A sober enquiry into the nature, measure and principle of moral virtue, its distinction from gospel-holiness with reflections upon what occurs disserviceable to truth and religion in this matter : in three late books, viz. Ecclesiastical policy, Defence and continuation, and Reproof to The rehearsal transpos'd / by R.F.

CHAP. III. (Book 3)

(1) The Question reassumed: Two Great Instruments of Duty; The measure regu∣lating it, and the principle in the strength of which it is performed, The first of these discoursed in this chap. (2.) All that Relates to Religion, belongs, either to Faith or Obedience, so far as Natural Light is defective in being the measure of that, so far is it defective in being the measure of this. (3.) All Obedience re∣fers either to Worship or Manners; Na∣tural Light not the measure of Religious. Worship. (4.) An inquiry into the Ori∣ginal of Sacrifices; not derived from the Light of Nature, nor taken up by Hu∣mane Agreement; their foundation on a divine Institution justified at length. (5.) Manners either Regulated by Mo∣ral Laws, or by Positive. Natural Light no Rule of positive Duties. (6.) As it's subjective in Man not a sufficient Rule of Moral ones. (7.) Considered as ob∣jective

in the Decalogue, only an ade∣quate Rule of Moral performances, not of Instituted Religion.

§. 1. I Cannot think that I have di∣gressed from the subject which I have undertaken, while I have been dis∣coursing Principles which have so great an influence as well upon the due Understand∣ing, as the right deciding of it. These be∣ing then proposed and confirmed in the former Chapter; We are now not only at leisure, but somewhat better prepared for the prosecuting the assertion at first deli∣vered, viz. That Morality doth not com∣prehend the whole of practical Religion; nor do'th all the Obedience we owe to God, consist in Moral Vertue. For the clearer stating and determining of this, it must be observed that there are two great Instruments of Du∣ty; the measure Regulating it, which we call Law, and the Principle in the strength of which it is to be performed, which we call Power. That directs and instructs us a∣bout it; this adapts and qualifies us to the performance of it: By the first we are fur∣nished with the means of knowing it; and by the second with strength to discharge it. Both these were at first concreated with, &

subjective in our Natures. There resided in us Originally, not only an ability of mind, of discerning the whole of our Duty which the Law of Creation exacted of us, but a sufficient power to fulfil it. Whether since the Fall we abide qualified as to ei∣ther of these, is yet farther to be debated. The first we shall Discuss in this Chapter, having designed the following for the exa∣mination of the other.

We have already demonstrated the Law of Creation, commonly called the Law of Nature, to be the alone Rule and measure of Moral Vertue. This is grant∣ed by a late Author: The practice of Ver∣tue (saith he) consists in living suitably to the Dictates of Reason and Nature, Eccl. Polit. p. 68. Now the Law of Nature may be considered either as 'tis Subjective in man, or as 'tis Objective in the Decalogue. As 'tis Subjective in man, 'tis vulgarly stiled Right Reason, The Light of Nature. The Philosophers who were the primitive Authors of the Term Vertue, knew no o∣ther Rule by which it was to be regulated, but Reason: This they made the alone 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of vertues Mediocrity. The Medio∣crity of Vertue (saith Aristotle) is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Right Reason dictates, Eth.

lib. 3 cap. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vertue is a Habit measured by right Reason; idem Eth. lib. 4. cap. 3. Other testimo∣nies to this purpose we have elsewhere pro∣duced, viz. cap. 1. Now I affirm, that the Law of Nature is no sufficient Measure of Religion; and consequently that all Religion consists not in the meer practice of Vertue; but that there is something beyond the bounds of Moral Vertue, besides Chimera's and flying Dra∣gons.* 1.1 And that the Chri∣stian Institution is not a meer digest of the Eternal Rules of Nature & right Reason.

§. 2 All that Relates to Religion may be reduced either to faith or obedience; to what we are to believe, or what we are to perform. Faith and practice engross the whole of mans duty. Credenda & agenda constitute the System of Religion; nor are the Articles of our Creed less necessary than the precepts of the Decalogue. It is not there∣fore the running after a Bubble of our own blowing, as a late Author phraseth it, def. & continuat, p. 326. To discourse the ob∣ligation we are under to Articles of Belief. For as they constitute one entire part of Re∣ligion, and are bound upon our souls by

the same Authority, and under the same penalty with Moral services: So our assent to them and belief of them is not only a ne∣cessary part of that Homage and Fealty we owe to God, but it is introductive of all the other operations and services we exert to∣wards him. Every distinct act of obedience, supposeth a distinct act of faith with refe∣rence to some Article or other. So far as we preclude any Article of faith from our Belief, we so far discharge our selves from the practical obedience that emergeth from it. Our obeying the Soveraign will of God, doth not only suppose his Veracity in every Revelation of his will concerning our Duty, but a distinct knowledg and fi∣duciary assent to the several Articles from which it ariseth, and on which it attends. The Articles of our faith are not like the Theories of Philosophy which no way in∣fluence obedience; but every Dogma in the Creed is subservient to, and authoriseth a practical Homage. So far then as Natural Light fals short of being a sufficient measure of the Credenda of Religion, so far doth it also fall short of being a Measure of the Agenda of it. Is it probable that it should direct us to the conclusions, when it is ig∣norant of the premisses: or that it should

inform us of the superstructures, when it hath no knowledg of the foundation? Though nothing proposed to our belief be repugnant to Reason; yet I hope we do not so far Socinianize as to deny but that there are some things above the reach and com∣prehension of it. Some Articles of our Re∣ligion, as they have no foundation at all in Nature by which they can be known or un∣derstood, (such are the Doctrines of the Trinity, The Incarnation of the Son of God, The Resurrection of the dead, the Oeconomy of the Spirit, and the whole me∣thod and means of our Recovery by Jesus Christ:) So being most plainly revealed, they exceed the Grasp of our minds as to the full comprehending of them. Though Reason be the great Instrument by which we come to discern what is Revealed for our belief; yet 'tis no way's the Formal Rea∣son of believing them. Though we examine the Truth and certainty of Revelation by it, whether such a Declaration be from God, or not; yet it neither is, nor can be the Standard Regulating the things Re∣vealed. There are other Doctrines, which though as to our perception of them, they have a foundation in Nature, and there be Natural Mediums by which they may be

discerned; yet such is the present Dark∣ness and pravity of our minds, that without the assistance of a Revelation, they only puzzle, mislead, or leave us sceptical about them. Of this kind are the Articles rela∣ting to the Production and Fabrick of the World; the Origine of Evil; the Corrup∣tion of Humane Nature; the Ingress of Death &c. Concerning which never any without a supernatural Revelation attained either to satisfaction or certainty. Much of that Homage and practical obedience which we pay to God, results from Truths depending on meer Revelations. Yea it were not difficult to demonstrate, tha•• there is hardly one Article of Belief so fully and certainly known by Natural Light, as is requisite to a through incoura∣gement and practice of vertue, and suppres∣sion of vice. A knowledg of the Entrance of sin, the corruption of Nature, our ob∣noxiousness to Punishment, together with an account of the means provided of God for the Removing of Guilt, and the bring∣ing us to a Reconciliation with himself, are absolutely necessary to be understood, in order to the performance of the Duties of the Gospel. On these Heads doth the whole of Instituted Religion and Christian

odedience depend. Now whatever dark and uncertain guesses, men through the ex∣ercise and improvement of Natural Light may arrive at, as to some of those, yet no one left to the conduct of meer Reason arose ever to any clear perswasion & full certainty about them.* 1.2 That Light wherewith every man is born, hath served the best improvers of it for lit∣tle else, but to mislead them about these things. Nor needs there any other evidence of this, but the sad prevarications of the most knowing persons of the World, where a Revelation hath not been heard or recei∣ved, concerning them. Forasmuch there∣fore as Natural Light is every way uncapa∣ble of instructing us in these Truths, it ne∣cessarily follows that it can direct us unto none of the Duties which proceed from them. It is a poor Apologie of a late Au∣thor, that intending a comprehensive scheme of the practical Duties of Religion he pur∣posely omitted articles of meer belief, as im∣pertinent to the matter and design of his en∣quiry; Def. & Continuat. p. 326. For besides that there are no Articles of Meer Belief, every one being adapted more or less to influence our conversation either to∣wards

God or man: The doctrines repre∣sented by the learned person whom he there reflects on, are such as ground the whole of Christian practice; and to exclude them the Scheme of Religion, is plainly to va∣cate all the Duties which as Christians we are bound to.

§. 3. Whatsoever appertains to Obedi∣ence, must be referred either to Worship, or Manners. To one of these branches do all the practical Duties of Religion belong. That which we advance to then in the next place, is, That the Light of Reason, or the Law of Nature, as it is subjective in man, is no due measure for the Regulating of Divine Worship. We do not deny but that Natural Light instructs us, That God is to be Worshipped. That there is such a Homage as Worship due from man to God, we need no other Assurance than what our Reason gives us. Though the School of Epicurus differ from the rest of man-kind in their inducements of vene∣rating the Deity, yet they acknowledg that we ought to venerate Him. Never a∣ny that confessed a Supreme Being, but they also confessed that such an honour as worship, ought to be paid him. This is inde∣lible in every mans Nature, & without de∣vesting

our selves of our faculties, we can∣not gain-say it. Nor do we deny in the second place, but that we may arise by the Light of Reason to that know∣ledg of God,* 1.3 as may suf∣ficiently instruct us that some Media of Worship taken up by divers, are Unbecoming Rational Creatures to perform to∣wards a Being of that Nature and Perfections that God is. The Ob∣scene Rites, and La∣scivious Ceremonies of the Heathen in their Worshipping of Bacchus, Pan, Flora, Cybele, &c. the Salvage Sacrifices to Moloch, Saturn, &c. are justly therefore charged as repugnant to Natural Light. Reason being derived from God as well as Scripture, whatever is found contradictory to the true principles of that, is as unsuita∣ble to tender to God, as that which is ex∣presly forbid by this. But that which I affirm, is, that the Law of Nature as it is subjective in man, can give no certain di∣rections

about the Worship of God: Nor can Reason define what outward mediums of worship God will be pleased with. All who have believed the Existence of a God, have supposed a declared Rule ne∣cessary for the manner of serving him. No one ever judged that it was left to the arbi∣trary determinations of Humane discretion, how God should be worshipped. Plato tells us that all Divine worship must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, regulated by the Will and Pleasure of God, and that in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Laws concerning Divine matters must be fetcht from the Delphick Oracle, Plat. de Leg. That Nation or People can∣not be assigned, where any worship was admitted, but what was founded on some pretence to Revelation. Greeks, Romans, Barbarians have all of them attributed the Origine of their mysteries to their Gods. It is true, they were all of them mistaken; but yet their Belief was founded on Rea∣son, viz. that none can conceive aright of God, much less serve him as is meet, un∣less he be instructed and directed by God himself. If they referred the invention of Arts and Sciences, and all things admirable to the Deity; and celebrated their Legi∣slators as receiving their Laws for the regu∣lation

of civil Society by some inspirati∣ons, as indeed they did; hence they be∣lieved Zaleucus the Locrian to have de∣rived his from Minerva; Lycurgus the La∣cedemonian his from Apollo; Minos the Cretian, his from Jupiter; and Numa his from Aegeria: We have much more cause to suppose they should believe the imme∣diate interposure of God in the communi∣cation of Laws, for the regulation of Reli∣gious performances. It's an observable ex∣pression that I meet with in Jamblichus to this purpose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; It is not easie to know what God will be pleased with, unless we be either immediatly instructed by God our selves, or taught by some person whom God hath conversed with, or arrive at the know∣ledg of it by some Divine means or other; de vitâ Pythag. cap. 28. This their re∣course to Oracles for the Regulation of their whole Sacra, doth confirm beyond all possibility of reply. And indeed where there is not some declaration from God, warranting what we perform to him in Worship, none of our services can be en∣titled Obedience; for Obedience is the Relative of Command. Hence ••hough

we have cause to believe that God was pleased with the substance of the Moral per∣formances of the Heathen, as being ground∣ed upon a Law communicated with, and in∣grafted in their Natures; yet as to what concerns their Worship, being destitute of all command, auth••••izing either the Matter or the Manner of it, it was odious and abominable to him: Nor upon any o∣ther account are some parts of it liable to detestation, being performed no question out of a good intention, and divers of their Rites not materially Evil. The insuffici∣ency of Natural Light for the Regulation of Worship, might be farther confirmed by these three considerations. (1.) The great disagreement both as to Matter and Manner of Worship which we meet with among the highest pretenders to the con∣duct of Reason. It is hard to be imagined into what diversity of opinions and practi∣ces men left to the conduct of Natural Light, fell about the right way of Wor∣shipping God. The most Universal medium of honour, by which the Pagan world made their approach to the Deity was Sacrifice.

Imprimis Venerare Deos, atque annua magna, Sacra refer Cereri laetis operatus in her∣bis.

Imprimis; First, i. e. praecipuè & ante omnia d•• operam sacrificiis; chiefly and above all things, be sure to offer sacrifices, Servius in loc. Thence the Philosopher accounts all other Religious performances null if they were not attended with Sacrifices. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Sallust. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ cap. 16. And yet on the other hand, some of the greatest improvers of Reason that ever the World had, seem to have been no friends to Sacrifices in the Worship of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; We do not honour God by offering any thing to him, but by being fit to receive from him, Hierocl. in Carm. Aur. Pythag. in vers. 1. and 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; It is not decent to Worship the Gods with the cost of Sacrifices: We only honour them by being Vertuous and Religious our selves, Arist. Rhetor. Vis Deos propitiare? Bonus esto; satis illos coluit quisquis imitatus est: Wouldest thou appease and reconcile the Gods? be Vertu∣ous; He honours them enough, that inmitates them; Senec. Ep. 95. And when the serving of God by Sacrifices had univer∣sally obtained in the World, yet their dis∣agreement

was not at an end; but there still remained endless differences about the things they were to offer, and the manner of offering them. In the first Ages,* 1.4 only inanimate things were offered, but in after∣ages Animals were the prin∣cipal things which they Sacrificed to their Deities. And according to the difference of their imaginary Gods, they made their approaches by Sacrificing Animals of diffe∣rent Species. They offered Oxen to Apollo, Mars, Mercury, Hercules, &c. Barren Cows to Proserpina, young Heifers to Minerva, Swine to Ceres, Goats to Bacchus, Deer to Diana; concerning which Arnobius says excellently, Quae est enim causa, ut ille tauris Deus, haedis alius honoretur aut ovi∣bus, hic lactantibus porculis, alter intonsis agnis: hic virginibus bubulis, ille sterili∣bus vacculis: hic albentibus, ille atris: alter faeminci generis, alter vero animantibus masculinis, lib. 7. advers. gent The like diversity might be easily demonstrated as to all their other chief media of Wor∣ship. The Antient Nations used no I∣mages, yea some abhorr'd them, whereas latter Nations, especially the Grecians a∣bounded in them. The issues of Right

Reason are Uniform, and therefore seeing the pretenders to the conduct of it have been engaged in such different Methods and Mediums of Worship, it plainly fol∣lows that the Light of Nature is not suffici∣ent to instruct us about it.

The (2d.) Consideration may be ground∣ed on the ridiculous Rites and Ceremo∣nies of which their Worship consisted. Instances to this purpose there are innu∣merable. Amongst those I reckon first their battologies and reiterated repetitions of the Names and Titles of their Deities, as if by Elogies they had a mind to whea∣dle them. Of this we need no other proof, but what is recorded of the Worshippers of Baal, 1 King. 18.26. And our Saviours caution to his Disciple•• Mat. 6.7. But if any should desire farther information in this particular, they may consult the Hymn sacred to Apollo recorded and illustrated with Notes by Alexander Brassicanus. The ceremony of worshipping Hercules at Lindos in Rhodes, is as notable an instance of foo∣lery, distraction, & madness, as any that Hi∣story affords. The Homage consisted in the Priests venting all the Reproaches he could against the supposed Deity, in bespatter∣ing him with all the bad language he could

think of, in railing at him in the most scur∣rilous terms he could invent, and in wishing all the Curses and Imprecations to befal him, that his Wit could suggest to him vid. Lact. lib. 1. Instit. I know not whether some pretending to Sacred Orders, may not hereby think themselves Authorized to treat their Brethren, as that Pontife did his God. But if this be the pattern they write a••ter, I dare say that Hercules was not less concerned at the re∣vilings of the Country-man, (which gave occasion to the Sacra we have been speak∣ing of) whose Oxen he devoured; Than the Gentlemen whom they thus rudely handle, are at the ignominious titles be∣stowed upon them. Was it not excellent to hear the Car••••s and Coribantes when they went in procession, some of them drumming upon Kettels, some upon Buck∣lers and Helmets, and others jingling Chains and Cymbals? Was not it pleasant to hear their howlings and inarticulate yel∣lings in the Celebration of their Baccha∣nals? and to omit the Ceremonies of Whipping and Lancing of themselves, which they usurped in their Sacra; was it not a pretty Rite of approaching their Dei∣ties, all smut••ed and besmeared, peruncti

f••cibus ••ra, Horat. de Art. Poet. Was it possible that their Gods could deny them any thing, when they brought them Nose∣gays, and decked their Images and Altars with Garlands. Who can forbear laugh∣ing that considers the Media of their lustra∣tions;

—Aliae panduntur inanes Suspensae ad ventos, aliis sub gurgite vasto Infestum eluitur scelus, aut exuritur igni, Virg. Aeneid. 6. ubi vid. Serv.

A third Consideration for the eviction of the insufficiency of Natural Light to re∣gulate us in the Worship of God, may be this; That the whole of Gospel-worship presupposeth not only a knowledg of the condition we are brought into by the fall, but of the means, method, and terms of ou•• recovery; and by consequence, Natural Light being incompetent as to the instruct∣ing us about these things, must needs be an insufficient measure of Religious Worship. Whoever approacheth God, ignorant of his own guilt, and of a Mediatour, and of our Reconciliation through Faith in his Blood, must needs make wilde addresses, and worship he neither knows Whom, nor

How. A due Understanding of our con∣dition by Nature, and the Way, Means, and Terms of our recovery by Christ, is that which can alone conduct us in a right honouring of God. Of the first of these, the highest improvers of Natural Light un∣derstood but little, and of the second no∣thing at all. There was not any Medium in the whole Creation that could give them certain assurance of the Remission of Sin, much less of the way and means of obtain∣ta••ning the pardon of it. Upon the whole then of what we have here discoursed, I cannot but reckon it a very strange ex∣pression which I meet with in a late Au∣thor, viz. that in the Mosaick dispensation God took special care to prescribe the parti∣cular Rites and Ceremonies of his Worship▪ not so much by reason of the necessity of the thing it self, as because of the sottishness and stupidity of that Age, Eccl. Pol. p. 103.

§. 4 I suppose I have said enough for the discharging Reason from being the measure of Religious Worship, and conse∣quently from being the Standard whereby the whole of Religion is to be Regulated. Nor doth the present subject invite me to say any more on this head. Yet for as much as an Enquiry into the first Rise of

Sacrifices may not only contribute to a far∣ther enlightning and confirming of our for∣mer assertion; but may also conduce to the decision of another question of as great moment, viz. whether any thing ought to be established as a part of Divine Worship▪ but what is authorized by some Revelation from God, I shall assume the liberty of discoursing a little the Original of Sacri∣fices, not so much because it is a pretty subject,* 1.5 as be∣cause of the weight and consequence of it, and the affinity it hath with the subject I have undertaken to treat; and because I meet with a late Au∣thor, who in order to the serving of an Hy∣pothesis which he hath espoused, viz. That God hath left the management of his outward worship to the discretion of men, Eccl. Pol. p. 100. Is pleased to pitch upon Sacrifice, that ancient and universal medium of Di∣vine Worship, as a proof and instance of it. This outward expression (saith he) of Divine Worship, notwithstanding its Universality and Antiquity, was only made choyce of by Good men, as a fit way of intimating the pious and grateful Resentments of their minds, and cannot in the least pretend to owe its Original to any Divine Institution, seeing there ap∣pears

not any shadow of a command for it, Eccl. Polit. p. 101. We have the same assertion renewed and repeated, Def. & Contin. p. 419. And an attempt made for the confirmation and vindication of it from thence, 10 p. 439.

There are three opinions among learned men concerning the first Origine and be∣ginning of Sacrifices. Some derive them from the Obligation of the Law of Na∣ture: This way do most of the Romanists steer.* 1.6 Bellarmin tells us Sacri∣ficia non ess•• in lege Mo∣sis instituta, sed ex leg•• Naturae ortum habere▪ That Sacrifices are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 enjoyned or instituted in the Law of Moses, but that the institution of them is to be fetcht from the Obligation of Natural Light, lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 20. That men ought to wor∣ship God by Sacrifices, is primum quoddam principium à Deo nobis ingenitum; a first principle ingrafted into our Natures, idem ibid: But though most of the Divines of the Church of Rome be of this mind, yet I meet with some who are otherwise per∣swaded. Nullum est naturale praeceptum, ex quo sufficienter ••••lligi possit determinatio∣nem

illius, ad talem 〈◊〉〈◊〉, cultus sc▪ per sacrificium, esse omnino ••ecessaria•• ad m••∣rum honestatem; There is no precept of Na∣ture, defining the mode of worshipping God by Sacrifices, to be a necessary part of our Obedience, Suarez. part. 3. Sum. Theolog. Ar••. 1. dist. 71. Sect. 8. The induce∣ment leading the generality of the Divines of the Romish Communion to derive the institution of Sacrifice from the Obligation of Nature, is, that they may the better justi∣fie the Sacrifice of the Mass. Nor upon any other account do they concern them∣selves in this opinion▪ one fable requires another to uphold it; and indeed if we should yield them our being under an Ob∣ligation from Nature, for our approaching God by Sacrifices; We must also graunt either the Sacrifice of the Mass, or we must substitute some other by which we conti∣nue to pay our Natural Homage to God. For no supernatural Law can repeal a Na∣tural. Revelation builds upon the Law of Nature, but can vacate neither the whole, nor any part of it. What-ever Obligation we are under by the Law of our Being, is inseparable from, and of the same continu∣ance with it. But as there are no Rational arguments to engage our belief of the affir∣mative,

viz. that Sacrifices are appointed by the Law of Nature; so we are not destitute of proofs both from Reason and Scripture for the defence of the Negative. But this is not that which I am concerned in, for should the approaching of God by Sacrifices be resolved into the Law of Na∣ture, it doth not at all disserve us; for, as upon the one hand it doth hence plainly follow that the institution of them accor∣ding to this Hypothesis is immediatly de∣rived from God; He being as much the Author of the Law of Nature, as he is of a∣ny Law prescribed to the world by super∣natural Revelation: So it no ways follows upon the other hand, that because the Law of Nature prescribes some parts of Wor∣ship, that therefore it is the measure of all divine Worship.

The Second opinion is theirs, who deduce the Original of Sacrifices from the volun∣tary choice of men: who by this arbitrary invention endeavour to express the grate∣full resentments of their minds, for the ob∣ligations of Gods Love and Bounty to them. Porphyrius, the only Pagan Philoso∣pher who hath designedly handled the Ori∣ginal of Sacrifices, resolve's the first begin∣ning and Rise of them into the will and

pleasure of men, who thereby intended to express their thankfulness to God for the be∣nefits He bestowed on them. As we (saye's he) by some returns of bounty use to declare our gratitude for the kindnesses which other men confer upon us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; So ought we (say's he) in testimony of thankfulness to the Gods, to offer first-fruits, to them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lib. 2. Grotius tell's us that many of the Jews were of this perswasion. Multi Hebraei sentiunt sacrificia prius ab homi∣num ingenio excogitata, quam a Deo jussa: lib. 5. de verit. Christ. Rel. Videatur etiam Seld. de jure natur. apud Gent. lib. 3. cap. 8. Nor are they therein mistaken, for Abra∣vanel assign's this as the Reason of God's instituting Sacrifices, namely that the world being accustom'd to them, it had not been easy to have wean'd them from them: comment•• in Pentateuch. I have quoted these testi∣monies to shew that they who derive the Original of Sacrifices from the institution of God, are so far from doing it because of the Authority of the Jews and Easterlings as a late Author would perswade us def. & continuat, p. 426. That on the contrary the opinion which himself embraceth re∣ceived its first countenance from them;

And may indeed be reckoned among the rest of the fables, of which they are implea∣dable as the Authors. Of the same judg∣ment were some of the ancient Fathers, as to the Original of Sacrifices. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Chrysostome speaking of A∣bel; having (saies he) been taught by none, nor having any Law prescribed him, concerning the offering of first-fruits, of his own accord, moved only by the gratitude of a thankful mind, he offered Sa∣crifice to God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Of all those who antecedently to the giving of the Law, sacrificed Beasts to God, no one did it by a Divine command; though it be certain that God did both accept their offering, and was well pleased with the offerers; in Resp. ad Orthodox. in operibus Justini ad interro∣gatum 83. I need not add that the Socini∣ans are Universally of the same judgment, the Reason why they are so, being through∣ly understood. Nor will I quote the testi∣monies which occur in Episcopius the Ar∣minian and others of his perswasion to the

same purpose. For in matters of this Na∣ture naked testimonies signifie only to tell us what men thought▪ and ought to be of no further validity to engage our assent, than as they are grounded on proofs and rational motives. Now when we weigh the grounds of this opinion, we meet not with the least thing that can sway a Rational mind to sub∣mit to it.

They who make Sacrifices an arbitrary invention of men to testifie their Homage to God, have but two things to alledg in confirmation and proof of it. (First,) That Divine Worship being a Dictate of Humane Nature, and it being agreeable to the Rea∣son of mankind to express their sense of this Duty by outward Rites and significations▪ there could be no symbol more natural and obvious to the minds of men, whereby to sig∣nifie their Homage and Thankfulness to the Author of all their happiness, than by pre∣senting him with some of the choycest por∣tions of his own gifts in acknowledgment of that bounty and providence that had bestow∣ed them, Def. & Contin. p. 421. For Answer, I readily graunt it to be a Dictate of Humane Nature, that God ought to be Worshipped; And I withal acknowledg that it is agreeable to the Reason and Sense

of mankind to express their sense of this duty by outward Rites and Significations; nor have any supposed Thoughts, Words, and Gestures to be alone a sufficient ex∣pression of that Homage we owe to God. But two things I deny (1.) that precluding supernatural Revelation, man∣kind (since the fall) have had any suffi∣cient assurance that God would accept any Homage and Service from them at all. The principles on which that supposition is raised, are but two, and both of them un∣able to bear that structure that is built upon them. The one is the consideration of the Benefits which the divine Bounty confers on us; but these being blended and out∣weighed with so many calamities, with which our lives are attended, and there be∣ing other ends besides the ascertaining his complacency in us, and our performances, for which God in his Wisdom might con∣fer them, can give us no assurance, either of the acceptation of our persons or servi∣ces. The other is the consideration of the Divine Goodness; But the consideration of his Justice being as ponderous to the contrary, this is as inept to beget an assu∣rance of our acceptance with God as the former. Conscience through being guilty,

being also suspicious, will hinder us in our expecting any thing from the Divine Goodness, by continually objecting his justice to us. But supposing we were suf∣ficiently furnished with Notices of the Di∣vine placability, and that he will accept a Homage from us; yet it still remains to be proved, that precluding a supernatural Re∣velation we have any rational ground of belief that he will approve our manner of approach to him by Sacrifices. I know no perfection in the Divine Being to which they are Naturally suited; It is true I find a Late Author insinuating that the Religion of Sacrifices flows from the Nature and the Attributes of God, requiring no other disco∣very than the Light, and no other determi∣nation than the choice of natural Reason, def. and continuat. p. 427, 428. But I would fain know what property in the Di∣vine Nature, the Religion of Sacrifices flows from. God is not capable of being fed or refreshed by the scent and smoke of them.* 1.7 In∣deed Porphyry tells us that a great many thought so, but I am sure it was a most foolish thought. And be∣sides, what-ever flows from the Divine Nature and the Attributes of God, the ob∣ligation

to it is indissoluble, nor can we be superceded the performance of it. And by consequence the Worshipping of God by Sacrifices should both have obliged man∣kind in the state of innocencie, and doth still indispensably oblige us: Nor can the Christian Institution vacate any Duty that flows from the Nature of God.

Indeed the mysterious and gracious Counsels of Gods will in reference to our recovery from Wrath by the Sacrifice of his Son, which he designed the bringing into light and the giving the world instruction a∣bout by this Medium, render our being found in this Method of address to God, while the end proposed in it continued, very rational and justifiable; but abstracting from that, the mind of man can not entertain a more silly and ludicrous thought, than that we should thereby honour God in a due and suitable way. That we should adore and magnifie the Goodness and bounty of God in all the benefits we partake of; and that we should use them soberly and discreetly improving them into motives of cheerful∣ness, humility and advantages of service both in communicating to the wants of o∣thers, and being the more alacrous in obe∣dience our selves, hath the authorisation of

Reason for it, and becomes that habitude we stand in to God as Rational Creatures: But to reckon that the presenting God with slaughtered Animals, is the most natural Symptome of Homage that Rational Crea∣tures can express their thankfulness to him by,* 1.8 I account it a sentiment only fit for them who never duly meditated what God is. And in my con∣ceit, the missing of such an invention would have been so far from being flat stupidity that it would have argued a mind pregnant with generous thoughts of God.

The Second thing produced in proof that Sacrifices took their beginning from Humane Agreement, is because there appears not any shadow of command for them, when they were first practised▪ and to say that the expression of worship by Sacrifices was com∣manded, though •• is no where Recorded, is to take the liberty of saying any thing without proof or evidence. Eccl. Polit. p. 101. v. def. & contin. p. 428. To this I reply that 'tis not needful that every com∣mand relating to institutions be expresly

and in terminis recorded, 'tis enough that it be colligible from the Scripture. I know no Logick that will allow the sequel, That because the command of a thing is not re∣gistred in so many words, that therefore the thing it self is not of Divine Original. The Reverend Person, who reviewed and animadverted on the Ecclesiastical Polity told him, that there was an Institution for the offering and burning Incense only with sacred fire taken from the Altar, and that the Priests were consumed with fire from be∣fore the Lord for the neglect of it: Yet there is no express command in the whole Scrip∣ture where that Institution is in terminis Recorded, p. 272. This our late Author takes no Notice of in his Def. & Contin. but passeth it in deep silence, as he doth all the most material things in the said Re∣ply. I shall only subjoyn one instance more to the same purpose. The Obser∣vation of the Christian or First day-Sab∣bath, will be allowed I suppose to have a Warrant in the Revelation of the Word, yet there is not in the whole Gospel a Command in express Terms for the keep∣ing of it. There is indeed a precept in the Decalogue for the observance of one day in

Seven as a Holy Sabbath to the Lord; and there is an express determination founded on Gods Resting from his Works, for the keeping the last day of the Hebdomadal Revolution during the Old Testament Oeconomy, as a day of Sacred Rest. There are also various Arguments taken from the Creation of all things in and by Christ; his Finishing and Resting from all the Works of the New Creation in and by his Resurrection; his declaring that a Day of Rest accommodated to his own ceasing from his Works, remains now for Belie∣vers: Together with the Apostolical ob∣servation of the First Day of the week as a Sabbath to the Lord; God's blessing his People in their attendance on him from time to time on that Day; John Bap∣tising it with the Name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Lord's Day, &c. All which do evince the change of the Day from the Seventh un∣to the First, to be of Heavenly Original, and founded in Divine Authority: Yet there is not a Command 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the whole Sacred Code and Register for it. In a matter of so great antiquity as Sacri∣fices when the Lord instructed his Church by Dreams, Visions, mental Impressions, audible voice, &c. To affirm that there

was no Divine Command for the Religion of Sacrifices, because the Command is not expresly delivered, is a very unwary and bold assertion. It is enough for us if we can demonstrate that they acted not herein without a Divine Warrant, though we can∣not assign the manner in which it was pre∣scribed; and this we hope to make good to the satisfaction of all sober inquirers, but to satisfie Scepticks and prejudic'd per∣sons who have no mind to be convinced, is more than any man can undertake.

The third Opinion then concerning the Original of Sacrifices, is theirs who deduce them from the Institution of God himself. And as this is the common sentiment of Protestant Divines, so 'tis attended with as much evidence as the Nature of a Thing at so great a distance doth require. The First Argument in confirmation of the Di∣vine institution of Sacrifices may be fetcht from the Antediluvian distinction of clean and unclean Animals, Gen. 7.2. Of eve∣ry clean Beast thou shalt take to thee by se∣vens, the Male and his Female; and of Beasts that are not clean by two,* 1.9 the Male and his Fe∣male. This distinction can have no other foundation,

but that some Animals were allowed Sa∣crifices, others not. Reason cannot in∣struct us in the putting a difference in this particular, between one kind of Beasts and another. Hence the Heathen, who here∣in pursued the conduct of Na∣tural Light,* 1.10 offered promis∣cuously of all sorts, Horses, Mules, Camels, Asses, Dogs, yea Mice, &c. were all one to them in this matter, as other Brutes, yea Swine were preferred to Oxen and Sheep.

—Prima putatur Ovid. lib. 15. Metam. Hostia sus meruisse mori.— Prima Ceres avidae gavisa est sanguine porcae Ulta suas merita coede nocentis opes. Id. lib. 1. Fast.

We have ground then to conceive that whence the Patriarchs had their light as to the Species and kind of Creatures which they were to offer, that thence also they derived the institution of Sacrifices them∣selves. Nor is there any cause to con∣ecture that God having left the great and material part of his Worship to their dis∣cretion, should confine them in minu•••• things, or interpose in their direction a∣bout

the Species of Creatures they were to present him. That Discretion, Wisdome, and Light which was able to instruct them that the best Medium of honouring God, was by the Sacrifice of Animals to Him, was also able to tell them what kind of A∣nimals he would accept at their hands. The second Argument for the Divine Instituti∣on of Sacrifices, may be taken from the consideration of their acceptance with God. And this may be prosecuted (1) with respect to the acceptation that the Offerers promised themselves with the Lord in and by them; or (2) with respect to their being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a sweet savour, or an odour of sweetness unto the Lord. (1.) 'Tis certain that mankind proposed to them∣selves acceptance with God in and by them; and without such a perswasion they would never have engaged in the perfor∣mance of them. Now this they could have no indubitable certainty of, without a su∣pernatural revelation: For who hath known the mind of the Lord, Rom. 11.34. Nor was it enough (as a late Author would make us believe, Eccl. Polit. p. 100.) to ascertain the Lords being well pleased with them, because they presented him with a portion of the best and most precious things

they had. For First; This could give them no assurance that the offering these things by destroying them, would be ac∣ceptable. There being other wayes in which they might be improved to his ho∣nor, and that more congruously to the Na∣ture of God, and the Relation of Rational Creatures which we stood in to him. Se∣condly, by a parity of Reason, they should have offered themselves in the same manner, being as much indebted to God for their own Beings, as for any other fruits of his Bounty. And as I question not but that Humane Sacrifices entred in a great measure at this Door, so I know no Rea∣son if there be any solidity in this plea, but that they are justifiable by the same pre∣tence. We cannot but apprehend that, whenever any Religious action is to be performed, the mind will be in suspense whether it ought to be done or not. Let us then suppose the first commencers of ad∣dress to God by Sacrifice, deliberating what they were to do. The Reasons in this case influencing their minds, behoved either to leave them in suspence about it; and if so, they ought wholly to have for∣born it, it being better to forbear a thing out of fear to offend God, than to put it to

the chance of performing a thing which possibly may be well-pleasing to him. Quod dubitas ne fecer••s is an unquestiona∣ble axiom. Or the Reasons impeaching the thing as bad were the more ponderous; and if so, then granting the thing never so excellent in it self, it were a crime to do it. For to commit what we judge offen∣sive to the Deity, tramples as much on the Respect we owe to God, as if the thing it self were in the number of what is most de∣testable to him. He that acts in defiance of his Conscience, casts off all Reverence of God whose Deputy Conscience is▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Its all one whether things be really Evil, or only appear so, for neither of them are to be done, saith Arist. Eth. lib. 4. cap. 9. Or lastly, the motives inducing to believe the thing good, were more numerous and weighty than the contrary: But even in this case it were impossible to act without exposing themselves to irremediable per∣plexities. For where there is not a con∣vincing certainty that the thing perform∣ed is good, which without an Institution they could never have, every sinister acci∣dent afterwards accosting them, would re∣vive

a suspicion in them that they had of∣fended, and cause them to repent of what they had done with incredible remorse and regret. (2.) Let us consider Sacrifices not so much with respect to that acceptance which men promised themselves in and by them, as with regard to what God declares they were, viz. an Odour of sweetness un∣to him. And if we will confine our selves here to the determination of the Scripture, I affirm, had Humane agreement been the foundation of their performance, this they could never have been. The reason of my assertion is this, because I find God censuring the arbitrary inventions of men in worship with the brand of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Will-wor∣ship, Col. 22.3.* 1.11 And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Superstition, Acts 25.19. Yea, when the worship was justly reproveable for some intrinsical evil, either in the matter or form of it, or in both; yet God in reproving it, taketh no no∣tice of either of these, but

insisted only upon this, that he command∣ed it not, see Jer. 7.31. & 32.35. Deut. 17.2, 3. All which seem abundantly to witness that worship of humane device or contrivement is of an unpleasing resent∣ment with God; and by consequence, the Religion of Sacrifices being of a sweet sa∣vour unto the Lord, another original must be assigned it than mens own device and choyce. The Third Argument in proof of the Divine Institution of Sacrifices, may be fetcht from the consideration of that peace, welfare, inward consolation, &c. which in the adoration of God by the offer∣ing of Sacrifices, all mankkind, especially the Patriarchs proposed to themselves. There is in all men a Natural Conscious∣ness of sin, with an apprehension of punish∣ment and Vengeance due for it. Hereup∣on in all their addresses to the Deity, they endeavoured the procuring the pardon of sin, and peace with God, and the obtain∣ing comfort in their own Consciences. This must be at least the subordinate end of the whole Religion of Sinners; nor other∣wise do they act rationally with respect to the estate they know themselves in. Now they must promise themselves the attain∣ment of these things, either in the vertue

of the Action it self, or else through the application of some promise of God enti∣tling them to such mercies upon a due per∣formance of such services. If the Latter, then Sacrifices must necessarily be of a Heavenly Original. For where the Thing signified depends upon the alone Will and Pleasure of God, there the Symbol and sign of it depends upon his sole Will and Institution also. Though the sign materi∣ally may have a Being in Nature, yet for∣mally considered as 'tis the representation of such a gracious design, and of such a voluntary and free benefit; 'tis perfect nonsence to imagine that Natural Light can give any direction about it. But if they expected pardon of sin, and peace with God, and in their own Consciences from the bare Action it self, and in the vertue of the meer offering; They did that (1) which God expresly declares his abhorrence of. The Lord upon all occasions testifies his Detestation of Sacrifices, when Trusted to for Reconciliation and Remission of sin, Psal. 40.6. & 50.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Mic. 6.6, 7. Heb. 10.1, 2, 3▪ 4. (2.) They acted repugnantly to Natural Light. Our Reason how much soever distempered, clouded, weakned, can still instruct us that

the blood of sheep or Oxen is too mean a trifle to satisfie for an offence against God. He hath indeed mean thoughts both of God and Sin, who thinks that the Justice of God can be attoned, or the guilt of Sin expiated by the blood of a Calf or Lamb. What either proportion or Relation is there be∣twixt Men and Beasts, that the Lives of the One should commute for the Lives of the Other! Men might sin at an easy rate, could the Death of a brute Animal satisfie for the offence. He is generally supposed to have been a Heathen, however he cloaths himself with the Name of one, that said;

Quum sis ipse nocens moritur cur victims prote? Cato lib. 4. distich. 5. Stultitia est morte alterius sperare salutem▪ Ne credas placare Deum cum c••de litatur. a part of the 39 dist:

The Fourth Argument in justification of our assertion concerning the Rise of Sacri∣fices from the Institution of God, I take from that of the Apostle Heb. 11.4 By Faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain &c. Abel and Cain may be reckon'd among the First that

made their approach to God by Sacrifice: At least the first Notice we have of apply∣ing to God by this Medium of Worship is in them. And the Reason here a••••igned by the Holy Ghost, why the Lord when he rejected the Sacrifice of Cain had regard to that of Abel, is, because Abel offered his Sa∣crifice by Faith. If we can then evince that the Faith here spoken of had respect unto the Testimony, Revealing, Commanding and Promising to accept them in that way of Homage and address; we shall in so do∣ing, fully demonstrate that Sacrifices owe not their rise to Humane choice, but that they began upon the Warrant of a Divine Institution and precept. This we shall therefore attempt to make good by two Topicks. First, The Faith attributed to Abel, from which he receives the testimony of having offered an acceptable Sacrifice to God; must be of such a Nature and kind to which the Definition of Faith verse 1. may agree. The Apostles Description of Faith in the first vers, is, that which he plain∣ly intends for the Regulation of the several Instances of it in the whole ensuing part of the chapter. Let us view then the defini∣tion of Faith there laid down, and we shall find it to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we may either un∣derstand Expectation according to that of the Seventy Psal. 39.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Expectatio mea in te est; And the•• the sence will be, that faith is the expecta∣tion of things hoped for, which sounds bet∣ter than our translation by Substance. Or we may render it Confidence agreeably to the import of the word 2 Cor. 9.4. 2 Cor. 11.17. Heb. 3.14. And then the mean∣ing will be, that Faith is the Confidence of things hoped for. It is much at one which of these significations we here admit, ei∣ther of them will render the definition of Faith clear and congruous: Whereas o•• rendring it by Substance, makes it both obscure and harsh. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Evidence, Ar∣gument, convincing demonstration as Hi••∣rome renders it: Certa ac clara intuitio, •• sure and clear evidence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of things not seen, not discernable either by sence or Reason: Things out of the view of whatever is natural in us. Now this defi∣nition is that which must Regulate every Instance of Faith in the whole Chapter; and by consequence every act ascribed to it, must have a Revelation, Command or pro∣mise of God for its foundation, otherwise it should not be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which

the Apostle expresly affirms it to be. (2.) The Faith ascribed to Abel is of the same Nature and kind with the Faith of o∣thers whom the Apostle here mentions. Whereas then the Faith of every other Worthy recorded in the Chapter, doth in∣fallibly suppose a Divine Revelation as that on which 'tis bottom'd, and by which 'tis warranted; If we will speak coherently, we must likewise acknowledg that Abels Faith had the same Authority to rest on. Not onely the tenour of the Apostles whole discourse induceth us to this belief, but we have a plain testimony, verse 39. to indubitate it to us, All these having obtain∣ed a good Report through Faith, received not the promise. The same kind of Faith is predicated of all. And by their not re∣ceiving the actual exhibition of the thing promised, which is the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is plainly intimated that they had a Divine Command or Promise to rest on in all these exercises of Faith there celebrated. A fift Argument in Confirmation of the Divine Original of Sacrifices might be taken from the consi∣deration, that every Priest ought to be ordain∣ed of God, and that no man taketh this ho∣nour unto himself, but he that is called of

God, Heb. 5.1.4. and consequently that the Patriarchs were authorised of God, o∣therwise they had never assumed the Sa∣cerdotal Office, which they did by their offering Sacrifices, these two being Re∣lates. But I find I have been already too prolix upon this head, and they who can withstand the force of the fore-going Argu∣ments, are not like to be influenced by any thing I am further able to subjoyne.

§. 5. We have already shewn that the whole of Obedience which we owe to God, belongs either to Worship or Man∣ners: We have also declared the insuffici∣ency of Natural Light for the Regulating of Worship. Our next task is to demon∣strate the defectiveness of it as to the con∣duct of Manners. Manners are either such Duties as in themselves are acceptable and good, or such as derive all their goodness from a Command; with respect to the first, revealed Laws are only declarative of the goodness of the Duty; The Absolute Bonity of it having an antecedent founda∣tion in the Nature of God, the Nature of man, and the Relation that man stands in to God. But with reference to the second, supernatural Law is constitutive of the goodness of the Duty: There being no∣thing

in the thing it self previous to the Command rendring it so: And here though obedience be a Moral Duty, yet the Law prescribing it is not properly Mo∣ral Law. For the Morality of Obedience ariseth not from the Nature of the Com∣mand, but from the Relation we stand in to God, and the Dependence we have on him; whereas the Morality of Law hath its Reason in the Nature of God, and the congruity or incongruity of things enjoyn∣ed or forbidden, to it. That there are acts of Obedience distinct from Natural Du∣ties, which yet are not properly acts of Worship, might be demonstrated by innu∣merable instances. Of this kind there are several Duties founded in personal com∣mands, whereby none were obliged, but onely they to whom they were immediatly given. Such was the Duty of Abra∣hams leaving his Fathers House, being built on a precept wherein he only was concerned. The like may be said of the Obligation laid on the young man in the Gospel of selling all that he had, &c. Of this sort also there are several Duties a∣rising from Divine Laws which concerned only a particular Nation, and yet emerged not from Laws properly Ritual. Of which

number we may reckon the Obligations proceeding from the Judicials given to the Jews, at least where the Reason of them was not Natural Equity. By these Laws they came under Obligations that the rest of man-kind were not concerned in. Yea they became bound to some things which setting aside the positive Law of God, could not have been lawfully done; and which at this day no Nation or Person can practice with Innocency, viz. The Marry∣ing the Widow of a Brother, dead without Issue. Such Laws Gods Dominion over all men as his Creatures, authoriseth him to make, and that as a proof of his own ab∣solute Prerogative, and for tryal of his Creatures obedience. Nor did God ever leave man since he first Created him singly to the Law of Nature for the payment of that Homage he owes him; but even to Adam in Innocency he thought fit to give a positive Law; a Law, which for the matter of it, had no foundation at all in Mans Nature; further than that he was obliged by his Nature to do whatsoever God enjoyned him. Now these Laws having their foundation in Institution, not in Nature: The Reason of them being not so much the Holiness of God, as his Sove∣raignty;

Natural Light can no ways be suppos'd a due measure of them, nor able to instruct about them. All that Obedi∣ence that resolves into the Will of God, must suppose Revelation in that nothing else can discover its Obligation to man-kind; saith a late Author, Def. & continuat. p. 427. How consistently to himself in other pla∣ces, where he tells that all Religion consists in nothing else but the practice of Vertue; and that the practice of Vertue consists in living suitably to the dictates of Reason and Nature; I leave to himself to declare. That there are positive Laws of God now in be∣ing, and that in the vertue of them, we are under Obligation to several Duties: I shall, God willing, evince when I come to shew the insufficiency of the Law of Na∣ture as it's Objective in the Decalogue, as to being the measure of the whole Obedience we owe to God.

§. 6. That there are Natural Laws as well as positive; and that the latter are but ac∣cessions to the former, we have else-where demonstrated. Now these Laws being stiled Natural, non respectu Objecti, not because of their object, many of the Du∣ties we are under the Sanction of by them referring immediatly to God; but re∣spectu

principii & medii per quod cognosci∣mus, because communicated to our Na∣ture, and cognoscible by Natural Light. If the Light of Nature alone be of signifi∣cancy in any thing, 'tis here. And indeed the Writings of Heathen Philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, Epictetus, Seneca, Plu∣tarch, Cicero, Hierocles, Plotinus, &c. The Laws of Pagan Common-wealths, especi∣ally the Republicks of Greece and Rome; the vertuous actions of persons not en∣lightned by Revelation, of all ranks and qualities, such as Socrates, Aristides, Ph••∣cion, Cato, and many others not easie to be recounted, shew that men left to the meer conduct of Natural Light can attain a better insight into the Duties of Nature, than of Religion, and know more of Ver∣tue than of Piety. For, as both Amyrald and Sir Charles Wolseley, besides others, observe, Cicero wrote to better purpose in his books de officiis, than he did in those de Naturâ Deorum. Yea, even the Plato∣nists, the great Refiners of Religious Ce∣remonies, who in stead of obscene and bar∣barous usages, introduced civil and modest Rites; discoursed much better of Vertue than Divinity. Their Sentiments for the conduct of conservation being for the most

part Rational and Generous, whereas their Theological Notions are either obscure, uncertain, or romantick. If we be then able to prove that Natural Light, or the Law of Nature as it is subjective in man since the Fall, is no sufficient measure of Moral Duties, or of those Duties we are under the Sanction of by the Law of Cre∣ation, we shall get one step farther in our design; namely, that Natural Light is a very inadaequate measure of Religion.

In confirmation of this, I might in the first place take notice; how the great preten∣ders to the conduct of Reason prevaricated in all those prime Laws of Nature which Relate to the Unity of the God-head. Though not onely the Being, but the U∣nity of the Divine Nature be witnessed to by every mans Reason, and we need one∣ly exercise our faculties against Polytheism as well as Atheism: Yet the Universality of man-kind, setting aside those who had the benefit of a supernatural Revelation, not onely sunk into the belief and adorati∣on of a plurality of Gods; but into the worshipping those for Gods, whom to ac∣knowledg for such is more irrational than to believe that there is none at all. There was scarcely any thing animate or in∣animate,

but by some or other became deified.

Quicquid Humus, Pelagus, Caelum, mirabile gignunt, Id dixere Deos, Colles, Freta, Flumina, Flammas. Aurel. lib. 1. contr. Symm.

Whom one Nation adored for God, a∣nother derided and treated as a brutish and senseless Creature.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪

Thou adorest a Beast, but I Sacrifice it. Thou countest an E••l a Deity, but I esteem it dainty food. Thou worship'st a Dog, but I beat him, Athen. Deipnos. lib. 7.

Quis nescit Volusi Bythinice, qualia demens Aegyptus portenta colit? Crocodilon adorat Pars hac; illa pavet saturam serpentibus Ibin. ••ffigies sacri ni••et aur••a Cercopitheci,

Istic Aelur••s, hic piscem fluminis, illic Oppida tota canem Venerantur.— P••rrum ••c cepe nef••s violare ac fr••ngere morsu: O Sanctas gentes quibus h••c n••sc••ntur in in hortis Numina! &c.— Juven. Satyr. 15.

Thus Rendred by Sir Robert Stapleton.

Bythinicus, who knows not what portents Mad Egypt deifies? this part presents Devotion to the Crocodile; in that Ibis, with Serpents gorg'd is trembled at. The long-tayl'd Monkey's golden form shines there: There Sea-fish, River-fish is worshipt here. Whole Cities to the Hound, their prayers address. To strike a Leek, or Onion with the edge of the presumptuous teeth is Sacriledge. O Blessed people, in whose Gardens spring Your Gods.—

The great Gods whom they adored, they could tell a thousand debaucheries of

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪

Hence many of them from the example of their Gods, encouraged themselves in all kind of Villany. Eg•• homuncio id non facerem, shall not I do what Jupiter did, saith the fellow in Terence. Hence En••ius brings in Africanus boasting;

Si fas caedendo caelestia scandere cuiquam est, M•• soli caeli maxima porta patet. If killing can give title to the skye, No man bids fairer for that place than I.

Others of them were hereby influenced to mock at all Religion:

Vana superstitio, Dea sola in pectore virtus.

And indeed as Arn••bius saies, Recti••s multo est Deos esse non credere, quam esse il∣los ••••les: It is much more Rational to be∣lieve that there are no Gods at all, than that they are such as they proclaym'd them, vid. Plutarch. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Its but to consult the Apostle, Rom. 1.23. And he will in∣form us what excellent Beings they were which men left to the guidance of depraved and darkned Reason owned & worshipped for Gods. Nor do I question but that se∣veral persons branded of old with the

name of Atheists, were only contemners of the Gods of their Country-men; or at least it was the ill opinion they had of their own Gods which led them to a total denyal of the Deity; for being assured that they were none, and being at a loss to substi∣tute the True One in their Room, they sunk into an imagination that there was none at all. Though I do not impeach Natural Light as altogether insufficient to have instructed them better, because here∣in they crossed the dictates of the Rational faculty, and stupendiously prevaricated in what they might have known; yet it de∣monstrates how inadaequate a Rule it is of the duties we were obliged to by the Law of C••••ation, being inefficacious to regulate the great pretenders to the guidance of it, in things that lay plainest before it. And in∣deed had not God disabused the World by Revelation, we have ground to think that man-kind, notwithstanding the faculty of Reason, would have still persevered in these corrupt opinions.

For the Eviction of the ineptitude of Natural Light to Regulate us in the Du∣ties we are under the Sanction of, by the Law of Creation, I might in the second place observe the degeneracy of men left

to the guidance of Reason, in the Matter of Worship, no less than in the Object of it. Nor shall I here accuse them for prevarica∣tion in what they could not know, but for shameful defection in what they might. Though Reason could not tell them by what Media of Worship God would be ho∣noured, yet it could in great measure have told them by what he would not. Ha•• they but consulted the Oracle in their ow•• breast••, it might have resolved them tha•• God would not be served by such obsce•••• Rites, as such who were sober among themselves were asham'd to be present a•• which occasioned the Poet to say of Cat••.

Cur in Theatrum Cato severe venisti? An ideo tantum vener as ut exires? Mart. Epigram. lib. 1. Ep. 1.

Suppose it were left to the discretion of men to agree about the Sacra, by which they were to worship God; and suppose also it were left to their liberty, that every different Nation might have its distinct and different Ceremonies of Worship▪ yet there are still fundamental Laws of Reason, to which if the Media and Rites of worship be not so exactly consonant,

yet they ought not to be repugnant to them. The consideration of the Nature of God, the Relation that one man stands in to another, was enough to have instruct∣ed the World, that Humane Victimes were so far from being well-pleasing to God, that they were a great provocation to him. And yet this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prevailed univer∣sally for a long time in the World. Not onely the Scythians, Phenicians, Carthagi∣nians, and other less civilised Nations; but the Grecians & Romans were immers'd in the guilt of offering Humane Sacrifices. See Euseb. Prepar. Evangel. lib. 4. Dr. Owen's Diatrib. de justit. Divin. cap. 4. & de Nat. Ort. &c. Theolog. &c. lib. 5. cap. 7. Saubert. de Sacrif. cap. 21. Grot. de verit. Relig. Christ. lib. 2. I confess I do not in this particular so much complain of their want of means of knowing better, as of their supineness and sloth in not exercising their faculties to enquire into these impie∣ties. However this is enough to declare that Reason is a very lubricous, uncertain and fallacious Rule of the Obedience we owe to God by the Law of Nature, when it hath not secured the Magnifiers and Courters of it from so unnatural abomina∣tions. Yea, even those who in their pri∣vate

thoughts detested those salvage Me∣thods and Media of approach to God, do yet virtually commend them while they ad∣vise every man to conform to the Rites and Religion of his own Country, which I am sure the very best of them did: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Epict. Enchir. cap. 38.

In Justification of the former Assertion concerning the defectiveness of Natural Light to Regulate the Obedience we owe to God by the Law of Creation. I might in the third place, insist on the infidelity o•• some, and scepticalness of other of the Philosophers about a future Life and State▪ It is certain that without a perswasion o•• these things, we cannot expect that me•• should either pursue Vertue, or avoid Vice. The Doctrines of an Immortality and Fu∣ture Estate are so necessarily presupposed to the practice of Vertue, that he who i•• not assured of the former, will scarcely be ever found in an exercise of the latter. E∣radicate once out of the minds of men the belief of a future existence, a judgment to come, and the perswasion of rewards and punishments, and the issue will be that which both the Prophet and Apostle menti∣ons; Let us eat and drink, for to morrow

we shall die, Isa. 22.13. 1 Cor. 15.32. It will be hard to find any that will avoid fleshly gratifications, who disbelieve an existence after death. I cannot better ex∣press the result of such an opinion than in the words of some of themselves.

Vivamus m••a Lesbia atque amemus; Nobis cum semel occidit brevis h••ra, Nox est perpetua una dormienda. Catul. Indulge genio, carpamus dulcia— —Cinis & Manes & fabula fies; Pers.

If we enquire then into the opinions of those who have given the best attendance to Reason for the direction of manners: We find some in the total disbelief of a fu∣ture state, such were Epicurus, Pliny, Str••∣bo, and both the most, and the chiefest of their Poets, who I am sure had a greater influence upon the minds and lives of the vulgar, than the Philosophers had. Others speak ambiguously and doubtfully of it: A∣ristotle, by what we can collect from his writings, was hugely uncertain about it; Socrates, if we may believe Plato, knew not how to be confident of it: Nor could Cicero get any farther, but that he judged

it the more probable opinion. And they who seem to be most positive concerning it, describe the Rewards and Punishments of that future state under such silly and wilde Notions, as could have no great influence upon mens lives. Their Infernal Regions were not very likely to disengage men from the pleasures of Animal life; nor their Elysia•• Fields to prevaile with them to a course of mortification. And indeed though every mans Reason may tell him that there is some future condition abiding us beyond this world; yet such a knowledge as may indubitate us concerning it, and give us such an acquaintance with the Nature and quality of the Rewards and Punishments of it, as may make us contemn the pleasures of life, chuse Vertue when we see it en∣compassed with the greatest calamities, & a∣void evil when we find prosperity attending it; Reason could never have helpt us to. But for this we are obliged to the Gospel, in which Life and Immortality are brought to light, 2 Tim. 1.10.

I shall in the fourth place endeavour to shew the insufficiency of Natural Light, as to the being the measure of the whole obe∣dience we owe to God, according to the Law of Creation. By demonstrating its

defectiveness in conducting the Heathen world in things o•• the strictest and plainest Morality. This we shall do by producing a few examples wherein their most renow∣ned Legislators, and famousest Philosophers have transgressed not only in the prac∣tick, but mistook in the Theory of the most obvious Duties of Moral Good and Evil. The Lacedemonians (as I intimated be∣fore) not only allowed but commended Theft. The Cyprians permitted young women to prostitute their bodies for the raising themselves portions. The Cretians made a Law to countenance Sodomie, nor doth Aristotle (mentioning it) discommend it. The Romans gave husbands liberty to kill their wives upon very frivolous occa∣sions. And allowed Creditors not only to slay their Debtors, but to Torment them to death when they could not pay them. The Persians authorised Fathers to marry their own Daughters, and Mothers their Sons. Both the Egyptians and the Athenians made it lawful for Brothers to match with their Sisters. The Laws of the B••rbiscae commanded the Sons to knock their Fathers on the head when they came to Dotage. Hardly any Nation but allowed Robbery out of their own territories to be lawful.

Among some of the Indians their Princes are not permitted the conjugal embraces of their wifes, till their Priests have deflow∣red them. Plato was for establishing a com∣munity of women in his Commonwealth. Both Socrates and Cato could make a trade of their wifes chastity, and let them out for gain and profit. Aristotle and Cicero be∣sides several others recommend Revenge not only as just and lawful, but as gene∣rous and noble. The Stoicks overthrew true patience which consist's in an humble acquiescence in the will of God, by stating it in an unpracticable Apathie. For Pati∣ence lies not in confronting calamities and sinister accidents by a wilful stupidity; but in deeply sensing them, yet bearing them with a due Reverence and submission to the Soveraignty and wisdome of God who sends and order's them. The Foun∣dations on which their indifferency as to all forreign contingencies, and seeming bra∣very under the most importunate evils bore; viz. that they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not within the confines of our power, and that mur∣mure at them would be unprofitable; are too weak for the structure of true patience to be raised on. For it is not enough that we do not repine, because it will not availe us;

but we are to forbear murmuring because it is unlawful. Nor is it sufficient to ju∣stifie submission, because the things are be∣yond our power to alter, but we ought to acquiesce in them, because they are the effects of a righteous providence, and carry in them a design of Love and Grace, if we do not defeat them. Humility, one of the most excellent and useful vertues, hath not so much as a Room in all the Ethicks of the Philosophers: yea pride is recommen∣ded amongst their chiefest vertues. The consideration of the infinite perfections of the first Being, and our dependence on him both as to life and all the benefits of it, should make us contract and shrink into no∣thing whensoever we compare our selves with God. Much more should the con∣sideration of sin and guilt, familiarize us to self-abasement and prostration. But alas! As man in general never more esteem'd himself, than since he was miserable: So they that have least to be proud of, are most conceited. Of all men the Philosophers abounded in self-esteem and boasting, and that not only to a degree of immodesty, but impudence. As if it had not been enough for the Beggarly Stoick to vaunt himself the only Rich Man, and that he alone was

noble, he did not only vie perfection with God, but preferr'd himself before him. The Indian Brachmans vouched themselves for Gods; Yea the very Academicks who professed they knew nothing; and the Cy∣nicks who made it a great part of their business to deride the pride of others, a∣bounded in self-esteem. To this Pride which universally possest them, I judge two things to have contributed exceedingly. (1) An apprehension they were imbued with, that the soul is a portion of the Deity 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a peice clipt of from God, as Phil•• Platonising stiles it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as An••toninus call's it, lib. 5. § 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Divine particle, idem lib. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a part of God, Epict. Divinae particulae aur••, Horat. Serm. lib. 2. And it was no ques∣tion with respect to this, that Cicero both i•• his Tusculan questions, and in his Book de Somn. Scip. saith, Deum scito te esse; Know thy self to be a God. A Second thing that con∣tributed to it, were the wicked and ridicu∣lous stories which went concerning the Gods whom they did adore: and indeed who would not prefer himself before a Let∣cherous Jupiter, a Thievish Mercury, a Drunken Bacchus, or a Bloody Mars &c. The Natural issue of worshipping such

Gods was either to grow vile in imitation of them; or to slight and detest them, as prac∣tising that which every man should be as∣ham'd of. Shall I add in the next place, that the Authority of Princes stood upon very unsafe terms, if the Obedience of Subjects were to be Regulated by the opinions of Philosophers. There is no•• an assassination of any man in power, but what may be justified by examples commended in the most renowned Pagan writers. What Ci∣cero who was no puny either in learning or Morality plead's in justification of Brutus and Cassius for killing Cesar, may serve to Authorise the Murther of any Magistrate, if the Actors can but perswade themselves to call him Tyrant. Had we nothing to conduct us in our Obedience and Loyalty, but the sentiments of Philosophers, no Prince could be secure either of his life or dignity. The last Instance wherein the Philosophers miserably prevaricated in a Matter of plain Morality, that I shal mention, is, their allowing an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Men inflicting violent hands on themselves. Holding our lives of God we are accountable to him for them; nor can any be their own executioners without offending both against the Commonwealth of which we are mem∣bers,

and invading the jurisdiction which belongs to God, who only hath power to dispose of us. I acknowledg that some of them were better illuminated in this matter than others. Hence that of Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; The Soul is in the body as Souldiers in a garrison, from whence they may not withdraw or fly without his order and direction that plac'd them there; in Phaedon. Vetat Dominans in nobis Deus, injussu hin•• nos suo discedere; Cicer. Tuscul. lib. 1. There∣fore Aristotle sayth well, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; To chuse death to avoid penury or Love or any thing that is calamitous, i•• not the part of a stout man but of a coward; Eth. lib. 3. cap. 7. But the Stoicks who of all the Philosophers were the most re∣nowned Moralists, held it not only lawful but an act of the highest fortitude to redeem themselves from the miserie of life by flying to death for shelter. Si necessitates ultim•• inciderint, exibit è vitâ, & molestus sibi esse desinet; If miseries encompass thee, fly to death for Sanctuary: Sen. ••p. 17. Sapi∣ens vivit quantum debet, non quantum po∣test: si multa occurrant molesta, & tran∣quillitatem turbantia, se emittit, nec hoc tan∣tum

in necessitate ultimâ facit, sed cum pri∣mum illi ceperit suspecta esse fortuna. Nihil existimat suâ referre ficiat finem, an acci∣piat; idem Epist. 70. vid. Epist. 58.91.98. & M. Antonin. lib. 5. §. 29. ac E∣pictet. lib. 1. cap. 29. & lib. 2. cap. 16. Nor were their practices dissonant from their sentiments; witness Democritus, Ze∣no, Cleanthes, Cato, Brutus, Cassius, &c. who all dipt their hands in their own blood, acting therein both repugnantly to the in∣stinct of self-preservation all men are by Nature imbued with, and below that true fortitude which all of them celebrated as a prime Vertue: For the Epigrammatists censure of Fannius doth perstringe them all alike.

Hostem cum fugeret se Fannius ipse peremit, Hic rogo, non furor est, ne moriare mori? Mart.

By these few instances we may easily perceive what a miserable condition the World had been in, even in reference to the most obvious duties of Morality, had mankind been left to the sole conduct of Natural Light; and by consequence that Humane Reason is not an adaequate Rule of Moral Vertue.

In further confirmation of the defective∣ness of Natural Light for the Regulatio•• of Moral Obedience, I shall in the fift and last place observe, that all who were under the conduct of meer Reason, mistook in the End of Obedience, which is as much under the Sanction of Law, as the substance of Duty is. For as Augustin sayes well▪ Noveris itaque non officiis, sed finibus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vitiis discernendas esse virtutes; Virtues 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not so much distinguisht from Vices by th•• entity of the act, as by the scope and intenti∣on of the agent; advers. Julian. lib. 4. cap▪ 13. What Forms are in Natural Philoso∣phy, that the End is in Moral. A Respec•• to God specifies every Vertue and Duty•• and wherever he is left out as the End, th•• Act is torn from its Moral Form. W•• might call it Fortitude and Patience in C••••tili••e, that he could endure cold, hunger▪ and much watchfulness to overthrow his Country, were not the End necessary to the Moral denomination of every action. The first cause is the ultimate end of every Being; of and through whom we are, to him we ought to be and act. Seeing God is our Creator, Proprietor, Governour, and Happiness, all our actions ought to be directed to the glorifying of him. Now

where are any among the Heathen Mora∣lists, or among those that acted under the conduct of meer Reason, who proposed as the end of their Actions the glory of God. Their opinions about the Finis ultimus ho∣minis, with reference to which Varro tells us there were 288 Sects of Philosophers, do abundantly evidence their faileur in this particular. Some made Vertue subservi∣ent onely to their own praise, applause and glory. What the Poet says of Brutus's killing his own Sons, when they intended to overthrow the liberty of their Coun∣try,

Vicit amor patriae laudumque immensa cupido;

Is the most that can be pleaded as the aim of a great many of them. Others pursued Vertue in order to pleasure, and onely admired it on that account. Now supposing the pleasures they proposed to themselves were not so gross and sensual as is generally conceived, (though I know not how to acquit the School of Epicurus in this matter, notwithstanding all the Apo∣logies that are made for them) yet their opinion is sufficiently culpable, in that they confounded the intention and scope of the

Agent, with the consequent of the actio•• and made the Reward annexed by God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Vertue, to intercept the Glory which in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their thoughts and deeds they should hav•• endeavoured to bring to Him. Those who spake most magnificently of Vertue▪ held it desirable onely for it self; affirming that the actions and offices of Vertue were to be pursued meerly for the beauty and honesty that essentially belonged to them •• Interrogas quid petam ex virtute? ipsam•• nihil enim est melius; ipsa pretium sui est•• Senec. de vit. beat. vid. etiam de Clement▪ cap. 1. & Epist. 113. But first, it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 palpable contradiction that any action or habit should be Morally beautiful, other∣wise than as it respects God, whose Nature and Will is the measure of all its Moral pul∣chritude; and therefore it ought to be re∣ferred to the honor of its Model. Yea▪ not onely the Will of God, but his Nature requires, that what-ever derives from him, either as its idea or source, should be ulti∣mately resolved and terminated in him as its Center. Secondly, It is most false that either Habit or Act can be Rationally cho∣sen, or finally rested in for it self: But ei∣ther some benefit to our selves and friends, or the honor and glory of some other must

be proposed and intended by them. For as all Habits are desired in reference to actions and operations, so if in every action we design not an end in order to the attain∣ment of which we so act, we declare our selves brutish and irrational. Though Brutus was as far tinctur'd with a persuasion that Vertue was its own End and Reward as any man else whatsoever; yet it is most certain that he reckoned upon the accrue∣ment of something else by it, whereof judging himself disappointed, he proclaim'd Vertue to be but an empty Name; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I shall shut up this with a sentence or two of Au∣stin, Virtutes cum ad seipsas referuntur, nec propter aliud expetuntur, inflatae ac superbae sunt: When Vertues are sought onely for themselves, they degenerate into Pride, and become Idols, and the prosecution of them is Idolatry. Proinde virtutes, quas sibi vi∣detur habere homo, nisi ad Deum retulerit, etiam ipsa vitia sunt potius quam virtutes; Therefore the Vertues which a man thinks he hath, if they be not referred to God, they are Vices rather than Vertues, de Civit. Dei lib. 9. cap. 25. vide Jansen. de Stat. Na∣tur. laps. lib. 4. cap. 11, 12, 13. It ap∣pears then from the whole of what we have

said, that the Law of Creation, or of Rea∣son, as it is subjective in Man, is so far from being the Rule of Religion in its utmost la∣titude, that it is not a sufficient measure of Moral Vertue.

§. 7. We come next to consider the Law of Nature, or Right Reason as 'tis Objective in the Decalogue, which we have declared to be a transcript of the Law of Creation, chap. 2. §. 4. and have also demonstrated its perfection and sufficien∣cy for the Regulating the Duties we are under by the said Law, chap. 2. §. 13. We cannot without very unbecoming though••s of the Wisdome of the Legislator, but judge it a compleat Measure of all Moral Offices and performances, seeing God de∣signed it for a Law of Morality. For, as Plato says, it belongs to a Law-giver not only to have an eye to a few things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but to have an Universal respect to all, and to every Vertue: de legib. 10. Nor can this be denyed of the supreme Rector (presupposing him supernaturally to reveal a Law of Manners) without re∣flexion both on his Nature and Govern∣ment. We will allow the Orator to com∣plain, latius patere officiorum quam Juris Regulam, That there is more belongs to our

Duty, than ever was enacted by any Civil Law; but we dare not entertain the like thoughts of the Divine Law, especially when it was given by God for this very end, that we might be illuminated and con∣ducted by it in the offices of Morality.

It is no part of my concern at present, to enquire whether the Decalogue compre∣hend any more in it than a transcript of the Original Law; or whether besides its be∣ing a Collection of Natural Laws, there may not be some positive precepts as well as arbitrary appendices added to it. It is e∣nough to me that it contains an Epitome of the Dictates of Right Reason, and that 'tis a compendious Draught and Model of the Law of Nature; nor will I at this time in∣terest my self in that Controversie, whe∣ther there by any thing else required in it yea, or not. I withal readily grant, that Obedience to all the Duties of Instituted Religion is bound upon the Soul by the Law of the Ten Commandments, seeing that obligeth us to obey God in all the de∣clared Instances of his Will. As there is nothing in positive Religion repugnant to any principle of Nature; so these very du∣ties which do immediately fundate in Gods Will do challenge our obedience in the Vertue of a Natural Law.

I crave also to have it observed, That the Decalogue may be considered either as it is a meer Draught and Delineation of the Law of Creation; or as having annex∣ed to it a Remedial Law, to which in its most exacting Rigor it was made subservi∣ent. Though the Law of the Ten Com∣mandments for the matter and substance of it be one and the same with the Law of Creation; being in this respect only Reno∣vatio antiquae Legis, not Latio novae; and still Natural with reference to the things en∣acted, though positive as to the manner of the promulgation: Yet, as given by Mo∣ses, there is a Law of Grace couched in it, which no wise appertain'd to it as commu∣nicated at first with our Natures. Hence the Lord in the very Preface of the Deca∣logue, treats with them as their God, Exod. 20.1. i. e. as their everlasting Benefactor, which in the Vertue of the Covenant of Works, and in Reference to the meer Law of Creation, he neither was, nor could be since the first ingress of sin. In this sense David takes the Law in most of his Encomiums of it. And in this accep∣tation I acknowledge the Law to be the measure of all the main Duties which we owe to God, either in the way of Natural,

or Instituted Religion. It is true there are some Duties of peculiar New-Testament institution; but those as they are in them∣selves of a subordinate Nature to the great demands of the Law of Faith, being chiefly stipulations of our performing the condi∣tions of it; So both the constituting & practi∣sing of them had been unsuitable to the Old Testament oeconomie. The like may be said concerning those obligations which we are manumitted and set free from, which the Mosaick Church were under the Sanc∣tion of.

That which I undertake the Justification of is this, that the Decalogue as it is a meer transcript of the Law of nature, or right Rea∣son, is not the measure of the whole of Reli∣gion; nor, as it is Christian, of the most mo∣mentous parts of it. Nor can the contrary be affirmed without renouncing of the Gospel, which I am afrai'd too many, as being weary of it, are ready to doe. For, First, if the Decalogue as it is a meer new Edition of the Original Law of nature, be the sole and only Measure of Religion, then the New Covenant is nothing but a re∣petition of the Old. Yea, there is no such thing as a New Covenant with respect to the Terms of it, onely it is so called with

respect to the manner of its Promulgation. For where the Terms and conditions vary not, neither do the Covenants vary. 'Tis their differing in their Demands, that gives them the Denomination of distinct Cove∣nants. To assert a coincidency as to the whole preceptive part betwixt the two Co∣venants, is in effect to bid us disclaim a great part of the Bible. What tendency some expressions of a late Author have this way, I shall refer to the judgment of o∣thers. As in the State of Innocence the whole Duty of man consisted in the practice of all those Moral Vertues, that arose from his Natural Relation to God and man; so all that is superinduced upon us since the fall, is no∣thing but helps and contrivances to supply our Natural defects and restore us to better a∣bility, to discharge those duties we stand en∣gaged to by the Law of our Nature, and the design of our Creation. &c. def. & contin. p. 315, 316. The supposition of sin does not bring in any New Religion, but only makes new circumstances and names of old things, and requires new helps and advan∣tages to improve our Powers, and to encou∣rage our Endeavours: And thus is the Law of Grace nothing but a Restitution of the Law of Nature; ibid. p. 324. Secondly there are

several duties incumbent now upon us, which also constitute the chief part of our Christian Obedience, that the Decalogue as 'its a transcript of the Law of right Rea∣son or of Nature▪ is perfectly a stranger to. For proof of this I shall only insist on Re∣pentance towards God, and Faith towards Jesus Christ. I suppose it will be granted by most, that Repentance in all the parts and branches of it, viz. conviction of sin, Contrition for it, and conversion to God from it, are Duties we are all under the obligation of. I said by most, because of some expressions in a late Author which I can hardly reconcile with the account which the Scripture gives us of Repentance, or with that modesty which we ought to exercise in the things of God. The Fathers & first preach∣ers of the Christian Faith, did not fill peoples heads, with scruples about the due degrees of Godly sorrow, and the certain symptoms of a through-Humiliation; def. & contin. p. 306, 307. And a little after, They (says he, meaning the Noncomformists) examine the truth and reality of mens conversion by their orderly passage through all the stages of con∣viction; And unless a man be able to give an account of having observed and experi∣enced in himself all their imaginary Rules &

Methods of Regeneration, (i. e. conviction and contrition &c.) they immediately call into question his being a Child of God, and affright him with sad stories of having mis∣carried of Grace and the New-Creature; And he is lost and undone for ever unless he begin all the work of conversion anew, and he must as it were re-enter into the Womb, & again pass through all the scenes & work∣ings of conviction; in which state of forma∣tion all new converts must continue the ap∣pointed time, and when the days are accom∣plished, they may then proceed to the next operation of the Spirit, i. e. to get a long∣ing, panting, and breathing frame of soul, upon which follows the proper season of deli∣very, and they may then break loose from the Enclosures of the Spirit of Bondage, and creep out from those dark Retirements, wherein the Law detain'd them, into the light of the Gospel and the liberty of the Spirit of Adoption: p. 309, 310. However I can justifie the forementioned steps and de∣grees of Repentance both by Scripture and Reason. Now this, the Moral Law as 'tis a meer summary of the Law of Nature nei∣ther know's nor allow's; I confess the Law of Creation obliging us to love God with all our Heart, Soul and Strength, and in all

things to approve our selves perfect before him, doth by consequence in case of the least faileur oblige us to sorrow. And thus men wholly strangers to the renueing grace of the Covenant may repent: witness a∣mong others Judas as to the act of betray∣ing Christ. But to encourage us thereunto by any promise of acceptance, without which no man will ever be found in the due practice of it; Heb. 11.6. Or administer help for the performance of it; this it nei∣ther doth, promiseth, nor can do or pro∣mise. For being once violated, it know's no other language but the thundring of wrath against the transgressour. Now one and the same Covenant can not be capable of two such contrary clauses, as denouncing an inevitable curse on whosoever shall not observe the Law in all points, and promi∣sing mercy to those that repent of the trans∣gressions which the do commit. They like may be said of Faith. This is the great condition of the Gospel, Gal. 3.22. Act. 13.29. Rom. 10.9. One of the princi∣pal Duties we are now obliged to; 1 Joh. 3.23. Joh. 6.29. Now this as 'tis the condition of Gospel-pardon, the Law is utterly unacquainted with; know's no∣thing at all of it. It is true there is a general

Faith terminating on the Existence, Au∣thority, and Veracity of God, which comes under the Sanction of the Law of Creati∣on. But Faith, as respecting a Mediator, and Gods treating with us through him, the Law is both ignorant of, and at enmity with, Gal. 3.12. The Law is not of Faith, Rom. 9.32, 33. Israel which followed after the Law of Righteousness, hath not attained to the Law of Righteousness; wherefore, because they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the Works of the Law. I know not whe∣ther it be upon this account, because Faith comes not smoothly enough within the compass of being a Moral Vertue, that a late Author is pleas'd to scoff at Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, not only by stiling it in mockage, the dear darling Article of the Religion of Sinners, Def. & Contin. p. 322. but by representing what the Scrip∣ture every-where ascribes to it in such terms of Drollery, Scorn, and Contempt; that I tremble to transcribe them. They make (says he) a grievous noise of the LORD CHRIST, tell fine Romances of the secret amours betwixt the believing Soul and the LORD CHRIST, and prodigious stories of the miraculous feats of FAITH in the LORD CHRIST; Reproof to the Rehears. Trans∣pros.

p. 69. See also Def. & Contin. p. 135· 140. But while men believe their Bibles they are not to be jeered out of their Duty and Happiness. And this is all I shall dis∣course of the first Instrument of Morality, viz. the measure of it; and I hope it ap∣pears by what hath been offered, that the Law of Creation (which is the Alon•• Rule of Moral Vertue) whether we take it subjectively, as it is in Man since the Fall; or objectively, as it is in the Decalogue; neither is, nor can be the Rule and Stan∣dard of the whole obedience we owe to God.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Eccl. Pol. p. 69. def. and continuat. p. 338, 339. ibid. p. 315.
• * 1.2

  See Amyrald his Treatise concerning Religions, from page 183, to 264.
• * 1.3

  Primus est deor•••• cultus, Deos credere, deinde reddere illi•• majestatem suam, red∣dere Bonitatem sine quâ nulla majestas est. Sen. Epist. 95.

  Non tantum stoli∣ditate, & monstrosi∣tate simulachrorum, sed & sacrificiis ho∣micidiorum, & coro∣natione virilium p••∣dendorum, & merce∣de stuprorum, & secti∣one membrorum, & abscissione genitalium, & festis impurorum ••bscaenorumque lud••∣rum, Deos veneraban∣tur. Aug. lib. 7. de civit. Dei, cap. 27.
• * 1.4

  Vid Porphyr 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lib. 2.
• * 1.5

  Def. & Contin. p. 421.
• * 1.6

  See to the same purpose, Tho••. part. 3. Sum. 9.60. Art. 3. Valent. lib. 1. de Sacrif. ••iss. cap. 4. Paul. Brugens. in scrutinio Script. part. 2. dist. 3. cap. 11:
• * 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: lib. 2. Sect. 24.
• * 1.8

  Naturalis Ratio si recta esset sciret De•••• t••libus non indigere, neque ea à nobis requirere, R••vet. in cap. 4. Gen. Exercit. 22.

  Def. & contin. p. 431
• * 1.9

  Vid. Rivet. in Gen. 8. Exerci∣tat. 55.
• * 1.10

  See Sa••bert. de Sacrific. cap. 23.
• * 1.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 est cultus seu modus co∣lendi Deum arbi∣trio humano, sine Dei praecepto sus∣cep••us, Rivet in Ex∣od. 20, V••x Gr••ca it•••• so••at, q••asi quis dicat, spont••nea Religio, cum quis ul••ro sibi f••••git Re∣ligi••••em, ••rasm▪ in. Coloss. 2.23. Paulus Traditiones humanas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appellat, quasi f••ctas ex cujusque arbitr•••••• religionis & piet••••is Re∣gulas, Dan, Isag. Christ.