated 1615), Alexander (the second son, matriculated 1615), Gabriel (the fifth, matriculated 1627). At Eton, More’s master was John Harrison, who was also master of Robert Boyle and John Beale. See R. Birley, “Robert Boyle’s Headmaster at Eton”, N & R, 13 (1958), 104–14, which also lists the remains of Harrison’s library in the Eton library. John Hales, the English envoy who ‘bid John Calvin goodnight’ at the Synod of Dort was Provost of Eton at this time. It seems likely that the young More was influenced by Hales or Harrison.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ward, Life, 6. See also More, Praefatio Generalissima, sects. 5–7. Opera, 2.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peile, Register, 1: 414. On Gell, see ibid.., 301 and Gell’s Remaines, ed. N. Bacon, 2 vols. (London 1676).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ward, Life, 10, and More, Praefatio, sect. 8 (omitted by Ward). See also C.C. Brown, “Henry More’s ‘Deep Retirement V 451–2.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ward, Life, 12; from More, Praefatio, sect.9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibid. See also Ward, Life, 13. On the significance of the Theologia Germanica, a work also much admired by the Quakers, see R. M. Jones, Spiritual Reformers in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (London: Macmillan, 1928), xxvi and 4.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ward, Life, 15, trans, from More, Praefatio, sect. 10. See also Brown, “Henry More’s ‘Deep Retirement’,” 451–2.Google Scholar
  9. 9a.
    See R. Sharrock, ‘Spiritual Autobiography and the Pilgrim’s Progress’, Review of English Studies, 24 (1948), 102–120,Google Scholar
  10. 9b.
    and D. Ebner, Autobiography in Seventeenth Century England (The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1971), 31 ff. More’s use of autobiography does not conform to Ebner’s main classifications, but does reflect his Puritan background. His preoccupation is not with his own sinfulness, even in this early period (see the poem, “Aporia”, in Ward, Life, 11), but with his nescience or ignorance, a gnostic emphasis that contrasts sharply with the soteriological concerns of mainstream Puritan autobiography. See also More, IS, III, xix, 9, where he praises the clarity of the dualism of gnostic Manicheanism; and the extreme dualism and implicit gnosticism of More’s poem, Insomnium Philosophicum, first published with Democritus Platonissans (1646); reprinted in Poems (1647), 324–8.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    More, in Ward, Life, 14.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Ibid, and see below. This is an important Greek concept More takes over from the mystical theology of the Greek Fathers. See V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (London: J. Clarke,1957), 9 ff., and 133 ff.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    See C. A. Patrides, The Cambridge Platonists, 5, 19 ff. More’s two little early poems, “Aporia” and “Euporia”, written to commemorate his early state of despair and later ‘conversion’, significantly appear to be modelled on some verses by Gregory Nazianzen, according to More’s friend Edmund Elys. See M. H. Nicolson, Conway Letters, p. 300, and More to Elys, in Elys, Letters on Several Subjects (1694), 6–7, in which the Greek model of these verses is cited. The original translation is in Elys to More, December 17, 1669, Christ’s College, Cambridge, Ms 21, f.15.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    Ward, Life, 15 ff.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    C. A. Staudenbaur, “Galileo, Ficino and Henry More’s Psychathanasia”, claims More is indebted to Ficino for the structure of this poem. This is disputed by A. Jacob, “Henry More’s Psychodia Platonica and its relationship to Marsilio Ficino’s Theologia Platonica”.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Staudenbaur, however, sees this poem as an anachronism inspired by Ficino’s influence: art. cit., previous note, p.575. As is apparent from More’s Praefatio, sect. 8, philosophical monism was of great concern to him. And as his own remarks indicate Plotinus is his inspiration here. See Antipsychopannychia, Preface, p. 216.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Brown, “Deep Retirement”, p.451–2.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    See the account of More’s last years and death in Nicolson, Conway Letters, pp.469–475.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Brown, “Deep Retirement”, pp.449–50.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Ward, Life, 120.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    On Mede, see DNB, and Peile, Register, 1: 245–7. See also See Masson’s Life of Milton 1 vols.(1881–94), 1: 125–7; and Mede’s Life by his former pupil, John Worthington, which is prefixed to Mede, Works 3rd. edition (London, 1672).Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    Gell was described as a ‘perfectionist’ by Jeremy Taylor in a letter to John Evelyn, The Whole Works of... Jeremy Taylor, ed. R. Heber, 15 vols.(London, 1828), 1: lxxxv and lxxxviii. Baxter described him as a ‘sectmaker’, Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696), 1: 78. An example of this ‘perfectionism’ can be found in Gell’s Remaines, 1: 148 and 155–80.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    Worthington’s Life of Mede, Works 3rd. ed. (London 1672)xvii–xix, and Mede’s remarks on ‘saving fundamentals’ in several of his letters to Samuel Hartlib appended thereto, ibid., 863 ff., especially 868–9, on his rather latitudinarian distinction between ‘Fundamentals of Salvation, and Fundamentals of Ecclesiastical Communion’.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    On this friendship, see Worthington’s Life of Mede, p.iii. See also Hutton, “Thomas Jackson, Oxford Piatonist”, JHI 34 (1978): 635–652 especially 641–6. In keeping with his latitudinarian irenicism, Mede was also a friend of Jackson’s theological opponent, William Twisse, who wrote prefaces to Mede’s Apostacy of these Latter Times (London, 1641), and Key of Revelation (London, 1643). Edmund Elys, More’s confidant and disciple, in his Excerpta Quaedam (1672) defends Jackson against the charge of ‘Vorstianism’. On this charge, see Hutton, art. cit., 639.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    J. A. Peile, History of Christ’s College, 99 ff., and H. P. Fletcher, The Intellectual Development of John Milton, 2 vols. (Chicago, 1961), 2: 23.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    More, CSPW, Preface General–vii and xvi–xix.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    ibid, p.xvi–xix.Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    See More, DD, 5th and 6th Dialogues for an eloquent summary of More’s interpretation of the coming millenium, and The Defence of the Moral Cabbala (1653), in CSPW, (1712), 222, for the idea that the millenium will be characterized by the removal of the existing boundary between the spiritual and physical worlds.Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    On More and Hartlib, see C. Webster, “Henry More and Descartes”. On Boyle’s upbringing and education, see R. E. W. Maddison, The Life of the Honourable Robert Boyle, F.R.S. (London: Taylor and Francis, 1969), chapters 1 and 2, and on Beale, see M. Stubbs, “John Beale, Philosophical Gardener of Herefordshire. Part 1: Prelude to the Royal Society”, AS, 39 (1982), 463–89. All three men were under Harrison at Eton.Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    On this subject, see C. Webster, The Great Instauration (London: Duckworth, 1975), 100 ff.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    The controversy is documented by C. Webster, in “Henry More and Descartes”. The letter More wrote to Hartlib is dated March 12, 1648/9 (Hartlib Papers, xviii); Petty’s reply (University of Sheffield Library, Delamere Papers, vii, R3), is not dated, and was sent to Hartlib, and not directly to More.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    See also More’s later quarrel with Boyle, see p. 9 above.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    These principles are summarized in Bathynous’s dream in More’s DD (1713),247–53.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    See ibid., p.x–xiii for More’s attack on Cartesian mechanism.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    This process of the inclusion of the findings of natural philosophy as ‘signa’ for his metaphysics began in More’s Poems, for example in Psychathanasia and in Democritus Platonissans. His justification for using Descartes in this manner can be found in the Preface General to his CSPW p.xii.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    See J. E. McGuire, “Boyle’s Conception of Nature”, JHI, 33 (1972), 533–42.Google Scholar
  37. 39.
    The hierarchy of knowledge and being carved out of Plato’s Dialogues by his followers over the centuries has been the subject of numerous studies. See particularly P. Merlan, From Platonism to Neoplatonism, 3rd, revised ed. (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1975), which explores the existing evidence for the intellectual continuity between the master and his later schools. See also C. A. Patrides, The Cambridge Platonists, 17 ff. on the use of Platonism by the Cambridge Platonists, and on the importance of Plotinus in particular to More and Smith.Google Scholar
  38. 41.
    More, Preface General to CSPW, p.xii, and Appendix to the Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, i,8. See also Epístola ad V.C. (1662), sects 11 and 31; and A. Gabbey, “Philosophia Cartesiana Triumphata”, 205. It is likely that More was the author of, or at least inspired the anonymous, but very ‘Platonic’ preface to the first translation of Descartes’ A Discourse of a Method (1649).Google Scholar
  39. 42.
    The assumption of this similarity of viewpoint can be found in More’s first surviving letter to Hartlib concerning Descartes (Hartlib Papers, xvii), dated November 27, 1648.Google Scholar
  40. 43.
    See especially Gabbey, “Philosophia Cartesiana Triumphata”.Google Scholar
  41. 44.
    Cf. M. H. Nicolson, “The Early Stages of Cartesianism in England”, p.372; A. Lichtenstein, Henry More, 32; and J. Hoyles, The Waning of the Renaissance, 50, who hail More’s A A (1653) as a ‘Cartesian’ work. For a more complete and more balanced view, see A. Gabbey, “Philosophia Cartesiana Triumphata”, 201–6.Google Scholar
  42. 45.
    On this, see Gabbey, ibid. More’s criticisms of Descartes’ metaphysics in his letters establishes this clearly.Google Scholar
  43. 46.
    Ibid, and the description of More’s encounter with Descartes by A. Koyré, From the Closed World chapters 5 and 6.Google Scholar
  44. 47a.
    Thomas Vaughan was the brother of the poet, Henry Vaughan. See F. E. Hutchinson, Henry Vaughan (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947), p. 144–55,Google Scholar
  45. 47a.
    and A. Rudrum (ed.), Works of Thomas Vaughan (Oxford, Clarendon Press: 1984), 7–12. On More’s debate with Vaughan, see the articles by A. Miller Guinsburg, F.L. Burnham, N. I. Brann and L. Mulligan cited in the bibliography.Google Scholar
  46. 48.
    See Alazonomastix Philalethes [More], The Second Lash of Alazonomastix Philalethes (1651). More’s first tract against Vaughan was the Observations on Anthroposophia Theomagica and Anima Magica Abscondita (1650), which Vaughan had published under the psuedonym of Eugenius Philalethes. Vaughan replied to this with The Man-Mouse taken in a Trap and tortur’d to death for gnawing the margins of Eugenius Philalethes (1650). After More’s Second Lash (1651), Vaughan published one final response, The Second Wash, or the Moore scour’d once more, being a charitable cure for the distractions of Alazonomastix Philalethes (1651). More did not reply to this final tract, but commented upon the whole controversy in ET.Google Scholar
  47. 49.
    More’s attempt to compare his own enlightened state to that of Vaughan back-fired on him, and gave the alchemist a welcome stick with which to beat his critic. See More’s ‘enthusiastic’ description of his own ‘true’ union with God, Second Lash, in ET, 177.Google Scholar
  48. 51.
    Number symbolism in the arrangement of More’s Poems was first discussed by M-S. Rostvig in The Hidden Sense, but her analysis was based on faulty arithmetic. She was attacked by D. Bush and E. Sirluck, “Calculus Racked Him” Studies in English Literature, 6 (1966): 1–6, and the subject was reviewed briefly by C. C. Brown, “The Mere Numbers of Henry More’s Cabbala”, which explored More’s attitude to Pythagorean number symbolism. Although Brown is correct to emphasise More’s rejection of the occult qualities attributed to numbers by the Pythagoreans, More was certainly happy to use number symbolism for more ‘rational’ symbolic and philosophical purposes.Google Scholar
  49. 52.
    MG, Preface. This was not republished with the second, Latin edition of 1675.Google Scholar
  50. 53.
    Ibid. V,viii–xii; VI,xii–xviii; VII,xvii.Google Scholar
  51. 54.
    Originally in an anonymous list of objections to More’s MG, circulated in 1663. More’s Apology (1664) drew out his opponent into print in Some Observations upon the Apologie of Dr. Henry More (1665). Its imprimatur was endorsed by the Vice-Chancellor. Beaumont was a protege of Bishop Matthew Wren, the uncle of Christopher and a formidable loyalist, Laudian and theological conservative. The author of a long and interesting poem on the soul, Psyche, Beaumont became master of Peterhouse after the Restoration. See Life by J. Gee in Beaumont, Original Poems (London, 1749).Google Scholar
  52. 55.
    The opposition to More and Cudworth in this period is reflected in More’s letters. See Nicolson, Conway Letters, pp.220–1; see also her article on the case brought against Cudworth by a disaffected Fellow, Ralph Widdrington, “Christ’s College and the Latitude-Men”.Google Scholar
  53. 56.
    See More to Robert Boyle, November 27, 1665, in Conway Letters, p.264.Google Scholar
  54. 57.
    The reaction against ‘Latitudinarianism’ in Cambridge in this period is described in some detail by D. Gascoigne, in his unpublished PhD dissertation, “‘The Holy Alliance’: the rise and diffusion of Newtonian natural philosophy and latitudinarian theology within Cambridge from the Restoration to the accession of George IF,” (University of Cambridge, 1981), p.21 ff.Google Scholar
  55. 58.
    This can be seen by comparing the first (1660) and second (1675) editions of the MG. The apologetic Preface, which attempts to adapt the work to the circumstances of the Restoration, was ommitted in the second edition, while the more controversial chapters, X, x–xi were extensively edited.Google Scholar
  56. 59.
    See Thorndike’s objections to More’s Platonic theology in his The True Principle of Comprehension (1667), in Theological Works, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1857), 5: 313–4 and 342. Other important figures in this conservative circle opposed to ‘Latitudinarianism’, and to More in particular, were the loyalist theologians Anthony Sparrow and Peter Gunning.Google Scholar
  57. 60.
    For a summary of the ‘Latitudinarian’ doctrinal position in a work clearly influenced by More, see [Edward Fowler], The Principles and Practices of Certain Moderate Divines of the Church of England (greatly misunderstood) truely represented and defended... in a free discouse between two intimate friends (1670, and reprinted in 1671). In the Bodleian Library’s copy of this book (Pamphlet 265), there is a contemporary note attributing this work to More, and then later to Fowler. This is not surprising. More published his DD in 1668, and the ideas the author expresses are very similar to More’s.Google Scholar
  58. 61.
    ‘The Licenser, I perceive, of these as well as the other is Mr. Parker who is a very ingenious person, but he stuck it seemes at two thinges, the one in the first Dialogue about Prescience, the other in the third about Preexistence’. More to Anne Conway, 12 May, 1668, Conway Letters, p. 294. Parker had just published an attack on Preexistence and on the ‘necessitarianism’ of More’s providential theology, entitled An Account of the Nature and Extent of the Divine Dominion of Goodness, Especially as they refer to the Origenian Hypothesis concerning the Preexistence of Souls (1666), republished with his Censure of the Platonick Philosophie (1667). Parker was associated with the Oxford Experimental Philosophy Club, forerunner of the Royal Society, and his books against More’s Platonism may represent an attempt to disassociate the exponents of the new experimental philosophy from heterodox and mystical ideas. On Parker, see A. Wood, Athenae Oxoniensis, ed. P. Bliss, 5 vols. (1813–20) 4: 225–35. and C. Webster, Great Instauration, 156–9.Google Scholar
  59. 62.
    This position was ably expressed by More’s disciple, Henry Hallywell in an anonymous tract, Deus Justificatus (1668).Google Scholar
  60. 63.
    See D. P. Walker, Decline of Hell, chapter 8, for a discussion of the role of Preexistence in More’s philosophical theology.Google Scholar
  61. 64.
    The dream of Bathynous, in More’s DD (1713), 247–53, makes this role he attributes to Preexistence quite clear. See also Walker, ibid.Google Scholar
  62. 65.
    On the historical background to the conflict between theological ‘necessitarians’ and ‘volun-tarists’, see A. O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1936), chapters 3–5; on Boyle’s religious attitudes there is still no significant study, but see his early autobiography, “Philaretus his Minority” which is reprinted in Maddison, Life of Boyle, chapter 1. On Parker see note 61, above. On Newton’s theological voluntarism, see F. E. Manuel, The Religion of Isaac Newton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974). The theological dimension of More’s relations with Boyle is explored in John Henry’s contribution to this volume.Google Scholar
  63. 66.
    See McGuire, “Boyle’s Conception of Nature”.Google Scholar
  64. 67.
    In a letter to Boyle, Henry Oldenburg described John Beale as being ‘heartily pleased’ with Parker’s attacks on More’s Platonism and doctrine of Preexistence, and also mentions that he managed to persuade More’s friend and fellow exponent of the doctrine not to reply to Parker’s book, The Correspondence of Henry Oldenburg 3: 155. See also Glanvill to More, 13 March, 1667, in G. Edelen, “Joseph Glanvill, Henry More, and the Phantom Drummer of Tedworth”, 187–8.Google Scholar
  65. 68.
    See Henry Oldenburg’s review of More’s EM in Philosophical Transactions, 6 (1671), 2182–4; and a description of the ensuing controversy with Boyle in R. Greene, ‘Henry More and Robert Boyle;’and S. Schaffer and S. Shapin, Leviathan and the Air-Pump.Google Scholar
  66. 69.
    Amongst these were Boyle and Sir Matthew Hale. See my unpublished D. Phil dissertation, “An Intellectual Biography of Henry More, 1614–87”, chapter 7: “Mechanism and Vitalism, and the Unification of Nature”. See also John Henry’s article in this volume.Google Scholar
  67. 70.
    Boyle, Hydrostatical Discourse (1672), 47–8 and also 143–4. See also Sir Matthew Hale, Observations Touching the Principles of Natural Motions (1677), 28–9.Google Scholar
  68. 71.
    McGuire, “Boyle’s Conception of Nature”, and Boyle, “Philaretus” in Maddison, Life of Boyle, 32–6. See also Boyle, Some Motives and Incentives to the Love of God (1659), in Works, 1: 177–8; and Boyle, A Free Inquiry into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature (1686), 99 ff.Google Scholar
  69. 72.
    See for example More’s lengthy critique of Francis Glisson’s Tractatus de Substantia Energetica (1672) in some scholia added to a tract More composed to refute Spinozism at this time, Ad V.C. Epistola Altera, Opera, 2: 604–11.Google Scholar
  70. 73.
    To this should be added his essays against Spinoza (cited above) and against the monism of Lurianic Cabbalism, as it was expounded by his friends F. M. van Helmont and C. Knorr von Rosenroth. These were first published by Knorr as critical essays in his monumental Kabbala Denudata (Sulzbach, 1677) (A second part of this was printed in Frankfurt in 1684). A fascinating comparison between the three versions of the ‘Kabbala’ expounded by the three friends, Trium Tabularum Cabbalisticarum, can be found in More’s Opera, 2.Google Scholar
  71. 74.
    This had been introduced by an extensive study and methodology in the Mystery of Iniquity (1664). The works referred to are: An Exposition of the Seven Epistles (1669); Antidote against Idolatry (1669); A Brief Reply (1672); Visionum Apocalypticarum (1674), all printed in Opera, 1; Apocalypsis Apocalypseos (1680); Exposition of... the Prophet Daniel (1682); An Answer to Several Remarks (1684); An Illustration...the Book of Daniel and the Revelation of S. John (1685); and Paralipomena Prophetica (1685).Google Scholar
  72. 75.
    Even the brief description of More’s millenarianism given by W.M. Lamont in his Richard Baxter and the Millenium (Croom Helm, 1979), 42 ff. — in relation to More’s controversy with Baxter over his interpretation of the apocalypse (see More’s Paralipomena Prophetica (1685) — is rather misleading, partly because Lamont appears to be unaware of More’s other, earlier (1681–2) controversy with Baxter over the nature of immaterial substance.Google Scholar
  73. 76.
    See for example More, IS, III, xix, 9.Google Scholar
  74. 77.
    See the description of these states in the important poem, Insomnium Philosophicum, in Poems (1647), 324–8; and also Antipsychopannychia, in Psychodia Platonica (1642).Google Scholar
  75. 78.
    See Nicolson, Conway Letters, p. 473. This manual is also referred to frequently in More’s correspondence with Edmund Elys. Most of this is contained in Elys, Letters on Several Subjects (1694).Google Scholar
  76. 79.
    Ibid. See also Ward, Life, 39 ff; and 212; and G. A. Panichas, “The Greek Spirit and Mysticism of Henry More”.Google Scholar
  77. 80.
    See also the account of More’s death in Nicolson, Conway Letters, p. 469 ff.Google Scholar
  78. 81.
    Conway Letters, pp. 220 ff. and 327 ff.Google Scholar
  79. 82.
    Poems (1647), 302.Google Scholar
  80. 83.
    Insomnium Philosophicum, ibid; also Psychozoia, canto 2.Google Scholar
  81. 84.
    See for example Glanvill’s account of More in his “Bensalem”, Chicago University Library MS and in the extract taken from his, “A Kind tho’ vaine attempt” held by the Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica, Amsterdam. See also Ward, Life, 39–42, 84 and 143.Google Scholar
  82. 85.
    On this see above all, Nicolson, Conway Letters.Google Scholar
  83. 86.
    See A, Coudert, “A Cambridge Platonist’s Cabbalist Nightmare”; idem, “A Quaker-Kab-balist Controversy”. Also, S. Hutin, Henry More elaborates this point, but, unfortunately, uses mistaken evidence in an otherwise interesting study.Google Scholar
  84. 87.
    Hallywell’s works all reflect More’s direct influence. They are listed in the Bibliography. There are some letters from Hallywell to More in Library of Christ’s College, MS 21.Google Scholar
  85. 88.
    Sometime Fellow of Christ’s and author of A Discourse Concerning the Messias (1685), which although attacking Cudworth on the Trinity, makes extensive use of More’s criticisms of Descartes and a number of other ideas from his natural theology.Google Scholar
  86. 89.
    More’s correspondence with Elys reveals the latter’s close dependence on his mentor. The title of his work, Amor Dei Lux Animae (1670) is taken from More. See DD (1713), 252.Google Scholar
  87. 90.
    John Ray knew and admired More, and based his Wisdom of God (1691) on the second book of More’s AA (1653). Ray also accepts the doctrine of a ‘hylarchic principle’ or a ‘Spirit of Nature’.Google Scholar
  88. 91.
    Robinson’s A Vindication of the Philosophical and Theological Exposition of the Mosaick System of Creation (1709) makes extensive use of More’s natural theology, including his ‘Spirit of Nature’.Google Scholar
  89. 92.
    More’s first edition of this frequently revised work was published in 1681. The second edition of 1682 is the first complete version, containing all of More’s additions and amendments to Glanvill’s manuscript. The final edition was issued in 1726.Google Scholar
  90. 93.
    S. Hutin, “Leibniz a-t-il subi l’influence d’Henry More?” But see Stuart Brown in this volume.Google Scholar
  91. 94.
    See More’s correspondence with Norris, in Norris, The Theory and Regulation of Love (1688).Google Scholar
  92. 95.
    J. H. Muirhead, The Platonic Tradition in English Thought (1931).Google Scholar
  93. 96.
    See J. E. Power, “Henry More and Isaac Newton on absolute Space”, and F. E. Manuel, A Portrait of Isaac Newton (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980), 107–12. See also Rupert Hall’s article in this volume.Google Scholar
  94. 97.
    Wesley evidently admired More’s Sermons, republishing them his Christian Library, 23 (1819).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Crocker

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations