I Lately met with a Discourse of yours: both the Subject and Title of it, as well as the Authors name invited me to a perusal. What you designed in that Essay, I think you have ve­ry well performed: But I confess [Page] I expected more than I found, and I believe such a mind as yours, can both inlarge and im­prove the subject.

Without doubt 'tis true what you suggest, that it is a Satanical illusion, ‘That God Rules by will; that he hath no conside­ration of his creatures comfort, but only of his own Glory; that he made the greatest part of men to damn them, and tri­umph in their ruine; and that he cruelly exacts impossibilities, and obliges men to come, when yet he knows' they cannot.’

But Sir, they are not Atheists, but men of great Devotion, and in the last Age admired for their parts, and piety, that confidently asserted such things as the Chri­stian Doctrine. These are not [Page] only the Dogma's of the Hob­bists, and Mahometans, but of Gentlemen of the Geneva Twang; and therefore whatsoever an Athe­ist may be in his practice, ac­cording to these principles, he is speculatively Orthodox and Godly. I suggest this, because in your making the Atheist to personate —you know whom, you make too severe a reflection upon either their Learning or their Religion.

Since (Sir) you have been pleased so happily to enter upon so good and gracious a subject, might it not be worthy your con­sideration to give an account How it is consistent with the Di­vine Goodness to inflict in­finite and eternal Punish­ments for finite Transgres­sions?

[Page]Punishment (according to the Notion we have of it) is either for the Good of the whole, or of the part, and 'tis infli­cted not to torment the Criminal, but either to amend him, or the society of which he is a mem­ber, that both may enjoy the comforts, and the sweets of it: But what of good in everlasting Punishment is there to either of these? or how doth it agree with the Notion of Infinite Goodness ac­cording to your own description?

Not to urge, that the most that are Christians, lye, and live under such odd circum­stances, that they are very near in impossibility wholly to subdue and suppress the influences of sense, and yet must they be plagued or punisht with unspeakable and eternal tortures?

[Page] How much more dismal and tremendous doth it look that those People in America, Japan, China, Lapland, &c. that live under an unavoidable ig­norance (I mean morally so) that yet these poor creatures for what they cannot help, shall be cast into Everlasting Darkness, and sorrows, and that there are no reserves for their acting for a happiness they have no notice of, or very little, or if they have, yet are ignorant of the pro­per methods to attain it? How agrees this with Infinite and Eter­nal Goodness? A return to such an Enquiry in order to a farther explication of Divine Goodness would do a great deal of service to the Religion which we own. Some such thoughts as these have [Page] disturb'd mine about the receiv'd and common Faith of future pu­nishments; and if ever your in­clinations lead you to a second Edition of yours, some Considera­tions about such an Objection may not I think be impertinent.

I hope I need not beg a Par­don for this trouble from a per­son that pleads for so much Good­ness: but question not but you will candidly entertain and construe this bold offer of

ALthough I am not so vain as to flatter my self into a conceit, that either the first or the second Appre­hensions of All, or of Most are like to be as partial in my Favour, or Candid, as a Generous and Noble [Page 2] friends: Yet to obey you, and to acquit my self of some part of what I owe you for your Kindness to my former Discourse, and for your Ci­vility to me, I am at last resolv'd to Expose Another to Mercy; well Assured that whatever Entertainment Ruder hands may give it, It shall receive in Yours, and in those of worthy Persons, none but what is Fair and Equitable. And this is all it desires. Which that you may afford without Repugnance, I must oblige you to consider, that if you do not find in this Essay, no more than in the Former, the Gra­tification and Delight that Novelty in things is wont to bring with it, you ought not to impute it either as a Fault to the Author, or as a De­fect to the Work, but to ascribe it purely to the Fulness and Riches of your own Mind; it being that alone which renders you uncapable of such agreeable Surprize and Pleasure, as not a Few Resent in what appeareth New to them, because indeed there [Page 3] can but little seem so to one of your Endowments and Knowledge. But what talk I of things New: For as to my first Essay, whosoever shall but give himself the trouble to Remind the Method I imployed therein, will easily Determine I ne­ver had design of innovating new Notions, seeing if I had, I could not hope to evidence them in the wayes I there propos'd (to do it) either from the Scriptures, by which I was to regulate my self in all I said, or from the Philosophers. You may believe I only courted Truth, and that I resolved to ex­press my self in common Notions, and to common sense, in Reasons that were suitable to Mankind; ful­ly Perswaded, that the things I treated on were of so ample, and so large a Nature, that no Arguments, no Notions of Scholasticks, or of any other private Faction, Party, Sect, or Division of men, would ever Adaequate, and Suit, and fit them. Notions deduced from common [Page 4] sense, are only capable of Adjusting things of common Concernment. And if I my self have any regard for these Conceptions, which have had the Fortune to entertain the World with Variety of Discourse, 'tis only for their plainness and fa­cility, because I take them general­ly to be such as every body that at­tends, will think he had the same before, and that he never thought otherwise: Which if they were not, I should be very much inclined to suspect them False, since I am apt enough to think it to be as true of Truth, as of the God of Truth, that it is not far from any of us, if we will but feel and grope after it. Certainly those Conceptions are not most likely to be truest, which are most elaborate, and farthest fetcht; but which are easiest and most na­tural. Truth lyeth not so deep in the Well, as many (with Democri­tus) think, and who thinking so, do often overlook it.

And having made you this Apo­logy [Page 5] for the Plainness of my first Essay, I hope I need not add, that in this second you are not to expect Profound, Uncommon, Deep, Ela­borate Notions, but Easie, Natural, Sensible, Plain and Obvious Ones, [such as whoever reads, may com­prehend] in what I shall rejoyn to your Letter. which, that my Re­ply unto it may be the more di­stinct and orderly, I shall distribute into three Parts, and so proportion and adjust my Answer; of which

The First containeth matter of Reflection on Others.

The Second, matter of charge on Me.

The Third, matter of Exception, or Argument against Divine Good­ness.

Of these in Order.

And first concerning the first Head, matter of Reflection on O­thers, ‘These are not only Dog­ma's of the Hobbists, and Maho­metans, but of Gentlemen of the Geneva Twang.’

[Page 6]And here I beg pardon for dis­owning that knowledge you impose upon me, concerning worthy Per­sons of the Geneva Perswasion; (for I presume, you mean Geneva Perswasion by Geneva Twang, a term I profess I do as little under­stand in any other sense, as I believe it not to be Canonical or Receiv'd in this.) For I know not any under that Notion so forsaken of their Wits, or their Religion, as in terms to Assert, ‘God Rules by Will, that he hath no consideration of his Creatures comfort, but only of his own Glory; that he made the Greatest part of men to Damn them and triumph in their Ru­ine, and that he cruelly exacts Impossibilities, and obliges men to come, when yet he knows they cannot.’

But, if there are any under that, or other Notions, who affirm and assert such things, (though properly I may not call them Atheists) and indeed it were a Contradiction in [Page 7] the Adject so to do) yet I think, I shall not be Uncharitable in believ­ing that they that are none, have made many; since I know not any more effectual way of inclining and disposing men unto Denyal of the Being of God, than to Represent and Paint him out to them, in Idea's not agreeable to common Reason, nor Sense. You may sooner make them believe themselves to be no men, than that there is such a God. They that have been constantly told that Contradictions cannot be, and that God himself can never make them be, will very hardly be in­duced to believe, that God himself is, if the very Notion they are taught of him be a contradiction. And who can reconcile the Roughness of these. Expressions of the Absolute and Tyrannical Empire of God, to those other softer ones of his Good­ness and Kindness, and Tenderness for men? Certainly, the Will of God by which he doth all things, is not absolute, and meer Will, but [Page 8] [...], Counsel of Will; and [...] Good Will, Good Pleasure. And thus all men should speak.

True it is, that all do not, for some, especially (the) Moderns, in Vindication and assertion of Di­vine Dominion and Soveraignty, have biassed too much to one Extream, using terms sounding not a little harsh in mild and temperate Ears: as others on the contrary, in con­templation and assertion of Divine Goodness and Clemency, have also done to the other. The Reason of mens running to extreams in this matter, and of their aberration from the mark and scope to which they should direct their thoughts, is, that they look on God abstractly, under one or other Attribute, whereas they ought to consider him in all his Attributes together; and all these, in all their several and respective Aspects, as they have a mutual In­fluence upon, Concernment with, and Respect, Order, and Habitude unto each other. For such an A­gency [Page 9] on one another, and such a Complication and Concernment have the Attributes in God, that it is as true of them in their Conne­ction in the Godhead, as of the Persons of the Trinity, that One is in Another, or rather, that they are together in God, so as that one re­ceiveth some modification (as it were) and some respect from the other. You may believe of all the other Attributes, in their mutual and respective Aspects, what I shall in­stance but in One, I mean Divine Goodness, which as it is compli­cated [for Example] with alike Greatness; so it receives, a Chara­cter therefrom, and must be suitably deferred to. Thus David, there is mercy with thee that thou mayest be Feared; Mercy, that thou mayest be feared; and therefore God is to be feared for his mercy, because he is as Great, as Merciful; and so Moses, Fearful in Praises; Fearful Objectively and Passively; God is to be feared while we praise him, [Page 10] and for this reason, because he is Almighty as well as Beneficient, Dread Majesty as well as Gracious, and consequently, not only the Ob­ject of our Love and Praise, but of our Fear and Dread. We ought not too abstractly to consider God under One Attribute, without re­flecting on him under others, for we must rejoyce with trembling; while we Rejoyce in his Goodness, we must also Tremble at his Greatness. He is Good, and He is Great also.

Concerning the second head, matter of Charge on me.— ‘But Sir they are not Atheists, &c.’

And so much for the first part of your Letter, and in return to the second; or as to those Reflections you suggest me to intend, in making the Atheist Personate you tell not who; I utterly disclaim them, and profess with all imaginable clear­ness and sincerity, that though I know a sort of persons (far enough from being Atheists) that do argue against others, in terms somewhat [Page 11] resembling some of those wherein I dress mine, yet I was not guilty of a Design of so much weakness, as in what I said to Reflect on them for that as such. I am free to say of all Reflection in the Present matter, as some are wont to say of far fetch' [...] Jests, that he alone does make the Reflection, that can understand it to be One. For my part, I abhor Re­flections and Hard words, as neither Philosophical, nor Civil, nor Chri­stian. Nor did I introduce the Atheist to personate another, but to speak for himself. But while we are mentioning Reflections, give me leave to ask, if you your self refle­cted not on Gentlemen of the Geneva Twang, while you were yoaking them with the Hobbists and with the Mahumetans.

Concerning the third dead; point of Argument, or Exception against Divine Goodness.

And having (as I hope) in what I have offer'd, fully vindicated my self from all that sinister Interpre­tation [Page 12]you Insinuate me subject to, I am now according to the Order you observe in your Letter, oblig'd in the Third place to vindicate Di­vine Goodness, from those Exce­ptions that do seem to lye against it, in relation to Eternal Punish­ment.

Which that I may do the more Distinctly, and to your full content­ment, I will Reduce the Argu­ments you Urge about it, to four heads.

• The First. The seeming improportion of Infinite and Eternal Punish­ments to Finite Transgressi­ons.
• The Second. The Incongruity of Perpetu­ity in Punishment unto the Ends of Punishment.
• The Third. The Odd and Unaccounta­ble circumstances of most Chri­stians.
• [Page 13]The Fourth. The more Tremendous Ones of [...]eathens.

Of these in order, and first to the first Argument, the seeming impro­portion of Infinite and Eternal Pu­nishment to Finite Transgressions.

‘—Give an account (you say) how it is consistent with Divine Goodness to inflict Infinite and Eternal Punishments for Fi­nite Transgressions.’

And here, you will give me leave to Awaken in your thoughts an Obser­vation, which no question you have made your self long ago, that Opini­ons and other Motions of our Minds, are as often the Result of Constitu­tion and Complexion, as of Reason and Judgement. For That Conside­ration in a person of a tender, sensible and compassionate Temper (such as your own) is sufficient to account to any that Reflects upon it, for the Difficulty he may find his Thoughts to make, to conceive it consistent with Divine Goodness, That Infi­nite [Page 14] and Eternal Punishments should be inflicted on the sinner, but for Temporal and Finite Transgressions.

But for your fuller satisfaction in the present Scruple, and an Im­pregnable and clear Assertion of Divine Godness, as well as Iu­stice (which also is concerned) from all the Ignominious Apprehen­sions under which they seem to lye in this Matter, I shall here particu­larly Evidence,

• First, That it hath pleased God to order and appoint for sin, Infinite, or Everlasting Punishments and Tor­ments, to be inflicted Hereafter.
• Secondly, That there is not any Inequality or Improportion between the Punishment ordained, and the Sin, but a great Equality and Pro­portion.
• Thirdly, That it is a great In­stance of Divine Benignity and Goodness to ordain Eternal Punish­ments, and to threaten men with them, as a suitable means in order to their Reformation in the present [Page 15] World, and to their salvation in the future.
• Fourthly, That it being Goodness to Ordain the Punishment, and to threaten men with it, in order to the compassing those Good and Graci­ous Ends upon them, It is no Want of Goodness, no more than 'tis In­justice, to Inflict it on the Obstinate and Irreclaimable, on whom these Good Designs are lost and defeated.

Of these in Order.

And First, That it hath pleased God to order and appoint for sin not only Temporal, and Momentany, but Infinite and Eternal Punishments, and that he threatens men with them, is a great Truth; such an One as is so fully setled in the Ho­ly Scriptures, that I Admire how any who Pretend to read these, can make any Q [...]estion of it. For what expression can be more signifi­cant and full, than that of Iohn? that the Blessed Jesus, when he once hath gathered [...]all his Wheat into his Granary, [...] burn up the chaffe [Page 16] with Unquenchable Fire; Alluding in it (likely) unto that of Isaiah, their worm shall not dye, neither shall their Fire be quench'd. Nor is that of Iesus Christ himself, in the Form of the Sentence (hereafter in the day of Judgement) to be pronoun­ced on the Wicked, less Pregnant, Depart from me ye Cursed into E­verlasting Fire, prepared for the De­vil and his Angels. And as full as either, is this of our great Apostle, that the Lord Jesus shall hereafter be Revealed from Heaven, with his mighty Angels, in flaming Fire, taking Vengeance on them who know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ, who (saith he) shall be punished with Ever­lasting Destruction, from the Pre­sence of the Lord, and from the Glo­ry of his Power. Everlasting De­struction, [...], the same word to shew the Everlastingness of that Destruction as to shew the Everlastingness of God himself: It is here [...] Everlasting [Page 17] Destruction, and otherwhere, it is [...], the Everlasting God. I know [...] sometimes used to signifie a Duration that is not Ever­lasting; but you see it also used to signifie One that is: And the Subject Matter must determine the Sense.

And who can once Question the Perpetuity and Everlastingness of Future Punishments, that seriously considers the Greatness and Infinity of the Wrath that shall inflict them? They are to be the Issues of the Utmost Wrath of God, and there­fore are not simply called Wrath, but Wrath in the Day of Wrath; Men treasuring up unto themselves infernal Torments, being Affirmed in the Sacred Writings, to treasure up Wrath unto themselves against the Day of Wrath.

And Judge how great a Wrath that is, since all Resentments in the heart of God proportion and adjust him? Without Question, whatever is in God, is in him according to the Vastness and Capacity of God; [Page 18] so that seeing God is absolutely Infi­nite in Being, and also is Immutable and Unchangeable, Wrath and Ha­tred, as well as Love and Good Will, as they exist in him, are also so. The Wrath of the King is as the Roar­ing of a Lion; what then is the Wrath of the King of Kings!

It is true, the Anger of Almighty God is in the present Dispensation trusted in the hands of Jesus Christ, [ All Iudgement is committed to the Son] and therefore for the present, since He, who hath the letting out of Wrath, is partaker of the Flesh and Blood of the Brethren, and so of kin to us, no wonder if it be let out according to Humane Measures, and with some consideration, and respect for man; which yet hereaf­ter in the World to come, when things shall be no longer in a Me­diators hands, but God himself who is inexorable, and inflexible but in his Son, shall immediately be All in All, and do All in All, is not to be presumed or hoped. So that [Page 19] though Divine Wrath break not out on sinners altogether in this World, yet in another it will. There is a Day of Wrath, and of the Reve­lation of the Righteous Judgement of God.

Here perhaps it may be offer'd, that Jesus Christ is so invested in the Government of things, that he has not only the managery of them before the day of Judgement, but is also to conclude the Scene in it, and consequently that the Sentence then to be pronounced, since it is to be so by a man, will be past on men with some allay and abatement. But it must be minded, that though the Son of man shall Judge the World, yet that he shall come to do so [...], in the Glory of his Father, or in Divine Majesty; as who would say, that when he Judges, He will lay aside those Humane considerati­ons and Respects he had before, and as he appeared more like man in all Precedent Transactions, so that [Page 20] He will shew himself like God in this last. Beside, He will immedi­ately resign the Government, assoon as he hath passed sentence; and (as I noted before) then God shall be All in All, so no Mutation, no Al­teration (after that) of States or Things.

I confess, Philosophy as clear and quick-fighted as she was in other Articles of Christian Doctrine, was but obscure and dimm in This. For though she saw a day of Judgement, and Rewards and Punishments in the Future Life, for whatever should be done in the Present, as is evident not only in Plato, both in the Story of Erus in his Rep. and in that fabu­lous tradition of which in Gorgias he maketh Socrates Relater; but al­so in Plutarch, in his Consolation to Apollonius, and in his Golden Trea­tise of Divine deferring of Punish­ment. So in Seneca, in Iamblicus, and in many other of the grave and antient Philosophers.

[Page 21] Yet for want of Understanding of the Interest that Jesus Christ hath in Things Now, and by consequence, unhappily mistaking in taking mea­sure of the Distribution of Rewards and Punishments hereafter, by what is at present; She saw not their E­ternity and Infinite duration. For whoever readeth Plato in his Book of Laws, cannot doubt of his Opi­nion in the matter; Plutar. de iis q. tar. [...] Num. co [...]rip. nor is Plutarch less plain, who in the Fable of Thespesius of Soles, expresly tells us, that Infernal Punishments are Purga­tory and Medicinal, Clem. Alex­and. Str [...]w. l. 5. as Ephesius also thought the [...] or Infernal Fire to be. And withal, that there is a certain Term set for their Du­ration and Continuance, which ex­pires, when the soul is fully clean­sed, purged and Refined by them, from all Infection of Matter, and all its Filth. Finis autem (faith he) & terminus tormentorum ac pur­gationis existit, quum concreta ex­empts est labes, Pl [...]t. de iis qui tard. à Num. cor. anima (que) splendida & ab omnibus ma [...]ulis & labe red­di [...]ur [Page 22] pura. This was Plutarch's Opinion of Infernal Torments, and Seneca can own no other, as will appear hereafter, when we shall shew his notion of Punishment.

Yes, Virgil. apud Lactant. Instit. l. 7.6.22. and if we will believe Virgil in the Eloquent Lactantius, it was in his time a General Tradition (for he but Relates what he himself had heard, sit mihi fas audita loqui,) That the Damned Spirits, after they have suffered in the Infernal Gulf a thousand years, the Punishments in­flicted on them (for their sins) are at the expiration of the said Term, to be sent to Bethe, there to take a Cup of Oblivion or Forgetfulness. And having drunk there their Fill, Benummed with a Mortal Sopor, and consequently Irrecoverably losing and forgetting All they did, or suf­fer'd before, are then Restored to a new Condition, and Re-admitted in­to Heaven, where they live again in all Felicity and Happiness, till not contented with it, but Longing to make another Tryal of their For­tunes [Page 23] here below on this Terrestrial Stage, they be accordingly disposed into Proper Vehicles, and (so) Re­appear in Our World to expiate that Folly and Weakness of leaving the Other. This is the Round. A Revolution and Hypothesis to which the Origenian is so like, that I be­lieve it a Daughter; and so believ­ed St. Augustine, Aug. de Ciuit. D [...]i, l. 11.6.23. who mentions and confutes it as Origen's. Again, who feeth not in this (Hypothesis) That Lethe, that Fiction of the Poets, Answers to the State of Si­lence, which some Learned men im­prove, and stand upon so much in Their's! I lay it down as certain, That Lethe is the State of Silence. But let Maro speak himself.

This was the Old Hypothesis; so Dark were former Ages: Yes so dark were former Ages in the Point of Death Eternal, or of the Perpe­tuity of the Punishments in the other World, that before Christ, they seemed scarce at all to Understand it. This (I take it) is the mean­ing of the great Apostle of the Gen­tiles, when in the first Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, he saith, the Wrath of God is Revealed from Heaven; namely, that the Light of Nature, by which I understand the Catholick Tradition of the World, as well as common Reason, did not manifest the Perpetuity of infernal [Page 25] Torments, but that before the Preaching of the Gospel, which is a Revelation of the Mind of God from Heaven, men as little appre­hended the Wrath of God for sin, in the Duration and Eternity there­of, as they did the Righteousness of God, for Salvation from it. It is the Gospel bringeth both Eternal Death, and Eternal Life to Light. This Knowledge is an Effect of the Light of Revelation, and not of the Light of Nature. The Wrath of God, as well as the Righteousness of God, is reveal'd from Heaven. Oppositorum eadem est scientia.

But yet as clear a Revelation as there is Now from Heaven in the Gospel, of Eternal Wrath on Sin­ners, as the Philosophers before ig­nor'd it, so there are many Christi­ans since, not only Origen and those who follow him, but also others, who make a scruple to admit it: concerning whom and their Dogmata, together with the Censure of the Church on Origen for this Conceit, [Page 26] you have the Excellent St. Augustine in a Chapter of his Treatise of the City of God, Aug. de Ciu. dei, l. 21. c. 17. designedly discoursing in these terms. ‘Now I must have a Gentle disputation with certain tender hearts of our own Religion, who think that God, who hath justly doomed the Damned to Hell fire, will after a certain space, which his Goodness shall think fit for the merit of each mans guilt, deliver them from that torment. And of this Opinion was Origen in far more pittiful manner, for He held that the Devils them­selves after a set time expired, should be loosed from their tor­ments, and become bright Angels in Heaven, as they were before, but this and other of his Opini­ons, chiefly that Rotation, and Circum-volution of misery and bliss, which he held, that all mankind should run in, gave the Church cause to pronounce him Anathema, seeing he had lost, &c. But to Return.’

[Page 27]Thus Infinite Eternal Punishments are (you see) ordain'd for Sin­ners. But of the Nature of them, and where they are Inflicted, as I cannot hold my self obliged to di­scourse here at large, so I shall not; Only thus much I will say, that Hell, it noteth not so much a Place, as a State; and yet in regard that that State must needs be in some Place, I will offer somewhat, first, as to the Place, and then, as to the State, or (if you please) the Kind and Nature of the Torments of Hell.

For the Place: The old Theolo­gists among the Heathen (if we may believe Macrobius) before Phi­losophy was Extant, esteemed the Bo­dy Hell, and that the Soul descended into Hell, when first it came into the Body: Antequam studium phi­losophiae (saith he) circa nature in­quisitionem ad tantum vigoris ado­lesceret, Macrob. in Some. Scip, [...]. 10. qui per diversas gentes au­tores in constituendis sacris ceremo­niarum fu [...]runt, aliud esse inferos negau [...]runt, quàm ipsa corpora, qui­bus [Page 28] inclusae animae, carcerem foedum tenebris, horridum sordibus & cru­ore patiuntur.

And Basilides that conceited He­retick, as also the Marcionists before him, held the same Opinion, that Souls that had committed sin in ano­ther Life, did come to satisfie and suffer for it in this; Than which (as a Father tells us) nothing could be said with more Extravagance and Folly. Lactant. de falsa sap. c. 18. Quae ignorantia effecit, ut quosdam dicere non puderet, idcirco nos esse natos, ut scelerum poenas lueremus, quo quid delirius dici pos­sit, non invenio. Ubi enim, vel quae scelera potuimus admittere, qui omnino non fuimus? Nisi forte cre­demus inepto illi seni, qui se inpriori vita Euphorbum fuisse mentitus est.

But some of the Platonists (for, as the lately mentioned Macrobius informs us, there were of three Opi­nions concerning it among them) affirmed that the Place of Hell was all that space between the Moon, or (as they Lov'd to speak) the Ethe­real [Page 29] Earth and This; the Descripti­on whereof, as I receiv'd it from the Author, because it may afford an Entertainment to the Curious and Inquisitive, I will represent at large out of Him. Macrob. in Som [...]. Scip. c. 11. Inferos autem Plato­nici non in corporibus esse, id est, non à corporibus incipere, dixerunt, sed certam mundi ipsius partem Ditis sedem, id est, Inferos vocaverunt. De loci vero ipsius finibus inter se dissona publicarunt, & in tres sectas divisa sententia est. Alii enim mun­dum in duo diviserunt, quorum al­terum facit, alterum patitur. Et il­lud facere dixerunt, quod cum sit immutabile, alteri causam & neces­sitatem permutationis imponit: Hoc pati, quod per mutationes variatur. Et immutabilem quidem mundi par­tem à Sphaera quae aplanes dici­tur, us (que) ad globi lunaris exordi­um. Mutabilem vero à luna ad terras us (que) dixerunt. Et vi­vere animas dum in immutabili parte consistunt, mori autem cum ad partem ceciderint permutationis ca­pacem. [Page 30] At (que) ideo inter Lunam ter­ras (que) locum mortis & inferorum vo­cari, ipsam (que) Lunam vitae esse mor­tisque confinium, & animas inde in terram fluentes mori, inde ad supe­ra meantes in vitam reverti, nec im­merito existimatum est. A Luna [...]nim deorsum natura incipit caduco­rum, ab hac animae sub numerum di­erum cadere, & sub tempus incipi­unt. Deni (que) illam Aetheream ter­ram physici vocaverunt, & habita­tores ejus Lunares populos nuncu­paverunt, &c.

But whatever this Macrobius tell us of the Platonists: Certainly, ac­cording to Plato himself, to most of the Fathers, and to the subtile School­men, the Place of Hell (which, as these last affirm, must be as far as possible from that of Heaven) is subterranean, and near the Center: Of which in Plato's Phaedo, we have a large Description, not only in re­spect of all the Punishments and Torments in it, but of the several Limbi and Prisons. 'Twould be too [Page 31] long to repeat what he saith of it. lamblicus in a place of his Protre­pticks hints the same Opinion. Prae­stantior quippe (saith he) anima cum diis habitat, Iambl. Pro­tr [...]p. cap. 13. & circum circa coetum profectionem suscipit, melio­rem (que) finem assequitur. Quae autem injusta opera contigit, impio (que) opere at (que) impietate oppleta fuit, ubi ad loca judicii subt [...]rranea venerit, aequam justam (que) poenam consequitur. Quorum causa omnia faciend [...] sunt, ut interea, dum vivimus, virtutis prudentiae (que) participes simus. And what other thing doth that of Plu­tarch intimate — Sed summa duntaxat Terrae Sole illuminantur: Plutarch. de prim. frig. Interiora Caligo, Chaos, Orcus nomi­nantur. Ac profecto Erebus ille ter­renarum est tenebrarum Obscuritas.

Now of the three Opinions men­tioned, the Holy Scripture seems to some to favour that most, which Perswades the Air (to be) the Place of Hell; for it is in Tartarus, or in the Air the Daemons are imprisoned in the Chains of Darkness; and the [Page 32] Devil, who is called the Devil of Hell, is styled in Holy Writings, the Prince of the Power of the Air, or as some translate it, consistently enough with this Opinion, the Prince of the Power of Darkness. I say con­sistently with this Opinion, since it is the Air that is by Many Antients [as well Poets as Philosophers] as­serted the darkest and obscurest thing in Nature, atqui ne Poetas quidem latuit (saith Plutarch) Ae­rem primo [...]enebrosum, Plut. ubi supra. &c. and so Phornutus, Phornut. de Nat: Deor. At postremo Animas ac­cipientem Aera [...] vocarunt ob Tenebras, (ut ipsi quidem cense­bant) quum pro [...]sus nobis disparu­erint, qui eo sub terram concesse­runt. So conformably to them doth Peter speak, when in the se­cond Chapter of his second Epistle, he saith God did Tartarize the Angels in Chains of Darkness, or put them in Chains of Darkness in Tartarus; or as we translate it very well, Imprison them in chains of Darkness. For Tartarus [Page 33] is the Prison of Justice, so Socrates in Plato's Gorgias, whence Plutarch had it in his Treatise de consolatione ad A­pollonium—qui vixisset injuste & im­piè is in vindictae ac justitiae Carce­rem, quem Tartarum appellant, abiret. And this Tartarus is in the Air. So Hesiod in Plutarch, Proinde ex frigore Tartarus appellatus est, Pl [...]t. de prim. frig. Quod Hesio­dus it a declarat, Tartaron aereum.

But though the Scripture seem (to some) to favour this Opinion most, that Hell is in the Air, yet there is a Text which looketh fairly for the more received that 'tis Subterranean, namely that of Iob. 26.5. Not indeed as our Tran­slation (scarce intelligibly) renders it, Dead things are formed from under the Waters, and the Inhabitants thereof; but as the Original, [...] The Rephaim or the Giants do wail, sorrow or Groan under the Waters, and the Inhabitants of them. The Giants are under the Waters.

Now it is as certain that the Re­phaim [Page 34] or Giants (of whom we read in Gen. 6.) are in (the depths of) Hell, as that they here are said to be under the waters. For in Sacred Scripture, the Congregation of the Rephaim, or the Place of the Giants, is a Paraphrase thereof, so Prov. 21.16. The man that wanders ou [...] out of the way of Understanding, shall Remain, we translate it [in the Congregation of the Dead] but to the letter, in the Congregation of the Giants or in Hell; and Prov. 2.18. Her house inclineth unto Death, and her Paths unto the Rephaim, or Gi­ants, to Hell.

What other then is Iob's mean­ing, than that the Giants are in Hell [They wail]? and consequently that Hell is Subterranean and Infernal, [They wail under the waters]? So that the Tartarus wherein these Monsters are, in his Opinion, is not that of Hesiod, A [...]d Plat. i [...] P [...]aed. who if Plutarch took him Right, did place it in the Air, but Homer's who makes it an Abysse or Gulf of Waters. I said if Plu­tarch [Page 35] took him Right, for it may be doubted, since the Epithet of Tarta­rus [...]ereus on which he bottoms that Perswasion, Plut. de prim. frig. is as well in Homer, who thought not so, as in Hesiod.

I am abundantly confirmed in the sense given, not only by what some Learned men have largely written on the Text, with whom you may consult at leisure, but especially from a Passage in the accurate Pau­sanias, Pausanias in Arcad. which I could not but Re­marque, when I read it. [...] That Homer was the first that sang that the Titans or Giants were Gods (Inhabitants) in that Place which is called Tartarus or Hell. So plain a Comment this is on that of Iob. The Giants groan from under the Waters, and the Inhabitants of them. The Giants are in Hell, and there groan, which that none ought to doubt to be the true meaning, there immediately follows, [...] Hell is naked before him. [Page 36] But this Hell is under the Waters; and so is Homer's.

For my part, I am apt to think that Hell is of a Vast Extent, and that the bounds and limits of it, are not so strict and narrow, as the most imagine. It may not be con­fined within the Air, nor within a certain Cavity and Hollow under the Earth; Happily it is as large and comprehensive as the whole Elemen­tary World; which that indeed it is, what already hath been urged about it upon the several Opinions, does in some degree Evince. And it may be Hell hereafter, will not be the same with that which now is Hell. But secret things belong to God.

This for the Place of Hell, and for the Kind and Nature of the Punishment which is therein; It doth not only consist in Loss and Deprivation, but also in Pain and Exquisite Torments. For this Rea­son it is called Fire, and the rather called so, because (that) Hell it self is styled in the Sacred Scri­ptures [Page 37] [...], a word deriv'd from others in the Hebrew which signifie the Valley of Hinnon, a Place where­in the superstitious Israelites, with an Inhumanity that cannot be ex­pressed, did offer up their Children in the Fire to Moloch.

Not that Infernal Fire is Materi­al and Corporeal, or that it is a Proper, but (only) Metaphorical Fire. A Fire it is, but such an one as is prepared for the Devil, and for his Angels, which if it were Corporeal or Material, since Corpo­real and Material Beings act not on Incorporeal, Immaterial Spirits, it could not be imagined to be. Again, as the Worm that never dyes is Meta­phorical and Figurative, so is the Fire that never goeth out. Be­sides, Hell is generally called Tar­tarus, and that as Plutarch tells us for the Coldness of it [ ex frigore Tartarus appellatus est.] Plut. ubi sup. Nor is this a Fancy only of Poets, or of some few Philosophers, 'tis Scri­pture, That in Hell is Weeping and [Page 38] Wailing and Gnashing of teeth: and [...] est algentem quassari & contremiscere, to shake and gnash ones Teeth for cold. In Plato's Hell, which he describes in his Ph [...]do, there is both Fire and Water.

But though in Hell there be no Proper Fire, yet since the torments in it are frequently compared to Fire, and with the addition of Brimstone, it must needs consist (whatever some imagine) in some thing equally as Dire, as Insup­portable, as Tormenting, and as Vexatious as that. Which that it does, we have not only Plato's Testimony, Plat. l. 9. de Leg. but (if we will believe him) the common sentiment of all the World to Evince and Prove i [...]. It is (saith he) a Common and Re­ceiv'd Tradition that Infernal Tor­ments are most Atrocious and Insup­portable; a Tradition so received in his time, that he most Pathetically inveighs against the Irreclaimable Obdurateness, and Obstinacy of [Page 39] men, whom that Consideration could not awe and terrifie: You may read it in his own terms in his Book of Laws.

Again, Infernal Torments are not only most Atrocious and severe, but extended both to body and soul. And it is so great Reason that the Body should as well suffer as the Soul, That some have thought it not un­likely, that the soul, as it did not sin but in the Body, so it doth not suffer but with it: That 'tis Soul and Body in conjunction that do make man, and it is man, not the Soul without the Body, not the Body without the Soul, but Soul and Bo­dy soder'd into one Compositum that sins, and that which sins must suf­fer. The Man sins and the man must suffer.

But I drive it not so far, for the Soul in state of Union to the Body, as it liveth in it, so it acteth by it, the Soul as so is Actus corpo­ris, and is nothing but what relateth to the Body, and consequently all its Actions are Organical; yet since it [Page 40] can be separated, and, though not as Anima, yet as Ens can subsist alone without the Body; It is in that Estate Responsible [and just it should] for what it did in the other. I say just it should; Plat. in P [...]aed. Philo de Agricult. For the Soul it guides the Body, it governs it, and to use a comparison that hath had the Honour to have been a Phi­losophers, is to it as a Rider to his Horse; who though he goeth no where, but where the Horse carries him, and Acteth nothing but by it, yet since he governs the Horse, which goeth as Directed, no wonder if un­hors'd and on his own legs, he suf­fer for the Trespasses he made his Horse to commit. He suffers on foot for what he did on Horse­back.

All I infer is, That 'tis highly Reasonable that the man who sin­ned with his Body, should suffer in it, as well as in his Soul; and that 'tis Just that they who were toge­ther in the Crime, should also be conjoyn'd in the Punishment, as in­deed [Page 41] they shall, for we must all Ap­pear before the Iudgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his Body, 2 Cor. 5.10.

So much for the first Particular, that there are Eternal and Atroci­ous Punishments ordained to be in­flicted in the other World both on Soul and Body, for the sins of Men committed in this. I am now in Prosecution of the Order I proposed to my self, to Evidence the Second; which is, That there is not any In­equality in the Punishment ordain­ed to the sin; but great Equality and Proportion.

Which to effect with all imagi­nable Evidence and clearness, I will first lay down a Truth acknowledged by all that know any thing (viz.) That every sin is committed against God, who not only is most Excellent Majesty, but also Infinitely Good un­to the sinner himself, and conse­quently that 'tis Infinite in Aggra­vation. Then [in the second place] [Page 42] I will make it Evident and Unde­nyable, that that Infinite Aggrava­tion which is in every sin, by Rea­son of its Object, is the Bottom, Ground, and Foundation, whereon the Perpetuity of its Punishment is Erected. Thirdly, I will fully prove (to Obviate some exceptions which may lye before me) that though In­sernal Punishments be all of them Perpetual, and consequently Infinite protensively and in duration, yet that Intrinsecally and Subjectively they are but Finite. And when I have acquitted me of what I promise you on these points, then in the fourth place, I shall lay before your eyes, in a full and more express de­lineation, the great Equality and Proportion between the Sin and Pu­nishment; which I will abundantly confirm by many more considerations I shall add.

And for the first, That every Sin is committed against God, who not only is most Excellent Majesty, but also Infinitely Good, and to the [Page 43] sinner himself, cannot be denyed by one that Understands the Nature of sin. Against thee, the Royal Psal­mist saith, Psal. 51.4. thee only have I sinned. The Wrong and Injury may be a­gainst man, as that of David was against Uriah, but the Sinfulness therein is only against God. There is in every sin a Transgression, Lev. 16.16. Deut. 17.2. [Their Transgressions in all their sins] or a Breach and Violation of the Law of God, and in this the sin­fulness of sin consists. This import­ing in it Inexcusable [...] and contempt of God. Such is the Na­ture, and such the Object of Sin.

Now the Moral Evil is in any Action receives an Aggravation from the Object (of it,) and that Relation the Offender stands in to­wards that; for instance, what is but Assault and Battery upon an Or­dinary Man, is Treason on the Prince: To strike ones Soveraign is a Capital and hainous Crime, Unex­piable but by the Blood of him that does offend in that kind, when yet [Page 44] to give a Private Person a Blow, is not so. Arist. de Mor. [...] 5. c. 8. So Aristotle, [...], If any be so Hardy as to strike a Magistrate, he ought not only to have Blow for Blow, but to be se­verely Punish't. Thus the Philoso­pher; and it was one of the Laws of the Twelve Tables, Re, Persona, Tempore, Loco Atrociores injuriae ju­dicantor, That Injuries were to be esteemed to receive Aggravations by the Person offended, Labeo apud Olde [...]dorp. in leg 12. Tab [...]l tit. 11. so Labeo inter­prets it, Persona atrocior injuria sit, cum Magistratui, cum Parenti, Patronóve fiat. The Injury is ren­dred more Atrocious by the Person, when it is done to a Magistrate, a Parent, or a Patron.

And granting This, Then How im­mense and infinite an aggravation must we of force Acknowledge in all sin, when we consider in it that Con­tempt, Scorn and Parvipension of God, which does compose it? That it is against a Majesty so Excellent, and High, against the King of Kings, [Page 45] the Lord of Lords: against the Hea­venly Father, the Great Creator, the Great Benefactor, him from whom the sinner hath Receiv'd his own Being, and all the Goods, Comforts and Advantages of it.

Most certain it is, that those con­siderations in inferior Objects, which scatter'd and dispersed, do render Actions under greatest Guilt and aggravation, are all Concentred to aggravate what ever Action man is guilty of against God. For if it be an Aggravation of the Crime among men, for the Subject to Af­front his King, for the Child his Fa­ther, for the Vassal his Lord, for the Obliged his Benefactor; God is King, is Father, is Lord or Owne [...], is Benefactor, &c. and the Sinner is his Subject, his Child, his Own, his Obliged.

Yes, and all the Aggravations Reflected on the faulty Action by this Transcendent Object, are as much Superiour to those deriv'd from any other, as those Considerations [Page 46] which in God are aggravating, do transcend the same that are so in man. As much as God himself in Ex­cellency is above Man, This King above all other Kings, the Heavenly Father above an Earthly, this Sove­raign Benefactor above Inferiour Benefactors, of so much greater Guilt and aggravation in all respects, is a crime against the former, than it can be against the latter. The Degree of Aggravation bears Pro­portion to the Excellency which Effects it.

This the Antient Romans had some understanding of, and therefore to Protect Persons invested with (the Soveraign) Power and Authority, from all Affronts, they were wont to style them Sacred, to the End that by consideration of the Name and Character of God upon them, Sub­jects Apprehending so much more Horror in the Crime, might be sca­red from Attempting what otherwise perhaps (without it) they would have soon presum'd to do. So [Page 47] Floccus, Floc. in Prae [...]at. ad lib. depo­test. Rom. Romanis Legibus cautum est (saith he) u [...] omnes. Potestatem habentes, quò plus apud eos majesta­tis esset, Sacrosancti appellarentur, ut si quis quempiam in magistratu violasset Religio judicaretur.

By this time I make no question but a small Objection which hath mi­nistred but too much matter of Per­plexity to some, will offer none to you, namely, that it will not follow that Sin is therefore Infinite, because against an Infinite God, no more than that it is Good, and Iust, and Holy, and Omnipresent and the like, be­cause against a Good, a Iust, an Holy and Omnipresent God. For you see I argue not the Infinity of the sin, barely from that Infinity which is in God, so as if this Attribute in him did Physically (as some would speak) and Naturally imprint its like upon the faulty Action; no, this Infinity in sin is not a Natural Infinity, but a Moral, not Infinity of Being, but of Guilt and Aggrava­tion, and consequently, such an one, [Page 48] as cannot be derived but from such Considerations [Moral] as are able to Reflect it. It is not deriv'd Phy­sically, but Morally. I doubt not but you comprehend my meaning, that Sin is not to be affirmed Infinite, meerly because it has an Infinite and Transcendent Being for its Object, For this the mentioned Objection fully evidences, but because there are Perfections in the Divine Nature, such as Goodness, Greatness and the like, that are of a Quality to Greaten the Offence, and Fault against them; which Perfections being Infinite, do make the Aggravations they Reflect upon the crime or sin Proportiona­ble. For it is a manifest, a Plain and an Infallible consequence, that if a crime against obliging Goodness, or the like Consideration (for what is instanced in One will hold in All) be great; and against a greater Good­ness, it be a greater crime; then a crime against an Infinite and incon­ceivable Goodness, must needs be a crime of Infinite and inconceivable [Page 49] Guilt: Ut se habet simpliciter ad simpliciter, ita magis ad magis, & maximè ad maximè.

Hence it follows, that no sin is small. For not to stand on this Subtilty, that there is a kind of Boundlesness and of Infinity in Sin, Sin being in its very Nature a trans­gression or Excess of Bounds, the Law it setteth bounds and limits un­to mens Affections, but sin trans­gresseth them. I say, not to stand on that Consideration, the Conclu­sion Evidently follows from what I have already offer'd. For if every Sin be Transgression, and essential­ly imply a Violation of the Law of God, a Preferring of Our Unruly, Profane, Unrighteous, Evil Wills before His, which is Holy, Just and Good, and consequently, be an of­fering of Indignity, and (as it were) affront to Him, it is easie to inferr, that None is small, since to violate the Divine Authority and Pleasure, and to despise it and contemn it for our Own, cannot be imagin'd so.

[Page 50]I the rather do Enforce this great, Truth, because I know many Athe­istically inclined, who deride the Doctrine of the Fall of man occasi­on'd by the eating of an Apple, as a senseless and absurd conceit. It cannot penetrate their Understand­ings, that a Wise, and Just, and Good God should conceive so great Anger and Indignation for so small and poor a thing, that He should expose the First man, and all De­scendants from him, to the danger of Eternal Ruine, for no more than eating an Apple. And what is an Apple to be compared with Man­kind, and with all its comforts! In the day thou eatest, thou shalt dye the death, Demad. apud Plu­tarch. in Solon. looketh better like one of Draco's Laws, which for their Inhumanity, were noted to be writ­ten in Blood, than like a Sanction of Gods.

And indeed an Apple is no great matter, nor is the eating of it in it self a Greater; But then it is no small matter neither to offer an Affront to [Page 51] God Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, to scorn and contemn most Excellent Majesty, to oppose his Will, to break his Bands asunder, and cast away his Cords, which Adam did in eating. And what is offer'd by the Atheist in order to extenuate and abate the Guilt, doth extreamly aggravate and heighten it, that he would break with God for (but) an Apple, as one resolved to deny himself in nothing, to keep in with God, and Please Him who is his Maker and Soveraign. Verily He that will break for an Apple, will break for any thing. Without doubt, It was an Ample Demonstra­tion of the Infinite Benignity and Goodness of God, that He did not choose a greater matter to exercise the Vertue and Obedience of the First Man in, who might very well have forborn the Apples of but One Tree, when he had so many Others bountifully Accorded to him, to Ob­lige and gratifie him. Indeed had God Requir'd Proof of Mans Obe­dience [Page 52] in a matter absolutely neces­sary to his Comfort or Delight, it might have minister'd some colour of Excuse for his Failure. But now there is None. 'Twas but an Apple, no more that God denyed him, and would he run the hazard of Divine Displeasure, and Expose his own Eternal Happiness for That? What Pretext can there be for a Plea, that he would be faithful in greater matters, that broke his Faith for so small a One? Some find the Breach of all the Commandments in This. Verily, That Adam disob­liged God for an Apple, it argues the greater contempt of God, and the greater Injustice in Adam. For this I appeal to Aristotle, who speaks home to All I have said. [...]. l. 1. c. 15. [...]— Those Injuries are greater which proceed from a greater Injustice; on which consideration, the least things done, [Page 53] may be the greatest wrongs. So Callistratus accused Melanopus, that he had defrauded the Maker of Shrines of Three Half-pence, &c.

But to Return. This Sin Objec­ctively is Infinite, and it is on this Infinity of Guilt and aggravation which is in Sin by reason of its Ob­ject, that the Perpetuity of its Pu­nishment, or to use your own expres­sion, the Infinity thereof is ground­ed, which is the Second thing to be Proved.

And the first Consideration to Evince it (which I shall insist upon again hereafter, when I more ex­presly shew the Proportion and E­quality between the Sin and Punish­ment) is, that there is nothing else in the Punishment of meerly Finite Beings, but the Perpetuity or Infini­ty of its Duration, that can answer that Infinity and Vastness of Guilt and Aggravation which is in the Sin, by Reason of that Infinite Goodness and Transcendent Majesty, that is the Butt and Object of it. [Page 54] Nothing in the Punishment but its Infinite Duration answers the Infi­nity of the Guilt and Aggravation in the Sin.

But beside this main considerati­on, there is another that Establishes it, namely, that Eternal Death or Perpetuity of Punishment, is threat­ned unto sin as sin [every sin] and therefore must be bottomed on some­thing is in sin as sin [in every sin] which what it should be is unimagi­nable other than the Aggravation it receiveth from the Object; which if you suppose it but to be, then will all things be adjusted, and (as I shall evidently shew hereafter on the fourth Head) will all lye Even and Square.

Nor is it a Barr unto the Truth alledged and Pleaded for, but ra­ther a Confirmation, that the Pu­nishment which Jesus Christ sustain­ed in behalf of all that will receive him, who suffering in their stead, is understood to bear what they should, was in its utmost Duration, and Ex­tent [Page 55] but short and momentany: For as much as it is evident, that the Punishment in Him receiv'd the same Infinity, or Reputation from the Subject, he being GOD-MAN, that the sin of man Receiv'd from the Object, which was GOD. For if in the One, God was sinn'd against, in the Other, God suffered; the Blood of Christ was the Blood of God. The Sin was Infinite, it was committed against an Infinite God; the Punishment was infinite, it was suffer'd by an Infinite Person. Not that Christ suffer'd as he was God, God as God cannot suffer, but he who was God, suffer'd. Passions, as Actions are of Persons or Suppo­sites, and as the Infinity of the Ob­ject made the Sin Infinite in Aggra­vation; So the Infinity of the Sub­ject suffering, made the Punishment so in Value and Reputation. Thus Christ suffering for us, suffered but a moment, though we, had we suf­fered for our selves, were to suffer to Eternity.

[Page 56]So congruous it is, and so agree­able that the Perpetuity of infernal Punishment should be bottom'd on the aggravation which the sin re­ceiveth from its object: but yet as evident a Truth, and as Perspicuous as it seemeth, Many there are who cannot Acquiesce and rest contented with it, Who think themselves obliged to Account for this Article, in a very different way and manner from that so lately proposed.

They tell us, tha [...] men are there­fore Infinitely Punished, or as some express it, Punished in Gods Eterni­ty, because they sin in their own, they sin as long as they live, and therefore suffer for it, as long as God Lives. Of which Assertion there are two senses, of which I must acknowledge that they seem tolerable, and to bear some Weight, (for in the third it is a Jingle, most unworthy of the Gravity and Judge­ment of the men that use it.) The first is, That thé Damned should they live for ever here, they would [Page 57] sin for ever, and so are Punisht not for what they have done, but what they would do. The Second, that in Hell they never leave sinning, and that therefore God will never leave Punishing.

Truth is, it were all one to me and my design, which is to evidence the Perpetuity of Internal Torments, to have it bottomed on either these considerations (one or both) if I thought them able to support the weight of it, or on the former I have laid. But not having that Opinion of their great sufficiency and strength some others have, and knowing that a weak and ruinous foundation, most times betrayes the Fabrick; I am unwilling a Doctrine of so much concernment and im­portance unto all mankind, and to all Religion, should be oblig'd to stand or fall with them. Where­fore, that for the future none may build upon them, I shall be­stow a little of my time, and exercise a little of your patience [Page 58] to shew their Weakness.

For the first then, that the Damn­ed would sin for ever if they lived for ever here, and that therefore they are Punished for ever. I say it seemeth not an Account that can be owned with any safety to the honour of Divine Iustice, seeing to those that weigh things, and that know That only to be Just which is Equal, it appears not so Consistent with it, that the Punishment should be Actual, Real, Effectual, when the Sin for which it is inflicted, is only Possible, Hypothetical, and on Sup­position (only.) That which would be, never was in Act, and it seemeth very hard, and most unworthy Infi­nite and Soveraign Righteousness and Justice, That there should be Punishment inflicted actually, for sin that never was (in Act.) Non-en­tities have no Praedicates, and can do Nothing, if the Sin never was, it can merit no Punishment. 'Tis [...]rue the Intention of evil is some­times Punisht, where there is no [Page 59] evil Effect, but then the Intention is the Crime. In all I have said, I suppose the Objection to proceed of the Event, and not of the De­sign, that the Damned would for ever sin, if they liv'd for ever; not that they Actually and explicitly re­solv'd to sin for ever. (For) this case is rare, if possible. In this the malice of the Will would be Infinite, and so he that had an Actual Will or Resolve to sin for ever, if he could, would deserve for that to be punished for ever. The will which is the Cardinal and Grand Principle of what is Moral in an Action, might justly pass for the Deed. But of all the Damned few, if any, can be conceiv'd to have such Resolves and Intentions.

Nor is the second Opinion, That the Damned are subject to Eternal Punishment in Hell, because they sin there Eternally,] of more Impor­tance than the former. For though the Damned sin materially, and per­petrate in Hell the same Actions [Page 60] (some of them) which they did on Earth, and for which they suffer in Hell, yet 'tis a great Question, whe­ther they may rationally be affirmed formally to sin there, since there is no Law there: Hell is no part of Gods Kingdom, those in it, are not subjects, but condemned Rebels; and there is no Transgression; and consequently no Sin, where there is no Law.

Nor is their doing Actions which in themselves were sinful formerly, and which perhaps are still so in Others, an Argument they sin now in it. For as the Beasts that are not under Law, though they do the same Actions that men do, yet do not sin in doing them as men sin, so the Damned that do the same Acti­ons, yet being now Exiled and Ba­nished by God from under his Pro­tection, and from his Kingdom, in­to DUCER Darkness, and consequently, are no longer under the Law of his Kingdom, they do not sin in what they do, but suffer [Page 61] for what they sinn'd. Hell is not a Place of Sinning, but of Punish­ing. Their Sin there is their Pu­nishment.

Again, a Person once condemn'd to dye for Treason, cannot in our Law, be Judicially called in questi­on for any subsequent Act, because he is Civiliter mortuus; His former Attainder of Treason is the highest and last work of the Law, in the eye of which he is Dead, after that, and so unable to commit offences. And why, after Sentence pronounced by Divine Justice on the Guilty Sinner, may not he be looked on as Dead in Gods Law, and as uncapable of do­ing any thing against it more? Is not the State of Hell in Scripture call'd the Second Death?

But to Destroy the both Opinions at Once, with one Argument; Eter­nal Death is threatned unto men for sin in this life, and the sentence of it is Pronounced on the Damn'd for this; Depart from me you cursed into Everlasting Fire; and why? [Page 62] for I was an hungred, and you gave me no meat; I was a thirst, and you gave me no Drink; I was a stranger, and you took me not in; Naked, and you cloathed me not; Sick, and in Prison, and you visited me not; Therefore Depart from me, you Cursed, into Everlasting Fire. Now, is Eternal Death be threatned unto men for sin in this Life, and the Sentence of it be pro­nounced upon them for what they have committed here; it cannot Ra­tionally be presumed, that the Ever­lastingness of the Punishment should not be founded on some thing in the sin already acted in the present world, but only either on the Hypothetical Perpetuation of it in this, or on a Fancied Continuation and Persist­ance in it Hereafter in the Other.

And having said thus much, you cannot doubt of my sense of what the Learned Parker further offers out of the Schoolmen, in his Treatise de Descensu, which because it is a Learned Passage, and one, that by [Page 63] Representing the Variety of Opinions about the thing whereon I now di­scourse, will also represent the Dif­ficulty of deciding in it, I shall give you entirely.— Atqui nostrum, Park. de Desc. lib. 4. quòd in medio, tutissimum iter est: Christum nempe, &c.— ‘But our Opinion lyes in the middle in which it is most safe to go, namely that Christ endured the very Pains of Hell as to their Substance, which were due to us, and yet avoided their Eternity. To make this clear, We Deny that Infer­nal Eternal Pain is absolutely due to All Sins; and withal, with the Schoolmen, particularly with Io­hanne's Scotus, and with Iohannes Picus C. of Mirandula affirm, that some Distinction must be made in this matter. There are Three things then that ought to be considered by us in sin: The first is the Aversion that is in it from God; and to this the Pain of Loss which is Infinite is due, forasmuch as it is the Amission of an Infi­nite [Page 64] Good. The second is a Con­version to what is Perishing and Transient, and to this the pain of sense is Due, which is Intensively Finite, Agreeably as that delight and pleasure the sinner takes there­in is Finite. But thirdly, there is to be considered also in sin, ei­ther the Continuation and Persist­ence (of the sinner) in it, or his Cessation from it. It is only with the first of these that Eter­nity of Pain doth hold proporti­on. The second is adjusted by a but Temporal enduring of the Pain. It is Objected that every sinner sins in his Eternity (as Gregory speaks) forasmuch as he hath cast himself upon a necessity of sin­ning, from which he cannot possi­bly be Restrained by any endea­vours of his own: This indeed is true, and therefore the Eternity of Punishment doth naturally fol­low their sin; But yet this hin­ders not but that if sin be super­naturally interrupted, by Re­pentance, [Page 65] in that case Extremity only, and not Eternity of Punish­ment should be the Due; as which answers the greatness of the sin but finitely committed; And this is that which Scotus con­tends for, and which the Count of Mirandula demonstrates at large, namely, that to sin continued to Eternity both in the Guilt and Filth, Eternal Punishment is due; but that it is in no wise necessary, nor exacted by Divine Justice; that Eternal Punishment should be inflicted for sins, that are not con­tinued to Eternity, but abandoned by Repentance. Now things be­ing so, 'tis easie for Every Body to discern how Iesus Christ endured the Pain of Hell, without the E­ternity; especially, That being re­membred which we said before, That He sustained not the Infernal Pains of those actually Damned, but only of those that were to be so. [ Non Damnatorum poenam gehennalem sustinuisse, sed Dam­nandorum [Page 66] tantum.] Verily the Use of this Distinction here is ve­ry great, since those that are Actu­ally Damned sin far otherwise than the Elect that were to be so: So that Eternal Torment is in Justice due to Them; but to these Extream Torment (indeed) is, but not Eternal. This is clear in a simile. Imprisonment is no part of the Debt, but is Justly due to him that abides in Debt. And thus it is in the Elect and Reprobate, of which the former paying the Debt in Jesus Christ, and (renew­ed by the Holy Spirit) ceasing from sin are freed from that Eternal Prison of Hell, in which the Damned are Tormented for ever, because they are for ever in Debt, and abide for ever Polluted with the Filth, and with the Guilt of Sin. The Case then is thus, Christ suffered only for the Elect, who were to be Damned, to whose sins ceasing by Repentance, not Eternity, but Only Extremity [Page 67] of Punishment was due. So that Justice Requir'd not that Christ should Endure the Eternity, but only the Extremity of the Tor­ments of Hell.’

This is the Notion of the Learn­ed Parker, which yet I must acknow­ledge I cannot Entertain a thought of but with Repugnance; for to me it seemeth very Harsh, if not directly contrary to Sacred Scripture, That Death Eternal should not be the Due of every sin; For though indeed Perpetual Torments are not inflicted on every sinner, and for every sin, yet they are deserved and merited by every sin, and due to every sinner. The wages of sin is Death; Death Eternal, for it is opposed to Eternal Life. And if Almighty God be pleased to forgive and Pardon upon Repentance, it is his Free-Grace, and not his Justice but in respect of that well-order'd and Immutable Co­venant, wherein he has oblig'd and ty'd himself to do so; so indeed, he is faithful to forgive.

[Page 68]Nor is Hell a Sheriffs Ward in which the Debtor is Imprisoned till he pay his Debt: For Imprisonment on Account of Debt is not so intend­ed as a Punishment upon the Debtor, for not having paid, as to be in lieu of Payment, and satisfaction of the Debt: But 'tis ordain'd to Ne­cessitate him, and to compell him to Pay it. Whereas all Infernal Torments are truly Poenal, Design'd for satisfaction to the Law and Ju­stice, and Not by way of compul­sion, to make the Prisoner pay a Debt, which, when he is in Hell, it is impossible for him to Do, since that Design were Irrational. In vain are those means which are Referred to Ends that they can never com­pass. Nor can it consist with Wis­dom to Institute such. The Punish­ments of Hell are Debts; Nor are there are Other which they are or­dained to constrain the Prisoner to pay. If the Scripture speak of ly­ing in Prison, till men Pay the Ut­most Farthing, it must be Understood [Page 69] of the Eternal Punishment to be Un­dergone (in Hell.) This is the Only Debt there to be paid, of which no Abatement can be had. It is ex­pected to the Utmost Farthing, and this is all that that Phrase imports.

Thus you see I differ both from this and other Excellent and Learn­ed Persons, and why I do (so) about the Ground on which the Per­petuity of Infernal Punishment is rais'd, I say the Perpetuity, for though I have acknowledged Infer­nal Punishments to be Perpetual, yet I cannot easily be brought to own them to be Infinite, but with Di­stinction, they are not Infinite in Essence or Being, 'but only in Durati­on or Continuance, and consequently are not to be called Infinite in any sense, but because they are End­less.

For questionless the Torments which the Damned suffer in Hell, are intrinsecally and subjectively Fi­nite, and as Finite as the sins them­selves intrinsecally and subjectively [Page 70] are, for which they be Inflicted. For since all Reception is according to the Measure and Capacity of what Receives, the Torment, Pain, or Pu­nishment inflicted on a Finite Crea­ture, and received by it, neither is intrinsecally, and subjectively Infi­nite, nor indeed can possibly be. So that if the sin subjectively and in­trinsecally be Finite, the Punishment ordained is not subjectively and in­trinsecally Infinite: which was the third thing to be proved.

And this Re-minds me of the fourth thing I promised, namely, to Represent expressly the Proportion between the Sin of man and the Pu­nishment of it. And this Propor­tion is manifest. For if the Sin of Man subjectively be Finite, and Unequal as well as Finite, the Pu­nishment of that sin subjectively is also Finite, and Unequal as well as Finite; there are Degrees of Tor­ments in Hell, as there are Degrees of Guilt in sin; and if the Punish­ment be Infinite Protensively and in [Page 71] Duration, it is because the sin is so Objectively and in Aggravation: And Infinite objective Aggravation (for such is that of sin, as we have formerly evidenced it) cannot be Proportion'd in the Punishment of a meerly Finite Being, but by its infi­nite Duration and Extent. Once the sin is some way Infinite, but the Punishment of a meerly Finite Be­ing, neither is, nor can be any wise so but in Duration. Wherefore the Punishment would be Unequal to the sin, if as this is Infinite in Ag­gravation that were not also so in Duration. But this I hinted be­fore.

And now Sir, upon the whole you will be pleas'd to Judge what Inequality there is, or what Unju­stice, or rather what great Equality and Justice in Divine Proceeding, wherein you cannot but receive abundant satisfaction, as to the Equi­ty and Righteousness thereof, if to what Considerations have already [Page 72] been presented you concerning it, you but add the following.

First, That the Proportion which is observed in Distributive (or as Aristotle calls it, Dianemetic) Ju­stice, is not Arithmetical, but Geo­metrical; or (as they love to speak) the medium it observeth, is not me­dium Rei, but Personae, that is, that Persons are as much consider'd in the Distribution of Rewards and Pu­nishments, as things themselves. Yea and more.

Secondly, That in Proportioning of Punishments, to make them Just and Equal, it is not Requisite that their Duration should exactly be ad­justed unto that of the sin's. A short and momentany sin, if aggra­vated in the circumstances, may in great Justice have allotted to it long and tedious Punishment. A Truth so obvious, that were it not Unne­cessary, I might abundantly enlarge in instancing it; and I would have offer'd somewhat of mine own in [Page 73] that kind, but that the grave St. Au­stine, from whom I make no questi­on but you will take it better, Aug. de Civit. l. 21. c. 11. hath happily prevented me. He tells us, ‘Some of the Adversaries of Gods City hold it Injustice for him that hath offended, but temporally, to be bound to suffer pain Eternally, this they say is utterly Unjust. As though they knew any Law that adapted the time of the Punish­ment to the time in which the Crime was committed. Eight kinds of Punishments doth Tully affirm the Laws to inflict: Da­mages, Imprisonment, Whipping, Like for Like, Publick Disgrace, Banishment, Death and Bondage. Which of these can be performed in so little a time as the offence is, excepting the fourth, which yield­eth every man the same measure that he meteth unto Others, ac­cording to that of the Law, An Eye for an Eye, and a Tooth for a Tooth? Indeed one may lose his eye by this Law, in as small a time [Page 74] as he put out another mans by vi­olence. But if a man kiss another mans Wife, and be therefore ad­judged to be whipt, is not that which he did in a moment paid for by a good deal longer suffe­rance? Is not his short pleasure paid with a longer pain? And what for Imprisonment? Is every one judged to lye there no longer than he was a doing his Villany? Nay, that Servant who hath but violently touched his Master, is by a Just Law doomed unto many years Imprisonment. And as for Damages, Disgraces are not many of them dateless, and lasting a mans whole life, wherein they bear a Proportion with the pains Eternal. Thus the Father.’

Further, I propose it to the seri­ous consideration of Intelligent and Prudent men, if that Punishment, how great, how long soever, be too great, or too long, which for all its greatness and for all its length, is Unsufficient in the threatning of it [Page 75] to deterr from the sin; it is the End that Measures and Proportions all the Means that lead to it; and the sole Intention, Design and End of God in menacing and threatning Punishment, is to Deterr and fright from sin. If the End be considera­ble enough, the Punishment threat­ned can never be too great. Besides, it argues great malice, when great Threatnings can't deterr. However, It becomes God to threaten, and pu­nish too as a God; Sin is Indigni­ty, and Gods Anger is his Defence; if mortal men kill the Body Tempo­rally in their Anger, it is like the Immortal God, to Damn the Soul Eternally in his.

In fine, What if in an Age where­in Hypotheses are taking, I should offer this, (which yet, what I have proposed already, evinces to be more than so) that perhaps the Constitution of the other World may require, that what ever state is in it be Perpetual, as the Make of this requires, that all things in it [Page 76] should be Otherwise; and conse­quently, that 'tis as agreeable and natural, that all Punishments as well as all Rewards, should be Eternal in the Future Life, as that all in this should be Temporal. But when I say it may be as agreeable, and as natural, that all Punishments in the other Life should be Eternal, as that all Rewards, I would not have you to conceive I think that to be a Demonstration, which is generally current, and passeth with the most for One, namely, That because the Rewards of Heaven are Eternal, therefore the Punishments of Hell are also so. I acknowledge that it will not follow. For to do Good (for so it is to Reward, or to Remune­rate) it carries in it more Agree­abless, and more Congruity to the Divine Essence, and is an Emanati­on from it more Connatural, and consequently more Free, than to Punish is, or to inflict Evil; This being call'd his strange work, which that is not. It is for this Reason, [Page 77] that God is so much more Benign and Liberal (as the Holy Scriptures plainly shew us) in Assigning Large Rewards, than He is Severe and Ri­gorous in Ordaining Dreadful Pu­nishments; For if (as he is said to do in the second Command) He visit the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth Generation of them that Hate him; He sheweth Mercy to the thousandth of them that Love Him. So wide a Difference there is! The Allot­ment both of Rewards and Punish­ments depends on the Divine Will; and [...] or Lenity, Moderation, Propensity to Favour is the Natural Vertue of the Will.

And thus much by way of De­monstration of this Great Truth, that there is no Inequality, or Im­proportion in the Punishments Or­dained (though Endless) to crimes or sins, but great Equality and Pro­portion; and that the Soveraign Re­ctor was neither Arbitrari [...]us and Wilful, nor Unjust, but both Wise [Page 78] and Righteous in assigning them. What I am next engaged to Per­form, is to evince him Good there­in as well as Iust, and, that in or­daining and threatning Endless and Eternal Punishments to sin, he has as much Consideration of the Humane Interest and Concern, as of his Own.

But before I may Proceed to ar­gue and Evince this Verity, it will be necessary for a clearer and fuller stating of it, to distinguish between the threatning of Eternal Punish­ments, and the inflicting of them. Which I note here, because I hold my self obliged but to demonstrate now, that there is Goodness in or­daining and in threatning of Eternal Punishments, as hereafter I shall prove, that there is great Justice, and no want of Goodness in the in­flicting on laying them on, and those who merit them.

And who can question the Good­ness and Benignity of God appoint­ing and threatning unto men Eter­nal [Page 79] Punishments, if he seriously con­sider that his doing so was abso­lutely necessary for the whole World to Regulate it, and to keep it in or­der, by awing mens minds, and by repressing their exorbitant and wild Emotions, and consequently, by pre­paring and qualifying of them for In­struction in, and for Performance of the common Offices and Duties of the humane life, as well as of the divine? The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom, saith Solomon. Knowing the Terror of the Lord, we Perswade men, saith the Apostle. Plato in his Politicks makes the E­stablishment of Punishments in ano­ther Life fundamental to Govern­ment in this. Plat. de rep. l. 2. Plat. in Prota [...]. And even Mr. Hobbs acknowledges, Hobbs de co [...]p. polit. pa [...]t. 1. c. 5. that the Punishment instituted before sin, serveth to the Benefit of mankind, because it keep­eth men in peaceable and vertuous conversation by the Terror; and Pythagoras knew as much, for he so pressed this consideration of a Judge­ment and Wrath to come, in order [Page 80] to the restraining men from Vice, and to the inciting of them to Vertue, that he is celebrated for it by Iamblicus, Iambl. in [...]it. Pythag. c. 30. as Author of the Doctrine. [...]— And he (speaking of Pythagoras) invented another way and method of Reclaiming men from Injustice; which was to threaten them with Future Judge­ment to be passed on Souls. [...]— He understanding it of Infinite Ad­vantage, to strike fear of wrong and Injustice, &c. [...]. And this saith Clement of Alexandria, Clem. Alex. in Pedag. l. 1. c. 8. is a Gracious Method to strike men with fear and terror, that they may not sin.

Now, no scruple can be made of This, that to design the Present and the Future happiness of man, is a worthy and adorable effect of infi­nite and transcendent Goodness, and if the End be so, how can the most [Page 81] agreeable and proper means to com­pass and effect it, be the contrary! It is the Goodness of the End that makes the means Good. Certain­ly, we ought to hold belief, that God hath very much obliged and engaged us, by dealing with us in a way so congruous, as that of me­nacing and threatning is; nor are we able to defend our selves against so Good, so Pious a Resentment, if we soberly consider (this) That he that threatneth, plainly shews he hath no mind to inflict; and that Threatnings are fore-warnings of Evil, designed and intended to this very End, that those to whom they are made, may timely shun and avoid it. Matth. 3.7. So Iohn, O you Genera­tion of Vipers, who [by menacing you with it] hath fore-warn'd you to flee from the wrath to come? Questionless he cannot but be Good in threatning evil, who threatens it for that Reason, that he may not be enforced to inflict it. This was the sense of Clement of Alex­andria, Clement. Paedag. l. 1. c. 8. [Page 82] [...]— It is manifest that who so threatens Evil, has no mind to inflict it, nor is he willing to do what he threatens.

But why Eternal Punishments? (will you say) I answer, That be­sides the Justice of it, the menacing of Infernal Punishments (the lusts of men are so Exorbitant and high) is not sufficient to subdue and quench them; there must Eternity be added to Extremity in the Torments, to make the threatning of them an ef­fectual means to reclaim men; and when that is done too, all is little enough; there are millions in the world whom not that considerati­on, as tremendous and as Direful as indeed it is, is able to deterr and fright from their Vices. If the threatning of Eternal Torments can effect no more, how much I pray you would the threatnings of shorter ones effect! Future things are di­stant and remote, and what are so, [Page 83] do seldome influence. Great Pu­nishments in another World would awe but little, if they were not also Perpetual, it is the Eternity that adds so much to the weight; and the weight of the torments, that makes them over balance, when they are compared with the sin. Purgatory is not half as scaring as Hell. The Emphasis of the Punish­ment is as much upon the Duration, as upon the kind of it. Go you, sayes Christ, not [...], but [...], not barely into E­verlasting Fire, but into the Fire, the Everlasting Fire, the Emphasis is on the Everlastingness of it.

So Advantagious is the threat­ning of Eternal Torments, and so useful to the World, that the Sove­raign Rector in taking that method, has not only given Abundant Proof of his Wisdom and Prudence, but also of as much Benignity and Kindness. A Truth of which the Antient Heathen had a Glimpse, and therefore they call'd the Furies [Page 84] (who are the Executioners of Di­vine Revenge in the other World) EUMENIDES; not (as most too frigidly and poorly have con­ceited) by reason of their Imbenig­nity, Inexorableness and Inclemency, but for that (by the Punishments which they are talkt of to inflict upon the Wicked) they happily oc­casion very much Good, Benefit and Advantage unto Mankind. For so I understand Phornutus, Revera, Phornut de Nat. D [...]or. saith he, speaking of the Furies, sunt & Hae Deae venerandae, & Eu­menides, eò quod Naturea Benignita­tem ad homines dirigunt, vindican­do scelera.

From what I have presented you on this Head, it is not Difficult to Conclude what sense one ought to have of Mr. Hobb's Notion of Hell, Hobbs Le­viat. par. 4. c. 45. and of the Texts that concern it. ‘He tells us, that the Texts that mention Eternal Fire, Eternal Iudgement, or the Worm that ne­ver dyeth, contradict not the Do­ctrine of the Second and Everlast­ing [Page 85] Death, in the Proper and Na­tural sense of the Word Death. The Fire and Torment prepared for the Wicked in Geenna, Tophet, or what place so ever, may conti­tinue for ever, and there may ne­ver want men to be tormented in them, though not every One, nor any One Eternally; For the Wick­ed being left in the State they are in after Adams sin, may at the Resurrection live as they did, Marry and give in Marriage, and have Gross and Corruptible Bo­dies, as all mankind now have, and consequently may Ingender Perpetually after the Resurrecti­on, &c.’

Now, not to mention the Confu­sion and Perplexity in this Notion, what will Mr. Hobbs make of that Description the Evangelist gives of Hell, wherein the Torments of it are painted out so Dreadfully by Fire and Brimstone, by a never Dying Worm, &c. It is but a solemn piece of Mockery, a Bugbear, a Mormo [Page 86] that can only fright those weaker Apprehensions that do not through­ly understand and see it? Hell to those that know it, for all this Tra­gical Description of it in the Go­spel, is a Paradise of Pleasure, such a Place as all the Wicked would elect and choose for their Heaven, a Place of Eating and Drinking, of Marrying and giving in Marriage, and why not of Quaffing, Carousing and making merry? In a word, no worse a Place than this Earth; and the state of sinners in it, no worse nor better (so over-merciful a God we have) than that of Men before the Deluge. [ The wicked, saith he, being left in the state they were in after Adams sin, may at the Re­surrection live as they did.] As if the wicked in the Old World, had in it suffered and undergone their Hell, and that they had not been Re­prieved for that time, from the Wrath to come. Here is a Hell for Sinners that would tempt them to be so. Is this Wrath in the day [Page 87] of Wrath? this the Utmost that God can do? Is Tophet Prepar'd of Old, and Geenna, and the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, and the Place pre­par'd for the Devil, and his Angels, come to this? Is this the Terrour of the Lord, with which the Apostles perswaded men! Who would care for Hell, if this so soft and easie ae Place be Hell! Ay, but the Fire is Eternal.

And what if Fire and Brimstone prepared for the Wicked in Geenna be eternal, and there never want men to be tormented in it, but that there be an Eternal Succession of the Wicked to keep in and feed that Fire? This will not Help the matter; For though the Fire be Eternal, yet seeing there is no one to lye Eternally therein, The Punish­ment is not Eternal; not doth the Perpetuity of the Fire, bring an Ag­gravation to the Punishment and suffering of the sinner, since if he feel it not Eternally, it is to him all one as if it were but Temporal. What [Page 88] doth it matter to a Criminal whose Execution is to be but short, how long the Gibbet stand, or how many others be hang'd on it after him? So to Interpret Eternal Fire, is to Trifle with it.

But this is a too Absurd and Gross Conceit for me to Exercise your Patience longer on it; where­fore to Apply my self unto the last particular; Not to mention what Abatement Goodness may be thought to make in Hell Torment, since this is secret, I shall only endeavour to demonstrate what suffices for my pur­pose, that it is not want of Good­ness, no more than 'tis Injustice, to Inflict Eternal Punishments on those to whom they are threatned, when the Good Designs and Ends for compas­sing of which they were so, are alto­gether defeated.

And in order to the stating and in­lightning of the present point, I will offer all my Notions and Concepti­ons about it, under three Heads.

[Page 89]First, I will endeavour to Esta­blish this Truth, That Eternal Pu­nishments are not Inflicted, but on the Obstinate and Irreclaimable.

Secondly, I will Demonstrate, that it is but just to Punish them Eter­nally that are Obstinate and Irre­claimable.

Lastly, I shall evidence there is no want of Goodness in inflicting of Eternal Punishments on such. So far the doing so is from being thwarting and inconsistent with it.

That Infernal Torments are not inflicted, but on the Obstinate and Irreclaimable, cannot but be mani­fest to all that soberly consider, that the Divine Heart as well as Divine Arms are ever open to the Penitent and Converting, and that the great God, Resenting as he is of injuries and wrongs, yet sheweth not his wrath for any, but on the vessels of dishonour, those whom he hath first endured with much long-suffering, who notwithstanding all his Obli­gations on them, and all his endear­ments, [Page 90] Audaciously persist as long as life enables, to Provoke him. Can any thing be more Express, or more full, than is the Declaration which he makes in favour of the Pe­nitent? If the wicked will turn from All his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my Statutes and do that which is Lawful and Right, Ezek 18.21, 22, 23. He shall surely live, he shall not dye. All his transgressions that he hath com­mitted, they shall not be mentioned unto him, in his Righteousness that he hath done, he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should dye? faith the Lord God, and not that he should return from his wayes and live? Again, when [whensoever] V. 27, 28. the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doth that which is Lawful and Right, he shall save his soul alive, because he considereth and turneth away from all his Transgressions that he hath committed, He shall surely live, he shall not dye. So manifest it is that [Page 91] none Perish but the Irreclaimable and Unrepenting.

For this Reason as well as Others are such forlorn wretches on whom infernal Torments shall hereafter be inflicted, compar'd to chaff, to wild Trees, to dry Trees, they being so Perverse, so Corrupt, so desperately Overgone with Wickedness and Lusts, that there is as little hope of working on them in the Methods Appointed by Divine Wisdom to that End, as of converting chaff in­to wheat, or of Receiving fair, and good and pleasant fruit from a wild and crabbed Tree, or from a wi­ther'd and dry one. The Chaff on­ly shall be burned up with Fire Un­quenchable. And the Tree only that will not bring forth Good fruit, is to be cut down. And what Hus­band-man would not cut down a Tree that is but Cumber and Bur­then to the Ground?

And this Re-minds me of the se­cond thing, which I propounded to be evinced, namely, That for God to [Page 92] Punish with Eternal Torment the Obstinate and Unreclaimable, is so far from being Hard and Unrighteous, that there is nothing more Agreeable to Justice, and to the common senti­ment and notion which we all have of it, than This.

For First, If God inflict Eternal Torments on men, it is but what he told them of before that he would do, if they did not Reform, (which was fair) He striketh not but after He hath threatned, so that if they would themselves, they might avoid the Effects of his Anger; which if they do not, the blame and Imputa­tion is not to be laid on God, who deplores them, and who gave them warning, but on themselves that would not take it. On this consi­deration God himself insists to Justi­fie his dealings, and when he had Accounted thus for them, he up­braids the Israelites with great. In­justice and Unreasonableness, for not acknowledging the Equity and Righteousness of his Procedure. Yet [Page 93] ye say, the way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel, is not my way equal? are not your wayes unequal? When a Righteous man turneth away, &c. and when the wicked man turneth away, Ezek. 18. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.

Again, if God were Good, and Wife, and Just in threatning as we have evinced him, he cannot be Unrighteous, Evil or Unjust in in­flicting; it is but Vindication of his Word, and what he is obliged to in point of Honour, and in point of Ju­stice to himself, to make them to feel the Verity and Truth of Com­minations and Threats, who hereto­fore did mock and scorn them. They who do not Reform and Convert up­on the threatening of Eternal Death, when God makes it, do by interpre­tation laugh at That, and dare him; it is as if they should say, we care not for his threats, nor fear them, let him that makes them do his worst. And what shall God in Honour then do, when he is challeng'd to do his [Page 94] Ut­most, but the Justice which he owes himself, to make them feel the Dire Effects of his extream displeasure, who so despis'd it and him? Should he only threaten and not inflict, what were his Threatnings, but Ri­diculous Fooleries! Once, Threat­ned He has, and he will execute his Threatnings. He cannot deny him­self.

And supposing it to be a piece of high Justice to God, it cannot be un­justice to the sinner, to make him an Eternal Instance of Divine Displea­sure, for ut Verum vero, sic justum justo consonat. There is as great a Consonancy and Agreement in all things which are Just, as there is in all things which are True: What is but Just to One, that cannot be Un­just and Unrighteous to Another. Indeed it is the Goodness of the great God to bear with men so long, and to try so many and so likely me­thods to reclaim them: But it is but Justice, when all endeavours to Re­duce them, become Unprofitable and [Page 95] vain, to let Justice to himself, and to the sinner take its course. I say Justice to the sinner, for He inflicts but what the sinner merits. We have already proved an Infinity of Guilt in every Sin.

Finally, There is so great Reason that the Obstinate and Irreclaimable should be Eternal Instances of wrath, that by the Light of Nature, many wise and knowing men among the Heathen thought so. For Socrates, Plato, Plutarch and many others, though, as I have shewn already, They held infernal Pains to be Me­dicinal and Purgatory, and in that respect to be Finite, yet they also held, that Persons overgone with Wickedness and Vice, who were Obstinate, Perverse and Irreclaima­ble, are given up unto ERINNYS to abide in Torments, with that most Dreadful Fury for ever. Arist. Rh [...]t. [...] l. 1. c. 15. The crime is Great saith Aristotle [...] which is Immedicable. If sayes Plato, Plat. in Phaed. Any for the Greatness of their Crimes do seem Incurable, [Page 96] Id. in Gorg. [...]— [...], Them a Iust Fate does Hurry into Tartarus or Hell, Plutar. de iis quitar. à Num. cor. from whence they never Re­turn. Thus He in Phaedo. And I find the like in his Gorgias. The­spesius in Plutarch reports the same.

So Just it is and so Righteous to make the Obstinate and Irreclaim­able to suffer Torments as Everlast­ing as their Souls. But you will say, perhaps it may, but how Good is it [...] For though it may be called Good­ness to Awe and Threaten men with Endless Torments in Order to Re­form and Imbetter them; and, if they will not be imbetter'd and re­formed by the threatning, it may be Iustice, but how can it be called Goodness to Inflict them?

I might answer, as some others have before me, That Divine Iustice is a Perfection, and consequently a kind of Goodness, That there is no possible Inconsistency between the [Page 97] former and the latter, that to be Just is to be Good. But that, since the Objection doth proceed of Mo­ral, and not of Metaphysical and Abstract Goodness, it would look too plainly like an evasion, rather than an answer, to think to put it off and Baulk it with this.

Wherefore taking Goodness in a Moral sense for Kindness, Benignity, Clemency, I hold my self obliged to evince there is no want thereof in the execution of Divine Justice, by Inflicting infinite eternal Punish­ments. Nor is there, for certainly there cannot be a want or culpable Privation, Absence or Defect of Goodness, in Administrations where­in it ought not Properly to be; Pri­vation or want it is Absentia debiti inesse, The Absence of that which ought [one way or other] to be in or Present; and therefore seeing Goodness it self Obliges not the great God to shew it in the mentioned circumstances [on the Obstinate and Irreclaimable] and consequently, it [Page 98] ought not to be further exercised on them, there is no want thereof, if it be not.

Now there can be nothing clearer, than that Goodness obliges not the Great God to give Perpetual De­monstrations of it to the Irreclaim­able and Obstinate; For Divine Goodness, as the Humane, is seated in a middle between the two extreams of Cruelty and Weakness, and is to be directed in the Exercises of it by Reason and wisdom. Now it is against all Reason, that Goodness which is but cast away upon the Stubborn and Incorrigible, should be everlastingly continued to them; for if it were, the Exercise thereof in such a circumstance, would not de­serve the Honour of that name, since, though to bear long be Goodness, to bear alwayes, and with the Insolent and froward, is not so, but Weak­ness. Goodness obliges not God to shew it where there is no Reason He should, and where there is no Reason he should not. God owes [Page 99] Juslice to himself. He is His Own End. Hear Aristotle in the case. Arist. d. morib. l 4. c. 11. [...]— They who manifest no Displeasure for the things for which they ought, seem fools, as well as those, that are not Angry neither As, nor when, nor with whom they ought: for they seem to be without Sense and Re­sentment, &c.

But to exemplifie the Reason, to render't more convincing; what if a Father, after he hath long threat­ned his Disobedient and Rebellious Son with disinherison and utter di­spleasure, do at last upon his Sons Persistance in his Follies, proceed to make him feel in effect what was threatned, Doth it argue any want of Fatherly affection, or kindness in the Parent, whose Bowels yearn, who would rather than the better part of his estate, it may be of his Blood, he could reclaim and turn him? No, but a Noble and exem­plar [Page 100] piece of Iustice which He owed to himself; which if he had not ex­ecuted in the present circumstances, after so much injury and affront done to him, and so much Patience and endurance exercised by him, the world would accuse him of impo­tent and fond Indulgence, and of most pittiful weakness. And is so Irrational and impotent a Fondness inexcusable in man that hath Infir­mity of Nature to Apologize and plead for it, what would it be in God that hath none? 'Tis Reason only obliges to be Good. Indeed so long there is Reason to be Good, in the Reason of Goodness, as there is no Reason against it. To be good against Reason, is Folly and Weak­ness, not Goodness.

But it may be, you will say, But why so much Haste then? and why doth God Precipitate a Sentence, which he might much longer defer? Perhaps, had he but deferred it a lit­tle longer, those that have not con­verted, would convert.

[Page 101]I answer, Every man hath his Time, and the Order of the Uni­verse, that Frame and Constitution of things, whereby they ever are in Flux and Revolution, allows no more; many they be who are to Act their Parts on this Terrestrial Stage, and those that are before must go off, and take their leaves, to make room for those that follow: every one must have his turn, there is a settled Law and Order of Na­ture, and, according to it, One Ge­neration passeth, and another com­eth. One must pass, that another may come. Now 'tis highly Rati­onal and Congruous, that Divine Wisdom should conform to the Laws it self hath made; and no less so, that this consideration of the short­ness and Uncertainty of Humane Opportunities and Seasons, should excite in man a due and thorough care to improve them; it being ex­tream weakness for Him, by any Omission to neglect and Trisle with the Present, that knows himself not [Page 102] sure of the Future; it is, to day if we will hear his voyce. This is the great Reason why God has ren­dred humane life so Uncertain, namely, to Prevent the Oscitancy and Delayes, that man is subject to, I come as a Thief in the Night, watch therefore.

Nor may it be thought that lon­ger time would effect what those ad­vantages the present time affordeth doth not. Nothing will reclaim the irreclaimable and Obstinate; that very space to Repent, which doth intenerate and mollifie the vertuous and ingenuous, it but confirmeth and emboldens the stubborn and wicked; there is enough afforded in the pre­sent time to Operate on those that do not harden their Hearts, and no forbearance, no Patience will have a good effect and operation upon those that do. To day if you will hear his voyce, harden not your Hearts: his Voice is loud enough to make men hear, if they harden not their Hearts, and stop not their Ears.

[Page 103]In fine, How long should God try? What bounds and limits would you set his Goodness? When He hath stay'd one year, would you not de­mand another? When he hath waited one and another, perhaps if he would stay the third, the sinner might Repent; and you might as well demand a thousand years as one, and as well a Myriad of years as a thousand. How long shall God await and expect? Surely For ever, if Delinquent man shall vote it. Man will never think that God hath try­ed long enough, and God only knows when he has.

Thus I have evinced all I under­took to do upon the first Argument, and all was necessary I should. I have evinced that there are Eternal Punishments; that there is equality and Proportion between the Punish­ment (as Endless and Eternal as it is) and the sin; I have evinced that the threatning of Eternal Punish­ment, in order to the compassing the Present and the Future Weal of [Page 104] Man, is an Instance of Divine Be­nignity; and also that the Infliction of them on the irreclaimable and Obstinate is a great Evincement of Divine Justice, and none of any want of Goodness, Kindness or Cle­mency.

And now when I recall my thoughts, I find them tempted to sug­gest to me, That all the labour I have put my self to in writing, and (put) you to in reading is superflu­ous; the matter might have been concluded more effectually in fewer words. For what if God whose only End is his Glory, and the Demon­stration of Himself in all his Attri­butes and Perfections, willing to shew his Just and Dreadful Wrath upon his Open enemies, should execute and hang them up in chains of Dark­ness, to make them Everlasting In­stances and Monuments thereof to Saints and Angels? What if God will?

And I the rather stand on this Ar­gument, because it looks so like the [Page 105] Great Apostle's, But O man, who art thou that Replyest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that form'd it, why hast thou made me thus? What if God willing to shew his Wrath, and to make his Power known, endured with much long­suffering the vessels of wrath sitted to Destruction? We ought to ac­quiesce in all Divine Appointments, and to believe them (to be) Just, when we know them to be Gods, because his Will is Justice, and it is his Prerogative not only to Ordain the time when, and the manner how, but also the Duration and extent of all the Punishments of the wicked, how long they are to endure, as well as of what weight they ought to be. Pl [...]tarch. de iis qui tard. à num. cor­rip. For so Pindarus in Plu­tarch, so Religious was he in this point.

Quod, &c. inter multos alios Pin­darus quoque testatur, qui optimum appellat Artificem, Gubernatorem & Dominum rerum omnium Deum, ut­pote verè Justitiae factorem & crea­torem, [Page 106] cui soli definite convenia [...], quando, quomodo, ac quous (que) scelesto­rum unusquisque plecti debeat.

And so much for the First Argu­ment, the seeming inequality of In­finite and Eternal Punishments to Finite Transgressions, I now pro­ceed to the Second, from the Nature of Punishment.

Punishment, say you, ( Accord­ing to the Notion We have of it,) is either for the Good of the whole, or of the Part, and 'tis inflicted, Not to torment the Criminal, but either to Amend him, or the Society of which He is a Member, that both may Enjoy the Comforts and the Sweets of it: but what of Good in Everlasting Punishment is there to either of These, &c.

I know not whether the Present Argument will signifie the less with you, (for with me it will not) af­ter I have told you that the Notion it is Bottomed on, Hobbs de corp. polit. part. 1. c. 3. art. 10. is Mr. Hobbs's, and that it is in him I find, That the Law of Nature ordaineth that no [Page 107] Revenge be taken upon considerati­on only of the Offence Past, but of the Benefit to come, that is to say, That all Revenge [by which he means Punishment] ought to tend to amendment either of the Person of­fending, or of others by the example of his Punishment, which (sayes he) is sufficiently apparent, &c.

A Notion so Unhappy in its Ten­dency and Influence, that it will ef­fectually Perform what you urge it for, in all that can design so ill to improve it. Of this its Tendency Mr. Hobbs himself is well aware, Hobbs de corp. polit. ch. 5. art. 11. and therefore he endeavours to re­move the Scandal he foresaw his Dogme would on this account ad­minister to serious and considerate Persons; but in such [...] way as re­ally does Aggravate it, concerning which I shall say more hereafter. But to return to you.

It was not (I believe) from Mr. Hobbs for whom you manifest no good Resentment, that you re­ceived this Notion of Punishment, [Page 108] nor do I think you comprehend the Hobbists (though you see you might) when you say the Notion WE have of it—there are other Per­sons of a fairer Reputation in the World both for Learning and Reli­gion than you perhaps esteem Mr. Hobbs, or any of his Sectaries (to be) who are of the same side you take.

What Plutarch's Notion of Pu­nishment is, you may inferr from what I have already offer'd on the first Argument; and for Seneca and Plato, both of them seem entirely yours. Seneca sayes expressly, and for what he saith, he quoteth Pla­to, that this ought to be consider'd in every infliction of Punishment, that it be designed either to amend the wicked, or to remove them, and that in both, respect ought not to be had to what is Past, but to the Fu­ture, for asmuch as Plato affirmeth, No Prudent Rector will inflict Pu­nishment on any man, because he hath offended already, but lest he [Page 109] should offend again; it being im­possible that things Past should be re­call'd, but not so that things future should be Prevented. But happily, you will like it better in his own language, and therefore take it so. Hoc semper in omni animadversi­one (saith he) servabit, Sen. d: Ira, l. 1. ut sciat alteram adhiberi, ut emendet malos [...] alteram ut tollat. In utroque non praeterita, sed futura iutuebitur. Nam ut Plato ait, Nemo Prudens punit, quia peccatum est, sed ne peccetur. Revocari enim Praeterita non possunt: futura prohibentur & quos volet nequitiae male cedentis exempla fieri, palam occidet: non tantum ut pereant ipsi, sed ut alios pereundo deterreant.

Lipsius affirmeth this Passage to be cited out of Plato de Legibus, Lips. con. [...] Se [...]. l. 1. d: Ira [...]ot 177 and for that purpose he produceth the following Text, which indeed hath something like it.— E Platone haec sumpta 9. de Legib. [...] [Page 110] [...]

But I find a more express and pertinent one in his Protagoras. Plat in Protag.

[...].

Nor is this the only Pertinent Ci­tation to be had in Sene [...]a, there are many more of like Import, of which yet there is but One that for its Fulness and Conformity of sense to yours, I shall at present note; 'tis in his first Book of Clemency, wherein there is the following Pa­ragraph. Sen. de Clem. l. 1. Transeamus (saith he) [Page 111] — ad alienas injurias: in qui­bus vindicandis [...]aec tria lex secuta [...]st, quae princeps quoque sequi de­bet: aut ut cum quem punit, emen­det, aut ut p [...]na [...]jus caeteros meli­ores reddat; aut ut sublatis malis securiores caeteri vivant.

But to come nearer home, I find a Learned man, and he One that though he were not a Profest Di­vine, yet in Divinity has merited in many things as much as most that are, I mean Grotius, who owns the same Notion of Punishment with that which you Propose as yours, For he saith, Ius puniendi in re­ctore, Grot. de Satisf. Christ. c. 2. &c. non est aut jus absoluti Dominii, aut Ius Crediti. Probatur hoc primo ex fine, qui optime sole [...] distinguere facultates. Nam Ius ab­soluti dominii ut & jus Crediti comparatum est ejus gratiâ, qui id jus habet: at jus puniendi, non puni­entis causa existit, sed causa com­munitatis alicujus. Poena enim omnis Propositum habet Bonum com­mune, ordinis nimirum conservati­onem [Page 112] onem & exemplum: ita quidem ut rationem expetibilis, non habeat, nisi ab hoc fine, cum jus Dominii & Cre­diti per se sunt expetibilia. Hoc sensu Deus ipse Dicit se poena eorum qui puniuntur non delectari.

And I will add to Grotius his Testimony, Dr. Stil. Discourse concerning the Suffer­ings of Christ, c. 1. sect. 4. for the Resemblance and Conformity it hath therewith, that of a Worthy Person of our own, who also tells us (as the Author last mentioned) That the Obligation to Punishment arises from the Injury the Publick sustains by the Impuni­ty of Crimes, of which Magistrates are to take care, for the Reason of Punishment is not because a Law is broken, but because the breach of the Law tends to dissolve the Com­munity by Infringing of Laws, and the honour of those who are to take care of them; For if we consider it, the measure of Punishment is in a well ordered State taken from the Influence which crimes have upon the peace and interest of the Com­munity, therefore, Pride, Avarice, [Page 113] Malice, are not Punish'd by Humane Laws as severely, as Theft, &c.— So that the common note talked of Fiat Justitia & pereat mundus, is a piece of Pedantry, rather than true wisdom—And that hence it appears in Humane Laws, the Reason of Punishment is not that such an Action is done, but because the Impunity in doing it may have a bad influence on the Publick inte­rest, but in debts the right of Resti­tution depends upon the Injury re­ceived by a Particular Person, who looks at no more than the Reparation of his loss by it.

I make no question but whatever Perswasion you may possibly have had before, you have this now, that I will do you all the right imaginable in the Argument, seeing I acknow­ledge (that) the Notion that is its Basis and Foundation, hath such Authority to countenance and favour it: which that I may, I shall reduce the Reason which you urge, to Form, and so display it in its Utmost Evi­dence [Page 114] and Force, and then joyn Issue upon it. And in Forms it runs thus, All Punishment which is in­flicted justly, is inflicted either for the Good of the whole, or of the part. But Everlasting Punishment as such, is neither inflicted for the Good of the whole, nor for the God of the Part. Therefore Everlasting Punish­ment as such is not inflicted justly, and consequently, not at all. For Everlasting Punishment is none, if not Just.

Or thus,

All Iust and Righteous Punishment is inflicted, not to torment, but to amend the Party Punished, or the So­ciety whereof he is a member, that both may enjoy the sweets. But Infernal Everlasting Punishments are not, cannot be inflicted to amend the Punished, or the Society, but only to Torment the Offendor. Therefore, &c.

This is your Argument in Form, wherein I take it to be so conclu­sive, so cogent against Mr. Hobbs [Page 115] and men of his Perswasion, that I see not how on his Principle the force thereof is avoidable. The Answer he vouchsafech it, is utterly uncapable of being applyed, Nei­ther of the Propositions in the men­tioned Syllogism, are in the least con­sidered. A Truth you will assoon acknowledge as you shall have read what he sayes. Hobbs de corp. polit. part. 1. ch. 5. sect. 11. ‘Concerning Re­venge, saith he, which by the Law of Nature ought nor to aim (as I have said r. 3. sect. 10.) at present delight, but future Profit, there is some difficulty made by such as object the continuance of Punishment after the Day of Iudge­ment, when there shall be no place neither for amendment, not for example. This Objection had been of some force, if such Pu­nishment had been ordained after all sins were part, but considering the Punishment was instituted be­fore the sin, it serveth to the be­nefit of mankind, because it keep­eth men in Peaceable and Vertu­ous [Page 116] Conversation by the terror, and therefore such Revenge was directed to the Future only.’

Who seeth not how unapplyable to either Proposition in the menti­on'd Argument this Answer is? be­sides the great Harshness, that Re­venge should not regard the Past, but the Future; and as great a mi­stake [or Ignoratio Elenchi] as if the thing is question were the Insti­tuting and Ordaining of Eternal Punishment, whereas indeed it is the Inflicting, between which there is no little Difference; since if the Menacing and Threatning of Re­venge respects the Future, yet the Execution and Performance of that Revenge, doth in common sense re­gard the Past.

Wherefore seeing Mr. Hobbs's Answer will not satisfie a thinking man, I must Essay to give the argu­ment another, wherein though I might content my self simply to deny the Major, namely, that All Punishment which is inflicted justly, [Page 117] is inflicted either for the Good and Reformation of the Party Punished, or for Example to Others: yet con­sidering of how great advantage it may prove, not only to detect a false Notion of Punishment, but instead thereof to Settle and Establish a true One, I shall in order thereunto ex­partiate in my Answer. And there are four things that I will do in it.

• First, I will consider Punishment in general, as Abstracting from Di­vine and Humane, and so from com­mon Notions, endeavour to explain the Nature of it, and the Ends, Where I will shew it to be Vindi­ctive.
• Secondly, I will shew, that the Notion of Revenge is not incompe­tent to God, but that He is a Re­venger.
• Thirdly, I will shew, that all In­fernal Punishments are Vindictive, or that they are Revenges.
• Fourthly, I will answer those Objections that either Mr. Hobbs's Principles, or other mens suggest [Page 118] against what I say concerning Eter­nal Punishment, and [...]he Person than God sustains in punishing.

To the First. And what is Pu­nishment in the common sense and Notion which all the World has of it, but Infliction of some Evil [of Pain] on an offender for some Past offence? Or as others judge it fitter to express it, Gret de I [...]re Bell. l. 2. c. 20. An Infliction of a Natural for a Moral Evil. Ma­lum Pane propter malum Culpe, Ma­lum Passionis propter malum Actio­nis, Evil of Suffering for evil Do­ing. Indeed the Notion strictly taken, immediately agreeth but to Corporal Punishment, as it is di­stinguisht from Pecuniary, That be­ing called Poena properly, this Mul­cea; But yet it Secondly agrees to Mulcts also; For these, though in Propriety of Language they be not called Pains, are yet called Penal­ties; to signifie they are not Pu­nishments, but in that Respect wherein as Evils, they do Afflict and Pain.

[Page 119]This then Is the true and proper Notion, and the most agreeable to Holy Scripture, of Punishment as it abstracteth from Divine and Hu­mane, and it importeth in it some­what as the matter, somewhat as the form. For the matter, it im­porteth Pain; for the term Pain in English, is deriv'd from Poena, the word for Punishment in Latine; and indeed what ever is inflicted could not be a Punishment unto the Party, if it did not some way Pain him. For the Form, it importeth a Relation to committed sin, in re­compence of which, and as a thing deserved, the Pain or Evil is, in­flicted; for Pain inflicted without Relation unto some Offence and Transgression, may indeed be cal­led an Affliction, but to make that Pain a Punishment, it must regard some Injury, some wrong done, for expiating which it is inflicted. Thus Punishment it is Retributive, and that it is so, the very Terms that signifie it in the Greek, do also ma­nifestly [Page 120] show; in which Language it is called [...], all which imply a Retribu­tion and so the Learned Selden un­derstood it, Selden. de jur. nat. & gent. l. 1. c. 4. who sayes, Ex ratione & essentiâ Poenae proprie dictae est ut pro peccato seu culpa aliqua im­pendatur, &c. Omnigena enim est partim Retributiva, &c.

In this Notion Punishment is re­ally Revenge, and indeed in general is styled [...] or Revenge by Plato in Gorgias, Vindicta by A. Gel­lius, and Ulpian that great Lawyer, defineth it Vindicta noxae, Vid. cic. de Inviat. l. 2. A Vin­dication of received wrong. For what other is Revenge, than what I have described Punishment, a Re­tribution of Evil, a rendring Evil back again for evil received, or a making him to suffer evil, that hath first done it: Only, it looks in com­mon Usage, as if in some formali­ties they differ'd, and that to make Revenge Punishment, there were requir'd a Sanction of it by Law, as if to render Evil, where there is [Page] [Page] [Page 121] no Law to countenance and favour it, were bare Revenge, but where there is, it were Punishment. This I say, it seems, for whether any such Distinction be indeed to be allow­ed or not. I make a great Question, For as much as all Revenges anti­ently were called Punishments, Ge­nuine and Proper. So Pausanids,— Pausan, in Laceri [...]. [...] The Antients were wont to call Re­venges Punishments.

Nor is Castigation or Chastise­ment (whatever Scaliger and others think) to be excepted; for as Pu­nishment, it is Retributive, it look­eth backward, and is inflicted in the name of merit for some transgression past, and consequently is Revenge; though as it looketh forward to the Future, and is intended to Reform the Party, and to prevent his doing so again, it is but a Remedy, or Me­dicine. I say it again, that Casti­gation in the Prospect of it, is not Punishment; and in the Retrospect [Page 122] it is Revenge; Silden de Fare Nat. & G [...]nt. l. 1. c. 4. and so saith Selden in the place before quoted, Omni­gena enim est partim [...]altom Retri­butiva, tametsi simul etiam fuerit medicinalis, ut in Scholis loquuntur, seu emendationi sive ipsius peccantis sive aliorum adhibita. Neque, san [...] Platonicum illud neminem Pruden­tem Punire quia Peccatum est, sed ne peccetur, verum satis esse potest, nisi intelligas, &c.

And from what I have already offer'd it doth evidently follow,

First, That it is not warily ex­pressed by you, that Punishment is not inflicted to Torment the Crimi­nal, you might as well have said, that Punishment is not inflicted to be Punishment; it is Essential unto Punishment to be Afflictive, for otherwise it could not be the issue and effect of Wrath or Anger, which yet I shall evince it present­ly to be. To vex and grieve the offender is the proper end of Anger, and its proper design, and it is in this, as Aristotle tells us, Ar [...]st. Rh [...]t. l. [...] c. 5. that it dif­fers [Page 123] from Hatred and Malice.— [...]

And this brings me to the Second Consectary, That all Punishment as inflicted on transgressors for Offences P [...]st [...]inia [...] issue and effect of Anger, for what else is Anger but as Ari­stotle hath defin'd it, and as our own Experience sensibly evinces it, [...] an Appetition in Desire of Revenge, Arist. Rbet. l. 2. c. 2. and consequently, Pu­nishment is in satisfaction and con­tentment to Anger. Hence the Scri­pture Paraphrases Punishment, by the letting out of wrath or Anger.

I know the famous Scaliger de­fineth Anger otherwise, Scal. Ex­erc. 313. that it is not Appetit [...]s Ultionis, but Depulsi­nis, not a Desire of Revenging, but [...]verting Evil. A Notion not a lit­tle opposite to common sense, and to be admired how possibly it could be his, who was so wrathful and Vindictive a Man, and when from his own experience, was as capable is ever any was of knowing better. [Page 124] But I take the Answer to him to be very Pertinent, which Cardan, a Scholar as Substantial and as Real, and every way as great as himself, has given long ago on this occasion, Cardan. Actio. 1. contra cae­lumn. Verum locum (saith he) & [...] open invenit, quibas, suaes ineptias dissunderet. Utinam vera esse [...]t quae definit: saepe anim [...]lia quaer [...]r [...] soleo, que non nvenio [...]piud uliquem. Sed absit ut ab illo accipiam, qui nec ab aliquo veterum significata haec accipit, nec ostendit quod ita fi [...] sed vult, quae simplics narrationi, [...] dictatori, atqui [...]e ovacula [...]ipiam, &c.—

Again, the Sentiment of S [...]nec [...] that Noble Stoick, which also Gra­tius owns as his, That Justice is not Ira, but Ratio, that Justice is Rea­son, and not A [...]ger, is alledged. A [...] if, it were impossible that Justice should be Reason, if it were An­ger. A Notion worthy only o [...] Persons who believe the Affection to be Intrinsecally evil, or who un­derstand them in their Irration [...] [Page 125] excesses only, as Seneta did when he talked so, Vid. A [...]ist. de Mer, l., 4. c. 11. and not of those that can believe that they be natural that they are ascribed to God that under Regulations and within their Bounds, they are not Evils, but Perfections, We may be [...]ng [...] and not sin. For my part, I am with those Philosophers of whom I read in Plutarch, Plutar. de Procr Anim. i [...] Tim. Vid La­clan. de Ir [...] Dei, c. 37 [...] & 21, & [...]. who think that there is Reason in Passion. Once Animal in man is Rationale, Humane Passions, Regulated and Conducted by the Mind, are no Irrational Extrava­gancies, or Emotions Opposite to Humane Reason, but Vertues that partake it, and in themselves Ac­complishments that Integrate the Humane Nature, without which it would be Lame, Imperfect, Defective.

In a word, Vindictive Justice, as Justice, it is Reason; as Vindictive, it is Anger; and though it be not that Anger which is excessive and extravagant, a thing so far from be­ing governed by Reason, and parti­cipating of it, that 'tis inconsistent [Page 126] with it, and is a Perturbation that transports a man beyond all Bounds. Yet Anger it is, as Anger is that Rational Inclination that a Person hath to vindicate himself, for those Indignities and those Affronts that are done him. In this sense all Pu­nitive Justice is Anger, and in this sense also 'tis Reason, so that 'tis not true to say, that Justice is Reason and not Anger, Plat. 11. de rep. Arist. 3. Eth. Nico. c. 8. apud Lipsium. Com. in Sen. l. 1. de Ira. For Punitive Justice is both, it is Reason and Anger, or Reasonable Anger. In fine, I op­pose to Seneca's Authority, that of Plato and of Aristotle.

So much in general for the Na­ture of Punishment. Now touch­ing the Ends of Punishment, and that Division which is made thereof in reference to them; I say, that see­ing there are several Parties in eve­ry Punishment that is Inflicted, of which the One is Agent, He that Punishment; the Other Patient; he that is Punished, and then the cir­cumstants and standers by. The Punishment may bear Relation to [Page 127] them all, and in conformity to those Relations, as it is expressed by seve­ral Titles, so it also has as many se­veral Ends and Designs.

For First, In relation to the A­gent; or to him that doth Inflict, in which respect they call it [...] or Revenge, it is design'd in Satisfacti­on of his Anger, to assert and free him from contempt offer'd, and so to make Reparation to, his lost, or injur'd honour. Noct. A [...]. 6. c. 14. Hence [...] quasi [...], or as A. Gellius—ic­circoque id vocabulum à conservati­one honoris factum putant.

That Reparation of lost and in­jur'd Honour is intended in Revenge, or Punishment, is Unquestionable, in as much as Revenge, which I have defined Retribution of evil, is not only expressed in common language, by I will be quits with him, I will meet with him, I will be even with him, in respect of which it is cal­led [...]( ie) Re [...]aliation; but 'tis also expressed, by I will make him know himself, I will make [Page 128] him know whome he hath to do with, before I have done with him [...] and this is Reparation of Assaulted Honor. Hence it is that Vindica­tion, which originally and at first did signifie Revenge, was afterward em­ployed to signifie Assertion or De­fence; because the true Design of Revenge is to assert and free the taker of it from that contempt, and that neglect which was shewn him. Arist. Rb [...]t. l. 2. c. 2.

And truly, there is nothing sweet­er than Revenge, as it atchieveth this End; it carries in it so much sa­tisfaction and gratification, some­thing so agreeable and so delightful, that common sense as well as Ari­stotle tells us, Arist. Rbet. l. 1. c. 11. & l. 2. c. 2. [...] Re­venge is sweet. No wonder there­fore that it is so Natural to seek Revenge, since it is so sweet; there is nothing more Delightful than to Overcome an enemy, and to Regain lost Honour; a Delight so Pure, so Abstract, that tis 'not Unworthy of Almighty God himself, who is [Page 129] affirmed to Assume it. He rejoyceth over his Adversaries.

'Tis is relation unto this end, that Anger cannot satisfie it self, as Malice does, that evil be inflicted up­on him that hath provoked it; It re­quireth further that he be sensible of that Evil, and who inflicted it; for if he be not, it cannot compass this its End thereby; It removeth not contempt, it maketh not the enemy to know himself, no nor to know him neither with whom he hath to do.

In fine, This end is so insepara­ble from Punishment, that whoso­ever does inflict this, must needs propose it; and if he do not actual­ly propose it, he is in Reason to be interpreted to do so virtually, in re­spect of the Person he sustains, which is of one so impaired, so injured in his Honour by some contempt shewn him, that he cannot choose but vin­dicate it. This is the proper end of Punishment as Punishment, and in respect of this, Punishment is meer Pu­nishment. [Page 130] Hence God when he threat­ens to Revenge and Punish, words it, I will make them know that I am the Lord, &c.

So much for Punishment as it respects the Party that Inflicts it; but as it respects the Party punish­ed, so 'tis called [...] or Castiga­tion, and is intended for his Good, and Amendment. For Instance, a Father so corrects his Child, a Ma­ster his Servant, not meerly by way of Vindication, for that he hath been bad, but by way of Reformation, that he may be made better. Fol­ly is bound up in the Heart of a Child, and the Rod of Correction must fetch it out. Thus Punish­ment is Physick.

But if we consider Punishment in Reference to the standers by or As­sistants, so it is called [...] or Example; a word used also in the Scripture, Ioseph was not willing to make Mary a [Publick] Exam­ple [ [...]] and those things are written for our ex­amples [Page 131] [ [...]] and is De­signed to deterr and fright others from committing like transgressions; and thus also Punishment is Physick.

And so much for the First Parti­cular, to explicate the Nature and the Ends of Punishment, wherein I have evinced it (as such) to be Vindictive; I now proceed to the Second, which is to shew, that Pu­nishment in this notion of Vindi­ctive, is not incompetent to God, but that as he punishes, so he is an Avenger; and that the Punishments which he inflicts, are not only Castigations and Examples, but Re­venges.

And there is nothing more per­spicuous than this Truth; for First, Therefore he Assumeth An­ger, wrath and Indignation to him­self, nay, Jealousie, to shew he minds his Glory, that he will not bear con­tempt, that it is no good despising of him, that if he be despised, as he wanteth not the Power, so he will not want the Will to avenge for [Page 132] it. The thought that God will avenge; it striketh men with fear, and the fear of God is the Beginning of Wis­dom; they that fear him cannot flight him. So Aristotle, [...]. Arist. Rhet. l. 2. c. 2. He that fears cannot flight or contemn.

Again, He hath ingrafted a Vindictive Principle into every thing that hath sense; there is not a Worm but has it, and he that hath ingrafted Revenge, shall not he Re­venge? for if he that Planted the ear, must needs hear, and he that made the eye, must needs see; and he that gave a heart to man, must needs understand; then surely he that hath implanted in every living thing a Principle of Revenge, in order to its own defence and conservation, must needs be one himself that will take it.

Thirdly, And it being legible and manifest in Nature, Vi [...]. Frat. Adag. tit. ultin. Courtar de [...]xag. Deor. [...]. 307, 308, &c. no wonder if the very Heathens saw it. For besides the Adrastia and Nemesis of the Poets, that Sanctuary and Asylum (that) they have made [...] injur'd vertue, [Page 133] I find as much in Livy, ad Deos Vindices entolerandae [...] con­fugiam. So Seneca, S [...]nt [...] immor­tales lenti quidem sed certi Vindi­ces generis humani, &c. And there is a plain and full assertion of it in the Laws of the Twelve Tables, of which the first (we have) is, Ad Divos adeunto caste; Pietatem adhibento, Opes amovento, Life up Pure hands to God; Exercise Pie­ty; Use no costly and expensive Ce­remonies. Qui secus faxit, Deus ipse Vindex erit. He that doth otherwise, God will take Vengeance upon him. It is Deus erit Vindex, not erit Judex, Cit. d [...] leg. l. 2. Cicero's Observati­on, V [...]d. Arist. de man. ad fin. it is not that God will Judge, but that he will Avenge.

Fourthly, But I insist too long in arguing a Point that is so manifest for what is plainer than that God is one that executeth Vengeance, since he appropriates it to himself; Ven­geance is mine, and I will repay it; for he not only own himself therein to be a Revenger, but he claims it [Page 134] as his great Prerogative to be so; Vengeance is mine, it is not man's, I will repay. And no less than this did Seneca imply in saying, Sen. insap. no [...] cad. Inj [...]ria. c. 18. Let this therefore be for our comfort, that although our frailty omitteth Re­venge, there will be some one who will revenge us on an Audacious Proud and Injurious Enemy.

But you will ask me, why doth God Appropriate Vengeance? and how doth he Execute it?

I answer First to the first Que­stion, that therefore Vengeance is appropriated unto God, because in every wrong, iniquity, injury or sin, which in its utmost comprehen­sion and extent he hath severely for­bidden, there is contempt of him; and his command, so that though the Hurt and Injury be done to man, yet there being also in it [...] and Neglect of God, it were an In­solence that could not be excused, for the Creature to take the matter out of his Creators hands, who is infinitely more concerned in it than [Page 135] he. This were for man to frustrate and defeat (as much as in him lyes) the Vindication and Revenge of his Superiour and Lord, and by a Pre­sumptuous execution and Pursuit of his own. God sayes, Vengeance is mine. I am more concerned in the Injury than Thou. Thy Enemy wrongs thee, but he contemns me; and therefore since it is so much my Interest to see it taken, do thou leave the Revenge to me. And to leave it to God, is but a piece of Deference and Respect we owe him. So Aristotle, Arist. Rhet: l. 2. c. 16. [...]. It is Pie [...]y (as one doth Paraphrase it) to leave the matter to God, who if there be any fraud or cozenage, will surely Revenge.

And How is Vengeance executed by him, which was the Second Question I supposed you to put, but either immediately and in his own Person, or mediately and by his Mi­nisters of State and Magistrates? Vengeance is God's, but he hath be­trusted [Page 136] it with men to execute and let it out; I have said ye are Gods, Magistrates that bear the name, they have the keeping of the Honour and Vengeance of God; it is God hath put the Sword into their hands, and to appeal to them for Vengeance is to go to God for it. God doth Re­venge, when they do, Vengeance is mine, and I will repay. This is the Charter wherein the Magistrates vindictive Power, or Right of the Sword is conveyed. Men must not right themselves, it is God must right them. For this End he hath appointed men on earth in his name to do it, this is the Basis and Foun­dation of Magistratical Power, and this is the sole consideration that makes the Prosecution of Injuries Lawful. Were not Magistrates Gods, there could be no complaining to them, for redress of Grievances, nor going to Law before them, in Vindi­cation of our Rights and Properties, for Vengeance is Gods.

[Page 137]I make no question, but by this time you see the little excursion I have made in this Particular, is not impertinent, but that I was obliged to it, to obviate the Prejudices some have taken up against the Vindi­ctiveness of Punishments in general, and consequently of Divine Ones; namely, that Humane Punishments are so Rectoral, as not to be vindi­ctive or effects of Anger. But you see now, that Magistrates as Rectors are Gods, that as such, they are in­vested with Vindictive Power, and are in the Place and Stead of God, to execute His Anger for all Disho­nour and contempt done him; so that the Obligation unto Punishment, in a rightly instituted Common­wealth, ariseth not only from the Danger that not unlikely may ac­crue unto it by the Impunity of crimes, but also from the dishonour and Affront is offer'd in them unto God, the Soveraign Rector. So far is Fiat justitia, ruat coelum, from being a piece of solemn Pedantry. [Page 138] Yes, it is a Principle of solid and substantial Wisdom. God is the First Author, and therefore He is the Utmost End of Humane Socie­ties, 'tis by him, and therefore for him that Kings Rule,. and Princes decree Justice. Of this Perswasion were such Illustrious Romans as ac­cused of Parricide (for having mur­dered his Sister) that Horatius (one of the Tregemini) to whom all Rome was so obliged, and so freshly; and what they Urg'd in order to pro­cure Justice upon him, evinces that they thought the doing of it on All Wisdom, and that as much as Common-wealths are interessed and concerned in Punishments, Dio [...]ys. Ha-lica [...]ass. l. 3. All-migh­ty God is more. Hi longa oratione proserebant Lges (sayes Dionysius) que nemini quempiam indemnatum occidere permittunt: recensebant (que); exampla Deorum irae in civitates que inulta sivissent scelera. Yes, and in the same cafe, so scrupulous and tender was the King himself, that though the People upon Appeal [Page 139] made to Them, had acquitted that Deserving Criminal, yet Tullus Ho­stilius out of the great Respect, Fear and Reverence which he paid to his Deities, would not but in the way of Expiation and Sacrifice. Rex ramen non contentus hominum cal­culis, & de Religione solicitus, ac­citis Pontificibus jussit placari Deos, atque Genios, & caede Iuvenem expi­ari legitime.

Nor is what I now assert with so much confidence, more than what the Great Apostle hath asserted long before me, in Rom. 13.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. For nothing can be plainer, than that in the Text alledged, Paul af­firms what I have, (1.) That the Magistrate is a Revenger, for he not only calleth him a Terror to the Evil (which implyes it) but in terms a Revenger. He is the Mi­nister of God, a Revenger. (2.) That Revenge taken by the Magistrate, as the Sword with which he takes it, is God's. He beareth not the Sword in vain, He is the Minister of God.

[Page 140](3.) That Punitive Justice is Vin­dictive, and Punishments Effects of Wrath, not the Wrath of Man, but the Wrath of God, He is the Mini­ster of God to Execute, What? Ju­stice to be sure. But that Justice is Wrath, Divine Wrath; He is the Minister of GOD to Execute WRATH.

For First, Humane Laws (as also Law-givers) are not alwayes what they should be. And we must di­stinguish Humane Laws. For these are either Universal, such as are co­incident with Laws Divine, and do Prohibit or Injoyn, what they do: or else Municipal, and more Parti­cular, [Page 141] founded only on the Profit and Utility of such as Consent to them. Now Humane Laws of the first sort, which I called Universal, are properly Laws, and do oblige the Conscience, as being of Divine Ap­pointment and Sanction, and the Pu­nishments annexed to them must be executed on offenders, they being Vindicts and concerning God. But Humane Laws indeed of the second sort, which I would rather call A­greements of the People or Com­pacts under a forfeiture, do oblige no farther, than as they are of Ad­vantage; Nor by the breaking of them incurr you other Danger than of the forfeit was agreed on, to those to whom you have made it, who may Dispence. For every one may depart with his own Right, though none with anothers. Again, if Pride, Avarice, Malice are not pu­nished by Humane Laws of the first sort as severely as Theft, &c. So neither are they in the present World by the Divine, which yet [Page 142] Regard God; and it is because they have not that Malignant Influence upon the Publick, which Theft and others like it have, and consequent­ly, that in that Respect they are not so Evil. But Thirdly, though the measure of Punishment be taken as you see I grant in part it is, from the Influence that crimes may have upon the peace, and interest of the Community, yet it follows not but that such Punishment inflicted, may be Vindictive. And Vindictive 'tis, for God ordained it. And he or­daineth greater Punishment for such than other crimes, for that they having Tendency to Ruine and Dis­solve Common-wealths, which it is as well his Care, as great Concernment to maintain and uphold, are more offensive and provoking to Him, than Others. Cic. in Som. Scip. Nihil est (sayes Ci­cero) illi Principi Deo qui omnem hunc mundum regit, ( quod quidem in terris fiat) acceptius quam Con­cilia, Coetusque hominum jure soci­ati, quae Civitates appellantur. [Page 143] And so much for the Second Head.

I am now in the Third Place to shew the kind and species of Eternal Punishments, whether they be [...] or [...]. Whether they are meer Revenges, in satisfaction and contentment of Divine Justice and Anger; or Casti­gations, intended only to Reform and amend the punish'd; or in fine, Examples, design'd to Edifie the standers by, and make them Careful what they do.

And to be plain, I hold Eternal Punishments now threatned, and One Day to be inflicted on the Wicked that despise them, all Vin­dictive, or Effects of Wrath; And that the great Design and End of God in them is to Rescue his en­gaged Honour and Glory, and to sa­tisfie and please himself in Trophies of his Justice, and in Triumphs over vanquisht Enemies.

Now that Eternal Punishments are principally, if not solely designed [Page 144] for the Honor, Glory, Triumph of the Great God, is evident, in that the day of Iudgement (wherein the sinner shall be damned to them,) is the last day; when all Administra­tion, Government and Rectory shall cease, and be no more; And con­sequently cannot be intended either in favour of the punished themselves, or for Examples to others.

Perhaps some who love Hypothe­ses, as many do in this too Curious Age; will tell you, that the Eternal Punishments and Torments of the Damned are Examples unto Saints in Glory, and that they are designed as a means to settle and establish them in that condition; it not be­ing to be thought that any in it can incline to change, when they shall ever have before their Eyes so Dire Examples of changing. And Socra­tes in Plato, who makes the damn'd in Hell Examples unto those in Pur­gatory, is in part of this Opinion, [...], Socr. apud Plat. in Gorgiâ. (sayes he) [...], [Page 145] — But others are ex­treamly wicked, and by Reason of their wickedness become incurable. Of these, Examples are made, who indeed being incurable, receive them­selves no advantage and benefit, yet others do, who see them suffering for their sins, the most extream, most sharp, and most tremendous tor­ments, and that to Eternity.

And for confirmation of it, it may be colourably offer'd, that the Devil who affected to leave his first Habitation, and to change it for another, had not had an instance them of that Exorbitancy and folly in any kind; nor had Adam, whole Easie Nature was abused by that Serpent into a like Extravagancy and weakness with his, then had one in his own. For had either of them had an Example, it is to be presum'd, [Page 146] he would have found therein a Per­fect Cure for Curiosity, that Impotent and Fond Emotion, which prov'd so Fatal to both.

I say Curiosity, which I apply as well to Faln Angels, as to Faln Adam, because it seemeth not un­likely, an Unhappy Curiosity of know­ing this Inferiour World, and perhaps of making an Experiment of Misery and Evil, whereof hitherto they had but heard, that rather than Pride, or any Impotent and senseless Ambi­tion of being either Equal or Supe­riour to their Maker (as the most think;) or, (as Tertullian and Cyprian do) Their Envy at the Honour and Happiness of man was the Lust inclining them to leave their First Habitation, and to exchange't for Another. This was that which made them Descend, they were di­sposed to try those other Regions. And Really the History of their Fall or Descent, as it stands on Record in the Sacred Volume, So [...]rat [...]p [...]d Plat. i [...] Phaedon. which is not much unlike what Socrates in Plato [Page 147] hath concerning it, countenanceth this Opinion, it being said in Iude, that they kept not their, Original and first state [ [...]] but (which is added Exegetically) that [as Per­sons not contented with it] they left their proper Habitation. Jude 6. In doing which, as they committed Sin and Evil, so they found its Punishment: God for that Extravagance and Weakness (of theirs) both Ex­cluding them for ever from Heaven, and converting the Place they so af­fected to be in, into a Hell to them, 2 Pet. 2.

This is the less improbable, for that they tempted Eve and Adam with the same consideration, you shall be like to Elohim; presuming (as it may be rationally thought) that that was likely to become the most Efficacious and Successful bait unto others, that had proved but too Powerful a One unto themselves. They by Elohim but meaning them­selves, which yet was understood by Adam (probably as they would have [Page 148] it) to signifie God. Thus the De­vil put a Fallacy and Cheat upon our first Parents, and for that is called a Lyar from the Beginning. He Equivocated with them. You shall be as Elohim, [They understood as God; the Devil meant as his Fel­lows:] and wherein as Elohim, but by knowing by their own Experi­ence Good and Evil; and truly so they did, by woful Experience; they knew Good in Paradise, and Evil out of it; As the Devils knew Good in Heaven, and Evil in Hell. But this by the way, to Return.

But though another might pre­sume to bottom the Eternal stand­ing of the Good Angels, on the Dismalness of that Condition, which they see the Faln Ones have plung'd themselves into, by leaving their first Habitation; and who would try again, or wish to have Expe­rience of Hell, Evil, Misery in him­self, that has seen, or still sees so dreadful an Experiment thereof in others? And he might also think [Page 149] himself as able to account in like manner, for that eternal confirma­tion of the glorified Saints in Hea­ven, by the tremendous observation of the Dire Examples of the Damned in Hell, eternally depending in their eyes. I say, though another would account and reckon thus, yet I dare not: There is in my Judgement an Infinitely higher ground than this, both of the Fixation and Establish­ment of Glorified Saints and of stand­ing Angels. For (as I take it) it is Incorporation and Ingraffment of the former, and also of the latter into Jesus Christ, and the Inhabita­tion and Indwelling of the Great Eternal God in them, as in his own house, that doth Establish and Con­firm them; it being the Prime De­sign of God in all that has been, and all that shall be done in the World, but to build unto himself a Spiritual House, and Temple wherein he may Reside for ever; whose House ye are. Christ is Ma­ster-Builder, Ministers Inferiour [Page 150] Builders, the work both of Christ and Ministers is Edification and Building. To whom coming as to a living stone disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, Elect and Precious, you also as lively stones, are built up a Spiritual House.

By this you see Eternal Punish­ments are not designed for Example, much less for Castigation and Amendment of the Punished Hell is not a Purgatory, as the Treefal­leth, so it lyeth: Judgement is the Final and Conclusive Act of dispen­sations: No, Eternal Punishments are neither Castigations, nor Exam­ples, but meer Revenges, intended to Assert Divine Honour, to satisfie Justice, and in a word, intended to remove away from God, all that Dishonour and Contempt, that hath been put upon him by sin­ners.

And this also was the Notion that the Antients had of the last Judge­ment, for they held the Justice of the great Judge Rhadamanthus [Page 151] to be Avenging and Vindictive.

So Aristotle,

And they seem to call this the Justice of Rhadamanthus [...]— If any be Requited in the same kind, or suffer what he has done, he is served Right.

And so Hesiod,

with such an one God is Angry, who in the End will take severe Venge­ance for all Iniquities.

But this is a thing that seems so harsh to you on many accounts, that to settle your belief concerning it, I must now perform what I promis'd in the fourth place; namely, answer the Arguments you apprehend to militate, and fight against [Page 152] it: and first for Mr. Hobbs's he saith, Hobbs de corp. polit. part. 1. c 3. s. 10. Revenge when it considereth the offence past, is nothing else but present Triumph and Glory, it dire­cteth to no end, and what dire­cteth to no end, is therefore Unpro­fitable, and consequently the Triumph of Revenge is Vain-glory, and what­soever is vain, is against reason. Thus Mr. Hobbs.

But 'tis as easie a matter to defend my self from Mr. Hobbs in this Par­ticular, as to Repulse a weak and tir'd Assailant: for though I do ac­knowledge that Revenge as it re­spects offences past, is Glory and Triumph; for therefore I asserted that God did Glory and Triumph in his Revenge [He Rejoyces over his Adversaries:] Yet that his Glory, Triumph and Rejoycing over them, because it is not directed and refer­red to a Further end, should there­fore be Vain, is inconsequent. For it is a most improper expression to say an End is vain; an End as such hath no end. Nor can there be [Page 153] an Infinite Progression in Ends, any more than in Efficients, and though Destinates are said to be in vain, if either they are insufficiently, or not at all referred to their Ends, yet that which is no Destinate, but is the Ultimate and furthest End of all that are, is not vain, though it cannot be referred to another. Now Divine Glory is the Utmost End of all things, God himself in all he does referreth to it, and obligeth us to do so in all we do; so that al­though it cannot be denyed but that Humane Glorying, or the Boasting of men in themselves, because it is not (as it ought to be) and indeed can­not be directed to the Divine Glory, which is the Ultimate End, is there­fore vain; yet that Divine Glory and Triumph it self, which is the matter of the greatest satisfaction of God, and is the Utmost and furthest End he can propose to himself, who ultimately minds himself, and can­not possibly do otherwise, that that is vain, because it hath no further [Page 154] End, is not only a Blasphemous, but a foolish Assertion. The last End can have no further End; indeed no end can as an end, because as an End it is last. Gods Glory is simply the last End; no flesh shall Glory in his Presence, let him that glories, glory in the Lord. The glorying of men is vain Glory, because not referred as it ought to be to God; but the glory of God is solid and substan­tial glory, because the End of all.

Again, But you will tell me out of Grotius in the Place before cited, that God delighteth not in the Death or Punishment of those on whom it is inflicted, that is, to use the terms of another Learned Person; of whom I also made some mention before; that as a Governour or Rector he delights not in it, as expedient for himself, and that because the Right of Pu­nishment is not existent for the sake of him that Punisheth, but for as much as all Punishment regards the Com­mon-weal or Society, it is existent for the sake of that.

[Page 155]But I have already proved, that the Obligation unto Punishment re­sulteth not solely, nor principally from the Injury the Publick may sustain, by Impunity of Crimes, but from the wrong, and Injury and Contempt of God that is in them; which whosoever seriously considers that Societies themselves are for God, and that Punishment it self is in the Nature of it vindictive, can­not easily deny. Temporal Rewards and Punishments as well as Magi­strates and Governments, are Divine Ordinances, and therefore directed to Divine Glory, as to their last end. God is the Soveraign Rector, and designs his own Honor, as well as mans Good. He is Dishonoured, as well as the Common-weal endan­gered, if Punishments be not duly Executed. For this cause he threat­ned the Israelites, that if they found not out the Sacrilegious Person, and Punisht him, He would forsake and leave them.

[Page 156]And for that that it is said in Sa­cred Scripture, that God delighteth not in the Death of a sinner; the meaning is not that, if sinners will be Obstinate, Perverse and Refra­ctory, he can't derive his satisfacti­on from his Justice, in rejoycing over them to do them evil, for that he can, Vid. Eras­ [...] i Adag. tit. Ult. Mal. according to the Proverb, [...]. But that he deferreth and delayeth Punishment, and with much Patience, Long-suffering and forbearance endureth all their mis­carriages, and all the Insolencies of the wicked; as who should say, He would rather they would turn from their Wickedness and Folly, and live, than Persist therein and dye. So he waiteth to be gracious. The Long-suffering of God is Salva­tion.

It is in this sense that God is said not to Punish and correct the chil­dren of men willingly, viz. That he beareth with them long; for in common language those Expressions are Equivalent and much the [Page 157] same, Chartar. de Imag. Deor. f. 110. [...], it is long before Jupiter in­spects his Note-book, and [...], Jupiter unwillingly takes notice of it: Erasm. in Adag tit. Qui ult. Mal. and so Erasmus under­stands them, who tells us, sero dat, aut punit, gravatim id facere videtur, That whoso defer­reth either to oblige or punish, He seems unwillingly to do it. It is thus that God delighteth not in the death of a sinner, and that He wil­leth it not; comparatively he wou'd rather that he should Repent and Live; and interpretatively, he de­layeth to inflict Punishment, as it were expecting an occasion, that he might with Honor omit it.

And this in answer to the Ge­neral Exceptions you put in, namely, The seeming Improportion betwen a Finite Transgression and an Infinite Punishment, and the In­consistency of Eternal Punishment with the End of Punishment; As for the more Particular ones, I shall in their order now consider them, [Page 158] and first for that of the odd Cir­cumstances of the most that are Christians. You say,

Not to urge that the most that are Christians lye and live under such odd Circumstances, that they are very near an impossibility wholly to subdue, and suppress the influ­ences of Sense, and yet must they be Plagued or Punisht with Unspeakable and Eternal Tortures?

I answer no, for 'tis impossible for any while immur'd in the Body, wholly to subdue the Influences of sense, and should none arrive at Heaven, but who had first arrived to a State of Perfection here on Earth, Heaven would be empty, and Hell full: That Perfection which is to be our aim on earth, cannot be our attainment, or our achievement but in Heaven. Here sin will be Indwelling in us as long as there is flesh incompassing us. It is not Perfect, but Sincere Obedi­ence that is exacted by Grace.

[Page 159]For, that Perfection cannot be at­tained in the present world by any that descend from Adam, is evident: in that Concupiscence or Lust is Original, Native, inlayed with our very Tempers; We are begotten in sin, and in the Fervency or Heat of Lust and Appetite, and conse­quently having such Impressions made upon us in our very Rise and Conception, and augmented, and im­proved in us by our after Acts, 'tis as impossible for us totally to rid our selves of these, as of any other In­stincts, and Propensions of Nature. We may check them and restrain them, but cannot destroy and era­dicate them. This Body must be new-moulded, new-cast, before it can be wholly freed of the lusts that infect it. Therefore the Apostle when he would be Discharged from his sin, thus expresses his Option, who will deliver me from the Body of this Death!

I know that Jesus Christ was a Man, and that he lived in the midst [Page 160] of Temptations without the Danger and the Power of any, and that he is the Great Example of Divine Life; but I also know the Devil who coming unto us doth find so much, coming unto him, found no­thing in him. For he not being be­gotten or conceived in the Ordina­ry way of Generation, as all others are, with the common Fervency and Heat of Lust or Appetite, but on a Pure and cold Virgin, and by the Holy Ghost, had no Original Con­cupiscence or Lust to be awakened and excited in him, as in us, by the many Objects presented daily to the sense. Now external causes work little without there be internal ones to co-operate, Inefficax est causa Procatarctica sine Proegumena.

But to return; Again, the Chri­stian Life here is compared to im­perfect things, to Fighting, to Run­ning, to Growing, to Walking, in a word (compared) to Motions; and what is Motion but Imperfect Act, Actus entis in Potentiâ, quate­nus [Page 161] in potentiâ. What is in Mo­tion is but in tendency unto Perfe­ction, but hath not yet arrived to it. In Motion there are two terms. The Term from which, and that in this is here on Earth: And the Term to which, and this is in Heaven, and between these is the Motion.

Truly Sir, Our Holiness is not our Righteousness to justifie our Per­sons; 'tis too Imperfect and Defe­ctive to do that, 'Tis not our Inhe­rent but Adherent Righteousness, not the Righteousness within us, but the Righteousness imputed to us, that must bottom all our Hopes; And I the rather say this, because I am a little jealous (by reason of the sup­position on which the Argument you urge is grounded) that you hold the Opinion which is now the Ascendent, That Imputed Righteous­ness is Phancy, and that it was not the Design of Jesus Christ, nor of the Gosple to advance and set up that, but only that which inheres in us.

[Page 162]Were I sure of what I but suspect that you are indeed of this Opini­on, and that your Argument hath Aspect that way, I should more ful­ly set my self to oppose it, and to establish that Egregious Verity and Truth of Christian Doctrine con­cerning Righteousness imputed, as One that ministers as much unto the Comfort, and Repose and Quiet of Conscience, as any other. But since I am not sure, I shall say the less of it now.

Only thus much I will say, that certainly the great Design of God in sending Iesus Christ into the world, was to make His Righteous­ness, the Righteousness of God Il­lustrious, in opposition unto that of man, or the Righteousness of the Law; there being Nothing within the compass of the Humane Under­standing that can more contribute to illustrate and set off the Infinite and Transcendent Majesty of the great God, as to his Wisdom, Goodness and Justice, than the Declaration he [Page 163] hath made from Heaven of his Righ­teousness in Jesus Christ, that he is Just and a Justifier; Iust to Punish Christ that assumed on him­self the sin of man, and a Iustifier of those that are in Christ, whose Punishment he bore.

The Inherent Righteousness, that Romanists and others so insist upon, is nothing as a Righteousness to boast of, but that Pharisaical one display­ed by our Blessed Saviour in the In­stance of it which he gives in Luke, Luke 18.10, 11, 12. I thank thee O God that I am not this nor that, but do this and that: Wherein there is an Acknowledge­ment of God as Author and Inspirer of all the Good he doth, but withal an Exaltation and Advancement of self, I thank thee, there is the One, I am no Extortioner, no Adulterer, nor Unjust: I fast twice in the Week, I give Tythes of all that I possess, there is the Other. It was very well done that he fasted, that he gave Alms, &c. but yet not so well as to Incourage him to boast [Page 164] therein before God.

Verily the Great Design of Jesus Christ and Christianity is not to ex­alt, but to depress self; He that glo­ries must not glory in the Flesh, not in anything he is, not in any thing he doth, though by Divine As­sistance. For by that must all have been done, that either was or could be done by Adam in Innocence, it must have been done by Gods As­sistance; and yet for all that, Room enough there was for Boasting and Glorying, then in that Transaction, whereas in this of Grace, or in the Dispensation of the Life and Immor­tality by Jesus Christ, there is Ab­solutely none at all.

No, the Design of Christ and Christianity is instead of Pharisa­ical and Legal Righteousness, which consisteth in our doing and perform­ing of the works of the Law (as by Divine Assistance and enable­ment we can) to Institute another, that of the Son of God, the Lord our Righteousness, who is appointed to [Page 165] invest and cover with his, all those that sensible of their own Unrigh­teousness and Imperfection, do ap­ply themselves unto him for it. Ex­cept your Righteousness exceeds the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pha­risees [which consists in their own doing, &c.] And the Christians doth Exceed it, his is the Lord Christ, it consists not in his own doing for himself, which is but short and im­perfect, but in Christs doing for him, which is full and Perfect.

That it doth so is evident, Luke 18.13, 14. in that the Publican in whom the Christian Righteousness is represented, hang­ing down his head, as one ashamed of himself, and ashamed to come into the Divine Presence, not boasting of performances and works, but con­fessing and acknowledging of sins, humbly imploring Grace and Mercy, was rather Iustified than the Pha­risee, that is, according to the Scri­pture Language, was Justified, and not the Pharisee. The like of Paul, who had as much according to the [Page 166] Law to boast of as another, yet in the matter of Justification, when he comes to make Reflection on his best Performances, he in compari­son of Christ, esteems them all but Dung and Dross; and is to far from standing on them in point of Righte­ousness, that he first renounceth all Presensions of his own thereto, and then intirely devolves himself on Jesus Christ for it. Such is the Christians Righteousness, 'tis not his Holiness within, but Christ without that Justifies him.

This is that method of Iustifica­tion of sinners that was contrived by Divine Counsel and Goodness, and that is displayed in the Gospel; God imputeth not sin unto believing sin­ners, but imputeth to them the Righ­teousness and Sufferings of the Lord Christ; he reckoneth as if sinners suffered in their own persons, and did what Jesus Christ hath done and suffered for them, and so ac­quitteth them and sets them free, as those that by their Surety have con­tented [Page 167] Justice, and satisfied the Law. Thus is Christ made of God unto us Righteousness; Vid. Mi­chael. in Arist. Mo­ral. l. 5. Camerar. ad e [...]nd. His [...] or Satis­faction to Divine Justice by Suffer­ing (for in this sense I find the word to be often used even in Heathen Writings) as well as his Perfor­mance is Reputed Ours.

Nor is this Licentious Doctrine and an Inlet to Profaneness, for what shall we say then, shall we continue in sin that Grace may abound, how shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein; know you not, &c. Rom. 6.1, 2, 3, 4. But now being made free from sin, and become servants unto God, you have your fruit unto Holiness, and the End everlasting life, verse 22. Without Holiness no man shall see God. Faith worketh by Love. If ye love me, keep my Commandments.

I would have offer'd more on this Exception, but that you seem not to insist your self so much upon it. It being Another to which I am proceeding, that it seems awakens in [Page 168] you far more feeling and more vive Resentments. For so I judge, when I find you saying, how much more dismal and tremendous doth it look, that those People in America, Japan, China, Lapland, &c. that lye under an unavoidable ignorance, I mean morally so, that yet these poor creatures for what they cannot help, shall be cast into Everlasting Dark­ness, &c.

Truly Sir, I apprehend not the Reason why you instance in the Americans, Iapaneses, Chineses, as People lying in a state of Unavoid­able and Invincible Ignorance of Je­sus Christ, and of the Methods of Salvation, since Jesus Christ is preached among them, though with some mixture, and the Christian Doctrine, if you will believe Hi­story, hath been witnessed to among them, as at first it was among others, both by the Martyrdom of those that brought it, and by their Miracles.

[Page 169]You know by whose incitement the famous Francis Xavier (that Papal Apostle) undertook the Indian Expedition for the saving of souls, and what success attended both him and those that followed him in that design in India, China, Japan; where­of you have a large account not only in the Indian and Japanick Epistles, but also in the Commen­taries of Emanuel Acosta, expressly written on that subject. And how industrious and careful the Great Bishop hath been (in this to be com­mended) to advance the same Design in America, and what the setled order for it is, I make no question but you may have read in many, which I might name. But I will not give you the trouble of Reflecting lon­ger on Modern and Recent Accounts, since there are others far more An­tient by which it may be made ap­pear, that Christ was early preach't among them. But of this you may be pleased to consult Paget and Pur­chas, cum multis aliis.

[Page 170]You see by this how fair an Op­portunity I have to evade, but am not Sophister enough to do so, see­ing as you mean the Objection, there is something weighty and momen­tous in it, namely, that it seemeth inconsistent with Divine Goodness that poor Creatures lying under una­voidable and invincible Ignorance of Jesus Christ, and of the method of Salvation by him, should be damned to eternal Darkness and sorrow for what they cannot help, and that to use your own expression, there are no Reserves for their Ac [...]ing for an happiness they have no notice of, &c.

Believe it Sir, it is no easie mat­ter to account for all the Phaenome­na of Providence, and particularly for This, of which, when we have said all we can, we cannot say as much in Vindication of Divine Goodness, Justice or Wisdom in it, as God can say in his own. His thoughts, they are as high above ours, as the Heaven is above the [Page 171] Earth; and what is unaccountable and dazeling to men, is not so to God.

I say not this as if I thought the present Difficulty less accountable than many others, but to let you see I have a right sense and apprehension of its being One; wherein when I have told you what hath satisfied me about it, (for I have had the same Perplexities, and the same scruples) you will happily receive what also may conduce to satisfie you, both from the Holy Scriptures and from Reason.

In order hereunto I shall by way of Premise, explicate and settle a Verity that ought to be receiv'd by all Christians as Fundamental to their being so, namely, That there is no Salvation but by Iesus Christ, which established, I will in satisfacti­on of the scruple evince,

• First, That God is not obliged by his Goodness to dispense an equal light to all mankind; but that be­ing Free and Soveraign in all com­munications [Page 172] of his Grace, he doth in­qually dispense it, to manifest himself so. But yet, that
• Secondly, To whomsoever be af­fordeth least light, he affords enough to leave them inexcusable and with­out cause of complaint; because he doth afford them more than they im­prove, or use. And
• Thirdly, What in this occasion will abundantly illustrate and set off Divine Goodness, as well as Justice; he requireth not from men according to the light and means they have not, but according unto what they have, expecting less from them to whom he hath afforded less, and only more from these who have the opportuni­ties and the means of doing more.

And First, By way of Premise; I lay it down as Fundamental in the Christian Doctrine and Profession, That there is no salvation but by Iesus Christ, for it is he the Son of God that hath assumed humane Nature; that hath satisfied in it the Divine Justice; that by his [Page 173] Obedience and Death, hath rendred God Attonable to man; and that hath procured all the terms (what­ever they be) on which Divine Majesty is pleased to transact again with us, and to receive us into fa­vour. He is the Prince of peace, that Glorious Intercessor, that hath gone between the wrath of God and us, but for whom Apostate Adam had been lost for ever, and there had been no more reserves for Happiness, or overtures of Grace for him and his Descendants, than for the faln and Apostare Angels. Christ is the Foundation-Stone, the Chief Corner-Stone in this building. God so lov'd the world, that he gave his Son: This is my beloved Son, through whom I am well pleased. Sacrifice and Offerings thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared for me. Lo I come. The Lamb slain from the beginning of the world.

This I take it is the meaning of that known expression, Acts 4 11. There is no other name given under Heaven by [Page 174] which we can be saved, but the name of Iesus, viz. That no other Per­son is to be acknowledged to have the Honour of being the Procurer of Peace and Reconciliation for us with the Divine Majesty, and of having marked out the way to glory, but only Jesus Christ, it being too im­portant and momentous an Affair for any but Emmanuel, or Jesus, one that is God as well as man, to un­dertake to manage. For who but God-man could dare to go between God and man? Mat. 1.21, 22, 23. Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people: that it might be fulfilled, They shall call his name Emmanuel; which is by Interpretation, God with us. The Connection must be noted, it evinces that he only could be Ie­sus, that was Emmanuel: thou shalt call his name Iesus—that it might be fulfill'd—they shall call his name Emmanuel; as if Ie­sus and Emmanuel were but One name. There is no other name given, but the name of Jesus, [Page 175] whereby we can be saved: It is not the name of Moses, nor of Pythago­ras, nor Plato, nor of Mahome [...], or of any other meer man; these are not names that merit this ho­nour. It is Iesus is the only name; it must be God with us that saves us.

The Practical Belief of This is called faith in Christ; and is a thing so absolutely necessary to salva­tion, that without it 'tis impossible to please God, or be accepted with him. But as absolutely necessary to salvation, as belief is, it is not so in every Degree, or every Act of it; there are Degrees of Faith, and there are several Acts; there is a Formal and explicite apprehension and belief of this Truth in so many terms, that there is One God the Fa­ther Almighty, Propitiated and At­toned towards men; and that there is One Mediator, Jesus Christ God­man that hath attoned and propiti­ated him. And as there is a Formal and Explicit, so there is a Virtual [Page 176] and Implicit Apprehension and Be­lief of it, which he has that be­lieves that God is; that he is Gra­cious and Benign; that he pardons sin; and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him. And one may as well implicitly and vir­tually Believe as Will. For as he implicitly and virtually doth will the means, although he doth not actually Reflect and think upon them, that effectually doth will the End; so he that does explicitly be­lieve that God is gracious and well-pleased, He doth implicitly believe in Christ, in whom alone he is so; the explicit belief of the Conclusi­on, is the implicit and virtual be­lief of the Premises.

This Virtual and implicit Faith he may be said to have, who fear­eth God and worketh Righteousness, whether he be Jew or Gentile; for he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness, cometh unto God [by doing so;] and he that cometh unto God, must needs believe that [Page 177] God is, Heb. 11.6. and that he is a Rewarder. A Faith that many of the Gentiles were as well the Owners of as the Jews, for which they were accepted of God: So Peter, Of a truth, Acts 10.34, 35. I perceive that God is no Respecter of Persons, but in every Nation, he that feareth him, and worketh Righ­teousness, is Accepted with him. And doubtless there were many Corne­lius's and Iohn is plain, He that worketh Righteousness, 1 John 2 [...] 29. is born of God. Such Gentiles are called [...], The Fearers of God, Acts 12. 16. 26. and [...], or Worshippers, v. 43.

I pray Sir consider Rahab the Harlot, Heb. 11.31. and what kind of Faith it was for which she has the Honour of a Monument unto this day? and for which her self and all her house­hold were saved, Josh. 2 9, 10, 11. viz. The Lord your God is a God in the Heaven above, and in the Earth beneath: This was her Faith; and the Ground and Basis of it, what was it but Report and Fame? We have heard how the [Page 178] Lord dryed up the water of the Red Sea for you, when you came out of Aegypt, and what God did unto the two Kings of the Amorites; We have heard. All heard, but she on­ly believed savingly; and there­fore hid the Spies, which the rest would kill. This was her Faith, she had heard of God, the True God; and who had not? and she believed that God was, and that he was a Re­warder, therefore she hid his Ser­vants, which was her work of Righ­teousness. All believed and trem­bled, we heard and our hearts melt­ed, which is the Faith of Devils; but she believed and wrought Righte­ousness, she hid the Spies. Her's was a saving, because a living, a working Faith.

'Tis true; some of the old be­lievers are Illustrious Instances of Faith, and of its vigor and power; for though the day of Christ were far off, yet they saw it clearly, and distinctly; Abraham; sayes Christ, saw my day [though] far off. So [Page 179] Jacob, The Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a Law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, unto him shall the gathering of Peo­ple be; and so Iob, I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that I shall be­hold him standing on the earth.

But yet I find them not explicit­ly a Praying in the name of Christ, or doing any thing therein. So; hitherto (sayes he unto his own Disciples) you have asked nothing in my name; John 16.24. nor were they yet obliged, since he was not to be so exalted, but after he had drunk of the brook in the way; it was then the Comforter the blessed Spirit was to come, and give his Testimony for him in the Hearts of men, after which His Name was to be honoured. John 16.26. When I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto me. In that day you shall ask in my Name. Before all was done in the Name of God; but since the Com­forter, all in Christs Name. There is no other Name under Heaven given, that is, no other [Page 180] name of any Person on earth is ap­pointed in which we can approach to God, and so be saved. Indeed the Antients prayed towards the Debir or Oracle, or Ark which ty­pified Christ, and so implicitly and figuratively prayed in his Name, but yet explicitly and formally they did not.

I confess there are not a few, both Pious and Learned that herein dif­fer from me, who believe the An­tients prayed Formally and Expli­citly in the name of Christ, and who apprehend themselves abundantly confirmed in that belief, by one ex­pression in Daniel, Dan. 9.17. Now therefore O God, hear the Prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy Sanctuary that lyeth Desolate, for the Lords sake; for the Lords sake, that is, say they, for Christs sake. But to omit that for the Lords sake may be refer'd to desolate, as it is in some Translations, wherein the Comma is not put to desolate, but to Sanctuary; [Page 181] as if the sense were, that for the Lords sake the Sanctuary was desolate: I say omitting that, and taking it for granted to referr to hear, and lift up the light of thy countenance; yet whosoever doth compare it with the following Verses, must needs ac­knowledge, that for the Lords sake is for Gods sake, for his Name sake, his Honours sake, Dan. 9.19. it being so ex­plained, v. 19. O Lord hear, O Lord forgive, O Lord consider and do it, defer not for thine own sake, oh my God; for thy Name is called upon this City, and upon this People.

And thus much by way of Pre­mise, I now apply my self to give a more particular answer to the Exception, by making evident and clear the several Propositions which I mentioned for that end, and which evinced and made out, will abun­dantly illustrate this matter, and ab­solutely satisfie your mind, in a scru­ple which cannot but be much abated already.

[Page 182]And first, That God is not ob­liged by his Goodness to afford equal light to all. For though Divine Goodness be a Perfection essentially inherent in him, yet in the Exercises of it he is Free and Sovereign; the emanations of that Glorious Attri­bute not being as some imagine them, as Unrestrainable and necessary as those of Light from the Sun, and Heat from Fire. No, it is as well a great Truth as commonly receiv­ed, and that the Divine Goodness is seated in the Divine will, and is (as it were) a certain mode of it; The Goodness of Almighty God, it is his [...] or Good pleasure, Good-will, and consequently being but a certain kind or manner of will, must in all the exercises of it be as free as this is. Divine Goodness is nothing but the Divine Good-will, or a Propensity in the Divine Will to be doing all the Good that in his Infinite Wisdom he sees meet.

Now the will of God (if to di­scourse thereof as of Mans, be not [Page 183] too great Presumption) is not a Ne­cessary and Determined, but a Free and Undetermined Principle; and the Nature of it as to Liberty and Freedom, consisteth in an Unrestrain­ed Unconfined Amplitude of Acting. Whereof he cannot doubt that seri­ously considers what (of another Purpose) I noted in my former Treatise, viz. That as what is lower on the Scale of Being, and more im­mersed in matter, is more confined and determined; so that what is higher, and superior, and more spi­ritual, is in proportion according to the measure of its advancement on the Scale, more undetermined and free. For thus, a little to illustrate and set out the matter in Examples, Plants and Vegetables are less deter­mined in respect of Action, than are the Minerals and Fossils. Again, the meerly Sensitive or Irrational Animals are less determined than the Vegetables; Men less than they; and not improbable, the Angels less than men; But God who is above [Page 184] them all, a Pure Act, possesses Ampli­tude of Action, as Infinitely much transcending all theirs as is his Be­ing. All Determination and con­finement is from Matter, all Inde­termination and Unconfinement from Form. God is therefore most Free and Undetermined, because most Formal and most Pure Act.

But by this Infinite Amplitude and Liberty of Action, I would not have you understand me to intend wil­fulness; as if the Will of God, which is the Principle and Rise of all External Actions, were meer will, and that in that Will, there were not also Wisdom, Justice, Goodness and Holiness. For it were to have a most Unhappy and mista­ken Apprehension of me, as if I coin'd a Notion of the great God, and of the freedom of his Will, that could not be endur'd by any that did either know, or fear him.

No, But by this Amplitude of Action, or Liberty of the Divine [Page 185] Will, I mean no other but a most illimited Capacity and Power in God, to do what seemeth best and most agreeable unto himself to do; and that is best and most agreeable for him to do, which is most conveni­ent and congruous, and most be­coming all his Glorious Attributes, his Wisdom, his Benignity, his So­vereignty, Majesty, &c. as who would say, it is a Free, Unconfined, Unnecessitated, Undetermined Pow­er of doing or not doing what he pleases. Now he doth what he pleaseth, that does whatever pleases him; and what can we imagine to please God, but what is (most) agreeable and congruous to him? and what is (most) agreeable and congruous to him, but what suiteth (best) with all his Attributes? So that it is not meer will that is the Principle or Reason of the Divine Actions, but, as the Holy Scriptures happily express it, it is counsel, counsel of Will. His Will is will, it is Soveraign and Free, but it is al­so [Page 186] wise; and Good, and Just, and Holy. God does what he will, and because he will. But yet whatever he does is Wise, and Good, and Holy, because his Will is so.

But you will say, I grant enough for your Argument as now I have explained my self; for if the meer and naked Will of God be not the sole Reason or Rule of his Acting, but that his other Attributes do in­fluence and guide him in it, and so his Goodness and Benignity doth challenge some share; then seeing there is no Respect of mens Persons with him, but that in his sight all are equal; and also seeing Goodness obligeth not to make a Difference, where there is none already, 'Tis Unconceivable how any should be made, and how he should not deal alike benignly [ be Bountiful and Good alike] to All.

I answer; That indeed Benignity and Goodness hath a Great, though not the sole hand in moving or in­clining the Divine Will; that God [Page 187] is no Respecter of mens Persons; that both Jew and Gentile are as One to him: No humane Qualities of Wit and Ingenuity, of Learn­ing, of Beauty, of Civility, or the like, which rather are Effects than Motives of Divine Favour, do at all affect or move him. Further, nor will I deny, that Divine Good­ness and Benignity as such, obligeth not God to Discriminate or make a Difference between Man and Man; but then; as it obligeth not to make a Difference, so it obligeth not to make none, but it leaves him free to follow the motions of his other Glorious Attributes, such as either Wisdom, Soveraignty, or some other of his admirable Excellencies do in­spire and infuse him with. But chiefly his Soveraignty; for all his Practical and Active Attributes (for such I call these which (seem to) have an Influence upon him in his Acting) are all Will. Soveraign­ty hath Place in All. And this brings me home.

[Page 188]For do you ask me, how it cometh to pass there is a Difference made between man and man, Nation and Nation, in respect of the Light and Knowledge of God? I answer, God makes it, who dealeth not alike to all; and do you further ask me, Why he dealeth not alike to all? I answer further, it is to shew he is not bound to do what he does to any; and that if he sheweth mercy, it is because he will shew mercy; not from any obligation on him what­soever, much less any engagement from the Object, but ex mero motu, of his own alone Election and Choice.

It is for this Reason that he so delighteth in Election and Reproba­tion, that he not only sheweth them in mankind among particular and individual Persons, he chooseth Ja­cob, and rejecteth Esau; and among Nations, he choosed the Iews, and he refused the Gentiles; of all the Nations of the earth, I have chosen you; and among the Gentiles, he [Page 189] enlightens some sooner, others later, some more, some less: but also in the kind of Angels, thus he elected those that stood, and he rejected those that did not: All is to shew how Soveraign and how Free he is, in whatsoever he doeth. Hence the Scriptures speak so much of Election, and of Gods Purpose according to the Election, and of the Good plea­sure, and of the will of God.

Thus God in all the Exercises of his Grace is Free, not only from all Determination and Necessity of Nature, but from all engagement by any foreign and extrinsecal Re­spects whatever in the Object; and it is to manifest himself so, that he so diversly dispenses it; to some he manifesteth more, to some less, to those in one way, and to others ano­ther; All according to the Counsel and Advisement of his own Will, and not according to the Humor, or Deserts of ours.

So much for the first Proposition; but Secondly, Though God dispens­eth [Page 190] not an equal light to all, yet to whom he hath dispensed least, he hath dispensed enough, if not to save them, (which many of the An­tient and most Learned Fathers thought) yet he has to leave them Inexcusable, and without Defence, as our Apostle exprestes it, Rom. 1.20. — [...]

Certain it is, as I proposed in the first Assertion, That the Dispensati­ons of Almighty God in point of Light and opportunities of Grace, are not equal every where; for if they were, there would be as little Beauty, Ornament and Lustre, as Variety in them, since 'tis in the Moral World, as in the Natural; wherein Day and Night, and Diverse Graduations of the Light and Dark­ness in them, are necessary to com­pose it, and to set it off with some Advantage and Beauty.

But though there be a Diverse and inequal Dispensation of the Light, some have more, and some have less, yet so Extensive is Divine [Page 191] Goodness, and so large, that all have some, and that some (as little as it may be) Enough to silence Obloquy and Contradiction: A Truth that cannot be Refused in consideration of the Antient Gentiles, with more reason than it can be doubted in re­spect of the Antient Jews, who had the Oracles of God.

For the Antient Gentiles (for so I call those before Christ, in contra­distinction to the Jews) though they had not Moses, and the Law and Prophets to instruct them in the me­thod of salvation; yet they had Tradition, and they had Philosophers and Philosophy; The Persians had their Magi; the Babylonians and As­syrians, Vid. Laert. in Pr [...]em. their Chaldeans; the Indi­ans; their Gymnosophists and Brach­mans; the Celts and Gauls, their Druides and Semnothei; the Greeks, their Philosophers; in a word, All of them they had Divines and Prophets, Vid. infra. who were Preachers to them of the fear of God, and of Righteous­ness. And you know I have alrea­dy [Page 192] evinced in the Premise, That to fear God, and work Righteousness, suffices to render one accepted with him, and this Philosophy taught.

Now by Philosophy I understand not any one kind or Species of it, as either the Barbarian, or the Gre­cian, the Stoic, the Epicurean, the Platonic, or the Peripatetic; Clem. Alex. l. 1. Str [...]mat. but (as Clemens Alexandrinus also doth) All that Truth or Verity divided and dispersed among them; and of this I say, It was a Ray or Beam of Je­sus Christ, the Original Light, [ the Light that enlightneth every one that comes into the World] afford­ed to the Gentiles to conduct and guide them to God: and so sayes the Father, [...] So both the Barbarian and the Greek Philosophy containeth in it a certain Portion of the Eternal Truth; which it Borrowed not, or derived from the Mythology of Bacchus, but from the [Page 193] Theology of the Eternal Word him­self. Thus Clemens of Alexandria; and indeed it is the main Design of his Stromata [Books he called so, because in them he collected these Dispersed Truths] to manifest the Consonancy and Agreement of the Old Philosophers, with the Verities of the Christian Religion.

I know the Great Apostle affixeth on Philosophy an Epithete that seemeth not agreeable to this As­sertion, he calls it Vain Philosophy, Col. 2.8. and cautions those he writes to, with very much concern, more than once against it; but who ever well consi­ders that he represents the Jewish Ceremonies, which in their Institu­tion were Divine and useful methods for happiness, as beggarly and car­nal Rudiments, Gal. 4.9. as Elements of the World, and under other hard names, he will not find himself sur­prized at his doing the former; or necessitated to confine the Philoso­phy of which he speaks, Clem. Alex. l. 1. Strom. as Clemens Alexandrinus does, to the Epicurean [Page 194] that denyed Providence, and all Re­spects and care of God for the World.

For I make no question but who­soever seriously Reminds the Cir­cumstance of Time wherein the Apo­stle wrote, that it was after the Ef­fusion of the Blessed Spirit, and the bringing of the Life and Immor­tality to light in Jesus Christ, will easily agree that his Principal, if not his sole Design in so severely reflecting on the Ceremonies of the Iews, and on the Philosophy of the Gentiles, was to oblige both the one and the other to abandon and forsake their A, B, C. And that since there is a fuller and a clearer Demonstration, or Discovery in the Gospel of the way of Life, It is to wean them from those Darker Ones, that serv'd their turn before. And indeed, though God connived at men in the dayes of their Igno­rance, yet now he calleth all to Repent.

And verily it is a great Truth, [Page 195] that as he would not have the Jew­ish Law, so much less would he have the Gentile Wisdom to sup­plant the Gospel. All the Light before Christ, whether that among the Jews, or that among the Gen­tiles, was but Moon, or Star-light, designed only for the night prece­ding; but it is the Sun must Rule by Day. Now the Gospel dispen­sation is the Day, and Christ the Sun that makes it; by whose Alone Light we must walk. For as in Na­ture, the Light afforded by the Moon and Stars, which is of great Advan­tage, and very much administers to our Direction, and Comfort in a Journey by night, yet in the day is none; The Moon and Stars that shine by night, and then make other things Visible, they are Invisible themselves, and Dark by day; So in the Moral world, not only the Law of Moses to the Jews, but that Phi­losophy and Wisdom among the Gen­tiles, that before the coming of the Lord Christ, while it was yet ex­tream [Page 196] Dark, was of extraordinary Use and Benefit, It is no longer new of any to them, nor to be insisted on, since He is come. For now 'tis broad Day. One would be glad of Moon-light, or Star-light, that is to travel by night; but he delires, and is out of his Wits, that would preferr it before the Sun by Day.

By this time, you see how my Opinion of the Old Philosophy, that it was a kind of Star-light derived from the Sun of Righteousness, and point­ing to him, is so far from being in Derogation to the Gospel Grace, that it rather highly Illustrates and Establishes it; the Philosophers themselves, as well as the Prophets, being (as it were) as so many Stars that shined in a Dark Place, and with a borrowed lustre, 2 Pet. 1.19. until (in Peters own expression) the Day-Star arose from on high.

But this Assertion, so many pre­judices lye against it, is not of a Na­ture to be entertain'd assoon as pre­sented; [Page 197] wherefore I shall crave your leave to offer somewhat by way of Confirmation, which though I might do by very probable conje­ctures, both from the Paerabolical and Figurative way of Institution used by Jesus Christ, so conforma­ble to that of Plato; and the Inter­rogatory and Questionary, so like to that of Socrates and others, and from the Honour put upon Philosophy and Philosophers, not only by God him­self in giving some of them the Preheminence, in an extraordinary manner, by a Starry Messenger sent on purpose, first of all others to behold the blessed Jesus in the Flesh, and to Recognize him King; but al­so by the Antient Christians, who not only Permitted, but Assumed their Formalities and Customs. I say, though I might confirm this Truth by these, and many other very Probable Conjectures, yet I rather choose to go a Plainer, and more Demonstrative way, by particularly Instancing the several Doctrines of [Page 198] the Grave Philosophers, and Wise men among the Gentiles, and shew­ing how agreeable they are to those of Christians; and that, to vindi­cate my self from all Temerity and Rashness in affirming what I have, as well as to afford an entertainment that will neither be unpleasing, nor unuseful to many. Indeed, it will put the Doctrines of the Christian Religion beyond the Contradictions of the Atheist, to a Person that shall see them to be such as have obtain­ed among wise men in the most Antient Ages, and Universally over all the World.

And forasmuch as to the Moral part of Christian Religion, there is not so much doubt but that the Heathen had a great Intelligence and Understanding of it, as whoever readeth Homer, Hesiod, Theognis, So­crates, Plato, Xenophon's Cyrus, and Oeconomus, Isocrates, Tully's Of­fices, and Seneca, cannot but ac­knowledge; therefore I shall not stay you here with any long [Page 199] Discourse on that point.

Wherein that I may not over­whelm you with a multitude of In­stances that do occurr, for to say all I might, were to translate whole Volumes: I shall only offer for a taste what is at present in the com­pass of my memory, upon the three Heads, Of Piety to God, of Righ­teousness to man, and of Sobriety to our selves; Resolving for your greater satisfaction, and that the ar­gument in hand may have the more Light and Efficacy, to Parallel the Testimonies of the Poets and Philo­sophers, which I produce, with others of a like Importance in the Holy and Inspired Pen-men.

And first for Piety to God.

First, That God is to be worship­ped. Ianbl. de vit. Pythag. f. 138. Pythagoras that great Philoso­pher referred all to this: and before him Orpheus, whom Pythagoras imi­tated; but to be particular, He must be worshipped,

[Page 200]First, Spiritually, Purely, Holily.

Cato, and the Heathen Liturgies.

Si Deus est Animus, nobis ut Carmi­na dicunt,

Is tibi praecipue sit purâ mente co­lendus.

If God be a Spirit, as Poets say, or rather as we are taught in Li­turgies or solemn Prayers, he is chief­ly to be worshipped by thee, and with a Pure mind.

Secondly, In the best manner we can.

[Page 202] So Apollo Pythius.

For when the Athenians had con­sulted him about Religion, Ci [...]. ibid. and Ce­remonies, and put the Question to which they should adhere; He an­swers, They should adhere to those of their Ancestors; [ quae essent in more majorum;] and when coming again, they told him that the Reli­gion of their Ancestors had under­gone so many mutations, that they were to seek among so many where to find it, and therefore pray him to vouchsafe his Direction, which among them ought to be Observ­ed; To this he answers, The Be [...]t.

Socrates, Zenoph. l 1. de dict. & fact. Socrat. as Zenophon tells us, was wont to commend this saying of the Antients, Secundùm quod potes, Diis immortalibus Sacrificia offeras. Offer Sacrifice to the Gods, according to thy Ability.

Thirdly, According to that Discove­ry of the Divine Mind which we have.

Zenophon sayes concerning Socrates, Zenoph. ubi supra. Vid Plat. in Apol. pro Socr. Si quando autem quicquam à Diis sibi ostendi putabat; minus persua­sus fuisset praeter Ostensa facere, quam siquis suasisset ei ducem in via caecum pro vidente recipere, & viae ignarum pro gnaro. Illos autem, qui cavendo mal [...]m hominum de se opi­nionem, praeter illa, quae dii consu­lerent, facerent, Stoliditatis accusa­bot: ipse vero consilium divinum omnibus anteserebat rebus humanis. If at any time he apprehended a thing to be revealed to him by God; he could not more easily be induced to act beside that Revelation, than [Page 204] he could be perswaded to take a blind guide, to conduct him, for one that had eyes; or to take him that knew not a foot of the way he was to go, be­fore one that knew it perfectly. Also he accused those of extream Folly, who to avoid the ill Opinion of men, would act beside the Disco­very and Revelation of God; but for his own part, he preferred Divine Direction and counsel, before all Humane Respects.

Fourthly, With all Alacrity and Cheerfulness.

The Gods that they may be adored [Page 205] with cheerfulness, command men to lay aside Sadness and Sorrow, which is evident by the Feasts they have instituted.

Fifthly, Seriously, and without Distrauion.

Pythagoras forbad Occasional and Ejaculatory Prayers, Pythag. apud. Plu­tarob. in Num. because he could not conceive them to be Serious and Solemn.

The Romans, whilst the Priest was occupied and taken up about the Auguries or Sacrifices, used to cry, Hoc age, Mind this. Plutar. in Num. Quae vox eos qui intersunt ( sayes Plu­tarch) ad rem quae agitur attentos reddit.

[Page 206]Sixthly, With Reverence and Godly Fear, and without Curiosity.

So much for Worship in Gene­ral.

[Page 207]Now for the two Principal Acts of it Prayer and Giving of Thanks.

First, Prayer.

First, It ought to be performed in Faith. (1.) That God will bear; and (2.) That he is able to help.

Numa ordained

Peractis precibus sedere, Pl [...]t. in Num. To sit down after Prayers; which Plutarch saith, was interpreted, Augurii vim habere, quia bonorum vota cert'a sunt, & firma futura. To be as Good as an Augury, for asmuch as the Prayers of Good men are certain and sure to be answered.

So Menander.

[...]. God refuseth not his Ear to a Righteous Prayer.

[Page 208]Linus in Iamblic. & Stobaeus.

[...]

We ought to hope all things; there is nothing which we may not hope for. All things are easie to God, and nothing impossible.

Secondly, It ought to be perform­ed in all humility, with acknow­ledgements of our Unworthiness and ill deserving.

Iamblicus. Iambl. de Myst. ex translat. Ficini.

Supplicare verò humillime con­venit: agnoscere enim bilitatem nostram si superis conferamur, effi­cit, ut maxime supplicemus; con­vertamur (que) [Page 209] ad illos omnino, & as­sidua consuetudine similes evada­mus. It becometh us most humbly to apply our selves in Prayer; for to acknowledge our bileness, if we be compared with the Deity, con­duceth much to the making our Prayer a Prayer; and to the entire conversion of us to him, and to the rendering us like and conformable by daily accustomance [or Converse].

Thirdly, we must pray for tem­porals, with Resignation and sub­mission to God, as who knoweth what is fitter for us, better than We our selves.

Numa ordained, Adorantem in orbem se circum­agere, That he that Prayed should turn round: Plut. in Num. which Plutarch thus interprets, (Nisipotius) Quod Ae­gyptiorum rotae obscure repraesentant, idem hoc Numae institutum declar at, videl. nihil in rebus humanis stabi­le, ideoque conveniens esse, ut quo­cun (que) modo vitam nostram Deus tor­queat atque revolvat boni con­sulamus. Unless you would ra­ther conceive that what the wheels of the Aegyptians did ob­scurely represent, that same this In­stitution of Numa did more mani­festly declare, to wit, that in hu­mane affairs, there is nothing esta­blished and firm, and therefore that [Page 211] it is most fit that after whatsoever manner God doth shape and turn our lives, we should take it well at his hands.

Zenophon says of Socrates.

Orabat Deus simpliciter bona praestare, Zen. l. 1. de dict. & fact. Socrat. tanquam optime Dii quae­nam sint nobis bona scirent. Qui vero aurum, aut argentum, aut ty­rannidem, aut quippiam hujusinodo à Diis orando petebat, illos simile quid opinabatur orare, ac si ludum talo­rum, aut praelia, aut aliquid ora­rent cujus incertus exitus esset. He was wont simply to ask of God Good things [not specifying any] as knowing God did understand best what things are so for us; but as for those that in their Prayers petition for Gold, for Silver, for Empire, or for any thing else of that nature, them be conceived in it to Resemble such as should Pray for a Game at Dice, for a Battle, or for any thing else of a like uncertain and doubtful issue.

Thus much of Prayer.

Secondly, Thanksgiving.

All must be acknowledged and ascribed to God.

Archilocus. Archil. apud S [...]ob. Serm. 103.

[...]

Ascribe all unto [the Gods] God; for [ they do ] he does often raise men out of their calamities, that lay before upon the Black Earth, [Page 213] and as often overturns and throws upon their backs those that stand most firmly.

And this acknowledgement, or Praise must be

• 1. In Word.

  Pythagoras in Iamblicus. ambl. c. 28. d [...] Vit. Pythag. [...]

  For as much as there is a God, and He Lord of all, it is most meet to acknowledge and confess him, to be the Good.

  Psalm 92.1.

  It is a Good thing to give thanks unto the Lord.

  Plato.

  [...]

  It is most just that Hymns and Praises of God [the Gods] mixt with Prayers be sung to him. Plat. l. 7. de leg. ap [...] Stob. ser. 42.

  Philippians 4.6.

  In every thing give praise to God, [Page 214] by Prayer, and Supplication, with Thanksgiving.

  The Antients had their Paeans or Laudatory Songs, and one eminent­ly called so:

  —Laetum (que) V [...]g. choro Paeana canentes.

• 2. In Deed. And that,
  • 1. By Tything. The Antient Heathen generally paid Tythes to their Gods, as an acknowledgement, High-rent, or Honourary to their So­veraign; an Usage I should be apt to believe derived from the Aegypti­ans,
    Batric. An­nal. Alexan. f. 88.
    were that true which Batrici­des sayes, that by the Ordinance of Joseph they paid to Pharaoh the Tenth: but since Moses speaks but of a Fifth, I rather derive the Cu­stom from a much higher Origi­nal. Once it obtained generally, to tythe their Spoils, and their Goods.
    • 1. Their Spoils.

      Agis gave the tenth to God. [Page 215] Post haec Agis Delphos profectus est, ac Decimam Deo obtulit. And the Greeks also under the command of Zenophon, Zenoph. de reb. gest. Graec. l. 3. when by his admirable conduct they were returned safe in­to Greece, devoted the tenth of their Spoil, Zenoph. de Cyr. min. exp. l. 4. Hîc etiam Pecuniam de capti­vis collectam partiti, eam quae Deci­mae nomine, aut Apollini, aut Ephe­siae Dianae vota fuerat, consecrandam Praetores acceperunt. With which money dedicated to Diana of Ephe­sus that Great Captain builds a Tem­ple and an Altar, and endows it. Ante templum pila erecta est in qua incisae literae Sacer Dianae ager. Zen. ibid. Qui posside at atque ex eo fructum capiat, Annonae decimam illum Deae solve­re; reliquum in sartâ tecta conser­vare oportet. Deam ipsam qui se fraudavit vindicturam.

      The same Zenophon tells us of Agesilaus that he also Tythed. Zenoph. de Laud. Ages.

      Atque Amicorum quidem solum (saith he) ab omni praeda tutum praestitit: Hostium verò ita fruitus Agro est, ut duobus annis centum [Page 216] talenta & amplius Deo apud Delphos Decimam dedicavit. And

      Tarquin the Proud was, in this Respect, no less Religious: He built the Capitol of the Tenths of Spoils. Dionys. Ha­lic. Antiq. Rom. l. 4. Hoc opus [viz. Capitolium] (sayes Dionysius) Tarquinius ex Decimis Suessanae praedae perficere cogitans, &c. And after him, Pesthumius also did consecrate the Tenths, Liv. l. 1. as sayes the same Dionysius, Dionys Ha­lic. l. 6. De spoliorum decimis Ludos & Sacra Diis fecit XL. ta­tentorum impendio, &c. According well to what we read of Abraham, Gen. 14.20. Heb. 7.2. And he gave him Tythes of all; viz. the Spoils.

    • 2. Yes, and the Antients did not only consecrate the Tenth of the Spoils which they took; but also of all their other Substances and Goods,
      Pl [...]t in. Quaest. Ro­man. qu 18.
      as is plainly intimated in the Question, which we read in Plu­tarch. Cur multi Divitum Herculi Decimam bonorum suorum conse­crant? But of Hercules his Tenth, be pleased to consult Diodorus:
      Diod. l. 4.
      of [Page 217] which also I find some mention made in Cicero. Oresti nuper prandia in semitis decimae nomine magno ho­nore fuerunt.
      Cic. l. 2. de Offic.
      Yes and long before Hercules, the old Pelasgi that built and dwelt at Spina, Mittehant Del­phos Deo Decimas ex maritimis pro­ventibus:
      Dionys. Ha­lic. l. 1. Antiq.
      and others of them were obliged by the Oracle at Dodona when they were at Rest, and setled, Decimas Phoebo mittere, & capita Jovi.

      So that the very Heathen by the Light they had, were acquainted that an High and Honorary Rent must issue out of all our estates, and all our increase, unto God the Owner and the Lord of All: not unlike to what we have thereof in Solomon; Honour the Lord with thy sub­stance, and with all the increase of thy substance.

  • And this for Tything.

    2. Vowing is another way of Real Paying of Thanks. It was One of the Laws of the Twelve Tables, Cic. l. 2. de Leg. Sancte vota reddunto. And I ren­der [Page 218] it in the words of David, Make Vows, and pay them unto God. Which in part omitted by the Tyr­rheni, or as Dionysius, the Pelasgi, they were punisht for it with a thou­sand Evils, and were told so by the Oracle. Dio [...]. An­tiq. l. 1. Consulentibus autem Ora­culum quo Deo, quove Daemone laeso, paterentur talia, & quomodo quae­rendum his malis Remedium; Re­spondit Deus, eos Voti compotes, non reddid [...]sse quae voverant, & mul­tum debere insuper. Laborantes enim sterilitate Pelasgi omnium Re­rum Jovi, Apollini & Cabiris Deci­mas voverant, & eorum quae ipsis nascerentur in posterum; potitique voto, frugum omnium, & pecorum portionem sortiti obtulerant Diis, quasi vovissent haec sola.

Well you will say, but though the World both knew and Glo [...]ified God, yet (according to the Testi­mony of the great Apostle) they Glorified him not as God; God is a Spirit, but the Gentiles becoming vain in their Imaginations and con­ceits [Page 219] of him, Rom. c. 1. changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to Birds, and four-footed Beasts, and Creeping things.

Indeed it cannot be denyed, that generally the Heathen were depraved in their thoughts of God, but Uni­versally they were not. What ap­prehensions many of them had of Idols, and of the superstition repre­senting the Creator in the shapes of Creatures, you may well imagine by a passage in Strabo. Strab. l. 16. Geogr. He discoursing somewhere of the Occasion why Moses reputed by him an Egyptian Priest, abandoned and left his Coun­trey, namely, That he held the Insti­tutions followed in it, not to be en­dured; That the Egyptians who at­tributed unto God the Images of wild Beasts, or Cattle, had no better sentiments and apprehensions of him than the Greeks, that represented him in Humane Figure; And that God containing all things, was not to be adored in the Shape or Figure [Page 220] of any. who (sayes that Noble Geographer) possessed of this Opi­nion and Belief, begat a firm per­swasion of the same in not a few good men, whom he conducted to the Place where now Ierusalem stands.

I might dilate on this head in shewing out of Seneca and Tully in many places, what apprehensions both of these had of Idols, but I should be too prolix. That the Antient Persians owned none, is cer­tain. And for the Greeks, it was a Symbol of the sage Pythagoras, Iambl. Pio­trep. c. 21. symb. 24. Vid;. Plin. Hist. Nat. l. 2. c. 7. [...], Ingrave not any Image or likeness of God in a Ring; whereby it signified (as Iamblicus interprets him) that God is incorporeal and invisible. As for the Romans, Numa interdicted unto them the use of all Effigies of the Gods, and all Pictures; so that in antient times, and for the space of an hundred and seventy years, that people had none. Neque priscrs il­lis temporibus suit apud illos vel [Page 221] picta ulla Imago Dei (saith Plu­tarch) vel ficta, Plat. i [...] Num. sed primis cen­tum atque septuaginta annis, etsi templa aedificassent, atque sacras ca­sas struxissent, nullum tamen omnino simulacrum efformavere; nempe eo quod & nefas esset praestantiora de­terioribus assimulare; neque eum aliter quam mente attingi posse sen­serunt.

So conformable a sense had many Antient Heathen unto that of the Second Command. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, or in the Water under the Earth, thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them.

And as for others who approved of the use of Images, if we but Reflect upon the Reason which in­clined them to do it, there will be as much to be offered in extenuati­on and excuse of that commission, as there can be for the Romanists. Which truth I shall as easily perswade [Page 222] you of, as I can read a passage to you in the admirable Max. Tyr. Max. Tyr. Diss. 38. It a Deorum naturae (saith he) nec statuis per se, nec imaginibus opus est; sed cum infirma sit oppido mor­talium conditio, tantumque à divi­na, quantum à coelo terra recedat, signa ejusmodi excogitavit sibi, qui­bus & nomina Deorum, & nuncu­pationes tribueret. Si quibus igi­tur tam firma sit memoria, ut erecto statim animo coelum usque ipsum per­tingere, Deumque recta adire, nihil iis fortasse opus sit statuis. Verum rarissimi inter homines sunt hujus­modi. And afterwards, Videntur certè & Legislatores mihi non aliter quam puerorum gregi, has generi mortalium invenisse imagines; hono­ris divini quasi signa quaedam, vel notas, queis ad memoriam ejus tan­quam manuductione quadam, & via homines deducerent. And again to­ward the conclusion of his Disserta­tion. Deus enim omnium quae ex­tant pater, conditor (que) sole antiquior, antiquior coelo, omni tempore major, [Page 223] omni aevo, & quicquid in natura mu­tatur; Legislator line nomine, quem nulia vox exprimit, nulla oculorum intuetur acies; cujus cum sensus nostros excedat essentia, aurilium a verbis, a nominibus, animalibus (que), ab auri, eboris, argenti (que) figuris, à plantis, fluviisque, à montium jugis, aquarum (que) scatebris aliquod peta­mus; ut ad ejus hac ratione intel­lectum pervenire liceat. Cumenim tenuitatis nostrae ita poscat ratio, quicquid apud nos est pulcherrimum, naturae illius dedicamus: plane ut amantes solent, qui eorum quos a­mant, lubenter simulachra intuen­tur, &c.

As for Reverence to the Name of God injoyned in the third Com­mandment, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, 'tis evident how g [...]eat considerati­on the Disciples of Pythagoras had of that Duty, Iambl. de vit. Py [...]hag. c. 28. by what Iamblicus af­firmeth of them; [...] That they were very sparing in the use of the names [Page 224] of the Gods. Indeed [...] Re­verence an Oath was a Decree and Ordinance of that Great Master, and that respect and Deference which he was sensible was due unto the Di­vine Name, obliged him to make it; Which same Reflection urged Peri­ander to proceed farther. [...] (sayes He) an expression not to be translated better than in the words of Christ himself, Swear not at all.

For the Sabbath, Sel. de Ius. Nat. & Gen. l. 3. c. 16. the Learned Selden as well as others, whom you may consult at your leisure, hath amassed many Testimonies about it. I will only mention that of Ti­bullus,

Which may very well be Para­phrased in the terms of the fourth Command. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy, six dayes shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; but the seventh is the Sab­bath, in it thou shalt do no work, thou nor thy Son, nor thy Daughter, nor thy Man-servant, nor thy Maid-servant, nor thy Cattle, nor the Stranger that is within thy Gates.

So much for Piety to God.

As for Righteousness to man, it would be infinite to instance all I might upon the several Command­ments which concern it, both out of Menander, Phocylides, Pittacus, Theognis, Pindarus, Pythagoras, So­crates, Plato, Cicero, Seneca and others; a work I find already excel­lently well performed to my hand by Stobaeus. [...]o [...]. i [...]i S [...]o [...]. I shall therefore urge [Page 226] at present, but that One Duty which is comprehensive of all the rest; That we ought to do to others, as we would be done unto by others; which also is the Law and the Pro­phets.

All men know it to have been a Symbol of the Emperour Severus, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne fe­ceris. Do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done unto thy self; and what he expressed in so plain words, is as plainly implyed both in that of Isocrates, Isocr. apud. Stob. serm. 110. [...]. Upbraid no man with his Calamity, for chance is common, and thou knowest not what may be­fall [thy self]: And in that of Se­neca, Sen. Ep. 49. Seis improbum esse, qui ab uxore pudicitiam exigit, ipse aliena­rum corruptor uxorum. Thou know­est how Unjust he is, who expecteth that his own Wife should be Loyal and Chaste, while he himself committeth Adultery with other mens. And this for Righteousness to others.

[Page 227]As for Moderation, Temperance and Sobriety, it was a Symbol of Pythagoras, [...] That One ought not to Indulge him­self in immoderate and profuse Laughter, Iambl. Pre­trep. c. 21. symb. 21. which as Iamblicus, who best could, interprets it, [ [...]] implyed the Castiga­tion and subdual of the Affections; A Doctrine most comformable to that of our Apostle, Mortisie there­fore your members which are on the Earth, Fornication, Uncleanness, In­ordinate affection, &c. And the same Pythagoras hath another Sym­bol not impertinent, Pythag. apud Iambl. ubi supra. viz. [...], Pass not over a Yoke; whereby, as the lately mentioned Interpreter assures us, he obliged his Disciples to the exercise of Iustice, Equity, Moderátion; and indeed he doth it in an expression not unlike to that of the Scriptures, wherein we read, it is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth—of an hei­fer unaccustomed to the yoke— my yoke is easie.

[Page 228]And we have the Famed Socrates a great example of Self-denyal, Temperance and Moderation; for of him 'tis said by Zenophon, Zen. l. [...]. de dict & fact. So [...]r.. tali mo­do corpus ac animum castigabat, &c. tum enim paucis utebatur, ut nescio quis tam modicum laboraret, qui non posset lucrari quae Socrati satis essent, &c. That he so chastised both his body and mind, &c. and did use so few things, that Zenophon knew not the man who got so little by his labours, but that it was enough to procure what would suffice So­crates. Wherein he resembled Paul, who saith of himself— I keep down my Body—I will not be brought under the Power of any thing—Having food and rayment, let us be content. Godliness with contentment is great gain; or in Se­neca's Language, S [...]. Ep. 4. , Magnae divitie sunt lege naturae composita pauper­tas. Ad manum est quod sat est. We must deny our selves and take up the Cross to be Christians; and the terms were no easier for them [Page 229] that would of old be Philosophers, Se [...] Ep. 5. Satis ipsum nomen Philosophiae (sayes Seneca) etiamsi modestè tra­ctetur, invidiofum est. Max. Tyr. Dis. 29. Plat. i [...] Euthypehr. Which al­so Maximus Tyrius affirms, and Plato.

Again, I might also instance, in the greatest and most illustrious du­ties of the Gospel, such as that of acknowledging ones self a sinner in order to his being made better, E [...]ict. Stob. serm. 3. concerning which in Epictetus you may read, [...] If thou wilt be­come Good, first believe that thou art Evil. That of forgetting and forgiving Injuries, of which the celebrated Cato is a great Example, Se [...]. l. 2. de Irae. c. 32. Vid. Socr i [...] Crit. Plat. for to a certain fellow who had hurt him while he was in the Bath, and who Repenting, asked him forgive­ness, He answered (him). I remem­ber not that thou didst strike me. That of giving Alms secretly, let not thy left hand know, what thy right hand doth, of which Artesi­laus, who left a bag of money un­der [Page 230] the Pillow of his poor distressed friend, unknown to him, [a Story mentioned by Seneca] is a known and famous Instance: Sen. l. 2. de Benes. and lastly, That of leauing All for Religion, a Do­ctrine as hard to be digested as it is in sensual and debauched times, it would be no surprise to Anaxagoras, of whom it is averred by Philo, Philo de vit. con­templ. Vid. Plat. Apolog. pr [...] Socr. that Prae amore philosophiae praedia reli­quit. He left his Lands for the love of Philosophy. The like is said of Democritus, and others.

But no longer to insist on special ones, I will only hint some General and common Rules, by which the Heathen Doctors obliged their Di­sciples to Regulate themselves in all their Actions, which assoon as I have mentioned, I make no Question but you will acknowledge them Christian.

As First, That they ought to live and to think as alwayes in the sight of God, whoever inspects them; yea, and as if they were within the ken and view of all men. So Se­neca, [Page 231] Sic certe vivendum [...]anquam in conspectu vivamus, Sen. Epist. 83. sic cogitan­dum, tanquam aliquis in p [...]ctus in­timum inspicere possit, & potest. Quid enim prodest ab ho [...]rine ali­quid esse secretum, Nihil Deo clau­sum est. Interest animis nostris, & cogitationibus mediis intervenit. We ought so to live, as if we lived in Publick, and so to think as if one alwayes looked into our very Heart; and One can. For what advantage is it that a thing be concealed from man, when nothing can be hid from God. He is present to our minds, and conscious of all our thoughts. Thus Seneca; And Thales taught the same Doctrine: Thal. apud Cic. l. 2. de leg. viz. Homines existimare oportere, Deos omnia cer­nere, Deorum esse omnia plena, fore enim omnes castiores. That men ought to believe that God seeth all things, and that all places are full of him, for by this means they will become more Holy. Gen. 17. 1. Walk before me (sayes God to Abraham) and be upright. Jer. 23.24. Can any hide himself in [Page 232] secret Places, that I shall not see him saith the Lord [ in the Prophet ] He is the Discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the Heart, Heb. 4.13. neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are naked and open in the eyes of him with whom we have to do, saith the Apostle.

Secondly, That whatever enter­prize they were engaged in, or did apply themselves unto, they ought to go about it in the name of God, Acknowledging Him Author both of all Ability, and all success; for which cause it was ordained among the Romans, that nothing should be done, or undertaken by them, but with Invocation of Divine Assistance and Prayer. Plin. in P [...]g. Bene ac sapienter P.C. (sayes the Iunior Plinie) majores instituerunt, ut rerum agendarum ità dicendi initium à precationibus capere, quòd nihil rite, nihil (que) pro­videnter homines sine Deorum im­mortalium ope, consilio, honore au­spicarentur. It was a Pio [...]s and [Page 233] most Prudent institution of our An­cestors, O Grave and Honourable Fathers, that all Orations as well as all Actions, should be begun with Prayer; for asmuch as nothing can be wisely taken in hand by men, and to good purpose, without the Help, Counsel, Honour of the Immortal God. And so Ovid,

A Iove principium in Iovem termi­nus esto.

The Apostles Doctrine is, Pray al­wayes. And in the Revelations of St. John, 'tis I am Alpha and O­mega, the Beginning and the End­ing. Which minds me of another Rule.

Thirdly, That they ought in all their Actions to referr unto the Glo­ry of God, and so to carry and ac­quit themselves in them, as those that do partake of his Nature. Ut breviter tibi formulam praescrib [...]m (it is in Seneca) talis animus sapi­entis viri esse debet, Epist. 92. qualis Deum [Page 234] deceat. That I may prescribe thee a brief Rule of living; such ought the mind of a wise man to be, as doth become God. So the Apostle, Let the same mind be in you, as was in Christ Iesus. Be you Perfect (sayes Christ) as your Heavenly Father is Perfect. Again, it is averred of Pythagoras and his follow­ers by Iamblicus, Iambl de vit. Pythag. c. 28. that [...], &c. That whatever distribution they make of Actions, [or what Rules soever they make concerning them] all refers to this Mark, the Confession [or Glory] of God. And thus the Apostle, whe­ther you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the Glory of God.

It was from this Principle that their so absolute a Resignation to the Divine Disposal and Will, and their so Perfect a Submission pro­ceeded, that as the Christian pray­eth, Let thy Will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven, so a Philosopher [Page 235] could say, Sen. cur bon. vir. mald siant c. 5. vid. C [...]b. in Phaed. Plat. Nihil cogor, nihil patior invitus, nec servio Deo, sed assentio, eo quidem magis, quod scio omnia certa & in aeternum dicta lege de­currere—Olim constitutum est; quid gaude as, quid fle as. I am not compelled, I suffer nothing unwil­lingly, neither am I a slave unto God, but assent unto his Will, and so much the rather, because I know that all things happen by an Eternal and Unchangeable Ordinance of God.—Long since it was Decreed, what thou shouldst have of Joy or Sorrow. So Seneca. And with how much Ju­stice doth the same Seneca in the same Discourse applaud that manly Speech of Demetrius; In this One thing, O Immortal Gods, I can com­plain of you, that you have not made known unto me what your Will was: for of my self, I had first of all come unto these things, to which being now called, I pre­sent my self.

[Page 236]Fourthly, Vid. Stob. serm. 22. Epichar. apud Clem. Alexandr. l. 7. Strom. Not to mention what Apprehensions many of them had of Conscience, and of the Interest it hath in all Our Actions, That a Good one is a continual Feast, an Evil one a continual Torment; That the Goodness of the Heart ought to concurr to make the Action Good. Actio recta non erit, nisi recta fu­erit voluntas, ab hac enim est Actio. Rursus, Sen. Ep 95. Voluntas non erit recta, nisi habitus animi rectus fuerit. If the Will be not Good, the Action which Proceedeth from the same shall never be. Furthermore, the Will shall be Perverse, if the Habitude of the Spirit be not upright. But not to stand on that, I will add but One more, but that a very useful and momentous one, namely, That they ought to Act nothing with Doubt­ing and reluctant Minds, but to be well Resolved of the Equity, Ju­stice and Lawfulness of things, be­fore they did them; Ci [...] Offic. l. 1. So Cicero. Quo­circa circa bene praecipiunt, qui vetant quicquam agere quod dubites, aequum [Page 237] sit, an iniquum; Aequitas enim lucet, ipsa per se Dubitatio autem cogitationem significat injuriae. Well therefore do they teach, who forbid the doing of any thing whereof thou hast doubt, whether it be Right or Wrong; for Equity carries its own Light with it; but Doubting declareth some Imagination and conceit of Inju­ry. This is according to our Apostle, He that Doubteth is Damned, if he eat, because he eateth not of Faith; for whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin.

And now Sir, what remaineth to perfect my Discourse on this Head, but that I Demonstrate that the Old Philosophers and other Wise Hea­then, in all their Actions of Religi­on, designed something which they called communion with God. Which that they did, is mani­fest, not only from the Doctrine of the Stoicks, which some deride as too Fantastical and Aery, but from that of the Platonists and other Sects. Iambl. de Myst. Nisi Divina sunt, ubique tolli­tur sacrificii virtus, quae in quadam [Page 238] Deorum ad homines Communione consistit. If there be no Deity, then farewel the Virtue of Sacrifices or Religion, which consisteth solely in the Communion of God with Men. Thus Iamblicus. And saith the Apostle, we have Fellowship with God. Plutarch. co [...]tra Co­let. The like is in Plutarch.

And this Communion with, and conjunction unto God, as they un­derstood it to be inchoate and be­gun in the present world, so they were perswaded that it was not to be Perfect and consummate but in a Future: That here indeed, as on a raging and tumultuous Sea, men are Uncapable of Hearing and discerning God distinctly, but that hereafter when they have emerged it, they shall go to him, and there shall Hear him, and See him, and Know him, even as he is. So Max. Tyr. Max. Tyr. diss. 1. [...] [Page 239] But how shall we do to get out of this tumultuous Sea, and come to see God? Thou shalt see him entirely, when thou shalt be called to Him; nor will it be long before he calls thee, in the mean time await till he do. Old age is coming, which will conduct thee thither, and so is Death, which though the weak fear, and tremble at the Approaches of it, yet every Lover of God doth both expect it with Joy, and receive it with Confidence.

This is much, but what is more surprizing, I will now compendious­ly summ up the Articles of Christi­an Faith and Doctrine, and by way of Parallel annex to them others not unlike them in the Books of Philo­sophers; which though it may seem Presumptuous to attempt, is yet no more than what the antient Fathers, some of them in part have done, as Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebi­us, and others of them, as Lactantius [Page 240] for one, acknowledged not impossi­ble to be performed; for fayes be, Facile est autem docere pene uni­versam veritatem per Philosophos & Sectas esse divisam. It is easie to evince, that almost the whole Truth of Christian Religion is divi­ded among the Philosophers in their several Sects.—Sed docemus nullam Sectam fuisse tam deviam, Lact Instit. l. 7. c. 7. nec Philosophorum quenquam tam inanem, qui non viderit aliquid ex vero. We assert that there was ne­ver a Sect so much out of the way, nor one of all the Philosophers so vain, but that both. It and He had some Glympses of the Truth.— Quod si extitisset aliquis qui veri­tatem sparsam per singulos, per Se­ctasque diffusam colligeret in unum, ac redigeret in corpus, is profecto non dissentiret à nobis. Sed hoc nemo facere, nisi vere peritus ac sciens potest. Were there one that would collect together, and reduce into a Systeme or Body, all that Truth scattered in the several Philoso­phers, [Page 241] and diffused throughout their several Sects; Verily he would not differ from us. So said the Father, and so think I.

To begin then, That God is, and is such an One as Holy Scripture hath described him, that is, that he is Father Almighty, Wise, Holy, Good, Just, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and that his Providence and Care extends to all his works, are Truths so generally Acknowledged by wise men in all times, that I dare not abuse your Patience by so Unneces­sary a Performance as that would be to give you many Proofs and Instan­ces on them, out of the Antients.

You know how many Plain Testi­monies concerning them, Vid. Steuch. de perenni Philo. l. 3. & 4. are colle­cted by Martinus in his Metaphy­sicks, by Alsted in his Theologie, and by the Noble Morney in his Book of the Verity of Christian Religion, and by many others; and in the Treatise which occasioned you the present trouble, there are al­so some collected, so that I need not [Page 242] add more on this Head, but only one citation out of Plato. For he having first confessed the little sa­tisfaction which he had received in the Theogonie, and Zoogenie of the Antients, or those Discourses which were transmitted down by them in writing about the Origin or Gene­ration of the Gods, and Animals, he Premises this as Fundamental to his own concerning the former. Plat. in Fp [...]n. Vid. So [...]r. in Plat. Phaed. Arist. de Mundo. [...]. That there are Gods, or which I take to be the true meaning that there is a God, whose Providence and care particu­larly extends to all things both small and great, and who is inflexible from what is Iust and Right. And afterward in the same Discourse, re­flecting on the Perpetuity, the Con­stancy, the Order in the Motion of the Heavens, not conceiving it ima­ginable how any lower Being should be able to inspire, and principle it, He concludes that God did; [...], [Page 243] I affirm, it is God that is the Cause.

But to leave a Point that is not questioned, I proceed to entertain you with another that almost deservs to be as little, I mean the Doctrine of the Trinity, which though de­nyed by the Modern Iews, as we may read in Buxtorfe, Buxtor. Sy­nag. Iud. c. 3. Morney of Trueness of Christi­an Religi­on, c. 6. and called into question by many that profess them­selves Christians; yet it was un­doubtedly acknowledged by the An­tient Jews, as you may find de­monstrated in Morney, and was inti­mated in that Form of Benediction, which Galatinus mentions; Galat. in Epist. ad Re [...]s [...]n. nor was it unknown unto the Gentiles, which is now my task to Demon­strate.

And here I must profess how much I owe to the Learned and Industri­ons Patricius, Patric Pa­narch. l. 9. for saving me a great part of the labour which otherwise I must have put my self to, by col­lecting out of Zoroaster, and Hermes, such Authorities as manifestly prove the point in hand; which partly be­cause [Page 244] they may not be so generally known, the Author not lying in eve­ry bodies way, and partly also to render this Discourse the more Ab­solute, I shall compendiously repeat here.

For to begin with Zoroaster, he speaketh of a Paternal Monad or Unite, [...], where the Paternal Monad is; and, as Patrici­us well observes, a Paternal is a Ge­nerative or Principiant Monad, and so is this, for he begetteth or Prin­cipleth the number next in Nature, and that is Two [the Son and Spi­rit] [...] (faith he) [...]. The Monad is Protended, which begetteth Two; which Two he calls the Diad, and affirmeth of them, that they alwayes sit with the Father, [...]. But the Diad sits with him. [ In the beginning was with God.] Now a Monad and a Diad, or One and Two makes Three; or a Monad protended into a Diad, is a Trini­ty; of which he saith, [...], [Page 245] The Trinity whereof the Unity is the Principle, shineth out in all the world.

But you will say, here is a kind of Trinity indeed, but of what Re­lation to the Christian? Ours is a Father, a Son the Wisdom of the Father, and an Holy Spirit, through which He worketh all, and so was Zoroaster's; for the first Principle, which he mostly calleth the Mo­nad, otherwhere he calls the Fa­ther, [...], The Fa­ther Ravished himself; [...], The Father perfected all things. The Second Person, which he somewhere calls the Fathers Power, He calleth otherwhere the Fathers Mind, [...], The self-begotten Mind of the Father, considering the things which were made. And for the third Person [which, as Patricius thinks, he calls the Second Mind, for the Self-Begotten is the First, [...], [Page 246] the Father Perfected all things and gave them to the Second Mind. I say, the third Principle is by him acknowledged to be the [...], The term of the Patèrnal Abysse, and the Spring of Intellectual Beings; To whom ascribing the Efficiency and Making of all things that are made; he calls him the Maker, [...], &c. and the Maker, &c.

So much for Zoroaster; and there are as many and as pregnant Testi­monies in Hermes as in Him; Herm. in Pim. l. 2. Vid. Steuch. de perenni Phil. l. 2. c. 17. all which it were too long to enume­rate; wherefore I shall only touch on some, and those the Principal; as that he speaks of God the Father, and calls him the Mind, [...], but the Mind, God the Fa­ther. Which had Zoroaster also ever done, I should have thought the Second Mind to be the Son, and that the saying which I quoted even now, that the Father perfected all things, and gave them to the Second Mind, were to be understood [Page 247] of the Son, to whom the Scripture tells us, the Father hath given all things, [ All Power in Heaven and Earth is given unto me:] but Pa­tricius is express, that Zoroaster ne­ver calls the Father Mind, though Hermes do.

Indeed in my Opinion Hermes speaketh more expressly of the Son and Spirit, and more consonantly to the Sacred Scriptures, than Zoroaster, for he saith of the former, [...]— From the [First] Mind [proceeds] the Lu­cid Word, the Son of God. Which Word he often calls the Son. [...], He is the Issue of the most Perfect, the Perfect, the Begotten, the Natural Son. By this Word, he sayes the Father made the World, [...], The Great Creator, or Demiurgus, the Father, He made the whole World, not with hands, but by [his] Word.

[Page 248]And for the Spirit, what clearer Testimony can be had of him than this. [...]. God [ the Father] Male Female, Life and Light, did by the Word principle another Demiurgi­cal Mind, which being the God of Fire and Spirit, produced or effect­ed [the World.] In which Asser­tion, as in the Holy Scriptures, the Third Principle is compared to Fire and Spirit, he shall baptize you [...], with the Holy Spirit and Fire; which Spirit Her­mes also representeth as the Liga­ment and band of Union between the Father and Son, [...], and there is no other Union of this, than the Spirit that containeth all things. And it is this Spirit that he somewhere calls the Life; for speaking of the Father and the Son, he sayes, [...], they are indistant [Page 249] from one another; for the Life is the Union of these two; and so the Scripture speaks, which also calls the Spirit, the Life.

But in regard the Works of Her­mes and Zoroaster are esteemed by many but Pious frauds, though per­haps it were no hard task to evi­dence them very Antient, and to re­store them to their former credit, (a piece of Justice that the Learn­ed Patricius hath in part done them;) I shall therefore add some other Te­stimonies not obnoxious to such su­spicious, in confirmation both of them, and of the truths I have de­sign'd to evince.

Not that I will much insist on the Trinity of the Antient Orpheus, In Reu [...]b. l. 3. de verb. mir. c. 5. Nox, Coelum & Aether. Morney of Truth of Christian Religion, c. 6. or his Three Creators and Makers of the World, (which some say he calls Phanes, Uranos and Chronos) con­cerning which you may peruse Reu­chlin and Morney; nor on the Te­stimonies of the Sibyls, which yet are very plain and express; nor on the three Kings of Plato neither, [Page 250] under that Notion, Vid. A [...]g. de Ciuit. l. 10. c. 29. of which Patri­cius whom I have so often mention­ed, speaketh; or on this, that Plato in Gorgias (if you will believe the Learned Du port) teacheth, [...] ( autorem scil. fuisse) [...], Note: Du-port G [...]om. Ho-mer p. 86. That Homer was Author of the Trine subsistence of the Demiurgical Principles.

The first I will insist upon is, that of the Pythagoreans, Arist. de Cae [...].l. 1. c. 1. who as Aristo­tle noteth in his Book de coelo, af­firmed, [...] That the Universe and all things in it are terminated by three: And it was, as Plutarch tells us, one of the Placits of Pythagoras, Plut. in Num. — Diis superis impari numero sacrificare, in­feris pari, That the number of the Sacrifices offered to the Celestial Gods should be Odd, but to the Infernal Even. Now we know Pythagoras had been initiated in Aegypt, into the Mysteries of Hermes, Vi [...]. Apul. Florid. l 1. and in Chaldaea, into those of Zoroaster, and not unlikely in honour of the Do­ctrine of the Trinity wherein he was [Page 251] instructed, he might put this Hono­rary Mark upon the Ternary num­ber, and Vogue it Sacred and Di­vine; which also others did as well before, as after him. So Homer,

All things are divided three man­ner of wayes.

[Page 252]And how inefragable a Testimo­ny of the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, that it was not utterly concealed and hid from the Anti­ents, is this of Aristotle,

[...]. Arist. de Caelo, l. 1. c. 1. wherefore re­ceiving it from Nature as a Law of her establishment, we are wont to use this Number [ viz. the Ternary.] in the Solemn Worship of the Gods. And how could this Usage so obtain [so Universally as to be thought a Sanction, Law and Ordinance of Nature] but that it was received by Tradition from the first and com­mon Parents, and so diffused all over? So little reason had Cardi­nal Bassarion to deride Trapezon­tius.

But not to importune you with all that might be said, I will only offer one consideration more to make it plain, which is, that the Antient Roman Pontifs, who 'tis likely might receive the custom from [Page 253] Pythagoras, were in their Impreca­tions, their Vota, or Solemn Invoca­tions of Divine Goodness and Cle­mency, wont to hold Three fingers up Erect, the other two depressed on the Palms of their hands, as who would say, imploring from the bles­sed Trinity, the Father, Son and Ho­ly Ghost, that good and blessing they Desired.

That this was an Antient Cu­stom among the Romans (and, Galat. in Ep. ad Reuclin. as Galatinus saith, the High-Priest among the Iews, when he pronounc'd within the Sanctuary, the Nomen Te­tragrammaton, or name Iehovah, did the like) is proved by the learned, Reuchlin, who affirmeth that for this Reason their Imprecations, Vows, or Blessings were called Indigita­ments. So Imprecari, in Festus Pom­peius is indigitari; which word, though by occasion of the Ignorance of Persons uninitiated in the Myste­ries, it were read, and now is written IN [INDIGITARI] yet antiently, and in the Pontifs [Page 254] Books, it was not so, but TRI-DIGITARI, Reuclin. in Ep. ad Galatin. thus III DIGITARI; as they were wont to write One that had been thrice Consul, III COSS. You may see more of.. this in Reuchlin.

Again, and what among the Learned is more discoursed of than the Trinity of Plato? who in his Timaeus mentions One, Plat. in Trin. [...], An Eternal Being Inge­nite; whom he afterwards calls [...], The Maker and Father of this Uni­verse; and who is this but God the Father Almighty? Then he mentions a Begotten God, [...], For all these Reasons did He beget this Blessed God. By which truly I think he understood not the Intel­ligible World, or that Idea and ex­emplar of the sensible, extant in the mind of God from all Eternity, which he calleth [...], The Eternal Form or Model, but [Page 255] this sensible one, or Nature; which none can once question that but readeth what he further saith of this Begotten God, Plat. in Tim. f. 34: Ed. Steph [...] ­ni. [...]. Such in­deed was the Eternal Ratiocination of God about the Future God, which he made smooth and Equable on eve­ry side, and from the middle rising up evenly, a Body Perfect and abso­lute, composed of absolute and Per­fect Ones. This is Plato his Begot­ten-God, or the Son of God; not that Intelligible World existent in the mind of God, but the Sensible produced by it; and of the same mind is Timaeus Locrus, Tim. Locr. de A [...]. Mu [...]. [...]— God made this World, &c. which afterwards he calls the Son of God, or the Begotten-God, [...], God willing to be­get a most fair and beautiful Off­spring, produced this Begotten-God [the World.]

[Page 256]But to Return to Plato, we have him mentioning another Principle which he calleth [...] or Soul; for he supposeth that the sensible World is an Animal or living Creature, and that this [...] is the Principle that doth enliven and animate it, of which he saith, Plin in [...]im. f. 34. [...], [But he Begot] the Soul [of the World] a thing superiour to, and before the Body both in Gene­ration and in Vertue, and set it over it as a Lady to Rule and Go­vern it. And of this he speaketh in his tenth Book of Laws, Plat. l. 10. de leg. wherein he seems to make it to be God, [...]. It is manifest that the Best soul [God] must be affirmed to superintend the whole Universe, and to act and rule it in that way and method which we have mentioned.

[Page 257]So near this Great Truth was Pla­to, and had he acquiesced in the Ge­neral account thereof, which it seems he had received from the Antients, with the Tradition of the [...] or Creation of the World, (which I am the apter to believe he did, because as Moses hints a Trinity in His Genesis, whence the Evangelist Iohn derives his, so doth Plato in Timaeus, or the Heathen Genesis.) I say, had not Plato been too curi­ous to pry into a Mysterie too hard for him to comprehend, but had acquisced in the General account received, he might have passed for a very Good and Orthodox believer (of it.) For what is more agree­able to Christian Doctrine, than that there is a Father without Beginning, that there is a Blessed Begotten-God, as who would say the Son, and that there is a Soul or Spirit [proceed­ing from the Father and Son] Who doth inspire all the Motions in the whole Universe, and Who doth go­vern them all?

[Page 258]But the Gloss and Comment of Plato (as may be inferred from what I have Discoursed of it already out of his Timaeus) is not as Orthodox and Christian as the text it self, and no wonder, when among Christians, and in the advantage of the Gospel Light and Dispensation, there is so little Understanding of the Mysterie, and that little so imperfect, that even most of us may have as much Rea­son to correct the Boldness, Pre­sumption, Temerity of most of our pretending and splendid Talk upon it, and explications of it, as Plato had to correct his, which yet he piously did. We may as well say in this matter, when we have said the most we can, and the best, as he sayes, [...]; Plat. in Tim. f. 34. but how rashly and inconsiderately do we speak in this matter [which is so much above us?] By this it seems, that what he wrote by way of explication of the Trinity, was not so much what he believed of it [Page 259] Himself, but what the People, of whose capacity he had consideration and respect, could bear.

For however in Timaeus he dis­guises the matter, 'tis most certain he believed better himself. For what belief is more agreeing to the Chri­stian Doctrine, or more Orthodox than this? That there is a God the Governour and Cause of all the world, and of all things in it, those that are, and those that shall be. And that there is a Father of that Universal Governour and Cause of all things: As who would say, that there is God the Son, invested in all the Power both in Heaven and Earth; and there is God the Father, who is the Origin and Source of all that Power, from whom the Son derives and receives it. And this Belief was Plato's. You shall have his own words— Plat. Ep. 6. Ed. Steph. [...]— Swearing by the God the Governour of all, both of things [Page 260] that are, and of things that shall be, and by the Lord the Father of this Cause and Governour. [...], Of whom, if we philosophize truly and aright, we shall all have as clear a know­ledge as Happy men are capable of.

I am the more confirmed in the Pertinency of the present text, by the Judgement passed on it by One of the most Learned, as well as the most Antient of the Christian Fa­thers: Clem. Alex. Stro [...]. l. 5. [...] (saith Clemens Alexandrinus) [...], &c. For I mention not Plato. He in his Epistle to Erastus and Coriscus, speaketh plainly of the Father and Son, &c.

It might be added by way of Confirmation to the sense that I have given of Plato, that the Plato­nists have had the like; for proof whereof I will but offer what I find in St. Austin, Aug. de civ. l. 10. c. 29. ‘That the Good [Page 261] Simplicianus (afterward Bishop of Milan) told him, that a certain Platonist said in his hearing, that the beginning of St. Iohn's Go­spel, viz. In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and onward to the end of v. 5. was worthy to be written in let­ters of Gold, and to be read in the Highest places of all Temples.’ And Amelius, as Vives on St. Austin cites him, has the very words of the Evangelist, and quotes him. And this for Plato.

I might also instance in other Gentile Writers that do seem to hint somewhat of this Divine Mysterie, Vid. Ste [...]e. de perenni phil. l. 1. & 2. and there are who think there is no other meaning of the Pallas born of Iupiters brain, (of which both Poets and Philosophers have spoken so much) than that God the Son the Saviour of the World, is the Divine Wisdom, begotten of the Fathers Un­derstanding; and because his Gene­ration is Transcendent, Herodian l. 5. and Un­speakable, to signifie her being so, [Page 262] Pallas her Image (as Herodian has assured us) was by the Romans Wor­ship't and Adored [...], hid and Unseen. Again, how plain a Testimony to the Son of God the WORD, is that of Zeno in Laertius, and how agreeable to Christian Doctrine [...] viz. that there are two Principles, [...], an Active, and a Passive Principle; that the Passive Principle is matter, but that the Active Principle effect­ing All, is the WORD who is God. La [...]rt. i [...] Ze [...]. For so I take it we may well translate his [...]. Of which Word he farther saith, that it is Eternal, and that it maketh all things that are made in the whole Extent and Latitude of matter, [...].

And for the Holy Spirit, there is not only a general Testimony given to it by Poets and Philosophers, who conformably to that of Moses in Genesis, acknowledged a [...] or Common Spirit of the World. [Page 263]

[Page 264] But a most particular one both as to its being God, and which is the Scri­ptural Notion, its Indwelling, In­spiring, Ruling and Governing in man, Pray hear Seneca, Prope est à re Deus (faith he to Lucilius) te­cum est, intus est. God is not far from thee, He is with thee, He is in thee. Sen. Ep. 41. Ita dico Lucili, Lacer intra nos Spiritus sedet, &c. This I say O Lucilius, a Holy Spirit resideth in us, who is the Observer and Re­gister of all the Good and Evil we do; This useth us, as he is used by us. There is no Good man without God. How can any raise himself above the Danger of Fortune, if not assisted by Him! it is He that in­spires Great and Generous Counsels. Once, it is certain a God dwel­leth in every Good man, though what that God is, is not Certain. Thus Seneca, so like the Apostle, You are the Temples of the Holy Ghost.

And so much for the Trinity as far as it was known among the Gen­tiles, who, if you will believe Ma­crobius, [Page 265] as Fabulous and Idle as they were in other matters, Macrob. Saturn l. 1. c. 2. Vid. Apul. l. de Phi­los. were not in the least so in this: for saith he, cum de his inquam loquuntur summo Deo & Mente (of which latter he had said before that it was nata & profecta ex summo Deo) nihil fabulosum penitus at­tingunt.

That the World had a Begin­ning, Vid. Lia [...]m ap. Laert. Plat. in E [...]tby. Arist. de Coel. l. 1. c. 10. was the General belief of most that ever lived in it, and Aristotle himself as good as tells us, that all Philosophers before him owned it. Yes, and that it was Produced by the [...] or Divine Word, was also asserted not only by the Aegyptians and Assyrians, who, if we may believe Hermes and Zoro­aster, plainly did so, but by many Greeks, Z [...]. ap. Lart. [...]bi, su ra. Plat. in Epi [...]om. particularly, by Zeno in La­ertius in the text before cited, and by Plato in his Epinomis, in these Terms: [...]— together finishing—the world, which the Word the most Divine [Page 266] All things had made Visible. St. Au­stin in his Confessions sayes that he had read the beginning of St. Iohns Gospel [ In the beginning was the word] in Plato, but not in the same words.

That Angels were Created, and before man, and for his advantage and Utility, and consequently, that then they were not Devils or ene­mies to man, was asserted by the famed Apollo, Ae [...]. Ga­zacus in Theop [...]rast. Vid. Steuch. de pere [...]. phil l. 3. c. 12, 14. in one of his Oracles, [...]. Before us, and before the Divine Production of the World, there were Immortal Spirits created, for our Utility.

That there was an Apostasie or fall of some of those Angels, among whom there was a Chieftain whom they called Typhon or the Devil, [ Isidis nomine Terram, Pl [...]t. de Is. Osiridis amo­rem, Typhonis Tartarum accepimus] who degenerating from their Proper Natures, instead of continuing friends, became the mortal enemies [Page 267] of God and man, is plainly intimated in the Doctrine of the Ancient The­ologues, who, as Macrobius tells us, and as I minded you before, affirmed the Body to be Hell; and that Souls were sent into it but by way of Pu­nishment, to expiate that Guilt they had contracted long before.

And indeed the great Hypothesis of Pre-existence of Souls, though as stated and interpreted by Hierocles, it seem a Depravation of the Histo­ry of the Fall of Man, yet as dis­played by Plato himself in Phaedrus, what is it other than a Disguise of that Tradition of the Fall of the Angels? Plat. in Phaedro. which we may Presume transmitted to him, and conveyed from most antient times.

For there he treateth of a three­fold condition of the Soul or Mind, one before its Immersion in the Bo­dy, while it was above in Heaven; the other after its immersion in the Body, while it is in Union and Con­junction with it, and how it came to be so; the third the state of [Page 268] Separation and Dis-union from the Body again, and what becomes of it then.

He saith of the Soul, that before its Immersion into this Terrestrial Body, she was [...], Perfect and Winged, and that while she was so, she did [...], she kept above, flying as she pleased over all the world; but afterward, by reason of her turpitude and Pra­vity, the Feathers falling from her wings, she sunk lower, and at last, meeting with convenient matter in this Inferiour Region, took up her residence and habitation in it.

This is his Notion of the Pre-ex­istence of souls, and of the cause of their incorporation in terrestrial Ve­hicles or Bodies, which in his own terms you may read in his Phaedrus thus. [...], &c. The Divine Nature is Amiable, Wise, Good, and [Page 269] whatever else Resemble this, and by these the Wing of the Soul is chiefly both nourisht and augmented, but by contrary things, as Turpitude and Pravity, &c. it is clipped and dissolved; The feathers fall off.

And, who seeth not in this Hypo­thesis or Notion, that he supposeth there were Unconcreted Minds or Spirits which fell, and left their first Habitation, which in their state of Fall or Apostasie not concerned with terrestrial Bodies, are Daemons, and concerned, are Souls? Souls and Daemons differing in no other wife with Plato, than according to the Notion of a Learned Person that understands him well enough, as Swords in Scabbards do from Swords without them.

And truly to render my Discourse on this matter beyond Exception, I am but to demonstrate this the sense of many of the Antients, namely, That Souls and Angels differ not in substance, but only in condition and state; which that it was, you will [Page 270] easily be induced to believe when I have proved it Received even among the Iews, who not unlikely might derive the same as well as ma­ny other of their Vulgar Placits, Vid. Aug. de Civ. l. 9. c. 11. from the Greek Philosophers.

And that it was a Received (though false) Opinion among the Iews, is evident from that of those Disciples met together to Pray for Peter, Act. 12.15. Vid. B [...]z [...]iu l [...]. who on Rhoda's insisting that she heard his voyce at the Gate, whom they knew before in Prison, and then Imagined Dead, conclude it was his Angel, that is, not his Guardian as the most think, nor his Messenger as some, for it would not follow from the Premises, it was Peters voyce, therefore his Guardi­an Angel; or it was Peters voyce, therefore 'tis his Messenger; but that it was his Spirit, or as we call it his Ghost, his Spectrum, his Ap­parition; Mens Ghosts (therefore called Apparitions) usually appear­ing in the same shape, and dissem­bling the same voyce that was owned [Page 271] by the living Persons whom they Represent.

Nor is this Interpretation ground­less, or a meer conceit, for I find in Philo a passage that will much contribute both to illuminate and strengthen it, for he saith, That the belief that Souls, Philo Iud. l. de Gi­gant. Genius's, and An­gels do not differ really and in deed, so much as nominally and in name, will effectively redeem and free the mind from grievous Superstition: Apul. l. de D [...]o Socrat. and so Apuleius, Animus humanus etiam nunc in corpore situs, Daemon nuncupatur, that the Soul of man even while it yet resideth in the Bo­dy, is called a Daemon, or Angel.

In a word, That there is a Devil as well as a God, an Evil Principle the cause of all the Evil in the world, as well as a Good, Zor. a [...]d Plutar. Ld [...] Osir. the Author of every Good and Perfect Gift, was a common Tenent in Antient times. Zoroaster, Father of the Magi, held there was an Oromazes, and an Ari­maneius, and conform to the Scri­ptures, adds, de rebus sub sensum [Page 272] cadentibus illum maxime similem esse Luci, hunc Tenebris & ignorati­oni: That the One was best com­pared to Light, the other to Dark­ness and Ignorance. Of which Opi­nion also were the Greeks [Philo­sophers and Poets] Qui (faith Plu­tarch) bonam partem Jovi Olym­pio, malam Diti Averrunco assignant, who ascribe all Good to the God of heaven, and all the Evil in the World to the Devil of hell. Yes sayes Plutarch most emphati­cally, Plutar. de Is. & Osir. Uerustissima autem sacra­rum professoribus rerum, & legum latoribus derivata est Opinio, Autore incognito, fide firma & indelebili, non in sermonibus ea tantum, & in rumoribus, sed & in mysteriis ac Sacrificiis, tam Barbaris quam Grae­canicis extans. What? neque casu ferri, & à fortuna pendere Uni­versum, mente, ratione ac Guberna­tore destitutum: neque unicam esse rationem quae contineat id & dirigat tanquam clavum aut fraena mode­rans. Sed cum per multa è bonis [Page 273] juxta malisque sunt confusa— Ergo à duobus Principiis contra­riis, adversisque duabus facultati­bus, quarum Altera ad Dextram & recta ducat, altera retrorsum avertatur, atque reflectat, cùm vi­tam esse mixtam, tum ipsum mun­dum, &c.

And more than this, It was a common Tenent amongst them, that between the Good and Evil Princi­ple there was War commenced, and carryed on i [...] the world, which un­der the management and conduct of a third or middle One, called by Zoroaster Mithra, Plutar. de Is. & Osir. and as Plutarch tells us, by the Persians Mesites, Mediator, by the Greeks Harmonia, Agreement; It was in conclusion to be finisht by the Ruine of Arima­nius; All which the Author last mentioned, in his Treatise of Isis and Osiris, shews at large, where­in, with many other, you may read the following Passage. Oromazan natum aiunt è luce purissima, Arimanium è caligine, eos bellum [Page 274] inter se gerere. Sex Deos fecisse Oromazan, primum Benevolentiae, secundum Veritatis; tertium AEqui­tatis, reliquos Sapientiae, Divitiarum & Voluptatis, quae honesta consequi­tur opisicem: Arimanium totidem numero his adversa efficientem. This shews the Nature of the War; and for the Success and event of it, hear Theopompus. Theopomp. ap Plutarc. de Is. & Osir. Theopompus ait de sententia Magorum vicibus ter mi [...]e annorum alterum Deorum su­perare, alterum succumbere; & per alia tria annorum millia, bellum eos inter se gerere, pugnare, & alte­rum alterius opera demoliri: Tan­dem Plutonem desscere & tun [...] Homines fore Beatos, neque ali­mento utentes, neque umbram eden­tes. When all the Devils works are Demolisht, and his Government overthrown, then blessed and happy shall men be. [They shall be as the Good Angels;] they shall not live on Elementary Aliment, but they shall have glorious and hea­venly Bodies. So I interpret [Page 275] that, neque umbras edentes.

That man was created upright and in the Divine Image, and that He was Invested in a state of ho­nour as well as of Innocence, and had at first bestowed upon him, all the Creatures God had made, I have already evinced known among the Gentiles (in the little Treatise that occasioned your Letter) not only by the Testimonies of the Poets, He­siod and Ovid, but of grave Philoso­phers, of Plato, of Hierocles, and of others: And therefore I will add here but one more, and that shall be out of Hermes; Herm. in Pomand. ex edit. Patri [...]. [...]. The Father of all, the Mind, Being, Life and Light produced man in his likeness, in whom he was de­lighted as in his Off-spring, for he was very beautiful, and lovely, bear­ing the Image of the Father. And [Page 276] in very deed God was in love with his own similitude, and assigned over unto him all that he had made.

That Men fell, and by Temptati­on of the Devil, or Serpent, were cheated out of Paradise, was a Truth no less acknowledged among the Heathen, than that they once stood: of which, as I have given several Testimonies in my former Discourse, so you may find more in Morney and Dr. Stillingfleet, De Ophio­n [...]o tracta vit. Phere­cyd s Syr. ut Max. Tyr. dis. 29. osserit. who both make the Table of Ophioneus (whom Coe­lius Rhodiginus calls Daemonicum Serpentem, the Devilish Serpent, and Leader of the Rebels and Apostates from God) to be a Depra­vation of the History of Moses con­cerning mans fall effected by the crafty Serpent. Once, that man at first was taken up in Contemplation and Enjoyment of the Great Creator, but that afterwards converting to the Creature, instead of walking in the way of Understanding, which lyes above to the Wise, and of con­forming [Page 277] to the Dictates of the supe­riour faculties, he took the lower way of Sense and Appetite, and so, of a man became a Brute, and of Free a Vassal, sold to Sin and Lust.] As it is hinted in the Metamorphosis and Transmutations of the Pythago­reans and Poets, wherein they feign­ed men transformed into the shapes of Beasts; so it is expressed plainly by Iamblicus. Iambl. de Myst. ex Edit. Fi­cini. Contemplabilis ipse in se Intellectus homo, erat quondam Deorum contemplationi conjunctus, deinde vero alteram ingressus est animam, circa humanam formae spe­ciem coaptatam, sive contempera­tam, atque propterea in ipso necessi­tatis, fatique vinculo est alliga­tus.

Nor were they less acquainted with the way of mans Recovery, and with the method wherein he is to be restored again unto felicity, than with his fall, and the cause of it. For as they took the Fall and Infelicity of man, to consist in his Oblivion and Forgetfulness of [Page 278] God, and in a foolish forsaking of himself (abused as he was by false Appearances,) to Lust and Sensitive Appetite, instead of firm adhering to Reason; so they understood his Liberation and Redemption from that Servitude and Bondage, no other­wise to be Effected, than by his again Recovering that Acquaintance and Knowledge of God, which he had formerly lost. This is life Eternal to know thee, sayes our Saviour; and the same saith Iamblicus, who speaks as much as here I have, both as to the Fall of man, Iambl. de Myst [...]. ex Edit. Fi­cius. and to his rise. Considerare itaque decet qua praesipue ratione ab ejusmodi vincu­lis solvi potest; est autem solutio nulla praeter ipsam Deorum cogni­tionem. Idea nam (que) felicitatis est ipsum cognolcere bonum. Quem­admodum est & Idea malorum, ipsa quidem Bonorum oblivio; & falla­cia circa malum, &c.— Haec autem à Principiis cadens, atque re­pulsa, seipsam projicit ad corporalem Ideam dimetiendam.

[Page 279]That the Gentiles had heard of the Promise of Christ, or God Incarnate, and that some among them looked for him, is not obscure­ly intimated by the Prophet in the Attribute he gives him, that he was the Desire of all Nations. For though the Incarnation of God, or as our Apostle, the manifestation of him in the flesh, be a thing of so much difficulty to be apprehended, that in the Judgement both of Epi­curus and Laertius, it is no less than plain folly and madness to be­lieve it,

Yet 'tis Undenyable that many as well Philosophers as others thought it possible; And I make no question but moved by some old Tradition, they earnestly expected such an One [Page 280] to come; of which there are no Dark Evincements.

For not to insist on what the Noble Morney hath so closely pres­sed, that Iulian himself believed Aesculapius the Son of Iupiter to have descended from Heaven, to be incarnate, to have appeared among men as a man, in order to the resti­stution of both souls and bodies to their Pristine Perfection; I say, not to stay on that, 'Tis evident as well from Aristotle in his Ethicks, Arist. Eth. Nicom. l. 7. c. 2. as from others, that they thought the like of Many, [great and eminent Per­sons among them;] of All which, that I may not too much exercise your Patience with instancing in more than need, I will elect but two for Examples.

For what did many of them think of great Pythagoras, Iambl. dt vit. Pythag. l. 2. c. 2. but what we believe of Iesus Christ, that he was the Son of God, a God incarnate, sent to men in Humane shape on purpose to Reform and Correct their lives, and by his own example [Page 281] to inflame and kindle in them ar­dent affections and desires after true Philosophy and Happiness. And Aristotle meant no less, when in a Book he wrote of the Pythagorean Philosophy, he maketh mention of— a certain Distribution of Beings pos­sessed of Reason, Arist. apud Iambl. l. 1. de vit. Py­thag. c. 6. that was (he sayes) preserved of Holy men as one of the greatest and most Sacred Mysteries they had in keeping; viz. That it was either God, or Man, or as Pythagoras, as who would say as God-man, or One Participating both. [...].

And that you may not fancy I have put a false interpretation on the Text of Aristotle, or have af­firmed more of Pythagoras than ever entred into Humane Cogita­tion in respect of him before, you shall have as much as I have said of him, represented to you by Iam­blicus, Iambl. de: vit. P [...]tha [...]. l. 1. c. [...]. who wrote his Life; as the common sentiment of very many of [Page 282] Old. [...]— But others report­ed him to be one of the Coele­stial Gods [who came] for the Benefit and Reformation of the mortal Life, Affirming that he ap­peared in humane Form to men, that he might graciously afford to cor­rupt nature, a saving Incentive both to Philosophy and Blessedness.

And little less was said of Plato, another great Luminary or Star that shined in the Gentile Orb; for of him Speucippus, Clearchus, and Ana­xalides in Laertius affirm it com­monly discours'd at Athens, that he was born of a woman who had never known man, and consequently, that he was begotten of God. For when Ariston his reputed Father would have taken that Possession of Pe­ricthiona (for so the Mother of Plato was call'd) which the Marri­age [Page 283] Condition did entitle him, and give him Right unto, he could not possibly effect it, but was Restrain­ed by Apollo, whom he saw in a Vision Protecting and defending Her from his Embraces, to keep her pure until she was delivered of That with which she went. The Story is known and to be seen both in Laer­tius in the life of Plato, Laert. in vit. Platon. Illustr. de Philos. in Platon. and in Il­lustrius. So far from being incre­dible is that Essential Part of the History of Christ, that he was born of a Virgin, and conceived by the Holy Ghost.

And what I pray you should in­cline the Heathen to imagine Extra­ordinary Persons to have been begot­ten of God, or to be Gods incarnate, but what mov'd the Iews in the Go­spel to think that Jesus Christ was that Prophet they lookt for, and others of them to imagine Simon the Aegyptian, and some Barchochebas to be the Messiah? Namely, that they were informed there was such an one to come, whom accordingly [Page 284] they did expect, and the extraordi­nary and surprizing advantages of which the Persons they beheld with admiration were possessed, inclined them to believe that this or that was he. And indeed the frequent Apparition of the Angel of the Covenant [the Lord Christ] to the Patriarchs, might be also some occasion of this Belief.

But this may pass but for a Pro­bable Conjecture. It is certain Iob was a Gentile, that he lived in the Land of Uz, and that he saw his Re­deemer; and as certain that Balaam, another Gentile, Prophesied of Christ, and saw his Day: and that the Magi or Wise men in the Evan­gel, had such Discoveries of our Blessed Saviour, and such Conduct to him, as none other Mortal ever had the like, which ought to be noted. Nor shall I blush to Urge the Testi­mony of the Sibylls, on which so many Antient and Learned Fathers have insisted as on their Principal Plea: There are many scatter'd up [Page 285] and down his Institutions by the Elegant Lactantius, and summed up by St. Austin, which I will not touch: Viv. ad August. de civ. l. 18. c. 23. I will only mention the Acrostich which I find in Vives his Notes upon St. Austin, taken out of Eusebius; and I the rather pitch on this, because I find in Cicero, some speech of such an Acrostich of one of the Sibylls, written with much Art, that should speak (as this doth) of a KING that was to come, Vid. Six. Senens. Bibl. l. 2. f. 115, 116. whereof you may hear more anon.

To this I will but add a Tristich out of Reu [...]hline, Reuchli [...] de ve [...]b. mirif. l. 3. c. 15. which (he sayes) [Page 291] he found among the Sibylls, though I fear it spurious;

And which he thus translates,

The meaning is, that the Son of God should be incarnate, and that his Name should be Jesus, [...] IHSUH; as that Author interprets it. But of this, Sit fides penes Authorem.

But if the Reputation and Credit of the Sibylls be Disputed, concern­ing which I shall Presume to offer somewhat hereafter, That of Poets and Philosophers is more received; [Page 292] I will but mention the Druids, Spotswood. Hist. of Ch. of Scotl. l. 1. f. 3. of whom I find in Spotswood, that it is Reported that they prophesied of the Incarnation of the Son of God; But in regard he citeth not his Author, and I my self have never met with any to strengthen that Assertion, I think it best to pass it over; as also what Clemens Alexandrinus citeth out of Pindarus about a Saviour, Clem. Alex. Stron. l. 5. that shoul [...] [...]well with Themis: nor will I stand on what the Antient Hermes, after he had talked with Pimander, speaketh of himself [as a Type,] perhaps in that sense in which the Prophet David did, say­ing, Thou wilt not suffer my soul in Grave, nor thine Holy One to see corruption; Herm. in P [...]m [...]x Ed. Patrit. So Hermes, [...]. But I Raising them up again , was made the Guide of Man­kind, shewing them the Way How, and in what manner they may be saved.

Once, who hath heard of Jesus [Page 293] Christ, that can without Reflection on him, read the Greek Stories of Mercury? when he shall find in them, that they make him Leader of the Graces; that they called him Diactor, a Messenger to go between the Gods and Men, and Socus or Sa­viour; That they assigned him a Rod with two Serpents twined about it, to indicate his Office, which was to make Peace, and to Destroy the Enmity; In fine, That he was the Son of Iupiter, begotten by him on Maia. Phoniae. de Nat. D [...]r. All this and more too is to be read of Mercury in Phornutus, which he indeed jejunely applyes, as many other Antients also did, to Speech. But we are to understand it to carry deeper sense than so, which we shall more easily be induced to believe, if we Re-mind that Admonition (necessary for the comprehending both of this and like Discourses of the Poets and Antients) which Plu­tarch gives us; Plutar. de Is. & Oscr. Porro autem fabulis utendum est, non quasi eae rempror­sus doceant; sed quod ob similitudi­nem [Page 294] cum reipsa aliquam, commodum ad ejus explicationem offertur, de­sumendum inde est. We are not so to use (the) Fables (of the Antients) as if they graphically did describe the Thing [Discoursed of;] but for some Resemblance that they have with it, they do Accommodate and help us in its explication: which is the Use we must make of them.

But that I may not tire you with consequential Evidences, that to some will seem far fetcht, I will offer one or two so manifest and plain, as shall not only Reflect abundant confirmation on All alrea­dy offer'd, but also effectually De­monstrate (of themselves) the Truth before us, viz. That the Gen­tiles had a fair Prospect of Christ, and that Philosophers as wary and as sparing as they were in making men­tion of it, yet they saw his Day.

For Plato in his Politicks, after he had been discoursing of the Golden Revolution under Saturn, and had said a many things thereon, seemeth [Page 295] to correct himself for talking so Presumptuously of things so long ago, and out of ken, and therefore for fuller satisfaction, refers to one to come, a fit and qualified Person, who would give them satisfactory informa­tion both in this and all things else of concern. Plat. in Polit. f. 272. ex Edit. Steph. [...]. But let us Adjourn this Discourse, Until a certain Fit MESSENGER come, who will tell, &c.

Indeed it would put the Faith of Plato above Question, were that true which Alsted tells us of it (he sayes) from Boethius de Disciplina Scholastica; Alsted. En­cyclop. l. 25. c. 3. That in his Sepulchre was found a Golden Lamin having engraven on it these words [ Credo infilium Dei nasciturum de Virgine] I believe in the Son of God that shall be born of a Virgin; Had there such a Lamin so inscribed been indeed found in Plato's Tomb, and were there no Conveyance of it in by Le­gerdemain or Pious Fraud, it would [Page 296] import much. But I am not credu­lous enough upon so slight motives, to believe his Faith so clear and so express, especially since I find not any mention of the Story, or any thing relating to it in Boethius him­self, nor in truth in Since I find Dr. Don. Ser. 2. f. 17. citing Aquinas for the Story. any other but one whose very Relation is a Discre­dit, I mean in Sr. Iohn Mandevile, who tells the Tale thus, ‘Once up­on a time within the Church of St. Sophy an Emperour would have laid the Body of his Father when Dead, and as they made the Grave they found a body in the earth, and upon the body lay agreat Plate of pure Gold, and thereup­on was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin Letters these words, Iesus Christus nascetur de Virgine Mariâ, & ego credo in eum. And it is thought Hermanes the Wise man writ it.’ A pittiful Story and not found in the Latin Copy of the Travels as they are in Purchas.

[Page 297]Again, who can put a Tolerable Sense on that in Cicero concerning a King, without acknowledging the Prospect which the Gentiles had of Christ, and that indeed the Sibyll spake of him, though perhaps she were as little understood by most others, as by her own Interpreter, and by the Orator himself, who de­rides her? Sibyllae versus observa­mus, quos illa furens fudisse dicitur. Ci [...]. de di­uin. l. 2. Quorum interpres falsa quadam hominum fama dicturus in Senatu putabatur, eum, quem revera Re­gem habeamus, appellandum quoque esse Regem, si salvi esse vellemus. Hoc si est, &c. We observe the Verses of the Sibyll, which she is said to pour out in her fury: Whose In­terpreter very lately (it was thought) would have spoken in the Senate, That the King which we have in­deed, ought also to be called King if we would be s afe. Forwhich mis­application of the Text, the Inter­preter doth as much fall under our Censure as Cicero's; for (as Sueto­tonius) [Page 298] Percrebuer at Oriente toto Ve­tus & Constans Opinio: Sueton. in Vespat. c. 4. esse in fa­tis, ut eo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur. Tacit. Hist. l. 5. Tacitus reports the same.

Again, the Humane Sacrifices which obtained among the Heathen all the World over, V. Porphyr. de Abstia. l. 2. s 27. Caes. Com­ment l. 5. Curt. l. 4. of which beside the Instances alledged in my former Essay, we have many more in Por­phyrie and others, for Evincements; I say, their Pharmaci and Cathar­mi were but Depravations and Dis­guises of that first Tradition of the Seed of the Woman, or the man Christ, who by Divine appointment was to make his Soul an Offering for sin, and so to be the common Pharmacus or Catharmus for the whole Kind.

Nor is this a Notion so impro­bable and far fetcht, but that it is as capable of Demonstration as any thing of like nature. For had not this Custom not of sacrificing only, but of sacrificing Men, been bottomed on some mistaken Tra­dition, [Page 299] Vid Dio­nys. Halicar. l. 1. Porphyr. de Abstin l 2. [...] 54, 55, 56. Vid. Caesar. Com. l 6. Vid. i [...]f [...]a which the rest of the World had received from the first Patri­archs, in whom as in a common stock, the several Branches concurred; It cannot be imagined how it should become so early, and so general as Authentick Story witness it, since Nothing could obtain so generally in the first ages, when there was not such an Intercourse between the Na­tions to favour it, as in following times, but what either was a prime dictate of Reason, which a thing ap­parently Inhumane and unreasonable could not be, or else a point of First Tradition.

Yes, The Gentiles had a sense of sin, and of the Clemency and Grace of God; as also that to expi­ate for the former, and to procure the latter, there was somewhat else Necessary beside Repentance and Reformation of the sinner (which yet the Modern Iews impertinently think enough.) San [...]ys Survey of Relig [...]on, f. 223. For else, what mean all their Rites of Expiation and Lustration? All their Applications [Page 300] and all their Altars to Iupiter Salu­taris, Iupiter the Saviour? and Iu­piter Melichius or Placabilis, Iupiter the Appeasable, and Iupiter the Propitious? Of all which we have abundant Instances and Proofs in Homer, Plato, Thucidides, Homer and Plat. l. 2. de Rep. in Xeno­phon, Pausanias and so many others, that it would be Infinite to cite them all, Be pleased to accept of three, Homer in Plato de Rep.

The Gods are flexible, Prayers and Victims appease them, &c.

Plato himself, Plat. de Rep. l. 2. [...]. Expiati­ons can do much, and the Gods are Exorable, as the Greatest Cities, the Poets Sons of the Gods, and the Prophets Affirm.

[Page 301] Phornutus. Phorn l. de Nat. Deor. Porro etiam (saith he) mitem àppellant Jovem, nempe Placabilem esse his, qui è scelerata vita pedem retrahant, non enim ita erga eos est affectus, ut reconciliari nequiret, quam ob causam & Placa­bilis Jovis arae sunt. There are Altars to Love the Appeasable.

And 'tis not unlikely but that many of them had some confused Glympse and Apprehension of Christ, the true Propitiatory; forasmuch as thinking and Inquisitive Philoso­phers (for so I call them) who exa­mined the Reasons of the Rites of their Religion, evidently enough perceived the insufficiency of not a few for those Ends they pretended, Vid. Por­phyr. de Abstinent. l. 2. s. 24. and in particular of cruentous Sacri­fices, which (if they thought of it) they could not but discern to conduce little to the Real cleansing and Pur­gation of their Consciences, the Ex­piation of sin, and the Propitiation of God. The Ratiocination of the Prophet Micah is so Natural and Easie, Mic. 6.6, 7. that it could not possibly escape [Page 302] a Cogitative man, Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow my self before the High God? Shall I come before him with Burnt Offer­ings, with Calves of an year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thou­sands of Rams, or with ten thou­sands of Rivers of Oyl? Shall I give my first born for my transgression, or the fruit of my Body, for the sin of my soul? 'Tis not improbable but some Reflections of a Nature like to these, Iambl. in vit. Pythag. Vid. & Plutarch. in Num. & Porphyr. de vit. Pythag. ingaged Phythagoras (as I find recorded by Iamblicus, in the Book he wrote of his life) to offer his Devotions on an Incruentous Altar. But whatever moved him to do so, it is certain that the Poet Philemon convinced of the Insufficiency of Sacrifices to Propitiate, and At­tone God, Obliged men to Piety, and Righteousness, as Things in themselves of more Avail and Power with him for that End, than Offerings.

Now supposing any of them to have had such Reflections, what Inference can be more easie (if we suppose them also to believe, what the Universal obtaining of Cruen­tous Sacrifices over all the Earth compelled them to do, namely, that they were ordained of God;) I say, what illation or consequence can be more easie, than that God ordained not cruentous Sacrifices for them­selves, as the only means of expiati­on of sin, or Propitiation of God; [it not consisting with Divine Wis­dom to appoint so Unproportionable and Imperfect Ones:] but only in Relation to a Thing of more Perfe­ction and Sufficiency, which these did but Prefigure and Type? Thus, Christ was not far from any of the Gentiles, would they have (but) [Page 304] Groped after him. What the Cere­monial. Law given to the Jews was ordained for to them; Those Apish Observations might have proved to the Gentiles: such Imperfect Sacri­fices might easily have put them on the Quest of another more Per­fect, Expiatory Sacrifice. As the Law among the Jews, so these Ob­servances and Rites among the Gen­tiles, did but point to Another: Sa­crifices and Offerings thou wouldst not, that is, ultimately, and for themselves; In Burnt offerings and Sin-offerings thou hadst no Plea­sure, viz. Terminatively and in themselves. These were Insufficient for Purgation of Sin, and Propitia­tion of God; Then said I, lo I come, [I come] to do what they could not, viz. by making my Soul an Offering for Sin, to Purge and Take it away.

I am the more confirmed in this Opinion, when I consider with how great care the Antient Mystae made it be conceived, that their Religion [Page 305] was Umbragious and Figurative, and that there was a deeper sense and meaning in the Rites and Ceremo­nies of it, than these at first might seem to carry. For to Insinuate this, as Plutarch tells us, they used to hang up Sphynxes in the Fronts of most of their Temples: Quo in­nuunt (saith the Author) suam Rerum Sacrarum Doctrinam constare perplexa, Plutar. de. Is. & Oser. & sub involucris latente sapientia: And that Inscription on Minerva's Temple at Sais, celebra­ted all the Learned World over, implyes no less. Plutart. ubi supra. Ego sum omne quod extitit, est, & erit, meum (que) Pe­plum nemo adhuc mortalium dete­xit. I am all That that hath been, that is, and that shall be, and no mortal (Man) hath yet discovered my Veil. A Symbol not obscurely indicating unto Iesus Christ,[or Him that was to come;] of whom it's said, no man hath. known the Father but the Son, and him to whom the Son hath revealed Him. He came out from the Father, and [Page 306] did Peplum Dei detegere, Open or discover his Veil.]

I know the greatest part of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews, did Bound their Apprehensions with the things before their Eyes, and never understood the true Intendment or meaning of the Ceremonies and Rites of that Religion, of which they made Profession. And therefore it might well be, that in all their Hu­mane, and other expiatory and cru­entous Sacrifices, they had not one thought of that Catharmus that oc­casioned them; But if they had not, it was their own fault, and I make no Question but there were Many that had. Which I believe you will not think impossible to be conceived, when I have shewed what is next in order, that notwithstand­ing the many Lords Gods, as well as Gods, the Gentiles had; yet ma­ny of them knew, there was One THE LORD-GOD or Mediator, as well as One Supream GOD.

[Page 307]'Tis true, It is a matter of the greatest Difficulty to Evince This, and like points, because the Magi, Philosophers, Priests, and other Thinking and Contemplative Per­sons, did in complyance with the weakness and infirmity of the Vul­gar, and for their own security dis­guise their meanings, and but shew by half Lights in Umbrages and Riddles, what they knew of God, not agreeing with the common Notions about him. Plato Epist. secundo. This is evident in Pla­to, who in an Epistle which he sent to Dionysius, excuses the Darkness and obscurity of his Discourse con­cerning God, with this Apology, [...]. I must speak to thee in Parables, That if the Letter mis­carry, he that reads it, may be ne­ver the wiser.] And then proposes his Symbol, circa omnium REGEM sunt omnia, &c. SECUNDUM ad secunda; TERTIUM ad Ter­tia, a TERNARY.

[Page 308]But to Return. As many of the Gentiles, notwithstanding the Mul­titude of Gods acknowledged among them, did believe there was but One God, Plat. Epist. 13. as Plato, [...]. When I write seriously, I begin my Epistle with God; But when otherwise, I mention Gods: So likewise, notwith­standing the Multitude of Demons, or Lords-Gods and Mediators, many did believe there was but one Great Demon, One Lord-God, the Medi­ator between God and Man. This Iamblicus assures us. For when his Scholar Porphyrie had put him the Question, why there was but One [common] Prayer with which Antiently they Invocated several Daemons, Iambl. de Myst. ex Edit. Fi­cini. whereas it seemed more Agreeable, that Diverse Daemons should have Diverse Prayers Address them; He answers, Quoniam per Deum-Dominum, unum Daemo­num, agitur Invocatio, qui & [...] principio suum cui (que) Daemonem de­finivit, & in Sacrificiis secundum [Page 309] propriam voluntatem suum cuique monstrat; semper enim, &c. That it was, for that All Invocation is Performed through THE LORD GOD, One of the Daemons, Who from the Beginning Assigned every One His Own Daemon, and does in Sacrifices, according to His Own Pleasure, shew every Man His Own.

Nor is Iamblicus's Testimony the only One I have in this matter; for Plato in his Convivium, Plato in Co [...]viv. f. 201, &c. Ex Ed. Steph. gr. lat. having spo­ken somewhat of the Nature, and of the Offices of Love, to the End he might Discourse more confident­ly of it, Introduces one Diotima, a Stranger, but a Prophetess [ [...],] and makes her answer Socra­tes, inquiring what that Love should be, That it was not God himself, as he had apprehended it, but [...], the Great Daemon, Me­diator between God and Man. She sayes the Great Daemon, for she sup­poseth there are many Daemons, but this the Great One, or LORD-DEMON. [Page 310] [...]. There are many and Di­verse Daemons, and Love is one of them.

I know you do not startle at the Name, nor at the Thing Daemon, though I believe some others will, who are less acquainted with the Antient Learning, and who know no other meaning of the word, than what common usage now enstamps upon it. But there will be little Reason for any man to Boggle at ei­ther, if he can have the Patience but to hear Diotima describing the De­monial Nature, That it is a middle one between God and what is Mortal, [...] that 'tis its office to interpret, and to carry the Prayers and Sacrifices of men to God, and the Precepts and Commands of God, with all his Gra­cious Retributions and Returns to men. [...]. [Page 311] That it filleth ( being of a middle nature) Both [the Upper and the Lower Region,] or, is as a haps or common Ligament, to bind the Uni­verse in all its parts together; [...]. That it is the Rise and Spring of Divina­tion or Prophecy. [...].—In fine, That God and Man have no immediate communion or commerce together, but what intelligence and Intercourse soever is between them, Proceeds from this Daemonial Nature, [...]—Thus Diotimae.

And how well has her Discourse, it is so deep and so surprizing, Re­warded our Attention to it! For all she spake in General of the Daemo­nial Nature, was intended (as the scope of that Discourse evinces) Principally, if not solely for the [...], the Great Daemon; [Page 312] and if she mention'd others, it was by way of caution, only to secure her self, and Umbrage what she said that it might down the better, amid the many Prejudices of the Vulgar that opposed it. Nor durst Plato, who was well acquainted with the Fate of Socrates, and with the charge that made it, more apertly explicate the matter; It was the great Crime imputed to the Master, and for which he was condemned and Exe­cuted, that he Introduced New Dae­mons; and it would have been a greater in the Scholar, and after such Example less Excusable, wholly to exclude the Old. Wherefore, it is not Injudicious to Understand the Pro [...]hetess, in the Argument prece­ding, principally to Regard the great Daemon; and who is He, but Christ? For it is He, and (indeed) only He that is a Mediator between God and man, and that participates them both; It is He Interpreteth the mind of God, and that presenteth all our Prayers, and that Reporteth all his [Page 313] Answers and Returns; By him alone we hold Communion, and Intelligence with God; 'Tis he that filleth All things, which no other Daemon can, and in all, the Aethereal Region in the form of God, the Inferiour in the form of man; and it is he that is the common Ligament that hold­eth Heaven and Earth together, by whom all the Parts and Members of the Universe, Disbanded in the Fall, are Re-united under one Head. [ [...], Eph. 1.10. to Recapitulate, is the Apostles word.]

And well might Iesus Christ, the Great Daemon of Plato, be styled by him (as he was) [...] or Love, who as one composed all of Love, has given greater Demonstrations in Ef­fect of His, than it is possible for Men to represent in words. Nor is it contradicted by the Story which the Author tells us of the Origin and Rise of Love, Plat. in Conviv. f. 203. Ex ed. Steph. namely that it was the Offspring of Porus and Pe­nia, of Plenty and Poverty; for what more easie Applications can [Page 314] be made of it, than to our blessed Saviour, who is the Issue of the Grace and Goodness of Almighty God, and of the Indigency, Need and Poverty of Man? Had not Man been Indigent and Needy, and God Infinitely Rich in Grace and Mercy, Christ had never come.

As for the Resurrection of the Dead ( Another Article of Christian Religion) it was Believed by the Druids; it was Preached by the Sibylls; it was implyed in the Do­ctrine of the Immortality of Humane Souls, in the Sepulture of Bodies, Neh. 2. 3. and in the Rights of Sepulchres, which for that they preserved the Dust and Ashes of Men against the time of Restitution, were esteemed all the World over Sacred and Invi­olable. Phocyl. in Poem. Ad­monitor. So Phocylides.

It is Humane] to afford Earth unto Unburied Carkases. Again, [Page 315]

Thou shalt not violate the Sepulcher of the Dead; nor discover to the Sun, things not to be looked on.

The next Verse is to the same Purpose.

It is Infamous to dissolve the Humane frame, or disturb his Ashes. And why? He annexes the Reason in the following Verses.

And we hope that ere long the grave [...]hall render up again to light the Reliques of the Dead.

And, though in St. Pauls time, Act. 17.18. [...]he Multitude at Athens were so ab­ [...]olutely unacquainted with the Re­surrection [Page 316] (of the Dead,) that when they had the Happiness to hear him Preach concerning it, some of them apprehended him to speak of a God, and all of a new and strange thing; yet we know that at the same time, there were Philosophers Rome that were most clear and full in their Belief and Faith of it, who not un­likely with their other knowledges, Received even this at Athens; from some above the many. Once, Philo­sophy came from Greece to Rome; and at Rome we have some Notice of this Article. Sen. Ep. 36. Seneca shall speak there­of, Mors (saith he) intermittit vi­tam, non cripit. Veniet iterum qui nos in Lucem reponat, Dies. Death is but [a sleep] an Interruption, not an Abolition of Life; there wi [...] a Day come, when we may Repos­sess the Light. Thus He of the Resurrection of the Body: which yet both Portius Festus and Pliny derided. Pli [...]. Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 55. Democritus indeed seems to have spoken of it, and that occasioned in part the Extrava­gant [Page 317] Sally and Talk of Pliny.

And having treated of the Re­surrection of the Body, I will now tell you why I premised to it nothing of the State and Immortality of the soul; It was because I did esteem it as a Point supposed in all Religions, and taken for granted. However in regard you may expect I should say something; not to mention that Pherecides Syrus Master of Pythago­ras, Cic [...] Tus [...]. quaest. l. 1. is said by some, (by others Thales) to be the first that asserted it, Lae [...]t in Thal. which I will then credit when I am convinced that before them, there was neither Worship nor Theologie; I affirm it a Doctrine so Universally believed, and known to be so, Vid A [...]st. de Gener. Animal. l. 2. c. 3. Plut, contra Colo [...]. Cic. l. de Senec. that it were superfluous to be much in Citations. You shall therefore have the trouble but of reading one Testimony, which for Pregnancy and Fulness of its Sense, and its Conformity with that of Holy Writ, will supersede all others. It is Moschion's, Mos [...]h a [...]d Stob. S [...]r. 120. or as some, Me­nanders.

So Solomon. Then shall the dust Return to the Earth, Eccl. 12.7. as it was; and the Spirit shall Return unto God that gave it. Socrat. apud Pla­ton. in Phaed. And Socrates was sure of it that he should go to the [...], to the Gods Lords.

As for Iudgement; 'Tis ma­nifest by a Passage which I cited out of Iamblicus upon the first Argu­ment, that the great Pythagoras both believed and taught it. And what Apprehensions the more Anti­ent Times had, and how conforma­ble [Page 319] to those that Christians have from Christ in Matthew, Matth. 25.32, &c. is deduce­able from the Old Story of Erus, Son of Armenius, which we have in Plato, Plat. de Rep. l. [...] f. 614, &c. and which I mention'd in the Preface to my former Treatise. The Story is this, Erus Son of Armenius, was in a great Combat slain with many others, and after ten dayes, when the Bodies of the rest, all pu­rified and rotten, were removed, his was found as sweet and as found as ever, which his friends carrying home in order to perform to it all the requisite Funeral Ceremonies, on the twelfth day from his decease, as they were laying him upon the Fu­neral Pile, Behold Erus reviv'd, and being reviv'd, related all that he had seen and heard from the time that he first departed. His Relation follows. [...]— He said, That after the Separation of his Soul from the Body, he went with many in his company, and [at last] arrived at a certain Divine Place, whence he saw two Openings [Page 320] or Hiatus in the Earth, one near another, and as many also above in Heaven right opposite to them. That betwixt these Openings there sate Judges. That these Iudges, af­ter they had taken Iudicial Cogni­zance of all Persons and Matters, and accordingly had passed Sentence, commanded the JUST, [...], to go to the RIGHT HAND up into Hea­ven. Which they did, carrying on their Breasts [...], the Records of all the Good things acknowledged in that Iudgement to have been done by them. But the Wicked and UNJUST [...], were ordered to the LEFT HAND, and to descend to the Infernals; they also bearing, but upon their backs, [...], Intimations [as it were Records in writing] of all that they had done. That Erus himself for his part, when he came before the Iudges, was told by them, that he must return again to Mor­tals, [Page 321] to Report to them all that he had seen and heard, and therefore that he should exactly observe, &c.

And how agreeable (I say) is this Relation of Erus, for so much of it as concerns Judgement, to that we have from Iesus Christ, who tells us, that in the last day there shall a Separation be made, as of Sheep from Goats? The Sheep shall stand at the RIGHT, the Goats at the LEFT HAND; and that then the Good omitted by the Wicked, as that performed by the Just, shall come to Light, and stand Eternally Recorded with the Sentence passed on them, to shew Divine Ju­stice.

You have another Old Story to Demonstrate the Antient Faith of Gentiles in the point of Iudgement, Plato in Gorg. s 526. ex. Ed. Steph. who maketh Socrates to tell it to one Callicles. Therein he speaks of Two wayes, one to Heaven, another to Hell: Of three Iudges, Rhadamanthus Judge of the Asians, Aeacus Judge of the Europeans, [Page 322] and Minos presiding over both, with a many other not impertinent mat­ters. But as he tells the Tale, it is so prolix, and after what I have al­ready said from Erus, so unneces­sary here, that I will not give my self the trouble to Transcribe, or you to Read it; only, there is a passage in it that imports how Just, and how impartial a Judgement that shall be; which for that it is Im­portant and concerning, I think not fit to omit. For Socrates having in Discourse on some part of his Rela­tion said (what the Holy Penmen in many places also do) [...], That many of the Dynastes or Rulers of the World are wicked; thence he takes occasion to resume his Story, and to tell how Uprightly, how E­qually, how Impartially Judge Rha­damanthus does Acquit himself to­wards them and others; [...], When the foresaid Rhadamanthus taketh such an one in hand to ex­amine [Page 323] him, [...], He taketh cognizance of nothing in him, neither of what Rank or Qua­lity he is, or from whom descended; but only that he is Wicked; [...], and find­ing him so, dismisseth him to Hell. [...]. Putting on him [...] Mark to signifie that he is Curable, or else Incurable.] It seems they held Purgatory.] [...]. But if he see another soul, that of a man that hath lived Holily and according to Truth, and Justly, whether it be that of a plain and Unlearned man, or else of another, ( [...]) But Principally I say, O Callicles, if it be a Philosophers [I had almost rendered it, if a Christians] One that minds his own matters, and [Page 324] is no busie-body in other mens) [...], That he huggs, and sends to the Islands of the Blessed. AEacus does the like. Minos sits by superinten­ding, according to Ulysses in Homer. ‘ [...]’ Holding a Golden Scepter, and or­daining Right to the Dead.

This for the Iudgement to come; But if any urges that the Testimo­nies I have cited do concern the Par­ticular one, which every soul assoon as it abandons and forsakes the Bo­dy undergoes, rather than the Gene­ral wherein all men all together, souls and bodies re-united shall appear at the Bar: I say (1.) Particular Judgement and General differ not essentially; but accidentally.(2.)And who knows but that they meant both? But (3.) If they apprehend­ed not the Article in all its Circum­stances so distinctly as we now do, it will not much matter, if for all [Page 325] they did believe the substance, That All must answer one day for what they do in the Body, and be Reward­ed accordingly: Since this sufficeth for both the Ends of that Discovery, namely to Influence the Humane Life, and to Justifie Divine Pro­cedure.

As for the two States of heaven and hell, there are so many and so obvious Testimonies both of Poets and Philosophers, of which occasio­nally I have mentioned some alrea­dy, that to offer any in so plain a matter, and here especially, may seem superfluous; yet, that I be not altogether wanting unto this Article in its Order, since I have not yet been so to others in theirs, I will present you One Evidence concerning it, and because it will indeed be abso­lutely unnecessary after that to offer more, I will Present but One. [...] (sayes Socrates) [...]. Socrat. [...]; Platon. in Gorg. f. 523. ex Ed. gr. lat. Steph. This was the Law and San­ction of God concerning Men in the [Page 326] Reign of Saturn, and the same was alwayes, and even now is (in force.) And what is that Law? [...], &c. That, whosoever among men did live [...] Righteously and Holily, should [...] whensoever he dyed, go [...] unto the Islands of the Blessed, [...] there to dwell in all felicity, without the Mixture of Evils. This was the Law for the Good. So Christ, Blessed are they that dye in the Lord, thenceforth they rest from their labours and their works follow them. There shall be no night there; There shall be no Curse there. But what is the Law for the wicked? [...], But he that lived without God, or Impiously in the World, and Unrigh­teously, was to go [...], into the Place of Punishment and Iu­stice, which they call Tartarus. And Dives in Hell, &c.

[Page 327]I confess, the Life Everlasting, by which I understand that Glorious and Immutable Condition or Estate to be possessed by the Godly in the Resurrection or the Re-union of the Body with the Soul, is an Article wherein (if in any) the Gentiles generally were but Dark: And yet (what is not easily believed) it is true that some of them had Light and Information of it; for that ve­ry Poet whom I lately cited for the Resurrection from the Dead, imme­diately to what I have already quoted out of him on that head, adds this.

Afterwards [ viz. after the Resur­rection] they shall be Gods. And not the Poet only, but the Old Magi believed Another, and that an Im­mortal Life. So Laertius, Theopomp. ap. Laert. in Proem. Plutarch. de Is. & Osir. [...], &c.—Who (saith he, speaking it of Theopom­pus) [Page 328] affirmeth, that according to the Doctrine of the Magi, Vid. supra 276. men shall live again, and then be Immortal; A Belief that is not much short of that the Christians had of old, I know faith Iob, that my Redeemer liveth, that in the latter Day He shall stand upon the Earth; and that I shall see him with these Eyes. When I awake (saith David) I shall be satisfied with thy Likeness. And what is that Likeness. I know how some un­derstand it, viz. That it does consist in Holiness, or in the correspondency of our Natures to the Divine; But I rather understand it as Analogie and common sense of Scripture prompts me, to consist in Glory, I mean, in the conformation of the Vile Bodies of Believers to the Glorious Body of Iesus Christ. For as they have born the Image of the Eart hly, they shall also bear the Image of the Hea­venly. Beloved, we are now the Sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He shall Appear, we shall [Page 329] be lik [...] [...] is He that shall [...] Christ? and the [...] proveth it, 1 Ioh. 2. 28.

But to conclude this tedious Enter­tainment of the Gentile Divinity, I will only add, that many Heathen held Opinion, that the World should have End by Fire. Of which per­swasion [Generally] were all the Stoicks; Seneca is press and full, Sen. Nat. Quaest. l. 3 At illo tempore, solutis Legibus, sine modo fertur. Qua ratione inquiris? eadem qua Conflagratio futura est. Utrumque sit cum Deo visum ordiri meliora, Vetera finiri. At that time absolved from all Laws, it doth ob­serve no measure. How can that be dost thou say? Why, in the same manner wherein the Conflagra­tion shall; both the one and the other is when it pleaseth God either to give beginning unto new Things, or else to put an end to old, &c. Ovid sayes as much.

To this also agreeth the Poet Lucan, his words be these, Lucian Bel. Civ. l. 1.

So great a Light was that afford­ed to the Gentiles, in all Essential points of true Religion: which per­haps, if we possessed all the Volumes perisht by the Injury of Times, and the Destiny of Letters, would have appeared much greater; yet so great it seems now by what Discourses I have made already, (the which I might enlarge on every Article,) That none that does unprejudicedly weight them, can have cause to won­der either at Clement's, or at La­ctantius's sense in favour of the old Philosophers, A g. [...]de Civ. l. 18. c. 47. or that St. Austin should say, ‘That the Jews dare [Page 334] not averr that no man was saved after the Propagation of Israel, but Israelites. Indeed there was no other People properly called the People of God. But they can't de­ny that some Particular Men lived in the world, in other Nations, that were belonging to the Heavenly Hierarchie.’ And Vives in his Notes is of the same Perswasion.

But do you ask by what means Gentiles who were Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, and with­out the Line of that Communion; became acquainted with those great Truths of which the Iews only had the solemn keeping? I answer, that (as I have often intimated) It was either (I.) By a Catholick or Gene­ral Tradition from the first and most Antient Fathers; Or (2.) By some Extraordinary Revelation or Disco­very made to them; Or (3.) By Communication from the Hebrews, the Israelites, and Jews, who as a Church, were a Candlestick to hold the Light committed to [Page 335] them, out to all the Earth.

That most of those Doctrines I have noted, were communicated down from hand to hand by Immemo­rial Tradition, from the first and most Antient Fathers, is not difficult to be conceived by those that know, that as all men came from Adam in the first World, so that in the second all did Descend from Noah, who had the knowledge of the true Religion, and instructed all his children in it, which children cannot be imagined but also to instruct and teach theirs, and so onward. But this is not all; for the [...] or mos majo­rum was a thing insisted on by all the Heathen, who ever pleaded for the Rites of their Religious, that they had received them from their fore­fathers, and that they were of Anti­ent Usage; yes, and that Plato (whom Aristobulus the Iew affirm­eth to have been a follower of the Law of his Nation, and to be very studious of the Doctrines in the Sa­cred Oracles, and whom Nume­nius [Page 336] for the same Reason styles the Attick Moses,) he sayes expresly, Numen. ap. Illustr. de Philos. That he Gleaned all he had, and wrote in that kind, out of Imme­morial and Unwritten, but almost expired and worn out Traditions. For in his Politic in the Place which I have cited in my Advertisement to the Reader, Plat [...] [...] Politic. f. 271. he plainly tells us, That the points he speaks of, were transmitted from our first Predeces­sors, [...], & c. That those that lived in the former Ages Preached, Plat. ibid. (it is his own Expressi­on) [...], They were Preachers of the very things that now are causelesly rejec­ted of many. [...]. The like in his Phile­bus, Plat. in Phil [...]b. f. 16 which I also noted before, wherein he sayes, that the Antients, better men than we, and dwelling nearer to the Gods, delivered to us the Report or Fame of these things [ [...]] Yes, and in his Republique, he maketh Adiman­tus [Page 337] in Address to Socrates, Plat. de Rep. l. 2. f. 366. to speak the same, [...], deducing your Discourses from the [An [...]ient] Heroes who were from the Beginning, [...], The Re­mains of whose Discourses are arrived even down to us. 'Tis very pro­bable that these whom Plato calls the first Ancestors, the Antients, better men than we, nearer to the Gods, Heroes that were from the Beginning, I mean the first Patri­archs (for so I understand him) Noah for instance and his children, Apollo apud La [...]rt. in Zenos. are the same designed by the fam'd Apollo, when in answer to a grave and serious Inquiry made by Zeno Citticus, how he might institute and frame and order his Life Best? He sayes, [...], that he would institute and frame and order it best, if he made it to con­form to the Dead. Apollo's Dead, and Plato's Heroes are the same.

Thus by Oral Tradition, or Re­port, by which I mean a delivery [Page 338] down of Doctrines from hand to hand by Words, or else by visible and significant Actions, many things were transferred from preceding to succeeding ages. But Report or Oral Tradition and Delivery, is in it self a means of conveyance so Uncertain and fallible, that when it passes many hands, there can but little be consided to it in controverted matters; (for) then it proveth (most commonly) so diversified and various, that it is the cause of Con­troversies, not the cure; the persons that convey it are so lyable either to mistake and Imposture, or to design & Interest. Nothing is more Obvious, or more frequently experienced than this: For the Report of an Accident but at One End of the Town; albeit it may Retain (as for the most part it doth) some general likeness and similitude of the First and Original Truth: yet 'tis disguised with a thousand Errors; though perhaps in some places with more, in some with less, according to the different [Page 339] Capacities, Numbers, Tempers, Af­fections and Designs of those that have the conveying of it. Report the further it goes, the more it loses of Truth, and the more it gains of Error.

In this Instance we have a lively Pourtraict of the False Religion of the Gentiles, and the plain Reason why it seemeth in so many things an Apish Imitation of the True; why it is so diversified in it self, and yet withall Retaineth such Resemblance and Conformity with Ours. It is because that all men came from one, and that all men came from one, and that not only Adam, but Noah did instruct his children in the My­steries of the True Religion, and in the Rites of it, and these again Reported to theirs, and so onward. But we may easily believe it to have hapned in this Tradition, as it doth in all others, that there was almost in every New delivery and Trans­mission, (for the mentioned causes) some departure and Recess from the Former; and thence arose so [Page 340] great Diversity in several parts of the World; yet ( what also is in all Reports) notwithstanding so much Variation in Particulars as there was among them; all Retain­ed some Agreement in the Gene­ral, and that Greater or Lesser, as those that made them were either nearer to the first Reporters, or more Remote; or else were more or less Intelligent, Faithful, careful and sin­cere in Transferring them. Cun­ning and Designing men foisted in something of their own, and made the Catholick Traditions, to father their conceits; But others were more Honest: Hence the Variety, and hence the Agreement in the Religi­ons of the World.

Now, those General Articles, Heads, or Points of Religion, where­in all men all the World over com­monly agree, and which are there­fore called common sentiments, though they be not (what by some they be imagined) Innate Idea's, or Notions ingrafted and imprinted [Page 341] on the Minds of Men by Nature, but (as I have evinced them) main and substantial Points of the first Tradition, and consequently, Re­tained in all the following, with more or less Disguise; yet be they as Infallibly and Indubitably true, as if they were; since 'tis as impos­sible that they should obtain so Universally (all the World over) if indeed they were not the Traditi­ons of a first and common Parent, as that they should be false, if they were. For grant one first Parent common to all the World, who could not but know the Truth, and that he so delivered things to his Children, and doubt O Atheist, the Reality of them, if thou canst!

Finally, How disguised soever Truth was in those Successive Tra­ditions, as necessarily it must have been in passing through so many and so diversly affected hands; yet as in other Reports, so also in these, when one becomes acquainted with the Original Truth, he will be able by [Page 342] comparing and conferring, to Dis­cover the Causes, or rather the first Occasions and Rises of Mistakes and Errors, [ what grounds there were for such; ] since it is as certain, that all Mistake, Error, Falsity hath for its bottom and foundation one or another Truth, as that Evil has some Good to ground it. This considera­tion will administer abundant Light to those that mind it, for their un­derstanding of the cogency of some of those Discourses I have made be­fore, about the Christianity disguis­ed in many of the Gentile Rites; and it was for that Purpose, and with that Design, namely, that it might reflect upon them somewhat of strength and confirmation, that I made any mention of it here; for doing which, after I have offered this Apology, I hope I need no Pardon. Thus Tradition was one way.

But though Tradition was One; yet the only way it was not whereby the Gentiles became acquainted with [Page 343] the Mysteries of the True Religion, for besides that, we are to conceive they had some Extraordinary Revelations and Discoveries of them, by Inspiration or Oracle: There not being any Nation under Heaven, and in the whole Universe, wherein (if you will credit Cicero) Divination was not. Cic. de Di­vin l. 1. Vid. Iambl. de Myster. And indeed the Antient Superstition was Magick. Of which truth we are assured not only by the Definition Plato gives of Magick, [...], that it is the worship of the Gods; but also by the more Authentick History of Balaam, who when he would Divine, did nothing but per­form Rites of Religion; he caused Altars to be built, and offered Bul­locks and Rams. Strab. Geog. l. 10. & 16. Yes, and Strabo tells us, that all the Heathen, as well Barbarians as Greeks, had cer­tain Festive Sacrifices, wherein they were inspired by the Deity, [ [...]] Pausanias also having mentioned the Persians eminent for Divination, Pausan. in Phocic. adds, Et haec quidem de [Page 344] foeminis & viris, quibus ad hunc us (que) diem Divinandi Scientia Divi­nitus contigit, memoriae prodita sunt. In sequentibus dehinc seculis credi fa­cile potest alios ejusmodi homines, qui futura praedicant, non defuturos.

As for the Rise and Origin of heathen Inspiration of Oracle, I do not hold my self obliged to discourse thereof here, farther than as generally hinted, it may serve to regulate our Apprehensions in the present matter; and therefore omit­ting what Peripatetiques and Stoicks say, who make it the Effect of cer­tain Preparations or Dispositions of mind, or what Plutarch, who ascribes it unto Qualities and Temperatures of places; I impute it to Religion, and to the state and condition of the first times, wherein Inspirations, while there was no other certain way of knowing the Divine mind, and of being guided by it, were far more frequent and common, than in the more remote. And no question but among the many other Traditi­ons [Page 345] given by Noah [Father of the Second World] to his Children, this was One, In Extraordinary Cases to consult God for Resolutions and Direction by (a way of) extra­ordinary Worship and Religion; for instance, by Extraordinary Prayers, and Extraordinary Sacrifices; it be­ing the acknowledged Nature of Religion and Worship, by qualifying and accommodating of the mind to God, to Invite and draw him down, and make him present to the Religi­ous, and Worshippers. Thus all men all the world over mov'd by that Tradition, as by Instinct of Nature, did in all unusual and un­common Emergencies, or when they would be counselled and resolved in any matter, immediately apply them­selves to the Deity; which the su­perstitious Doing in wayes and me­thods not appointed by the true God, expected him in vain, he (for the most part) disdaining to approach unto them on such allure­ments; whence it came to pass, they [Page 346] were abused by the False, (I mean the Devil) who readily espying and improving this Occasion, Slily in­truded himself; so that appearing in the place of God, he passed for him. It was thus the Devil became the God of this World, or of the Gen­tiles. The superstitious invocated God in false wayes, who therefore refusing to approach, and visit them, the Devil takes the opportunity; he comes in his stead, and so passes for him.

I am the more confirmed in this Opinion, by considering that among the Superstitious, there were the same wayes of Responses by Visions, by Dreams, by Voice, &c. as among the truly Religious; as also by the Cessation and defect of Oracles or Inspiration, which on this Noti­on, and in this way, is more ac­countable than in any other. For when the Superstitious ceasing to be so, became (as in process of time they did) diffident and faith­less of the Power and Aptness of the [Page 347] means, for effecting of the Ends pretended, and consequently either innovated New Rites, more agree­able to their own conceits, or else grew cold and formal in the use of the Old; it followed, that they lost the advantage of such communica­tion and direction from their Gods, as formerly they had, with their Faith and Zeal in those Perfor­mances, that is, with that Religion which possessed them of it. False Religion made Oracles, and Irreli­gion ruin'd them. Sublata causa tollitur effectus.

And who can doubt of this Ac­count, or Reason, that seriously con­siders, First, That we read not of the Cessation or Defect of any Oracle, but about the time that Scepticism and Epicurism obtained. That great Ora­cle at Delphos, so celebrate in all the Earth, then ceasing to answer, as it had before in Verse, Vid Minut. Foelic. in Octar. when the Seeker Pyrrho was followed. And Second­ly, That Iamblicus is of the same Opinion, who informs us, that it [Page 348] was the innovating and unsteady hu­mour of the Greeks that rendred in­spiration so unfrequent and rare, among whom (he sayes) it was (for that Reason) of a duration and continuance, much shorter than among the Grave Barbarians. Iambl. l. de Myster. Opor­tet igitur (sayes he in his Mysteries) Ritus adorationis antiquos tanquam sacros conservare semper intactos, neque demere quicquam, neque ali­unde quid addere; ferme namque & hac causa nuper extitit, ut omnia & nomina & vota debilirata jam sint; propterea quod propter ipsam proevaricationem & invocandi cupi­ditatem permutata sunt semper, & permutari non desinunt. Graeci nam (que) natura rerum novarum stu­diosi sunt, ac proecipites usquequa (que) feruntur, instar navis saburra caren­tis, nullam habentis stabilitatem, ne [...]abque; conservant quod ab aliis accepe­runt. Sed & hoc cito dimittunt, & omnia propter instabilitatem, novoe­que inventionis elocutionem trans­formare solent. Barbari vero sicut [Page 349] moribus graves, firmique sunt, sic & in iisdem sermonibus firmiter per­severant, ob quam sane stabilita­tem, & ipsi Diis sunt amici, & ora­tiones offerunt illis acceptas, quas nulli ulla unquam ratione fas est per­mutare.

But to circumscribe my self: That the True God did on occasion infuse into the Heathen some Divine Mo­tions is (in my Apprehension) scarce questionable by any that Reflects on Balaam. Again, and as little que­stionable is it, that the Devil, after he had usurped the Place of God, and (as it were) assumed his Person, did frequently both say and do many things that were like him, to the end he might more craftily secure the cheat, and pass for what he was not. Though indeed at other times, he acted things like himself, which when he was received for God, he might the safer do; and all this as one that Personates another is wont, who must do something like the person he pretends to be, that he may pass for [Page 350] him; and will do more like himself. Hence the Heathen Oracles and Si­bylls had a mixture in both of Good and Bad. The former, that they might seem to come from God; the latter, because they came from the Devil.

Now whether the Sibylls (for of these I principally design to speak, as having pressed their Authority be­fore) were inspired in what they spake of Jesus Christ by the Deity; or (as you see I apprehend) prompt­ed by the Devil, is a matter not so necessary here to be decided. Both wayes are Possible. God inspired Balaam many hundred years before the Prophets arose, so that he spake as plainly and fully of our Saviour, as any of them all; and for the De­vil, he gave as large and full a Testi­mony unto Jesus Christ, when come, as any in that time beside him. And that he might Predict or prophesie of him in the Sibylls, and other Ora­cles, for the same respects and Ends before he came, for which he did [Page 351] confess him when come, is not diffi­cult to be conceived by a Thinking and Attentive man. What if the Devil by the clearness of his Ora­cles in this particular, thought either to out-vye or to forestall the Pro­phets in theirs? It would not seem a Design (if that were his) Un­worthy either of the Envy, or the subtlety, for which he is so infamous. And what if he intended to verifie his Divinity to after Ages, by the Truth of his Prognosticks in the former? Besides, he might conceive it would intangle and perplex suc­ceeding times, as indeed it mightily hath; which to design was proper for him.

Once, 'tis out of doubt that there were Sibylls, and those Antient, though how Antient it be not easie to determine. Certain it is, their Writings (of old) were held at Rome in extraordinary Veneration, there being Officers appointed, during both the Government of Kings, and that of the People, to preserve, and [Page 352] on occasion to inspect and consult them. Vid. Lactant. Inslit. l. 1. c. 6.— de Ira Dei, c. 22. Viv. in Not. ad August. de Ciuit. l. 18. c. 23. Dionys. Halicar. Antiq. Rom. l. 4. That after the Conflagrati­on of the Capitol, and of the Books with it which hapned in the one hundred fifty fourth Olympiad, there were Ambassadours sent on purpose to Erithrae, to repair that loss, which was done in part from thence, and in part from other Cities. In fine, Augustus by his Edict commanded that all the Verses going under the name of Sibylls, in the possession of any in his Territories, should be brought to the Praefect of the City of Rome, to be by him submitted to the Censure of the Quindecem viri, who were to judge which were true, and which false; severely forbidding private persons to retain or keep them. Thus they were preserved till the time of Stillico, who destroy­ed them. Of so much credit they were.

Indeed, That among the Writings commonly reputed Sibylline, there were antiently a many false, suppo­sitious, and ingenuine, cannot be [Page 353] denyed by one who reads in Diony­sius of Halicarnassus an express As­sertion of it; Dionys. Halicarn. ubi supra. Tacit [...] A [...] ­nal. l. 6. f. 380. Ed. Lips. or that considers, that it was (as Taccitus affirms) the Motive of the Edict (so lately men­tioned) of the great Augustus. And for the times since Christ, what the learned Vossius hath suggested may in part be true; Voss. de Port. Grae. c.1. that many of the Writings now obtruded on us for the Sibylls, may be Pious frauds, contrived to beguile the Heathen, by men of honester designs and mean­ings than Practices.

Of this sort, forasmuch as the Devil who resided at the celebrated Delphos, was long before forsaken of his versifying Humour at least, Cic. de Diuizat. l. 2. Strabo Geogr. l. 17. Plutarch. de Orac. de­fectu. (as is very Evident from Cicero, Strabo, Plutarch and many others) is that famous Oracle pretended to be given by him to Augustus Caesar, viz.

And of the same bran I reckon that Tale of Theodosius the Iew, Howells Letters, Sect. 6. Let. 37. Vid. Morney of Verity of Christi­an Religi­on, c. 30. which Mr. Howell sayes he found in Suidas, and concerning which he prayeth the Judgement of the Learn­ed Doctor Usher, in a Letter sent (to him) for that purpose. The Story is this; ‘That when the Temple was founded in Ierusalem, there were twenty two Priests ac­cording to the number of the He­brew Letters to Officiate in the Temple, and when any was chosen, his name with his Fathers and [Page 355] Mothers were used to be Register'd in a fair Book. In the time of Christ a Priest dyed, and he was chosen in his Place; but when his name was to be entred, his Father Ioseph being dead, his Mother was sent for, who being asked, who was his Father, she answe­red, that she never knew man, but that she conceiv'd by an Angel. So his Name was Register'd in these words, JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD, AND OF THE VIRGIN MARY. This Record at the Destruction of the Temple was preserved, and is to be seen in Tiberias to this day.’ Thus He.

These, and other instances of Pious Fraud in former times, may be a just ground whereon to raise suspi­cion, that some of those Verses com­monly reputed Sibylls, were no bet­ter; but that all were so, or that the most, is not at any hand to be admitted, seeing they were insisted on so much, and appealed to so of­ten, [Page 356] by very many Antient, Learn­ed and Prudent Fathers, namely, Iustin Martyr, Clemens Alexandri­nus, Lactantius, &c. who instead of defending, would have indeed be­trayed the Christian Doctrine, had they underpropt it with so weak and false supports. Questionless, 'tis the only way to stagger and discredit the greatest Truths, to go about to esta­blish them with lyes and falsities. I confess, it was pretended long ago by the Heathen, that the urged Si­bylls were Impostures, but Lactan­tius both disavoweth and disproves the scandal. And Constantine the Emperour, who had opportunity to know it well, Asserts their Inte­grity.

Truth is, there would but little Doubt remain in this Particular, concerning the Authority and use of Sibylls Writings, were that Exhor­tation Pauls indeed, which Clemens Alexandrinus puts upon him, Clem. Alexand l. 6. Stronat. Li­bros Graecos sumite, & Sibyllas agnoscite, quomodo unum Deum sig­nificent, [Page 357] & ea quae futura sunt, & invenietis in eis Filium Dei clarius & apertius scriptum. But to omit Apocryphal and Doubtful Testimo­nies, that which abundantly Evin­ceth the Prophecies ascribed to the Sibylls, to be for substance theirs, and that they spoke most clearly, both of Jesus Christs Nativity, and of his Kingdom, is what hath been noted and insisted on before by Eu­sebius and St. Austin of old, as well as many Moderns of late, namely, That Virgil in his fourth Eclogue, written about thirty years before the Incarnation of our Saviour, doth ineptly apply to Saloninus, Son of Pollio, the Sibylline Prophecies, con­ceived in terms that agree exactly to the Great Redeemer, and can to none else. Ramus in his Learned Praelections on that (fourth) Ec­logue, though he seems himself to hae­sitate about the interpretation which so many worthy Persons make, yet he offers much in favour of it. Ramus in Praelect. ad quartam E [...]log. Salo­nis in Dalmatia victis, Pollio filium [Page 358] quo tun [...] erat auctus, Saloninum cognominavit: Virgilius igitur hac Ecloga [...] ejus describit ex adjunctis, quod ejus aetatis aetas aurea comes futura sit: eique permulta tribuit, quae Christo dicuntur a Si­byllis attributae. Quae Christianis ita probata sunt, ut Graeci hanc Eclogam Graece converterint: & Divus Hieronymus ad Plautinum af­firmet Maronem sine Christo Christi­anum fuisse; & Divus Augustinus sentiat, Spiritum sanctum per os inimicorum locutum. Et satis con­stat Secundianum Pictorem, & Mar­cellianum Oratorem, hujus Eclogae versibus consideratis Christianos fa­ctos esse. Thus he.

And to speak plain English, who can longer bark against the Sibylls with any face, or think to elevate their Testimonies by consideration of the clearness and fulness of their Prophecies, that reflects on what the Poet professeth to have receiv'd from them, and could not from any after Christ, viz. ‘ That in the last [Page 359] Age there should a Child be born of a Virgin; that he should be King of all the World; that he should take away the sins of men; and that he should restore unto the Earth Eternal calm and peace; all which and more too that Poet found in the Sibylls.’ You well know what he sayes,

Now is come the last age predicted by the Sibyll called Cumaean, and that Great Ordinance appointed from the Beginning of the World is now fulfilled. Now cometh the Virgin, and now the Golden Dayes of the Kingdom of Saturn return again. Thus he raiseth the Attention of the Reader, and after goes on.

Which Mr. Sands thus translates,

To whom can all this agree, but to Christ?

And now, having vindicated the Sibylls, and evinced many of the Prophecies ascribed to them to be truly theirs; I am next to do as much for Hermes Trismegistus, whom all will readily acknowledge to have been inspired, if Pimander and other cited works be his, which to shew to be so, is my present Business.

And verily, did I not reflect up­on the Lust some Critical and Learn­ed men have of making Tryal of their Wits any way, and this especi­ally in elevating the Authority of Antient and received Writings; of which we have a great instance in the Noble Francis Picus (seconded by others) who hath taken much [Page 364] pains to shew how little certain we are that any of the many Volumes generally reputed Aristotles, D [...] Ti [...]sme­gis [...]o Vi [...]esis Clem. Alex. St [...]om. l. 6. Lacta [...]. Instit. l. 4. c. 9. are in­deed his; I say, were it not for this Reflection, I should extreamly ad­mire how any Prudent and Judici­ous Persons of latter times, should call in question the Legitimacy of Writings antiently received without question, and for which they cannot name another Father, there not be­ing an Annius, a Monk, to Father the Pimander and Asclepius, as there is to Father false Berosus and Mane­tho. Again, not to urge that Ascle­pius is commonly affirmed to have been translated by Apuleius, and if it were so, it cannot be conceived a Pious Fraud: I will only add a Testimony out of Iamblicus (who yet is pressed by some against them) which, Iambl. de My [...]t. well considered, will signifie with you as much in favour of the Writings generally called Trisme­gistus's, as it doth with me: It is in his Mysteries, where I find these words, His ita discretis, facile sol­vuntur [Page 365] dubia, quae in Libris Aegy­ptiis, quos Legisti, concepisse dicis: Qui enim sub Dercurii Titulo circumferuntur, Opiniones Der­turiales continent, etsi saepe Phi­losophorum Graecorum Stylo loquun­tur; sunt enim ex linguae Aegyptia in Graecam translati à vir [...]s Philo­sophiae non imperitis. Stobaeus hath much out of them; and verily there are as Learned and Judicious men of the Moderns, who do assert the Au­thority of those Writings, as any that deny it. Marsilius Ficinus, Patri­cius, Steuchus, &c. are great names, nor can I in Coringus himself, find that against them, which well weighed may over-balance what I have propounded now in Defence of them.

But to return; there were other wayes of Revelation by which the Gentiles may be thought to have received the knowledge of Religion, I will instance but in One, and that is Publick Vision. For to make a Judgement of what may have been [Page 366] done in former and long ago elapsed times, by what has been done of the late [almost] in ours, I will re­fresh your remembrance of the Fa­mous History of the Apparition at Medina, with the mention of what I find concerning it in Knolls. ‘There came news to Constantino­ple of a strange Apparition which was seen at Medina Talnabi in Arabia Knolls Turk. Hist. f. 1384. Ed. 5. whereas Mahomet the Great Prophet was buried, to visit whose Tomb the Turks use to go in Pilgrimage, but they must first go to Mecha, which is some few dayes journey off, and there take a Ticket from the Grand Signiours Beglerbeg, else they are not al­lowed to go to Medina. This Vi­sion continued three weeks toge­ther, which terrified the whole Countrey, for that no man could discover the Truth thereof. A­bout the twentieth of September there fell so great a Tempest, and so fearful a Thunder about mid­night, as the Heavens were dark­ned, [Page 367] and those that were awake almost distracted, but the vapours being dispersed, and the Element clear, the People might read in Arabian Characters these words in the Firmament, Oh Why WILL YE BELIEVE IN LIES! Between two and three in the morning there was seen a Woman in White, compassed about with the Sun, having a cheerful countenance, and holding in her hand a Book; coming from the North West, opposite against her were Armies, Turks, Persians, Arabians and other Mahometans ranged in order of Battle, and rea­dy to charge her; but she kept her standing, and only opened the Book, at the sight thereof these Armies fled, and presently all the Lamps about Mahomets Tomb went out; for assoon as ever the Vision vanished, (which was commonly an hour befor Sun-rise­ing) a murmuring Wind was heard, whereunto they imputed [Page 368] the extinguishing of the Lamps, The Antient Pilgrims of Maho­mets Race, who after they have visited this Place, never use to cut their Hair, were much amazed, for that they could not conceive the meaning of the Vision; only one of the Dervises declared it, and dyed a Martyr.’ Thus the Turkish History. There are many other Stories of Apparitions not un­like the former, Purchas Pilg. part. 1. l. 1. c. 2. to be had in Pur­chas, as that of Virachocha, who ap­peared to the Peruans, and taught them: And that of the Maur, or Stranger, bearded and clothed like a Christian, who to the Pagans of Brasile, did Preach the knowledge of God, but not believed by them, was succeeded by another, who delive­red them a Sword, since which they have accustomed to kill, and eat one another. The Apparition of a Cross to Constantine, and of words about it, is generally re­ceived, and reported, not only by Eusebius in the Life of that great [Page 369] Emperour, but also by Eutychius in his Annals; who addeth a Story of another that appeared in Golgotha, Eutych. Acnal. s. 475, 476. concerning which he Reporteth Cyrill Bishop of Ierusalem, to have writ­ten to the Emperour Constantius, Son of Constantine the Great, in these words; Sub Patre tuo beatae memoriae Imperatore apparuit Crux Domini Christi Stellis [effigiata] medio die in coelo; ac jam te Reg­nante ( Imperator Foelix) apparuit super Cranii [loco] Cruxè Luce cujus splendor Solis splendorem ipso meridie super at. And so much for the second way of Revelation and Vision, wherein Divine Knowledge may have been communicated to the Gentiles. But to proceed,

Thirdly, That some of the know­ledge owned by the Gentiles, was de­rived at first or second hand from the Hebrewes, and Church of God, is undenyable by him that shall con­sider, Diod. Sic. l. 2. Porphyr. de vit. Pythag. how that in most Antient times, Aegypt and Phoenicia were the [...]arts of Wisdom for the rest [Page 370] of the World, and that both these received much from the He­brews.

That Aegypt and Phoenicia were Marts of wisdom, is most certain. As for Egypt, it was repaired to by all the World, so celebrate it was for knowledge. There it was that Thales had his Institution, I [...]a [...]t. in vit. Thal. who was the first Philosopher in Greece, and Author of the Sect Ionic; and it was thence that the great Pythagoras Author of the Sect Italic, Porphyr. ubi supra. did fetch his Wisdom. Homer himself, that Glorious Father of the Graecian Po­ets, Clin. Alex. Strom. l. 1. was so obliged unto Aegypt for his great Science, of which he was Master, that (if we may believe Cle­ment of Alexandria) many thought him an Aegyptian. Diod. l. 2. Yes, and long before them all the famous Orpheus, numbred by St. Austin among the Heathen Theologues, as unto whom the Antient Grecians ówed their Theology; He (as we are told by Diodorus) went a Pilgrimage to Aegypt to learn it; and is for that [Page 371] Reason honoured by Virgil both with the name, and with the Habit of Priest.

This for Greece.

As for Phoenicia, Plin. Hist. Nat. l. 5. c. 2. that of Pliny, ipsa Gens Phoenicum in Gloria magna literarum, &c. That the Phoenici­ans were illustrious over all the Earth for their knowledge in letters, is to be remarked; and it is as certain by the same Author, as by concurrent Testimony of many others, that the Greeks themselves received Letters from them, and not unlikely other knowledge with Letters : nor can it reasonably be so much as doubted, but that this noble people trading into most parts of the Universe, communicated to them what they had heard, and what they knew of God.

[Page 372]Now that both Aegypt and Phoe­nicia received knowledge of the true God, and Articles of true Reli­gion from the Hebrews, will be evident to all that mind; First, That Abraham, afterwards that Iacob and Ioseph, and for some hundred of years, all the numerous offspring of the twelve Patriarchs were in Ae­gypt; and when these last were re­deemed and placed in the Land of Canaan, there ever was such inter­course between them and the Aegyp­tians, as must necessarily occasion in the latter some Discourses of the true God, and true Religion. I confess they generally hated the Religion of the Hebrews, because of the Aversion and Contrariety therein unto their own; But then, by reason of its strangeness, they talked the more of it.

I am apt enough to believe, that Aegypt owed much to Abraham, Ioseph. An. ti [...]abque; l. 1. c. 9. as well for that Skill and Know­ledge which it had in Divinity, as that in Astronomy, Geometry and [Page 373] other parts of the Mathematicks, for which in after times the AEgyptians were in such repute; yes, and per­haps from him they might receive their very Letters themselves, to which belief I am inclined by what I read in Pliny, who yieldeth the Assyrians to have had advantage of all Nations in point of Letters, Plin. Hist. Nat. l. 1. c. 9. when he faith, Literas semper arbitror Assyrias fuisse; sed alii apud Ae­gyptios à Mercurio, ut Gellius; alii apud Syros repertos volunt.

And Phoenicia was so near Pale­stine, where the Fathers Abraham, Isaac and Iacob sojourned, and where afterwards according to the Pro­mise, their Posterity inhabited; and in the Dayes of David and Solo­mon, and not unlikely both before and after, by reason of Trade (fa­cilitated by community of Language, the Punic and Hebrew differing only in a Dialect) there was such com­merce and intercourse between the Hebrews and Phoenicians, that the Manners and Religions of both peo­ple, [Page 374] cannot be conceived to be un­known to either, Epicharmus in Cle­ment affirms the Phoenicians to have received their Letters from the Iews, and so doth Eupolemus.

And having mentioned Solomon, with the Intercourse between the Hebrews and Phoenicians in his time, I cannot pretermit a not impertinent note, which it occasions me to make; De Brach­man: Gymn [...]ophist. Vid. Strab. Grozr. l. 15. Apul. Florit. l. 1. Clem. Alex. Strom. l 1. It is that the Brachmans and Gymnosophists, men of so fair a Reputation thoroughout the whole Universe for Knowledge and Philo­sophy, were the Off-spring of the Voyage to Ophir, and that the Iews that fetched Gold from India (for Ophir is in India, beyond Ganges, where Chryse was of old, and now the Kingdom of Pegu) left be­hind them in that Golden Countrey, Doctrines much more precious than the Metals they went for. Those were the Institutions for which so many ages after, these Philosophers of India were so Venerable; whose very way and method of Philoso­phizing, [Page 375] which as Laertius notes, Laert. de vit. in Pro­em. was Aenigmatical and Sententious [ [...], Worship God: Do no Evil: Exercise Fortitude:] was as conformable to that of Moses, as was the Matter of their Philosophy. Such was the Rise and Origin of the Brachmans and Gymnosophists.

And for the Persian Magi, though some derive the Brachmans and Gymnosophists of India from them, and others on the contrary the Magi from the Brachmans or Gymnosophists, affirming that Histas­pis Father of Darius, travelled in­to India with design to learn Philoso­phy and Magick, the which the Ma­gi afterwards professed in Persia: Yet I have cause to think, that omitting the Magick whereof Zo­roaster is reputed Author and Foun­der, the Magi celebrated by the Greeks for Doctrines so conforma­ble unto the Christians, owe their Original and Rise to Daniel.

[Page 376]And what inclineth me to this Belief, is that Daniel was conside­red first by Nebuchadnezzar, after­ward by Belteshazar as a Great Magus or Wise man, and had in such Repute and Honour, that he was preferred by the former to be chief of the Governours of all the Wise men in Babylon, or as it is interpreted Daster of the Magici­ans, Astrologers, Chaldaeans, South­sayers; and by the latter made the third Ruler in the Kingdom. Yes, and at the Entry of Darius, in whom the Kingdom was translated from the Assyrians to the Medes and Persians, he had the honour of being, first, the President over all the Princes of the Provinces, and then, after the Conspiracy of all the Magi and Princes against him; in the progress of the Government of the same Prince, he had the Happi­ness to see their Ruine, and to hear his God proclaimed God and King thoroughout the whole extent of the Empire. Thus perished the old [Page 377] Magick, the fam'd Superstition of Zoroaster, it was extinguished with those that made Profession of it, and another kind of Magick (to use the Heathen Term) introduced by Daniel (then of great Authority and Influence) even that of Moses, which was continued down along from him (among the Jews) in the Schools of the Prophets, according­ly as he had promised, and predicted that it should be; the Lord your God shall raise up unto you another Pro­phet like unto me. It was for this Magick that the Iews were noted; Talis erat Moses (saith Strabo, Strab. Geogr. l. 16. speaking of Magi or Diviners) & successores ejus: qui cum initia non mala habuissent, postea in deterius delapst sunt. A Censure much truer of the Gentile Superstition.

In this I am confirmed, First, By that of Pliny, Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 3. c. 1. who having spoken of the Magick of Zoroaster, adds, est & alia Magices factio à Mose, à Ianne & Iotape Judoeis pendens, sed multis millibus annorum post Zoroastrem. [Page 378] And there is another exercise of Magick, derived from the Jews, Moses, Jamnes, and Jotape [ per­haps he means Iannes and Ioshua, so confused is Tradition but by many thousand years later than that of Zoroaster. And also that in Di­ogenes Laertius, some who by the great conformity of Tenents obser­vable between the Iews and Magi, were convinced of some Relation and intercourse between them, Lae [...]t. de Vit. in Pro [...]m. yet un­willing to acknowledge the Truth, that the Magi proceeded from the Iews, affirmed that the Iews de­rived from the Magi, [...], And some say, the Jews came from those Magi. To this add, that the Greeks must be conceived to mean this New Or­der of Magi, and not the old, who would derive them from Histaspis.

And for the Druids both of Bri­tain and Gaul, there is so great Re­semblance in their Institutions, Di­scipline and Doctrine, with the Iew­ish Priesthood, that it is not difficult [Page 379] to guess their Original: It was the Office of the Druids, as of the Jew­ish Priests, to procure Sacrifices pri­vate and publick, Caesar. Com. l. 6. to interpret Laws, to instruct Youth, to decide and umpire Controversies, & si quis aut privatus aut populus eorum decretó non stetit, Sacrificiis interdicunt, &c. And if either Person or People will not bide by their award, they Ex­communicate (and out-law) him. In order to discharge the Office last mentioned, all the Druids (over whom presided one that had Supream Authority, as who would say, the High Priest) did once a year upon a certain and determinate Time, use to assemble in a Consecrated Place in midst of Gaul, where they sate in Judgement, and where all the Peo­ple that had any Differences depend­ing, conven'd before them, to have them ended. Not much unlike what is ordained in Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10. In fine, what makes it more probable, Caesar. Co [...]. l. 6. is a common Usage men­tioned by Caesar to have been among [Page 380] the Gauls, which likely they receiv­ed from the Druids, namely, of computing times, not as other Eu­ropean People, by the number of the Dayes, but Nights, they so observ­ing Nativities, the beginning of Months, and of Years, that the night therein precedes the Day. A Custom bottomed upon the Great Originist, and that account he gives us of the Genesis and Rise of things, wherein the Darkness was before the Light, Night before Day. Evening and Morning made the first Day, &c.

And now I make no Question, but you will tell me, that you should not doubt the Druids were of Hebrew Institution, and Origi­nal, could you be resolved how it came so pass, that Nations so re­mote as the Gaules and Hebrews, should communicate knowledges. Wherein to give you satisfaction, I shall plainly evidence, First, That the Gaules received the Druids Insti­tution from the Britains, and then [Page 381] that the Britains immediately re­ceived it from the Orient; not un­likely from the Phoenicians [who sailed hither.]

That the Gauls received the Institution of the Druids from Britain, Caesar. Con. l. 6. was in the Dayes of Cae­sar a receiv'd Opinion. Disciplina in Britannia reperta, atque inde in Gal­liam translata esse existimatur. This Discipline of the Druids is also found in Britain, and it is believed from thence transplanted into Gaul. Which Opinion he confirms, & nunc qui diligentius eam rem cog­noscere volunt, plerumque illo dis­cendi causa proficiscuntur. And even to this day, those who will more thoroughly understand that mat­ter, do for the most part sail over in­to Britain to learn it. And in­deed it cannot be imagined to be communicated from the Iews any other way than by Sea, since the Intermediate Countreys, through which it must have passed by Land, have no Vestigia of it.

[Page 382]As for the second Point, That the Britains received those Know­ledges, which were the foundation of the Druids Institution from the Orient, is very probable, because it is apparent by very ancient Sto­ry, that they had no little Corre­spondence with it; Caesar. Com. l. 5. Diod. Sic. l. 6. for not only Cae­sar, but Diodorus Siculus mentions the Chariots that (as in the Ea­stern Countreys) they used in War, which the rest of Europe did not, and the latter faith expresly. —Britanniam tradunt inco­lere Aborigines, qui Priscorum mo­re vitam degunt, utuntur enim in pugna curribus, velut antiquos Graecorum Heroes usos in bello Tro­jano ferunt. The Inhabitants of Britain are said to be Aborigines, living after the manner of the Antients, for in fight they use Chariots, as in the Trojan War (they say) the Old Heroes of the Greeks did.

That the Phoenicians sailing hi­ther, and Jews perhaps with them, [Page 383] brought those knowledges, is most likely, Vid. Ezek. c. 12. because they were the Mer­chants of the World, and antient­ly most famous both for Navigati­tion and for Trade, so that as Gold obliged them to sail to India, Cinn might to visit Britain. Bri­tanni qui Juxta Velerium Promon­torium incolunt Diod. Sic. l. 5. [which dwell at the Lizard] mercatorum usu qui eo stanni gratia navigant, Huma­niores reliquis erga Hospites ha­bentur. Thus Diodorus. So long ago was this Island fam'd for Tinn, for which in Caesars time it drove a great Trade with the Gauls.]

In fine, not to mention that the name of Druid derived from [...] an Oak, a Tree of old in much Repute with the Hebrews, that which renders it the less Unlikely that the Phoenicians, inlightned by the Iews, were founders of the Or­der of Druids, is that conformity of Customs that the Gauls had with them in sacrificing men for expia­tion of God, and for Redemption of [Page 384] their own souls, they being framed to this Usage by the Druids upon a a Ground received from the Phoeni­cians, Caesar. Com. l. 6. Quod pro vita hominis (as Caesar gives it) nisi vita hominis reddatur, non posse Deorum iminor­talium numen placari: That no­thing can appease the Immortal Dei­ty, or content and satisfie for the life of man, but the life of a man. This Principle [the rise of Humane Sacrifices] whereon (if the Story be not a corruption of that in Holy Writ of Iephta) Agamemnon offer'd Iphigenia, looketh high, and doth effectually evince what I so often have inculcated, Steph. Dichion. Histor. in Iphigen. that the Heathen usage of sacrificing men had its foundation in that great Tradition of the Seed of the Woman, that he was to make his soul an Offering to God for sin, and that no conside­ration could content Divine Justice for the Lives of men that had been forfeited to it in the fall, but the Life of Christ a Man. The Re­demption of a soul is precious.

[Page 385]It is true, I find in Diodorus, that the Ethiopians were so great Pre­tenders unto Religion and Antiquity, that they affirmed Worship (itself) to have had its Origin and Rise among them. Diod. Sic. l. 4. Asserunt Deo­rum (saith he) apud eos cultum primitus adinventum, Sacra insu­per, Pompas, celebritates alia (que) qui­bus Diis honores impenduntur, ab eis fuisse reperta. Qua ex re ipso­rum in Deos pietate, religioneque inter omnes vulgata videntur Ae­thiopum sacra Diis admodum grata esse. Hujus rei Testimonium asse­runt Antiquissimum fere ac celeber­rimum apud Graecos Poetarum, qui in sua Iliade Iovem reliquosque una Deos introducit in Aethiopiam tum ad sacra quae cis de more fiebant, tum ad odorum suavitatem commi­grantes.

But 'tis easie to imagine, how they might receive their knowledge from the Aegyptians, their Neigh­bours, and consequently (though we should not believe Iosephus, that [Page 386] Meroe antiently was Saba) how much they were indebted to the Queen of Sheba, and the Iews, that great Person so dispersing and spreading among the Heathen far and near, the knowledge learned by her in the Royal Court of Solomon, that she is in story celebrated for it for a Sibyll, and so styled by some the Babylonian, and by others the Aegy­ptian. I impose not my conceits up­on you; what I now say, is a matter vouched by as good Authority as any we can have for things of this Nature. Pausan. in Phocic. Hear Pausanias, [...]. After Demo, there comes another, who by the Hebrews that inhabit above Palaestine, is reputed a Wife or Inspired Woman, her name is SABBA, whom some call the Babylonian, some the Aegyptian Si­byll. Thus He.

Further, I might here add what [Page 387] others have discoursed more at large before me, that the Greek Philoso­phers immediately derived from the Jews some of the knowledge which they had of true Religion. Clemens Alexandrinus undertook the Pro­vince long ago (which since him others also have discharged) it is his main business in his second Book of Stromata, to demonstrate how Prodigious Plagiaries the Greeks were in all the Rites of their Reli­gion, and to instance what they stole from the Iews. And though La­etantius gainsay what I am now about to tell you, yet I find it in Porphyrie, Porphyr. de Vit. Pythag. Vid. Clem. Alex. Stiom. l. 1. (viz.) That Pythagoras himself did travel to the Hebrews, and was instituted by them: and Aristotle, though I think him not a Iew, as some assert him, yet (if we may believe Clearchus, his Di­sciple, who in Iosephus tells you it) he was instructed by a Iew, a Coelo-Syrian. In fine, what to me is more than all I yet have said, it is evident from the History of Sa­cred [Page 388] Scripture, that it was the great Design and End of God, who is most Wise and Good, to give the rest of the World, at convenient Periods, some Intimations and Discoveries of himself by means of the Hebrews, to the end that he might never leave himself without witness, but might Refresh the knowledge which they had received of him by Tradition, or otherwise, when it was almost outworn and vanisht. For this pur­pose, while mankind was yet but of a narrow spread, he ordained the tra­vells of the Patriarchs; and when afterwards it was of greater, he set up the Nation of the Hebrews, as it were a Beacon on a Hill, in the midst of all the Earth to lighten it. And more than that, he orders several scatterings and dispersions of them; first of the ten Tribes by Salmana­zer; then of the two by Nebuchad­nezar, into Countreys into which there was Resort from all the world. After this, he in his Providence ob­liged Alexander, great Founder of [Page 389] the Grecian Monarchy, to visit Iew­ry; to venerate Iaddus the Priest, to Invest the Nation of the Jews with great Immunities and Priviledges. From which time not only the Peo­ple, but their Usages and Laws be­came of so much Reputation, that Ptolomy (the Son of Lagus) that great Patron of Learning, and Lover of Books, procured the Mosaick Wri­tings to be solemnly translated into Greek [then the Universal Lan­guage] by which means the know­ledge of Good, as well as Copies of the Bible, were dispersed and scat­tered throughout the whole Earth. In a word, who knoweth not that in our Saviours time, there were Iews or Israelites of all Nations under Heaven? of so large a spread then was the knowledge of God, Acts 2.