Religion and reason adjusted and accorded, or, A discourse wherein divine revelation is made appear to be a congruous and connatural way of affording proper means for making man eternally happy through the perfecting of his rational nature with an appendix of objections from divers as well as philosophers as divines and their respective answers.

AN APPENDIX OF OBJECTIONS TO Several Things Asserted in the preceding Treatise, With their Respective ANSWERS.

Objection 1.

IT is said, sect. 1. par. 3. That an actual, infinite Series of things is impossible, which Assertion if it were true, then could not the Omniscient comprehend at once all

the Thoughts which the Glorified Saints and Angels shall have to Eternity.

Answer.

The Omniscient knows at once all the Thoughts which Men and Angels shall ever have, but their number is not infinite. For when Christ has delivered up the Kingdom to his Father, there will be no more Change; but whatever the present state of the Bles∣sed shall then be, 'twill never admit of any alteration afterward; so that the Thoughts of the glorified Saints and Angels will be perpetually the same without any succession of new Conceptions incident to them. For, if, after they have obtained their utmost Perfection in the full Fruition of God their chiefest Good, they should receive a Change, especially in their Thoughts wherein the Prime of their Felicity consists, such Change to whatever it were, would of necessity be for the worse, and so they should depart thereby from the Perfection and Fulness of Bliss enjoyed by them, which is impossible, (sect. 4. par. 14.)

Objection. 2.

God, you say, is one pure essential Act and simple Being, sec. 1. par. 9, 10. and yet you put two essential Acts in God, viz. Knowing and Loving, sec. 2 par. 2, 9.

Answer.

I do not say in the cited places, that Knowing and Loving are two essential Acts in God; I say there (and no where else to the contrary) that they are God himself diffe∣rently related or relatively opposed to him∣self; so that, in my sense, the Trinity of Per∣sons in the Ʋnity of Essence is the very self∣same pure essential Act and simple Being under distinct Relations to it self (in the manner set forth, sec. 2. par. 4, 5, 9, 10.) For wheresoever there is a Relative Opposition, there is of ne∣cessity a Distinction (Relatio being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, si∣ve habitudo vel respectus unius ad aliud) and yet nevertheless it is not necessary, that where there is such an Opposition, there should be always different Subjects separate from each other, wherein that different op∣posite Relation should abide. For since Sci∣entia and Scibile are Relatives; where Know∣ledg

is the Knowledg of ones self, there is a Relative Opposition, and yet but one Subject to sustain the same. And the like is also true in respect of Love, where it is to ones self. Whence, seeing there are no Acci∣dents in God (sect. 1. par. 6.) it must be, that the Divine Relates are all of them sub∣stantial, and not otherwise distinct from the simple Essence of God, but in regard of their Relative Opposition to each other.

Objection 3.

The Father knows and loves himself; the Son knows and loves himself; and the Holy Ghost knows and loves himself; and every one of these again knows and loves each other; how then can there be only Three Persons and no more in the Divine Essence, if so be the Distinction of Persons proceeds from the Different Relations which are said to be in God, as you in Sec. 2. affirm it does.

Answer.

Each Person of the Blessed Trinity knows himself and the other two, by the Second Person, which is the Essential Knowledg of

God, se••••. 2. par. 4, 5▪ (for there is but one Essential Divine Knowledg.) And every one of the Three Persons loves himself and the other two, by the Third Person, who is Es∣sential Divine Love, sec. 2. par. 9. (for there is One only Essential Divine Love) so that there are no more Relatives or Persons in respect of Knowledg and Love than Two. And albeit in respect of being known and beloved, there seem to be many several Relations in God, in that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each of them known and beloved of them∣selves, and of the other two likewise; yet that falling out by reason of the Circuminses∣sion (as the Schools term it) or mutual es∣sential Inexistence of all the three Persons; and not in respect of a primary-immediate∣opposite-Relation (which alone constitutes a Person, sec. 2. par. 3, 4, 9.) it rightly de∣notes no Pl••rality of Relations in God. For since the Divine Nature as Eternal Essential Truth, is the alone primary-immediate Object both of Divine Knowledg and Love (for Truth is the adequate Object of all intelli∣gent Beings as knowing and loving, or of the Intellect and Will; as the sole perfection of them) it is plainly consequent thereto, that the alone Primary-immediate Divine Object known and beloved is eternal essential Truth,

(the Origin and Fountain of the Divine Per∣sons; to wit, Eternal, Essential, Divine Truth begetting the Eternal, Essential, Di∣vine Knowledg of its self is God the Father; the Eternal, Essential, Divine Knowledg begotten of the Eternal, Essential, Divine Truth, is God the Son; and the Eternal, Es∣sential, Divine Love of the Eternal, Essen∣tial, Divine Truth known (or which is the same, of the Father and the Son) is God the Holy Ghost) notwithstanding that there is an innate mutual knowledg and love of all the Three Persons by Circuminssession, whilst the Father is essentially in the Son, the Divine thing known being essentially in the Divine Knower; and the Son is essential∣ly in the Father, the Divine Knower being the essential Character of the Divine Thing known, sect. 2. par. 5. And the Father and the Son are both of them essentially in the Holy Ghost; and He in Them, by reason of the essential Union of the Divine Love and the Divine Thing Beloved, sect. 2. par. 9. Whence it necessarily comes to pass, that whatsoever can be truly spoken or predica∣ted of God, is mutually in all the Three Per∣sons, and may be rightly spoken and predi∣cated of every one of them, as well as of the Divine Nature, Essence or Being; save

only what the Primary-immediate-relative∣opposition (which, as has been shewn, is but threefold) as such, puts a Bar unto.

Objection 4.

It is worthy of Consideration, whether the men of this Age may not make the same use of your Discourse, that the Mahometans and Jews do of others like it, utterly to dis∣like the Trinity.

Answer.

Since the Reason, why the Mahometans and Jews, and other Antitrinitarians, as have any real love and value for Truth, dis∣believe the Trinity, seems chiefly to be this, that they are fully perswaded there can be no part of Divine Revelation which is certainly opposite to right Reason, and yet cannot ap∣prehend but that the Doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in Ʋnity of Essence is contradicto∣ry; in probability an Essay of this kind should rather do good than harm to men of such Perswasions, if so be it afford any the minutest true, though never so glimmering, Light of the but possibility of the Truth of the Doctrin of the Holy Trinity, to human

Reason; because the Revelation of the Di∣vine Persons in Scripture would be apt to find a more easie reception in their Minds thereby, than if they still remain'd strongly possessed with an Opinion, that the Doctrin of a Trinity of Persons in Ʋnity of Essence was impossible to be true, through the sense and perswasion they had of its absolute Con∣tradiction to Reason, being rationally pre∣possessed that one Truth cannot be really op∣posite to another.

Objection 5.

Against what I find writ, sect. 3. par. 7. namely, that God ever does of necessity, yet voluntarily, what is best all things consider∣ed, I offer an Objection from an ingenious Author in his Treatise of the Nature and Ex∣tent of the Divine Dominion and Goodness, which is this;

God has power to take back from us all or part of what he has given us, i. e. he can utterly destroy our Beings, or take from us so many Com∣forts of Life, and inflict upon us so many Calamities as shall leave us in a condition only preferable to that of Non-existence. For all that we have to render our Condi∣tions more valuable than Not-being, is the

free Product of the Divine Power. But 'tis a certain and undoubted Truth, that every Authority has power to revoke all the free Issues of its own Power, unless it have abridged it self from the exercise thereof by some special Compact or Pro∣mise. For Compact or Promise lays an obligation on him that makes it, and vests a Right in the Person to whom it is made; and therefore where Benefits are bestow∣ed without these Instruments of convey∣ing Right, there the Donor has the same Right to withdraw, as he had to give them, and therefore that God, who has given us our Beings, has full Power arbi∣trariously to destroy them.

Answer.

The presumed strength of this Discourse (very ingenious and plausible, I confess) lies in the supposed Certainty of this, That every Superior Authority has power to revoke all the free Issues of its own power, unless it have abridged it self from the exercise thereof by some special Compact or Promise. But it is not so certain and undoubted a Truth, as it is taken by the quoted Author to be; for since he himself tells us, that Dominium est libertas

propriis facultatibus secundum rect am Rationem utendi, and rightly, it is evident, that no Authority has a Right to exercise Dominion otherwise than according to Right Reason; and therefore it is not only injurious to re∣voke a free Gift contrary to Compact or Pro∣mise; but also, if in any other Respect whatsoever, it be not according to Right Reason to do it, this being the absolute Rule for the exercising Dominion by; as from the following Instances will, I think, be e∣vidently made appear; the first of which shall be in a matter of small moment. A Pinner makes a Wire-pin, and when he has done, clips it into pieces, and throws it away meerly because he will, or for his sole Pleasures sake; in doing this he neither wrongs any Person, nor the Pin, because it is his own, and he made it, yet in that he does an irrational Act (in re∣gard that Reason obliges every man to act in every thing for some good End, where∣as this is plainly a vain and frivolous Action tending to no good) he violates thereby his Rational Nature, and so injures himself; which because Reason tells him he ought not to do, he exercises his Dominion over the Pin, not according to, but against Right Reason, which he is not impower'd by

the Right of Dominion to do. The second Instance shall be in a matter of moment, as follows; A Sovereign Prince has a just occa∣sion to make War against a potent Enemy, and after due Consultation had with his most wise and faithful Counsellors resolves at length on a Person undoubtedly the fit∣est in all the Kingdom to be his General, and thereupon makes him so. The Prince afterward, notwithstanding he still upon prudent grounds esteems him a Person in e∣very respect, for Fidelity, Valour and Con∣duct more requisite to be employed than a∣ny other in that Service; yet, nevertheless out of Fancy, takes his Commission from him, and bestows the Command of the Ar∣my upon another, who through his ill Ma∣nagement is occasion of its Overthrow; in this case, though the Sovereign does his Subject no wrong in removing him from the high and honourable Trust of being Gene∣ral, and conferring it on a Person far less worthy; yet nevertheless he wrongs his own Reason; and to be injurious to ones own Reason, is the principal Wrong, if well con∣sidered, that any man can do; because of the most intimate Concern to every one, as being that which does Violence to Man's very Natural Constitution, which is Rational

and thence becomes the Original of all Inju∣ry, which any one does, either to himself or others. The third and last Instance, of many that might be brought, shall be in God himself, in manner following: Suppose the Almighty when he created the World to act therein (as sure 'twill be readily granted he did) according to exact Wisdom, and that there is no less Reason to continue it being made, then there was at first to make it; God in this case could not reduce it again to nothing without contradicting his own Reason, which because it is impossible for him to do▪ it's impossible likewise to annihilate the Universe upon the ac∣count of its being the free Product of his Will; not but that he has strength infinitely more then is sufficient to do it, but (foras∣much as the Universe is the Result of his immutable Wisdom and Goodness) that it can never enter into his Thoughts to do it.

If it be asked what advantage a Man has by Propriety in a thing above another Per∣son that has no Right thereto at all, if he may not dispose of it as he pleases; I an∣swer this advantage, that he may make use of it according to Right Reason at his Plea∣sure, whereas any other who is not the Pro∣prietor, cannot, without the Owners Leave first had, ever lawfully use it at all.

Objection 6.

From the infinite Goodness and Perfection of God, Divines usually prove the Necessity of the Eternal Communication of his Divine Na∣ture to the Son and Holy Ghost; and thence infer that the World was not a necessary, but free Product of the Divine Goodness, since otherwise the Almighty should have communicated Being to the Creature, no less necessarily, then he did his Essence to the Second and Third Person in the Blessed Tri∣nity, and consequently an infinite Perfecti∣on, contrary to what is demonstrated, Sect. 3.

Answer.

Though I speak of Gods being necessita∣ted to create, Sect. 3. Yet I expresly there say, that it is only by his Eternal immutable Wisdom and Goodness, and that they no otherways engage his Will, save only to make the best Choice; not that God was e∣ver undetermined in his Will, since it is im∣possible that his Wisdom, being essential to him, should not perpetually necessarily know; and his Goodness no less essential to him, should not perpetually necessarily in∣cline

him to will, what is best or most agree∣able to both, and equally impossible that his will, not really but notionly only distinct from either (whatsoever is in God being God, Sect. 1. Par. 11.) should not act according to them; so that as all the internal Actings of God are essentially wise and essentially good, so are they likewise essentially necessary, whilst the Divine Wisdom, Goodness and Will are essentially the same, and his internal Act∣ings nothing else but his very Will essentially actuated with Wisdom and Goodness, and by consequence eternally and necessarily so actuated. And therefore the Instance from the necessity of communicating the Divine Nature by the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit, for proof that the World was not necessarily created, in stead of disproving the necessity of the Worlds Creation, is clearly an Argument for it. For seeing the Communication of the Divine Nature is rendred by the Objection (and truly) the necessary Result of the infinite Goodness and Perfection of God, it plainly argues a greater Perfection in an intelligent Being, to act out of necessity of Nature, then to act with that Freedom which supposes a Liber∣ty of acting, or not acting, or pleasure, and consequently, in regard there are no

degrees of Perfection in God, who is essen∣tial Perfection it self, that the Creation was as well a necessary as voluntary Product of the Divine Will, and that the reason why the Universe is not of infinite Perfection an∣swerable to the Maker of it, is from the In∣capacity of the Subject, accordingly as was shewn, Sect. 3. Par. 1, 2, 3, 8. the World being a Complex of Things, the perfectest that could be created, ibid.

Objection 7.

If the World could not have been eter∣nal, as it is said in Sect. 3. Par. 4. that it could not; the reason thereof must be, ei∣ther because God could not have created it from Eternity for want of Power, or be∣cause the World it self was incapable of ex∣isting eternally: But neither of these is true; not the former, because God is always alike Omnipotent, so that in respect of him the World might as well have been created from Eternity, as when it was; nor the latter, because no moment can be thought on wherein the World could have been more capable to be created then in any o∣ther. Ergo, the World might have been eternal.

Answer.

The World was incapable of existing e∣ternally; for since the glorious Structure thereof was successively made, and not in∣stantaneously (as is clear from the account we have of its Origin, Genes. 1. and from these words also, On the seventh day God ended his Work which he had made, Gen. 2. 2.) it implies a Contradiction that it should have been eternal; for what was done on the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth day of the Creation, could not possibly be eternal, otherwise whatsoever was done on any of those days would have been done as soon as that which was done on the first day, which is impossible, because what was not done till the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth day could not be done before, unless the same thing might be done and not be done at the same time. And as what was done on the six latter days could not be e∣ternal, so neither that which was done on the first; for in regard the first day was on∣ly one day before the second, two days be∣fore the third, three days before the fourth, four days before the fifth, and five days be∣fore the sixth; it is not possible that what

was done on the first day should be any more eternal, then what was done upon any of the other, except the addition of one day to two, three, four, or five others could make their finite Number infinite. If it be said that this indeed rationally makes it out, that the World, supposing the manner of the Creation as it is related by Moses, could not be eternal. But what if God had pleased to create the World in its full entire Glory instantaneously at once, might it not then have been created from Eternity? I con∣ceive not, for otherwise there would have been infinite successions of times and things, which in Sect. 3. Par. 4. is made out to be impossible. And therefore although it be not very apparent to Mans Understanding, but that something instantaneously made by God might possibly be eternal. Yet that any such thing could be created from eternity, the Creation whereof would imply the sup∣posal of contradictory assertions to become true from thence, (as from the Eternity of the World, wherein things continually suc∣ceed one another the Creation thereof would do, Sect. 3. Par. 4.) there's no ap∣pearance of any possibility at all. Yea, if the Reasons given, Sect. 3. Par. 8. be found good. First, That God always of necessi∣ty

acts according to the highest Wisdom and greatest Goodness. Secondly, That the Creation of any individual Creature, or single Species of Creatures would not have answered that his Wisdom and Goodness. Thirdly, That nothing but the very Com∣plex of Beings which constitutes the Uni∣verse could have been created; it seems necessarily to follow, that, in regard the World which exists could not have been e∣ternal, nothing at all could have been crea∣ted from Eternity.

Objection 8.

Whereas it is affirmed, Sect. 4: that God created Man for his own Good, that he might inherit everlasting Bliss, the Holy Scri∣pture tells us in express words, The Lord hath made all things for himself, even the wicked for the day of Evil, Prov. 16. 4.

Answer.

As to the former part of the Verse, The Lord hath made all things for himself, I find one Exposition of it in the Critics, against which, I think, nothing can be justly ex∣cepted, to wit, Omnia operatus est Dominus

propter seipsum tanquam ultimum finem; which as to Man's particular, I have shown, Sect. 4. Par. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. how it is most true. And the like must pari ra∣tione be held of all other rational Animals, if any such there be in the Universe besides, as also of every Angelical Nature, whose Chiefest Good and Ultimate End and Per∣fection must consist in the Vision of God. Yea, and meer corporeal Substances, al∣though they have not an immediate Ten∣dency towards God, yet are they necessari∣ly serviceable to Man (at least) who has, in that the circumstant material World is ab∣solutely requisite to his Generation, Nutri∣tion, Augmentation, Conservation, and e∣ven Perfection, whilst by the Organs of Sense, on which are no Operations wrought but by Corporeal Objects and Agents with∣out him, he attains to the Knowledge, Admi∣ration, and Love of God; so that all things, either mediately or immediately appear to acquire their Ʋltimate End and Consummati∣on in God. But to suppose the Almighty to have created all things so for himself, as that his Ultimate Aim in all his gracious and glorious Acts, was to Receive, and not wholly to Do Good, is to suppose an utter Impossibility to be an absolute Truth. For

since nothing is good, but in respect of some Convenience of Profit or Pleasure which accrues by it to whom it is good, 'tis clear, that God, in whom is the Fulness of Perfe∣ction, is totally incapable of receiving Be∣nefit from the Creature. And no less im∣possible is it that he should acquire Pleasure or obtain Delight from any thing without himself; for what is of infinite Excellency is infinitely delightful, which because the prime independent Being God is, he must needs be infinitely delighted in the Contem∣plation of himself; and to say there can be an accession of Pleasure to infinite Pleasure, is in effect to say that Infinity is not infinite. But farther I shew the Impossibility of God's receiving Pleasure from any Performances of the Creature thus: Whatsoever Pleasure the Almighty has, it is either essential to him, or accidental; essential he can have none, but what is necessarily intrinsecal to his very Nature, and such is not the supposed Plea∣sure arising from the Honour exhibited to God by the Creature. And to say that any Pleasure by way of accident is in God, or of a different Nature from his Essence, is to deny him to be the most Simple, and in Consequence thereto the most Perfect Being, for what is not most simple, is some way or

other compounded, and all Composition de∣notes Imperfe••••ion, because in every Compo∣sition the Parts compounding must of neces∣sity be of a finite and limited Nature; for if either, or both Parts (supposing there be only two) were of infinite Perfection, there could be no Composition made, by reason that in one Infinite would be the entire Per∣fection of whatever could be in both Parts, and so there would be nothing more in the Whole or Compound, than in one Part thereof; which since it is repugnant to the Nature of whole and Parts, the Reality of such a Composition is impossible, and can∣not be in God who is essentially infinite in Perfection. As to the latter part of the Verse in the Objection, viz. even the Wicked for the Day of Evil; Dr. Patrick in his Paraphrase on the Text tells us,

That it hath exercised many Pens to little pur∣pose, when the Sense is clear, which is this: The Lord disposeth all things throughout the World to serve such ends, as he thinks fit to design, which they can∣not refuse to comply with; for if any Men be so wicked, as to oppose his Will, he will not lose their Service, but, when he brings a Calamity upon a Country, employ them to be the Executioners of

his Wrath.

This Interpretation makes nothing at all against any thing I have as∣serted. But suppose the worthy Expositor should himself be mistaken, no less then he thinks many others to be, we may rationally conclude that no convincing Proof of any thing can be made from a Text, whose Sense is so dubious, that the determinate meaning of it cannot be assigned.

Objection 9.

In the first Petition of the Lord's Prayer, Hallowed be thy Name, we desire that God may be glorified; in the second, Thy King∣dom come; we pray for our own and other Mens eternal Glory or Felicity; and there∣fore seeing God's Glory is desired in the first Petition, and Man's Glory or Felicity in the second; God's Glory and Man's Feli∣city cannot be the same thing as they are said to be, Sect. 4. Solut. of the Objection there made.

Answer.

The Glory desired in the first and second Petition, is not adequately the same, but yet not totally different; for in saying Hal∣lowed be thy Name, we pray that God's name

may be glorified by the whole Work of the Creation, of which Man being a Part, we petition that Mankind, together with the rest of the Universe (except the Damned which are irrevocably lost) may glorifie God, and chiefly in acquiring the respective End for which every thing was created; and therefore though the eternal glorifying of God by Man prayed for in the second Petition, be not adequately the same with the glorifying God by the whole Creation, in obtaining universally its End, and ob∣serving the Laws appointed for procuring the same, desired in the first Petition; yet is it the same with Mans particular ultimate End or Felicity; which, inasmuch as it con∣sists in loving God with all the Power and Strength of the Soul, and that such Love is the Honour which God requires to be gi∣ven by Man to Eternity, (Sect. 4. in the So∣lution of the Objection) it is plain, that Man's eternal Glory and Felicity is the same with his glorifying God for ever. Neither is it any Tautology (which the designed Brevity of the Lords Prayer composed by Divine Wisdom necessarily, I confess, acquits it of) when we have first prayed in general that the whole Creation, whereof Man is a Part, may glorifie God in the attainment chiefly

of their respective Ends, to crave more parti∣cularly for our selves, and all others of the same Species with us, the End for which Man was created; whilst to pray so first in gene∣ral is a proper operative Means and Induce∣ment to cause us to desire more concern∣edly and with greater ardency of Devotion, that we and our Neighbour may not our selves fail of the End of our Creation, when we have already begged that every thing whatsoever may acquire its Perfection. If God, you'l say be glorified chiefly in the acquisition of the End for which things were created, it should seem that he is not at all glorified in the Damnation of Reprobate Men and Angels, in that they neither obtain the End for which Rational and Intelligent Natures were created, nor observe the Laws conducible thereunto; I answer, that there∣fore they do not glorifie God after the man∣ner intended in the Lord's Prayer; yet their Condition nevertheless is not such, but that Glory redounds thereby to God, and that not only in regard of their Beings (whereof they would not be deprived, as will hereafter be shown in the Answer to the 9. Obj.) which are of God; but also in re∣spect that forsaking him, and placing their Affections on other Objects never to be ob∣tained,

they find themselves perpetually tormented, and thence of necessity own that their Sufferings proceed from their per∣verse Desires continued in, and that God is altogether Righteous, not at all rejoycing, or taking Pleasure, in their wretched mise∣rable Condition, as he himself protesteth, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the Death of the Wicked, Ezek. 33. 11.

Objection 10.

Death is said, Sect. 6. among other Mi∣series which befall Mankind, to be the Con∣natural Effect of eating the forbidden Fruit, which seems to be contrary to Experience, for Death is often caused by the Inequality and Corruption of the Air, 'tis clear at least, that from thence do spring all Famins, Plagues, &c. and 'tis incredible those things should not act upon Man, and cause Death, although his animal Spirits were ne're so rightly tempered. I know some say, that in the State of Paradise there was no Summer nor Winter, and so none of these things which are the Effects of such inequality of Seasons. And indeed those more noble and conspicuous Stars scattered through the Zodiac, that is on both sides the Ecliptic,

are a great sign that the Earth at its first drying was turned just under the Ecliptic, and had its Axis still conformed to the E∣cliptics Axis. Now if this had continued, I easily perceive all parts would have per∣petually kept the same Relation to the Sun, so would have had a constant equability of Heat. But now we see it is otherwise, and I would gladly learn how the Deviation of the Earth's Axis from the Poles of the E∣cliptic to the Poles of the Aequator, which is the cause of Winter and Summer, and of all Distempers in the Air, could be the con∣natural effect of the Fruit.

Answer.

To this Inquiry, in which the whole dif∣ficulty is wound up, I thus make answer; Since it was the good Pleasure of God to prevent the grand sad effect which the eat∣ing of the Apple would of necessity have produced, I mean Adam's and Eves eternal Misery, in case they had not returned to love God as their Sovereign Good, it was requisite to let them understand the danger of transgressing the Almighties Command, not only in regard of what was past, but also of what was to come; which to do in a

way connatural and suitable to their State, seems in reason to have been the very same which the Almighty took. For whereas our first Parents were put into the Garden of Eden, abounding with Variety of what was good and grateful to them, thereby to incline them to be thankful, to give Praise and Honour to God, and above all, to love him as the Author and Giver of every good thing they enjoy'd, what so connatural a Course even to the eye of Human Reason could have been taken to bring them home to himself again by Repentance, as to turn them out of the pleasant Enjoyments they in the State of their Integrity had experi∣enced; and for that end to make the Earth so barren, as that without the Sweat of their Brows it should not yield them neces∣sary Maintenance? And then, forasmuch as God works not Miracles where natural cau∣ses are sufficient to effect his Purpose, 'tis most reasonable to think, that the Earth was made less fruitful, in the way which in the Objection it is supposed that it might fall out, to wit, by causing that Motion of the Earth (or Course peradventure of the Sun, it matters not whether) which makes difference of Seasons, and alteration of the Air; whence also Sicknesses and Diseases

would be apt to grow, and so constant cau∣ses of Misery and Mortality be in all Ages ready at hand to put Men in mind of their frail and sinful Condition, and thence be∣come (not tormentive Revenges, but) con∣natural Means, Motives and Inducements to make them fly with sorrow of Heart and full purpose of amending their Lives, (for Wickedness even in the apprehension of the very Pagans was the Cause of the Calami∣ties which befel Men) to God for Succour, Help and Comfort, and so to build their Hopes, and put their Trust in him, and con∣sequently to love him as their Sovereign Be∣nefactor. If it be replied that what has yet been said falls short of resolving the main difficulty, which is, how the eating of the Fruit could be the connatural Cause, or a necessary Motive to God, for altering either the Course of the Sun, or the Motion of the Earth, by which the Air became distemper∣ed for the Sin of Man? My Answer is, first, that admitting there was a Change either of the annual course of the Sun, or of the Mo∣tion of the Earth from what it was at first, it will, I think, be hard to give any other good account, why the Change was made, save only that which has been given already, namely for embarrening the Earth, and

bringing Distempers and Diseases on Man∣kind, to drive them in a manner to have a sense of their sinful sad Condition, to the end they might cast themselves upon the Mercy and Goodness of God, and place their Affections on him for the same. But I answer secondly, that there is in truth no necessity to grant there was any different Course of the Sun, or Motion of the Earth, from what it was annually afterward; for the Omniscient eternally comprehending at once what will ever be the Effects as well of all voluntary as necessary Causes, could not chuse but know that Adam would volunta∣rily fall from the State wherein he created him, and exactly at what time; and there∣fore ordered from Eternity such a successive∣ly various Course of the Sun, or Motion of the Earth, as would be congruous both to the Estate of Mans Integrity, and of his lapsed Condition, for helping him on to∣wards Felicity. For that Adams Continu∣ance in Paradise was but short, may be ra∣tionally inferred from hence, that the craf∣ty Serpent could not be ignorant that the longer our first Parents persevered in the Practice of Obedience, and frequent pious Duties, seriously performed to God, the harder still it would be for him to overcome

them by his designed Temptation, in that Habits are evermore strengthened and con∣firmed by the iteration of Act; and there∣fore, questionless he would not omit (e∣specially considering his violent restless De∣sire to do Mischief) the very first opportu∣nity of assailing them, (and we do not read of any more Temptations of his offered to them but only one) so that their Fall might very well be before the Airs Distemper could happen, though the annual Course of the Sun, or Motion of the Earth, was never different from what it is at present. If it be alledged, that such Knowledge in God as has been mentioned, must either be the cause of Adam's Fall, and consequently of Sin, (which would be Blasphemy to affirm) or else it must proceed from, and depend upon the Fall, as the Object whence it is derived; (which would be absurd to as∣sert) I answer, there is no necessity of granting either, for as to Sin, since it is a meer Privation Sect. 8. Par. 3, 4.) 'tis im∣possible there should be any efficient cause thereof. And in that every Man knows his own Thoughts and Actions without a Mo∣nitor, or receiving notice of them from any thing besides himself; is it not evident, that, if God be as primarily intimate to a

Man's Thoughts and Actions, as the Man himself is, he'l as primarily know immediate∣ly of and from himself the Man's Thoughts and Actions, as the Man himself doth from himself? And that God is as primarily inti∣mate to every Man's Thoughts and Actions, as the Man himself is, appears from hence, that in whatever any of them is distant from pure nothing, it has the same by the Divine Power, Will or Mind intrinsically concur∣ring to the Production of it; and so God must of necessity as primarily know it, and as intimately as the Man knows it himself. Nor is the mentioned Divine Concurrence, let Man's Thoughts and Actions be what they will, any cause at all of Sin, for Thoughts and Actions are never sinful as such, they are only sinful when, and as, they are directed and tend to a wrong end, (and such Direction and Tendency proceeds wholly from Man, and not in the least from God) by which the Mind is alienated and turned away from the Object of Felicity; for in the Alienation and Aversion of the Mind from God, in whose Fruition Felicity is placed, doth Sin formally consist, Sect. 8. Par. 3, 4.

Objection 11.

You assert, Sect. 4. par 14. That if Man had once enjoyed the Beatific Vision, he could never have fallen from Bliss; for which though you produce there such rea∣son, as to me, I confess, appears sufficient to make it out, yet the plausibleness of the Praeexistentiarian Hypothesis makes me some∣what doubt of the certainty of the Truth of your Assertion; especially considering your agreement with it in this, that God does what is best for his Creatures; and that it seems reasonable to think, that such a prae∣existent state as is described in Lux Orienta∣lis, Chap. 14. p. 113. was best for Rational Souls; Of which Opinion I greatly desire to know what your Sentiments are.

Answer.

You put me upon a very ungrateful Task, for I love not to intermeddle with other mens Writings; yet to afford you what sa∣tisfaction I can in a single Sheet, I will give you my Thoughts concerning the mention∣ed Hypothesis so far as relates to my Asserti∣on. That the Beatific Vision once fully enjoyed,

can never be deserted or lost: in pursuance of which, it will be convenient to transcribe the place you direct me to, which contains these express Words;

The Eternal and Al∣mighty Goodness, the blessed Spring and Root of all things, made all his Creatures in the best, happiest and most perfect condition, that their respective Natures rendered them capable of; and therefore they were then constituted in the inactuation and ex∣ercise of their noblest and most perfect Pow∣ers. Consequently the Souls of men, a considerable part of the Divine. Work∣manship, were at first made in the highest invigoration of the spiritual and intellective Faculties, which were exercis'd in Virtue and in blissful Contemplation of the supream Deity.

Here we see the chief Faculties of the Soul are supposed to have once enjoyed the perfectest Bliss for quality that their Na∣tures were capable of; which, if in truth it had ever been so, their Condition would have been in all reason eternally happy. For, First, The Intellect and the Will being in their highest inactuation and exercise, they could not purely of themselves without some Ar∣gument or Motive desert the Beatific Object, because the one most perfectly understanding, and the other most perfectly loving (being

in their highest invigoration) the same, they should otherwise, without regard had to any Object withdrawing them from God, have left and forsaken what was most clearly known by the Intellect to be the Soul's chief∣est Good, and as such, practically delighted in with all the strength of the Will, which is a thing impossible, the Intellect being ne∣ver drawn but by some Argument true or false; nor the Will inclined without a Mo∣tive really or apparently good. Neither, Se∣condly, could the Souls copartner the Body, nor the inferior Powers, of the Soul relating to the Body, have drawn the supream Fa∣culties from that which they fully experien∣ced to be amiableness it self and the only true Felicity, to gratifie any or all of them; for

the Soul was united with the most subtil and aethereal Matter that it was capable of inacting, and the inferior Powers, those relating to the Body, being at a very low ebb of exercise were wholly subservient to the Superior, and employed in nothing but what was serviceable to that higher Life; so that the Senses did but present occasions for Divine Love, and Objects for Contemplation, and the Plastic had nothing to do but to move this passive and easie Bo∣dy, accordingly as the Concerns of the

higher Faculties required.

Lux Orientalis, Chap. 14. pag. 114. Whence it plainly ap∣pears that the Souls inferior Powers, and the Body were so far from having a stronger pro∣pensity to Objects of Sense, than the superior Faculties had an inclination to God, that those were wholly subservient unto these in the exercise of their proper Functions, and so could be no inducement to make them for∣sake their enjoyed Felicity Nor, Thirdly, could long continuance through Torpitude or Defatigation in performing their Offices be a Cause why the Soul should desert its Bliss, because when it shall be re-estated therein to Eternity, it shall (according to the Prae∣existentiaries) have a Body of the like pure aethereal Matter, and the same innate triple congruity for ever which it had at first. For since the supream Faculties were by Creation in their highest inactuation, exercise and invi∣goration that their Natures rendred them ca∣pable of, and the Soul united to the most te∣nuious, pure and simple Matter as the fittest instrument for the most vigorous and spiritu∣al Faculties (as the Author of Lux Orienta∣lis, Chap. 14. pag. 114. expresly says they were) the first and last state of Soul and Body will not be different; which if really so, then if ever we had been in perfect Bliss,

we should have continued therein to Eterni∣ty; for the last Estate of the Blessed shall a∣bide, the Praeexistentiaries grant, for ever.

The Annotator upon Lux Orientalis, I know offers, pag. 116, 117, 118. several things to evade this Consequence, That if the last estate of the Blessed be unalterable, the first would have been so also; for he says,

First,

That it may be a Mistake, that the Happiness is altogether the same that it was before. For our first Paradisaical Bodies from which we lapsed, might be of a more crude and dilute Aether, not so full and saturate with Heavenly Glory and Perfection as our Resurrection-Bo∣dy is.

I answer, that tho the Annotator makes some scruple whether the Body was by Creation such as the Author has described it to be; yet I do not find that he differs from him as to the state of the Soul; which in regard it was in its highest inactuation, exercise and in∣vigoration, the Body that it might be adapt∣ed thereunto, was of necessity to be of the most subtil and pure aethereal Matter that the Soul was capable of inacting (as the Author, we have seen, says it was) or else there would have been that disproportion between the Soul and Body, as that the praeexistent state

should not have been the best that Rational Nature was capable of, which the Praeexi∣stentiaries cannot admit of to be true with∣out yielding the very Foundation of their Hypothesis to be subverted thereby, since they lay it (as hath been seen) in this, That the Eternal and Almighty Goodness, the blessed Spring and Root of all things, made all his Creatures in the best, happiest, and most perfect condition that their respective Natures rendred them capable of. The Annotator's first Reason why happy Souls might formerly fall, albeit they shall never hereafter in the future world do so again, being, you see, of no validity, let's proceed to examine the rest; for he saith, 2ly.

The Soul was then unexperienced; and lightly coming by that Happiness she was in, did the more heedlesly forgo it, before she was well a∣ware, and her Mind roved after new Ad∣ventures, although she knew not what.

3ly.

It is to be considered whether Re∣generation be not a stronger Tenure for enduring Happiness, than the being crea∣ted happy. For this being wrought so by degrees upon the Plastich 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with ineffable groans and piercing desires af∣ter that divine Life that the Spirit of God co-operating exciteth in us: When Rege∣neration

is perfected and brought to the full by these strong Agonies, this may rationally be deemed a deeper tincture in the Soul, than that she had by meer Cre∣ation, whereby the Soul did indeed be∣come holy, innocent and happy; but not coming to it with any such strong previ∣ous Conflicts and eager Workings and Thirstings after that state, it might not be so firmly rooted by far, as in Regenera∣tion begun and accomplished by the o∣peration of God's Spirit gradually, but more deeply renewing the Divine Image in us.

4ly.

It being a renovation of our Na∣ture into a pristine state of ours, the strength and depth of impression seems increased upon that account also.

5ly.

The remembrance of all the hard∣ships we underwent in our lapsed condi∣tion, whether of Mortification, or cross Rancounters, this must likewise help us to persevere when once returned to our former Happiness.

6ly.

The comparing the evanid Plea∣sures of our lapsed or terrestrial Life with the fulness of those Joys that we find still in our heavenly, will keep us from ever having any hankering after them again.

7ly.

The certain knowledg of everlast∣ing punishment, which if not true, they could not know, must be also another sure bar to any such negligences as would hazard their setled Felicity, Which may be one reason why the irreclaimable are eternally punished, namely, that it may the better secure eternal happiness to o∣thers.

8ly.

Though we have our triple vital congruity still, yet the Plastick Life is so throughly satisfied with the Resurrection-Body, which is so considerably more full and saturate with all the heavenly Richness and Glory than the former, that the Plastick of the Soul is as entirely taken up with this one Body, as if she enjoyed the Pleasures of all the three Bodies at once, Ethereal, Aereal and Terrestrial.

Since the Annotator in the first Argument he offers, why Souls will not lapse in their future state, as they did in their first▪ says only, that our first Paradisiacal Bodies might be of a more crude & dilute Ether not so full and saturate with heavenly Glory and Perfection as our Resurrection-Body; but in his eighth Ar∣gument positively affirms that the Resurrecti∣on-Body is considerably more full and satu∣rate with all the heavenly Richness and

Glory than the former; yet without any reason alledged for the same; and that also in his fourth Argument he calls our last state the renovation of our pristine state; and in his fifth Argument our former happiness; his Assertion in the eighth Argument ap∣pears to be precarious, besides that it plain∣ly contradicts the Author's description of the first Paradisiacal Body, backed with Reason (unconfuted by the Annotator) as in my Answer to the first Argument was ob∣served. Yea, considering that Man's Na∣ture is capable of all the Glory of the Re∣surrection-Body, if the Glory of our first Bodies was inferior to it, the Foundation of the Praeexistentiarian Hypothesis is totally razed; which is, That the Almighty made all Creatures in the best Happiest, and most perfect Condition that their respective Natures rendred them capable of. This in Answer to the eighth Argument. And as to the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, all the Motives recited in them for causing the Soul to persevere in Bliss once again obtained, by fixing its Affections unalterably on God, fall so far short of the immense Power, Force and Efficacy which the full Fruition of God by clear Vision af∣fords to that end, that the Disproportion between them, in that very respect, is un∣speakable;

insomuch that if the Soul were capable of infinite influx, the Beatific Vision would infinitely ravish it with the Delight thereof. And therefore, if ever we had been in that height of Felicity which the Author of Lux Orientalis, chap. 4. p. 113. holds we once enjoyed, we could not voluntarily have deserted the same; and that God, by whose meer Goodness it was bestowed, should have thrust us from it, is incredible; and if neither we had forsaken God, nor God us, we should certainly have remained for ever happy. If it be said, that the triple vital Congruity would have been given by God in vain, if it had never been exerted, my Answer is, that all good Souls did not lapse, but that some still continue in Bliss, Lux Orientalis, Chap. 14. p. 119. And the Annotator in his eighth Argument, we saw, allows the triple vital Congruity to accompa∣ny us in the next world; in case there be any such thing as that Congruity is said to be.

9ly. The Annotator concludeth thus;

And lastly, which will strike all sure, He that is able to save to the utmost, and has promised us eternal life, is as true as able, and therefore cannot fail to perform it.

This, I own, strikes all sure indeed; but to have recourse to the Divine Promise to do it, is, after all the high Efforts of Wit and elegant Philosophical Essays that have been used by the Praeexistentiaries, to leave their fine Hypothesis to shift at length as it can, for any help that's to be had from Phi∣losophy at the upshot of all, when it should have received its consummation from it; and might in reason have expected it, if in truth it had been really founded on a sound Philosophical Bottom. For though the Pro∣mise of God must of necessity stand firm, yet in that he does not use to accomplish the same, but by something which immediately brings it to pass, and establisheth it, there must be a more immediate Cause of fixing the Saints in everlasting Bliss, than the Di∣vine Promise; and the Beatific Vision is (as has been shewn) that very Cause.

Angelic Nature, you'l say, is a much more sublime and excellent Constitution than Humane; and therefore the lapsed An∣gels fell from an higher pitch of Glory than the Praeexistentiaries suppose lapsed Souls to have done; I answer, That comparatively they did not; for the Author of Lux Ori∣entalis writes, that Blessed Souls were in the highest Bliss their Natures rendred them ca∣pable

of. But the Angels that fell never at∣tained to the highest Felicity they were ca∣pable of enjoying; for though they saw, in the Glass of the Creature, and more especi∣ally in that most clear one of their own pure Natures, the Divine Excellency; yet they never saw it immediately in it self, and to do that is the alone highest degree of Bliss that Rational and Intellective Beings can at∣tain unto; which Supream Glory, if they had once been possessed of, they could never have lost it. For since Good is the proper and adequate Object of Desire, it implies a Contradiction, that what is immediately seen or known and experimentally found, to be essential Goodness, which God is, should ever be voluntarily deserted by Men or An∣gels; for otherwise they should decline good under the very Notion of good, and thereby cease to be what they essentially are, (a thing impossible) for it is the essential Nature of the Will to love good as good. By what hath been said in this last Paragraph it is easie to apprehend the Cause of the diffe∣rent final condition of good and bad Angels; for as the good Angels, by reason of the free and full conversion of their ardent de∣sires to enjoy the immediate sight of God, were accordingly rewarded with the Beatific

Vision, which makes them eternally most happy; so the bad Angels on the contrary, through their voluntary aversion from God, in pre∣ferring something in their Affections, before the fruition of their Maker by immediate Vi∣sion, deprived themselves for ever of that Blissful Sight; and by their Conversion to the more valued Object of their inordinate desire violently affected, but never to be ob∣tained, render their Condition most misera∣ble to Eternity.

But after all this, though the highest state of Bliss be an illapsible Condition, and can∣not after it is gained, be fallen from, may it not however be reasonably enquired, whe∣ther there might not have been a lapsible prae∣existent state of Men not unlike to that of Adam's in his Innocency, but coming much nearer to Perfection than his did? And if there might, why, considering that the al∣mighty Goodness does always what is best for the Creature, there really was not such a State? My Answer is, that from the seeming possibility of such a State, it cannot be rationally evinced that the actual Exist∣ence of it would have been best; as may be seen from the Annotator's Answer to one, who would needs prove the Sovereignty of God's Will over his Goodness from hence,

that it would have been better to have created the World sooner than he did; the Answer is this,

If the World could not be ab aeterno,

[which the Annotator had elsewhere made good it could not]

but must commence on this side of Eternity, and be of finite years, I leave to the Opposer to prove that it has not been created assoon as it could be; and that is sufficient to prove that its late Production is not inconsistent with that Principle, that God's Goodness always is the measure of his Actions. For suppose the World of as little continuance as you will, if it was not ab aeterno, it was once of as little; and how can we discern but that this is that very time which seems so little to us?

Annotations upon Lux Orientalis, Chap. 9. pag. 59. This I take to be no less a solid, than ingenious Answer to the Ob∣jection; but withal think that it affords a sufficient ground of Argument whereby to evince, that no Hypothesis whatsoever of a praeexistent happy State can be rationally founded on this Presumption, that it was better or more agreeable to the Divine Wis∣dom that it actually should be, because in appearance, convenient and possible that it might be. For supposing the Creation of the World to be good for the Creature (as no

doubt it is, it being impossible that the Cre∣ator should be bettered thereby) how apt will Man's narrow Reason be to suggest from thence, that the sooner it was created, the better it would be for them. And yet ne∣vertheless, considering that Wisdom and Goodness are essential to God, so that he cannot but do, what all things reckoned upon, is absolutely best; and that we are ascertain'd by inerrable Testimony of the late Creation of the World; we must of necessity conclude that we are deceived in thinking that it had been better that the World should have been of long continuance. And there∣fore we can be no more certainly assured, that there really was a praeexistent happy state of Souls, because it seems to our short Reasoning, that it would have been better for them; then it doth follow, that the world had continued longer than the holy Scripture assures us it hath, because in appearance it would have been better for the Creature, for whose Benefit it was made, that it had done so.

Objection 12.

If the only end designed by God in crea∣ting the World, was to communicate and to do good to the Creature; and that be∣ing immutable he still retains the like Kind∣ness and Good-will to them which he did at first; I see no possibility of giving any good account, why the Almighty, whose Will is irresistable, either created not Men and An∣gels in an indefectible State, or at least pre∣served not all, as well as some of them from endless Misery. But the difficulty in that re∣spect vanisheth, if it be indeed true, which is usually said, that Gods ultimate Intent in creating the World, was to glorifie himself in the final Condition of Men and Angels; and that, either by shewing his absolute Sove∣raignty and uncontroulable Dominion in making a Decree of Election and Reproba∣tion antecedent to any Covenant between himself and the Creature. Or else by mak∣ing known his Justice, executed upon some Offenders, and his Mercy exhibited to o∣thers, after Terms of Reconciliation had been propounded by the Creator, but could not be observed on the Creatures part, save only by some few predestinated ones. Or

lastly, by executing due Vengeance, after sufficient (however inefficacious) Grace ten∣dred to all, upon the wilful Rejecters there∣of, and by rewarding with Beatitude the cordial Embraces of it. All which Opini∣ons, though different from each other, yet they every one of them centre in this, that the Almightie's great and ultimate End in creating the World, was, to glorifie himself eternally in the final Estate of the Elect and Re∣probate Men and Angels.

Answer.

Since every thing done by God as well as Man ought to be done for some good End, and that the Divine Nature is totally inca∣pable of any good, either of Profit or Plea∣sure, save only what is eternal and essential to him, (Sect. 8. Solut. of Object. 1.) it neces∣sarily follows that God created not the World to acquire any good at all to Him∣self, and consequently that it was wholly framed to procure the Benefit of the Crea∣ture. This allowed of to be true, there must be some other cause known to God, why he created not Men and Angels in an indefectible State, or at least prevented not every ones eternal Ruine, than that he

sought to acquire to himself everlasting Glo∣ry by the manifestation of his Power, Justice and Mercy, in the final Salvation of some, and Damnation of others of his Creatures, albeit the same could in no respect whatsoe∣ver be discerned by Man what it is. But yet it is not, I think, a thing totally e∣stranged from Human Reason to conceive and apprehend how, and in what respect it is better for the Creature, that the World was created then otherwise, notwithstand∣ing that some, both Men and Angels perish everlastingly. For let it be considered that it was agreeable to the Divine Wisdom and Goodness to communicate Being; and withal, that it was impossible to create any single Creature, or Species of Creatures, however excellent (Sect. 3. Par. 8.) and our reason will straightway lead us to dis∣cover, that the infinitely wise and good God propounded to himself, the creating such a Complex and Universe of Beings, as that the most comprehensive and excellent End, which whatsoever could be created, should in its whole Latitude be possibly able to as∣pire to, might be attained. Which great and noble End each part of the Universe, in its proper Station, was by the Almighties admirable Disposal and ordering, to concur

together to produce under himself, the prin∣cipal Cause, always promoting the same on his part, yet so, as that he leaves every second intermediate Cause to act according to its own Nature, (save only in some cardinal Instances where the Divine, Wisdom sees a necessity of an extraordinary or miraculous working above Nature, to prevent a Failure too great, in respect of the grand designed End, to be permitted) since otherwise the World would have been made to small, or no effect. Wherefore seeing Man of all the Creatures upon Earth is alone Rational and determins himself to Action, his Nature would be violated (which were in effect to unman him) if he should be otherwise mov∣ed or wrought upon to act, than according to his own voluntary Choice founded in the Rational Faculties of the Soul, the Intellect and the Will. Which Choice, if it be made according to Right Reason in an hearty pre∣ferring the Love of the Creator before the Love of the Creature, (or in placing the Souls Affections upon God as its sole Supream Good, and on all other things as subservient to the Enjoyment of him) will bring every Man in the World, who shall leave it with such an habitual Affection, at length to Beatitude, (Sect. 12. Par. 1, 2, 3,

4.) But if the Choice be made against Right Reason, in valuing the Enjoyment of the Creature above the Enjoyment of God, (or in fixing the Hearts Desires on earthly Va∣nities, as the chief Delight thereof) 'twill bring upon every one departing this Life habitually so affected, everlasting Misery; yet such as is nothing else but an effect or necessary Result immediately flowing from the continuance in, and persuance of their own foolish Choice made in their Life-time; (Sect. 7. Par. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.) and how plain∣ly equitable is it, that their Condition should not be less miserable then the Mea∣sure of their own Desires, whether for De∣gree or Duration shall make them? So that considering the ineffable endless Joys which myriads of glorified Saints and Angels will have; and that the damned Souls and De∣vils; by persisting in a perpetual eager Thirsting after those things they shall ever be frustrated of, not only wilfully deprive themselves of Bliss, but are also thereby their own eternal Tormentors; (for the sin of the Devils whereinsoever it particularly consisted, was for certain the desire of some∣thing they earnestly wished, and preferred the obtaining of before the Fruition of God, and which they shall ever affect, seeing they

will never repent of the Wickedness of their Thoughts, and yet shall always be disap∣pointed of) it is apparent, that it is much more agreeable to Reason, that it is much more agreeable to Reason, and suiting also with the Divine Attribute of Gods eternal Goodness, that upon the Account now given, the World should rather have been created then not, though diverse of the noblest part of the Creation undergo perpetual Misery; then it is upon their Hypothesis, who say, that God justly inflicts eternal violent Pains on Reprobate Men and Angels for the vin∣dicating of his Glory; which, in truth, can neither be encreased by all the due Perfor∣mances of the best of his Creatures, nor di∣minished by the Disobedience of the very worst of them. Add to this (for a still more clear manifestation of the Reasonableness of God's creating the World, notwithstanding the endless affliction which befalls part of the Creatures) that the State of the Damned is, in their own Thoughts, so much more preferable to Non-existence, as that their Minds are so set and fixed upon their ar∣dently beloved Objects, that they would not forgo and part with the longing desire and Love they have to them, for the posses∣sion of Bliss; it being impossible that they, whose Affections are totally bent on Riches,

Honour, Luxury, Revenge, &c. should have any real desire to be united to God with the entire affection of their Spirit, in which Felicity doth alone consist. If it be object∣ed, that since the Reprobate, for fear only of the Judgment of the last day, shall call upon the Mountains to fall upon them and hide them, how much more is it probable, that they'l desire to be annihilated and cease to be, when they feel the intolerable Pains of Hell? I make answer, that albeit the Wicked are terribly afraid of the Day of Doom, and that the Damned rage for the extremity of their Torments; yet it is not consequent thereto, that they'l desire Non∣existence to avoid them. For though it were granted to be really in it self more e∣ligible not to exist, than to suffer exquisite Torments; yet since the Reprobate do not desire what would be better for them, but what they judge to be so; unless it be true, that they are actually willing to desert, and for ever to forgo the love of those things which they have absolutely and fully fixed their Affections on, it cannot be, that they should steadily desire not to be, because a permanent adherence of Mind to the Ob∣jects of their Lusts, and a real desire of Non∣existence are inconsistent together. And

that the Damned will never desert the Love they have to the Objects of their Lusts, may be apprehended from this, that, seeing they have adjudged them to be absolutely good and necessary, as without which they can∣not think of any satisfaction to themselves; to suppose their Affections taken off the Objects of their Lust, were in effect to suppose them to love, and not to love the same thing at once. And therefore though the Damned should have such Thoughts as these, we wish we had never been born, we wish we were annihi∣lated; yet in regard they nevertheless con∣tinue their strong and pressing desires to∣wards their coveted Objects, it is an argu∣ment, that the latter are their fixed Af∣fections, and the former only incompleat wishes, since they cannot be cordially pos∣sessed of both at the same time, an abso∣lute unbridled lusting after their beloved Objects, and an absolute fixed desire of Non-existence, being utterly inconsistent to∣gether.

Objection 13.

Some Sinners are taken away in their younger years; others permitted after a long and wicked Life to die in their Sins; some great Sinners converted and eternally saved; other less Offenders left to eternal Misery; whence it seems to follow, that the Almighty acts as in unsearchable Wisdom, so most freely therein, for his own Glory; and that consequently everlasting Woe and Misery are not necessary Results and Effects of Sin, but Punishments inflicted by God for the same.

Answer.

That some men die sooner, some later, is generally from the Power and Force of natural Causes, which are ordained and ordered indeed by God, yet not on purpose to bring this or that particular Person to his End, at this or that appointed time, and after this or that precise manner; but they have their natural Influence, and set determi∣nate Course in the Universe, to contribute every one of them in their Kind and Stati∣on, to the bringing to pass the most com∣prehensive

and excellent End, which what∣soever could be created, should in its am∣plest Extent be possibly able to pro∣duce or arrive at, (Sect. 3. Par. 8.) under the Influence and Course of which Causes manifoldly different as every single Person falls, he comes accordingly to the Period of his Life; whence it happens, that this Man dies in his Infancy, another in his Youth, a third in his Middle-age, and a fourth in his Old; that some are drowned by Water, some burt by Fire, others perish by Cold, &c. and yet who can soberly think that the Causes which bring these things to pass were purposely ordained, and had their Natures and Courses given and appointed them for that very end? especially if we reflect that some men poison others, some themselves; for none will sure be so wicked, as to affirm, that God either instigated the Murtherers, or gave the Poison its vene∣mous Nature out of design to destroy the Persons murthered. That Men therefore die at different Ages, and after different manners, proceeds not, generally speaking, from the determinate Council and Will of God; and if sometimes he purposely de∣stroys any flagitious Persons, as he did Ko∣rah, Dathan and Abiram, he designs it to

be a Warning to others, not to imitate them in their gross Impiety; and at that time, when he knows the Offenders will rather grow worse, than ever after come to a∣mendment. And as Man's Condition here, for any Decree of Gods to the contrary, is as good as can be, considering the Causes Natural and Moral which render his Condi∣tion what it is; so will his State hereafter likewise be, the necessary and voluntary Cau∣ses considered, which bring him to it; of which Causes the Variety in respect of all Mankind is so great at all times, and so dif∣ferently circumstantiated in their Influence and Application; and the Subjects to be wrought on so contrarily often disposed one to another, that it is easie to conceive, that they may very well become effectual Means of Conversion to some great Sinners, while other less Offenders are not moved to a tho∣row Amendment by them; so that the dy∣ing of men in their Sins cannot justly be so attributed to the Divine Will and Pleasure, as if the Almighty suffered them to perish out of pure design for the manifestation of his Glory; the infallible Word expresly de∣claring to us the contrary, God is not wil∣ling that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3. 9. And again,

who will have all Men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the Truth, 1 Tim. 2. 4. To which knowledge, though they do not all attain, yet is the Word of God no less firm and sure.

Why all. Men in the World have not heard of God's infinite Love manifested in the Death of Christ, many Causes may be assigned all ground∣ed on Gods infinite Justice and Mercy. Of Christ's Death many which heard not, might have heard; many which are not, might have been Partakers, save only for their free and voluntary Progress from e∣vil to worse, or wilful refusal of Gods loving Kindness daily proffered to them in such Pledges, as they were well con∣tent to swallow, foolishly esteeming these good in themselves, being good only as they plight the truth of God's Love unto them, which he manifested in the Death of his Son. With this manifestation of his Love many again out of meer Mercy have not been acquainted, lest the sight of the Medicine might have caused their Disease to rage, and made their Case more lamentably desperate.

Dr. Jackson in his Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes, Cap. 17. Paragr. 3. All which (I mean that hath been said in the whole Answer to the

Objection) considered, together with this, that it was not only better to create than not to create, but also that no other World could be created, save only that which doth exist, (Sect. 3. Par. 8.) 'tis clear that the Almighties Wisdom and Goodness are justified even to the Eye of Human Reason, notwith∣standing the different times and ways of men departing Life, either in respect of Age, or of dying more or less in Sin.

Objection. 14.

From the Instances given in the explana∣tion of the Seventh Commandment (sect. 19.) you seem to hold, that there can be no external Sin in the Body, of any one de∣nomination, where there is not an internal Sin in the Soul of the same kind, from which alone the exterior Act, as being produced by it, can be called sinful. Against this O∣pinion I offer it to your Consideration, whether there may not be external Idola∣try, where there is no internal; as suppose an Idol be commanded by the Magistrate under pain of Death to be worshipped by bowing down before it, and a Christian to save his Life, bows his Body towards it, but at the same time abominates the Idol in his

heart, so as that he is far from giving any internal Honour to it; and yet surely you will not say, but that he commits the Sin of Idolatry, and may be justly censured by the Church as an Idolater.

Answer.

Since the Christian instanced in does what is commanded so far forth, as that the Lookers on have sufficient cause to believe he has committed Idolatry, the Church ought to esteem and censure him as an Ido∣later for what he has done, by reason it cannot judg of the Heart, but by outward Signs, and inappearance he has committed Idolatry. But yet if you'l go to the exact definition of Idolatry, you'l find the Fact comes not within the compass of it; (and that Sin, which will not come under the definition of Idolatry, you must needs grant cannot be, truly speaking, the Sin of Ido∣latry) for Idolatry is a Crime which exhibits the honour due to God alone, to another Ob∣ject; and therefore, since the bowing down of the Body is not an Act appropriated to the Divine Majesty, for we lawfully and laudably bow unto our Prince, Parents, and others in Authority over us (of which there

are several Examples in Holy Writ) it is evi∣dent, that the mentioned act of bowing towards the Idol is not Idolatrous accord∣ing to the definition of Idolatry. To make this more plain by an Instance, let's suppose another Christian to be brought before the Idol, and commanded to bow unto it as the other did, which he likewise in appea∣rance does by stooping down, that he may catch it by the feet to overthrow it, and according to his intent, casts it with scornful indignation to the ground; in doing of which he gives full satisfaction to the Be∣holders, of his abhorrence of performing any manner of Worship to it, notwithstand∣ing that they all see him bow towards it as low as the other did, & judg him an Idolater, till the Reason of his incurvation becomes apparent to them, by seeing the Idol so con∣temptuously used at the length. Is then, you'l say, the formerly spoken of Christian, who is granted to deserve the Churches Censure as an Idolater, no more guilty of Idolatrous Worship, according to the strict∣est Notion of Idolatry, than the latter? I refer you to the definition of Idolatry, which cannot delude you, for answer. Is he therefore, you'l peradventure reply, on∣ly sinful in the sight of Men, and not also in

the sight of God? Yes undoubtedly he is a very grievous Offender even before God, as well as men; for he not only scandalizes Christianity, in giving the Enemies of it an occasion to triumph, in hardening them in their idolatrous Worship, and in encoura∣ging them to proceed to persecute Christi∣ans with hope of desired success; but also in disheartning of the weaker Brethren; in ma∣king them to stagger in the Faith, and in grieving all the Members of Christ in gene∣ral; to do any one of which, is a great Sin, but to do all of them together, is a Crime of complicated Scandal to the Go∣spel of Christ, which at once instructeth and exhorteth, saying, Be not afraid of them that kill the Body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear; fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into Hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him, Luke 12. 4, 5. Who∣soever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the Angels of God: But he that denieth me before men, shall be denied before the Angels of God, Luke 12. 8, 9. If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his Cross and follow me. For whosoever will save his Life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his Life for my sake,

shall find it, Matth. 16. 24, 25. So that the committing of Idolatry to the eye of the world, tho to save a man's Life, is an hei∣nous Sin, both in the sight of God and all good men. If you say, that in some case even external Gestures of Body are appro∣priated unto God, as namely, when and where Divine Worship is solemnly paid by the Congregation to him; I re∣turn, that if it be really so, then in that case the giving external honour to any thing besides God, is, I own, Idolatrous. But the example of the Jewish Congregation, 1 Chron. 29. 20. seems clearly to gainsay, that bodily Gestures betokening Honour, even at the time and place of exhibiting Divine Worship, are appropriated unto God; for it is there written, And David said to all the Congregation, Now bless the LORD your God: And all the Congregation blessed the LORD God of their Fathers, and bowed down their Heads, and worshipped the LORD and the King. The last Clause of this Text is rendred in the Polyglot by the interlinea∣ry Version, Et inclinaverunt se & incurva∣verunt se Domino & Regi; in the Vulgar Latine, Et inclinaverunt se, & adoraverunt Deum & deinde Regem; and in the Septua∣gint, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. By all or any of which Words, there is not the least difference to be dis∣cerned of the external Honour which the Congregation gave to God and to the King; the same corporeal Gesture being used alike to both; and yet the honour intended to be given by that Gesture was certainly di∣stinguished into Religious and Civil; which we must therefore suppose to have been done by an internal Act of the Mind, exhi∣biting the former unto God, and the later unto the King. But besides that this parti∣cular place of Scripture necessarily requires this exposition for vindicating the Congre∣gation from the guilt of Idolatry; how plainly reasonable is it, that all bodily Ge∣stures should be no otherwise regarded or valued, save as they proceed from the ope∣ration of the Soul, which commands and orders them to what end it pleases, since if they be considered apart from that, they are nothing else than animal motion; but co-operating together with it in the same individual Act, whether good or bad, they are partakers with it therein, and from thence reputed to be virtuous or vicious, accordingly as the Act of the Mind, with which they concur to produce one and the same outward Action, is held to be.

Objection 15.

Although what for the surprizing Novelty of several things I meet with in your Trea∣tise; for the close connexion and conse∣quences it is throughout continued with, and for the unexpectedly satisfactory An∣swers given to many difficult Objections made, as well by your self as others, I look upon it as a Piece, which if published, would not only very much delight the Reader, but also bring great benefit to the serious Peru∣sers of it; seeing it both clearly proves the absolute necessity of subduing mens Lusts in order to their eternal Salvation, and like∣wise plainly shews the Way by which the thing must be effected, and that so connatu∣ral and agreeable to man's Rational Nature, that every Step thereof will be grateful to as many as shall steddily pursue the same: Yet for all this I know not how it may please some of our Divines, especially in those Sections where you treat of the Blessed Tri∣nity, of the Honour of God, of the Torments of Hell, and of the Meritorious Satisfaction of Christ, not that I think they will be able to find any thing in them which is erroneous or unorthodox, but because your Notions are

unusual and peculiar to your self, which to men that by a long tract of time have habi∣tually acquired another System of Theology, will peradventure not be wholly agreea∣ble.

Answer.

As for my Notions about the Blessed Trinity, they are not new; for Boetius in lib. de Tri∣nitate circa finem, quoted by Aquinas (p. 1. qu. 28. art. 7.) writeth thus; Similis est Relatio in Trinitate Patris ad Filium, & utriusque ad Spiritum Sanctum, ut ejus quod est idem ad id quod est idem, intimating that there is an I∣dentity of Substance, but a Plurality of Rela∣tions in the Deity, which constitutes the di∣stinct Persons. And St. Augustin explicating that Sacred Mystery by Mens, Notitia & A∣mor, calls Notitia proles Mentis, and Spiri∣tus Sanctus Amor Patris & Filii, Lib. de Tr. & alibi. To these I will add one of the best and most esteemed of the Schoolmen, Aquinas (to pass by others of them) who founds the Doctrin of the Holy Trinity of Persons in Ʋnity of Essence, in the real Re∣lations which are in the same divine Nature. 1 P. Quaest. 28. Art. 7.

And whereas writing of the Honour of

God, I say, that he requires not any thing to be given him for his own sake, so as that some Pleasure or Advantage might really ac∣erue thereby to himself, but for the sole Be∣nefit of the Creature, I will produce the Sen∣tence of two highly priz'd Authors among us, that I am not singular in that Opinion; for Dr. Isaac Barrow in his Fourth Sermon speaketh thus;

God surely doth not exact honour from us, because he needs it, be∣cause he is better for it, because he (for its self) delights therein. 'Tis only then (which should affect our ingenuity to con∣sider) his pure Goodness that moves him for our benefit and advantage to demand it of us. And the Author of the whole Duty ty of Man, writeth thus; God who is es∣sentially happy in himself, can receive no accession to his Felicity by the poor Con∣tributions of Men. He cannot therefore be supposed to have made upon intuition of encreasing, but communicating his Hap∣piness. And this his original Design is ve∣ry visible in all the parts of his Oeconomy towards Men, The Art of Contentment, sect. 1. par. 1.

What I say of the Torments of Hell, dif∣fers in nothing that I know of from Dr. Scot in his so much valued Book of the Christian

Life, Chap. 3. p. 57, 58. save only in the delicacy of his Phrase; whose elegant words are these;

Though the coming into the other World will questionless improve those Souls which are really good before; yet it is not to be imagined how it should create those good who are habitually bad, and if we retain in the other World that prevail∣ing affection to these sensitive Goods which we contracted in this, it must necessarily render us unspeakably miferable there. For every Lust the Soul carries into the other World, will by being eternally separated from its Pleasures, convert into a hopeless desire, and upon that account grow more furious & impatient. For of all the torments of the Mind, I know none that is compa∣rable to that of an outragious desire joyn'd with despair of satisfaction; which is just the case of sensual & worldly-minded Souls in the other Life, where they are full of sharp and unrebated desires, and like starved men that are shut up between two dead Walls, are tormented with a fierce but hopeless hunger, which having nothing else to feed on, preys and quarries on themselves, and in this desolate condition they are forced to wander to and fro tormented with a restlefs Rage, and Hunger, and unsatisfied

desire, oraving Food, but neither finding nor expecting any, and so in unexpressible Anguish, they pine away a long Eternity. And though they might find Content and Satisfaction, could they but diver their af∣fections another way, and reconcile them to the heavenly Enjoyments, yet being irrecoverably pre-engaged to sensual Goods, they have no Savour nor Relish of any thing else, but are like Feverish Tongues that disgust and nauseate the most grateful Liquors by reason of their own over flowing Gall.

Lastly, if in any thing I have writ about Christ's meritorious Satisfaction, I peradven∣ture fully accord not with some Divines, the difference, when the Matter is duly weigh'd, will prove, I hope, to be only ver∣bal. For I assert, (sect. 11.) First, That Christ's death on the Cross was of infinite va∣lue and merit. Secondly, That by and through the same, Remission of Sin, Justification, and every other Good, whether of Grace or Glory, are obtain'd. Thirdly, That Christ's Crucifixion was as real and proper an expiatory Sacrifice for Sin, as any under the Law of Moses (but of infinitely more value) ever was. Fourthly, That God's Justice is de jure prevented thereby from being exerted

agaist Sinners in their everlasting Destructi∣on. The only difference then (if any) re∣maining is in this, That I cannot apprehend, what some others perchance think, viz. That Christ's Merits operate upon God, and work an Effect of Mercy and Favour in his Will, whereas I humbly conceive them to be a secondary efficient Cause subservient to God's Love to Man, for conveying and ap∣plying the same unto him, by being an ef∣fectual Means of converting his Affections from the Vanities of the World unto God, that he may be eternally saved; for which I offer to serious consideration these follow∣ing Reasons inducing me thereto. 1. That Christ's most gracious doings and sufferings for Man, are held by all Christians to be a Meritorious Cause. 2ly. That a Meritorious Cause is an efficient Cause. 3ly. That it is the Property of an Efficient Cause to work some real Effect. 4ly. That it seems plainly im∣possible that any real Effect should be wrought in God, who is impassible and immu∣table (sect. 1. par. 8, 9.) for otherwise see∣ing whatsoever is in God is God (sect. 1. par. 11.) such an Effect would be God himself, and so the Merits of Christ would be the effici∣ent Cause of the Deity. 5ly. That Christ's Merits therefore are not an antecedent, but

a subsequent Cause to the merciful-loving∣kindness of God to Man, by which the eter∣nal Goodness actually confers all the happy Effects of divine Favour and Grace on him, whereby he is delivered from Sathan, Sin, and Damnation, and brought to everlasting Bliss.

If it be replied, that however plausible, yea, certainly true, this arguing be, yet there is something more in Christ's Suffering for the Sin of Man, than what hath hi∣therto been said, namely, the satisfying Di∣vine Justice; I answer, that strictly speak∣ing, neither Justice nor Mercy, nor other Attributes of God are formally distinct, ei∣ther from one another, or from the very Essence of the Deity (Sect. 1. Par. 11.) and therefore albeit I willingly grant, that Christ died for all men, even the Reprobate, as to me seems plain from these Words of the A∣postle, But there were false Prophets also among the People, even as there shall be false Teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift Dam∣nation, 2 Pet. 2. 1. yet it was not to this very intent and purpose, that he should un∣dergo those Pains and Punishments which were allotted for Sin, the everlasting Tor∣ments

of Hell; (but to put Mankind thereby into a Way, State and Condition, that not any one should finally perish, save only such as embraced not the Mercy of God in Christ, manifested to the World in his Holy Gospel). for what Justice is it, that the Damned should suffer the Pains of Hell, in case Christ had as truly and fully satisfied for them, as if they had already undergone them themselves? If it be answered, that the actu∣al Benefit of Christ's Satisfaction only reaches to those who believe in him, and obey his Word, so as that they shall not perish, but have everlasting Life, I readily own that Christ's Merits and more especially his bloody Death and Passion, did in this sense abun∣dantly satisfie Divine Justice, for by these he really affected, that none can justly be damned, to whom they are applied by a lively and efficacious Faith, (Sect. 11.) so that at the last day it will be equally just for God to render some for and through the Me∣rits of Christ eternally blessed, as it will be to give up others for their Sins to be for e∣ver miserably afflicted; and contrariwise, it would be alike unjust to save the Wicked in that day, who do not believe in Christ and obey him, as to destroy the Godly, who believe and put their Trust and Confidence

in him; whose Death on the Cross was as real a propitiatory Sacrifice for Sin, (but of infinitely more value) as the annual expiato∣ry Sacrifice under the Law, as by the expla∣nation of the Nature and Efficacy of it will appear: The Sacrifice of Expiation was ne∣ver compleat and perfect, nor had the design∣ed and due Effect of its Institution, by the sole slaying and offering of the Beast, howe∣ver rightly and solemnly performed both by the Priest and People, unless they added thereto the afflicting of themselves, as is plain by Levit. 16. ver. 29, 30, 31. In the seventh Month, in the tenth Day of the Month, ye shall afflict your Souls, and do no Work at all, whether it be one of your own Country or a Stranger that sojourneth among you. For on that day shall the Priest make an Atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your Sins before the LORD. It shall be a Sabbath of Rest unto you, and ye shall af∣flict your Souls by a Statute for ever. And a∣gain, Chapt. 23. ver. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. On the tenth Day of this seventh Month there shall be a Day of Atonement, it shall be an ho∣ly Convocation unto you, and ye shall afflict your Souls, and offer an Offering made by Fire unto the LORD. And ye shall do no work in that same day, for it is a day of Atonement to make

an Atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whatsoever Soul it be that shall not be af∣flicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his People. And whatsoever Soul it be that doth any Work in that same day, the same Soul will I destroy from among his People. Ye shall do no manner of Work, it shall be a Sta∣tute for ever throughout your Generations, in all your Dwellings. It shall be unto you a Sab∣bath of Rest, and ye shall afflict your Souls on the ninth day of the Month at Even, from E∣ven unto Even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath. Lo how strictly it was commanded by God, that every one should afflict himself, (to wit, with Fasting and other pious Signs of Sor∣row, as Interpreters agree) and to what end, but that their afflicting themselves should work Contrition in them for their sins, that the Lord might be propitious to them? for without Contrition the inward Sacrifice of the Heart, and a real turning from Sin un∣to God, (to which the very External Rite of Sacrificing did contribute something (I say something, for the Law made nothing perfect, Hebr. 7. 19.) whensoever it was seriously perform'd with calling to mind, and detesting their Sin, which the Institution necessarily required) the offering of the Victim was not at all grateful to God, but rather an Abo∣mination

to him, (though in the sight of the People, who are not privy to the thoughts of the Heart, the Law was fulfilled thereby, and Offenders freed from Judicial Punishment) as diverse Places of Holy Writ plainly shew; To what purpose is the multitude of your Sacrifices unto me▪ saith the LORD? I am full of the Burnt-offerings of Rams, and the Fat of fed Beasts, and I delight not in the Blood of Bullocks, or of Lambs, or of He∣goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand to tread my Courts? Bring no more▪ vain Oblations, In∣cense is an Abomination to me, new Moons and Sabbaths, the calling of Assemblies I cannot a∣way with, it is iniquity even the solemn Meet∣ing. Your new Moons and your appointed Feasts my Soul hateth, they are a Trouble unto me, I am weary to bear them. And when you spread forth your Hands I will hide my Eyes from you; yea, and when ye make many Pray∣ers I will not hear, your Hands are full of Blood. Wash ye, make ye clean, put away the Evil of your Doings from before mine Eyes, cease to do Evil, Isa. 1. ver. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. To what purpose cometh there to me Incense from Sheba? and the sweet Cane from a far Country? Your Burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your Sacrifices sweet unto me,

Jerem. 6. 20. I hate, I despise your Feast∣days, and I will not smell in your solemn As∣semblies. Though ye offer me Burnt-offerings, and your Meat-Offerings, I will not accept them, neither will I regard the Peace-offerings of your fat Beasts, Amos 5. 21, 22. But of the inward Sacrifice of the Heart, Contrition, thus saith the Royal Prophet, The Sacrifice of God is a troubled Spirit, a broken and contrite Heart, O God, shalt thou not despise, Psal. 51. 17. And in all sincere Contrition, a re∣nouncing of Sin is always necessarily impli∣ed; for whoever in good earnest bewails his sin, cannot while so doing continue in a voluntary course of sinning. There was then no Remission of Sin before God, even under the Law of Moses, but that Trans∣gressors, notwithstanding their observance of its external Ordinances, were liable to Pu∣nishment, yea, and that Temporal also, as well as Eternal, as is evident from the Al∣mighties afflicting the Jewish Nation with Plagues, Famines and Captivity for their sins, (to prevent the sinning still anew, and con∣sequently the Aggravation of the Pain of such as he knew would never be reclaim'd, and to be a Motive to the rest to leave their wicked ways) in this World, and trans∣mitting those that continued obstinate and

impenitent to everlasting Misery in the World to come; for no Repentance, no Par∣don; He that covereth his Sin shall not pros∣per, but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have Mercy, Prov. 28. 13. Let the Wick∣ed forsake his Way, and the Ʋnrighteous Man his Thoughts, and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have Mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon, Isa. 55. 7. It may be that the House of Judah will hear all the Evil which I purpose to do unto them, that they may return every Man from his evil Way, that I may forgive their Iniquity, and their Sin, Jerem. 36. 8. If the Wicked will turn from all his Sins that he hath commit∣ted, and keep all my Statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his Transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned un∣to him, in his Righteousness that he hath done, he shall live, Ezek. 18. 21, 22. Neither are Sins remitted in the time of the Gospel, any more than they were in the time of the Law, unless forsaken, as might be proved from many Texts of the New Testament, of which, for brevities sake, I will produce some few plain ones; Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish, Luke 13. 3. 5. Repent

ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, Acts 3. 19. But shewed first unto them of Damascus and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the Coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn unto God, and do works meet for repen∣tance, Acts 26. 20. Let every one that na∣meth the Name of Christ depart from Iniquity, 2 Tim. 2. 19. as if the Apostle had said, Let no Man presume that Christ will save any one who is a Christian, unless by virtue of his Christianity he depart from iniquity.

Since then it is apparent that there is no Pardon of sin without Repentance, and Con∣version unto God, and that the design of the Sacrifice of Expiation in Moses's Law, was to be a Motive and Cause to incline Men to call their sins to remembrance, to be sorry for them, and to forsake them, without do∣ing of which that Sacrifice had not the Ef∣fect intended by its Institution, as is clear from the Scriptures above recited; it remains only to make it manifest, that Christ's Cruci∣fixion was a proper Expiatory Sacrifice for Sin, to shew these two things. First, That he purposely came to suffer Death upon the Cross, to the end that he might convert men thereby from their sins to God. And Se∣condly,

That there is no Condemnation to those that are so converted.

First, That Christ came on purpose into this World to die the Death of the Cross for this very end, that he might turn Mens Hearts from Sin unto God, these following Texts of Sacred Writ will irrefragably (I doubt not) evince; When our Blessed Savi∣our told his Disciples of his Death near at hand, he said, Now is my Soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father save me from this hour, but for this cause came I unto this hour, John 12. 27. And to what end came he unto it, but to destroy Sin by the Sacrifice of himself upon the Altar of the Cross, that Men might die unto Sin, and live unto Righteousness, whose Fruit is everlasting Life? for so the two chief Apostles plainly tell us; Now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself, Hebr. 9. 26. Who his own self bare our sins in his own Body on the Tree, that we being dead to sin should live unto Righteousness, by whose Stripes ye were healed, 1 Pet. 2. 24. Knowing this that our Old Man is crucified with him, that the Body of sin might be destroyed, that hence∣forth we should not serve sin, Rom. 6. 6. That he died for all, that they which live should

not henceforth live to themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again, 2 Cor. 5. 15. Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all Iniquity, and purifie unto himself a People zealous of good Works, Tit. 2. 14. For if the Blood of Bulls and of Goats, and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the Flesh, how much more shall the Blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without Spot to God, purge your Conscience from dead Works to serve the living God, Heb. 9. 13, 14. Which Scriptures since they evi∣dently prove, that Christ came into the World to undergo Death, that by virtue thereof, we might die unto Sin and live unto Righteousness, or be converted from our wicked Courses to lead a godly Life, what I have now only remaining to do, is to prove,

Secondly, That there is no Condemnation to those who forsaking their sins turn unto God, or that are converted from the Love of the World and worldly Vanities to the Love of God; for the certainty of the truth where∣of, we have the Testimony of Truth it self assuring us, He that hath my Commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, and

he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest my self to him, John 14. 21. And a little after, If a Man love me, he will keep my Words, and my Father will love him, and we will come un∣to him, and make our abode with him, Ver. 23. And St. Paul in express words saith, There is therefore now no Condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit, Rom. 8. 1. Nor is the truth of this Doctrine averred only by Scri∣pture, but it is also evident to Human Rea∣son; for since Sin is the privation of the due Love of God in the Soul through the inordinate Love of the World; (Sect. 8. Par. 2, 3, 4.) and that everlasting Misery is the necessary ef∣fect of the perpetual continuance in sin after this Life, (Sect. 7. Par. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.) 'tis as ma∣nifestly impossible that he who has forsaken the Love of the World for the Love of God should eternally perish, (unless he re∣lapse and die in mortal sin, by leaving a∣gain the Love of God for the Love of the World) as it is impossible that the same Man should love the World above God, and God above the World both together to eterni∣ty.

For what end Christ died for us, suffered for us, bare our sins in his own Body upon the Tree for us, the Word of God it self having expresly shewn, (viz. That we being dead un∣to Sin should live unto Righteousness, 1 Pet. 2. 24.) there is no need for the explicating those Expressions, that Christ either really trans∣ferred our sins from us to himself; or took upon him the Punishment due to our sins, be∣ing the perpetual Loss of Heaven, and the e∣verlasting Pains of Hell; to assert any of which would be no less than Blasphemy. 'Tis abundantly enough, that in regard Christ is Θεάνθρωπος, God-man, he underwent so much in behalf of Sinners, that his un∣expressible Sufferings are a truly meritorious (i. e. an efficacious efficient) cause of cleans∣ing us from sin, of justifying us, and of bring∣ing us to Glory; which they effectually are to as many as through a vigorous Faith rightly weigh the Value of them, whilst the due Con∣sideration of the immense and unmerited Love of Christ to Man, manifested chiefly in his bitter and ignominious Death con∣straineth Men to forsake all worldly Pleasures for the Blessed Enjoyment of so gracious and stupendiously loving a God and Saviour, ac∣cordingly as St Paul averreth, saying, For

the love of God constraineth us, because we thus judge that if one died for all, then were all dead, and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto them∣selves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again, 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. which words are thus cleared unto us by the learned Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase on the place:

For our Love to Christ founded on his to us hath us in its Power to make us do what∣soever it will have us, making this Argu∣ment from this certain acknowledged truth of Christs having died for all Men, that then certainly all Men are Sinners lapsed in a lost Estate, and so hopeless un∣less they use some means to get out of that Estate, which that he might help us to do, was the Design of Christ's dying for all, that we might (having received by his Death Grace to lead a new Life) live no longer after our own Lusts and De∣sires, but in Obedience to his Commands that died and rose again to that end, (to bless us in turning every man from his Ini∣quities, Acts 3. 26.)

'Tis clear then from what hath been said, that our Conversion to God was the very Design of Christ's Crucifixi∣on, to the end we might be eternally saved,

and not that he might so suffer for us as to really transfer our Sins, or the Punishment thereof, from our Persons to his own; which that the words he bare our sins in his own Body on the Tree, so very much urged and insisted on by some, do not necessarily import, may be certainly gathered from another Text not unlike to this, When the Even was come they brought unto him many that were possessed with Devils, and he cast out the Spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the Prophet, saying, himself took our Infirmities, and bare our Sicknesses, Matth. 8. 16, 17. for none questionless will affirm, that Christ transferred the Infirmities and Sicknesses, of those whom he cured to his own Body from theirs. When it is therefore said, that Christ bare our Sins, and bare our Infirmities, it is to be understood that he really cured both, and as truly by virtue of his Death takes a∣way sin, and the eternal Punishment thereof, from all that by Faith apply it to them∣selves, as he took away diverse Infirmities by his Word from several who believed on him, so that the Socinians injuriously, and blas∣phemously deny the Divine Power and effi∣cacy of the infinitely meritorious, and satis∣factory

Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord and Savi∣our Jesus Christ upon the Cross for the Re∣demption of Man, who by the eternal Love of GOD the FATHER, through the Merits of GOD the SON apprehended by Faith, wrought in the Heart by GOD the HOLY GHOST, is effectually delivered from the mi∣serable Thraldom of Sin, Sathan, and Dam∣nation; for which ineffable undeserved Kindness is of Right therefore perpetually to be given to that ever adorable,

TRIN-ƲNI DEO GLORIA.