THE Divine Being And its ATTRIBUTES Philosophically Demonstrated from the Holy Scriptures, AND Original Nature of Things. According to the PRINCIPLES of F. M. B. of HELMONT.

Written in Low-Dutch by Paulus Buchius Dr. of Physick, and Translated into English by Phil­anglus.

LICENSED Septemb. 25.

LONDON Printed, and are to be sold by Randal Taylor, near Stationers Hall. 1693.

THE PREFACE To the READER.
Who is a Lover of Truth.

IT is a known Maxim amongst the impar­tial and men of Sence, that we are to re­tain that which seems most probable, till we find an opportunity of coming better and more easily to the Truth. But this is also on the other side a fundamental Truth among the intelligent, that when any one has found a clearer and bet­ter way of drawing nearer to Truth, that he must forsake his former, and embrace the latter way. Yea and more then that, the Duty of a Gene­rous man requires that he never stand still, or lye down at rest upon his knowledge, but that he be incessantly searching still after Truth that he may more and more draw nigh unto it, and therefore our Saviour saith, Matth. 7.7. Seek and ye shall find. Even our own Nature teacheth us, that when we are not continually [Page]seeking, but resting upon that which we have once learned, we go backward even in that which we know; For seeing man is continually change­able in all things, and can never stand still, as to his understanding, he must be going for­wards, or he will go backwards. If then he does not increase in knowledge, his knowledge will decrease, & he will be as one in a sleep, so that he will not have that sagacity of understanding, that he formerly had. Verily nothing can be more evident to a man than this: For he that thinks that he knows any thing perfectly, and so will seek no further, he shall find in process of time, either that what he knew before, shall not be so clear to him as formerly, yea that he shall even have forgot in whole, or in part, or else, that if he oft rehearses that which he has learned as a Lesson, will no longer be as a Truth to him: but only a remembrance of that which once he knew as a Truth: For when any one finds a Truth, he cannot but be glad and rejoice at it, yea and as oft as that Truth presents it self to him as truth, and not barely as something that he calls to mind, so that he thereby learns other Truths, he will be so touched and affected there­with in his Inward-man, that the joy that he has by reason of it, shall be of more esteem with him than all Earthly Treasures: But if he esteems what he has learned for truth, so as to conceit himself to know all things that are knowable, and so seeks no further, he shall be [Page]sensible of no more joy and gladness in him, by reason thereof, but will through a constant cu­stom, declare it to others, while he is not at all affected with it himself in his inward-man, for the outward gestures are attained by custom to keep themselves in the Reputation and good opinion of the People.

If then it be the duty of an honest man, and a lover of the Truth, never to stand still and re­ly upon his knowledge, but constantly to go for­ward more and more in the same, yea not only to keep on in his old way, but if he has found a better, to quit his former way, then will no man, I hope be so unreasonable as to blame that in me which is praise-worthy in others, viz. That having once found a better way to attain unto the Truth, that I do quit my former thoughts both in Divinity and Philosophy, which then did seem probable unto me. Yea, I can truely say, that nothing is more dear to me, than so to know the truth, that all things may be compre­hended under one and the same truth, and not that divers things have divers Principles, from whence they are derived. And therefore, he that can give me occasion to find the Truth, and that so that it every way, and in all its parts a­grees with it self, or so hangs together that one part doth not contradict the other, him I will follow, and forsake my wrong Opinions; Nor is this to be called Levity or Changeableness; but any one that has a conscience, must needs be [Page]convinced, that I seek after truth if perhaps I may find it.

I know full well, that this is not to speak af­ter the mode of the times, for he is counted a brave man that has a good memory, and can talk just as his Master has taught him, and that looks upon it as a piece of Sanctity not to depart one Tittle from it: yea the corruption of Manners is such, that men look at nothing but Money, Honour, Mastership, and to dispise one another, to make themselves great, &c.

But to be short, I will communicate unto the sober Reader, some of my Remarks, that he may thence see what has moved me by all manner of ways to pursure the Truth.

There's nothing more common nor more No­torious in these days, than to distinguish between Theology and Philosophy and to affirm the one to be built upon quite other Grounds than the other; This way of Talk always seemed strange to me, and so much the more, because upon my enquiry into the Original both of Theology and Philosophy, I found them both to flow from one and the same Spring, to wit, from the Divine Be­ing whence I learned, that God being the Author both of his Holy Word and of Reason, and all Natural things, these two, Gods Word, and Reason, could neither contradict each other, nor be separated from one another, and consequently, that either the modern Theology, or Philoso­phy was false, or both of them were wrong.

And when I came to consider the Common Theology, I found it divided into very many Sects, and that each Sect thought not only his opinion to be the best, but that the want of Charity was so great, that each Sect judged and con­demned and vomited forth Curses against the other. And in short, that Sect no which the Civil Magistrate stands affected, is there ac­counted to have the Truth and oppresseth the other, so that he that has the longest Sword among them, has not only the greatest right on his side, but has most Truth, and therefore the Weapons of (this kind of) Religion are no longer powerful through God, but Carnal.

But it is not only thus, as to Divinity, and the Sects one to another in General; But good God! what self-Love, ambition and Master­ship over one another do not those of the same Sect seek after? They use fraudulent Tricks, alledge false Citations out of other mens Books, to render them suspected: And if any man does but a little depart from the Ecclesiastick Laws of the Sect in which he is, he must forsooth be Excommunicated, he has once signed them, and therefore must blindly follow them, tho' made only by men, and altho' he finds it otherwise in the Holy Scriptures: These and diverse other things are sufficient Proofs, that those times are not yet fulfilled of which Jeremy speaks Chapter 31. V. 33.34. I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write [Page] it in their Hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my People: And they shall teach no more every man his neigh­bour, and every man his Brother, saying, know the Lord, &c.

But when we shall once arrive at those blessed days, then shall that cumber of Councils, Synods, and Assemblies be at an end, and vanish, and Christ alone shall Rule by his Spirit: and Lord­ing it over Christs flock, and force upon. Consci­ence, and such like Trash shall no more be men­tioned among us; but on the Contrary, Love shall increase, and spiritual things be familiar, and commonly known unto us.

Now as to the Mondern Philosophy, I have experienced it to be only conversant about things visible and palpable to teach nothing at all of that which is essential, or of the Nature and Ori­gine of things. For when at any time we endea­voured to reduce it to use, thereby to dissect and know natural things and to attain the knowledge of Man and his Diseases (for Medicine be­longs to Philosophy, and the knowledge of Na­ture and Philosophy, if true, includes the knowledge of Medicine) I always found it void of Truth, and that it could not give me the knowledge of Distempers, nor the Causes of them: which Experience made me see that the Modern corpuscular Philosophy is nothing else but a heap of Words.

I leave in the mean while others to think and speak what they please, to the contrary, but of this [Page]I am assured, that it neither does nor can give any man Wisdom, either in things Divine or Natural: But makes man so altogether Corporeal, that he knows nothing of the Spiri­tual; and I would fain see any man that thinks otherwise of it, to give some evidence to the contrary, and to shew how it is possible, that Bo­dies should operate without their Life or Spirit, and how they can every way be applyed to man and his Operations, and so long as no man does this, (as it is impossible upon their Prin­ciples to do it) I deem them ignorant of those Principles that give occasion for the explaining and understanding of things both Divine and Natural from one and the same ground.

These above mentioned difficulties caused me then to look about, for otherways, and to enquire if there were no mediums to be found, that might give occasion to discover the consonancy betwixt things Divine and Natural: Along time had I enquired with uncertainty enough after it, yea, so far I was come as to esteem all things in Philosophy uncertain: But then I found the Truth of that saying, that when we are at the greatest loss in our selves, then the means of our Deliverance are nearest at hand; when I began to be acquainted, and to have fa­miliar Conversation with the Right Honou­rable the Baron F. M. Van Helmont, &c. a Gentleman whose worth I am not capable of describing, and to whom it would be a lessening [Page](for me so very far below his Honourable state and Dignity) to attempt to sound forth his praise, the Emperour and Roman Empire having done it already, not by Word of Mouth, but by Writing: Only this I shall say, that he has been to me an Example, not only in Doctrine but also in life, and whose actions I have found to agree with his Words, a thing that in these times can with truth be said of few.

This Gentleman then brought often forth things both in Theology and Philosophy, which I had never before heard, yea, which seem'd very strange unto me, and that so much the more, because I heard it by piece meals, now one piece, and then another, which I knew not how to joyn together. But as all knowledge and Wisdom in its first beginning seems difficult, and wonderful, because we have been prepossest with other Principles: Therfore I began to think whether the cause of my blindness, and inabili­ty to understand, proceeded not rather from the prejudices I had suckt in, than from what his Honour said. And so resolving with my self neither to approve nor contradict his sentiments, but to examine them, whether there were no con­tradiction in them, or whether they could all be derived from one Principle. Wherefore I be­gan to note some things upon Paper, it is true and I must confess it, that the things seemed mighty intricate and troublesome to me to ap­prehend at the first, but when I found but any [Page]thing that gave me any occasion to understand things, I stuck at no pains, so that it did not discourage, nor was it tedious to me at all, to imploy a whole Years time, to comprehend the thoughts of this Gentleman, upon Man and his Diseases, and so deduce them to Writing that one thing necessarily follow'd upon the other.

While I had then this entercours with his Ho­nour concerning natural things, it oft times hap­pened, that Scriptural Truths, and Theologick did occur, which were altogether as strange to me, and quite out of the common Road, as the Philo­sophick.

But because I have now found that his Ho­nours Thoughts both in Theology and Philo­sophy do hang very well together, and are Truth, I judge it no less my duty, the rather because Theology is a thing that concerns every one, and in which no man ought to rely upon the say­ing of another, but every one ought to be a Theo­logue for himself, and to search after Divine Wisdom, I say I therefore judged it no less my Duty to examine whether his Honours thoughts in Theology, could be derived from the same Principle of Philosophy; whereunto I found no readier way, than first, to lay aside all Prejudi­ces, and in the fear of God to examine what manner of Being and Operation the Divine Be­ing and its Operation must needs be, if we will so unite the Attributes of God, so that the one does not run counter to the other, and that no­thing [Page]should follow upon the one Attribute, which would contradict the other, and this Harmony I found in his thoughts, and I thank God that opened my Eyes to see it. And I must confesss, that I then found that this Gentlemans thoughts did not contradict the Attributes of God so uni­ted, but were a Consequent thereof; For which reason I follow Divinity by this thred, to see what truth will thereby be discovered: This I can at present say, at least, that I have now found the Great Wisdom of the Creator about the first Man; Yea I have with full assurance learned what it is that reconciles the sinner to God again, who must needs be that Reconciler, and on what ways the sinner obtains Communion and Fellowship with that Reconciler: I now affirm, Knowing and being assured by the Grace of God, that Theology and Philosophy is one and the same thing: But what? Verily not that which stands in the many fictions, inventions, and Speculations of empty heads, or in much dis­puting, but which is given unto man by the same Spirit, that enlightens his Eyes to Learn Divine things: And this I have found to be Truth what is said 1 Cor. 12. That it is one and the same Spirit which imparts unto man the Gift of Healing, Faith, and many Tongues, &c. Let the world exclaim against me as they will, render me as odious as they can, and call me all to naught as they please, I will cleave to the Holy Scripture alone, without the Glosses [Page]of men, or their Commentaries, therein lyes both the true Theology and Philosophy; and therefore O Truth-loving Reader! Seek thou the Truth in Gods Word alone, come by experi­ence to find and know what the Operation of the Spirits is, and then thou wilt not possibly doubt of the Truth of it.

This one thing only I shall here add, that if it please God to afford me health, I shall hereafter Treat of The Fall of Man, and how he must be restored.

Farewell Reader, and read with modera­tion, that thou mayst reap profit thereby.

Amsterdam 23. March 1693.
P. B. Med. Doct.

There will be suddenly published a Treatise out of the Low-Dutch of F. M. of Helmont touching Man and his Diseases, drawn from sound Reason and certain Experience, to which this following Tract in se­veral places refers.

OF THE Divine Being And its ATTRIBUTES.

§. 1. HE that has at any time Contempla­ted the Divine Being, how it is, and how many Perfections or Properties it does possess, must needs confess that it is impos­sible for him to comprehend the Being of God with all the Attributes thereof, be­cause being but a Creature, he must needs have infinitely less Knowledge and Perfecti­ons than the Creator, because he under­stands not the Work of Creation, nor has the least Power to Sustain his own Being, much less to Ceate other things, without himself.

§. 2. For if it were possible for any Crea­ture to comprehend God and all his Attri­butes, that Creature must needs have many more Perfections, than the Creator, because what comprehends another thing, is grea­ter [Page 2]then that which it comprehends; and therefore, if any Creature could in its un­derstanding comprehend God, that Crea­ture would have a larger understanding than God himself, which is impossible; be­cause that which Creates a thing, is more perfect than the thing it Creates, which would be as if one said, that a part is grea­ter than the whole, and a Point greater than the Circumference, which includes it.

§. 3. But tho' no Creature comprehends all the properties of the Divine Being, yet hence follows not, that we do not know, or cannot know that God is; for that many, yea all things, that we meet with, we do know by their Operations, do exist, tho' we know them not with all their properties; and therefore, tho' no man can comprehend God with all his perfections, yet he can com­prehend that there is, and must needs be a Being, that Created him, if he does but examine himself, and compare his Creature­ly Power with the Power of the Creator.

§. 4. It is most certain, and beyond all Contradiction, that he, that will try his own Forces, and Examine what is in his own power, shall find, that he cannot pro­duce the least thing out of another thing, unless it be included in it. Yea he shall find, that he cannot keep his own Body in [Page 3]that State, that he desires it should remain in, but that it shall, whether he will or no, dye, and return to Dust, Worms and such like.

§. 5. This Impotency teaches him, not only that he cannot preserve his Body in the same state, but also that it must needs have been formed in time, and has not been for ever; For that where there is a perpetual dura­tion, there cannot be any limitation of time, and therefore it is altogether impossible, that that, which had no beginning, can have an end, or cease to continue in that state, or frame in which it has always been.

§. 6. Whence then follows, that Man seeing his deficiency, and being conscious thereof, must needs acknowledge, that he cannot have been produced by a Being that is unable to sustain it self, because then it would be much less able to give Being to any thing without its self; But that he was made by a Being, that is sustained by no other, because this would imply the very same de­fect, to wit, that it would be unable to sus­tain others, if it wanted power to sustain it self.

§. 7. And for as much as the Creator must needs have that Perfection, that he does sus­tain himself, it necessarily follows, that the Creator himself was not Created, but has always [Page 4]been: Because that he that sustains himself at present, must either have been former­ly produced by some other, and by him have been sustained till this present time, and have now received that Power not on­ly of sustaining himself, but others also; or he must always have had that Power of sustaining himself and others, as well as he has it at this present.

As to the first, It is most certain, that to say, that the Creature can have been at first created by some other, and have obtained the Power of sustaining not only himself, but others; is nothing else, but a parcel of words, which being well examined, in­cludes a contradiction. For whoever is Created by another, must necessarily be de­pendant of him that created him; because nothing can subsist out of, or without its Principle or Origine: For that every Effect ceases, when that Cause that sustains it in its state, ceases: To say then, that tho' the Creator were created by another, yet he might himself have received the Faculty not only of sustaining himself, but also of Creating others, would be just as if one should say, that a Building can keep stand­ing without its Foundation.

Besides, if we should admit this Absurdi­ty, that a Creature could possess the Power of upholding it self, and Creating others, [Page 5]he must have received this Power either at his Creation from the very first beginning, or some time after, or he must have acquired it of himself: For a fourth is unconceivable. If he should have received it together with his first Existence from him that Created him, then he cannot be considered as a Cre­ator; but only as a means, or medium, by which the Creator did exercise his Power, because he has not this Power of himself, but receives it, from another: And there­fore 'tis a mistake to say, that he has recei­ved the Power of upholding himself, and Creating others, and an abuse of words; for that it can signifie nothing else, but that God created him and daily upholds him: And so the second position falls, viz. that he should have received this Power some time after. As to the third, it would be considered, whether it be pos­sible, that any thing can give it self more power, than it has received; or to speak yet plainer, than its Nature and Pro­perties do imply. Verily this is so absurd and impossible, that it cannot be conceived by any Man of common sence: Because Uni­versal Experience teaches us the contrary.

It follows then, that no Creature can pos­sess the faculty of Upholding it self, or of giving Being to other things.

§.8. Therefore this only remains, That he, that at his present can uphold himself, must needs have had that Power from all Eternity: For it is impossible, that he that once up­holds himself, should not always have up­held himself; Because the sustaining of him­self includes independency of all others; Now he that depends upon no other, cannot pos­sibly have been Created by any other, or by himself: of another not, because to be Cre­ated infers a dependency, as we have just now shewed, which therefore is a Contra­diction to this Proposition, in which we speak of a Being that can uphold it self. It implys also a contradiction to Create him­self. Because Creation includes a begin­ning of an own-outworking (as shall be proved §. 27.) If then any one should Create himself, he must have had an out­working, before he had been created, that is, before he could Work. Which implies a contradiction, because to Create himself, is to produce something, before one has power so to do: So that this Difficulty vanishes of it self. Yea necessarily implyes, That, that Being, that upholds it self, is uncrea­ted, and has alwayes maintained it self in that state.

§. 9. For as much then as a Man learns from his own insufficiency, that there must needs be a Being, that brought him forth, [Page 7]and upholds him, which necessarily infers' that that Being is uncreated and indepen­dant, as already is proved, he can further infer from hence, (tho' but imperfectly, by reason of his shortness of understanding) what Perfections are necessarily required in this uncreated Being.

§. 10. Having thus learned from the Na­ture of our own Being, that that Being, which creates us, is, and always was, it self uncreated, we do justly conclude further, that it is also Vnchangeable: for if it were changeable in the least, with respect to its Being, it were absolutely impossible that it should have been always uncreated: because to be uncreated and independant cannot subsist with the least mutability: be­cause to be uncreated does necessarily imply a Being, that can neither be better nor worse, but which always works the same thing; because it depends upon no other, (according to §.8.) and consequently cannot be changed by any other.

This being cannot change it self, but it must be either with respect to its thoughts, operations, or Being.

With respect to its thoughts or works, it cannot change it self, because a mutation of thought or operation, implyes a begin­ning of something Essential, which it, till [Page 8]then had not thought, or had not till then done, and made an end of that which it did before Work or do. And in as much as it is natural to, or the property of a thinking Being to think, it follows that there can­not be the least change of thought, with­out a change of something essential, which cannot happen in this uncreated Being, be­cause it would then be defective, and im­perfect, which is inconsistent with the up­holding of it self, as shall be proved §. 11. as also with its Omnipresence, and Omnisci­ence, of which we shall speak §. 14.15.

True it is, that it may here be Objected, That tho' a man changes in his thoughts, and actions, that that makes no change in his Being.

But this is a false Objection: for seing our Thoughts, and Works, proceed not, but from our Life; and that we bring not forth any thing, but as caused thereby, it follows that no change can happen in our thoughts, neither for the better, nor the worse, ex­cept our Life or Being do first change so to work.

With respect to his Being, this uncrea­ted Being cannot change himself, because then he must either become better or worse: For the worse he cannot change himself, because 'tis natural to all things, to keep themselves in a good State so long as they [Page 9]can possibly: Nor can he better himself, because then he must have that power of himself, or have received it of some others. Of another can he not have received it, be­cause he upholds himself, (according to §. 8.) And it cannot make it self better; because that which upholds it self, and is uncreated, must needs have had that per­fection from all Eternity, which 'tis pre­tended, that it has obtained in process of time. From all which then it follows, that this uncreated Being is also unchangeable.

§. 11. For as much then as this Being is Vnchangeable both in its Thoughts, Works and Being, it is impossible to conceive wherein it should be lyable to the least Im­perfection; for being uncreated and uphol­ding it self, according to §. 6. and 7. it can­not have the least imperfection, because that which upholds it self must needs have all Perfections, because in that part where­in it should be imperfect, it would not be able to uphold it self; because every thing that is lyable to the least defect, shews that it upholds not it self; for if it could up­hold it self, and yet was in any wise defi­cient, it would in stead of being so defici­cient, render it self Perfect, and abide in that state of Perfection.

And for as much as §. 10. it is proved, [Page 10]that this uncreated Being is unchangeable, it necessarily follows, that it enjoys all per­fections, because that which cannot be in­creased nor diminished, without increasing, and diminishing its Being, must needs pos­sess all things that can possibly be given: now that which perfectly enjoys all things, and admits not of the least deficiency must in every respect be Perfect.

§. 12. For as much then as this being is absolutely Perfect, it necessarily follows, that it is also Indivisible or Incorporeal, because all things that are Corporeal, and consequently divisible, shew themselves to be mutable, as it is natural to all Bodies to change their Figures and forms, and because it is proved §. 10. that God is not in the Ieast mutable, it follows thence, that the least corporeity, or divisibility cannot be essential to him.

§. 13. From this Immutability and Indi­visibility follows, that no time can be concei­ved in this perfect Being. Because time, be­ing nothing else but a certain Limit, which Men conceive in themselves, of the dura­tion of things that occur unto them, to wit, when they began, how long they shall con­tinue, and when they shall pass away; for as much then as God is uncreated and un­changeable, he cannot be limited by any [Page 11]time, in which he sould have obtained his being, or how long he has been in that state, because to be uncreated, and unchangeable, implys no time, but perpetual duration ac­cording to §. 7.

§. 14. Seing then there is no time in God, it necessarily follows that all things are present to him, that is, that nothing doth now appear, or come forth to View, that hath not been always, with God. For if any thing were new to God, God could not be alwayes present to all things, or all things would not be always and without ceasing present to God; but would begin to be present to him; and seing there is no time in God (according to §. 13.) nothing can be said in the least to begin to be present to God, which has not always been present to him.

But it will be here said: That God is alwayes present; that is, that God is al­wayes present to all created Beings, when created, but that he cannot be said to be present to things before they are Created.

This Objection indeed to our humane un­derstanding, and according to our appre­hension of things, as present to us, seems to include a truth; but because we our selves are never present, but always under [Page 12]mutation, and that all things that occur un­to us, do also continually change (as is pro­ved in the Observations of Baron Van Hel­mont upon Man, and his Diseases §. 39.40, 41, 42.) therefore Gods being present cannot be considered in the same manner, or mea­sured with our manner of being present to things, because he is unchangeable, we con­tinually changing.

Besides when we say, concerning any Creature, that it is present, we mean no­thing else, but that we hear or see it, &c. in this or that place; But on this wise can nothing be said to be present to God, because, he being incorporeal, accor­ding to §. 12. cannot be externally seen nor included in any place. But must be so present, that nothing can be or subsist out of him; seeing then, that nothing can sub­sist out of God (as shall be proved §. 16.) and that God is in all respects unchangeable (according to §. 10.) God must needs be present to all things on that wise; that is, he must have all things in him: For if God, began then first to be present to all things, when they were created, or first began to be, then should God necessarily be now present to some things, to which he was not present in former times. Which would be something new to God; and because eve­ry new thing infers a Change, whether in [Page 13]thought or deed, and that God is in every respect, unchangeable (according to §. 10.) it is impossible that God should not be al­ways present to all things.

But it will be here again said, that pre­sence is a consequence of the Creation, and that therefore this has relation only to the Creation, and not with respect to the At­tributes that flow from the Being of God it self.

But this exception is utterly false: for if it flows from the nature of Gods Being, that he be unchangeable, and perfect, then it follows also from his Being, that he cannot with respect to his Works or Being, be ex­tended or inlarged: Now, that which can­not be extended nor inlarged, cannot be said to be present to more things at this time, then in time past: at one time then another. For if it was not present but in the Creation, and the Creation be (accor­ding to the common opinion) something, that before was nothing, then this Being must be more extended now, than former­ly, because there being nothing before the Creation, (according to the common Hypo­thesis) this being could not be operative in that, which was not; and God being more present with respect to the Creation, must needs be now more extended with respect to his Being or Works than he was [Page 14]before the Creation, which is directly con­trary to §. 10. where the contrary is pro­ved: So that this exception, that Gods presence is a consequence of the Creation falls to the ground.

Again they which do consider Gods be­ing present, but as a consequence of the Creation, cannot conceive God to be pre­sent any other way, then man is said to be present to things; altho' they seem to say the Contrary. Now the difference betwixt Gods being present and Mans being so, and wherein it consists, has been shewed in the precedent Objection.

But in opposition to these our thoughts concerning Gods Presence, there will be another difficulty advanced, viz. How it is conceivable, that all things should have been in God, as they are before their Cre­ation. And that this being to us utterly unconceivable, seems therefore to be false.

For my part I freely confess, that it is unconceivable to Men, after what manner or how these things were in God before the Creation: buth tho' my understanding can­not conceive it, it follows not that there­fore it is false: for if nothing else be true but what I can comprehend, it would fol­low that all the Attributes of God are not in him, yea that God is not, because God is incomprehensible: Which consequence yet [Page 15]is absurd, as is proved §. 2.3. even so is it unreasonable to infer such consequences from our comprehension with respect to Gods presence.

Moreover if we truly understand, what Creating is, (as shall be shewed §. 27.) this difficulty would fall of it self. To shew then in some sort the possibility of all things having been always present to God: Let us consider, that all our words, thoughts and deeds, are not a meer nothing, but spi­ritual beings (as is proved in the Considera­tion of B. Van Helmonts Observation upon man &c §. 19.44, 45, 76, 86, 91, 93, &c.) And that they often times are seen by others, before they are acted in the bo­dy; as for example it is sufficiently known, and especially to such as have it by experi­ence, that the apparition of one that is yet alive will be represented to another, and that the very same noise or din, which afterwards will be heard at the death of the Person, is heard before his departure: These things now, which are so heard or seen, and of which we have a clear evidence, as when we speak with the Persons themselves, can­not be meer nothings, because no man can hear or see a meer nothing: but these are something essential (as is proved in the Considerations of B Van Helmont;) I que­ry then what greater impossibility there is [Page 16]in this, that all things are always present to God, than it is that men should sometimes perceive things beforehand, that come not to pass till sometime after, there is no dif­ference here, but in point of time, to wit, that God has been alwayes present to all things, which men many times have per­ceived, seen, and heard but some small time, before they were wrought out: So that this plainly evinces that all natural things do already really exist, before they were wrought out, tho' we kmow not how.

And because we do here give a Key, by which we may understand the possibility of Apparitions, we must as we go, take no­tice of two mistakes, conerning Prophe­sies, and Apparitions. First of those that look upon Prophesies, & Apparitions as Fables, be­cause they cannot conceive how things can be seen or known before they come to pass, not knowing that all things are always essenti­ally, altho' not visible. Secondly of those that receive Prophesies, and Apparitions for truth in opposition to the former, altho' they cannot give the least reason for it, yea if they do not acknowledge that all things do essentially exist, before they be corpo­really wrought out, will be forced to assent to the opinion of the former, as not having any thing to oppose against it, because set­ting this Truth aside, that all things have [Page 17]always been essentially in God, there is not the least proof to be given of the truth of Prophesies and Apparitions.

§. 15. And because all things are conti­nually present to God, this most perfect Being must also needs be Omniscient, that is, God knows when and at what time all things, that are hid shall be revealed; be­cause, being the Original of all things (as shall be proved §. 17.) and having all things present with him (according to §. 14.) he knows, when this or that thing shall (in the order that he has establisht in all things) be bodily wrought forth, that is, when it shall bodily appear, or be acted in the Body, (for of such things as are to be done in the body, it is, that we now (speak,)

Yea it is altogether impossible, that any man can have any the least Notion or Idea of the signification of Omniscience if he does not presuppose, that all things are always present to God: and to speak yet plainer, it is impossible that God can be Ominisci­ent if all things be not present to him: For I pray, what is it to know a thing, but to com­prehend it? And we must needs have the Idea or being of what we do comprehend; and hence it is, that he that has no Idea or Image of a thing, does not truly apprehend it: For as much then as the knowledge of [Page 18]a thing consists in the having and Idea there­of, and that the Ideas are Spiritual Beings, (as is proved in the Considerations of B. Van Helmont upon Man, &c. §. 44.45.) it follows, because God has in him the Ide­as (or that which is essential) of all things, which are always present to him, that he must needs be also Omniscient.

But it will be said, that knowledge in God, is not so as it is in man, because God has all knowledge from himself, and com­prehends all things, so as they shall be when they shall begin to appear in the Cre­ation, whereas, on the contrary, Men must receive their Ideas from without, from the things themselves, which do give forth their Ideas or Images In us; and therefore the Omniscience of God cannot be likened to the knowledge of Man.

But this Objection says nothing against what we have advanced: For we say not that the knowledge of God is to be liken­ed to the knowledge of Man; but that Gods knowledge, is knowledge, and that all knowledge infers an Idea of the thing known, or which we comprehend. As for Example, no man can know what a Tree, or Beast, or such like is, unless he has the Idea or Image of that thing in him.

The difference then betwixt Gods knowledge and our knowledge consists herein, that we cannot [Page 19]frame any Idea of any thing, but what the things themselves, gives forth, so that the knowledge of the Creatures is stirred up in us, and hence it is, that no man can form in himself and Idea or Image of anything, that he has never seen. But it is not thus with the knowledge of God, but the quite contra­ry, to wit, That God stands in need of no­thing to acquire the knowledge thereof, be­cause he being the Original of all things (as shall be proved in the next §.) and wanting nothing, but on the contrary, enjoying all Perfections according to §. 11. produ­ceth all things, and is the Author of them: So that the difference betwixt Gods and Mans knowledge, is this, that men are passive, that is, they cannot know, nor work any Idea of any thing unto themselves but must receive it from without: whereas on the contrary, the most per­fect Being is active, that is, it wants no know­ledge from without, but knows all things from or of himself.

So that hence it may be easily enough un­derstood, that we do not liken the know­ledge of God unto Mans knowledge, but do assert an infinite distance betwixt the one and the other.

But this is not the main Business, that we properly aim at here, to wit, what Gods knowledge is, and how men come by the knowledge they have: But the question [Page 20]here is, what is knowledge. And we have shewed, that all knowledge or comprehen­sion, if it be true knowledge, includes in it an Idea or figure of the thing, which we comprehend, or else it is no knowledge of the thing as it is: but only that such a thing is, as by Example we know indeed that God is, but we know not what manner of being he is, that is, we have no Idea in us of his Being as is proved §. 2.3.

But here we speak not properly of such a thing, as of which we can have no Idea, but of things which fall under perception and Comprehension. For we treat here of the Being of God, which is greater than all Created things, and therefore his Omnisci­ence must needs comprehend the knowledge or comprehension of all things, so as things shall be created. And therefore we are on­ly to consider here that knowledge, which contains only the Idea or being of the thing known: which knowledge must needs be in the most perfect being, viz. that it has in it self the Ideas of all things so as they shall be created, or else God could not be Omniscient, that is, he could not comprehend all things, are not a meer nothing (as has been shewed already) nor cannot be no­thing; Because in God there cannot be no­thing, but must all be actually and essential­ly [Page 21]according to his perfection; whence then follows beyond all contradictions that God had all things essentially in him before the Creation, and that he can in no wise be Omniscient, but by having the Ideas, (or that which is essential) of all things in him, and consequently that all things did not then first obtain their Beings, in their Cre­ation, but were all before the Creation es­sentially in God.

§. 16. This most perfect Being then, be­ing thus Omniscient, that all things are present to him, it must needs be the Original of all Created things; because he that has all things present, that is, he that compre­hends all things, is greater than the things that are present to him, that is, that are comprehended in or by him. Now these things that are always present to God, do shew their deficiency and want of power to keep themselves always in the same condi­tion, because they continually change: Now for as much as they do not uphold them­selves, they cannot possibly be the cause of their own Being; because he that is the cause of his own Being, must needs have the Power of having been always the cause of his own being, and consequently he must be able to preserve himself in the same state. Now for as much as no Creature has the [Page 22]power of Conserving it self in the same frame, it follows, that some other must be the cause of its being; and he that is the cause of its being cannot be like unto him, that is, he cannot be as he is, a Creature, because no Creature has the least power of producing any thing, nor yet so much as of Conserving it self for one Moment (as in §. 4.5, 6.) so that the Original or Cause of the Creatures can be no Creature, but must be that being, which is from all Eternity, which subsists of it self, and to whom all things are present.

§. 17. Seing then that God is thus Om­niscient, that all things ae continually pre­sent with him, and so present that they are dependent of him, and that he is the Cause or Original of all things, it necessarily fol­lows that this perfect Being, has also this Power, that he can so produce all things, that what he produceth shall be able to accom­plish the end, to which their maker has ap­pointed them. Because he, of whom all things are dependant, and who is the sole Cause of all things, cannot be so hindred by any thing, that what he has produced should not effect that which is according to his aim and will: which power of producing all things is truly enough said to be Omni­potent: Not that the word Omnipotent [Page 23]does signifie a power to do all things both good and evil; in no wise: For seing there is no defect in God, it cannot be that the most perfect Being should produce or work out any thing that should not have all the parts requisit to its appointed out­working; but if his work should be so de­fectively produced, it would be evil with respect to God, who is the Work-master, or the Maker thereof, but this cannot in any wise be in a perfect Being.

§. 18. And as this Being is so Powerful, that it produces all things with those Fa­culties, that render them capable of Effect­ing that, whereunto they are ordained and appointed, so it is also, not only Good in or with respect to its self (which Goodness, in that respect, is nothing else but its own Per­fection (of which we have spoken §. 11.) but it must needs also be good in the high­est degree, with respect to the Creatures; because all the Good which is required to their Well-being, they must receive from him, as not being able to subsist out of him.

§. 19. And this Perfection in the Divine Being, being demonstrated in §. 11. it follows that it cannot be without Operation, because if it were not Operative, it would if self want that which is common to every [Page 24]Creature; for there is no Creature, how mean soever it be, that is without its Ope­ration: Now if the most perfect Being should want that which is even Natural to all the Creatures, it would in that respect be more deficient then the Creatures them­selves, nor would possibly have all those Perfections that are necessary to a perfect Being.

§. 20. Again this being is not only ope­rative, but it must needs have been always on Continually Operative, because if it be not always Operative, there would then be a cessation in this being, either from all Ope­ration, or but in part. Whether now we say, that this Cessation be total or but par­tial, it asserts a change, and that infers a de­fect or imperfection, as is more at large proved in §. 10. And seing, according to §. 10. and 11. God is neither Mutable in his Being nor in his Working, but is in every respect present, it follows, that God must always have been Operative or Working.

§. 21. And seing the Immutability of this Being is proved §. 10. and its Perfection in §. 11, it follows, that it is not only al­ways Operative, but also that it must always Operate or work the same thing: That is, that God does not only never cease to [Page 25]work, but also, that he does not change his Working; because if God did not al­ways work the same thing, it must be ei­ther that he might make his Work better or worse: But this Being makes its work neither better nor worse: Because what­soever it works, must be agreeable with its own Attributes; seing therefore that it is unchangeably perfect according to §. 10. and 11. it must necessarily have also that Perfection that it works always wifely and with understanding, yea with such under­standing, that there can be neither too much nor too little in its Works, and con­sequently that it produceth its Works nei­ther better nor worse, or else there would be a defect in the Nature of this Being, and consequently it would neither be immu­table nor perfect, the contrary of which has been proved.

And because there is no time in God, that is, because his Being cannot be limited by any time (according to §. 13.) but that it is perpetual, therefore, the Attributes that flow from his Divine Being, cannot be temporal, or subject to time. Because we can no sooner speak of a Being, but we must needs include all the essential Attri­butes thereof; for if you take from a Be­ing its Attributes, it is no more the same thing that it was before, and seing in §. 18. [Page 26]it is proved that Operation, or to Work is natural to the Divine Being, it follows, that because God is every way unchange­able, that his Working must also be so, and that it can never cease to be the same.

Moreover, if God did not always work the same thing, but did work something new, the essential of which was not before, then God could not be present to all things, because that which did but now begin first to be, or to receive Being, cannot be said to be present before its being; And for as much as it is proved §. 14. that all things are present with God, God cannot at this time work out or produce any other Beings, but those, which were continually present to him; and consequently, because all things are always present to God, God must needs alwayes work the same and no new thing.

And seing Gods Omnisiciency does in­clude, that he hath the essential of all things in him, according to §. 15. therefore God cannot work any new thing, that is, which is essentially so, and which God is not al­ways working, because if God did work out or produce any thing that is new, he could not be said to be Omniscient, of which we have spoke more at large §. 15.

From all which if follows, that God must needs be always working the same thing.

If any one will here alledge, that it does [Page 27]not follow that the Divine-Being does always word the same thing; because this Being does all things freely and without constraint, and consequently can either cease from his former Work, or begin a new Work, be shall find, that he makes the will of God to contradict his immutability, which cannot consist with the nature of the most perfect Being.

But because this Objection arises from ig­norance of the Nature of the free will of God, therefore we shall make answer to it, when we come to Treat of the Freedom of the Will of God, to wit, in the next 22. §.

It will again perhaps be said, tho' that God always Works the same thing, with re­spect to his own Being, that is, that he can never change his own Perfection, yet it fol­lows not from hence, that God does always work the same thing, as to his works which he has made; As for Example, before the World was Created Good produced not any thing, that was not his own Being, but was Operative in himself, i. e. All-suficient: For we can conceive or think upon the most perfect being, tho' we think not up­on his Creatures; so that if flows not from the nature of his Being, that he must needs always Create.

As to this distinction betwixt Gods Working with respect to the Working, [Page 28]which is in God, and his Working with re­spect to the Works that he makes, tho' it seems to say something, yet in the ground it says nothing: For when we say that God always works the same thing with respect to his Being; does not that necessarily imply, that God does always work the same thing, and always doth that which follows from his perfect Being, if therefore it follows from the nature of this Being, that he can Create, and that he is withal unchangeable, both with respect to his Being, and to his Working, (according to §. 10.) can any thing else follow from hence (without de­stroying the essential immutability of God) but that God always Creates? It is so im­possible to separate these two from each other, that if we will assert, that God does not always work the same thing, we shall in very deed deny the immutability of God, which in Words we do confess.

Besides, when we distinguish betwixt Gods Working with respect to his own Be­ing, and the Works which he makes, and do thence conclude, that God can work in himself without bringing forth any thing, but his own Being; we must consider, whence we have this distinction.

This is certain, that we are conscious to our selves, that we can think upon a thing, without presently executing what we think; [Page 29]yea, that we can according to our own Will, do or omit divers things, without considering whether it be regular or no. This forbearing to put in Execution what we have once thought, proceeds not so much from our own Will or Choice, many times, as from a want of Power to do it; for the Nature of all men is such, that as soon as they have considered that a thing is good or profitable to them, they do immediately wish and desire to put it in Execution, and because they do many times want power so to do, or that long time is thereunto re­quired, they do forbear to accomplish their Designs; or else, if they wanted not for power, they would immediatly put them in Execution.

If any man shall pretend that a Man some­times considers of things, that he can im­mediatly do, and yet forbears, the Questi­on is, whether those things be good or evil. If Good, the omission of them is a neglect and a defect in him; because it is always necessary that he should do good, that is, that which the order of things does require (for Evil is that which is contrary to the appointed Order) and for him to forbear it, is wrong. We must not feign then (from our own deficiency) such things in God, as are inconsistent with his Perfection, and are a clear Proof of a defect in our [Page 30]selves. So I leave it to every man to con­sider whether such a distinction can possibly be admitted in the Working of God, with­out the diminution of his Perfection.

And when it is said, that God was all-sufficient and Operative in himself before the Creation of the World, if we consider the thing aright, we shall find, that they that use this manner of Speech, do neither say any thing that is intelligible to others, nor in any wise do understand themselves what they say. For when they say that God worketh in himself, or is all-sufficient; do they not signify thereby, that God stands in need of nothing, neither wanteth any thing from any one, but is independant of any Creature. I take this to be the pro­per sence of these words, which those that use this manner of Speech would signify thereby. But tho'this be the true meaning of these Words, yet it is nothing to the pur­pose in this case: For I pray observe, to what Question this Answer is given, to wit: When any one asks, what did God do be­fore he Created the Worlds? The common answer is, God wrought in himself, or God was all-sufficient. Verily an answer for Children, but not for Men of Sense; for this is not the Question, whether God had the same perfections before the Creati­on as after: Neither do we here speak of [Page 31]the Being of God, but of his Works, so that it is just as if the one inquired after the East, and the other directed him to the West. Again if we sift this Answer a little more narrowly, we shall find a lessening of Gods Perfections: for to say that God was all-sufficient, or wrought in himself before the Creation, is as if they would signify that since the Creation God was not so. For what else can it signify in this place? Or if this be not their meaning, but that they al­so assert God to be alwayes unchangeable, it is not to the purpose, and they shew there­by that they are not able to answer that Question: What God did before the Cre­ation? they ought to say, that God ei­ther Created something or nothing: If they say, that God Created nothing before this World, they ought to prove, that that follows from the Nature of God himself; as on the contrary they ought to require of us, that we should prove our assertion: that God is always a Creator, and Creating from the nature of that Divine Being.

But against this position, that God is al­ways Working the same thing, and there­fore, is always Creating, there is one shift more, viz. That we can conceive the most perfect Being, without conceiving that God is alwayes Creating, Ergo, it flows not [Page 32]from the Nature of God that he is always Creating.

First, we must here consider, that Man cannot at once conceive all Gods Prefecti­ons, for reasons rendred in §. 2. So that it is no wonder, that we speaking of the Be­ing of God, do not think upon his conti­nual Creating, just as when a man is treat­ing of the Wisdom of God, he then thinks not upon his Ominipotency, &c.

But if by the Word conceive they do not mean to think upon such an Attribute of God, but that they cannot see from the Attributes of God, that he must needs be always Creating and Working the same thing, they have not narrowly enough con­sidered, what is necessarily required in the most perfect Being, and we pray them seri­ously to weigh what we have said, §. 8.19, 20. concerning Gods Working, in which the Work of Creating is included. Fur­thermore, if any one says, that he can con­template the Being of God, although he does not conceive in that thought, that God is always Creating, I ask such an one whether he can know that there is a God, but by and from the Creation? If yea, then he himself must not be a Creature; if not, be­cause, being himself a Creature, and thence learning to know God, how can he think up­on God, without conceiving, that he is al­ways [Page 33]Creating? Seing his own Being teach­es him that God Creates, and that God ne­ver wants the power that he hath, but re­mains the same unchangeable in every re­spect. No Creature can then think a right of God without conceiving him, as always creating.

§. 22. But albeit God be always work­ing the same thing, yet what he does, he does freely, or without Constraint; that is, it flows from the Nature it self of the Di­vine Being so to do continually; nor is he thereunto constrained by any other; else he could not be said to be Omnipotent ac­cording to §. 17.) if he had not such à Free or unconstrained Will. Again it's necessary, or must needs be, that the Divine Being has a Free-Will, because this Being upholding it self (according to §. 8.) is dependant of no other, and conse­quently no body has power to constrain this Being in any thing.

But because many do not know that we must so consider the particular Attributes of God, that the one does not contradict the other, but being joyned together do all agree in one; therefore there are many idle and needless Questions brought con­cerning the Free-will of God, which are generally propounded: viz. Whether God [Page 34]can Will contradictory things? Whether God could have Created this World otherwise than he has? and such like Trifles, which are not once worth the thinking upon, but howe­ver to answer them all at once.

We must consider, What Free-Will is in God, and what it cannot possibly be. The Free-Will in God then is nothing else, but that God Wills that all things should be so produced, that each Creature be indued with such Attri­butes, Properties or Faculties, as are requisit to such a Creature, that it may perform that which God aims at thereby, in short: Gods Free-Will differs nothing from his Almightiness, and is only a different Name to the same At­tributes, as may be seen §. 17. compared with this §. 22.

For as much then as it flows from the Nature of the most perfect Being, that he should produce all things in the manner which is most agreeable to his Wisdom, that is, that they should neither have too much nor too little, it is impossible from the nature of God himself, that he should do contradictory things, or that he could Create the World otherwise. Yea such Questions, whether God could do other­wise, signisies that those that ask them, do conceive in themselves something better, or do imagine that they could have produ­ced the World in a better way than it is [Page 35]now Created, which they must prove (yet so, that it could not at all contradict any of the Attributes of God) or else their Question is vain and Fruitless, and they say they know not what.

But this wrong apprehension of the Free-will of God, to wit, this conceit that God could Will otherwise then he now Wills, have men borrowed from their own Na­ture, viz. Because they find in themselves a liberty to will this or that, they thence conclude, that the Will in God must also be thus free, & for this very Reason many do assert an indifferency of Will in God; just as if God could be as man, indifferent to do or to forbear a thing; never consider­ing that this indifferency of will in them­selves is but an effect of Ignorance, and want of Experience, for which cause it is that they know not what to do, nor what to forbear. As for an Example, A man that is convinced, that to do this or that thing is certainly good, will not do the contrary, no nor yet neglect to do that, if he will give way to reason, and love the good.

But many times not knowing which is best, he ballances in himself, and some­times inclines to this, sometimes to that. So that this Free-will or Indifferency of Will in man, is but the effect of Ignorance. This being so, it is impossible that God should [Page 36]have any such Free-will or Indifferency in him of doing or forbearing a thing; be­cause God being perfect and Omniscient, cannot be ignorant of the least thing, but knows all things; and must produce all in the best manner, whence then follows, that God knowing all things cannot stand in any indifferency to do or to forbear a thing, because then God would not know all things after the most perfect manner, if he could will or incline to do a thing or not to do it. Yea to assert such a Freedom or Indifferency of Will in God, is utterly inconsistent with the Attributes of God, and is sufficient to set the Attributes of God at odds one with the other, as every one can easily perceive from what has been here said, if he will but examine it well.

§. 23. For as much then, as it follows from the very nature of the most perfect Being, that it is always working the same thing, we must consider, what is meant by Gods Working? Among the Works of God are to be understood the continual Creating and upholding of all Beings.

§. 24. By the continual upholding of the Beings we understand, that all things which are always present with God (accor­ding to §. 14. do continually receive pow­er [Page 37]from God, to persist in their State; For albeit they had no beginning, nor shall ever cease to be present to God, yet they have not that Perfection that they can uphold themselves: All Creatures, and none so much as our own beings, do teach us this, which shews that we are desicient and full of wants, and cannot uphold our selves in the least, as is proved §. 4.5. For as much then, as we can­not uphold our selves now, it follows, that our Being could not uphold it self before its Creation, because that which could once uphold it self, can never be deprived of that power, as is shewed §. 7. and would therefore be unchangeable according to §. 10. For as much then as we find in our selves a continual change, and that we can­not uphold our selves, it follows, that all things which are always present to the Di­vine Being, as well as our own Being, are continually upheld by God, and cannot sub­sist of themselves.

And altho' it flows from Gods Omni­presence and Ominiscience, that nothing of the things that are, has had either be­ginning or end, but have always been, ac­cording to §. 20. yet hence follows not at all, that those Beings, that are in God, and that are Created, are therefore the Divine being it self.

For in the first place, it is not only neces­sary [Page 38]sary that the most perfect Being should be Infinite, but also, that it should not be pro­duced by another, nor upheld, but by it self alone. Yea, that it should be un­changeable and such like. And on the con­trary, albeit the Beings or Creatures have neither beginning nor end, yet they are not therefore unchangeable, nor able to uphold themselves, because their endlesness or In­finity flows not from their own Being, but from the Being of God, which, because it is always working and unchangeable, must needs continually (that is, without begin­ning or end) be present to all things as up­holding them, &c. So that albeit all Beings are without beginning, yet they are not therefore the Divine Being, but do differ infinitely from the same, and the perfecti­ons thereof: as for Example, Whereas God is always of and from himself, without depending upon any other, they are always depending upon God, and not of them­selves; whereas God is the Original of all things, they are but an Outworking, and so cannot produce the least thing: Whereas God is unchangcable, they are in perpetual Mutation: Whereas God is Per­fect, they are deficient, &c.

Nor is it in the least inconsistent with the nature of Man, to conceive two Infi­nites, albeit they infinitely differ in their [Page 39]Perfections: For seing we know that God is the most perfect being, in whom is no Variableness at all, it follows from hence also that there cannot be the least change in his knowledge, or working, as is shewed §. 10. And seing there can be no change, neither in the knowledge, nor in the work­ing of God, we may from hence learn the Possibility of Gods Works, being infinite or without end or beginning, while yet they are every way short of the Perfection of God, as has been shewed.

§. 25. And to shew that even they them­selves, that do deny that all beings are with­out beginning or end, do establish the same thing, altho' in Words they deny it; Let us but once see what they mean by the word Infinite: They say then that Infi­nite signifies, First, that which has neither beginning nor end; but that in that respect God is only to be infinite. Seconly by In­finite they understand somewhat that has a beginning but no end, and thus they make man Infinite or endless.

But who taught them, that the Word Infinite has so different Significantions? whence do they infer this? or with what certainty can they prove this various ac­ceptation of the word Infinite, or endless? methinks I see how this distinction was first hatcht: to wit, because they were not able [Page 40]to make a right distinction betwixt Gods infiniteness, and that of the Creature; and that if they should assert the Creatures to be without all beginning, they would differ nothing from the being of God; just as if all that had no beginning must needs be God himself (the contrary of which has been proved §. 22.) Wherefore to cover their Ignorance, and to have something to answer to their Adversaries, they invent­ed this Distinction upon the Word Infinite, viz. that it betokens more things than one. A Being without beginning or end, as the Being of God, and a being with beginning but without end, as that of the Creatures: And that distinction was judged most ne­cessary, that so the being of God might not be injured, nor diminisht in its honour on the one side, nor the Creature on the other side exalted too high by ascribing any thing to it, that did not belong to it, which not­withstanding does not at all follow from what we say, for tho' the Creature be also without beginning, yet it differs infinite­ly from the Divine Being, as may be seen §. 24.

But to shew how well these men do de­fend the honour of God, by giving this dif­ferent signification to the word Infinit, it will be needful to examine, what conse­quences must needs follows (with respect of [Page 41]the Being of God) from that saying, that the Creatures have indeed a beginning but no end; Thus, if the Creature first receives its Being, in its Creation, if follows cer­tainly, that God is not infinit in his work­ing; that is, that God does not always work the same thing, but has a beginning with respect to his Working, and so God is not infinit in his Working, which is a Contradiction to God and his Working, which are unchangeable according to §. 10. as also to §. 21. where it is proved, that God is always working the same thing.

Besides this would infer time or some­thing temporal in God & so all things would not be always present to God (the contrary of which is proved [...]. 13.14.) if Gods work­ing had a beginning, and there must be in God a time, or beginning of working it; which is inconsistent with the continual presence of God.

It also contradicts Gods Omniscience, that the being of the Creatures should be­gin in time, because all knowledge includes an Idea of the thing conceived. If then the being of things were first brought forth in time, then God could not always have had an Idea of all his Works, because that Idea is the Being of the things, as is prov­ed §. 15. and so God, according to their Hypothesis, could not be Omniscient or Al­knowing.

From all which then it follows, that it Con­tradicts the Perfection of God, to say that the Being of the Creatures had a beinning.

Besides when they say, that there are things that have a beginning but no end, the question is, whether this be intelli­gible or no? And whether they can shew us any one thing in Nature, that had be­ginning, which has not also an end? Ve­rily, as to the Creatures so far as they are visible and tangible, they have not only a beginning, but also an end, as experience teaches us, in all the Creatures, to wit, that their bodies do change as to their Forms, and do not remain as they were at first formed: Yea there is nothing they can assign, that has had a beginning, which shall not also have an end; that is, that what they call a beginning, has not also its end.

But he that should conclude from these Words of mine, either ignorantly or mali­ciously, that therefore Man, because he has a beginning, shall also have an end, and con­sequently that there shall nothing remain of, nor for Man after this Life, would wrest my words and make them say, the quite contrary of what I intend: For my aim in this is only to shew, that that, which has no end, can also not have had any be­ginning, and that whats essential of man, viz. his Spirit, having no end, can also have had [Page 43]no beginning, & consequently that he is in­finite. or without all end.

But some Body will perhaps say, that he can conceive something, that has had a be­ginning, but which shall have no end, and consequently that it is not impossible nor contrary to nature: as for Example, we can conceive an infinite number, and an infinite Line, and these have a beginning, but no end.

But this Objection duely considered, will not only fall, but even on the contrary serve for a proof, that that which has a be­ginning, has also an end: For Example, suppose any one conceive a number of Hun­dreds or Millions of Thousands, he can al­ways add something to it; so that the number that any one conceives, has always an end, because he can always augment it, and add more numbers to it. In like man­ner suppose any man draws a Line from a point; that Line cannot be endless, be­cause he can always in his thoughts add un­to the length. So that no man can imagine an endless line, but on the contrary, that as it had a beginning, so it shall also have an end.

If any man yet says, that he can conceive a Line, that can be extended in infinitum, he says but the same thing over again in the same words, or all that he would say, is, that he can conceive a line, the end of which [Page 44]he knows not; for he that says, that he can conceive a Line, that may be in finitely extended, must have an Idea of it, or comprehend it in himself. Now this is most certain, that no man can frame in himself an Idea of Infinity; and conse­quently, that he cannot conceive a Line infinitly extended, and if he understands by a Line that can be infinitely extended only, a Line of whose end he is ignorant, it fol­lows not at all, that therefore this line is infinit, but only that he knows not, where the end of it is, and therefore this Ob­jection totally evanishes.

§. 26. But it will be said perhaps, you assert, that all Beings are endless, that is, That they have always been in God with­out beginning, and yet you say, that they were produced by God; Now all that is brought forth, presupposes a beginning, there­fore this your saying implyes a contradiction.

It is true, that the word produce is ge­nerally used, for to cause something to come forth, which was not before; but if we consider it aright, we shall naturally find, that the word produce cannot signify to cause a thing now to come to view, which was not before in Being; for with respect to God, we have proved §. 14. that all things must needs have been essentially in [Page 45]God without beginning; and if they under­stand it with respect to the Creatures, they the Creatures cannot produce any thing new, which has not essentially been before. So that according to the common use, the word Produce, cannot signify any thing else, but this, that these things that before were in­visible, and not knowable, do now become visible and discernable.

But to give them full measure, suppose that the Word Produce did necessarily pre­suppose a beginning of that which is pro­duced, who shall furnish me with a Word that signifies God to be the Author of all things, and yet that the Beings of all things have been in God, without all beginning? for that is my meaning by the word Produce, as every one can perceive by the Circum­stances, in this case, we want Words, to express it well by, because our understan­ding only conceives that, of which we can have an Idea in our Selves, and so far we can find Words, that signify the propertys of things; but because our understanding can frame no Idea of any thing that is infi­nit, therefore also do we want words, tru­ly to define that, of which we have no true Notion: And therefore can we only trace that, which necessarily flows from the Be­ing of God, and describe it defectively, ac­cor­ding [Page 46]to our deficient understanding; But he that will consider it, and examine it well, will find that what we say is true and will understand more of it, than he shall be able to express.

But it will yet be said, that that, which has no beginning, cannot be said to be pro­duced, but must be or subsist of it self.

But this is no necessary consequence that because a thing has no beginning, that it must therefore exist of it self; for not to have beginning, and to exist of it self, do not necessarily infer each other; but that a thing exists of it self necessarily infers indeed, that that thing has no beginning, according to §. 8. but not so, that what has no beginning does therefore exist of it self, as is proved §. 24.

§. 27. And when by §. 22. it is proved, that all Beings, which are in God, are con­tinually upheld of God, it follows then, not only that this continual upholding, but al­so the Creating or Work of Creation is to be numbred among the Works of God, be­cause it is beyond the power of any Crea­ture to Create, according to §. 1.2, 3, 4, 5.

But to know what is properly the Work of Creation, we must examine what the word [Page 47] to Create does betoken. It is manifest from §. 24. that what is essential in all things was in God without beginning, so that by word Create cannot be understood, that God should bring forth new Beings, which were not in God without beginning; nor can the Word Create signify to produce something out of nothing: because to bring forth something out of nothing, presuppo­ses something, the essential of which should not have been in God before the Creation, but the contrary of this is proved §. 23.24. Besides to say, that something is produced of nothing, would infer, that the cause of the thing produced was a meer Nothing. For to say, that the Creation was produ­ced out of Nothing. viz. that there was no Matter before the Creation, out of which the World was produced or brought forth, infers not that the World was from nothing. Because the World may be pro­duced out of the Spiritual and invisible, and not out of a palpable Matter: Besides, it is a known Truth, that the beginning of all things is the Cause thereof; and seing they that say, that the World was Created out of nothing, do assert God to be the Cause or Creator of the World, therefore do they also thereby contradict themselves, to with, in that they allow a Cause and Beginning of the Creation, and yet deny it to have a [Page 48]beginning (of which also see the Observati­ons of B. Van Helmont Concerning Man, &c. §. 5.6.

Whence therefore follows, that the word Create betokens the bringing forth, or producti­on of something, out of the invisible into open view to be seen and perceived.

And this is the Language of the Holy Scripture, For Heb. 11.3. it is said: We understand by faith, that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen, were not made of things that do appear. But its better rendered thus: so that the things which are seen, were made of the things which are not seen: which things that are not seen saith Peter, 2 Peter 3.5. are the Waters, where he saith, that the Heavens were of old, and the Earth subsisting and standing out of the waters and in the Wa­ter: to wit out of the Heavenly, Coe­lestial Waters: For these are invisible: so that the Waters here below must needs have had their rise from the invisible Waters above. Of which is largely Treated in the Considerations of B. Van Helmont upon Man, &c. § 7.8. &c. and 20. wherefore the Beings of all things, which lay hid in that Spiritual Water, be­came through the Spirit Visible in the Cre­ation, viz. in their Out-working. For the [Page 49]word Create do's not only signify the pro­duction of the Visible out of the Invisible, but also, the putting of the Beings or Spirits into their proper states, or the imparting of such qualities, or such capacitie unto them, as gives them a power to work of themselves. As for Example, what is Essential or Spiritual, as Trees and Plants brings forth Herbs, Trees, Fruits, &c. The life of Man forms his body, and worketh out many things to his advantage and use, &c. So that Creation properly consists herein, that these Beings or Spirits which before lay hid, do now be­come visible, and perceptible in their out­working, by means of that capacity or qua­lity, which they receive, of using the Wa­tery Being to their Advantage of Forming, and changing it, (according as it is given to every Spirit or Being to Work) under which watery Being the Earth also belongs, because the Earth, &c. was produced out of the Waters (as is shewed in the Observa­tions of Bar. Van Helmont upon Man, &c. §. 7.)

Moreover, the Holy Scripture does plainly inform us, that the word Create does also include this Signification, viz. that the Essentiality or the Spirit of each Creature should work out, according to its properties, the Earthly, where it is said, in the heginning of the Book of the Creation, that [Page 50]the Earth should bring forth the Herbs, and what was to be its out-working? that it should yield Seed; in like manner the working of the Fruit Tree is after his kind to give Fruit, and that in those Fruits should be Seed, viz. to propogate its like: It is also thus said, of the Fishes, and Fowles, that their out­working should be Fruitfulness, and Multi­plication; the Fishes to fill the waters in the Sea, and the Fowles to multiply in the Earth, &c. And of Man, who is Lord over all the Creatures, it is said, that his out­working was, to be fruitful, and multiply to fill the Earth, and to subdue it, that is, that it should not rule over him, but he have Do­minion over it, and bring it into Subjecti­on to him. To have Dominion over the Fish­es of the Sea, and over the Fowles of the Air, and over the Cattel, and over every creeping thing.

§. 28. But it will be said perhaps, that that place of Hebrews 11.3. where it is said: Through Faith we understand that the Worlds were by the Word of God, so that things that are seen, were not made of things which do ap­pear. Or so, That things that are seen, were made of things which do not appear; is not so to be understood as we have said in the former §. because that manner of speaking of the Greeks [...], does not signify [Page 51]that the World was brought forth or pro­duced from invisible things, but that the World was produced of such things as had no Being before, and consequently that this place does not mean, that the World was Created of invisible things, which were in Being before the Creation.

But in answer to this Objection, we must in the first place observe, that neither this, nor any other such like manner of Speaking, does any where in the Holy Scripture (that I know of) signify, that the World was made of nothing, but the quite contrary; So that to say, that this manner of Speech infers, that their Opinion is but their meer say so, and void of all proof. Besides if they will Interpret these Words [...] of things that were not in Being, they must allow, that in other Places where the same Expression is found, must also signify: not to exist, and yet the contrary is most evident from Matt. 6.18. Where it is said: [...], That thou appear not to men to Fast; When our Saviour saith here: That they should not appear as Fasting, doth he teach them that they should not Fast? Sure­ly no, and that yet according to those mens Interpretation of [...] that must needs be the meaning. He himself declares, what he means by [...] to wit, [...], that they should fast [Page 52]in secret. So also [...] supposes things that do Exist, but [...] in secret, or hid from our eyes. And if we will com­pare that manner of speaking that does sig­nify the same thing and is every where used in the Holy Scripture in the same sence one with another, we shall find that these Mens Explication of Hebrews 11.3. is in no wise true, who will needs have [...] to signify things that do not exist: For from this very place it is plain, that there is an Antithesis introduced betwixt [...], the things that are seen, and [...] the things that are not seen, or which do not appear; these are, I say, opposed to each other: So that [...] has an op­pposite Sense to [...]. And there­fore the Dutch Translators have Translated it by the same word, to wit, things that are seen, and that are not seen: And thus [...] Signifies the same with [...]. Now it is most certain that [...] things which are not seen or Invisible things, does no where in the Holy Scripture signify things that do not Exist, but on the contrary, things that do Exist, but that are invisible, as for Example, 2 Cor. 4.18. it is said, while we look not at [...] the things which are seen, [...], but at the things which are not seen: for [...] the things which are seen [...] are tempo­ral [Page 53]or changeable, [...] but the things which are not seen [...] eternal or un­changeable.

Now if [...] which is Synony­mous to [...], betokens things that do not exist, would it not be a fine piece of Comfort, think ye, for the Apostle to exhort the Faithful to look to the invisible things, that is, to things which are not in Being at all? And should he yet say of those things that are not at all, that they are Eternal or Ʋnchangeable? This is a Contradiction with a witness. For to be Eternal or Unchange­able, presupposes their Being, whereas by these Mens Comment [...] should signify, things that are not; from all which then it clearly follows, that [...] and [...] cannot signify things that are not in Being, but on the contrary, things that are in Being, but which are Invisible.

As for the other Objections, that they make from the Holy Scripture to prove that the World was made of nothing, those places will be found, either not to speak at all of the Creation, or if they do, not in the least to prove that the World is Crea­ted of Nothing. As for Example, some alledge Rom. 4.17. to prove that the World was made of nothing, where it is said: Who quickneth the dead and calleth those things that be not, as tho' they were. The [Page 54]word in Greek are, [...]; which properly is: calling the things which are not, as things that are, and is not: That God calleth the things that are not, as if they (to wit, the things that are not) were: and so he speaketh here of two sorts of things, of things that are, and of things that are not, and these he sets in opposi­tion to each other, as in the issue shall appear.

And when we joyn divers places toge­ther, where [...], things that are not, oc­cur, we shall find that this manner of spea­king does not intimate things that are not in Being, but things that are not present, or which are not in esteem, as is most evi­dent from 1 Cor. 1.28. where we find the same manner of Speech, to wit, [...], God hath Chosen things that are not, to bring to nought things that are. In this place [...] things that are not cannot signify things that exist not; Because the whole Reasoning of the A­postle shews that he aims at the quite con­trary: For the intent of the Apostle is to exhort the Corinthians not to make Sects, and Divisions, supposing Wisdom to consist in a fine quaint Gingle of Words, as may be seen verse 10. compared with verse 17. But that the true Wisdom is simple and plain, not gaudy, and therefore seems foo­lishness to the Wise ones of the Word v. 15. [Page 55]But these wise Men are, says he, become Vain, and on the contrary, the Wisdom of God, which the wise Men of the World judged foolishness, is Salvation to them that believe. v. 19.20, 21. But in this wis­dom of the World, both Jews and Greeks went astray, but to them that were called, both Jews and Greeks, was given the Wis­dom of God, v. 24. and these called ones, are not wise Men according to the Flesh, but were esteemed as foolish and weak, v. 25.26, 27. Yet these Base and Despised ones it was that God chose to confound and bring to nought the wise ones: yea the base and these which are not, that is them which have nei­ther the Wisdom, Honour nor Riches, of the World, (as may be seen from v. 26.) hath God chosen, and on the contrary, the wise Men of the World, Which are, that is, who are esteemed Wise, Noble, Mighty, &c. he bringeth to nought. From which con­catenation is as plain as the Sun, that the Apostle in this place does not mean the things which are not in Being, but such things as are despised by the World: For the A­postle speaks here of two sorts, which are both in Being, to wit, the wise Men of the World, and the foolish of the World, and of these he says, that they are chosen, and the other confounded, and brought to nought. From hence then the Apostle con­cludes, [Page 56] v. 29.30, 31. and shews that no flesh that is neither Worldly wise, which are, nor foolish, which are not, may boast, but in God alone, and not in the World. And if we will thus Examine the Argument of the Apostle, Rom. 4. we shall find that the words [...] have the like signification as in 1 Cor. 1. For as the Apostle had there said, that both Greeks and Jews without di­stinction were called of God, viz. Those of them that sought not after the Wisdom of the World; the scope of the Apostles is to shew Rom. 4. that the Gentiles as well as the Jews are justified by Faith, and not by the Works of the Law, or carnal Wisdom, as may be seen Chap. 3.28, 29, 30, 31. whereupon the Apostle then Chap. 4.1. proves by a Question, that they, viz. the Jews were not justified by their Works, nor have any more priviledge thereby than the Gentiles; the reason is, because their Father Abraham, obtained nothing after the flesh, to wit, by which he acquired his own Salvati­on, & that Abraham ganied nothing after the Flesh, the Apostle shews from the 2. to the 9. verses. For if Abraham be justified by works saith he, then is God obliged to reward him, and then is Abrahams righteousness not of Grace: But this, O ye Jews! is most certain, according to the Testimony of Holy Writ, that Abraham is justifyed by Faith and not by Works, and that those [Page 57]only do obtain Salvation, to whom God gives it of Grace, and not according to their own Merits; wherefore ye Jews by being the Children of Abraham after the Flesh, have no Prerogative above the Gentiles that you can be justified by the works of the Law. And to shew you, that the Works of the Law can give you no more Salvati­on then the Gentiles, let us see when it was that God justified Abraham, viz. before he received the Law of Circumcision, or after? v. 9. God pronounced him happy before his Circumcision, that is, while he was yet a Gentile. v. 10. And the Law of Cir­cumcision was unto him but a Sign that he was justified by Faith, while he was yet a Gentile, v. 11. Wherefore ye Jews go astray from the way, and your boasting is vain, that ye are Circumcised, and the Gentiles Uncir­cumcised, and that ye can attain unto Sal­vation by that; for your Father Abraham was not justified by Circumcision, but before it, and consequently altho' the Gentiles be Uncircumcised, they are not therefore a whit below you, but as well Children of Abraham as you, if they walk in Father A­brahams Faith; because they being Uncir­cumcised believe as he being Uncircumcised believed. For the promise that he should in his Seed possess the World, was not gi­ven him by the Law of Works, or of Cir­cumcision, [Page 58]but by Faith, and therefore all that Believe are Children of Abraham. v. 11.12, 13. Let us moreover see, whe­ther ye Jews have any more Prerogative then the Gentiles, from the Nature of the Law it self, to obtain thereby Salvation. But if you be Heirs by the Law of Works, you have then no need of Faith, and you know that you cannot fulfil the Law per­fectly; but that you do transgress it, and consequently cannot thereby receive any reward, but punishment and wrath; and the Gentiles are not punishable, because the Law was not given to them; so that the Law is your Burthen, and not that you should thereby be justified, & so your Boast­ing in the works of the Law in vain because the Law cannot give Salvation, and there­fore both Jews and Gentiles must receive Salvation of Grace; and thus all Believers are Children of the believing Abraham, as the Argument runs, v. 14.15, 16.

But it may be said: How can the Gen­tiles possibly become the Children of Abra­ham?

The Apostle Answers this Objection, v. 17. and shews, that that God that set Abraham for a Father of many Nations, is able even to cause the dead to live; and how does he this? thus, Only by calling the things which are not, as the things which are; that [Page 59]is, he commands; and it is as easie to God, to raise the dead, which are not as the things which are: that is, to shew his Grace to the Gentiles, which are dead in Sins and Trespasses, and no Children of Abraham, as it is for him to call or shew his Grace to them which are, to wit, which are the Chil­dred of Abraham after the Flesh: For it is very easie to understand from the Context and Threed of the Apostles reasoning, that the Apostle here opposes the Jews to the Gentiles, and calls the Jews them which are, to wit, the People of God, or Abrahams Children; and the Gentiles them which are not, i. e. which were neither the People of God, nor the Children of Abraham; but dead in Sins and Trespasses; so that this place is Synonymous to that of 1 Cor. 1. (as may be seen by the abovesaid) and consequent­ly that [...] is here use of the Jews, and [...] of the Gentiles. Just as 1 Cor. 1. [...] the things which are, is meant of the wise Men of the World, and [...] of the base and despised.

Besides the Learned Vigerus, in his Book de Idiotismis Graecae Linguae does very well ob­serve, pag. 256. that [...] signifies to be forgotten, despised, dead, &c. Now, what is dead cannot be said, not to be at all, because that which is not, cannot have been living; or have been any thing in former time. [Page 60]From all which then it appears very plain­ly, and beyond all contradiction, that there is not the least proof in Rom. 4.17. that the world was made of nothing.

§. 29. But to return to the former Matter, we must not only consider, what the word Create betokens, but also what belongs to the Work of Creation.

§. 30. For as much then as this most per­fect Being cannot admit of the least defect, because it is unchangeably perfect, it fol­lows necessarily, that this Being is perfectly wise, and consequently works all things or­derly and wisely, that is, that in the Work of Creation, there is neither too little nor too much: but just so much as is necessarily re­quired to that work, that is, that in every thing there is an appointed number and measure, and each has his own life, by which it can effect the work whereunto it is ap­pointed: For if God should make any work defective, it would be produced disorder­ly, irregularly, and unwisely, and conse­quently God would want that perfect wis­dom, of making a thing that is perfect in its Kind: And for much as this can in no wise be admitted to be in the most per­fect Being, according to §. 10.11. there [Page 61]cannot be in any of the works of God any thing either superfluous of defective.

§. 31. But albeit God is always doing the same thing, according to §. 21. yet it does not hence follow, that God cannot have Created more than one World, but that God doth continually Create, that is, that he never ceases Creating of Worlds. Because the Word Creation includes all that belongs thereunto; as for Example, to the Creation of the World do belong all those things, which have already wrought out what is Visible, which are at present wor­king Visibly, or which shall hereafter so work, because the one is a Creature of this World, as well as the other: in short, The Creation consists in all those things which do operate together, and are inseparably united to each other, as one only Creature. Thus the whole World, with all that therein is, stands in such a Co-operation, as daily ex­perience does sufficiently teach us.

§. 32. And for as much as all that hath ever had, or ever shall have an out-work­ing, in included in the Creation, It must needs be, that those things which in process of time did first begin to come to view, were yet Created in the first of the Creation, and were not then first Created, when they first did appear.

For if they began then to be Created, when they became first Visible, it would fol­low, that this World is yet daily in Creat­ing, that is, that there are daily new things added to it, which were not included in the Creation, i. e. when God brought forth this Visible or Tangible World. Now if there be daily new things Created in this World, which were not in it when it was Produced, it is certain That those things that are now Created, either belong to this World, or they do not. If the Beings that now are Created, belong not unto this World, they have no fellowship, nor co-operation with this World, and so concern not us, Because we only treat here of those Beings, which belong to this World. And if they do ap­pertain to this world, then this world was made inperfectly or defectuously by God, that is, there was a defect in the work of God, when he brought forth this World, which afterwards was amended from time to time, by supplying of that Original de­fect, which is contrary to §. 21. where it is proved, that it's imposible that there should be any defect in Gods Works.

It would also be inconsistent with the wisdom of God, (of which see §. 30.) which admits not of the least imperfecti­on, or defect in his work; because Wisdom requires that nothing be omitted that is necessary to a thing. As for Example, a [Page 63]wise and prudent Architect or Master-Builder, will bring into his Building all things that he judges necessary thereunto; and if one of these be found wanting, when the Building is finishing, it will be no Argu­ment of Wisdom, but of folly in the Buil­der, that he did not, while he was build­ing, introduce all things, which he judged necessary thereunto. If then this neglect be an effect of Ignorance in Man, how can such a thing then ever come to pass in the most wise Being to Create a World that should want something, which was after­wards necessary or fit to be Created? this is so directly contrary to the wisdom and perfection of God, that he should produce a work which is not every way perfect that a more abusurd thing cannot well be imagi­ned contrary to the wisdom of God then to say: that there were fewer Beings Cre­ated in this World at first then to this world did belong.

Now what reason can any man alledge, why God should not Create that which be­longs to this world at once? Did God want Power at the Creation, any more than now? surely no, For God is Almighty; according to §. 17. Did God not then as well as now, know what was needful to this world? Verily yes, as is sufficiently pro­ved §. 15. To what purpose then do these [Page 64]men say, that God yet daily Creates things in this world.

If it be said, that the things that are now daily Created, do appertain to this world, then it is certain that they are a part of this world: If they be a part of it, then they are not now first Created, but were at first Created altogether with the world in its first production: For considering the world as one entire Piece of Wormanship, it can­not be said to be Created unless all the parts thereof together with it be Created: As for Example: this is a constant Truth, that the whole consists in its parts, and that all the parts do make out the whole, and that if but one of the Parts be wanting, the whole is defective, or it is no more the whole: So also this World consisting of all its parts, and all the parts thereof ma­king up the world, the world cannot to this day be said to be Created, because there are (according to this Hypothesis) dai­ly new parts thereof Created, but then there would at the Creation have only been some parts of the world Created, and conse­quently the world would then not have been a whole or compleat world at the time of its Creation, but only a piece of a world.

It's also contrary to the Holy Scripture, that there should still daily be things Crea­ted [Page 65]in this World, For Gen. 1.31. it is ex­presly said, And God saw all that he had made, and behold it was very Good; that is, it was in a State fit to obtain that which God aim­ed at thereby: Now this is certain, that no­thing can be good, with respect to God, but that which has all the qualifications requi­sit thereunto: Now if all those Beings which are requisit to the Work of this Cre­ation were not then in Being, then what God aimed at in the Creation could not be effected or accomplished by it, because the Creation would then have been defective, and those Parts which were to co-operate in the Creation, would have been wanting therein: and so according to these Mens Hypothesis, it cannot be said, that all that God made was very good. Again it is said Gen. 2.1. Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished and all the Host of them. When it is here said that they were Finished or Perfected, (that is) they were so brought to an end and accomplisht, that there was no­thing now a wanting, (for this is the proper sense of the Word [...] Kalah to be per­fect) even all the Host of the Heavens and the Earth, that is all the Beings that to this world do appertain: for here 'tis not said [an] or one Host of them, but all the Hosts of them were finished. How can it then be said that there are daily new Beings Cre­ated [Page 66]in this world? This is not only to set Divine Attributes at odds, but also openly to contradict the Holy Scripture. And to discover further the absurdity of this Hypothesis, to wit, that new Beings are daily Created in this World; we must here consider, what is said in Gen. 2.2. Now when it is said, That on the seventh day God ended his work, which he had made; No man is so blind, but he sees, that by the word [Work] here, is meant the work of the Creation, when it is then said here, that the work of this Creation is Finished or Per­fected, and that God rested from the Work of the Creation, that is, that God added no­thing more unto this world; For what else can resting signify here, seing God is never weary, yea is continually working, according to §. 20. is it not then most true, that there are no new Beings every day Created, but that they were all Created together in the Creation at once?

But it will be possibly said, when God Created the World, he did indeed Create all those sorts of Beings that were necessa­ry, to it, so that he now Creates no new sorts of Beings, but such sorts as were at first Created in the Creation.

A fine Invention indeed! and which is pretty subtile, that they may seem to an­swer something. But let us see of what [Page 67]force it is. To these that say that all the Species of Beings that now are in the World, were indeed at the Creation, but that God now still Creates of the same Spe­cies daily, as were then Created; to them I say, and ask, whether God does not cause them of those sorts or Species, which they say, he now Creates, to be produced out of those which were in Being at the Cre­ation? Daily experience teaches us this, that no Creature is produced, but by ge­neration of its like; or from such things as are fit to bring forth; as for Example, out of the Earth, Plants, Trees, and Flesh we see Insects come forth, so that the essen­tial of those Insects was before hid in that, which brought them forth; for it is impos­sible, and contrary to the whole frame of Nature, that any thing can be born of any other thing, if the Birth were not hid in the Producer: seing then that all things that are now Born, do come forth of those things that were in the Creation, it is most certain, that the Essences of all things, that do now appear, or that ever shall appear, were at once Created together with the World, and are not now first Created; Be­cause the Creation is a work immediatly produ­ced by God, and Generation is nothing else but the Creatures bringing forth of that which for a time was hid in them. And since that nothing [Page 68]is now produced in this World but by Ge­neration, it cannot be said, that God doth yet daily Create things in this World. They, that would prove, that God does daily Create Beings, that were not at the Creation of the World, must prove, that they ever found any Creature that was not produced either out of the Earth, or Wa­ter or such like, which is impossible; be­cause the whole course of Nature shews the contrary.

Therefore, those that say that God does yet every day Create things in this World, they confound the Work of Generation with that of Creation, and do mistake the one for the other. Once more, if God did still Create Beings in this World, that were not at once Created in the Creation, why should God have blessed them? Gen. 1. with the blessing of Fertility and Multipli­cation? That is, of Generation with their like? That Blessing would verily not have been true, because according to them, God does still daily Create the beings of things, and so Generation would have no place; the contrary of which yet is daily seen; to wit, that the Creatures do Gene­rate their like, and not that they are Cre­ated: And when it is said, Gen. 2.3. And God blessed the 7th. day and Sanctifyed it; Be­cause that in it he rested from all his Work, [Page 69]God had Created and made. What sense can there be (if we still assert, that God doth yet daily Create in this World) of these words: Because that in it God rested, that is because he ceased from the work of Creation on the 7th. day, therefore he blessed and sanctified it? Were then the other following days not also Blessed and Sanctified? Verily there is no reason, why we should not esteem them equal with the Seventh Day; nor does the Scripture exclude them: If then this Blessing extends it self to all the other following dayes, then God does not yet daily Create in this World: because there would then be a contradiction in the Reason; why God blessed the 7th. day; under which are included the following days, to wit, because he rested from Crea­ting upon the 7th. day; but if God should still Create after the 7th. day, to what purpose then should this Blessing and Sanctification be? Or if they say, that the 7th. day is Holyer than the rest; because God did then rest from the Work of Creating: I then ask these men, whether it be their Opini­on, that God never Creates in this World upon the 7th. day? As also, whether God does not as well rest upon the other dayes, when he has Created a new Being in this World? For we find by Experience, that all men are not Born upon one and the [Page 70]same day, but that upon all the seven days men are Born in this World, and conse­quently (according to the Modern com­mon Opinion) that God Creates Spirits upon all days without distinction: what rea­son can there then be, if God Creates upon the Fourth and Fifth day a Spirit, &c. and then ceaseth, why should he not bless the Fourth or Fifth days as well as the Seventh day, seing that he resteth on it, as well as on the Seventh day? But to pass by all further disputes, the sense of these Words cannot without contradiction signify any thing else, but that God ceasing upon the seventh day from the work of Creation, or resting from it; blessed that day, to wit, ap­pointed the Creatures from that time for­ward to Multiply, and so sanctified it, that is, set it apart from the time of Creation, as not appertaining thereunto; and to what purpose, I pray did God bless and Sanctify that day? As the Dutch Bible has it, it was to perfect, or throughly to finish all: to wit, that the Creatures might now be­gin to Work, but that which God had gi­ven them in the Creation to work forth, viz. That they should be Fruitful and Mul­tiply, &c. seing then that God hath sancti­fied, or set apart the Seventh day, from the days of the Creation (for the word [...] Kadash properly signifys nothing [Page 71]else, but to set a thing so apart, that it be­longs no more to that whereunto it did at first appertain) it must needs follow, that God Creates no more in this world, or else that would be no reason, why God should have Sanctified the 7th. day more then any other day.

Furthermore the work Create, is not any where in the Holy Scripture, that I know of, used concerning things that are produ­ced by Generation, nor is it the modern way of Speech, to say, this day a man is Created, but born.

But some will perhaps ask: If God Cre­ated all things that belong to this World, in the beginning of the Creation, why were not all things that to this World belong, made visible at first in the Creation; as for Example: wherefore did not God pro­duce so many Men, Beasts, Trees, &c. at the beginning of the Creation, as were ap­pertaining to this World?

In answer, that true it is, that if we do only look at the power of God, we might be apt to think, that all the Creatures might have been made visible at the beginning of the Creation at once, but seing we cannot consider the Almightiness of God without his other Attributes, these must be so consi­dered, that they do agree in one; Now no­thing is more certain, than that there is, in [Page 72]the Almightiness, Freewill, &c. of God a Wisdom according to §. 22. and 30. that is to say, that God does nothing but in Or­der and not confusedly: and seing we find every day by all Creatures, how wisely, exactly, and Orderly all things do proceed, the one out of the other in their Seasons, that all things should not be brought forth at once, and at the same time, but in pro­cess of time. And consequently the An­swer to that Question; Why did not God make all things visible in the Creation? is this, to wit, That God according to his own Wisdom, and the Order which he keeps in all things, has so Created all things in this World, that the one Creature be­ing hid in the other, each is in its appointed Season to come forth out of the other, and not altogether at once.

But it will perhaps be yet further said, in opposition to this Doctrine, that all things were indeed Created in the begin­ning of the Creation, and that now there are no more new Beings Created in this World, That the Bodies are indeed gene­rated by the Parents, but that God Creates the Spirit, and consequently, that it does not follow, that God Created all that which to this World belongs in the begin­ning of its Creation.

But because this Objection is of great [Page 73]consequence, and properly belongs to the birth of Man, therefore we will answer it in that place, where we treat of the Soul.

§. 33. For as much then as we have al­ready proved more than sufficiently, that all those things, which do at any time ap­pear in this World, were in the beginning at the Creation; It is likewise certain, that every Creature has received a particular own or proper working, or capacity to Work out those things, which the Creator has appointed it to work out: For if the Creature had no own working, that is, if God had not communi­cated to his Creature a capacity or power to work out something of its self, what wisdom would there be in the Creation, and what profit would it be to the Creature to be created? Verily none at all; because then the Creature would be nothing else, but a meer Instrument that can Work nothing, except the Workman does perpetually move it, and then no Creature could be said to do any thing, but only God the Creator might be said to work, and not the Crea­ture; Now if this were so, there would be no Wisdom in the Creation, because all the Creatures being void of all capacity of act­ing of themselves, and all that they do, being nothing else but Gods working, the Creatures could be of no use, or service [Page 74]at all, and as meer nothings, and God would only be said to shew unto himself af­ter how many sorts of ways he could work: just as one, that playing with Puppets, shews unto himself, how many sorts of motions he can make with them, while the Images or Puppets themselves have nothing at all of it, but he alone that moves them to and fro; which manner of doing is no way consistent with the Wisdom of God, being a meer Puppit Play of Children that would be of no use or service, but God on­ly playing with himself; a conceit most dishonourable to the Wisdom and Good­ness of God.

But besides the Holy Scripture does most evidently shew, that God produced the Creature, to that very end, that it might have an own out-working; for Gen. 1.6. it is said, that the firmament of Heavens was made, to make a division betwixt the Waters which are above, and the waters which are be­neath. and V. 11. That the Earth was made to bring forth Grass, the Herb, Trees, &c. and V. 14. The Lights to divide the day from the Night; for Signs and for Seasons, and for Days and Years, &c. V. 20. The Waters to bring forth Fish. V. 21. The Fishes, the Fowls to be fruitful and to Multiply, and so forth to the end of the Chapter, as has been shewed already. § 27.

Moreover if a Man will but examine himself, he shall find that he has his own Working, because he has the Power of do­ing, or forbearing of many things, in so much as he is Master of that, which he has a mind to do, or not to do: But when he is once become a Slave to that which once he could have done, or could have forborn is under a necessity of following the Opera­tion of that thing to which he is obedient: As for Example, a Man that is subject to Drunkenness, as long as that desire or lust rules over him he loves it; whreas on the contrary, another that is not addicted to Drinking, can do it, or forbear it, as he pleases, and in this his good liking, or Free-will it is, that the own-working of Me consists.

And 'tis most necessary, that man be Created with a Free-will, because else he would not be able to work any thing out, but only to obey that which should be acted in him just as a Watch, which is moved by the Laws of Mechanism; which is most in­consistant with the Divine Wisdom, that a man (as we have just now said) should have no own-working or free-will, that is, so far forth as to be able thereby to direct those Powers which God has Created in him, as he pleaseth; but not that his free-will should extend it self to things out of his Power.

And because God is a just and Merciful God, who punishes the Sinner for his Sins, and on the Contrary gives his Grace, or shews Mercy to him, that does well, the Creature must needs have an own Work­ing: or else wherefore or how should God either punish, or shew Mercy to his Crea­ture: Verily the Creature would be blameless, and uncapable either of punish­ment or of Mercy, because it would be but as an Instrument which is moved by ano­ther, and so neither the Justice nor the Mercy of God could have any place in the Creature.

Nor would man stand either in fear of Punishment, or hopes of reward, if he had no own-working, because he could never be conscious to himself of having done either Good or evil; because he should not be the cause of either, but would only have followed the will of his Master: And then Man would not have any Conscience of any thing he does, (the contrary where­of every man finds in himself) because, to be conscious to our selves of a thing is, to know that one has been the Author of it, and done it voluntarily.

From all which then follows, that the Creatures have received from God in their Creation a capacity of working of them­selves.

§. 34. But it will be said again, seing that God is (according to §. 16.) the Au­thor of all things, it follows that God must be the Author of all the Works which the Creature does, and therefore that the Crea­ture can have no own-working nor free-will.

As to this Objection, if duly weighed, we shall find, that it affects not our proof; for we say: that God must needs have com­municated to the Creature in its Creation, the power which it has of working of it self, from whence then evidently follows, that we do establish it for a certain truth, that God is so the Author of the Creature, and all his works, that if he withdraws this capacity of working from the Creature, the Creature can work no more, but this is no­thing to the Matter in hand. But the Que­stion here is properly: Whether the Creature so long as it is by God preserved in its State, has not an Own-working? Or to speak plainer: Whether God who is the Author of the Creature, has not given unto the Creature a Power of Working something out of it self, by vertue of that capacity which God hath given him in the Creation? As for Example, God is the Author of all our Working, but yet he has given man the capacity, that he can direct that Working power, which he has according to [Page 78] his own good liking, and this direction is the proper work of Man: And so far forth as man does thus manage it, God is not said to do it: but man: so that as to this manage­ment, it is an own-working of man, and it proceeds from that capacity and free-will, that God gave him in the Creation.

But if we did mean by own-working, that the Creature could do any thing that did not proceed from that ability which God has given the Creature, but which should proceed from something else, forreign to that principle, which God has placed in the Creature; then their conclusion would be right just against us: to wit, that the Cre­ature cannot have any own-working, be­cause God is the Original of all things. But because we affirm that that own-working o [...] the Creature proceeds from God, as the cause and Author of all things, therefore in this respect, the Objection cannot de­stroy our Position.

But some will perhaps say, If the Crea­ture man has no own-working from him­self, which does not flow from that Abili­ty which God hath placed in him, then i [...] will follow, that truly and properly ma [...] does not sin, but that sin proceeds from that capacity which God has given the Creature and that if it does not proceed from tha [...] capacity, then the work of sinning is man [Page 79]own-work, which proceeds not from the Author of his Being.

But this Objection arises from want of knowing what the own-working of man, and what Sin properly is, and wherein they do consist. It is already said, that all working of the Creatures does proceed from that capacity, which God has placed in the Creature, and consequently that God is the Original of all our Working: But albeit all our works have their Original from God, yet God has given Man that ability in the Creation, that he can direct those Works according to his own good­liking, or as he thinks best; that is in short, God gave man in his Creation free-will (as is already shewed) according to which he can do or forbear things; and this free­will is properly tha capacity which man re­ceived from God in the Creation, and when man does any thing according to his Free-will, that is called Mans-work. It is indeed true that the working so far as it is essential, (and all our Works are so) has its Original from God, but the direction of that Working comes from Man himself, and is so far forth called an own-working of Man; as for example, as to the action (or working) of going, speaking, &c. God is the Author of it, but so far as Man directs his Steps, Speech, &c. either to good or evil, so far [Page 80]is it an own-working of Man; and because the evil properly consists in the direction of the Works, or action, and not in the Work or action it self, it does not at all follow, that sin must have its Original from God, because God is the Original of all the works of Man, for that the direction of the working depends upon the Free-will of man, but not the working it self. So that it neither follows, that man must needs have such an own-working, as takes its Original from himself, and not from God; nor on the contrary, that God, because he is the Original of all working, must needs also be the cause and Author of Sin; because working considered in it self, is good: but man having a Free-will, directs it to evil, and so as to that direction it is (in that re­spect) said to be evil and an own-working or act of man: and so in this Objection the working, and the direction of the working are confounded together, which yet, as has been said, are distinct.

Besides, when it is said, that the Work of Sin is an own-work of Man, here again, the Sin and the working are confounded, taking the working and the sin to be the same thing, because they are not able to distinguish the sin from the working.

But to understand this distinctly, we must examine what Sin properly is, and where­in [Page 81]it does consist: Sin then consists properly herein, that man directs the Working, which he has to something else than that to which it ought to be used. So that the Sin lyes not in the working, in the Act, Action, Work, or Deed it self, but in the direction that man has over the Working: as for Example, a Carpenter is about to use an Ax to cleave a piece of Wood, so to do is good and well, because it tends to the good of Man; but if he uses the Ax to kill a Man, that is evil. Now that is certain that the using of the Ax is as well a working in the one, as in the other case, and as to these two work­ings, considered in themselves, the one is no more evil than the other, because they are so far, of one and the same nature: But if we consider the directions of those two Workings, we shall find them to differ ve­ry much from each other; to wit, that the one is profitable and the other mischie­vous; whence then we may clearly see, that sin is no working but a wrong directi­on of the working; and that Sin lyes in that wrong direction, we shall very plainly observe from the names, that Sin bears in the Holy Scripture, as in Hebrew it is cal­led [...] which is a departing from the true way, or evil direction, as appears from Prov. 19.2. He that hasteth with his feet sin­neth; that is, he that directs his Feet [Page 82]wrong sinneth. So also in Greek [...] signifies a departure from the right way, which consists in the wrong direction that men observe.

§. 35. Seing then that man hath an own­working-power or Facutly to direct his doings, according to his own good liking, it is most necessary, that the most perfect Be­ing should reward a man according to the works which he hath done: For if a man did not receive Reward according to his Works, what advantage or profit would a Man have of his doings? Verily none at all, and so it would be all one what he did, which yet would be most contrary to the Nature of Man: For nothing is more natural to him, than to expect a reward according to his Deeds. And for this cause it is, that he is presently conscious to himself of the Good or Evil that he does, which consci­ousness would be in vain if there were no reward for him to be expected.

It would in like manner be most contra­ry to the nature of the Divine Being, not to reward Man according to his Works, because man could then not do amiss in any thing he should do, whether he did things contrary to God, or agreeable to Gods Per­fection, because where there is no reward, there is no misdeed or transgression, (for [Page 83]these are things that do necessarily infer each other) and where there is no Trans­gression, there can be no Law or Obliga­tion to do the contrary, and consequently what ever a Man did, would be good, whe­ther contrary to, or agreeable with Gods Perfections: Because he would then have no Law either for the doing or forbearing of it. Now it is most certain, that it is na­tural to a reasonable worldly Prince, to pu­nish his Subjects according to their deme­rits when they transgress against him, and on the contrary, to reward them that do well. How much more then must this be natural to the most perfect Being, to pu­nish those that Transgress against him, and on the contrary to reward them that do well. Yea if God did not punish them that Transgress against him, He should never obtain his end in making them, that is, that they should work out the good unto which they were Created, but they would more and more deviate from the Good; unto which good they must be brought back, by means of Punishment. For other­wise God cannot be Glorified by them; and consequently because God will be glo­rified by Man, he must bring him back a­gain when he is become evil, into that state in which he can glorify God; Now this amendment cannot be effected but [Page 84]by means of punishment, and death, by which the Creatures do come into a better condition; As is proved in the Observa­tions of Bar. Van He [...]mont upon Man, &c. §. 32.

Yea it would be confusion in God, to esteem two things so directly contrary to each other, as alike good and worthy, and to reward the one just as the other, which confusion can have no place in God, be­cause God is a God of Order, according to §. 30.

Wherefore it must needs be, that God is not only good, but also just, that is, that he rewards every one according to his works.

§. 36. Now for as much as Gods Justice includes the rewarding of every one accor­ding to his Works, it follows, that God does reward or punish all them which have done the same things after the same man­ner; for Justice being nothing else but a reward or punishment proportion'd to the work, therefore not the Person but the Deed is considered, and because the Deed is still the same, and cannot be said to be better or worse in it self, whoever it be that does it, hence follows necessarily that God cannot reward or punish one man more then another, when they have done one [Page 85]and the same thing, because it would be partial, and consequently an imperfection, which is contrary to §. 11. As for Ex­ample, If a Judge having two Criminals before him, that had committed the same Crime, should punish one with death, and clear the other, that would be no Justice, but the highest injustice, unequal, and un­reasonable, because Justice requires, that the same things, or things of the same na­ture, should be rewarded or punished in the same wise.

But some will say, The Justice of this world indeed requires the same punishment of the same Crimes, but God who is the Author of Man, has that power according to his free and unlimited Will, that he can punish the one, and let the other go free, although they have both committed the same Sins.

But seing it is unreasonable in man, to punish the one and to let go the other, how much more unreasonable then would it be in the most Perfect Being, who is Reason it self, to do a thing so much against all Reason and Equity, as to let the one go free and to punish the other? supposing them equally guilty.

Besides, if we should affirm this to be a Prerogative of the Free-will of God, that [Page 86]he can punish the one, and let the other go free, we should set up a Free-will in God, that is unjust. Which would be as much as to say, that God is both reasonable and unreasonable; whereas the Free-will in God, is nothing else but Gods doing all things wisely, and reasonably according to the Order by himself establisht; and there­fore they that devise such a Free-will in God, do invent to themselves a God ac­cording to their own fancies: Concern­ing Gods Free-will, and how we are to con­sider it, we have spoken at large already in §. 22.

CHAP. II. Of Man, as Considered in the state of Innocence, and Ʋprightness; as also of the parts of which he consist.

The Introduction.

NOthing can more heartily affect a pi­ous Soul, than to consider what a Sinner is, in order to his coming back again to the state of Rectitude, in which he was before he gave himself up to his flesh, and to the evil Lust thereof, by which his understanding, which was perfectly en­lightned by the Rays of the Divine Light, became wholly darkned, yea darkness it self: Verily no man, which ever felt the least Glimps of that Divine Light in him­self, cannot lament any thing more than his corrupted Nature, and that he cannot by reason of his darkness, search out the [Page 88]hidden Wisdom of God, but very lamely, and therefore will daily and continually sigh, and from his most inward parts, call upon his God, that he may receive an en­lightned understanding, that Christ the Son of Righteousness may be formed in him, that so the Image of God, aceording to which he was Created, may be restored in him, and his Soul and Body be stirred up to repentance.

And as the Wisdom of God has not in vain made known to Man the first State in which he was brought forth by his Creator, as also his Fall, but has most expresly shewed the Sinner, what Glory man had in the State of rectitude, and how it is darkned by Sin: So it is, in my judgement, a matter of great consequence for one that loves God, first to examine what parts do necessarily belong unto a truly Godly and Perfect Man, before he examines how he can please God: for he that does not know what is required to be a Believer, will seek he knows not what; Just as a Traveller, who travelling towards a place, if he nei­ther knows the way to it, nor the place, nor where it lyes, nor inquires after it, will always be uncertain whither he shall come at last.

Wherefore we shall follow the Order [Page 89]which God observes in the Creation, and enquire

  • 1. What Man did enjoy while he was up­right, and as he was Created by God.
  • 2. What Men lost by Sin.
  • 3. How what he lost is to be recovered Again.

§. 37. Seing then, that Man is so fallen from his first State, that by reason of his darkned understanding, he does not so much as know of what parts a Perfect Man consists, there is no other way to come to know the Parts of a Perfect Man but one of these two, either that God should reveal it to Man immediatly by his Spirit, or that God should teach him it by means of the Holy Scripture. Therefore, he that will by his Natural understanding go about to un­derstand what properly belongs to a per­fect man, shall never know nor compre­hend it; because he wants that part of man which properly makes a perfect Man.

§. 38. He that shall read the Holy Scrip­tures with attention, will find that they speak of three Beings in Man: to wit, of the Image or Spirit of God; of the Soul, and of the Body. Thus is Man described in the Creation, Gen. 1.26, 27. God Created man in his own Image, so that man had in him [Page 90]the Images of God, and Gen. 2.7. it is said, That man was formed of the dust of the Earth, and that the Breath of Life was breathed into his Nostrils, and that he became a living Soul. So that the perfect man consists in the Image of God, in a Soul, and in a Body; which three distinct Beings the Apostle does also mention, 1 Thes. 5.23. The very God of Peace Sanctify you wholly, and I pray God your whole Spirit, Soul and Body be pre­served blameless, &c.

§. 39. They then who have at any time tasted of the goodness of God, who have felt the true light, and are renewed in know­ledge after the Image of him that Created them, Col. 3.10. such I say, will acknowledge, that the perfect man consists not only in Soul and Body, but also in Spirit, because they feel in themselves a Spirit of Wisdom, which makes known unto them in their most inward parts, the Divine Mysteries and Vertues, not by Ratiocination but by manner of Influence and Manifestation, or instruction, yea they shall on the contrary perceive, that if they attempt to measure the Workds of God by their natural Reason, that they are at a loss in themselves, and do not understand any thing at all of the Spiri­tual, for which cause they do by their Pray­ers and Supplications continually desire to [Page 91]be enlightened, making no esteem or ac­count of their humane Wisdom.

They then who have felt the Operation of the Spirit, are certain, and do know, that man, if he be one of Gods Darlings, consists not only of Soul and Body, but also of the Spirit or Image of God: wherefore it is not said in vain by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2.14. The natural Man, [...], that is pro­perly the Soullish or Animal Man, to wit, he who is destitute of the Image of God, or who has not the Spirit, receiveth not the things of God, because they are spiritually dis­cerned: And therefore it is, that the A­postle also distinguisheth, Chap. 15.44. be­tween a natural properly a Soullish Body and a Spiritual Body, the one whereof is go­verned by the Soul, and the other by the Spirit. And James 3.15. The Wisdom which is from above, that is, which is Spiritual, is opposed to that which is Earthly and Na­tural, or Sensual, (but the word is here again Soullish and Devilish) in Jude again vers. 19. The Natural or Sensual, (but the word is again the Soullish) are opposed to those that have the Spirit. And therefore Peter saith, Having purified your Souls by the Spirit. 1 Pet. 1.22.

From all which places it appears very plainly, that the perfect or true Man does [Page 92]not only consist of Soul and Body, but also of the Spirit.

And for as much as the ungodly, and Sinners do enjoy the two former, Viz. Body, and Soul, as well as the Faithful, and Belie­vers, and yet do not understand those things, which are of the Spirit, it follows that they must needs want that by which Spiritual things are alone to be discerned, now that which discerns Spiritual things, is the Spirit, 1 Cor. 2.14, 15.

§. 40. It is true, that often times the per­fect man is in the Holy Scripture described by two Beings, to wit, the Spirit, and the Flesh, as this Apostle speaks at large, Rom. 8. of them that walk after the spirit, and not after the Flesh, and describes the regenerate as those which walk after the spirit, and mor­tify the Flesh, and the Ungodly, as walking after the flesh, and as not having the Spirit. And Gal. 5.7. he saith, that he has the flesh and the Spirit, and that these two do War against each other, for the flesh (saith he) lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, by reason of which conflict, which the Apostle felt in himself, he complained Rom 7. that after the inward Man, that is, af­ter the Law of his mind, or after the Spirit, he delighteth in the Law of God, but that the [Page 93]Law in his Members, that is to say, the Flesh warreth against the Law of God. And there are many other such like places in the Ho­ly Scripture, which do oppose the Flesh to the Spirit: but in these and the like pla­ces, the scope is not so much to teach us how many parts there are in a perfect Man, as to shew us that Man, who is not yet perfectly born again, has a Warfare against his Flesh, that is, against his unregenerate part.

But no man can be so foolish as to think, that when it is here said, that the Flesh lust­eth against the Spirit, that we must there­by understand only the Flesh or Body, but that under the Term Flesh, is to be under­stood that part of Man, that is called the Soul, which desireth and thinkerh, and lust­eth, and it is notorious, that this is usual in the Holy Scripture, by the word Flesh, also to understand the Soul from hence, because, when the Holy Scripture opposes the new birth unto Sin, it uses the Terms Spirit and Flesh, as was just now shewed. But it does not only oppose the Spirit to the Flesh, but also the Spirit to the Soul; or to the Soullish part, as we but just now shewed in 1 Cor. 2. James 3. &c. From whence then it evidently appears, that the fleshly part is included in the Soullish part, and that by the fleshly part is meant the [Page 94]Soullish part. And that the Soul has fel­lowship with the Body, and does continu­ally co-operate with it, we will shew in the next Chapter, where we shall particu­larly Treat of the Soul.

§. 41. But here some body will perhaps say, that the Holy Scriptures makes menti­on of more than three parts of Man: as of the Spirit, of the Mind, of the Heart, the Soul and the Body; The Hebrews call the three parts of man chiefly by the names of [...] Ruach, the Spirit, [...] Nephesh, the Soul [...] Neshamah, the Breath, [...] Adamah, that out of which the Body is made: As to the Neshamah this is pro­perly no part of Man, but it is that from whence the Soul proceeded (as shall be shewed in that Chapter, where we shall expresly treat of the Soul) for which cause Neshamah is sometimes used for Nephesh the Soul, as is to be seen in Isaiah 57.16. In the New Testament we meet with three Parts of Man, more especially under these Denominations [...] Pneuma, the Spirit, [...] Psychce the Soul, [...] Phreen the Ʋn­derstanding, [...] Nous the Mind, [...] Kar­dia the Heart, [...] Sarx the Flesh. But what part is to be understood by these Terms we must learn from the Circum­stances of the places themselves, where we [Page 95]meet with them, as for Example, the Ʋn­destanding belongs to the Soul, which is common to all Men; for whether a Man has a good or bad understanding, however it ceases not to be the understanding: in like manner the Soul is meant by the heart, because the Heart is the Seat of the Soul, and therefore our Saviour saith Mat. 15.18, 19. Those things that proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, they defile, for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, &c. So that for the most part (I say not always) for sometimes the heart is also used for the Spirit as well as for the Soul, because it is the receptacle and habitation of both) but for the most part, I say, by the Ʋnderstand­ing, and the Heart, is meant the Soul.

CHAP. III. Of the Image of God, or the Spirit.

§. 42. SEing it is easie to be understood from the precedent Chapter, that a perfect Man consists in these three, to wit, Spirit, Soul and Body, we are here especially to consider, what the Spirit, or the Image of God is, and the properties thereof, as also, the necessity of the Sinners being resto­red to his former State.

§. 43. Every body knows, that when an Image, Picture, or likeness of a Man is made, that it must resemble him after whom it is made, because if it have no resemblance of him whom it represents, it could not be called his Image, Picture or likeness.

§. 44. Seing then that Man is made after Gods Image, man must needs bear the Image or Likeness of God.

§. 45. Now this Image which Man has of God, cannot be or consist in the outward Shape of his Body, but in his Spirit, be­cause God is a Spirit, and has no bodily or outward shape, form or figure at all, as is shewed already §. 12.

§. 46. But because we Sinners have lost it, and so cannot, as Adam, know what manner of Being the Being of God is, by contemplating the Image of God which was in him, it is needful that we first en­quire at the Holy Scriptures, how the Di­vine Being is there described, that so from the Divine Being we may learn what the Image or Likeness of God must needs be.

§. 47. The Holy Scripture then de­scribes the Being of God not only to be a Spirit, but also shews, what manner of Spirit it is, to wit, that God is a Light, and Fire, Micah 7.8. The Lord shall be a Light unto me. And 1 Iohn 1.5. it is in express words said, that God is a Light in whom there is no Darkness at all, to wit, in opposition to the Created Spirits or Lights, which do consist not only of a Fiery, but also of a Spiritual-watry Substance, as shall be shewed in the Chapter of the Life, or of the Soul. And Deut. 4.24. Hebrews 12.29. The Lord your God is a consuming [Page 98]Fire, and many times when God appeared to his People, it was in a Fire or Light.

§. 48. We shall as we go along, disco­ver our Thoughts, why God is said some­times to be a Light, and sometimes to be a Fire, and leave them to the further consi­deration of the Reader.

We shall every where find, that where God is said to be a Fire, he is represented as a Judge executing Punishment, and on the contrary, that he is called a Light, where he displays his Grace, Favour and Mercy, by which Grace man is saved: And thus God can be both a Light and a Fire; a Light to them which purify their Hearts, and that have put on the new Man; and so are capable of enjoying of Gods presence by vertue of the Spiritual Fellowship which they have with their God: Whereas on the Contrary, he is a Fire to those which have not mortifyed the old Man, or their flesh, so that their impurity, to wit, their Carnal corruption cannot stand before the pure, and clean Divine Fire. But that we may shew this yet more plainly even in Nature it self; we must consider that one and the same Fire is to some Subjects, and in some respects a consuming Fire, and to others not so, nor able to do the least dam­mage to them; as is most manifest in the [Page 99]imperfect Metals, which are consumed in the Fire, whereas on the contrary the per­fect Metals, as Gold and Silver, are not in the least to be consumed by fire, so that the fire, with respect to Gold and Silver, is properly no fire, to wit, no fire that con­sumes them or burns them, as it does burn the imperfect and impure Metals.

§. 49. Therefore from the Description which the Holy Scriptures give us of the Being of God, it is evident that it is a Light and a Fire.

§. 50 Seing then the Being of God is a Light, and that man is Created after the Image of God, it must needs follow that this Image in man is also a Light; for (as is said §. 45.) because the Divine being is a Spirit, which has no outward shape or form, the Image must needs also be a Spirit, and such a Spirit as bears resemblance to that which it represents, to wit it must be a Light as God is a Light.

§. 51. Now that the Image of God, or Spirit of the mind (as its called Eph. 4.) consists in an inward Light, the Holy Scrip­ture teaches us, for he that putteth on the new Man, which is Created after God, and who is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him [Page 100]that Created him, Col. 2.10. is said Eph. 5.8. To be Light in the Lord, ye were sometimes Darkness, but now are ye Light, Col. 1.12. which has made us meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in Light. And that inheritance, saith the Apostle, is the Light & this Light saith the Psalmist Ps. 97.11. is sown) for the Righteous, and Ps. 112.4. unto the up­right there ariseth Light in the Darkness. And thus are the Faithful said to be Children of the Light, 1 Thes. 1.5.

§. 52. But that it may yet further ap­pear, that the Image of God is Light, which Image or Light they receive, who do mor­tify their flesh with the Lusts thereof, it will be needful to enquire into the pro­perties or Nature of the Image of God, and of that Light, which is given to the Faith­ful, that so it may farther appear from the consonant properties thereof, that the I­mage of God is a Light, and even that ve­ry same Light, which the Faithful do re­ceive.

§. 53. When God had Created man after his Image, it is written Gen. 1.26. And let them have Dominion over the Fish of the Sea, and over the Fowls of the Aire, and over the Cattle, and over all the Earth, and over eve­ry creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth. From whence it is evident, that the Image of God makes men meet to Rule over the [Page 101]whole Earth: And thus also it is said of the Faithful Ps. 25.13. That his seed shall inherit the Earth, and Psal. 37.11. The meek shall inherit the Earth; which is again re­peated Mat. 5.5. Now what is it, to possess the Earth? but to be Lord and Master of it, as it is the Right of an Heir to be. And Mark 9.23. Our Saviour says: If thou canst believe all things are possible to him that believeth: and what he meant by all things, our Saviour shews at large Mark 16.17, 18. And these Signs shall follow them that be­lieve, in my name shall they cast out Devils, they shall speak with new Tongues; they shall take up Serpents, and if they drink any dead­ly thing, it shall not hurt them, they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. And Luke 10.20. The Spirit are subject to you; and such other places, which do evidently shew us, that the faithful that have recei­ved the Light have the same Power as Man had before he lost the Image of God.

§. 54. And as Man that was Created af­ter the Image of God, had Power to fill the earth, and to subdue it, Gen. 1.28. So those that have received the Spirit or Light, are said to mortify and subdue their Flesh, that is the Earthly part, and to make it Spiritu­al. Rom. 6.6. Knowing this, that our old man is Crucified with him, that the body of sin might [Page 102]be destroyed. But it is more properly ren­dered: weakned or impeded in its working. And Rom. 8.11, 12, 13. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the Dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore Brethren, we are Debtors not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: for if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die, but if ye through the spirit do mortify the deeds of the Body ye shall live. And Gal. 5.24. And they that are Christs have Crucified the fl [...]sh with the Lusts. And this is treated of at Large Eph. 4. Col. 3. &c.

§. 55. Now before man had sinned, while the Image of God yet shined in his inward parts, how great Wisdom and Knowledge in all things did attend him continually? It must needs have at least been such, that he did not only see through the external Objects, the frame of things, but also must have had knowledge of their most inward state, to wit, of the Spirit, or Life of eve­ry thing, because he understood how to give Names to all things according to their Na­tures, Gen. 2.19. And when the Lord God had formed out of the Ground every Beast of the field, and every Fowle of the Aire, he brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them, and whatsoever Adam called every living Crea­ture, that was the name thereof.

Now he that knows the nature of any thing, he has knowledge of its inward spi­ritual Being, of its qualifications and out­working; on the same manner it is also said concerning the Light and Spirit, which the Faithful do receive and enjoy, to wit, that he gives them wisdom to discern Spirits, and all Spiritual Gifts; and therefore the Apostle calls it Eph. 1.17, 18. The Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation in the knowledge of him, enlightning the eyes of the understanding. And this Spirit of Wisdom is by Solomon very gloriously described in the Proverbs throughout, and the Fruits thereof, in the 2d. Chapter he shews what Profit they reap, that incline their Ears unto Wisdom, and that apply their hearts unto understanding; to wit, that they do thereby understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God, &c. The Apostle also 1 Cor. 12, describes this Light or Spirit to be that which gives the word of Wisdom, the word of Knowledge, the gifts of Healing, the Working of Miracles, Pro­phesies, the discerning of Spirits, many Tongues, and such like.

§. 56. Which consonant properties do therefore plainly shew, that the Spirit of the Light, which the Faithful do receive from God, is that very same Image of God which he first man lost by Sin: For [Page 104]

  • 1. As the first man had by the Image of God Dominion over all things, so do the Faithful by the Spirit or Light, Rule over all things.
  • 2. As the first Man had Power by the Image of God to subdue the Earth, so do the Faithful by the Spririt subdue their flesh, and the Lusts thereof.
  • 3. And so are the Faithful inwardly en­lightned by the Spirit, that they have the discerning of Spirits, and do know hidden things, just as Adam had by the Image of God, a knowledge of the Spirits, and of all Creatures.

§. 57. Thus far then have we shewed, that the Image of God consists in an inward Light, and that this Light is the same, with which the Faithful are enlightned: Yet permit us here, Reader, who mayest read this more out of curiosity, then out of any love to truth, further to enquire who and what manner of thing this Image of God is, that a man that loves God, and seeks to live in Christ, may go on in this way more and more to search out the hid­den Wisdom of God, which he does so abundantly make known in the Holy Scrip­tures to them that seek him.

§. 58. The Holy Scripture does not on­ly [Page 105]say, that the Image of God does consist in a Light, but it does also teach us, who it is that is the Image of God. The Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 4.4. Lest the Light of the glori­ous Gospel of Christ, who is the Image of God, &c. And Col. 1.15. Who is the Image of the invisible God. So that hence it is mani­fest, that Christ is the Image of God: and as we have already shewed, that the Image of God is a Light, so it is also said of Christ Iohn 1.9. That he is the true Light that en­lightneth every man that comes into the World. And Chap. 8.12. Then spake Jesus unto them, saying, I am the Light of the world, he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of Life.

§. 59. And because Christ is the Image of God that enlightens every man, there­fore it is said, that the Spirit of Christ is in the Faithful. Gal. 4.6. And because ye are Sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his (Gods) Son into your hearts. And Eph. 3.16.17. That he would grant you to be strengthened with might, by his Spirit in the Inner-Man: that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith. And Rom. 8.29. He that has the Spirit of Christ is conformed to the Image of his Son. So that from these places, and many more (which every one can observe in the read­ing of the Holy Scripture) it is manifest, [Page 106]that the Image of God in man, is the Spirit of Christ, which Spirit because it proceeds from Christ, who is the Image of God, is that Image of God which Man posses­ses.

Now how Christ can be said to be the Head, and the Faithful his Members, which are all guided by the same Spirit, every true seeker can understand in himself, when he considers that Christ is the Image of God, who gives his Spirit to all the Faith­ful, by which they are all Members of one Body, which is Ruled by the Spirit of Chirst.

In like manner may easily be drawn from this Spring, how Man can be said to be Gods Off-spring, and that we live and move, and have our Being in God. But every one that has the Spirit of Christ, will best under­stand in his Inner-Man, how that Spirit gives him Communion with God.

§. 60. And seing Christ is the Image of God, who gives his Spirit to Man, that he may be a perfect Right Man, it is necessary that we do hence shew the necessity of the satisfaction of Christ, to reconcile faln Man to God again.

§. 61. Reason teaches us, that nothing can attain to its former perfection, except it re­covers [Page 107]again that which it formerly possessed, to wit, that which was the cause of its perfection. Yea this is evident in all Machines, and Mechanick Instruments; all which clearly shews us, that when they come to want that which once they had for the perform­ing of the Work, to which they were fra­med, that either that Work does cease, or is not performed so perfectly as be­fore.

§. 62. If then we do well consider this universal Truth, and bring it over, or ap­ply in unto Man, it is certain, that seeing Man was Created so upright, that he had that capacity of being united to his God, the Sinner must receive the same capacity, that he may be united with his God again.

§. 63. Yea it is impossible that he should receive any other thing instead of it, but that very thing which he lost, because if he should receive any other thing instead of it, he would want that which is requi­red to a perfect Man, and would receive something which he had not in the Crea­tion, and so the best part that Man had re­ceived from God in the Creation would consequently be useless.

Besides, when it is said that God Crea­ted Man upright, Eccles. 7.29. there must [Page 108]have been in man all that was necessary for the attaining of Gods end; that the Sinner then may perform what God intended by him, he must receive again that which God gave him in his Creation to that end: Even not any thing better, nor any other thing can he receive, because God at first made all things after the most perfect manner in the Creation, according to §. 30. So that in is impossible that the Sinner can receive any thing better, or any other thing from God, but that very thing which he receiv­ed of God in the Creation; because, if he should receive any other thing, that thing could not be better, but worse, and so he would not be able to fulfil what God aimed at by him, because God Created man, after the most perfect manner.

From all which in then follows, that the Sinner cannot be made perfect in another way, but by receiving again that very Image of God which he lost by Sin.

§. 64. Now that the Salvation of the Sin­ner consists in the recovering of this Image of God, the Holy Scripture does so abun­dantly testify, that there is nothing held forth unto us more in the Holy Scripture, than that our Salvation does consist in the receiving of the Spirit and Image of God again, as is manifest from the places by us [Page 109]already cited, §. 51.53, 54, 55. and of which Eph. 4. and Colos. 3. &c. do treat.

§. 65. But now altho' we have discove­red that the Sinner cannot attain unto Sal­vation, unless he receive again the Image of God, yet this difficulty still remains in the case, to find out, how and by what means the sinner can recover this Image of God again?

§. 66. It is then an universal truth in Nature, that nothing can be meliorated nor united with another thing, so as to bring forth fruit thereby, except there be a previous suffering, dying or mortification. (To wit, such a suf­fering, death or mortification as tends to melioration, not such a death as tends to putrefaction, for there are these two sorts of Death, as for Example, the Seed passeth through a death, in order to the bringing forth of Fruit, and sometimes it dyes so, that it remains in putrefaction, out of which no new Seed but Worms are gene­rated.) Now that such a dying or morti­fication must go before the Union is mani­fest in Trees, whose Twigs or Buds when they are Ingrafted, or Inoculated, they dye as it were, and wither, before they can unite with the Tree, in like manner can no Seed unite with the Earth, so as to bring forth Fruit, unless it first dyes, and [Page 110]therefore it is, that our Saviour saith with respect to the profit which was to accrue unto sinners by his Death, Iohn 12.24. Ex­cept a grain of Wheat fall into the ground and dye, it abideth alone, that is, it cannot then be united with the Earth to Multiply; but if it dye it bringeth forth much fruit, and 1 Cor. 15.36. That which thou sowest is not quickened except it dye.

§. 67. Now to bring this Universal truth home unto faln Man, (how he fell, we shall shew hereafter) we shall find that the Scrip­ture does expresly teach us, that no man can­attain to the Image of God again, so as to bring forth Fruits of Righteousness, but by a dying as our Saviour testifies Iohn 12.24. under the similitude of a grain of Wheat, not only applying this unto him­self, that he must dye, in order to acquire unto him­self a Church or People, but he also ap­plys the same to them which will be his his Followers. For Verse 25.26. Our Sa­viour saith, He that loves his life shall loose it, that is, he that fears to follow me for fear of Death, he shall dye without bringing forth Fruit: and he that hateth his life in this World, shall keep it unto life Eternal: that is, he that fears not death, but will chearfully de­liver up himself unto death for my name sake, he shall by his death bring forth Fruit, [Page 111]which shall not change, but abide for ever. And therefore Christ adds: if any man will serve me let him follow me; that is, let him give himself chearfully up unto the death, as I do now give my self up unto it. And very expresly saith the Apostle, Col. 3.3. Concerning the Faithful; ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. And V. 5. Mortify therefore your members which are upon Earth, &c. Now because suffering and Death must go before Glorification, the Apostle saith, Act. 14.22. that we must en­ter into the Kingdom of God through much tribulation. Moreover if we consider the manners of Speech used by the Apostles, concerning the manner, how the Sinner recovers the Image or Spirit of God again, how emphatically do they represent unto us, that no sinner can attain unto any fel­lowship with the Spirit, except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God; that is, if a Man be not born of Water, and of the Spirit, as our Saviour there further de­clares Vers. 5. Now this is certain that no body can be born again, except he first die (how this Regeneration is to be under­stood, we shall shew hereafter in its pro­per place) and Titus 3.5. he hath saved us by [...]he washing of Regeneration, and renewing of [...]he holy Ghost, which is 1 Peter. 1.3. called [...] being born again through the Resurrection of [Page 112]Jesus Christ from the dead. Now this is cer­tain, that if we be born again by the Resur­rection of Jesus Christ, we must first have been dead; wherefore from all this it is manifest that no man can recover the Image of God again, but through suffering and death.

§. 68. But now for as much as no Sinner has any the least power to give unto himself Sal­vation, according to the Testimony of the Holy Scripture, an that every one finds in his own experience that he is nncapable of coferring upon himself any perfection, it follows, that that Being which restores him, must be more perfect than the Sinner himself, and yet such as can unite, and have fellowship with man.

It must be more Perfect than the Sinner, because if he had no greater Perfections than he, he could not impart unto the Sinner that which he himself should want.

It must also be such, as can be united, and have fellowship with man, because that which cannot be united, or have fellowship with another thing, cannot make the thing bet­ter, or change its state for the better, be­cause all Melioration doth require the most close union; that is, a Spiritual union with the life of that thing which is changed, for the Life being the worker of all our Acti­ons, [Page 113]and the former of its own body (as is proved in the Observations of Bar. Van Helmont concerning Man, §. 34, 35, 36, 37.) it is necessary, that this Union be with the life it self, that so the life may come to change its former working.

§. 69. Moreover, This Being that should thus change the sinner, must not only be perfect­er than he, but it must also be so perfect, that it can give perfection unto other Beings. Or else it would be of no use to the Sinner; as for Example, It is manifest, that Gold has more perfection in it than Iron has, but Gold cannot therefore communicate its perfection to the Iron, while it self remains meer natural Gold, because it has no more perfection that it self stands in need of to be Gold: in like manner we say of all Creatures or Created Beings, none excep­ted, that altho' they had more perfection than the Sinner, yet they cannot commu­nicate their perfection to the Sinner, be­cause they possess no more perfection than just belongs to their own Beings.

Besides, Seing Man is the head Work, or most excellent piece of all the Creatures upon Earth, as is already proved: it is impossible that any Creature can give him any perfection: from whence necessarily follows, that no Creature can restore him [Page 114]to his primitive Perfection and integrity.

§. 70. Stand here still with me. O thou truth loving Reader! and contemplate what manner of Being that must needs be then, which according to the order of Na­ture in all things) must restore the Sinner to his pristine state?

§. 71. In the 68. §. we have proved, the Sinner must be restored by a more perfect Being than himself, and not only so, but that it must have power to impart of its perfection unto the Creature; but this is impossible for any Creature to do, accor­ding to §. 69. yea this being must not only be so perfect, but it must be such as must have fellowship with, and be united unto Man according to §. 68.

§. 72. All which being well considered, every one must needs confess that none other is ca [...]able [...]o restore man, but his Creator alone. Because the Creator has not only more Per­fection than man, but can also confer it up­on his Creatures; which is evident from hence: Even because he gave unto all the Creatures their Perfection in the Creation; nor can we conceive any thing in the whole Frame of Nature, that can have greater Fellowship and Union with Man than his [Page 115]Creator? because the Creature depends upon the Creator, and the Creator does continually uphold his Creatures.

§. 73. Thus far then it follows, beyond all Contradiction, that the sinner cannot be restored, but by his Creator; But seing (according to §. 61.) that nothing can come to its former perfection, unless it reco­vers that which was the cause of its per­fection; yea, that it is impossible, that the sinner can by any thing else recover his pri­mitive perfection, but by that very thing alone with he lost, as is proved §. 63. and his pristine or Primitive Perfection having consisted in the Spirit or Image of God, ac­cording to §. 63.64. and seing the sinner cannot be restored to his former Estate, but by his Creator, according to §. 71.72. and that he cannot receive any thing else but the image of God, which can bring him thereunto, according to §. 63.64. it ne­cessarily follows, that the Creator must him­self be that Image of God, which man stands in need of

§. 74. Now it is manifest to every one that reads the Holy Scriptures, that Christ is said to be the Creator of Heaven and Earth, as may be seen Col. 1.16. By him were all things Created, &c. Seing then, that [Page 116]the Holy Scripture shews us, that Christ is he which Created us, then he must also needs be that Image of God, which Man had in the state of his uprightness and inte­grity; and that Christ is that Image of God, we have already proved at large §. 58.59.

§. 75. From all these then it is manifest that none can restore us to our first per­fection but Christ alone, who was the Image of God in us, which became darkned in us through Sin. But for as much as §. 66.67. it is proved, that nothing can be united to another thing, but through suffering, and death, it is of great consequence now to shew: how and on what manner sinners may, and by no other means can be united to God.

§. 76. Now to search out it what manner sinners must be united to the Image of God, it is not only enough, that we know that Christ is our Creator, and the Image of God, which alone is able to restore the sin­ner into his Perfect State, but we must also well mind this truth, in order to a further discovery of the Union betwixt the Sinner and the Image of God, viz That nothing can unite except the things which are to be united, do meet, to wit, the uniter, and that which is united. So that we must here consider, [Page 117]what manner of thing that must be, which is to be united with Christ, who is the Image of God (that sinners may thereby be restored unto the state of Integrity again, to wit, to have fellowship again with God) from whom it had separated, and estran­ged it self by sin.

§. 77. It is manifest from §. 73. that sin­ners cannot be again restored unto their former state of Integrity, except they ob­tain that which they lost, now we do fur­ther say on the other side, that that which was lost, cannot be re-united unto man again, except the nature of man can and do receive it. For if it were some thing, that were either too mean or too Glorious for man to receive, then it could not be united unto man, but unto some thing else; and therefore it was that Christ could not be united unto any thing else but unto the nature of man, that he might restore mans nature into its former state: For had Christ been united with any thing else, but the nature of Man, he could not thereby have restored man; but only that with which he had been united, and consequent­ly his Union with any other thing would have been of no advantage to the sinner at all, nor could have united him with the Image of God: but this is that, which we are now to prove according to §. 75.

§. 78. Now altho' it be clear from §. 76. That Christ was to take upon him the Nature of Man, that he might restore unto sinners the Image of God, yet is that not enough, that Christ should only have taken upon him the Nature of Man, but it was al­so most necessary, that Christ should take upon him the nature of such a man, as of whom all mankind does depend, and from whom all men did come, or are descended. Because the Na­ture of all things teaches us, that the whole race of any thing cannot be Meliorated, ex­cept the Source or Root be amended, from whence the whole Race, or all the Branch­es are descended; as for example, when a whole Tree does not bear good Fruit, it is necessary that the whole Tree be amended by Transplantation, and cutting off the Branches and Pruning the Roots, and not one or more of the Branches only; Be­cause the Tree bears the Branches, and the Branches not the Tree; Wherefore, al­tho' some of the Branches should be cut off, and Grafted upon another Tree, those Branches which are so cut off, and re-en­grafted, would in themselves be amended, but not the whole Tree from which they were cut off.

To make this plain, there is no better way, than for us to make a Trial from our own Selves: As for Example, When the [Page 119]whole Man is sick, and out of Order, so that the Distemper proceeds from the Life it self, and not from the unsoundness of any one of the Parts or Members, the Que­ry is, Whether any one can be so foolish as to endeavour to restore his whole Being unto Health, by cutting off an Arm or a Leg, or by applying Remedies to them? Verily no, but he will endeavour to re­move the Cause by such Means, as the Life can receive, or as can be communicated un­to it, because the Life is the Former of our Body, (as I have proved in the Considera­tions of B. Van Helmont concerning Man, in §. 34.35, 36, 37, 38.)

Now to apply this to the Case in hand, I say then, that if Christ had not taken up­on him that particular Humanity or the na­ture of that Man, from which all men are descended, he could not have restored unto all men the Image of God again, but only unto that particular Man-hood alone, unto which he was united, and yet, that all men must recover the Image of God again, we shall shew hereafter. Just as a Branch which is Ingrafted upon another Tree, is thereby indeed amended, but not the whole Tree from whence it was cut off. It is a thing contrary to Nature, that all the parts of any thing should be bettered any where, save in their Original or Source; [Page 120]Yea this is contrary to every (even the very least) thing in Nature. For as much then as this is an universal truth in Nature, therefore it must also needs be a truth in the bettering of Mankind; because Man­kind stands united, and subjected to the same natural Order, as all other things, and without which Order man cannot produce any thing. Therefore, that Christ might reunite Sinners to himself, he was to take upon him that individual Humanity or Manhood, of which all men are descended.

And if we diligently examine the Argu­mentation which the Apostle holds Rom. 5. We shall find that the Apostle signifies, that Christ did take upon him such a Man­hood, or humane nature, as by which all men could be saved; such as was that of Adam, by whom all Men became Sinners. For the Apostle shews not only Vers. 10. that being reconciled, we are saved by the Life of Christ. But also Vers. 11. that we joy in God, to wit, that we are assured that God is our Father, who will communicate unto us of his Glory, and the cause of this our Joying is, that we have received the Atonement by Christ.

But some will perhaps ask here: how or on what wise could Christ reconcile us.

This Question the Apostle answers in V. 12. saying, Wherefore, (that is, on this wise,) as by one man sin entred into the World, [Page 121]and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned, that is to say, just as by one man sin came into the World, so on the very same manner is the Atonement made by one man, to wit, by Jesus Christ; and that as by sin, death, so by the Atone­ment, Life is received; and as death is so passed upon all men, so is the righteousness of Jesus come upon all men unto Justification of life. And as death is passed upon all men, because they all sinned In Adam: For [...] cannot here signify [for that] as in our English, but in whom, as in the States Dutch Bible, nor can it have any relation to any other, but to that one Man, Adam, (especially if you add unto it V. 18.19.) So there is the very same reason of the Atonement of Christ. For Christ has made the Atone­ment for all men, because they are all justi­fied in Christ. Now this is plain, seing the Apostle draws here a Parallel betwixt Adam & Christ, that that Parallel must hold so far as he makes it to go. Let us then see how far this Parallel which he makes betwixt Christ and Adam v. 12 must go.

It is certain, according to this saying of the Apostle, That sin entred into the World by Adam, and death by sin, and so death pas­sed upon all men, because they all sinned in Adam; that the true reason here rendered, why all Men are Sinners; is, because they all [Page 122]sinned in Adam: Now if they did all sin in Adam, they must all have been in Adam, and must all have depended upon him, as upon their Head, and Beginning, or else they could not all have sinned in Adam. Just thus must this Parallel hold also in Christ: Righteousness is obtain'd through Christ, and this Righteousness comes upon all because they are justified in Christ. Now this must be as true in Christ as it was in Adam; to wit, that seing all men depen­ded upon and were hid in Adam, and there­fore did sin with him, so also must all men be dependent in Christ, as on their Head, that is, they must depend on his humane Nature, or manhood, as well as on that of Adam, if they are to be all justified in him: For seing, as §. 76. nothing can be united to another, except the Unitor, and the thing united do meet in one; and seing man cannot be restored to his former state, except the image of God takes Manhood upon him According to §. 77. it must needs follow, that if the Image of God, to wit, Christ takes upon him such a Man­hood, as whereby all men are justified; that that Manhood must be that of the first Man, of whom all men are descended, and have received their life, because that other­wise all men could not be partakers of righteousness by the Manhood of Christ, [Page 123]and for as much as all men descended of Adam, and so do depend upon him, as upon their beginning, from whom they are Born, so Christ could not justify all men in him, except he took upon him Adams Mandhood, of which all men are depen­dent.

And for further confirmation of what we say from that which the Apostle says, to wit, That Christ must needs have taken upon him the Manhood of Adam: in the first place we must consider, that the A­postle in the 14. V. saith: That Adam was a Figure or Type of Christ, and conse­quently Christ must be a man, or must take upon him a Manhood, as the Apostle affirms V. 15. where he calls Jesus Christ a Man. 2d. As death reign'd over all men by one, to wit, by Adam, so life reigns over all Men by one, to wit, by Jesus Christ, V. 17. Therefore the Antitype must also agree in this respect, according to the saying of the Apostle, that is, Christ must be the Head of all men, as well as Adam was; and that the Apostle proves very stre­nuously V. 18.19. Because that as by the one transgression of Adam all men are made sinners, so also by the one righteousness of Christ all men receive life. If then all men do receive life by the one righteousness of Christ, then Christ must be the head of all men, as well [Page 124]as Adam was; and all men must descend from him, as well as from Adam; because else Christs righteousness could not come upon all men, which yet the Apostle does most expresly affirm, V. 18. whence then does undoubtedly follow, that seing Adam is the Head of all Mankind, and seing Christ has done the same thing that Adam did, to wit, in the Antithesis, that the Man Jesus Christ must needs also have been the Head of all Mankind: And for as much as none but Adam can be the Head of all Man­kind, it must needs follow that Christ must have taken upon him Adams Mandhood, that he might justify all men by his own Righ­teousness.

Objection I. But in Answer to this Con­sequence which we draw from Rom. 5. That Christ cannot have taken upon him other Manhood but that of Adam, if all Men be so justified in Christ, as they all sinned in Adam, it will be said that that manner of Speech, that all men are justified in Christ; is not to be taken for all, & every man, one by one, but for all those which are Born of Christ to wit, for the Faithful: For the Apostle makes here an Antithesis betwixt Adam and Christ, and betwixt those which are born of Adam, and those which are born of Christ; so that those which are born of Christ; are not born of him after the flesh, as those which are [Page 125]born of Adam are, but after the Spirit, and consequently, that it does not necessarily follow, that Christ must needs have taken upon him the Manhood of Adam, because they that are born of Christ, are not born after the Flesh but after the Spirit.

Answer, For Answer to this Objection it is to be observed, First, That the Apostle does not say, that as all that are born of Adam, are become sinful by Adams Fall; so all that are born after a Spiritual manner of Christ, are justifyed in him, but he says without any Limitation at all, That as by Adams Fall all men are become Sinners, just so by Christs Righteousness are all men justified: So that he here opposes these two Effects or Out-workings, to wit, The Transgression and the Free Gift of Grace, each to other, and shews that as the one has made all Men Sinner, so the other has made all men Righteous: Now where the Apostle makes no distinction as well with respect to the Righteousness of Christ, as with respect to the Fall of Adam, by what Justice can we then limit the word ALL, and that in one and the self same Argument, without offering Vio­lence to, and wresting the Words.

Secondly, It is manifest that Christ as Mediator, was Man, if then those which are said to be born of Christ, are only born [Page 126]of him Spiritually, to what purpose did Christ take the Manhood upon him? Ve­rily Christ needed not to have taken Man­hood upon him to effect such a Spiritual Birth, as they that make this exception do understand by this Birth, as is already shewed more at large in the fourth Ob­jection.

Thirdly, The Apostle does not here op­pose the Spiritual Birth of Christ, to the Fleshly Birth of Adam: For Christ is not here opposed unto Adam, with respect to his Spiritual Being, but with respect to his Manhood: For the Apostle says, V. 15. The Man Jesus Christ, and 1 Cor. 15.21. For since by Man came Death, so by Man came also the Resurrection of the Dead, by man I say, so that Adams Manhood is here opposed to the Manhood of Christ: and as all Men Fell in the Man Adam, so must all Men also be justified by the Man Christ, and consequently all men must as well be born of Christ as of Adam, and that in the same manner, because they are all justified in Christ after the same manner, according to the Apostles Doctrine: As all men Fell in Adam, so in Christ are all men restored again: Wherefore this exception cannot be admitted here, to wit, that Christ Re­generates all those whom he justifies only after a Spiritual manner, and not as those [Page 127]that are born of Adam: seing then all men can have none else but Adam for their first Father; and yet that Christ justifies all men in that manner, viz. by his own Righte­ousness, it necessarily follows, that the Man Jesus Christ, could not thus justifie all men by his own Righteousness, except he had taken upon him the Manhood of Adam, for the reasons rendred in the former §. 78.

Fourthly, I would willingly understand of these men, which say that all that are justified are generated by Christ only after a Spiritual Manner, what they mean by that manner of Speech? Do they there­by mean that the body proceeds from a spiritual beginning (as we have shewed in §. 27. as also in the Considerations of B. Van Helmont concerning Man §. 93.94) con­tinually formed by his Life, which is a Spi­rit, (as we have shewed in the aforesaid Considerations §. 13.34, 35, 36, 37.) so that the Body must be obedient to the di­rection of its Life, then I willingly grant them, that the Faithful are born of Christ after such a spiritual manner. But then they must withal grant me, seing the bo­dily proceeds from the Spiritual (as we have just now shewed) that there must needs be a fellowship betwixt the Spiritual and the Bodily, that is, that they do both come from one and the same beginning Origi­nally [Page 128]and consequently, that the Spiritu­al must always contain in it that from whence the bodily does proceed, or else there could be no fellowship betwixt these two; If then there be somewhat in the spi­ritual which can also become corporeal, then this manner of Speaking, concerning a spiritual birth, signisies nothing else but this, that that, out of which the Body is formed, is Born of Christ as well as the Life or Spirit of Man; and then man is born of Christ as well as to his Body as to his Spirit: And then this spiritual Birth will not at all differ in this sense from the Birth out of Adam, because those which are born out of Adam, are also generated out of the spiritual (Now that all Births are first spi­ritual, that is, that they do proceed from a spiritual beginning I have proved in the Considerations of B. Van Helmont concerning Man §. 93.94.) But because Men now a dayes are Carnal, and unacquainted with that which is spiritual, they are utterly ignorant, that all things must needs have come from a Spiritual beginning.

Fifthly, Suppose yet that we granted them the Point, to wit, that those which are justified in Christ are born of Christ only after a spiritual manner: Does this spiritual birth relate to the Soul alone, or to the Body also? That is, to the whole [Page 129]Man? Seing the Apostle saith, that the Man and not the Soul alone) is justified; Now if the Bodily as well as the Spiritual must be justified, has not Christ then gene­rated the Bodily as well as the Spiritual? Verily yes, or else the whole man could not be justified and consequently, if the Bodily be justified as well as the Soullish p [...]rt then it is absurd to say, that Christ hath generated the Righteous only after the Spirit, seeing that if he justifieth the whole Man, he must have generated him af­ter the whole Man, that is, as well after the Body as after the Soul. Wherefore those that make this exception: that Christ has generated men after a Spiritual Manner, in Opposition to the Generating▪ of or from Adam must either contradict themselves or confess that they speak they know not what.

Objection II. But it will be again replyed here; that all men were hid or lay dor­mant in Adam, when they sinned in him, but that all men were not so in Christ, be­cause that there were many thousands alive in the Body subsisting of themselves, and consequently that Christs Righteousness did not pass over unto all men, so as Adams sin did.

Answer. As to this Objection, to wit: That all men were not so hid in Christ as in Adam, I grant it, because Adam was the first Man of this World, and when he sinned had not begotten any Children; whereas on the contrary, at the time of the Incarnation of Christ, there were many thousands upon the Earth, and consequent­ly did subsist of themselves: But hence it doth not necessarily follow, that there­fore the Righteousness of Christ could not pass unto all men, as the sin of Adam did. But only this would necessarily follow thence: that because many men did live in the time of Christ, but when Adam sin­ned, that there were none out of him and Eve, alive in the Body, that therefore at that time, when Christ wrought that Righ­teousness, all men were not hid in him just after the same Manner as they were hid in Adam, out of whom all men were after­wards to be generated. But this Conse­quence contradicts not our Position: Yea, tho' it seems to say something, yet in very deed it says nothing. For when they say that all men were not hid in Christ, as they were hid in Adam; I desire to know what they mean here by the Word hid? Do they mean that all men were so hid in Adam as things are shut up in a Hutch? Then I readily confess that all men were not so in [Page 131]Christ: And if this be their meaning of the Word hid here; then I say, that it is impossible that all men should be made Sin­ners by Adams sin, because there would then be no more fellowship betwixt Adam and his Successors then there is betwixt the Chest and the things that are therein lockt up: But if by the Word hid, they mean no­thing else here (as it cannot here signifie any thing else) but that all men bein derived from Adam as from their Stem or Root, are Partakers of his Life, just as the Tree and all its Fruit were hid in the Seed, that is, that the Life of the Tree and its Fruit was in the Life of the Seed, and so that they have fellowship with each other, with respect to their Spiritual Being, which is the Former and Maker of the Body, (as is proved in the Considerations concerning Man, §. 13.34, 35, 36, 37.) then it will be ve­ry easie for us to prove, that the righteous­ness of Christ could pass over unto all men in the same manner as the Sin of Adam did to all his posterity, that is to say: If Christ did take upon him the Manhood of Adam, which is here the Question; For seing that all men are descended of Adam, and so are a part of him, as belonging to him, be­cause they do partake of his Life (just as all that which is brought forth in this [Page 132]world, remains always apart of this World, it seems to subsist of it self) it is certain, that they always remain a part of Adam, and have fellowship with him, altho' they seem to subsist of themselves, because the Life which they have received from Adam, which life being once taken away, they could subsist no longer, because their life is rooted in Adams Life: This being so (as it is no otherwise throughout the whole frame of Nature) that the Producer, and the Produced are in a continual fellowship, because the one partakes of the life of the other) I say, that seing Christ did take upon him the Manhood of Adam, and so obtained Righteousness for Adam, he also obtained Righteousness for all Adams Po­sterity, as they being the Parts of Adam, altho' they do not yet all actually feel it, yea tho' the greatest part of them depart from Christ, and lye sunk and drownd in all manner of ungodliness.

Objection III. But it will again be alledged here: that all men do now subsist of them­selves, and consequently, that men are not therefore saved; because Christ hath taken upon him Adams Manhood.

Answer, This Objection consists more [Page 133]in Words that signifie nothing, than in truth. For what do they mean by all mens subsisting now of themselves? Is this their meaning, that all men are now brought forth without Generation? Or that being begotten and brought forth by their Pa­rents, they are arrived to those Years, and to that growth, that they know how to go­vern, and to uphold themselves? This last will doubtless be the meaning of these Words, and not the first, because there is no man born into this World but by gene­ration, which being so, it is for ever true, that tho' men can Rule and Govern them­selves, and in that sense do subsist of them­selves, that nevertheless every man hath his beginning of being a man, from his Pa­rents, and so does continually remain a part of his Parents, with respect to his bo­dily Being, for if that life which he recei­ved from his Parents should fail, his Body would Perish; and so Adam being the Stem or Root from whence all men are descen­ded, and which consequently do retain in them continually a part of Adam; it is very easie to understand, that when Adam receives again the Image of God, that his Posterity are thereby put into a capacity of receiving the Image of God again, by vertue of their Fellowship with Adam.

Besides, when they say, that it is not needful, that Christ should take upon him the Manhood of Adam, that he might re­store unto all men the injoyment of the Image of God, because there were thou­sands of men subsisting of themselves at the time of Christs Incarnation. I answer, That if thousands do subsist of themselves, then Christ could not satisfy for them, be­cause he could not then have had any Fel­lowship with them, and therefore could not by his Death have reconciled the World to God: But that he must have taken upon him the Manhood of so many men, as he should have reconciled unto God, and so have suffered and dyed as oft as there are men upon the Earth, because nothing can be bettered, except the resto­rer and the restored be united according to §. 76.

Objection IV. But here again this Evasion will be made use of, Viz. That Christ could obtain Salvation for so many men, because he is the Son of God, who is so mighty, that he could by his Spirit bring many Children to Salvation, and conse­quently, that it was not needful that he should take upon him Adams Manhood as the Root from whence all mankind is de­scended, that he might thereby unite all mankind to God again.

Answer, To this evasion I answer, That it is indeed true, that Christ is so mighty, that being the Creator of man he could re­store men again to the state of Integrity by his Spirit, and this we have our selves proved §. 68.69, &c. But that's not the Question here, who it is that alone can re­store man; but we are here enquiring on what manner, and by what means or way Christ could restore Sinners as may be seen from §. 76. Now the Means to reunite sin­ners to the Image of God again, I say, is that Christ should take upon him manhood, as is proved §. 77. therefore we are here only to consider: whether this means, that is, whether that Manhood, which Christ did take upon him, be a fit means, where­by all men could be united again to the Image of God or no? Therefore this ex­ception has here no place, and this our answer might very well suffice.

But to discuss this Shift a little more narrowly, I say, that if Christ has imparted Salvation unto all Mankind only in vertue of his Spiritual, and Divine being, then he needed not to have become man and to have suffered death, and that Christs beco­ming man would then have been utterly needless and of no advantage unto sinners, because Christ had that his Divine power, [Page 136]before he became man, and did not receive it by his becoming man.

But if they will say, that Christ, as he Saviour was to become man (as we our selves have proved the necessity there­of §. 76.77.) I ask such, what Advantage Christs becoming man has effected? And whether Christ, by becoming man, could reconcile all men, if he had not taken upon him the Manhood of Adam as the Stem or Root of all Mankind? the contrary of which we have just now shewed.

Objection V. But against this Position: that Christ must needs have taken upon him Adams Manhood, to reunite all men to the the Image of God again; this Objection will still be made, Viz. That if Christ had taken upon him Adams Manhood, and so had united Adam again with the Image of God, he should at the same time have also united all men with the Image of God; because they are the Parts of Adam, as we our selves have affirmed in answer to the former Objection, and yet we see no­thing less than that all Men are one with the Image of God, but daily experience shews us the contrary, and conseque [...]tly that it seems to no purpose, that Christ should have taken upon him the Manhood of Adam more than that of any other Man.

Answer, But this Objection discovers more the Objectors ignorance of the Order of Nature, than any real Contradiction; for Example, is it not evident from Expe­rience, that the Fruit of a Woman with Child is a part of her? Verily yes, because she does some times change the form there­of in the Womb; wherefore her life has the direction over the Life of her Fruit, while it is in the Womb; But when she has brought forth her Chi [...]d, then she has no longer power to change her Child ac­cording to her passion; but then the Child stands upon its own bottom; and its own life must preserve it so as that it has then received an own out-working, But altho Children, and Aged People have an out working, yet they do not therefore cease to be a part of their Parents; and consequently do always retain an Union with them, altho' they do also stand upon their own bottom (for these two things must be well minded here, to wit, that they have their Corporeal Be­ing of their Parents, and so far are a part of them, as Adam said of Eve, She is Bone of my Bones, &c. and yet that they also have their own out-working) because they are always in Union with their Parents, and yet have a power to Work of their own, [Page 138]according to §. 27. Yet they cannot come into that state of their Parents, altho' they do partake of their bodily Being, unless their own out-working do incline to come into the same state, in which their Parents are: As for Example, when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 7.14. The Ʋnbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the Wife, and the Ʋnbelieving Wife is Sanctified by the Husband: Does he here signifie, that when the Unbelievers are Sanctified by their believing Husbands or Wives, that they do thereby become Believers, or does he only signifie thereby, that when two are become one Flesh, and so do enjoy each others Spirit through love, the Unbeliever becomes Sanctified through that Spiritual Fellowship, which they have one with another; that is, That the Unbe­liever receives by the Spirit of the Believer who is his Co-partner, a Capacity or meet occasion of becoming a Believer, if he does also co-operate thereunto, but not else? In like manner when the Apostle saith, in the same Verse, That the Children are Holy which are born of a Believing Father or Mother; does he mean that the Children do thereby become Believers? surely no, for that would contradict all Sense and Ex­perience: For do we not see, that the Faithful Abraham had an unbelieving Ish­mael as well as a believing Isaac, and that [Page 139] Isaac had as well an Esau as a Jacob? But the Apostle signifies thereby, that there is in them a Seed, Beginning or Principle of coming to the Faith, but yet that Prin­ciple or Seed never brings forth Fruit, if they themselves do not join unto it, and co­operate with it; just thus it is now with Adam and his Posterity; that Participati­on, which they have of Adam, gives unto all Men by vertue of that Union, which they have with Adam, that they are so far Co-partners of the Divine Image, in so much and as far as they are a part of Adam, and so have the seed or Principle, that the Image of God can Work in them, but be­cause as they have their own out-working, (for which reason also Faith unto Salvati­on is required of every one) so they do not feel the Working of the Image of God in them, till their own out-working, and de­sire inclines thereunto, viz. That the Image of God may Rule in them instead of their own Carnal Drivings, Lusts, and Self Wis­dom, which do (as long as they bear Rule in them) hinder the Spirit of Christ from bringing forth Fruits in them, altho' their Origine, to wit, Adam be actually and ef­fectually reunited unto the Image of God again.

Objection VI. But it will here again be [Page 140]Objected: That Christ, as to his humane Nature or Manhood was without Sin, but that Adam was sinful, and that therefore, if Christ had taken upon him Adams Man­hood he could not have been without Sin, but would therein have also partaken of Adams Nature.

Answer, True it is, that Adam was a Sinner, but that it is also true, that Christ took not Adams Manhood on him till after Adams death, viz. About four thousand years after his Creation, so that Adam suf­fered and dyed before Christ was united unto Adams Manhood. Now because no­thing can become better, but by Suffering and dying according to §. 66.67. And se­ing Adam did Suffer and dye, it does not necessarily follow, that because Christ took upon him Adams Manhood, that therefore he must take upon him also his Sin, and so would not be without sin the more, because Christ was born neither according to the Will of the Flesh, nor according to the Will of Man, and consequently had not the principle of Sin in him.

§. 79. Seing then that Christ did take upon him the Manhood of Adam that so he might thereby redeem Sinners from their sins, It was also necessary that Christ should suffer that for Sinners, by which they were to beamended. [Page 141]Now this amendment was to be through death, as it is said Gen. 2.17. Dy­ing thou shalt dye, and Rom. 5.12. By Sin [...]ame Death. Now tho' death be the pu­nishment, and consequent of Sin, yet doth this Punishment tend to the bettering of the Sinner: For no punishment, if duly administred, can aim at any thing, but the bettering of the Transgressor, and the bringing of him off from his former ways. Verily no Father will Punish his Child, nor any equal Judge a Transgressor, but with intent to Frighten him from his Wicked­ness, and to make him the better for it. If then a Worldly Judge does by Punish­ment, aim at the reclaiming of Transgres­sors from their evil ways, how much more then shall the most perfect Being which is Righteousness it self, by punishing sinners design their amendment, and the making [...]hem to desist from their Unrighteousness. [...] Punishment then only in Order to the Conversion of the sinner from his sin, and [...]hereby to reunite him to the Image of God? And is Christ the only one that [...]n relieve Sinners? according to §. 73. [...]4. And did he to that very end take Man­ [...]ood upon him? according to §. 77. and [...]articularly that very Manhood from [...]hence all Mankind are descended? ac­cording [Page 142]to §. 78. that so by his becoming man, all men might be delivered from sin, and reunited to the Image of God again? then must Christ needs have undergone that by which the Evil must be amended, and the sinner again be made one with the [...] Image of God, unto which there is no coming but through Death, according to §. 66.67. Wherefore seing that Christ is the Saviour, or the only one that can free us from sin, he could do it by no other means, or in no other way, nor deliver us from the yoak and bondage of Sin, but by suffering Death.

If now the Pious Reader well weighs what we have in this Chapter shewed concerning the Image of God, where in it consists, of what use and advan­tage it is unto man, who this Image o [...] God is, viz. Christ, and that this Imag [...] of God alone is he, who alone can free the sinner from Sin, and that in Orde [...] to it, he was to take upon him th [...] Nature of Man and to suffer Death, w [...] cannot in the least doubt, but that h [...] will be fully satisfied and Believe, no [...] from Tradition, but from Knowledg [...] and Assurance, that Christ alone, an [...] none other but he, is the only Saviour [Page 143]and that out of him there is no Sal­vation to be Obtained; as also, that so long as a Man has not recovered the Image of God, so long darkness bears Rule in him.

CHAP. IV. Of the Soul or Life of Man.

§. 80. AS Man in the state wherein he was Created by God, had in him the Divine Image, so God also bestowed upon him a Soul or Life, which differs from the Image of God, and cannot be taken for one and the same Essence. For if we con­sider the Properties of the Spirit, or Di­vine Image, and what excellent Prero­gatives and Advantages it affords Man, as hath been shewed §. 53, 54, 55, and 56. and on the other hand reflect how few at this day are possessed of the Image of God, tho' they have a Soul or Life; we shall not need any other Argument besides that of daily Experience to convince us, that [Page 144]the Spirit or Image of God differs from the Soul or Life of Man, according to what hath been declared §. 39.

§. 81. In order therefore to our being informed what the Soul of Man is, it will be necessary to enquire into the Proper­ties of it.

Now the Properties of the Soul are, that it Reasoneth or Discourseth, Under­standeth, Willeth is self-Conscious, and as long as it is joined to the Body doth up­hold and continually guide and govern the same, according to its Will, and the like. That these are the properties of the Soul every one finds in himself, and is conscious of it, if he be considerative and reflects up­on his own Actions. For as to Bodies they can neither Discourse nor move them­selves as is visible in dead Cankasses: So that these forementioned Qualities are no Properties of the Body, but of the Soul; because when the Soul Operates no longer in the Body, these Properties cease also.

§. 82. In Order therefore to make some Discovery of the Nature of the Soul from these its Properties; it will be necessary that we consider every one of them apart, that so from these we may be able to inferr or conclude what kind of Essence that is [Page 145]from whence they flow: For as a Tree is known by his Fruit, so may other things be known by their Effects.

In the first Place then, The Property of the Soul is that She Discourseth and Ʋnder­stands, that is, that the things that are pre­sent with her, or represented to her from without, are considered or weighed by her, whether they be Good or Evil, to her Profit or Loss, and such like. Moreover, those things whereof the Soul Reasoneth or Discourseth, must be either throughly known to her, or in part, for of things she is altogether ignorant of, she cannot Discourse at all. And if the things she Discourseth about, be either throughly, or in Part known by her, then hath she also a Comprehension or Understanding of them, and what she doth Comprehend she hath also an Image or Idea of, as hath been shewed §. 15. Now this Image or Compre­hension, and the Souls considering and Pon­dering of the same, takes up no Room at all in her; because a man comprehends many thousands of things without encreas­ing the bulk of his Body, notwithstand­ing that the things he comprehends be much greater than it. Whence it is evident, that Reasoning, and Understan­ding take up no space, how great or ample soever the thing may be that is compre­hended [Page 146]or understood. But on the contra­ry that the Understanding can comprehend great things as well as little, and conse­quently that she is neither great nor little: Now that which is neither great nor small, and yet comprehends things great and small, cannot be Corporeal but Spiritual, forasmuch as all Bodies are either great or small. What hath been said here of Rea­soning or Understanding, the same may be said of the other Properties; For to be self conscious, is to reflect and be convinced that we have done or omitted these or the the other things. Now this Conviction is not any thing that is Bodily, but a Spiri­tual Being, because there can be no Con­viction without a Comprehension or Un­derstanding of the Matter we are convin­ced of: So likewise that Property of the Soul, whereby she supports or upholds the Body as well as guides and directs it, is not Bodily but Spiritual. For this Ʋpholding consists in preserving of the Body in its Pristine Form and State, which Action of Preservation, cannot be Corporeal, because it includes a Superintendence or Direction whereby Nourishment and Support is gi­ven to every Member according to their different state and requiring. And this direction is the Beginning and Principal thing in the upholding or Support of the [Page 147]Body. For tho' many Bodies should be join­ed together all manner of ways, yet will they never be able to support or uphold one another, so that the Direction where­by our Food is prepared, and transmuted in such a manner, that our Body is fed and maintained by it, is not any thing that is Corporeal but Spiritual. Of which Di­rection or Superintendence we have treat­ed at large in our Observations concerning Man, §. 34.35, 36, 37, 38, 39. And as this Direction which Superintends the Nourishment and Support of the Body is Spiritual, so likewise is the Guiding and Governing of the Body Spiritual also, for as much as it proceeds from the Will, and is immediatly effected or executed in the Body at the same instant that the Soul or Life wills and thinks it. Which is an evi­dent Argument that this Rule or Gover­nance must needs be Spiritual and not Cor­poreal, for as much as not the least mo­ment of time Intervenes between the In­tent or Command of the Will, and its Ex­ecution, which could never be if the Effi­ciency or Operation of the Will were Cor­poreal. But of this Direction of the Body see the foresaid Observations concerning Man §. 91.

§. 83. Seing therefore that the Pro­perties [Page 148]of the Soul are not Corporeal but Spiritual, it follows that the Soul or Life, is a Spirit and no Body, because all her Properties are Spiritual. Now that the Life is a Spirit, I have demonstrated in the foresaid Observations. §. 34.35, 36, 37.

§. 84. The Soul or Life therefore being a Spirit cannot die, or be changed, as Bo­dies are: For when we say that Bodies are changed this imports an Increase or De­crease of those parts that before were uni­ted: And to Die implies nothing else but this, that the Bodies are no longer maintained in the form and condition they were in before, but are Subject to al­teration. So that all Dying includes a Change or alteration, (of which see the Considerations concerning Man, §. 32.) Now certain it is that whatsoever changeth its form or appearance, doth include Divisi­bility, whereby the parts that before were united, are now separated from one ano­ther, and whatsoever is subject to Divisi­bility, must be a Body, because Divisibili­ty is the Property of Bodies which consist of many Parts. And forasmuch as accor­ding to §. 83. the Soul is a Spirit, therefore neither can the Soul die or be divided, or ever change its Essence.

If any one Object here, that she some­times [Page 149]changeth her operations, and by this means grows either better or worse, and that this change is a kind of Dying; this we are very willing to grant, as long as by this Word, Change, or Dying, is not meant or understood that the Essence of the Soul dies, in like manner as Bodies do; but only this, that the Soul being Conscious of her evil Deeds, repents of, and suf­fers for them, and by this means becomes changed in her Operations, or manner of Acting All this we readily grant, as ha­ving plainly asserted the same concerning all Lives, viz. That they are meliorated by Suffering, §. 66. and in the Considerati­ons about Man, §. 32. in these Words, Or that the Life for a time ceaseth from its Opera­tion of bringing forth Fruit, by which cessation of her Activity, she either changeth her Opera­tion, or brings forth better Fruit then before, &c. But such a change or dying as this with regard to the Soul, doth not in the least import that her Essence is changed or divided as that of Bodies is, when their Forms are changed.

§. 85. And for as much as the Soul, with respect to her Essence, is Unchangeable and Immortal, so neither can she be Annihilated, because no Annihilation can be without dying, seing that every thing as long as it [Page 150]lives hath its Essence, and consequently is not Annihilated, or reduced to nothing. And for as much as the Soul Lives continu­ally according to §. 84. consequently it cannot be Annihilated: For seing that all things are ever present to God as in §. 14. it follows that the Soul cannot be Annihila­ted, because the Annihilation of a thing, is that whereby it ceaseth to be, or is the reducing of a thing to nothing: If there­fore the Essence of the Soul could be Anni­hilated, then all beings could not be con­tinually present to God; but more Essen­ces would be present to him at one time then at another, which is repugnant to the Divine Attributes, according to §. 14, 15. For as much therefore, as all Beings are perpetually present to God, if follows, that the Soul or Life cannot be Anni­hilated.

Moreover, seing that all Beings are in God without beginning, and conse­quently have neither beginning nor end­ing, as hath been demonstrated §. 24.25, 26. therefore it follows that the Soul hath no end.

And when we consider that the Essen­tiality of Bodies cannot be Annihilated, tho' their form be changed, because they were not produced out of nothing, accor­ding to §. 27. and in the Observations con­cerning [Page 151]Man §. 32. how much less can the Soul which is not subject to Mutation, as Bodies are, being a Spirit) be obnoxious to Annihilation? Especially if we consi­sider that she is the Framer of the Body, as in the foresaid Observations in §. 37 38. hath been shewed. For my part, I confess that it is altogether inconceivable to me, how any thing that is Essential should loose its Being and become nothing; and they that Imagine such a thing do not know what Annihilation imports; only they con­ceive, that the Soul dies liek a Body, that is separated into its parts (the contrary whereof hath been made out § 84.) and this is that they call Annihilation. For as to that which Annihilation properly im­ports, thereof they can frame no image or apprehension, for otherwise they would have an apprehension of nothing: For An­nihilation signifies the turning of a thing to nothing.

But some perhaps will say, true it is that the Being of a Soul is not Annihilated; but that the Soul when the Body dyes re­turns to the Universal Spirit, But first we are to consider what is meant by the Universal Spirit, for if there­by they understood the Divine Essence, as if Souls were a part thereof: this is im­possible for the Reason alledged §. 4. and [Page 152]more especially because the Soul is mutable as to its Thoughts, Will and Works; whereas the Divine Essence is unchangeable in all these, as is shewed §. 24.

If by the Universal Spirit they under­stand the Essence of the World, neither is that possible, because this supposed, Spi­rits would be Divisible; which cannot be, as hath been shewed §. 83.84. because the Soul is a Spirit, and therefore not subject to partibility.

§ 86. For as much then, as it follows from the Attributes of God, that the Soul cannot be Annihilated, because she hath been without beginning in God, we may by the same consequence conclude, that she is not Created out of nothing: For to Create a thing out of Nothing imports, that the thing Created did receive the first beginning of its Being in that Creation, but this cannot be, because all Souls have been without beginning in God, and therefore before the Creation, as may be seen §. 24.25, 27. Where the Creation is treated of, and where it is shewed what Creation doth import or signify, and what not.

§. 87. Seing therefore that Souls are without beginning, we are to understand and take Notice, That all the Souls that be­long to the World, were in the Creation at once, and altogether Created God: That [Page 153]is, Souls were put in such a state or condi­tion in the Creation, that they might sub­due what is Tangible, and Visible, and have Dominion over it; for that the word to Create, can in no wise signifie the pro­duction of a thing out of nothing, hath been abundantly shewed in §. 27.

Now that all Beings appertaining to this world must have been Created at once in the Cre­ation is a consequence deducible from the Di­vine Wisdom, as hat been shewed §. 30.31. and have also demonstrated the same at large from the Nature of the Creation, §. 32. And for as much as the Soul belongs to man, and Man is a part of the World, therefore it necessarily follows, that all Souls were Created by God at once in the Creation.

§. 88. But to evidence the Impossibility of Gods Creating new Souls every day, we will enquire a little what Absurdities do inevitably follow upon this Position, that God Creates the Soul in the Body at the in­stant of Generation.

First therefore, if God daily Creates Souls, I would demand of those who grant according to the Holy Scriptures, that we all sinned in Adam, how according to their supposal of Gods daily Creating Souls, there can be any Truth, or so much as any possi­bility [Page 154]in this Assertion. For is it not cer­tain that man consists not only of a Body, but also of a Soul? And is it not of equal Truth, that the Soul is much more worthy, and excellent than the Body, se­ing that she is immortal and doth govern the Body, pursuant to her Will and Thoughts? §. 81.82, 84. Seing therefore the Man consists, not only of a Body, but also of a Soul, and that the Soul is much more excellent than the Body, and the same which thinks, desires, or lusts, and that lust or Concupiscence is the first Rise of Sin. The Query is therefore, if so be all Men have sinned in Adam, and are par­takers with him in his sin; whether I say, if this be so, all Souls must not of necessity have been in Adam, for as much as they are the most Excellent, and by many de­grees the most valuable Parts of Man, and the Governours of the Body?

If any one say, that it is not necessary that all Souls should have been in Adam, at that time that he Sinned; for that God hath imputed the sin of Adam to his poste­rity, because they all as to their Bodies de­scended from him. But I would demand of those what Reasonableness or Equity there would be in this, if God, in Creating Souls, should make them sinful; for the souls of Adams Posterity could not sin, nor [Page 155]consent to his sin, because according to their Opinion they were not yet Created; and therefore cannot be now Created sin­ful, by an imaginary Imputation of Adams sin. Neither do those who Preach these devised Fables, ever consider how repug­nant the same is to the Essence of God. For what will become of the Divine Justice, if God punisheth men for a sin which was committed some thousands of Years be­fore ever they were Created, and conse­quently could not be guilty of, or accesso­ry to the same? That this is absolutely inconsistent with Gods Justice, see §. 35.

But perhhaps it will be said that Souls are therefore Created sinful by God, because they are to be joined to asinful Body, de­scended from Adam. But let these shew me the least shadow or appearance of Rea­son there is in this Consequence, viz. That God Creates Souls sinful, because the Bodies to which they are to be joined are so. For my part, I boldly assert, that no man will ever be able to give me any Reason coherent in all its parts, and con­sistent with the Divive Wisdom, why the Chiefest part of Man should be made sinful, because the Inferior and servile part is so. But suppose we should grant them this their absurd Position, viz. That Souls be­cause [Page 156]of the Sinful Bodies to which they must be joined, have sin imputed to them by God, and are therefore Created sinful; yet I further demand of them, what rea­son there is, why the Souls when they are first Created, at the instant of Generation, are thrust into sinful Bodies? Or what Communion or Felloship they can have with such sinful Bodies? Seing that they never committed any sin? Will they say that God would have it so? Then it must follow from hence, that as soon as God hath Created a sinless Soul, his Will and Pleasure is immediatly to send it into a sinful Body. But what Reasonableness or Equity would there be in this, that God should punish a Soul and make it sinful by Imputation, before ever it had commit­ted any sin, and this meerly for the sinful Bodies sake in which she is to dwell? More­over when they say that God doth not bestow this Perfection upon Souls in their Creation, because of the imputation of Adams Sin? Do not they hereby intimate, that God doth not Create Souls perfect. viz. So as Adams Soul was Created, for this must be their meaning, when they say that God now Creates Souls perverse (for imper­fect is the same as perverse,) but why then do they tell us upon other occasions, [Page 157]that whatsoever God Creates is very good, and that God is not the Author of sin? For these things are contradictory to one another, and by this means the Divine At­tributes are made to oppose and clash against one another.

In the second place, when they assert, that the Souls are then first Created when their Bodies are Generated by their Pa­rents; what shadow of Wisdom or Rea­son is there in this, that whereas the Souls are Created at once, and all alike, that one Soul should be thrust into a Beggars Body, or into some other more mise­rable Circumstantiated Lodging, and ano­ther advanced to a Royal State and Dig­nity by means of the Body to which it is preferred; that one should be Born of Good, and another of Bad Parents, when yet in worthiness they are all of them equal, and all of them alike pure and sin­ [...]ess? Will they say that God does this [...]ccording to his Free-will, and that he may and can thus differrently dispose of Souls at his good pleasure? But indeed we shall find the quite contrary when we [...]ome to examine this matter, and that God neither will nor can do any such [...]hing, as hath been shewed §. 22 and 36.

Thirdly, If it be so that the Soul is [Page 158]Created when the Body is begotten, then it will follow, that when the Act of Ge­neration is performed in Whoredom, or Adultery, that God must Create a Soul for the Body so Generated, and so the Creation of the Soul will depend on the Generation of Men, because the Soul ac­cording to them, is never Created but at the Generation of the Body.

Fourthly, Seing that the Body is Gene­rated by the Parents, and consequently must have been in Being before it was Generated; for as much as the least Bo­dy is not now produced, the Essentiality whereof was not in the Creation, no reason can be alledged, why God should not as well have Created the Souls of Men in the beginning, as that which is corporeal.

But then it will be asked, where were then all those Souls that were Created to­gether in the Creation, seing they had not yet any Bodies of their own? To which I answer, that they were all in Adam as in their first Parent from hom they af­terwards came forth. But this will b [...] thought very strange, that so many thou­sands of Souls should be in one Man Ye [...] is not this at all impossible, for how ma­ny thousand Images of men and othe [...] [Page 159]thing have we within us that we have seen. Now all these Images that we have received from abroad are likewise Spiritual Beings (as hath been shewed in the Observations about Man §. 44.45) and yet they take up no space in us. Where­fore as a man may have Millions of spiri­tual Beings or Images in him, in like manner he is capable also of having ma­ny thousands of Souls in him, because they also are Spiritual Beings, and there­fore take up no Room in him, all which Souls by Means of Generation, are as it were wrought out from him, or brought forth to outward Manifestation in distinct Bodies and times. And to make this more clear by an Example, we see that a Tree brings forth its Fruit every Year, which it could not do, if the Life and Essence of those Fruits had not been in the Tree before their Production: so that this Life lies so long hid in the Tree, then till, according to the Order of Nature, the time of bringing for Fruit be come.

§. 89. And for as much as from §. 87. it is evident that Souls were Created altoge­ther by God in the Creation, this likewise overthrows that Position, which asserts That the Souls of Men are Generated by the Parents, [Page 160]viz. After the same manner as the Body is: For as in Generation some part of the Corporeal Substance goes away from the Parents, so if they were Generators of the Soul, as well as of the Body, they would loose some part of their Souls in the Act of Generation, which is impossible, for that the Soul being a Spi­rit, according to §. 83.84 must consequent­ly be indivisible.

§ 90. Seing therefore, that the Soul or Life doth uphold and form its own Bo­dy, as hath been shewed §. 82. and hath existed together with it in the Creation § 87. and consequently proceeds from one and the same beginning with it, it fol­lows, That the Soul must consist of the same Principles, whence the Body takes its Original. For if the Soul did not consist of the very same Principles whence the Essence of the Body doth proceed, she could never have any Communion or Fellowship with the Body, because two things of a different Ori­ginal can never unite or Co-operate, except it be by means of a third that partakes of both their Essences.

Moreover, for as much as Souls were in the Creation, as well as Bodies, and that whatsoever was in the Creation, did proceed from one only, it follows that the Soul [Page 161]must consist of the same Principles whence the Body took its Original. Now Bodies consist of two things, Viz. Fire and Wa­ter, and this Fire and Water are Spiritual Beings in their beginning or Principles whence they proceed, as hath been shewed at large in the Observations concerning Man, from § 7. to 21. And therefore we con­clude that the Soul consists of a Spiritual, Fiery, and Watery Essence.

And that the Soul consists of these two, we may be further informed from hence, that the Soul in Scripture is also called [...] Breath, as is shewed §. 47. and Gen. 2.7. it is said that God Breathed into his (Adams) nostris the Breath of Life, where­by is intimated that the Life or Soul doth enjoy, and make use of Breath or Aire, for the upholding, and support of its Actions or Operations, as every one in himself doth experience, that without taking of Breath or Respiration, his Soul or life cannot maintain or preserve the Body; as is shewed at large in the Consider ations con­cerning Man § 62.63, 64, and 68. If so be therefore, that the Soul it self, is some­times called Breath, and doth enjoy, or make use of Breath or Air, for the preser­ving of her Body, consequently the Soul must partake with the Air, and proceed from the same beginning as it doth. Now [Page 162]it is certain that the Air consists of a Fiery and Watery Essence, as in the said Consi­derations § 65. hath been shewed.

But against this it will be objected that if the Soul Consists of the same Principles, whence the Body Originally came forth, then it is not impossible but that the Soul may become Corporeal. To which Ob­jection I answer, First, that it is no neces­sary consequence, because the Soul and Body proceed from the same Principles, that therefore the Soul may become Bodi­ly: As will appear from this Example, Gold and Iron proceed from the same Principles, but yet we cannot conclude from hence, that Gold can be changed in­to Iron; because Gold is advanced to that degree of Perfection, that it always abides Gold, to which Iron hath not yet attained, and therefore is subject to Rust, and turns to earth again. But the Perfection of Gold appears in this, that it endures the Fire without loss or diminution, which Iron doth not, but is burnt and consumed by it. Yet on the other hand it is true also (that is, Reason teacheth us, and it must be true in Nature, tho' we cannot give an ocular Demonstration of it) that seing Iron con­sists of the same Principles as Gold doth, it can also arive, through manifold dying, and suffering, to the same degree of Per­fection [Page 163]which Gold hath. And the same may be said concerning the Soul and that which is Bodily, that tho' they both proceed from the same Principles, yet doth it not follow therefore, that the Soul can become Corporeal, because she is arrived to that perfection which renders her indivisible and unchangeable in her Essence. Tho' it be a true Consequence that the Body for­asmuch as it consists of the same Principles as the Soul doth, that it may arrive to that degree of Perfection as to become Spiri­tual.

In the second place, if so be the Soul or Life could become Corporeal, then might all things in time come to be dead, and without any Operation at all; which can never be, because God hath brought forth all things in Order, so that all things must be wrought out, that is, brought forth to manifestation according to due Order, (which cannot be done without activity) and not always continue dead and depriv­ed of all Efficiency.

Thirdly, if the Life of every thing could become Bodily, then the Creatures might bring forth young of a different kind from themselves, viz. Sheep might bring forth Birds, and Men Sheep, &c. For there is no difference in Bodies but what they derive from their Life, which according to its [Page 164]peculiar Efficiency and Property doth form its own Body. Besi [...]es, if the Life of eve­ry Creature could become Corporeal, then all of them would have the same Flesh and Form, forasmuch as they partake of the same Nourishment; but nature teach­eth us the contrary, viz. That each kind hath its own Form and Flesh, whence it is evident that each kind doth unchangeably retain its own Life, as hath been shewed in the Observations concerning Man, §. 33.

But some will object, if the Soul of Man consists of the same Principles, whence the Life of other Creatures is derived, what Perfection then hath man more then they? to which I answer, that tho' all lives pro­ceed from the same Principles, yet do they differ in their Efficiency and Perfection: for all Creatures have not the same under­standing and Wisdom: And what Crea­ture hath more Wisdom then Man, who can rule all Creatures? Besides Man hath this Prerogative also above all Creatures, who is made according to the Image of God, of which see Chapter 2d. and the Observations concerning Man, §. 46.47. &c.

§. 91. Seing therefore that the Soul con­sists of the same Principles with the Body, whence may be understood, that the Soul [Page 165]can work on the Body, so from the same head we may gather, how the Soul my be­come Sinful: as shall be shewed when we come to treat of the Fall of Man.

Only thus much I shall say here by the by, that it will be impossible for any Man ever to make out, how the [...]oul is become sinful, save only by this way: And because men know little of the Nature, and Essence of things, therefore it is that they torment and vex themselves with that old and long bandied Question, how or by what means the Soul is become sinful.

§ 92. But some Perhaps will Query, Seing that the Soul is become sinful, by what means can she be delivered from sin? To which we answer, that the Soul may be meliorated, by recovering of the Image of God as hath been shewed at large §. 61.62, 63. &c. The means whereby we may at­tain to this Melioration, and recover the Image of God, shall be shewed in the sequel.

§. 93. And because many things are to be considered in order to the full Elucidation of the State and condition of Souls, and whither they pass after Death, we will put off the handling this Question to that part wherein we intend to treat of the Restitu­tion of a Sinner.

CHAP. V. Of the Body and the Principles whereof it doth consist, together with the State of Adam before the Fall.

§. 94. WE have shewed the necessity of the Souls consisting of the same Principles whence the Body is pro­duced; as on the other hand it is as true that Bodies proceed from the same prin­ciples whereof the Soul consists: and that the Body hath its own proper Life, over and above its being governed by the Soul or its Principal Spirit. For when the Soul or Life doth cease from its former Opera­tions, and that the Body thereupon dies, yet we shall find that these dead Bodies after­wards turn to Worms, &c. Yea experi­ence teacheth us that sometimes the Hair and Nails of a Dead Body do grow, which proves that the Body hath its own Life be­sides the Soul or general Life, which up­holds [Page 167]the Body in its form or Essence, as long as she continues in her former Work­ing or Efficiency.

§. 95. But some will ask why since the Body hath its own life, man doth notwith­standing stand in need of a Soul or Life. For answer to this, I desire the Enquirer to consider, that mans Body being fed by the Creatures, he enjoys and partakes of the Life of them, which Life of the Crea­tures, if it were not transmuted in man, so as to comply with the Operation or Effi­ciency of Man it could never be of use for the support or preservation of Man. To the end therefore, that the Creatures and their Life might be for the sustenance of the Bodies of Men, it was necessary that man should have his own life, and that the said Life should be Master, and dispose of the Life of the Creatures, according to its pleasure, as a General Governs and Commands his whole Army. Wherefore it is absolutely necessary that man should have a Soul or Life, that may superintend, Rule and Govern all the Lives and Spirits that are in his Body. Of the Soul or Cen­tral Spirit hath been Treated in the Obser­vations concerning Man. §. 33.51.

§. 96. These Principles now, whereof [Page 168]the Body, and all Creatures whether Cor­poreal or Spiritual do consist, can be no more than two, that is, neither three nor four, for nothing is produced in the whole Universe, but from two different Natures, as we find in Fishes, Birds, Beasts, and Men, viz. That all Generation is perfor­med by Male and Female, without any in­tervening third Principle different from the Male and Female Essence. So likewise neither Trees, nor any other Vegetables bring forth Fruit, but from the Union of these two Principles. For tho' the Sun, Water, Earth, Dung, &c. may be apply­ed to Plants and Trees; yet will the Sun, the Water, Earth and Dung, be found to consist only of these two Principles, if they be resolved into their Parts. So that these will never constitute a third Prin­ciple, Essentially differing from the two former.

§. 97. These two Principles whereof all Creatures consist, are Fire and Water: And that all Animals and Vegetables con­sist of a Fiery Essence, experience teach­eth us, in that they can be burnt. For the Fire that we make to warm our selves by (which is the Fire of the Creatures, mentioned in our Considerations concerning Man, §. 14.) must continually be main­tained [Page 169]with Wood, &c. or else it would cease to burn: Wherefore that which is laid upon the Fire for Fewel, must have a Fire in it, which is capable of being exci­ted. Yea, it would be altogether impossible to make any thing burn if it had not a Fiery Es­sence in it. That the Creatures have a Fire in them hath been shewed in the Observati­ons concerning Man, §. 9. &c.

§. 98. And as all Creatures have a Fire in them, so their Bodily Principle is Wa­ter, for the last thing into which Bodies can be resolved is Water: And the Water, viz. the Heavenly and Spiritual cannot be reduced to another Essence, that is, into a Prin­ciple out of which the said Spiritual Water was produced at first, but continues always Water: so that the Water is a Principle from whence all Bodies derive their Ori­ginal. Now that all Bodies proceed from water is very evident from this Experi­ment: A very credible Person, and good Friend hath told me, that he had met with a certain Water, which being distill'd with a gentle Heat did always produce Sand, which was left at the bottom of the Glass, and this notwithstanding that it had before been Filtred through Paper. So that Nature teacheth us, that Sand hath its Original from Water.

Besides it is well known that Sand and and stones are of the same Nature, and of kin to one another. For experience teacheth us, that many Fishes that have their Original from Water, do make Stones, as Oysters, Cockles and other Shel-Fish, whose Shells are Stone, as appears in this, that like Limestone, they may be burnt into Lime. Neither do these Shells grow outwardly or Circumferentially upon them, but from within, for it is observed that as the Fish increaseth, so the Shell in­creaseth also. We find also in Cockle Shells that are spotted, that they increase and grow bigger, according as the Cockles themselves do: Which is an evident de­monstration, that the Shells of Fishes re­ceive their increase or growth from with­in, viz. from the Life of the Fishes to which they belong. Seing therefore that Fishes consist of Water, and are nourished there­with, their Shells must derive their Ori­ginal from the same Water, and conse­quently this assure us, that Stones are the product of Water.

Nature also holds forth the same thing to us, for there is a Mountain in Swit­zerland, which gives forth Water from each side of it, the one where­of makes Stone, and the other wastes and consumes it. The same is also further [Page 171]confirmed by another Operation of Na­ture, for it hath been found that in some Mountains there is found a Water drop­ping from Stones, which in its dropping down is turned into Stone, whereof see further in the Observations concerning Man, §, 18.19.

And that all Bodies derive their Origi­nal from the Water I have also shewed §. 27. and in my Observations, &c. §. 7.8.18. &c.

§. 99. Seing that §. 27. it hath been said that all Essences of things are spiritual, and the product of that which is spiritual, it follows that Fire and Water, being the two Principles whereof all Creatures con­sist, they must be spiritual Beings also.

§. 100. To demonstrate therefore that Fire is a spiritual Being, let us first Ob­serve that Fireis the Life of the Creatures. For experience teacheth that when any breath­ing Creature dies it turns cold, and is depri­ved of the heat and warmth it had when yet alive: Which may convince us, that seing the Life, as long as it continues in its Operation doth warm Man, or any other Animal, and sometimes cast him into extream heat, it must therefore be a Fiery Being.

Moreover, Experience teacheth us, that things that are dead or mortified, as dead or rotten Wood, &c. doth not afford so much Fire, or does not burn so well, as Wood that is yet sound and alive; which is an Argument that the Life of Wood is a Fiery Essence.

Thirdly, Man experienceth in himself that the warmer he is (provided the Warmth be regular and natural) the more lively and chearful he is also, and on the contrary, the colder he is, the less fit he is to do any thing. Yea, there is nothing more notorious than that a Man that dies of a lingering Disease, grows still Colder and Cold­er, for proportionably as the Activity or Operativenes of his Life decreas­eth, so the cold encreaseth, which most clearly demonstrates to us, that the Life is a Fire. The same thing is also made out in our Observations concer­ning Man, §. 11.12. &c.

§. 101. Seing therefore, that the Fiery Essence is the Life of the Crea­tures, and that the Life hath nei­ther Limitation nor Extension, conse­quently the Fiery Essence must be a [Page 173] Spirit, and this we have made out §. 82.83. and in our Observations con­cerning Man, §. 13.34, 35, 36, 37. to which I refer my Reader.

§. 102. And like as the Fire is a Spi­rit, so is likewise the Watry Essence, which is the other Principle whereof all Creatures consist; according to §. 98. a Spiritual Essence. For tho' the low­er Waters be visible, and Tangible, yet is their Original spiritual, because the Waters partake with the Aire, and are one and the same Nature, and the Aire doth partake and is in Uni­on with an Essence that is so spiritual that it cannot be shut out any where, but pierceth through all Bodies, which spiritual Essence is by the Philoso­phers called Aether, or Materia Sub­tilis, which is always in conjunction with the Aire. If therefore the Aire have in it such a spiritual Essence, it must also have Communion with the same, and therefore must be partaker of the Nature of that spiritual Essence. And as the Air is partaker of the Na­ture of the Aether, so likewise the Air Communicates with the Inferior Wa­ters, and this Communication teach­eth [Page 174]us that the Inferior Waters de­rive their Original from the same spi­ritual Principle as the upper Wa­ters do.

And for as much as the Images which Man sends forth from himself, are Spiritual Beings (as hath been shewed in my Observations concerning Man, §. 44.45.) and no Images can be made of Bodies, it follows that the Bodies from whence Images do proceed, must have a spiritual Original or Principle and this Principle of Bodies is the Water, accor­ding to §. 98. from all which it is evi­dent that the Aqueous Essence must be spiritual.

The Birth of Man also teacheth us the same thing; for seing that every Humane birth must first be spiritual, before it can be corporeal; as hath been shewed in my Observations Concerning Man §. 93.94. And that the Body is formed of the Female or Lunar watry Essence, as in the foresaid Observations, §. 95. hath been shewed: wherefore it follows that the Water in its Original or Principle must be spiri­tual.

Moreover it is a Fundamental Truth, that nothing can be ultimately resolved into any other matter, except that whereof it doth con­sist: When therefore the Scripture tells [Page 175]us, that that which is Bodily, must be made spiritual, doth not this plainly im­ply, that Bodies proceed from a spiritu­al Principle?

If any one should say, that when the Scripture speaks of the Body, being made spiritual, it doth not intend thereby, that our Bodies should be so spiritualiz'd as to become invisible, and to penetrate other Bodies: We dare tell such a one to his face, that he doth not know what it is to be spiritual, nor what the Scrip­ture doth signify by that word. Now that the Body may become spiritual, as to be invisible, and to penetrate other Bodies, we may learn from our Savi­our, whose Body, after his Resurrection was so spiritual, that when the Disci­ples had shut the Doors upon them for fear of the Jews, he notwithstanding en­tred, and stood in the midst of them, Ioh. 20.19, 26. Which is not specified in Scripture to no purpose, but to teach us that our Bodies must be made spiritual, even as Christ had made his such. Not that we are to understand here, that Christ by vertue of his Divine Nature made his Body thus spiritual, for this hath no place here; nor must we have recourse to the Divine Omnipotence: for if there were not a Principle of spiritualization, [Page 176]or being made spiritual in all Bodies, God himself would never make Bodies spiritu­al. Our Saviour therefore was willing to teach us by his spiritual Body, that we as being his Members and followers, shall obtain such a spiritual Body, as soon as we are perfectly and wholly dead: And therefore the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 15.42, 43, 44. That it (the Body) is sown in Corruption, it is raised in Incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in Glory: it is sown in Weakness, it is raised in Power; A Natural (properly Soulish) Body is sown, but it is raised a Spiritual Body. And V. 53. For this Corruption must put on Incorruption; and this Mortal must put on Immortality. Which ways of Expression do plainly intimate to us, that that which is bodily must become spiritual; and if it can be made spiritual, then consequently its Principle must be a spiritual Being. That the Water is a spiritual Essence I have shewed in my Ob­servations concerning Man, § 20.

But forasmuch as it hath been shewed §. 97.98. That all Creatures consist of a Fiery and Watry Essence, and that these Essences are spiritual, according to §. 100.101, 102. It follows that the Essentiality of Bodies cannot be Annihilated: Because the Essentiality from whence Bodies Origi­nally do proceed, hath been in God with­out [Page 177]beginning. Of which see more §. 24.25, and 85.

§. 104. Seing therefore tha the Crea­tures have their Original from these two spiritual Essences, the next thing we are to enquire into is, What difference there is betwixt the Fiery and Watry Essence.

It hath been shewed §. 100. that Fire is the Life of all Creatures; that is, that which supports and upholds them in their Efficiency or Activity: To the end there­fore that we nay know wherein the Wa­try Essence differs from the Fiery, it will be necessary for us to enquire a little into the nature of the Watry Essence.

It is known by Experience, that the Fire and Water are two Essences, that stand opposite to each other; that is, the Fire Warms, and the Water Cools, so that the Water hath a contrary Operation or Efficiency to Fire; for as the Fiery es­sence quickens, so the Watry kills, or is the Cause of Death. And thus much daily Experience teacheth us; for when Cold, which partakes of the nature of the Watry Essence, gets the Dominion, and bears sway, then Death follows.

Moreover, that the Watry Essence in­clines to Rest, and Death, in opposition to the Vivifying Fiery Essence, may be [Page 178]hence discernible; because the Watry cool­ing and Refrigerating Essence hath Domi­nion in the Night, as the Fiery in the Day: This being the Order which God hath established in the World, viz. That the Sun which is a Fiery Being, should Rule or have Dominion over the Day, and the Moon over the Night. Gen. 1.16. And for as much as the Moon is Refrige­rative or Cooling like the Water, and hath Dominion over the Water, as hath been shewed in our Observations concerning Man, §. 25. Consequently it must be of the na­ture of Water. Seing therefore that the Moon is of the Watry Essence, and hath Dominion over the Night, and that the Night causeth Rest and Sleep, as hath been shewed in the aforesaid Observations, §. 26. and that Sleep is Death in a less degree, as hath been shewed in our Observations, §. 32. from all this I say, it follows, that the Watry Essence must be Operative of sleep and death.

From what hath been said we may also understand the contrary Observation of the Water, to that of the Fiery Essence: For as Heat and Cold, Life and Death are op­posite to one another; so likewise is Light and Darkness: Now it is evident that Light proceeds from the Fiery Essence, and therefore by consequence, the Watry Es­sence [Page 179]must excite Darkness, because Fire and Water are contrary to each other, and therefore we must conclude that the contrary Effects of Light and Darkness are the Product of their opposite Essences.

§. 105. Now that the Watry Essence in­cludes Darkness in it self, the Moon will in­form us, which being a Watry Essence, Rules or bears Dominion by Night, over the Darkness, and therefore must partake of Darkness: For where there is a Domi­nion, there must also [...]e a Union or Com­munication with that which is Ruled, and where there is a Union, there must be al­so a Participation of the same Nature.

Furthermore it is evident from the Crea­tion that the Watry Essence doth partake of the Darkness; for Gen. 1.1, 2. It is said, that in the beginning God Created the Heaven and Earth: Where Moses inti­mates to us, through or by whom Created the World, viz. in or through the Begin­ning, [...] in the Principle or Beginning as it is said John 1.1. And this [...] is the same with [...], the Word, viz. Jesus Christ, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and John in the same place expresly tells us. And that Moses, Gen. 1.1. intimates to us, by whom God Created the Word, is evi­dent from hence, because when God Crea­ted [Page 180]the World, there was not yet any Be­ginning of time. Besides, what Wisdom can there otherwise be found in these Words, when it is said that in the begin­ning God Created Heaven and Earth, if by the Beginning be meant only the beginning of time, which can signifie no more than this, that when God Created the World, he did Create it. For all Men know, that every thing must have a Beginning of Being that thing which it is, when it is first pro­duced; this is self evident, neither can it be said of any thing, after that it is Crea­ted, that it shall yet be Created. So that there would be not only no Wisdom in these Words of Moses, but not so much as any passable Sence, should we take them in the meaning, according to which most men now a days do apprehend them.

But what is more, the Words will not so much as contain a Truth, if by [in the Beginning] we understand the Beginning of time; for time is nothing else but a Limi­tation, we conceive in our thoughts, either according to the Course of the Sun, or the motion of any other thing from one place to another. Now where there is a Limi­tation or Measuring, there must of necessi­ty be some Created thing, by or according to which the said Measuring is performed: so that it is evident there could be no time, till after the Creation of the world, And not [Page 181]before it. When therefore it is said that God Created the Heaven and the Earth in the Beginning, viz. of time; then time must have been before the World was; because when God Created (if we may express our selves so) there was yet no Beginning of the World; but after that God had Cre­ated the World, then first it was that the World began to Exist, and consequently Time also; for as much as Time is nothing else but a Limitation taken from Crea­tures, and therefore a thing that is con­sequential, and posterior to the things that are Created, as hath been just now shewed. So that it would be altogether repugnant to the Nature of the Creation, if by the [Beginning] should should be under­stood the beginning of time. Moreover, that by these Words in the Beginning is to be understood Jesus Christ; is a thing con­firmed by many Authors, and particularly by Leigh in his Critica Sacra under the Word [...]

After that Moses therefore, Gen. 1.1. had shewed by whom the World was Cre­ated, he next tells us, V. 2d. how or in what condition the Earth was when God had Created it, viz. Empty and void, whereby is intimated, that all the Essences that were to come forth from the Earth, and belonged to the same, lay hid and [Page 182]concealed in the Earthly Essence, but were not yet fit to Operate, or bring forth Fruit, as appears from hence; because V. 8. on the Third day, the Waters were first di­vided from the Earth, and then it was that the Earth brought forth her Fruit. V. 11. And the reason why the Earth was Empty and Void, and could not yet bring forth Fruit, was because Darkness was upon the the face of the Deep: That is, the Fire or Light was yet hid in the Water or Dark­ness and therefore the Light could not as yet be Operative, and bring forth Fruits. And after that Moses had shewed, how all beings were hid in the Creation, and that in such a manner as that they could not yet orderly exert their Efficiency, which they began first to do in the days following; he proceeds next to tell us, from what, and in what manner the Creation was perform­ed, or carried on, and that in these words, and the Spirit of God moved upon the Waters: Whence it is evident, that all Beings were produced out of the Water, according to §. 98. and that by the Spirit. Now the first thing that was brought forth from the Waters was the Light, which was hid in Darkness, or in the Watry Essence. For V. 4. it is said, that God separated the Light from the Darkness: So that the Light was already, viz. before its Manifestation, but [Page 183]hid in the Darkness: For as much as all things were brought forth from out of the Water, by the Spirit, and the Light is said to come out of the Darkness; & there­fore we may infer from hence, that the Darkness and the Water are to be taken for one and the same Essence; as Moses seems plainly enough to intimate with these words; and the Darkness he called Night, V. 5. For experience teacheth us, that Night or Darkness is the cause of Cold and Water. Wherefore we are to learn hence, that Darkness Communicates with the Wa­try Essence. And when it is said V. 16. And the lesser Light (the Moon) to rule the Night, this informs us that the Moon is of the Nature of the Night or Darkness; and this in true, for experience teacheth us, that the Moon Rules over the Water and gives forth moisture, as the Night or Darkness also doth. All wich Obser­vations put together, do in my judgement make it very evident, that the Darkness is one and the same with the Watery Essence.

And for a further proof that the Watry Essence is the Darkness, we will here com­pare some Expressions of the Holy Scrip­ture together, and see what understanding the same will afford us, with relation to this Matter. Man, as long as he lives and cleaves to sin, is said to be in Darkness, [Page 184] Iohn 3.19. Rom. 2.19. &c. and this Dark­ness is the Essence of Bodies, as we are taught, Rom. 13.12. Let us cast off the works of Darkness. Which Works of Darkness the Apostle enumerates, V. 13. viz. Riot­ing, Drunkenness, Chambering, and Wanton­ness, Strife and Envying. In order to the prevention of these, he adviseth us, V. 14. not to make provision for the Flesh, for the gratifying of its Lusts. Whence it is ob­vious to understand and that Flesh and Dark­ness have Communion together. This is that which the Apostle shews at large, Eph. 14. and 5. Chapter, where he declares that the unfruitful Works of Darkness are the old Man, that is, the unsubdued state of the flesh. And therefore, as the Darkness is not good; so the Apostle Rom. 7.18. tells us of the Flesh, that no good dwells in it, with many other places to the same purpose. From all which it is evident, that that which is Fleshly and Corporeal, is one with the Darkness, because that which is bodily contains the Darkness in it self. Now it hath been shewed §. 27. and 97. That that which is bodily consists of the Watry Essence, or hath its Original from it: And seing that the Bodily part is called Darkness, and that it consists of Water, it follows that the Darkness and Watry Essence must needs partake with each other, and be one.

§. 106. And like as the Fiery Essence is a Spirit, so also is the Water a Spiritual Being, according to §. 102. and therefore the Watry Essence hath its Efficiency or Activity as well as Fiery, as hath been shewed §. 104. And that all Fiery Spirits or Lives, have not all of them one and the same Efficiency is evident from what we read of the good Angels, which in Heb. 1.7. are called Flames of Fire: Some of them also are called Cherubims, others Sera­phims, that is Fiery Spirits, &c. The Apostle also Col. 1.16. makes a more par­ticular distinction between them, calling them Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, And Eph. 1.20.21. And set him (Christ) at his own right hand in the Heaven­ly places, far above all Principality, Power, Might, and Dominion, and every name that is named. If any one should say that there are only different Denominations given to Spi­rits, and that notwithstanding they may all of them be of one and the same Effici­ency, I would demand of such a one, of what use then it is to give them these dif­ferent Denominations: for if the Apostle designed only to express one and the same thing, by all these Names, then it is no bet­ter then a vain Repetition of so many words. Besides it is well known that Names are given to distinguish things [Page 186]from one another, and to express the Pro­perty, Use, and Operation of the Subject to which such a Name is given. When therefore the Holy Scripture makes a dif­ference betwixt Spirits, and Spirits, by gi­ving them divers Names, ought not we to conclude that these different Denomina­tions signifie the various Properties and Operations of Spirits, as well as the Names of visible, and Tangible Substances, do ex­press their Properties and Operations. To what purpose therefore is it to make this Childish evasion here concerning Spirits, in a matter which is a Received Truth in all other natural things, viz. That names are given to things to distinguish them in their Operations from one another. But these are the Fruits of our Modern Carna­lity, we will know of nothing but what is bodily, because we are altogether ig­norant of what is Spiritual. But that the Angels have their different Operations is evident from the Revelations, where we find a description of several Angels, and their different Operations.

Neither do the Angels only differ thus, but continual Experience also teacheth us, that the Lives or fiery Spirits of the Crea­tures do differ from one another in their Operations; for all Lives do not bring forth the same kind of Bodies, but as the [Page 187]Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 5. All Flesh is not the same Flesh, &c. and why so, but because the Lives which form the Flesh and Body (as may be seen in the Observations concerning Man § 37.38.39) have not all of them the same Efficiency.

§. 107. And as all Fiery Spirits or Lives have not the same Efficiency, so neither are the watry, dark, or refrigerating Essences of one operation, as hath been shewed in the said Observation, §. 28 and 33.

The Holy Scripture also Informs us, that the Watry Essence consists of many different Spirits, for since according to §. 105. the Watry Essence, and the Dark­ness are one, and the Scripture asserts the Darkness to be an Essence, and not a mere nothing, seing that it hath its own proper Operations, as appears Rom. 13.12. Let us cast off the Works of Darkness; and Eph. 5.11. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful Works of Darkness. Which proves that Darkness is a Being, because it hath its pe­culilar Operations, and what these works of Darkness are, hath been shewed §. 105. Neither hath the Darkness only an Effici­ency of its own but consists also of many Spirits, which have their Government, and Governours, as will be evident by comparing the following Places; Luke 22. [Page 188]53. our Saviour saith, This is the Power of Darkness, viz. That whereby the Seed of the Serpent should bruise his heel. And this Power of Darkness our Savoiour calls, John 12.31. and 14.30. the Prince of this World: which Prince Eph. 2.2. is called the Prince of the Power of the Aire, the Prince of the Spirit that now worketh in the Children of Disobedience. And V. 3. tells us, that the operations of this Spirit are the Lusts of the Flesh. Whence it appears that this Spirit hath Communion with the Spirit of Darkness. Moreover, the Apostle Attri­butes to the Flesh, viz. To the Spirit of Darkness which Rules the Flesh, a Will, and Thoughts: And therefore when the Apostle saith, Eph. 6.12. We wrestle not against Flesh and Blood, he thereby intimates to us, that it is not our outward Flesh and Blood that puts this force upon us, but the Spirit that Rules this Flesh, and therefore he immediatly Subjoins, But against Princi­palities, against Powers, against the Rulers of the Darkness of this World, against Spiritual wickedness in high Places. And these Spirits of Darkness the Apostle calls Acts 26.18. Darkness and the Power of Satan, &c.

§. 108. From all which we conclude, that seing that all Bodily things are the Product of the Watry Essence, §. 97. and [Page 189]that the Watry or Dark Essence hath its Spirits §. 107. and the Watry is opposite to the Fiery Essence, §. 104. and that Man consists of the these two Essences §. 90.96. &c. that consequently he must have in him Spi­rits of Darkness, as well as Spirits of Light: which deserves well to be noted by us, for as much as hereafter it will make way for our understanding the Stile, or manner of Expression used in Holy Scripture.

§. 109. But it may be Queried here, se­ing that Man consists of these two Spiri­tual Essences, and that they are opposite to each other, how then can there be any Union between them, so as to Co-operate towards, and bring forth one Birth? This Difficulty will be easily removed, if first we consider what Ʋnity is: Know we therefore, that two Bodies, tho' they dif­fer in their Nature, may notwithstanding be united together, and Co-operate in U­nity, viz. when the one of them is made subject to the other, and in all respects complies with its Operations, so as that the one be Passive, and the other Active. And if such a Unity as we have now descri­bed were not between the Fiery and Wa­try Essence, nothing in the World could be able to subsist or operate any thing. And therefore our Saviour saith, Math 6. [Page 190]24. No man can serve two Masters, for ei­ther he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other; ye cannot serve God and Mammon: That is, the one or the other of them must have Dominion, but cannot both bear sway at once. And to the same purpose the Apo­stle tells us 2 Cor. 6.14. that unbelief can­not have the Dominion in Conjunction with Faith, what Communion hath Light with Darkness? As if he should say it is not possible, that both these should bear sway together, for being contrary to each other, the one must bear Rule over the other, before that they can be united.

Now that there is a Union between these two in Nature, we find by experi­ence, because as long as the fiery Life of each Creature doth perform its ordinary working, the Creature cannot in any of the Members of its Body suffer any putrefaction or Mortification: but as soon as the Life of a Creature is either over-ruled by another, or ceaseth from its wonted Operation, then the Watry Essence gets the Dominion, and causeth Death and Corruption in the said Bodies turning them to Worms, &c.

But some Perhaps will object that I have said §. 90. That no two things of a diffe­rent Original can be united; and how then these two, viz. Light and Darkness can be [Page 191]united, seing they are contrary to one a­nother? To which I answer, first, that it is a Fundamental Truth, that two things of a different Original cannot be united; but this is not the case here, for we do not say that Light and Darkness have a different Original, but only that they have a contrary working: Yea quite contra­rily we do assert, that tho' Light and Dark­ness be contrary to each other in operation, yet that they are of one Original, and therefore can be united together. Now that the Light and Darkness, or the Fiery and Watry Essence have one Original, we may know by this, because the Light comes out of the Dark­ness, and because Darkness may be made Light, and Light Darkness. This we are taught Gen. 1.2 where there was nothing but Darkness, and V. 3. The Light was first brought forth, viz. out of the Dark­ness, for V. 4. God Separates the Light from the Darkness; To which the Apostle Al­ledging, saith 2 Cor. 4.6. God who com­manded the Light to shine out of Darkness. Forasmuch therefore, as the Light pro­ceeds from the Darkness, and can lye hid in the same, consequently they must par­take with one another, and be ally'd toge­ther or derived from one Original: For otherwise the Light could never be turn'd to Darkness, as Matt. 6.23. If then the Light [Page 192]that is in thee be Darknese. And Luke 11.35. Take heed therefore, that the Light which is in thee be not Darkness. And on the contrary, neither would the Darkness ever become Light, which yet is positively asserted Eph. 5.8. For ye were sometimes Darkness but now are ye Light: Neither would a Darkned Understanding ever be capable of being enlightned, which yet is asserted Eph. 3.18.

Both these Objections are also answe­red in my Observations concerning Man § 31.32. And therefore I shall no further en­large upon them here.

§. 110. We shall only by the way take notice here, that if any one from the Exist­ence of thefe two contrary Principles, whereof all Creatures subsist, shall con­clude, that there must be two Gods, one Good and the other Evil, it will be a sign that he hath not considered that the Light may be made Darkness, and the Darkness Light, as is shewed in §. 109. And conse­quently that these two Principles do not suppose two Gods, but one only, because they are ally'd together, and consequent­ly proceed both of them from one God. For if these Principles were not brought forth by one God, but the Effects of two several Deities, then it would be true, that [Page 193]these Principles proceeding from two dif­ferent Causes, could not have any Commu­nion or be united with one another: But seing these Principles are United, this shews that they proceed from one God.

§. 111. Hitherto we have shewed that all Creatures consist of these two Spiritual Essences, and that these two different Be­ings consist of many Spirits: But because our Aime is to shew, how, or in what state Man was Created by God, we are to en­quire what kind of Body it was that God Created for Adam.

§. 112. We have shewed in the 2d. and 3d. Chapters, that Man had in himself the Divine Light, viz. The Image of God, which did Illuminate his Soul and Body. Neither had he only the Image of God in him, but he had also a Soul given him, of which we have Treated Chap. 4th. And be­sides these two, God formed Man a Body out of [...] Adamah, Gen. 2.7. which doth not merely signifie Earth, or Red Earth, (as now a days is supposed) but the Blood of the Earth. For why do our Modern Interpreters say that [...] signi­fies Red Earth, but because [...] Signifies Blood, and Blood is Red. But what wis­dom is there coucht in this, that Adams [Page 194]Body was formed out of Red Earth? For my part I know not what they can make of this. But we shall find a fund of Wis­dom in this word, if we Translate it the Blood of the Earth. For [...] Blood, signi­fies the Life, or the Spiritual part of the Body, as is evident from those places of Scripture that expresly tell us that Blood signifies the Life, or Soul, Gen. 9.4. But Flesh with its Soul (that is) its Blood, &c. and Deut. 12.23. Be sure that thou eat not the Blood, for the Blood is the Soul. Whence we are taught, that Adams Body being formed of [...] it did consist of the Spi­ritual and Soulish part of the Earth, as be­fore hath been shewed, that the Cor­poreal is brought forth from that which is Spiritual.

§. 113. But it is not sufficient for us to know of what the Humane Body was for­med; but we must further enquire why God gave Man a Body.

§. 114. In order therefore to our know­ing why God hath given Adam a Body, we must first of all enquire why Man was Created by God? To which commonly is answered, that Man was Created to Glo­rifie God, and to publish his Virtues and Praise, with other such like, which ex­pressions [Page 195]do contain a Truth, if we under­stand what is required to the Glorifying of God. But that we may not from these Expressions conceive any Humane thoughts of God, as if he were delighted, as Men are with hearing himself praised: Let us enquire into the Bottom of what these words import; and that by putting this Query, whether a man when he Glorifies God, be not operative? To which the answer must be affirmative, because the least Action or Thought is an Operation: If therefore the Glorifying of God be a working; the next thing we are to en­quire is, wherein this Working consists: This Operation of Glorifying God, and Magnifying of his name, doth not consist in this, that God thereby receives more Prefection, or a greater degree of Wor­thiness, and that from his Creature, for as much as God is every way perfect, yea that Being from whom and through whom all things are brought forth, and are still daily maintained; so that God can have no more perfection or worthiness now, than he hath ever had: for as much as to that which is perfect in all respects, nothing more can be added. What then is this Work or Operation of Man, whereby he Glorifies God, and wherein doth it Con­sist? Mans Glorifying of God consists in [Page 196]this, that he performs that which God hath Commanded him, which Command is exprest, Gen. 1.28. And God said unto them be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it, and have Domini­on over the Fish of the Sea, and over the Fowl of the Heaven, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the Earth. So that we see God commands Man to be fruitful, and this Fruitfulness consists in Multiplying, which Expressions are Repeated V. 22. Man was also commanded to Replenish or fill the Earth, that is he should exalt the Earth to that perfection, to which it was to be brought, and advanced, viz. to be made Spiritual and Glorious. And that this is the sence of these words, appears from hence, that man hath an Earthly Body, which is maintained from the Earth, for Man continually Eats and is nourished with that which is Earthly, which Earthly Bo­dy and Food hath been given him to the end he might make it Heavenly and Spiri­tual, as is abundantly shewed, 1 Cor. 15. and V. 54. it is said, that the Sinners Mor­tal Body shall be made Immortal, and in­corruptible, &c. Yea the whole Duty of Man towards his God Consists in this, that he make the Earthly, or Dark and Watry Essence (whereof his Body Origi­nally consists, according to §. 98.) Light [Page 197]and Glorious, and by this means approach near to the Divine, and unchangeable Light, and attain to Communion with the same. And to the end he might thus fill the Earth, that is, make it Spiritual, God also Commanded Adam to subdue the Earth: whereby is not meant that man should have the Earth under his Feet, go upon it, or Till and Cultivate it, for this Nature suf­ficiently teacheth us, neither was there any need of a Command to inforce it: but hereby is intimated to us, that it is the great duty of Man to have the Earth­ly and Dark Essence whereof his Body doth Consist, under his power and Com­mand; so as that the said Dark Essence might not bear Rule over the Fiery, but on the contrary, that his Glorious and Illuminated Spirit, should Rule over the Dark or Watry Essence whereof his Bo­dy doth consist, and over the Spirits that are in it, (of which see §. 107.) and the word [...]signifies to have Dominion over, to Conquer, to bring into Subjection and Obedi­ence. And when we put such a Sence as this upon these Words, Replenish the Earth and Subdue it, we shall find them to hold forth Wisdom and Understanding, and such as doth excellently agree and com­port with the Nature of Man, seing that he consists of these two different Essences, [Page 198] viz. The Fiery and the Watry. Neither is there any thing, throughout the whole Current of Scripture, more prest upon, than to mortify his Flesh, to Subdue it, and Glorifie it through the Spirit, as hath been shewed §. 39.40, 105, 107. So that the same thing which was Commanded to Adam, Gen. 1.28. the Sinner must now obtain through much suffering, and mani­fold Deaths.

§. 115. Seing therefore, that it is the great duty, and Work of Man, pursuant to Gods Command, to Subdue that which is Earthly and Bodily, and to make it Spi­ritual, it was of absolute necessity that he should be partaker of the Earthly, in or­der to his Glorifying of it. And for this Reason Man had an Earthly Body bestow­ed upon him, to the end he should make that Body which is fed and maintained from the Earth Spiritual and illuminate its Darkness.

Moreover, God gave to Man Dominion over the Fishes of the Sea, and over the Fowl of Heaven, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the Earth. And this was ne­cessary because man was appointed to fill or replenish the Earth, and to Subdue it. In the word Earth being also comprehen­ded whatsoever consists of the Earth or [Page 199]Water, because the Earth hath its Original from the Water; to the end therefore that Man might have Dominion over all these Creatures, it was necessary for him to have some Communion with them, that is to be partaker of their Natures, to the end that Ruling over them, he might in, and through the Glorification of his own Body Glorify them also, and make them Spiritual. And this could have been done in and through Adam, because he being the Head of the Earth, did Govern all things by his Spirit, and therefore was partaker of all Living Crèatures, that so they might not be exempted from his Dominion. And that Adam was thus Par­taker of all Living things appears from this, that Man to this day doth Partake of the Fish, Fowl, and Beasts, because he enjoys the same for his Food and Nou­rishment. Moreover, which is well to be minded, he was also to have Dominion over every Creeping thing, viz. Worms and other Infects, which Worms were not without him, for the Body consists of Worms, as appears, because when it dies it turns to Worms, and Worms are the first Life of all Creatures, because all things that die turn to Worms.

§. 116. And to the end we may more [Page 200]clearly Dissect the Condition and Quali­ties of Adam, we are well to consider, that Adam before the Fall, did not con­sist, nor exist as we Sinners now do; for we are part and Members of Adam, which were in Adam, (as is hinted §. 78.) we therefore being the Members of Adam, cannot have the same Perfection which Adam had, who was the whole, that is, who had all Men in himself: And in this respect the Apostle saith very well 1 Cor. 12. That we all are one Body, yet so as that we are Members of that Body, now the Members have not one and the same, or an alike powerful Operaton, neither are all of the same worth and dignity; nor hath every Member separately the same worthiness with the whole Body. Whence we understand that none of Adams Poste­rity can have the Excellency which Adam hath, because Adam is the Head and Body, whereof all Men are only the Members, and every Member Separately hath only the Perfection of being such a Member, and not of being the whole Body.

Neither is Adam only to be considered as the Head of all Mankind, and by con­sequence, far more excellent than any of his Posterity, but such also was the Pre­rogative of Adam, that the had the whole Earth and all Creatures in himself, that is, [Page 201]that he Ruled over them all, and this could not be, except that his Spirit had dwelt in all things, and Govern'd them. And that all Creatures were in Adam, that is, that the whole Earth, and all living Crea­tures were upheld and Govern'd by his Spirit, in the same manner as the Central Spirit of Man, upholds and Governs his whole Body; we learn from hence, be­cause when Adam had sinned, the whole Earth was cursed for his sake, Gen. 3.17. Now if so be the whole Earth and all that is in it, had not been a part of Adam, what consequence, or connexion could there be in this, that upon Adams sinning the whole Earth should be declared sinful? Moreover we Read Rom. 8.19, 20, 21, 22. That the Creature, as with a stretched forth head wai­teth for the Manifestation of the Sons of God: For the Creature was made subject to Vanity, not willingly, but by or through him who hath subjected the same, in hope that the Creature it self also shall be delivered from the Bondage of Corruption, into the Glorious Libery of the Sons of God. For we know that the whole Crea­tion groaneth and is in travel together until now. When the Apostle here saith, that the whole Creation, that is, the whole Earth is made subject to Vanity or Corruption, by him who hath subject it, viz. to Va­nity, can this possibly be understood of any [Page 202]one but of Adam? No surely, for God had Commanded Adam that the should Sub­due the Earth, or subject it, but not to Va­nity, but by Glorifying the same, as hath been said §. 114. tho he did the contrary. If therefore Adam, being the Head and Governour of the whole Earth, hath made the whole Creation, viz. the Earth subject to Vanity, is not then this our Assertion true and stedfast, that the whole Earth and all that is in it, is a part of Adam. Yea the Apostle saith as much in plain words, by calling Men, the Earth, and whatsoever is in the same one whole Creation, or Crea­ture; thereby expresly shewing, that the whole Earth is not any thing separate from Adam, but belongs to him, and makes up one Creature with him.

§. 117. But altho' God, according to §. 115. Created Man to Replenish the Earth, and to subdue it, yet withal God so Created man, that he could do the same of his Free Will without compulsion, as was shewed §. 33.34. and sad experience sufficiently convinceth, that Adam could transgress this Command of God. But of this we shall Treat hereafter, when we come to speak of Mans Fall, and by what and how it happened.

A PREFACE OF THE AƲTHOR of the APPENDIX, To the READER.

I Heartily Wish that all Persons to whom it shall happen to have, and Read the small foregoing Treatise of Dr. Paulus Buchius, would please to receive the same with as kind and good Intentions as the Aged Author of this Appendix Presents it to them: He having taken the pains to cause it to be Translated out of the Dutch Manuscript into English; It was the Request of his Friends (after that they had read the said Translation) that he would be willing to add thereunto an Appendix, which should yet more Illustrate the Doctrine of the Revolution of Hu­mane Souls: To which desire of theirs he yiel­ded, [Page 204]and (as you here see) he hath caused it to be done in haste, which therefore falls short of that clearness of Stile which his Friend who first wrote in Dutch the foregoing Book could have given it, to have made it more intelligible then it is at present: Also for that very reason he cannot at present satisfie the Desires of some that he would Write a Commentary on the first four Chapters of Genesis which perhaps he may do hereafter.

Farewell.
F. M. Van Helmont.

AN APPENDIX OF Several Questions with their An­swers Concerning the Hypothesis of the Revolution of Hu­mane Souls.

Quest. 1. THe Hypothesis being this, viz. That every individual of Man­kind must several times die and be Born again, in Order to the working out of their Salvation here in this Word: It is Queried first, Whe­ther any Books of this Author treating of such a Revolution of Humane Souls have been Printed and Published in divers Languages, and in different Countries?

Answer. 1. Yes, Diverse Books of this Authors Treating of such a Revolution of [Page 206]Humane Souls have been Printed in diffe­rent Languages, and that in several Coun­tries.

Quest. 2. What do some of the Learned judge concerning this Hypothesis?

Answ. 2. They are somewhat reserved and shy, openly to declare their Thoughts concerning this Matter; because it seems as yet to be very novel, and but little known to the most: But when reminded they may then remember, that both the Books which Treat thereof, as also many clear Texts of Holy Scripture, evincing the same, are not unknown to them: and then they must own, that it is impossible to understand many places of the Holy Scripture without this Hypothesis.

Quest. 3. What does the unlearned say of it?

Answ. Some of the Unlearned, having little or no judgement of their own, and being prepossessed with a prejudice from others, do suppose it to be a vain Opinion, which the Jews received from the Hea­then.

Quest. 4. What is the reason that not any of the Learned have indeavoured to confute (as yet) these Books, nor manifestly to prove that [Page 207]there can be no such Revolution of Humane Souls?

Answ. Because when some write great Books it may, for the most part, be con­cluded, that they endeavour rather to drown a Doctrine, then to find out a Truth: So that it's not to be wondred at, that the Learned hitherto (for any thing I know) have not written against it, nor demon­strated (in short) that the return of Souls is impossible: in as much as it is impossible for them to perform this, as it is for them to demonstrate that the propagation of Mankind depends not on any precedent Generation, it having continued immortal from Adam.

Quest. 5. What is the reason why this Doctrine hath, for these many Ages, been as it were, lost amongst men in Europe?

Answ. The Reason why this Doctrine hath been so much hid is, because Men are become for the most part Corporeal and Carnal, so that they cannot see nor appre­hend any thing, but what is suitable to, and (as we may say) tastes of this present Bo­dy of Flesh and Blood, though that also con­tinually is changing, and remains not con­stantly the same.

Quest. 6. Whence did the wise Heathens [Page 208] derive their knowledge in some part of this Doctrine?

Answ. The wise Heathens as Socrates, &c. have by continual Searching, been able to find out this Truth in part; forasmuch as the Mysteries of Holy Scripture were not made known to them, they could not ar­rive at the full Discovery thereof, but as it is manifest in Nature: But the wise Jews have drawn it fully from that Sacred Fountain.

Quest. 7. How comes it to pass that the Jews of old, better understood this Doctrine (as appears by their Writings concerning the same) then modern Jews, and the wise Hea­thens?

Answ. The Jews being at that time Gods peculiar chosen People, were consequently to abound more with Love then the Hea­thens did; wherefore also a clearer know­ledge of this Doctrine was imparted to them, which the Modern Jews have much lost: In as much as the knowledge of this Truth, and true Love go hand in hand to­gether, and are inseparable.

Quest. 8. What then is true Love

Answ. Love is a perfect Emanation, or beaming forth of the Life, and is Spiritual, without which no perfect work can be [Page 209]wrought or brought forth either in Natu­rals or Supernaturals.

Quest. 9. What is the chiefest, most perfect, and wise Efficiency, energy, or out-working of the true Love? and how may we have expe­rience of the same, in our selves, and in the Crea­tion?

Answ. The true Spiritual, loving ema­nation of the Life every one, especially the Married Person, may rightly and fully have the experience of in himself, if so be he Ge­nerates his Child in true Love, and this is the beginning of the first Efficiency of love. The second is that wherewith the Child when it is Born is continually regarded and beheld, and wisely lookt after and Edu­cated, the Parent still preserving and con­tinuing the same love for his Child in him­self, without prodigally lavishing out the same. So that they who thus give out prudently their Love, they will find by experience, that when their Children come to Discretion, and understan­ding, that this inward, reserved, qui­et, and prudent Working-love, will in­crease in the Parents, and descend to the Children, and from them reflect back in true Obedience to the Parent. Moreover this reflection of the Childrens love to the Parents, cannot but produce a fresh in­crease of love in the Parents which pro­longs [Page 210]the Life of Children, according to Deut. 5.16. Honour thy Father and thy Mo­ther as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, that thy Life may be long in the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Whence it ap­pears, that the true Efficiency of Love, must be an Emanation of Life, because it can prolong the Lives of Children.

The same may also be experienced in a contrary Efficiency of the Life, viz. In a hatred mixt with fear, or in a Faith mixt with doubt, as may easily and plainly be found in such as are young Persons, cou­pled with old Wives or Husbands, and are desirous of their Deaths. For at the ve­ry same time, that they earnestly desire to be rid of them, they continually have secret­ly lurking in their minds and incessant be­lief or perswasion (which is an efficient power of the Life) that they will not dye: whereby the hated is prolonged to a very old Age. For at the very same time, that the young one earnestly desireth the death of the old one, the life of the young one works a Faith, or Belief, which preserves the old one alive: So that it is by their doubting, that their own proper love, life and faith, do all co-operate together. These and such like emanations of love and hatred, many have experienced, and have been sensible of, but never could conceive [Page 211]what should be the Reason thereof; which indeed was this, viz. because from their youth they have been filled with other Car­nal, Corporeal, and contrary desires and notions.

Quest. 10. Can it be made out plainly, and in the consequent Effect thereof, even to the outward Senses, that the life of Man can de­stroy another life or body, either wholly or in part; and immediatly form another new one, in all its parts which hath no similitude with the former?

Answ. Yes this cannot be denied, because experience and Observation hath, and doth evince it by manifold Instances, whereof we will here insert one Narration relating to the change of an intire part of anothers Body. The Example is this: A certain Woman being with Child, and neär her time, in searching for something amongst old Raggs, happened unexpectedly to touch with her Thumb, the dried foot of a Hare, which unknown to her lay amongst those Raggs; which so affrightned her, that she im­mediatly (or soon after) fell into labour, and was delivered of a Child, whose Thumb of its right Hand was changed into a Hares Foot perfect in all its parts, as having all about it haire, and divided into Claws with sharp Nails at the end of them, &c.

Quest. 11. How can it be proved, and made out, that persons deceased, dead and gone, do come to be born again, and to appear in this world, so as to be plainly discerned by their outward shape, and features?

Answ. This is, and may be very evi­dently perceived in some places, as great Cities of Trade, where Persons of several Nations, (happen to be joyned together in Marriage, as for example, in Flanders, whither are transported old swarthy Por­tugal Merchants, who Marry with Young clear, white Flemish Women: And then it is frequently observed, that these swar­thy Men get many fair and clear Daugh­ters, by their Wives (for by the way ob­serve, that the reason why they get rather Daughters then Sons, is because old Men do commonly bear greater love to young Women, then young Women do to old Men) Now when these white Flemish Wo­mens Daughters are grown up, and Marri­ed to white Flemish men, and are gotten with Child by them, then will the Neigh­bour Citizens know by experience, and cry that the old Portugeese Grand-father will then appear or be born again in that Child: and accordingly, it generally happens that that Child in all its parts resembleth the swarthy Portugees its Grand-father. This is also often seen in a wise Father, who [Page 213]begets a foolish Son, and that Foolish Son begets a wise Son afterwards, so as the wisdom of he Grand-father comes to ap­pear in the Grand-son: the same may be observed as to all other parts both of bo­dy and mind, betwixt such Relations. Moreover, the like is also sometime ex­perienced by very old persons, that have lived to see four Generations descended from them; how that the Grand and great Grand-fathers have appeared in their Off­spring, even to the third and fourth Ge­neration. So that from hence, we may in part understand what is said in Deut. 5.8, 9, 10. Where God strengthens his Com­mandment with this Reason: For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the sins of the Parents unto the third and fourth Genera­tion, &c.

Quest. 12. Whether the first Sin comittedted by Adam and Eve, whereby they subjected themselves to the fleshly body, be Infinite?

Answ. No, Their Sin could not be infi­nite, because their understanding was but finite.

Quest. 13. Is there then any number or Measure to be assigned, whereby the Fall of Adam and Eve (wherein they became Bodily and Carnal) can be cleared and under­stood?

Answ. Yes there is, and the same is the Number, Four: for each of them consist­ed of two Beigns, viz. Male and Female, as all and every one fo Mankind doth: every Man hath the Male nature as pre­dominant in him, and besides that he hath the Female Nature also: So is it likewise with the Woman who hath the Fe­male Nature predominant in her, and like­wise the Male Nature in her too. And ac­cordingly the Lord saith, Gen. 1.27. That he had Created Adam and Eve, Male and Female, viz. In each person, so that alto­gether make up the Number Four. And therefore their Children and all their Po­sterity were to consist of Four Essences, as being their Off-Spring: And therefore, for this Reason they could not sin beyond that Number: whence it is said Exod. 20.5. also Ch. 34.7. Visiting the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children, and upon the Childrens Children, unto the third, and to the fourth Generation, &c.

Quest. 14. How long a terme of time there­fore was necessary for Adam and Eve to re­pent of, and to suffer for their Sins, and to at­tain to a restitution and a recovery?

Answ. Both of them together require four Thousand Years: because (as was said) they consisted of four Essences; and ac­cordingly [Page 215]the Psalmist saith in Psal. 90.3, 4. &c. Thou turnest man to destruction, and sayest, return ye Children of men, for a thou­sand years are but as yesterday, &c. Which place of the Psalms is also cited by St. Peter in 2 Peter ch. 3. v. 8. One day is with the Lord as a thousand Years, and a thousand years as one day, &c.

Quest. 15. From whence may we begin the Computation of the Thousand Years of the life of these four Essences?

Answ. From the perfect number [Ten] beyound which we cannot Number; also all men must consist of the Number [Ten,] thu considered, viz. his four Essences are (as abovesaid) two Male, and two Female, and the Subdivision of the two Male is in­to five out-working Powers, an five like­wise of the Female, which make 10. to which also doth correspond the two Lobes of the Brain, the right as being the Male, working-out Images, or Ideas; and the left receiving them, and then when thus com­pleated, and born (as it were) are they sent into the little Brain, which is the Root of all the Nerves of Motion; and thence through the Nerves are conveighed to the Right hand, which may be accounted the Male Hand, which hath five Fingers, and also the like to the left or Female Hand, to [Page 216]Work out; all which, together make ten, and if we add to the former this other fur­ther Consideration, viz. That the same may be said of the two Feet, whose ten Toes added to the Hands ten Fingers make up twenty, which (hereafter) is proved to be the compleat Working out of a Man, he then becoming Ripe to bear Fruits, or to beget, and bring forth Children; so as his Feet correspond to the Rootes, and his Hands to the Branches. And therefore hath no more then ten Fingers wherewith to effect and Work out their ten Proper­ties, or Powers; as it appears in a Wo­man big with Child, who upon some Fright, or put into any other Passion, doth there form on that very part of her Childs Body, some strange live Impression of some external thing, by an effective applicati­on of her own hand, upon that very part of her own Body. And forasmuch as man consisteth of ten Powers, or Faculties, therefore also ten Commandments have been given to him to observe: according to that in Eccles. ch 12. v. 13. Let us hear the Conclusion of the Matter: Fear God and keep his Commandments, for this is the whole Man. This very Text of Holy Scrip­ture, the Jews do make to be the Summa­ry or chief Head of their whole Talmud.

Quest. 16. How may this be further ex­plained?

Answ. Thus, viz. Children must re­main in the Womb of their Mothers, for to attain or get, by the influence or Govern­ment of the Moon over the Monthly Cour­ses, a perfect Body, in the space of ten Lu­nary Months, which consists of 40 Weeks. And seeing that Man is made of the ten Lunary Operations, That is the reason, why, when a Man doth Govern himself perversely, and to his utmost power, doth tye himself too much to his own Will and Fancy, he becomes Lunatick or Mad, and is then wholly under the Governing Rule of the Moon.

Quest. 17. If the Terme of Mans life was appointed to be a thousand Years, how then comes it to pass, that Adam lived but 930. Years?

Answ. The reason was because of his Fall or Sin: And it became manifested in Cain, why Adam finished not his thousand Years, Seventy of them being wanting: which number Seventy consists of ten times seven, which was that vengeance that should be taken on any one that should kill Cain.

Quest. 18. Why had Adam by his wife two Sons at one Birth, neither more nor less, as Gen. 4.1, 2. doth shew?

Answ. The reason seems to be this: be­cause Adam had been in two different States, Conditions, or Beings, before that he knew Eve: The one was antecedent to his Fall; the other was after it. For which reason she was to conceive Twins, he knowing of her but once as appears by the Text, whereof in the order of Nature, the eldest must be born last, and the first Born last conceived: which is confirmed and made plain in that of Gen. 38. v. 27, 28, 29, 30. Both in the Words, and Acti­on of Tamars Midwife, and the red Threed used by her, as it is there mentioned at large.

Quest. 19. Why was Adam 130 Years of Age when he knew his Wife a second time, and she brought forth Seth, as it is in Gen. 4.25. and Ch. 5. v. 3.

Answ. May not this be supposed to be the Reason? Because this was the full time of Cains being Seven-fold avenged by La­mech, who had slain him, so that then he was not longer the keeper of his Brother Abel: when Lamech with great earnestness declared to his Wives, The Revolution of Humane Souls; saying, ( Gen. 4. v. 23.) Hear my Voice ye Wives of Lamech, for I have slain a man to wounding, and a Young man, by Sodomy, (if the place in the Ori­ginal [Page 219]be truly Interpreted.) Also this Number of 7. may be taken in the manner as were the 20 Years in which the Young men were appointed to serve in the Tem­ple, as it is in Chron. 23. v. 24, 27. to the end. Also in the manner of those who were to go out to War, as in Num. Ch. 1. v. 3, 18, 20, 22, 24. &c. To which if we allow to add about one Year and a half, after they were married for the bringing forth of Children, we shall find that the Number of 6 times 21 Years and a half, will make 129 Years: and then, if we further allow one year more to Adam, who was Created a perfect man, and who had therefore no need to stay till he was twenty Years of Age, before he begat Children. Adams Years will be found to amount to 130. in which Cain was 7 times avenged, that is, he passed through 7 such Lives, each con­taining 21 ½ Years. And as the 130 Years of Adam, make up the time of Cains Ven­geance: So the Number of Lamechs Ven­geance, viz. 77 times 21 ½ of Years will have for their Product the time from Adam to the Flood, viz. 1656. with a small allow­ance of half a Year only.

Quest. 20. Must not all men, as to their peculiar individualities, receives and keep their whole and perfect Essence, and a continual de­scending [Page 220]flux of Generation from Adam and Eve, as being parts of them?

Answ. Yes, for otherwise, could those parts be taken away, lost and Annihilated, there would be remaing not so much as one single Man.

Quest. 21. Whether in the first Man Adam, were all men Created and comprehended in an infinite Number?

Answ. No, This could not be so, for ma­ny reasons which might be given; but let this one serve, viz. Because had it been so, then the World could never have come to an end in its out-working: and Adam would have been an unchangeable Being, which could never have died.

Quest. 22. Whether all those men, whom we find are born with one or more defects, either in Body, Mind, or Both were so Created at first in Adam?

Answ. No, this cannot be admitted: be­cause, if it were so Men could not be the cause of their own defects, but the Creator should have been the cause of them; which to suppose, is altogether absurd and im­possible: Because he is all good, Wise, and just, and could not be the cause of these the Defects of men, viz. To make them to be Fools, Blind, Deaf, Sickly, [Page 221]Lame, Criples, Churlish, Cruel and ill na­tured, to be Monsters, and Abortives, &c. which have a true and right beginning, but are never brought to perfection.

Quest. 23. Whether all men who were Cre­ated in Adam had not given them to have know­ledge and free-will, viz. To do that which is good, and to forbear that which is Evil?

Answ. This also cannot be denied by any rational man, for many Reason need­less to be recounted here.

Quest. 24. Whether Adam and his posterity were not to live and abide so long till they had, by Generation propagated and produced all those who were Created in him; being as many as were necessary to the compleating of this World?

Answ. Neither can this reasonably be de­nied by any one, who rightly comprehends the Hypothesis here laid down.

Quest. 25. After that this perfect number of Mankind had been fully accomplished in being all born and brought forth, and that the gene­rality of them was fallen into wickedness; whe­ther hereupon it was not necessary that their days should be shortned, and reduced to 120 Years, as it is in Gen. 6.3. to the end, that their wickedness, by this means might be short­ned also: For in case they should have lived [Page 222]many hundred Years (as before this accurtation) then their wickedness would have increased to that degree, that the predestinated, or appoin­ted time of the Worlds duration could not have allowed room for sufficient Revolutions or Re­generations, wherein men might come to suffer for their evil deeds; which the Scripture tells us, (Rom. 6. v. 2.7. and 1 Pet. 1.17. and Rev. 14.13. and ch. 20.13.) must follow them, and have the same measure meeted out to them which they have measured to others, Mat. 7.2. Mark. 4.24. Luke. 6.38. Rev. 13.10.) to the end, that having at last, through manifold sufferings and dyings, altoge­ther subjected, and spiritualized their Bodies, Elohim might attain his designed end and pur­pose?

Ans. No sound and understanding Theo­logue can or will disallow of the affirma­tive to this Question.

Quest. 26. What is the reason of the Law expressed in Deut. 23.2. A Bastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord, even to his tenth Generation, &c. For by a Bastard here, is properly to be understood, a Child born in Adultery, of a married Wife. Now, as in this case, the uniting, or Marriage-band of the aforesaid Number of [Ten] is broken, (as appears in a foregoing Question) whether (I say) accordingly this Bastard, (who former­ly [Page 223]also must have been an Adulterer) and whose works must follow him; and the same measure must be meeted to him again, which he hath mea­sured to another, as the above cited Scriptures tell us) must not die, and be born again ten times in order to his obtaining to the perfect number, viz. From one to ten: which he had lost by his Adultery; and may not this be illu­strated by this following Simile, viz. Suppose that a good Gardner, having in his Garden many wild Olive Trees, and amongst the rest, should be one planted, and ingrafted at several times, with ten of its own Scions, every one be­ing the product of a former Ingrafting, he having ingrafted them, still higher and higher, in hopes that from his tenth perfect or full grown Scion, he should have sufficient wherewith to in­graft all his other wild Olive-Trees, and by this means obtain many good Fruits from them (eve­ry Ingrafting being a death (nothing being bet­tered but by loosing its former life, which is a Death) by which they become gradually better, and better,) now should this Gardner take a journey, and at his return, find this Tree either stoln or removed or cut down which he had In­grafted ten times before, and another wild Olive Tree planted in its stead; would not this good Gar­dener, in all probability take the same coursewith this new, strange and changed wild Olive Tree, by endeavouring to Graft it likewise ten several [Page 224]times in order to its Melioration, as he did to the former?

Answ. Surely Yes.

I have observed and found in one of the greater sort of Figgs, about 666 several Seeds. Now if any person, would take in­to consideration one of the said Seeds, he would find that naturally it consists of three parts. Also he will find, that the first is the Body, which is the outward visible, and mortal part; wherein there lies hidden, two immortal and Spiritual principles or Beings, which former and produced the first part, viz. the Body, by drawing nou­rishment from the Earth. The Second part is the Watry, Female, Spiritual, and immortal substance, out of which is pro­duced the first mortal part, viz. the Bo­dy. The third part is a Fiery, Powerful, Male, Spiritual, and immortal Being, which is the chief Work-master of his Body, and that out of the second Female waterish Principle. It is not easily to be denyed, that the two Spiritual parts of the above-written Seeds. Should not contain hidden in their inward essential and spiritual parts, a perfect Figg-Tree, with Figgs and Seeds, to be brought forth in due time, when sown, then they will manifest Trees, Fruits, and Seeds: and so in sew Years would bring forth and multiply an incomprehensible [Page 225]number of Trees, which neither this World, nor others besides would be able to contain them.

But the All-wise Creator, who made this World, hath so perfectly Created and ordered it, that there is neither too much nor too little in it: So that none of the smallest Creatures can vanish to nothing, not one excepted; by reason that all the parts are necessary to make up a whole.

So that it was necessary that the Creator should Create so many Seeds, Figgs, and Trees as the Earth should have need to bring forth for this whole World, and no more: it not being (as some think) that some parts can go to nothing, when they are burned or corrupted. Now because some are too corporeally and fleshly dar­kened in their minds and understandings, they cannot discern that the Spiritual part abovesaid cannot be lost, nor die: because the Spiritual part is the former, and main­tainer of the Bodies. Should any one read this, and also seriously take into his consi­deration what stands in Gen. 3.22. And Adam called his wifes name Eve, ( or Chavah) because she was the Mother of all living: He would readily grant that it would be im­possible that any man could have his Being [Page 226]and not have it from her, or not to be a partaker of hers.

Now let it be remarked that all that is abovesaid, doth by a natural Analogy de­scribe also how Man, together with all other Animal Creatures and Beings are produ­ced, propagated, and Multiplyed, our Sa­viour himself using a Similitude of this sort for this very purpose in Mat. 12.24.

Certain QƲERIES, to be yet added.

I. WHether if Adam and Eve had not transgressed and fallen, would there have been need of a Temple, or Worship therein; they then worshipping God, according to that in 4. John v. 23.24. in Spirit and in Truth? and consequent­ly were not they therefore (as Christ said of himself, Mat. 12.6, &c.) greater then the Temple?

II. Whether if Adam had not fallen, would not Eve have conceived Spiritually, as the Blessed Virgin did, viz. By the pow­er of the Holy Ghost?

III. Whether, seing that a Temple was commanded to be Built, did it not repre­sent the Whole Man, viz. The Holy of Holies, representing the inward Spiritu­al Man, which is the Temple wherein God appears to Man, for to assist and help him for his Good?

IV. Whether if the Temple did repre­sent Man, ought it not therefore to be [Page 228]built according to the Measures of Man, whom it did represent?

V. Whether if the Temple was 46 years in building, doth not that number of time, signify the number which is proper to the make or essential Being of Man, which requires 10 Lunar Months, or fourty Weeks, to abide in the Womb for the for­mation of his Body, which is made out of the humidity that is governed by the Moon?

VI. Whether the 6 years may not cor­respond to the 6 days of the Creation.

VII. Whether when our Lord Christ was tempted in the Wilderness, as in Mat. 4.1, 2. and fasted 40 days and nights, did he not in that fasting consume the flesh of the Old Man, and Spiritualize it? and after it is said in V. 2. he hungred, that is, to bring back Humane Nature into its true state and Restoration, in and by himself?

VIII. Whether in case it be found true, that after 4000 Years from the Creation (according to the computation of the Holy Writ it self, and also of natural Reason) the Fall of Adam and Eve was then to be wrought out and ended; must not conse­quently this be the fulness of time, where­in the Messiah was to come and appear?

IX. Whether, if Adam (as abovesaid) had not fallen, he would have Spiritually con­ceived; [Page 229]must it not of necessity follow, that the Messiah being to come in the place of Adam, must be likewise Spiritually concei­ved of a Virgin?

X. Whether, if Christ, who was to be­come the Messias, and was therefore to be united to Adam; and Adam was to be re­stored and perfected through Death and Sufferings; doth it not hence follow, that Christ also ought to suffer Death, to ob­tain a Glorious Redemption, and Resur­rection for us?

XI. Whether as Christ was born under the Law, must he not be subjected to the Law? and accordingly did he not perfect­ly fulfil the Law, as in Mat. 5.18. and Luke 16.17.

XII. Whether therefore was it not ne­cessary that all the Righteous Duties which the Law commands, should be performed, and compleated by him and moreover, that he should do, teach, and command us, to love our Enemies; to be poor in Spirit, and submit to Death: whereby to obtain Life, and many other such like Virtues?

XIII. Whether he was not therefore to give them the Power (as in Iohn 2.19, 20, 21, 22.) to esteem and use him as a Sin­ner; and to hang him on the Cross, and Mo­ses did the Serpent in the Wilderness, (as in Iohn 3.14.) Seing that all Created Bo­dies [Page 230]are made out of Worms, or creeping things, of which the Serpent is to be recko­ned the chiefest. Which Serpent was in Eve (as was all Beings in the World, as she was the Mother of all Living, as it is said in Gen. 3.20.) and deceived her.

XIV. Whether the Messiah (as being the Seed of the Woman) hath not broken the head of the Serpent; having through death, finished Redemption, as he himself testify­ed on the Cross, as in Iohn 19.30.

XV. Whether considering Christ did outwardly, and visibly appear in the Flesh was it not necessary the outward and vi­sible Ear should hear a Voice from Heaven signifying the same as in Luk. 9. from 30 to 35.

XVI. Whether if we rightly consider what our Saviour saith, Mat. 10.5.6. Mark. 6.7, 8. Luke 9.1, 2, 3. Luke 10.1.2.3.4.5.6. Acts 13.46. Where the sends forth and commanded his twelve Disciples not to go in the way of the Gentiles, neither into any City of the Samaritans, but rather to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel, and to Preach, saying The Kingdom of God is at hand, we may not find Cause to suppose that he came to pre­pare the Kingdom for the Jews, he having before sent his Disciples to prepare them for the Kingdom, especially considering Acts 1.6. The Disciples asking if he would then [Page 231]restore the Kingdom to Israel, and his An­swer, that after they had received the Ho­ly Ghost they should go not only where he had before sent them but likewise to those Places then forbidden, which if this Sup­position be rejected, what Wisdom or Co­herence should there be in these Texts.

Seing Christ himself gives us the Parable of the ten Virgins Mat. 25.1. &c. whereof five were Wise, and five Foolish: may we not suppose them to be the Jews and Gen­tiles, and the five wise to represent the Jews they being those holy Bodies that arose out of the Graves, Mat. 27, 25. and went into the Holy City with those who were to arise and ascend with him to whom the King­dom of Heaven was near: The foolish re­presenting the Gentiles, who were to buy Oyle, their time being not yet come where­in they were to enter, and therefore our Saviour bids them watch against his second coming at the end of the World at which time they were to enter.

XVII. Whether when the Messias died, he signifying the Temple, was it not neces­sary that the Vail of the Temple should be Rent from the top to the bottom, as in Mat. 27.51. &c. And all seperation now to be taken away between God and Man; between man and man also, as in Gal. 3.28. and Col. 3.11.

XVIII. Whether was it not necessary, that after 3 days, he should arise again from the Dead; and that the Graves should be opened, and many holy Bodies should arise with him out of the Grave, as in Mat. 27. 52, 33 to shew forth the Virtue and Pow­er with which he was endued, to draw all men after him, (as in Iohn 12.32.) they be­ing the first fruits, (as in 1 Cor. 15.20, 21, 22. 23. and in 1 James 18. and Rome. 14.4) that had finised their Revolution?

XIX. Whether Holy Writ in Acts 1.3. Signifying that Christ continued 40 days, Walking on the Earth, before he ascended, as in Acts 1.9. may we not conclude, that it is signified to us, that in 40 Years, the whole Temple should be destroyed? he having in fourty dayes finished the Work he came to do, as in Iohn 17.4. Fourty being the fourt out-workings of Male and Female, Wherein all do compleat the final fulfilling of their own Revolutions? which I wish to all men as well as to my own self.

Here follows An Exact from the last Words of the Philosopher Socrates, concerning The Im­mortality of SOULS.

WHen Socrates had thus spoken, Cebes began and said, All is right what thou hast spoken, O Socrates: But as for the Soul; Men are generally very apt to disbelieve that Souls after their departure, do exist any where, but think that at the same time that a Man Dies, his Soul perish­eth, and that it is no sooner let loose from the Body, but it is annihilated, and like a Wind or Smoak, vanisheth, and disappears. But if it be so that the Soul Exists some where gathered up into her self, and deli­vered from those Evils and Mischiefs thou hast mentioned, then may we have a great and good hope, O Socrates, that all you have discourst is true. Yet perhaps there will be need of strong perswasion and Belief, to make people think, that the Soul after its departure doth still exist, and hath some power and understanding.

Soc. True O Cebes. But what thinkest thou if we should discourse a little about it, whether it be propable that it is so, or not, Cebes? That would be very acceptable to me, and I should with great satisfaction hear your Opinion concerning these Mat­ters.

Soc. I trust no body hearing us discour­sing of these things, will report of us that we spend the time in vain and unprofitable talk. If you think good therefore, and it may not be thought improper for us to search into this Matter; let us first of all enquire and consider, whether the Soul of the deceased do exist after this life or not.

There is an Old Proverb now comes into my mind, which saith, That Souls as they go from hence thither, so they also come hi­ther from thence, and return from the Dead. If this now be true that the Living pro­ceed or come out of the Dead, then our Souls must have been something formerly there; for had they been nothing, they could never have returned thence, and this is a sufficient token that it is so, if we can prove that the Living proceed from no where else than from the Dead. But if this cannot be proved, we must produce some other Argument. Ceb. Very right.

Soc. We may trace this, not only in Man, but if we desire to understand it more [Page 235]clearly in Animals also, and Plants, and in a Word, in every thing that is born or ge­nerated; wheether all things be not Gene­rated in such a manner, as that one contra­ry always proceeds from the other. For instance, that which is Beautiful is contrary to that which is Ʋgly or (deformed) that which is Just to that which is Ʋnjust. Let us therefore consider whether every thing that hath a contrary, doth not of necessity proceed from nothing else but from that its contrary? As when a thing grows greater, it of necessity grows greater out of that which is less. Ceb. That is very true.

Soc. In like manner, if any thing grows less is it not out of something that before was greater?

Ceb. Certainly so.

Soc. That which is weaker doth it not become so, out of that which was stronger.

Ceb. Yes Surely.

Soc. Also when any thing grows worse, is it not out of something that was better; if just is not out of unjust? Ceb. Plainly.

Soc. Wherefore it appears that it hap­pens thus to all thing, Viz. That one con­trary still proceeds from the other.

Ceb. It does so.

Soc. Again is there not also some such like thing, between both these contrary Beings, by means whereof the one is Born [Page 236]or proceeds from the other? As betwixt Great and Little there is encrease and de­crease, and of the one we say, that it en­creaseth, and of the other, that it decrea­seth. Ceb. It is so.

Soc. And is not the case the same in Divi­ding and joyning, or mingling, and when any thing grows cold or warm? Yet so, as that every thing comes forth from its con­trary, and that there happens a birth out of one contrary into the other, out of this into that, and again out of that into this? Ceb. There does so.

Soc. Now then is there no contrary that answers to the word to Live, as to the word to watch, or be awake, belongs that of Slee­ping, as the contrary to being awake.

Ceb. Ay certainly.

Soc. What is then the contrary or oppo­sit of to Live? Ceb. Why to Dye or to be Dead.

So. Do not these therefore proceed from each other, seing that they are contrary or opposite to one another. And seing these be two things, are there not two Births be­tween them both? Ceb. I conceive so.

Soc. Now from these Primitive Words do proceed Derivative, and Analogous De­nominations: I shall give you the Expli­cation of one of these, and do you give me the same of the other. I say then, that to [Page 237] sleep, and to be awake are contrary to one another, and that out of waking comes sleep­ing, and again out of sleeping, waking, and that between both these, to slumber, and awake; are set as intervening Births. Are you satisfied or not. Ceb. You have fully satisfied me. Soc. Do you the same then of Life and Death. Dost not thou say that these are contrary? Ceb. Ay verily. Soc. and that the one is born out of the other? Ceb. Even so.

Soc. What grows or proceeds then from the Living? Ceb. The Dying, or that which is Dead. Soc. And that out of that which is Dead? Ceb. Thence of necessity the Li­ving must proceed.

Soc. Well then, the Living proceed from the Dead. Ceb. That is evident. Soc. And if so, our departed Souls are some where. Ceb. It should seem so.

Soc. And is not one of these Births ma­nifest, viz. Dying? Ceb. it is so.

Soc. What shall we say then of the other contrary, shall Nature be lame (or de­fective) in this point only, or must we grant something that is contrary to being Dead? Ceb. Surely we must.

Soc. And pray what is that? Ceb. To become alive again. Soc. If this be so, there must of necessity be a return from the Dead, to life again. Ceb. There must so. See, [Page 238]It appears then from this Argument (or Reason) that the Living proceed from the Dead, as well as the Dead come of the Living. And if this be true, we may with sufficient ground Conjecture from hence, that the Souls of the Deceased must of ne­cessity be somewhere, from whence they return. Ceb. It appears plainly to me, O Socrates, that this must follow from what hath been above grantetd.

Soc. Consider, dear Cebes, that what we have before granted, was not without good ground, for except the one did continual­ly follow upon the neck of the other, and so went round, as in a Circle; but that all things did in a straight line tend to their contraries, without returning thence again, then must all things finally terminate in one form and quality, and Generation must cease.

Ceb. What do you say Socrates?

Soc. What I say is somewhat difficult to be understood; as for instance, if one should say that men fall asleep, but never wake again out of that sleep, then all things would come to that (one contrary) so that what is storied of Endymcon, would be no longer a ridiculous Fable, and that he ne­ver appeared afterwards: seeing that all must at last in like manner fall asleep, and continue so.

And if all things should be mingled to­gether, and never more be divided or se­parated, that of Anaxagoras would some­time or other suddenly befall us, who held that all things should once be hurled into confusion. In like manner, Dear Ce­bes, if this be the case, that whatsoever hath received life must dye, and what is once dead continues so, without ever re­turning to life again, then of necessity it must at last come to this, that all things be dead, and that no living thing be left: for if any thing proceeds out of any thing that is living, and that living thing Dies, what then shall hinder, but that all must be swallowed up by Death at last? Ceb. No­thing verily, for your words, O Socrates, seem very true.

Soc. And such indeed they appear like­wise to me O Cebes; neither do we pretend this as being mistaken, but it is in very deed so, as Springing up from a Resusci­tation, that out of the Dead come the Li­ving, and that deceased Souls do still ex­ist, and that it goes well with the Good and ill with the Wicked.

Socrates proceeded in his Discourse con­cerning the Immortality of the Soul, and declared how that all Sciences we learn outwardly from others, lay hid before in [Page 240]the inmost ground of Man, and by means of outward Objects and Applications, were only excited (or awakened) in us, and brought to our memories.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.