The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Preface
• Foreword
• An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature
• Chapter 1: The Porch, Or Introduction
• Chapter 2: The Explication of the Words
• Chapter 3: What Nature Is
• Chapter 4: Of the Nature of a Law In General
• Chapter 5: Of the Eternal Law
• Chapter 6: Of the Law of Nature In General, Its Subject and Nature
• Chapter 7: The Extent of the Law of Nature
• Chapter 8: How the Law of Nature Is Discovered? Not By Tradition
• Chapter 9: The Light of Reason
• Chapter 10: Of the Consent of Nations
• Chapter 11: The Light of Reason Is a Derivative Light
• Chapter 12: The Light of Reason Is a Diminutive Light
• Chapter 13: The Light of Reason Discovers Present, Not Future Things
• Chapter 14: The Light of Reason Is a Certain Light
• Chapter 15: The Light of Reason Is Directive
• Chapter 16: The Light of Reason Is Calme and Peaceable
• Chapter 17: The Light of Reason Is a Pleasant Light
• Chapter 18: The Light of Reason Is an Ascendent Light
• Notes

chapter 11

The Light of Reason Is a Derivative Light

[79] Now the Spirit of man is the Candle of the Lord.

First, as Lumen derivatum,φω̑ςἐκφωτός1 [a derivative light, a light from a light]. Surely there’s none can think that light is primitively and originally in the Candle; but they must look upon that only as a weak participation of something that is more bright and glorious. All created excellency shines with borrowed beames, so that reason is but Scintilla divinae lucis2 [a spark of the divine light], ’tis but Divinae particula aurae3 [a breath of the divine breeze]. This was the very end why God framed intellectual creatures, that he might communicate more of himself to them, then he could to other more drossie and inferiour beings, and that they might in a more compleat and circular manner redire in principium suum (as the Schoolmen speak) that they might return into the bosom of the first and supreme cause by such operations as should in some measure imitate and represent the working of God himself, who being a most free and intellectual Agent, would have some creature also that should not only take notice of these his perfections, so as to adore and admire them, but should also partake of them, and should follow the Creator in his dispensations and workings, though still at an infinite distance and disproportion.

This moved him to stamp upon some creatures understanding and will, which in themselves make up one simple and entire print and signature of Reason, though we break the seal for the better opening of them, and part them into two several notions. To this end he fill’d the highest part of the world with those Stars of the first magnitude, I meane those Orient and Angelical beings, that dwell so neere the fountain of light, and continually drink in the beams of glory; that are exactly conformable to their Creatour in all his motions, for the same end he furnished and beautified this lower part of the world with intellectual lamps, that should shine forth to the praise and honour of his name, which totally have their dependance upon him, both for their being, and for their perpetual continuation of them in their being. ’Twas he that lighted up these lamps at first; ’tis he that drops הוהב the golden oile into them. Look then a while but upon the parentage and original of the soul & of Reason, & you’ll presently perceive that it was the Candle of the Lord. And if you have a minde to believe Plato, he’ll tell you such a feigned story as this, That there were a goodly [80] company of Lamps, a multitude of Candles, a set number of souls lighted up altogether, and afterwards sent into bodies, as into so many dark Lanthorns. This stock and treasure of souls was reserved, and cabinetted in I know not what Starres, perhaps that they might the better calculate their own incarnation, the time when they were to descend into bodies, and when they came there they presently sunk into ὕλη[matter]; they slipt into λήθη[forgetfulness], which he tearms ἐπιστήμηςἀποβολὴ,4 the putting off of knowledge for a while, the clouding and burying of many sparkling and twinkling notions, till by a waking reminiscence as by a joyful resurrection, they rise out of their graves again. Plato it seems lookt upon the body as the blot of nature, invented for the defacing of this νόμοςγραπτὸς5 [written law], or at the best as an impertinent tedious parenthesis, that checkt and interrupted the soul in her former notions; that eclipsed and obscured her ancient glory, which sprung from his ignorance of the resurrection, for had he but known what a glory the body was capable of, he would have entertained more honourable thoughts of it.

Yet Origen was much taken with this Platonical notion, it being indeed a pretty piece of Philosophy for him to pick allegories out of. And though he do a little vary from Plato in a circumstance or two, yet in recompence of that he gives you this addition, and enlargment, that according to the carriage & behavior of these naked spirits before they were embodied, there were prepared answerable mansions for them. That such a soul as had walkt with God acceptably was put into a fairer prison, was clothed with an amiable and elegant body; But that soul which had displeased and provoked its Creator, was put into a darker dungeon, into a more obscure and uncomely body. That Candle which had shined clearly, was honoured with a golden Candlestick; that which had soiled its light, was condemned to a dark Lanthorne: one would think by this, that Origen had scarce read Genesis, he doth in this so contradict the Sacred History of the Creation. Nor is this the just product of Plato’s opinion, but ’tis pregnant with much more folly, he returns him his own with usury, gives him this as the just Τόκος[interest] and improvement of it.6

Aquinas doth clash in pieces all these Platonical fictions in his two books Contra Gentiles;7 yet upon this sinking and putrid foundation was built the tottering superstructure of connate Species. For when Plato had laid down this Error for a maxime: Πρὶνγενέσθαιἡμα̑ςἠ̑νἡμω̑νἡψυχή, that the souls of men were long extant before they were born, then that other phansie did presently step in ἡπιστάμεθακαὶπρὶνγενέσθαι,8 that the soul was very speculative and contemplative before it was immerst in the body, which made way for the next conceit, that the soul brought many of its old notions along with it into the body, many faithful attendants that would bear the soul company in her most withering condition, when other more volatile and fugitive notions took wing to [81] themselves and flew away; many a precious pearl sunk to the bottome of Lethe, but some reliques of notions floated upon the top of the waters, and in the general Deluge of notions there was an Ark prepared for some select principles, some praecepta Noachidarum9 [precepts of the children of Noah], which were to increase and multiply and supply the wants of an intellectual world.

This makes the Platonists look upon the spirit of man as the Candle of the Lord for illuminating and irradiating of objects, and darting more light upon them then it receives from them. But Plato as he failed in corporeal vision whilest he thought that it was per extramissionem radiorum[by the emission of rays]; So he did not ab errore suo recedere10 [relinquish his error] in his intellectual opticks: but in the very same manner tells us that spiritual vision also is per emissionem radiorum[by the emission of rays]. And truly he might as well phansie such implanted Ideas, such seeds of light in his external eye, as such seminal principles in the eye of the minde. Therefore Aristotle (who did better clarifie both these kindes of visions) pluckt these motes out of the sensitive eye, and those beames out of the intellectual. He did not antedate his own knowledge, nor remember the several postures of his soul, and the famous exploits of his minde before he was born; but plainly profest that his understanding came naked into the world. He shews you an ἄγραφονγραμματει̑ον,11 an abrasa tabula[blank tablet], a virgin-soul espousing it self to the body, in a most entire, affectionate, and conjugal union, and by the blessing of heaven upon this loving paire, he did not doubt of a Notional off-spring & posterity; this makes him set open the windows of sense to welcome and entertain the first dawnings, the early glimmerings of morning-light. Clarum mane fenestras intrat & Angustas extendit lumine rimas12 [it enters the windows bright in the morning, and extends its light in the narrow crevices]. Many sparks and appearances fly from variety of objects to the understanding; The minde, that catches them all, and cherishes them, and blows them; and thus the Candle of knowledge is lighted. As he could perceive no connate colours, no pictures or portraictures in his external eye: so neither could he finde any signatures in his minde till some outward objects had made some impression upon his νου̑ςἐνδυνάμει,13 his soft and plyable understanding impartially prepared for every seal. That this is the true method of knowledge he doth appeal to their own eyes, to their own understandings; do but analyse your own thoughts, do but consult with your own breasts, tell us whence it was that the light first sprang in upon you. Had you such notions as these when you first peept into being? at the first opening of the souls eye? in the first exordium of infancy? had you these connate Species in the cradle? and were they rockt asleep with you? or did you then meditate upon these principles? Totum est majus partae, & Nihil potest esse & non esse simul14 [the whole is greater than the part, nothing can be and not be at the same time]. Ne’re tell us that you wanted [82] organical dispositions, for you plainly have recourse to the sensitive powers, and must needs subscribe to this, that al knowledg comes flourishing in at these lattices. Why else should not your Candle enlighten you before? who was it that chained up, and fettered your common notions? Who was it that restrained and imprisoned your connate Ideas? Me thinks the working of a Platonists soul should not at all depend on ὕλη[matter]; and why had you no connate demonstrations, as well as connate principles? Let’s but see a catalogue of all these truths you brought with you into the world. If you speak of the principles of the Laws of Nature, you shall hear the Schoolmen determining: Infans pro illo statu non obligatur lege naturali, quia non habet usum Rationis & libertatis15 [an infant, because of its condition, is not obligated by the law of nature, because it does not have the use of reason and free will]. And a more sacred Author saies as much, Lex Naturae est lex intelligentiae quam tamen ignorat pueritia, nescit infantia[the law of nature is the law of reason, of which, however, youth is ignorant and infants unaware]. There’s some time to be allowed for the promulgation of Natures Law by the voice of Reason. They must have some time to spell the Νόμοςγραπτὸς16 [written law] that was of Reasons writing. The minde having such gradual and climbing accomplishments, doth strongly evince that the true rise of knowledge is from the observing and comparing of objects, and from thence extracting the quintessence of some such principles as are worthy of all acceptation; that have so much of certainty in them, that they are neer to a Tautology and Identity, for this first principles are.

These are the true and genuine κοιναὶἜννοιαι[common notions]; these are the λόγοισπερματικοὶ17 [seminal principles]; these are the props of Reasons contriving, upon which you may see her leaning, about which you may see her turning and spreading and enlarging her self. That learned Knight, in his discourse concerning the soul, doth at large shew the manner how the minde thus goes a gathering of knowledge;18 How like a Bee it goes from flower to flower, from one entity to another, how it sucks the purest and sweetest of all, how it refuses all that is distasteful to it, and makes a pleasant composition of the rest, and thus prepares honey-combs for it self to feed on.

But if it were at all to be granted that the soul had any stamps and characters upon it; that it had any implanted and ingraffed Species;’twere chiefly to be granted that it hath the connate notion of a Deity, that pure and infinitely refined entity, abstracted from all appearance of matter. But mark how the great Doctor of the Gentiles convinces them of the Τὸγνωστὸντου̑θεου̑19 [the knowledge of God], he doth not set them a searching their connate Species, but bids them look into the glasse of the creatures; O but (might some Platinist say) why, he is all spirit and an invisible being, what shall we finde of him amongst material objects? yes (saies the Apostle) τὰἀόρατατου̑θεου̑,20 the invisible [83] things of God are made known by the things that do appear; for a being indowed with such a soul as man is, can easily in a discoursive way, by such eminent steps of second causes ascend to some knowledge of a prime and supreme being; which doth fully explain that he means by his νόμοςγραπτὸς21 [written law], those clear dictates of Reason fetched from the several workings of the understanding, that have sealed and printed such a truth upon the soul; so that no other innate light, but only the power and principle of knowing and reasoning is the Candle of the Lord.

Yet there is a noble Author of our own, that hath both his truth and his errour, (as he hath also writ about both) who pleads much for his instinctus naturales22 [natural instincts], so as that at the first dash you would think him in a Platonical strain; but if you attend more to what he sayes, you will soon perceive that he prosecutes a farre different notion much to be preferred before the other phansy.

For he doth not make these instincts any connate Ideas and representations of things, but tels us that they are powers and faculties of the soul, the first-born faculties and beginning of the souls strength, that are presently espoused to their Virgin-objects closing and complying with them, long before discourse can reach them; nay, with such objects as discourse cannot reach at all in such a measure and perfection: these instincts he styles Naturae dotes, & providentiae Divinae universalis idea, & typus optimus23 [gifts of nature, and a universal representation and superlative reflection of divine providence]. Some of these are to be found in the lowest inanimate beings, which yet have no connate Species among them; though they have powers and propension to their own welfare, a blinde tendency and inclination to their own security; for thus he speaks—Instinctus ille Naturalis in quovis inarticulato licet & incauto elemento, sapiens est ad conservationem propriam24 [that natural instinct, in whatever indistinct and unconscious form, tends towards self-preservation]; and such a noble being as man is, must needs have it in a more sublime and eminent manner.

Therefore he tearms these instincts in man facultates noeticae, & facultates Deo analogae[intellectual powers and powers resembling God]; whereas those other inferiour faculties are esteem’d facultates analogae mundo25 [powers resembling the world]; his words being somewhat cloudy, I shall thus paraphrase upon them: The soul ’tis made with a through light, with a double window, at one window it looks upon corporeals, at the other it hath a fair prospect upon spirituals. When it takes notice of the material world, it looks out at the window of sense, and views the putamina & cortices rerum, the outward husks and shells of being, but not at all pleas’d or contented with them, those higher powers, those purer faculties of the soul unclasp and disclose themselves, and extend themselves for receiving some delight more precious and satisfactory, being made in as harmonious proportion suitable to spiritual objects, as [84] the eye is to colours, or the eare to sounds. And as you know, a corporeal eye is so fashioned and organiz’d, that though it have no connate Species of the Sunne, yet tis pleasant to behold it; so the eye of the soul doth willingly open it self to look upon God per modum objecti[as an object], and has all per receptionem[by reception] from him, fixing its eye upon so transcendent and beautiful an object, and viewing all those streamings out of light, those beamings out of eternal and universal notions, that flow from him as the fountain of lights, where they have dwelt from everlasting, which now appear to it in time with a most powerful and enamouring ray, to direct the soul to that happinesse it longed for, and to guide and conduct it in all its operations. If you ask when these highest faculties did first open and display themselves, he tells you ’tis then when they were stimulated and excited by outward objects, and it may be upon this account, that when the soul can finde nothing there worthy one glance, one cast of its eye, impatient of such empty and shadowy sights, it opens it self to the τὰἄνω26 [things above], and warmes it self in those everlasting Sun-beams; but when it comes down from the mount, it puts on the veile of sense, and so converses with material objects.

Yet I do not here positively lay down this for a truth in all the branches of it, but only represent the minde of the forementioned Author, who himself doth acknowledge that the rise of these first principles is very Cryptical and mysterious. His words are these. Vos interea non morari debet quod quomodo eliciantur istae notitiae communes nesciatis. Satis superque diximus vos nescire quomodo fiat gustus, odoratus, tactus, &c.27 [the fact of your not knowing how these common ideas are drawn forth ought not to prove an obstacle; we have told you sufficiently before, that you are ignorant how taste, smell, touch etc. begin to operate]. By which you cannot but perceive that he makes the conformity of such a faculty with such an object, the spring and original of common notions. Yet this then had deserved a little clearing, whence the difficulty of understanding spirituals pro hoc statu[as such] does arise, if there be such a present, and exact analogy between them; whereas the intuitive knowledge of God, and viewing those goodly notions that are steept in his essence uses to be reserved as a priviledge of a glorified creature. Yet this I suppose may be said that herein is the souls imperfection, that it cannot sufficiently attend both to spirituals and corporeals; and therefore sense being so busie and importunate for the prosecution of her objects; no wonder that these noetical faculties do faint and languish. So that if there be any whom the former discoursive way will not suffice, it seems better for them to have recourse to an innate power of the soul that is fitted and fashioned for the receiving of spirituals, quatenus[as] spirituals, then to flie to I know not what connate Species, of I know not how long duration before the soul was acquainted with the body. Yet that other noble Author of our own, that [85] has the same title of truth not without a competent mixture of error too, doth choose to resolve all into a Platonical remembrance, which yet that acute answerer of him doth shew to be a meer vanity;28 for as for matters of fact, to be sure they have no implanted Ideas: And if historical knowledge may be acquired without them, why then should discursive knowledge have such a dependence upon them? And I wish that the Platonists would but once determine whether a blinde man be a competent judge of colours by vertue of his connate Species, and whether by supply of these Ideas a deaf man may have the true notion of musick and harmony? if not, then they must ingenuously confesse, that the soul for the present wants so much of light as it wants of the window of sense. But if they tell us that some outward objects must jogge and waken these drowsie and slumbring notions, they then lay the foundation in sensitives; and withal let them shew us, why the generality of men in their intellectuals are not equally improved, whereas they have the same objects to quicken and enflame them? in the mean time we will look upon the understanding as speculum non coloratum, a glasse not prejudic’d nor prepossest with any connate tinctures, but nakedly receiving, and faithfully returning all such colours as fall upon it. Yet the Platonists in this were commendable, that they lookt upon the spirit of a man as the Candle of the Lord, though they were deceived in the time when ’twas lighted.

Nor is this Candle lighted out of the Essence of God himself, ’twere a farre more tolerable errour to make the light of a Candle a piece of the Sun’s essence then to think that this intellectual lamp is a particle of the divine nature. There is but one ἀπαύγασματη̑ςδόζης&χαρακτὴρτη̑ςὑποστάσεωςαὐτου̑29 [brightness of his glory, and express image of his person], I mean the wonderful ὁλόγος[Word], not a Candle, but a Sun that shined from everlasting. But I finde the Stoicks challeng’d for this errour, that they thought there was a real emanation, and traduction of the soul out of God, Ex ipsa Dei substantia[from the very substance of God], and the Gnosticks, the Manichees and Priscillianists are lookt upon as their successors in this folly.30

Now as for the Stoicks you’ll scarce finde evidence enough to prove them guilty of this opinion. They have indeed some doting and venturing expressions, when they amplifie and dignifie the nobility of the soul; and will needs have some of the royal blood to run in every veine and faculty of it, nor are the Platonists defective in this, but lift up the soul to as high a pitch of perfection as the Stoicks ever did; yet surely both of them but as a limited and dependant being infinitely remote from the fulnesse of a Deity. Yet Simplicius in his Comment upon the grand Stoick Epictetus tells us that that Sect of Philosophers were wont to call the soul μέροςἢμέλοςτου̑θεου̑,31pars vel membrum Dei[a part or a limb of God], which is a grosse and corporeal conceit, not at all agreeable to the indivisibility of spirituals, nor suitable with the souls immateriality, much lesse [86] consistent with the transcendent purity of God himself. But the learned Salmasius in his Animadversions on both the forementioned Authors,32 though he spend paper enough in clearing some passages of the Academicks, Peripateticks, and Stoicks, concerning the nature of the soul; yet doth not in the least measure take notice of any such heterodox tenent among the Stoicks, yet if there had been any such, they had very well deserved Animadversions; but he doth thus represent their Philosophy to you; That whereas the soul is usually lookt upon as τριμερὴς[tripartite], being brancht out into the Vegetative, Sensitive and Rational; the Stoicks they chose to make it ὀκταμερὴς33 [ of eight parts], and would have septem partes ancillantes, Imperatricem unicam[seven parts serving, one commanding]; which they reckoned thus: τὰαἰσθητικὰ[the perceptive faculties] they were five; then τὸφωνητικὸν, τὸσπερματικὸν, τὸἡγεμονικὸν[the vocal faculty, the generative faculty, the commanding faculty], which was all one with τὸλογικὸν, or τὸδιανοητικὸν, or τὸἐπιστημονικὸν[reason, or the intellect, or knowledge]. Yet as Plato and Aristotle disposing the soul into three several ranks and distributions, would by no means allow of τριψυχία, a triplicity of souls in one compositum: So neither would the Stoicks admit any plurality of souls, but esteemed these τὰμέρης or τὰμόριατη̑ςψυχη̑ς[parts or members of the soul] only as αἱδυνάμεις, non membra sed ingenia34 [powers, not parts but faculties], as Tertullian terms them very significantly, stiling the powers and faculties of the soul, the several wits of the soul, so that it was but μίαοὐσίαπολυδύναμος35 [one essence with many powers], enlarging it self to the capacity and exigency of the body, but in such a manner, as that ’twas dispensata potius quam concisa36 [distributed rather than fragmented]. The principal and Hegemonical power of the soul the Stoicks situated in the heart, as Aristotle did, though very erroneously, & yet Plato had taught him better, for he plac’d it in the brain as the proper tabernacle for reason to dwell in.37 But amongst the Stoicks there are some expressions that seem to depresse & degrade the soul, as much as others seem to advance and exalt it, for though some call it τὸμέροςτου̑θεου̑[a part of God], yet others, and among the rest Zeno (the great founder of that Sect,) tearms it σύμφυτονπνευ̑μα, &θερμὸνπνευ̑μα38 [an innate breath, a hot breath], which that stupid Author of the souls mortality finding somewhere translated into English, catches at, and tells us that the Stoicks hold the soul to be a certain blast hot and fiery, or the vital spirit of the blood;39 whereas at the most, they did only choose that corporeal spirit as Vehiculum animae[a vehicle for the soul], a Chariot for a more triumphant spirit to ride in, the principal seate of the soul, which they did so much extol and deifie. ’Tis abundantly clear that their Stoical Philosophy was more refined and clarified, more sublime and extracted from matter, then to resolve the quintessence of a rational nature into I know not what muddy and [87] feculent spirit; this they could not do, if they would be faithful and constant to their own principles. Nay, they were so farre from thus vilifying the soul and detracting from it, as that they were rather excessive and hyperbolical in praising it above the sphere of a creature. Thus that known Stoick Epictetus calls the soul of man συγγενὴςθεῳ̑[akin to God], which Seneca renders, liber animus est Diis cognatus40 [a free soul is kinsman to the gods]; and Arrian in his Comment upon the forementioned Author doth thus diffuse and amplifie it, Αἱψυχαὶοὕτωςεἰσὶνἐνδεδεμέναικαὶσυναφει̑ςτῳ̑θεῳ̑, ἅτεαὐτου̑μόριαοὐ̑σαι, καὶἀποσπάσματα.41i.e. There is connexion and coherence of souls with a Deity, there are mutual touches and embraces between them, they are some delibations, and participations of himself; thus that famous Emperour M. Antoninus that had tasted of the Stoical Philosophy, styles the soul ὁδαίμωνὃνἑκάστῳπροστάτην, καὶἡγεμόναὁζεὺςἜδωκεν—, Ἀπόσπασμαἑαυτου̑. οὑ̑τοςδῃἐστὶνὁἑκάστουνου̑ς, καὶλόγος42 [the genius which Zeus has given to each man as ruler and guide, … a fragment of Zeus himself … this is the intellect and reason of each man]. Where, at the first one would think he had meant it in an Averroistical sense, but that he himself doth prevent the interpretation, by telling you that he intends nothing else but νου̑ς&λόγος[intellect and reason], which therefore he calls ὁΔαίμων[the genius], because that he knew the soul was separable from the body, and Pythagoras long before him had called it by the same name in his golden verses.43

But amongst all the rest, Seneca is the most high and lofty in magnifying, and very neer deifying of the soul; for thus you may hear him speak; Quid aliud vocas animum, quam Deum in humano corpore hospitantem?44 That is, What lesse title can you give the soul, then that of a God condescending to dwell in an house of clay? which is too neere that of the Apostle θεὸςἐνσαρκὶφανερωθείς,45 God manifested in the flesh. Nor yet was this any unwary passage that slipt from Seneca’s pen on the sudden, but he will stand to it, and repeat it, for thus he saith again. Ratio nil aliud est quam in corpus humanum pars Divini spiritus mersa,46 Reason ’tis somewhat of a Deity steept in a body. From this last speech that learned and eminent writer of our own doth endeavour to evince, that Seneca made God the Intellectus Agens[active intellect] of the soul,47 whereas ’tis very evident that this Philosopher only prosecuted that Stoical notion, of the soul being ἀπόσπασματου̑θεου̑48 [a shred of God], a branch of a Deity πεπλασμένονἐκΔιὸςἜρνος. Yet notwithstanding, all these strains of Stoical Philosophy do not sufficiently declare that they thought the soul to be of the very same essence with God himself, but only that they perceived much similitude between the soul and a Deity; many bright resemblances of God stampt upon it, which is not only sound Philosophy, but good Divinity too; that the soul was made according to the image of its Creatour. Thus they made it not [88] only θερμὸνπνευ̑μα[a hot breath], but θει̑ονπνευ̑μα too, even the breath of a Deity σημειωθῃνκαὶτυπωθῃνσφραγι̑διτου̑θεου̑,49 stampt with the Seal of God himself, as Philo speaks. ’Twas μετοχὴτη̑ςθείαςἐλλάμψεως50 [a reflector of the divine light], as Damascen calls it, very agreeable to this of Solomon, the Candle of the Lord.’Tis ποίημαθεου̑λογικὸν,51 as Greg. Nyss. has it, the Poeme of God himself. That whereas other creatures were as it were writ in Prose, the souls of men were composed more harmoniously, in more exact number and measure. No wonder then that the Stoicks spying out such spiritual workmanship, and embroydery in the soul of man, did esteem it as an inferiour kinde of Deity, a Bud, and Blossome of Divinity; as they meant by their τὰμέρητη̑ςψυχη̑ς[parts of the soul], nothing but αἱδυνάμεις[powers], so likewise when they call the soul Τὸμέροςτου̑θεου̑[a part of God], they need intend no more then the Pythagoreans do by their θει̑αδύναμις,52 that divine vertue and efficacy which the soul has, that makes it look so like its Creatour. Thus the Pythagoreans were wont to call the higher region of the soul, τὸθει̑ον[the godlike], and the lower τὸθηριω̑δες53 [the brutal], not understanding by the first any particle of a Deity, though it may be by the last they might understand the soul of a beast, by vertue of their supposed μετεμψύχωσις[metempsychosis]. But I meet with none that doth so punctually and accuratly determine this, as Trismegistus does, who speaks so exactly as if he had spyed out this difficulty and objection, his words are these. Ὁνου̑ςοὐκἐστὶνἀποτετμημένοςἐκτη̑ςοὐσιότητοςτου̑θεου̑, ἀλλ̕ὥσπερἡπλωμένοςκαθάπερτὸτου̑ἡλίουφω̑ς,54 The soul, saies he, was not framed and carv’d out of the essence of a Deity, but it rather sprung from the dilatation, and diffusion of his power and goodnesse, as beams do from the Sun, when it spreads forth its quickening and cherishing wings. Yet when you hear the creatures often stiled beams of a Deity, and drops of a Deity, you must neither imagine that there is the least division, or diminution, or variation in the most immutable essence of God; nor that the creature does partake the very essence of the Creatour, but that it hath somewhat of his workmanship, obvious and visible in it, and according to the degree of its being, doth give fainter or brighter resemblances of its Creatour. As suppose an accurate Painter should bestow much of his skill in drawing a lively portraicture of himself, you would not think such a picture a piece of his essence, but you would look upon it only as the fruit and product of his skil, and as a witty imitation of himself. Now there is a far greater disproportion between God and any created being, then between the face and the picture of it: So that if you see any heavenly beauty, any divine lineaments sparkling in the soul, you may presently conclude that it was digitus Dei, nay the hand of God that drew them there, as the shadowy representations of his own most glorious being. ’Tis the greatest honour that a creature is capable of, to be the picture of its Creatour. You know [89] the very formality of creation doth speak a being raised ex nihilo; creation being the production of somthing out of the barren womb of nothing; and if the creature must be ex nullo praeexistente[out of nothing pre-existing], then to be sure ’tis not extracted out of the essence of God himself. But the whole generality of the ancient Heathen Philosophers had a vaile upon their face, here they had not a clear and open sight of the creation, but only some obscure and imperfect notions about it, which made them think that all corporeals were made ex aliqua praejacente materia55 [from some pre-existing material], coexistent with the prime and supreme efficient; and because they could not fetch spirituals out of materials, nor yet conceive that they should be fetcht out of nothing, this made them determine that they sprung out of the essence of God himself, who as a voluntary fountain could bubble them forth when he pleased, who as a father of lights56 could sparkle and kindle them when he thought best. But that fiction of materia ab aeterno[eternal matter] will do them no service at all; for either ’twas produced by God himself, & then it was created ex nihilo, for God himself was a pure immaterial Spirit, and therefore must make matter where none was before; or else it was an Independent eternal being, which makes it another Deity, and that involves a flat repugnancy. Therefore as corporeal and material beings were raised out of nothing by the infinite vigour and power of God himself, so he can with the very same facility produce spiritual beings out of nothing too. Can he not as well light this Lamp out of nothing, as build the goodly fabrick of the world out of nothing? Cannot a creating breath make a soul as well as a creating word make a world? He that can create the shell of corporeals, cannot he as well create the kernel of spirituals? He that created a visible Sun, cannot he as well create an invisible, an intellectual spark? You may hear Aquinas disputing against the Gentiles, & most fully and strongly demonstrating, that God could not be either the materia or forma of any created being,57 for its not imaginable how the Creator himself should ingredi essentiam creaturae[enter into the essence of a creature]. But his causality is by way of efficiency producing & maintaining beings; the best of creatures are but vasa figuli58 [potter’s vessels]. Now a vessel, though a vessel of honour, yet it is no piece of the Potters essence, but only the subject of his power and will. One and the same Seal may print all the Wax that’s possible, yet there will not be the least mutation in the Seal, but only in the Wax; nor yet doth the Wax at all participate of the seals essence, but only receives a stamp and signature made upon it. So that the Seal was as entire and compleat before it had imprinted the Wax, as it was afterwards; and though all the signatures of the Wax were defaced and obliterated, yet the Seal would be as perfect as before.

Thus God, though he leaves prints of himself upon all the souls in the world, nay upon all the beings in the world, yet these impressions are not particles of [90] himself; nor do they make the least mutation in him, only in the creature; for he was as full and perfect before he had printed any one creature, and if the whole impression of creatures were annihilated, yet his essence were the same, and he could print more when he pleased, and as many as he pleased. Yet all the entity, goodnesse, and reality, that is to be found in the creature, was totally derived from him, and is transcendently treasured up in him, as the print of the wax, though it be really different from the print of the Seal, yet that very stamp and signature had its being from the Seal, ’twas vertually and originally in the Seal; and now gives some resemblance of it. All created goodnesse was a Deo producta, & a Deo exemplata[produced by God and patterned on Him], (as the Schools speak) though not very elegantly. ’Tis a Deo conservata,&in Deum ordinata59 [conserved by, and ordained for, God], yet all this while ’twas nothing of the essence of a Deity; and indeed it cannot have any of his essence, unlesse it have all of it. He that calls the creature a drop in such a sense, may as well call it a fountain; he that thus termes it a ray of Divinity, may as well call it a Sun, for there are no particles in essentials. All essence ’tis indivisible, how much more the essence of God himself. How fond is the fancy of a semi-Deity; away with the Stoicks τὰμέρη&ἀποσπάσηατα[parts and fragments] here, if this be the meaning of them, who ever heard of fragments in spirituals! Dares therefore any absolutely deifie the soul? or make it coessential or coequal with God himself? Is not the soul a limited and restrained being? short and imperfect in its operations, a dependent and precarious being; and are these things agreeable to a Deity? Is not the soul naturally united to the body for the quickening and enforming of it? and is that a condition fit for a Deity? nay, are not many souls guilty, defiled, miserable beings? and are they all this while spangles of a Deity? They must have very low and dishonourable thoughts of God that make any creature partner or sharer with him in his essence, and they must have high and swelling thoughts of the creature. How proud is that soul that aspires to be a God? Is it not enough for a soul to approach unto his God, to see his face, to enjoy his presence, to be like unto him, to be knit unto him, in love and affection? Happinesse doth advance a creature to his just perfection, but it doth not lift it above the sphere of its being. A glorified being, is still a subservient and finite being. A soul when in its full brightnesse, yet still is but the Candle of the Lord, let it come as neer as it can, yet it will be infinitely distant from him. Heaven it doth not mix and blend essences together, but keeps them all in their just beauty and proportions; so that take a creature in what condition you will, and ’tis not the least particle of a Deity. There’s another Errour, but it’s scarce worth mentioning, of some that would have the Candle of the Lord lighted up by Angels, as if they had created the soul; Nay, the Carpocratians60 thought that all the rest of the world was created by them. But as no secondary being could [91] create it self, so neither can it create any other being. ’Twas no Angelical breath, but the breath of a Deity that gave life to the soul, and ’twas not made after the image of an Angel, but of God himself. Angels and souls both came from the same Almighty Father of spirits, from the same glorious Father of lights,61 who shewed the greatnesse of his power in raising such goodly beings, not out of himself, but out of nothing.

Whether ever since the first Creation the souls of men be lighted on the same manner immediately by God himself, by that commanding and efficacious word, יהי אורγενηθήτωφω̑ς, let there be light,62 let there be an intellectual Lamp set up in such a creature; or whether it be lighted by the parents? whether one soul can light another? whether one and the same soul may be lighted by two, as a candle is lighted by two? These are the several branches of that great question, which hath been frequently vext and discussed, but scarce ever quieted and determined. The Divines favour the way of creation, the Physicians that of traduction;63 Nay, Galen tells in plain termes, that the soul is but κράσιςτου̑σώματος64 a meere temper or complexion, the right tuning of the body, which is not farre distant from the Fidlers opinion, that Tully speaks of, that would needs have the soul to be an harmony. His soul, that plaid him some lessons, and his body danc’d to them. And indeed some of the Physicians are as loath as he was ab arte sua discedere65 [to depart from their art], and therefore they do embody the soul as much as they can, that their skill may extend to the happinesse and welfare of it, as if they could feel the pulse of the soul, and try experiments upon the spirits; as if they could soften and compose the Paroxysme of the minde, and cure all the Languors and distempers of the soul; as if their drugs would work upon immaterial beings; as if they could kill souls as fast as they can kill bodies: as if the Candle of the Lord did depend upon these Prolongers; as though the Lamp would go out, unlesse they pour in some of their oile into it. No doubt but there is a mutual communion and intercourse between this friendly and espowsed paire, the soul and body; no doubt but there is a loving sympathy and fellow-feeling of one anothers conditions; but ’tis not so strong and powerful, as that they must both live and die together. Yet I speak not this as though the maintaining of the souls traduction did necessarily prejudice the immortality of it; for I know there are many learned Doctors amongst them (and Seneca amongst the rest) that are for the souls beginning in a way of generation, and yet do detest and abominate the least thoughts of its corruption. Nay, some sacred writers contend for the souls traduction, who yet never questioned the perpetuity of it: not only the African father Tertullian, but most of the Western Churches also; and the opinion of Apollinaris and Nemesius that one spiritual being might propagate another, I have not yet found sufficiently disprov’d, though it be generally reprehended.66 The truth is, the original of all formes, [92]’tis in profundo,’tis very latent and mysterious; yet the Naturalists must needs acknowledge thus much, that the matter and forme of every thing must have at least an incompleat being before generation; for by that they do not receive any new absolute entity, for then it would be a creation, but the parts are only collected, and disposed, and united by a strict & Gordian knot, by an inward continuity. So that in all such production the materia oritur ex materia, & forma ex forma generantis[matter springs from the matter, and the form from the form of the producer], and thus formes are continued according to that degree of being, which they had in the first Creation. Now why there should not be such a traditio Lampadis67 [handing over of the lamp] in the souls of men, will not easily be shewn; the nobility and purity of the soul doth not at all hinder this, for there is a proportionable eminency in the soul, that doth produce it: One soul prints another with the same stamp of immortality, that it self had engraven upon it. But if any question how an immaterial being can be conveighed in such a seminal way, let him but shew us the manner by which ’tis united to the body, and we will as easily tell him how it entered into it. Yet Hierome was so zealous against this, that he pronounceth a present Anathema, to all such as shall hold the soul to be ex traduce68 [by propagation]. But Austin was a great deale more calme and pacate; Nay, indeed he was in this point ἀμφίδοξοςκαὶδιχογνώμεν, in a kinde of equipoise and neutrality; and therefore with a gentle breath he did labour to fanne and coole the heat of Hieromes opinion, and putting on all mildnesse and moderation, plainly confesses, Se neque legendo, neque orando, neque ratiocinando invenire potuisse quomodo cum Creatione animarum peccatum originale defendatur69 [that neither by reading, nor praying, nor contemplating had he been able to discover how the doctrine of original sin could be reconciled with that of the creation of souls]. It seems he could not solve all those difficulties which the Pelagians raised against original sin, unlesse he held the traduction of the soul. He could not perceive how the Candle should be so soyld, if it were lighted only by a pure Sun-beame fetcht from heaven. Yet that knot (which so skilful and laborious a hand could not unty) some others have easily cut asunder; and indeed there is no such cogency, and prevalency in that argument as can justly promise it self the victory. For the Schoolmen that are strong assertors of the souls creation, do satisfie all such doubts as these.70 And the major part of modern writers do encline to this, that these Lamps are lighted by God himself, though some indeed do ἐπέχειν[suspend judgment], and will determine nothing, as the acute Pemble does among the rest, in his little Tractate De Origine Formarum,71 and so doth that learned Knight in his late discourse of the soul, where he doth only drop one brief passage that countenances the souls traduction, upon which he that pretends to answer him, takes occasion to huddle up no lesse then twenty Arguments against it, which sure he sould by number [93] and not by weight.72 But that Oxford answerer of that Brutish Pamphlet of The Souls Mortality, doth more solidly and deliberately handle the question, yet being very vehement and intense for the souls Creation, he slips into this error, that the traduction of the soul, is inconsistent with the immortality of it.73 But it may be you had rather hear the votes and suffrages of those ancient heathen writers, that had nothing to see by but the Candle of the Lord; perhaps you would willingly know what their souls thought of themselves. You’ll believe nature, the universal mother, if she tell you who is the father of spirits. Wee’ll begin with Pythagoras, and he tells you his minde freely and fully, whilest he gives you that piece of leafe-gold in one of his Verses; θάρσει, θει̑ονγένοςἐστὶβροτοι̑σι74 [take courage, the race of man is divine]. Aratus is in the very same streine, and was honoured so farre as to be quoted by an Apostle for it, του̑γάρκαὶγένοςἐσμέν75 [for we are also his offspring]. But if these seeme somewhat more generally, not exactly pointing out at the soul, the Caldy Oracle will speak more punctually, ταυ̑ταπατὴρἐνόησε, βρότοςδῃοἱἐψύχωτο,76 the Father of spirits by his thought and word, by his commanding breath did kindle this Lamp of the soul, for the quickening and illuminating of such a noble creature. Zoroaster pouers it out more at large, and does thus dilate and amplifie it. Χρὴδῃσπεύδεινπρὸςτὸφάος, καὶπρὸςπατρὸςαὐγάς. Ἔνθενἐπέμφθησοὶψυχὴπολὺνἑσσαμένηνου̑ν.77 O soul (saies he) why do’st thou not aspire, and mount up to the centre and light of glory, to that fountain of beams and brightnesse, from whence thou wert derived, and sent down into the world, cloath’d and apparell’d with such rich and sparkling indowments? The consideration of this made the Divine Trismegist78 break into that pang of admiration, ποι̑αμήτηρ, ποι̑οςπατὴρεἰμὴθεὸςἀφανής; what womb (saith he) is fit to bear a soul? who is fit to be the father of the soul? what breast is able to nourish a soul? who can make sufficient provision for a soul, but only that pure and invisible Spirit that shoots them, and darts them into bodies by his own Almighty power? And as the forementioned Author goes on, ὁδῃπάντωνπατὴρὁνου̑ςὢνζωὴκαὶφύσις, ἀπεκύησετὸνἄνθρωποναὑτῳ̑ἰ̑σον, οὑ̑ἠράσθηὣςἰδίουτόκου, that is, God the Father of being, the Father of life and nature, did frame and fashion man much like himself, and love him as his proper off-spring; for those words of his, τὸνἄνθρωποναὐτῳ̑ἰ̑σον[fashion man much like himself] must be taken in an allayed, and tempered sense, (for they must by no means be understood of an equality, but only of a similitude). In the very same sense he calls God ὁζωγράφος, the Painter and trimmer of the soul; thus representing himself to the life; As for the minde of the Platonists and the Stoicks we have before acquainted you with it; one looks so high, as if a Creation would scarce content them, unlesse they may have it ab aeterno[from eternity]; and the other seem to plead for a traduction and generation of the soul, not from the parents, [94] but from God himself, which makes Epictetus so often mention the affinity and consanguinity of the soul with the Deity; And to use such words as these, εἌνταυ̑ταἐστινἀληηθῃ̑, τὰπερὶτη̑ςσυγγενείαςτου̑θεου̑καὶἀνθρώπωνλεγόμενα, ὑπὸτω̑νφιλοσόφωνδιὰτὶμὴεἼπῃτὶςἑαυτὸνκόσμιον; διὰτὶμὴὑὶοντου̑θεου̑79 [if what is said by the philosophers concerning the kinship of God and man be true, why should man not call himself a world-dweller? why not a son of God]? If the Philosophers (saies he) speak truth, when they tell us how neer a kin the soul is to God; why then doth such a soul streighten and confine it self? why doth it contract and imprison so vast an essence? why does it look upon some spot of ground, with such a partial and peculiar affection? why doth it love the smoke of its earthly countrey, καπνὸνἐπιθρῲσκοντα;80 why does it not rather warm it self in the flame of its heavenly original? why does such an one stile himself an Athenian, a Corinthian, a Lacedemonian? why does he not rather think that he hath a whole world within him? why does he not summe up all his happinesse in this great and honourable title, that he is the Son of God? and thus you see ὁκόσμιος[“world-dweller”] will be the same with Socrates his κοσμοπολίτης81 [“citizen of the world”]; and the words you see will passe currantly in this sense; But yet (if we may take the liberty of a conjecture) I am ready to think that the first negative particle doth intrude it self too unseasonably, against the drift and meaning of the place, and therefore is to be refused and rejected; so that whereas the words were printed thus, διὰτὶμὴεἼπῃτὶςἑαυτὸνκόσμιον[why should man not call himself a world-dweller]; read διὰτὶεἼπῃτὶςἑαυτὸνκόσμιον[why should man call himself a world-dweller], and then they will run thus, Quid se mundanum vocat, cur non potius filium Dei? why doth he think himself a worldling, why doth he measure himself by earth, if he were born of heaven? where yet you may perceive that the Philosopher ascribes that to the first γένεσις[generation] which is due only to the παλιγγενεσὶα[regeneration] to be called a Son of God. Nay, which indeed is only to the ἀειγενεσία[eternal generation], to the only begotten Son of God.82 Thus Philo the Jew (too Stoical in this) calls souls ἀπαυγάσματα[rays], which is the very same title, that the Apostle applies to God himself;83 and Plotinus gives as much to the soul as the Arrians did to Christ, for he calls it ὁμοούσιον84 [of the same essence], which Plato stiled ἀθανάτοιςὁμώνυμον85 [having the same name as the immortals]; but Epictetus he goes on to keep τὰσύμβολατου̑θεου̑86 [the tokens of God], much in the Language of the Oracle, σύμβολαπατρικὸςνου̑ςἜσπειρεται̑ςψυχαι̑ς87 [the mind of the father scattered tokens in our souls]: by πατρικὸςνου̑ς[the mind of the father] it can mean nothing else but God himself, the Father of spirits, and these τὰσύμβολα[tokens] are such love-tokens as he has left with the sonnes of men to engage their affections to him. These Symbols are the very same which Moses calls the image of God;88 [95] those representations of himself which he has scattered and sown in the being of man; as this word σπείρειν[scatter] does imply, which made the wise Grecian Thales conclude ἀδελφοὺςεἰ̑ναιἡμα̑ςὡςτου̑ἑνὸςθεου̑, καὶἑνὸςδιδασκάλου,89 that all men were brethren born of the same supreme being, that did educate and instruct them; this teaching is the same which the Persian Magi call’d a divine inebriation, ὅληθεόθενμεμέθυσται,90 it was replete τω̑νθείωνκαλω̑ν[with divine beauties], you see then, that the joynt consent of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Persians, Grecians; was for the creation of the soul; and if you desire more testimonies from them, you may consult with Eugubin in his learned work de perenni Philosophia,91 where you shall meet with whole heaps of them. But as for Aristotles opinion, you know that his custome was, when he could not beat out a notion into a rational account fairly to passe it by, and not to piece it out with such fabulous inventions, as Plato did abound withall; and though it is like he did often dispute this question in his thoughts, yet he makes no solemne entrance upon it in his works, but only toucheth it occasionally, and scatters a passage or two; that seeme very clearly to acknowledge the creation of it: for (not to speak of the place in his morals, where he calls the soul τὸννου̑ντοι̑ςθεοι̑ςσυγγενέστατον)92 [the mind closest to the gods], I shal only commend unto you those ful and pregnant words in his two books de generatione animalium, the words are these Λείπεταιδῃτὸννου̑νμόνονθύραθενἐπεισιέναι, καὶθει̑ονεἰ̑ναιμόνον93 [it remains then for the mind alone to enter from without, and alone to be divine], he had but a little before evinced that the sensitive, and vegetative souls were conveighed in a seminal way, like a couple of sparks, they were struck ex potentia materiae[from the power of matter]; but (sayes he) but the rational, that came θύραθενex altiori sede94 [from without, from a higher realm], as Seneca speaks, the window of heaven was open’d, and a present light sprung in, for the compleating of those former rudiments and preparations; the misunderstanding of this ὁνου̑ςθύραθεν[mind from without], did it may be occasion, but it did at least corroborate the phancy of an Angels being an Intellectus Agens[active intellect]; yet Simplicius that known Interpreter of Aristotle does expound it of the souls creation, καὶγὰρἡψυχὴὑπὸθεου̑ἐλλάμπεσθαιλέγεται95 [for the soul is said to be illuminated by God], as he speaks; and this which Aristotle here calls ὁνου̑ςθύραθεν[the mind from without], Psellus the Philosopher stiles ὁνου̑ςἄνωθεν[the mind from above], Plato termed it φύτον, οὐκἜγγειον, ἀλλ̕οὐράνιον[a plant, not of earth but of heaven], the Sybils call’d it πύρινοννου̑ν[a fiery mind], some others νοερὸνπυ̑ρκαὶἀσώματονπυ̑ρ[an intellectual and incorporeal fire], still conspiring with this of Solomons, the Candle of the Lord; and Seneca, (setting aside his Stoicisme) has very gallant and brave apprehensions of the souls nobility, and tels us that it was haustus ex divina origine[a draught from a divine spring], which Tully, thus [96] varies, ex mente divina decerptus96 [plucked from the divine mind], souls, like so many flowers, were cropt and gathered out of the garden of God; and were bound up in fasciculo viventium,97 in the bundle of the living: and if you will but attend to the noble Oratour and Philosopher; you shall hear him thus pleading for the souls divinity. Animorum nulla in terris origo inveniri potest; nihil enim est in animo mixtum atque concretum, aut quod e terra natum; atque fixum esse videatur: nihilque aut humidum quidem, aut stabile, aut igneum, his enim in Naturis nihil inest, quod memoriae vim, mentis, cogitationis habeat; quod & preterita teneat, & futura praevideat, & complecti possit praesentia, quae sola divina sunt, nec evincetur unquam unde ad hominem venire possunt nisi a Deo; singularis igitur quaedam est natura atque vis animi, sejuncta ab his usitatis notisque naturis; ita quicquid est illud quod sentit, quod serpit, quod vult, quod viget, coeleste & divinum est; ob eam rem aeternum sit necesse est;98 which I shall thus render. ’Tis in vain to look for the souls parentage upon earth, for there is no mixing and blending of spirituals with corporeals, the earth doth not contribute, for the fixing and consolidating of them; ’tis no aery puff will suffice for the swiftnesse and nimblenesse of their motion; no drops of water will quench their thirst and longings; they have a purer light and heat, then could ever be fetcht from an elementary spark; in those humble and sordid beings, there’s nothing fit to represent, much lesse to produce the clasping and retentive power of memory; the masculine and vigorous working of the minde; the refined and comprehensive vertue of those thoughts, that can recall and look back to things past, that can interpret, and comment upon all present objects, and with a Prophetical glance can spy out futurities and possibilities, which are works not unworthy of a Deity; nor can it e’re be shewn that such rare priviledges should be communicated to humane nature any other way then by the immediate bounty and indulgence of heaven; there being such singular and inimitable idioms in the minde of man as could never be extracted from those ordinary and vulgar entities. Though a sensitive soul may creep upon the ground, though it may roll and tumble it self in the dust, yet an intellectual being scornes to look lower then heaven it self; and though it be dated in time, yet it means to live as long as eternity. The Poets had veiled and mufled up the same opinion in their mythology,99 whiles they tell us that Prometheus, (which is all one with providence) did work and fashion the bodies of men out of clay, but he was fain to steal fire from heaven for the quickening and enlivening them with souls, which made the Prince of Poets sing Igneus est ollis vigor & Coelestis origo100 [these seeds of celestial birth and fiery energy], and Ovid supplies him with a short verse, Sedibus aethereis Spiritus ille venit101 [that spirit comes from a celestial realm]. How often do you meet with this in Homer, that God is the Father of spirits, πατὴρἀνδρω̑ντεθεω̑ντε,102 the Father of Angelical beings and of the [97] souls of men; which Virgil renders hominum Sator atque deorum.103 Yet all this while I know not whether you can, I am sure I cannot, sufficiently perceive that the generality of the Heathen did think that every soul was immediately created by God himself, but only that at the first there was bestowed more then ordinary workmanship upon them, which they knew principally by those generous motions which they found working in their own souls; and partly by some reliques of Mosaical History, that was scatter’d amongst them. Thus then I have represented unto you, as indifferently as I can, the state of this great controversie; and though I could easily tell you which part I do most easily encline to; yet I shall rather refer it to your own thoughts, with this intimation, that a modest hesitancy may be very lawful here; for if you will believe Gregory the Great, he tells you it’s a question which cannot be determined in this life.104 However ’tis enough for us that the spirit of a man either by vertue of its constant creation, or by vertue of its first creation is the candle of the Lord.

As the soul is the shadow of a Deity, so reason also is a weak and faint resemblance of God himself, whom therefore that learned Emperour M. Antoninus calls λόγοςσπερματικὸς105 [the generative intelligence], ’tis God that plants reason, ’tis he that waters it, ’tis he that gives it an increase, ὁλόγοςἀνθρώπωνπέφυκ̕ἀπὸθείουλόγου106 [the reason of men has sprung from the reason of God], the title of ὁλόγος belongs to Christ himself, in whom are hid the treasures of wisdome and knowledge.107 Reason first danc’d and triumpht in those eternal Sun-beams, in the thoughts of God himself, who is the fountain and original of Reason. And as his will is the rule of goodnesse, so his understanding is the rule of Reason. For God himself is a most knowing and intellectual being, he is the first mover of entity, and does determinate tendere in aliquem finem[move deliberately to a certain end], which speaks an intelligent agent; he does propound most choice designes, and blessed ends to himself, and is not that a work of Reason? he does contrive, and dispose, and order means for accomplishing of them, and doth not that require understanding? He makes all beings instrumental and subordinate to him, he moves all inferiour wheels in a regular manner; he moves all the spheres of second causes in a harmonical way; such blinde entities as want intellectual eyes, he himself doth lead them, and conduct them; and to others he gives an eye for their guidance and direction. Now, he that hath fram’d an intellectual eye, shall not he see?108 he that hath cloathed the soul with light as with a garment, shall not he much more be cloathed himself with a fuller and purer brightnesse? In that which we esteem reason amongst men, there are many clouds and blemishes, many dark spots and wrinkles, that are scattered and conquered by this more glorious light. The soul ’tis fain to climb up and ascend to knowledge by several steps and gradations, but his understanding is all at the same height and eminency; Mans reason is fain to [98] spend time in knitting a proposition, in spinning out a Syllogisme, in weaving a demonstration; but he is infinitely beyond, and above these first draughts and rudiments of knowledge; he sees all ἐνῥιπῃ̑ὀφθαλμου̑,109 at the first opening of his eye from everlasting, with one intellectual glance, he pierceth into the whole depth of Entity, into all the dimensions of being. Mans understanding is fain to borrow a Species from the object which presents to the minde the picture and portraicture of it self, and strikes the intellectual eye with a colour suitable and proportionable to it: But the divine understanding never receives the least tincture from an object, no species ab extra[from without], but views all things in the pure Crystal of his own essence, he does not at all see himself in the glasse of the creatures, as we see him, but he sees creatures in the glasse of his own being,110 how else should he see them from everlasting, before they were extant, before they were visible by any Species of their own? God therefore doth primarily and principally look upon himself, for he is nobilissimum intelligibile[the noblest of intelligible things], he cannot have a more beautiful and satisfying object to look upon, then his own face, τὸγνωστὸντου̑θεου̑[the knowledge of God] is an object fit to enamour111 all understanding: for the more any being is abstracted from materiality, the more ’tis refin’d from material conditions, the more graceful and welcome it is to the understanding; for matter does cloud and darken the glosse of being; it doth eclipse an object, and is no friend to intelligibility. So that God being a pure and immaterial spirit must needs be praestantissimum intelligibile[the most excellent of intelligible things], and a most adequate object for his own eye to look upon. And this understanding is himself, it being actio immanens[an immanent action], alwayes dwelling with him, Dei scientia est Dei essentia112 [the knowledge of God is the essence of God], (as the Schoolmen speak) God is ὅλοςὀφθαλμὸς, ὅλονφω̑ς, he is both all eye, and all light; as suppose the bright body of the Sun had a visive faculty, so as it could view and surveigh its own light and beams, and could by vertue of them look upon all other things, which its own light does unveil, and discover, ’twould then give some languishing adumbration of a Deity, who is alwayes looking upon his own perfections, and seeing creatures by his own light, by his own uncreated beams. For Species & similitudo omnium est in Dei essentia113 [the species and likeness of all things exist in God’s essence]. Thus God looking upon his own omnipotency, knows all possibilities; viewing his own determinations, he sees all futurities; looking upon his own wisdome he beholds all varieties, all degrees and differencies of being, which yet put not the least shadow of difference in him, because the excellencies of all beings are treasured up in him only by way of transcendency, not per modum compositionis, sed per modum perfectionis114 [by composition but by perfection] (as the Schools have it.) So that when God beholds all created beings by vertue of his own essence, yet you must [99] not imagine that the formality of a creature is conteined in an uncreated being, but only that there is enough of being there to give a representation of all being whatsoever. As when a glasse reflects a face, there’s not the least mutation in the glasse, much lesse is the face any part of the glasses essence; though the glasse give a sufficient resemblance of it. Yet herein there’s this disparity, that the glasse of Gods essence did represent a creature, before any created face could look into it; for God looking upon himself from eternity, did then know quot modis aliquid assimilari potuit ipsius essentiae115 [in how many ways anything could be made to resemble his being], and did know how farre such a being would imitate his essence, and how farre it would fall short of it. He saw that this being would come neerer, that that being would be more distant and remote from him; this picture would be liker him, that would shew very little of him. Now the actuality and existence of such an object is not requisite to the understanding of it, for how then could we conceive of the privation of a not Entity? How can we otherwise apprehend them, then by framing the notion of something positive in our mindes, and supposing a total deficiency from it? Thus as they use to speak, Rectum est index sui & obliqui, & nobilissimum in unoquoque genere est mensura, & exemplar reliquorum116 [right is the index of itself and of wrong, and in every kind of thing the most excellent is the measure and model of the rest], that first and supreme being by the great example and patern of himself, can judge of all inferiour and imperfect beings. Nor could he see them ab aeterno[eternally] any otherwise then in himself, there being nothing else eternal, but himself, and in himself he could clearly see them as we see effects in their cause. All created beings were eminently contained in the Centre of one indivisible essence, who by his infinite vertue was to produce them all, who being an intelligent Centre did see those several lines that might be drawn from him, and withall, being a free and a voluntary Centre, did know how many lines he meant to draw from himself. Now you know amongst men, a demonstration a priori, is esteemed most certain and scientifical, Scire est per causas cognoscere117 [to know is to understand causes]. God thus knew creatures, perfectly knowing himself, who was the first cause of them all; This doth much speak the immutability of the eternal reason and wisdome in the minde of God, and doth remove all imperfections from it: For you see, he did not move in an axiomatical way, per compositionem & divisionem[by composition and division]; for he saw things by his own uncompounded and indivisible essence; much lesse did his knowledge improve it self in a syllogistical way, deducing and collecting one thing out of another: This is the Schoolmens meaning, when they tell us cognitio Dei non est ratiocinativa[God’s knowledge is not sequential], that is, non est discursiva118 [it is not discursive]. They that will light a candle may strike such sparks, but the Sunne and Starres want no such light. Angels are above Syllogismes, how [100] much more is God himself? Nay, even amongst men, first principles are above disputings, above demonstrations; now all things are more naked in respect of God himself, then common notions are to the sight of men. ’Tis a motus testudineus[tortoise-like movement], a tardy and tedious work, a fetching a compasse, to gather one thing out of another; ’Tis the slow pace of a limited understanding. But there’s no succession in God, not in the knowledge of God. There’s no prius & posterius[before and after], no premisses or conclusions; no transitus ab uno ad aliud[transition from one thing to another], no externum medium[external medium], for he does not cognoscere per aliud medium a seipso distinctum[now by any medium distinct from himself], there’s a compleat simultaneity in all his knowledge,119 his essence is altogether, and so is his knowledge; plurality of objects will confound a finite understanding, for they must be presented by different Species, and a created eye cannot exactly view such different faces at once, such several pictures at once. The understanding sometimes loses it self in a croud of objects; and when such a multitude comes thronging upon it, it can scarce attend to any of them. But God seeing them all per unicam speciem, per unicam operationem120 [in one species, in one act], takes notice of them all with an infinite delight and facility. For he loves to attend to his own essence, which doth so admirably represent them all; hence his knowledge is alwayes in act, because his essence is a pure act; Humane understandings have much of their knowledge stor’d up in habits, but there are no habits in a Deity, for knowledge is dormant in a habit, but his understanding never slumbers nor sleeps: There’s no potentiality in him, but he’s alwayes in ultima perfectione[in his absolute perfection], he is semper in actu intelligendi121 [alwayes in the act of comprehending], as Sol is semper in actu lucendi[always in the act of shining]. Humane understandings are faine to unbend themselves sometimes, as if they were faint and weary, but Divinity is alwayes vigorous, and Eternity can never languish. The understanding of God thus being fill’d with light, his Will also must needs be rational, non caeca, sed oculata notitia[a knowledge not blind, but clear-sighted]. This makes the Schoolmen very well determine, that though there cannot be causa divinae voluntatis[a cause of the divine will]; yet there may be assign’d ratio divinae voluntatis122 [a reason for the divine will]. There can be no cause of his Will, for then there would be a cause of his Essence, his Will being all one with his Essence; but there cannot be causa prior prima[a cause prior to the first]. Yet this account may be given of his Will, that bonum intellectum est fundamentum voliti123 [a known good is the basis of volition], so that as God does primarily intelligere seipsum[comprehend himself], so he does understand other things, only per seipsum[in himself], so likewise he does principally and necessarily velle seipsum[will himself], and does will other things secondarily, and out of choice, propter seipsum124 [because of him[101]self]. And as God hath set all other beings a longing after the perfections and conservations of their own beings, and has in a special manner stampt upon a rational nature an intellectual appetite of its own well-fare and happinesse, so as that it cannot but propound an ultimate scope and end to it self, and bend and direct all its desires for the hitting and attaining of it; so he himself also sets up himself, as the most adequate and amiable end of all his workings and motions, and does bend the whole creation, does shoot every being, and order it to his own glory. Now how rational is that Will of his that does chiefly fix it self upon the fairest good, and wills other things only as they are subservient to it, Deus vult bonitatem suam tanquam finem, & vult omnia alia tanquam media ad finem125 [God wills his own goodness as an end, and he wills all other things as means to that end]. Out of the intense and vehement willing of himself, he wills also some prints and resemblances of himself. The beauty of his own face, of his own goodnesse is so great, as that he loves the very picture of it; And because one picture cannot sufficiently expresse it, therefore he gives such various and numerous representations of it. As when men cannot expresse their minde in one word, they are willing to rhetoricate and inlarge themselves into more. God doth give many similitudes of himself, for the greater explication of his own essence. His essence in it self not being capable of augmentation or multiplications, he loves to see some imitations and manifestations of it, to make known his own power & perfection in a way of causality. Now the understanding of God being so vast and infinite, and his will being so commensurate and proportion’d to it, nay all one with it; all those Decrees of his that are the Eternal product and results of his minde and will, must needs be rational also; For in them his understanding and will met together, his truth and goodnesse kissed each other.126 And though these Decrees of God must be resolved into his absolute supremacy and dominion, yet that very sovereignty of his is founded upon so much reason, and does act so wisely and intelligently, as that no created understanding can justly question it, but is bound obediently to adore it. The prosecution and application of these Decrees, ’tis accompanied with the very same wisdome and reason; for what’s Providence but oculus in sceptro127 [an eye in a sceptre], a rational guiding and ruling all affairs in the world, ’tis ipsa ratio divina in summo principe constituta[that divine reason established in the supreme ruler]; ’tis ratio ordinandorum in finem128 [the system of ordering things to an end], that which in man is called prudence, in God is called Providence; the right tuning and regulating of all circumstances, and making them to conspire & contribute to his own end & glory. And if man could but rightly interpret and comment upon Providence, what fresh discoveries, what bright displayings of divine reason would they all continually meet withall? what shinings and sparklings of divine wisdome are there in some remarkable provi[102]dential passages? You that are most acquainted with the wayes of God; tell us if you did ever finde any thing unreasonable in them. Enquire still more into his dealings, and you’ll see more of reason in them. Could you search deeper into the rich mine of his counsel, you would still meet with more precious veines of wisdome. The depths of his counsels, what are they but the very profoundnesse of his reason? τὰβάθητου̑θεου̑129 [the deep things of God] they are τὰβάθητου̑λόγου[the deep things of reason]. And whensoever this secret counsel of his issues out and bubles forth, it is in most rational manifestations. His commands are all rational, his word is the very pith and marrow of reason. His Law is the quickening and wakening of mens reason; his Gospel, ’tis the flowing out of his own reason; ’tis the quintessence of wisdome from above; His spirit is a rational agent; the motions of the holy Ghost are rational breath; the revelations of the holy Ghost, a rational light, as rational as a demonstration: the Apostle calls them so. As when the Spirit of God over-powers the will, it makes a willingnesse there, where there was an absolute nolency,130 an obstinate refusal before. So when it over-powers the minde, it makes it understand that which it did not, which it could not understand before. Spiritual irradiations stamp new light, create new reason in the soul; Nothing comes to man with the superscription of a Deity, but that which hath upon it some signature of wisdome. God himself is an intelligent worker in his dealing with all beings, how much rather in his dealing with rational beings? By all this you see that God himself is the Eternal spring and head of reason. And that humane wisdome is but a created and an imperfect copy of his most perfect and original wisdome.

Now Philosophy could dictate thus much, Τέλοςἁπάντωνἕπεσθαιτοι̑ςθεοι̑ς131 [the end of all is to follow the gods]. God loves to see such a noble creature as man is, to follow and imitate him in his reason. Omnia intendunt assimilari Deo132 [all things seek to resemble God], as the Schoolmen have it. Now men cannot be more assimilated unto God, then by moving as intelligent agents. Does God himself work according to reason from eternity to eternity? And has he made a creature in time, whose very essence is reason? Why then does it not open its eyes? why does it not use its lamp? and though it cannot discover all, yet let it discern as much as it can. Let it not act in the choicest points of religion, out of blinde and implicit principles, and huddle up its chiefest operations in I know not what confused and obscure and undigested manner. This neither becomes sons of light, nor works of light. The more men exercise reason, the more they resemble God himself, who has but few creatures that can represent him in so bright an excellency as this; only Angels and men; and therefore he expects it the more from them. And the more they exercise their own reason, the more they will admire and adore his; For none can admire reason but they that use some reason themselves. And this may suffice for the [103] first particular, that The Candle of the Lord’tis lumen derivatum[a derivative light], it was first lighted at a Sun-beam.