Advertisement

The Apology of Dr Henry More

  • Robert Crocker
Chapter
Part of the International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Idées book series (ARCH, volume 185)

Abstract

In a rather ill-timed passage in his preface to the Mystery of Godliness, that had been written in the spirit of compromise and toleration evoked by the events leading up to the Restoration, but appeared in print shortly after the event, More had dismissed all jure divino claims for episcopacy, whatever their practical benefits, as at best ‘controvertible’. He had also pointed out that such claims had the added disadvantage of suggesting to the people a ‘design of unmerciful riding’ by the bishops, which might seem reminiscent of popish tyranny.1 It was particularly this injudicious early stand against the ‘prelatical’ promotion of episcopacy that exposed More to the displeasure of men like Beaumont, Gunning and Sparrow, who were committed to precisely such a view of the ‘divine’ basis of their authority as priests and theologians of the Anglican Church. More’s subsequent defence of episcopacy in the Mystery of Godliness as ‘rational’, and not ‘antiChristian’, was therefore regarded as scandalously inadequate by these men, and his attempts in the same book to reconcile the Presbyterians and Independents to an acceptance of episcopacy, seemed further proof that he and his Latitudinarian colleagues were willing to ‘prostitute’ their consciences, and their positions as priests in the Anglican Church to achieve a ‘comprehension’ these men had already rejected.2 Joseph Beaumont even accused More of being a covert Independent, citing his satire on Laudian ceremonialism in his poem ‘Psychozoia’ as evidence for this.3

Keywords

Rational Interpretation Orthodox Interpretation Divine Life Subsequent Defence Terrestrial Body 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    GMG(1660): xix (the first edition, the only one in which the Preface is included). See also MI, part 2 (1664): II xxiii 6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    GMG(1660): xvii-xxi; and see Beaumont, Observations(1665): 61–3; More, Apology(1664): 515; and Fowler, Principles (1670): 34; and below.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    In both editions of the poem, ii 57–67, in PP (1647): 31–34; cited in Beaumont, Observations(1665): 63–4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See Apology: 515–7.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See GMG, VI xv 1, and below.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See Ibid, and Beaumont, Observations(1665): 66 ff.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beaumont, Ibid: 73.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See “Psychozoia” (1647), ii, 74–92.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibid, and see above.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Principles (1670): 305.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See “Psychozoia” (1647): ii 98–9; and see also Fowler, Principles (1670): 299–305.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MI(1664), part 2, II xxiii 12; Iii 1–4 and II xxiii 12–3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See Beaumont, Observations (1665): 62–3.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See the lengthy argument concerning the prophetic basis and role of the Church, as the external or `political’ Kingdom of God, in DD (1713) dialogue IV, sects.xii-xxiv and V vi-vii.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See Fowler, Principles (1670): 306 ff.; Glanvill, Logoi (1670): 23–8; Hallywell,Defence of Revealed Religion(1694): 76–87.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fowler, Principles (1670): 316 ff.; and Glanvill, Logoi(1670): 34–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fowler, Principles (1670): 332–5.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Apology: 527.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    EE: II iii 4.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Apology: 528.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See Fowler, Principles (1670): 332–3.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See above.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Apology: 536; and see also Fowler, Principles (1670): 311.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Compare Fowler, Principles (1670): 311: “Our understandings are not free as are our wills; but the Acts of them are natural and necessary: Nor can they judge but according to the Evidence that is presentedchrw(133) simple Errors shall be destructive to none, I mean, those which men have not contracted by their own default.”Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See for example Discourses: 42–3 and 64. Compare also Hallywell, A Discourse of Sincerity, in Excellency of Moral Vertue(1692): 149 ff.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hallywell, Ibid: 169, defines sincerity as the `intention’ to love and serve God to the best of the soul’s capacity, despite such `trials’ or `punishments’.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Observations, (1665): 101.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ibid, et passim.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See GMG(only 1660 ): X x-xi (another section changed from the first edition — see next note below); and Beaumont, Observations (1665): 104–110.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Compare GMG: X x and X xi, in the two major English versions - the first (1660) and the one included in TW (1714 - corrected from Opera Theologica, 1675 ).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    GMG: X xi 1–2.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Apology: 534–5. See above, and also Discourses: 122.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ibid: and see above, chapter 4.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    See for example “Psychozoia” (1647): ii 91–2; Discourses: 41–3.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    See for example the distinction between the `paradigmatical virtue’ of the best pagan philosophers and the true virtue of the sincere Christian, Discourses: 51–2; and PP: 370–2.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    See Discourses: 19, on `experimenting upwards’ towards the `divine Life’.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Observations(1665): 121.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    See Glanvill, Logoi (1670): 27: “A man may hold an erroneous opinion from a mistaken sense of Scripture, and deny what is the truth of the proposition, and what is the right meaning of the text; and yet not err in Faith.” See also Ibid: 7–8.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    MI(1664): II ii 9. See also Rust, Discourse (1683): 40, and his Discourse in Two Choice and Useful Treatises (1682); Hallywell, Defense of Revealed Religion (1694): 48; and Glanvill, Logoi (1670): 234.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    More, Apology: 534.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ibid. See also More’s recipe for attaining to an `unprejudiced’ state of mind, DD (1713): 501 ff.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    See Glanvill, Logoi (1670): 28: “The essentials of Religion are so plainly revealed, that no man can miss them, that hath not a mighty corrupt bias in his will and affections to infatuate and blind his understanding.”Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    More, Apology: 534.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    See Observations (1665): 124, and see also “Dr. Whichcote’s Second Letter”, in Whichcote, Aphorisms (1753): 62 ff. But see also More’s rejection of reason when not in accord with the faith and sincere intentions of the heart, in Discourses: 40.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cited in Gascoigne, “Holy Alliance” (1980): 23, from Cambridge University Library, Add. Mss.697, fols.91 and 109.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rust, Discourse(1683): 26.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    See More, Brief Discourse: 577 ff.; and also Hallywell, Discourse of the Excellency of Christianity (1671): 9 ff., which adapts More’s theme and closely follows many of the ideas in the GMG (1660).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    GMG, I iv 2; and see above.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    GMG: I iv 6–10, and I v 1–3; and see PP: “To the Reader, Upon the first Canto of Psychozoia”. The only time More attempts to defend the orthodox doctrine in any detail is no exception to this. See DD (1713), A Supplement to the Third Dialogue: 535 ff., especially 545–6. See also the Scholia on this (reprinted from the Op. Om.), ‘bid: 550–9.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cudworth, TIS (1678): 582–632; and see the lengthy defence of his exposition of the Trinity and the Resurrection of the body in the introduction to Thomas Wise’s abridgement and continuation of Cudworth’s book, Confutation (1706), vo1. 1: 79–124.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    See More, GMG (1660): X vi 5–7; and Cudworth, TIS (1678): 604 ff.; and John Turner, Discourse Concerning the Messias. (1685): xvi ff.; and see Thomas Wise, Confutation (1706), vol. 1: 79–124.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    GMG: I viii 4. And see Origen, First Principles: IV iv 4–5.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    More, Ibid: 4–5, and I v 3, and Origen, Ibid.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    GMG: V ii-iii, and Origen, ‘bid, quoting Philippians: ii 6–7.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    See J.Danielou, From Shadows to Reality (1960), and Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine (1977): 154–8. See also More’s Annotations upon Lux Orientalis, in Two Treatises (1682): 92–102; and Fowler, Discourse of the Descent of the Man-Christ (1706), and below.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    GMG: I v 3–6, and his exhortation to the “better-minded Quakers ”, X xii; and see above.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ibid: II vi ff..Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    GMG (1660)::V i ff. See also Hallywell, Sacred Method of Saving Humane Souls (1677): 50–7.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    GMG, III xix 1–4.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ibid: VIII ii. See also Smith (1660): 389–90.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Observations(1665): 3 and above.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Observations(1665): 10; More, Apology: 494–5, referring to GMG, V iii 1.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    More, Apology: 503.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    GMG: V iii 1 and V iv 1.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
  66. 66.
    Apology: 498–504. Compare Hallywell, Sacred Method (1677): 18–9 and p.70; and see also Origen, First Principles, IV iv 4–5.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Apology: 504.\]Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    l. Corinthians: xv 45 ff.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Observations: 28; More, Apology: 508, referring to GMG, VI iv 3 and VI iii 6.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Apology: 510, and GMG, VI,iii,1–3. On More’s anti-psychopannychism, see his poem,“Antipsychopannychia” included in Psychodia (1642) and PP (1647), and the Huntington Library Mss: “Psychopannychite” an anonymous undated 13 page letter, apparently written in Ireland during the 1660s, and probably addressed to Anne Conway, explicitly refuting More’s attack on the doctrine of the sleep of the soul in GMG, I vi. The letter may well have been written by Thomas Baines or one of his and her brother, John Finch’s circle. See below.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    See IS: II xv, and III ii 9; iv 2; and GMG: VI v.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    GMG: VI iii 1–2.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Apology: 505.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    See Origen, First Principles: II x 1–3, and Contra Celsum, V 18–23, and VII 32–3.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    See More, Annotations upon Lux Orientalis (1682): 151–166.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    See Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine (1977): 475–8.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Op.cit., VI iii 1–2, and Annotations upon Lux Orientalis(1682): 110–2; and see Beaumont, Observations (1665): 30–50.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Cudworth, TIS(1678): 194–9. See also Humphry Hody, Resurrection of the Same Body Asserted (1694): 111–120, and Thomas Wise, who defends Cudworth in his Confutation (1706), vol. I: 125–32.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    See More, Annotations upon Lux Orientalis (1682): 118 ff.; Cudworth, TIS (1678): 794–9; and Wise’s comments, Confutation (1706), vol. I: 125–7.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    See Sarah Hutton, “Henry More and the Apocalypse”, in M. Wilkes (ed), Prophecy and Eschatology: Studies in Church History 10 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994): 131–140; J. Van den Berg, “Continuity within a Changing Context: Henry More’s Millenarianism, seen against the background of the millenarian concepts of Joseph Mede”, Pietismus und Neuzeit 14 (1988): 185–202; and R. Illiffe, `’Making a Shew’: Apocalyptic Hermeneutics and the Sociology of Christian Idolatry in the Work of Isaac Newton and Henry More“ in J.E. Force and R.H. Popkin (eds), The Books of Nature and Scripture ( Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994 ): 55–88.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    See Hutton, “Henry More and the Apocalypse”: 138–9.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    J. van den Berg, “Joseph Mede and the Dutch Millenarian Daniel van Laren”, in M. Wilkes (ed), Prophecy and Eschatology: Studies in Church History 10 (Blackwell, 1994 ): 122.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Paralipomena Prophetica(1685): 3. This does not mean that More was consciously writing to uphold the social and political order of the Restoration, or that his was a consciously `conservative’ reading of the texts, as Philip Almond claims, “Henry More and The Apocalypse”, JHI (1993): 190–1.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    See The Works of the Pious and Profoundly Learned Joseph Mede, BD.. (1672) which was edited by John Worthington, but probably completed by his son, following Worthington’s death in the previous year.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    See Hutton, “Henry More and the Apocalypse”: 138; and An Answer to Several Remarks upon Dr More his Expositions of the Apocalypse and Danielchrw(133) by SE Mennonite (1684)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    See Van den Berg, “Continuity within a Changing Context”.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hutton, “Henry More and the Apocalypse”: 139, referring to TW (1712): vii; and Almond, “Henry More and the Apocalypse”: 191.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Apocalypsis Apocalypseos(1680): 208.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Paralipomena Prophetica(1685): 151.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Cited in Hutton, “Henry More and the Apocalypse”: 138.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Crocker
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations