I Have, according to my Promise, sent you herewith the Seventh and Eighth Chapters, as also the Appendix, of the Great and Learned Dr. Burnet's Book, Archilogiae Philosophicae, pub­lished [...]his Winter in Latin, and by him dedi­cated [Page 2] to his Most Sacred Majesty, and our Gracious Sovereign King William, being em­ploy'd about other Things, I had not time to make the Translation my self, but transferr'd that Task upon — yet dare answer for the Exactness of the Version. As for the Piece it self, I think it one of the most Ingenious I ever read, and full of the most acute, as well as learned, Observations. Nor can I find any thing worthy an Objection against him, as some of the censorious part of the World pre­tend; who would have you believe it a meer Burlesque upon Moses, and Destructive to the Notion of Original Sin, wherefore by conse­quence (say they) there could be no necessity of a Redemption, which however I think no necessary Consequence: But for my part, either the great Veneration I have for the Doctor's extraordinary Endowments, or else my own Ignorance has so far b [...]ibed me to his Interest, that I can by no means allow of any of those Unjust Reflections the Whole-sale Mer­chants o [...] Credulity, as well as their unthinking Re [...]ailers, make against him. It is true, in the Seventh Chapter he seems to prove that many parts of the Mesaie History of the Creation ap­pear inc [...]nsi [...]ent with Reason; and in the Eigh [...]h Chapter the same appears no less in­consistent with Philosophy; wherefore he concludes (as many Fathers of the Church have done before him) that the whole rather [...]ms [...]o have been but a pious Allegory, which [Page 3] Moses was forced to accommodate to the weak Understandings of the Vulgar (who were un­capable of Philosophy, or any higher Notions) thereby to imprint in them a true Sence of one Supream God, and of his Power, as also of the Original of the World, wherewith all other Lawgivers began their Histories, as well as Moses. But that the World had a beginning about Six thousand Years since, as also the D [...] ­generation of Minkind, our learned Author doth as strenuously affirm, as 'tis possible.

Nor is Dr. Burnet the only ingenious Man either of this Age or Nation who has been, upon Enquiry, startled at some Passages in the Mosaic History: For Dr. Brown (so justly ad­mired as well by Foreigners as his own Coun­try-men, upon the Account of his Knowledge in all Gentile sorts of Literature) does both in his Religio Medici and Vulgar Errors, betray his many Doubts and Scruples as well upon this Subject as others, in these very words — ‘I confess (says the Doctor) there are in Scripture Sto­ries that do exceed the Fables of Poets, and to a captious Reader sound like Garagantua or Bevis. Search all the Legends of times past, and the fabulous Conceits of these present, and 'twill be hard to find one that deserves to carry the Buckler unto little Sampson; yet is all this of an easie possibility, if we conceive a divine Concourse, or an influence from the little Finger of the Almighty. Im s [...]lf (says he) [Page 4] could shew a Catalogue of Doubts, never yet imagined nor questioned, as I know of, which are not resolved in Scrip [...]ure, at first hearing; not fantastic Quaeries or Objections of Air: For I cannot hear of Atoms in Divinity. I can read the History of the Pigeon that was sent out of the Ark, and returned no more, yet not question how she found out her Mate that was left behind. That Lazarus was raised from the Dead, yet not demand where in the Interim his Soul waited; or raise a Law Case, whether his Heir might lawfully detain his Inheritance bequeath'd to him by his Death, and he, though restored to Life, have no Plea or Title to his former Possessions. Whether Eve was framed out of the left side of Adam, I dispute not; because I stand not yet assured, which is the right side of a Man, or whether there be any such distinction in Nature. That Eve was Edified of the Rib of Adam, I believe, yet raise no question who shall arise with that Rib at the Resurrection. Whether Adam was an Hermophrodite, as the Rabbins contend upon the Letter of the Text ( Genes. 1.27.) because it is contrary to Reason there should be an Hermophrodite before there was a Woman, or a Composition of two Natures before there was a second com­posed. Likewise, whether the World was crea [...]ed in Autumn, Winter, Summer or the Spring, because it was created in them all: [...] whatsoever Sign the Sun possesseth, those [Page 5] four Seasons are actually existent: It being the nature of this Luminary to distinguish the several Seasons of the Year, all which it makes at one time in the whole Earth, and successive in any part thereof. That there was a Deluge once, whether in the time of Deucalion or Noah, seems not to me so great a Miracle, as that there is not one always. How all kinds of Creatures, not only in their own Bulks, but with a Competency of Food and Suste­nance, might be preserved in one Ark, and within the Extent of Three hundred Cubits, will not appear very feasible. There is also another Secret not contain'd in Scripture, which is more hard to comprehend, and put the honest Father (St. Austin) to the Refuge of a Miracle; and, that is, not only how the distinct pieces of the World, and divided Islands, should be first Planted by Men, but Inhabited by Tygers, Panthers and Bears? How America abounded with Beasts of pr [...]y and noxious Animals, yet contained not in it that necessary Creature, a Horse, is very strange. By what Passage those, not only Birds, but dangerous and unwelcom Beasts came over? How there be Creatures there which are not found in this tripple Con­tinent? All which must needs be strange, to us that hold but one Ark, and that the Crea­tures began their Progress from the Moun­tain Ararat: 'Tis a Paradox to me, that Methusalem was the longest liv'd of all the [Page 6] Children o [...] Adam; and no Man will be able to prove it, when from the Process of the Text, I can manifest it may be other­wise. Also that Iudas perished by hanging himself, there is no certainty in Scripture, the two Texts ( Matth. 25. and Acts 1.18.) seeming to contradict one another. That our Fathers after the Flood, erected the Tower of Babel to preserve themselves against a se­cond Deluge, is generally believed, yet is there another Intention of theirs express'd in Scripture: Besides it is improbable from the Circumstance of the Place, which was a Plain in the Land of Shinar. I believe there was a Tree, whose Fruit our unhappy Pa­rents tasted, though in the same Chapter, where God forbids it, 'tis possitively said, the Plants of the Field were not yet grown; for God had not then caused it to rain upon the Earth. I believe that the Serpent (if we shall literally understand it) from his proper Form and Figure, made his Motion his Belly before the Curse. I find the tryal of the Pucillage and Virginity of Women, which God ordained the Iews, is very fallible. Experience and History inform me, that not only many particular Women, but likewise whole Nations have escaped the Curse of Childbirth, which God seems to pronounce upon the whole Sex. Having perused the Archidoxes, and read the secret Sympathies of things, the Devil would disswade my Be­lief [Page 7] from the Miracle of the Brazen Serpent, and make me conceit that Image workt by Sympathy, and was but an Aegyptian Trick to cure their Diseases with a Miracle. A­gain, having seen some Experiments of Bi­tumen, and read many more of Naphtha, he whisper'd to my Curiosity, the Fire of the Altar might be natural; and bid me mistrust a Miracle of Elias, when he entrenched the Altar round with Water, since that inflam­mable Substance yields not easily to Water, but flames in the Arms of its Antagonist. And thus would he inveagle my Belief to think the Combustion of Sodom might be natural, and that there was an Asphaltic and Bituminous Nature in that Lake, before the Fire of Go­morrah. I know that Manna is now plenti­fully gathered in Calabria, and Iosephus tells me in his Days it was as plentiful in Arabia; the Devil therefore made me Quaere, where was then the Miracle in the Days of Moses, since the Israelites saw but that in his time, which the Natives of those Countries behold in ours? Brown's Religio Medici.’ Also in his Vulgar Errors, our same Author writes thus: ‘— It hath puzzled the Enquiries of others to apprehend, and forced them to strange Conceptions, to make out how Eve should be deluded by a Serpent, or subject her Reason to a Beast, which God had subjected to hers? and how without Fear and Doubt she could Discourse with such a Creature, or hear a [Page 8] Serpent speak, without suspicion of Impo­sture. Others wonder at her simplicity, that when the Serpent told her the eating that Fruit would make them like Gods, she did not question the Beast, why he himself did not eat of it then. Brown, Vul. Err.’

Now as one observes very well, in relation to Divine Miracles, there is oftentimes great Errors committed in the manner of reading Scripture; as when that is taken in a general Sence, which ought to be particularly under­stood: As that of Adam, whom Moses made only to be the first Father of the Iews, whilst others Hyperbolically make him to be the first Father of all Men. So likewise the Darkness at the Death of our Saviour, which some say was spread over the Face of the whole Earth: Others, and some able Interpreters, have only translated it, Vpon all the Land of the Iews, viz. Palestine, which the Hebrews always meant, when they said the Earth. So likewise the Star which Conducted the Wisemen upon the Na­tivity of Christ, some place in Heaven among the rest of the Stars; but others say, that could not be, for then other People had seen it as well as those few Wisemen, and Herod among the rest; who being troubled at this Report, and not being able to see it himself, calling the Wisemen to him privately (says the Evangelist) he enquired of them what time the Star did appear? And besides it marched before them [Page 9] like a Torch, and conducted them; so that it cannot be said to have been a fixed Star in the Heavens. Again, some will tell you, that the Fiery Army sent to the help of Elisha from Heaven was such, whom the Prophet himself saw, and yet his Servant that stood by him could not see. Likewise in the miraculous Sign which was given of Ezekiah's Recovery from his Sickness, when 'tis said, — That God brought back the shadow of those Lines that it had gone down in the Dial of Achaz back ten Degrees — Here some affirm, That the Sun went not back in the Heaven (as 'tis general­ly believed) but only in the Dial of Achaz; for, say they, if the Sun went back in the Zo­diac, or that Degree of the Ecliptic standing still, which he was running that Day, the Pri­mum Mobi [...]e came also backwards, and with it all the rest of the Spheres; if we say that he went back only in the Zodiac, and a tenth part of the Zodiac; then say they the Sun must needs return through a great many Signs of the Zo­diac, and bring back with him past Months, yea, and Seasons of the Year. Besides, that this Sign was seen only in the Land of Iudah and not elsewhere, they pretend to prove from Ambassadors which were sent from Babylon to enquire after the Sign, which (say they) might have been seen in Babylon, as well as in Iudah, had the Sun gone back in the Firmament. Much to the same purpose they argue against the Miracle of the Suns standing still one whole [Page 10] Day in Gabaon at the command of Ioshua, al­ledging, That that long day extended not it self beyond the Country of Gabaon, or other­wise it must have been apparent elsewhere: And therefore they urge, That the Light of the setting Sun after he was himself gone down, was only the Reflection of his Beams, remain­ing as yet in the Atmosphere, which reverbe­rated longer than ordinary upon the Mountain and City of Gabaon, by a favourable Scituation of the Hills: In the North of Scotland they have at sometimes in Summer hardly any Night at all; and some Mathematicians write, that ac­cording to the Obliquity of the Sphere, there were some Days of six Months continuance, with them who live under the Parallel. Like­wise concerning the Miracle of the Iews, not wearing out their Garments or their Shooes in Forty Years time that they continued in the Wilderness; some pretend, that they feeding a Thousand Flocks in the Desart, made Cloath and Rayment of their Wool, as well as Shooes of their Skin and Leather, wanting neither Weavers, Taylors nor Shooemakers among [...] numerous a Mob. Now lastly, others will not allow that the Flood of Noah was upon the whole Earth, but only upon the Land of the Ie [...]s; nor to destroy all Men, but only the Iews: For [...] say they, God being offended at their Wickedness [...] said, I will cut off Man whom I have created from the Face of the Earth, from the M [...]n to the Peast, from the creeping [Page 11] thing to the Fowl of the Heaven — Where they will have it, that the Hebrews by Earth ever meant their own, viz. Palestine; by the Man whom he had created, the Iews, the Po­sterity of Adam; and by living Creatures the Gentiles match'd among the Iews: Besides Cattle, Birds and all creeping Things within the Land of Palestine, except only Noah and his Family. Now that this Flood was only in the Land of the Iews, they argue; First, From the Causes of the Deluge, which were only the Sins of the Iews: Secondly, From the words of Berosus, who hath written of the Ark (says Iosephus) in which the chief of our Family was preserved; not the chief of Mankind, but the chief of our Lineage, that is, the Iews. Thirdly, From the Dove that was sent out and returned at Night with an Olive-branch free from Dirt or Slime and cover'd with green Leaves; whereas, say they, in all places where the Flood had been, the Trees were depress'd and cover'd with Slime and Mud. They further tell you, That the World was said to be divided by Ph [...]leg, who was the Fifth in Descent from Sem, wherefore they question, how they could Peo­ple China, America, the Southland, Greenland and the rest with Inhabitants? These and many more Scruples are raised by some nice and cu­rious Enquirers; so that we see our Learned Dr. Burnet stands not alone by himself in his more refined and speculative Doubts. All which might easily be salved, were it not for [Page 12] that untoward Axiom in Philosophy, à Posse ad esse non valet consequentia: However as that Ar­gument shews it may not be so, yet neither does it demonstrate it is not so. For God seldom alters or perverts the Course of Nature, however Miracles may be necessary sometimes to acquaint the World with his Prerogative, least the Ar­rogance of our Reason should question his Power; a Crime no wise Man can ever be guilty of: Who climbling up from Cause to Cause, shall ever find the highest Link of Nature's Chain to be tyed at the Foot of Iupi­ter's Chair [...]—

The next Charge against our Author is for his disowning Original Sin, which I must inge­guously confess was ever a difficult Pill with me to swallow, my Reason stopping it in my Throat, and not having Faith enough to wash it down. There are some Persons, I know, who believe that Wars, Plagues, Feavers and all the Troop of natural Corruptions invaded the Earth by that imputation of the Sin of Adam, without discriminating between Natural and Legal Sin. For Wars, Plagues and Feavers, with whatever else of this sort trou­bles and afflicts Mankind, are the consequences of Natural Sin, which is the Wickedness and Imperfection of Nature. This will easily ap­pear to such, who can suffer that ancient Cloud of Prepossession to be taken off, which dulls their sight; for who knows not that Wars [Page 13] had their Original from such, whom eithe [...] greedy Desire of Prey, or cruel Thirst after Revenge, or sacred Ambition of Rule stirr'd up to take Arms? Then who hath not had ex­perience of the Breeding and Inflammation of Plagues and Feavers, either by the natural Corruption of the Air, or by the Corruption of our natural Bodies? We have as many Wit­nesses of this Observation and Truth, as we have States-men and Physicians, therefore not from Adam's Sin proceed our Diseases, but from our own Corrupt and Rotten Natures; the innate Infirmity of Men being the chief and natural Calamity of Men. Nay it is not known that Adam who was the Criminal and Foun­tain (as they say) of so great Evils, was ever so much as troubled with the least Disease all those 930. Years which he lived; unless you will believe him, who relates, out of I know not what Author, that Adam died of the Gout, wherewith he was troubled from his Ancestors. Did Cain fall sick when he slew his Brother? No; he was very strong and lusty, he fled to the East of Eden, where he associated himself with a pack of Lewd Fellows; he set up for the Trade of Padding, then married a Wife, begot a Son, and built a City. Likewise the most excellent Poet falls out with his Gods, for that his Mistress (Eugenia) being perjured, kept the same Face which she had before, or rather became fairer and fairer: The same is [Page 14] also the constant complaint of the Elect in Scripture, That the Wicked prosper so much in this World. Wherefore to me it seems cer­tain, that the Imputation of Adam's Sin is no ways an occasion of our Sufferings. I know there are some affirm, That if Adam had not sinn'd, Men should never have died; as if Im­mortality and Eternal Life, which nothing but a New Creation could beget, should have been bestow'd on Men by Vertue of the First Crea­tion, which by its own Nature is subject to Death and Corruption: And that those Men should not have died, who (as the Schools say) are naturally Corruptible, and were created Mortal. Some will here object and say, God told Adam, That on the Day he eat that Fruit, he should die the Death; from whence they gather, That if Death was given as a Punishment to Adam on that Day wherein he trangress'd the Law of God, then surely Adam would never have died, if he had never sinn'd: But that Consequence I deny; for although they die which kill, yet they who do not kill are not Immortal. Besides, to conclude this point, 'tis altogether inconsistent with God's Attributes of Mercy and Justice, to punish all Mankind for one single Persons sin, which we could no ways prevent or hinder, nor any but God him­self, who permitted that Evil Spirit to Reign in him. The Roman Schools affirm the first Motions of Concupiscence to be no sin; because [Page 15] they are involuntary, and come upon us whe­ther we will or no; then why should they think Original Sin to be really and truly a Sin in us, which is altogether as involuntary, and un­chosen by us as Concupiscence? For how can anothers sin, wherein we have no hand, be im­puted to us? Eternal Death was not threatned to Adam for his sin, and therefore could not from him descend upon us, for that which was none of ours. The Death that Adam's Sin in­troduced is such as could have a Remedy or Recompence by Christ, but eternal Death hath no Recompence, nor can ever be destroy'd, whereas temporal Death shall. If God should impute Adam's Sin so as to damn us for it, then all our Good we receive from God, is much less than the Evil, saith Dr. Taylor. If God will not give Men Heaven by Christ, he will not throw them into Hell by Adam; if his Good­ness will not do the First, his Mercy and Justice will not suffer him to do the Last. Nor did any Church ever enjoyn Pennance or Repen­tance for Original Sin; wherefore it seems pre­posterous and unreasonable, that any Man should be damn'd for that, which no Man is bound to Repent. However I do no way find that Dr. Burnet does absolutely declare against Original Sin; but rather the contrary, ac­knowledging the Degeneracy of Mankind from its primitive State, which must be redeem'd by the Seed of a Woman. All Extreams are [Page 16] dangerous, as walking upon the Brink of a Precipice or the like, and if he be not so violent in this Point; what others may only think he wants in Piety, may perhaps be really supplied in Charity: And what they only fancy they have in Piety, may be truly defective in Cha­rity: An honest Augure is ever in most dan­ger of his own Fraternity.

But to proceed, it hath been a point very much disputed among several Politicians in the Commonwealth of Learning, who was the real and true Author of the Pentateuch. A late and great Modern Philosopher of this Nation declares, It is not an Argument sufficient to prove those Books were written by Moses, be­cause they are call'd the Five Books of Moses; for, as much as Books often take their Titles from their Subject, as well as from their Au­thors. It's true, the History of Livy denotes the Writer, but the History of Tamberlain is denominated from the Subject. We read in the last Chapter of Deuteronomy, v. 6 th. con­cerning the Sepulcher of Moses, that no Man knoweth his Sepulcher to this Day, that is to say, to the Day wherein those Words were written; wherefore it is manifest that those Words were written after his Interment. But it may perhaps be alledged, That the last Chapter only, and not the whole Pentateuch, was written by some other hand, and the rest [Page 17] by Moses. Let us therefore consider, that which we find in the Book of Genesis (cap. 12. v. 6.) and Abraham passed through the Land to the place of Sichem, unto the Plain of Moreh, and the Canaanite was then in the Land; which must be the Words of one that wrote when the Canaanite was not in the Land, and consequently not of Moses, who died before he came into it. Likewise, Numb. 21. v. 14. the Writer citeth another more ancient Book, entituled, the Book of the Wars of the Lord, wherein were Registred the Acts of Moses at the Red-Sea, and at the Brook of Amon; which he would never have mention'd of himself, but could as well have given us an account himself of what he did in those places. Wherefore it is evident, That the Five Books of Moses were written by another Hand after his Decease. But yet it is rational to believe that Moses wrote the Volume of the Law, contain'd in the 11 th. of Deuteronomy, and the following Chapters to the 27 th. which he commanded to be written on Stones in Entry into the Land of Canaan. Also Moses himself deliver'd it to the Priests and Elders of Israel to be read every seventh Year to all Israel at their Assembly in the Feast of Taber­nacles, as we may find in the 31 st. Chapter of Deuteronomy v. 9 th. Nay, it may be also question'd, whether the aforesaid was that very Law which Moses delivered, since having been a long time lost, Helkiah pretended to find it [Page 18] again, and so sent it to King Iosias (2 Kings 22.8. and the 23.1, 2, 3.) so that we have only Helkiah's Word for it. The Book of Ioshua was also written long after Ioshua's time, which may be gather'd out of many places of the Book it self: Ioshua had set up twelve Stones in the midst of Iordan for a Monu­ment of their Passage; of which the Writer saith ( Ioshua 4.9.) They are there unto this day; which Expression, Vnto this day, is a Phrase that signifieth a Time past. And the same is manifest by like Arguments of the Books of Iudges and Ruth, that they were writ­ten long after the Captivity, Iudges chap. 1.21, 26. chap. 6.24. chap. 10.4. chap. 15.19. chap. 17.6. and Ruth chap. 1.1. but es­pecially Iudges 18.30.

Now the Reason why I make mention of these things is only to shew, That our most Reverend and Ingenious Author is not the first that has had scruples in this kind, and that he may well make an Enquiry into the Truth of some Passages of the History, when the very Historians themselves are so much doubt­ed of by others; not but that we may pay a just deference to the Church, and yet at the same time raise scruples for information sake, the better to arm our selves against our Anta­gonists.

[Page 19]The next little Part or Epilogue of Dr. Bur­net's Book, which we here present you with in English, is his Appendix concerning the Brach­min's Religion, and has reference to one of his former Chapters on the same Subject. I must confess his Notion of their Omnipotent Spider (though what I have read many Years since) was no less grateful to me, than the return of a Friend after a long Voyage. That thought of Resolving all things into himself, an Estate for Life that falls into the Landlords hands. Sure no good Tenant needs fear a good new Lease the State of Man, if rightly well con­sider'd, is only wearing out our Threads of Life, in order to our Deaths. And he that weighs our Progress here, the great Vicissitudes without decay, since things may change, but ne'er annihilate, will find Penelope Telam Texere is our case: Dress and undress the Emblem of our Lives, till shrowded in our mortal Disha­billie, we wait the Morning for a different Dress; when the Celestial Drop as now enclos'd, may to a different Viol be exposed. But I shall trouble you no more upon this subject, least you should mistake it for the foolish Funeral Ser­mon of,

BY your Permission, and Mr. Crook's Fa­vour, I have had the Happiness to per­use your incomparable Treatise of Heresie in Manuscript, wherein you have certainly given us a more accurate and faithful Account of the Nicene Council, together with their particular Grounds and Reasons for each distinct Article of their Faith in the Nicene Creed, than is any where else to be met with. How grateful this Discourse of yours will be to the Quicunque Men, I shall not presume to determine, since I am sure Mr. Hobbs is as much above their Anger, as they are below his Resentments. You your self have very well observed, when Reason is against a Man, a Man will be against Reason; and [Page 98] therefore 'tis no wonder to see, from several Interests, so many several Opinions and Ani­mosities arise: This made the Arrians and Trinitarians so zealously endeavour to supplant one another; this made Constantine at first espouse the Arrian Interest to Mount the Throne, as the present Lewis XIV did the Interest of the Hugonots; and afterwards think­ing to weaken or at least to ballance that Power that raised him, strike in with Athana­sius and the Trinitarians for a time, as our pre­s [...]nt Lewis hath since done the like with the Po­pish and Jusuitical Party against his Protestant Subjects. For Mankind ever lived and died after one and the same Method in all Ages, being governed by the same Interests and the same Passions at this time, as they were many Thousand Years before us, and will be many Thousand Years after us.

It must be confessed, the Arrians were so powerful a Sect in the Roman Empire (espe­cially the Eastern Part of it) that the Followers of the Nicene Council were not equal to them, either in Number, Splendor, Interest or Riches. If you will believe the learned Petavius and others, they did offer to be try'd by the Fathers that preceded the Nicene Council: For at that Council, they were ra­ther condemn'd by a Party than by the general Consent of the Christian Church; because Constantine, out of above Two thousand Bi­shops then assembled, excluded all but Three [Page 99] hundred and eighteen; nor were those perhaps (for Accounts vary) all Bishops, that made up this great Council. They were all of a Judgment at first, and so rather Parties than Judges; the Arrians had not the Freedom to dispute their Cause: And the Emperor Constan­tine was afterwards so ill satisfied with their proscription, that he soon recalled Arrius, and a little before his Death was baptized by an Arrian Bishop. Constantius and Valens were professed- Arrians (and not to mention the Gots) Valentinian, Theodosius and other Empe­rors protected and honoured them, both with civil and military Commands.

The Arrian Doctrin was not only confirm­ed by Eight Councils several times assembled at Tyre, Sardis, Syrmium, Milain, Selucia, Nice, Tarsis, and particularly at Ariminum (where six hundred Bishops were of their Opinion, with only three which held the contrary) but they also punished others their Adversaries, who were of a contrary Opinion to them, with Confiscations, Banishments and other grievous Punishments. Now whether the Power of their Party, the Riches of their Churches, the Magnificence of their Worship (as the first that brought Music into the Church) or the same of their Learning, and pretensions to Reason (which is always an inviduous Plea) did raise Jealousie and Hatred in the Emperors against them, as also rendred them odious to the Trinitarians; or what most contributed to [Page 100] their first Depression and Persecution, I know not: Since to persecute for Religion, was by the Trinitarians ( Athanasi [...]s, Hillary and others) then accounted an Arrian and unchristian Tenet. It is not to be doubted, but that, after the days of Theodosius, Reason of State did most prevail towards their Subversion, left they should joyn with the Goths, who at that time possessed of Italy, Spain, Afric and other Provinces, were formidable to the Bizantine Empire. Not­withstanding whatsoever it was, 'tis easie to comprehend that the Depression of them did facilitate the Conquest of the Goths; and if you will credit Salvian, the Goths were very pious in their Way, mild to the Conquer'd, just in their Dealings; so that the Wickedness of the Christian Rulers of Provinces, their Ex­actions upon the People, and Insolence of the Foreign Souldiers, whereby they ruled, made even the Trinitarians themselves willingly sub­mit to their Dominion, and prefer it before that of the Eastern Emperors.

As for the Trinitarians of those Times, I must confess, I cannot but esteem them as Enemies to all human Learning; for they had Cannons forbidding them to read any Ethic Books, and a Zeal which disposed them to destroy all they met with of that kind. Thus we may well suppose them universally igno­rant, except some few; and as the Pastors, so were the People. Their Religion also con­sisted rather in an out-side Service, than in­ward [Page 101] Piety and Knowledge; their Faith was in a manner implicit, the Mysteries of Reli­gion (for such I call the Doctrin of the Tri­nity and its Dependencies) were scarce ever mentioned to them in Sermons, much less ex­plicated. Hence the Vulgar became prone to Embrace Superstition and credit Miracles, how ridiculous and fabulous soever: Visions, Allegories and Allusions to Texts, were con­vincing Arguments; and no Demonstration like to a feigned Story and Legend, or what might be Interpreted a Judgment upon an Heretic.

Amongst the Trinitarians were a sort of People who followed the Court Religion, and believed as their Prince ordained, living then unconfined by the Dictates of the then de­clining Church: And though the Trinitarians had resolv'd upon, and subscrib'd to the Nicene Council, and embraced those Forms of Speech which are now in use, yet did they not un­derstand what was meant by them. The Latin Church allow'd of Three Persons, and not of three Hypostases; the Greek Church allow'd of three Hypostases, and not of three Persons. As difficult was it for them to Ex­plicate Vsia or Essence; which hard words pro­duc'd a subdivision amongst them, consisting of Nestorians and Eutychians. The Nestorians believing the Deity of Christ, held that he was made up of two distinct Persons, and so [Page 102] perfect God and perfect Man. The Euty­chians averr'd, that Christ had but one Nature, and that upon the Hypostatical Union, the Deity and Humanity were so blended together, by Confusion of Properties and Substances, that one Person endued with one Will did emerge thence. Now these two Sects were of great Power in the Eastern Church, and though they were both condemn'd in the third and fourth General Councils, yet did they spread far and near, through Palestine, Aegypt, the Kingdom of Abyssines, and all Persia over: Each of them had their Patriarchs, Bishops and Churches contradistinct from the Mel­chites, who adhering and subscribing to the Council of Chalcedon (which all the Imperial Clergy did) were called Melchites, that is to say, Men of the King's Religion. The Au­thors of the Nestorian and Eutychian Sects were Learned and Potent Bishops: Eutychius was Patriarch of Constantinople, and with him joyn'd Dioscorius Patriarch of Alexandria, Severus Pa­triarch of Antioch, and Iacobus Baradaeus, from whom the Iacobites are at this day denomi­nated. Nestorius was also Patriarch of Con­stantinople, and his Sect very much dif­fused.

The Truth is, such were the Ignorance of the People, and Debaucheries of the Ages at this time, that if a Man did but live a pious strict Life, with great Mortification, or out­ward [Page 103] Devotion, and were but an Eloquent Preacher, he might in any place of the Eastern Empire have made a Potent Sect instantly. And to shew how ignorant the Clergy were at the General Council of Chalcedon, in the time of Marcianus the Emperor, we find that the Greek Tongue was then so little understood at Rome, and the Latin in Greece, that the Bishops of both Countries (in all 630.) were glad to speak by Interpreters: Nay, in this very Council of Chalcedon, the Emperor was fain to deliver the same Speech in Greek to one Party, and in Latin to the other, that so both might understand him: The Council of Ierusalem, for the same Reason, made certain Creeds both in Greek and Latin: At the Council of Ephesus, the Pope's Legates had their Interpreter to Ex­pound the Words; and when Caelestine's Letters were there read, the Acts tell us, how the Bishops desired to have them Translated into Greek, and read over again, insomuch that the Romish Legates had almost made a Contro­versie of it, fearing least the Papal Authority should have been prejudiced by such an Act; alledging therefore, how it was the ancient Custom to propose the Bulls of the Sea Apo­stolic in Latin only, and that that might now suffice. Whereupon these poor Greek Bishops were in danger not to have understood the Pope's Latin, till at length the Legates were content with Reason, when it was evidenced [Page 104] to them, that the major part could not under­stand one word of Latin. But the pleasantest of all, is, Pope Caelestine's Excuse to Nesto­rius, for his so long delay in answering his Letters, because he could not by any means get his Greek construed sooner. Also Pope Gregory the First ingeniously confesseth to the Bishop of Thessaly, that he understood not a jot of his Greek; wherefore 'tis probable, the Proverb of honest Accursius was even then in use, — Graecum est, non Legitur — and this was the Condition of Christianity in which Iustinian the Emperor found it, A. C. 540. So that, as Monsieur Daill [...] has demonstrated with how little certainty we can depend upon the Fathers, I think I may safely averr, there is as little Trust to be reposed in General Councils, who have been Guilty of so much Ignorance and Interest, as well as so frequent­ly contradicting one another: And to say, that Councils may not Err, though private Persons may, is (as Mr. Hales well observes) all one as to say, that every single Souldier indeed may run away, but the whole Army cannot.

Sir, Your Treatise having reviv'd these Me­ditations in me, I hope you'll pardon me if I have been too prolix; and though I am not so vain to pretend to offer these Collections, or indeed any thing, for Mr. Hobb's Instruction, who is of himself the great Instructor of the [Page 105] most sensible Part of Mankind in the noble Science of Philosophy; yet I may hope for the Honour of your Correction wherein I am Er­roneous, the which will for ever oblige,

Pardon, Sir, I beseech you, my sending this trifle, called Anima Mundi, being commanded to do it by one, whom 'tis my duty, as well as my happiness, to obey.

YOU often profess your self an Epicurean, but sacrifice your health in pursuit of a mistaken happiness; the pleasure the wise Epi­curus plac'd happiness in was of another kind, 'twas more temper'd with Reason; but hear what he says, and then judg how far you are his Disciple. ‘Felicity seems plainly to consist in Pleasure, this is first to be prov'd in gene­ral then we must shew in what Pleasure par­ticularly it consists.’

‘In general, Pleasure seems to be, as the be­ginning so the end also of a happy life, since we find it be the first Good, and convenient to our, and to all animal Nature, and is that from which we begin all Election and Avoi­dance, and in which at last we terminate them using this affection as a rule to judg every good.’

‘That Pleasure is the first and connatural good, or (as they term it) the first thing sui­table and convenient to Nature, appeareth [Page 107] from that, every animal assoon as born, de­sires Pleasure, and rejoyces in it, as the chief good, shunneth pain as the greatest ill, and to its utmost ability repels it. We see that ev'n Hercules himself tormented by a Poyson­ous Shirt could not with-hold from tears. Thus does every undepraved Animal, in its own na­ture judging incorruptly and intirely.’

‘There needs not therefore any reasoning to prove, that Pleasure is to be desired, Pain to to be shunn'd, for this is manifest to ones sense Fire is hot, Snow white, Honey sweet: we need no arguments to prove this, it is enough that we give notice of it, for since that if we take away from man all his senses there is nothing remaining; it is necessary that what is convenient or contrary to nature, be judged by nature her self, and that Pleasure is expe­tible in it self, and Pain in its self to be avoi­ded; for what perceives or what judges, ei­ther [...] to pursue or avoid any thing, except Pleasure and Pain.’

‘That Pleasure as being the first thing convenient to Nature, is also the last of Expetibles, or the end of good things, may be understood even from this, because 'tis Pleasure only for whose sake, we so desire the rest, that it self is not desired, for the sake of any other but only for its self; for we may desire other things to delight or please our selves, but no man ever deman­ded a reason, why we should be delighted, [Page 108] certainly no more than for what cause we desire to be happy, since Pleasure and Fe­licity ought to be reputed, not only in the same degree, but to be the very same thing, and consequently the end, or ultimate, and greatest good, on which the rest depend, but it self depends on time.’

‘This is farther prov'd, for that Felicity is, no otherwise than because it is that state, in which we may live most sweetly, and most pleasantly, that is with the greatest pleasure that may be; for take from life this sweet­ness, jucundity, pleasure, and where I pray will be your notion of Felicity? Not of that Felicity only which I term'd Divine, but even the other esteem'd human? which is no otherwise capable to receive degrees of more, or less, or intension, and remission, than be­cause addition or detraction of Pleasure may befal it.’

‘To understand this better by comparing Pleasure with Pain; let us suppose a man en­joying many great incessant Pleasures, both in Mind and Body, no pain hindring them, nor likely to disturb them; what state can we say is more excellent, or more desirable than this? For in him who is thus affected, there must necessarily be a constancy of mind, fearing neither death nor pain, because death is void of sense; pain if long, uses to be light, if great short; so as shortness makes amends for its greatness, lightness for its length. When [Page 109] he arrives at such a condition, as he trembles not at the horror of the Deity, nor suffers the present pleasures to pass away, whilst his mind is busi'd with remembrance of past, or expectation of future good things, but is daily joy'd with the reflecting upon them, what can be added to better the condition of this person?’

‘Suppose on the other side, a man afflicted with as great pains of Body, and Griefs of Mind, as mans nature is capable of, no hope that they shall ever be eas'd, no pleasure past, present or expected; What can be said or imagin'd more miserable than he?’

‘If therefore a life full of pains be of all things most to be avoided, doubtless the grea­test ill is to live in pain, whence it follows that the greatest good is to live in pleasure: Nei­ther indeed hath our Mind any thing else wherein as its center it may rest all Sicknesses, and troubles are reduced to pain, nor is there any thing else which can remove Nature out of her place, or dissolve her.’

‘That Pleasure wherein consists Felicity is Indolence of Body and tranquility of Mind. There being two kinds of Pleasure, one in station or rest, which is a placability, calm­ness and vanity, or immunity from trouble and grief: The other in motion, which consists in a sweet movement, as in gladness, mirth, or whatever moves the sense delightfully with a kind of sweetness and titilation, as to eat [Page 110] and drink out of hunger and thirst: It may be demanded whether, in both, or in either, and in which consists Felicity? We say that Pleasure wherein Felicity consists, is of the first kind, the stable, or that which is in sta­tion, and so can be no other than indolence of Body, and tranquility of Mind. Or not pain'd in Body, and not troubled in Mind.’

This Doctrine wou'd make any one a Dis­ciple of Epicurus, that will govern himself ac­cording to the rules of Reason; and for the rest, my Friend, as they are Brutes in quitting their best pretence to Humanity, so I shall no more trouble my self about their manner of life, than I wou'd about that of their Brethren of the Forrest, or have indeed any more regard to 'em. Let not the complaisance your good na­ture infects you with, betray your Reason to the importunities of Fools, but rather disob­lige them than your self, and

YOU condemn Epicurism and Profuseness, and at the same time Caress Avarice, In­gratitude. You rail at the folly of men of sense, and make none but Fools your Friends. Let your Enemy Epicurus, better instruct your life, or set some bounds to your tongue. There are Vertues (says Epicurus) ally'd to Justice, for that they have regard to other persons, tho they are not (as Justice is) prescrib'd by Laws and Co­venants, yet they import out of decency a cer­tain obligation like that of Justice.

The first is Beneficence, or the doing good to others, whereunto those are oblig'd who are able to assist, or relieve others, either with their Hand or Purse. Not to pass as Pyrrho is repor­ted along with­out any regard to the mischance of his Friend Anaxarchus, that was faln into a Ditch, tho he that cou'd de­fend such sordid incompassion deserv'd, to be so left. If they deny the assistance of their Hands, they are censur'd as bar­barous, cruel, inhuman: if that of their Purse, they are thought the same, as also sordid, tenaci­ous, covetous and the like. But if they assist others, they are accoun­ted courteous, civil, kind, as also liberal, magnificent, &c. so that they are obliged for their own sakes to do good to others so far as may be without prodigality.

For those that practice this Vertue procure to themselves good will, and (what most of all conduces to a quiet living) dearness and tender [Page 112] estimation from others; they who use it not ill will, and (what most occasions a troublesom life) contempt and hatred. Take heed there­fore you omit not to be Beneficent, at least in small matters, that so you lose not the advan­tage of being accounted ready to gratifie o­thers ev'n in great.

Not without reason did I say formerly it is not only more honourable, but also more de­lightful to give than to receive benefits; because the giver thereby makes himself superior to the receiver, and reaps moreover the interest of thanks; and there is not any thing that Joys a man more than Thanks. A Beneficent person is like a fountain, which if you should suppose it to have a reasonable soul, what joy wou'd it not have at the sight of so many Corn-fields and Pastures, which flourish and smile as it were with plenty and verdure, and all by the diffusi­on of its streams upon them?

The second is Gratitude, to which every man that receives a benefit is reciprocally oblig'd, un­less he wou'd incur the greatest hatred and igno­miny. For Ingratitude is worthily hateful to all men, because seeing nothing is more suitable to Nature, than to be propense to receive a good, it is highly contrary to Nature not to be readi­ly grateful toward the Author of that Good.

Now since none is more gratefully affected toward his Benefactors than a wise man, we may justly affirm, that only the wise man knows how to fulfil the duty of Gratitude, because he [Page 113] alone is ready upon all occasions to express his thankfulness to his Friends both present and ab­sent, ev'n to those that are dead.

Others pay thanks only to pre­sent Friends, A foolish man behind a friends back shall side with his enemy, not remembring that of Horace, Absentem qui rodit amicum. qui non defen­dit, &c. when present, and this perhaps for their own farther ends, to encourage them to some new favour; but how few are there who gratefully commemo­rate their absent Benefactors? who requite the good they did them upon their As Xenophon to Xantippe, and the Children of Socrates, who receiv'd no o­ther benefit than his Learn­ing from So­crates, and yet expresses him­self in his Epi­stle to Xantip­pe that he takes care only to thrive in the world for the sake of main­taining her, and the Sons of his old Master Socrates. Children, or other Relations? how few who honour their Memory after death? who rejoyce not rather as if their Ob­ligations were cancell'd? Who love those that were dear to them, respect them, and as far as in them lyes do them good?

Madam, my Relation to you makes me so zealous to reform your faults which render you obnoxious to the Discourse of the World. If you will persist in Vice, discover it not by your railery at the opposite Vertues; be a better Christian, or learn the Dictates of Na­ture from a Heathen, either would render you more agreeable to

YOU sent me word that you desire to know what the ancient Philosophers held of Fate and Fortune: I shall here send the Opi­nion of Two of the greatest (for I shall not fear to prefer them to Aristotle) I mean Plato and Pythagoras.

Concerning Fate Plato held thus; ‘All things are in Fate, yet all things are not decreed by Fate; for Fate, though it be like a Law, yet it uses not to speak after this manner, That this Man shall do thus and to that Man, that shall befal (which were to proceed to infinite Generation of Men, and infinite Actions hapning daily to them; beside, that this would take away our free Will, our praise or dispraise, or whatever is of that kind) but rather thus: Whatsoever Soul chuseth such a Life, and doth such things, these shall follow. The Soul therefore is free, and is left within its power to do or not do, without any com­pulsion or necessity. But that which follows the Action is perform'd by Fate. As from Paris's ravishing Helena (which is within my power to do or not to do) shall follow, that the Grecians contend with the Trojans about He­lena. Thus Apollo foretold Laius, If thou beget [Page 115] a Son, that Son shall kill thee. In the Oracle are comprehended both Laius and he begetting of a Son, that which follows the begetting of a Son depends on Fate. That which may be done is of a middle kind, betwixt true and false; and being so indefinite by Nature, that which is in our power is carried on as it were unto it. That which is done by our Election, is presently either true or false; that which is in power is different from that which is said to be in Habit and Act. That which is in power declareth an Aptitude in that thing wherein the Habit is not perfect: So a Boy may be said to be a Grammarian, a Mu­sician, a Carpenter, in power: He is in the Habit of one or more of these, when he he hath acquired this Habit. He is said to be in Act when he operateth according to that acquired Habit. That which we call possi­ble to be done is none of these. Indetermi­nate is that which is in our power, and to which part soever it inclines will be true or false.’

Pythagoras of Fate and Fortune says,

All the parts of the World above the Moon are governed according to Providence, and from Order, the Decree of God which they follow; but those beneath the Moon by four Causes, by God, by Fate, by our Election, by Fortune. For instance, to go abroad into a [Page 116] Ship, or not, is in our Power; Storms and Tempest to arise out of a Calm, is by For­tune; for, the Ship being under water, to be preserved, is by the Providence of God. Of Fate there are many Manners and Diffe­rences; it differs from Fortune, as having a Determination, Order and Consequence; but Fortune is spontaneous and casual, as to pro­ceed from a Boy to a Youth, and orderly to pass through other degrees of Age happens by one manner of Fate. — There is also Fate of all Things in general, and in parti­cular, the cause of this Administration:

As for Zeno and some other Philosophers, I will in my next send you their Opinions, till then I rest

I Had the Honour Yesterday to receive from the Hands of an Humble Servant of your Lordship's, your most incomparable Version of that Passage of Seneca's, where he begins with, — Post mortem nihil est, ipsaque mors nihil, &c. — and must confess, with your Lordship's Pardon, that I cannot but esteem the Translation to be, in some measure, a [Page 118] confutation of the Original; since what less than a divine and immortal Mind could have produced what you have there written? Indeed, the Hand that wrote it may become Lumber, but sure, the Spirit that dictated it, can never be so: No, my Lord, your mighty Genius is a most sufficient Argument of its own Immor­tality; and more prevalent with me, than all the Harangues of the Parsons, or Sophistry of the Schoolmen. No subject whatever has more entangled and ruffled the Thoughts of the wisest Men, than this concerning our Fu­ture State; it has been controverted in all Ages, by Men of the greatest Learning and Parts. We must also confess, that your Author Se­neca has not wanted Advocates for the Asser­tion of his Opinion; nay, even such, who would pretend to Justifie it, out of the very Scriptures themselves: Ex. gr. as when Solomon says ( Eccles. 7.12.) — Then shall the Dust return to Dust as it was, and the Spirit to God that gave it. — And ( Eccles. 3.20, 21.) when he declares, — All go to the same place; all are of dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the Spirit of Man that goeth upward, and the Spirit of the Beast that goeth downward to the Earth — Again ( Eccles. 3.19.) when he tells us, — That which befalleth the Sons of Men befalleth Beasts, even one thing befalleth them both: As the one dieth so doth the other; yea, they have all one Breath: so that a Man hath no preeminence [Page 119] above a Beast — Likewise to such who are desirous to know what their Friends are in the other World, or (to speak more properly) their dead Friends, know; Solomon answers their inconsiderate Vtinam ( Eccles. 9.5.) with these words — The Living know they shall die, but the Dead know not any thing. — Moreover, others, for the purpose, cite that Passage of Luke 20.38. where it is said — He is not a God of the Dead, but of the Living — All which Texts (through the Weakness of Understand­ing) have by some Men been misapplied, as concurrent with the Anima Mundi of Pythagoras, which has been since in great measure revived by Averroes and Avicenna, although in one point they differ'd among themselves: For, that Averroes believed, after Death, our Souls re­turn'd and mix'd with the common Soul of the World; whereas Avicenna thought it a distinct [...] portion of the Anima Mundi, which after our Deaths remain'd entire and separate, till it met with some other Body capable of Receiving it, and then being cloathed there­with, it operated ad modum Recipientis. Mon­sieur Bernier likewise gives us, agreeable to Averroes, an account of much the same Opinion held at this time by some of the Indi­ans of Indostan, whose Faith he Illustrates after this Manner, — ‘They believe (says he) the Soul in Man's Body to be like a Bottle fill'd with Sea-water, which [Page 120] being close stop'd and cast into the Sea, tydes it up and down, till by some Acci­dent or other the unfaithful Cork, or de­crepit Bottle, becomes disorder'd, so as the Water Evacuates and Disgorges it self a­gain into the common Ocean, from whence it was at first taken’ — Which agrees very well with what (as Philostratus tells us, lib. 8. chap. 13.) Apollonius after his Death re­vealed to a Young Man concerning the Im­mortality of the Soul in these words, as rendred from the Greek:—

[Page 119]But he, among the Heathens, who spake plainest and fullest of this matter, was Pliny in his Natural History, lib. 7 ch. 4. where he writes to this purpose: ‘After the Interment of our Bodies, there is great diversity of Opinions concerning the future state of our wandring. Souls or Ghosts; But the most general is this: That in what condition they were before they were born men, in the same they shall remain when dead: forasmuch as neither Body nor Soul hath any more sense after our dying-day, than they had before the day of our Nativity. However such is the Folly and Vanity of men, that it extendeth even to future Ages; nay, and in the very time of Death even flatter­eth it self with fine Imaginations and Dreams of I know not what after this Life. For, some crown the Soul with Immortality: others pretend a Transfi­guration thereof: and others suppose that the Ghosts sequestred from the Body have sense; Whereupon they render them honour and worship, making a God of him, that is not so much as a man: As if the manner of mens Breathing differ [...]d from that of other Living Creatures: or, as if there were not to be found in the World many more things that live much longer than man; and yet no man judg­eth in them the like immortality. But [Page 120] shew me, if you can, what is the Substance and Body of the Soul (as it were) by it self? what kind of matter is it apart from the Body? where lieth the Cogita­tion that she hath? how is her Seeing? how is her Hearing perform'd? what toucheth she? Nay, what one thing doth she? how is she employ'd? or if there be none of all this in her, what Good can there be without the same? Again, I wonld fain know where she resides after her Departure from the Body? and what an infinite multitude of Souls, like sha­dows, would there be in so many Ages as well part, as to come? Now, surely, these are but fantastical, foolish and chil­dish Toys; devised by Men that would fain live always; the like foolery is there in preserving the Bodies: Nor was the va­nity if Democritus less, who promis'd a Resurrection of the Body, and yet himself could never rise again. But what a folly of follies is it, to think that Death should be the way to a second Life? what Repose, what Rest could ever the Sons of Men have, if thier Souls did remain in Heaven above with sense, whil'st their shadows tar­ry'd beneath among the infernal Spirits: certainly these sweet Inducements and pleasing Persuasions, this foolish Credulity and easiness of Belief, destroyeth the bene­fit of the best gift of Nature, Death. It [Page 121] likewise doubleth the pains of a Man that is to dye, if he does but consider what is to become of him hereafter: how much more easie and greater security were it for each Man to ground his Reasons and Reso­lutions upon an Assurance, that he should be in no worse a condition, than he was be­fore he was born?’ Now these (my Lord) with what others? I have mention'd in my Anima Mundi, are the chief Opinions of the Moralists among the ancient Heathens.

In Answer to which, some of our Moderns argue, That if the Soul be not immortal, the whole Universe would at this time be deceiv'd, since all our Laws do now suppose it so. But to this it has been reply'd, That if the whole be nothing but the parts, (as must be allow'd) then, since there is no Man who is not deceiv'd, as Plato saith, it is so far from an Offence, that it is absolutely necessary to grant, either that the whole World is deceiv'd, or at least the greater part of it; for supposing that there be but three Laws, viz. that of Moses, that of Christ, and that of Mahomet: either all are false, and so the whole World is deceiv'd; or only two of them, and so the greater part is deceiv'd. But we must know, as Plato and Aristotle well observe, That a Politician is a Physician of Minds: and that his Aim is, rather to make Men good, than knowing; wherefore, according to the deversity of [Page 122] Men, he must render himself agreeable to the diversity of humors, for the attainment of his end. Now there are some Men so ingenuous and good-natur'd, that they are induc'd to Virtue by the meer excellency thereof, and withdraw themselves from Vice, purely for the sake of its own deformity; and these are Men the best disposed, tho [...] rarely to be met with. Others, who are worse enclined, notwithstanding the beauty of Virtue, and turpitude of Vice, do still practice virtuous things, and refrain from those that are vicious, meerly out of Re­wards, Praises, Honours, Punishments and Dispraises, whom we may enrol in the second Rank. Again, others, for hope of some good, as well as for fear of corporal punishment, are made virtuous: wherefore Politicians, that they may attain such virtue, allure them with the hopes of Riches, Dig­nity and Command; at the same time, to prevent their committing Vice, they ter­rify them with some punishment either in Purse, Honour or Body. But others, out of a savageness and ferocity of Nature, are moved with none of these things, as daily experience sheweth: wherefore for such, they have proposed to the Virtuous, Rewards in another Life; and to the Vicious, Punish­ments, which do most of all terrify: since the greater part of Man, if they do good, do it rather out of fear of eternal Loss, than [Page 123] hope of eternal Gain; forasmuch as we have a more sensible Idea of Suffering and Losses, than of Elyzium, and the good en­tertainment there. Now because this last Expedient may be profitable to all Men of what condition soever, Lawgivers consider­ing the proneness of Men to evil, and them­selves aiming at the Public Good, establish'd the Immortality of the Soul, perhaps, at first, not so much out of a regard to Truth, as to Honesty, hoping thereby to induce Men to Virtue. Nor are Politicians to be so much blamed herein, more than Phy­sicians, who many times, for the benefit of their Patients, are compell'd to feign and pretend divers things: since, in like man­ner, Politicians devise Fables only to regu­late the People; notwithstanding, in these Fables, as Averroes saith, ( Prolog. in 3. Phys.) there is properly neither Truth nor False­hood: Thus Nurses bring their Children to those things which they know are good for them, after the like manner; whereas if the Man or the Child were either sound in Body or Mind, neither would the Physician or the Nurse stand in need of such contri­vances. Likewise, if all Men were in that first Rank abovemention'd, tho' we should admit the mortality of the Soul, they would yet (perhaps) be virtuous and honest; but such are rare to be found, and therefore it is necessary to use other Expe­dients: [Page 124] neither is there any Absurdity therein, since almost all humane Nature is immerst in matter, and partaketh but little of the Intellect: whence Man is more distant from Intelligences, than a sick Man from him that is sound, or a Fool from a Wiseman; so that it is no wonder if a Politician makes use of such ways or means, for the publick establishment of good manners. And there­fore, my Lord, besides the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, as also the innumerable other Arguments which may be deduc'd as well from Philosophy as Reason, to prove the Immortality of the Soul, together with its Rewards and Punishments, (tho' I de­termine not their duration) yet there is no Argument of greater weight with me, than the absolute necessity and convenience that it should be so; as well to compleat the Justice of God, as to perfect the happiness of Man, not only in this World, but in that which is to come. And for this very Rea­son, when I hear Seneca the Philosopher, and others, preaching up the Doctrine of the Souls Immortality, with a

Tackt to the end of it, nothing un­der Heaven to me seems more unaccoun­table or contradictory. For, as to sup­pose a hu [...]-drum Deity chewing his own [Page 125] Nature, a droning God sit hugging of him­self, and hoarding up his Providence from his Creatures, is an Atheism no less irratio­nal, than to deny the very essence of a Divine Being; so, in my Opinion, to believe an Im­mortality of the Soul, without its due Re­wards and Punishments, is altogether as ir­rational and useless, as to believe the Soul itself to be mortal; by such a Faith we rob the Soul of its best Title to Immortality: for what need is there of an Executor, where there are no Debts to pay, nor any Estate to inherit? But Pomponatius, and es­pecially Cardan in his Theonoston, will furnish your Lordship with great Variety upon this Subject, altho' I am sure you will meet with so noble an entertainment no where, as in your own thoughts.

I Receiv'd yours, and have formerly seen a Translation of the Annals of Tacitus, but never yet met with that of his History, altho', as I have been inform'd, it is not on­ly rendred into English by the great Sir H. S. but likewise illustrated with very learned Notes of his own writing: which makes me the more admire at what you say, that a person of his knowledge and judg­ment, should so far complement the Iewish, as to rob the English World of the Fifth Book of Tacitus his History, by omitting any part of it in his Version; since, accord­ing to the true method of Translating, an Author ought not to be drawn off, but ge­nerously and freely pour'd out of one Lan­guage into another: least in separating him from the Dregs, you leave the Spirit behind you. Nevertheless, I hope, this one Example will not be sufficient to introduce an Index Expurgatorius among us; whereby Posterity might be tempted to esteem Writing, Read­ing and Books, as things unprofitable. Iustin, [Page 127] the Epitomizer of Trogus Pompeius, is more fairly dealt with; notwithstanding in the 36th Book of his History, he doth, for the most part, concur with Tacitus in his ac­count of the Original of the Iews; all which the Translator hath sincerely and im­partially given his Reader in English: wherefore, according to your desire, I shall only trouble you with what was never yet publish'd in our Language, viz. what Tacitus speaks concerning this Subject, in the 5th Book of his History, which is as follows.

‘Some conceive the Iews to have been Exiles from the Island of Crete, and to have planted themselves upon the Borders of Lybia, about the time when Saturn suf­fer'd expulsion from his Dominions by Iupiter; the Reason whereof is grounded upon the Name: for there being in Crete a Mountain, not a little remarkable, call'd Ida, the Inhabitants, by a barbarous intru­sion of a letter, were call'd Iudaei, quasi Idaei. Others say, that the Mob swarming through­out Egypt, when Isis bare Rule there, these were evacuated into bordering Countries, Hyerosolimus and Iudas having at that time the Command over them. Again, many think them to have been a People of Ethio­pia, whom King Cepheus, betwixt fear and hatred, thought fit to have removed. O­thers also make them to have been an indi­gent People of Assyria, who having pos­sess'd [Page 128] themselves of part of Egypt, by de­grees built Cities, incroaching upon the Hebrew Countries, and Borders of Syria. But, among the rest, some will entitle their Original to a more honourable deri­vation, viz. to be the Solimi of Asia, a People mention'd by Homer with honour, who, from their own, gave name to Ieru­salem. However, sundry Author agree, that there being an Epidemical Scabies throughout Egypt, which much polluted their Bodies, King Occhoris addressing him­self to Hamon's Oracle, and supplicating a Remedy, receiv'd this Mandate, viz. To purge the Kingdom of that sort of People, which were not acceptable to the Gods, and to convey them into other Countries. Where­upon Inquisition being made, they were ga­ther'd together, and proscribed for a march. But being afterwards left in a Wilderness, disanimated and drooping with Lamentations, one of the Proscri­ption, Moses by name, advised them to abandon all expectation of Aid, either from Gods or Men, being thus forsaken both, and to confide only in him as their celestial Guardian, who were al­ready by their present trust freed from some miseries. They assented, and, as an ignorant People, adventured under his Conduct; in which Pilgrimage, nothing fatigued them more, than the want of [Page 129] Water: when lying in the Fields ready to perish with Thirst, there passed by an Herd of wild Asses towards a Creek, very much shadow [...]d with Groves; whom Moses follow'd, imagining there might be a fruit­ful Soil: and discovers fair Channels of Water, wherewith they refresh'd them­selves. Now the sixth day of their Tra­vels being at an end, on the seventh they possess'd themselves of Lands, (expelling the Inhabitants) wherein were both City and Temple consecrated. When Moses, to the end he might confirm to himself this People for the future, constitutes new Rites different from the rest of the World; esteeming those things prophane, which, with us, were sacred; and indulging others, which we interdicted. They, likewise, consecrated the Effigies of an Ass, for be­ing their Guide to the Waters where they satisfied their Thirst; as also sacrificed a Ram in contempt of Iupiter Hamon. They offer [...]d up an Ox likewise, under which Effigies the Egyptians worship'd Apis. They abstain'd from Swines flesh, in memory of their Scabies, (whereto this Creature is very obnoxious) wherewith they were polluted. They commemorate their long Famine with frequent Fastings; the loss of their Fruits with unleaven [...]d Bread; and every seventh day they rested, because that gave a Period to their Labours: which af­terwards [Page 130] grew so pleasing to them, that they devoted every seventh year to their ease. Others are of opinion that they did this in honour of Saturn; but by what means soever they have been introduced, they have no Antiquity for their Patroni­zation. Other sinister and filthy Institu­tions have been prevalent for their pravi­ty; and all the very dregs of the People (who contemned the Religions of their own Countries) accumulated Tributes hither: whereby the substance of the Iews was very much enlarg'd. Among themselves, they were very fruitful and merciful; but for all others, had an irre­concileable hatred. They were a People very much inclin [...]d to Lust, and however they abstain [...]d from mixing with Aliens, yet nothing was esteemed unlawful a­mongst themselves: Now this brought in their Custom of Circumcising their Genitals, thereby to distinguish them from others; and whosoever expected to be incorpora­ted into them, was to do the same: after which, the first Lesson they taught them was, to contemn the Gods, forsake their Coun­try, and disesteem of Parents, Children, Brethren, &c. Tacit. lib. 5.’

Now, besides the concurrence of Trogus, we hear also of others, who pretend to much the same both with him and Tacitus, as [Page 131] those ancient Egyptian Writers, Manethon, Chaeremon, Lysimachus, Appion, and others: nor does Iosephus seem to produce any con­siderable Confutation of their Opinions; only in general, he finds fault with their mistaking of Names, and other such small Variations in their Histories, which to im­partial Readers are very inconsiderable. Nay, we see Iosephus does not so much reject the Truth of Manethon's History; but when it was for his advantage, he could make use of him, in qouting his Writings, to prove the Antiquity of his Countrymen the Iews; so that, however in Circumstances and Names of particular persons they might vary, yet that the Iews were banish'd out of Egypt for Scabies, that Moses their Commander gave them new Laws of his own making, forbid­ding them to converse or marry with stran­gers; as also that they afterwards, to re­venge their Banishments, invaded Egypt, put­ting the Egyptians and their King to flight, (as they did) in all this (I say) most of the ancient Egyptian Writers agree, as we may gather from Iosephus his own Wri­tings.

The Tradition of the Memphites, con­cerning Moses's passing the Red Sea, was,

That Moses being well acquainted with the condition of the place, observed the Flux and Reflux of the Waters, and so brought over his Army by dry Land.

[Page 132]However, had this been wrought imme­diately by God, we need not (says Iosephus) so much wonder at it, for that the Pamphy­liam Ocean did the same to Great Alexander of Macedon, and gave way to him and his Followers, the Waves themselves marking out a Path, rather than any thing should hinder the Design which God had purposed to them, viz. to overthrow the Kingdom of Persia, and this Iosephus in these very words records; so that by lessning the Miracle, he destroys it: making it cease to be a Won­der, while he strives to make it fit to be be­liev'd.

Abraham and Moses seem'd first to in­stitute Religious Worship, and both of them were well skill [...]d in Egyptian Learning: which gave occasion for some to think, that Moses and the Iews took divers of their Customs from the Egyptians; as for Instance, their Cir­cumcision, because Herodotus says, that the Phaenicians and Syrians in Palestine (which must be the Iews, since none else us'd it in Palestine) took their Circumcision from the Egyptians; also (says he) they con­fess the same themselves: nor does Iose­phus deny as much: only says (without giving any reason why) that he doubts, whether they learnt it of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, or whether the Egyptians and Ethiopians learnt it of them, but does not affirm or deny either: Ioseph. Cont. Ap [...] How­ever, [Page 133] Bochartus in his Phaleg, as well as Dr. Stillingfleet in his Origines Sacrae, affirm the latter; not to mention Theophilus Gale, and other Gleaners upon the same Subject.

The Article of one true God, was com­mon both to Iews and Gentiles, even before their Reception: the universality of Reli­gious Worship consisting in the practice of Virtue and Goodness, we may find also common to the Gentiles, as well as to the Iews: or if it be said, that Precept in the Decalogue, That we should make no graven Image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath; was particular to the Iews; it will be found, that whatsoever they said thereof, the Persians and other neighbouring Nations concurred therein; as also in the rest of the Com­mandments: thus Feriari Deo is a kind of Sabboth-keeping.

The ancient Iews, and modern Christians, have many Rites and Ceremonies common with the Gentiles; which is more than our vulgar Divines do imagine. Most of the Iewish Laws and Rites were practised among the Gentiles indifferently, or at least did not much vary from them, as the diligent Searchers into Antiquity well know. The Gentiles as well as the Iews, held the most substantial parts of Moses his Doctrines, without differing in much more than certain parcicular Laws, more proper for that Country than any other, as, their not eat­ing [Page 134] Swines flesh; their making Adultery death, &c. since, as the Notions of God, and a good Conscience, are written in our Souls at this day, so we cannot justly think, any of our Forefathers among the Gentiles were deprived of them.

But when all is done, SIR, these Rela­tions, of Trogus, Tacitus, and the rest, are only the uncertain Accounts of partial Au­thors, since the best and only History extant to be rely'd on for this Subject, is the Holy Scriptures, (dictated, as every good Chri­stian ought to believe, by the Holy Spirit) therefore, tho' I send you these other Ac­counts to gratify your Curiosity, yet refer­ring you to these for matter of Truth, I shall give you no farther trouble, than to assure you I am (without Reserve)

ACcording to your Letter, I find the Ob­jections urged against your marrying Eugenia, your Ladies Sister, are chiefly these three;

• 1. That you being her Brother in Law, by having formerly married her Sister, it would be not only a Violation of the Ca­non Law, but also of the Levitical, and consequently a sin.
• 2. That it is against the known Laws of the Land, and so might be dangerous and trou­blesom to you both.
• 3. And Lastly, That such a match being a thing unusual, and contrary to custom, it might reflect upon your Honours.

All which Objections I do conceive so ea­sily to be answered, that (were it not too great a confidence in any man to say so) with that little knowledge I have, either in Civil, Canon or Common Law, I would assert it to be lawful, and accordingly enter [Page 136] the Lists of Argument against any Levitical or Canonical Gamester whatever upon that Sub­ject. in the mean time, what I have briefly collected, for your service, upon this oc­casion is, as follows.

'Tis confessed, the 99 th Canon of the Church of England is positive in its deter­mination, that no man shall marry within the Degrees prohibited by the Laws of God, and expressed by a Table fet forth by Authority, Anno Dom. 1563. in the 17 th particular of which Table, it is declared, that a man may not marry his Wives Sister: the foundation of which Prohibition, both in the Canon and Table is this. (viz.) Kindred and Affinity forbidden to marry by the Laws of God: So that the Prohibition, as well in the Canon, as in any part of the Table, seems to be no farther obliging, then as it is forbidden by the Laws of God, and the same dependance likewise have our Statute Laws in this Case, to which they wholly refer.

The first Text of Scripture, which is commonly urged in this Case, is that of marrying a Brothers Wife, which seems to be forbidden; where by a side wind they would bring in that of marrying a Wives Sister as a parallel, saying, ubi eadem Ratio, ibi idem Ius. But, with their pardon, the simile does not run upon four feet, the Rea­son is not the same: For the words (in [Page 137] Lvit. 18. and 16.) which forbid the mar­rying a Brothers Wife, say, because a man thereby uncovers his Brothers Nakedness: which seems not at all to be a good Reason against marrying the Wives Sister; because every man is supposed to have discovered his first Wives Nakedness before any such marriage with her Sister. Besides, all Penal Laws (such as Moses's are in this Chapter,) which concern Life, Limb, nay and the very Soul too in this case, are no where construed by Parallels, but straitly tyed up to the very express Letter of the Law, or else no man would be safe, if he were liable to hang'd by way of comparison for a similitude, or being like the Picture of a Traytor: and this makes Moses so exact in particularizing each Crime, that whereas in prohibiting you to uncover your Fathers Nakedness would have serv'd likewise for the Mothers, the Reason being the same, yet nevertheless he in express words particularizes and for­bids both distinctly by themselves, and in like manner does the same in all other Cases, which he need not have done if he had design'd to have any cases not menti­oned come within the equity and constru­ction of those that are: as because I must not marry my Brothers Wife, therefore I must not marry my Wives Sister, a pretty Syllogism indeed. Besides, if it were so intended there, then, what follows had been unnecessary. For—

[Page 138]The Canon of Scripture which seems more nearly to concern this Case, is Lvit. 18.18. where it is said, Neither shalt thou take a Wife to her Sister to Vex her, to un­cover her Nakedness, besides the other in her Life-time.

Though Polygamy was allowed under the Law, yea, and Iacob did actually marry two Sisters, Leah and Rachel, yet it is here forbidden that one man should at one and the same time have two Sisters in Marriage; It was adjudged inconvenient, and Diodate upon this Text saith—

The Reason of the Inconveniency is, it would be a kind of confusion, to make two Sisters Rivals or Adversaries to one ano­ther, 'twould produce continual Jealousies and Strifes, as an example may be [...]een in Iacobs Marriage, which in those first Ages were tolerated.

But this doth not therefore seem to re­strain or prohibit the marrying of two Sisters one after another, for the first being dead, the other cannot be a Rival or Vexa­tion (as the Text calls it) to her dead Sister: a [...]d then how shall the Prohibition be urged, if the Reason of it be removed? It is rationally apparent, that there is great stress placed in those expressions ( during her Life) and ( to Vex her in uncovering her shame upon her) as doth more fully appear in our Translation of the Bible in Queen [Page 139] Elizabeths Reign, Printed Anno Domini 1599.—

Thou shalt not take a Wife with her Sister, during her Life to Vex her. in un­covering her shame upon her. —

Which seems to be very suitable to the Greek Translation, [...]: where the Prohibition run­ning upon these Terms, or containing these Conditions, that a man shall not take a Wife, [...], with her Sister, [...], during her Life: because it would be [...], a Vexation to her; but she being dead, all those inconveniencies expire with her, and so it may probably be imagined that Cessante Ratione, Cessat Pro­hibitio.

And that this is the proper tendency of the words, is the opinion of the Learned Grotius, in his Tract. de Iure Belli & Pacis, lib. 2. cap. 5. paragr. 14.

Nam de singulis partibus ne intelligatur, ar­gumento esse potest interdictum, de non habendis eodem tempore in Matrimonio Sororibus duabus: For that it ought not to be understood up­on all Occasions is sufficiently proved by the Prohibition it self, which forbids only the having two Sisters in Marriage at one time.

And this he doth not deliver as his own private Opinion, but refers to the Autho­rity [Page 140] of the Ancient Canons, the Composers whereof did not seem to esteem such a Mar­riage absolutely sinful, but inconvenient, and so obnoxious to penalties: As in the same Paragraph of Grotius, ( Lin. 17.) Cer­te Canonibus Antiquissimis, qui Apostolici di­cuntur, Qui duas Sorores alteram post alteram duxisset, aut [...], id est, Fratris aut So­roris Filiam; tantum à clero arcetur: certain­ly whoever should have married two Sisters, the one after the other, or the Daughter of his Brother or Sister, was by the most an­cient Canons, which are called Apostolical, only forbidden entring into the order of Priesthood.

Where it was esteemed inconvenient and offensive, there the person so doing ought not to be admitted to be a Priest, but that was the only punishment laid upon him, tantum -à Clero arcetur. But doth not pre­judice a Layman, such as my Friend Toris­mond is, who, I presume, never designs to to enter into the Priestly Office, unless it were to be a Confessor to the fair Sex; nei­ther doth it forbid Marriage to a Priest, only restrains him from Marrying two Sisters, one after another.

For a man to marry two Sisters succes­sively is unusual, (because most have e­nough of one out of a Family) and by Ca­nonists esteemed inconvenient; but it doth not appear by them to be forbidden any [Page 141] where, except it be Lege Human [...]; by Hu­man Law; which may restrain under a Pe­nalty, but doth not therefore make the marriage either sinful, or void, when com­pleated: Whereas, if it had been prohi­bited Lege Divinâ, by a Divine Law, then both the contracting of it, and living in full Matrimony had been sinful, whether the Canons of men had been for it, or a­gainst it. But if it be not against the Laws of God, it is so far from being forbidden by the Laws of our Land, that it is rather confirm'd by the 32 H. 8.38. where it is enacted and declared,

That the Marriages of all Persons shall be adjudged Lawful, who are not prohited by Gods Law to Marry. Which I urge in opposition to the second Objection, viz. that 'tis against the Laws of the Land to marry two Sisters, and so may be dan­gerous.

But against this some may object, that this Statute of H. 8. was enacted, 1540. and the Table set forth by Authority, which the 99 th Canon doth confirm, was set forth after it, in 1563. to which may be answered, that the Canon neither did, nor could repeal the Statute of H. 8. And that as a Canon it was a Human Law, as well as the other, and cannot therefore be intend­ed to make void any Marriage, which the Law of God hath not prohibited and made [Page 142] void: with which Grotius doth concur, and particularly applies it to the Case in hand, at the conclusion of his aforemention'd Pa­ragraph —

Sed sciendum simul est, non quod vetitum est fieri lege human, si fiat, irritum quoque esse, nisi & hoc Lex addiderit & significaverit: But (saith he) 'tis also necessary to be known, that what is forbidden by humane Law to be done, if it be done, is not therefore void, unless the Law has also added and signified as much.— And then he proceeds to give you a Quotation of some ancient Canons, which did, under a Penalty, forbid such a Marriage, but not make it void: Canon Eli­berinus, 60. —

Si quis post obitum uxoris suae, sororem ejus duxerit, & ipsa fuerit fidelis, per Quinquen­nium eum à Communione abstinere, eo ipso osten­dens, manere vinculum Matrimonii; & ut jam diximus, in Canonibus qui Apostolici dicuntur. Qui duas sorores duxerit, aut fratris filiam, tantùm Clericu [...] fieri prohibetur: If any one, after the death of his Wife, marries her Sister, and she proves faithful to him, he must, during five years, abstain from the Communion, which shews that the Bond of Matrimony still remains inviolable; and, as we have already said, in those Canons which are called Apostolical, whosoever marries two Sisters, or his Brother's Daugh­ter, is only forbid to be Priest—which is [Page 143] indeed as near as possible to the words of the Canon set forth by Ioverius in his Col­lection of Ecclesiastical Constitutions, A. D. 1555. Clas. p. 3. Apostolorum Canon, 18. Qui duas sorores duxit, aut Consobrinam, Clericus esse non potest: Whoever has married two Sisters, or his Neece, must not be a Priest.

Now that these ancient Canons retain their Validity, is apparent, not only from the practice of the learned and judicious Grotius, as well as other eminent Civilians, who appeal to their Authority; but they likewise receive confirmation and encou­ragement from the Laws of our own Na­tion; it being Enacted, 25 H. 8, 19.

That all Canons, Constitutions, Ordinan­ces, and Synodals Provincial, not repugnant to the King's Prerogative, nor to the Customs, Laws and Statutes of this King­dom, shall be used and executed, till such time as they shall be otherwise order'd and determined.

Now upon these preceding Authorities some Queries may be offer'd: As,

• 1. Whether the 99th Canon Eccles. Angl. and the Table set forth 1563, concerning the prohibited Degrees of Marriage, do not derive their Force from the Sacred Writ, so that they are not to be understood, or ex­tended farther than the Scriptures do plain­ly direct?
• [Page 144]2. Whether the Energy and Force of Levit. 18.18. be not grounded upon the Reasons contain'd in the Text? so that ces­sante Ratione, cessat Prohibitio.
• 3. Whether if the Marriage of two Sisters, one after the other; be not positive­ly against the Law of God, it be not ad­judg'd lawful, and confirm'd by the 32 H. 8.38?
• 4. Whether the Solution of Iustinian in the like Cases of Affinity, (viz.) Privign [...] & Nurus, in the first Book of his Institu­tions, ( Tit. 10. de Nuptiis. Paragr. 6.) be not properly applicable to Levit. 18.18? Si una tibi nupta est; ideo Alteram, Vxorem ducere non poteris, quia duas Sorores eodem tem­pore habere non licet.
• 5. Whether if any of the Canons Eccles. Angl. be dubious, it be not proper and con­venient to consult the ancient Canons for Explanation and Illustration?
• 6. And lastly, Whether upon these pre­ceding Considerations, to marry two Sisters, Alteram post Alteram, be malum vetitum Lege divin [...], and so sinful forô Conscientiae, and such Marriage void? or only inconvenient and obnoxious to Ecclesiastical Censures and Penalties, which the Ecclesiastical Court may either inflict or commute?

Now to conclude with this first and prin­cipal Objection, Whether it be a Sin against [Page 145] the Levitical Law? I shall only make three short Remarques.

• 1. That there are many other Laws in Leviticus, that are no more abolish'd by Christ, than this of Marriages, which yet are wholly neglected, and no ways look'd upon as obligatory.
• 2. Many doubt, Whether any of the Laws given to the Iews in particular, are binding to other Nations, excepting only those revived by Christ, which this of Mar­riages never was?
• 3dly, and lastly, 'Tis worth our obser­vation, that when the Question was put to Christ by the Sadduces, about the Wife that had been married to seven Brethren, tho' 'twas a common practice among them, and he had so fair an opportunity offer'd him, yet he never reproves the Custom of one Womans marrying several Brethren, but an­swers only to the plain Question as 'twas put, That at the Resurrection they neither mar­ry, nor are given in Marriage: Now since he did reprove and abolish all their other evil Customs, it may well be suppos'd he thought not this so, or otherwise he would have con­demn'd it with the rest.

As for the second Objection, That such a Marriage would be against the known Laws of the Land, and therefore dangerous to you both:

[Page 146]I have sufficiently answered this already, as likewise the third and last Objection; since, as well the Statute Laws, as Honour and Conscience in this case do wholly de­pend upon the Legality of such a Match ac­cording to the Law of God, which point I think has been pretty well clear'd by what has been said before. But for the bet­ter illustration of the matter, I will present you with a short view of the Original and Foundation of these Laws.

The Statute Laws of this Land never meddled with the Degrees of Kindred in relation to Marriages, till Henry the eighth's time; which happen'd thus.

Prince Arthur, eldest Son to Henry the 7 th married Katharine, the Infanta of Spain in November, 1502, but on the second of April following the Prince dyed; whose Death (says Dr. Burnet) was imputed to his using too great an excess in his Love towards her. (So that it is not likely he left her a Maid, as some would have it.) After which the Princess having watch'd ten Months, to see that she was not with Child by Prince Arthur, she was married to her Husband's youngest Brother, afterwards Henry the 8 th, by whom she had two Sons, and one Daughter Mary (since Queen of England,) the two Sons dying young, and only his Daughter Mary surviving. Now Henry the 8 th growing weary of his Queen, as [Page 147] thinking he should have no more Children by her, desired a Divorce, and then (tho' he had be [...]n married many years, by and with the Advice of Fox Bishop of Winchester, and several of his chief Clergy,) he first pretends a scruple of Conscience, for being married to his Brothers Wife, the Pope nor Church would not allow of his scruple in that kind, nor grant him any Divorce, but chose rather to forfeit their Interest in these Kingdoms; however King Henry's Lust prompting him, to make use of any shift to obtain his desires, he bribed some few Members among the foreign Universities to give him their opinions [...] that the Marriage was unlawful, and a Divorce but reasonable, which accordingly his Commissioners ex­ecuted in a Clandestine manner at Dun­stable. After this, the Parliament (who, during his Reign, were aw'd into a compli­ance with him in all things, being for the Pope's Supremacy, when ever he was for it; and as much against it, when he was against it) made a Law (32 H. 8. ch. 38.) in compliment and confirmation of his Di­vorce and second Marriage, limiting all Marriages to the Degrees of the Levitical Law: so that we see this Law was made, not of any Religious or pious Consideration whatsoever, but only to serve a turn, and gratifie the Lust of an imperious Prince. And one consideration further is worthy [Page 148] our Notice; viz. that this very Princess Mary was afterwards allow'd and approv'd of by the Judgment of the whole Nation, and of all Christendom besides, to be undis­putably the right and Lawful soveraign Queen of England, and so lived and dyed, notwithstanding the said Act of Parliament and Divorce; to which Title and Dignity, she could no ways have pretended, had the Marriage between Hen. 8. her Father, and his Brothers Wife Queen Katharine, (who was her Mother) been adjudged by the world unlawful.

As to the third and last Objection, that such a Match being unusual and contrary to Custom, may reflect upon your Ho­nours: this is the weakest objection of all others. For as Conscience is but the Re­flection of Vertue in our own minds; so Honour is but the vibration or darting those Beams abroad among our Friends and Ac­quaintance, thereby to illuminate our own Reputations. So that all this Objection is at once answer'd, if there be no violation of Vertue in the Action; which, I hope, I have already in a great measure demon­strated by the former part of this Discourse: for I do not see where Vertue can be con­cern'd in an Action, that is neither impious to God, nor unjust or injurious towards man; as I am sure such a Marriage is nei­ther. Your Relation of Affinity, was but [Page 149] in the nature of a Bargain, and upon your Lady's death, the least expired, and the whole contract ended. Cousin Germans (who marry daily) have a near Consanguinity and mixture of the same Blood, whereas you two have not one Dram of the same. But the most confusedly and foolishest Que­stion of all is, What will the World say? Gather two Flowers off one Root, eat two Grapes off one Branch, Marry two Sisters? a thing never known before: But I hope both Torismond amd Eugenia have too much sence to be startled at such Mobb Bugbears; since no Body of Reason will argue that the Rarity or Novelty of a thing is any Reflecti­on either upon Honour or Conscience; for as much as every thing is intrinsically either good or bad of it self; nor can the opinion of others any ways alter the Nature of it. At this rate, every new Law, and every new Mode or Fashion, may be esteemed dishonourable and vicious, as violating the oldest. He that alters his Watch by every Dial he come at, shall never have it go well: so he that alters or steers his course of Life according to the various Censures of the world, can never live wisely or com­fortably; for as much as every mans Interest furnishes him with a By-Conscience of his own, however some may pretend the con­trary, and others may perhaps not really discern it themselves. Lastly, to urge the [Page 150] common Usage, Practice and Custom of our times, is the eff [...]ct of Narrowness of Soul, and meanness of Thought. For Cu­stom is an Argument will lie as well for Vice, as Virtue: Drinking, Whoring, and Ga­ [...]ing have as ancient a Prescription for their Plea, and as universal, as any Vertues what­soever. It is a common and ancient usage to rob upon St. Albans Road, is it therefore [...]'e the more lawful? Nothing can be more ridiculous than to make Antiquity and Presidents the standard and measure of Good and Evil: 'twould be a pleasant Ar­gument for a Jilt to use to her Spouse, Lord Husband, your Father was a Cuckold, will not you be one? And yet perhaps such a Que­stion would be as seriously Rational, as most of the things that govern Mankind: only one's merry Folly, and the other a grave Folly. But, to conclude, at this rate, we ought to have continued in the Popish igno­rance of our Fore-Fathers, as esteeming all Reformations and Changes unlawful.

[Page 151]If what I have here written may prove effectual to the purpose it was design'd, I shall think my labour well spent: but never be dismaid with the thoughts of being won­dred at; or if any one should tell you [...] Bear that's led through the Streets is no more: Pray ask him from me what Em­perors hazard their Crowns for? Generals venture their Lives for? Poets crack their Brains over their Paladian Oyl for? I doubt all ends in being wonder'd at; crowed with a Mob in the Streets, who, by way of Gra­titude, point at him, and cry, that's He; and if they do the same to you, 'tis but fancying your self an Emperor, a General, a Poet, or a Lover, 'tis all one among Friends.

Nothing less than the Honour of your Com­mands, could have inspired me with a Confidence sufficient to trouble your Lordship with this undigested heap of my Father's Thoughts concerning the Soul's acting, as it were, in a state of Ma­trimony with the Body: But since it is your Lordship's pleasure, as also to have them in his own very words, I have here set them down accordingly, and shall plead only your Lordship's Fiat for my Pardon.

[Page 155]These, my Lord, are only such twilight Conjectures as our human Reason (where­of we yet so vainly boast) can furnish us with: this [...], or Divinum Aliquid, (as Hippocrates terms it) is that which does all things; but our Capacity not be­ing able to discern it, makes us fasten either upon elementary Qualities, as Hippocrates and Galen do: or upon Geo­metrical Proportions, as our modern Descartes doth; so that (indeed) all Philosophy, excepting Sceptism, is little more than Dotage. Pardon, I beseech you, this Boldness from

THere was never any Republick which dwindled into a Monarchy, or King­dom altered into an Aristoracy or Common­wealth, [Page 157] without a Series of preceding Cau­ses that principally contributed thereunto; had not other Circumstances concurr'd, never had Caesar establish'd himself, nor Bru­tus erected a Senate: And if you enquire, why the first Brutus expell'd Tarquin, and the second could not overthrow Augustus and Anthony? Or why Lycurgus, Solon, and Numa, could establish those Governments, which others have since in vain attempted to settle in Genoa, Florence, and other places, you will find it to arise from hence: that some considering those antecedent Causes, which secretly and securely encline to a Change, took advantage thereof; whilst others did only regard the Speciousness or Justice of their Pretensions, without any mature examination of what was principal­ly to be observed; for nothing is more cer­tain, than that in these Cases, when the pre­vious dispositions all intervene, but a very slight occasion, nay, oftentimes, a meer Ca­sualty, opportunely taken hold on, and wisely pursued, will produce those Revolu­tions, which (otherwise) no humane Sa­gacity or Courage could have accom­plished.

I cannot find any authentic Ground to believe, that the Sects among the Iews were more ancient than the days of the Macca­bees, but arose after that Antiochus had sub­dued Ierusalem, and reduced the generality [Page 158] of the Iews to Paganism; when (the bet­ter to confirm his Conquests) he erected therein an Academy for the Pythagorean, Pla­tonic and Epicurean Philosophers. This, I con­ceive, (and so do others) was the Origi­nal of the Pharisees, Sadduces and Essenes; tho' afterwards, when the Macchabees had anathematized all that taught their Chil­dren the Greek Philosophy, one Party did justify their Tenets, by entituling them to Sadoc and Baithos, and the other to a Cabala derived successively from Ezra and Moses. The Introduction of those Sects, and of that Cabala, occasion'd that Exposition of the Prophecy of Iacob, viz. The Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his Feet, until Shilo come, and unto him shall the gathering of the People be. From whence they did (according to that fan­tastic Cabala) imagine, That whensoever the Scepter should depart from Iudah, and the Dominion thereof cease, that then there should arrive a Messiah. But as for his be­ing of the Line of David, this was no gene­ral Opinion; for how then could any have imagined- Herod the Great to have been the Messias? Or how could Iosephus fix that Character upon Vespasian, as him who should restore the Empire, and Glory of Israel, to whom all Nations should how, and [...]ubmit unto his Scepter? I do not read that the Iews harbor'd any such Exposition during [Page 159] their Captivity under Nebuchadnezar; albeit that the Scepter was at that time so departed from the Tribe of Iudah, and house of David, that it never was resetled in it more. After their return to Ierusalem, no such thing is spoken of; when Antiochus Epiphanes subdued them, prophaned their Temple, destroyed their Laws, and left them nothing of a Scepter or Lawgiver; during all which time, notwithstanding they had the same Prophecies and Scriptures among them, there is no News of any ex­pected Messiah. But after the Curiosity of the Rabbins had involved them in the pur­suance of mystical Numbers, and pythago­rically or cabalistically to explain them ac­cording to the Gematria, then was it first discover'd, that Shiloh and Messiah consisted of Letters which make up the same Nume­rals, and therefore that a mysterious pro­mise of a Redeemer was insinuated thereby [...] as also, that the Prophecy of Balaam con­cerning a Star out of Iacob, and a Scepter rising out of Israel, with a multitude of other Predictions, (which the condition of their Nation made them otherwise to de­spair of) should be accomplished under this Messiah. I name no other Prophecies, be­cause they are either general and indefinite­ly exprest as to the time of their Accom­plishment, or inexplicable from their obscu­rity, or uncertain as to their Authority: [Page 160] such as are the Weeks of Daniel, which Book the Iews reckon among their Ha­giographa or Sacred, but not Canonical Books.

This Prophecy likewise had a contra­dictory one, where 'tis said of Coniah, That no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the Throne of David, and ruling any more in Ju­dah, Ier. 22.30. Also Ezek. 22.26, 27. Thus saith the Lord God, Remove the Diadem, and take off the Crown, this shall not be th [...] same, &c. Now the aforesaid obscure Pro­phecy, which did not take effect at first, un­til the Reign of David, and which suffer [...]d such a variety of Interruptions, seemeth to have fallen under this Interpretation in the days of Herod the Great, whom the Iews so hated for his Usurpation over the Maccha­bees Levitical Family, and for his general Cruelties, that he was particularly detested by the cabalistical Pharisees, who, to keep up the Rancor against him and his Lineage, as well as to alienate the People from him, I could easily imagine the Exposition of this Prophecy to have been for no other pur­pose. Neither perhaps was Herod much displeas'd with the said Interpretation of the Prophecy, after the Herodians had accom­modated it to him, and made him the Mes­siah, who (after their Conquest and Igno­miny under Pompey) having restor'd the Iews to a great reputation and strength, and [Page 161] rebuilt their Temple, found some who could deduce his Pedigree from the thigh of Ia­cob, as directly as David's and Solomon's were.

Now this Construction of the Prophecy being inculcated into the People, and into all those Iews, Strangers or Proselytes which resorted to Ierusalem at their great Festi­vals, (from Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, and all other parts where the Iews had any Colonies) there arose an universal expecta­tion of a Messiah to come, (excepting a­mongst the Herodians, who thought Herod the Messias) and afterwards possest the Iews (for our Iews are but the Remains of the Pharisees) to this very day. But their impatience for his appearance, seems to have been less under Herod the Great, than ever since the first Interpretation of the Prophe­cy, (there being no mention of false Mes­siahs at that time) perhaps, because the Prophecy was not so clear and convincing whilst that Herod was King: since under him the Scepter and Legislative Power seem'd to be still in Iudah, tho' sway'd by an Idumaean Proselyte, the Priesthood con­tinu'd, the Temple flourish'd, and there was a Prince of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Hillel, of the Lineage of David. But ten years after the Birth of Christ, when Archelaus was ba­nish'd to Vienna, and Iudea reduc'd into the form of a Province, the Scepter then seem'd [Page 162] to be entirely departed from Iudah; the Kingdom was now become part of the Go­vernment of Syria, and ruled by a Procura­tor, who taxed them severely, then the sense of their miseries made the People more credulous; and whether they more easily believ'd what they so earnestly desir'd might happen, or whether the Malecontents (taking the advantage of their afflictions) did then more diligently insinuate into the multitude that opinion, it so hapned, that there arose at that time sundry false Mes­siahs, and the World was big with expecta­tion, (rais'd in every Country by the Iews, who had receiv'd the intelligence from their common Metropolis Ierusalem) that the great Prince was coming, who should re­establish the Iewish Monarchy, and bring peace and happiness to all the Earth.

Now these Circumstances made way for the reception of Christ, and the Miracles he did, (for Miracles were the only De­monstrations to the Iews) convincing the People that he was the Messiah, they never staid till he should declare himself to be so: (for I think he never directly told any he was so, but the Woman of Samaria) or e­vinced his Genealogy from David; (for tho' some mean persons call'd him the Son of David, and the Mobb by that Title did cry Hosanna to him, yet did he acquiesce in terming himself the Son of Man) but [Page 163] esteem'd him a Prophet, Elias, Ieremiah, and even the very Messiah. Also when he made his Cavalcade upon an Asinego, they extoll'd him as the Descendant of King David: but his untimely apprehension and death (to­gether with his neglect to improve the in­clination of the People to make him King) did allay the affections of the Iews towards him, disappoint all their hopes, and so far exasperated them against him, that they who had been part of his Retinue at his entrance, did now call for his execution, and adjudge him by common Suffrage to be crucify'd: insomuch that his Disciples fly, the Apostles distrust, and sufficiently testify their unbe­lief, by not crediting his Resurrection. But after that he was risen again, and they as­sur'd thereof, they reassume their hopes of a temporal Messias, and the last Interroga­tory they propose unto him, is, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?

After his Assumption into Heaven, they attended in Ierusalem the coming of the Ho­ly Ghost, which seized on them, and gave them the Gift of Tongues (as 'tis written) for a season; whereby they preach'd to the Iews, Elamites, Parthians, Alexandrians, &c. (whom Salmasius shews, not to be absolute Strangers to the Natives of those Countries, but Iews planted there) as also to the Pro­selytes. These being surprize'd with the [Page 164] Miracle of the Cloven Tongues, and Gift of Languages, as likewise being possest with the desire and hopes of a Messiah, and being fur­ther ascertain'd by the Apostle Peter, That Iesus (whom Pilate had crucify'd) was the Lord and Christ, were, to the number, of 3000, immediately baptized into his Name, and such as were to depart, when they came to their Colonies, did divulge the tydings, and engage other Iews and Proselytes to the same Belief: the Apostles themselves going about, and ordaining likewise others to preach the glad tydings of a Messiah come; who (tho' dead) was risen again (accord­ing to the obscure Prediction of David) for the salvation of Israel: and whose second appearance would compleat the happiness of all Nations, as well Iews as Gentiles.

Having thus therefore given your Lord­ship an Account of the subversion of Iu­daism, as well as of the foundation of Chri­stianity, the origination of the Millenaries is only the consequence of the Fall of the one, and Rise of the other; for it is appa­rent, that not only the Iews, but also the Christians were Millenaries, and did believe and expect the temporal Reign of a Mes­siah, together with the Union of the Iews and Gentiles under one most happy Monar­chy. Not one of the two first Ages dis­sented from this Opinion; and they who [Page 165] oppose it, never quote any for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus, who liv'd (at least) 250 years after Christ. Of this O­pinion was Iustin Martyr, and (as he says) all other Christians that were exactly Ortho­dox. Irenaeus sets it down exactly for a Tra­dition, and relates the very words which Christ us'd when he taught this Doctrine; so that if this Tenet was not an universal Tradition in the primitive Times, I know not what Article of our Faith will be found to be such. This Doctrine was taught by the consent of the most eminent Fathers of the first Centuries, without any opposition from their Contemporaries; and was deli­ver'd by them, not as Doctors, but Witnes­ses: and not as their own Opinion, but as Apostolic Tradition. Moreover, it was with this pretence of Christ's being a coming to reign with them here in Glory, that stopt the mouths of the unbelieving Iews, who before, upon his death and suf­fering like other Men, began to doubt very much of the power of his Messiaship, which made them distrust his reigning in Glory amongst them here on Earth, as it was fore­told the Messiah should do; wherefore this Millenary Invention of his coming again to reign in Glory salv'd all.

And thus your Lordship sees, the wicked­ness of Mens Natures is such, that all Revo­lutions [Page 166] whatever both in Church and State, as well as all Mutations both in Doctrine and Matters of Faith, be they never so pi­ous and sacred, or never so beneficial and useful to Mankind, both in their Souls and Bodies, yet they must still be seconded by some private temporal Interest, and have some humane Prop to support them, or else all will not do. My Lord, I am sensible I have a thousand Pardons to ask your Lord­ship for this tedious impertinence, but to do so at this time, were but to lengthen, and consequently add to my Crime: So I shall only beg the honour to subscribe my self at present,

ACcording to your desire, I have sent you my few inconsiderable Observa­tions concerning that sort of the ancient Heathenish Superstitions, which was com­mitted to the management of their Augurs. There were two kinds of Augury, Natural, and Artificial: the Natural was taken from a constant Experiment of Events following upon such and such Causes of Signs; the Artificial was that which was interpreted by Augur to portend something more than can be known by the ordinary course of Nature. Cicero herein mentions two sorts of Priests, whereof the first took care of the Ceremonies and Rites; the second of Divinations, and foretelling things to [Page 168] come; of which sorts, it was lawful only for the latter to be Augurs or Prophets. Again, these were divided in three Or­ders, Augures, Haruspices, and Extispices; who had all distinct Colledges, but yet they were all Priests.

There were five principal kinds of Au­gury; the first taken from the Heavens, or superior parts of the world: the second from Birds: the third from two footed Creatures: the fourth, from four footed ones: and the fifth or last ex divis, or from unusual Prodigies. They likewise took Divinations from Sneezing once, twice, thrice, or oftner, as signifying something to come, either good or bad. Itching, Palpitation, and shaking or trembling of some Limbs, or some parts of the Body; had their Interpretation also: of all which the Egyptians are said to have been the first Authors.

The Birds commonly used for Augury were of two sorts: Praepetes, such as Eagles, Vultures, Butiones, Sanquales and Immussuli, of whom Pliny speaks, and which may be a certain kind of Hawk; the other sort are call'd Oscines, as forebo­ding something to come, by their Voice, Tune or singing. All manner of Owls were thought fatal; but Swans the con­trary. Other Birds, together with cer­tain Insects, as Bees, Ants, Locusts, &c. [Page 169] did signifie sometimes good, and sometimes bad, in the observation whereof, the Au­gurs regarded the sight of the Heavens, as supposing certain Planets did preside and govern at some hours, more than others. Young Birds were not admitted into Auguries, as not being of ripe under­standing. Some Praedictions were also taken from Fishes, as Pliny saith, whereby we may see that Superstition, like Fire, endeavours to resolve all things into it self, or like a cunning Expositor, inter­prets every Text to the Interest of his own party: for it here appears, that all Ani­mals whatsoever, were in some degree, time or place thought to be ominous.

Auguries were taken at the same time Meat was given to Chickens, which was called Bolistima Tripudia: these Auguries were never undertaken till the Gods were first invoked with much solemnity. At which time a procession was made by the Senators, Patricii, and better sort of the People, who were for the most part crown'd with Bayes, and attended with their Wives and Children, they again be­ing followed by the inferiour sort: Be­fore all whom the Pontifex Maximus march'd in great state, having about him only certain young Boys and Virgins, either crown'd with or carrying Lawrels in their hands, and singing certain Verses, [Page 170] which tended to the Demanding of the Gods prosperity and peace, (as occasion was;) and in this pompous manner they made a Procession to the Temple of their Gods; whose Images were carv'd with Garlands, called by the Ancients Strophia, made of Vervin. There were also Lectis­ternia, or-Canopy-Beds appointed for the Gods with much Magnificence and Cere­mony, that, when they pleas'd, they might repose themselves thereon by Couples; as Iupiter with Iuno, Neptune with Minerva, Apollo with Diana, Mars with Venus, or Vulcan with Vesta, &c [...] sometimes also the same Gods were re­presented in company with other God­desses, as it pleas'd the Priests, whereof you may read Gell. lib. 5.1. Now from hence the manner of the Christians going in Pro­cession was thought to be first taken; it be­ing esteem'd but a politick and wise part in them to conform their Religious Rite [...] as much as was possible, to the practic [...] of the ancient Roman Empire, without in­novating more than needs must.

Plato attributes much to this Art in a Na­tural Way; and for my own part, I think, as the Ancient esteem'd this Art of Divi­ning too much, so we esteem it too little; since, as many of their Observations con­cerning Auguries, were either superstitious, or vain, or devised only to abuse the People [...] [Page 171] so, on the other side, useful Observations might have been taken from those Signs, the Event whereof followed in a constant me­thod and way.

These Arts have been very ancient, espe­cially in Italy, Greece, and Asia minor; where one Car or Cara is said to have in­vented them, and Orpheus to have multi­ply'd them: for as they there wanted the knowledge of Divination by the Stars, in that perfection as the Egyptians and Chaldeans had it, so they devised these Arts to make them­selves esteem'd Prophets. The Romans learnt this Art from the Hetruscians, to whom they sent six Children of their best Families to learn their discipline at a place not far from Florence, formerly called Fesulae, and now Fiesoli, where a Colledge of Augurs flourish­ed; Another also was built at Rome, which Sylla augmented to the number of 24. This being all I have to trouble you with upon this subject, I shall take my leave, and sub­scribe my self,

IF to have a Picture drawn by a Michael Angelo, a Raphael, or by the hand of some eminent Master, be an advantage to the Person for whom it is drawn; then certainly it is no less an Honour for a Country to be so well represented in Par­liament, as ours is by you. Foreign Courts have no better a taste of the Wisdom and Grandeur of their Neighbouring Princes, than from the Ambassadors they send: nor [...] can any thing be a greater Testimony of the Loyalties, Prudence and Integrity, ei­ther of Country, City, or Corporation, than the Election of such Magistrates, as are both Loyal, Prudent and honest; who (like your self) have no other Intrest, but the true service of their King, and those whom they represent; as well maintaining the [Page 173] Prerogative of the one, as supporting the Liberty of the other; wherein, as by the King's Prerogative, I mean not his single Will, or (as Divines pretend) a power to do what he list, only the King's Law, or a Law relating, particularly to himself: so likewise, by the Peoples Liberty, I mean not the Licentiousness of a Mobb, but on­ly a Liberty according to Law, whereby we might assert our Rights, and maintain our Freeholds; which Liberty has been too lately in danger of being devour'd, not so much by Foreigners and Papists, as by our own Natives, and those too, who have the Impudence to call themselves Prote­stants, even without blushing: I mean our late Regulators of Corporations, and Sur­renderers of Charters, in the two former Reigns, upon whose account it is, that I presume to give you this present trouble, as hearing it will be the next Business upon which your House designs to fall; and hope the Offences are not so long past, but that, Parthian like, you may yet shoot back some punishments upon the Offenders: since 'tis but reasonable, that they who mortgaged the Kingdom in the last Reign, should pay the Intrest of their Crimes in this.

Therefore, Sir, with submission, I do humbly conceive, that to make the Church of England concern'd in the preservation of [Page 174] the late Regulators of Corporations, or surrenderers of Charters, is one of the greatest Indignities can be put upon her: and something like reviving the old Popish Law of Sanctuaries, making her once more become (as it were,) an Asylum or place of Refuge for the most notorious Malefa­ctors. Pardon me, if it be an Error, to joyn [...]hese Regulators & Surrenderers together; I do but imitate Nature herein, and am un­willing to make a separation between the Arm that gives the strength, and the Hand t [...]at gives the Blow. The Charter of each C [...]rporation was the undoubted Right and F [...]eehold of the same, as well as of every [...]ndividual Member of the same: where­ [...]re he that had any hand in Surrendring or delivering up such a Charter, did, what in him lay, to betray, nay, to rob the peo­ple of their Inheritances. And if the Church of England can be supported only by such ill men, the Lord have mercy upon her! if a Father of a Family has one Son that proves an Extravagant, and sells his Birth-right, may not that Son be disinhe­rited without a total Ruin to the whole Family? I hope the Church of England has many more Sons, and many better Friends to stand by her, than those who were con­cern'd in so foul an Action [...] And that it does not follow by consequence, If we se­clude all ill men from the Government, none but [Page 175] Fanaticks would be left in—No, I will not, I cannot do so much honour to that Party, as to admit of such an Objection.

Of how great importance an honest, impartial and duly elected House of Com­mons is to this Nation, every Body well knows: and the ill effects of the contrary, I think, is unknown to no body. My old Lord Burleigh us'd to say, We can never be throughly ruin'd, but by a Parliament. They may cut the Throats of us and our Poste­rity by a Law; whereas all other Arbitra­ry Acts of Violence or Tyranny in a Prince, will either vanish by his Death, or blow over with every adverse Gale of Fortune that attacks him. And this (un­doubtedly) was well known to those In­struments in the last Reigns, who were so zealously affected for the regulating Cor­porations, that they would not have left one man amongst them, who should not Iurare in Verba Magistri, have done as a Popish King and his Popish Councils had dictated to them. So that, I confess, I cannot but couple these Regulators or Sur­renderers together with those Judges and other Gentlemen of the Long Robe, who were for the Annihilating and Dispencing Power. Since, these were the only sort of men, who (in those times,) laid the Ax to the Root of the Tree: These were the men that were to have hewn down our [Page 176] Government, and burnt both it and us in Smithfield Fire: These were the men tha [...] should have plunder'd the Rights of each Corporation: and then, (like so many Catalines, to secure the Ills that they had done, by doing greater still,) have sent up such Members to Parliament, such Re­presentatives, such truly Representatives of themselves, as should have confirm'd their own Iniquities by a Law; in so much as, the honest Subject of England was, at that time, but like a Traveller fallen into the hands of Thieves, who first take away his Money, and then to secure themselves, take away his Life: They Rob him by Pro­vidence, and then murder him by Necessi­ty. The Casuists (as one observes,) do well distinguish, when they say, He that lies with his Mother commits Incest; but he who marries his Mother does worse, by applying God's Ordinance to his Sin. In like manner He that commits Murder with the Sword of Justice, aggravates his Crime to the high­est Degree: As these Gentlemen of whom I have been speaking, would have done, in making the Government Felo de se, and [...]cessary to its own Ruin.

Sir, all that I can say of this matter is, [...] certainly never was a greater Rape [...] upon any Government, and there­ [...] doubt not of your Intrest to have [Page 187] the Delinquents brought to a Condign Punishment, for the Exemplary Benefit of future Ages: which that they may be, is the hearty desire of,

Possibly, Sir, a motion of a General Pu­nishment, may produce a General Pardon; wherefore it will be the surest way, to rest satisfied with ma­king Example of some few of the most notorious and Capital Offenders. And further, that all Persons (how obnoxious soever in this case) who yet refus'd to take away the Penal Laws and Test, might be exempt from any Punishment whatever; that at the same time you reprove an ill A­ction, you may reward that which was good.

I Have perus'd your Arguments for the proof of a Deity, but think that you undertook a needless trouble, since I'm con­fident there's no man of sense that doubts whether there be a God or no. The Philosophers of Old of the Theodorean sect, that had spent all their time and study to establish the contrary as a truth, when they came to dye confuted all their Ar­guments by imploring some Deity; as Bion in particular: I know not whether the Idea of a God be Innate or no, but I'm sure that it is very soon imprinted in the minds of Men; and I must beg Mr. Lock [...]s par­don if I very much question those Autho­rities he quotes from the Travels of some men, who affirm some Nations to have no notions of Deity; since the same has been said of the Inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope, which the last account of that place proves to be false. And if there be a God, the necessary Qualities that must be granted him, will not permit a man that [...]easons right of things to question his [Page 179] Care and Providence over humane Af­fairs. Tho' I confess it a superficial way of Dispute; the Epicureans may seem to have some Reason to conclude, that the Deity has no care of mankind, because the confusion in humane affairs, and the gene­ral triumphs of Wrong over Right, the preposterous endeavours of men in the persuit of Happiness, (which consisting in mutual offices, yet they doing one another what mischief they can, by the means de­stroy the end, and bring all things into such a confusion) would perswade it, and almost make one think, if what the Pytha­goreans and Chaldeans held of Souls were true, viz. That they were created in Heaven, and thence transmitted to the Bodies for punishment, that we are De­vils, our Malice to each other, our abound­ing Villanies gave some occasion for such thoughts. This consideration gave that Beauty to the beginning of Claudians in Ru­finum, which a certain Critick admired so much, that he said, he that had amind to be a Poet, should settle that perfectly in his memory, viz.

[Page 180]The form and beauty of the Universe would not let the considering Heathens doubt but there was a God; but the con­fusion of humane affairs, made others think they were left to Chance. Tho' if they had throughly considred the mater, they must have thought first that since all the rest of the Inanimate, and meerly Corpo­real Substances, not dignified with under­shanding, by the exact and regular Order they observe, discover some divine Dispo­ser and Providence; that certainly man evidently more excellent, and not be wholly destitute of all regard of Provi­dence, or indeed be thought to have less than the more ignoble Beings. Next, that if they confessed a God, they must not deprive him of his necessary perfections, and certainly a Providence over his Works is one.

Having said all this, I may venture to tell you, that the very foundation of your Arguments will not hold, since you pre­tend to demonstrats it in your Analytick Method from the existence of Man: you begin thus. 1. Humane Kind that now inhabits the Earth, did not always exist, as all Histories make appear, asserting Man had a beginning. This they not only plainly testifie, but imply the same thing by the series of those things, which they deliver; for there is no History that pre­tends [Page 181] to give an account of the transacti­ons of above six Thousand years or there­abouts.

This being the first step of your Pro­gression, and which being removed, all the rest falls to the Ground: give me leave to tell you, that all things that are not self-evident, should be prov'd, or not pass upon us in Philosophy; but this, you have laid for your foundation is so far from being self-evident, that it is extreamly controvertible. For tho' our Chronology in less than six thousand years come up to the Creation, that of Eusebius being the long­est, and the only that exceeds that sum. Yet this takes not in all Nations, and if it did, the Argument is weak, since 'tis pos­sible there may have been Histories of them that reached farther, tho' now lost. Or perhaps they kept no Records, for the uncertainty of the Greek Chronology be­fore the Olympiads, shews us they came but late to a regular observation of time. And the Roman Histories can give us no assurance or certainty, when or by whom Rome was built. Livy tells us of Romulus and Remus, Salust, says, the Trojans built it, and con­cludes it uncertain: I know as to the time they are more positive [...] reckoning ab urbe condita, tho' I can't think there can be an absolute certainty of their computation, [Page 182] since that was begun some years at least after its Foundation.

Besides, to draw an Argument from this, that because we have no History that exceeds six thousand years, therefore the World was not before, is all one as if I should say, that because the Goths, Vandals, and other barbarous Nations were not known till the time of the Roman Empe­perors, therefore they were not in being before.

But since our Correspondence with China, we have found they have Records & Histo­ries of four or six thousand years date before our Creation of the World; and who knows but some other Nations may be found out hereafter, that may go farther, and so on. Nay, the Chinese themselves in a tradition­al account, tell us, That the Posterity of Panzon, and Panzona, inhabited the Earth 90000 years. The Bramins of Guzarat said the year 1639, that there had past 326669 Ages, each Age consisting of a number of years, and if I mistake not Centurys. Nay the Egyptians in the time of their King Amasis Contemporary with Cyrus, had the Records, and Story of 13000 years, and a succession of 330 Kings, which shews they were not Lunary years.

But you may say after all these accounts they settle some beginning of it: true, they [Page 183] pretend to have Records of no more; but it follows not from thence that there had been no other Ages before, whose Re­cords, if they kept any, were lost, or of no use: and a good reason for the loss of the Records of Countrys, is the seve­ral Revolutions they have been subject to. The Inhabitants of the Earth changing their places from one part of it to ano­ther, as if there were a necessary Circu­lation in that, as in the Blood of Man, and the Waters of Rivers, &c. Next, the Earth and Sea, in process of time some very able Philosophers hold, have changed places; and in the destruction of Conntries by these several ways, their Records may very well be supposed to be lost. Besides, the Languages and Cha­racters altering, they would be of no use to Posterity; so if spared in the havock of Time, permitted to perish afterward. As in the Kingdom of Trigremaen in Ae­thiopia, superior in Africa; where in the City of Caxumo, the Aux [...]me of Ptolomy, there are now Obelisks full of engraved Cha­racters, which none of the Africans can read; as there are also on the Coasts of Safola.

[Page 194]Mr. L. Clerk has split upon the same Rock with you: I would therefore desire you to consider this Point a little more seriously, and build your Demonstration of a thing of this Consequence on a firmer Basis, else instead of promoting the Cause, you espouse, you only give advantages to those who would be thought at least to be what they are not. I hope you'l pardon this freedom of,

AFter so many Favors, you must think me a very impudent Beggar indeed, to importune you for more; but as I'm sensible the Benefits you bestow are the ef­fects of a generous Nature, so I persuade my self, that the pleasure you have in confer­ring them, lessen the assurance of my ask­ing; especially in a disquisition of this Nature, which may afford a more substantial profit to my Mind, than Favors of another kind, which I must always acknowledge I owe to you; and none wou'd be a greater, than your employing me in something that may be serviceable to you, for then I shall be able to convince you, that my Will ex­tends beyond a bare Acknowledgment.

I have often doubted whether there were any such thing as a pure Spirit independant of all Body and Matter: And, I must own, I think that there can be no such thing as 'tis vulgarly apprehended. For what Idea can we form of it? Thought, generally ta­ken for the Essence of the Soul, seems only [Page 186] the Action, or an Accident of it, since the Mind is often without it, as Body without Motion, or any particular Modification of it. So that we may consider the Soul without Thought, but not Thought without some Sub­ject to in here in (unless by Abstraction) no more than roundness without some round Body. And why the Intima Natura, that composes the Matter, which goes to the making up that definition of Body, as Exten­sion, Divisibility, Impenetrability, shou'd be incapable of receiving the accident of Thought, I can find no Reason; for being ignorant of the nature of those contiguous Particles of Matter that are extended di­visible, and impenetrable, how can we pre­tend to decide it magisterially against this Opinion, especially since Memory, Wit and Judgment, the noblest Qualities of the MIND, are agreed by the Naturalists, (as is evident from Physic) to have so great a dependance on the Mechanism of the Brain, &c. And to shew plainly that we are igno­rant of this inmost nature of things, one Example may suffice, since we take the defi­nition from certain general Qualities we dis­cover in Matter. As for Example, a Seed of Pepper— we see 'tis extended, divisible, and impenetrable; but we discover not what that quality of heating the mouth is com­pos'd of, or proceeds from; or what secret power those Particles have, to affect the [Page 187] Sense in that manner. So in all other things 'tis not Extension, &c. that compose the Body, but some other occult thing we know not what, of which Extension, &c. are the consequence, whether it be the congrega­tion of Atoms, or other invisible Particles of Matter solid or subtle, tho' it must be confess'd that even the least of these Atoms has the same Qualities; but yet it must be also granted, they have other Qualitys pro­bably not less in number, which we know nothing of; so that when I term Extension, &c. the consequence of those occult Quali­ties we know not, I mean a co-existent conse­quence, as the consequence of a self-evident Principle. But if the Soul be not Matter, tho' more fine and subtle than the Body, 'tis very strange the chief Part of us shou'd be of such a nature that we can form no Idea of it. But 'tis stranger yet, that Men shou'd think it so necessary to believe so, when a more obvious and intelligible Opi­nion wou'd answer all the ends of Religion as well. They must acknowledge the Soul a Substance, and we have no Idea of Sub­stance distinct from that of Body. If they have any, they would do well to impart it to the grosser understandings of the rest of the World.

But these Gentlemen that advance this Opinion of pure immaterial Substances, trust to Fancy, and meer Conjectures, which they [Page 198] can give no account at all of, but by one only Accident, viz. THOVGHT; which they can never demonstrate incapable of inhe­ring in Body modefy'd to that purpose, tho' not in all Bodies; for I think Mr. Bently's far from Demonstrations, since they rise on­ly to a Probability. But by making Thought the Essence of the Soul, they distinguish it not from that of Beasts; for they think, and have perhaps something equivalent to Reason, or must at least be granted equal to Idects. Nay, this proves, that either Thought and Matter are not incompatible; or that the Essence of the Souls of Men and Beasts is the same, and by consequence both mortal, or both immortal, for they both think. Besides, since 'tis evident from this uncontrovertible Maxim, Nemo dat quod non habet, that the Qualities of all things; and therefore of Body, are in God himself (that is in an infinite degree of perfection) the most pure of Spirits, 'tis not likely that Body shou'd be derogatory to the purity of infinitely inferior Spirits.

On this Corporiety of Spirits depends a more obvious Explanation of two Texts of Scripture, than I have met with in any of the vulgar and general Comments (suppo­sing the Book of Genesis a true History of matter of Fact, and no Parable, as Dr. Bur­net contends in his Archiologiae) If the An­gels have Bodies, we may, without Absurdity, [Page 160] suppose them to generate with Women, and so the Sons of God might enter with the Daugh­ters of men, and beget a Race of Gyants on them. For 'tis unaccountable to me, that none but the Daughters of Iniquity (as the vulgar Interpreters will have it) shou'd be capable of bearing so robust a Generation. The other place is in the Epistles of St. Paul, where he enjoins the Women to be cover'd in the Church because of the Angels. For the Church being the more peculiar place of the Mini­stry of Angels, they might, perhaps, by the beauty of that Sex, be diverted from their Duty. This Opinion wou'd restore the Free-will to the Angels, which I' can't con­ceive shou'd be so absolutely necessary for the justification of Man, as the Clergy woud persuade us, and yet not at all requisite to that of Angels. If Free-will was taken from them on the Fall, of one part of 'em, they met with a more indulgent Fate than Man, who still possesses it to his Ruine.

These Considerations suggest an odd ex­travagant Thought, which I must set down, if it be but to make you laugh, and, I hope, you'l pardon my impertinent freedom—

The Thought is this —

Who knows but this Race of Men was first of Angelic Degree, till by the bewitch­ing Smiles of Woman (the most lovely Brute [Page 190] of the Universe) betray'd to Mortality i [...] her Embraces. And then perhaps Columb [...] might be the first of the Sons of Noah, tha [...] enter'd the new discover'd World of Ame­rica, which might be a Race deriv [...]d from some other deluded Angels, won by the same destructive Bait.

Pardon me if I think the Pandora of the Heathens (to say nothing of our Eve) may favour this Imagination.

But these are only indigested Thoughts, I dare neither yield nor deny my Assent to, till I know your Judgment, which has a very great Influence over,

IN the last you honoured me with, you said you were now giving your self to the study of Philosophy, which makes me desire you to give me your Thoughts upon these following Heads, in as brief a manner as may be.

• 1. Whether there be a Succession in E­ternity, or i [...] be as Boe [...]us de [...]ines it Inter­minabiles vitae to [...]a si [...]nd & perfecta possessi [...], [...]ut be building his Opinion with the rest of the old Platonists on a false Supposition, seems to me in the wrong: For they ima­gin'd that it would be incompatible with the Immutability of God, not to have his whole Existence to be all once, his dura­tion measur'd, as Mr. Cowly does by the Phrase of An Eternal now, because they thought by succession he must loose those parts that are past, and gain those that are to come, and only enjoy the present. But the Imperfection of Succession in Crea­tures is no good Argument that it must be so in God; for 'tis true that they both receive and loose by it, because as they [Page 192] grow old, they acquire or are depriv'd of some property, which cannot happen in God. But that which makes most for this Opinion, is that since the contrary is not built on Revelation, there is no Reason we should implicitly yield our assent to it on the bare Authority of the Platonists, unless they could make us understand it; for I defy any one to think of Eternity without the Idea of Succession.
• 2. As to the Origin of Good and Evil, methinks 'tis less contradictory, and unrea­sonable to believe as the Antient Peastans did, that there were two beginnings of things, the one Good, and the other Evil. For how can Evil proceed from a Being infinitely Good, and without whom no­thing is, if Evil be not? And if Dr. Burnet has prov'd Genesis but a Parable, why may not the Persians be as much in the right as the Iews.
• 3. Supposing the Soul Immaterial, why may not Material Fire have an operation on it, since the Body so much influences it in this Life.
• 4. I would fain know what Reason some men have (and those Philosophers) to term any one quality in God more excellent than an other; for certainly let the number [Page 193] be infinite, so must the perfection of each be, else the Infinite Being would in some be less Infinite, or rather Finite; for I think there's no medium betwixt Infinite, and Finite; nor any difference can I disco­ver betwixt two equally infinite Qualities. If therefore the Qualities of all things are, and by consequence originally were (for God's Qualitys can neither encrease nor suffer diminution) in God, as it may be evidently prov'd, then it follows that those of Body are of equal excellency with those of Spirits, since equally in him, and all the Qualities of God are infinitly perfect.
• 5. The opinion of the Plurality of Worlds seems more agreeable to God's infinite (for so must all God's Qualities be) communicative Qve Quality to be conti­nually making new Worlds, since other ways this Quality or Act of Creating would be only once exerted, and for in­finite duration lie useless and dormant. But it seems strange, that only once this Infinite desire of Communicating his In­finite Glory should be put in practice, and that only to so little, and inconsiderable a Number as all the Sons of Adam can make up, in comparison of Infinity. The opi­nion of Plurality of Worlds does at least give us a more August Idea of the Wisdom and Power of God, and of his infinit [...] [Page 194] Perfections, than to imagine all that Infi­nite Extension should be like a barren Heath, without any Productions of the Infinite Being, and not fill'd with Infinite and Endless Worlds.

But these are Doubts enough to be re­solv'd in one better, if you will answer them, I shall be extreamly oblig'd to you, since they are design'd for the publick view; and I would willingly have them resolv'd, of which I'm sensible you are very capable. I am

NAtural Religion is the Belief we have of an eternal intellectual Being, and of the Duty which we owe him, manifested to us by our Reason, without Revelation or positive Law: The chief Heads whereof seem contain'd in these few Particulars.

• 1. That there is one infinite eternal God, Cre­ator of all Things.
• 2. That he governs the World by Provi­dence.
• 3. That 'tis our Duty to worship and obey him as our Creator and Governor.
• 4. That our Worship consists in Prayer to him, and Praise of him.
• 5. That our Obedience consists in the Rules of Right Reason, the Practice whereof is Moral Virtue:
• 6. That we are to expect Rewards and Pu­nishments hereafter, according to our Actions in this Life; which includes the Soul's Immortality, and is proved by our admitting Providence.
• [Page 196] Seventhly, That when we err from the Rules of our Duty, we ought to Repent, and trust in God's mercy for Pardon.

That Rule which is necessary to our fu­ture Happiness, ought to be generally made known to all men.

But no Rule of Revealed Religion was, or ever could be made known to all men.

Therefore no Revealed Religion is ne­cessary to future Happiness.

The Major is thus prov'd:

Onr Future Happiness depends upon err obeying, or endeavouring to fulfil the known Will of god.

But that Rule which is not generally known, cannot be generally obey'd.

Therefore that Rule which is not ge­nerally known, cannot be the Rule of our Happiness.

Now the Minor of the first Syllogism is matter of Fact, and uncontrovertible, that no Religion supernatural has been convey­ed to all the World; witness the large Continent of America, not discover'd till within this two Hundred Years; where if there were any Revealed Religion, at least it was not the Christian.

And if it be objected to the whole, That the ways of God's dealing with the Heathen as to Eternal Mercy, are unknown to any; and that he will Judge them by the Law [Page 197] of Nature, or (in other terms) the Rules of Natural Religion or Morality. We urge again, that either those Laws of Na­tural Religion are sufficient, if kept, to Happiness; or they who could know no more, are out of a possibility of a future state of Blessedness: because they could not comply with Laws they know not: And in saying this, they deny God's Infinite Goodness, which provides for all his Crea­tures the means of attaining that Happi­ness, whereof their Natures are capable. Again, if they urge, that Natural Religion is sufficient, but not possible to be lived up to. The same answer falls more heavy upon them; That then there is no visible means left for the greater part of Man­kind to be happy: And to do our duty according to what we are able, is but a cold comfort, if we have no Assurance or Hope at least in the means we have laid before us.

Now if they infer, that therefore a Re­vealed Religion is necessary, because the Natural will not suffice, is to beg the Que­stion, and to begin again the Dispute: for we hold that a Natural Religion will suffice for our Happiness; because it is the only general means proposed. And tho' we affirm not that we can wholly live up to it; yet that a general expiation is dis­covered in the Natural Religion, viz. Pe­nitence, [Page 198] and Resolution of Amendment that we acknowledge.

Sir Charles Wolsy tells us what is most [...]rue, that Mankind in all Ages has ap­plyed to God, as guilty and Offenders; that all have agreed an Expiation was necessary, but look'd up to him for the Revealation of it: wherefore they used several Sacrifices and Lustrations, which they had, or thought they had reveal­ [...]d.

This I think so weak an Argument for a revealed Religion, that it serves rather [...]o destroy it, because, that granting all Ages have thought an Expiation necessary, [...] first their differing in the outward means, shew'd the means was uncertain; And if there had been any outward Ex­piation necessary, it must have been known generally, or the force of the first Arg [...] ­ment holds good, namely, that it is not possible for the greatest part of Mankind to be happy hereafter, where the means of compassing it was known to them.— But, 2 dly, these several Expiations were indeed all but Symbolical, and refer'd to our Sorrow and Repentance: That it is the true and only Expiation of Sin, and is so agreed upon by all men in all Ages, and of all Religions, wherefore take it for an undoubted Truth: and this not reveal'd, but innate, and a part of Natural Religion.

[Page 199]The same may be said of the Doctrinal part of it: Thus are the things generally known and believ'd; but all end in the practice of Vertue, and Reverence of the Deity.

Now all Reveal'd Religions are different from each other; and you cannot prove any one of them to be truer than the rest, before you can prove that one of them must be true; and if once known true, mankind would all agree in it; otherwise those marks of Truth in it were not visible, which are necessary to draw an unviversal assent.

For Rewards and Punishments hereafter, the Notion of them has not been univer­sally receiv'd; for the Heathens dis [...]greed in the Doctrine of the [...]mmortality of the Soul: But grant that they seem reason­able, because they are deduced from the Doctrine of Providence, which the most Rational of the Heathens held: For if God governs all things, he is just, because it is a part of In [...]inite Perfection; and if so, he either rewards here, or hereafter; but not always here, therefore hereafter. Yet if they who hold Revelation, will grant that they are parts of Natural and unre­veal'd Religion, because the wisest men have inclin'd to hold them amongst the Heathen, and now do in all Opinions; then it follows that by living up to the Dictates [Page 200] of Reason and Penitence, when we fail i [...] so doing, men may be happy in a future state, without any help of Revealed Re­ligion, which is all I contend for.

The great Objections against the validity of Natural Religion to Eternal Happiness, seem to be these.

1. That this Doctrine was never gene­rally held in any Age; and therefore seems not to carry that light of Moral certainty in it, which we hold necessary to establish the tr [...]th of a Religion: for we say that Religion is only true, which is or may be reasonable, and convincing to all men; now if it be not generally held, it appears not convincing.

This Objection has not really the weight in it, which it seems to carry at first sight; for 'tis evident that many men of all Re­ligions at this day, have center'd in the Opinion of Natural Religion, and its suf­ficiency of Happiness. The Heathen Phi­losophers and Poets (who were the first Priests) did at the bottom acknowledge Vertue to be the guide of all our Actions; and all their Mysteries referr'd to a good Life, and to Repentance. At this day the learned in all Religions hold the same: this they agree in; in the outward Cere­monies of every Religion, they are every [Page 201] man content to Conform to those of their own Country. Which is an Argument for us, that whatever new Religions have sprung up, yet they have all retain'd this part thereof, viz. that they disagreed amongst themselves.

'Tis confest that whole Nations have never follow'd our Opinion: but how ma­ny of a Nation ever consider to the bot­tom of any Religion! that which is esta­blish'd draws the vulgar, who enquires not beyond it. And, besides, our Opinion is so Charitable, that we do not exclude any Dissenters from eternal Happiness: God may be pleas'd with different Worships, because we say that all Worships are in­cluded in Prayer, Praise, exercise of Ver­tue and Penitence, when we have done amiss: So that the foundation being the same, we labour not in the Superstructures, which are only the Modes and Circum­stances of Religion.

2. The next Objection against the Suf­ficiency of Natural Religion to Happiness eternal, is only a bare Affirmation of our Adversaries, That Natural Religion is but an imperfect Light, which God gives us so far, as that by improving it, we may arrive at a Supernaturl Knowledge. As suppose I were going to Whitehall from Goventgarden Church, and can then see only [Page 202] to the end of the Strand before me, but coming thither, am directed further.

But I wholly deny any Natural Light can lead me to a Supernatural; there is no proportion betwixt those two extreams: There is a Gulph betwixt, a [...]: And 'tis not so easy a passage as from Covent-garden to Whitehall; 'tis rather from Covent-Garden to some place beyond the Caelum Empyraeum, and wholly out of the boun­daries of Nature. Also to prove that God can reveal to me what is farther Ne­cessary, when I have us'd my best Natural Endeavours, is only to prove that God is Omnipotent and Infinite; but proves not that 'tis necessary he should or will do it: for a posse ad esse non valet Consequentia. I have already endeavoured to prove that it is not necessary he should reveal more; and therefore till that point be determin'd [...] I humbly doubt and suspend my Belief.

3. Another Objection may be this: That there is no foundation in Natural Religion for a vertuous Life; or at least not so great as in a Revealed Religion, where Rewards and Punishments are proposed. So that a meer Moral Man upon bare Ver­tue, will be discouraged when he sees Vertue not rewarded here.

[Page 203]A second Objection is, That there is a difference betwixt our condition, and that of the Heathens: for if they liv'd up to the heighth of Vertue and known Reason, they might (say some charitable Christians) be happy in a future condition: We can­not, because a revealed Religion has been discover'd to us, more then to them, tho' we believe it not: Therefore we ought in our own defence to embrace it, because that by the Principles of a Natural Religion we grant, that those of a reveal'd may be saved: but they of the reveal'd deny that safety to us. (A foolish Catholick Ar­gument.)

To the first Objection we Answer: That Rewards and Punishments are acknow­ledg'd in Natural Religion, and are to ex­pect them in a future Life answerable to our Actions here; and according to the Justice and Mercy of the great Creator. And till you prove they are inconsistent with the doctrine of Natural Religion, we need answer no further to your Argu­ment.

To the second Objection; It supposes like the other; first, a Supernatural Reli­gion, which is to prove. And if the Hea­thens living up to the height of Natural Religion, might be eternally happy, I see no reason but why we may be so too; for [Page 204] if our Happiness depends upon our Belief, we cannot firmly believe till our Reason be convinced of a Supernatural Religion: And if the Reasons of it were evident, there could be no longer any Contention about Religion: All men would embrace the same, and acquiesce in it; no prejudice would prevail against the certainty of a future good. 'Tis every mans greatest business here to labour for his Happiness, and consequently none would be backward to know the means.

For the Inference, namely, that tho' a Supernatural Religion be dubious, yet 'tis the safest way to embrace it. I first Answer That I cannot embrace what comes not within the compass of my knowledge: And if I cannot believe, 'tis a sign the Evi­dence is not strong enough to make me. And secondly,

Two Arguments there are, which Sir Ch. Wolsy calls Demonstrations to prove a Re­veal'd Religion: —

• The first is, The Notion of Sin, or devia­tion from good in all men; a repugnant Principle to Vertue; a lapse from our first estate, where­in God, who is all good, must needs create us, and which the World has generrlly acknowledg'd by Lustrations and Sacrifices to appease the Deity: This he says, we can know by no other Light but Revelation, &c.
• [Page 205]Secondly, The approaches to God, and pro­pitiation must be immediately and supernatually discover'd, how he will be appeas'd.

To the first, I Answer; This generally acknowledg'd Lapse of Nature that it came may be discover'd by Nature, viz. by Na­tural Reason; how it came, 'tis reasonable to conclude without Revelation, namely, by a deviation from the right Rule of Rea­son implanted in us: how he came to de­viate from this Rule or Lapse, proceeds from the Nature of Goodness, originally given us by our Creator; which Reason tells to be an arbitrary state of goodness only, therefore not a Necessary Goodness to which our Natures were constrain'd. In short, our fall proceeds from our not be­ing able to reason rightly on every thing we act; and with such Beings we were created: For all our Actions are design'd by us to some good which may arise to us; but we do not always distinguish rightly of that good: we often mistake the Bonum apparens for the Bonum reale,; Decipimur specie Recti: The Bonum jucundum is pre­ferr'd for want of Right Reasoning to the Bonum honestum; aud the Bonum vicinum (tho' it be the less in it self) often carries it before the Bonum remotum: which is greater in its own Nature. No Man ever held, that we could appetere malum quà ma­lum: [Page 206] And therefore I will not grant him a total Lapse in our Natures from God; for we see many born with virtuous Inclina­tions. And tho' all Men at some times err, even the best in their Actions; it only shews, that we were not created to a neces­sitated goodness. 'Tis enough to prove no fatal Lapse, that many are proved thro' the course of their Lives, more prone to do Good than Ill; and that all Men do Ill on­ly for want of right Reasoning, because the Will necessarily follows the last Dictate of the Understanding.

To the Second; Namely, That the Pro­pitiation for our Offences must be supernaturally discover'd, or else we can come upon no certain Terms of Acceptation with God.

I answer that which I have often hinted, viz. That all the World who have agreed upon the Fault, agree upon the Compensa­tion; namely, Sorrow and a true Repen­tance: And Reason dictates this without Revelation. The World indeed has differ'd in their Lustrations and Sacrifices; but more have in all Ages agreed, that these without Repentance were nothing, and Repentance without them was valid: But that bare Re­pentance is sufficient Compensation for an infinite Offence against an infinite Being, is what our Adversaries deny, and therefore [Page 207] point us to an infinite Sacrifice or Propi­tiation for Sin, namely, Jesus Christ.

I may first answer, That till all who pro­fess Christianity, agree whether Christ be a Propitiation or no, I need not go about a farther Refutation of their Argument; for the Socinians will allow him only to be set up for an Example, not as a Mediator or Sacrifice. But grant that the Offence is committed against an infinite Being, we are but finite Creatures who commit it, and Repentance is what we can answer to an Atonement; and therefore we may reason­ably assert, 'tis all God will expect from us: Faith even in Christ, according to their Rules, being not good without it. If I owe a Million, and can pay but a Thousand Pounds, my Creditor can have but All; 'tis true, my Body is then subject to Imprison­ment, that is to the farther Extent of the Law; but then that Law is void of Mercy. Now Mercy is one of the greatest Attri­butes of God, and I think that infinite Ju­stice cannot be extended on a finite Crea­ture infinitely, without a Contradiction to infinite Mercy, which is, as 'twere, God's High-Court of Equity in the Case to relieve from the extremity of the Law: for tho' God's Attributes are all infinite, and tho' his Justice be infinite as well as his Mercy; yet the infinity of his Justice is only as in­herent, not as extensive as his Mercy to­wards [Page 208] us, we receiving of his Justice but according to the measure of our deserts, in punishment from his Mercy more than we can deserve: As the strictest of Christians hold, If that his Mercy be farther extended to us than his Justice, his Justice is not infi­nitely extended in punishing us; for no­thing is infinite which another thing can go beyond. And in this I follow that Father of the Church Origen, who thought that by a long Purgation, the greatest Sins might be wash'd away, and that Pythagoras and Plato taught him

It has been demanded of me, Whether I should be convinc'd of my Opinion, and ad­mit of supernatural Religion, in case the Gospel ( i. e.) a supernatural Religion had been promulgated to all the World? I an­swer'd, I should; and was contented that the whole stress of the Dispute should be terminated in that one Point. It was re­ply'd, That then if it could be proved that this nniversal Revelation was unnecessary, I ought to acquiesce; I granted that also.

'Twas then urg'd, That this Revelation was not thought necessary by Almighty God, because he foreknew that none of those Heathens, or whosoever else would live up to the heighth of their natural Rea­son or Religion, and that therefore it was not reasonable that they should receive this supernatural Help; wherefore it was con­cluded, [Page 209] that they were all damned eter­nally.

I answer; This is to dive too far in [...]God's Secrets, to conclude them all damned in all Ages, to whom that revealed LIght came not. The Apostle says, They shall be judged by the Law of Nature; but he says not, They shall be damn'd. Neither will they or can they be call'd of themselves, unless the means had been offered to them as well as to us. Also by the same Reason, all to whom this Revelation is come, shall be saved; because it was revealed to none who were not worthy of it: For if he fore­knew that no one of the Heathens should live up to the worth of this new Light, and therefore deny'd it to them all, then he who makes no distinction of persons, would on­ly have reveal'd it to those who should be saved: But our Adversaries confess that this Light is reveal'd to many as shall not be saved among the Christians, as if it were only to double their Condemnation; an Opinion which totally robs God of his At­tribute of Mercy, and Man is left at least in a very doubting condition, if not totally desperate.

That Part of Ocelius Lucanus which I promised to send you, is what follows.

Now it is very much, that this Author Ocellus Lucanus (who for his Antiquity is held to be almost a Contemporary with Moses, if not before him) should have so different a Sentiment of the World's Begin­ning from that which Moses had, methinks if Moses [...]s History of the Creation, and of Adam's being the first Man, had been a general receiv'd Opinion at that time, Ocel­lus Lucanus, who was so ancient and so emi­nent a Philosopher, should not have been al­together ignorant thereof.

‘Again, (saith he) as the Frame of the World hath been always, so it is necessary that its Parts should likewise always have existed; by Parts, I mean the Heaven, Earth, and that which lieth betwixt, viz. the Sky; for not without these, but with these, and of these, the World consists. Also if the Parts exist, it is necessary that the Things which are within them should also coexist; as with the Heaven, the Sun, Moon, fixed Stars and Planets, with the Earth, Animals, Plants, Minerals, Gold and Silver; with the Air, Exhalations, Winds, and Alterations of Weather, some­times [Page 217] Heat, and sometimes Cold; forwith the World, all those things do, and ever have existed as Parts thereof. Nor hath Man had any original Production from the Earth or elsewhere, as some believe; but hath always been, as now he is, coexistent with the World whereof he is a part. Now Corruptions and violent Alterations are made according to the Parts of the Earth: sometimes by the overflowing of the Sea; sometimes with the dilating and parting of the Earth by Winds and Wa­ters imprison'd in the Bowels thereof; but an universal Corruption of the Earth never hath been, nor ever shall be. Yet these Alterations have given occasion for the invention of many Lyes and Fables. And thus are we to understand them that derive the Original of the Greek History from Inachus the Argive: Not that he was really the Original thereof, as some make him; but because a most memorable Al­teration did then happen, some were so unskilful as to make that Construction thereof; and if any way we may believe Adam to be the first Man, we must expound it after this manner; viz. That he was the first of the whole Race. But for the Uni­verse, and all the parts whereof it subsists, as it is at present, so it ever was, and ever shall be; one Nature perpetually moving, and another perpetually suffering; one al­ways [Page 218] governing, and the other always be­ing govern'd.’

The course which Nature takes in go­verning the World, is by one Contrary prevailing over another, as thus—

The Moisture in the Air prevaileth over the Driness of the Fire; and the Coldness of the Water, over the Heat of the Air; the Driness of the Earth, over the Moisture of the Water; and so the Moisture of the Water, over the Driness of the Earth; and the Heat in the Air, over the Coldness of the Water; and the Driness in the Fire, over the Moisture of the Air. And thus the Alterations are made and produced out of one into another.

It plainly appears out of the Bible, that there were two Creations both of Man and Woman, and that Adam was not the first Man, nor Eve the first Woman, only the first of the Holy Race, and this divers of the Iews believe: for in the first Chapter of Genesis, ver. 27. It is said — So God created man in his own Image, in the Image of God created he him: male and female created he them. Bidding them increase and multiply, and have dominion over all things: Which plainly shews that Man was then created, and that the other Creation of Adam and Eve spoken of in the second Chapter, Ver. 7. and 22. were of the first Man and Woman of the Holy Race, and not the first Man and [Page 219] Woman that ever was in the World; for it was a great space of time, and divers great Actions were accomplish'd betwixt those two Creations: Therefore when it is said—Gen. 6.2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were [...]air, and took them for their Wives. The meaning is, that the Sons of Adam of the second Creation, saw the Daughters of the Men of the first Creation that they were fair, and married them. What Iosephus speaks of the Greeks, and other Nations, may with the same Rea­son be apply'd to Moses and the Iews, viz. That all Founders and Establishers of new Estates, have each of them suppos'd in their own behalf, that whosoever was of theirs, he was the first of the World, Contra Apio­nem, lib. 1.

Now however Iosephus boasts so much of the Antiquity of his Countrymen the Iews, yet he himself confesses, That he neverthe­less durst not presume to compare the Na­tion of the Iews, with the Antiquity of the most ancient and infallible Writings of the Egyptians, Chaldees and Phaenicians, who dwell in such Countries as are not subject to the Corruption of Air; and have carefully pro­vided, that whatsoever has been done by them, should not sleep in obscurity, but be kept in memory, in the publick Writings of the most learned Men. Contra Appionem, lib. 1. [Page 220] Which is as if he had said, Forasmuch as no other Nations but the Aegyptians, Phaenicians and Chaldees, have certain Records of their Original, therefore will I pretend my own Nation of the Iews to be ancienter than them, who cannot disprove me; but be­ [...]ause the Egyptians, Phaenicians and Chaldees have more ancient Records of their Coun­try in being, to disprove me, therefore to prevent being confuted, I think it more convenient to yield to them in Antiquity. And this is the secret meaning of what Io­sephus says.

I have observ'd that no Prophets ever [...]oretold the End of the World should hap­pen till many years after their own deaths, being thereby sure not to live to see them­selves proved Lyars—

For they who prophesie of the World's destruction, are upon sure grounds, viz. that till it comes to pass, it may be expected.

As Nature cannot create, by making something out of Nothing; so neither can it Annihilate, by turning Something into N [...]thing: whence it consequently follows, As there is No Access, so there is no Dimi­n [...]tion in the Universe, no more than in the Alphabet, by the infinite Combination and Transposition of Letters, or in the Wax by [Page 221] the alteration of the Seal stamp'd upon it. Now as for the Forms of natural Bodies, no sooner doth any one abandon the Matter it inform'd, but another steps instantly into the place thereof; no sooner hath one acted his part and is retired, but another comes presently forth upon the Stage, tho' it may be in a different shape, and so act a different part: So that no Portion of the Matter is, or at any Time can be altogether void and empty, but like Vertumnus or Proteus, it turns it self into a thousand shapes, and is always supply'd and furnish'd with one Form or an­other, there being in Nature Nothing but Circulation: Ne Res ad Nihilum redigantur protinus omnes. Lucret. lib. 2. And to this purpose divers of the Poets speak —

Also Philo in his Book of the World's In­corruptibility, alledgeth to this purpose the Verses of a Greek Tragick Poet, and I think of Euripïdes, which the Translator renders thus —

Casaubon likewise in his first Exercitation against Baronius, sheweth from the testimo­ny of Hippocrates, Appolonius, Seneca, Anto­ninue the Emperor, and others. Nihil in rebus Creatis perire, sed mutari duntaxat.

But to confirm what Ocellus saith, we find something like it in the Scriptures, for Solomon speaks much to the same purpose, Eccles. 1.4. One Generation passeth away, and another Generation cometh, but the Earth abi­deth for ever.

Now as Geographers use to place Seas upon that part of the Globe which they know not; so Chronologers, who are much of the same humour, do generally blot out out past Ages, which are unknown to them; as the one [Page 223] drown those Countries they cannot de­scribe; so do the other with their cruel Pens destroy those times, whereof they have no account.

The Grecians made three Divisions of Time; the unknown times: the Heroick or fabulous Times: and the Historical times, or such as they knew to have been true. The unknown Times were those with them, which past from the Be­ginning of things to the Flood; which Time, whether it had a Beginning, by Computation can never certainly be comprehended, as Censorinus from Varro affirms. The fabulous and Heroick times were those that intervened betwixt the Flood and the first Olympiad: buried like­wise in obscurity; nor is it certainly known how long Inachus was from Ogyges, or Co­drus from Inachus. Lastly, the Historical and known part of Time is computed from the first Olympiad, and treasur'd up by the Greek Historians. That the Aegyptians and Phenecians had a constant Record of things past, is confess'd by the very Greeks them­selves; who but lately learn'd the use of Letters from Cadmus the Phaenician: for which reason it has been doubted, whether the Greeks had any use of Letters in time of the Trojan Expedition; as we may find in Iosephus against Appion: That the Phae­nicians had the use of Letters long before [Page 224] Moses, and spake the same Language as the the Hebrews did, is clearly proved by Samuel Petit in his Mescellanea, as well as by the Learned Bochart in his Phaleg. For al­though we know of no Writer at this time extant more ancient than Moses (unless it be Ocellus) yet few will deny but that there were Writers before him, out of whom he col­lected much of his own History; where­fore says Dr. Brown, I believe, besides Zoroaster, there were divers others that wrote before Moses. Upon which his Annotator quotes a passage out of Apuleius (in Apol.) in these words: Si quod libet modicum emolumentum probaveritis, ego ille- sim Carinondas, vel Damigeron, vel is Moses, vel Iannes, vel Appollonius, vel ipse Dardanus, vel quicunque alius post Zoroastrem & Hostanem inter Magos celebratus est — Diodorus Scicu­lus was not only famed for his great Learn­ing but by reading, enquiring, and tra­velling throughout Europe, Asia and Africa, for the space of forty years, had furnish'd his Library with many ancient and exqui­site Volumes. Now he speaking of the Chaldeans, relates, that they thought very long ago, that the World according to its own Nature, was eternal, having no be­ginning, nor that it should have any Cor­ruption, in order to an end, and that mankind was from Eternity, without any beginning of their Ge [...]eration: that the [Page 225] Stars were eternal: and by long observa­tion of those eternal Stars, as also an a­cute knowledge of each of their particular motions, they foretold many future Events. You will hardly (says he) believe the Number of years that the Colledge of Chaldeans affirm'd they had spent in Contemplation of the Vniverse; for before the Expedition of Alexander into Asia, they reckon'd four hundred and seventy thousand years, from the time they began to observe the Stars. Likewise Cicero (who was cotemporary with Diodorus,) menti­ons the very same account of Time and Number of years. Critias, in Plato's Dia­logue call'd Timaeus, tells us, how an an­cient Egyptian Priest laugh'd at old Solon for boasting of the Primitive acts of the Athenians, as of Phoroneus and Niobe before the Flood, as also of Deucalion and Pyrrha after the Flood; whereas the Priest told Solon, there had formerly been many more Floods: that he was ignorant even of the most famous of his Ancestors: that he had no knowledge of another Athens, the first and most ancient which stood before the Flood, and was destroyed by it: that he ne­ver heard of the glorious Enterprizes which those first Athenians had perform'd ten thou­sand years before the Flood; at which time an innumerable Company of fierce War­riors had invaded Egypt and Greece, and all that was against Hercules Pillars: against [Page 226] whom, the only Valor of the Citizens of old Athens was then shewn, above all other Nations. Now whether the Priest did this to banter poor Solon, I shall not determine; but the same History is cited likewise in Ar­nobius's Treatise against the Gentiles, where he uses these words — We were the Cause (says he) that Ten thousand Years ago a great Army of Men came from the Atlantick Islands, as Plato relates, and destroy'd a great many Ci­ties.—Scaliger (in his Book de Em [...]nd. Temp.) says, That the Chineses reckon'd the World to have been Eight hundred eightscore thousand and seventy three Years old, Anno Domini 1594.

But I shall tire you no more with this Subject, which as it does to me, so undoub­tedly it will to you, and ought to do the same to every good Christian, appear a meer Paradox, tho' of as great Antiquity as any thing I ever yet met with in prophane Sto­ry. However, notwithstanding it does not edifie, yet if it may in any kind serve to en­tertain and divert you, 'tis all that is aim'd at by,