to offer that Answer to his Question And more to entangle the Matter he propounds a New Question demanding If it were an Extasie what was the Nature of that Extasie I Reply I pretend not to be able to tell him the Nature of any Extasie Trance or Vision which may happen to Men because I suppose them to be super-humane Actions inexplicable from the known or common Principles of Humane Nature And therefore without farther Answer to his Question about the Nature of an Exâ—asie I profess to Believe that the Answer before given viz. That St. Paul was in a Trance at that time is enough notwithstanding his saying That it is not enough and that it will pass for a good Answer and Solution of his first Question upon which all the rest depends I do not pretend to make such Interpretations of difficult Scriptures as are likely to satisfie all Perusers but count it enough if thereupon I can satisfie my own Understanding As to my best Judgment I have done upon this Text without being afraid of Mens Censures of losing the Meaning of such a Dark Scripture instead of Interpreting it Mr. W. proceeds to say Till I hear a better Sense given of this Text of St. Paul than I have here given of it I will conclude from hence that the Apostle Paul doth imply that his Soul and so all other Mens Souls are whil'st in the Body of such a nature as may be seperated from the Body To this I Reply Our Author hath Power to take this Text of St. Paul in what Sense he pleases or thinks most reasonable as all other Readers may do and may thence Infer and Conclude as their Judgments or Affections or Prepossessions shall perswade them But I profess my self to conceive they build upon sandy Ground who draw that Inference from the Relation of St. Paul's Trance or any other Text quoted to prove Mr. W's Third Proposition That the Soul can subsist in a State of Seperation from the Body Because I judge the Evidences by me produced and my Constructions upon his Texts do more clearly prove the contrary Mr. W's Fourth Proposition is that the Scriptures affirm That when the Body dies the Soul is actually seperated from it In Proof of which he quotes Eccl. 12.7 Then shall the dust return to the Earth as it was and the Spirit shall return to God that gave it Upon which he says It is most clear that by Dust is here meant the Body and by Spirit the Soul of Life in Man In which Construction I do not much differ from him but do easily Agree That by Dust here is meant the Body and that by Spirit is intended the Spirit of Life in Man And thereupon I Observe That these Words of Solomon are a single and transient Expression concerning a Subject not mention'd in the rest of the Chapter either before or after and without a particular Occasion given or offer'd to speak of the State of Souls after Death and seems to have something of a Chance in the delivery of it And as I find no Introduction to this Expression nor Occasion given to speak of a Rational or Intelligent Soul in Man so I do not perceive that they do either mention or intend the Spirit of Man to be such a Soul as Mr. W. pretends it to be Solomon was here treating concerning the Decays of Man's Life and recounts by what degrees Death makes its Approaches till at last it prevails over the Person and then the Dust returns to the Earth as it was and the Spirit returns to God who gave it And the Question upon this Text seems to be what is meant by the Term of the Spirit and what is meant of its Return to God who gave it Our Author says That by the Spirit is intended the Soul of Life And I think I differ not far from him when I say That by the Word Spirit is intended the Spirit of Life We know that Solomon had a careful Education under a pious Father and was endued with a strong Inclination to search out the Natures of Things and thence we may certainly Conclude that he had carefully perused the Patriarchal Book of Genesis and the other Mosaical Writings and there had found written Gen. 9.4 Flesh with the Life thereof which is the Blood thereof shall ye not eat and surely the Blood of their Lives will I require at the hand of every Beast will I require it and at the hand of Man at the hand of every Man's Brother will I require the Life of Man Whoso sheddeth Man's Blood by Man shall his Blood be shed for in the Image of God made he Man Also Deut. 12.23 Thou mayest kill of thy Herd and of thy Flock in any of thy Gates only be sure that thou eat not the Blood for the Blood is the Life and thou mayest not eat the Life with the Flesh And Moses says cause that was the Life of the Creature There hath before been quoted God's breathing the Breath of Life into Adam's Nostrils and the breathing the Breath of Life into Adam's Nostrils and the breathing a like Breath into the Persons raised out of Ezekiel's dry Bones which caused Life in them all Gen. 6.7 God says I will destroy Man whom I have created from the face of the Earâ—h both man and beast Chap. 7.22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life upon the dry land dyed in the flood both Man and Beast were suffocated and drowned in the Waters of the Flood by stopping those Passages through which this Breath of Life should other ways have enter'd Dan 5 23. Thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold but the God in whose hand thy breath is thou hast not glorified Intending God in whose hand thy Life is such a Life as through the Power of God is produced and maintained by Breath and Breathing These Quotations seem to prove that the Spirit of Life in Man is a Compositum of Parts as well as his Body and that the Composition of such Spirit of Life required is of Blood and Breath The Blood and Humours of their Bodies and their Spirits are absolutely necessary for the Life of Man and Beast by maintaining and nourishing the glowing and yet lambent Flame of Life which acts their Organical Bodies and causes a continual Circulation of their Blood to that Purpose and no less necessary for the producing and maintaining of Life is that Breath which God first breathed into Adam and since hath communicated and continued to all his Posterity which have been procreated from that Time to this There passes a Principle of Life in Semine which by Fimentation Fermentation and Coagulation in loco idoneo arrives in its appointed time to a Vegetation and perhaps lives without Breath or Breathing or with very little Assistance thereof until Nature drive it forth into the open Air where after it hath once taken Breath it can by no means be kept alive for many Moments
Go thy way and as thou hast believed so be it done unto thee St. Luke relates it thus This Centurions servant was ready to die and when he heard of Jesus he sent unto him the Elders of the Jews beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant And they came to Jesus desiring him to do this Kindness for the Captain because he was a worthy Person and a Lover of the Jews and Jesus went with them towards the Captain's House and when he was not far from thence the Centurion sent Friends to him saying unto him Lord trouble not thy self for I am not worthy that thou should'st enter under my Roof wherefore neither thought I my self worthy to come unto thee but say in a word and my Servant shall be healed And Jesus thereupon turn'd him about and discours'd with those that followed him and they that were sent returning to the House found the Servant whole that had been sick Upon reading these two Relations I think it plainly appears That either this Centurion came Personally to our Lord to request his Servant's Cure or he did not come Personally to Christ for that purpose but sent the Elders of the Jews to request that favour upon his behalf Without that himself came either to Sight or Speech of our Lord upon that occasion I find no ground or reasonable guess which of our Texts deliver the absolute Truth in this Circumstance of the Fact which they relate but from this Variance and the other Instances before recounted I think it may reasonably be collected That Men are not bound to take and perhaps ought not to take every Saying or Sentence which they find written in the Scriptures to be an irrefragable Truth and the very Word of God And I am ready to apply this Tenet to the Sayings now in dispute with Mr. W. viz. Are not able to kill the Soul and have no more that they can do We find an apparent Variance between these Two Sayings and that the Words of St. Luke are adaequate and answerable to the Intent of our Lord's Doctrine in this place whereas those of St. Matthew have a double Aspect and look as it were two ways For one way it insinuates that Persecutors can do no more harm after they have killed Another way it seems next to an Assertion that Mens Souls live and subsist in a state of Seperation from their Bodies I do not by the Context or any other ways conceive that our Lord did speak or had any Intent to speak of the state of Men after Death in this Doctrine whence the Words Are not able to kill the Soul in that Prospect of intending to teach the state of Men after Death seems quite besides our Lord's Meaning in this Doctrine and if not quite out of it yet very plainly collateral to it And yet from this side-wind the Maintainers of Seperate Subsistence draw the strongest Proof which they can find for maintaining their Opinion of the Seperate Subsistence I think that upon perusal of this Argument it will appear the strength of this Proof is much weaken'd and abated and will be found to be of much less force than it seems to have at the first reading or hearing thereof and in this state of debilitation I leave it to prosecute my Observations upon Mr. W's Pages as I did before P. 64 Mr. W. pretends to take the disputed Words as Comments one upon another and says that by Construction they may be made to intend one thing And I am ready to grant that by Construction they may both of them be made to serve the Meaning of our Lord in this Doctrine but then in our Collateral Point which St. Luke doth not meddle with there is a very great Variance between these two Expressions for that the one proves strongly the Soul 's Seperate Subsistence and the other proves it not nor meddles with it at all Which proves that our Lord's Doctrine did not intend to speak of that Point in this place And therefore our Question thereupon is In what Words our Lord delivered this Doctrine And the Conclusion is That if he delivered this Doctrine in the Words of St. Matthew then they are a strong Proof of the Souls Seperate Subsistence but if his Doctrine were delivered in the Words of St. Luke then there is no Proof at all in it of the Souls Seperate Subsistence And I have before enough Argued on the side of St. Luke and for the Probability that his Text sets forth to us the very Words wherein our Lord delivered this Doctrine Mr. W. confesses That Luke expresseth less than Matthew but says He never meant less Which I think intends that the Meaning of Luke in his Text was That those who kill the Body are not able to kill the Soul Which Meaning doth not at all appear in the Words of Luke's Text which do not say so And how then Mr. W. should come to know that he meant so I do not understand and therefore I reject this Gloss upon that Text as Mr. W's own Invention or Fiction The Fifth Argument PAg. 65. Mr. W. raises an Argument for the Soul 's Seperate Subsistence from the Appearing of Moses and Elias and discoursing with our Lord upon Mount Tabor and says That Moses could not appear there in his Person Soul and Body because Deut. 34.6 says Moses died in the Land of Moab and He the Lord buried him in a Valley there over-against Beth-Peor but no man knoweth of his Sepulchre unto this day P 66. Mr. W. discoursing upon this Text says That Moses appearing at Mount Tabor must be either alive in Spirit only or else his Body was raised Adding I know that some conjecture that his Body was rais'd but they cannot prove that Conjecture from Texts of Scripture And therefore he thinks it more likely that Moses appeared in Spirit only intending I suppose in his Soul subsisting in a state of Seperation after Death Which I think to be no more than a Conjecture which he is not able to prove by Texts of Scripture any more than the former Conjecture can be so Proved And to these Two Conjectures I pretend to add a Third viz. That Moses may not have died in the Mount but might be translated or transported to Heaven in Person as Enoch and Elias had before been Which I offer to Prove by his Appearing with Elias at Mount Taber It seems they appeared both after a like manner and the one as much in Person as the other Mr. W. grants that Elias did appear in Person and Arguendo a simili it appears most likely that Moses did so too As to the Text which says Moses died and was buried I think fit to consider by whom this Book of Deuteronomy might be written and if the Promises thereof might be written by Moses or his Direction yet this closing Passage of it about his own Death and Burial it seems could not be so It appears not from whence the Opinion
places where he hath twice before propounded them I do not find that in this Discourse he hath added any new Arguments to those which are produced in his former Treatise so as there are no new Proofs propounded in this Triumph whence I am apt thereupon to surmise that he doth Triumphum canere ante Victoriam and because his Triumphal Building seems to be principally founded upon the two before-named Assertions I collect that if the rain descend violently upon it the winds shake it the floods happen to beat upon it this Triumphal Edifice will be more likely to fall than to stand because the ground upon which it is raised seems over soft and sandy for the support thereof and for that the foundations of it are not digged deep enough by such a Search into the Scriptures as might make it appear that the Doctrine is built upon a strong Stream or clear Current of Scripture Testimonies somewhat apparently or clearly attesting the Truth thereof in some such places where there was a Design of Teaching concerning the Future State of Men after Death I do not conceive that there was a Design of speaking of such a Future State in any of the four Texts last before quoted of Solomon St. Matthew and St. Luke and therefore I do not find any great strength of Conviction in them I shall therefore pass over these and all the rest of Mr. Wadsworth 's Discourse of Faith's Triumph without speaking any farther thereunto because it seems not greatly material towards the farther proof of that Question which is now disputed between us resolving here to finish my Observations upon this Author with a hearty Bene valeas to my Intelligent Reader FINIS OBSERVATIONS UPON Dr. CHARLTONS TREATISE INTITULED The Immortality of the Humane Soul demonstrated by the Light of Nature In Two Dialogues 4to London Printed 1657. HIS first Dialogue and a good part of the second are imployed and spent in Introduction and Ceremony which last and continue till Page 78. of his Book and there he says That the Considerations which he intends to alledge for proving the Souls Immortality shall be either Natural or Moral his first Argument is this he says The reasonable Soul of Man is Immaterial and therefore it is Immortal P. 85. To prove the Souls Immateriality he says The Actions of Man as a Cogitative and Intellectual Essence are of so noble and divine a strain as that it is impossible they should be performed by a meer Material Agent or Corporeal Substance however disposed qualified or modified To this I answer it is the common Objection against the Souls Materiality viz. Men do not understand the quomodo how the Abstract Actions of the Mind and the Reflex Actions of it upon it self can be performed by Matter and Motion never so fitly Modified and Organized And therefore our Doctor in this Place walks in the common Trod and pretends to supply the want of Power in such Matter and Motion by the Introduction of an Intelligent Self-subsisting Spirit into the Person for the effecting of such Operations in Man not enough considering the Wisdom and Power of God the great Architect of the Microcosm who can by Matter and Motion fitly Organized Modified and Moved produce such Acts and Powers as Men are not able to comprehend the quomodo of and therefore to their Reason such things may seem impossible to be done which by the Wisdom and Power of God may be easily effected and performed without the Agency of such Intelligent Spirits as Men have commonly used to imagine P. 88. The Doctor says by Discourse of Reason we soon come certainly to know that the Magnitude of the Sun is at least 160 times greater than that of the Earth and here I pretend to doubt the Certainty of the Doctor 's knowledge concerning this Point from this Page to Page 100 the Doctor argues Whether the Intellect can work without the assistance of the Phansie a Question propounded by Aristotle in the beginning of his Book de Anima but both there and here that Question is left undetermined P. 102. The Doctor says the Intellect doth frequently reflect upon it self and understand its own Intelligence This I do not permit to pass for a Truth if we take the Intellect for a distinct thing from the Man conceiving that the Intellect as well as the Phantasie are Powers and Faculties of the Man and that neither of them can do any thing of themselves but that all which either or both of them do are Acts of the Person in whom they reside and that they are both of them submitted to the Guidance and Government of the Person and the Totum of that Power of which they are but a part so as to speak properly and truly we must say that the Man can considerately reflect upon the Acts and Powers of his Intellect Phantasie Judgment and Memory which is a thing which I shall easily grant but that which I think lies upon the Doctor and his Party to prove is the bare Intellect separated from the Person can reflect upon it self or do any other Action whatsoever P. 108. The Doctor says That whatsoever can frame abstracted Notions and form Universals must be above Matter and be Immaterial but the Soul and Mind of Man can act in this sort Ergo this Soul must be Immaterial In this Argument I deny his Major and say that the Man himself who is a Material Agent can form Abstractive Notions and from Singulars and Generals can extract and frame Universals and that the Intellect without the Man can perform no such Matters nor be nor act in any kind whatsoever P. 112. Here he quotes a Book written by Hieronimus Rorarius a Learned Prelate as a Collection of Arguments commonly urged to prove that many Brute Animals have the use of Reason as well as Man himself hath P. 116. Here it is affirmed That Men do not know the Intimate Nature of so much as the smallest Plant which grows upon the Ground and therefore I say we are like to fall much short of the true Nature of the Humane Soul with such Certainty as were to be desired P. 118. The Doctor says the Intellect is conversant about Spiritual Beings both of good and other Spirits and therefore is Immaterial I answer as before the Intellect can do nothing but as it is a Power and Faculty of the Person without which I do not agree that it hath either Being or Action P. 123. The Doctor here says that the old Philosophers obtained a certain Knowledge that there were Spirits by the Regular Motions of the Heavenly Bodies which they thought could not be maintained without the Assistance and Government of Intelligent Immaterial Spirits but I think they were as much deceived in their own Opinion as our Doctor seems to be in his Opinion of the Souls Immateriality P. 123. It is objected against the Doctor that when the Phansie is disturb'd the Intellect cannot act with Strength or
Freedom and the Doctor confesses it to be true and that the Soul as Immaterial as he supposes her cannot act without Material Assistance of the Phansie Memory and other Sensitive Powers and apparent it is neither the Man nor the Soul can act any thing without the Spirits of the Blood P. 126. The Doctor sets down three Moral Arguments proving the Souls Immateriality and Immortality 1. The Universal consent of Men to this Opinion 2. Man's Innate and Inseperable Appetite of Immortality 3. The Justice of God in rewarding good Men and punishing the Evil after Death Upon the first Argument he quotes Cicero's saying Omni in re Consensio omnium gentium lex naturae putanda est to this Rule I answer that if it should be admitted for a Rule yet there are many Exceptions to be made out of it and therefore I cannot admit it to have a binding force in this Case and to the Doctor 's Assertion of Universal Assent to the Souls Immortality by which he would prove it a Conception Natural to the Mind of Man I answer that a Conception so proving must be as Universal in Time as in Places or Persons but we do not Read or find that the Opinion of the Souls Immortality had a Being in the World or was known amongst Men before the Writings of Solomon because that in the Thousands of Years before his time we meet with no mention of that Opinion neither amongst the Patriarchs nor the Mosaical Writings nor any of the Prophets before Solomon's time nor do Job or David make any mention thereof We Read God laid great Punishments upon Cain for his Murther which was of great Importance in that time of the World and a very atroceous Fratricide and yet we do not Read of so much as a Threat against the Soul of Cain or any thing there spoken concerning Punishments future to this Life but all the Punishments denounced to him for that Fact were only Temporal and of this World nor do I find any Punishments future to this Life denounced against Sinners until the Books of Solomon became extant in the World save what was taken from the invention of some Poets which might be received in the World somewhat before his time And hence I infer That the Notion of the Souls Immortality is not Natural because for some Thousands of Years from the Worlds beginning that Notion was not received or known amongst Men. P. 131. The Doctor 's Opposer says the Opinion of the Souls Immortality is very Useful in Government for that audacious Malefactors who are not moved by the whole Arm of the Civil Magistrate will yet tremble at the Finger of Divinity P. 133. It is possible and Experience shews it frequent that an Opinion may be Universal possessiing the Minds of all Men for many Ages together without Dispute which yet at length may be Discovered to be False and Absurd as hath been Experienc'd in the Opinion of the Antipodes and the Circumvolution of the Earth both which till of late Years were held Unreasonable and Phantastical and perhaps this of the Souls Eternity may have the same Fate P. 134. Our Doctor says That to prove an Opinion derived from Nature there is required an Assent of all Ages from the beginning of the World To this I say The Opinion of the Souls Immortality hath not such a Consent and that such a Consent neither hath been or can be proved and that therefore the Opinion it self is not proved derivable from Nature or the Instinct thereof The Doctor says further That from the Antiquity Universality and Perpetuity of any Opinion we may safely conclude upon the Verity of it Hereunto I answer That the Opinion of the Suns Diurnal Motion about the Earth had a greater Antiquity and as great an Universality and hath still as strong a Perpetuity as that of the Souls Immortality either ever had or yet hath notwithstanding all which the Learned World begins now to perceive that it was always and is still an Error P. 138. Here the Doctor begins to produce and urge his second Moral Argument for the Souls Immortality from the Desires Men have of Perpetuity and Living after their Deaths either in their own proper Beings or in the Memories of such as survive their Departures To this I answer That if they desire a Perpetuity of their own Being after Death it seems they desire that which they cannot attain as all Men may and do desire a Perpetual Youth Health and Prosperity Nature and Reason both assure us that no Man doth or can desire a perpetual or a long Life under great Pains and Sufferings but a Life with Happiness is very acceptable to all Men and therefore they do not desire Life alone but as it is joyn'd with expectation or hope of Happiness and hence I collect that the much greater part of Mankind which the sinful World knownly are do not desire a future State of Life after Death but rather that there were no Being for them after this Life and would very much wish to be forgotten both by God and Men and therefore a Perpetuity of Being is not desired or so much desirable as our Doctor pretends it to be whence I conceive the Doctor 's Argument drawn from this Topick hath but little Force or Cohersion in it and not Strength enough to compel or even to draw Men to a Coherence with the Doctor in his Opinion of the Souls Immortality P. 145. Here the Doctor propounds his Third Moral Argument for proving the Souls Immortality and raises it from God's Divine Justice and his Equitable Dealings with Men and says it is commonly observ'd wicked Men prosper better in this World than the Righteous usually do and consequently that such Men are not rewarded according to their Works whilst they live and therefore God's just dealing with Men cannot be defended without allowing and believing a State of Rewards and Punishments after Death and from hence saith the Doctor it must unavoidably follow that Rewards and Punishments will be distributed to Men after their departures out of this Life To this I answer That I agree to all that the Doctor hath here delivered the Doctor replies if you so do you must likewise agree to the Doctrine of the Souls Immortality or the Seperate Subsistence of it for the Body after Death is not capable of receiving Reward or Punishment it must therefore be the Soul alone unto which such Rewards and Punishments can be applied Our Doctor not once mentioning or appearing at all to think upon the last Articles of our Creed I believe the Resurrection of the Dead and the Life Everlasting which seems to my Understanding a sort of Proof that he and the greatest part of those who believe and maintain the Souls Immortality are very little mindful of our quoted Article The Resurrection of the Dead insomuch as the Conceit of this Immortality seems to have eaten up and devoured the Article before-named with the Use and