men presently discern this false light and the little Arts which are used in the management of it and consequently do not suffer themselves to be deceived by it they consider these holy things as they are and not as they are wantonly represented all the mischief that this Discourse is like to do is among your little unthinking Things that set up for Wit without common Sense and cry up every thing for extraordinary reason which has nothing in it but Clinch and Jingle I desire therefore the favour of you Sir that you would make use of Argument instead of Raillery whilst we are disputing of these sacred Truths that you would propose your objections with all the strength you can that you would conceal no difficulty you can espy in this divine Relation but I can never endure you should rack and tenter the passages of it clap one part of it incongruously and ridiculously with another only to make sport and banter with it For I am sure Philologus you can find nothing ridiculous in the whole Relation but what you make so Nor do I reprimand you for the only Man that are delinquent this way but it is the general fault of all the Gentlemen of your persuasion who are wont especially to muster up all their Railery and Malice too to expose the Relation of this unfortunate miscarriage of our first Parents and to ridicule the belief of it out of the World Here I find lies the Masterpiece of your Irreligion and a Man must not pretend to set up for Theism without variety of Blasphemy upon this subject Phil. I perceive dear Credentius that this is touching you in a tender place and therefore I shall forbear all reflections which are not necessary to my Argument But I must needs tell you that there are a great many things in this relation of the Fall which you call difficult and we call ridiculous but let them be what they will they are such that will keep a thinking Man from heartily believing your Religion till he sees them handsomly cleared up And the first of these is the Temptation of Eve by the Serpent Now is it not a little odd Credentius that such an ugly Beast as a Serpent should venture to accost such a fine Lady in all her Supralapsarian Beauty O. R. p. 39 40 c. I pray what kind of Language did Serpents then speak for we find they have no other than that of hissing now Methinks Eve should have run away from such a speaking Beast faster than from an Apparition and never have enter'd into a Conference with it Why should a Serpent I pray of all the Beasts of the field have all this Reason and Elocution bestow'd upon it Methinks a Lyon or a Bull would have made a good full-mouthed Orator but for a pitiful Snake to have such mighty Talents of Rhetorick and Perswasion is really very surprizing But supposing you say that the Devil possessing the Organs of this Serpent tempted the Woman I answer I think he made as silly a choice of a Body as ever Devil did to perform this Temptation in To have seen such an odd kind of stupid Beast of a sudden turned rational to hear that speak which was dumb before would probably have scared the poor Woman out of her Wits she would quickly I suppose have left the Devil and the Apple together and have betook her self to her Heels and her Husband to secure her Besides here is not a word of the Devil 's possessing the Body of the Serpent in the Relation of Moses for he imputes the Woman's being circumvented wholly to the Subtilty of the Serpent this is only a shift of your Divines to bring in the Devil as the Poets used to do the Gods to help them out at a dead lift Come Credentius what do you say to all this Cred. Not unreasonable that the Devil should tempt Mankind in the form of a Serpem Say Sir the best thing I can say is to say my Prayers for you to God to deliver you from this hardned infidelity But in the mean time I will answer this terrible Argument of yours as satisfactorily as I can 1. Therefore I assert that the Tempter which deceived our first Parents was the Devil some wicked malicious Spirit that envied the good of Mankind and those extraordinary favours which God has so plentifully bestowed on our first Parents which enclined him to tempt them to disobedience thereby to bring them into the same forlorn condition with himself and the other fallen Angels That the Serpent is only mentioned whose Body the Devil made use of is owing to a Metonymy common in the Hebrew Tongue which uses the Instrumental for the Efficient Cause and the Efficient for the Instrumental of which multitude of Instances may be given out of the Scripture Thus the Angels which God employ'd about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha are called by the name of the Lord. Gen. 1. and what they say and do is said to be done by the Lord. So on the other side the Divine Predictions of God-Almighty are said to be the words of the Prophets which he employ'd as Instruments to speak them Thus Amos 1. 1. The Words of Amos who was among the Herdsmen of Tekoa c. So Jer. 1. what is called v. 2. The Word of the Lord is called v. 1. The Words of Jeremiah the Son of Hilkiah So by the Word by Faith and by the Sacraments we are said to be saved whereas these are only the Instruments God makes use of in our Salvation So the Ministers of the Gospel are said to bind and to loose whereas 't is God only which does it by their Ministry Therefore it is no wonder if by the same Metonymy what is spoken or done by the Devil is said to be spoken or done by the Serpent whose Organs he usurped But further it is plain that it was the Devil which managed this Deceit not only from the Incongruousness of a Brute Beast's over-reaching Mankind in his highest pitch of Reason but from the Attestation of the Holy Scripture it self The Author of the Book of Wisdom who well understood the Doctrines and Traditions of the Jewish Church and the sense of the holy Scripture tells us expresly that by the Envy of the Devil Death came into the World Wisd 2.24 And our blessed Saviour who was a better Explainer of the Scriptures tells us the Devil was a Murderer from the beginning or the first Creation alluding to his mischievous destruction of Mankind that he is a Lyar and the Father of Lyes both in the first and all the following Temptation of Mankind Nay farther than this the Devil is expresly in Scripture called the Serpent and the Dragon was cast out that old Serpent called the Devil and Satan Rev. 12.9 and he laid hold on the Dragon that old Serpent which is the Devil and Satan Rev. 20.2 All which places are undoubted references to his first
being Anthropomorphites 280. Hebrew Language as well expresses the Nature of God as the Scholastical 282. Expiation consistent with the Mercy of God 292. The Origin of Sacrifices from Antient Revelation 295. God's Honour to be considered in the Mediatorship 300. What is meant by Satisfaction 303. A Vicarious punishment not unjust 306. Christ tho' God might Suffer 307. No Incongruity in the Doctrine of Christ's Intercession 309. THE CONTENTS of the Third Part. OF THE CONFERENCE Of the Predictions concerning Christ THE Objections answered of Prophecies not to the purpose p. 10. Texts quoted by way of accommodation p. 10. Texts quoted in Mystical Sense 14. Types and Allegories vindicated 20. Gen. 3.15 A Prophecy of Christ 27. Scepter of Judah Gen. 44.10 Prophecy of Christ 36. How the Fathers interpreted this Prophecy 45. Balaams Star Numb 24.17 a Prophecy of Christ 49. A Virgin shall conceive Isa 7.14 Prophecy of Christ 53. The Jewish way of Exposit a confirmation of Christianity 63. The Prophetick Excursions Explained 69. 2 Psalm a Prophecy of Christ 71. 62 Psalm a Prophecy of Christ 76. Prophecy of the Call of the Gentiles verified in Christ 83. Call of the Gentiles no random Guess of the Prophets 89. Glory of the Second Temple Hag. 2.7 a Prophecy of Christ 90. 52 53 cap. Isa Prophecy of Christ 96. The Monarchies and Weeks in Daniel Prophecy of Christ 100. Micha 5.2 Prophecy of Christ 115. Reason why Prophecies are something obscure 119. Of the Life and Actions of Christ as they are Recorded in Scripture The Birth of Christ Vindicated 124. The Blasphemy of Celsus and Julian confuted 127. Christ more glorious and great than Romulus Numa c 132. The Vindication of Christ's Anger Christ a pattern of the greatest Patience 136. Our Saviour's Discourse agreeable to the Eastern way of Reasoning 143. By making use of the Greek Philosophy and Eloquence he would not have been understood by the People 145. He avoided by this Prolixity 146. Christ does not speak Parables in his Laws nor generally Parables difficult 448. Christ's riding on an Ass not ridiculous 150. This a Token of his Humility and the nature of his Kingdom 150. To shew him to be a King as well as a Prophet 152. Jews Interpret this Prophecy of the Messias 153. Christ no Impostor but a good Man 155. Because his Miracles were done so often and before so many 157. His Miracles not capable of Collusion 158. He was no Cheat because he could get nothing by it 159. Because of the great Penalty on Impostors 162. Such Numbers could not conceal a Cheat. 163. Christ's Miracles owned by his Enemies 165. The Reason why Christ did so few Miracles in his own Country 167. Christ Preached the Gospel to the Poor not to deceive such people but because they were better qualified to receive the Gospel than the Rich. 170. The Ignorant better qualified for this than the Learned 170. This Choice made the Progress of the Gospel more miraculous 171. Why Christ required Faith in his Disciples 173. Mean Men as good Judges of Miracles as others 173. Vindication of Christ's Patience He more couragious and patient than the Heathen Philosophers 176. Reason of our Saviour's praying that the Cup might pass from him 177. Christ's Death no Collusion 181. Instances of Aristeas c. compared with Christ's Resurrection confuted 182. Testimony of Christ's rising from the Dead unexceptionable 185. The Disciples stealing away the Body a foolish Lie 189. Christ's not so generally Conversing with his Disciples after the Resurrection no Argument against the Truth of it 193. The Comparison of Apollonius with Christ foolish 199. Philostratus set on to forge his History 202. Forged in immitation of Gospel Miracles 203. Apollonius no good Man 206. Apostles more credible than Philostratus because unlearned 207. Story of Abaris his Miracles ridiculous 208. The Apostles not Counterfeits 209. Because good Men. 212. Because they knew the Matters they related ib. Because not cunning enough to carry on such a Cheat. 213. Because all witnessed the same 214. Because they could get nothing by it 215. Because the Truth of what they said easily examined 216. Because they Suffered and Died for their Doctrine 217. T is false that the Apostles ventured nothing by preaching for they ventured their Lives and Liberties 221. They did not preach for Vain Applause 222. Got nothing by the Collections 223. Persecuted by the Gentiles as well as Jews 224. Preached against the Heathen Idolatry 225. False Brethren not Informers 226. What St. Paul said to the Pharises no prevarication 226. Case of the Apostolick and Popish Miracles different 228. The Doctrine of the Messias before the Captivity 230. Not owing to the Jewish Gematria 232. Notion of a Temporal Messias did not further the Gospel 233. The Millennium no Apostolick Doctrine 234. Of the Doctrines Contained in the Old Testament Prayer of Christians vindicated because better than the Heathens 238. No Sauciness to pray to God 239. Prayer for Rain not for a Miracle 240. Christians think not to weary God by Prayer 242. Nor to flatter him by Thanksgiving 243. Mortification vindicated to be a a reasonable Duty 246. Single Marriage vindicated Polygamy not lawful from the practice of the Antients 249. Or Barbarous 250. More Comfort in Single Marriage 251. Affections of the Married do not naturally wear off by Age. 253. Nor by the speedy decay of Feminine Beauty 254. Ob. against Polygamy from the slavery of such Wives 255. From the equal Number of Males and Females 256. Humility and Meekness vind against Spinosa and Match 263. Forgiving Injuries Vindicated 268. Doctrine of Repentance Vindicated 276. And that of Grace 282. Reasonableness of the Institution of the Sacraments 287. Reasonableness of the general Resurrection 296. Of the Doctrine of Wicked Spirits 302. Of Hell and the Eternity of Hell Torments 307. Of Heaven 315. THE CONTENTS of the Fourth Part OF THE CONFERENCE Of the Authenticalness of the Books of Scripture MOses allowed to be the Author of the Pontateuch by all Antiquity p. 6. Father Simons Supposition Examined 8. No setled Scribes to write Scripture among the Jews 10. Jewish Scripture not wrote on loose Leaves 11. No Compilers to alter original Scripture 16. Esdras could not forge the Scripture 18. Spinosas Arguments against Moses being the Author of the Pentateuch answered 23. Isaiah the Author of the Book under his Name 38. Samuel Author of Judges and beginning of Samuel 41. The other parts of Samuel wrote by Nathan and Gad. 43. Kings and Chronicles a compilation after the Captivity 45. Esra wrote the book of that Name 46. Nehemiah Author of that Book 47. The Book of Job vindicated 49. The Psalms 52. Solomon Author of the Proverbs 54. Ecclesiastes 56. Panticles 57. The Authority of the Book of Isaiah 57. Jeremiah 60. Ezekiel 63. Daniel 65. Twelve Minor Prophets 66. The Absurdity of Spinosas asserting that all the Books of the Old Testament were wrote by the same hand
it was their business to amuse the People with these dark riddles to wrap up common and ordinary Truths in this mystick dress that the People might the more admire them which otherwise they would have despised had they been delivered in the usual way and so the Priests have lost a great part of their veneration But just on the contrary Moses endeavoured to reveal all his Doctrines to the People he ordered his Books to be read in the Ears of all the People and commanded Parents to teach them to their Children so that 't is plain he did not design by Mystical senses to keep them from the commonalty but by all imaginable plainness to suit them to their Capacities Had no design like the Heathen Philosophers to serve by an Allegory Again it was the design of the Heathen Philosophers who affected Allegories most to impart their Notions only to their own Scholars who were let into the meaning of that Philosophical Cant by which means they excluded the vulgar from understanding their Tenets and kept their learning within the bounds of their own School But Moses had no such design he was not afraid of any other Philosophers setting up against him and running away with his Notions he had not a School but a whole Nation to instruct for the greatest part consisting of unlearned and ignorant People and therefore he can never be supposed to make use of such mystical Doctrines which were impossible to be understood by the illiterate Jews Nor the same design with the Allegorical Fathers And lastly for the Allegorizing Fathers they cannot be brought in to countenance this opinion for tho' they Allegorize many Historical parts of the Bible yet they leave the literal sense entire still they allow the matter of fact was true but they will have this matter of fact to have another Allegorical meaning and to be a Type of something else Now the ancient Fathers were the more inclined to this way of Interpreting Scripture not only from the practice of the Jews themselves and the Writers of the New Testament but to shew the peculiar Excellence of the Christian Religion against their Adversaries the Jews by making all the History of the Jewish Religion to be only a Type of ours Now Moses having no such reason to put a mystical meaning upon his words he must be supposed to have used them in the literal sense unless those which the Holy Ghost did design should be also Typical and those actions which were to prefigure others under the Kingdom of the Messias Phil. I find it grows late Credentius and therefore before I take my leave of you let me hear what you have to say in Defence of the Mosaick Relation of the Fall which you promised just now to do Cred. The reason why I so much admire the excellence of this Relation is because it gives an easy solution to many difficulties in nature and morality which are otherways impossible to be accounted for Moses in a few lines of this short History has made a many things plain which have racked the Brains of many Ages and which the greatest Philosophers in the World have blundered at 1. The first of these is the natural account Moses gives the best account of the Depravation of Mans Will which he gives of The Depravation of Man's Will or its Inclinableness to Evil. It will amaze one to consider what horrible work the Heathen Philosophers made in their accounts of it Some of them made this Inclinableness to Sin and all the Evil which is found in the World to come from an Infinitely-Evil Principle a sort of Anti-God eternally co-existing with the good one which was not only the Opinion of the Persian Magi and the Manichees but as Plutarch says was the Opinion of the most and wisest of the Philosophers Now this is such a foolish account of Sin that no one will presume to compare the Mosaical account with it For to assert a God or Principle infinitely Evil is contradiction in terms For as all the attributes of one God are good so the other must be Evil or just contrary or privative to the first The Miscarriages of the Philosophers in this As one is infinitely just and merciful so the other must be infinitely unrighteous and cruel as the one is infinite in Power so the other must be infinite in no Power that is must have no power at all as the one is Eternal and Necessary in his being the other must be infinite in non-existence and be impossible to be All which includes a Troop of Contradictions and Absurdities Another set of Philosophers imputed this Obliquity of the Soul to its mixture with matter But it is unintelligible how a meer mixture with matter which is neither good nor evil should make a thing originally good to be bad If they say matter was Evil in it self originally they then make God which was the Author of matter to be the Author of the Evil in it which is injurious to the Divine Holiness If they say Matter is Eternal as Plutarch and some others of them do and withal Evil in it self this is to make such another Eternal Evil Principle which includes the Absurdities likewise of the Manichean Principle A third sort attributed this Depravation to a pre-existent state of sinfulness and that the Inclinableness to Sin in this World was but an ill habit of the Soul contracted in another by a voluntary deviation from God This the later Philosophers call generally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the moulting of the Wings of the Soul and its alienation or flight from the Deity This last Opinion I say the latter Moralists generally took up with after they had been beat off from their other accounts by the Arguments of the Christians Not that they learned this from the Mosaical account of the Lapse as some will have it in the School of Ammonius for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Plato is much older but afterwards they stuck only to this Account because the Christians had made the others so apparently ridiculous But I pray what evidence had those Philosophers of such a pre-existent State They ought solidly to have proved first the State in which this pretended Lapse happened before they asserted the Lapse it self which after all is but their pure Assertion Besides these Philosophers generally make this Immersion into gross matter to be the punishment of the Soul for her Offences in her pre existing State but then such an Immersion is not a proper way of Punishment of the Soul and seems inconsistent with the Wisdom and Justice of God For all Punishments inflicted by God especially in probatory states are in order to amendment now the Soul not having Reminiscence of her former state it is impossible for her to amend the Errours of that state she cannot remember These are the accounts which the Philosophers give of the Depravation of the Soul