More began authorship in 1640 by the publication of his Psijchozoid, or the First Part of the Am//// nf iIh Soul, contaiiiin;! a Ciiri.'<tiiiiio-Ptatomral Jfi-yt/m/ ';//;/' (reprinted in 1047, and, together witli some .nidiiiiinal pieces, jtublished under ilie title o{ Philosophical Puons). It was a most singular effort in the literary line, for it seeks to turn meta|)hysics into poetry. It is an early attempt on his part to express in verse the Pla- tonic i^rinciplea which he afterwards so clearly and forciljly expressed in prose. These poems are now hardly known. His first prose work was published in IC.Vi — Antidote agaitist Atheism (new ed. 1055; also in coll. of philos. writings, 16G2). In the following year he sent forth Conjeclura Cabalistica, or A ttempt to Iii- terpiet the first three Chapters of Genesii in a three- fold Manner — literal, philosophical, and mystical, or di- vinely moral. His next work of imixirtance appeared in 1659, being an essay on the Jnanortality of the Soul (also 1002), accompanied by a valuable [)reface on the
general subject of his philosophy. The leading princi- ple of More's ethical system is that " moral goothiess is simple and absolute, and that right reason is the judge of its nature, essence, and truth; but its attractiveness and beauty are felt by a special capacity, in boniformi animcB facilitate, not unlike the moral sense of later writers. Therefore all moral g(Mjdncss is properly termed intellectual and divine. To affect this as supreme gives supreme felicity. By the aid of reason we state the axioms or principles of ethics in definite propositions, and derive from them special maxims or rules." In his philosophical views More espouses Descartes in the main, stating at great length and with much minute- ness the doctrine of innate ideas, and defending it against misconceptions and objections. He qualities Descartes's opinion that the soul has its seat in the pineal gland, and contends for the extension or diffu- sion of the soul, at the same time arguing that this does not involve its discerptibility. He contends at times for the reality of space as an entity independent of (iod, and again makes space to be dependent on God (antici- pating the argument of Samuel Clarke). He argues the existence of God from the moral nature of man. He also ably defends the doctrine of free-will "as the basis of morality." "Against the theological Necessi- tarians, who deny contingency, More argues clearly that God himself can alone know what events are necessary and what contingent. Prescience of such events either implies a contradiction or not. But to suppose a con- tradiction is virtually to say that the prescience is not divine. Contradictory objects cannot come within the sphere of the divine omniscience. And if there is no contradiction, we may recognise in this very fact that there is no inconsistency betwixt the divine prescience and free-will. Either way no solid argument can be drawn against moral liberty from the idea of divine prescience. Again, the whole force of the objections as to the will always following what appears for the mo- ment best, Jlore supposes to be met by the simple ex- perience that the good we know we frequently do not do. Our works are not determined by our knowledge of what is best. We may have fine ideas of virtue, and yet never put them in practice. Our freedom in this sense is only too real ; and it is the very object of mo- rality to bring the idea and the will into unison, and so enlighten the one and discipline the other that they may attain to the highest good." llobbes is said to have entertained a very high opinion of ^lore's philo- sophical views, and to have declared that if his "own philosophy was not true, he knew none that he should sooner like than Henry More's, of Cambridge." In 1600, finally. ISIore came out again, and this time with one of the ablest productions we have from his pen, be- ing an extended treatise on the Mystei-y of GudUitess, " written after an illness in which he had vowed, if spared, to write a book demonstrative of the truth of the Christian religion — so far as concerns the person and of- fices of Christ, he would attempt to construct the Chris- tian theology after those subjective ethical relations and beliefs which were taught by Plato and Plotinus. and at the same time to recognise the reality of the supernat- ural in the Christian history — to the confusion of fanat- ics and intidels alike." He here reverently discusses the incarnation of Christ in all its bearings, and illustrates it with many curious and interesting tlioughts derived from philosophy and history. Notwithstanding the Platonic dress in which lie loves to array everything, More holds firmly and expounds reverently and lovingly all the great doctrines of Chri.'stianity. He protests most energetically against the tendency to si)iritualize away the reality of the (lospel history. "That the hu- man person of Christ." he .says, "is not to be laid aside is evident from the wliole tenor of the epistle to the Hebrews. For he that there is said to be a high-priest forever is that very man wlio was crucified on the cross at .Jerusalem." Again he says, " I have with all ear- nestness and ciuleavor, and with undeniable clearness of