The First Argument.

PAge 44. Mr. W. Says, That upon Gods breathing in­to Adam, He is in the Text called a Liveng Soul; a Denomination taken from the more excellent Part of Man, his Soul. This Expression seems to Agree with what I have formerly spoken, That here the Words, a Living Soul, signifie and intend a Living Person; putting the more noble Part or Ingredient, to signifie the whole Per­son, so as it passes in his Judgment, for a Figurative Ex­pression.

P. 46. Mr. W. Says, When God Breathed (which he properly doth not) there is something else meant, which can be nothing else but a special Act of Creation; by which he made the Spirit or Breath of Life, which he breathed into Man. I Answer, That in the Text there is no express mention of a Creation, either of Breath or Spirit.

P. 47. He Says, By the Breath of God, is meant that Act of Divine Power, by which God made Man, and gave Life to him. I am not willing to differ from Mr. W. and therefore agree to this Expression. He quotes, Ps. 33.6. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. The later of them alluding to God's Power, shewed in the Creation of Adam; but thence he infers, This Breathing [Page 70]into Adam, must be look'd upon as the Creating some­what: But I find no strength at all in this Infe­rence; nor that it proves with any strength of Cohersion, the Creation of any thing, save Adam's Body, at the time when God made Man: And I grant that then, whatsoever was Created besides his Body, was a Creature. But I do not herein find any manner of Proof, that God then Created a Soul for Adam. Here Mr. W. Repeats his former Argument concerning the signification of the Hebrew Word, which our Translators have rendred by the Term of Breath, and says, That the same Word doth also sometimes signifie Spirit. To this I say, That our Translators thought it not fit to render it by the Term of Spirit in this place; and I value their Judgment before those of Mr. W. or Mr. Buxtorf, and therefore take that Word to signifie most properly in this place, the Breath of Life.

P. 48. He pretends the words should run thus, God breathed or created in Man the Breath of Life, or that Spi­rit or Soul of Life. And in truth, if the words had run so, they would have run much better for the maintain­ance of his Opinion, than now they do; but I do not perceive by what Authority he takes upon him so to Correct or (as some may take it) Corrupt the Text. The Breathing, which he says, discover'd a New Created Spi­rit to be there; I say, detected only a Spirit of Life to be there: which was tinded and kindled in the Spirits of the Blood and Humours, then fitted and ready for that Operation, by the moderate fanning of that Breath, which God, or his Agents, then breathed into Adam's Nostrils; and this was the humane Spirit of Life, tinded and kindled by that Breath of Life; and from that time to this time it is, and must be, continually kept Flam­ing or Glowing by the constant respirations and fan­ning of this Breath; by want of which this Flame would [Page 71]be Extinguished in a short time, or a very few moments of it.

He quotes again, Annotations of the Assembly of Divines, in the Rump-Parliament time, for his purpose, without telling us what they say upon it; and for want of their Annotations, I know not what they say of it: And if I did, I should not be much moved by their Authority, except they give better Reasons for their Opinion, than Mr. W. hath yet done.

P. 49. Mr. W. Arguing, says, The Soul of Man, or the Spirit, or the Breath of Life in Man, Liveth in and with the Body, and yet Dieth not with the Body: And this, he says, needs Proof: And so do I say too: And he of­fers to prove it, by saying, That whose Life dependeth not on the Body, must not Die when the Body Dieth; but the Souls Life depends not on the Body: Therefore it must needs not Die when the Body Dieth: And the Reason why he says the Souls Life depends not upon the Body, is, because God made it a Spirit of Life, to give Life to the Body, and not to receive any Life from it.

I Answer, If this Arguing be not that which Men call Petitio Principii, or begging the Question, I know not what is.

We are now disputing, Whether Adam had an Intel­ligent Soul Created for him at first, or not; and whe­ther such a Soul have a Seperate Subsistence after the Death of the Person: And in both these Points he maintains the Affirmative, and pretends to prove the Seperate Sub­sistence by its being a Created Intelligent Spirit, made by God for Adam, at the first: And thus proves one Con­troverted Point by another, as highly Controverted as it self; and which I conceive, his offers in this Argument, do very weakly and insufficiently prove.

P. 50. He observes out of Moses's Text, That it says nothing of the Body's Life, before God breathed into him a Spirit or Soul of Life (as Mr. W. will have it) tho' the words of our Bible expresly call it, The Breath of Life: And I so far agree, That Adam's Body had not Life, till this Breath of Life [or this Breath causing Life, was breathed into it; but that from thence he began to Live and became a Living Person.] Thus far we are at Agreement: His next two or three Pages are spent in Proof of the Souls Immortality, drawn from the two before-mentioned Topicks, viz. That the Soul is an Intelligent Spirit, and was newly Created by God for Adam; and next, that it is such a Spirit as can subsist in a State of Seperation from the Body: And thereupon, I say, That if he, or any that is of his Opinion, can convince with some clearness, That God Created such an Intelligent Soul for Adam, as can Subsist, Act, and Suffer, in a State of Seperation from the Body; he shall need to make no further Proof to me of the Souls Immortality; because, if the former be true, I have no Inclination or Intention to dispute the later: And therefore I pass over what he says to that purpose, and shut up my Observations upon this Argument with the fore-mentioned Conclusion, That Mr. W.'s Arguments therein produced, to prove the Creation of an intelligent Soul or Spirit for Adam, at the first, are infirm, invalid, and little convicning to such understanding as I have been able to imploy in the perusal of them.

Second Argument.

PAge 54. Mr. W. quotes, The History of Saul's going to the Witch of Endor, Relating the words spoken to her by him. I pray thee divine to me by the fami­liar Spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name un­to thee: And she desiring to know who that Him was, [Page 73]which she should bring up, Saul told her it was Samuel; Upon this Text, Mr. W. thus Comments, That Saul by this demand must need intend the bringing up of Samuel's Soul to Discourse with him; and from thence Collects, That the Jews of that Age held the same Opinion which he now maintains, concerning the Souls Seperate Subsistence after the Death of the Person. To which I Reply, That this Collection seems in a great part to arise from his own Inclination to have it so, and his Imagination thence a­rising that it is so; for if I were imploy'd to Collect from this History, I should conceive, That Saul's Head was o­ther ways imployed at that time, than to consider what that was which he desired to be brought up, whether it should be a Spirit, a Body, or a Person, or an Appear-Dance only, and not a real Being: I conceive his Head was not troubled about such Speculations; but his whole Design was by the Witches means to get knowledge what the success of his Affairs should be in a time when he was greatly distressed. It seems to have been the Pra­ctice of divers Ages, to fore-tell Actions past, and future Successes, by raising up and consulting with the Dead; and from this Practice they had (amongst other Titles) the Name of Necromancer bestowed upon them. This Pra­ctice of Magicians and Witches, hath been long taken notice of in the World; and it seems by Saul's Demand made to the Woman, he had heard, or otherwise knew some­thing thereof, and desired by the Witches means thus to consult the Dead, and particularly Samuel, as the most knowing amongst them; and from such a Collection, I con­ceive it doth not appear what Saul or the Jews of his time, thought concerning the Seperate Subsistence of Souls. We meet with divers Relations of Appearances made and contrived by the Art of Magicians of later times, but never yet heard of raising an Argument from thence, to prove the Estate or Condition of departed Souls; [Page 74]nor do I conceive this Argument hath any strength in it to that purpose; and therefore I pass over Mr. W.'s o­ther Expressions used in this Argument, with this fur­ther Observation; that he raised the Argument out of this History, with intent to reach as high a time as was possible for producing any sort of Evidence, or raising any manner of Argument, which might be brought or drawn to touch the Seperate Subsistence of Souls; and this, as the highest pitch of time that he could reach, he chose to make use of for that purpose; fulfilling there­in the Old Proyerb, Willing Persons will rather play a [...] small game then sit out.

The Third Argument.

PAge 57. He says, He is struck with wonder to hear Men assert, That the Soul and Body of a Man Die to­gether, and are both Buried in one Grave. My Opinion is somewhat otherwise worded; expressing I think it pro­bable, that when Respiration fails, and the Person dies, the Flame of Life is Extinguished, which doth not in­tend a being Buried, or a Going any whither; not find­ing cause to agree with Solomon's Expression of going up­ward or downward; and if Mr. W. doth really wonder at this conception, I make no Argument of it, and shall only thereunto Answer I cannot help it.

P. 58. The Soul or Breath of Man was Breathed in­to Adam by an act of Creation. This I have all along de­ny'd, and continue to do so; because I think Mr. W. hath hereto failed in the Proof of it: He hopes his Adver­saries will not be such Blasphemers as to deny the truth of Solomon's Words, The Spirit returns▪ to God who gave it. Concerning which Words, I have before fully de­clared my Conceptions, and have no design to repeat them again here. Further he quotes again, Eccl. 3. as if So­lomon there said, That when Man dieth, his Body goes [Page 75]one way, and his Spirit another; and whether he quotes this Text truly, shall be left to Judgment.

Then Mr. W. puts an Objection against himself: Sup­posing some may say, If all Souls return to God that gave them, the Souls of the Wicked do so too; and he grants that so they do; and for solution of this Obje­ction, he says. That tho' God be in his highest Heavens, and keep his Sessions there; yet there are some other parts of the Heaven, where he keeps a particular Ses­sions, to which Evil Spirits may approach, as they did in Mi­caiah's Vision, where God may pass Sentence upon the Souls of the Wicked, without bringing them into Heaven; and he thinks God hath a glorious Presence in the lower Heavens with his Angels, and that there he doth Trans­act many Affairs relating to the Government of this World; and quotes for this the Devils Appearance in the Case of Job; and says, If Devils may appear before God, so may the Souls of the Wicked do too.

In Answering, I declare to agree with his last Expres­sion, That if there be Seperate Souls of Wicked Men, Subsisting by themselves, they may appear before God, as his quoted Texts testifie Devils have done; but I de­mand as clear Texts and Testimonies of Scripture, for the appearing of wicked Souls before God, as are quoted for the appearing of Devils before him: But he brings not one Text, to Prove that he saith Truth, concerning the ap­pearing of wicked Souls before God. And I confide, that no one Text of Scripture can be brought, which gives an Assertory Testimony of that Fact; or says there was ever such a thing done in the World: And for what he says of God's keeping his Sessions of Judgment, sometimes in Hea­ven, and sometimes in other particular Parts of Heaven, I am apt to demand Proofs thereof, from Texts of Scripture, but he brings not one to this purpose: And therefore I think it may be concluded, that these several Sessions of God for Judgment, are but a Device of his own Brain, [Page 76]which hath no real Truth in it. And thus, by Mens De­vices, they strive to heal, cover, and confirm their Errone­ous Opinions, which I look upon as a great Fault in a good Man: But notwithstanding those Humane Inventions, I am apt to conclude, that if the good Souls go to God for Judg­ment in Heaven, that bad Souls do also (somewhat evi­dently) do the like. Solomon says, The Soul returns to God who gave it. The Soul returns, are Words that intend indefinitely, and seem therefore equivalent to an Univer­sal, and signifie as much as if it had been said, All Souls re­turn to God who gave them: And this Sense of the Words, our▪ Author hath lately granted, Whence I conclude, that as God says, All Souls are mine [which I think intends Per­sons]; so all Souls are intended to return to God who gave them, as well and as much the Bad as the Good, for any thing that I can perceive, either in the words of the Text, or any thing [that is true] in our Author's Discourse of it.

P. 60. He puts a Second Objection against this Opinion, which, I think, he doth set up as a Man of Straw, that he may have the battering of it down again. He pretends, some say, that he hath indeed proved, the Soul and Body to be seperated at Death; and that one of them goes to one Place, and the other of them goes to the other Place; but that he hath not yet proved the Soul to live in that State of Seperation. Hereupon I observe, That after he hath said, The Soul and Body are seperated at Death, he adds, That they go to two different Places. Which Saying, I think, the Text doth not warrant; for it doth not say, that either of them go to any Place: And first, we may be sure a dead Body cannot go any whither. The Text says, It returns to the Earth as it was; and of which before it received Life, it was a Part: So for the Spirit, the Text says, It returns [not goes] to God who gave it. I have before offer'd an Ap­prehension, That Solomon might intend, this Spirit return­ed to God, in a natural and easie manner, as a Part doth to its Totum; and the Parcels of Air, or Water, return to and [Page 77]incorporate with their Elements; and that as the Body returns to the Earth, as it was, and as a Part doth to its Totum; so the Spirit returns to God from whom it came, and of which I suppose Solomon might think it to have been a Part: But I grant, That if the Soul, in our Author's Sense, do go to God after Death, then the Objection which says he did not prove it alive, in a seperate State, is vain and frivolous, and may easily be overthrown, without put­ting our Author to the Trouble of Defending his Opinion against it. In the Close of this Argument, Mr. W. asks, What hath the Living God to do with dead Spirits? And I say so too; and therefore grant, that if the Intelligent Se­perate Spirit of a Man be dead, it can with no Propriety or Truth, be said to Return to God who gave it.

P. 61. Mr. W. says, So I shut up this Third Argument, and with it, my Proofs from the Old Testament. And concerning these Threee Arguments, I say, the First is measurably Con­futed; the Second is Disregarded, and the Third is other­ways Expounded; and in such a manner, as Opposes Mr. W's Pretensions thereupon.

The Fourth Argument.

PAg. 61. Mr. W. quotes here that Text of Scripture, whereby the Opinion of the Souls Seperate Subsistence is principally supported; and upon which, it is with a great measure of Clearness, grounded; and which arises near un­to an Assertion that the thing is so; and I think Mr. W. doth from thence rightly Argue, That if the Soul cannot be killed, by killing the Body or Person, it seems to be a reasonable Inference, drawn from this Text, to Argue, That the Soul must needs have a Seperate Subsistence of its own, after the Death of the Person. And further Mr. W. observes well the Reason, why our Lord deliver'd this Do­ctrine to his Disciples, viz. To encourage them against the Fears of such Persecutions as were likely to fall upon them in the Prosecution of their great Duty, the Preaching of [Page 78]the Gospel; encouraging them not to sear, what Harm Men could do unto them, upon that account; because Men could only kill the Body, [intending the Person] but were not a­ble to kill the Soul, [or lay any other sort of real Punish­ment upon Men, after their departure out of this world.]

P. 62. Mr. W. produces an Argument, which I think he rightly terms an Absurd One; for he pretends there are some that say, That the Soul may die when the Body dieth, though it be not slain when the Body is killed. To this I say, I am none of those who so Argue, nor did I ever yet meet with a Writing, or Person, that did so. Next he produces ano­ther Objection, of some, who he supposes may say, That the killing of the Soul here, may intend, that they cannot kill it for ever. All I can say to this, is, That if any Man, or Men, have so Argued, they are not at all of my mind, who do not intend to make, or offer any such Arguments.

P. 63. Mr. W. sets down an Objection offer'd against the Text of St. Matthew, in the Words, Are not able to kill the Soul; from Luke 12.4. Be not afraid of them that kill the Body, and after that, have no more that they can do. He says, He hath kown some very confidently affirm, that there is no Force in St. Matthew's Text, because that of St. Luke delivers the same Doctrine of our Lord, in Words, from which no clear Argument can be deduced, for the Soul's Seperate Subsistence: I say, I do not Affirm in that man­ner, viz. That there is no proving Force in St. Matthew's Text; because St. Luke differs from him, in relating the Words of our Lord's Doctrine; But yet I own my self to think, that from the manner of Wording this Doctrine of our Lord, in these two Texts, a strong Objection may be rais'd against the absolute Authority of St. Matthew's words in this Point. Upon the Consideration, and comparing these two Texts, one with the other, the only Variance be­tween them, is in the Words of St. Matthew's Are not able to kill the Soul, compared with those of St. Luke, Have no more that they can do; for that in the following Words, [Page 79]where Matthew says, Fear him who is able to destroy both Soul and Body in Hell; and those which Luke mentions, Fear him, who after he hath killed; hath power to east into Hell. I conceive the Difference to be small, or none at all: They both begin our Lord's Doctrine in the same Words, Fear not them that kill the Body; where they both speak fi­guratively: And I therefore believe our Lord himself did so; but I say the Body in this place, must needs intend the Person, or the Compositum of Soul and Body together; for that our Sense and Reason sufficiently assures us, That what is dead, cannot be killed; but the Body without the Soul, or Spirit of Life, is dead. And therefore the Body taken singly, or not acted by the Spirit of Life, is a dead Body, and therefore cannot be killed. Whence I infer, that when our Evangelists speak of killing the Body, they must cer­tainly intend the same, as if they had said, Cannot kill the Person. And hence I Collect, That when St. Matthew speaks of casting the Soul and Body into Hell; he intends, casting the Compositum of them both, or the Person, into Hell. St. Luke words it thus, Who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into Hell. I think this intends as much as if he had said, Hath Power to cast the Person into Hell; so as it seems, the Sense of both our Evangelists is the same, both in the Premises, and in the Conclusion of this Doctrine; and the Variance between them, lies as before hath been said, in the Words, Are not able to kill the Soul, of St. Mat­thew; and the Words, Have no more that they can do; of St. Luke. If we shall consider the proper Intent of both these Texts, we must find it to be as Mr. W. says. The en­couraging of our Lord's Disciples, not to fear the Persecu­tion of Men, for the doing of their Duty; but rather to fear God, who can punish and reward after Death, as well as in this Life: And the Texts of both our Evangelists A­gree punctually to that Intent, in delivering Words of the same Importance, and to the same Intent and Purpose. But [Page 80]then, if Mr. W. or any other Person, will draw out of them Proofs of any other Collateral thing, which is not properly within the Intent of our Lord's Doctrine, I conceive they speak, and may intend differently, concerning that Colla­teral Point, which Men may design to prove by them. It seems somewhat clear to my Understanding, St. Matthew's Words prove his Opinion to be, That Humane Souls have a Life and Subsistence in a state of Seperation from the Bo­dy; and I conceive, that in his Text, he worded our Lord's Doctrine, according to his own Opinion of the thing. We find that St. Luke hath worded it in a different and varient manner, so expressing our Lord's Doctrine, as that he gives no ground for proving the Souls Seperate Subsistence from his Text, which in the whole Tenour of it, doth not name the Soul: And therefore, upon this difference, I think it needful to enquire, or demand, What were the very precise Words, wherein our Lord deliver'd this Doctrine? If St. Matthew hath rightly worded this Doctrine, then it is a strong Proof of the Souls Seperate Subsistence: The most substantial and nearest to an Affirmative, of any that the Bible affords us; but if St. Luke hath rightly worded our Lord's Doctrine, then was there in that Doctrine, no Proof at all of a Souls Seperate Subsistence, nor any thing said in it, whereby that Opinion can be maintain'd. I do not pretend to determine any thing concerning this Point, but am rea­dy to Argue, that there lies a Probability for St. Luke's Text, against that of St. Matthew.

The Point in Question, concerning the Seperate Subsi­stence, is (as was said) collateral to the Intent of our Lord in this Doctrine, who it seems, did not here mean to teach any thing, which might direct Mens Judgments in that Collateral Point, which remains utterly unmentioned in the Text of St. Luke. This moves me to apprehend, That the putting it into St. Matthew's Text, grew from his own Opi­nion of the thing, rather than from the Words which our [Page 81]Lord then delivered. The intent of our Lord, seems plain in both those Texs; and therein what hath been said seems true, they are at a perfect Agreement between themselves; and we find no intention of meaning in our Lord to speak or teach any thing about the Souls Seperate Subsistence; and therefore I surmise it came into St. Mathew's Text, by Accident, and Sprung rather from his own Opinion, than from our Lords Doctrine, or the Words and Expressions thereof.

Secondly, I say, That St. Matthew was by Profession and Practice a Publican; a Trade which no Man of Quali­ty or Learning amongst the Jews of that time, would in­dure to Practice; whence Matthew might more easily fall into the Opinion, appearing in his Text. That Souls did Live and Subsist after the Departure and Death of the Per­son. But of St. Luke, we read, That he was a Learned Man, and a Physician; and Paul, (from whose Mouth he is said to have Written) was the most Learned amongst the A­postles, and of a Sublime, Natural, Genius: But there appears no likelihood that they were of St. Matthew's Opi­nion, in this matter of the Souls Seperate Subsistence; which if our Lord had mentioned in this Doctrine, I con­ceive they would not have failed to take great notice of it, because it was a Subject of high Speculation, not fit to be let fall to the Ground without notice, and delivering of the same to the Christians of that time: If our Lord's Do­ctrine (worded as it is by St. Matthew) were truly the same as that Evangelist hath reported it: And upon these grounds, I am apt to conceive, that St. Matthew's Words, Are not able to kill the Soul; are likely to have sprung from his own Opinion of the thing, and are not otherways the very true Expressions and Words, wherein our Lord delivered this Doctrine to his Disciples: And therefore I am apt to Appeal from the Text of St. Matthew, to that which is reported to us in the Text of St. Luke's Gospel.

Thirdly, I conceive that the Text of St. Luke (word­ded at it is) doth more fully express our Lords meaning, as in this Doctrine, than the Text of St. Matthew's doth For Luke says, That after Men have Killed, they have no more that they can do, or can do no more harm to the Killed Person, or can Bring no more Sufferings upon him by any thing that they can do. I think St. Matthew's Words (Are not able to kill the Soul) do not so well or ful­ly express our Lords meaning, as St. Luke's do: For that those who maintain the Souls Seperate Subsistence, do say all, that it retains the Faculties of Intellect, and Memo­ry, as the Natural Powers thereunto properly belonging. Whence it seems Inferrible, that they may, and do, re­member such Relations, and Friends, as they left behind them on Earth; and are likely to be so much concerned for them, as to rejoyce at their Well-fare, and be grieved at their Sufferings: For of this, we are informed from the Parable of Dives (if it have a Power of Proving or Teach­ing in such cases) for Dives tho' Wicked and in Torments, yet had so much good Nature in him as to remember his Relations upon Earth, and have care to prevent those Suf­ferings, which they was otherwise likely to fall under; and prays Lazarus may be sent out, to obviate by his Instructi­ons the Calamity which was like to befal them, and make some Addition to those Sufferings, under which himself now lay; and from hence we may Collect, that Men who have Killed, can still make some Additions to the Suffer­ings of the Dead, by Tormenting or persecuting their Re­lations or Friends upon Earth; which possibility is quite taken away by the Words of St. Luke's Text, After Killing the Person, Men have no more that they can do; they can do no more harm to the Dead Person, who is now gone quite out of the reach of any but God; and I doubting­ly conceive, there is neither Soul nor Body left of him, for Men or Devils to prey upon. And from what is before de­livered, [Page 83]I am ready to conceive, That St. Luke's Words do more fully and properly express our Lord's meaning, than those of St. Matthew do; and consequently that it is pro­bable our Lords Doctrine was deliver'd in the Words of St. Luke's Gospel, rather than in those Words which St. Mat­thew hath Recorded; and if this prove a truth, it will ut­terly remove the proving force of St. Matthew's Text; which is otherways the Principal Foundation, upon which the Opinion of the Souls Seperate Subsistence is Built. Here­upon I do not doubtingly, but fully conceive, That Mr. W. and his partakers, will openly exclaim against my pro­ceedings, in offering, or pretending to prove or conceive that any sort of Scripture Words, or Expressions, can be Erroneous; and yet it seems both clear and common, that Words, Sayings, and Texts of Scripture, have been often, and are Daily brought, and alledged for the Proof of Er­roneous Opinions and Doctrines. I confess my self not so much to Idolize the Words and Expressions of Scripture, as to receive for an Oracle, every Saying or Sentence which I find Written in the Bible: or to believe every such Say­ing, or Sentence, to be an irrefragable truth, and the very Word of God, 1 John 4.1. Believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits, whether they are of God. I conceive there is no other way to try Mens Pretences to the Spirit of God, but either by the miraculous Works of such Persons as pre­tend to it, or by the Fruits of the Spirit, which ap­pears in their Works and Actions amongst Men; and the Tryals by either of these means proceed upon grounds of Humane Understanding; and the results thereof as a Pa­rable, and Paraphrase to St. John's Text: I conceive it may be said, Believe not every Saying and Sentence which ye find Written in Scripture: But try first whether that Saying or Sentence be the Word of God, or no. And in this Tryal it seems there are but two ways or means to be used. The first is, by comparing it by other Scriptures, [Page 84]or Texts, or the Analogy, Current, or Stream of Doctrine, which runs and continues through the whole Scriptures, from the Beginning to the End thereof: And if any par­ticular Sentence oppose the Analogy, or Stream of Do­ctrine, which runs through the whole Scriptures; Men may rest assured, that Saying, or Sentence, neither is nor can be the Word of God. Next if we meet with Sayings or Sentences of Scripture, which are opposed by other Say­ings, or Sentences thereof; it seems we may have good Reason to doubt on which side the truth stands, and by the most fair and easie Constructions that we can use, bring them to such an Agreement as by workings of Reason they can be brought unto. And I am apt to infer, That if by Constructions of Reason, they cannot be made stand to­gether in such manner as both them may be true, I think it a reasonable Result of such Tryal, to think (as it must needs be) that there is Error or Mistake in one of them. The other means for trying the Truths of the Scripture Sayings, or Sentences, proceeds from the grounds of Natural Prin­ciples, viz. The common Sensations and Reasons of Men, radicated in their Natures, and confirmed unto them by certain and often Experiences.

And it seems, that if Men meet with such Sayings, or Sentences in Scripture, as are opposite to Natural Princi­ples, and the common Sense and Reason of Mankind; con­firmed to them by Practice, and Experience, we may with assurance enough conclude, that such Sayings, or Senten­ces, ought not to pass among us for the Word of God. And yet I am apt to believe, that my Opinion in this Point, will not find an easie acceptance, amongst those who practice the Reading and Magnifying of the Scriptures, which is also without doubt, a very Beneficial and Laud­able Practice: And yet I think I may justly apply there­unto the common Proverb of Omne nimium vertitur in vi­tium. Upon the supposal that Men will be apt to con­trovert [Page 85]and abundance of them to contradict what I have said before, in reference to the Sayings and Sentences of the Scripture. I undergo the Pains of annexing to this Dis­course, Diverse Instances Collected out of the Scriptures; which I think will evince, that there are Texts of Scripture, whose common and ordinary Sense and Intendment, seems so different and opposite one to another; as that the or­dinary Understandings of Men, of good Intellect and Judg­ment, cannot make them stand together so well, as that they may both be true; and I will go no further for ma­king such a Collection than to the Gospel of St Matthew only, beginning the same with Chap. 21. where the Evan­gelist Relates, That our Lord sent two of his Disciples, di­recting them to go to the Village over against them; where he said they should find an Ass, and a Colt tyed, and directs, loose them and bring them tome, And the Disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the Ass, and the Colt, and put on them their Cloaths, and they set him there­on. And then reports the Triumphant manner of his en­tering into Jerusalem so Mounted.

I conceive the Words of this Text, do with some clear­ness import, That our Lord was set upon both these Beasts at the same time, and so Triumphantly entered into Jeru­salem; and observing thereupon, I am ready to question the truth of this Relation, because it thwarts the com­mon Practice, and even the common Sense of Mankind, and seems such an extravagant sort of Riding, as that common Reason opposes the credibility of it: And so do the Go­spels of the other three Evangelists; they all mention our Lords entering into Jerusalem in such a Triumphant Ovati­tion, upon an Ass; and each of them say, he Rode upon an Ass, but none of the other three make mention of any more then one Ass in the Case, viz. That he sent for an Ass-Colt, and such a one was brought to him, and he Rode thereupon into Jerusalem. And from these Proofs, I am [Page 86]ready to infer, That what St. Matthew says, in his Text, of sending for, finding, and bringing an Ass and a Colt to Je­sus, the Disciples putting upon them their Cloaths, and set­ting Jesus thereon. All these Passages seem to have a strong Tincture of Fallacy and Error, and that in very truth there was all this while but one Ass sent for, and found, and brought, and cover'd, and rid upon. And the Error which I take to be in St. Matthew's Relation, seems to be one of the worst sort of that kind, not a bare mistake rising from Negligence or Ignorance, but Affected and Designed by the Writer, who quotes in his Text the Words of the Prophet Zechariah, Tell ye the Daughter of Zion, behold thy King cometh to thee, meek and sitting upon an Ass, and a Colt the fole of an Ass. I think it may be with some clear­ness Collected, That the design of St. Matthew, was to make Christ entering into Jerusalem, agree in terms with this Prophecy of Zechariah; which he thought it could not do, if there were not both an Ass and a Colt in the Case, John 12.15. Upon this occasion quotes the Prophet Ze­chariah, thus, Fear not Daughter of Zion, behold thy King cometh, sitting upon an Asses-Colt. St. John we see was not so scrupulous as to repeat the very Words of the Prophet, but thought them sufficiently fulfilled, in our Lords Tri­umphal Ovation into Jerusalem, sitting upon such an Ass, as was a Colt, the fole of an Ass. The second Text, or Re­lation, whose verity I intend to question, is read in Mat. 28. Which comparing with John 20. I find them both re­lating Facts done, at the time of our Lords Resurrection, and Appearing to Mary Magdalene: And in the Circumstances of those Facts, their Relations do so much differ one from the other, that I do not find it within the compass of my Understanding, so to reconcile them and make them stand together, as that they can both be true; whence I infer a great probability, that there is a mistaking in one of them; and because St. John was present at some part of the Fact, [Page 87]and was likely to have a Relation of the rest from Mary Magdalene her self, I think the Report which he makes thereof, is more to be Credited then that of St. Matthew's; I have compared the Words of them more particularly in a former Treatise, and thereupon will refer my Readers to the Chapters themselves before quoted; out of which an intelligent Reader may easily gather the differences be­tween them, and difficulties that will arise in reconciling of them.

A Third Instance wherein I question the verity of a Scriptural Expression, arises by comparing the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke together; both of them deliver the Genealogy of Joseph, the Husband of Mary, and the reputed Father of our Lord: and both of them agree, that he was Lineally descended from King David: But Matthew brings this Line down by Solomon and through the whole Race of the Kings; whereas Luke carries his Line down by Nathan another Son of David, and his Progeny, without mention­ing any of the Kings in that Descent: And thus they differ quite one from another, until they come down to Salathiel, who is by Matthew, said to be the Son of Jechonias; and by Luke to be the Son of Neri: then they both name his Son Zorobabel, and from Zorobabel downwards their Ge­nealogies differ, as they did before they came to Salathiel; reciting Names in their Lines of Descent, quite differing the one from the other; and they do not thus only differ in the Names of Joseph's Ancestors, but also in the Number of them; for Matthew beginning from David, and count­ing him for one, Names but Twenty six. Names of Per­sons in his Line of Descent from David to Joseph; whereas Luke beginning from David as one, and descending from him down to Joseph, names Forty two Persons, as Lineal Ancestors to Joseph, succeeding to one another in the space of Time; so as they appear to differ from one another, by the Number of Sixteen Names, or Persons, succeeding one [Page 88]another in that compass of Time. Matthew counting Twenty six Names, or Generations; and Luke counting Forty two Generations in the same Space or Compass of Time: And this makes such a Variance between their two Genealogies, as I am not able to reconcile: And therefore I am ready to conceive there is likely some mistake in one of them: And yet further, I find in St. Matthew's Line, That which I think to be another mistake; for when he comes to King Joram, he says, Joram begat Ozias; where­as by the Genealogy in Kings and Chronicles, Joram begat Ahaziah, and he begat Joash, and he begat Amaziah, all Kings of Judah successively, and Lineal Descendants from David, between Joram and Oziah, and who reigned Kings in Judah, for the space of above Seventy Years. Why St. Matthew should omit the Names of those Kings in his Account, I do not understand; and therefore am apt to conceive it was an Error in him. And yet further I find that he counts Fourteen and Fourteen Generations between David and Joseph, and yet upon Examining, the particulars in that Account specified, I find they a­mount but to Twenty six Generations, which shews a dif­ference of St. Matthew with himself; his Sense in one place differing from that in another; and this also I am apt to pass for a mistake in him.

A Fourth Instance in this kind, arises from comparing Mat. 2. and Luke 2. In their Relations of things done soon after our Lords birth. Matthew says, That wise Men came out of the East to Worship Christ, and made their way by Jeru­salem to Bethlehem [which was but five Miles distance from Jerusalem] and tho Herod had directed them to return to him, yet they went home again another way: And when they were departed, an Angel directed Joseph to take the Child and his Mother, and flee with them into Aegypt: And when he arose, he took the young Child and his Mother by Night, and departed into Aegypt; and remained there till [Page 89]an Angel brought him word that Herod was dead, and di­rected his Return into Judea again. And this Direction Joseph obeyed, and came thence into Judea, and so into Galilee, and to Nazareth.

St. Luke's Relation mentions nothing of all this, but says, That eight days after the Birth of our Lord, he was Cir­cumcised: And when the days of the Virgins Purification were accomplished, [his Parents] brought him to Jerusa­lem, to present him to the Lord, and make such an Offer­ing, as Moses required on that behalf; and when they had performed this, they returned to Galilee, to their own Ci­ty Nazareth. We read, Levit. 12.2. If a Woman have born a Man-Child, she shall be unclean seven days; and in the eighth day, the Child shall be Circumcised, and the Mother shall then continue in the Blood of her Purifying, three and thirty days. All which days, 7 and 1, and 33, make 41 days, or six weeks: And then they went and took Jerusalem in their way to Nazareth. We celebrate the Wise Mens com­ing to Christ, 12 days after his Birth; and soon after their return home, an Angel directed Joseph's Flight into Aegypt, and then Herod finding himself mocked by them, sent forth, and slew all the Children that were in Bethlehem, and the Coasts of it. We read in Josephus, That Herod continued under a great and languishing Disease, for many Months be­fore his Death; and it seems likely, some of them pass'd, after this Infant-Massacre, and about a Fortnight of the Virgins Six Weeks Purification, seems to have been pass'd, at, or before this Massacre: And I conceive, that the Month which remained of those days, doth not afford time enough for Joseph's going into Aegypt, his Abode there, a [...] his Return from thence into Judea. I am not able to resolve my self about this difficulty, but shall be glad to receive Instruction thereupon, from Men of greater Know­ledge and Learning, resting doubtful in the mean time, con­cerning the very Truth of these Relations; the further Con­sideration [Page 90]whereof, shall be left to the Judgment of my Readers.

A Fifth Instance in this kind, I take out of the Two fore­quoted Chapters of St. Matthew and Luke. Mat. begins his Relation of our Lord's Birth, from his Parents being at Bethlehem, without saying from whence, or upon what oc­casion they came thither: From thence he carries them down into Aegypt, and brings them up again into Judea; but when he heard that Archilaus did reign there instead of his Father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; but being warn'd in a Dream, he turn'd aside into the Parts of Gali­lee, and came, and dwelt in a City called Nazareth, to ful­fil an old Prophecy, which said, He shall be called a Naza­rene. The Words, They came out of Aegypt, into the Land of Israel, seem to intend the Kingdom of Judea, where Ar­chilans reigned, which lay directly in the way between Ae­gypt and Galilee: And the Words, He was afraid to go thi­ther, seem to intend, He was afraid to make his Abode or Settlement there, which made him pass through that King­dom into the Parts of Galilee, then under the Government of another Herod, whither he was directed in a Dream to goe; and he came and dwelt in a City called Nazareth. It seems, as to a strange Place, and before to him unknown.

St. Luke seems to make a very different Relation concern­ing these Particulars; for he says our Lord's Parents lived at Nazareth before the Conception; and thither the Angel Gabriel came, to make his Annuntiation to the Blessed Vir­gin: After which he says, Our Lords Parents went up from Nazareth, a City of Galilee, to Bethlehem, to be tax­ed with Mary his espoused Wife, because Joseph her Hus­band was of the Lineage of David. And that after our Lord's Birth, and the Days of the Purification ended, they went up to Jerusalem, and presented the Child before the Lord, and offered such a Sacrifice for him, as Moses had commanded; and relates some Passages then happening, as [Page 91]those of Simeon and Anna: And when they had performed all that was required by the Law of Moses, they returned into Galilee to their own City Nazareth. There seems a kind of Repugnancy in these Texts, one of them to the other, especially in the Knowledge, which the Parents might have of the City Nazareth; for Matthew speaks of that Ci­ty, as of a place unknown to our Lord's Parents before that time, and says, They went thither by Gods special dire­ction delivered to them in a Dream: Without Notice taking, that they had ever any Knowledge of that Place before; whereas Luke says, They dwelt at Nazareth before the Con­ception, and went up from thence to Bethlehem, to be taxed; and passing through Jerusalem, they returned into Galilee, to their own City Nazareth. Here seems between these two Texts, such an Opposition concerning the Knowledge which our Lords Parents had of the City of Nazareth, that I con­fess it beyond my Ability, to offer Reasonable Terms, of agreeing these Two Evangelists, one with the other, upon this Particular. I am unwilling to surmise a Mistake in ei­ther of [...]hem, because a great Part of the Verity of each of their Relations seems concerned in this Point; I ther­fore pray the Assistance of Men more knowing and learned than my self, to direct and support me in these Depths, wherein I think Elephants may swim

A 6th. Instance of this kind, I take from Mat. 8.5. compa­red with Luke 7.2. In these Two Texts, our Two Evan­gelists relate the Circumstances of one lame Fact. Mat. says, That our Lord being at Capernaum, there came to him a Centu­rion, whose servant was sick, and told our Lord, that his sick­ness was a Palsie. And Jesus answering, said, I will come and heal him: Nay, replies the Centurion, I am not worthy that thou should'st come under my roof, but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. Our Lord rejoins the Captain, and says, Go thy way, and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. St. Luke relates it thus: This Centurions ser­vant [Page 92]was ready to die, and when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the Elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. And they came to Jesus, desir­ing him to do this Kindness for the Captain, because he was a worthy Person, and a Lover of the Jews; and Jesus went with them towards the Captain's House, and when he was not far from thence, the Centurion sent Friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thy self, for I am not wor­thy that thou should'st enter under my Roof; wherefore nei­ther thought I my self worthy to come unto thee, but say in a word, and my Servant shall be healed. And Jesus thereupon turn'd him about, and discours'd with those that follow­ed him; and they that were sent, returning to the House, found the Servant whole, that had been sick. Upon read­ing these two Relations, I think it plainly appears, That ei­ther this Centurion came Personally to our Lord, to re­quest his Servant's Cure; or he did not come Personally to Christ for that purpose, but sent the Elders of the Jews to request that favour upon his behalf: Without that himself came either to Sight or Speech of our Lord upon that occa­sion, I find no ground, or reasonable guess, which of our Texts, deliver the absolute Truth in this Circumstance of the Fact, which they relate; but from this Variance, and the other Instances before recounted, I think it may reaso­nably be collected, That Men are not bound to take, and perhaps ought not to take, every Saying, or Sentence, which they find written in the Scriptures, to be an irrefragable Truth, and the very Word of God. And I am ready to apply this Tenet to the Sayings now in dispute with Mr. W. viz. Are not able to kill the Soul, and have no more that they can do. We find an apparent Variance between these Two Sayings, and that the Words of St. Luke, are adaequate, and answerable to the Intent of our Lord's Doctrine in this place; whereas those of St. Matthew, have a double Aspect, and look as it were two ways: For one way it insinuates, that [Page 93]Persecutors can do no more harm after they have killed: Another way it seems next to an Assertion, that Mens Souls live, and subsist in a state of Seperation from their Bodies. I do not by the Context, or any other ways conceive, that our Lord did speak, or had any Intent to speak of the state of Men after Death, in this Doctrine; whence the Words, Are not able to kill the Soul, in that Prospect of intending to teach the state of Men after Death, seems quite besides our Lord's Meaning in this Doctrine; and if not quite out of it, yet very plainly collateral to it: And yet from this side­wind, the Maintainers of Seperate Subsistence, draw the strongest Proof which they can find for maintaining their Opinion of the Seperate Subsistence. I think, that upon perusal of this Argument, it will appear, the strength of this Proof is much weaken'd and abated, and will be found to be of much less force, than it seems to have, at the first reading or hearing thereof; and in this state of debilitation, I leave it, to prosecute my Observations upon Mr. W's Pages, as I did before.

P. 64 Mr. W. pretends to take the disputed Words, as Comments one upon another, and says, that by Construction they may be made to intend one thing: And I am ready to grant, that by Construction, they may both of them be made, to serve the Meaning of our Lord in this Doctrine; but then, in our Collateral Point (which St. Luke doth not meddle with) there is a very great Variance between these two Expressions; for that the one proves strongly the Soul's Seperate Subsistence, and the other proves it not, nor med­dles with it at all: Which proves, that our Lord's Doctrine did not intend to speak of that Point in this place. And therefore our Question thereupon is, In what Words our Lord delivered this Doctrine? And the Conclusion is, That if he delivered this Doctrine, in the Words of St. Matthew, then they are a strong Proof of the Souls Seperate Subsi­stence; but if his Doctrine were delivered in the Words of [Page 94]St. Luke, then there is no Proof at all in it, of the Souls Se­perate Subsistence. And I have before enough Argued on the side of St. Luke, and for the Probability, that his Text sets forth to us, the very Words wherein our Lord delivered this Doctrine.

Mr. W. confesses, That Luke expresseth less than Matthew; but says, He never meant less. Which I think, intends, that the Meaning of Luke in his Text, was, That those who kill the Body, are not able to kill the Soul: Which Mean­ing doth not at all appear in the Words of Luke's Text, which do not say so: And how then Mr. W. should come to know that he meant so, I do not understand; and there­fore I reject this Gloss upon that Text, as Mr. W's own In­vention, or Fiction.

The Fifth Argument.

PAg. 65. Mr. W. raises an Argument, for the Soul's Sepe­rate Subsistence, from the Appearing of Moses and Elias, and discoursing with our Lord upon Mount Tabor; and says, That Moses could not appear there in his Person, Soul and Body; because Deut. 34.6. says, Moses died in the Land of Moab, and He [the Lord] buried him in a Val­ley there, over-against Beth-Peor; but no man knoweth of his Sepulchre unto this day.

P 66. Mr. W. discoursing upon this Text, says, That Mo­ses appearing at Mount Tabor, must be either alive in Spirit only, or else his Body was raised. Adding, I know that some conjecture, that his Body was rais'd; but they cannot prove that Conjecture, from Texts of Scripture. And therefore he thinks it more likely, that Moses appeared in Spirit only [in­tending I suppose in his Soul subsisting in a state of Sepera­tion after Death.] Which I think to be no more than a Conjecture, which he is not able to prove by Texts of Scripture, any more, than the former Conjecture can be so [Page 95]Proved. And to these Two Conjectures, I pretend to add a Third, viz. That Moses may not have died in the Mount but might be translated, or transported to Heaven in Per­son, as Enoch and Elias had before been: Which I offer to Prove, by his Appearing with Elias, at Mount Taber. It seems, they appeared both after a like manner, and the one as much in Person as the other. Mr. W. grants, that Elias did appear in Person; and Arguendo a simili, it ap­pears most likely, that Moses did so too. As to the Text, which says, Moses died, and was buried; I think fit to con­sider by whom this Book of Deuteronomy might be written, and if the Promises thereof might be written by Moses, or his Direction; yet this closing Passage of it, about his own Death, and Burial, it seems could not be so. It appears not from whence the Opinion of his Death and Burial was de­rived, or how the Jews might come to know, that he so died, and was buried. Deut. 3.27. Goe, get ye up into the Top of Pisgah, and take a view of the Land. And Chap. 34. says, Moses went up from the Plains of Moab, to the Top of Pisgah, and died there. The Words of both Texts, seem to intend, that Moses went up alone into the Top of this Mountain; and told the Jews before his going up, that he was to die there, and they never saw or heard more of him after that time; whence they might (according to the com­mon course of the World in such Cases) reasonably enough conjecture, that he died there, and was buried according to the Custom of the World, without finding any Evidence or Truth of such a Burial. Whence I conceive his being buried, was but a Conjecture of the Jews, because they could not find what was become of the Body, altho' pro­bably they made a great Search for it. Whence I Collect, that his dying in the Mount, and his being buried there­abouts, was but a Collection or Conjecture of the Jews, from his own not returning to them, and their not being a­ble to find his Body by their most diligent Search. And [Page 96]Collecting from these Premises, I am ready to infer, (as a Probability) that Moses was translated, and therefore nei­ther dead nor buried, and yet was never seen, or heard of after, nor could they by search find any place of his Burial, or what other ways was become of him; and I offer his Ap­pearance at Mount Tabor, as the best ground I have for this Conjecture; conceiving, that it might please God the Jews might not know of that Translation; for that if they had known of his immediate going to Heaven, they might have been apt to direct Prayers thither to him, to intercede with God for their Nation, as he often successfully did, whil'st he was here upon Earth. I have said before, that Mr. W's O­pinion of Moses's appearing at Mount Tabor in Soul only, cannot be proved by any Text of Scripture, is but his, or (at the most) a humane Conjecture: And I grant, that his appearing in Person at Mount Tabor, is also a humane, but I think a more reasonable Conjecture. And to this whole fifth Argument drawn from Mens Collections, and Conjectures thereupon, I Answer, That Men expect more Clear and Assertory Proofs of the Soul's Seperate Subsistence, than this, or such like Arguments, can afford them.

The Sixth Argument.

PAg. 67. Mr. W. founds his Sixth Argument, upon that which is delivered to us in the Parable of Dives: And first, he grants that Relation to be a Parable, and not a re­al Story; adding, That Parables are shadows of Discourse, by which, are set forth things that are real and substantial. And I grant they may be Instructive, concerning those Mat­ters for whose Illustration they were purposely delivered; and yet even in those things I do not take them to be prov­ing. Mr W. says further, That Tertullian, Augustine, and the rest of the Fathers, did much build their Faith (of the Souls Immortality, and of Mens Happiness, or Misery, imme­diately [Page 97]after Death, before the Judgment of the Great Day) upon this Scripture. I observe, he avoids calling it, this Pa­rable. I know not whether, what he says concerning the Fathers building their Belief of such things upon this Para­ble, be true or not; but conceive, that if this Parable was really the principal Foundation of that Belief, it had but a very soft and sandy Foundation; so as the building there­upon erected, will not be enough able to resist the Storms, Rains, and Floods, which may happen to assault it.

He further quotes Ireneus, and relates the gross Errours, which he and Tertullian fell into, by following this Parable too closely, viz. so far as to think, That a Seperated Soul has a Shape, Eyes, Mouth, and other like Members of a Hu­mane Body. He repeats his Concession again, That this Si­militude of Dives and Lazarus, is not Historical, but Pa­rabolical.

P. 68. Mr. W. says, By Abraham's Bosome, is meant a Place of great Pleasure and Happiness, reserv'd for the Righteous, when they have finish'd this Life. And hereupon I observe a Variance between being carried to this Place of Pleasure, and a going before God, to an intermediate Judgment; and conceive, that the being carried to this Place, stands in Opposition to the Text of Solomon, The Spirit returns to God who gave it; for Lazarus in this Parable, neither went to God for Judgment, nor return'd to Him by a natural Bent, or Power of its own, but was carried to this unknown Place, by the Ministry of Angels.

P. 70. Mr. W. raises a Question, Whether the Words and Sense of this Parable, do speak of and import, a State of Per­sons presently after their Death, or such a State as shall over­take them at the Resurrection, and the last Judgment. And he spends divers Pages and Arguments, in Proving, That the Import of this Parable, points to a State, presently succeed­ing the Parties Death, and not to that State which shall fol­low low upon the Resurrection; but his Labour to this Purpose [Page 98]is needlessly bestowed upon me; or others, who may think as I do, That the Sense of this Parable, intends a State pre­sently succeeding the Parties Death. Here Mr. W. says, Our Lord, by this Parable, intended to set forth an immediate state of Happiness for the Godly, and of Misery for the Wicked. I Reply to this, That there appears no Evidence in the Con­text of our Lord's Intent, how to Teach by this Parable: There is no Discourse in any Part of the Context, which might lead our Lord to speak of the State of Persons after Death; but the Context immediately fore-going, doth plain­ly intimate and prove the special Intent of our Lord in this Parable, was to Illustrate and Confirm a Sentence, which himself had lately before uttered, viz. That there are things highly esteemed among men, and yet are an Abomination in the sight of God. And to this Purpose, he describes the state of Dives, with such Circumstances, as make it highly esteem'd and desired amongst Men; and sets Lazarus so low, and in a Condition so miserable, as one can hardly de­vise a worse Condition amongst Men; notwithstanding whereof, the Sequel of the Parable declares, That the state of Dives, though highly esteemed amongst Men, was in the whole of it, abominable to the sight of God, and Lazarus's state, tho' abominated by Men, was in the whole, more blessed than that of Dives was: And I conceive thereup­on, that our present Parable was delivered by our Lord, with special Intent to illustrate this Doctrine, without any apparent Intent, to teach concerning the State of People af­ter Death; and yet I do Agree, this Parable to set forth, or prove, that the common Opinion of the Jews at that time, was correspondent to the Descriptions made in this Parable; but I conceive withal, that divers Particulars therein speci­fied, prove it to be a Jewish Conception of that Time, and not an Intent of our Lord, to teach either Jews, or Christi­ans, what the true state of Men after Death, should be. First, It declares a great distance of space, to be between [Page 99] Dives and Lazarus; and that there was a great Gulf fixed, so that none could pass from the one Place to the other; and yet Abraham and Dives, had a familiar Discourse be­tween them, without straining their Voices. Secondly, they saw, and knew, and spake to one another, without the use of Eyes, or Tongue, or Ears, as Mr. W. will suppose, although the Text do not declare it to be so; but speaks of Dives, as having all these Members of a Man: And there­fore I Collect, That if this Text prove (any thing of the state of Men after Death) it proves amongst the rest, that the Persons suffering, have Eyes, and Ears, and Tongue, and like Bodily Members, and that the Suffering there, is prin­cipally, if not only applied to the Body, and his Tongue being eminently tormented in that Flame, or Fire. Thirdly, this Parable imports, That the Tormented (and by the Rule of Contraries) the Happy Souls have Remembrance and Care, concerning those things they left upon Earth, and concern themselves about their Friends Happiness or Mi­sery: Whereas Solomon says, The Dead know not any thing; and David says, That in Death, all Mens Thoughts perish; and Job agrees, That all Concerns perish with Death: And Solomon names particularly Mens Love and their Hatred. Isa. 38 18. Hezekiah sings to God, The Grave cannot praise thee, Death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into the Pit, cannot hope, but the Living can only praise Thee, as I do this day. And thereupon I leave to Consideration, whether our Parable in this Point, do not oppose the fore-quoted, and divers other Texts of Scripture, and even the common Opi­nion of the Reformed Churches. Fourthly, I Recite a for­mer Observation, That if our Parable intended Dives to be in Hell, in his Soul only, then Abraham and Dives, dis­coursed both unproperly, and untruly, in calling one ano­ther by the Names of Father and Son: For that Mr. W. and his Partakers, say, That was a Spirit newly created by God, which true Being and Subsistence, before it was infused, [Page 100]or injected into Dives, his newly procreated Body, without the Parents having any part in the Generation of it. Thus the Soul of Dives came not from Abraham, or any of his Po­sterity, and how is he then his Son? Mat. 22.42. Our Lord quotes David calling Christ his Lord, and demands, How is he then his Son? And the Jews were not able to Answer him a word to that Question. And this I apply to the Question which I last asked, and from the Premises I conclude, that our Lord, did not by this Parable, intend to teach the true State of Men after Death, but to Illustrate that Assertion which he had before delivered by a Simili­tude, drawn from that Opinion which the Jews then com­monly held, of the State of Men after Death.

The Seventh Argument.

PAge 74. Mr. W. quotes Luke 23. and recites the History of the Thief upon the Cross, and the Promise made to him by Christ, of his being with him in Paradise. I say thereto, Mr. W. hath urged this Proof before in this Trea­tise; and I have given him thereto such an Answer, as satis­fies my own Understanding: And because it is of some length, I have no mind here to repeat it, but rather make choice to offer an Argument raised from other Scriptures, in Impeachment of the Verity and Credit of this Relation; and begin with considering the Person of our Evangelist St. Luke, who was it seems converted to the Faith, by the Mi­nistry of Paul, whose Emanuensis he is conceived to have been, in the writing of this Gospel: And it seems, that this Evangelist was not converted, till divers years after our Lord's Crucifixion; and we know that St. Paul was not on­ly an Infidel, but a Persecuter of the Church, for some years after our Lord's Death. We no where find that either of them was present, beholding that Execution; and proba­ble it is, that neither of them were so. In the Proem to his [Page 101]Gospel, Luke to Theophilus says thus: It seemed good to me, having had perfect understanding of all things, from the very first, to write unto ye in order, even as they delivered them to us, who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the Word. Thus he professes to write, from the Traditi­on of other Men, who had been Eye-witnesses of them, and Ministers of the Word: And of those Traditions, I con­ceive, this Relation of the Crucified Thief's Conversion, to be one. If we shall consider the other Three Evangelists, we must find them totally silent concerning this Fact; and that they do not concur with St. Luke, in their Testimonies concerning it. We have good Assurance that St. John was present at our Lord's Suffering, and continued with him till the Time of his Expiration; and yet he takes no Notice, nor makes any Mention of this Thief's Conversion: And yet I think the Fact was so Remarkable, as deserved to be Recorded, if he had known it to be done. St. Matthew was one of the Twelve called by Christ to be of his Apostles, and continued Faithful to him to the end; whence it seems likely, he might be one of the Beholders of this Tragedy, and yet he makes no Mention of this Thief's Conversion.

Men generally suppose, That Mark writ his Gospel from the Mouth of St. Peter; and very probable it is, that that great Apostle was present at the Suffering of his Master; and yet St. Mark makes no Mention at all of this Conver­sion: And hereupon it seems to deserve our Enquiry, How Luke, who was not present at that Fact, should come to know the Particulars of it, when the other Three; Evange­lists, either did not know it, or have utterly suppress'd their Knowledge and the Mention of it. The Silence of the o­ther Three Evangelists, seems a competent Ground to que­stion the Verity of St. Luke's Relation; but that is not all, for Two other of the Evangelists, Matthew and Mark, give an opposite and contrarient Testimony, to that which St. Luke delivers concerning it. Mat. 27.44. There were two [Page 102]Thieves crucified with our Lord, and the People which passed by whil'st he was on the Cross, reviled him, saying, Save thy self if thou be the Son of God, and come down from the Cross: And the Thieves also which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. Which I conceive to be a True and Pro­per Translation of St. Matthew's Greek Words. Mark 15.27. With Christ they crucified two Thieves, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left; and they that passed by, railed on him: and they that were crucified with him, reviled him. Both these Texts in Greek agree in their Expressions. Mat. 27.44. [...]. Mark 15.32. [...]. Here our Translators in St. Matthew, have render'd the Word [...], by, Casting in his Teeth; and in Mark they have render'd it by the Word Reviling, both which Translations import the same Actings in these Places: But both these Evange­lists agree in Terminis, in their Plural Expressions, viz. that they who were Crucified with him did this, [they both did so.] Whence it seems consequent, That the one did not Rebuke the other for doing so, and became thereupon con­verted and rewarded, as St. Luke relates the Matter of this Fact. I have said before, that the Silence of the other Three Evangelists, may give a reasonable occasion, for Men to doubt the Verity of St. Luke's Relation; and then, that the Opposition which is thereunto made, by the concurrent Testimony of Matthew and Mark, evidencing the contrary, seems to be a firm Ground for Doubting, and even for Op­posing the Truth of St. Luke's Relation, concerning this Conversion, and the Promise of our Lord, upon which his whole Argument is grounded, and must finally fail with the Verity of that Relation. I have said before, that my first Answer given to this Argument, satisfies my own Under­standing; and I now thereunto Add, If I had not so good an Answer to his Argument, as hath before been given, I should be very apt to conceive, that the Causes which I [Page 103]have here produced, of doubting the Verity of St. Luke's Relation, would be a good and sufficient Answer to that Argument which M. W. hath drawn from so Questionable a Relation, which seems to make the Ground of his Argu­ment shake under him; convincing, that no firm Argument can be drawn from so infirm and sandy a Relation.

P. 76. Mr. W. quotes Grotius, and says, That after the Times of Esdras [ who lived after the Reign of Atta [...]erxes, a fifth King of the Persians, after Cyrus, which was many years after the beginning of Cyrus 's Reign] when the State of Souls after this Life, began first to be spoke of in proper distinct Names, the Hebrews did usually call that state of [...]e­licity, wherein pious Souls, seperate from their Bodies did en­joy Happiness before the Resurrection, the Garden of Eden. Hereupon I Observe, that both Grotius and Mr. W. do A­gree, that it was after the Time of Esdras, when the State of Souls after this Life, began first to be spoken of in pro­per distinct Names [or Terms.] I find that Phericides Syrus is commonly accounted to be the first, who broached this Seperate Opinion; and sought it amongst the Grecians, and it was very much Cultivated by his Scholar Pythagoras, and came down from him, to Socrates and Plato; and from them, to the Philosophers of succeeding Ages: And that Phericides, the Broacher of this Opinion, lived and taught in the Time of Cyrus the Great, wherein the Foundation of the Second Temple at Jerusalem was laid: And thence I Agree there is a good Probability, that after the Time of Esdras, the Doctrine of Seperate Subsistence, might be far­ther Cultivated, and more distinctly Taught and Affirmed, than at any time before it had been; and that from thence the same descended among the Jews, and was commonly re­ceived by the most Part of that Nation, in the Time of our Lord's Ministry, and occasioned our Lord's framing the Pa­rable of Dives, according to the common Conception, which the Jews had of such things in his Time.

Mr. W. here Adds, That the Thief, by the Word Paradise, might well understand a Place of Happiness, or the Garden of Eden; that the Words of this Promise, intended, that he should be there to day; and that Christ said, To day he would remember him in the thing he asked, and would perform his Petition this day, and Heavens Joys shall attend thy de­parting Soul. Which last Saying, are Mr. W's own Words, and may pass for his Gloss upon the Text: But that which I principally Oppose in this Place, is the Design which he seems to draw, of limiting the Time of our Lord's Promise to the precise Time of a Day; that being a Limitation, which I think ought not to be received in this Place: But that our Lord's Term of, To Day, is well enough Answer­ed, if the thing were performed, in some such short time after, as might well enough be called To Day. The Persons died on Friday Evening, and if they were in Paradise to­gether upon Sunday after, it seems to me a sufficient fulfil­ling of our Lord's Saying, To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.

P. 79. Mr. W. says, He never heard of any Objection of­fered against his Argument drawn from this Text, but One, which was this, That some Men have offered a different Read­ing in Part of this Text, pretending it should be read, that our Lord said, Verily, I say unto you, to day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise. Mr. W. lays great Blame upon this Objection, which I find no Inclination in my self to defend; but let it stand, or fall, as to other Mens Reasons shall ap­pear requisite. But I Rely strongly upon the other Answer, which I have here given to Mr. W's Argument, drawn from our Lord's Words, in this Text; and have said, that Luke who was not present at this Fact, is the only Reporter of it to us; the other Three Evangelists passing it over in si­lence; and that Two of them say, the Thieves, who were Crucified with him [the Two Thieves, both of them] re­viled him. St. Luke says, They did not both do so, but [Page 105]one of them only did it, and the other rebuked him for it, and had a Reward promised him for so doing: Whence it appears, I have two Witnesses against one, in maintenance of my Objection against my Opposer's Argument.

P. 79. Mr. W. Concludes, That as the Soul of Christ, and the Penitent Thief, were immortal, so are the Souls of other Men. To this Saying of his, I give an easie Assent, but think he hath by no Means well proved, That either of their Souls had a Seperate Subsistence, or were Immortal.

The Eighth Argument.

PAge 59. Mr. W. Argues Eighthly, from our Lord's words, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit; and St. Steven's words, Lord Jesus receive my Spirit: Where he will have the word Spirit, to signifie and intend the Souls of these Petitioners, conceived by Mr. W. and his Party, to subsist in a State of Seperation from the Body. This Argu­ment he hath before offered in this Treatise, and there I have given it such an Answer, as satisfies my own Understanding, and there neither need, nor can give any other Answer there­unto, without repeating what I have there alleady deliver'd. I have said there, that in both these Petitions, the Greek Word or Term of [...], is used; and that our Translators have render'd it in English by the word Spirit; but that its Natural Signification intends Breath, or Spirit indifferently, and may be warrantably Translated by either of these En­glish Terms, according as the Subject, or Matter of Dis­course may require: And therefore I impute no fault nuto our Translators, for rendering it by the word Spirit, as they have done, conceiving it was intended, by the word Spirit in this Place, to signifie the Spirit of Life in Man, which is one of the two Constituent Parts of his Person, and by the ordinary figure of Synecdoche, setting one Part for the Whole; the word Spirit here, seems to intend the whole Person: So as under this Term of Spirit, the Petitioners [Page 106]intended to recommend themselves, or their whole Persons, the one into the hands of his Father, under whose Custo­dy, his Body, as well as his Soul, viz. his whole Person, re­mained, and was preserved, without seeing Corruption, un­til the Time and Hour of his Resurrection: And I con­ceive, St. Stephen's Prayer was made in a like Sense, and to the same Purpose that our Lord's was.

Mr. W. says further, He does not know of any such Phraesed Petitions as these are, put up by either of them, or any other Person, in Prayer, but just at the Moment of dying. I will therefore refresh his Memory, by quoting to him, and our Readers, Psal. 31.6. where the very same Words are used: Into thy hands I commend my Spirit; for thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, thou God of Truth. (For any thing that ap­pears) the Psalmist was in Health at the uttering of this Pe­tition; but withal, in a state of great Trouble, as the fore­going Verses testifie. And it thence seems somewhat Clear to my Understanding, that by these Words, our Prophet did not intend, to recommend to God's Protection, his Spi­rit of Life, or Seperative Soul only, but that rather in those Words, he intended, to recommend to God's Care and Pro­tection, his whole Compositum of Soul and Body, his Per­son, or himself, without having any particular, or singular Respect to his Spirit of Life, or Soul, whatsoever the same might be: Which seems may be somewhat mo [...]e Cleared, by a short Paraphrase, Into thy hands, O God, I commend my self, for thou hast redeemed me. This I take to be the true Mean­ing of David's Words; and I take the Prayers of our Lord, and St. Steven, to be of the same Import, and that they have no such other Emphatical Signification, as Mr. W. in this place endeavours to put upon them.

P. 80. he says, If his Interpretation of those Words be true, they clearly express the Souls Immortality. I do not deny this, but withal conceive, that his Interpretation of these Words, is not true, as my fore-going Answers testifie; and [Page 107]then I think no man can believe, that they are a good Proof, or any Proof at all, for the Souls Seperate Subsistence.

P. 82. he says, The Word Spirit here, intends Seperate Soul; and if it doth not mean so, he desires to know what it doth mean: And I have said before, that it intends the whole Per­son of the Petitioner, as it is a Compositum of Soul and Body.

Mr. W. farther demands, What the word Spirit here means, and whether it mean the Life of the Body. Here I am at a loss what he means, by the Life of the Body; and if he doth not mean the Life of the Person, he means that which hath no good Sense in it; for the Body, quatenus tale, or divided from the Person, hath no sort of Life in it; as St. James tells us, A Body without a Spirit, is dead: And therefore, to men­tion the Life of the Body, without a Figurative Intent, in­clines to the Nature of a Bull; in such manner, as if one should speak of the Life of a dead thing. He then demands, What? Is it the dead Carcass, the whole M [...]n, Body and Soul? Putting them together, as if the dead Carcass, was the whole Man, Body and Soul, intending to confound these Terms, and give to each of them an equipollent Signification; as if the dead Carcass, and the whole Man, Body and Soul, signi­fied the same thing; whereas I must divide them, and say, The dead Carcass signifies one thing, and the whole Man, Body and Soul, or the Person, signifies another thing; and tho' the Carcass shall go to the Dust, as it was, yet the Per­son shall be preserved, the good sleeping in Christ, and the bad remaining under the Knowledge and Disposal of God, until the times of refreshing shall come from the Presence of the Lord, and the Trumpet shall sound, and all Persons who have lived, shall be raised, and summoned to the Judg­ment of the Great Day: And therefore, from the Words, as I have Expounded them, I think the direct contrary to what he says, that no good Argument can be raised from our first quoted Texts, for proving his Opinion of the Souls Seperate Subsistence.

The Ninth Argument.

PAge 83. Mr. W. quotes Rom. 10.11. And if Christ be in you, the Body is dead, because of sin; but the Spirit is Life, because of Righteosness; and if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the Dead, shall also quicken your Mortal Bodies, by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. And he says upon this Text, Methinks this Truth of the Souls Immortality, doth very clearly shine in the Evidence of this Scripture. I An­swer, That what shines so clearly to him, I do not at all discover.

P. 84. Mr. W. proceeds in a long Discourse, which I think rather confounds and misleads, than opens and declares the Meaning of St. Paul's Words; and yet I have no Intent to implicate my self with him upon that Subject, especially in many Words.

P. 85. He raises an Exception out of St. Paul's Doctrine, but I think it is out of his own Brain and Invention, not perceiving, that Paul thought of such an Objection; nor that he makes or intends any Answer to it: But Mr. W. himself both tells the Tale, and gives the Answer. And there he says further, If you ask, How comes the Soul thus to over-live the Body? He Answers, by a perplex'd Repe­tition of some other Words in the Chapter, which he pre­tends to Expound, as by an Old Rule, Mala Expositio cor­rumpit Textum; and then he draws out of that Exposition, what I do not find in the Text, but will not particularize, for avoiding of Length and Confusion.

P. 86. Here he Propounds another Objection to St. Paul's Doctrine, and says, The Apostle was well aware of it, and therefore gave it an Answer. But I think he is mistaken in both, not finding by the Text, that St. Paul ever thought of it; and therefore did not design to give it an Answer; [Page 109]and specially, such an Answer as Mr. W. in this Place hath done. He proceeds, and raises a Third Objection against St. Paul's Doctrine, but doth not say the Apostle was aware of this, or made any Answer to it; but Mr. W's Invention and Construction, are ready to give it a full Answer; but not such an one as I am willing to Consent unto.

P. 87. Mr. W. says, Having thus cleared up the Text, by giving you its Meaning, I proceed now to lay down my Argu­ment, to prove, that the Soul of Man dieth not with the Body. I Answer, some other Man may possibly say, Having now confounded and implicated the Meaning of this Text by my Exposition I am enough by that means enabled to prove thereby, the Souls Seperate Subsistence, which from the Text it self, without such handling of it, I should not be able to have done.

P. 88. He pretends to prove, The Soul not subject to Death, because nothing is so, that is not subject to the Power of Death, and the Soul of the Believer is not so. I look upon this as a vain sort of Argument, and begging of the Question, increasing the Bulk of his Treatise, but adding no strength to his Proof. Here again he speaks of the Soul, by the Term of Her and She, as if he had prov'd her a Seperately distinct thing from the Man, or Person, a thing neither granted to him, nor proved by him.

P. 89. He says again, The Spirit of a Believer, is not sub­ject to the Law of Death: Which is the very Point in Que­stion, and denied by his Opposers.

P. 90. He pretends, That by what he hath said, it appears, that the Law of Death is executed only on the Body of a Be­liever. I Answer, that to me appers no such thing, but that the Law of Death is executed upon the Persons, both of Believers and Unbelievers, and that Death pass'd upon all, for that all have sinned; and do Agree with him, that not only the Body shall be rais'd at the Last Day, but that the whole Person shall be so rais'd to appear in Judgment, [Page 110]before the Tribunal of Christ: And withal I conceive, that our Author goes far for Arguments to prove his Tenet, when he catches at, and seems to rely upon such precarious Constructions, as he hath offered in this Argument.

The Tenth Argument.

PAge 90 Mr. W. quotes in proof of his Opinion 2 Cor. 5, 6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that whil'st we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: We are consident, I say, and willing rather, to be ab­sent from the body, and to be present with the Lord

P. 91. Hereupon Mr. W. with good reason places the dif­ficulty in the meaning of St. Pauls doubled Expression, of being in the body, and absent from Christ; and being out of the body, and present with Christ; and then saith, That when Paul says, We are confident, that here by the We, that are always confident, he intends, the Soul or Spirit of him­self, and the Soul and Spirit of the rest of the Believing Church: And if this be the true meaning of our Apostle in this Case, viz. That here is intended the Souls of him and his brethren, which at death will be absent from their bodies, and be present with the Lord; Then, says he, it proves the Souls of Men Seperate, and are Immortal: but the former, says he, is true, therefore the later Then he offers to prove, that by the We, who would be absent from the body, the Apostle intends the Souls only of himself and other Be­lievers; for what else is that of the Saints, that is absent from the body, and present with the Lord? Name the thing if you can; for, says he, it cannot mean the body nor the whole person; not the whole person, for that the whole man cannot be said to be at home in one part of the man, viz. his body; or absent from it; for the whole of anything cannot be contained in a part of it. P. 93. Then Mr. W puts a weak Objection against himself, and answers it. Upon this Argument I Agree with him, [Page 111]that the Difficulty lies, in finding out what St. Paul intends by the We, that would be absent from the Body, and present with the Lord: Whether it intends the Souls only of the Faithful, or their whole Persons? He says, It can only intend Mens Souls: But I conceive, that it intends their Persons. And first, I Argue from the Apostles Terms of Expression, and do think, that if by the Term We, he only intended Mens Souls, he hath very improperly express'd such a Mean­ing; for that if there be many Persons in an Assembly or Company, and one of them speaking for the rest, says, We decree, or expect, or desire, such a thing, how can it possi­bly be imagined, that the Speaker, intends only the Souls of those Persons do expect or desire? And therefore, if our Apostle, by his Term We, did intend only the Souls of Be­lievers, I conceive it would have been hard for Men to have found out that Meaning, without such an Assistance and Di­rection as Mr. W. here offers them. I think the proper Signification of the Word We, in such Cases, is to denote the Men or the Persons, who are said to do any thing, and not any one Part or Parcel of such Persons, as it must do in this place, if it intended only the Souls of Believers. I take it for an old and good Rule amongst Expositors, that they should cast their Eyes upon the Contexts of those Places which they mean to Expound, that thereby they may disco­ver the whole Scheme or Plat-form of the Writer's Inten­tion; and then to employ their Talent, in drawing all that the Writer says, to prove his Meaning or fortifie his Asser­tion: And therefore, I proceed to search what our Apo­stle says in his next fore-going Chapter concerning this Mat­ter. Chap. 4.10. We are cast down but not destroyed, always bearing about in the Body the dying of our Lord Jesus. By Body I think the whole Person is here intended. The Text adds, That the Life of Jesus might be made manifest in our Body [or Person.] Ver. 14. We know, that he which rais­ed up the Lord JESƲS, shall raise up us also by JESƲS, [Page 112]and shall present us with you. Ver. 16. Though our outward Man perish, yet the inward Man is renewed Day by Day: Intending the whole Man, degenerated or regenerated. Chap. 5.1. We know that if our Earthly House of this Taber­nacle were dissolved, we have a Building of God; an House, not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens. For in this we groan earnestly, desiring to be cloathed upon with our House which is from Heaven. And we that are in this Tabernacle do groan. being burthen'd; not for that we would be uncloath'd, but cloath­ed upon, that Mortality might be swallowed up of Life: And we are always confident, knowing that whilst we are at home in the Body, we are absent from the Lord. We are confident I say, and willing rather to be absent from the Body, and present with the Lord: And we labour, that whether present or ab­sent, we may be accepted of him; for we must all appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his Body, according to that he hath done, whe­ther it be good or bad. These Quotations have been tran­scribed, for making it appear, that the Intent of our Apo­stle in these Texts, was to discover to his Readers, Mat­ters concerning the Resurrection, and the Last judgment. In the beginning of his Discourse, he professes to know, That he who raised up our Lord Jesus, shall raise us up also by Jesus: And in the end of this Discourse, St. Paul says, We must all appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and there receive Recompences according to our Works. And hence I Collect, That the Texts which lie intermediate betwixt these Two, do most directly concern Matters pertaining to the Resurrection, and the manner of proceeding, which may at that time be expected; and from these Premises, I gather, that in Mr. W's proving Text, the Words, Absent from the Body, and present with the Lord, do intend the Pre­sence and Absence of the whol [...] Person, with the Lord, or from the Lord; and do Expound the Apostles Meaning to be, that Men cannot be present with the Lord, without be­ing [Page 113]absent from their fleshly Bodies. 1 Cor. 15.50. says, Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; and therefore Paul desires to be absent from this sort of Body, that he may be present with the Lord in another sort of Bo­dy. Ver. 40. There are Celestial Bodies, and Bodies Terre­strial. Ver. 44. There is a Natural Body, and there is a Spi­ritual Body. V. 46. First, that which is Natural and afterward that which is Spiritual. V. 49. And as we have born the Image of the Earthly, so shall we bear the Image of the Heavenly. V. 51. St. Paul shews us a Mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye (for at the sound of the last Trumpet, the Dead shall be raised incor­ruptible, and we [such Saints as are then upon Earth] shall be changed; for this Corruptible must put on Incorruption, and this Mortal must put on Immortality. I say then, That by St. Paul's Absent from the Body, and present with the Lord, in this Place, he intended the Change before-mentioned, and that his natural fleshly Body, should be changed into a Spiri­tual Heavenly Body; and that he might not longer be absent from the Lord in his Fleshly Body, but might have it chang­ed into a Spiritual Body, in which he might be present with the Lord. 1 Thes. 4.15. This we say unto you, by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive, and remain unto the com­ing of the Lord, shall not prevent them that are asleep; for the Lord himself shall descend with a shout, and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive, and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the Clouds, to meet the Lord in the Air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Hence I Infer, That after our Earthly Tabernacle is so dissolv'd, or as that our Earthly or Fleshly Bodies, are by this Change, cloathed upon with our House that is from Heaven, or those Spiritual Heavenly Bodies; we shall together with the new­ly raised Persons, meet the Lord in the Air, and so shall re­main with the Lord for ever. St. Paul in this Discourse, makes no mention at all of Death, or Dying, or any sort of [Page 114]Seperation of the Soul from the Body, but seems to reject that Intent, when he says, He does not desire to be uncloath­ed: Which I think, intends to die; but desires to be cloath­ed upon, that Mortality might be swallowed up of Life: Which will clearly be effected, by changing his Fleshly Na­tural Body, into a Spiritual, or Heavenly Body, in which Men shall be present with the Lord for ever. 1 Joh. 3.2. Be­loved, it doth not yet appear, what we shall be, but me know that when He [Christ] shall appear, we shall be like him, and our vile Bodies shall be chang'd, and made like his Glorious Body. It may also be observed, what St. Paul intends by his Term We; for in the quoted Text, he says We desire to be absent from the Body, and present with the Lord: And else­where says, We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. Also, We that are alive, shall not prevent them that are asleep. Also, We shall be caught up to the Clouds, to meet the Lord, and remain ever with him. In all these We's, it seems plain, the Apostle intends, the Persons of Believers, and not their Souls only. Concerning this Desire of being Absent from the Body, and present with the Lord, it seems observable, That the Church of that time expected our Lord's Second Coming, within some indifferent, or short space, or com­pass of Time, such as that possibly some of them might live till the Accomplishment of it. Our Lord speaking of the Signs of his Coming, says, This Generation shall not pass, until all things be fulfilled: And else-where tells his Audi­tors, the Signs and Glory of his Second Coming, and says, Then look up, and lift up your heads, for your Redemption draw­eth nigh; as if some of them might live unto that Time. In the Apostolick Writings, we often find their Times ex­press'd, by the Terms of Last Time; and they thought that upon them, the Ends of the World were come: and we find it written, The time is short, therefore he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still: As if there were scarce time of a REFORMA­TION [Page 115]before the Coming of our Lord. Rev. 3.11. Be­hold I come quickly, hold fast that which thou hast. 1 John 1.18. Little children it is now the last time, and Antichrist is already at work. Heb. 1.1. God who in former times spake unto us by his prophets, hath in these last times spoken unto us by his Son. Jam. 5.7. Be patient, brethren, unto the coming of our Lord and establish your hearts; for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh: Rev. 22 7. Behold, I come quick­ly, and the time is at hand, and behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me. Ver. 20. He which testifieth these things, saith, surely I come quickly; Amen, even so, come Lord Jesus. The Spirit and the Bride say come. Our Lord an­swers, I come quickly, and the Church replies, even so come Lord Jesus [come quickly.] It seems to have been the Cu­stom of that Age to pray for the speedy coming of our Lord to Judgment; and that the days intermediate there­unto might be shortned, and that the expected Change of their Mortal into Immortal Bodies, might be accomplished with the most speed that was possible: And upon these grounds St. Paul as well as other believers, desired heartily to be absent from their fleshly bodies, that they might be present with the Lord in their spiritual ones. And upon this Canvass, I am satisfied in my own understanding, that St. Paul's being absent from the Body, and present with the Lord, ought to be expounded as I have before decla­red: And thereupon it will be easily concluded, that Mr. Ws. Tenth Argument grounded upon the Text of St. Paul before quoted, is not a sufficient, a sound, or a good Argument, for proving of the Souls Seperate Sub­sistence.

The Eleventh Argument.

PAge 94. Mr. W. quotes 2 Cor. 12.2. I knew a man about fourteen years ago, whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: Ver 3. And I knew such a man, whe­ther [Page 116]in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell; how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, not lawful to be uttered. Hence Mr. W. says he argues, That what is capable of being seperated from the Body, and in this Seperate State to be in Paradise; and in this Pa­radise, to hear Words spoken, that must needs be immor­tal; but the Soul is capable of all this: Ergo, First, he pretends to prove the Souls Capacity of being seperated from the Body [which all Readers will presently perceive to be the very Point hitherto disputed between us,] but the best Proof which he brings thereof, is his own Suppo­sal, that the Apostle knew it to be so seperable; and thereupon he says, The Apostle thought there was some such part of himself, as might be seperable from his Bo­dy; for no Man can ever doubt the Being of a Thing, which he knows is uncapable to be: And hereupon he thinks the Apostle doth evidently suppose, his Soul was ca­pable of being out of the Body: which amounts to thus much, that he supposes the Apostle supposes the thing to be as he would have it; whereas in the Text we find no men­tion of such things as he supposes; for in St. Paul's Words, there is no mention made of a Soul, or any other Part of the Person, that ever did, or can subsist in a State of Seperati­on from the Body. Next, there is no mention made of a Seperation of any thing from the Body: Nor is it said, that any Part or Parcel of St. Paul's Person, was seperated from himself; or that there was any one Parcel of him divided from his Person; and much less, that the Divided Part could subsist in a State of Seperation from the Body: Whence I conceive, that what he here says concerning a Se­peration of one Part of St Paul, from another, springs from his own pregnant Invention, without finding any good ground for it in the Text; or that St. Paul did by his Words, either in the Body, or out of the Body, intend to teach, or discover to his Proselites, that the Soul could be [Page 117]seperated from the Body; and much less, that it could sub­sist by its self in such a State of Seperation from the Body: But I conceive with some Clearness, our Apostles Meaning in those Words, In the Body▪ or out of the Body, was very different from Mr. W's Supposals, and intended only to ex­press thus much, That himself had been caught [or rapt] up, into the Third Heavens, where he heard unspeakable Words, not lawful to be uttered; and that he was in some doubt, whether this Rapture was of his whole Person, or of his Mind, or Intellect only. The things which were reveal­ed to him in this Rapture, he had so clear and perfect a Per­ception of, as he thought he could not more clearly and ful­ly have understood them, if they had been perceived by his Bodily Senses of Hearing and Seeing; and therefore he ap­prehended, that this Rapture might be of his whole Per­son; and that he did hear and see with his Bodily Organs, those things which were then revealed to him; and yet, because such Raptures of the Person had not before been known, he thought there was great Reason to doubt of that kind of Rapture; and from grounds of Reason and Practice, to conceive, That this Rapture was more likely to be of his Mind and Intellect only, than of his whole Person, Body and Soul together: And for the better proving the Apostles Intent in this Place, to be such as before is said, some other Texts of Scripture shall be produced, wherein Facts, parallel to this Rapture, are related: Acts 10.9. says, Another great Apostle, St. Peter, went up upon the Tan­ner's House to pray, and there he fell into a Trance, and saw Heaven opened, and a Vessel descending unto him, like a great Sheet fastened at the four Corners, and there came a Voice to him, saying, Peter, Kill and Eat: Peter ex­cused himself; upon which, a second Voice called to him, saying, What God hath cleansed, call not thou common. And it seems, these things were perceived by St. Peter, as if he had seen and heard them by his Bodily Organs; and they [Page 118]were as well imprinted upon his Memory: For he told Cor­nelius, and his Company, that God had shewed him [late­ly] that he should not call any Man common, or unclean. This Apostle might be well enough assured, that this was not a Raptu [...]e of his whole Person, but a Trance, or Tran­sport of his Mind only; and yet he perceived things as per­fectly, as if he had heard and seen them with his Bodily Or­gans. Numb. 24.334. Balaam took up his Parable, and said, the Man whose Eyes are opened, hath said: He hath said, which heard the Words of God, which saw the Vision of the Almighty, falling into a Trance but having his eyes open. Ver. 15. He repeats the same Words of falling into a Trance, and having his Eyes open; and then reveals to Balak and his Court, the utter Destruction of Amalek by Saul; and that Ships shall come from the Coast of Chittim, and afflict Ashur and Eber: Which seems to intend the Macedonian Invasion of the East, and possibly the Roman also. Ver. 17. says, I shall see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not nigh; there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out of Israel. By which great things shall be done, com­monly interpreted, to intend Christ and his Kingdom, the space of 1500 years before the same appeared. It seems, though Balaam in this Trance had his Eyes open, yet he saw not these Revelations, or Visions, with his Bodily Eyes, but by the perceptive Power of his Mind, which was all this while intranced; and though the Body was Partaker of this Trance, yet were the Bodily Senses no Acters in it, but all was done by the perceptive Powers of his Mind intranced. 1 Kings 22, 19. The Prophet Micaiah, the Son of Imiah, says thus to the Kings of Israel and Judah, I saw the Lord sitting on his Throne, and all the Host of Heaven standing by him on his right hand, and on his left: And then he saw also a Spirit, which came and stood forth before the Lord, and declared how he would entice Ahab, to go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead. It seems hereupon, that this Prophet [Page 119]was rapt into Heaven, as St. Paul was; for that in any other Place he could not have seen the things here related; and which he says he saw and perceived as clearly as if he had seen them with his Bodily Eyes and Ears; and was full of Confidence, that they would prove true as they did: And yet I conceive, that this Rapture was only of his Mind, and that to him so intranced, all these things were perfectly re­vealed. Rev. 4.1. John looked and behold a door was open­ed in Heaven, and he heard a Voice as it were of a Trumpet, which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter; and immediately he was in the Spirit, and behold a Throne was set in Heaven. And from thence he pro­secutes his Revelation of things afterwards to be performed. Our Apostle doth not say here, That his Spirit was tran­sported into Heaven, or that he was there in his Soul only; but says, Immediately I was in the Spirit [I my self was there my Person was there in the Spirit:] So that, all which was there revealed, was so revealed to himself, or Person, without Mention of any Seperation of his Soul from his Body, any more than St. Paul hath mentioned it in his proving Text. Whence I conceive, that during the space of this Revelation, St. John was in a Rapture, or Transport of his Mind, as other Prophets had been before him; and yet he had so perfect a Perception of the things revealed, and was so well assured of the Truth of them, and remem­bered them so well, as if he had perceived and known them with his Bodily Senses of Seeing and Hearing, and re­membered them as well; and he might possibly be as un­certain as St. Paul was, whether this was a Rapture of his Person into Heaven, or that it was only a Rapture of his Mind,, wherein this Revelation was made to him. I have quoted these Four Parallel Texts of Scripture, to evince, or perswade, that St. Paul, in our Proving Text, did not doubt whether his Soul was actually seperated from his Bo­dy, but whether his Rapture into the Third Heaven, was a [Page 120]Transport of his Person thither, or whether this Transport was only a Rapture of his Mind. I am (by what hath been said) satisfied in my own Understanding, that St. Paul did not intend in this Text, to teach concerning the Seperation of the Soul from the Body, or that the Soul could subsist in such a State of Seperation; and therefore I think, that the Argument which Mr. W. draws from this Text, for Proof the Souls Seperate Subsistence, is unsound and falla­cious, and is by no means a good Proof of the Souls Sepe­rate Subsistence.

The Twelfth Argument.

PAge 97. Phil. 1.21, 23. To me to die, is gain; for I am in a straight betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better. Hereupon Mr. W. ar­gues, That if St. Paul's Soul was Immortal, then are all Mens Souls Immortal. But Paul's Soul, he says, was Immortal; Ergo, He proves Paul's Soul to be Immortal, by saying, If Paul's Soul was in a better Condition at the Death of his Body, than when it lived therein, then was his Soul Immor­tal: But he says, Paul's Soul was in a better Condition af­ter his Death, than when alive; which he proves, by [...]ay­ing, That which gained by the Death of the Body, was much better out of the Body, than in the Body: But Paul's Soul gained by the Death of his Body; and there­fore was in a much better Condition out of it than before. This he proves▪ by Paul's saying, To die was gain. Second­ly, because the Soul at the Death of the Body, he says, would obtain such a Being with Christ, as it had not in the Body. Hence he Concludes the Souls of good Men are more happy out of the Body than in it; and they cannot be so except they subsist in a State of Seperation from the Body.

P. 98. Mr. W. Objects thus against his own Argument, That Paul in this Text, speaks not a Word of his Soul▪ but [Page 121]only of himself, or his whole Person, and that it is not fair for Mr. W. to argue a greater happiness of his Soul on­ly at Death, from St. Pauls speaking of a better condition that himself should enjoy at Death. To this Objection he answers, That Paul must in this Text, when he speaks of himself, only be understood, as intending his Soul, because Death could not possibly be again to his Body, nor could Death bring him to a more blessed presence with Christ, than he had whilst alive: And against his own Doctrine he puts another Objection, P. 99. as if some had said, That Pauls desire to be with Christ after Death, was only in ex­pectation of happiness at the Resurrection. Then Mr. W. answers this Objection, which is not owned by me, or any other which I have heard or read of; and therefore it passes with me for another Man of Straw, set up by himself to be batter'd down again by the same hand. Phil. 20. I hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that Christ shall be mag­nified in my body, whether it be by life or by death; for to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain: but if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: what I should chuse I wot not, but am in a strait betwixt two; having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better: nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

I observe upon this Text, that there is no mention of the Soul made in it, although there is mention of the Body, that Christ shall be magnified in it; intending his Person, by the Name of his Body. In all the rest of the Text there is nothing else denoted, but by the Terms of I and Me; both which do properly denote and signifie the Person and all that which Mr. W. has raised out of this Text, concern­ing the Soul or its Subsistence in a Seperate State from the Body, seems to be the proper effect of his own Invention, and not really founded upon St. Pauls Text before quoted. Mr. W. hath said from the Text, That to die is gain, and that to die is better than to live here. These two Sayings [Page 122]may I think be very properly applied to the Person; that it may be gain for some Persons to die, rather than live; and consequently, that it is better for such Persons to die, than to live here.

Thirdly, he says, St. Paul gives the Reason, why it is better for him to die, than to live here; because, in departing hence, he shall be with Christ. I Answer, We do not read in this Text, That Paul chose rather to die, because then he should be with Christ; but says, That if he did die, he should be with Christ: He had other Reasons for chusing Death, ra­ther than Life; and took that for a Comfort and Support, in obtaining this Choice, that after Death, he should still be with Christ, in a State of Rest and Quietness, which would be far better for him, than that State which he now endured in this World; Coloss. 1.24. I Paul, do now rejoice in my Sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the Afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his Bodies sake, which is the Church. We know, that Christ's Sufferings for his Bo­dy sake, the Church, were great; to which Paul in this place, compares his own Sufferings; and therefore we have reason to think they were great also. Eph. 3.13. I desire that ye faint not at my Tribulation. Philem. v. 9. This Apostle was then Paul the Aged, and a Prisoner of Jesus Christ. 2 Tim. 4.6. Paul says, I am ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. Ver. 16. At my first Answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me; but God stood with me, and I was delivered out of the mouth of the Lion. Philip. 4.14. The Philippians had sent a Present to supply St. Paul's Wants, and in return he says, Ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my Affliction, and supply my Wants; and prays God to bless them for their so doing. The several Texts thus collected, seem to declare to us, the State of St. Paul's Person at that time; He was Paul the A­ged, a Prisoner, under a necessitous and wanting Condition, ready to be offered up by a dolorous Death, having but lately [Page 123]escaped out of the Mouth of the Lion; and that he lay con­tinually under great Afflictions for the Church's sake, and had the Care of all the Churches lying upon him: All which Particulars considered, our Apostle had great Reason to chuse Death, rather than Life in all such Respects as did only concern himself; for that by Death, he should be de­livered from the manifold Afflictions and Tribulations, be­fore-named, and thereby attain a state of Rest and Blessed­ness in the Lord. Rev. 14.13. John heard a Voice from Heaven, commanding him to write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord; yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works do follow them. Rom. 14.8. Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we live therefore or die, we are the Lord's. Chap. 8.35. Who shall seperate us from the Love of Christ? Ver. 38. I am perswaded, that neither Death nor Life, nor Angels, nor any other Creature, shall be able to seperate us from the Love of God, which is in Christ Jesus' our Lord. Here we may observe, Life and Death are made indifferent things to Believers, such as seem neither to hinder, nor further the State or Condition of them; or to be either of them greatly desired by Christians in this World, but rather ought to be referr'd to the Will and Appointment of God. Luk. 20.38. God calls Himself, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and yet the Text says, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto him. Which to my Apprehension, proves what be­fore is said, That whether we live or die, we are the Lord's; during Life, we live and move in Him; and when we die, we rest and sleep in Him, in expectation to be raised by Him at his Second Coming. And from the Premises I Argue, That all Mr. W's Suppositions and Surmises, concerning the Soul, and the Seperate State of it, are ill grounded and un­sound. We read of many Persons, whose Conditions were so much distress'd, that with Job they have heartily desir'd [Page 124]Death, and would be ready with him to dig for it, as o­ther Men would do for hidden Treasure; the very Aged and Sickly [one of which I am] will easily be perswaded, to think Death a Gain to them, and to desire it according­ly. The present Time affords a rare Example, of a young, rich, and otherwise happy Lord, who by a Pistol Bullet took away his own Life at the Bath, meerly to rid and free him­self from such sharp Pains of the Gout and Stone, as then op­press'd him: And daily Experience assures us, that the Con­sideration and Hope of Death, is one of the greatest Sup­ports under Mens present Sufferings, and is by such Persons accordingly desired; and thus they are at apparent Agree­ment with St. Paul's Opinion, That for them to die is Gain, although their Expectations of future Happiness, may be nothing so well grounded as his was. It may be also ob­served, I have a desire to depart, and be with Christ, which is far better: Not saying, He desir'd to de­part, that he might be with Christ; but that though he did depart, he knew he should still be with Christ, so as his Departure and being with Christ, do both stand well to­gether; he had a Being with Christ, whil'st he was alive, and he doubted not of having a like Being with Christ, when he was dead; and that a more peaceable and quiet Being, than he had whil'st he was here; and therefore that Estate was the more desirable, and the more gainful. If a Person go to his Friends, or his Father's House, he may truly he said to be with such a Friend or Father, either sleeping or waking; and we know Death is compared to a Sleep, the Scripture usually calls it so; and really and tru­ly, it is no other, but a sound and lasting Sleep, to conti­nue unto the Sound of the last Trumpet, at whose Summons the Dead shall be raised; and those who are alive upon Earth, shall have their Persons changed. St. Paul does not say, that he, or any other Person, is more present with the Lord when dead, than alive; but that in both Estates, Men are [Page 125]alike present with the Lord: For, If we live, we live unto the Lord; and if we die, we die unto the Lord; so as whe­ther we live or die, we are the Lord's. Neither Death nor Life can seperate us from the Love of God in Christ Jesus. So it seems, whether we live or die, we are alike with Christ, and have no more Being with him dead, than when alive; but that in both these States we have alike Being with him. This Exposition of St. Paul's present Text, I conceive to be sound and true; and that Mr. W's is Erro­neous: For that, this my Construction applies St. Paul's Terms of I and Me, to denote and intend his whole Person, as in their proper Signification they do; whereas Mr. W. applies them, to signifie only one Part of his Person, viz. our Author's sort of Soul, concerning which, our Dispute is, Whether there is any such thing in the World, or not. Next Mr. W. takes up the Bulk of his Argument, in a Discourse concerning the Soul, its Seperate Subsistence after Death, and its enjoying Happiness in that Estate; whereas, in St. Paul's whole Text, there are no words which mention any of these things, or give us any Information concerning them, or a­ny of them. I leave therefore his Construction, as a Mi­stake of the Apostle's Meaning, and think I have Reason to conclude, That Mr. W's Argument drawn from this Text, is not a sufficient, nor a good Argument to prove the Subsi­stence of the Soul, in a State of Seperation from the Body.

The Thirteenth Argument.

PAge 100. Colos. 1.19, 20. It pleased the Father, that in him should all Fulness dwell, and (having made Peace through the Blood of the Cross) by him to reconcile all things to himself; by him I say, whether they be things in Earth, or things in Heaven.

P. 101. Mr. W. says, There were Souls of Men in Heaven, when St. Paul writ this Epistle; because the Apostle says, there [Page 126]were things in Heaven reconciled by the Blood of the Cross: But there are no such things in Heaven reconciled by the Blood of the Cross, except they be the Souls of some Holy Men that went hence: Then he expresses a Desire to know what Men can say to this Argument. And therefore I say to it, That by his own Expression it appears, he says he knows not what; for he says, He knows not that there are any other things in Heaven, which need Reconciliation to God by Christ, except Men will take these things to be the Souls of departed Persons. But if Men will not accept of this Mean­ing, then he knows not what the Apostle can mean, by things in Heaven reconciled to God by Christ: Which intends no more, than that he doth not otherways know, what the Things in Heaven reconciled to God by Christ, may mean: Which I take for a Confession, That he doth not know what Paul meant by these things in Heaven.

Secondly, I conceive he doth not know, that there are a­ny Souls in Heaven; because if he did, he should be able to make such a Demonstration, or Description of their Be­ing, and of their being there, as other Men, who are wil­ling, might be able to understand and conceive. He hath taken Pains to write this Treatise, and therein hath already produced Thirteen Arguments in Proof of this Tenet, but very unsuccessfully, as those who peruse these Observations will easily discover. The Perusers of this Argument, will I think easily find, That Mr. W. must have Two Things grant­ed him, before he can pretend to prove any thing by this Argument. First, That there are no things in Heaven, which need Reconciliation to God, unless Men will admit, that Humane Souls are there. And therefore, Secondly, he would perswade Men to admit of his Position, That there are Souls in Heaven. But I think fit to reject both these Proposals, and say, First, That there may be other Things in Heaven, besides Souls, which may need a Reconciliation to God by Christ. And Secondly, to conceive, that possibly, or even [Page 127]probably, there are not, nor ever were, any Humane Souls in Heaven, nor in any other Place in the World, except in their own proper and peculiar Bodies. Here Mr. W. puts another slight Objection against his own Opinion, and an­swers it.

P. 102. Mr. W. demands, If there be any things else in Hea­ven, besides the Souls of Men, which need a Reconciliation to God, What are those things? I Answer, I do not know what those things are; and alike Confession of his Ignorance con­cerning this Subject, would better have become Mr. W. than his groundless Guesses, at what is meant in this Text, by St. Paul's Expression, of Things in Heaven; and the sup­plying his Ignorance therein, by a bold but Erroneous Guess, That by Things in Heaven, St. Paul intended the Seperate Souls of Men, of which the Text makes no mention at all; and his Supposal, that there were Seperate Souls, hath no better Foundation than his own Supposal, which hath very little Power to convince intelligent Persons, That Humane Souls have any sort of Subsistence in a state of Seperation from the Body.

The Fourteenth Argument.

PAge 102. Heb. 12.23. We are come to the Spirits of just Men made perfect. Mr. W. begins this Argument, with somewhat a long Comparison between the Law and the Gospel, which makes little to our Point, and therefore I pass it over.

P. 104. Mr. W. says (as he is very apt to do) That the Souls or Spirits of Men, are Immortal; and therefore it is a very great Truth that they are Immortal; And adds, Those Souls which the Gospel reveals to be alive out af their Bodies, are thereby proved to be Immortal; but the Gospel reveals that the Souls of just Men are alive out of their Bodies; therefore the Souls of Men are alive out of their Bodies; therefore the [Page 128]Souls of Men are Immortal. Mr. W. says, The Gospel reveal­eth, that the Spirits of just Men are alive out of their Bodies: Because the Text says they were made perfect; and there is no Perfection in Death.

P. 105. He says, We have a Right to the Society of those Spi­rits of just Men mude perfect, which we shall have in possession when we depart hence: But I find neither such Words, nor Things, in his Text, viz. That we shall come to that Soci­ety when we depart hence; so as I must repute it his own Addition to the Words of the Text, which doth not appoint the Time for our coming to that Society. I find Mr. W. has only quoted so much of this Text, as seemeth most to sup­port his own Opinion; and therefore I intend to quote it somewhat more largely. Heb. 12.22. Ye are come unto Mount Sion, and to the Heavenly Jerusalem, or City of God, to the Company of Angels, to the general Assembly and Church of the first Born; and to God the Judge of all, and to the Spirits of just Men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant. Ver. 25. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh, whose Voice (at the giving of the Law) shook the Earth; but now he hath promised, saying, yet once more I shake not the Earth only, but also Heaven; and this signifies the removal of those things which are shaken, and that we shall receive a King­dom which cannot be removed. The Words of our Text thus fully quoted, do by no means import, That Men or their Souls, shall come to the enjoyment of those things at their Deaths, as Mr. W. hath erroneously suggested, but the words of the Text run in the present Tense, Ye are come to the things which I here report to you, viz. Ye are come to the City of the Living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, to the Angels, and to the general Assembly and Church of the First Born, when not only the Earth shall be shaken, but also Heaven, and the things so shaken shall be removed. I con­ceive, that the Description here made, doth very properly denote, the Time of the Resurrection, and the great Day of [Page 129]Judgment; For at that time we are instructed by the Scrip­ture, to expect the things here mentioned: God and Christ attended by the Angels, and the Church of the First Born, consisting of Just Men, made perfect, both in their Spirits, and in their Bodies, to the City of God, or the New Jeru­salem, which St. John tells us, Shall come down from God out of Heaven, as a Bride adorned for her Husband, at, or after the time of the Resurrection; after Heaven and Earth have been shaken, and are removed. This I conceive to be the Time pointed at in this Text; and I think these Descripti­ons are not applicable to any other Time, nor hath Mr. W. mentioned any other Time for their Accomplishment, sa­ving that at Mens Death, and for which he hath no Warrant from any words of this Text; and as to the words in pre­sent, Ye are come to these Glories; I think they are most apt to intend, A coming to them by Faith, whilst we are in this World: Such a Faith, as is the Evidence of things not seen; but we have direction to hold fast our Hope and Expectation of them until the End, when we may look for a Crown, or Crowns of Life, to be then distributed to all who love our Lords Second Appearing: And then only (I conceive may we hope to be made Partakers of all that Company and Hap­piness, which in this Text are particularly recited.

And from this Exposition, the Conclusion will be easily drawn, That Mr. W's Fourteenth Argument, hath very lit­tle force to prove the Subsistence of Mens Souls in a State of Seperation from their Bodies.

The Fifteenth Argument.

PAge 108. Heb. 11.39, 40. These having all obtained a good Report through Faith, received not the Promise; God having provided some better thing for us; that they without us should not be made perfect. Hereupon Mr. W. says, This seems a very obscure Text, especially applied as a Proof of the [Page 130]Souls Immortality. To this I Agree, and Prognosticate, That the Proof which it makes of the Soul's Immortality, will fall out accordingly, viz. That it will be both very obscure and weak. Mr. W. further says, It is evident the Apostle here speaks of some special Promise that the Patriarchs had rec [...]iv'd; the fulfilling whereof they never lived to see; and which was made to appear to the Church, at, or before the writing of this Epistle. So he will have this Promise to import the Mani­festation of the Son of God in the Flesh: And he then puts the Question, How can it be said, that they who died in the Faith of this Promise, are made perfect (with the then pre­sent Church) by the fulfilling that Promise, in the Manifesta­tion of the Son of God? And thereto he Answers, That An­gels did desire to look into, and be better inform'd in this My­stery, until Christ came in the Flesh, and proved himself by Miracles, to be the Messiah; and then their Knowledge there­of was perfected. And he says, The Case was the same with the Spirits of those deceased Patriarchs in Heaven. That there were Spirits of the deceased Patriarchs in Heaven, he ought first to have proved, as the very Point which is now dispu­ted between us: that he here offers to suppose it as a Truth, seems to be a clear begging of the Question, which I must refuse to grant him; and then this whole Argument be­comes Abortive, and can proceed no farther.

P. 112. Mr. W. says, Till you that oppose, can give me a better Interpretation of this obscure Text, I will Conclude, that the Interpretation [or Opinion] is false, and mine is true. I Answer, That Mr. W. may conclude what he pleases, from his unproved, and only supposed Premises; but that can be no Argument to others, for their Agreement with his Sup­posals: And therefore I am very apt to Conclude, That there is neither Truth nor Force in this Argument.

The Sixteenth Argument.

PAge 112 1 Pet. 3.19, 20. By which also he went and preached to the Spirits in Prison, which sometime were dis­obedient in the Times of Noah. Hereupon Mr. W. says, He waves the Interpretation which the Papists make of this Text: And gives you another of his own, which agrees better with the Reformed Churches; and then says, These Spirits in Pri­son which Christ preached to, must be taken to intend the Souls of wicked Men in Hell: Which I may not suffer to pass for a Truth, before he have proved Three other Points, First, That there are such Seperate Souls of Men in rerum natura. Secondly, That there is in Being, such a Local Hell, as he supposes the Devils and wicked Persons now to be in; and that such a Place there was in the Time of Noah. Thirdly, That our Lord in the Time of Noah, did go into the Local Hell, and preach to the Spirits there imprisoned: And when these Preliminaries are well proved by him, I will better consider his Argument, and give him a further Answer to it. In the mean time, I quote to him, 2 Pet. 2.4. God cast the Angels that sinned, down to Hell, and delivered them into Chains of Darkness, to be reserved into Judgment. Jude 6. The wicked Angels God hath reserved in Chains of Darkness, unto the Judgment of the Great Day. I do not know any other Text of Scripture, which speaks of Spirits in Prison, but these Two; which also tell us what these Spirits were, and where their Prison was, but takes no notice of any Souls that were there; nor doth any other Text of Scrip­ture make mention of any Seperate Souls being there. The Parable of Dives speaks of his Soul being there, but not in Soul only; for there he is described as in his Person, having Eyes, Mouth, Tongue and Hands; for which Reason, it must pass, not for a History, but for a Parable, as it doth: And the force of proving by it, is now, as before rejected. [Page 132]I do not know, why the Preaching here mentioned, may not be intended to the lapsed Angels remaining under Chains of Darkness: And however that may fall out, I conceive it cannot be applied to the Seperate Souls of Men; because I have not yet met with any sound and good Proof, That such Souls ever did, or can naturally subsist in a State of Seperation from their Bodies.

The Seventeenth Argument.

PAge 115. Rev. 6.9, &c. I saw under the Altar, the Souls of them that were slain for the Word of God; and they cryed with a loud Voice, saying, How long, O Lord, Holy and True, doest thou not avenge our Blood on them that dwell on the Earth? And white Robes were given to every one of them, and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their Fellow Servants also, and Brethren that should be killed, as they were, should be fulfilled.

Mr. W. says, Learned Men do differ about this Altar; some take it for the Altar of Incense, and some for the Altar of Burnt-offerings, which I take to be a Dispute de Lana Caprina.. And he confesses it makes not much to our Business, whether the one or the other. He says, It is as clear, That John saw the Souls of them that were slain: And I think as clear, That John did not see the things here mentioned, but that they were represented to him in a Trance, or Transport of his Mind; and it would have made much to the ending of our Dispute, if he had declared to us what manner of things those Souls were which he saw; what were their Shapes, their Substances, and their ordinary Cloathing, as well as the Place of their Abode.

P. 116. Mr. W. says, That by the Souls under the Altar, are intended the Martyrs dead Bodies: And pretends, in Scripture, Souls are divers times taken for Dead Bodies, which I see no Cause to agree with.

He himself thinks it very improper to present the slain with white Robes whilst under the Altar, and therefore he will have the Scheme now chang'd; for what should dead Carcasses (says he) do with Robes; and therefore those which at first sight appear'd to be dead Carcasses, he sets now at full Liberty, and in a Capacity to receive tri­umphant Robes. And upon this Foundation he builds his Argument; and says, if the Souls of the Martyrs are tri­umphing in Joy and Glory, then are they not Mortal, nor did die with their Bodies, but the Souls of the Martyrs are triumphing in Heaven; in proof whereof he says, Those which had white Robes given them, are triumphing in Heaven, but the Souls of the Slain had white Robes given them, there­fore they are triumphing. And thus he proceeds in this Ar­gument, as he hath done in the four or five last before; he makes Construction of his Text upon Conjectures, then Collects from such Constructions what he thinks will best serve his Turn, and makes sueh Inferences thereupon as he pleases: First, he says, The Souls which were seen under the Altar were dead Bodies, and this I see to be only his own Conjecture. Next he says, That between the Souls crying out, and their being rewarded with white Robes, the Souls were drawn from under the Altar and set at Liberty, and then received their white Robes, and remained trium­phing in Glory. I know not what other Ground he had for these Assertions, save his own Conjectures only; and I think there is no manner of Ground for either of them, conceiving that there was no Reality in this Vision; nei­ther Altar, nor Souls, nor dead Bodies, nor Robes, but that these were all Symbolically represented to St. John, in a Trance or Transport of his Mind, and therein we may find verified the Old Proverb; saying, of Nullum simile est Idem; for as these things have some Similitude with what was intended to be represented, so there are great Unlike­lihoods of and Dissimilitudes between the things which [Page 134]were intended to be represented by them; the Unlikeness or Dissimilitudes in this representation are principally three, viz. First, In the Ʋbi of these Souls, or place where they were seen. Secondly, In their Habits or manner of Cloathing. And Thirdly, In the subject matter of their Prayers to God. Their Ʋbi, or place where John saw them, was under the Altar; we read, Exod. 27.1. The Altar of Burnt Offerings was to be made five Cubits long and five Cubits broad, which I conceive to be next our measure of three Yards square, and three Cubits high, a little more then one Yard and half high. Vers. 8. Hollow with Boards shalt thou make it, and thou shalt overlay it with Brass, and thou shalt make for it a Net work of Brass. If we shall but a little consider the Nature and Darkness of such a little Hole as the hollowness of this Altar could afford; it seems we cannot but stand convinced, that Thousands of Souls cast or crouded into that dark Prison, were far from en­joying such a state of Happiness as Men are commonly ac­customed to ascribe to them; and therefore Mr. W. takes upon him to set at Liberty, without any Warrant from the Text for his so doing. Secondly, The Habits which the Text says were bestowed on them, seems needless for Souls, and specially for such Souls as were crouded toge­ther in that manner. If they were loose Robes like Sur­plesses, the Hole under that Altar could hardly contain the Thousands of such Robes which might happen to be used upon that Occasion; and if they were close Robes and fitted to their Shapes, I doubt it would puzzle all our Taylors; and the large Invention of Mr. W. to find out Ways and Means of fitting our Souls with such Robes as might rightly be accommodated to the Shapes of such Spi­rits. Thirdly, The subject matter of the Prayers which these Souls offer'd to God, seems very different from, and somewhat opposite to the tenor of the Gospel. Matth. 5. 44. Our Lord in his large Sermon on the Mount, says, Love [Page 135]your Enemies, Bless them that Curse you, do Good to them that Hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. 1 Cor. 4.12. Being Reviled we suffer it, be­ing Persecuted we bless; and we find that what our Lord and his Disciples taught in this Point, they practised: Our Lord at his departure pray'd for his Persecutors, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do; and St. Ste­phen in like manner, at the time of his Death, prayed, Lord lay not this Sin to their Charge. So as it seems, this crying with loud Voices to God for Vengeance on their Persecu­cutors, was contrary both to the Doctrine and Practice of the Gospel; whence we may reasonably conjecture, that the things related in this Text were not Real, but Symbo­lical or Typical, representing or shadowing such things as should be made known by that Prophesie; for the de­claring whereof I think fit to produce another Exposition which Mr. W. has before given us. He says, That by Souls in this Text, we must understand dead Carcasses to be meant. I say, We must understand dead Persons to be meant, it being very usual in Scripture to intend or signifie Persons by the Name or Term of Souls; as when Jacob went down into E­gypt, the Persons of his Family are termed so many Souls, and in St. Paul 's Voyage to Italy, there were in the Ship that carryed him 276 Souls, which in this place are ex­press'd; 40 by the Terms [...] and in our quoted Text by the same Term [...]. I saw un­der the Altar the Souls of the Martyrs: And hence I insist, that the same Term or word of Souls, which intends Per­sons in St. Paul's Voyage, may very likely intend Persons in St. John's Vision, and thence put into proper Terms, it may be read, I say under the Altar, the Persons of them that were slain for the word of God. And if this Sense may be accepted, and the whole Vision taken for Typical, the three fore-named Differences or Difficulties will be ea­sily reconciled and made stand together. To the first I [Page 136]say, That by these Persons being under the Altar, was in­tended to be Typified, the State of those slain Persons, and the Care which God had of them; they were as safe in their Beings, as if they had been lodged under guard of the Altar of E [...]nt Offerings; and were as near to God, and as much under his Care and Protection, as if they had lain in the Court of his Sanctuary, and under the Shadow and Covert of his Holy Altar. Secondly, The white Robes which were given to each of them, seem to Typifie (as St. John expresseth it) the Righteousness of Saints, and the Innocence of their Lives upon Earth; their Works having been washed and made clean with the Blood of the Lamb; and as often as these came in remembrance before God, the Persons might be said to receive white Robes, every time that such Remembrance of them was renewed, and the Re­wards consequent thereunto Considered, viz. their Accep­tance and Salvation at the General Day of Judgment. Thirdly, Concerning the Prayers or Cries of these Souls for Vengeance upon their Persecutors: Mr. W. and I, are hotb agreed, that they made no other Cry in this Text, then the Blood of Abel made to God for Vengeance on his Murtherer; and I conceive there was no real Prayer or Cry in either of these Cases, but that God himself had taken special Notice in both these Cases, and that when­soever they came before him hy Remembrance or any sort of Re-presentation, his Intention always continued firm to take Vengeance for those Facts, upon all those who had therein acted, and continued in such wicked Practices (without Saving Repentance) until the time of their Deaths.

I have Inclinations to think that this Exposition of our proving Text, is more sound and true than that which Mr. W. hath before made of it; and hence I think the Consequence will be very clear, That Mr. W's Argument [Page 137]drawn from this Text, is not a sufficient nor a good Ar­gument to prove the Separate Subsistence of Souls.

The Eighteenth Argument.

PAge 118. Rev. 14.13. Blessed are the Dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth, yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their Labours, and their Works do follow them.

P. 119. Mr. W. says, By Blessedness in this Text, must needs be meant Happiness, and all Happiness implies Joy, and all Joy implies Life; and when he has rais'd Blessedness in this manner, he infers from the Word henceforth, that it must Commence presently upon the death of the Person; wrest­ing the signification of the Words, from Henceforth, which do properly signifie (from the time of that Prophesie, to signi­fie) the time of every Man's Death, which I do not find to be mentioned or intended by the Text: And he adds, The meaning of the Text being thus opened, he seems to di­rect his following Discourse, only to those who will ac­cept the true Sense of the Text to be as he hath opened it; and to them he thus argues: If the Dead in the Lord do from the time of their being dead, commence a Blessedness, not only in resting from their Labours, but likewise in being re­warded for their Works, then do they continue to live in some part of them, which is their Spirits, and consequently their Spirits die not with their Bodies, but are Immortal.

P. 120. Mr. W. offers to us, That this Blessedness is said by the Spirit to be given from the time of Mens Deaths, this he collects from the signification of the Words from Hence­forth; as if that intended from the time of their Death's, whereas it appears in this Text to intend no more, but that from the time of this Prophesie; the Dead which die in the Lord, shall have a blessed Rest; and their Works do follow them.

P. 121. Then Mr. W. pretends, That the dead Saints do not only enjoy a blessed Rest, but that they also enter upon, and enjoy Rewards for their Works, as soon as they are dead; but I find no Ground for this Opinion in the Text, but conceive he thought it was there, because he had a great Mind it should be there, as a thing that would have done him more Service than any thing that he can find in the Text besides.

Mr. W. says further, If no Rewards of active Happiness and Joy followed immediately after Death, it would be won­derful the Spirit of God should pronounce a Blessedness on such as die in the Lord, above those who live on Earth in the Lord; and this would be contrary to the Sense of all God's People, and specially to the Sense of such as Administer Com­fort to dying Persons from this Topick, by telling them, that immediately after Death their Souls shall by Angels be trans­ported into Heaven, or Paradise, or Abraham's Bosome, or some such Place, where they shall not only be at rest, but have present Joys and Happiness conferr'd upon them; and I grant that if such Doctrine prove otherwise than true, many Persons may have been deceived of their confident Ex­pectations, and more may still in future happen so to be. And therefore I think it needful to take further Considera­tion, and so make a stricter Scrutiny concerning the Truth of this Doctrine, than in former Times and Ages hath been commonly done amongst Men. Mr. W. says, He thinks there are none of God's People, who would not rather chuse to live upon Earth tho' under Persecution, then to die and be buried in the Earth; He says it is evident, That from the time of dying, the Saints are blessed with Rewards for their Work, as well as from their Labour. I reply, I am very sorry that I am not able to find in this Text an Ar­gument, (or any of his former) the thing which he says is so evident; intending I presume to himself, and some such other Persons as may be strongly fixed in his Opinion and [Page 139]Belief touching this Point, concerning which; and this Text, I intend to make a little more large Examination. The Words therefore are, And I heard a Voice from Hea­ven, saying unto me write, Blessed are the Dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth, yea saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their Labours, and their Works do follow them. I do not find in this Text any Words which sig­nifie or import that Men shall be rewarded for their Works presently after Death, otherwise than by a Blessed Rest from their Labours. It is said indeed, That their Works do follow them, but there is no time mention'd when they shall overtake them: And I desire Mr. W. and his Party, from henceforth, that they will cease from perverting the Sense of the Word from Henceforth in this Text, by applying its Energy to the time of Mens Deaths, whereas in the words of our Text, it stands clearly apply'd to the time when this Prophesie was revealed to St. John; and whereas Mr. W. says, That none of Gods Saints upon Earth would willingly embrace Death, but rather chuse a longer Life upon Earth, (altho' under a state of great Persecution) if they did not ex­pect Heavenly Rewards presently upon the death of their Per­sons; and he says, You shall never perswade People to a con­tented departure out of this World, by telling them they shall presently enjoy a blessed Rest in the Lord, and therefore they must be told of, and perswaded to expect Glorious Rewards in Heaven presently after their passing out of this World. I confess thereupon, that Mens mistakes upon this Account may be very great, and very universal, but do by no means believe the first part of his Assertion, viz. that there are no Saints or People upon Earth, who are willing to ac­cept of Death, whensoever God shall appoint it to come upon them, under a great contentment of Mind, and the Satisfaction which they may receive from this Text, That they shall have a blessed Rest in the Lord, safe from all the Temptations and Tribulations of this World, and from [Page 140]the Power and Malice of wicked Men and Spirits; expecting thereby to be delivered from Pains and Sicknesses, Po­verty, Oppression, Imprisonments, Banishments, and ma­ny other Miseries, which during this Life may be inflicted upon them by outward and inward Maladies and Suffer­ings; and then also to be set at Liberty, and made free from all Temptations, Allurements, and Provocations to Sin; which by the World, and the wicked Men and Spirits of it, may be offered to them. And Lastly, from the wicked Inclinations of their own Hearts, and the traiterous and deceitful Dealing which they too often find therein; sub­jecting them by strong Inclinations to prosecute that Ni­mium, or excess of their Affections and Lusts, to which all Mankind are strongly inclin'd by the bent of that Nature which I think God planted in them at the very Creation of our first Parents; to such Ends and Purposes as are best known to his Godly Wisdom. That some of the best of God's Servants have desired Death for the very Avoid­ing of Worldly Troubles and Sufferings, may thus be pro­ved, Numb. 11.15. Moses was very highly grieved with the bitter Complaints that the Jews made against him, for bringing them out of Egypt into a Barren and Deso­late Wilderness, and expostulates thereupon with God, That the Burthen of providing for all this People was too heavy for him, so as he was not able to bear it; and thereupon says to God, If thou deal thus with me, kill me I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight, and let me not see my Wretchedness. 1 Kings 19.4. The Prophet Elijah received a Message from Jezebel, that he should the next day be slain; upon which Message he fled for safety of his Life into the Wilderness of Judah, and there sat him down under a Juniper-Tree, and requested of God for himself that he might die; and said, it is enough now, O Lord, take away my Life, for I am not better than my Fathers. Job 3.11. Job's Sufferings are famous in the World, and [Page 141]need not be specified, and this Text and Chapter eviden­ces the great desire he had to obtain a speedy Death, as the great Remedy for all his Sufferings; He wishes to have died from the Womb, for then says he, should I now have lain still and been at quiet, I should have slept; then had I been at rest with Lords and Princes, or as a hidden un­timely Birth; for the Great and Small are there: there the wicked cease from Troubling, there the weary be at rest; wherefore is Life given to him that is in misery and bitter­ness of Soul, which long for Death but it cometh not, and dig for it more than for hidden Treasure? which rejoyce exceed­ingly, and are glad when they can find the Grave. By these and the like Instances, we may perceive that Death, as a state of Rest, is preferred by the best among Men, before a state of Life subject to great Sufferings in this World, and we find it not only to be desired by Men, but to be promis'd and given by God, with intent to prevent such worldly sufferings, as would fall upon his Favourites if they should continue to live longer in the World. Isaiah 57.1. The Righteous perish­eth, and no Man layeth it to Heart, and merciful Men are taken away, none considering that the Righteous is taken a­way from the Evil to come. He shall enter into Peace: They shall rest in their Beds, each one resting in his Ʋprightness. According to this Rule we find some Examples. 1 King 14. Abijah the Son of Jeroboam was sick, and God pro­nounceth by his Prophet that he shall die, and that he on­ly of Jeroboam in Peace shall Die, be Buryed, and Mourn­ed for; because in him there is found some good thing to­wards the Lord God of Israel. After which a lamentable Affliction should fall upon the whole House of Jeroboam, no other Person whereof should come to the Grave in Peace. 2 Kings 22.20. Josiah received this Message from Hul­dah the Prophetess, that God would bring great Miseries and utter Destruction upon the Jewish Nation of those times; but that because he was in God's Favour, God will [Page 142]gather thee unto thy Fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy Grave in Peace, and thy Eyes shall not see all the Evil which I will bring upon this Place: whence it seems, God by his Death did intend him the Benefit of being delivered by Death, from the greatest Sufferings and Calamities which were intended to fall upon his Kingdom, soon af­ter this time; and which accordingly took Commence­ment from his Death. Philip. 1.21. Paul says, To me to live is Christ, and to die is Gain, and I have a desire to de­part, and be with Christ which is far better; yet my living in the Flesh is more needful for you: and this put him in a strait which to chuse, Death he knew was better for him, but his Life might be more helpful to them: And the rea­son why Death was better for him, seems to have risen from the Troubles, Wants, and other Afflictions, which he suffer'd in the World, and yet had great assurance of a Blessed Rest in the Grave, and that there was laid up for him a Crown of Righteousness, which God the Righ­teous Judge would give him at that Day, and not to him only, but to all those that love Christ's appearing, [and wait for his second coming] and so Paul prays for one Onesiphorus, that he may find Mercy of God in that day: And so John 6. Our Lord repeats it four times, That those who serve him, shall be rais'd up [to a state of Happiness] at the last Day; whence those who die in such a State or Condition, are freed from the Labour of working out their own Salvation, with Fear and Trembling; and such as now think they stand from the Fear and Danger of fal­ling: And for these Reasons, to die and to be with Christ, in the Sense of resting or sleeping in him, is better and more eligible than to live in Christ in the World, and specially in an afflicted and suffering Condition. And, conclude from my Argument before rehearsed, that the Eighteenth Argu­ment or Mr. W. is not a sufficient nor a good Argument to prove the Souls Separate Subsistence.

P. 122. Mr. W. farther quotes, Acts 1.25. The A­postles appointed two persons of their Company, and cast Lots upon, to decide which of them should be put into the Rank of the other Eleven Apostles; and thereupon they prayed to God and said, Thou Lord which knoweth the Hearts of all Men, shew whether of these thou past chosen; That he may take part of this Ministry and Apostle­ship, from which Judas by Transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth thiir Lots, and the Lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbred with the Eleven Apostles. Mr. W. applies the Words, that he might go to his own Place, unto the Person of Judas, which he says, intends into Hell, and not only into the Grave, because every Man goes thither as well as he. I answer, That if Mr. W. think truly an infinite number of other Persons go to Hell as well as Judas, and therefore Hell is no more the proper place of Judas than the Grave may be. Se­condly, I say, That altho' the Grave be a place of Rest and Blessedness to those that die in the Lord, yet to those who die in a state of Enmity with him, the Approaches of Death seem terrible, and the Grave is not a sufficient shel­ter for them, from the wrath of God and of the Lamb, when Christ shall come to give Judgment upon the quick and dead. Thirdly, It seems the very words of the Text, do naturally require a different Construction from that which Mr. W. hath put upon them, by applying the words, might go to his own Place, unto the Person then to be chosen, who might with assurance go to his own Place of a Twelfth Apostle, into which by Lot he should then be chosen; and Matthias we read did go to his own place, and was numbred with the other Eleven Apostles. I do not know whether Dr. Hammond apply the words af­ter this manner or not, but if he do, I think he is in the right of it, and give my Consent thereunto. And thus it seems to me, no reasonable Argument can hence be [Page 144]drawn to prove the Souls Separate Subsistence. Mr. W. for further proof of his Opinion, quotes Jude 7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Cities about them, in like manner, giving themselves over to Fornication, are set forth for an Example, suffering the Vengeance of Eternal Fire. Hereupon Mr. W. says, This Text intends the Suf­ferings of the Sodomites Souls after Death: I answer, that to those who already believe there are Souls so suffering, Mr. W's. Sense of the Words may be well enough admit­ted, but to those who stand unconvinc'd of Mens Souls suffering soon after their Deaths, this saying seems to have no strength of Proof in it; for they will expound it o­therways, and say, that for the wickedness of the People, those Cities, and the whole plain of Sodom do suffer the Vengeance of Eternal Fire; they did so at the time of that Destruction, and they do so still, and are likely so to continue to the end of the World, turn'd into a Sulphureous and Bitumenous Lake, the matter whereof is apt to take Fire upon all occasions; and as to the word Eternal, we find it in Scripture divers times used, to signifie things of a very long Continuance; as the Priesthood of Aaron, the Royalty of David, the Establishment of Jerusalem, their being establish'd for ever: And yet we have seen them all destroy'd long ago. And hence I infer, that no good Argument can be taken from his last quoted Text, for proof of the Souls Separate Subsistence.

With this Quotation Mr. W. closes Eighteen or Twenty Arguments for proof of the Souls Separate Subsistence, to each of which I have given a distinct Answer, and such as doth very well satisfie my own Understanding, with submission therein to the judgment of such intelligent Persons as may happen to peruse both our Endeavours, for the proof and disproving of our Apprehensions in this Question.

P. 123. Mr. W. here proceeds in his endeavour to main tain the Souls Seperate Subsistence, by inferring absurd Con­sequences from the other Opinion of the Souls extinguish­ment at the Death of the Person.

P. 123. Mr. W. thinks it an absurd Belief, that Men should suffer for their Sins no more than Temporal Death; but says, If his Soul have not a Seperate Subsistence, he can suffer no more than a Temporal Death, except we had Ground to believe a Resurrection of the Body, of which the Scripture is silent, and we likewise deny it. I say to this, that I do not therein apprehend his Meaning: I cannot believe that he intended to deny the Resurrection of the Dead, which I offer as a full Answer to his pretended Absurdity; and tho' in words he denies it, yet I cannot conceive his mean­ing to be so.

P. 124. Mr. W. says secondly the same things which he said before in his first, and must have the same Answer, viz. That the Resurrection of the Person removes and and al­ters all this second pretended Absurdities.

P. 125. Thirdly, Mr. W. says, The Beasts are Sick, and Groan and Die for Man's Sin or Sinfulness; I reply, That I cannot grant him this; conceiving, that if Man had not sin­ned, yet the Beasts should have been sick, and groaned and dy­ed, as well and as much as they do now; and the Doctrine of the Resurrection is a full Answer to this pretended Absurdity.

His Fourth pretended Absurdity is to be answer'd after the same manner.

His pretended Fifth Absurdity is answer'd by the Resur­rection, as before is said.

P. 126. Mr. W. says, That without a Revelation from God, concerning the Resurrection of the whole Man, Men could not expect the Rewards or Punishments after Death, unless their Souls have a Seperate Subsistence; and this I am ready to agree to him, and if there be no Resurrection, I do also agree, that Men have been very much deceived in their Expectation of Recompences after this Life; and [Page 146]that upon the supposal of no Resurrection, they have been Wiser who indulg'd themselves in their Pleasures, than those who have restrained their Appetites, in considerati­on of Recompences expected after this Life. 1 Cor. 15.19. If in this Life only we have hope in Christ, we Christi­ans are of all Men most miserable; but the Dead shall rise as certainly as Christ was rais'd, and if these Resurrections of Christ and the Dead be not both true, then all Christian Religion is Vain, and all those who are fallen asleep in Christ are Perished.

P. 127. He says, If the Heathens had no reason to believe the Immortality of the Soul, and had no Revelation at all of a Resurrection given them; how then says Mr. W. Could they be brought to a Reformation in their Manners? I put the Question concerning the Gospel of Christ; If there be no Name given under Heaven by which Men can be saved, but that of Jesus Christ, and the vastest numbers of Men in the World never heard of that Name, and other vast Numbers who have heard of it, do not yet believe it, nor have the Faith propounded to them in such manner as they have reason to believe it; I may demand of Mr. W. what shall become of all these People? as well as he demands of me, How Men should order themselves, who ne­ver had the Resurrection revealed to them? And I think, that in both these Cases alike, Men must order their Works according to the best of their Knowledge, and God will make such Allowances to them, as their Cases may require.

P. 127. Mr. W. pretends to perswade Men, That the World hath been kept in Awe, by pretence of Recom­pence after this Life; whereas the Scripture tells us, the Patriarchs as well as the Jews, under the Mosaical Law, were more practically good, and had fewer great Faults among them, when they had lived under the Discipline of Earthly Rewards and Punishments, than they had in succeeding and later Ages, when the Opinion of the Souls Immortality began to be received and spread amongst [Page 147]them; and therefore it seems there is not that need of his Opinion concerning the Souls Seperate Subsistence as he by this Discourse pretends to make Men believe.

Mr. W's second Chain of Absurdities.

P. 128. He says, His Opposers pretends the Spirit of Life in Man or his Soul, to be but a fine Temperament of Moisture, Air and Fire, very near of Kin, and sutable to the Temperament of the Body: and this he says, is very con­sistent with their Principles; and I agree, that what he says is true in this Point. This Mr. W. opposes; by saying First, If things were so, then Adam's Soul might have been crea­ted of the Dust as well as his Body. I reply, not so, but there was required Moisture, Air and Fire, to suppie and actuate that Dust of which his Body was framed, which brought the steems of Life in the Body to such a ripeness and pullulation, as by the breathing a Breath of Life into him, became instantly inflamed; and by Respiration must eve­ry Moment be fanned by that Breath which continues in Man's Blood and Humours, and the Spirits thereof that flame and glowing, whose total Extinguishment is the death of the Person; and this by want of Respiration become instantly suffocated and extinguished, which (as hath been said) is the death of the Person.

P. 129. He says, He hath opened in his first Argument what this breathing into Man intends, and refers his Readers thither again for the Knowledge of it; and I refer again unto the Answer thereunto given.

Secondly, He says, That such a Soul as his Opposers be­lieve, is subject in its parts to Division, Dissipation, and Corruption; which I agree to him. Mr. W. says, That from thence it will follow, that all God's Threats denounced against Sinners, is but to keep those inflam'd Particles of the Blood in order; but I say, Those Threats are pronounced to keep Mens Persons and their Actions in such a regular Or­der, and that the Reports and Belief of the Day of Judg­ment [Page 148]are effectual upon the Persons of Men, whose Bo­dies will then be as able to indure the Fire as their Souls.

Another. Secondly, Mr. W. says, That such a Tempera­ment of Soul cannot offend God, because it is Material and Senseless; and this I agree to him: and say, That it is nei­ther the Body nor the Soul singly, that doth or can offend God, but it is the Compositum of these made Intelligent, or the Person made Intelligent, which can and doth too often offend God; and by Mr. W's Pretence in this place, he seems to insinuate, That God cannot produce Intelligence, by his wise Commixture of Material Agents and Patients, which hath before been disputed; and I have declared my self thereupon, that God can produce Intelligence by a most Wise and Artificial commixture of Material Agents and Pati­ents acted by Motion, which must be continually supplied from Nutriment, which God out of the ambient World and Air hath continually produced in abundance for that purpose; and when by Famine or want of Nutriment it draws no supplies, the Persons who suffer it die in multi­tudes.

P. 130. Mr. W. repeats, That our sort of Material Soul cannot love or fear God, nor understand what it self doth: which is a thing which I have all along granted and asser­ted, as I do here; agreeing that such things are not com­portant either with the Soul or Body, but with the Per­son only.

P. 131. He pretends that there is something in Man that is the principal Seat of Regeneration. This I oppose, by saying as before, That the whole Man or Person is so, and not only part of his Compositum singly taken: What he says more, flows out of the abundance of his own Heart, and seems (to me) to be very groundlesly spoken. Fifthly, Mr. W. says, That the Contentions between the Flesh and Spirit in Man, cannot be maintained by the Natural dif­ference between a Material Soul, and the Body wherein it re­sides; [Page 149]I agree this to him, Answering, That all these Con­tests between the Flesh and Spirit, signifie no more than that continual War which Men feel in themselves, between the Power of Reason in their Minds, and the Lustful Desire of their Affections and Passions. Aristotle tells us, There is no end of this War but Death, and no certainty which shall obtain a clear Victory till that time; and when St. Paul says that these War against the Soul, the word Soul must there be intended to signifie the Person, or the good of the whole Man; and yet I do agree what he af­ter says to be true, That the Rational and Affective Facul­ties, spring both from the same Root or Composition of Mankind, and are both supported by the same Breath and Nourishment, and yet the Faculties themselves are diffe­rent, and are commonly at strife one with another; and as we daily see, Love and Hatred, Joy and Sorrow, sub­sisting together in one same Person.

Mr. W's Philosophical Absurdities, which he says flow from the Opinion of the Souls Materiality.

P. 132. He says, If the Soul be Material, it will follow, that Mens faculties of Reason, Intellect and Memory, are seat­ed in a Corporeal Elementary Substance; but it is very evi­dent says he, That none of these faculties can be immediately seated in any Corporeal Elementary Substance; answering, I deny the Evidence of what he says, but apply all these Facul­ties to the Person in which they all certainly are, produced by the wisdom of God, acted by Motion, and supported and continued by Nourishment and Breath; and therefore the Spirit of Life in Man may be Material, notwithstanding Mr. W's asserting the contrary.

P. 133. Mr. W. says, These Faculties cannot be acted by a Material Substance; but he finds these Faculties in him­self, and therefore they must be acted in Men by a Spiritual Substance. This seems to intend, that when Men cannot at­tain [Page 150]to know the reason by which, or the manner how strange things are done, they are apt to fly to the refuge of Spirits for the doing of them; an erroneous course which hath been very often used in the World: but I re­fuse to Mr. W. the use which he pretends to make of it in this Argument, and do assure, that I receive no manner of conviction from it.

P. 135. Mr. W. says, I find a power in me of Sensation, as Seeing, Hearing, ctc. but none of these Faculties are seated in a Substance purely Elementary. I demand then, how come the Brutes by these, which they have in as great perfecti­on as Men have them?

He thinks no Man will say it is possible to make a Sen­sible House by all the Art that Men can use about it; and this I grant: but if Men should say it is possible for God to make a Sensible House, I should have no Inclinations to deny it; believing that to be altogether as as feasible, as to make a Camel go through the eye of a Needle. With Men and to their Understandings, all such things are impos­sible, but not with God. I think it impossible for the Art or Industry of Man to make and give Life to a Mouse, a Flie, a tuft of Grass, or a Flower. The Art of the whole World hath never yet been able to produce such Creatures, and to put Life into them; and how then dare such weak Writers compare their Knowledge and Skill with that of the Great Creator, and pretend to say, That he who made all things out of nothing, cannot make what he will, out of any Matter which he will make use of: and tho' I will not be so humorous, as to think it possible for Men to make a Sensible House, or any other Sensible or Living Creature whatsoever, yet I am certain, that God hath made an Infinite number of Sensible Creatures, unto whom I think Mr. W. will not think fit to communi­cate Souls of the same sort with those which he bestows up­on Mankind.

P. 135. Thirdly, Mr. W. recounts to us divers particu­lars concerning the Memory, and says that Men are not a­ble to give an account of the mode or manner of its act­ing; and I agree Mens Inabilities so to do: well but then says he, If you cannot tell me the manner of such Actions by the spirits of the Blood in the Brain, I wlll conclude it is done by the Power of an Intelligent Spirit. I reply, That if he will do so, I cannot help; but I refuse to bear him Company in that mistake, unless he can give me a better account how his Spirit accounts Memory in the Brain, and after what manner the same is performed, than I can give him concerning the Spirits of Blood acting the Brain to that purpose. I am ready to confess my Igno­rance in the later, and I shall think him as Ignorant in the former, until he shall give us a better account thereof, then hitherto hath appeared in the World.

P. 136. Fourthly, Mr. W. argues; That the Soul must needs be Immortal, because Men have a Rational Faculty, whereby they can act abundance of things here by him enu­merated, and which seem to be beyond all Capacities in the Nature of Matter it self, and all the Advantages which Hu­mane Art or Industry can give it: To this I Answer as be­fore, That altho' the nature of Matter be not proper in it self for such Productions, nor can be made to serve such purposes by the Art or Industry of Men; yet the Wisdom, Skill and Power of God, are able to produce such Effects out of Matter and Motion, as Men are not able rationally to conceive, nor it seems by Mr. W's Discourse are willing to believe. That he ascribes all these Powers to his sort of Soul, which are truly in and proper to the Person, must pass for his Common Error, and is perhaps incurable in him, because I find it so lasting, as to reach from the one end to the other; in refutation whereof, I think there has been enough already spoken, and therefore I pass over much that he hath said in this place to the same Purpose.

Mr. W's Immoralities consequent upon the Doctrine of the Souls Mortality.

P. 139. He says, That it lets Men loose to Immoralities, and gratifies bad Men and their Actions. I answer, That for the space of Thirteen Years last past, I have concei­ved this Opinion to be the more probable of the two, and yet have not found that it had any effect at all upon my Manners or the other Opinions which I before held concern­ing God and his Worship; and therefore I am not apt to believe that it will have bad effects upon other Persons, who may likewise conceive this Opinion to be the more probable. Next he says, This Opinion creates contempti­ble Thoughts of Mens Souls. I Answer, That the Con­ception of the not being of any thing, can breed no con­tempt of that which Men think hath not a Being, or not such a Being as other Men imagine. I also say, That those who think their Beings to be composed of no other things but Elemementary Matter, may yet justly have a great E­steem of themselves; as the Skilful Workmanship of God after his own Image, and endued with more excellent Faculties and Powers than any other Animal or Earthly Crateures whatsoever.

P. 140. Secondly, Mr. W. says, Belief of the Souls Mor­tality, keeps the minds of wicked Men from fearing the Tor­ments which others expect to succeed the very time of their Deaths. I Answer, That these Apprehensions do more commonly terrifie the Good and Weak, than the Bold and Wicked, both in the time of their Lives, and at the day of their Deaths; and whether it do more good or hurt in these Respects, I pretend to question. Mr. W. says, That the Doctrine of the Resurrection and the Last Judgment, may be of Consideration sufficient to terrifie wicked Persons; and yet it seems not that he is so well satisfi'd therewithal as I am, but would have the Belief of the Souls Separate Sub­sistence super-added thereunto; and I should therewith be [Page 153]contented, if the same could be any thing near so well pro­ved, as the Doctrine of the Resurrection may be.

Thirdly, Mr. W. says, The Opinion of the Souls Extin­guishment is troublesome to the Souls of good Men; a mode of speaking which I would correct, and say it is troublesome to good Men themselves, whose Hearts are in Heaven whilst they are on Earth, to whom it is grievous to think of any delay between Death and their going to God to live in Ʋnion with him. I Answer, that tho' by Error in their Belief, they may be disappointed of that expected Happiness; yet it seems they shall fare never the worse for it, nor know how much they were deceived, till the time of the Resurrection, and then their Works which follow them will be sure to overtake them, and they will receive no Detriment by that delay, which they may find in their going to God; be­cause the distance between Death and the Resurrection, is of no consideration at all to the dead Person, who shall rise as if he were then but newly fallen asleep, and be utterly unknowing and unperceiving what time hath passed over him since his Death, and whether any time hath passed over him at all or not.

Mr. W. hath used divers high and some tragical Expres­ons against his Opposers and their Opinion, in his Dis­course upon this Head, which I pass over, as not greatly significant in this Dispute.

Ancient Testimonies both of the Jews and Primitive Christians, proving the Souls Immortality.

P. 142. Thereupon Mr. W. says, That his ancient Testi­monies and the Ʋniversal Belief of the Christian Church, is no small Evidence of the Truth of that Opinion. And I a­gree this to him, that these are great Evidences of the Truth thereof, and I think them the strongest Evidences which he hath yet produced; and yet I do not conceive that they have in them a Conviction strong enough to o­blige all People to a Concurrence in that Opinion, because [Page 154]all these Evidences are resolvable into an Humane Authori­ty, upon which I have no Inclination to found such a Faith as is the Evidence of things not seen, i.e. such a Belief as concerning which, there is neither Doubt nor Question.

Mr. W. gives us here a long Testimony out of Josephus, from whence we may collect, that some Jews held one thing, and some another concerning Souls: Some thought of them, that one sort liv'd in perpetual Prison after Death, and another sort rose very shortly; and Mr. W. says, The generality of the Jews were of that Mind; and says, The Sadduces denied the Souls Immortality, and shews that Josephus was no Friend of theirs. Then Mr. W. quotes Joseph a Speaker; saying, That Mens Souls go to Heaven, and then after a certain Revolution or Period, are again commanded to live in Bodies. Another Speaker says, It is Misery to live, and not to die; for Death freeth our Souls from Prison, into their most pure and proper Place, so as whilst they are in the Body, they may properly be said to be dead; but this passes with me for a Platonick Fable, concerning which enough has been spoken. This Jew says, The Soul comes secretly into Men without being perceived, and so depart­eth from them again. I reply, De non apparentibus, & non existentibus eadem est ratio. I say also, That where ever the Blood passes freely in the Body, the Parts and Mem­bers are fresh and lively; but where Obstructions hinders the rivage of Blood from passing, the Bodily Parts and Members become withered and useless. Mr. W. concludes, It is clear that the Church of the Jews always held the Opini­on of the Souls Immortality, forgetting the Texts which I have before quoted, which prove the Patriarchal and Mo­saical Opinion to have been, That the Life of Sensative Creatures lies in their Blood, and other Opinion of the an­tient Jews hath he quoted none, till that which he seems to coll [...]ct out of the Discourse betwixt Saul and the Witch of Endor; and which I do not agree to be proving, nor do [Page 155] Job or David make any mention of Spiritual Souls; so that Solomon's Writings are the first wherein we find mention of this sort of Souls of Mr. W. In his Third Chapter, he doubts, and in his Twelfth Chapter, he says in few Words and Transiently, The Spirit returns to God who gave it; and there he is speaking of the dissolution of the humane Person; and says, The Body returns to the Dust as it was, what became of the Spirit he did not perceive; and therefore contented himself to say, The Spirit return'd to God who gave it. These are all the Arguments Mr. W. hath collected out of the Old Testament; whence I am apt to inferr, that he found no other Text in that Testament which made for his purpose; but I think fit to mind him of the History in the second of Maccabees, concerning the Martyrdom of the Seven Brothers by Antiochus; there he shall find several of them declaring the Hope they had of being restored to their mangled Limbs, at and by the Re­surrection, without mentioning their building of any Hope upon the Souls Seperate Subsistence; whence I collect, that Opinion had not yet prevailed amongst the Jews of those times. It is also true, that a Relation of this Martyrdom is subjoyned to the Works of Josephus, as if it were of his Writing; but I think the very great Verbosity of that Writing proves it to be none of his; but it relates divers Sayings of these Brothers, shewing the dependance of their Comfort upon the Souls Separate Subsistence, and its im­mediate going to Heaven; and this Difference proves to my Understanding, that the Jews had alter'd their Opini­on concerning their State after Death, between the time of the Maccabees Writing, and that wherein Josephus writ his Relation▪ if the same be truly of his Writing.

P. 145. Mr. W. begins his Quotations of the Ancient Fathers, for proof of the Souls Seperate Subsistence. I have not the opportunity of examining his Quotations with the Originals, and therefore do not find it reasonable to [Page 156]deny or question the verity of any of them, taking them therefore for veritable, I agree, they give very strong Testimony, that those Writings of the Fathers by him quo­ted, prove the Belief of the Writers to have been much consonant to his Opinion: and I proffer only this Gloss upon the last of them, viz. that of St. Ambrose, who re­members our Lord went to prepare a place for his Disci­ples, unto which I would add that which follows next after in the Text; When I have prepared fitting places for you, I will come and receive you to my Self, that where I am ye may be also. This coming of Christ, I conceive to in­tend his second coming to Judgment; and then, and not till th [...]n, that which our Lord says in this Text, may be accomplished. It seems his words quoted out of Iraeneus, do not prove the Souls immediately going to Heaven af­ter Death, but to a Paradise or place of Pleasure distinct from Heaven; and yet I allow them to be a good Proof that Iraeneus by them intends a Belief of the Souls Seperate Subsistence.

His second Author which he quotes, he calls the Author of the Responses, Apud Justin. This I do not think fit to accept as the Opinion of Justin Martyr.

Thirdly, For the saying of Polycarpus, he quotes no Author from whence he took it; whence it possibly may be taken from Baroneus.

His Fourth Quotation out of Origen seems no strong Proof, because he was a perfect Platonist, both before and after his Conversion to Christianity.

Fifthly, His Quotation out of Tertullian, speaks of such a place for the reception of departed Souls, as is far above the Infernal places, and a place of refreshment of the Souls of the Just, when they are departed out of this Life, where they shall abide to the Resurrection, yet takes it for a different place from Heaven; and I agree, it proves his Agreement to the Souls Seperate Subsistence.

His Sixth Quotation out of Cyprian, seems very full to his Purpose, that the Martyrs Souls went immediately to Heaven.

In his Seventh Quotation concerning the Oration of Constantine, I find no Expression in it that proves strongly for him, save that Emperour's discoursing concerning the Souls Immortality; upon which I think he might very well dispute, without making any certain Conclusion thereupon.

His Eighth Quotation out of Gregory Nyssen, seems to me partly Platonick.

Ninthly, What Prudentius says, seems but to be ren­dring the Parable of Dives in Verse.

Tenthly, Gregory Naz. who calls the Body and this Life the Prison of the Soul, follows therein the Platonick Doctrine.

P. 152. Mr. W. says, He has thus given us the Judg­ment of the Primitive Church, for the Four first Centuries of it, which is no small Argument of the Truth of the Souls Im­mortality; and of the same Opinion have the Christian Churches continued throughout the World: and therefore Men must have very strong Arguments if they hope to prevail in rejecting this Opinion. I answer, and grant that this Ar­gument is good and strong for the proving of his Opini­on; and seems to be of more Power and Strength than all that he hath said before for the maintaining of it; but yet I do not perceive that Strength in it which may be a­ble to support his Tenet against those Reasons and those Scriptures which may be brought against the Rationality and Truth of it; and of which I intend to make a short detail when I come to his following Head, where he makes and delivers Objections against his own Doctrine.

P. 152. Mr. W. begins to relate certain Sayings or Speeches of Reformed Martyrs, who it seems died in the Opinion of the Souls Seperate Subsistence; which may be admitted [Page 158]to add some small Strength to his former Arguments drawn from the Opinion of the more Ancient Fathers. I do not find it strange that Men should retain to the end of their Days divers Opinions which they had before im­bibed in their Youth, and by their Education hath been radicated in them; especially such as do not appear to have an evil effect upon their Practices. And I think that divers Learned Men, of most high Esteem, even in the Primitive and Apostolical Churches, have delivered some Doctrines to their Disciples, which upon strict examinati­on may be found inconsonant to the stream or current of Scripture, and the natural reason of Mankind; which Doctrines I conceive the Writers of them did believe to be true, upon the ground of such Tradition as they had re­ceived, and which by Education and Custom had ob­tain'd an absolute assent of their Minds in such Cases. And tho' I shall here name only the Millenary Opinion, yet if I thought fit here to digress, to that purpose, I could add divers other particulars thereunto.

P. 153. Mr. W. proceeds to make farther Proof of his Opinion by some Representations in Dreams, and others in Shades or Shadows of Persons departed, unto which I have in a former Treatise made Answer, that I do not de­ny there may be verity in divers of those Relations, and yet I do not conceive any thing of that kind hath ever been performed by departed Souls; thinking it probable that there are no such Beings in the World: but I am wil­ling to ascribe such Actions to the Powers and Performan­ces of inferiour Spirits, without pretending to determine whether good or bad; and that they jussu aut permissu su­periorum, do represent and act according as the occasions wherein they are imploy'd may require.

P. 158. Mr. W. produces divers Objections, which he says, are made against the Souls Seperate Subsistence, a­mounting to the Number of Fourteen, divers of which I [Page 159]a gree not to be very material, and tho' I intend to men­tion each of them, that I may not seem to disregard any thing that he hath Written, yet very little shall be said concerning them; my Design being only to insist upon those which I think material, and to add unto them such other Objections as Mr. W. in his Catalogue hath omitted.

P. 158. Mr W's first Objection says, That what of the first Adam it was that sinned, that of Adam died, but both the Soul and Body died, therefore, &c.

To this he Answers, That he must not take Life and Death here in their proper Sense, but that the word Death here, only intends a miserable Life; which, however he doth not deny to be Life, and I do not conceive how Death and Life can stand together in the same subject; and therefore I think his Description of Death by a miserable Life, is not reasonable nor allowable in this Case; concei­ving it agreeable to Reason, that the Curse pronounced a­gainst Sin should extend to the Person that sinned; and ac­cordingly the Persons which sinned did both die for it, or after it, without any appearance of leaving Souls to sur­vive after the Death of their Persons.

P. 159. Mr. W. will not agree, that their Souls did die as well as their Bodies; because God says, That Dust thou art, and to Dust thou shalt return. Then he assumes the Soul was not made of Dust, which is a thing before dis­puted between us: I pretending there was no such Soul made as he says there was; I say my sort of Soul is mate­rial, and may return to the Dust and Air as it was, which he will deny, and thereupon we must examine all that has been spoken, which neither of us can design to do in this place, but leave this Objection to be farther discussed.

Mr. W's second Objection from Eccles. 3. where Solomon compares Men with Beasts.

P. 161. He pretends that Text says, The Spirit of Man goes upward, and the Spirit of a Beast downward, which I [Page 160]think it doth not say, but makes a doubt whether the truth of the thing be so or no; it seems Solomon speaks more de­liberately concerning Mens Souls in this Text, than he does in his Twelfth Chapter, and yet I pass this Objection light­ly over, without laying any great weight upon it.

P. 162. Mr. W. raises a third Objection from Matth. 26.38. where our Lord says, My Soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto Death; from whence some Men may pretend to inferr, that his Soul might die; I profess to be none of those who make this Objection; for I conceive that Christ by the word Soul, intended his Person or himself, in the same Sense as if he had said, I am sorrowful unto Death, and therefore I pass this over as a weak Objection against Mr. W's Opinion.

P. 164. Mr. W. raises a fourth Objection against himself, from Acts 2.27. Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell, nor suffer thy Holy one to see Corruption. Here, he says, some will have Christ's Intellectual Soul to be meant, and by Hell or [...] the Grave to be meant▪ I profess to be none of those some, who would have Christ's Intellectual Soul to be here meant, but I do rather conceive, that by my Soul in this place, is intended my Person, or my Self; and as if he had said, thou wilt not leave me in [...] or the Grave, without intention to speak of an Intellectual Soul, or any other Soul at all; and therefore I pass this over as a very light Objection against Mr. W's Opinion

P. 169. The fifth Objection which Mr. W. brings a­gainst his own Opinion, is raised from 2 Cor. 5. Where Paul speaks of being cloathed upon with his House from Hea­ven. I have said before that this Expression respects that Translation of their Bodies, which the Saints who are a­live upon Earth at Christ's coming shall receive, when they shall be disrobed of their Earthly Bodies, and have them chang'd into Heavenly or Spiritual Bodies; and yet I do not find any great Strength in this Objection against Mr. W's Opinion, but pass it away as a very weak one, without saying any more to it.

P. 171. Sixthly, He objects against his own Opinion, that the Scriptures make frequent mention of Rewards and Punish­ments to be given at the day of Judgment, but make no mention of such Recompences to be given soon after Death, or between that and the Resurrection. This I own to be a very strong Objection against Mr. W's Opinion, and do intend to make it one of mine, which I mean to deli­ver at the end of his Catalogue of Objections, and there further to consider his Answer to it.

P. 172. Seventhly, Mr. W. objects against himself, If the Souls of Men pass their Tryal as soon as their Bodies are dead, what needs any other Day of Judgment? will Christ try Men after Sentence? This I think to be a strong Objection, and therefore I mean to repeat it again, and there to consider his Answer.

P. 175. Eighthly, He objects against himself, When Christ which is our Life shall appear, then shall w [...] appear with him in Glory. I purpose to add this Text, to others which I mean to quote against his Opinion afterwards, and there to consider his Answer.

P. 177. A Ninth Objection which he raises against him­self, is from 2 Tim. 4.8. Henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Glory. This I think to be a strong Ob­jection, fit to be again repeated, and there his Answer shall be considered.

P. 179. His Tenth Objection is taken from King Hezeki­ah's Prayer, in Isaiah. This I think to be strong, and therefore to be repeated, and his Answer to be there con­sidered.

P. 181. His Eleventh Objection from Eccles. 9.5. The Dead know not any thing, seems strong, and therefore a­gain to be repeated, and his Answer there considered.

P. 182. Twelfthly, Mr. W. objects against himself, the words of David, Psalm 7.1, 2. Save me, least my Enemy tear my Soul like a Lyon. Here I think is the same intent [Page 162]as if David had said, least he tear me in pieces like a Lyon, putting here the word Soul to signifie Person. Therefore I think this Objection to be very weak, and as such I leave it.

P. 183. Mr. W. takes his Thirteenth Objection from 1 Cor. 15.18. If the Dead rise not, then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. This Text and Chapter makes a very strong Objection against Mr. W's Opinion, and therefore it shall be hereafter repeated, and his Answer there considered.

P. 187. Mr. W's Fourteenth Objection is raised from 1 Tim. 6.16. God only hath Immortality dwelling in Light; I think this to be a very weak Objection against Mr. W's Opinion, and therefore I pass it over without any further Consideration.

In this Examination of Mr. W's Fourteen Objections, we have found one half, or seven of them to be of small force for the overthrowing Mr. W's Opinion; and I observe, that in his propounding divers of the other seven which are strong against him, he doth it in such manner as their strength seems to be much impaired by his manner of delivering them; and therefore I design to frame ano­ther series of Objections against his Opinion and to place amongst them: The Seventh Objection of Mr. W's which I approve, and to consider therein the Answers which he hath given to them, not yet meaning to follow Mr. W's order of propounding them, but I intend to offer all my Objecti­ons taken from Scripture according to the several times wherein they were delivered.

First, I object against Mr. W's Opinion, from Gen. 9.4. Flesh with the Life thereof, which is the Blood thereof, shall you not eat; and surely your Blood of your Lives will I require, at the Hand of every Beast will I require it; and at the hand of Man, at the Hand of every Man's Brother will I require the Life of Man; who so sheddeth Man's Blood, [Page 163]by Man shall his Blood be shed; for in the Image of God made he Man. It seems to appear from the words of this Text, that the Terms Blood and Life, have a convercibi­lity one with another; so as no Blood no Life, and the shedding of Man's Blood is the killing of him, and it is therefore made a Crime of the highest Nature, because the shedding of Man's Blood destroys the Image of God wherein Man was made. Whence, I conceive Man to be God's Image in his whole Person, whose Blood may be shed, and not only in a particular part of him, which Mr. W. maintains must be his Soul. The words of the Text say, That the Blood of the Creature is the Life thereof; and Experiences convinces, that all things that have Life have a sort of Spirit for the maintaining thereof; as Grass, Herbs, Plants, Trees, Insects, Fishes, Fowls, Brutes, and Men. In Plants or Trees, if we pare off the Skin or Bark, and thereby stop the ascent of the Sap, which is the Spirit of Life in Plants, the Plant will die from that place upwards, because this Sap or Spirit of Life will be obstructed in its ascent to the higher parts of the Plant; and among Brutes or Men, if the passage of the Blood be obstructed, those parts to which the Blood cannot come with Freedom, de­cay, wither, and become of little or no use to the Crea­ture. The Text says, Flesh with the Life thereof, which is the Blood thereof; and Experience shews, that the Life ex­hales with the Blood, so as no Blood no Life: Whence I collect, the Spirit of Life in Brutes and men consists and resides in the Blood, and the inflamed and glowing Spi­rits thereof; and thence it seems, that as the Spirit of Life in Plants is the Sap thereof, so the Spirit of Life in Animals is the Blood kindled and glowing, and the inflamed parti­cles thereof; and so our Text says, Flesh with the Life thereof, which is the Blood thereof: And from the Premisses I argue, that the Spirit of Life in Man is in his Blood, and the inflam'd particles of it; and Experience evidences, that [Page 164]by like Blood and Spirits, the Brutes are acted both in their Local and Peristaltick Motions; their Senses of Bear­ing, Seeing, &c. Their Affections of Lust, Wrath, and Fear, and those degrees which they have of Phantasie, Choice and Memory. And I pretend hence to infer, that if in the Blood there be a Spirit of Life, which can act the Brutes in their Motions, Sensations and Passions, to as high a Degree as Men are acted in those performances, and can act them to lower Degrees of Fancy, Choice and Memory; it seems a like Spirit may probably act humane Persons in all these Faculties, and to much higher Degrees in those of Judgment, Phantasie and Memory, because in such Persons these Spirits meet with Organs of greater perfection, and better fitted for the performance thereof. And hereunto I apply the injecting of Brutal Blood into a Humane Body, which Experience proves will act that Body in such manner, as it was acted before by its own Blood, because the Or­gans in which it works are better suited to such purposes, than those of the Animal wherein it acted before; and it seems consequent, that if the Blood and its particles be the Spirit of Life in Man, and can act all his Faculties as before hath been expressed, then there is no need to ima­gine the being of an immaterial intelligent Spirit in Man; quia frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pautiora, & na­tura nihil facit frustra: Wherefore I conclude, that the Blood and its Particles inflamed or glowing, are the Spirit of Life in Man as well as in Brutes, and that there neither needs, nor probably is in him such an Immaterial Intelli­gent Spirit, as Mr. W. and those who maintain his Tenet, have supposed. In Confirmation of what God said before to Noah, we read, Levit. 7.11. The Life of the Flesh is in the Blood, and I have given it to you upon the Altar, to make an Atonement for the Souls [intending your selves.] Vers. 13. He that hunts or kills a Beast or Fowl, he shall even pour out the Blood thereof, and cover it with Dust, for [Page 165]it is the Life of all Flesh; the Blood of it is for the Life there­of.

Secondly, I object against Mr. W's Opinion from Job 3.11. Why died I not from the Womb? why did the Knees prevent me? or the Breasts that I should suck? For now should I have lain, been quiet, and have slept, or as if a hidden untimely Birth I had not been. Vers. 17. In Death the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest; there the Prisoners rest together, and hear not the Voice of the Oppressor, and the Servant is free from his Master. This Text declares to us Job's Opinion, concerning the state of dead Persons, they all sleep and rest together in Death; Great and Small, Strong and Weak, Prisoners and Free-men, Servants and Masters; Death reduces them all to a like Estate, of Freedom, Peace and Rest, without any disturbance amongst them. He makes no mention here, or in any other place, of Rewards or Punishments until the Resurrection, and then he professes to expect to see his Redeemer with the Eyes which he had; but con­cerning an Intermediate State he is utterly silent, which it seems likely he would not have been, if he had known of such an Intermediate State of Souls as Mr. W. and his party pretend to maintain. We see that Job seems to make Death a rest from all such Sufferings as were known to him; and had he known or believed such Rewards after Death as Mr. W. pretends, we may reasonably expect he should have made mention of them: and from his silence about Rewards, and his Opinion of Rest from Sufferings, I conclude he knew of no such things to be found of Men soon after their Deaths. And I infer from this Argument, that the Souls Seperate Subsistence, and the great Re­wards and Punishments thereof to be expected immediate­ly after Death, was unknown to Job and the Men of his time, and is therefore a later Opinion taken up; and yet generally accepted in the times which came after him, [Page 166]and wants much of that Authority which its Derivation from the Primitive times of the World might have given it.

A Third Objection against Mr. W's Doctrine I take from King David, Psalm 146.2. Put not your Trust in Princes, or in any Child of Man; for when the Breath of Man goeth forth, he shall turn again to his Earth, and then all his Thoughts perish. Psal. 49.10. Wise Men die and perish to­gether as well as the Ignorant and Foolish, Vers. 12. Man will not abide in Honour, seeing he may be compared to the Beasts that perish. Vers. 20. He repeats again, Man being in Honour hath no Ʋnderstanding, but is compared unto the Beasts that perish. In the first proving Text David says, When the Breath of Man goeth forth, he shall turn again to his Earth, whence his Son Solomon may have taken his Saying, Then shall the Dust return to the Earth as it was, and the Spirit shall return to God who gave it. Here it seems to me, that David's Breath which at Death goeth forth, in­tends the same thing with Solomon's Spirit, returning to God who gave it: but thereunto David adds, That when this Breath is gone forth, and thereby the Man is returned to his Earth, all his Thoughts perish; whence it seems there is not one Thought left in him; but we know that the Faculty of thinking can never continue without some Thoughts arising in it; and therefore, if all a Mans Thoughts perish with his Death, I infer his Faculty of Thinking must do so too; which it cannot do, if there be such a Seperately Subsisting Intelligent Soul in Man as Mr. W. strongly asserts. And if my Opposers should contend that the Thoughts which are here said to perish, do mean the Intentions and Designs of the Person when alive. I an­swer, That there is no need in this place to alter the plain Sense of the Words; for that the plain Sense of them may very well stand in this place; conceiving, that in their plain Sense they are as true, as in that other [Page 167]Sense which my Opposers would put upon them, without any just occasion so to do. And hence I am apt to con­clude upon this Text, that there is not such a Seperable In­telligent Soul in Man as Mr. W. hath all along pretended. In our second Text, David exhorts not to be afraid of the Riches or Glory of any Man, for when he dies he shall carry nothing away with him; he counted himself, and other Men counted him happy whilst he liv'd, but his Happiness ends with his Life; for Man being in Honour hath no Understanding, but is compared to the Beasts that perish. Let Men be as Rich, Wise and Happy, and as much in Honour as this World can afford, yet all these Preheminences ends with his Life, and it seems so also do his Miseries; and dying or dead he may be compared to the Beasts that perish: his Breath goeth forth, and he turns again to the Earth from whence he was taken; and so also it is with the Beasts that perish. Hence it seems, That So­lomon should have been the first Person who started the Question, Whether the Spirits of Men go upward, and the Spirits of Beasts downward or not? And after not knowing well what became of the Spirit or Breath which goes forth of a Man at Death, he says Transiently, and without any Deliberation that appears, this Spirit or Breath returns to God who gave it; but of such a Spirit or the return thereof, we meet with no mention in Scrip­ture before his time (that I have yet found out,) and I am therefore ready to conclude with my quoted Texts out of David, that tho' Men be had in Honour during their Lives, yet at, and after Death, they may (as concerning their Natural Estate) be truly and reasonably compared to the Beasts that perish.

My Fourth Objection against Mr. W's Tenet, I take from Solomon, Eccles. 4. That Wise King saw great and reme­diless Oppressions imposed on weak people in this World, and was thereat so much grieved, that he breaks forth and [Page 168]says, I praised the dead, which are already dead, more than the living which are yet alive; yea better is he than both they, which hath not yet been: who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the Sun. Chap. 9.3. The heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart, whilst they live; and after that they go to the dead: for to him that is joyned to the living, there is hope; for a living dog is better than a dead lyon: for the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for their memory is forgotten: their love, hatred, and envy, are perished. Ver. 10. Whatsoever thy hand find­eth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor de­vice, nor knowledge, in the grave, whither thou goest. Thus we find Solomon expresseth himself much to the same pur­pose that Job before hath done; declaring that Death and the Grave put an end to the doings and sufferings of Men, without taking notice of any rewards or sufferings, likely to befal men soon after their departures forth of this World; which is (in my apprehension) a sort of evidence, that his words, The Spirit returns to God who gave it, did not in­tend the going of Mens Souls to Judgment before God, soon after their departures out of this Life. I quote like­wise in Corroboration of Solomons fore-cited Text and Opinion, a Concurrent Evidence out of the Prophet Isaiah 38.18. where Hezekiah praying to god, says, The Grave cannot praise thee, Death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into the Pit, cannot hope for thy Truth: The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day. Mr. W. hath quoted these Texts of Solomon and Isaiah, and made out of each of them an Objection against his Opini­on; but I have made one Objection out of them both, because I find them tend to the same purpose; and do not so much labour to increase the number of my Objections, as to fortifie and strengthen those which I make a­gainst him. Mr. W. hath made the Text now quoted out [Page 169]of Isaiah his Tenth Objection against his Opinion, and thereunto answers, That Hezekiah 's meaning in these words, is that Men after Death cannot praise God as they do whilst they are in this World, and in the Congregations of Men, but that still they can and do praise God after Death in Heaven. Thereunto I reply, He seems to make Hezekiah mean what himself pleases; but that King's words seem plainly to declare, That Men after Death, neither do nor can cele­brate or praise the Name of God, without mention of such a meaning as he pretends, or any need of such a mean­ing that I can perceive: and therefore I read and take the plain Sense of his words to be as he hath delivered them.

In his Eleventh Objection he quotes the Text of Solo­mon, The Dead know not any thing: and thereunto answers, That Solomon's meaning in these words is, That Dead Men do not know any thing of what is done under the Sun after their Deaths. I reply, The words of the Text are gene­ral words, The Dead know not any thing [at all;] and therefore I cannot allow of his restraining them to Things done under the Sun; which he hath excogitated on purpose to serve his Design in this Point: Wherefore I leave this Exposition as a needless and erroneous Invention, and pro­ceed farther to consider the whole Objection now pro­pounded against Mr. W's. Opinion. And we find that Solo­mon in the Texts (of this Objection) before quoted, speaks of Death as of a Rest from Mens Labours and Suf­ferings, and says, There is no device nor knowledge in the grave, whither thou goest; the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not any thing; not any the most common or knowable thing; not a thing so well known, as that Men must die, or that they must rise again. These are things the most commonly known to Men when they are alive, but when they are dead, they know not any thing [at all;] and to this, King Hezekiah adds, they can­not act any thing, they cannot so much as Praise and Cele­brate [Page 170]the name of God, which Mr. W's Party will have to be the proper work of their good Souls departed. Our Text tells us in absolute and plain Terms, the Dead cannot do so, comprehending under the name of Dead, the Per­son, and all that belong'd to the Composition thereof. And from these Premisses I take leave to conclude, that from these Texts is raised a strong Objection against the Souls Seperate Subsistence.

A Fifth Objection against Mr, W's Tenet, I raise from Eccless. 11.8. If a Man live many Years and rejoyce in them all, yet let him remember the days of Darkness, for they shall be many; and then he gives Liberty to the young Man to re­joyce in the days of his Youth, and use his Liberty; but with­al bids him know, that for these things God will bring him into Judgment: so Chap. 12.14. After he had said the Spirit returns to God who gave it; he adds, Fear God and keep his Commandments, for God shall bring every work into Judg­ment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Here Solomon exhorts Men to remember the day and time of their Deaths. The miserable, as well pleased to rest under that dark Shadow, and the young and joyful he exhorts to remember those times as days of Darkness, and says that they shall be many; subjoyning thereunto, that [after those days] God will call Men to Judg­ment for all that they have done in this World, tho' it be never so secretly acted; and even for every idle word, at the Day of Judgment an Account must be made; and much more of Mens smallest Actions, whether the same be good or whether they be evil: by the days of Darkness which Solomon here mentions, seem somewhat clearly to be inten­ded the days which immediately succeed the death of the Person; they are days of Darkness, as Darkness it self, co­vered and made dark with the shadow of Death; and our Text says those Days shall be many: and therefore he ex­horts Men in their greatest Jollity to remember them; [Page 171]but our Opposers (contrary to the Tenor of this Text,) endeavour to perswade us that there are no days of Dark­ness at all in Death, for that when the Breath of Man go­eth forth, or ceaseth in him, his Substantial Intelligent, and then Seperated Soul or Spirit, either returns to God, or goes before him, to Judgment, or is carried by Angels, or is hurried by Devils, into very different places; concerning which I do not find they are well agreed among themselves: but howsoever that may fall out, they are all very well a­greed that their Seperate Intelligent Spirit is at greater li­berty, and is more active and knowing than it was during its confinement to the Body; so as instead of those days of Darkness which Solomon mentions, the Spirit or Principle of Life in Man enjoys a greater light, activity, and freedom, than it had before the Death of that Party whom it for­merly inliven'd and acted. And this (if it be true) seems directly contrary to that which Solomon in this Text hath affirmed: There are days of darkness, and many of them, says the Text of Solomon, Mr. W. says, That at the death of the party, or soon after, good mens souls enjoy much more light, liberty, and glory, than every they had before: so as they seem to say, the souls of good men have no dark days at all; and therefore men that are jovial and merry, need have no regard to such days of Darkness as Solomon in this Text gives them warning of. And yet such men do not use to de­ny that a Solemn and General Judgment shall appear after those many days of Darkness shall be consummate and fi­nished: and therein they agree with Solomons Opinion, al­tho concerning his days of Darkness they seem very much to differ from him: but if his Opinion may prevail in this Case, it offers a strong Objection against the Souls Seperate Subsistence.

Thus far Objections have been drawn out of the Old Testament, and we now proceed to draw like Objections from the New.

A Sixth Objection thence to be raised, I take from John 14. 2 In my Fathers House are many Mansions, I go to prepare a place for you; and if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you again to my self; that where I am, there ye may be also. Luke 21.26. The powers of Heaven shall be shaken, and then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory; and when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh; viz. re­wards for the Saints. Col. 3.4. When Christ who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye appear with him also in glory. 1 John. 3 2. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. The Apostle knew (whilst in this life) that we are the Sons of God, but he did not know what we shall be [after death] nor was that likely to be known, till Christs ap­pearing at his Second Coming; and then he knew that the Saints should be made like Christ, and appear with him in glory; as Paul hath above asserted. 2 Tim. 4.7. Paul says I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but to them also that love his appearing. The Crown it seems was laid up for him, even whil'st he was alive; but was not expected to be given him till the time of Christs second appearing, and then it would also be gi­ven to all those who love and desire that appearing. 1 Tim. 1.10. The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, the Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day. He doth not pray that his Friend may find mercy at the time of his Death, or at an Intermediate Judgment, but at that [great and last] Day. All these Texts have been quoted to give Evidence of the Time [Page 173]when Rewards and Punishments after Death, are warrant­ably to be expected. They all express the time thereof to be at our Lords Second Coming, and the last Great Day of Judgment thereupon ensuing; but make no mention of Recompences warrantably to be expected, soon after the times of mens Death, or in any Intermediate State between Death and the Resurrection: Nor hath the Scripture (that I find) any mention in other places, of Recompences to be distribu [...]ed in such an In [...]ermediate State, except in Pa­rables and Trances only. I have in this Objection repeat­ed two Texts out of which Mr. W. made Objections sing­ly against his own Opinion; but I have linked them toge­ther, and strengthened them with other Texts of Scripture of the like import, quia vis unita fortior. Concerning Mr. W's Texts I pretend here to examine the Answers which he hath singly given to each of them. To the Text of our appearing with Christ in Glory, he answers and grants, That the appearance here spoken of, intends that of the Last Judgment; for till then the Saints cannot be said to appear in Glory with Christ; and yet, says he, they may be in Glory with Christ, tho' they do not appear in such Glory to Men. I reply, That tho they do not ap­pear in such Glory to Men, yet if there be truly such a thing as he maintains, they do appear in Glory before God and the Angels and Spirits of Just Men made perfect; and therefore may truly be said to appear in Glory; which St. Paul says, they do not, till Christs second Coming and appearing in Glory. Mr. W. says, His sort of Souls may appear in Heaven in Glory before that time; but it lies up­on him to make some proof that they do so: which he nei­ther offers, nor I think is able to perform: and therefore I think his Answer to this Text is of small weight. The o­ther Text to which he makes an Answer, is that of Paul's expecting a Crown to be given him at that day, or the time of the Last Judgment; and he grants, that the time [Page 174]intended by the word, That Day, is that of the Last Judg­ment; and says thereupon, What then? It follows not thence that therefore there are not Souls in glory before that time: for Kings may reign before they receive their Crown and Scep­ter; and so shall we be Kings and Priests in our Souls unto God in the Heavens. This Mr. W. pretends to say out of his own fruitful Invention, without offering any Proof of our being Kings and Priests in Heaven to God in our bare and naked Souls only: for neither any of our before quo­ted Texts do mention such things, nor are they to be found in any other Text of Scripture whatsoever, except the Vi­sion appearing to St. John when he was intranced: for the Parable of Dives makes no mention of being in Heaven, or the Preferment of being Kings and Priests to God, or in his presence; and therefore I am ready to reject this de­vice or fancy of Mr. W's brain, and to conceive that all our quoted Texts are true, according to the common sense of their words. Mr. W. father says, There are no words or syllables in this Text that deny intervening Re­wards to the Saints before that day; which it must have done before it could serve his Opposers purpose. Thereunto replying, I say, there seems to be no need of such a Deni­al: for that if God or Man, promise to give Rewards or Punishments at an appointed time, there is no need to ex­press, they will not give such things at other times; nor can there be a warrantable expectation of them at other times, except such a thing be also expresly declared: which is not done in this or these Texts, or any other, [...] Texts of Scripture, which I can find; and therefore I think Mr. W's Answer to this Objection is clearly insufficient: and as such I leave it, and proceed further to object against Mr. W's Opinion from all the Texts last before quoted. I say then that all these Texts concur strongly in their Evi­dence, That the Resurrection and Last Judgment are the time when all men may warrantably and certainly expect [Page 175]to be rewarded or punished according to their Works and Actions in this World: because that is evidently declared by a strong concurrence of Scripture Testimonies, and be­cause there is no other time plainly declared in any other Text of Scripture, when men may warrantably expect such recompences after their Departures out of this World: and thence I conceive the Texts before quoted are a strong Ob­jection against the Expectation of Rewards, or Punish­ments being given to the Souls of Dead Persons immedi­ately after their Departures out of this World.

A Seventh Objection I make in the same manner that Mr. W. hath put his Seventh Objection against his own Do­ctrine; Where he says, If the Souls of Men past their Tryal as soon as they are dead, what needs any other day of Judg­ment; Will Christ try Men after Sentence? To this Obje­ction Mr. W. says, I have proved already, The Souls of Men cannot be kill'd, and so cannot die; and that the Souls of Men at death do return to the Lord; and other things relating to its partial Judgment which it shall receive. To this I reply, His proof of the Souls not dying, remains sub judice; his Text, that the Soul returns to God, proves not its going before him for Judgment: and for proof of his partial Judgment he hath produc'd no Text of Scripture at all, nor do I think a Text that so proves, can be quoted out of the Bible.

Mr. W. proceeding, asks, Who art thou that reasonest a­gainst God? wilt thou teach God how he shall govern the World, or what Judgments he shall use upon Men? It is e­nough that God hath intimated his Will, there shall be such Judgments, and we are humbly to believe he hath reason for his so doing, although our shallow brains cannot comprehend it. To this I reply, That I am ready to do as Mr. W. di­rects, viz. That if God do declare to us his mind and in­tnet to have divers and different Trials and Judgments of [Page 176]Men, I am ready to submit to the belief thereof, altho I am not able to apprehend the congruity or reason thereof. But Mr. W's Answer sets out no proof at all of Gods design or meaning to pass such several Trials and Judgments up­on Men, as he supposes; nor doth his whole Book give us good proof thereof: and himself doth not require men to believe that God proceeds in ways not congruous to the Reasons of Men, except God doth somewhere declare that he doth or will do so. Whereas Mr. W. hath no o­therways proved Gods Will so to do, then from his own Expositions, Collections, Inferences, and Conclusions, which all seem to be the proper fruits of his own Invention: Upon which the Old Rule must take hold, Posito quolibet sequitur quidlibet; and so if we suffer him to lay the Cards, he will always deal them to his own advantage: but I have no inclination to bear with such dealing, and therefore do reject his Answer to this Objection, as infirm and insuffici­ent. Well, but then says Mr. W. If this Answer will not satisfie you, I doubt not but the righteous Judge will satisfie you of the reason of that Great Day, notwithstanding parti­cular judgments upon Men, and the spirits of Men before that Day. I find no manner of proving force in these words of Mr. W's, they seem rather a Threat than a Proof, and a product rather of his own Will than of his Knowledge, or a reasonable Inference from any Text of Scripture. Last­ly he bids his Opposers be silent, least God reprove them. And having made this Reply to his Answer, I am content to be silent, and proceed no father thereupon: but as to the Incongruity charg'd by the Objection upon Mr. W's O­pinion, I say, that it seems very incongruous to my Rea­son, that God should call Men to a Solemn Tryal at their Deaths, and there pass Judgment, and award Execution thereupon; and after they have long continu'd in this con­dition, then to call them to a new Tryal, and give ano­ther Judgment upon them, with a like award of Executi­on [Page 177]on as before; this seems a very unlikely Proceeding of God towards Men: and yet if Mr. W. or any of his Partakers, have proved, or can prove, from any plain or clear Text or Texts of Scripture, that God will use this Course of Proceed­ing amongst Men, I am ready to submit my own reason and opinion thereunto; but not to the many words or conje­ctures which Mr. W. farther offers in his Answer to this Ob­jection. We read Mat. 25. Our Lords Sentence at the Last Judgment, runs thus, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you, from the foundation of the world; depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels: not saying, Return ye blessed unto the happy Mansions of Heaven, from whence ye came; or, Return ye cursed into those dark and dreadful Regions, where ye were before; but come ye and go ye to such Places and Regions as it seems proba­ble they were not acquainted with before; whence it seems inferrable, that those Intermediate Tryals, Judg­ments and Executions which Mr. W. maintains, have some­thing of the Chimerical and Imaginary, without having that real truth in them, which Mr. W. and his Party en­deavour to maintain; and the Objection before made a­gainst them seems strong enough to shake and oppose their Pretensions.

An Eighth Objection I raise from 1. Cor. 15.12. If Christ be Preached, that he rose from the Dead; how say some among you, that there is no Resurrection of the Dead, but if there be no Resurrection of the Dead, then is Christ not risen, and if Christ be not risen, then is the Chri­stian Religion both vain and false. vers. 18. and then they also which are faln asleep in Christ are perished. vers. 32. If after the manner of Men I have fought with Beasts at Ephe­sus, what advantageth it me if the Dead rise not? Let us eat and drink for too morrow we die. Then the Apostle finds fault with Communications which call in Question the Belief [Page 178]of the Resurrection of the Dead. vers. 52. At the last Trump the Dead shall be raised Incorruptible, and we [who are then alive] shall be changed, and then shall Death be swallowed up in Victory. vers. 58. And therefore my beloved Brethren, be ye stedfast, always abounding in the work of the Lord; forasmuch as ye know, that your Labour is not in Vain in the Lord; [the Resurrection of the Dead being thus certainly and undoubtedly proved to you] you must be stedfast and unmoveable in your Religion, knowing that your La­bour is not in Vain in the Lord. In Mr. W's Thirteenth Ob­jection against his own Opinion, he propounds it thus, our Opponents alledge, vers. 18. of this Chapter, infer­ring, that if there be no Resurrection, Then those who are fallen asleep in Christ are perished; which they say could not follow, if there were any state of a Blessed Life for a Se­perate Soul; for that tho' there were no Resurrection of the Dead, yet Souls already in Heaven should still be hap­py there, and not be perished for want of a Resurrection of the Person. To this Mr. W. answers, That in the course of this Text, St Paul intends to prove the Resurrection of Christ, and to teach, that if his Resurrection was not true, then all those who are fallen asleep in Christ should be perished. There Mr. W. says thus, now to prove that Christ was ri­sen, which was the Antecedent of the Apostles Argument; he argues, either Christ is risen, or we have been preachers of what is Vain and false, and then those who are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. Hereunto I reply, That we do not read in this or any other Text, that there was a Dispute among the Corinthians about the Resurrection of Christ, but that it was both preached and believed amongst them that he was risen from the Dead: and from that Established and Undoubted Truth, the Apostle inferrs the Resurrection of the Dead, and says, the one of them is as true as the other; but if there be no Resurrection of the Dead, then is Christ not risen, and if these be not both true, then all [Page 179]Christian Religion is vain and false, and those who are fal­len asleep in Christ are perished.

This sort of arguing seems to suppose a possibility, that those who are fallen asleep in Christ may be perished, which were a vain supposal, if their Separated Souls did still sub­sist and were Immortal; because that whether there be a Resurrection or not a Resurrection, and whether Christ were risen or not risen, yet Seperate Souls would still have a Subsistence, and not be perished, as here our Apostle supposes they would be, if the Resurrections so preached to the Corinthians were not true. So as our Apostles Ex­pression seems not well to agree with Mr. W's Opinion of the Souls Seperate Subsistence; but it is at full agreement with the material Opinion, who maintain as St. Paul doth, that if there be no Resurrection, then all hope of Recom­pences future to this Life are Vain, and those who are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Mr. W. says farther, There is no Way or Means for expia­tion of your Sins, and removal of the Curse, besides the Death of Christ. I say, we are taught by this Text, that his Death would avail us nothing without his Resurrection, [and our Resurrection also.] Then Mr. W. quotes, if Christ be not risen, the Wrath of God still abides on you; and says, this is spoken because his Resurrection was to be the Evidencing Sign among the rest, that his Death was accepted of the Father, for that end he professes to lay it down which was to expiate our Sins. I say, he professeth to lay it down, that he may take it up again, and he was convinced that it would be accepted of his Father before he laid it down, and then he rose again for our Justifica­tion, rather than as a Testimony, that his Death was ac­cepted of the Father, of which there was before no doubt at all. Mr. W. goes on and says, He denies that the Apostle [...]ntends by these Reasonings to prove immediately the Resur­rection of all Men, but only as their Resurrection comes in [Page 180]upon the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is the only thing in these Verses now named, that the Apostle was proving. To this I reply, That the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Doubt which some Men had thereof, is the principal and only Question which I conceive to be disputed of in this Text; for we do not read of doubt made by any Man concerning the Resurrection of Christ; for Christ was preached to the Corinthians, and that he rose from the Dead, and this Doctrine was receiv'd and believ'd by the Corinthians, and yet some of them denyed the general Resurrection of the Dead: and to convince those Unbelie­vers of their Error; the Apostle tells them, that the gene­ral Resurrection of the Dead, is as true and certain as the Resurrection of Christ was, and therefore I think the main scope of St. Paul was to convince the doubting Corinthians, and to prove the general Resurrection of the Dead: and which of us two have the Right in this Point, shall be re­ferred to the Judgment of such Readers as will consult St. Paul's Text thereupon. Mr. W. says further to his Opposers, the manner of the Apostles Argument is not as ye conceive, That if the Bodies of the Saints do never rise, then ye are in your Sins, and those that are dead in Christ are perished. Replying thereunto, I say, that I know none of his Opposers who argue in such a manner as he hath im­posed upon them, nor that examine or consider the Re­surrection of the Body; because we do not find in the whole Tenor of the Bible that expression of the Resur­rection of the Body. It is true, that as we now use the Apostles Creed in English, we find there mention'd the Resurrection of the Body; but clearly, we therein de­part from our Originals of that Creed, both in the Greek and Latin Languages, the Greek calls it [...], and the Latin calls it Resurrectionem Carnis, the true English of both which Expressions, is the Resurrection of the Flesh; and after that manner I think it ought to be mended in our [Page 181]English Translations or Creed. Whence it seemeth not to follow that the Body should be first raised, and then a Substantial Intelligent Spirit ab extra should be put into it; but that such raising shall be like the first formation of Adam, and the covering of Ezekiels dry Bones with Flesh and Skin, and the filling them with Blood and Humors, apt to be kindled and inflamed by such a moderate Wind or Breath as may be breathed upon them or into them, for kindling the flame of Life in their vital Parts, thence to be communicated to all the rest of their Bodies. John 5.28. The Hour is coming, in the which all that are in the Graves shall hear his Voice and shall come forth; they that have done Good to the Resurrection of Life, and they that have done Evil to the Resurrection of Damnation. The manner after which Persons so raised shall come forth, seems to be by forming the Flesh, Bones, Arteries, Veins, Nerves and Sinews, into the shape of a humane Body, con­taining therein such Blood, Humors and Organs as are needful for the production and perfection of Life, and all the Faculties and Powers of a humane Person, whose Blood and Humors will then be apt for kindling into a Flame, or glowing of the Blood by such a moderate Breath as E­zekiel was directed to call for, to come from the four Winds, and breath upon these newly formed Persons that they may live, which done, the newly formed Persons are thereby made living, able to hear the Voice of the Son of God, and at his Call to come out of their Graves, and deliver themselves from the strong Bands of Death; and such I conceive, the rising of the Dead will be, not a partial, but a total Resurrection of the Person, not first the Body rais'd, and then an Intelligent Soul be injected thereinto, for the Body cannot rise or come out of its Grave without a Spirit of Life, or such a sort of Soul as is natural, suitable, and fitted for that Performance. I do therefore reject the expression by him used, viz. the [Page 182]Resurrection of the Body; because it is no where used in the Scripture: and because there is no such thing in Nature, as that a Body should rise and live without a Soul: what rises therefore is not only the Body, but the Person which was dead, a very like, or his very same Person which before had died. Mr. W. in the Conclusion of this Ob­jection, says to his Opposers, that it is a strange Inference ye draw from this Text, That because it is certain that Christ is risen, that therefore the Souls of Men are mortal. I reply, This would be a very strange Inference indeed, if his Opposers either said so or thought so, but they profess to do neither the one nor the other; but this they do say and believe, that if the Resurrection of Christ, and the General Resurrection of the Dead, be not both true, then all those who are fallen asleep (tho' never so good) are pe­rished; and consequently, that the Souls of Men have not a Seperate Subsistence after the death of the Person: and thus I finish my Reply to Mr. W's Answer given to this Objection, and proceed to the giving concurrent Eviden­ces from the Texts before quoted, for strengthning the force of this my Eighth Objection.

Our Apostle having finish'd this Text, goes on in the same Chapter to Vers. 32. And there says, If after the manner of Men I have fought with Beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the Dead rise not? Let us eat and drink for too Morrow we die. Which sayings I think may be thus rightly Paraphrased, Whatsoever Sufferings I undergo for Christ's sake in this World, they will advantage me nothing, if the Dead rise not, and then we need no more in this World, but to eat and drink and die, and there's an and of us. And if this Saying be true, and the very meaning of our Apostle in this Text, I think it gives a fatal blow to the Seperate Subsistence of Souls; and yet our Apostle proceeds further in this Chapter, to Verse 52. Where he says, The Trumpet shall sound, and the Dead shall be rais'd uncorruptible, and [Page 183]we [who are then alive] shall be changed; and the last Verse of this Chapter he adds, Therefore my beloved Bre­thren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as much as you know your Labour is not in Vain in the Lord; for I have given you as certain Proofs as Faith can desire, that there shall be a General Resurrection of the Dead, at which time all People shall be rewarded or punished according to their Works. Heb. 11.35. The Saints indured great Persecutions and Tor­ments, not accepting Deliverance from them, because they expected a better Resurrection. Luke 14.14. When thou makest a Feast, do not only bid thy Friends and rich Neigh­bours, who are likely to make thee a Recompence; but bid also the Poor, the Maimed, the Lame and the Blind, who cannot Recompense thee, and therefore for thy so doing, thou shalt be Recompensed at the Resurrection of the Just. And now I demand one Text of Scripture to be produced, where it is said, That Men for their good Works done in this World, shall be Recompensed at or soon after their Deaths. I know of no Text that declares this to us, or from which it can with clear Reason be collected; and therefore I say, that the Reason given us why our Labour shall not be in Vain in the Lord, is because there shall certainly be a Re­surrection from the Dead, and after that a Judgment, wherein every Person shall be rewarded according to his Works; and upon these Grounds I am ready to conclude, that this my Eighth Objection strongly batters and assaults, and even overthrows the Opinion of the Souls Seperate Subsistence.

A Ninth Objection against Mr. W's Opinion, I raise from 1 Thess. 4.13. Where St. Paul says, I would not have you to be ignorant, Brethren, concerning them that are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope: For if we believe that Jesus died, and rose again; even so [Page 184]them also that sleep in Jesus, will God bring with him; and so goes on describing the manner and effects of the Resur­rection of the Dead; adding, Comfort one another with these Words: I offer this for you Comfort, that there shall certainly be a Resurrection of the Dead, wherein your dead Friends also shall rise again; and I would have you make this a Comfort to you, concerning both your dead Friends and your dying Selves, advising you to repose your hopes thereupon, and to comfort your selves and one another, with your Discourses and Communications con­cerning it. Our Apostle appears here, comforting the Hearts of his Correspondents against the sufferings of Death, either by their Friends, or by themselves, and takes his ground of Comfort in such Cases, from our as­sured Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead; and thereupon I observe that he doth not ground and Hope or Comfort upon the Souls Seperate Subsistence, or its going to Heaven immediately after Death: which gives me a firm ground of perswasion, that he either did not know of this Opinion, or he did not believe it; for if he had believed this Doctrine to be true, I think he could not have forgotten, or forborn to give his Disciples Comfort from that Topick: because such Comforts would have been much nearer, than those which he derived from the Doctrine of the Resurrection, and would have been both a more short and sure way, to that Salvation and fu­ture Happiness which Men desire; and therefore if St. Paul had believed this Doctrine to be true, I think he could have no reason for his balking it in this place; but in con­gruity of Reason must have said, Brethren, comfort your selves against Sorrows, for your Friends Deaths and the fear of your own, by considering the happy State of those which die in the Lord, for that their Spirits or Souls im­mediately upon parting from their Bodies, either return to God who gave them, and are received into Heaven and [Page 185]Happiness, or they shall be carried by Angels into Abra­ham's Bosom, and there enjoy at least, a blessed Rest from their Labours, and all future Sufferings. I doubt not, but that the Divines of our time would readily have administred such Comforts as these to the Friends of dead People, or even to the dying Persons themselves; but in our quoted Text, we find St. Paul did not so pro­ceed with his Correspondents upon this like Occasion: for the only Comfort which thereupon he propounds to them, is drawn from the Doctrine of the Resurrection, which in this Place he somewhat at large delivers, as knowing that to be sufficient for Mens Comfort in such Cases, without remembring or believing our late comfortable Doctrine or Opinion, of the Souls going to Heaven immediately af­ter Death; and hereupon I conclude, that this Doctrine was either not known to him, or not believed by him, and that therefore it is an Error, and no certain Truth, or the very Truth of God.

A Tenth Objection against Mr. W's Opinion, I raise from the concurrent Testimonies of many Scripture Texts, re­ferring the expectation of future Rewards or Punishments looked for after this Life, unto the time of the Resurrecti­on of the Dead, and the Last Judgment, without finding and such Expectation at the time of Men's Deaths referred to, or mention'd in any Text of Scripture. In the Cata­logue of Mr. W's own Objections, he hath made this the Sixth, and propounds it thus, The Scriptures (say my Opposers) do frequently make mention of the Great and General Day of Judgment, and refer all the Rewards of the Saints to that Day, and so all the Punishments of the Wicked, therefore the Souls of Men die with their Bodies, as being uncapable of Rewards or Punishments till then. To this Objection he answers concessively, and says, I do partly acknowledge the first part of what ye say, that [Page 186]Scriptures do frequently make mention of that great Day; and again, that the greatest Rewards and Punishments are reserved to that Day: but I deny the later part of what ye say, because the Scripture speaks of the Spirits of just Men made perfect, and of the Soul of the Thief be­ing in Paradise that day he died, and of the Spirit of eve­ry Man returning to God at Death, to be dealt with ac­cording to what they did in the Body; and this he says is enough to blunt the edge of his present Objection. And hereunto I reply, That what he hath said concerning the Spirits of just Men made perfect, hath before been an­swered, and so hath that of the Thief's Soul being in Pa­radise that day, and proved to be invalid Testimonies of the Souls Seperate Subsistence. His Third Testimony of the Spirits returning to God, seems to be mis-recited; for the Text doth not say it returns to God to be dealt with according to what they did in the Body; which Words he adjoins with as much Confidence to the Text, as if they might be there found written, and were part of the Text it self; so as unwary and un­examining Readers might soon be mistaken thereupon. In what manner, and to what purpose Solomon might intend this return of Souls to God hath been before di­sputed; and I still confide, that Mr. W. and his Party will not be able to prove, that these words of Solomon intend­ed the Souls of dead Persons going before God to Judg­ment, as here he hath without any hesitation deliver'd it. And therefore I conclude that his Answer hath very little blunted the edge of our present Objection: I observe it as an Art in Disputing, that it may be advantageous to grant in an easie and transient fashion, such Objections as Men find themselves utterly unable to answer; and I think Mr. W. hath used this Art in transiently granting the first part of this Objection, viz. That the Scriptures do frequently refer the expectation of Rewards or Punishments after this [Page 187]Life, and unto the Resurrection and the Day of Judgment; and whereas I have said before, that there is no mention in Scripture of such Expectations, at or soon after the time of Mens Deaths; he gives us here three of the most pregnant Instances which he could find in Scripture, for proving that Rewards and Punishments are bestowed by God at the time of Mens Deaths; but the force of these Instances hath before been obstructed by those Answers which have been severally given them in their proper pla­ces. I am not without some Temptation of drawing out of the Scripture a Catalogue of such Texts as do with great Evidence and Strength, set forth and prove, that the time of the Resurrection and the Day of Judgment, are not alone the principal, but the only times whereat or wherein Recompences future to this Life, are warrantably and certainly to be expected by Mankind; but because I have said much, and quoted divers Texts of Scripture upon that Subject before, and am now willing to save my self and my Reader the tedium of such a long Repetition. I will refer the Examiners of this Objection unto those Texts which have before been quoted to that purpose, and to such others as themselves may meet with upon the perusal of the Scripture. And with this round number of Ten, the Objections which I make against Mr. W's O­pinion out of Scripture, shall be finished.

Yet I farther intend to add thereunto, two or three Objections against Mr. W's Opinion, derived from Natural Reason and the Experiences of Men. And first, I begin from the Nature and Composition of the Humane Person, and thereupon I observe, that there are three things prin­cipally and absolutely necessary for the Subsistence and Life of the Humane Person, viz. Blood, Breath and Nutri­ment, and thereupon do agree with Moses, that the Life, the Animals is in the Blood, or that the Blood is the Life thereof, whose inflamed Particles are the Spirits which act [Page 188]the Person, and as well the Head as the Members, so long as Life continues in the Body. Next to which, the Breath hath a Principal and absolutely necessary Faculty and Power of fanning and inflaming such Particles of the Blood, as are imployed in every part of the Body, and for refrigera­ting the internal parts of the Body with a perpetual Re­freshment, which keeps the Paristaltick Motion always in action amongst the inward and most vital parts of the Body; whence daily Experience assures us, that by stopping of the Breath but for some few Moments, the Spirit of Life in Man, becomes absolutely suffocated and extinguished, and without Breath no Humane Art or Power can prolong the Life of the Person, or other Animal whatsoever. Con­cerning Nutriment, it is only so far necessary to the Life of the Creature, as the Blood thereof wastes and is con­sumed, by the Circular Continual Motion, and the Inflam­mation thereof.

In some long continuing and weakening Diseases, the Motion of the Blood hath been so weak, and the Inflam­mation thereof so faint, as that in such Persons, there need no Nutriment in a long time, for restoring the waste of Blood in such Persons: but in ordinary ways of living, our Experience assures us, that if the daily waste of Blood be not supplied by Nourishment sutable to the Consumpti­on thereof, the Person must diminish in his Strength and Vigor, and finally perish and die for want of such suste­nance as should restore the stock of the wasted Blood, and furnish the several parts with such moisture and refresh­ment, as thereunto shall be absolutely needful and requi­red. We find an Instance of this Condition in David's Acts, when he came to Ziklag, his Servants found an Egyptian in the Field starved, and at the next Door to Death; for he had neither eaten nor drink in three Days and Nights before, but upon administring fresh Sustenance to his wasted Spirits, they became restored in [Page 189]great measure to their former Activity; which I conceive happen'd to him as it may do in the case of a Lamp, whose Oyl is spent and exhausted: the Light will first grow dim, and be ready to fail and be extinguished, but being re­freshed by more Oyl administred to it, it will soon reco­ver the Flame and Light which it had before. The Text says, When this Man had eaten, the Spirit came again to him. In like manner it is related of Sampson, his being ready to die for thirst, but as soon as he had drank of the Water which issued from his Jaw-bone, that Text says, his Spirit came again, and he revived. I conceive those Places to be parallelled with that Text of 1 Kings 17.22. Where in raising the Widows Son, Elijah prayed, Lord let this Childs Soul come into him again; and the Spirit of the Child came into him again, and he revived. I conceive that the coming again of these three Spirits, as they are express'd in very like words, so they were all of a like nature; the Spirits of the two former were not quite extinguished, as that of Elijah's Child was, but up­on the revival of them all, it is said their Spirits came to them again, which I think may signifie the rekindling or recontinuing of that Flame of Life in their Blood, which we call the Vital Flame, and whereby the Humane Machine or Microcosme is put in motion, and acted so long as it pleases God to continue Life unto it; in the Case of the Egyptian at Ziklag, we may perceive that presently upon the coming of his Spirit to him again, the Activity and Use of all his Sensations returned instantly to him, so as he could not only move, hear, see, &c. but his Under­standing and Memory became apt and ready for Service as before; whence I think we may reasonably collect, that the Original of Acting and Understanding may proceed from the Activity and Motion of the Blood, and the infla­med particles thereof, which together with Life and Mo­tion, produce the Sensations, Affections, Understand­ings [Page 190]and Memories of Men. And having thus propounded, and in some measure proved, that Blood, Breath and Nu­triment, are all absolutely necessary for continuance of the Life of Man, so as he cannot long abide in Life, with­out the continual assistance of every one of them; I pre­tend to apply them to those different sorts of Spirits about which we are now disputing; and therein, if we shall pro­ceed, and make application of them to the Extraneous, telligent and Seperate Spirit, which Mr. W. maintains to be the Spirit of Life in Man; I think we must find, that all these three Natural Incidents to the life of Man, have no coherence at all with such a Spirit, but are very incongruous with the Being and Nature of it; because that forasmuch as we know concerning the nature of such a Spirit, Nutriment seems not to be necessary for the Subsistence thereof, and much less do Breath and Blood, or the Spirits of it seem pertinent, or appliable to the nature of such an Intelli­gent Spirit; and therefore if such a Spirit were truly the Spirit of Life in Man, the three materials before mention­ed, as natural and inseperable Incidents to the continuance of Man's Life, should not be so absolutely necessary for that design, as by daily Experience they are found to be: but if we shall now turn to the other side, and make Ap­plication to that Superfine, yet Material and Unintelligent Spirit, which before hath been described, we must find that there will be a true and real necessity of the three before-named Natural Incidents, for the Support, Supply, and Continuance of its Activity, and of Life its self; so as by this Hypothesis the Phaenomena of nature in Man are more clearly answered, and may be better solved, than can be done by applying these Natural Incidents, to a Se­perable, Intelligent, and Extraneous Spirit in Man; and I therefore conclude it more probable, that the Spirit of Life in Man is rather Material and Unintelligent, than that it is an Intelligent and Seperable Spirit, such as Mr. W. and his Partakers maintain the same to be.

A Second Objection from Nature against Mr. W's Opi­nion, I raise from the further Consideration of the Humane Person, and more particularly from the Bodily Organs thereof; and say thereupon, that God or Nature hath so framed and fitted every one of them, as they are wonder­fully apt for those Offices, which they were intended to perform; of which for Example we may name the Eyes and Tongue, which are admirably framed and fitted for their several Offices, so as the Spirit of Life is by means of these Instruments able to perform such Actions as Nature intended them for; and yet the Perfection or Defects in those performances, seem not so much to depend upon that Spirit which informs and acts them, as upon the stru­cture, soundness and perfection of the Organs themselves. Without such Organs, the Man can neither see nor speak, but when the Organs are sound and perfect, the owner can use them as perfectly as any other can ordinarily do; but if there be any Obstruction in the Optick Nerves, or in those which act the Tongue, the Spirit of Life in the Owner can act them no otherways than they are still capable of, for the Tongue will lisp, stammer, stop, struggle and blutter, do the Man, and his Spirit of Life, what they can, for the rectification of such Infirmities; and so will the Eyes be purr-blind, double or treble sighted, weak, dim and blindish, do the Owner and his Spirit of Life what they can for the Recovery and rectifying of them; so as the Spirit of Life can act the Organ to no higher a Degree of perfection, than the soundness and rectitude of the Or­gan it self will bear; nor act it in other manner than it is fit and capable at that time to be acted: and I con­ceive, that the principal perfection of the faculties of Sec­ing and Speaking, lies more in the sound State and activi­ty of the Organ, than in the power and energy of that Spirit which acts them; and yet I think that the purity and force of such Spirits, may be very conducing to the [Page 192]perfect performance of the Faculty; and yet can act no farther than the Bodily Organ is in its own State and Nature capable of: whence there is a dependance of the Faculty, both upon the Spirit and upon the Organ. But I think that the Differences which we find amongst Mens Faculties of this Nature (wherein there are great Degrees of Perfection and Imperfection) do more depend upon the soundness and fitness of the Organ, than upon the different Degrees of Activity amongst the Spirits of them. And if we shall ascend to the consideration of the Humane Intellect, we may find that the acting and perfection thereof, lies in, and by the Brain, and that the Phantasie lies prin­cipally or only in the fore-part of the Head, the Judg­ment or Esteemative Faculty in the middle of it, and the Memory in the back part thereof; whence if there happen any defect or crasiness in any of these Faculties or Powers of Intellect, Physicians both do, and ought to apply their Medicines for the recovery of them, to the Organs or parts of the Head, which are the proper Instruments of such Fa­culties. If the Phantasie be disordered, the Remedies thereof must be apply'd to the fore-part of the Head, or the Fore-head: if the Judgment be craz'd, such Remedies must be apply'd to the middle part of the Head, and if the Memory fail, application for the Recovery thereof must be made to the back part of the Head; and if Medicines for the Recovery of the Phantasie be apply'd to the back part of the Head, they will be ineffectual to that purpose, and so e contra, if Men will apply Remedies to the back part of the Head, for recovering the disorders of the Phantasie. Men of indifferent Skill can make shrewd guesses concerning the largeness and perfection of those Faculties, by Seeing, Feeling, and perusing the Dimensions and Fa­shonings of Mens Heads. If Mens Fore-heads be large and high, they may reasonably be thought to be of large Phantasies and Inventions; and if the back part of the [Page 193]Head be likewise large, and something protuberant in the lower parts of it, tending towards the Neck, we may guess the Owner of that Organ to have a capacious and strong Memory; and concerning the Judgment, we may think that the largeness of the whole Head (if it be well fill'd, and without any empty Spaces in it) is a great sign of a good and sound Judgment, in those Persons to whom God hath given such an Organ; and from these Topicks I am ready to inferr, that the perfections of the Intellect, depend more upon the Soundness and Gapacities of the Or­gans, than upon the Excellencies and Perfection of the Spirit which acts them, and yet the Power and Purity of such Spirits must be still admitted to have a great effect in the Production, and in the Degrees of Perfection in this Operation. If we shall particularly consider the Nature of that we call the Spirit of Life in Man, we may perhaps find it subject to divers Diseases and Infirmities, as well as we know the Body and the Organs to be; and of what sort soever we shall imagine this Spirit of Life to be, dai­ly Experience may assure, us that it oftentimes finds help and remedies against the Disorders and Diseases thereof, by good Air, wholsome and regular Diet, good Compa­ny, Musick or Harmony, freedom from Cares, and other Easements and Satisfactions to the Minds of Men, as well as by Medicines and Helps administred by the Physici­ans in divers Cases. And thus have we run through and considered divers weighty particulars concerning the Bodily Organs, and the Minds of Men, with intent to apply the same to the two sorts of Souls or Spirits which are now in dispute between us; and have shewed that the Perfections of Humane Powers, both Sensitive and Rational, do more depend upon the Aptitude and Capacity of the Bodily Or­gans, than upon that Spirit which gives Life and Motion to them: and next, that the Humane Mind or Spirit of Life in Man, is capable of Melioration and Detriment, by many [Page 194]such Accidental Things as I have before enumerated and ex­press'd; and from all these Premisses, I am very apt to col­lect, that if the Spirit of Life in Man, were an Intelligent Seperable and Extraneous Being; things could not reason­ably fall out in the Nature of Man, as they have before been declared commonly to do; but if this Spirit, which gives Life to Man, be taken for a Fire, yet Material and Unintelligent Spirit; all that hath before been spoken con­cerning the Bodily Organs, and the Spirit or Mind of Man, will fall out to be very agrecable and homogenious to the Nature of such a Spirit, and to the whole composition of the Humane Person. And hence I take upon me to infer, that the Spirit of Life in Man, is more likely to be Mate­rial and Unintelligent, than to be such a sort of Intelligent and Self-subsisting Spirit as Mr. W. and his Party maintain the same to be.

A Third Objection against Mr. W's Opinion, I take a Simily, and raised from Mens Experience, and the common Consideration of the Brutal Nature. Our daily Experi­ence assures us, that by whatsoever Spirits the Brutes are acted, they fully enjoy the Powers of Life and Sense, and some such measures of Intellect, as gives them a Sagacity sit to attain and accomplish the ends of their Beings, al­tho' in the Degrees thereof they fall very much below such Perfections of them, as are found in Men: by Vertue and Power of the Vital Spirits in Brutes, working in and a­mong the Organs of their Bodies, their Animal Nature at­tains to as great a Perfection as the Humane Nature doth, as far as concerns the Vegitation and Sensation of them both. For the Brutes live as well, and as naturally, and as much as the Men do. And next, their Motions are as strong, vigorous and active, as those of the Men are, in both the sorts of Motions which are common to them. First, their I ward Motions of Heart, Lungs, Bowels, and other their [Page 195]Principal and Vital Entrals, which Sort of Motion we may term Involuntary, because the Men or Beasts can give no stoppage to them, but waking or sleeping, in sickness and in health, such Motions are natural, and needful for main­taining Life in the Creature, in whose power it is not to stop or alter them. And this sort of Motion is needful for, and as active amongst Beasts as Men. The other sort of Motion is that which Men call Local or Voluntary, such as that of the Hands, Feet, Head, and other Members of the Body, which the Creature can use, or not use, at its own liking and pleasure; and we find that the Motions of Brutes in this kind, are as vigorous, nimble and strong, as those of the Men are. Then if we proceed to the power and practice of their outward Senses, as of Seeing, Hear­ing, Feeling, &c. Experience will convince us, that divers Brutes attain to as great Perfection in the use of such Senses, as the Generations of Men do, and some Brutes ex­ceed the Humane Powers, in the Practice and Use of some of these Senses. And if we then consider the Humane Af­fections of Lust, Wrath, and Fear, we may find that the Brutal Nature is as full of these Affections, as the Humane; and that the Beasts have them in as great vigor, violence and perfection, as Men have them. And lastly, if we rise to consider the Power of Intellect, we may find that Brutes injoy the true and real use of Phantasie, Choice and Me­mory, so far as is Needful for the well being of their Na­tures, tho' in a weak measure, and very low degree, if we compare such Faculties of theirs with such as may be found in that kind amongst the highest ranks of Men, or such of them as have attain'd to great degrees of Improvement in their Faculties of that kind. It may be, that if we shall compare the most Stupid amongst Men, with the most Sen­sitive amongst Brutes, as with the Elephant, Ape, Horse, Dog, and Fox; it may be found that some of these Creatures are more docible, and may be made more know­ing, [Page 196]than some of the most stupid amongst Men: so that by their Teachers Eye, or Continuance, or their Voices, they have been made to act and perform divers things which caus'd Admiration in the Beholders, and such as it would be hard to teach the stupidest Persons amongst Men to per­form in such manner, as Beasts have been known to do them. There appears between the Brutal and Humane Na­ture and Composition, very great differences, and that the Men have many advantages above the Beasts, in those Parts and Members which appear outwardly to the Eye. First, in the Members of their Hands and Tongue, and the genuine and natural uses of them both: and next, in the natural and upright posture of the Humane Body, and the placing of the Head thereupon, all which give great advantages to the Humane, above the Brutal Bodies, and gives them such capacities of acting, as are deny'd to all Brutes whatsoever; and it seems we may reasonably sup­pose, that there may be the like great advantages, in the inward Organs of Humane, above those of the Brutal Heads, and whereby the Humane are made more capable of per­forming the great Duties of their Intellect, then the Brutal Creatures have Capacities to do; and yet we find these Differences do not hinder the persons of Men from being ranked amongst the Animal Kind; the prime Ingredients into whose Composition, are the same Flesh, Blood, Bones, Breath, Nerves, Arteries, Veins, Joynts, Sinews and Mem­bers, which go to the Composition of them both. And Experience may convince us, that the Lives of them all are in their Blood, or that Blood is the life of them, and by the particles of such Blood inflamed, called the Spirits of their Blood, they are all inlivened and acted alike; altho' by the Structure of their Bodies, and the Perfection of their Or­gans to some purposes, the Humane Nature have very great advantages above the Brutal: and these are the main Differences which I have yet been able to find between [Page 197]the two Natures before-mentioned; and I am hence so far convinced, as to conceive that there is no such great and apparent Differences between that sort of the Spirit of Life which acts the Brutes, and that sort of Spirit which acts the Men, as heretofore hath generally been believed; but the Spirits which act Life in them both, are of a more si­milar Nature than Men have formerly imagined them to be; and from this Argument I am ready to conclude, that the Humane Spirit of Life hath a great agreement with that of the Brutal, and therefore I think it more probable to be a Material Unintelligent Spirit, than that it should be an In­telligent created extraneous Spirit, made by God for each Man at the time of his Procreation, and injected into the Embrion, at some incertain or unknown time, which yet remains unperceived or undeclared to us; and which if it shall be made better known, may deserve to be fur­ther examined amongst us. Upon these three last Argu­ments drawn from the Animal Nature and Humane Experi­ence, my first doubtings concerning the Seperate Subsist­ence of souls were founded; after I had held out in the old Opinion until my Age of Sixty Three-Years, and my doubting caus'd me to search the Scriptures concerning that Point, and there I found no Concurrence of Scrip­ture Texts which were brought as Evidences thereof, and not so much as one Text that was clear in the aff [...]m [...]nce of it, except that of St. Matthew's saying, Are not able to kill the Soul.

Next that, neither that Saying, nor any other Text pro­duced for proof of that Point, had a principal [...] teach or prove the Souls Seperate Subsistence, [...] the Texts produced for the proof of that Opinion [...] livered in a collateral manner, and are brought [...] by, without Mens being able to make it appear [...] of the Texts produced to that purpose, did [...] tend to declare or prove the now questioned [...] [Page 198]the Souls Seperate Subsistence. I found also, that all their Texts from whence the consequential proofs which they make, are drawn, might receive reasonable, and I think sufficient Answers, which I have endeavour'd to apply to them in this Treatise, and have satisfy'd my own Under­standing in them all; and how far they will appear reason­able to the Readers thereof, I am willing to leave to such Experimental Tryals as may be made upon the Judgments of such Persons as may happen to peruse the Treatise, and to the Candor and Indifferent Censure of such Readers, I am willing to submit my self and all that I have spoken in this Treatise, and concerning this Subject.

AFter Mr. Wadsworth 's finishing the Treatise before considered, he super-adds thereunto, and subjoyns to it, a Declamatory Discourse, which he intitles, Faith's Triumph over the Fears of Death; which is not much less in bulk than his Treatise before answered.

Ʋpon the Perusal thereof, I find his Triumphal Arch principally founded, the one end of it upon the Souls Se­perate Subsistence, and the other end upon the Souls going to Heaven immediately after Death; both which I conceive to be Precarious Assumptions, I am sure not granted by his Opposers, and I believe not sufficiently proved by his Ar­guments. I find that in this Discourse he repeats a third time the four Texts of Scripture which he thinks do most strongly prove his Opinion: viz. Solomon's return of the Spirit to God who gave it: St. Matthew's Are not able to kill the Soul. St. Luke 's Parable of Dives, and his Relation of the Thiefs Conversion on the Cross. I ac­knowledge my self averse from making often Repetitions of the same things, and therefore do refuse to follow his [Page 199]Example or Practice in this Point, but rather make choice to refer my Reader to such Answers as are before given to these Arguments in those places, where he hath twice before propounded them.

I do not find that in this Discourse he hath added any new Arguments to those which are produced in his former Treatise, so as there are no new Proofs propounded in this Triumph; whence I am apt thereupon to surmise that he doth Triumphum canere ante Victoriam: and because his Trium­phal Building seems to be principally founded upon the two before-named Assertions, I collect that if the rain descend vi­olently upon it, the winds shake it, the floods happen to beat upon it, this Triumphal Edifice will be more likely to fall than to stand; because the ground upon which it is raised, seems over soft and sandy for the support thereof; and for that the foundations of it are not digged deep enough by such a Search into the Scriptures, as might make it appear that the Doctrine is built upon a strong Stream or clear Current of Scripture Te­stimonies, somewhat apparently or clearly attesting the Truth thereof in some such places, where there was a Design of Teaching concerning the Future State of Men after Death. I do not conceive that there was a Design of speaking of such a Future State in any of the four Texts last before quoted, of So­lomon, St. Matthew, and St. Luke; and therefore I do not find any great strength of Conviction in them. I shall therefore pass over these and all the rest of Mr. Wadsworth 's Discourse of Faith's Triumph, without speaking any farther thereunto; because it seems not greatly material towards the farther proof of that Question which is now disputed between us: resolving here to finish my Observations upon this Author, with a hearty Bene valeas, to my Intelligent Reader.