THE Grounds and Foundation OF Natural Religion, DISCOVER'D, IN THE Principal BRANCHES of it, in Opposition to the Prevailing NOTI­ONS of the Modern Scepticks and La­titudinarians.

WITH An INTRODUCTION concern­ing the Necessity of REVEALED RELIGION.

By Tho. Beconsall, B. D. and Fellow of Brasenose Colledge, in Oxford.

LONDON: Printed by W.O. for George West, Book­seller, in Oxford. MDCXCVIII.

TO THE READER.

IT was not without some Reluctancy that I deter­min'd with myself to com­mit my Thoughts upon the following Subject, to the Pub­lic. I'm sensible a new Author is like a strange Bird, stray'd from his Company; and conse­quently not only liable to be peck'd at by the whole Flight of Criticks, but exposed to their most exquisite Cruelties, rather than Wit or Judgment. In­deed the first Adventures of this kind will receive Advan­tages [Page ii]from few, even among the Learned Order; since the softest, the gravest Censures are, That the World is already too full of Books, that rather serve to distract our Thoughts, than in­form our Judgments, or improve our Knowledge: That the Press is the Parent of more Imperti­nences, or crude and empty No­tions than useful Truths; and con­sequently, serve to detain an un­advised Reader upon the Surface, whilst a few, well-chosen Au­thors, would let him into the Mar­row and Quintessence of Learn­ing. These are indeed unque­stionable Truths; and perhaps this Adventure may serve to confirm 'em. But this is not all; for it's observable some Men of Figure and Station, on every turn, discover their Aversions by [Page iii]their Wishes: They could heartily wish that the present Disputes or Controversies might fall, having no Prospect of any good Effects or Ad­vantages by 'em. I must con­fess these are Admonitions that should be attended to with Cau­tion, to prevent any Man from being over-hasty in Commencing Author. But yet if we consi­der the Industry, Insolence, and Boldness of our Adversaries, the open Attacks of some Authors, and the Artificial Insinuations of Others; And in a word, the united Zeal of these Persons to Unhinge and Demolish, without Proposing the least Model to succeed their Ruins; I can see no reason why those that are Ad­vocates for Truth, and Guar­dians of an Established Church, should suffer Controversie to fall, [Page iv]by allowing them to empty their Gall and Filth without Oppo­sition or Controul. It's very certain, that the Notions, now so current and industriously pro­pagated, are the whole Stock or Cargo of Infidelity and Ir­religion, of Error, Prejudice, or Disgust, that have been hatch­ed and nursed in private for a whole Age together, and are now vented by the Liberty of the Press; and therefore those that discountenance the Assail­ment of such pernicious Adversa­ries seem to establish a new and unheard of Indulgence, which no one, but Criminals, must have the least Benefit of. It's well known, the Conceits of Er­ror, and Boldness of Irreligion are such, That the most crude and frothy Performance, not re­plied [Page v]to, must pass for Ʋnan­swerable. And this gives Cre­dit and Authority to the Indu­stry of an Adversary in propa­gating his Notions; and by this means, the weakest and most uncouth Suggestions are by tract of Time rivetted in an injudi­cious Reader, when an early Reply had caused 'em to be re­jected with Scorn and Con­tempt. From these Considerati­ons, the Labours and Endeavours of the Members of our Church, may be sufficiently vindicated; and, I hope, in some measure lay a Foundation for an Apology to my present Undertaking.

I have here endeavoured to represent the Foundation and Me­sures of Natural Religion: be­ing an Expedient not only to induce a Sense of Religion, but [Page vi]to prepare the Mind for an As­sent to Revealed Religion, the Complement and Perfection of it. I'm sensible there are seve­ral eminent Hands have been engaged on the Subject; but having few of the prevailing Principles of this Age to con­tend with, they have not fal­len in with my main Design, which was to calculate a Scheme of Natural Religion in Opposition to 'em.

I thought myself obliged to Animadvert on some Authors, not only where they seem to overturn the fundamantal Prin­ciples of Morality, but where they have advanced Arguments or Insinuations that carry a ma­nifest Tendency that way. This Design, I presume, will easily obtain a favourable Constru­ction; [Page vii]since 'tis well known, That an artificial Insinuation, or a pernicious Argument ad­vanced by a Side-wind, carries a more fatal Influence than bold and peremptory Positions and Assertions. I must confess, the Author of the Essay of Humane Ʋnderstanding, discovers such a reserved Way of Writing in all his Performances, that, I'm per­swaded, he Designs more than he as yet thinks it seasonable to Ex­press: And therefore I have used him with more Freedom, to o­blige him to place some Asserti­ons in a better Light, and express his Meaning more fully, if not his Intentions. I have differed in my Opinion from two excel­lent Discourses; Confe­rence with a Theist. Part 2. The Cer­tainty and Necessity of Religion in General. but, I hope, my Reader will find nothing but a Difference in Opinion, deter­mined [Page viii]by a Thread of Argu­ment. Besides, 'tis in Matters that do not affect the main De­sign of either of the Discourses, that stand firm and unshaken, established upon the clearest Ar­guments and Conclusions. Thus much I thought myself obliged to Remark; because I never in­tended to Detract from the Cha­racter these Authors have justly merited, or lessen the Reputati­on or Esteem of such useful Per­formances.

And now give me leave to conclude with a few Periods, with reference to myself and the following Discourse: I have here delivered my Thoughts form'd in the midst of a great many A­vocations. I have acted with all imaginable Sincerity in the pursuit of Truth, and resigned [Page ix]up my Judgment to nothing but that Light, or those Notices which were gained by the fair­est and most direct Methods of Information. I'm as yet per­swaded I have represented eve­ry thing according to the pre­cise Lines of Truth; but if I have any where miscarried, I can safely declare 'tis without Design, as much as without Pre­judice against any I have oppo­sed. My great Aim was not only to recover discarded No­tions, but a Sense of Religion; by establishing it upon its true Foundations; not only to silence Infidelity, but to remove that Scepticism, those Doubts and Hesitations that prevail concern­ing the most important Points of Natural Religion. But these are Effects too great to be ac­complished [Page x]without the Concur­rence of Heavenly Influences. We may Wish and Pray for 'em, but we must commit the Success of 'em to the FATHER of Grace and Mercy. There must be some more than ordi­nary Effusions of Grace to en­gage Men in the Use and Ex­ercise of those Means, which God has established for the Di­scovery of the Divine Will; something to take off the Con­tempt of those Ordinances which God has appointed for the At­tainment of this End; some­thing that will Correct those unjust, but prevailing Prejudi­ces, against an Order of Men, established by God in his Church; whereby they are rendred as despicable for want of Honesty as Sense. This is the Work [Page xi]of Heaven. God is able as well as faithful to accomplish it in his own good time.

If the following Papers fall into the Hands of Men of these Sentiments, I can assure them they'll find nothing of the I­maginary Arts or Mystery of Priestcraft, nothing of any de­signing Leader, nothing peculiar to the wary Guardians of Creeds and Profitable Inventions, so of­ten hinted by the late Author of the Reasonableness of Christia­nity. But if any thing offers itself, that cannot well be di­gested, I shall freely embrace a fair and pertinent Answer, and endeavour to make such Returns as, I hope, may, at last, beget full Convicton on both sides.

THE CONTENTS OF The Introduction.

  • OF the State of Man before the Fall, §. 1.
  • Of Original Corruption, the Nature, Rise and Propagation of it, §. 2.
  • The Necessity of Revelation asserted, with respect to our Attainments in Know­ledge, §. 3, 4.
  • From the Defects of Natural Religion, §. 5.
  • In reference to Practice, §. 6.
  • From the Necessity of a Mediator, §. 7.
  • The Deists Objection answered, §. 8.

THE CONTENTS of the BOOK.

  • A Law of Nature antecedent to Reve­lation, Chap. 1. Proved from Scri­pture, §. 1.
  • That Man naturaly Thinks and Rea­sons, §. 2.
  • That Man Thinks and Reasons in a fixed determinate Way, §. 3.
  • The Subject-matter of Laws of Nature discoverable by Natural Reason, §. 4.
  • The Divine Authority of Laws of Na­ture discoverable by Natural Reason, §. 5.
  • Proved from the Divine Attributes and Perfections, §. 5.
  • From the Ends and Designs of Created Beings, §. 6.
  • From those natural Rewards and Pu­nishments that flow from 'em, §. 7.
  • From Scripture, §. 8.
  • Objections answered, Chap. 2.
  • Of the true Origin of Error, §. 1, 2.
  • Of the Argument of Ʋniversal Consent, the Nature, Validity, and Extent of it, Chap. 3.
  • Reflections on what Mr. Lock has of­fered against it, §. 1.
  • [Page iii]Reflections on some Passages in the Con­ference with a Theist, Chap. 4.
  • Of the Distinction of Laws of Nature from Positive or Written Laws, Chap. 5.
  • Where the Nature of 'em is more fully represented, §. 1.
  • Reflections on Mr. Lock's Arguments against Innate Ideas, or Practical Princi­ples, and the Controversie determined, Chap. 6.
  • Of the different Degrees of the Evidence of Laws of Nature, Chap. 7.
  • Of the Foundation of God's Right of Dominion, and our Duty of Allegiance as a Law-giver, Chap. 8.
  • A Right of Obliging distinguished from a Power of Obliging, §. 1.
  • A Right of Obliging does not consist in a Power of Contributing to our Happiness or Misery, §. 2.
  • All Right of Dominion derives from God, §. 3.
  • God's Right of Dominion primarily founded in his creative and preserving Power, §. 4.
  • Objections answered, §. 5.
  • The Certainty of Rewards and Punish­ments, Chap. 9.
  • That God has a Right to Reward and Punish, §. 1.
  • [Page iv]The Certainty proved from the general End and Intention of all Law-givers, §. 2.
  • From the Nature of God's Laws, and Man to whom they are given, §. 3.
  • And the Nature of God that gave them, §. 4.
  • Of the Original of a Parental Duty, Love and Affection, and Filial Reverence and Duty, Chap. 10.
  • The Affection of Brutes towards their own Off-spring not the Work of Reason, but of certain Animal Sensations, §. 1.
  • The Springs of Paternal Affection, ib.
  • Filial Reverence and Duty founded in the Act of Generation as well as Preser­ving Power, §. 2.
  • Founded in the same Principles with Paternal Affection, §. 3.
  • A Paternal Power originally includes a Kingly Power, §. 4.
  • Reflections on some Passages in Mr. Lock's Essay of Humane Ʋnderstanding, and a Treatise of Government; in 2 Parts, Chap. 11.
  • The Power of a Mother, no Objection against the Civil Jurisdiction of the Pa­ternal Power, §. 2.
  • The Commanding Power of the Parent not Temporary, §. 3.
  • Maturity did not place the Sons of A­dam [Page v] in an unlimited State of Freedom, §. 4.
  • Natural Freedom not inconsistent with Civil Government, ib.
  • The Absurdities against this Author's Hypothesis represented, §. 5, 6.
  • Natural Allegiance asserted, §. 6.
  • No Body of Men since the Creation, re­gularly, and de jure, in a State of Na­ture, such as this Author supposes.
  • Of the Nature of Moral Good and E­vil, Chap. 12.
  • The Subject-matter and formal Reasons of Moral Good, §. 1, 2.
  • Of the true Measures of Moral Goodness, Chap. 13.
  • Pleasure, whether of Body or Mind, not the Measure of Moral Goodness, §. 1.
  • The Conformity of Actions to the Ends of Society, not the Measure of moral Good­ness, §. 3.
  • Conformity of Actions to a Law abstract­ing from the Intrinsick Rectitude of it, not the Measure of Moral Goodness, §. 3.
  • The original Frame, Ends, and Interests of our Beings, the true Measure of Moral Goodness, §. 4.
  • Of the eternal and unalterable Distin­ctions of Moral Goodness, Chap. 14.
  • Reflections on Mr. Lock's Law of Fa­shion, Chap. 15.
  • [Page vi]His Design not barely to enumerate Mo­ral Ideas, §. 1.
  • No Necessity for assigning a Law of Fa­shion, §. 2.
  • The true Notion of Vertue and Vice by him Mis-represented, §. 3.
  • Of the Nature of Conscience in gene­ral, Chap. 16.
  • Reflections on Mr. Lock's Description of Conscience, Chap. 17.
  • Of the Foundation and Authority of Conscience, in the Original O Economy of it, Chap. 18.
  • The Truth and Certainty of Natural Conscience, demonstrated against the La­titudinarian, and Ʋnbeliever, Chap. 19.
  • The Ʋneasiness of Mind under Sickness, or the Approaches of Death, resolved into the Gripes and Convulsions of Conscience, Chap. 20.
  • Of the Evidence of future Rewards and Punishments from the Presages of Natural Conscience, Chap. 21.
  • How far Conscience shall be a Measure of the Divine Justice, in the Distribution of Future Punishments, Chap. 22.
  • Some further Remarks on Mr. Lock's Notions on this Argument, §. 2.
  • The Conclusion.

THE INTRODUCTION, Concerning the Necessity of REVELATION.

IT may perhaps seem a very impro­per Entertainment to the Christian World, to establish a Line of Duty from the Records of the Book of Nature, when we enjoy a more sure Word of Prophecy, or Form of sound Doctrine, which is able to make us wise unto Salvati­on, or to delineate the Features of Moral Good and Evil, when Life and Immorta­lity are brought to light through the Go­spel; or, in a word, to dwell on the In­fant-principles of Religion, when we may go on unto Perfection. But certainly the Spirit and Temper peculiar to the Age we live in, is abundantly sufficient to suggest an Apology: Are we not pro­fessedly Attack'd as to the Truth and Authority of Revelation, and the Whole of Religion resolved into a Set of Moral [Page]Rules and Maxims? And tho' others as yet cannot Discard all Revealed Truths, yet they act as if they were Advocates for the Cause; whilst they allow no o­ther Rise, or Original to Moral Rules and Maxims, than Custom, Education and a few unaccountable Traditions. These (are Mens Proceedings which) seem to be embarked in the same Design, viz. The Subversion of all Religion. Our holy Religion is by this means stript of its most convincing Arguments for its Truth and Divinity, its Intrinsic Good­ness and Purity; by an Appeal to the Precepts of Natural Religion. The Be­liever must grant, That if Custom, Edu­cation and an unaccountable Tradition give Birth to all the prevailing Princi­ples of Morality, the Argument of the Intrinsic Purity of any Religious Pre­cepts will fall to the ground: and when the Deist has beat him from this For­tress, he'll easily perswade him that all the rest is Cheat and Imposture. The Be­liever having then thus far resigned his Notions of Morality, will now come in­to Play, and do an equal Piece of Service to the Deist and himself too, by making both Converts to Atheism and Irreligi­on: For when the Morality and Religi­on [Page]of Mankind is wholly to be resolved into Custom, Education, and the Mode and Habits of Ancestors, and Contradictions in Principles of Morality produced as a Confirmation of the Notion, what can more effectually subvert the eternal Di­stinctions of Good and Evil, and as a Consequent of it introduce and establish a Law of Fashion, as the only Measure, and Standard of Vertue? I will not po­sitively fix these Designs on all those that have espoused the Notion: It's sufficient to my present Business that it carries a manifest Tendency towards the Promo­tion of 'em, or that it gives a Foundati­on to the Impious and Prophane to esta­blish their lewd Schems of Infidelity.

It cannot therefore be unseasonable, to assert the Divine Authority, and O­riginal of Natural Religion; and that too not only by way of Vindication of such an important Truth, but as it serves the Cause of Christianity against the At­tempts of Deists and Ʋnbelievers. These are Conclusions so natural and obvious, that I'm perswaded the natural Tenden­cy of the Doctrin, with an undisturbed Toleration, will too fatally demonstrate the Power and Efficacy of 'em.

But yet, whilst we endeavour to ob­viate one growing Error, it ought to be consider'd, whether such Endeavours do not prepare the way for introducing, and confirming another more dang'rously per­nicious: For if God has establish'd a Law of Nature, antecedent to Revelation, as an indispensable Rule of Duty, and A­ction to Mankind, and enabled 'em to di­scover and embrace it as such; the Deist will conclude there can be no Necessity for a Revealed Religion; and consequent­ly resolve it into a Contrivance of some Designing Men, an Artificial System of cer­tain Creed-makers, (as a late Author has Characteriz'd a certain Order of Men) to secure an Empire, as well as Maintain­ance from the silly Populace. I must con­fess this is the great Goliah, the Cham­pion-argument which Infidelity has re­course to, to assail the Faith of the Living God, once delivered to the Saints. But cer­tainly this is a lewd Attempt, for Men to think to Demonstrate against a plain Matter of Fact, by putting their Adver­saries upon demonstrating the Necessity of such a Matter of Fact. This is to ad­vance our own shallow Understandings above the Sphere of Infinite Wisdom, and Reason, since we are resolved not only [Page]to pronounce the most solemn Transa­ctions of Providence useless, but reject the Truth and Certainty of 'em, be­cause a biass'd Judgment is resolved not to account for the Ends and Designs of 'em. But certainly, the Reasons and Necessity of things are sufficiently as­serted, by resolving 'em into the De­crees and Proceedings of infinite Wis­dom. If Revealed Religion is not from God, the Unbeliever has an easier Task to detect the Forgery. If the Be­liever contends for a Divine Original, why should it not be tryed upon its pro­per Evidence? I mean as all matters of Fact are. But I am perswaded the Ap­prehensions of a certain Defeat, oblige the Infidel to decline this Challenge: For it's well known, the most avow'd E­nemies to Revelation, even Julian him­self, could never dispute the Evidences of Christian Truth; I mean the Perfor­mance of Miracles. However, since the modern Unbeliever seems to plume him­self in the Successes of this Argument, I shall for once allow the Objection, and venture the whole Merits of the Cause in demonstrating the Expediency and Ne­cessity of Divine Revelation.

§. 1st. Now, in order to this, it will be requisite to make a short Survey of the Original State and Condition of Man­kind, both before and after the Fall; for by this means we may make a more exact Estimate of the Capacities, and Attainments of Mankind in matters of Knowledge, as well as Practice.

It will readily be granted, That as God originally established a Line of Duty in the very Frame of our Natures, so He undoubtedly created us with Fa­culties, to enable us to discern, or com­prehend every Part, or Branch of it. It's true, Laws of Nature were never presented to the View of the Mind, by an Angelic sort of Intuition, without Ideas passing thro' the Animal part: But yet Reason will oblige us to conclude, That the Glory of an Almighty Creator, and the Express Image of his Person, came forth of his Hands pure and spot­less: All his Powers, Faculties and Appetites, were correct and regular: Those native Passions and Propensions, which are now too often the Parents of Disorder and Confusion, were, no doubt, originally constant Attendants, and faith­ful Handmaids to the Powers of Rea­son: That Love and Zeal, that Com­placency [Page]and Delight, which are now fatally chain'd to sensual Enjoyments, were originally engaged and devoted to the Entertainments, and Exercises of a spiritual, rational Mind. Our chiefest Flights of Zeal and Love, were, no doubt, directed on the Improvement of Know­ledge, and the Disquisition of Truth. And certainly here's a solid Foundation for Truth: For here are not only native Passions and Propensions, which serve as Springs to engage the Mind in the closest Researches after Truth; but the whole Frame of the animal Part, being thus correct, the Images of Things must needs be presented to the View of the Mind in their native Shapes, and Pro­portions, without the least Paint or Dis­guise; and consequently the Mind could act and display herself in the largest Train of Deductions, without the least Trippings, or Miscarriages. So that Man, in his Original Frame, was ena­bled to lay in a wonderful Stock of sub­stantial Knowledge, and make a clear Discovery of the full Line of Duty.

But besides, it's highly consonant to Reason to imagin, as the Great Creator of the World had adorned his Image and Representative with all desirable Perfe­ctions, [Page]so he had not only entitled, but invested him with special Favours and Blessings, as well Spiritual, as Tempo­ral: For we must not suppose, that the placing him in Paradise, only implies an actual Fruition of the whole Circle of Temporal Felicities; but the Dispensa­tion of such Spiritual Blessings, and Fa­vours, as are suitable to Human Nature, whilst it rested on this side Heaven, and was not immediately instated in the Be­atific Vision. Whilst Man retained his primitive Innocence, he was no doubt a very choice Favourite in the Eyes of his Maker, and consequently we must conclude that he enjoyed constant Com­munications, and Intercourses with him. For Paradise may justly be presumed to be a kind of Terrestrial State of Vision; and therefore God no doubt discovered himself in frequent Adumbrations of his Divine Presence, and vouchsafed several special Revelations, and his Divine Suc­cours.

These may perhaps be thought unne­cessary Dispensations in a State of un­spotted Innocence and Integrity. But, certainly, tho' Man in his original Frame was endued with a Sufficiency of Pow­er to Decypher the Line of Duty, as well [Page]as Propensions, and Dispositions to ob­serve, and walk up to it; yet such gra­cious Communications were in some measure necessary, to maintain a deep Sense of the Majesty, and Authority of our Maker, and consequently a deep Sense of Duty, and Obedience; to main­tain a deep Sense of the Goodness and Purity of God, and consequently possess the Mind with an incessant Desire to act in Conformity to his most sacred Will.

Again, necessary they were to arm those native Powers, and Propensions with double Force and Activity; to u­nite and fix 'em on their proper Object, the Glory and Perfections of their Ma­ker, the Pursuit of Truth and Divine Knowledge; and consequently to en­gage a Perseverance in the Line of Du­ty, with the utmost Constancy and Re­solution.

These were, nodoubt, the surprizing Felicities of Paradise. And they are such, as almost placed him out of the possibility of a Miscarriage, had he not, in some unguarded Minute, fell in with a subtle indefatigable Impostor. For without some such Misfortune he could not have failed in retaining a perpetual [Page]Sense of Duty and Obedience, and per­severing in it, any more than in a disco­very of the full Line of Duty.

§. 2. But now Experience, as well as Reason, too fatally assure us, there's a pow­erful, and almost irresistible Bias on the Animal Part, that bears an older Date than Custom or Education can pretend to give; a Bias that discovers itself in the first Efforts of Infancy; a Bias that can never be perfectly regulated, or correct­ed even by the most exquisite Arts of Education: When the Powers of Na­ture seem to exist as it were in sieri, folded up in Impotency and Imperfecti­on, and consequently (one would think) liable to be molded at Pleasure; yet we find this Bias endu'd, as it were, with a Gygantick Strength, able to resist the most powerful Antidotes, obstinate un­der Commands, and untractable under Counsels or Persuasives. In a word, it has introduced an internal Rupture in the whole Frame of Man, renders him a kind of unnatural Production, acted by two opposite Principles, contending for two different Ends and Interests, and agreeable to the sacred Language, it has raised an intestine and eternal War, [Page]for its a Law in our Members warring a­gainst the Law of our Mind, Rom. 7.23. So that Man is certainly sunk in his ori­ginal Frame, and lapsed into a State of Corruption and Degeneracy: This is Truth so clear, and unquestionable, that the most discerning Heathens have gi­ven Testimony to the Substance of it: They all found it wove in with their Na­tures, and discovering itself, not only in inward Motions, and Propensions, but mixing itself in their most exalted Acti­ons. It's true, they were perplexed in accounting for its Original, yet they all saw it in its Effects and Consequences. Their Opinions were various; however, I shall mention the chief of 'em: Plutarch charges the Stoicks with ascribing Evil as well as Good to God's Providence, and arraigns it as the height of Absurdities. [See his Tract Adversus Stoicos,] P. 1065. Ed. Par. 1624. [...]. If this were true, why should they be more concerned to dispense Good ra­ther than Evil; or how is it possible that Evil should be hateful to 'em? This in­deed was an Opinion extremely gross, and consequently rejected by the most [Page]discerning Sages. However Gellius, pur­suant to this, delivers it as the Opinion of Chrysippus: [This is the very Opinion which Plutarch ingeniously exposes, Ib.] That Vice sprang from Vertue, [...]. Dum virtus hominibus per consili­um naturae gignitur, vitia ibidem per affini­tatem contraria nata sunt. But the most general Opinion was, That Good and Evil proceeded from two distinct Prin­ciples. Hence Plutarch gives it as a most ancient Tradition, recited by Divines, and Law-givers, and transmitted to Poets and Philosophers; [...] whose Authority is not to be traced: That there was not one only Supream Gover­ning Principle, [...]; And from the Eternal Mixture of Good and Evil, as well as the Imperfection and Allay of Good, concludes, We are acted by two contrary Principles, the one conducting, or tolling us on, in a true and direct Path, and the other haling us back again, [...]. Nay, he further argues, If nothing can exist without a Cause, and Good cannot be the Cause of Evil, there must be a peculiar Principle of Evil, as well as Good, [...]. [Page] De Iside & Osyride. Page 369.

But further, not to dwell too long up­on Authorities, it's well known, it was an ancient Doctrine among the Hea­thens, to ascribe the Origine of Evil, to certain malevolent Spirits, called Dae­mons, or Manes; that could exercise a Power over the Minds, as well as Bo­dies of Men, and dispose and incline them to evil Actions. Plutarch, in this very Treatise, gives a full Account of the Notion, and the Nature of 'em; nay, he delivers it as the Doctrine of Plato, Pythagoras, Zenocrates, and Chrysippus, following that of the Ancient Divines, [...]. Ib. p. 360. The Opinion of Zenocrates is very remarka­ble, who attributes Obsceneness, Irreli­gion and other Evils to certain powerful malevolent Spirits, inhabiting the Region of the Air, that take Delight in such Things, [...]. It's well known, the Romans constantly ascribed the Regimen of their Actions, to their proper Genius, assign­ing two to every particular Person. These did not only attend 'em from their Birth, and suggest Things to the Mind, [Page]but contributed to the forming their ve­ry Constitutions. Indeed, it's highly probable, these were Traditions trans­mitted from the Greeks to the Romans, and from the Egyptians to the Greeks, and all founded in the History of the Fall of Man. And truly, Hierocles, agree­ably to his other Divine Flights, de­scribes the Degeneracy of Mankind in such a lively manner, as if he had taken it from the revealed Canon. In the first place, he describes Man in his Original Composition, to be Pure and Ʋncorrupt, in both Parts of him, and the express Image of his Maker. [...]. [Hier. Comment. in Pythag. Carm. p. 17. Ed. Lond. 1673.] After this, in his Comment on the Na­ture and Frame of Man, with respect to the Rise, or Origine, of Good and Evil, he represents, with what a pow­erful Impulse we are carried into Evil, and pronounces it to be the Effect of a wilful Apostasie and Revolt from God, and his Society: Even a Society which we once enjoyed in pure Light, [...]; whereby an invincible Propen­sion to the Things of this World is con­tracted. He confirms the Notion by [Page]the Doctrine of Plato, and Empedocles: The whole Discourse is excellent, from Page 252, to p. 272. The Substance of it is collected by the Learned Bishop of Worcester, and applied to the present Argument, with exquisite Force and Accuracy; and therefore supersedes the necessity of another Citation. [See Orig. Sac. Lib. 3. Cap. 3.]

From all this, it's indisputably evident, the Learned Heathen World were high­ly sensible of a State of Degeneracy; and tho' the greatest part were in the Dark as to its Rise or Original, yet some of the most Curious had preserved some­thing of the Footsteps of it: However, they were all highly sensible of its dis­mal Effects and Mischiefs.

But now Revealed Religion has a­bundantly unfolded this Mystery, by assuring us, that a Native Depravity was contracted thro' the Transgression of of our First Parents. I know the Deist, Socinian, and the Author of the Reasona­bleness of Christianity, look upon this Do­ctrine to be a piece of Cant, or Jargon: formed by the Priests, those wary Guardi­ans of their own Creeds, and profitable In­ventions, as this Author has it. But as for the Deist, the general Sense of Man­kind, [Page]and the Doctrines of Philosophers, are considerable Arguments to render the reveal'd Accounts of it highly proba­ble: And therefore, unless he were able to disprove the Truth, and Authority, of Revelation, on the same Foot that we overturn any other forged History, I'm perswaded unbiassed Reason will pro­nounce his Notions, impudent Calum­nies, or Detractions. As for the Au­thor's of the Reasonableness of Christiani­ty, endeavouring to undermine the Cor­ruption of Human Nature upon Adam's Transgression, (See p. 6.) he might have consider'd, that it was always the pre­vailing Doctrine of the Christian Church. That it is made an Article of the Esta­blish'd Church of England; of which he would perswade the World he's a sound and Orthodox Member, and to which Article he has actually submitted. And tho' the Word of God has no where in ex­press Terms told us that this natural De­pravity is the Seeds of Adam's Transgres­sion, yet there are sufficient Authorities of Scripture, whence we may infer it, by a clear and convincing Consequence. We can prove, that the Descendents of Adam were undoubtedly affected in the same manner with that of their Parent, [Page]and both by a Spiritual as well as a Tem­poral Death; I mean such a Death, at least, as in the Language of Scripture im­plies a disabling of the Faculties of the Mind, as well as a Dissolution of the Animal and Spiritual Principles. In a word, it may fairly be inferred, that, that carnal Principles, that [...], that prevails in the whole Off-spring of Adam, whereby we are, as it were, sold under Sin, or that reigning Law in our Members, that brings us into Capti­vity to the Law of Sin, so that when we would do Good, Evil is present with us; is the Effect of Adam's Transgression. The Body of this Death was undoubtedly deri­ved thorough his Loins, on all his De­scendents; and the Seeds and Principles of a higher Death were certainly trans­mitted, even tho' eternal Death were not formally imputed by making him the Representative of Mankind, since these Seeds and Principles, in the Lan­guage of the Apostle, would at least work in our Members to bring forth Fruit unto Death, Rom, 7. v. 5.

I know the great Artifice, to which our Adversaries have recourse, to blast the Credit of this Doctrine, is, either to oppose it to the Justice of God, or Ha­rangue [Page]upon the Impossibilities of it: Because God has not clearly revealed, and we cannot fully comprehend how such a Depravity is contracted, much less propagated. But, certainly, it was never the Business, or Design of Revela­tion, to communicate the Manner of the Divine Transactions, no more than to Authorize us to reject 'em, because we cannot comprehend the manner of 'em. It was never a Rule of Revelation, to make our own Faculties of Perception, in com­prehending the Nature of Things, or in reconciling 'em to the scanty Notions we have conceived of another Revealed Truth, the Standard, Test or Measure of Faith. And therefore, to reject the clearest Evidence of Original Corrupti­on, because we cannot comprehend how 'tis contracted, or because the Notions of Infinite Justice, tho' formed by our selves (as we think) must suffer by it, is Base, and Unwarrantable. But how­ever, that our Adversaries may want the Advantage of this Pretence, I mean, that Original Corruption can no way be accounted for, I shall attempt something to demonstrate how it may be Contract­ed, and Transmitted.

And first, This will easily be account­ed for, from the Nature of Original Cor­ruption: It's already concluded, That Original Corruption consists in the Ex­orbitance of the Animal Part, or acts as a Law in our Members, warring against the Law of our Minds, contending for an opposite Interest to the Laws of right Reason, or the true Interests of Human Nature. Now, that this Irregularity may be the Effect of Adam's Transgres­sion, there are two or three Circumstan­ces that render it more highly proba­ble:

For first, Tho' the Violation of a po­sitive Law, contains but a simple Act of his Obedience, yet it certainly implies a horrid Violence committed upon all the Powers of Human Nature: When the Tempter displayed his Wiles, and form­ed his deluding Perswasives, it certainly threw the unwary Offender into the greatest Agonies and Convulsions: It must rase those convincing Apprehen­sions of the Majesty and Authority of God; it must suppress the Dread of Di­vine Punishments; it must break thro' all the Guards, and Powers of Consci­ence, and Fences of Duty; it must alie­nate the whole Frame of the Soul, take [Page]off those Desires, and Propensions, that engaged us in the Observance of God's Commands, and those Satisfactions that result from the Observance of 'em. In a word, it must extinguish all the Powers of Divine Love, suppress those Flights of Zeal in exercising the Mind, and Thoughts in Divine Contemplations, the Glories and Perfections of our Ma­ker; and in pursuing such Things as will render us remarkably like him: So that this Grand Act of Disobedience, must contain a Complication of impious De­bates and Resolutions, before it was committed: For certainly the Powers of Nature being so exquisitely fitted for an Obediential Temper, and the Soul so deeply possessed with a Sense of the un­interrupted Favours and Bounties of God, flowing from his frequent Inter­courses, and Communications; the De­vil must play his Temptations a conside­rable time, before he could promise him­self success. The Passions and Propen­sions of Human Nature, must not only be taken off from serving their great Creator, but turned a quite contrary way; they must be strongly disposed in grati­fying the Lust of the Eye, the Lust of the Flesh, and Pride of Life. And now, [Page]who cannot discern the Growth, or Pro­duction, of carnal Exorbitances, and consequently the Establishment of Ori­ginal Corruption? It's concluded, that this single Act of Disobedience, was car­ried on by a Complication of evil Prin­ciples; insomuch, that it seems to have the same Foundation, that in other Cases serves to establish a confirmed Habit; and consequently, it must have the same Ef­ficacy in fixing vicious Propensions, that is attributed to vicious Habits. But now the Contagion of vicious Actions is too fatally confirmed by Experience and Ob­servation, to be disputed in Theory; every Act prepares the way for a Repe­tition; but a confirmed Habit lays a Bias like a Second Nature; a Bias, that in the Sacred Language, is as uncapable of being remov'd, as the most subtile Productions of Nature: Can the Aethio­pian change his Skin, or the Leopard his Spots? It's manifest therefore, that the Disobedience of our first Parent, intro­duced an Internal Corruption, by way of Natural Efficacy, not by way of Divine Punishment.

But further, this cannot be well dispu­ted, if we take in two other considerable Circumstances that attended the Fall; [Page]which in reality were proper Punish­ments; I mean a total Exclusion from Paradise, and consequently from the spe­cial Intercourses of the Divine Presence; and the Curse that fell on the Products of Nature; we must conclude, that the Defection of our first Parents, introduced a perpetual, and almost invincible Cor­ruption.

And first, If we all assert, what with good Reason has been already evinced, that those sensible Adumbrations of the Divine Presence, as well as frequent In­tercourses with our Maker, were need­ful, to preserve a Sense of Duty, as well as Perseverance in it; How fatally must the Exclusion from the Divine Presence expose our first Parents to the Dominion of those Lusts, which their Disobedi­ence had newly engendred? But then, when they are not only driven from the Presence of the Lord, but condemned to eat their Bread in the Sweat of their Brows, and converse with little, but Thorns and Brambles, and the tedious Methods of Husbandry, how strangely must their Mind and Thoughts be chain'd to Earth, and the insolent Demands of the Animal Appetite? So that, when all these things are fairly laid together, I can attribute [Page]nothing less to the Disobedience of our first Parents, than what the Word of God ascribes to a State of Nature, to wit, the Lustings of the Flesh against the Spirit, and the Law of the Members war­ring against the Law of the Mind, and bringing 'em into Captivity unto the Law of Sin and Death. If the Propagation of such a fatal Contagion cannot well be accounted for in the Descendents of our first Parents, I'm abundantly convinced it must unavoidably establish itself in the Frame of their Constitutions. But tru­ly, there's no Colour of Reason offers it self, why such a powerful Bias, or Con­tagion, unless suspended by an over­ruling Power, should not be transmitted by the common Laws of Generation.

Indeed, when we consider how much our Animal Appetites, and Propensions that are engendred by Habit, depend on the Disposition of the Blood, and Ani­mal Spirits, insomuch that they often new Model the Natural Constitution; I cannot conceive, why a general Conta­gion of this Nature may not be propaga­ted, as well as particular Features, Com­plexions, or Constitutions? I will rea­dily grant, that some peculiar Turns in Nature, may alter the Frame of parti­cular [Page]Constitutions, and dispose a Per­son to some peculiar Vices more power­fully than others; but I'm perswaded, a change can never be effected by any, but one that has the Sovereign Disposal of the Powers of Nature, that weigheth the Mountains in Scales, and the Hills in a Ballance, can prevent all vicious Propen­sions from being transmitted from the Parent, or their proper Off-spring.

And thus, I hope, I have in some measure given a Rationale of an Original Corruption, that represents an unavoida­ble necessity of sinning and provoking God in all our Actions. (See Reasonableness of Christianity, p. 5.) And yet it is consi­stent with the infinite Justice of God. I have enlarged more fully on the Subject, because it will lay a Foundation to repre­sent the Expediency, or Necessity of Reve­lation.

§ 3. And first, Having already con­cluded, that Man, in his present State and Condition, is acted by two opposite Principles, involved in two opposite Interests, and each contending for Go­vernment, and Dominion; it may easi­ly be discerned how our Attainments in Knowledge are affected; whereby [Page]Revelation will become highly neces­sary.

Now, certainly, the Re-searches of Reason, in such a divided State, can ne­ver be elaborate, and correct: For first, it cannot be denied, but the Avenues of Reason, take their Rise from the Animal Part; and consequently, all the Materi­als of Reason must make their passage this way. Nay, further, the Animal Appetites, and Passions, are the imme­diate Springs, and Movers of Reason; and therefore, since it is concluded that the Bias of the Animal Part is so formi­dably strong and powerful, we cannot imagine, but Matters will be so ordered as to prevent any considerable Disquisi­tions. For by this means the Ideas of things will not only be often disguised, and presented in a salse Light, or Dress, but the Importunities of the Carnal Part will not suffer the Mind to dwell upon any Object, that does not comport with its Interest; they will not suffer her to place it in the Scales, and try its Worth and Value, by any solid Debates and Counsels; and consequently, Miscarria­ges will arise, for want of due Applica­tion, and Attention of Mind.

Now certainly, since this is the true State of Things, we must place the Ac­quest of Knowledge under the greatest Difficulties: It will not only embarrass and perplex every Thought and Work­ing of the Mind, but cut short the Scheme of all our Enquiries; and therefore tho' the Fundamental Lines of Duty may dis­cover themselves to Human View, or Perception, we cannot think to launch forth into the Deep, and make a certain Discovery of those consequential Duties, that are absolutely necessary to the Con­duct of Human Life. The common Ne­cessities of Human Nature, will intro­duce the Knowledge of the principal Lineaments, and Proportions of Duty; but we can never descend to a Discovery of some other considerable Parts, and Circumstances, that make up the Com­plement of Duty. In a word, frequent Retirements, and solemn Exercitations of Thinking may engage such an appli­cation of Mind, as will enable her to work off the substantial Parts of the Line of Duty; but without these Arts and Methods, and without Time, and Lei­sure, a Man may spin out a thoughtless Life; or, at least, the Mind will be weighed down by Animal Propen­sions, [Page]and employ it self in nothing but laying in Provision for the Flesh, to fulfil the Lusts of it.

And, now can any Man pronounce Revelation unnecessary? What, tho' Providence has not yet left the World or rather the World reduced it self to such dismal Circumstances, but that with close Researches, and unwearied Vigilance, they may calculate the main Lines of Duty; yet it cannot be deny'd, but we carry a kind of Ignis fatuus with­in, that will be apt to lead a great part of Mankind into Bogs, and a thousand Miscarriages; and therefore we cannot think it unnecessary to be secured from such fatal Hazards, and Difficulties by having a Digest of Laws laid before us, that remain as an unquestionable Stand­ard of Duty. What tho' the common Exigencies and Necessities of Nature, the Frame and Condition of our Beings, by the Light of natural Reason will di­rect us to the Ground-work of Morali­ty and natural Religion, it can be no Argument, that the Light of natural Reason can enable us to raise the Super­structure; that is, either to accommo­date those Laws we can discover, to the Cases and Instances of humane Life, so [Page]as to reduce 'em to Practice; at least so as to answer the true Ends and Intenti­ons of Living; or to discover other Laws that are the Consequences of prime Laws of Nature, and indispensably ne­cessary to the Conduct of Humane Life, to the disposing us for that State of Hap­piness, for which God has originally de­sign'd us, much less to render our Ser­vices truly acceptable to God. Cer­tainly if we reflect on those inextricable Clogs, Obstructions and Encumbran­ces, wherewith corrupted Nature ap­pears to be encompassed; we must pro­nounce it impossible, that the Powers of natural Reason should carry us thus far: It's certain, tho' natural Reason may present most of the Fundamental Laws of Nature in a rough Draught; yet nothing but Revelation is able to give 'em their finishing Strokes, and their proper Graces and Perfections, and dis­play 'em in their Consequences Appen­dages and Deductions; I mean such as are absolutely necessary to the Ends and Purposes of living well, and at­taining to a State of Happiness: And therefore if natural Reason cannot pre­tend to furnish us in these Cases, she must subscribe to the Necessity of Reve­lation.

Indeed, I am perswaded natural Rea­son, by a constant Habit of Thinking, and a solemn Attention and Application of Mind, may make very lucky Con­jectures, very ample Discoveries, at least upon probable Evidences, and Con­victions in very important Truths: But God knows, as the Frame of Man now stands, we must attribute such mighty Performances to a Work of Time, to the Labours, and Observations of Ages; they can only be the Product of a few working Brains, that by a peculiar Ge­nius have sequestred themselves from se­cular Affairs, and consecrated their Thoughts to the Observations of Hu­mane Nature; and yet the Whole at last amounts no higher than a few gene­ral Maxims, or Positions formed from a happy Conjunction of their own Thoughts, and the Observations of their Ancestors; and these often clash and interfere with those of their Bre­thren, and consequently can carry no higher Authority or Character than Learned Conjectures: And now since Reason and Experience demonstrate, as well as dictate the Truth of these things, a revealed Canon seems to be absolute­ly necessary for the Conduct of Man­kind [Page]or the Attainment of that Happi­ness, which the Light of natural Rea­son in a State of Innocency, would have otherwise secured. A Revealed Canon was necessary, to silence the immortal Disputes of the Learned, as well as inform the Illiterate, at an easie Expence of Time and Thought. A Revealed Canon was necessary to give the most elaborate Discoveries of Rea­son, the Authority of Laws, in as much as it was necessary they should be ushe­red into the World with the highest Credentials of Divinity, and established upon competent and express Rewards and Punishments.

But to conclude this Argument, Not­withstanding the utmost Attainments of Human Reason, I can see nothing to supersede the Necessity of Revelati­on, but what will as effectually set aside the Necessity of Human Laws, and Civil Government. It's certain, That Laws of Nature, discoverable by natu­ral Reason, answer the general Ends and Intentions of Civil Government, and describe the great Lines of Right and Wrong, Justice and Equity; they assert the Rights of Property, as well as the Obligations of private Compacts: [Page]If therefore these general Notices be not sufficient for the Conduct of Human Life, even in secular Affairs; we can­not imagine, that the Discoveries of Natural Reason should reach the whole Line of Duty, with respect to God, Our­selves, and Neighbour. In a word, since after the highest Pretences to a natural Light, it was necessary to con­stitute Civil Governments, and entrust Men of Thought and Parts to work off a Body of Laws, for the Conduct of Mankind in temporary Concerns, by the nicest Consults, Debates, and Obser­vations; how much more necessary is it to receive a Digest of Laws from an Infalible, and Unerring Hand to secure an Eternal, as well as Temporal Hap­piness?

§. 4. Thus far we have advanc'd the Necessity of Revelation, in order to the Discovery of the Line of Duty; but there is something more behind to im­prove the Argument: For it's certain, we have hitherto represented the fairest Part of the Landskip of Human Na­ture; I mean as it lies in a degenerate State: It's certain, it is not only clog'd with those native Encrumbrances, and [Page]Propensions derived from the Loins of our Ancestors, that weigh down the Activity of the Mind, but we are all unfortunately brought forth in Impo­tence; and consequently are forced to suck in the Superstition and Absurdi­ties, as well as Impieties of our Parents, of the present, as well as past Ages. These must unavoidably grow up toge­ther with our Reason, and improve with the Strength and Vigour of our Bodies; so that when we arrive to the Use of Reason, we have not only na­tive powerful Propensions, but as vio­lent Prejudices to grapple with.

In the first Age of the World, where Men enjoyed the Instructions of our first Parent, the Laws of Good and E­vil, Virtue and Vice, were clear and legible; the Stream was pure and un­tainted, when it just issued forth from the Fountain; but by length of Tract, it gathered Filth and Mud; for every Age was a Common-shore, to trans­mit all its Vices and Irregularities.

This was the case of the old World, as it is of a great part of this, at this day; of miserable Indians, as well as hardned Antediluvians; the Imaginations of whose Hearts by this means were to do evil conti­nually, [Page]and their Ʋnderstandings being past feeling, were incurably darkned.

Now certainly, when Men happen to be born under such an unfortunate Climate, where instead of living, they seem to be buried in an invincible State of Ignorance; how is it possible they can ever be reduced to a Sense of Duty, or act like Men, or Reasoning Beings, till they are enlightned by the convin­cing Beams of Revelation? Whilst their Minds are enclosed in this State of Egyptian Darkness, no Wonder if in the Sacred Language they should grope or seek after the Lord, if happily they might feel him ought, and find him, tho' he be not far from every one of us; and certainly, if the Case of some poor Wretches in the World was so despe­rate, that they might easily miss the Discovery of a Law-giver, it's impossi­ble they should form a Body of Laws, as an indispensable Rule of Action. Who can therefore dispute the Necessity of a Revealed Dispensation, when Mankind is reduced to such forlorn and dismal Circumstances, any more than suppress and disown the surprizing Graces, and Mercies of it?

§. 5. Bur further, we may demon­strate the Necessity of Revelation from certain Defects in Natural Religion, that are only to be supplyed by Revelation; and by this means we shall confirm and strengthen the preceding Arguments. And first the Necessity of Revelation discovers it self in the Notion and Wor­ship of a GOD: It's well known, though the Consideration of our own Frame, and of those things without us, may by the Light of natural Reason induce the Belief of a God; and, at least give us an imperfect Idea of his excellent Na­ture, yet certainly the latter is not to be attained but by Men of Thought and Observation. The unthinking Vulgar are ready to resemble the Godhead by Gold or Silver, or Stone graven by Art, and Man's Device. But after the nicest Discoveries, that natural Reason can pre­tend to, we can no where find the God­head represented in its true Graces and Perfections, but in the Book of Revela­tion. Again, tho' Natural Reason must dictate, that God is to be worshipped; yet to calculate the precise Way, and Manner of it, seems to exceed the Sphere of its Activity: To worship God in a spi­ritual Manner by Prayer and Thanksgi­ving, [Page]seems extremely reasonable, be­cause highly consonant to his blessed Nature; but yet had Revelation been silent, Reason, that is so much immer­sed in Sense, and sensible Objects, would never have carryed us much above the gross, and scandalous Ways, and Rites of Heathen Worship. The whole World in these Cases lay in Ignorance and Super­stition; and therefore the Purity and Honour of God seems to induce a kind of Necessity, or Obligation on him, to make a Reform by a revealed Dispen­sation: It's his Prerogative to determine what Worship his Creatures shall pay him; and the actual Determination of it, is the Business of Revelation.

Again, The Necessity of Revelation is abundantly expressed in the Enforce­ments of Divine Laws: For tho' natu­ral Reason might inform us, that Re­wards and Punishments are the insepa­rable Consequents of the Observance, or Violation of Laws; yet it can never pretend to state the Nature, or Mea­sure of 'em; and yet this seems abso­lutely necessary to a due Enforcement of Laws, to secure an Obedience agree­able to the general Intention of 'em. It's the Prerogative of every Law-gi­ver [Page]to assign proper Rewards and Pu­nishments; and if the Supreme Law-gi­ver of Mankind has not done it in a State of Nature, it's highly necessary he should do it under a State of Revelation.

Lastly, I would fain know, whether natural Reason can make a compleat, and convincing Discovery of the History of the Creation, or that of the Fall, and the dismal Consequences of it; of the Order of Spirits, and particularly of the Malevo­lence of the wicked One and his Associates; of the Nature of the Soul, and its Immorta­lity; and of the Nature and Certainty of a Future State: These are certainly Things of the highest Importance in the Affairs of Religion; and tho' natural Reason, and a nice Thread of Thought might advance a great many noble Speculati­ons; yet we find the Learned discour­sing of some of 'em, as a kind of happy Presages, rather than establish'd Truths. Nescio quomodo inhaeret in mentibus quasi Saeculorum quoddam Augurium futurorum. [Sic. Tusc. Quaest. Lib. 1. Tit. 4. p. 350.] And certainly nothing, besides the spe­cial Communications of Heaven, could settle such weighty Points of Philoso­phy: These alone were only able to si­lence the Eternal Disputes, and Di­stractions [Page]of the Heathen Schools. The World view'd 'em but thro' a Glass darkly; but Revelation presents 'em Face to Face. The World in these Cases was like the Men of Sodom, struck with Blindness, and groping for the Door; the Key of Knowledge. They are the Beams of Christianity, that are only power­ful enough at once to melt off the Scales, and convey a full Ray of Light into the Soul: It's a Peculiar of the Christian In­stitution, to display the Nature, and Certainty of a future, and exceeding Re­compence of Reward, and bring Life and Immortality to Light through the Gospel. It's another Peculiar, to present Man­kind with a true Landskip of 'emselves, and the Miseries of their former Condi­tion; to display the indefatigable At­tacks of the Prince of the Power of the Air, the Spirit that worketh powerfully in the Children of Disobedience, and the true Methods of fencing against him: Are not these Discoveries of the highest Im­portance? Are they not indispensably necessary to render us Favourites of Heaven, to secure Peace and Safety in this World, and to conduct us to the Regions of Happiness in another? If these things are so, to dispute the Ne­cessity [Page]of Revelation, is a greater Argu­ment of the Iniquity of our Will, than Judgments, since it is not want of Evi­dence or Conviction, but the weight of Baseness and Ingratitude, that obliges us to reproach and quarrel with our Great Creator for his inestimable Mercies.

§. But further, another Argument of the Necessity of Revelation will arise from the Mischiefs, which the Fall has brought on Mankind, in reference to Practice. Indeed here an Original Corruption does sufficiently signalize it self; here it discovers its Strength and Authority in a very remarkable manner. For it's the general Complaint of Man­kind, that the Animal Propensions weigh down the Soul to that degree, that she is not able to pursue those Duties which she plainly discovers to be such. The most exalted Heathen Moralists, the most improved Asceticks always con­fessed their Impotence in Matters of Practice; they freely acknowledged that their Actions fell infinitely short of their Informations, or the Line of Duty. The Orator has long since observ'd, That the wisest Sages among the Greeks, as well as Latins, could discourse and [Page]write upon Virtue after a magnificent Manner, tho' they shamefully miscarri­ed, where it was to be reduced to Pra­ctice: Quibus cum facere non-possent, lo­qui tamen & scribere honeste & magnifice licebat. [Cic. Orat. pro. Coelio, p. 448. Ed. Lond.] So that it was not the Knavery of Priests, in filling the Heads of their People with false Notions of the Deity, and their Worship with foolish Rites; or in exclu­ding Reason from having any thing to do with Religion, that obstructed the Pro­gress of Virtue, as a late Author on every turn has suggested, [See Reasonableness of Christianity, p. 257, 264.] but the Corruptions of Human Nature, that ren­dred the best Rules and Instructions almost useless. But now, since Mankind seems to be placed under moral Impossibili­ties of acting pursuant to the Lines of Duty; it's absolutely necessary such Pro­visions should be made, as might put them into a Condition to bring their Actions in some Measure up to the Line of Duty.

And, certainly, nothing less can se­cure so great a Work than a written Code, and those Methods Providence has contrived to enforce the Observance of it. By this means their Time and Thoughts will not be engrossed in deep [Page]Researches after the Line of Duty; and consequently a competent Share of both may be reserved in advancing Arts and Methods to enforce the Practice of it. By this means the World enjoys a stand­ing Order of Men, by Divine Appoint­ment, whose Office is not only to pre­serve the Line of Duty entire and uncor­rupt; but to press and inculcate the Observance of it by all the Methods of Persuasion. By this means the Over­tures of spiritual Succours are ascertain'd, to facilitate the Practice of Virtue; and certainly, where such unmerited Acts of Grace are conferred, God may well be allowed to publish his own Canon, and require a suitable Obedience to it, especi­ally when the doing it is another Act of Grace, and unspeakable Condescension.

§. 7. But to proceed; the most con­vincing Argument, to represent the Ne­cessity of Revelation, derives from the Necessity of a Mediator. It's abundantly concluded, That the whole World lieth in Wickedness; we certainly carry the Seeds and Principles of Sin about us, that will bring forth Fruit unto Death: or, A Law in our Members warring against the Law of our Minds, and bringing us into Captivi­ty, unto the Law of Sin.

This is not a piece of Spiritual Cant, invented by any Designing Leaders of an Ʋnthinking Herd; we have traced it in it's Original; for by one Man Sin entred into the World, and Death by Sin. And tho' the Sin of this one Man may not be allowed to be the formal Sin of the whole World; yet the Seeds and Principles of Sin, engendred by this Sin of one Man, and propagated in him thro' the World, cannot be denied. In this Sense, at least, Death passed upon all, for that all have sin­ned. In this Sense, all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God. In this Sense, the whole Race of Mankind were by Nature the Children of Wrath. The Vengeance of Sin did undoubtedly hang over our Heads, in a State of Nature; and consequently Deliverance and Safe­ty can only be expected in a State of Re­velation. For, nothing but God, who is rich in Mercy, for the great Love where­with he hath loved us, even when we were dead in our Sins, hath quickned us together with Christ; by this Grace we are Saved.

Natural Reason will inform us, That the Wages of Sin is Death; for since eve­ry Sinner lies at the Foot of Infinite Mer­cy, the Methods of Redemption are lodged in the Hands of God, to be esta­blished [Page]as he shall think fit to reveal himself. If God intends a Redemption, infinitely more valuable than that Death which he might have exacted in every Man's Person, he may rightfully pitch upon his own Methods, and establish his own Laws of Redemption. The Wis­dom and Purity of his own blessed Na­ture would induce him to contrive a Redemption suitable to the Nature of the Punishment, as well as Crime. He therefore resolved upon a Substitute, or Mediator, and required Death for Death, Blood for Blood, even the Blood of the Immaculate Lamb of God, a Sacrifice not only negatively Pure, but of infinite in­herent Worth and Value.

It was therefore absolutely necessary, God should communicate himself by some special Revelations. The Condi­tion of Mankind was such, that they must be eternally miserable, without some special Communications, and In­tercourses with their Maker; and it was an Act of infinite Grace and Mercy, that God was pleased to make his Proposals to his Off-spring. This, certainly, in­troduces a fresh Covenant between God and Man: God was obliged to signifie all his Proposals of Grace and Mercy, or [Page]the Riches of his Love, and consequently it was not only extreamly fit, but neces­sary, that he should give us an entire Bo­dy of Laws, established on express San­ctions; and that these should remain as inviolable Conditions on our part, to o­blige him to make good all his Overtures and Dispensations. Thus the necessity of Revelation is established upon a Train of Causes, and issues forth of the certain Frame and Posture of Human Affairs and Exigencies. Tho' Natural Reason could instruct us in the Line of Duty, and we acted with Ingenuity and Abilities to re­gulate our Lives conformable to it; yet, in as much as we have been Sinners, no­thing less than a new Covenant esta­blished in a Mediator, can entitle us to the Favour of God, or that Happi­ness to which we were originally crea­ted. Let the Deist then ridicule the re­vealed Dispensations of his Maker, as long as he pleases, there's nothing, as yet, revealed, but what is wonderfully accommodated to the State and Condi­tion of Human Nature; nothing but what a Mind, that is not grown leud, and wanton with Lust, will acknowledge to be the Effect of Necessity, as well as infinite Bounty; and he that disputes it, [Page]I'm perswaded, is embarked in the same Design with the Psalmist's Fool, That hath said in his Heart, There is no God.

§. 8. I hope I have in some measure removed this mighty Objection; and, certainly, nothing remains, but a short Return to the Absurdity, which our Ad­versaries would throw upon us: If Reve­lation, say they, were necessary, God must be obliged to have published it to the whole Race of Mankind. I'm perswaded, there's no Necessity for Thought, or Art, to expose, or uncover the Naked­ness of this Objection. It's abundantly concluded, That Man is the Harbinger to his own Misery; and consequently it's an Act of Grace in God to send Over­tures of Deliverance. If he is the So­vereign Lord of Grace, as well in re­spect of the Time, as the Measure and Extent of it; there's no Injustice in confining it, either as to Time or Place: It's sufficient that he has taken compe­tent Methods for publishing his own Di­spensations, whereever he obliges Man­kind to the Conditions of it. Upon the whole then, Revelation is necessary, and yet this Necessity does by no means in­terfere with a Law of Nature antecedent to it.

The Reader is desired to make the fol­lowing Amendments:

ADD and, line 23. p. 4. them, read Revelation, p. 6. l. 9. the r. this, p. 18. l. 18. add an after and, p. 25. l. 16. omit of, p. 28. l. 12. omit if, p. 29. l. 25. to r. of, p. 38. l. 4. add if, p. 39. l. 28. add en to graved, p. 43. l. 12. we r. he, p. 46. l. 12. Rev. r. Lev. p. 48. l. 19. of r. for, l. 22. ib. add there are after and, p. 58. l. 25. add only after not, p. 89. l. 11. Conscientiaa r. Conscientia, p. 92. dictate r. dictates, p. 114. l. 19. Intrusion r. Invasion, p. 135. l. 7. add any after away, p. 136. l. 9. omit is, p. 140. l. 9. add as after well, p. 140. l. 28. from r. the, p. 151. l. 26. yet r. yes, p. 161. l. 19. omit tho', p. 169. l. 22. add his before Off-spring, p. 180. l. 1. Portion r. Notion, p. 185. l. 2. Natures r. Nature, p. 242. l. 8. omit 28, p. 254.

In the Preface stand r. stands.

In the Introduction, omit Men, p. 2. l. 8. omit his, p. 8. l, 23. [...] r. [...], for [...] r. [...], for [...] r. [...], for [...] r. [...], p. 11. [...] r. [...], for [...] r. [...], for [...] r. [...], p. 12. [...] r. [...], for [...] r. [...], for [...] r. [...], p. 13. Agreea­bly r. agreeable, p. 14. l. 8. Author's r. Author, p. 16. l. 11. Principles r. Principle, p. 17. l. 8. omit to after and, submit­ted r. subscribed, p. 16. l. 20, 21. or r. and l. 5. omit more, l. 13. His Obedience r. Disobedience, l. 16. p. 19. Omit all after we, p. 22. l. 9. Or r. on, p. 24. l. 10. They r. Men, p. 27. l. 9. Sic r. Cic, p. 36. l. 25. Weight r. height, p. 38. l. 4. O­mit the after of, p. 44. l. 20.

THE Grounds and Foundation OF Natural Religion, ASSERTED.

CHAP. I. A Law of Nature antecedent to Re­velation.

AND first for the Divine Autho­rity of a Law of Nature antece­dent to Revelation, I shall ap­peal to the Voice of Scripture, as an Argument to those that own the Truth and Divinity of it. For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by Nature the Things contained in the Law, these having not the Law, are a Law unto [Page 2]themselves; which shew the Work of the Law written in their Hearts, their Con­science also bearing Witness, and their Thoughts, the mean while, accusing, or else excusing one another, Rom. 2.15, 16. It's manifest when our Apostle tells us of a Gentile Law engraven on the Heart, here is a Law distinguished from a Law of Revelation: For the Gentiles having not the Law, (no doubt the revealed Law of God, and particularly the Jewish Law) are a Law unto themselves. It was not a Law that rested on Patriarchal Revelati­ons, or a Law given by Inspiration, but a Law engraven on the Heart, peculiar to Heathens, or Men in a pure State of Nature; and consequently no revealed Law. For by virtue of it, they did by Nature (not Grace) the things contained in the Law; that is, upon the Evidence and Convictions of Natural Reason, not on the Authority of any external Revela­tions. For whilst the Gentiles did by Na­ture the things contained in the Law, they shew the Work of the Law written in their Hearts; that is, they had a Rule of Acti­on, implanted in the very Frame and Constitution of their Natures, which an­swered to all the Designs and Intentions of a Law, or rather carried in it all the [Page 3]Properties, as well as Force, and Effica­cy of a Law: For the Work and Busi­ness of a Law, is to prescribe between Good and Evil, Just and Unjust; to di­rect us in the precise Line of Duty, and enforce the Observance of it by suitable Rewards and Punishments; and if the Gentiles have this by Nature, they are in a strict and proper Sense a Law unto them­selves, even without the concurrence of Revelation. Indeed the Apostle elegant­ly represents the Force, and Authority, as well as Sanction of the Law, when he tells us, that Conscience gives testimony to this Law, [...], and, as it were, confirms, and ratifies it as a Law, or Rule of Action, which answers to the first Office of Conscience, by the Lear­ned called [...]. The Sanction follows from the second Office of Conscience, call'd [...], which consists in the Ap­plication of our Actions to the Rule, and passing Sentence upon ourselves for it; and their Thoughts mean while accusing, or excusing one another. From the words it's manifest there is a Law of Nature, or a Rule of Action given by God, by which he, at least, originally design'd to govern Mankind antecedent to all posi­tive Laws, whether Divine or Humane.

Nay, it's not only a Law designed for Man in his original Frame, but a Law that maintains its Force and Authority, even in the lapsed State of Mankind. For it's manifest, the Apostle speaks of the Gentiles as they then lay (and all the World too) in a depraved corrupted State. They were undoubtedly under a Law, tho' without any revealed Law, and that too, under the highest force and efficacy of it: For the Apostle expresly determines the case, For as many (of the Gentile World) as have sinned without Law, shall also perish without Law. v. 12.

However, thus far it is indisputably evident, that the Heathen World was under a Law, or an Indispensable Rule of Action, or Duty, and we are abundant­ly assur'd, that it was distinct from any revealed Law; since Scripture in other places expresly fixes the Duties of Natu­ral Religion, in an evidence that results from the Works of Providence, the Di­ctates of Natural Reason, not in any re­vealed Traditions. Thus St. Paul, and his Associate, speaking of the Gentile State, Nevertheless he left not himself without Witness, (no doubt sufficient to instruct them in their Duty) in that he did good, and gave us Rain from Heaven, [Page 5]and fruitful Seasons, filling our Hearts with Food and Gladness, Acts 14. v. 17. And again, The Wrath of Heaven is revealed against all ungodliness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the Creation of the World are clearly seen, being under­stood by the things that are made. Rom. 1.18, 19, 20. I know the learned Dr. Ham­mond appropriates this latter Passage to the Gnosticks, but against the whole current of Commentators: And indeed the Context, both before and after, car­ries such peculiar Characters in it, as ren­ders it absurd to fix it upon any but the Heathen World. If so, it's evident they are the things that are made, and Rain and fruitful Seasons, that are Witnesses, and shew forth to us, that which may be known of God, or the lines of Natural Religion.

So that the Works of Nature and Pro­vidence are our Instructors, not the Voice of Revelation. Here's not the least Hint of any Traditional Conveyances, the Works of Nature carry an Evidence in them; but they are the Reflections of Natural Reason upon them, that draw the Conclusion and form a Duty from them; so that whatever Difficulties, or [Page 6]Impossibilities some Men may suggest from the Imperfections, and Weaknesses of Natural Reason in decyphering a Law of Nature, it's evident, the Sacred Ora­cles have given it no other Foundation or Original. And this is Conviction suffici­ent to silence all other Arguments in those that subscribe to the Truth and Divinity of them.

And for those that reject it, I shall, pursuant to the Mind of our Apostle, en­deavour to prove a Law of Nature, im­planted in the Minds of Men, as Rational Beings, and consequently, originally de­sign'd, as a perpetual Standard and Mea­sure of their Actions.

This I shall endeavour to perform, 1st, By proving, that Man is naturally a Thinking, Reasoning Being. 2dly, That Man naturally Thinks and Reasons in a fixt determinate way. 3dly, That by the exercise of Reason, and the conditi­on of his Nature, he can discern the Sub­ject-matter of the Laws of Nature. And 4thly, That he discovers it as the Subject-matter of a true and proper Law, esta­blished on a competent Authority, by di­scerning and receiving it as the Com­mand of God.

§. 2. And 1st, That Man is by Na­ture a Thinking, Reasoning Being.

Indeed, that an Order of Rational Crea­tures, can of 'emselves exert the Powers of Reason, seems to be a Proposition, that carries its own Evidence in the Terms of it. And to imagine a Creation of Ra­tional Powers and Faculties, and that too ascribed to an infinitely wise Creator, and yet deny an inherent Power of exert­ing 'emselves, seems to reflect the high­est Folly and Disgrace upon the Contri­vance. For it either represents Infinite Power and Wisdom, displaying 'emselves, as we say, in vain, or to no purpose, or labouring under the greatest Imperfecti­ons. It represents the great Exemplar of a Creative Power, to be little else than a sensless, unactive sort of Machin, whose Efforts entirely depend on foreign Impulses; and the express Image and Re­presentative of a glorious Creator, in one sense, to be of a baser Alloy than the un­thinking Brutes that perish: Since these, in their original Frame, were made to exert those Powers and Faculties God thought fit to impart to 'em. But Man must by no means act like himself, or di­splay any of his Natural Powers and Fa­culties, [Page 8]unless he has the good Fortune to be Born under the Influence of a skilful Tutor, and a polish'd Education. But cer­tainly this is a Conjecture void of any shadow of Reason. For whosoever con­siders the Activity of the Souls of Men, (a Truth I think of universal allowance and approbation) cannot imagine, that Men, even in this State, shou'd not be capable of perceiving, discerning, comparing, or thinking at all. But that we may pro­ceed with greater Clearness in these Mat­ters, let us endeavour to strip Mankind of all the Embelishments of Education, and turn 'em into the pure Garb of Na­ture; and thereupon let us, for once, sup­pose a Set of Men sprung up like Mush­rooms in an instant, and placed in an un­peopled Island in their full growth and vigor. Some, perhaps, in this case, are so fond of attributing the whole Product of Humane Knowledge to the Business of Education, that they would deny them the Power of exerting one Faculty pecu­liar to a Rational Being without it. But certainly this is a Notion highly impro­bable, if we consider, that the great Rea­son why our Infant State discovers such faint Glimpses of Thought or Reason, is not so much from any native Obstructions [Page 9]in the Mind, or an Indisposition of her Faculties, in receiving and forming Idea's, but from unknown Indispositions of the Animal Part. For the Souls of Men be­ing to act through Flesh and Blood, or Material Vehicles, no wonder if they do not exert 'emselves till these are throughly fix'd and setled, that is, be­fore they arrive at a due state of Matu­rity, or a suitable Disposition or Tem­perament: And therefore were Men to enter upon the World under an exact Disposition of the Animal Part, it's high­ly probable the Faculties of the Rational Part wou'd exert 'emselves with wonder­ful vigour and expedition. Indeed it must be confess'd, that Idea's will be collected, and Principles setled at a much slower rate, where they are only gain'd by a Man's single Observation and Ex­perience, than where the Instructions of Parents and Tutors contribute to the Im­provement. By this Means the Obser­vations and Attainments of past Ages are presented in an established Method and Order, and added to our own Ex­perience, and consequently the growth of Idea's will be more quick, clear, and lasting. But yet when the Organs of Sense are rightly fixed and disposed, and [Page 10]the Mind lies under no real Incumbran­ces or Eclipses, it's ridiculous to imagin, that it cannot exert itself by its own na­tive Light and Activity, in all its Powers and Faculties: and we may as well af­firm, that a Man would not walk or perform any other indifferent Actions, as a sensitive Creature, without Instru­ction; as affirm, that he cou'd not think and exert all the Powers of Reason, with­out special Inspiration, Revelation, or Instruction. It's visible there are certain Springs or Movements implanted in the Frame of Nature, that serve to put all Native Powers and Faculties into their proper Motions: And therefore we must conclude, that a Rational Soul, or a Soul framed for Reason, must act agree­ably to its original Frame, and discover itself in all the Functions of Thought and Reason. It's certain, the great Law of Self-preservation, a quick and pier­cing Sense of Pleasure and Pain, and the incessant Desires of Ease and Happiness, which, strictly speaking, are rather Na­tural Instincts implanted in all Sensitive Beings, than Laws peculiar to Free A­gents, will serve as forcible Springs to every Native Power or Faculty, and furnish 'em with suitable Objects, as well [Page 11]as prompt 'em to exert upon 'em; and consequently if Rational Faculties in their Original Frame are fitted for Thought and Reason, they will by an Intrinsick Impulse exert in all the Parts and Offices of 'em. And therefore, to have recourse to the Instance already given, we may justly conclude, that meer Salvages wou'd not only fall to Thinking, but after a few Interviews, form Signs, and Words, and Language, apply 'emselves to the setling of all the Instruments of Reason and Knowledge. I'm perswaded, few will deny, that Man by his Natural Powers cou'd form Words and Language, and Words necessarily suppose Idea's and Thoughts. To conclude this Argument then, As Man, by a Law of his Crea­tor, is peculiarly fitted with Organs for Speech and Language, so is he endued with Faculties of Reason; and since he's capable of exerting the one in all its De­signs and Functions, we may justly al­low him the same Abilities in exerting the other; and, in one word, it dero­gates from the Wisdom of God, to endue a Creature with Noble Powers and Fa­culties, and not put him into a condition to exert 'em. Therefore we may con­clude, that as Man, by a native Endow­ment, [Page 12]can see, and hear, and speak, he can likewise think and reason, which is the First General proposed in order to e­stablish a Law of Nature.

§. 3. I proceed to the Second, which is to prove, That we think and reason in a fix'd and determinate way. And certainly this is a Truth so clear and evident, that it does not admit of any colour of dispute: For otherwise I can­not conceive why we may not question the Perception of the Senses, as well as that of the Mind. The outward Senses, in most Cases, are a kind of Perspectives to the Mind: and the Mind must cer­tainly receive its Notices from the Im­pressions which outward Objects make upon them; and if Objects make an Im­pression upon the outward Senses suitable to the Nature of 'em, they must do the same upon the Mind too. So that the first Act of the Mind, that of Percep­tion, must necessarily be regular, and un­alterable; for 'tis a Faculty of receiving the Impressions of outward Objects, and of framing Idea's suitable to the nature of 'em; insomuch that where the Object is rightly applied and attended to, the Idea is as certain and unalterable, as Co­lours [Page 13]to the Eye, or Heat and Cold to the Touch. But now, as the Powers of Perception are certain and unalterable, so are the Powers of Reason; at least in the original frame of 'em.

For Reason, being nothing but the comparing of two or more Idea's to gain a third, or form certain Conclusions and Deductions from 'em; as long as the Per­ception is regular and correct, Reason must be so too; especially where there's a due Application of the Object or Idea, and attention of Mind too. Indeed that the Reason of Mankind is fixt and certain, or acts in a true and regular Sphere, is evi­dent from a Complication of Arguments.

As 1st, It cannot be imagined why Reason shou'd not be established upon certain Rules and Measures, as well as all other Powers of the Creation; and it's a manifest Reproach cast upon the Author of Nature to allow, that the Laws and Appetites of the Vegetative and Animal Part of the World should be fix'd and regular, and that the Powers and Faculties of the Rational Part of the Creation a random kind of Ordinance, altogether precarious and uncertain. But then, whosoever allows God to be the Author of our Beings, God to be the [Page 14]Standard of Wisdom and Reason, and the Reason of Mankind to be an imme­diate Transcript of it, must conclude, that Reason is established upon fix'd Mea­sures and Principles. For God is unal­terable in all his Measures and Work­ings; his Wisdom and Reason is uni­form and invariable, consistent with it self; and that Reason he has imparted to any of his Creatures, and consequently the Reason of Mankind must correspond with all this in a lower degree or pro­portion. So that where all Impediments are removed, where Idea's or Objects are presented to the View of the Mind, and the Mind closely attends to 'em, the Appearance of Things must be the same every-where; I mean in every Intelli­gent Being. The Reason of one Man must be the Reason of every Man, and the Reason of Men must be the Reason of God and Angels too. This, perhaps, would be allowed to be an unquestion­able Truth, had Man retained the Pri­mitive Lustre and Perfection of all his Intellectual Faculties; or were not false Idea's suggested, and true ones disguised by the Corruptions and Exorbitances of the Animal Part. But certainly this does not destroy but perplex the Workings of [Page 15]Reason; it discovers the Imperfections and Difficulties, not the Uncertainty of Reason; the Mind is by this means of­ten call'd off, and deprived of that Ap­plication and Attention, which is indi­spensably required in the Disquisition of Things, and particularly in the Discove­ry as well as Observance of all Laws. But when these are secured, I mean when there's a due Application and Attention maintain'd, Reason will be the same in a depraved and degenerate State, as it was in a State of Innocence. Indeed I'm perswaded the true. Reason why Man under a degenerate State is so much affected in his Intellectuals, is the Vio­lence and Exorbitance of the Animal Appetites, whereby the Mind is called off from deliberating the true Nature of Things, and consequently determins in conformity to 'em upon any plausible Suggestions and Appearances; or if she has conceived true Idea's, yet they are in a great measure suppress'd and stifled by the Impulses of Lust, and she carried away by the powerful Overtures of a present Pleasure. But I do not find, that the Mind in this State is absolutely disa­bled from discerning the true Nature of Things or Actions. The Sallies of the [Page 16]Animal Part are not always so powerful, but there are certain Minutes or Inter­vals wherein she may attend to, and de­liberate upon peculiar Objects; and con­sequently compare and form just Conclu­sions, according to the Measures of right Reason: So that we may, without Dero­gation to any State of Grace, affirm, That we are not under absolute Impos­sibilities in Decyphering the Line of Du­ty by strict Reasonings, though we may be destitute of Native Strength, to main­tain an Uniform or Steady Practice. Thus much the Christian Institutions warrant and confirm, when the Heathen World is concluded under Actual Sin, and as many as have sinned without Law, are doomed to perish without Law. For no one will be damned for Impossibilities. But after all, should we allow, that the OEconomy of Reason, in this lapsed State, is very much shaken and dissolved; so that all our Reasonings are very precari­ous and uncertain; yet we cannot but conclude, that it was originally esta­blished upon fixed Rules and Principles; and consequently, that we were formed by an Intrinsick Power and Efficacy, to exert every Faculty in such a manner, as wou'd enable us to answer all those Ends [Page 17]and Designs that God hath laid upon us as Men and Reasonable Creatures. And this is sufficient to expose the Assertion of our Adversaries, that will have all our Notices enter the Soul, as it were, by Chance, that is, by Revealed Tradition, Education, or Instruction. It's manifest they do not reject our Attainments of this kind upon the Argument of Native De­pravities, but upon the Argument of Na­tive Imperfections: In as much as the Soul, being Rasa Tabula, is equally prepared to receive contradictory Im­pressions; and consequently its Native Powers and Faculties imply nothing but a Capacity to receive the Informations or Instructions of others. Upon the whole then, since it's concluded, that the original OEconomy of Reason is even (in a lapsed State) only vailed and sully'd, not wholly defac'd; we may still affirm, that the Soul retains a Faculty of Think­ing and Reasoning in an established way: Insomuch, that when Objects are fairly presented to the Mind, and the Mind dwells and deliberates upon 'em, she will still be determin'd according to the Na­ture, Properties, and Agreement or Dis­agreement of the things 'emselves. And therefore we are thus far advanced to­wards [Page 18]a Law of Nature, that we are acted by a Principle which serves to steer and direct us in the disquisition of the Sub­ject-matter of a Law or Rule of Action, and that too such a Rule as serves as a Law, not only to particular Persons, but to the whole Species. For since it is con­cluded, that Man is acted by a Principle that naturally Thinks, Perceives, and Reasons, and this Thought, Reason, and Perception is founded upon uniform Mea­sures and Principles, it must prescribe in common to the whole Species, as well as particular Persons.

§. 4. The next Inquiry is the Subject-matter of the Law of Nature, how this arises, and is discover'd to us so as to form a Law upon it: And 1st, To state the Matter with greater clearness, give me leave to have recourse to the Instance already assign'd, that of Savages, pla­ced in the World without the Bias of E­ducation or Instruction upon 'em. It's al­ready concluded, that Men, even in this pure State of Nature, are Thinking, Reasoning Beings; and it may reasona­bly be imagin'd, that the great Law of Self-preservation, or an incessant Desire of Ease and Happiness, will be the Spring and [Page 19]Movement to their first Thoughts and Reasonings. This, as has been already observed, is rather a Natural Instinct, implanted in all Sensitive Beings, than a Law given to free Agents. For every Individual, that is capable of Pleasure or Pain, is violently disposed to secure his own Preservation; and therefore those Beings that are endowed with Rational Powers and Faculties, and can Think, Deliberate, and Examin the Nature of Things, will certainly turn the Mind upon 'emselves, and engage their first Thoughts in surveying the Nature and Condition of their Beings. For without some know­ledge of this kind, it's impossible they shou'd apply themselves to the true me­thods of Self-preservation. And hence, no doubt, arises the Subject-matter of the Law of Nature. For certainly all those Laws, which have justly obtain'd the Name or Character of Laws of Na­ture, are formed from the Consideration of Ourselves, or which is the same thing, from the Consideration of the Nature and Circumstances of our Beings, compared with those things that are without us. That this is not a groundless Conjecture, the Rule of Social Virtues established by our Blessed Saviour, and advanced by the [Page 20]best Moralists, sufficiently attests: What­soever you wou'd that Men shou'd do unto you, do you that also unto them. Here's a manifest Appeal to ourselves; and conse­quently implies a strict survey of our Na­ture, and the relation we stand in to o­ther Beings, as well as of our own Wants and Necessities. And certainly, whoso­ever turns his Mind and Thoughts upon himself, and considers his own Frame and Original, his Dependences and Me­thods of Subsistence, will presently fur­nish himself with Matter enough to make up the Laws of both Tables; those we owe to God, and those we owe to Men. A little Thought will instruct us, that we were formed by some first Cause, who must be infinite in all his Attributes and Perfections: And as little Thought and Observation, that this first Cause im­planted certain Passions in our Natures; such as Love and Hatred, Hope and Fear, and all the intermediate ones; such as Admiration, Tenderness and Compassi­on, as well as Anger, Aversion and Fu­ry; and consequently we must conclude, that the Author of Nature has adapted them to peculiar Objects, and appointed 'em to special Ends and Purposes. And from hence we have a clear view of those [Page 21]Duties we owe to God; such as Love, Worship, Fear, Reverence, Trust and Dependence: For the consideration of a Creator, and our dependence on him as Creatures, will instruct us, that we are to devote the chiefest of those Powers, Fa­culties, or Passions he has implanted in us, to his Service and Honour. Again, for the Laws of the Second Table, the consideration of the methods of our Sub­sistence will instruct us, that we are in a great measure maintain'd by foreign Aids and Succours, that we subsist upon the Art and Blessings of Labour, as well as Nature; and these are to be carried on by Creatures that can Reason, Think, and Project as we do: And this will prompt us to Society, and ingage us to apply ourselves to those Creatures that most resemble ourselves, and are most capable of serving or administring out­ward Goods and Blessings to us. The necessary methods of Subsistence, and the condition of our Natures will present­ly instruct us in the Rights of Property; and consequently give us a view of the Necessity of Promises, Compacts or In­gagements, and our indispensable Obli­gations to maintain and execute 'em. And from all these Notices results the [Page 22]Law of universal Justice. We cannot kill nor assault the Persons of our Neighbours, because it's a wounding or stabbing our selves; since it cuts off that Circulation of Blessings we live by. We cannot spoil or plunder the Goods of our Neighbour, because that affects us in the same manner as that of Murther. To proceed, hence re­sult the Laws of universal Love, Tender­ness and Compassion: For we find these Passions implanted in the Frame of our ve­ry Natures; And where can we think to fix and exert them better, than on those that contribute to our Subsistence? This naturally begets a Sense of Benefits, and those of Love and Compassion. In a word, Self-preservation suggests Self-love, and a Tenderness, and Kindness towards ourselves; and consequently it will exer­cise the very same Affections to the bene­fit of others. For since Love, Tender­ness, and Compassion, are the most pow­erful Ingagements to link others to our Interest, and our Interest and Welfare rests upon the Welfare of others; to be kind, compassionate and loving to o­thers, is to be so to ourselves. These are Laws recorded in such legible Cha­racters, that the Subject-matter of 'em has discovered itself to meer Savages, that [Page 23]sprung up like Mushrooms, tho' there were no such Relation as Husband and Wife, Parent or Children, or in a word, were no way allied or dependent but by the common Condition and Principles of Humanity. Here needs no long Train of Thoughts, Consequences and Deducti­ons, whereby the Mind under the high­est Improvements is often bewildred, o­verset and confounded. The common Necessities of our Natures and the condi­tion of our Beings, forcibly direct us to the discovery; a single Inference will give us a full view: So that were the Mind left to her own native Exercitati­ons, before she had contracted a Bias from Example, or a vicious Education, they must unavoidably appear in some of her first and earliest Reasonings. Indeed I will not affirm, that every one in this case cou'd discover the Subject-matter of the prime Laws of Nature, in that Train of Thought, or from those very Topicks and Arguments that are here projected. It's sufficient if they are natural and obvi­ous, and carry an Evidence suitable to what they are apply'd and are design'd to prove. There may a thousand Ar­guments suggest the same thing, and therefore it is not material which way we [Page 24]come by it. That which is most consi­derable is, that it appears the Subject-matter of the Laws of Nature, lies upon the Surface, and offers itself to the first Dawnings of Reason: It is as fixt and cer­tain as the first workings of Reason (for both result from the established Frame or Nature of Things) and is mixed with the prime Ends and Interests of our Beings; and we must first change the Course of Nature, and new model the Creator as well as the Creature, and give new Fa­culties, new Passions, and new Beings, before the Matter of the Laws of Nature can be changed. Thus we have advanc'd a considerable way in the Proof of a Law of Nature; since it appears we are acted by a uniforn Principle within, that is able to furnish us with the Subject-mat­ter of Laws or Rules of Action.

§. 5. But now, since the Subject-mat­ter of Laws is fixt and determined, the last Requisite to give any thing the Cha­racter of a Law, is to establish it upon a competent Authority, whereby the Counsels and Dictates of Reason are ad­vanced into indispensable Rules of Acti­on. It's certain Reason is the sovereign Principle of the Man; and consequent­ly [Page 25]if she pleases, may pass an Obligation upon all her own Decrees, as far as con­cerns the particular Person, where she presides. But she cannot pass an Obliga­tion upon other Persons, without some binding Authority, that presides over her and them too; and consequently cannot establish a Law of Nature, which carries an Obligation, that extends to the whole Species; this supposes an Authority su­periour to that of particular Persons. A­gain, the natural Conveniences, and In­conveniences of things may engage us to embrace and pursue particular Dictates of Reason; but these Dictates of Reason may not be a binding, and indispensable Rule of Action; so as to render us crimi­nal in case we do not pursue, and im­brace them; which is the Purport, and Business of all Laws. And therefore, be­fore these Dictates of Reason are to be re­ceived as true and proper Laws; we must prove, that they are imposed by a competent Authority, an Authority that has a Right to impose a Rule of Action upon us; an Authority that has a Right to impose the Dictates of Reason as a Rule of Action, and that this Authority has actually imposed 'em as Laws, and consequently, the Non-observance of 'em [Page 26]must bring Guilt and Punishment upon us. These are all Positions that must ap­pear in the workings of Natural Reason, before any Dictates of Reason can pass for Laws of Nature. Now this will abun­dantly appear by placing the Authority of Laws of Nature in the Author of Nature; for tho' that which we call Reason or Conscience, is the Law-giver, that imme­diately prescribes, determines, and fixes the Obligation of our Actions; yet this is but a delegated Authority, derived from the Author of Nature, the very Author of Reason and Conscience, and our very Beings too. So that Reason acts by the Authority of a Vicegerent, but the Ori­ginal Sovereignty derives from God, or the Author of Nature. Natural Reason and Conscience is but a Law-giver, like Moses that delivered the Law to the Peo­ple; but the original Authority is seated within the Cloud of Glory, and the Di­vine Nature; whose Face no Mortal can behold, and live: That there is a God, and an Author of Nature, the consideration of ourselves will abundantly evince; and the Right of God's Authority in imposing Laws, and particularly in assigning Rea­son and Conscience a power of giving Laws, cannot be disputed. For he that [Page 27]gave us our Being, may rightfully as­sign the Laws of our Being. Therefore we sufficiently prove the Authority of Laws of Nature, if we can prove that God, as our Creator, has appointed cer­tain Dictates of Reason for an indispensa­ble Rule of Action to Mankind. And cer­tainly this is a Position almost Self-evident; for it follows from the bare Allowance and Consideration of the Author of Na­ture. If Natural Reason assures us that God made us, and not we ourselves, we must conclude, that we have the Strokes and Lineaments of Infinite Wisdom set forth in us. For, the Works of Nature and Providence, are no less an effect of Infinite Wisdom, than Power: For in Wisdom hath he made them all. And if it was Infinite Wisdom that induced a Creator to give us such a peculiar Mo­del, whereby we are distinguished from the rest of his Creatures, the same Infi­nite Wisdom must intend we should act and govern ourselves by it. The Inten­tion of the Law-giver is as much express'd by reasonable Creatures, acting upon Di­ctates of Reason, as by the Powers and Tendences of Inanimate Beings pursuing the Course and Order of Nature. He hath given Laws to the Waves of the [Page 28]Sea, that they may not pass; and to the Sun that knoweth his going down, Psal. 104. v. 18, 19. And shall not Man, the Glory of his Maker, and the proper Subject of a free and valuable Obedience, be obliged by the Laws of his Creation; and make that the Rule of Action, which Infinite Wisdom has made the Mark or Cha­racteristick of his Being; whereby he is distinguished from the inferiour Clas­ses of the Creation, as well as Eviden­ces of his Creator's Honour and Glory? In a word, since God perpetually acts by the Dictates of Infinite Wisdom and Goodness, his own Institutions or Ordi­nances are an indisputable Evidence of his most sacred Will and Pleasure; and the Laws of all his Creatures are as am­ply recorded in that Frame and Consti­tution he has given 'em, (being all as much bound to act by 'em) as if he had recorded 'em on Tables of Stone. For 'tis a Record engraved on Nature, and consequently will be preserved as long as Nature has a Being. These are Noti­ces that offer 'emselves to the first Daw­nings of Reason, or, at least, flow in up­on an Assent to this fundamental Truth, that we are the Product or Workman­ship of an All-wise and Almighty Crea­tor.

§. 6. But further, the Authority of Laws of Nature is evident from the Ends and Designs of Created Nature.

And 1st, As Natural Reason instructs us, That there is a wise and intelligent Author of Nature, even the Author of that very Faculty we call Reason, which suggests thus much to us; we must con­clude, that he neither gave Being to that nor any thing else, without annexing some special Ends and Designs to it. If therefore, to pursue the Dictates of rea­sonable Creatures, can only secure those Ends for which we were created reason­able Creatures, the Dictates of Reason must carry the Authority and Obligation of Laws in 'em: But now should we pro­nounce one special End of Man's Crea­tion to be the Manifestation of his Ho­nour and Glory, and particularly the Ex­emplification of his Wisdom and Power; it's manifest the only way to answer this Design, is to exert those surprising Fa­culties God has bestowed.

Again, If God did create Man a rea­sonable Being to make him capable of Happiness, and put him into a condition of attaining it; It's certain he designed him for Happiness by implanting such [Page 30]incessant Desires after it; and its certain there is no way of attaining Happiness, but by pursuing the strict Dictates of Reason. Happiness can consist in no­thing but the perfection of our Natures, or in a resemblance of their primitive Model, and the great Original they re­present: And it's Reason alone, and a course of Action advanced upon it, that can exhibit this Happiness in its true Lineaments and Proportions.

In a Word, Were Happiness carried no further than the welfare of the Ani­mal Part; It's certain, that Temperance, that Friendship, that Generosity, and that Justice, which Natural Reason, from the very frame and condition of our Natures, suggests and prescribes, are the only In­struments for securing it; therefore we must conclude, since an All-wise and Al­mighty Creator could not act Blindfold; since he assigned every Order of Creatures peculiar Ends, and establish'd a general End from all of 'em; and since an All­wise Creator must be concerned to have those Ends answered, which he hath as­sign'd; Reason must be a Rule and a Standard of Action in all Reasonable Creatures; without which the Ends and Designs of Reasonable Creatures cannot [Page 31]be attain'd. And thus we have the In­tention of the Law-giver evinced from the Ends and Designs of reasonable Crea­tures.

§. 7. There is one Argument more that proves the Obligation and Authority of Laws of Nature, and certain Dictates of Reason to be such; and that is, From the consideration of Rewards and Pu­nishments that flow from 'em.

It's well known that Rewards and Punishments are an inseparable Appen­dage of a Law, and where we are not only directed by a lawful Authority, that this or that thing is to be done, but Re­wards are annexed to the doing of it, and Punishments to the omission of it, or at least doing the contrary, there the Au­thority is expressed and represented; and consequently the thing directed is propo­sed as a Law or Rule of Action. But now it's already concluded, that those Dictates of Reason which necessarily a­rise from the Frame and Condition of our Natures, carry inseparable Rewards in 'em, and the Violation of 'em entails inseparable Mischiefs or Punishments up­on us; and therefore such Dictates of Reason do as evidently declare the Intenti­on [Page 32]of the Law-giver, and the Obligation of Laws, as if we were told it by an au­dible Voice from Heaven: And thus we have asserted the Authority of Laws of Nature, being the last Requisite assigned for the Proof of 'em. And, truly, there are so many Arguments suggest it, that we may as well deny that we can Think by Nature, as be ignorant of the Autho­rity of Laws of Nature.

§. 8. But, after all that has been said concerning the Authority of Laws of Na­ture, some perhaps will imagine that the Arguments already suggested, are rather the Improvements of Reason, under a State of Revelation, and the Discipline of a civilized Education, than the Dis­coveries of Reason, in a pure State of Nature. I must confess, it is difficult to distinguish the pure Efforts of Natural Reason from those Improvements she re­ceives from Revelation, and a polished Education; but certainly we may appeal to Revelation itself, for the Authority of Laws of Nature, and particularly that the Dictates of Natural Reason are to be the Measure and Standard of our Acti­ons. For, first, Conscience we know is the Result and Decree of Reason; and [Page 33]this is advanc'd to such an absolute Sovereignty in the Christian Institution, that we cannot reject the Instructions of an erroneous Conscience, without en­tailing Sin and Guilt upon us. For e­ven to Heathens and Unbelievers, What­soever is not of Faith is Sin; and cer­tainly it amounts to a Demonstration, That if God has given no other Rule to Reasonable Beings, but Reason to act by, we must conclude, that Reason must be the Standard of Action; and conse­quently every one is under an Indispens­able Obligation of pursuing it, unless we can imagine we are not to exert Actions peculiar to our Nature, or that God has not as industriously distinguished the Actions of Men from those of Brutes, as their Souls and Shape too. In a word, whosoever owns the Truth and Autho­rity of the Christian Institutions, must discern the Truth and Authority of Laws of Nature; for he may plainly read both in the great End and Design of Christianity; for the whole OEconomy of Grace consists in restoring the OEco­nomy of Nature, and renewing that I­mage of our Minds, in which we were created; or which is the same thing, in the Apostle's Language, In being renewed [Page 34]in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him, Col. 3.10. In a word, Christianity is the putting on the New Man, which, after God, is created in Righ­teousness and true Holiness; and the put­ting on the New Man, is the putting on the first Man that was formed after the Image of God, in Righteousness and true Holiness; therefore we must conclude, that Model which God impress'd on our Nature was design'd to be a Law, and a Rule, or Standard to our Actions, and consequently the Powers of Natural Rea­son, wou'd have thought it to be a Law, had Revelation never interposed in the Matter. Thus we have proved, that there is a Law of Nature, even in all the Circumstances and Formalities of a Law; it's a Law distinct from the Law of Revelation, since it arises, and is dis­covered to us by pure Dint of Natural Reason; it's a true and proper Law, for it contains the Matter and Form of a proper Law, the Subject-matter is fix'd and determin'd. It has the Form of a Law, because it determines what is to be done, and that too upon a just and competent Authority, and when all this is granted, it gives us the Sanctions of a Law, I mean Rewards and Punishments. [Page 35]For if Reason dictates certain indispens­able Rules of Action, from the Autho­rity, Will and Pleasure of a Sovereign Creator, Reason must, besides those na­tural Rewards and Punishments that ac­company the Observance of such Rules, at least acknowledge, That the Non-observance of 'em, must bring Guilt and Punishment upon us. And therefore I see nothing wanting (notwithstanding Mr. Hobbs's Notions of a Law) to give it the Title and Denomination of a proper Law. For it's as much, Vox imperantis, and as truly promulg'd, as if it had been recorded in Writing, or engraved on Ta­bles of Brass.

CHAP. II. Objections Answered.

IT now only remains, that something be offered to take off the Force of those Objections, that are advanced against this Hypothesis, of a Law of Nature exclusive of Revelation. The Sum of which is, in a few words, this:

Whatsoever has been hitherto attri­buted to the Powers of Natural Reason, seems to exist no where but in the Ima­ginations of Speculative Men. For not only the Lives and Opinions of Heathen Nations, but of the most eminent Mora­lists and Phylosophers have overturned the Scheme, and passed off the Stage of the World under the Conduct of quite opposite Notions. This is an Objection that will fall in with other parts of this Discourse, and consequently will require something of a Return under each re­spective Head; but that I may lay a Foundation for a clear and distinct An­swer, I shall take liberty to make a few Remarks upon the Origin of Error.

§. 1. And, first, it's a very unquesti­onable Truth, that the Errors of Man­kind are originally founded in vicious Habits or Immoralities; or to speak in other Terms, the Seeds of this kind of Corruption are certainly lodged in the Propensions and Habits of the Animal Part. For that which has such an As­cendent over us, to command us to Act in favour of it, will infallibly influence our Judgments. This is so obvious, that in wilful Enormities, I mean such as were first committed against the Convi­ctions of the Mind, the Power of Animal Propensions, Assiduity of Practice, and a kind of Natural Intimacy or Famili­arity resulting from it, has at last enga­ged Reason itself to appear as an Advo­cate for it; and very often it makes such elaborate Researches for Arguments to support the Cause, that at last it declares for the Justice and Innocence of it, and asserts it upon Principle and inward Con­viction. I am perswaded, and can with­out breach of Charity or Justice, affirm, That the Growth of the foulest Heresies in the Christian World is to be placed in this Original. Men have so long given the full Reins to Pride, Ambition, Co­vetousness, [Page 38]or other vitious Lusts and Propensions, that they have called in their whole Stock of Parts and Learning, and made Converts to their Judgments to support them, or revenge their Disap­pointments.

And now, upon this Bottom, we may silence all Objections brought from the absurd, and Heterodox Opinions of cer­tain Moralists and Philosophers. For, it's highly probable, they were at first but exquisite Apologies to Patronize impor­tunate Passions and confirm'd Practi­ces; and consequently can be no real Prejudices to a Law of Nature. Indeed, the impure Doctrine of the Gnosticks may be as well admitted a just Plea against the Truth and Purity of Christianity, and the Evidences for both, as some few lewd Doctrines of Philosophers against the Certainty of a Law of Nature, upon the Evidences of Natural Reason.

§. 2. But, to enlarge a little on this part of the Objection, it's well known that the foulest and most absurd Opini­ons, charged on particular Philosophers, are by others recorded as an eternal Mark of Infamy and Reproach due to 'em; and consequently they are by no means [Page 39]a just Balance to the substantial Reason­ings of others, in deciphering Laws of Nature. We might add to all this, how unjust a Measure the Practices of Man­kind is of their real Notices of Moral Good, an Argument too fatally demon­strated under a Christian Dispensation; and consequently tho' the Generality of Philosophers liv'd in Opposition to Laws of Nature, and some few taught contra­ry to 'em, yet it's no just Consequence to place Laws of Nature above the Re­searches of Natural Reason. I am per­swaded some of the Instances presented in a late Conference See Con­ference with a Theist, Part 2. p. 56, to p. 64., do not fall under the Character of prime Laws of Nature; and consequently do not reach the Au­thor's Design. It's very well known, Plato's Model for Peopling his Common­wealth was not by a Community of Wo­men, without Limitations from the Ci­vil Power. But for the precise Limita­tions in this matter, as well as the man­ner of Worshiping God, whether by Sa­crifices and corporeal Representations, I presume, it's the business of Revealed Religion to fix and determine. As for his Instance of Masculine Venery, Ze­no, and his Followers pronounced it in­different; I presume it was a previous [Page 40]Practice that had made it appear so. And yet St. Paul speaks of some of these unnatural Whoredoms as things scarce named among the Gentiles, 1 Cor. 5.1. But it were highly to be wished that some Nations in the Confines of Christ­endom, had wholly escaped the Conta­gion; so that if such vile Practices in a State of Nature may be an Argument against Laws of Nature antecedent to Revelation, it will be of Force against written Revelations: Since Laws of Nature founded in the Dictates of natu­ral Reason, may be as easily violated as any written Law. Certainly such a­vowed Practices may with greater force of Reason be allowed against a Law that pretends to no higher Authority than Revelation, or supported by Tra­dition. Lastly, As for the Grecian Piece of Cruelty, in exposing Children to the Mercy of Beasts, and Travellers, with­out remorse, I presume the Practice was not frequent, because it must be the Con­cern and Interest of every Government to suppress it. But it's well known, the Christian World is not wholly freed from such Monsters, who I am afraid are acted by no other Dread but what the Apprehensions of a Discovery, and [Page 41]the Penalties of the Law extort from them. However, this is an Instance so ab­solutely repugnant to the common Bow­els of Humanity, that it as effectually disproves those Earnings which natural Instinct discovers in the whole Order of Brutes towards their own Off-spring, as that natural Reason discovers the same Earnings to be a point of Duty to Man­kind. In one word, the Cruelties of Heathens is no more an Argument that natural Reason doth not teach the contrary, than the Barbarity of some particular Christians an Argument, that Christianity does not exhort to Bowels of Compassion, and a Parental Care to­wards their own Off-spring.

But to return: A second Cause of Error is certain Prejudices or Prepossessions im­printed on the Mind by Example and Education. The Cause and Origin of Error already given presents us with the Propensions and Bias of Humane Nature, and consequently how liable the World is to be overspread with Error. At least Matter of Fact informs us how wide the Actions of Men deviate from the Line of Duty, so that it may truly be said of the Heathen World, That the Imaginations of their Hearts is to do Evil [Page 42]continually. Certainly then, where a Contagion extends itself not only to the Judgments, but Practices of Mankind; and not only corrupt Principles, but vi­tious Examples prevail in Parents, Guar­dians and Tutors, the Minds of their Descendents will be deeply impregnated with pernicious Prejudices and Prepos­sessions. They are implanted among the first and earliest Impressions, even before the Powers of Reason exert them­selves. This, I am confident, is the Case of the uncultivated Regions of Man­kind: And certainly, when Reason comes to exert it self under such a fatal Bias, no wonder if she often falls into very gross Miscarriages. And yet this is the inevitable Portion of Mankind, that are brought forth in a State of Im­potence, as well in Mind as Body; and can hardly arrive to any Growth in Rea­son, before they arrive to a Maturity in Body. But now, these things being laid together, and admitted; it's very unjust to reject the Divine Oeconomy of Laws of Nature antecedent to Revela­tion, because the unavoidable Prepos­sessions of some Men have carried them besides the Mark, so as to contradict the general Lines of Duty: For, it's ap­parent, [Page 43]were Men to enter the World in the Strength and Power of Reason, without the Clog and Encumbrance of antecedent Prepossessions (as in the Instance already given, See Chap. 1. Sect. 2.) It's impossible but the Fun­damental Line of Duty must present it self to the first workings of Reason; and the prime Laws of Nature would be as legible to the Eye of the Mind, as they would be to the outward Senses, when graved on Tables of Stone. But now, as the Case stands, I mean with regard to a degenerate State; the Objecti­ons before us prove no more than the Miscarriages of Reason, but do not o­verturn that Frame or Model which God hath established. So that Reason in her Enquiries after a Law of Nature, ap­pears to be placed under great Difficul­ties; but yet Laws of Nature may, for all this, be the Product, and Workings of natural Reason.

CHAP. III. Of the Argument of Ʋniversal Con­sent.

HAving now, in some measure, An­swered what I proposed; which was to prove a Law of Nature antecedent to Revelation, and rescued the Hypothe­sis from the Objections that threatned it; before I dismiss this Argument, I shall offer something in reference to what a late Author has advanced against the Argument of Universal Consent, under colour of exploding innate Ideas, or pra­ctical Principles; but will serve as well against a Law of Nature.

§. 1. And first, it's very observable, This Gentleman has industriously amas­sed together all the Filth and Off-scour­ing of a reprobate Mind, and a defiled Conscience, and of a People that seem'd to be abandoned by God; and conse­quently nursed up in a universal Impi­ety. He has sent us to all the Creeks and Corners of Barbarity under the Verge [Page 45]of Heaven, to see Rapes, Murders, and the vilest Incests practised, with univer­sal Approbation and Allowance; yea, ra­ther with an Opinion of Vertue and Merit; to see whole Nations or Tribes of Men living without God in the World, without any Foot-steps of Worship, or so much as a Name for God. [Lock's Humane Ʋnderstanding, B. 1. Cap. 3. §. 9.] And upon all this concludes, That there is scarce that Principle of Morality to be named, or Rule of Vertue to be thought on, (those only excepted that are absolutely necessary to hold Society together, which commonly too are neglected betwixt distinct Societies) which is not somewhere or other slighted, and condemned by the general Fashion of whole Societies of Men, govern­ed by practical Opinions, and Rules of li­ving quite opposite to others. §. 10. And the Argument drawn from all this, is le­velled against universal Consent, and in­nate Principles: [For thus the Author, §. 9. Where then are those innate Princi­ples of Justice, Piety, Gratitude, Equity, Chastity; or where is that universal Consent that assures us there are such in­bred Rules?] And certainly the Argu­ment carries the same Force against a Law of Nature, and the eternal Di­stinctions [Page 46]of Good and Evil: For may not the Latitudinarian in Triumph de­mand, Where is that universal Consent, that assures us there are Laws of Na­ture, or indispensable established Rules of Morality? Nay, to have recourse to his Methods of Arguing, since contrary practical Principles are asserted by whole Nations as the avowed Rules of Living; since Remorse in some attends the vilest Enormities, whilst others think they merit by 'em; may not we expostulate, Where are those natural Measures of Right and Wrong, those natural Distincti­ons of Good and Evil? See §. 9, 10, 11. Certainly these are Deductions as strong and cogent, as those against innate Princi­ples: I am sure they will pass for such in the Judgment of some Men that caress Mr. Lock's Doctrine concerning Innate Ideas, since he is not content to explode all innate practical Principles, but assigns no other Foundation or Original, besides Custom, Education, the Superstition of a Nurse, or the Authority of an Old Woman. See §. 22, 23, 26. This Au­thor, in a Letter to the Learned Bishop of Worcester, observes, That the Founda­tion of all Religion, and genuine Morali­ty, being established in the Belief of a [Page 47]God, no Arguments that are made use of to work the Perswasion of a God, should be invalidated, page 113, 114. And, certainly Reason should have obliged him, to have used the same Caution, not only in invalidating Arguments that are advanced to prove a Law of Nature, the true ground of Morality; but in advancing Arguments that do not more directly destroy the Doctrine of innate Ideas, than a Law of Nature. It's true, were the Doctrine of innate Ideas, or practical Principles no way to be disproved, but by exposing the Conceipt of universal Consent, the Method had been very pardonable; but this Author confesses, that were the Argument admitted, it proves no Idea or Principle to be innate, B. 1. Cap. 2. §. 3. And therefore I am a­fraid he was acted by no good Design, to muster up all his Forces against an Argu­ment that does him no Disservice, especially when his Methods of attacking it, are more fatal against the whole Body of Morality. But to make some Returns to these Ha­rangues, I shall not now consider how far practical Principles may be said to be innate, this will fall in its proper place; but I think we have no reason to cashier the Argument of universal Consent, which if there is any such [Page 48]thing, must be a considerable Evidence of a Law of Nature, and the irreconcila­ble Distinctions of Good and Evil. And first, I think Mr. Lock needed not to have sent us to Africa and the Indies, to the most rude and uncultivated Parts of the World, to explode the Doctrine of an universal Consent, as to Chastity, Humanity, and other moral Vertues. For the sacred Canon, if he will allow it to be Authentick, would have fur­nished him with national Enormities that were as much the Fashion of their Countries and the approved Rules of Living, as any he has produced. Did not the seven Nations practise the vilest Incests, was it not a piece of Devotion to sacrifice there Off-spring to Moloch, See Rev. 18. Ezek. 23. and in a word, to practise a thousand Abominations? As for particular Nations that had not so much as a Name of God (if in reality there were any such) I think they were not more remarkable, than those that had not God in all their Thoughts. And when the vilest Immoralities are produ­ced with a national Esteem and Appro­bation, I think they are not worse than those St. Paul has charged the Hea­then World with, in more places than [Page 49]one, who being past Feeling, have given themselves over to Lasciviousness, to work all Ʋncleanness with greediness. [See Ephes. 4. v. 18, 19. Rom. 1. v. 20, 25.] and yet I think there can be no just Authority against an Universal Consent, as to Laws of Nature, or Practical Principles. If this were so, Universal Consent may be as well rejected in the Proof of Rational Faculties, or at least in the Establish­ment of Reason and Truth upon any cer­tain Foundation; and consequently they are to be resolved into meer Chance or Fortune: for the Contradictions (recor­ded by St. Paul) to the plain Rules of Morality, are as absolute Contradicti­ons to the Allowance or Supposition of Rational Faculties, and the natural Frame and Foundation of Reason, as they are to Laws of Nature, or the natural Fea­tures of Good and Evil. The Mistake, I think, is obvious from a very few Con­siderations, tho' God has implanted Fa­culties of Reason, which, if rightly ex­ercised and applied, will discern Things as they really are, and pronounce certain Matters or Things, indispensable Rules of Action: Yet, since there's a fatal Bias on our Natures, and these Faculties do not Act necessarily, nor are Things al­ways [Page 50]duly presented to their View, nor do they yield a due Attention to 'em; No­tions may be impressed, that may almost overturn the very Frame of Nature, or destroy the natural Appearances of Good and Evil, Vice and Vertue; and there­fore Men may by the Bias of Education, Custom, and irregular Appetites, come to espouse the most horrid Impieties, for Heroick Vertues; may practise the gros­sest Enormities, not only with Appro­bation, but an Opinion of Merit. I'm sure Christianity supposes little less, when we are assured of Seared Consci­ences; when the Mind, or Ʋnderstandings, as well as Consciences, may be defiled, Tit. 1.3. when the Understanding may be darkned (to that degree) as to be past Feeling, and to give us up to work all Ʋn­cleanness with greediness. And in a word, when we are instructed that Men may be abandoned by God, and consequent­ly may be given up to walk in the Vanity of their Minds, to vile Affections, and to work all Ʋncleanness. This may be the Case of private Persons, and of publick Societies too; and no doubt it is the Case of the miserable Indians at this Day, as it was once of the Seven Nations. And when such invincible Ignorance and Im­piety [Page 51]has over-spread a Land, and is be­come an established Rule of Life to Pa­rents, Governours and Tutors, it must (without some distinguishing Overtures of Grace) be entailed and transmitted to Posterity. But yet for all this the Argu­ment of Universal Consent, as to Laws of Nature and established Rules of Mo­rality, cannot justly be Arrained, we may as well question Man to be a Rea­sonable Creature, at least on the Autho­rity of Universal Consent, because there are some Fools and Ideots; or a Crea­ture of Symetry and Proportion, because there are some Monsters in the World; as argue against an Universal Consent, because the Barbarity of some Nations contradict it. It's true, Mr. Lock en­deavours to take off the force of the Argu­ment, since he seems to call the Judg­ment of other Nations, that have pre­served the great Lines of Laws of Na­ture, the private Perswasions of a Party; whilst we esteem 'em the only Dictates of Right Reason, B. 1. Cap. 3. §. 20. But I hope those vile Practices he has tran­scribed from those that only retain the Figure of Men, are not to pass for the Dictates of Right Reason, nor they the Men of Right Reason: And consequently [Page 52]their Votes or Opinions are not to be received against that Universal Consent we contend for, for certainly, when we appeal to Universal Consent, we cannot be supposed to appeal to Monsters, A­postates, Reprobates or Devils; and yet there may be whole Nations that will fall under one of these Characters. A­gain, It's possible that natural Powers and Faculties may be so far abused, as to lose their native Vigour and Acti­vity; so that Men may live in a State of Inconsideration and Thoughtlessness, and become as Ignorant and Careless of every Thing, but what the Example and Custom of their Country suggests, as the unthinking Brute that perisheth. And this may be the case of Tribes of Men as well as private Persons, and no doubt is the case of the uncultivated Negro's; and therefore it would be highly absurd to take in their Judgments and Opinions, to make up that Universal Consent we contend for.

§. 2. Upon the whole then, when we have recourse to Universal Consent, for the Proof of a Law of Nature, it only implies an Appeal to those Nations or People, that in the Judgment of impro­ved [Page 53]Reason, have passed under the Cha­racter of Polished or Civilized; or that have been justly supposed in some mea­sure to have exerted those Powers and Faculties in Thought and Observation, which God has implanted in the original Frame and Constitution of Mankind. And certainly we have always had the joynt Consent of such Nations, for most of those Rules and Precepts, which, in the strictest Sense, are esteemed Laws of Nature: I'm sure they have signified or declared it in the most unquestionable Way or Manner; Inasmuch as they have been selected for the general Subject of civil Laws, and the Practice of 'em en­forced by certain civil Penalties or Sancti­ons. And certainly this is the strongest Ar­gument or Presumption for Laws of Na­ture that may be, since we cannot ima­gine, why distinct Nations and Societies of Men, established upon different Max­ims and Rules of Policy, as well as Mo­dels of Government, should conspire in the Subject-matter of so many Laws; unless they were by the Light of Reason discoverable to Mankind, as indispen­sable Rules of Action. And thus I hope I have satisfied the Demands of all rea­sonable Enquirers, in proving a Law [Page 54]of Nature antecedent to Revelation, or positive Humane Laws.

CHAP. IV. Reflections on some Passages in the Conference with a Theist, Part 2.

§. 1. HAving in some measure drawn the Line, and laid the Foun­dation of natural Religion, or Laws of Nature antecedent to Revelation, I can­not but discover my Dissatisfactions with the Opinion of a late Author, that pla­ces the Whole of natural Religion in the Authority of Revelation, that will allow it no other Original but Revelation, and no other Means of Conveyance and Preservation, but Oral Tradition. [See Conference with a Theist, Part 2. Page 32. 36.] Indeed this seems to be a Noti­on advanced without well considering the Nature, Probability, or Consequences of it. For first, the manner of its Convey­ance by Oral Tradition (which this Au­thor was forced to admit of) seems to expose it as a groundless Conjecture. I know he endeavours to remove the Force [Page 55]of this Argument, by telling us, That the Duties that pass under the Characters of Laws of Nature, are so natural to the Ʋn­derstanding, so easie to be embraced by it, and upon Proposal seem so to be extreamly Ʋseful to Mankind, that they must be assented to, and can never be mistaken or forgot, p. 36. And consequently there was not the least necessity of any written Re­cords. But certainly this is a Confession, which if well considered, should have directed him to the very Notion he la­bours to expose. For if Laws of Nature are so natural and obvious to the Under­standing that they must be assented to, he might very well have allowed that their extream Usefulness to Mankind would have prompted and enabled Rea­son to have made the Discovery, with­out borrowing the whole from Revela­tion: Certainly, if Reason, by its own intrinsic Light and Activity, could not go thus far, he must suppose the Souls of Men, tho' God's express Image and Re­presentative, to be the most imperfect, impotent Parts of the Creation. But then that Laws of Nature are not so easi­ly assented to, or can never be mistaken or forgot, I should have thought his own Remarks upon the Lives and Do­ctrines [Page 56]of Philosophers, and in a word, on the Manners and Notions of the Hea­then World, had been a sufficient Con­futation. Most of these, we must sup­pose, received something from his ima­ginary Line of Tradition, and therefore since he has made 'em so basely to per­vert the Rules of it, he might have just­ly concluded that Providence, who knew well what was in Man, must have judg­ed it necessary to have inculcated Laws of Nature, either by frequent Visions, or committed them to Writing, as well as the other parts of his revealed Will. And therefore his own Objection seems to stand good against him, on his own Principles: That Tradition is not so pro­per a means to convey Morality by to Man­kind, because of its liableness to Corrupti­on, and that it would have been more sen­sibly vitiated than we find it is, had it de­scended by this Method. And truly the Objection carries force in it, for were Humane Reason so desperately Impotent, as the Picture he seems to have presented the World with, represents; I cannot conceive what Service a few blind Oral Traditions would have done to preserve the least Footsteps of Morality. But to examine the Truth of the Conjecture, [Page 57]under the Instance he has given, that of the Indian. Indeed it's very notorious the Regions of the Indian World are re­duced to the lowest Ebb of Humanity, and lodged under the grossest Cloud of Ignorance, there being not much left but Humane Shape to introduce a Thinking Mind to believe they are endued with Humane Souls. But as for those small Remains of Morality, were they to sub­mit to a strict Examination, I'm perswa­ded, we should hardly find them Re­solving 'em into the Advice or Com­mands of their Fathers and Grandfathers, or pretending a Succession from the great Parent of Mankind, Adam. This is cer­tainly an Account as unknown and un­thought of, as native Inscriptions, or a Ra­tionale founded in a large train of Conse­quences. But yet tho' 'tis ridiculous to i­magin that such illiterate Mortals should resolve every Term or Notion into its Simple Ideas, (especially such as a late Au­thor has projected) yet I do not question, but they would offer at something from the Intrinsic Nature of the things them­selves, that would determine and engage their Choices; something that would in some measure bespeak them Men, and Reasonable Creatures. I will grant that [Page 58]Opinion as well as Practice may be often established upon Custom and publick Ex­ample, without accounting for the Na­ture, or Reason of the Things themselves. But then Custom conducts us to some Original that is not very remote, where we may find it established on the highest Convictions and Evidences of Reason; and it may be no less than what are suf­ficient to establish a Law of Nature. But it seems highly absurd, that the whole Body of Laws of Nature, or the indi­spensable Rules of Action to Mankind, should rest upon no other Foundation, but a few Instructions delivered to our First Parents; and these transmitted thro' all the Periods of Time, and all the Revo­lutions of States, and Kingdoms into all the Corners of the Earth, upon the volu­tary Reports of those that lived before us. As for the Case of the poor Indians, I'm abundantly satisfied, they are so little sen­sible of any Conveyance of this Nature, and such insuperable Obstructions against the Success, or Preservation of it; that they might, on this account, justly plead invincible Ignorance to every Law of Nature, and consequently free 'emselves from that severe Sentence of Perishing without Law, because they really Sinned [Page 59]without the least Apprehension, or Con­science of a Law. Thus far as to the Im­probability of the Conveyance by Oral Tradition.

§. 2. I shall, in the second place, of­fer something, as to the Truth of the Position, that Laws of Nature take their Rise from Revelation.

And first, I think it manifestly con­tradicts the revealed Canon. And for this, I shall refer this Reverend Author to the Arguments I have advanced from Scripture, and particularly to the Passage he has cited, and my Explication pur­suant to the whole Body of Commenta­tors, and the best Modern Divines upon it. Indeed, he would make the World believe, he has taken off the Force of it, and established his own Notion by a parallel Text of Scripture: And these Words, which I command thee this Day, shall be in thine Heart, and thou shalt Teach them diligently to thy Children, &c. Deut. 6. v. 6, 7. Whereas, it's manifest, the holy Spirit speaks of Laws Revealed and Recorded, and the writing in the Heart implies nothing but a treasuring 'em up in the Mind, a Commitment of them to the Memory; and, in a Word, nothing [Page 60]but what the blessed Mother of our Lord did on another Occasion, when she laid up his heavenly Sayings in her Heart. It expresses a Duty incumbent upon us to commit the Laws of God to our Minds and Consciences, to rivet 'em in our Hearts and Affections, so to Meditate up­on them, that we may perform and keep them, and instruct others in them. But the Epistle to the Romans expresses a quite different thing. It expresses a Law distinct from a Revealed Law, and fixes the Distinction in the different manner of Promulgation, on the Ta­bles of the Heart; so that if 'tis not done by native Inscriptions, it must by natural Powers and Faculties. But fur­ther, the Canon of Scripture does not only pronounce this Notion false and groundless, but, I presume, it has been in some measure demonstrated to be so. For, if Man is originally endued with such Faculties, as by a native Activity can exert 'emselves in the Discovery of Laws of Nature, there can be no Foun­dation for erecting an uncertain Scheme of Oral Tradition.

§. 3. But to proceed to the Conse­quences of this Position.

And first, It's very well known, the Patrons of this Notion directly overturn the received Distinctions of Natural, from Revealed Religion, and Natural from Po­sitive Laws. The Distinction was al­ways founded in the different Origin of these Laws. The latter being given by special Revelation, but the former disco­vered by the Workings of Natural Rea­son. But now both must derive from Revelation; and consequently there can be no other Distinction, but what may be among written Revealed Laws: in as much as one Revealed Law or Precept, in its Intrinsic Nature, may be better adapted to the View and Perception of Humane Understanding than others; or at least no other Distinction, but what lies between Oral, and Written Traditions.

But to conclude this Argument, This Notion seems to shake or overturn the eternal Distinctions of Moral Good and Evil, founded in the very Frame and Nature of Things, together with the OEconomy of Natural Conscience. For, it's manifest, it weakens the Authority of Natural Religion, by placing such important Laws and Precepts upon the slender Credit of Oral Traditions. In­deed there are so many Difficulties and [Page 62]Improbabilities in transmitting a Body of Laws, through all Parts of the Habi­table World, by Oral Traditions, as are sufficient to ruine the Credit of the Hy­pothesis; and when this is done, the La­tudinarian has the greatest Advantage gi­ven him, to resolve the Whole of Natu­ral Religion into Custom and Education: These are Considerations so obvious and clear, as might have given an early Check to the Notion, unless more cogent Ar­guments and Authorities had discovered themselves, than have been hitherto pro­duced. However, now, I presume, they may obtain their due Effect, and though they have been offered with a great deal of Freedom, yet I hope this will not ob­struct their Admission, where they car­ry an Evidence sufficient to make way for it.

CHAP. V. Of the Distinction of Laws of Na­ture from Positive, or Written Laws, and whether they are In­nate.

§. 1. I Proceed, in the next place, to fix the Distinction of Laws of Nature, from Positive, or Written Laws, and consider whether they are Innate or no.

And first, The Distinction of Laws of Nature from Laws which, in the strict­est Sense, pass under the Name of Re­vealed, is clearly visible. For in Laws of Nature, as well the Subject matter, as the Authority of the Law, or the Mind, and Intention of the Law-giver upon it, are discoverable by the Powers and Faculties of Natural Reason. Where­as, in Revealed Laws, (I mean such as in the highest Sense are stiled Revealed) both the Subject-matter, and Intention of the Law-giver, entirely depend on the express Will and Pleasure of God. If [Page 64]there's any Difficulty then, it will con­sist in fixing the precise Distinction be­tween them, and Human Laws. For its certain both are to be esteemed the Deductions and Decrees of Right Rea­son. But, I think, they are chiefly to be distinguished from the Subject-matter of them. It's indeed the Work of Na­tural Reason to discover, and fix the Sub­ject-matter of these Laws; but the Sub­ject-matter of Laws of Nature is often vastly different from that of Civil Laws: For the Subject-matter of Laws of Na­ture arising from the original Frame and Condition of our Natures, and for the most part immediately conducing to our very Beings or Subsistence, rather than Well-being or civil Happiness, it seems to carry a natural and intrinsic Goodness; and consequently an irresistible Force and Efficacy in it, abstracting from the Au­thority, or Injunctions of a Law-giver. But now the Subject-matter of Civil Laws being chiefly the Circumstantials, or Instruments of the improved Happi­ness, of particular Societies; and calcu­lated for the particular Genius and Tem­pers of Men under different Climates, as well as the particular Turns and Periods of Kingdoms and Governments; it often [Page 65]carries no Intrinsick Goodness in it, but is justly to be rank'd among Things indiffe­rent; till the Pleasure and Authority of the Law-giver passes upon it. Again, the Subject-matter of Civil Laws, is ex­treamly variable; whereas that of Laws of Nature seems to be perpetual and unal­terable. For since the Subject-matter of Laws of Nature results from the primi­tive Frame and Order of created Nature, or indeed, from the original Frame of Humane Nature, as it stands encompas­sed with common Wants and Necessities; it must necessarily be adapted to the whole Off-spring of Mankind, and conse­quently be as perpetual as universal. But now the Subject-matter of Humane Laws being only the Circumstantials of civil Happiness, advanced as a fit and proper Instrument to attain it in particular Com­munities and Societies of Men, it must needs be precarious and changeable; it's often calculated for particular Events and Emergencies, and consequently is as va­rious as the different Aspects, or Revolu­tions of Kingdoms. It's an Instrument often advanced for a particular, and tem­porary End and Design, and it's well known there may be Twenty Instru­ments of equal force to attain it; and [Page 66]consequently the Subject-matter of Hu­mane Laws is often no otherwise fix'd and determin'd, than by the arbitrary Decree or Sentence of the Law-giver. But further, in order to establish a true Distinction of Laws of Nature from posi­tive Humane Laws; let us consider what it is that seems to give 'em the Denomina­tion of Laws of Nature, and represents 'em as Innate Rules, or Principles.

And First, since it is concluded, that they result, or take their rise from the ve­ry Frame and Constitution of created Nature, (insomuch, that God having esta­blished the Frame and Order of Things, these Laws, without any positive Com­mand, must follow upon it; and conse­quently in one Act seems to have esta­blished both) they may be justly esteem­ed Laws of Nature. And this may be one principal Reason why they carry the appearance of Innate Principles, and in the sacred Canon are represented to us as such. In this Sense, I'm sure, they are sufficiently distinguish'd from Humane Laws, since they are so far from taking their rise in the Frame and Constitution of Nature, that they are, at best, but re­mote Deductions from Laws of Nature, or rather certain temporary Rules and Pro­visions [Page 67]of Reason advanced upon particu­lar Emergencies in conformity to Laws of Nature, or, at least, an arbitrary en­forcement of Laws of Nature by positive Rewards and Punishments. But further, that which in reality gives them the ap­pearance of Innate Principles and the de­nomination of Laws of Nature, is the evi­dence and perspicuity of 'em. For since it is concluded, that Laws of Nature re­sult from the very Frame and Order of Nature, from that state and condition of Things wherein we were born, and whereby we subsist; they must undoubt­edly discover 'emselves to the Minds of Men, even tho' they were lodged in the most simple and unimproved State of Na­ture. For as long as we allow Mankind to be Thinking Reasoning Beings, the desire of Self-preservation will direct 'em to those Laws, without the observance of which they can hardly pretend to sub­sist, much less be happy. In a word, they are Laws of Nature, because they are Impressions that are stamped on the Mind, from the most importunate cra­vings and exigencies of Nature; and they carry the appearance of Innate Principles, because they are certainly some of the first Suggestions that accompany a Mind af­ter [Page 68]its arrived to a State of Thinking, and left to consult the Safety and Preservati­on of the whole Man: I say they are certainly some of the first Suggestions that would naturally offer 'emselves to the Minds of Men. For tho' Mankind is brought forth in Impotence, and their Mind cultivated by Education, as their Bodies are cherished by Food and Rai­ment, till they arrive to a competent Strength and Vigor, and consequently Names, and Words, and Ideas of the most trite Objects of Sense are instilled by the Instructions of Nurses and Parents, yet could we suppose Men turned out in­to the World in a State of Maturity, without the Bias of Education upon 'em, I do not question but the very Frame and Condition of their Beings, together with the Desire of Self-preservation, would give 'em a speedy View of those Laws, which, for this Reason, are justly stiled Laws of Nature. Again, they are Laws of Nature; because they immediately fall in with some peculiar Propensions; wrought off with the original Frame and Constitution of our Natures. It's visible there are certain Instincts, or Impulses in Nature, which seem to exert 'emselves upon particular Actions, that cannot well [Page 69]be resolved into the elaborate Workings of Reason, for they seem to have enga­ged the Passions by a kind of influential Impulse before the Action can well be scanned by any deliberate Reasonings; and certainly nothing strikes the Passions sooner, than those Actions that are pre­scrib'd by Laws of Nature. Thus the receipt of Benefits creates a speedy exulta­tion; the cherishing of our own Off-spring leaves a vigorous Complacency, and the most grateful Applauses and Satisfactions. And truly these are Things that have di­scovered 'emselves so early, where Na­ture has not been new moulded by con­trary Habits, or Education, that I do not question but they have given a Foun­dation to pronounce Laws of Nature, natural Instincts, or Innate Doctrines, or Principles. To conclude this Argument, Another distinguishing Characteristick of Laws of Nature from Civil Laws, arises from the exercise of Reason in the disco­very of 'em. It's on all hands allowed, that Reason is the immediate Directory in Civil Laws, as well as Laws of Na­ture. But yet Reason acts in a very dif­ferent manner. For the Foundation of Laws of Nature being the common exi­gencies, necessities, or condition of Man­kind, [Page 70]as Men, or such an Order of Be­ings; Reason can easily fix such Rules as will extend to the whole Species, so as to carry a binding Authority over 'em. But the Foundation of Civil Laws being only some particular Emergencies to be considered with regard to some parti­cular Circumstances of Time, Place, Per­sons and the like; Reason cannot deter­min any thing absolutely, or six a gene­ral Rule, or, indeed, declare what is fit and convenient in every Community; and consequently Civil Laws can only be the Deductions of Reason in Civil Gover­nours, with regard to the State and Con­dition of their People, or Government where they preside.

CHAP. VI. Reflections on Mr. Lock's Argu­ments against Innate Ideas, or Practical Principles; and the true Controversy determined.

§. 1. HAving thus assigned the princi­pal Characteristicks of Laws of Nature, we may in a few Words deter­mine, whether there be any practical Principles, which are truly Innate: But before I shall conclude any thing, I shall take liberty to make some few Returns to the Arguments of a late Author on this Subject. [Mr. Lock's Essay concerning Human Ʋnderstanding.] And first, con­cerning Universal Consent. It's indis­putably evident, that Universal Consent does not prove any Ideas, or practical Principles to be Innate. Because an Uni­versal Consent may prevail, partly from that Self-evidence, that naturally results from particular Things, or Actions, when presented to the Minds of Men; and partly from the Frame and Condition of [Page 72]Human Nature; whereby we are forci­bly prompted to the disquisition of 'em. But yet we are not willing wholly to di­scard the Argument; because tho' Uni­versal Consent may not prove the Do­ctrine of Innate Ideas; yet it's certainly a considerable Argument of a Law of Nature. And tho' the Author of this Es­say has done all he could to ruine the Cre­dit and Authority of it, yet I hope I have proved there is such a thing as Universal Consent, established upon a very firm and clear Foundation. But further, the re­maining Arguments of this Author are chiefly advanced against Innate Ideas, but they appear with equal force against Innate practical Principles. And there­fore I shall remark a little on that which he seems to fix the greatest weight on; and that is, a Necessity of Perception, even in a State of Infancy; for to him it seems a Contradiction, or hardly intelligible, that Truths should be imprinted on the Soul which it perceives or understands not. Sect. 5. p. 5. See pag. 13. Sect. 27. But certainly he cannot mean a Necessity of actual Perception. For the Finite Na­ture of a Human Mind, will not in the same Instant suffer many Objects to be re­ceived under an actual View; and com­mon [Page 73]experience informs us, that a great ma­ny Impressions, or Ideas, are lodged in the Memory, without being revived it may be for a succession of Years. And truly I can see no reason, why native Inscripti­ons may not remain without being actu­ally attended to, as well as written Laws, or acquir'd Ideas. It's well known, those that contend for Innate Ideas, or Princi­ples, do not think they discover 'emselves without the Exercise of our natural Pow­ers and Faculties; and some of those ex­ternal Means and Instruments that are necessary to acquired Knowledge.

In a word, they always suppose a due Attention and Application of Mind, e­ven to the Exercise of Reflection. And truly since acquired Impressions, that are laid up in the Memory, are scarce e­ver revived, but by an accidental Occur­rence of some present Object; these na­tive Inscriptions (if any such) may not be perceived till their respective Objects are presented to the Mind, to exert its Powers and Faculties upon. Something like this our Exercitations on written Laws seem to resemble, when we never apprehend the full Force and Purport of a Law, till some special Case or Instance offers itself to induce an Application. [Page 74]And thus the want of Perception in In­fants may be fairly accounted for; as well as from the infant Indispositions of the Animal part: For the Organs being (for ought we know) at first not so well fitted to convey the Images of outward Objects, and consequently fix any Impressions, or establish any clear Perceptions, no won­der if native Inscriptions lie dormant. This Author allows, there's a time when a Human Soul begins to Think, or ex­ercise any of its natural Powers and Fa­culties; and native Inscriptions cannot occur, or be perceived before we begin to Think; yea, rather if they are to be revived by the Exercise of the Mind, up­on outward Things or Objects that are peculiar to 'em; we can scarce expect 'em among our infant Thoughts, or mental Exercitations, as long as we are so con­stantly entertained by the Inventions of Nurses and Parents. Thus far there seems to be no necessity for discarding innate Ideas or practical Principles; and consequently, if it appears that the Do­ctrine serves any real Purposes of Reli­gion, I see nothing advanced by this Author that demonstrates the Absurdity of it.

§. 2. But yet for all this, if it be al­lowed that Probabilities may determine our Judgments in this Matter, the Do­ctrine of Innate Ideas, is rather to be re­jected than retain'd. It's abundantly con­cluded, That Man is under an establisht Method of attaining the right knowledge of Good and Evil; the Frame and Or­der of Things within and without, with the exercise of his own Faculties upon 'em, will present him with a Scheme of Moral Duty, and a true Measure of Acti­on; and that too as clearly as if it was impressed on the Mind, with the first Lineaments of its Being: And therefore there seems to be no visible Necessity for having Recourse to Innate Ideas, or In­scriptions. And certainly, if Innate I­deas are serviceable to Mankind, they must be so in order to supply the Defects of Reason, and consequently, they seem to be exempt from the Disquisitions of Reason. For if Innate Ideas are to be examined and judged on by the Work­ings of Reason, Reason itself, (I mean the Decrees and Deductions of it,) will answer all the Ends and Designs of a rea­sonable Being as effectually, as if a Digest of Laws were originally recorded on the [Page 76]Mind. If this be true, as I think it's, in some measure, demonstrated to be, the Doctrine of Innate Principles must be laid aside, since we cannot conceive that a wise Creator should establish any Or­dinance, without some special Ends and Uses annexed to it, I mean such, as are not served any other way. If it be said, that Reason exercises no Jurisdiction in this Affair; then, I'm afraid, Innate In­scriptions will rather endamage than ad­vance Religion and Morality. For then every one will be apt to obtrude his own Fancies, and wild Suggestions, for na­tive Inscriptions; and consequently, Man­kind must be exposed to all the Extrava­gancies of Enthusiasm, in the Oeconomy of Nature, as well as that of Grace; so that whatsoever any one has the boldness to affirm, or fancy to be written on the Heart, must immediately pass an Obli­gation on all Mens Actions; and the Fin­ger of God shall be pleaded to the Sub­version of the common Principles of Mo­rality, as the Spirit of God has been to the Subversion of the Peace and Unity of the Church. When all things then are thus fairly laid together, we may with greater appearance of Reason, conclude, That our Ideas and Principles are acqui­red, [Page 77]as well as the more remote Deductions of Science, and that 'tis their intimate A­greement with the Ends and Interests, or common Frame and Necessity of our Nature, that gives 'em the appearance of native Impressions. In a word, then, tho' the sacred Language seems to fa­vour the Notion, yet it may be justly re­solved into Metaphor, or Figure, and import no more than an Allusion to the general Custom of promulging Laws in Tables, or Writing. Inasmuch as God has originally endued us with Powers and Faculties to discover a Rule of Action, and Law to Govern ourselves by, in the common Exigences of Human Nature, as clearly as if he had Engraven it on Tables of Stone.

CHAP. VII. Of the different Degrees of the Evi­dence of Laws of Nature.

IT will easily be granted, that Laws of Nature carry a different Evidence, in proportion to the Subject-matter of 'em, and the several Workings of Rea­son, in the Disquisition of 'em. Some Laws discover 'emselves by a single Con­sequence, or a short train of Consequen­ces, whilst others rest upon an Evidence, that is wrought by several Gradations, or a large Series of Consequences or De­ductions. The primary Laws of Nature are those which represent the principal Duties we owe to God, or those which concern our own Persons, or the Persons of our Neighbours. For those that arise from our own, or our Neighbours Pro­perty, are certainly more elaborate and remote. I shall illustrate these Observa­tions by a single Instance in each of 'em.

And first, To Reverence and Worship the Supreme Being, which we call God, is certainly a Fundamental Law of Na­ture; [Page 79]because it necessarily arises from that Relation we bear to God. For the most obvious Notion of a God, and a bare Assent to this single Proposition, that God is our Creator, and we his Crea­tures, from whom all that we have, or belongs to us, is immediately derived, must by a direct and immediate Con­sequence demonstrate, that we are obli­ged to empty our Souls before him in the most solemn Acts of Homage and Reve­rence. Indeed, as for the manner of Di­vine Worship, tho' Natural Reason, by a train of Arguments, might determine it, so as to be some way acceptable to God; yet to establish it in Perfection, is cer­tainly the business of Revealed Religion: But that God is to be Worshipped, is a Duty lodged in the most simple Work­ings of Reason. Again, That God has enjoyned Temperance, as a Duty, arises not only from the prime and most obvi­ous Ends of our Being, but from the Do­ctrine of Self-preservation, and the ne­cessary Methods of Subsistence; so that allowing the clear Dictates of Reason, in the Mind of our great Creator, to be a Rule of Duty, a single Inference will de­monstrate Temperance to be a Duty. A­gain, as to those Laws which concern the [Page 80]Person of our Neighbours; such I mean as prohibit Murder, or other Violations of their Persons, it's visible, the Consi­deration of the Methods of our Subsist­ence, whereby we are necessitated to rely on the Succours of our Fellow-creatures, will instruct us that God did not allow us to assassinate and destroy 'em; the ve­ry Suggestions of Self-preservation will oblige us to make the Conclusion. A­gain, the Consideration of being Fellow-creatures, and a peculiar of a Sovereign Creator, and as such under his immedi­ate Conduct and Disposal, will instruct us, that we have no right to their Lives, without a special Commission from him.

Lastly, The early Discoveries which we find in ourselves, of Love, Tender­ness, and Compassion, and the Earnings which are implanted towards our own Flesh and Blood, will direct us that God intended we should place a certain Mea­sure of these native Passions and Propensi­ons on those that are descended from us, or are compounded of the same Ingredients, and formed in the same Mould; and con­sequently he could never authorize us to commit Violence or Cruelties on their Persons; so absurd is the Hypothesis of the Leviathan, that projects a State of Na­ture [Page 81]to be an absolute State of War. But to proceed to the last Instance, that of outward Goods and Possessions, which engages the principal Laws and Mea­sures of Justice. Thus to Steal, is, no doubt, a Violation of natural Justice, and consequently a Violation of a Law of Na­ture; but yet this rests on the Force and Authority of a Law antecedent to it, I mean that of Property; and consequent­ly it implies several Conclusions or De­ductions, before we discover the Autho­rity or Obligation of it. Thus to detain or invade a Neighbour's Property, con­trary to Compact, is certainly an Act of Violence done to a Law of Nature; but yet it demands a Proof of the Obligations of Compact or voluntary Promises, as well as of the Authority of Property, be­fore the Law can be decyphered. It can­not be denyed but these are Laws of Nature, because natural Reason, by close Researches and regular Conclusions, may discover their Obligations. I'm sure it can be no Objection, that they result from voluntary Intercourses and Trans­actions among Mankind, I mean Com­pacts or Bargains; for the Necessities of Nature, dictating such Transactions, is a sufficient Indication of their Divine [Page 82]Authority and Obligation; and conse­quently, whatever immediately Results from 'em, must obtain the same Autho­rity and Obligation, as well as Charact­er: But yet, it's manifest, when Laws of Nature are to be supported by a Train of Consequences, the Evidence is not so direct and convincing; because in these Cases the Mind is more fatally exposed to Miscarriages. Upon the whole then it appears, that Laws of Nature rest upon very different Degrees of Evidence. And now thus much being agreed and con­cluded, it may by these Measures be more exactly discerned which are to be esteemed Laws of Nature, and which not so; which Fundamental, or de primo Di­ctamine Naturae, and which not so; and consequently, the Necessity of forming a compleat Scheme of Laws of Nature, seems to be wholly superseeded.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Foundation of God's Right of Dominion, and our Duty of Allegiance as a Law-giver.

§. 1. HAving asserted the Authority of Laws of Nature, by fix­ing it in the Author of Nature, it natu­rally directs me to enquire into the Ori­ginal and Foundation of those Obligati­ons we owe to God, or how we are obli­ged to the Observance of his Laws. But before I proceed to a direct Determinati­on of this Matter, I shall make some Re­turns to what I find in a late excellent Discourse, concerning the Power and Right of Obliging, and particularly as applied to God. He labours to prove that the Right and Power of Obliging is the same, especially with respect to God; and therefore after a great many Argu­ments concludes, From all which it follows that whereever there is a Right of Obliging, and where there is an absolute uncontroul­able Power of Obliging, there is for that ve­ry [Page 84]reason a Right also, [See The Certainty and Necessity of Religion in general, Page 100.] Whether these Assertions are true or no will appear by and by.

First, I cannot but Premise, that Right and Power happening to accompany each other in the Exercise of 'em, no more than Heat and Light in the Sun, is no Argu­ment that they are not two distinct things, conceived under two distinct Ideas or No­tions.

Secondly, Tho' a Right and Power of Obliging, are both eternally invested in God, yet it's no more an Argument that they imply the same thing, than that the Attributes of Infinite Power and Justice are the same. Nay, further, tho' a Right of Obliging may by a Train of Conse­quences follow from a Power of Obli­ging, or on the contrary, a Power of O­bliging from a Right of Obliging; yet it's no more an Argument of their I­dentity, than that a rational Soul and Thought are the same, because a ratio­nal Soul implies a Power of Thinking. And, therefore, tho' an absolute uncon­troulable Power may infer a Right of Obliging, so that for that very Reason there may be a Right of Obliging, yet they may be as distinct as Power and [Page 85]Truth. But to consider both in their received and established Ideas or Noti­ons. Now certainly, were we to appeal not only to the best Moralists, but to the common Sense of Mankind, they would unanimously concur in two different De­scriptions. And I'm perswaded they differ as much as a Raparee or Tyrant, from a lawful Prince; as much as doing a thing Rightfully, or upon a just Authority, and doing a thing by Violence. For Vi­olence argues a Power of Punishing, as well as a rightful Execution of Punish­ment; both indeed attain the same end, that is, engage an Obedience, but upon different Measures and Principles. A Power of Obliging, in the strict Notion of it, is only concerned for securing an Obedience, without considering the Ju­stice or Injustice of the Action; but a Right of Obliging implies an Obedience established on a just Authority or Founda­tion; if there be any such thing as Justice distinct from Power.

In a word, A Right of Obliging im­plies the Title of a Superior to Obedi­ence, and consequently, a Title to en­force it by suitable Rewards and Punish­ments; but a Power of Obliging neither implies a Title to the one nor other. [Page 86]Thus an Usurper may have as absolute a Command of Rewards and Punish­ments, to oblige or secure an Obedience, as the most rightful Sovereign; yet he certainly wants an Authority to enforce an Obedience, by the Weight and Ter­ror of Punishment; and if he doth en­force it, he exercises Power, but not Right.

Again, A rightful Sovereign may re­tain a Title to an Obedience, and to the Exercise of Rewards and Punishments to enforce it, but he may want a Power to exert his Right, as in the Case of Re­bellion or general Defection. The No­tion is clear and indisputable, when ap­plied to the civil Power on Earth, and it carries the same Evidence and Force in it, when applied to the absolute in­dependent Power of Heaven: For tho' Power and Right, by reason of the in­finite Perfections of the Divine Nature, are Inseparable in God, and in Man not so; yet the Ideas, or Notions of Right and Power, whether in God or Men, are formed upon the same Measures and Principles; yea, as much as the Notions of Justice, Reason, or Purity, allowing In­finity and Perfection in God, which can­not be given to Men.

§. 2. Having thus far asserted the Di­stinction of a Right of Obliging from a Pow­er of Obliging, I shall proceed a little fur­ther, and consider whether the Right of Obliging, as a true and proper Law-gi­ver, consists in nothing else but in a Pow­er of contributing to our Happiness or Misery, by special Rewards or Punish­ments. Thus much seems to be asserted in the Discourse already cited; for we are told, That no one has a Right or Pow­er of Obliging another to act such a parti­cular Way he prescribes, any further than he has a Power of contributing to the Happi­ness or Misery of that Being he so Prescribes to, — and that God can no otherwise in­duce an Obligation upon Men to Obey him, than by making 'em know that he has it in his Power, to render them Happy or Miser­able, Page 95.

But certainly, that a Right of Obli­ging, as a Law-giver, does not consist in a Power of Rewarding and Punishing, is evident from uncontroulable Arguments.

As first, It cannot be denied but an Equal, that can challenge no Right of Dominion over us, may, upon some spe­cial Circumstances, be invested with such a Power of Rewarding and Punishing, as [Page 88]to engage us to Pursue and Imbrace what he dictates to us; and yet such a Power does not give him any Right of Domi­nion over us, or induce an Obligation of obeying him as a proper Superiour. A Friend may propose Rewards to deter­mine us to any particular Way in Mat­ters of Counsel or Interest, and yet not induce a binding Authority upon us, like that of a Law. A Friend or Neighbour may, by Rewards or Favours, be em­powered to contribute so highly to our Happiness, as to induce not only Obli­gations of Gratitude, but the Exercise of other social Vertues, and yet they do not establish a Right of Sovereign Autho­rity upon us.

In a word, A Robber, Usurper, Assas­sin, or the Devil himself may have it in his Power to inflict such Punishments as will determine any Man to Act as he pre­scribes, and yet this Power gives no Right or Title to our Obedience, no more than a Right to inflict those Punish­ments that will enforce it. It will easily be granted, that a Power of Punishing or Rewarding, and consequently of con­tributing to our Happiness or Misery, are the only proper Motives of a rational Obedience, but I cannot conceive how [Page 89]they can be the Ground of Obedience that is due to a Superior. For nothing can be the Ground of Obedience, but such a Dependence as entitles a Being to im­pose things upon us by way of Precept or Command, and authorises him to inflict Punishments when his Commands are not fufilled or executed, so that the Ground or Obligation of Obedience, due to Laws, is antecedent to a Power of Rewarding or Punishing; since it must not give Right to a Power of imposing Precepts or Commands; but to a Power of inflict­ing Punishments. Indeed the Miscar­riages of this Notion, seem to arise by not distinguishing the Ground of Obedi­ence, from its proper Motives. I will easily grant, that few would be perswa­ded to yield an Obedience to Commands, that are disagreeable to any thing about 'em, were there no Power of contribu­ting to their Happiness or Misery, by Re­wards or Punishments; and therefore no­thing can more effectually engage an actu­al Obedience, with the Dissolute and Ir­religious, than a Power of contributing to their Happiness or Misery, by Re­wards or Punishments; but I cannot think that a bare Power of dispensing Rewards or Punishments, can represent [Page 90]the Right of Obedience, or in the Lan­guage of this Author, the Right of O­bliging another; no more than the Right of Dispensing those Rewards or Punish­ments we have in our Power. This is an Assertion that carries so much Evi­dence in it, that it holds every way: For were any Subject placed in such Cir­cumstances, that neither Rewards nor Punishments were left to oblige him to yield an Obedience, yet he may for all this, acknowledge his Superior's Right to his Obedience. Thus in the Case of a general Defection, tho' the Rightful So­vereign is divested of a Power of Re­warding and Punishing, the Rebels en­joying an absolute Possession of both; yet their Ambition, Revenge, or Success may not carry 'em to such a pitch of Insolence, but they may still be forced secretly to own their Sovereign's Right to their Al­legiance, as well as Right to that Power of dispensing Rewards and Punishments, which they have wrested from him, and particularly a Right of Punishment due to their unnatural Defection.

Again, I question not but the very De­vils in Hell, tho' they know and feel the irreversible Sentence passed against 'em, and consequently have no Motive left [Page 91]to ingage their Obedience, are forced to recognize their Fealty, or acknowledge God's Right of Dominion over them, in obliging 'em to serve and obey him; and his Right in passing that very Sentence they actually suffer for not obeying him. For in this Sense they certainly believe and tremble, insomuch that their very Belief seems to be an Instrument to enhance their Misery.

To conclude this Argument, I can freely grant, that there cannot be a Right of Obliging without a Right of Rewarding or Punishing, because (as has already been observed) the Right of Rewarding or Punishing is founded in a Right of Obliging; but there may be a Power of Rewarding and Punishing, without a Right of Rewarding, much less of Obliging. In one word, the recog­nising a Right of Obliging, or a Title to Obedience, is only an Assent of the Mind to a particular Truth; and tho' the Pow­er of Rewarding or Punishing are the only proper Arguments to secure an Obe­dience, yet I hope there may be other Reasons or Arguments to engage this As­sent besides the Power of Rewarding or Punishing, or of contributing to our Happiness.

§. 3. Having thus offered my Reasons why I Dissent from this Author, before I determine wherein the Right of Obliging consists, I shall offer something against Mr. Hobbs's Notion. He, indeed, carries the thing somwhat higher, for he perem­ptorily affirms, That the Right of God's Sovereign Authority over Mankind, rests merely upon his irresistible Power; a so­la potentia irresistibili, De Cive, cap. 14, 15. And to confirm the Notion, he fur­ther affirms, That one Man might have challenged a Right over the whole Off­spring of Mankind, had he been endued with a Sufficiency of Power to have resi­sted the united Force of his Fellow-Crea­tures, or, at least, protected them and himself. Mansisset igitur ipsi jus dominii in caeteros omnes propter potentiae excessum qua & se & illos conservare potuisset. Pur­suant to this, he tells us §. 7. That our Obligations of Obedience are founded in our native Impotence and Fear, a metu sive Imbecillitatis propriae (respectu Divinae potentia) conscientiae. I must confess, there seems to be a near Affinity between this and the Notion already excepted a­gainst, tho' this seems to be carried much further, and more palpably beyond the [Page 93]Mark. For that admits a Power of Re­warding, as well as Punishing, and con­sequently includes an Obedience mixed with Love as well as Fear; but this fix­es all upon the Power of Punishing, and consequently places all upon Fear, or some Glympses of Hope, without any founda­tion for Love. Indeed this is a Notion which deserves rather Contempt and Scorn than a formal Reply. For it levels us with the unthinking Brutes that perish, by making Fear, and that too the most servile part of it, a fear of Punishment, the only Spring of Human Actions. This, we see, is the Sovereign Principle of his Religion, as well as Politicks, but it has been more than once learnedly con­futed, as concerned in the latter; and it's so absur'd as applyed to the former, that it scarce deserves the least Notice, much less a Confutation. I shall therefore dis­miss this Notion with a few Observati­ons.

First, It's observable, that the Argu­ments brought to support it, are directed to prove the proper Motive of our Obe­dience; not God's Right and Sovereign­ty to it; or, in other terms, to enforce an Obedience, not to represent the Right or Duty of Obedience.

Secondly, It is observable, that Ar­guments suggested against the last Noti­on, must carry an equal Force against this. But, in a word, I think no consi­dering Person can discern any Conse­quence between a bare Power of punish­ing a Sett of Men, and a Right of impo­sing Laws and demanding Obedience to 'em; and if 'tis false in a finite Power, it must be so in infinite; for there is no dif­ference besides original and delegated, in­finite and limited, neither of which al­ter the nature of Things, Notions or Con­sequences; so that infinite Power in pu­nishing as such, or, as it barely implies, an infinite Power or Ability to punish, no more gives the Idea or Denomination of a Right of punishing (much less a Right of imposing Laws) than a finite delegated Power doth.

§. 4. It remains, that I endeavour to represent, wherein the precise Nature of a rightful Dominion, Obligation, or Obe­dience, with respect to God and his Laws, consists. And I shall enlarge something more freely upon it, because all delega­ted Right of Dominion and Obedience en­tirely depends upon it. Thus if we sup­pose civil Government founded in Com­pact, [Page 95]the Right of Dominion and Obedi­ence must rest upon the Authority of Compacts, as 'tis a Law of Nature, and an indispensable Duty to Observe and keep 'em; but the observance of 'em cannot be an indispensable Duty, but by some Right and Authority, lodged in the Au­thor of Nature, that pronounces 'em such. Thus if civil Government takes its Rise from a Paternal Right, Conquest, Imme­morial Prescription, or Possession, the Right of Dominion or Obedience invested in the civil Power, must rest on the Au­thority of some Divine Law, either na­tural or revealed, ratifying or confirming their Claims or Titles; and the Authori­ty of this Law must rest on some Right which God challenges to impose such a Law; so that the Authority of every sort of rightful earthly Power is founded in a Divine Right, in vertue of which, it is stiled the Ordinance of God; since all their Right of Dominion, or Authority, derives from a Supereminent Right in God. Now this is an absolute Demon­stration of the Absurdity of the Hobbists Notion, that Matters of Religion receive their Obligation from the State or civil Power, and consequently induce an ab­solute Obedience: This puts an eternal [Page 96]Silence to the Dispute, Whether we are to yield an Obedience to the Laws of the State before the Laws of God, or whe­ther the Laws of the State are to be obey­ed against the Laws of God? For cer­tainly, since God is the Fountain of all Power and Authority, the Duties of Re­ligion are ultimately determined by God, as well as receive their Obligation from God; so that the civil Power, that de­rives all Authority from God, can only exert a Power in matters of Religion, where God has not interposed, or placed it in other hands; but it's the greatest Absurdity in Nature to pretend a supere­minent Power to that of God, when the whole any Man can pretend to immedi­ately derives from God.

But to return: First then, the true O­riginal of God's Right of Dominion, or Right of Obliging us, undoubtedly results from his creative and preserving Power. That that Being, which by an absolute independent Power gives Being to ano­ther, has a Right to give Laws, or fix the Measures and Rules of his Being, seems to be a Maxim that carries a kind of Self-evidence in it; I'm sure it's the very Ar­gument advanced in the Sacred Canon, Rom. 9.20, 21. Nay, but O Man, who [Page 97]art thou that repliest against God? shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the Potter power over the Clay, of the same lump to make one Vessel unto Honor, and another unto Dishonor? It's well known, the De­sign of the Argument is to represent a supereminent Right in God, even such as might justly authorise him to assign those Allotments to Mankind, which his infi­nite Goodness would never suffer him to execute, and consequently it must de­monstrate a Right of giving Laws to those Creatures to whom he gave a Be­ing. But to pursue the Argument upon the Reasons of it, It's on all Hands allow­ed, that a Right of Dominion is founded in Property, and the more absolute the Property is, the more unquestionable is the Right of Dominion. That Property is the Foundation of Obedience, or a Right of Obliging, both in respect of God and Men, this Author freely owns in another place, pag. 126. And yet he labours to wave it in the place before us, as will appear more fully by and by. His Concessions are these, All the Reasons and Grounds of our Obedience to Men, and of their Right of Obliging us, are Power, Good­ness and Property— But God has all these [Page 98]Titles to our Obedience in the highest degree possible, for by giving us our entire Being, and every thing that belongs to our Nature, 'tis plain, that he has a greater Property in us by this Act of Creation or Production, than can accrue to any Man by Conquest, Pur­chase, Covenant, or any other way whereby Men come to have a Propriety in one ano­ther. I think the Argument is carried so full and clear, that it seems not capable of an Improvement. It's certain there is no Property so absolute as that which re­sults from a creative preserving Power. For Creation makes the Property abso­lute, independent and unborrowed; eve­ry Spring and Movement, every Power or Faculty, every Interest or Happiness, either actually possess'd, or capable of be­ing enjoy'd, is an absolute Property of a Creator; for all that is within or without us when he first set us forth into the World, was originally wrapped up, and in time issued forth of his infinite Power and Wisdom; the whole Stock of Mate­rials came out from him, and when 'tis all returned back, he has but his own. And is it not lawful to do what one will with his own? Subordinate Proprietors indeed may be limited, as to the exercise, or use of what they have a Propriety in, but [Page 99]an absolute independent Proprietor is to account to no one. We may therefore, in the Language of our Saviour, expo­stulate, who shall give unto him that which is thus his own? Luke 16.12. Again, a preserving Power, especially such as is peculiar to God, seems to advance, or at least corroborate the Propriety he chal­lenges in us. As our Beings took their rise from another, and were formed by the Hands of an Almighty Creator, we are by a necessity of Nature, or the origi­ginal Frame and Condition of our Na­ture, Beings perpetually dependent, so that Reason, as well as Revelation, instructs us, that in him we live, move, and have our Beings. He did not form and be­speak us into Being, and after the finish­ing Stroke, put us wholly out of his Hands with an intrinsick Power of Self-subsi­stence; but the same Power concurs to continue our Beings, that was required to form us into Being, for every Breath of Life, even our very Soul, and that Reason which seems to give us Authori­ty to act for ourselves, nay, the whole Cargo of Happiness, and every Span and Minute of it, perpetually hangs on the preserving Power of a mighty Creator. So that we may Expostulate in the Lan­guage [Page 100]of an Apostle, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? 1 Cor. 4.7. E­specially since we have received nothing but what carries appearance of having not received it, in as much as it still rests on the preserving Power of the Donor. Now what can establish a Right of Do­minion, or a Right of Obliging, if a Pro­perty so absolute, so independent, so in­separable, and so peculiar as this will not do it? Not only the uncontroverted No­tions of Mankind, but the first Workings of Reason will subscribe to it. Can Rea­son disown that Right by which it moves, and acts, and subsists? Nay, to advance a little further, this Gentleman, in another place, ingenuously confesses, that there are certain natural Propensions or Dispositions in the Soul, that close in with particular Actions, before Reason can well exert it self, p. 122. And certainly the present Notion of a Right of Dominion, founded in a creative, preserving Power, will be immediately embraced by the same ori­ginal Propensions; for I'm perswaded, could the Mind feel the Idea of such a Power upon her in an Instant, there would such an inward Impulse, like a natural Instinct, arise, that must discover a tacit tremendous kind of Assent to a [Page 101]Right of Fealty and Allegiance, before Reason could draw forth into a shread of Arguments to induce it. Indeed, the Title to a Right of Dominion is so indi­sputable, that Reason cannot suggest any thing that can pretend to limit the exer­cise of it, besides God's own immense and unchangable Attributes and Perfections. And therefore, tho' I will not dispute the Power of God, whether he could give his Creatures such Laws as must make 'em eternally miserable, (for did his Power extend thus far, his infinite Wisdom, Purity and Goodness, must suspend the exercise of it) otherwise if these could admit of it, I can see nothing that we can have recourse to, either as our own, or from others, that could give Right or Foundation to dispute the Au­thority of 'em. The Nature and Ten­dency of 'em, might very well obstruct the Observance of 'em; but still there would be no real Foundation, exclusive of the Goodness and Purity of God, to cancel the Authority of 'em. However these may be Niceties, and therefore it's by no means material to adjust or settle 'em. It's abundantly sufficient, that a creative, preserving Power, is an ample Foundation to establish a Right of Do­minion [Page 102]and Obligations of Obedience, with respect to those Laws which God at any time has enjoyned us, or his infi­nite Purity, Goodness, or Wisdom shall suffer him to enjoyn us. For as long as his blessed Attributes and Perfections re­gulate the divine Decrees, there can be no Laws imposed, but what directly tend to the Happiness and welfare of his Creatures.

§. 5. But further, we may consider the creative Power of God, as in reality it is, an incomparable Blessing or Benefit. For we cannot imagin, but an act of Cre­ation was an effect of infinite Wisdom and Goodness as well as Power. I'm sure the distinguishing Marks of Favour God has placed on Man, beyond the o­ther parts of the Creation, in stamping him with his own Image, and framing him for a Life and Action like himself, abundantly demonstrate that infinite Goodness, conspired with infinite Power, in his first Production. It cannot then be denied, but a Fund of Benefits was raised in the first Principles of his Being: And certainly the first Notices of Reason instruct us, that Benefits imply an Obli­gation to Duty, and a Right in the Be­nefactor [Page 103]to challenge it; and therefore unless God, after he had given us a Be­ing, had done any thing to cancel that Interest which the Blessings of our Crea­tion gave him in us, he has a Right to our Obedience, without the addition of new Favours or Rewards; and conse­quently a Power of contributing further to our Happiness, by dispensing fresh Re­wards, cannot be required to establish a Right of Obliging. But I must freely confess, that the receipt of Benefits only induces an Obligation to make suitable Returns for what is received; when this is done, the Obligation ceases, and consequently it cannot infer such gene­ral Obligations of Obedience as are im­plied in a legislative Power, or a Power of imposing Laws. It's true, where there is a continued Succession of Bene­fits, and where the very Laws 'emselves bring in new Benefits, it must needs per­petuate our Obligations, and render 'em as universal as those that arise from a le­gislative Power. And this being the true Case between God and us, I mean in re­spect of his Laws, a Right of Duty and Obedience may be founded in that Fund of Benefits he has heaped on us. But yet this is a further Demonstration, that the [Page 104]true and fundamental Right of Dominion and Obedience flows from God's creative Power, whereby he hath made us, and not we ourselves. And that this Argu­ment of Benefits, and all others, concen­ter with, if not derive from it. In a word, this establisheth such an unquesti­onable Right of Dominion and Obedi­ence, that were there no other to support it, it's alone sufficient to give the great Creator of the World a Right to Govern Mankind by Laws, and enforce the Ob­servance of 'em by suitable Rewards and Punishments.

§. 6. It now remains, that I consider what is said by this Author, in Oppositi­on to God's Right of Sovereignty from his creative Power: His Words are these, It is not his great and supereminent Power in creating Men, and giving them Being, which is solely in itself the Ground and Founda­tion of his Title to their Obedience. His Argument is, — For was Misery the certain unalterable Condition of their Being without End or Decrease, how could the Author of their Being be imagined to oblige 'em to obey his Commands? Now before I give a direct Answer, I cannot but re­mark that it seems to be disingenuous or [Page 105]unfair to argue upon important Matters, by Suppositions that contradict the thing in Fact, that never were in Fact, and that involve a Complication of Absurdities that they ever should be so; such I take to be the Creation of Man to an unaltera­ble State of Misery without a Possibility of an End or Decrease; for this Way of arguing often serves to confound rather than illustrate or discover Truth. But 2dly, An Instance ought to have been assigned against the binding Authority of a creative Power, that implies a Pow­er in God of contributing to our Happi­ness or Misery; otherwise it concludes nothing against a creative Power as 'tis now established, no more than it advan­ces his own Hypothesis. But if Man is created to an infinite and irreversible State of Misery, then God has no longer a Power in this Case of contributing to his Happiness or Misery, and consequent­ly can be no Argument against a Right of Dominion founded in a creative Power, that admits of infinite Rewards as well as Punishments. 3dly, The Instance gi­ven, seems to discard Man from being the proper Subject of a Law: For 'tis in vain to give Laws to a Being that is irre­versible and infinitely happy or miserable, [Page 106]since Laws in this Case can turn to no manner of End or Improvement; we may as well suppose a Man infinitely, and irreversibly happy, and this implies infinite Perfection, I mean as much as a finite Nature is capable of, and then God will not only be disabled from adding to his Happiness by new Rewards, but new Laws. 4thly. The Force of this Instance only extends to determine the Motives, not the Right of Obedience; or, in a word, what will engage us ac­tually to obey, not wherein the Right or Duty of Obedience is fixed; and there­fore tho' Rewards and Punishments are the true and proper Motives to secure a rational Obedience, yet the Right of O­bedience may rest upon a distinct Foun­dation. Now I have a President before me, I may at least with leave of this Au­thor suppose something out of the Way as well as he, to prove the truth of the Assertion; suppose a Man created to in­finite and irreversible Happiness, though God has no longer a Power of contribu­ting or adding to his Happiness, yet I hope this Author in this Case will not deny God's Right of Sovereignty, and Dominion over him, as his Creature. In one word, I have proved, That the [Page 107]Devils in Hell are or will be in a State of irreversible and infinite Misery, and though for this Reason they can be acted with no Inclinations of Obedience, yet they must still believe, or acknowledge the Sovereignty of their Creator, and tremble.

I presume I have now in some Mea­sure fixed the Foundation of God's Sove­reignty and Dominion over us; and tho' I have used some Liberty in rejecting the Opinions of others, yet I hope I may fairly account for it. For the No­tions I have contended for, are founded on things, that fall in with the establish­ed Sentiments of Mankind; such as are properly founded in a creative preserving Power, and consequently they must com­mand a Submission, and Obedience upon the clearest Convictions of Reason; and as long as the Arguments suggested are cogent and satisfactory, it is not Pru­dence to leave the common Road, and put things of Moment and Importance upon an Issue that it may be wants Evi­dence; or at least contradicts some re­ceived Truths or Notions. But now an Enquiry of this Nature has been made, I cannot dismiss the Argument without adoring our Great and Good God, Crea­tor [Page 108]and Sovereign, For who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on High, and yet humbleth Himself to behold the things that are in Heaven and in the Earth, Psalm 113. ver. 5, 6. Tho' God is invested with such an absolute Sovereignty over the Sons of Men, yet he has graciously condescended to consider their Infirmi­ties, Wants and Necessities. It's alrea­dy concluded, that the Laws he original­ly gave to Mankind are adapted to the great Ends and Interests of our Nature; they are not only contrived to preserve its Frame from Violence and Ruin, but to advance and secure that Happiness its capable of receiving: They are con­trived not so much to represent the Au­thority of an absolute Creator, as to establish the Happiness of his Creatures; whatever Right of Dominion God may challenge to impose those Laws he has gi­ven us, it's manifest they carry their own Arguments of Obedience along with 'em. He has not bound us with the Cords of Fear, but Love; indeed they have the highest Overtures of Love to recommend 'em; Love not only for the exceeding Recompence of Reward that is annexed to the observance of 'em, but Love that is contained in the very [Page 109]Frame of 'em, even Love as dear and va­luable to us, as the Love of Ourselves, and our own Happiness, since they are the direct and immediate Instruments of Happiness; so that were God destitute of a Right of imposing Laws, or even a Power of contributing further to our Happiness by fresh Rewards, the Na­ture and Tendency of those Laws he has actually imposed (if not obstructed by very debauched Propensions,) is suffici­ent to secure an Obedience to him.

CHAP. IX. Of the Certainty of Rewards and Punishments under a State of Na­ture.

§. 1. INdeed I have already touched upon this Argument, in the Disquisition of a Law of Nature; but in order to the establishing a Scheme of Natural Religion, I think myself obliged to enlarge a little further up­on it. And first, I shall not Appeal to the Argument of Natural Conscience, warranted by Revelation itself; in as much as it contains an Absolving or Con­demning Faculty in it, and consequently must be acted with a Sense of Rewards and Punishments, the immediate Spring or Appendage of such Powers or Facul­ties. This will be considered on another Subject. To proceed then, It's already concluded, That the Dictates of Natu­ral Reason are true and proper Laws e­stablished in a rightful and competent Authority; that is, in one word, they [Page 111]are the Commands of a Sovereign Power and Authority over the whole Off-spring of Mankind. And 'tis already conclu­ded, that Rewards and Punishments (I mean such as are lodged in the Hands of the Legislator, not the natural Effects of the Action, arising from the Observation or Violation of the Law) are, at least, the necessary Appendages or Concomi­tants of a Law. I will not run into the nice and tedious Disputes of the Schools, and examine whether Rewards and Pu­nishments are so much of the Nature or Essence of a Law, that it loses the deno­mination of a Law without them: This must be allowed by those, that place the Obligation of a Law purely in a Power of Rewarding or Punishing. But this has been disputed already, and therefore I'm inclined to the Negative. But how­ever it cannot be denied, but Rewards are an inseparable Property of a Law, adding Perfection to it, and a Preroga­tive peculiar to every Legislator. For certainly no one can be a rightful Legisla­tor, without a Right to despense Re­wards and Punishments: They declare and signifie a binding Authority, and no one can pass for a rightful Legislator, without a Right to oblige or require Obe­dience. [Page 112]Herein a Law distinguishes it self from Counsel or Exhortation. A­gain, they contribute to the Perfection of a Law, since the Ends and Intentions of it cannot be secured without 'em.

This is absolutely necessary, where the Persons that yield an Obedience, are acted by contrary Dispositions and Pro­pensions; and consequently they may justly be esteemed inseparable Properties of a Law. I will not dispute the Power or Prerogative of Heaven, whether God could not rightfully enjoyn a Law with­out annexing suitable Rewards and Pu­nishments; but whosoever compares the Laws he has enjoyned with the Propensi­ons of Human Nature, will be apt to impeach his infinite Wisdom for not an­nexing suitable Rewards as well as Pu­nishments, since without 'em it's moral­ly impossible to enforce the Observance of such Laws. Indeed Rewards and Punishments are so much a Property of a Law, that God thought fit to usher the first positive Law he gave to Man­kind into the World, by annexing 'em to it; In the Day that thou eatest there­of thou shalt surely die, Gen. 2.17. As if he intended to imprint a Sense of Re­wards and Punishments in the Original [Page 113]Idea of a Law. In a word, they are so much the Property of a Law, that where­ever there is the Face of Government, and Laws enacted, Rewards and Pu­nishments are esteemed the unquestiona­ble Prerogatives of the legislative Pow­er. The whole Off-spring of Mankind that were ever under the Conduct of a Law, are acted with such a deep Sense of 'em, that a Right of Punishment is never disputed, tho' the Penalty is not expresly annexed. Thus far then at least we are advanced; unless we can deny a Sovereign Creator a Right of exercising a legislative Power, we must allow him a Right of executing Punishments upon the Violation of his Laws, as well as a Power of rewarding the Observance of them.

§. 2. But now the Certainty of Divine Punishments, as well as Rewards, pur­suing all his Laws, even Laws of Na­ture, is evinced from indisputable Au­thorities. Few will be forward to dis­pute the Certainty of Rewards, and therefore I shall consider it purely with respect to Punishments: And 1st, That God will dispence certain Punishments [Page 114]upon the Violation of any Law of Na­ture, follows from the general Ends and Intentions of all Law-givers; especially the Supreme Divine Law-giver, that gave Being to every Soul, that is capa­ble of receiving a Law, as well as Laws to govern them by. Now no Law-giver can ever give Laws to others, without designing, for some special Ends and Purposes, to have them executed, and observed: Without this it's absurd, for a Law-giver to engage in enacting Laws, or trouble his Subjects with the Burden that arises from the Imposition of them. In a word, it's to act in vain, or to no purpose; an Imputation that cannot without Horror, and Blasphemy be charged upon God, who is always go­verned by the unchangeable Dictate of infinite Wisdom. Therefore since we must conclude, that the Sovereign Lord of all the World, is acted with the deep­est concern to have his Laws executed, since Punishment is the best Expedient to enforce the Execution of 'em, and since Punishment is due upon the Violation of 'em, it must follow that Punishment will attend the Violation of 'em.

§. 3. But 2dly, The Certainty of Pu­nishment discovers itself from the Na­ture of these Laws, with relation to those Beings to whom they are given. Now it's already concluded, That Laws of Nature arise from the established Frame and Condition of our Beings, and Concenter with the prime Ends and Interests of 'em. The Observance of Laws of Nature bring natural Rewards along with 'em, sufficient to recommend 'em to the Choices of reasoning Beings; and the Violation of 'em implies a Re­nuntiation, not only of the common Rules of Prudence, but Self-preservation, the necessary Instinct of sensitive unthink­ing Beings. And therefore when Laws of Nature are violated, there seems no Room or Foundation left to excite or work upon infinite Mercy: Indeed, did God act like an Egyptian Task-master, and not only require Brick without Straw, but continue the Tail upon the greatest Sweat and Drudgery, merely to exert an absolute Sovereignty and Dominion, he might sometimes be melt­ed into Compassion, when a poor Vassal happens to fall short of the Line of [Page 116]Duty; but now the Violation of them, implies the highest Aggravations of Fol­ly, and resolved Iniquity; and there­fore we cannot imagine that any thing can induce an infinitely wise Creator to suspend any Punishments he can justly execute.

§. 4. But 3dly, Let us consider the Nature of the Command, with respect to God that gave them. Now certain­ly, since it is concluded, That Laws of Nature, or Dictates of Nature take their Rise from the Author of Nature, they are not only established according to the original Frame of created Nature; but according to the infinite Purity and Ho­liness of God: They are the express Image of his Person, and the Brightness of that infinite Mind, with whom there is no Shadow of Darkness or Impurity. On this Account the Violation of Laws of Nature, is not only an Affront com­mitted against the Majesty and Sove­reign Authority of God; but a gross Aspersion upon his infinite Purity and Holiness; and consequently it must en­gage him in the deepest Resentments: So that Punishment is now no more an Act [Page 117]of Sovereignty, but an Act of Justice, to wipe off the Dirt that is by this means cast upon his infinite Purity: If He's of purer Eyes than to behold, much less to cohabit with Iniquity, certainly he must be armed with the highest Resentments, even such as will answer the Character he has given of himself, for our God is a consuming Fire. And therefore though his infinite Love and Mercy, might sometimes engage him to remit the Pu­nishment that is due to the Violation of a known Law, yet his infinite Justice will not suffer him, till he has satisfied the Demands of his infinite Purity and Holiness. In one word, whosoever se­riously surveys the Actions of the Al­mighty, will plainly discover how di­rectly all his Laws result from the whole Circle of his Divine Attributes; and therefore it's a senseless Project to set up his Mercy against his Justice, Purity and Goodness, and thereupon promise our selves an Exemption from Punishment: It's evident therefore that Laws of Na­ture, as well as all other Laws are guarded with Punishments suitable to the Nature of 'em. And if God is not concerned to vindicate his Authority, [Page 118]he'll certainly be concerned to vindicate his infinite Purity and Goodness; and therefore we may conclude tho' Hand joyn in Hand, the Disobedient shall not go unpunished. I will not pretend to fix a Standard of Punishment for Offences committed against Laws of Nature, I mean with respect to the Nature, De­grees or Continuance of them; for tho' there are a great many Arguments that might suggest very considerable Disco­veries in these matters; yet I think they were in a great measure Secrets lodged in the Hands of God, till he thought fit to reveal himself in Cases of this Na­ture, this being the proper Business of Revelation: It's sufficient to Believers and Christians, that he has now done it beyond all dispute or cavil. Again, I will not pretend to conclude every par­ticular Soul that acts against Laws of Nature under the Vengeance of Heaven: Punishment no doubt will be proportio­ned according to the means of Informa­tion, and there may be certain Cases in a State of Nature, where invincible Ig­norance may be a Plea at the Bar of Justice to particular Persons; but yet the Actions of Men are intricate, and Hu­mane [Page 119]Knowledge shallow, and of a nar­row compass; and therefore we must leave these as Secrets to the Discerner of Spirits, and that Candle of the Lord, I mean every Man's particular Conscience. It's sufficient that the Violations of Laws of Nature antecedent to Revelation, ren­der Mankind obnoxious to Punishments, and that all the Reason in the World instructs us, God will infallibly inflict them. And therefore it's the Concern of Mankind, either to live in the Obser­vance of 'em, or to appear with a more substantial Defence than I can think of, lest they bring themselves into an irrever­sible State of Condemnation.

CHAP. X. Of the Original of Parental Duty, Love, and Affection; and filial Reverence, and Duty.

§. 1. IT was not my Design to de­scend to Particulars, no more than to present the World with an exact List or Catalogue of Laws of Nature. Several Attempts of this kind have been made by eminent and learned Hands, some with great Success, and to all ima­ginable Satisfaction. It's sufficient if I have in some Measure prepared a Key that will unlock the Cabinet; and so far let us into the Book of Nature, that we may by the Workings of natural Reason discover the great Lines of Laws of Nature, and judge which are to be ranked into the number, and which esteemed positive. But since the whole Hypothesis is advanced without any re­gard to relative Characters, and conse­quently the Original and Obligation of relative Duties are not so directly measu­red [Page 121]by it; I shall take the Liberty of enquiring into those which God in his Providence has made so important in the Affairs of Men, I mean those between Parents and Children. And first of a pa­rental Love and Affection: Indeed this is a Passion so deeply impressed on the Frame of the Soul, that it powerfully discovers itself thro' all the Parts of the Animal World. To love our own Off­spring, seems to be the Effects of a natu­ral Instinct or Propension, that as vio­lently exerts itself, as the Spark that flies upwards. The Moral Vertuoso's of the present Age are here shamefully foil­ed, in projecting their Scheme: For tho' they may labour to stifle the Evi­dences of other Laws, that bespeak them to be the pure Workings of Nature; the Testimony which the sensitive Order of Creatures bears to this of natural Affecti­on, renders their Attempts wholly unsuc­cessful. It might have been replied, That a parental Affection expressed in the Care of their own Off-spring, is only a fashionable Imployment, set on foot to perpetuate their own Names and Memo­ries; but when the lower Order of Crea­tures, that want Faculties to form any [Page 122]such foresighted Projections, discover an equal Share of Concern, Industry and Compassion; they as well as we must conclude that it's the Effect of some pe­culiar Propensions, wove in with the Frame and Constitution of our Beings. Indeed the Fondness, Vigilance, Labour and Industry, that unthinking Brutes ex­ercise towards there own Off-spring, can­not be resolved into any thing, but a powerful Sympathy and Earning which God hath implanted in them, as they bear their own Image and Representa­tions, or rather as they are the Effects of their own most intimate Powers and Faculties, and carry their own Princi­ples of Life, Blood, and Spirits in 'em; or, in a word, as they imply the most sensi­ble Expansion and Propagation of their own Natures.

And here I cannot well forbear a short Digression. If it be enquired how these inward Motions are excited, I think it may be safely replied, Not by Reason, or a formal Inference; for no Inference can be made even from particular Objects, but by the help of abstract Ideas, or ge­neral Notions, or Maxims, and a Pow­er of comparing and distinguishing two [Page 123]or more things together: Thus, Suppose a Lioness by Reason were to conclude that this, and not another, to wit, a se­cond, third, or fourth Whelp is her own Off-spring; she must compare the Off­spring in certain Lineaments and Fea­tures, or other sensible Qualities, with the Idea she had before conceived; she must compare this with the Idea she has of those she rejects; and after a strict Agreement with the former, and a pal­pable Disagreement with the latter, she cannot come to a rational Assent with­out some abstracted Ideas of Identity and Diversity, or without the help of two general Maxims, that where the present Object exactly agrees with the Idea be­fore conceived, it is the same, and where the present Object differs from the Idea, which another particular Object yields, it cannot be the same but another. This is the Analysis of the most simple Reason­ing, and of a narrower compass too, than some of Mr. Lock's Complex Ideas, and therefore I cannot but wonder how he, upon his Definition of Reason, can assign Reason to Brutes, especially when he denies them a Power of abstracting, or compounding, or forming Complex I­deas [Page 124]and allows them a Power of com­paring only in a very inferior Degree. See Essay B. 2. Cap. 11. and B. 4. Cap. 17.

But to return, It's visible these inward Motions of Tenderness and Compassion are excited by the Emanation of certain Particles peculiar to the Off-spring of each respective Kind or Order of Brutes, chief­ly affecting the Sense of Smelling. And hence the silly Brute exercises the same Fondness towards her Sister's Off-spring; nay, even towards one of another Or­der, in case the difference in Form, Smell, Shape or Proportion is not too notorious. Hence, we may presume, the Affection dwindles and wears off, as these Parti­cles that accompanied the Off-spring from the Womb, decay in Power and Effica­cy; and consequently that by a Law of Providence they retain 'em, till they are capable of providing for their own Sub­sistence. From all this it's indisputably evident, that a parental Affection is im­planted in the very Frame and Constitu­tion of Unthinking Brutes. And therefore, since Providence has instituted the same Laws and Methods for bringing Man­kind into the World, with those he has [Page 125]assign'd to Brutes, we must conclude that he has created 'em with the same original Propensions; and as he has given 'em no­bler Powers and Faculties, as Springs and Movements to every Action, so we must conclude that these Propensions in Men are set on Work after a different manner from those in Brutes. They are not acted by pure Sensations, but by the Powers of Reason added to 'em; for when a Child is represented to the Mind to be the most lively Exertion of our vital Powers and Faculties, to be Bone of our Bone, and Flesh of our Flesh, the first As­sent to such an Idea, must actuate these native Propensions into all the Offices of Love, Care and Tenderness. These are but the natural Sallies of that Affecti­on which we were created with towards ourselves; for no one as yet ever hated his own Flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it. So that a parental Affection is so much a Law of Nature, that the first Suggesti­ons of Reason excite to the exercise of it. A single Conclusion commands an Assent to the Duty, and at the same time kin­dles or actuates the Affections into a Practice suitable to it. Indeed it's a Law that so apparently results from the Frame [Page 126]of Humane Nature, that it carries the Appearance of being Innate; and, in one word, for Man to love and cherish his Off-spring, is certainly the Result of an innate Propension; but the exercise of it from the consideration of the close Af­finity it bears to his own Flesh and Blood, is a Work of Reason. This seems to be a Law truly written in our Hearts, for if we ever think or reason upon the Sub­ject, Nature will command a practical Assent to it. Indeed Reason does not more carefully dictate the Law than Na­ture; both within and without conspire to enforce the Practice of it; for if the first Workings of Reason powerfully ex­cite a paternal Affection, I'm sure the primitive Impotence in which Providence has decreed Mankind to be brought forth, loudly instructs us we should exert it in the most affectionate Methods of Preser­vation.

In a word, A parental Care and Af­fection is so clearly pointed out as a Duty, even by the Dictates of Natural Reason, that the perpetual Reproaches, which the Care and Conduct of senseless Brutes throw upon the Neglect of it, are (one would think) Punishment or Motive suf­ficient [Page 127]to enforce the Observance of it. And therefore where such natural Bow­els of Compassion are wanting, it's an in­fallible Indication that the Mind is de­sperately sunk in Barbarity. And now let the Latitudinarian endeavour to over­turn this Branch of a Law of Nature, by trumping up some unnatural Cruelties among the Greeks, yet I think it rests up­on an unshaken Foundation; and there­fore before he Rejects it upon such a slender Suggestion, let him consider that there are some few Monsters among Brutes, that instead of Preserving, destroy their own Off-spring. And as there are some among this Order, so God may, to make known the Power of his Name, suffer some Monsters among Men, with­out injuring a Law, that is established with so much Evidence and Solemnity.

§. 2. I proceed in the second place, to consider the Foundation and Origi­nal of filial Reverence and Duty.

And first, I think a parental Care and Tenderness, in fencing us from Cold and Nakedness, and giving us a liberal Edu­cation, when, without the first, we must have perished in our own Impotence, [Page 128]is sufficient, if once applied to the Mind, and attended to, to dictate the highest Tokens of Reverence, if not Duty. A sense of such inestimable Benefits upon the first Convictions of Reason, are suf­ficient to induce an Obligation to make suitable Returns to 'em, and I think no­thing less than that Honour and Reve­rence that expresses itself in a conscien­tious Submission to all just and equitable Commands. I mean such as pass for the Consequences of Laws of Nature, or are fairly consistent with 'em. But this seems to carry us no further than the Kindness of a signal Benefactor indispens­ably obliges us to; whereas a Parent implies something more considerable than the Notion of a Benefactor can suggest, and therefore Reason seems to dictate that God hath raised a more strict and absolute Foundation of Obedience; and certainly the Obedience which is paid towards a Parent, is naturally acted with such a reverential Awe and Deference, as argues a kind of Authority and Do­minion, and consequently contains some­thing more in it than a Sense of Benefits. And truly our great Creator hath suffici­ently discovered the thing, since he seems [Page 129]to have raised an Obedience from the same Title, upon which his Right of Obedience is established; a creating as well as preserving Power. For since he has decreed to make Parents the great Instruments of our Production and Exi­stence, as well as Preservation, we must conclude, that he intended to establish an Obedience upon it. It's abundantly concluded, that as God is, by the Pow­ers of Natural Reason, represented to us to be the great Fountain of our Being and Preservation, a Sense of Duty and Obedience, as well as a Right of Obe­dience, as powerfully results from it, as Light from the Sun.

And since Parents, by a Divine De­cree, are honoured with the same Cha­racters in as eminent a manner as is consistent with the Nature of a Creature or Substitute; and are Created with strong and invincible Propensions, as well as Laws and Obligations, to an­swer the Intentions of them, Reason will oblige us to conclude, that God has thereby induced Obligations of a subor­dinate Obedience, that is, in all those Cases wherein he has not expresly in­terposed by a Law of Nature, or Reve­lation. [Page 130]Indeed this seems to be an Ex­pedient to establish and confirm that su­preme Right of Obedience which his creative preserving Power challenges over us; and in a word, his appointing our Production in a strict Imitation of his Methods of Creation, is an Argu­ment of his Intentions to establish an unquestionable Right of Dominion in both Cases: Since the same Motives in­struct us to acknowledge a supereminent Right of Dominion in our Common Pa­rent, and a subordinate one in our Na­tural.

§. 3. But further, it's already con­cluded, That the Offices of Parental Duty are enforced upon the strongest Propensions, as well as Obligations, e­ven an invincible Concern for our own Flesh and Blood; and where the Con­cern is reciprocal, we cannot imagine but it serves to establish a Right of Du­ty and Obedience, as well as enforce it. But now as the great Creator of the World thought it necessary to represent and enforce the Duty of Parents by certain indeleble Propensions, so Rea­son will instruct us, that he has consti­tuted [Page 131]Propensions as powerful in Chil­dren, upon which he intended to esta­blish a Sense of Duty, as well as enforce an Obedience. Indeed where the Du­ties are equally binding, of the same moment and importance, and an equal Intention to maintain and enforce 'em, we cannot imagine but our wise Law­giver would make the same Provisi­ons to see his Designs and Intentions an­swered. And truly the Duties of both turn upon the same Foundation, a pas­sionate Affection to our own Flesh and Blood. For the Concern we entertain for it in ourselves, will naturally convey itself to those that are but one remove from us. This is so apparent, that it's justly to be esteemed a main Foundation of the common Bowels of Humanity, and those Social Offices we exercise as Men towards one another.

But to return; It's visible, the Alli­ance is equal on both hands, and conse­quently we may justly presume, that the Propensions of Duty and Reverence are as strong on the Child's part, that receives a Being and Subsistence, as the Propensions of Care and Compassion on the Parents that ministers both. [Page 132]The Maxim holds this way, no one as yet ever hated his own Flesh. From all this it's evident, since God has implant­ed such deep and powerful Propensions, we must conclude, that the bare Pro­posal of a Parent to the Mind, so as to apprehend the true force and purport of the Term, will naturally command these Propensions into the highest In­stances of Duty and Obedience, as well as Awe and Reverence: This is a Duty so legible in the Frame and Constituti­on of our Beings, that Nature, by the help of a single Conclusion at the same time, dictates and enforces it: And I'm perswaded, were not the Frame of the Soul, in this as well as other Cases, mi­serably perverted by vitious Habits, or Dispositions, contracted thro' Educati­on, or Example, it's impossible but she must rest under a perpetual Sense and Apprehension of it.

And now let some Men Harangue up­on the Act of Generation as liberally and contemptibly as they please, we have all the Reason in the World to believe, that God has made it one Ground of an eternal and indispensable Duty. I'm sure he that subscribes to [Page 133]the Truth and Divinity of the Sacred Oracles, must own it as such, since we find it expresly assigned as an Argu­ment of the Duty: Hearken unto thy Fa­ther that begat thee, Prov. 23. ver. 22. But then when we consider, that we did not only take our Rise from the Loins of a Parent, but drew all our Blessings thro' his Care and Inspection, and that God, by a special Decree, en­joyned it upon 'em as an indispensable Duty, it's an evident Confirmation of the fundamental Title, that of Genera­tion, and an unquestionable Argument, that God intended to induce indispensa­ble Obligations of Obedience upon it. And truly he that considers and allows God's Right of Dominion to be founded in his creative preserving Power, must allow a subordinate Right of Domini­on in him whom he has made the imme­diate Instrument and Substitute for displaying the Glory and Wonders of it.

Thus far, I presume, it's abundantly evident, that the Obligations of Filial Duty and Obedience rest upon an un­questionable Foundation. That which remains, is to consider the Extent of [Page 134]'em; and this will best be performed by applying 'em to the first Parent of Mankind, from whom the Notion will present itself as it lies in its original Model. And certainly we may, in the first place, affirm, That Filial Duty and Obedience doth not barely consist in any external Ceremonies, or Instances, of Respect, nor even those that termi­nate in Obligations to succour and re­lieve a Parent under Want or Distress; but it extends to the Regulation of our Lives and Actions by Commands and Laws in all the Parts and Instances of Human Life.

§. 4. From what has already been offered, I think it may, with force of Reason, be affirmed, That the first Pa­rent of Mankind is, by God, invested with a Sovereign Power over his Off-spring to prescribe Laws for the Con­duct of their Lives and Actions, in all Cases and Emergencies pursuant to the Laws of God— whether natural or re­vealed, or where God has no way in­terposed to the contrary. And pursu­ant to this, it's an uncontroverted Truth, that the Patriarchs rightfully exercised [Page 135]the Priestly Function, till God interpo­sed by a positive Institution, and consti­tuted a standing Order of Men to wait on his Altar; this is so agreeable to the Divine Will, that though private Per­sons cannot preside in the public Wor­ship of God without an Intrusion of the Priestly Office, yet every Parent by Di­vine Designation and Appointment is still a kind of Priest within the District of his own Family: And certainly if a Paternal or Patriarchal Power originally includes a Priestly Power, I can see no Reason to dispute the Authority of a Kingly Power. And agreeable to this, History assures us, that the Kings of E­gypt, as well as other Governments, originally exercised a Sacerdotal as well as Civil Jurisdiction.

But to proceed: The Business, or De­sign and Authority of the supreme Pow­er, or in a word, of all those delegated Powers which God hath or ever will establish among Mankind, is to pre­scribe Laws for the Regulation of our Lives and Actions in all Cases and E­mergences. And if Government and positive Human Laws— by the Laws of Nature and the Frame of our Beings [Page 136]are absolutely necessary to the Conduct of Mankind in a State of Nature, as well as Grace; we have all the Reason in the World to conclude, that this Power and Authority was originally lodged in the paternal Power of Adam over his own Off-spring. It's certain, the Prerogatives of the Supreme Power, do not extend to the wresting away re­al Rights and Immunities which the Laws of Nature or Revelation give us; for their original Institution is to advance the Wellfare and Happiness of Mankind, by securing and enforcing the observance of them; and there­fore since it is indisputably concluded, that an authoritative Power is lodged in the Fatherhood, there is no Obstru­ction in the Nature of the Thing, but the Paternal Power of Adam might extend to the imposing such Laws as are fitted to answer these Ends and Purposes. Indeed God's ma­king Government necessary, seems to advance his Paternal Power to all the Rights and Prerogatives of it, unless he had established it upon another Foun­dation by some express Law; for God having created the Off-spring of [Page 137] Adam with the strongest Propensions of Obedience to him as a Father, God having established an Obedience upon the same Principles upon which he challenges our Obedience, we must conclude, that a Right of Obedience accrews to Adam as a Father in all those Cases wherein God has made it necessa­ry for Mankind to be governed by Laws: And since God has made it ne­cessary for the Off-spring of Adam, and in them, the Off-spring of Mankind (e­ven by the highest Necessity, that of Nature and Existence) to live by Soci­ety, and to be governed by Laws in or­der to the enforcement of the Laws of God, whether Natural or Revealed, and in them in order to the Security of the Wellfare and Happiness of Mankind, the Paternal Power of Adam must ori­ginally extend to all the Prerogatives of delegated Power, so that by vertue of his Characters which God brought him into the World under, he's to all Intents and Purposes God's immediate Vice-ge­rent, unless some positive and express Law had signified the contrary.

In a word, a Necessity arising from the Frame and Order of Nature, is, in [Page 138]a State of Nature, the proper Evidence for Divine Designation and Appoint­ment, or indeed, for any Law of Na­ture; and therefore since Civil Govern­ment is thus far necessary, Reason will dictate God's Intentions in placing it, that is, according to the Order of Nature, or where he has placed the principal Marks of Authority or Supremacy. In­deed the Notion is founded on Argu­ments so clear and convincing, that na­tural Reason dictates an Allegiance, as forcibly from a Paternal Power as that of Compact, tho' there were nothing in the Nature of the former that inter­feres with the Hypothesis of the latter; for an Allegiance which derives from Compact, must rest upon the Authority of Compact, whereby it becomes indi­spensably binding to all the Ends and Purposes of Civil Government. And I think natural Reason, upon the received Laws of the Creation, as clearly fixes an Allegiance in the Paternal Power, as a Law of God and Nature, as it pronoun­ces the Maintainance of such Compacts, a Law of God or Nature. But then if upon Matter of Fact, or the revealed Methods of the Creation, there is any [Page 139]thing repugnant to such a Compact, the Authority of a Paternal Allegiance can­not be rejected. Now we profess and believe, that Adam was the Father of Mankind; for even the Woman of whom the rest of his Progeny was to be Born, by an Omnipotent Power issued forth of him; and since it's concluded, That for this Reason as well as for the Offices of his Paternal Function, a real Superiority as well as a Right of Alle­giance is derived to him, we must con­clude, that his Off-spring could not chal­lenge a Right of Compact any way de­rogatory to that Preheminence and Su­periority which the Laws of God and Nature had thus placed him in. In a word, it's manifest his Age, his Know­ledge and Experience gave him a civil Preheminence over his Off-spring, and if we add this to his Paternal Rights, Reason will force us to acknowledge an Authoritative Superiority. Here is not a bare Priority in Time, or Place, or for Order, or external Ceremony; but a Priority, or rather Superiority in Power and Authority. Now all this loudly exposes the Conceit of an original State of Equality, without which, there can [Page 140]be no Colour or Foundation for an ori­ginal Contract. Indeed this is a Conje­cture so vain and groundless, that the Divine Methods in Peopling the World by Descent and not by a Multitude at once, is sufficient to shake the Credit of it. And certainly nothing but the wild Supposition which Mr. Hobbs has beg­ged to advance his Hypothesis, is con­tradicted by Matter of Fact, (I mean a Multitude of Men, by Divine Appoint­ment, sprung up like Mushrooms) or an open Renunciation of the History of the Creation, can assert the Doctrine of a natural Equality. But to consider the Argument of Compact a little fur­ther: It's certain, Compact is no further valid, than it is materially, or intrinsical­ly good; and therefore no one can right­fully enter into Compact, to resign up or cancel any Laws of God or Nature, or in a word, any further than it is con­sistent with the true Ends of Govern­ment; and thus far the Necessity of Government (without any Injury to na­tural Liberty) seems to place its Power and Authority in the Person in whom the very Order of Nature, as well some peculiar Marks of Sovereignty, have ap­parently fixed it.

CHAP. XI. Reflections on some Passages in Mr. Lock's Essay of Human Ʋnderstanding, and a Treatise of Government. Part 2.

§. 1. ANd first, Mr. Lock having fixed the Original of what the World generally calls Principles, though never so remote from Reason, in the Power of Education, whereby they are rivetted in the Mind before the Memory begins to keep a Regi­ster of their Actions, he observes, Men from hence conclude, That those Pro­positions, of whose Knowledge they can find in 'emselves no Original, were cer­tainly the Impress of God and Nature upon their Minds, and not taught them by any one else. This he endeavours to illustrate by the Instance of Filial Reverence. These (says he) they en­tertain and submit to, as many do to their Parents with Veneration; not be­cause [Page 142]it is Natural, nor do Children do it, where they are not so taught, but be­cause having been always so educated, and having no Remembrance of the beginning of this Respect, they think it is natural, Essay B. 1. Cap. 3. §. 23.

I will not peremptorily limit the Words to a Sense which they seem to express. If Mr. Lock, by the Term Natural, intends so as Native Inscri­ptions are, then I can readily grant that a Filial Veneration is not in this Sense Natural. But if he affirms that it is not Natural, as Laws of Nature are (which he seems to do, when he tells us, that Children would not pay any Veneration, were they not so taught) then he must pardon me if I cannot joyn with him in the Notion; for I hope I have sufficient­ly proved that Children are naturally en­dowed with as strong Propensions of Filial Reverence and Respect, as those in Parents of Parental Tenderness and Compassion; and that the bare Per­ception of the Idea or Term Parent, would naturally Actuate these native Propensions in such a manner, as to command not only Solemn Reverence and Respect, but Filial Obedience, had [Page 143]not Education or ill Example suggest­ed something to the contrary. Indeed, I'm perswaded, a great deal of Filial Reverence and Duty is worn off by those Devolutions, which the Reasons and Necessities of civil Government have made in the chiefest Branches of Paren­tal Power; otherwise I question not but a Sense of the highest Veneration and Duty, would constantly possess the Minds of Men, as no doubt it did un­der the first Government, where the Supreme Power was both Parent and Sovereign.

§. 2. But to consider the Positions of another Treatise, I presume, well known to Mr. Lock.

And first in order to overturn the Parental Power, as it extends to Go­vernment. This Gentleman, as well as Mr. Hobbs (tho' both in a different Way) thinks he has gain'd the Field, by proving, that the Mother is an e­qual Sharer in that Power which ac­crews to a Father as a Parent: He proves it from both Testaments, par­ticularly Exod. 20.12. and Eph. 6.1. and the Remark is, Had but this one [Page 144]thing been well considered, without look­ing any deeper into the Matter, it might perhaps have kept Men from running in­to those gross Mistakes, they have made about Parents. Two Treatises of Go­vernment, Part 2. Cap. 6. §. 52, 53. Now in Answer to this, I will not de­ny but the Word of God enjoyns Duty and Obedience to both Parents; but he cannot be ignorant but it must be as­signed to the Mother, only in a Sub­ordinate manner; for else I would fain know how with any colour of Truth or Reason he expounds these Passages. Thy Desire shall be to thine Husband, and he shall rule over thee, Gen. 3.16. Wives submit yourselves unto your own Husbands, as unto the Lord; for the Husband is the Head of the Wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church. Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the Wives be unto their own Husbands in every thing, Eph. 5.22. &c. St. Peter is as large on the same Argument, to whom I shall refer him, Eph. 1.3. So that it's evident the revealed Law gives a supereminent Power to the Father, e­ven as a Father, as well as a Husband; since the Wife is to obey in all things, [Page 145]and consequently to give place to his Authority, in laying his just Com­mand upon his Children.

But further, the natural Frame of Man, not only in respect of Strength and Vigour of Body, but Courage and Resolution of Mind, seems to give him so much Superiority and Preheminence, as by the Dictates of Natural Reason is sufficient to e­stablish a supereminent Power and Authority to that of the Woman: I'm sure the holy Spirit draws the Character not unlike this, when the Woman is stil'd The weaker Ves­sel. But now, in the present Argu­ment, we are to have recourse to Matter of Fact, by considering the Method God took in the Producti­on of the Woman; for the Dispute being whether de facto, the Pater­nal Power of Adam was Superemi­nent to that of the Woman; It's abundantly concluded if it be made appear from the established Methods of the Creation; and the Argument is the same in the Original of Govern­ment; for this is to be taken from Mat­ter [Page 146]of Fact, especially as long as 'tis recorded and transmitted upon un­questionable Authority; and when once the Original of Government is fixed, the Succession of Governments will easily be accounted for, without Projecting an imaginary State of Na­ture and Equality, and original Com­pact upon it. It is not my Business now to draw the Scheme, but if this Author will not be content without it, he shall have it upon Demand; and therefore it's unpardonable Ar­rogance in those that receive the Sto­ry of the Creation, to erect a Scheme without any regard to it, or rather such as is highly inconsistent with the plain Doctrines of it.

But to return, the Records of the Creation assure us, That the Wo­man, or Mother of Mankind, took her Being from the Man; God did not think fit to give her an Original Independent of the Man, by an im­mediate Creation from common Mat­ter, but made her a Debtor to the Man, by forming her of his Flesh and Blood; and therefore if this is [Page 147]allowed, natural Reason will pro­nounce it a Mark of natural Subjecti­on, and consequently assign her no more than a subordinate Authority. I'm sure the holy Spirit remarks as much, where we are expresly told, The Head of the Woman is the Man, and that He is the Image and Glory of God; but the Woman is the Glory of the Man, for the Man is not made of the Woman, but the Woman of the Man; neither is the Man created for the Woman, but the Woman for the Man, 1 Cor. 11.3, 7, 8, 9.

But further, If a natural Subjecti­on does not Result from the Laws of Creation, we may find it establish'd by a Positive Law: For thy Desire shall be to thy Husband, and he shall Rule o­ver thee, Gen. 3.16. Indeed it de­serves our Notice to observe how this Author labours to droll away the Im­port of the Text, by exposing Adam's Monarchy, being in the next Verse, in his own Language, Condemned to be a Day-labourer for Life, Pa. 1. Cap. 5. §. 44, 45. But who sees not thro' the Weakness of the Harangue, for [Page 148]after all his Tricks and Insinuations he's not able to prove that God has not placed the Woman in a State of Subjection, tho' it be interpreted as part of her Punishment, and conse­quently established a supereminent Power and Authority in Adam, tho' he wanted not his Punishment in be­ing condemned to reap the Blessings of this Life, even of Government itself, in continual Sweat and Labour. Here is not a supereminent Power establish­ed in Compact, but conferred by God himself. Indeed it's indisputably e­vident, all those Rights of Dominion that were invested in Adam, even that which results from his Conjugal E­state, was conferred by God; for tho' God was pleased to leave the Conju­gal Estate of his Descendents, to be established upon voluntary Contracts, he thought fit to make his an imme­diate Grant as well as the Authority of it. But then, tho' the entring into a State of Matrimony now is a pure Compact, yet the Authority that de­rives upon the Husband from it, is by no means a piece of Compact; this is [Page 149]established by God alone in the first Institution of Matrimony, and enfor­ced by After-laws.

The Sum of all is this, The Rights of Parental Jurisdiction considered in the Nature of the Thing itself, had been in common to our first Parents, had not God signified the contrary, by giving the Woman a Being from the Man, and assigning him a supere­minent Power by an express Law; and since this is abundantly evinced, I hope an imaginary State of Equa­lity or Freedom shall not hinder God from limiting his own Ordinances at Pleasure; and consequently the Rights of the Paternal Power are indisputably invested in the Fatherhood. Here is the main Effort of our Adversaries; for the only Artifice to strip the Fa­therhood of all civil Jurisdiction, was to clog the Notion with Absurdities, by contending for a joynt Jurisdiction in the Mother, upon the Foundations of the Parental Power; and therefore this being set aside, there is nothing left that is of force to Discard any of those Prerogatives that have hitherto been assigned.

But to proceed, He tells us that the Parental and Political Power are so per­fectly Distinct and Separate, and Built upon so different Foundations, and gi­ven to so different Ends, that every Subject that is a Father, has as much a Paternal Power over his Children as the Prince has over his, Ib. §. 7. But it's manifest the Argument is, concerning Paternal and Political Power, as it was in the original Institution of 'em. And it's already granted, that Pater­nal and Political Power, as exercised in the present Governments of the World, are visibly distinguished; but it cannot be an Argument they were so in their Original. The present Go­vernments of the World rest upon dif­ferent Foundations from what Govern­ment did in its Original, and yet it does not follow that their Foundati­on was an original Compact from a perfect State of Nature or Equality, for I defie this Author to prove that there was ever any Body of Men re­gularly and de jure in such a State, since the Creation, unless Manumit­ted by the Civil Power.

Again, the Exercise of the Pater­nal Power in private Families, that are the Descendents of Adam, is vast­ly different from what it was in the Original; for God having made Go­vernment necessary to the Support of Mankind, it was absolutely necessary that that part of the Paternal Power, which consists in Governing by Laws, should devolve from Under-families upon Adam, and consequently in Af­ter-governments it must still remain in the Father of each respective Go­vernment, or in other Terms in the Governing Power. But notwithstand­ing all this, the commanding Power and Authority, which has been abun­dantly asserted to be in the original Rights of the Paternal Power, by the Laws of God, and the Reasons of the thing, still remains in private Parents or Fathers, where the Civil Power has not expresly interposed, or where it's necessary it should exert itself in the Conduct of Humane Life. But to de­monstrate from eternal Distinction of Paternal from Political Government, he, in another place, presents us with [Page 152]an Instance of a Stranger's coming into a Family, who should Kill one of the Patriarch's Children; upon which he allows the Patriarch a Power to put him to Death, and yet he says it's impossible he should do it by Vertue of any Paternal Authority, Ib. §. 74. Now, for my part, I'm so far from discerning any Impossibility, that I cannot fathom the Consequence of the Argument. For certainly unless he would beg the Question, or pronounce it Impossible, that a Paternal Power should imploy a Coercive Power in it, within the Di­stricts of its Government, over all those that disturb the Peace of it; why may not the Power of Capital Punishments be attributed to a Paternal Power, without a Consent or Deputation from those Children that are the principal Members of it? Though he cannot punish the Stranger as his own Off-spring, yet if a Political Power branch­es itself from a Paternal Power (as has been sufficiently proved) I hope no one can deny but there is such Powers lodged in it as are sufficient to secure the Ends of Government, and conse­quently [Page 153]a Coercive Power to Punish any from within or without, that in­vade the Peace of it.

But 3dly, To support his own Hy­pothesis, and avoid the Political Au­thority of the Paternal Power, he af­firms, That tho' the Duties of Honour and Respect are Eternal, yet the com­manding Power is Temporary, and ceases with Nonage or Minority. See § 64, 67, 69, &c. That when this Power expires, Children are in as absolute a State of Freedom as the Father, and that too, not only in respect to the Father's Authority, but of the Civil Government. This is the Substance of several Sections, and it's very visible, that his chief­est Arguments are raised upon Pater­nal Power, as 'tis exercis'd under the e­stablished Governments of the World, which is a Fallacy already detected. But to make some Returns according to Method and Order. The Duty of Children I'm persuaded, in the full Extent of it, is of eternal Obligation, where 'tis not superseeded by a high­er Law, that of Society, upon which account alone (as is already obser­ved) [Page 154]part of it by the Reason and Necessity of Things devolves upon the Supreme Power. Indeed, if what has been asserted carries Evidence and Truth in it, the Duty of Children must be Eternal. It has been abun­dantly proved, That the Ground or Foundation of Filial Duty and Obedi­ence is Eternal, viz. That of Genera­tion, and an unchangeable Affection resulting from it: And if the Ground of Obligation is eternal, the Duty must be so too.

But to proceed, the Word of God seems express in this Matter; for we are not only enjoyned to Honour, but Obey our Parents. Now it's well known, Obedience supposes a decre­tory Power, or commanding Autho­rity; and the Precept not being given under any Limitations that make it Temporary, I cannot discern by what Authority this Gentleman pronounces it Temporary. Indeed I cannot imagine how any one that receives the Holy Scriptures for the Word of God, can safely pronounce the Duty of Filial Obedience Tem­porary; for we there find it establish­ed [Page 155]and enforced upon such ample Pro­visions, that we must believe God de­signed to perpetuate the Obligations of it. The time would fail me to collect all the Passages that manifest­ly favour this Notion; I shall there­fore touch on a few that are very re­markable.

And first, the Power of Blessing and Cursing exercised by the Patri­archs, is a considerable Evidence of the Perpetuity of the Duty: It's well known the Patriarchs constantly ex­ercised this Power, and their Descen­dents as conscienciously acknowledg­ed it.

It was a Sense of this Power, that made Jacob Expostulate before he embraced his Mother's Expedient: My Father peradvanture will feel me, and I shall be to him as a Deceiver; and I shall bring a Curse upon me, and not a Blessing, Gen. 27. v. 12. It's certain the Patriarchs challenged an indisputable Right to exercise this Power; for tho' Jacob had obtained the Blessing by an ungenerous Arti­fice, or Stratagem, yet Isaac thought himself obliged to confirm it; I have [Page 156]blessed him, yea, and he shall be blessed, v. 33. A most convincing Argument truly, that this Right of Blessing and Cursing was founded in a Divine Ori­ginal; and certainly there needs no­thing more to demonstrate the Divine Will and Pleasure than the insepara­ble Effects and Consequences of his Power, since we find that the Bles­sings or Curses of Parents as infallibly pursued their Children as they were dispensed. Thus the Blessing of Isaac attended Jacob, and the Curses of No­ah pursued his Son Canaan: Cursed be Canaan; a Servant of Servants shall he be unto his Brethren, Gen. 9. v. 25. Now certainly a Provision of such special Powers can carry no less a De­sign in it than the perpetuating of a Filial Reverence and Duty: If God had not design'd to establish an Im­mortal Power and Authority in the Parent, why should he confer such di­stinguishing Marks of Sovereignty and Dominion? Can we imagin, that such a tremendous Power was exerted purely to secure an Obedience during Minority, and a ceremonious Reverence afterwards exclusive of a [Page 157]commanding Authority? No certain­ly, this is a Conjecture, that runs counter to all the Accounts of Time; for the Obedience of Children in the first Ages of the World was as remark­able as the Parents Commands after a State of Maturity; and indeed it could proceed from nothing less than a just Sense of an indeleble Chara­cter and Authority, as well as Pow­er to enforce it.

But further, the Duty and Obedi­ence of Children is so far from be­ing any wise Temporary, that God has given his own express Promises to perpetuate the Obligation. St. Paul has long since observ'd, that, Children obey your Parents, is the first Command­ment with Promise, Ephes. 6.1, 2. And certainly where the Sanction is peculiar or extraordinary, the Obli­gation of the Command must bear a proportion to it; and where God has discover'd himself so eminently soli­citous to enforce the Duty by special Rewards as well as Punishments, we may conclude he intended to perpetu­ate it. Thus far the Suffrage of Scri­pture seems clear and indisputable: [Page 158]But if all this will not convince, I shall refer this Author to the Story of Jonadab, the Son of Rechab, out of the very Mouth of the Prophet: The Command or Prohibition was against drinking of Wine as well as building of Houses, which seems to be an A­bridgment of the Natural Liberties of Mankind, and consequently if the Commanding Power of Parents cea­ses with Nonage, it may very well do so in Cases of this Nature. But instead of this, we find the Obli­gation asserted by a Complication of Arguments; Jonadab advances the Command by virtue of a Parental Power and Authority: Ye shall drink no Wine, neither ye nor your Sons for ever, that ye may live many Days where ye be Strangers, Jer. 35. v. 6, 7. The very Commandment with Promise. And the Rechabites were possessed with as deep a Sense of its Obligation; for when the Prophet, by the Command of God, tryed their Fidelity, the on­ly Argument of their Non-compli­ance, was the Command of their Fa­ther Jonadab, and the Prospect of Inheriting the Blessing annexed to [Page 159]the Command, Thus have we obeyed the Voice of Jonadab our Father, and done all that Jonadab our Father com­manded us, v. 8, 9. But this is not all, for the Obligation of the Com­mand is not only recognised by Men, even those that were immediately concerned in it, but by God him­self; for he does not only annex the Promise of the Command, to the Observance of it: Because ye have obeyed the Commandment of Jonadab your Father, and kept all his Precepts — Therefore Jonadab, the Son of Re­chab, shall not want a Man to stand before me for ever, v. 18, 19. But ex­presly represents that eternal Obedi­ence that is due to his Commands by it; for this was God's Design in obliging the Prophet to try the Re­chabites Constancy and Perseverance, by setting Cups and Pots full of Wine before them, and command­ing them to Drink; and therefore the Inference is Recorded: Go and tell the Men of Judah, and the Inha­bitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not re­ceive Instruction to hearken to my Words? The Words of Jonadab, the [Page 160]Son of Rechab, that he commanded his Sons are performed; for unto this Day they drink no Wine, but obey their Father's Commandment: Not­withstanding I have spoken unto you, rising up early, and speaking, but ye hearkned not unto me, v. 13, 14. And now how can any Man dispute the Per­petuity of a Commanding Paternal Power. Has not God himself drawn the Parallel? If his Commanding Power is not Temporary, neither is that of the Parent. The Nature of the Com­mand might have engaged a pow­erful Advocate against it, the Free­doms and Immunities of a reasona­ble Being, but yet the Conscience of so just a Superior, bearing so awful a Character as that of a Father, com­mands an immediate Submission. In­deed this single Instance represents it as a Doctrine universally received, and in those Ages undisputed; and therefore I presume it will be a Task of some difficulty for this Author to produce a Dispensation, much more a Repeal under the Gospel OEcono­my.

But I proceed to consider the Argu­ments already advanced to support the Notion, and I find the main and princi­pal Argument is formed from the Na­ture, and Reason of Paternal Authority; for the Author, expresly resolves the commanding Power into a help to the weakness, and imperfections of their Nonage, a Discipline necessary to their Education, but when they are once arrived to the En­franchisement of the Years of Discretion, the Father's Empire then ceases. Sect. 65. But let us consider this in the Instance already given, that of our first Parent. I would demand of this Gentleman, whether after Years of Discretion, a Dis­cipline of Civil Commands, and Laws, were not absolutely necessary for the Conduct of our Lives and Actions; yet as necessary as a commanding Discipline to a Child's Education. If therefore Ci­vil Government from the beginning was necessary, even for Adult Persons, this Discipline must be so too; and then let Reason determine whether this com­manding Authoritative Power, or this Discipline of giving Laws, and Com­mands was not Appropriate to Adam, in whom God had invested all deligated Power and Authority; and that too [Page 162]under the higest marks of Sovereignty, and Dominion. I'm perswaded an un­biassed Person would pronounce such a Title unquestionable, when there is no express Law that declares the contrary. Again he tells us, The Power which Pa­rents have over their Children arises from that Duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their Off-spring during the im­perfect State of Childhood. See Sect. 58. But I am perswaded, I have with good Evidence fixed it on a distinct Foundati­on. Parental Duty, indeed, is a sub­stantial Reason, that God should Esta­blish a Right of Dominion, but it is no Argument that he has Established it on this Foundation: no, I have proved the contrary. But admit we, that a Parental Right of Dominion was found­ed in the Duties of a Parent, yet if Pa­rental Duty be perpetual, a Parental Right of Dominion must be so too. In­deed, to give colour to this uncouth Notion, he Suggests, that that part of Parental Duty which consists in Edu­cation, ceases when the business of Edu­cation is over, he means when Nonage ceases. Sect. 69. But certainly, if In­struction, or Commands are at any time necessary, and not superseded by a [Page 163]higher Power, it's the Indispensible Du­ty of the Father to enjoyn them, and the Duty of Children to embrace them. I presume Christianity will instruct eve­ry believing Father, that a Child's Age, or Abilities can never exempt him from giving such Counsels, and Precepts (if he stands in need of them,) as may in­duce him to live in the Nurture and Ad­monition of the Lord. Upon the whole then, the Commands of private Parents af­ter Nonage, are for the most part super­seded, by the ample provisions of the Civil Power in all Regular Governments: and in like manner, the power of Punishments is justly taken away upon that Inte­rest, or Property, which the Govern­ment challenges in all its Members; but yet if any thing is omitted in the Civil Power necessary to the Conduct of the Child's Life, I am perswaded the Parent is not only to administer Coun­sel, but lay his Commands, and the Child is indispensibly obliged to yield a Consciencious Obedience, upon a just Deference to the Parents's Character, and Authority. This is to obey, as unto God and Christ, and not unto Men. This Author freely confesses, that the Duty of Piety expressed not only in Acts of [Page 164]Reverence, and Respect, but in support­ing, and defending the Persons of our Parents, is perpetual; and I am perswad­ed there can be no Just Reason assigned, why a Reverential Obedience to just and reasonable Commands is not perpe­tual too; it is indeed replyed, that the former Results from the Laws of Grati­tude, founded in Benefit, so inexpressi­ble, that the one can never be Cancel­led, nor the other Compensated; but I hope, it is proved they are founded in something besides, that serves to per­petuate an Obligation; and since a com­manding Power has the same Authori­ty and Foundation, I cannot conceive why an Obedience to the Commands of Parents should not be perpetual, where God seems to have made such Commands necessary to the Conduct of Humane Life. Thus far here's no Foundation given for the Suggesti­on this Author has made in extending the Gospel Precept to a commanding Power, as if by virtue of it a Parent should pretend to treat an Adult Son still as a Boy. Sect. 68. For the necessi­ty of such commands is superseded by the circumstances of Age, and Personal Abilities; and tho it is reasonable to [Page 165]conclude, that a Commanding Pow­er remains, yet it ought at all times to be exercised according to the necessity, and reason of things: In a word, the principal Duties of Parents, and Child­ren appear from the nature of the things to be in their Original Institution per­petual, and therefore before this Au­thor had pronounced them Temporary, he should have considered, whether it was not to make the Commandments of God of none effect, to support his vain, and groundless Traditions, such as a State of Freedom, Equality, and original Contract.

§. 4. To consider the State of Free­dom, which is affirmed to be as absolute as that of the Father. The only Rea­son and Argument assigned for this Freedom, is in his own Language this, The Freedom then of Man, and liberty of Acting according to his own Will, is ground­ed on his having Reason, which is able to instruct him in that Law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own Will. Sect. 63. Now I am content to put the No­tion on this issue, with a small matter added to it. If Man at a certain period [Page 166]is endued with a sufficiency of Reason to instruct him in that Law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the Freedom of his own Will, and had Ingenuity, and Integrity enough to prosecute it, then I will grant that he may challenge a Freedom, or Liberty of acting accord­ing to his own Will without being ac­countable to any one, till his own vo­luntary Compact had made him so: But then such a sufficiency as this, must su­persede the necessity of all Civil Govern­ment, or positive Laws; Certainly then if Man after the utmost pretences to Reason, has not a sufficiency of Reason at all times to instruct himself in the Line of Duty, no more than Integrity to adjudge his own Actions conforma­ble to the Line of Duty; we may with very good Reason conclude, that Matu­rity of Reason does not cancel the Bonds of Filial Obedience, or (to have respect to the instance before us,) admit the Children of Adam to an equal State of Liberty with himself, that is, in his own Language, To challenge an Execu­tive Power in the Exercise of Laws of Na­ture as much as their Father, as well as Prescribe to their own Will, and regulate [Page 167]their Actions. These are positions that can no way be reconciled with the necessity of civil Government, under the most improv'd State of Reason, and that Dominion which by the Laws of the Creation, God had invested him with; for God having made Government necessary for the Support of Grown Men, and actually Invested Adam with a Right of Dominion; Rea­son must determine without the breach of Humane Freedom, that the Domini­on of Adam, was Originally designed to extend as far as was necessary to the Regulation, and Conduct of Humane Actions, as well by Laws, as Counsel. Indeed, the original Mistake is lodged in the Notion of Civil Government compared with Humane Freedom; as if Humane Freedom, or Natural Liber­ty, were, in the very Notion of it, incon­sistent with Government, or as if it were a Breach of Natural Liberty to be placed under the Conduct of that with­out which, Man with all his Reason cannot Subsist, much less be Happy. Now it is visible, tho' Government im­plies a Power of imposing, and enforce­ing Laws, yet the Original Design of it was the Happiness of Mankind in the Regulation of their Lives and Actions, [Page 168]according to the Laws of God, whe­ther Natural, or Revealed. It is true, the Institution of such a Power may im­ply an absolute Trust, and whether this Trust is forfeited, and accountable, when the Original Ends of Government are Violated, is another Question. But it is Indisputable these are the only true ends of Government. And I think, no one can affirm, that the direct Me­thods to Happiness are Breaches of Hu­mane Freedom, yea rather, they are the only Expedients to preserve it, and therefore I can see no Rights in the Ex­ercise of Humane Reason, or Free­dom founded on it, to Exempt the Children of Adam from that Civil Juris­diction that Results from his Paternal Power. And now I presume there is enough offered to Reject the pretence of an unlimitted Freedom, I have en­larged more plentifully upon it, be­cause it is the Foundation of that State of Equality, upon which Compact is made the first Principle of Civil Go­vernment; for this reason I shall offer a few Arguments more, to represent the Absurdity of it.

§. 5. And first, if Children coming to the exercise of Reason are not only [Page 169]discharged from their Paternal Allegi­ance, but acquire a State of Freedom equal to their Father, as this Position directs, Sect. 66. Then the Children of Adam, had an unquestionable Right to erect a Government over his Head, or at least upon Non-compliance to Ex­clude him from the Benefits of it; and in a word, to drive him forth from his own Territories; since Civil Governments always challenge a Power to Banish those that refuse to pay Allegiance to them. That the Children, and Descendants of Adam could act thus, is evident; for as they were in a State of Freedom, and Equality, they could enter into a Com­pact at Pleasure, and consequently Esta­blish a Government upon a Majority a­gainst their Fathers. It's highly Proba­ble, the Children of our First Parent were acted by so deep a sense of Duty, as would prevent them from the Exe­cuting their pretended Privilege; but I am perswaded, were a Set of Men un­der the Influence of this Author's Princi­ples, placed in a State of Nature under their Natural Father, the Resentments which the Discipline of their Education might give them, would easily engage them to bandy together at such a rate, [Page 170]as to Erect a Government upon his Head; and if they did not call the Old Gentleman to an account for Male-Ad­ministration, yet upon Non-compliance, they might think themselves obliged to withdraw those small remains of Re­spect, which this Gentleman has assign­ed him. However it is manifest, this Position will Vindicate the Lawfulness of the Project, and therefore it can be no Crime to apply it to the Father of Mankind, and his immediate Descen­dants. But now, what can be more Unnatural than this is? Can Man pre­tend the least Reverence, or Respect up­on such a Horrid Treason as this? Men may Harangue on the Formalities of Respect as long as they please, but certainly it is some Pretensions to Au­thority that can preserve a Filial Reve­rence that is truly valuable, that is, such a Reverence as expresses it self in a chearful Obedience to all just, and reasonable Commands.

§. 6. But to draw towards a Con­clusion, this Notion of Freedom carries another Absurdity in it as Injurious to the Civil Power, as it is to the Patriar­chal, for in order to assert the Notion [Page 171]this Author is forced to Discard the No­tion of Natural Allegiance, and place every one in a State of Liberty upon their arrival at Years of Discetion, till they shall Recognize the Governing Power by an express, or tacit Consent. An express Consent he fixes in Promi­ses, or Oaths of Allegiance, and a ta­cit Consent in the Possession or Enjoyment of any part of the Dominions of any Go­vernment, Chap. 8. Sect. 119. Part. 2. And further adds, that a Tacit Con­sent only produces a Temporal Allegi­ance, So that in case he quits his Posses­sion by Donation, Sale, or otherwise, he is at Liberty to go, and Incorporate him­self in any other Common-Wealth, or agree with others to begin a new one in Vacuis locis in any part of the World they can find Free, or Unpossessed. Sect. 121. Now certainly these are Positions that can­not well be consistent with the safety of any Government; for it is manifest, they give a Latitude for Rebellion, as well as Disertion. For first, The Descendants of the Liege Subjects of any Govern­ment do not yield a Tacit Consent even after they arrive at Years of Discretion, by Living, and Subsisting upon the Blessings of it, unless they possess, or [Page 172]enjoy some parts of its Dominions; so that not only the Adult Children that Live under their Parents without a Set­tlement, but even the Poor, or Labour­ing part of a Nation, or even all that are not the true Proprietors of Estates, still remain in a State of Nature, unless the Government has actually required an Oath of Fidelity. If this be true, as the case now stands in the English Government, where Oaths of Allegi­ance are only required but upon Special Occasions, and where pursuant to our Law, in some cases; he has fixed the term of Nonage at Twenty One, he must necessarily bring a Majority of Effective Men within a State of Nature? and therefore tho upon his Principles a Right doth not accrue to the Possessions of an Established Government, yet in case an Established Government does not think fit to treat them as Men in a State of Nature, or happens to exercise the least shadow of Rigour, or Severity upon them, they are according to rule (his own I mean) the proper Executioners of Laws of Nature, and consequently, they have Right of War, not only a­gainst their Common, but Natural Pa­rents. And truely, I do not see but a [Page 173]Project of this nature might prove ex­treamly successful, for pursuant to this Learned Hypothesis, a Body of Rich Male-Contents that have not entred in­to an express Allegiance, have power to sell their real Possessions, and when this is done, they are to all intents, and purposes in a State of Nature, and con­sequently are prepared upon the first Alarm to become Generals to worthy Mobile, and invade their Neighbours Possessions with Thousands, and ten Thousands. Oh! Blessed Politicks, to be the spawn of One that is called into the Counsels of a Government, Eats its Bread, and enjoys places of Trust as well as Profit. I am certain, I have re­presented the Notion with all imagin­able fairness, and tho the Absurdities that are lodged in it may pass for a suffi­cient Confutation, yet I shall offer some­thing further upon it.

And first, it is on all Hands agreed, that Persons, as well as Things, may be­come a Property, and Property in the Judgment of the Learned, establisheth a Right of Dominion; Consent at least ren­ders Persons, or free Agents, as much a Property as necessary Agents. Now the dispute is, whether free Agents may [Page 174]not become a Property any other way than by Consent. It's observable, he resolves the Foundation of Property in­to Labour, so that whatever is the effect of Labour and Industry, or has Labour mixed with it, becomes a Pro­perty, See Chap. 5. Sect. 27, 45. II. Part. Now it's manifest, not only the Educa­tion, and Subsistence of Miners, but of thousands of Persons that have not ex­presly Subscribed to any Government, is carried on by the Labour, Care, and Conduct of the Government, as well as that of their natural Parents; and there­fore Reason does not suggest any thing to me, why they are not from their ve­ry Infancy to be esteemed a Property of the Government, and consequently a kind of Allegiance, as it were grows up with them to the Government, as well as to their Natural Parents. It's true, it is a Property highly distinct from that in Brutes, for the one seems to be abso­lute, whereas the other must be limit­ed, that is, to Rational Ends, and Pur­poses. In this Sense, a free Agent may be a Property of the Supreme Power, as well as that of Terra firma in another. But now, since the Civil Power chal­lengeth a Property, it cannot be other­wise [Page 179]than by vertue of the Character it self; I mean that of a Governing Power, and consequently the Property that accrews from it, must Establish a Right of Obe­dience pursuant to it. In a word, the Governing Power challenges a Right of Labour and Assistance, in order to main­tain the Strength, and Grandeur of the Community, and consequently, the Su­preme Power must be invested with Au­thority to impose Laws for the regulati­on, and exacting of this Labour, and Industry. This is a truth so unquesti­onable, that all Established Govern­ments constantly challenge such Ser­vices as every Home-born Subject is capable of yielding, and exercise Juris­diction over them with as full Power, as if they had actually Subscribed to its Authority. This they esteem an un­doubted Prerogative, notwithstanding any Pretences to a State of Freedom af­ter Nonage. From all this it appears, how unjust this Author's Position is in Autho­rizing all those that have not entered into an express Allegiance to desert a Go­vernment at pleasure; for if the Laws and Measures of Property advanced by this Author, give the Supreme Power a Right of Dominion over every Home-born [Page 176]Subject, antecedent to all Subscriptions, as I think has been abundantly evinced, the Subject cannot rightfully withdraw himself from his Native Country with­out Special License from the Govern­ment. I know this is a Question con­troverted by Grotius, Pufendorf, and o­thers, and they generally agree, that they cannot rightfully withdraw Grega­tim, because it must destroy the Foun­dations of Government; but Pufendorf argues well, that if one particular Per­son has a right to withdraw; a Second and Third must have so too, and conse­quently a multitude, or Body of Men, either jointly or separately. But how­ever, it is universally allowed, that Go­vernments may prescribe Laws in this Affair; and certainly, if a Government can without the express consent of these pretended Free-Born Persons rightfully bind them by Laws, I think the Go­vernment has a Right of Allegiance An­tecedent to Law; for no Government can pretend a Power of binding by Law, especially, contrary to a Funda­mental, Natural Right, where an An­tecedent Right of Dominion is wanting, without Compact, or Consent. This is current Doctrine, at least with our [Page 177]Author, the Man for Original contract: In a word, the Sum of what has been hitherto offered by the Learned, is ta­ken from the practices of particular Go­vernments, rather than from the Nature or Reason of the thing. Indeed it can­not be denied, but that particular Per­sons have withdrawn from their Native Country, but it is to be interpreted by Permission, or Connivance, not by a Right of Natural Freedom, for there can no just Reason be assigned, why Per­sons as well as Things, may not become a property of the Government, or why a Property is not acquired in both, pur­suant to their proper Ends and Uses, by the same Laws and Measures; so that the Labour and Conduct of the Govern­ment in preserving, and supporting our Persons, may render us a Property of it to all the true ends and purposes of Government, in a rational way, or man­ner, as much as the Occupation or quiet Enjoyment, of any tract of Land render it a branch of its Dominions. Thus far I question not but the Government has a Right, or Property, in the La­bour and Service of every adult Native, as truly as in the product of the Ground, or the Riches and Treasures of a Coun­try, [Page 178]and therefore it's absurd to imagine that any one can rightfully withdraw his Person, much less his Effects, or Treasure, and commit himself and them to ano­ther Government, whether new or old. As for this Author, he's so highly sen­sible how much the number of Sub­jects contributes to the Trade, Riches, Strength and Glory of a Nation; that were the question formally put and ar­gued in the Council of Trade, and his Preferments, as well as Judgment, en­gaged upon it, I'm perswaded he would think himself obliged to declare against his former Sentiments. In one Word, it's evident these are positions, that (without a Law that enjoyns an Univer­sal explicit Allegiance) must render every Government highly precarious; for if a single Person can challenge a Right of withdrawing, then may a Second and a Third, and so on to a Body, or Mul­titude, and by this Means a Nation may not only be dispeopled at pleasure, and consequently drained of her Riches and Treasure, but her own natural Sub­jects may become her most formidable Enemies.

And now having offered what is suf­ficient to expose the conceipt of natural [Page 179]Freedom, I think I have abundantly evinced what was before asserted, That there cannot be a Body of Men, regu­larly and de jure in such a State of Na­ture, as this Author has projected. For tho' we should allow the first Govern­ment to be formed upon compact from a State of Nature, yet if Subjects are na­turally a property of a Government, it's impossible there should be a Body of Men, in a perfect State of Nature, without a to­tal dissolution of particular Governments; for as for the Independant State of Su­preme Powers, produced as an Instance by this Author, he knows very well it proves nothing to his design, or purpose, that is a body of Men in a State of na­ture, from which a Government is form­ed upon the Force and Authority of a joint compact. 2dly, This Notion of a State of Freedom being so clearly con­futed by that property, which every Government challenges in all the Sub­jects of it, as well as every Father in their Children; I think it adds to the strength of former Arguments in assert­ing the Civil Prerogatives of the Paternal Power; as it lay in the original. For Adam being not only the Great Parent of Mankind, but the sole proprietary of [Page 180]Off-Springs, without any Collateral, much less Superior Power to defaulk from any of his Prerogatives; if Govern­ment by the Laws of Providence was truly serviceable, or rather necessary, the very Station, as well as Character he bare, is sufficient to give him a right of Dominion and Sovereignty. And thus far, I hope I have, in some measure, stated the Foundations of Civil Govern­ment, pursuant to the Established Laws of the Creation; and certainly when all Arguments and Circumstances are fair­ly laid together, there's no just ground or colour for Original Compact. Here's a manifest Power and trust, but it seems to be the immediate Ordinance and Ap­pointment of God, arising from the E­stablished Frame and order of Things; Not an Arbitrary Deputation or Com­mission, issuing forth of the hands of the People, that were born and formed for Government, and Educated and nur­sed up under the Wings of it. I have proved it from the nature of the Thing, and the Laws of Providence, and were we to enquire into the Original of Go­vernments upon matter of Fact, we shall find them invested in the Paternal Pow­er; indeed this Author is forced to con­fess [Page 181]as much, and then I think not up­on a Tacit consent, or compact, as he would have it, no, the frame of Nature directs us to another foundation. And now I must own the Argument has car­ried me much further than I designed, but I think the injuries which these No­tions offer to the Authority of Civil Go­vernours, as ell as Masters of Families; will dictate an Apology. I have stu­diously avoided all Applications, lest I should give him a Handle to make use of a Common Artifice against me, by resolving my Resentments into disloy­alty, towards our present Sovereign; but this is an Imputation so unjust, that all that know me are, I question not, sufficiently prepared to wipe it off: For tho' I cannot entertain such an Opinion of Original Contract, as to be forward to place all my Loyalty upon it, yet I hope there are others as well as my self, can find out principles that will main­tain as true fealty and Allegiance, to­wards his present Majesty, as that can suggest, or create.

CHAP. XII. Of the Nature of Moral Good and Evil.

HAving thus laid the Foundations of the Law of Nature, and represent­ed it in all its Formalities and Appendages, I proceed in the next place to consider the nature and distinction of Moral Good, and Evil. And first, That we may describe the nature of Moral Good with greater clearness, it will be requi­site to consider not only the Subject Mat­ter, but the Formal Reasons of it.

§. 1. And first, The subject Matter of Moral Good undoubtedly arises from the natural frame and constitution of Things. As things in their Original Nature correspond, or agree with the Primitive ends, and Interests of each other, so they carry in them a Natural, or Physical goodness. Thus in the case of Temperance; a moderate use of Meats and Drinks, undoubtedly pre­serves the Mind, as well as Body in all its ends and uses? and consequently it is no doubt, a Natural, or Physical good [Page 183]to the whole Man. And this I would call the subject matter of Moral Good; so that all Moral Good being founded in the Original Frame and Constitution of things, it always implies a Physical, or Natural Good in it. But,

§. 2. Secondly, For the formal Rea­sons of Moral Good, I conceive they are principally two. The first is, whereby it seems to be immediately distinguish­ed from a Natural Good; and that is as it proceeds from the choices of a free Agent. And Secondly, As these choices are Regulated, according to the Origi­nal Frame, Nature, and Order of things Thus in the case of Meats and Drinks, an unthinking Brute may, no doubt, re­ceive such a portion of both, as is exact­ly accommodated to the Ends and Inte­rests of such an Animal. But yet, since this is done purely by a necessary prin­ciple, or natural Instinct, it cannot de­rive to it self the denomination of a Mo­ral Action; but now when the moderate use of Meats and Drinks is defined up­on a mature consideration of the ends and Interests of our beings, and we make 'em the measure of our choices, and embrace 'em as such; the Action ob­tains [Page 184]a new denomination; for 'tis cer­tainly a Moral Action, and consequent­ly a Moral Good, in as much as it moves upon the measures, and princi­ples of a Natural Good.

It's certain, every action that is found­ed in rational Motives and Convicti­ons, or that rests on certain Faculties which we are empowered to exert, or not exert in the disquisition of its Nature is to be esteemed a moral action, be­cause the consequences of it are to be imputed to us. And if our choices, and determinations are Regulated accord­ing to the true nature of the thing, and the Primitive Ends and Interests of our Beings, it may justly be esteemed a mo­ral Good; but if we choose, and deter­mine contrary to these measures and principles, it will undoubtedly, pass un­der the character of a moral Evil; so that Moral Good manifestly includes two things, first it must contain all the principles of a free Action. Secondly, The Springs, and Principles of Free­dom, are to move in conjunction with the natural Frame, and interests of the things themselves; and consequently, a Moral Good always presupposes, and includes a Natural Good. I'm sensible [Page 185]here are others that are not content with this portion of Moral Good, and therefore they add a third Ingredient, from whence it chiefly takes its deno­mination. For they define it to be the Conformity of an Action to a Rule, or Decree of a Law-giver; and consequent­ly it includes, first a principle of Free­dom; secondly, a Natural Goodness, or an intrinsick Rectitude of the Action in all its relations; and thirdly, the bind­ing Authority of a Law that engages us to embrace it from the Will and Plea­sure of a Law-giver. But now if the Authority of a Law-giver, be the true measure of Moral Goodness, it makes a Moral Law, or Duty, and a Moral Good to be the same thing, whereas a Moral Law or Duty seems to be the Complement of a Moral Good. The one is a choice of things from their re­lation, and consent to Moral ends and purposes; the other, from a binding Authority superadded to them. In Mo­ral Duties, the Law-giver is to pre­scribe in Conformity to these ends, and the Moral Agent is to choose, and de­termine himself by them, in Conformi­ty to the Will, and Authority of the Law-giver, but a Moral Good seems to [Page 186]be only the choice of a Natural Good, without considering it as the Command, or Appointment of a Sovereign Autho­rity. But the denominations of things are often Arbitrary, and may be extend­ed or lessened, without any injury to Truth, as long as the Latitude of such denominations is fixed, and agreed upon; and therefore, we ought not to be con­cerned at any Terms of Art, or Modes of Expression, as long as there's an A­greement in the nature of things.

CHAP. XIII. Of the true measures of Moral Goodness.

§. 1. IN order to a further display of the nature of Moral Goodness, it will not be improper, nor useless to consider the true measure of Moral Goodness. And first, I think Pleasure, whether of Body or Mind, cannot be any true measure of Moral Goodness. Thus much the Observations already made on a Vitiated Mind abundantly evince.

For certainly a Vitiated Mind and Conscience may conceive an undistur­bed Satisfaction, and delight in the foulest Enormities; and yet it's absurd to pro­nounce 'em Moral Goods.

For notwithstanding any pleasure of Mind that accompanies them, they are still to be ranked among Moral Evils. Indeed, I cannot conceive how Plea­sure, and Pain can be the measure of Natural Good; for the Mind may cer­tainly lie under wrong apprehensions of things, and consequently, conceive a pleasure, and satisfaction in real Evils: and therefore it seems to be highly im­proper to pronounce Pleasure, the true, and only measure of Natural, much more of Moral Good. No, certainly the true measure of Natural Good is to be taken from the Original Frame, and Constitution, or ends and interests of things, and the exact Agreement, or Adapting of them to each other, pur­suant to it. When things are thus ad­apted, no doubt, but a true pleasure of Mind results from them, for God has so graciously adapted things to our Welfare and Happiness, and Establish­ed such a strict Harmony, and Agree­ment between us, and every Natural [Page 188]Good that concerns us, that there's a powerful Pleasure flows from it, at least according to the Original Oeconomy, or Frame of things; but yet Pleasure seems to be a consequent rather than a measure, or constituent Principle of Natural Good, especially since there may arise this Pleasure of Mind, when the true ends and interests of things are perverted, witness the case of an Erro­neous Judgment, or Conscience; and therefore I think, a late Author has not well expressed himself, when he tells us, That things are Good, and Evil, only in Reference to Pleasure and Pain [Essay con­cerning Human Understanding, Cap. 20. Sect. 2.] or, as he more fully delivers himself in another place, Good and Evil, are nothing but Pleasure and Pain, or that which occasions, or produces Pleasure, or Pain in us. Book 2. Cap. 28. Sect. 5.

§. 2. Secondly, The conformity of our Actions to a Law abstracting from the Intrinsick rectitude of the Subject matter of it, cannot be the true measure of Moral Good. As the forecited Au­thor too apparently suggests, when he tells us, Moral Good and Evil, is only the conformity or disagreement of our Voluntary [Page 189]Actions to some Law; whereby Good and Evil, is drawn on us from the Will and Power of the Law-maker. Lib. 2. Cap. 28. §. 5. If this definition is designed thus far, certainly the best Argument against such a position is one by this Author advanced on another Occasion. He Labours to prove, that the foulest Enor­mities, have obtained in whole Nations and Societies of Men, upon a Law of Fa­shion, Opinion or Reputation; but cer­tainly the conformity of an Action, to such a Law, can by no Means give it the Character or Denomination of Mo­ral Good. This must indeed destroy all real Distinction between Good and Evil, and render the moral endowments of the Mind, as Arbitrary and Precarious as the outward Dress of the Body. It's true an Action performed by a volun­tary Agent in Confomity to a Rule, is undoubtedly a Moral Action. But it does not hereby necessarily become a Moral Good, unless the Rule be good, or the Intrinsick matter of the Action be so: For without these Limitations it may be as much a Moral Evil, as if it interfered with an Established Rule. So that I cannot but dissent from Mr. Lock, when he places the Notion of Moral [Page 190]Good and Evil, in the conformity or disagreement of a Voluntary Action to a Rule, tho' it be no more than a Rule or Law of Fashion. I grant it Establisheth the Idea of a Moral Action; but a Mo­ral Action is either good or bad, and therefore the Idea of Moral Goodness, cannot rest upon the conformity of an Action to such a Rule, but on the In­trinsick Goodness of the Action or Recti­tude of such a Rule.

§. 3. But to proceed; There are o­thers who place the foundation of Moral Good, in the Conformity of Moral Actions, to our Rational Natures, as fitted for Society, and consequently pro­portion the degrees of Moral Good, as they serve more or less the ends of So­ciety. Indeed it cannot be denyed, but that the Great and Wise God, hath gi­ven us a being, and Nature not only peculiarly framed for Society, but to be supported by it; and consequently whatever accords with the Rational Na­ture of Man born to Society is undoubtly a Moral Good; but 'tis visible Man in his Original Frame, bears a threefold Relation; to wit, Frame in Relation to God, his own Being, and that of his [Page 191]Neighbours; from whence arises a three­fold Moral Good. Now the Agree­ment of Actions to our Rational Na­tures, as created for Society, may pre­sent us with an Idea of those Moral Goods, that respect our Being in it self, or as it stands supported by Society, but it cannot give us an Idea of Moral Good, with respect to God our Creator, and consequently this Notion cannot be an adequate measure of Moral Goodness.

§. 4. Having said thus much Nega­tively, it remains that we endeavour to State it in a positive way, or determine what is the true and adequate measure of Moral Goodness. And first, it's uni­versally allowed that Moral Good implies a Relation in the Nature of it. It's a good in respect of something else, and consequently there must be some fixed Standard, to examine and state the Pro­portions it bears to it; and this Stan­dard, may not improperly be called a measure of Moral Goodness. Again, Moral Good, which we are now con­cerned with, respects the Actions of Men; and since the Actions of Men, with respect to a Threefold Relation, which we bear towards God, our own [Page 192]Beings and our fellow Creatures, pass under three several Denominations, the measure of Moral Good, must extend to each of 'em. With Submission, then I presume the proper measure of Moral Good, must be taken from the Original Frame, Ends and Interests of our Be­ings; we are acted by invincible pro­pensions, I mean those of self preser­vation and desire of happiness, that will engage us to examine and con­sider 'em, and the experiment will fur­nish us with a measure, to determine the Goodness of all our actions, in our seve­ral intercourses with God, our own Be­ings, or our fellow Creatures. It's cer­tain there can no action be truly Morally Good but what is conformable to our Original Frame, and the prime Ends and Interest of our Beings; and what is really thus conformable, is real­ly and truly Morally Good; and con­sequently the Frame, Ends, and In­terest of our Being, must be a proper Standard of Moral Goodness. God has been graciously pleased, to give us a Being like himself, the great exemplar of all Perfection and Goodness, and he has annexed such Ends and Interests to it, as will lay a Foundation for Actions, [Page 193]that result from his blessed Nature; so that the whole line of Moral Duty is by the Laws of our Creation, made to con­sist in Actions that are peculiarly con­sonant to our Natural Frame, in all its Capacities and Relations. The Fea­tures, and Complexion of every duty, are taken from our selves, and by a Phy­sical Efficiency, add Glory, Strength and Beauty to us; and therefore no­thing can be so true a measure of Moral Goodness, as the pure Frame, Ends, and Interests of our Beings. As for those that place Moral Goodness, in the con­formity of our Actions to a Law; it's certain that the Truth and Authority of this Law, where Revelation is wanting, must first be tryed by the Frame, Ends, and Interests of our Beings: Reason can make an estimate no other way; and consequently all other measures of Mo­ral Goodness, must at last resolve into this.

CHAP. XIV. Of the Eternal and Unalterable di­stinctions of Moral Goodness.

FRom what has been laid down and Concluded, it's evident there's an unalterable distinction between Good and Evil. Now certainly whereinso­ever we fix the Notion of Moral Good, whether 'tis the imbracing of a Natural Good, by Rational motives and con­victions arising from the Intrinsick Na­ture of the Thing, the proper Springs of a free Agent; or whether 'tis in pursu­ance to the Will and Authority of a Lawgiver, it's abundantly concluded, the Lines of Moral Good are fixed and unalterable: For it's manifest that Mo­ral Good, always includes a Natural Good, and Natural Good is evidently Established in the frame of Created Na­ture, and consequently if the frame of Nature is unalterable, Moral Good must be so too. Nay, we may advance fur­ther yet; the great creator of all things, tho' in himself the most absolute, and free Agent, yet was governed by the [Page 195]dictates of his own Infinite Wisdom and Goodness, and consequently the whole frame of created Nature is Established according to the model of the divine perfections. If therefore Natural Good necessarily results from the Natural frame of Things; and their subserviency and agreements with each other, and Moral Good necessarily includes a Natural Good in it, Moral as well as Natural Goodness, is as unalterable as the divine Perfections; and consequently is in the highest sence eternal, and unalterable. From hence we way observe how mon­strously absurd is that position advan­ced by a set of Men, who first outlived all Moral Good, before they thought of the Notion, that there's no distin­ction between Good and Evil; that all the Impressions of the Mind, are to be resolved into mere Habits Established in Example, or Education, and conse­quently the Good and Evil of all Actions besides that which results from the De­termination of positive Laws, whether Humane or Divine, is nothing else but a Law of Fashion or Opinion. It's abun­dantly concluded, God has given us a peculiar Frame, and thereby Established certain Ends, and Interests suitable to it: [Page 196]And consequently what really accords with the true Ends, and Interests of our Being, is that we call a Natural Good, and what directly clashes and interseres with them, is a Natural Evil. It's con­cluded God has endued us with powers and faculties that, if duely exerted, will discover to us the true Frame, Ends and Interests of our Natures, and how all external things affect 'em, and are more or less Subservient to 'em; and after this he has endued us with a power, to chuse and pursue what is truly Sub­servient to these ends. The very frame and condition of our Natures, as they are to be supported with outward suc­cours and conveniencies, and the sense of pleasure and pain stampt upon our Na­tures, and the desire of the one, and satisfaction in enjoying it; and the dread of the other, and the uneasi­ness in suffering it, are proper and ef­fectual Springs to set all our natural Powers on work, and fix 'em on their proper Ends and Objects; and all this proves a moral Capacity, to pursue and embrace that which we call Moral Good, and unless our Natural Powers and Fa­culties are regulated by the Laws and Principles of natural Good, it's impossi­ble [Page 197]the Action should obtain the Cha­racter of moral Good. It must be con­fessed, that the biass of Animal sensati­ons, or pleasures, is so impetuous in cor­rupted nature, that it often hurries us on to the pursuit of every thing that strikes a present Relish, without consi­dering whether it accords with the true Ends and Interests of our Beings, at least in that measure or manner we seek to enjoy them. Again, it's possible the Mind, by force of Habit, as well as power of Education, and the Fashion of a Country, may be sunk so deep into Carnality, and so tinged with brutal Enjoyments, as to be not only disabled from making the least Enquiry into the true Ends and Interests of its Being, but to receive an undisturbed Satisfa­ction in the practice of 'em, so that they may appear as natural as the most re­gulated Acts of Morality, yet this does by no means destroy the Foundations of moral Good; for it is nothing else but a kind of Spiritual Disease, and conse­quently we may as well say there was originally no true Foundations for Health, because the Body is over-run with a Disease, as deny the Foundations of Morality, because our Native Capa­cities [Page 198]are habitually Vitiated and Cor­rupted.

CHAP. XV. Reflections on Mr. Lock's Law of Fashion.

§. 9. HAving offered thus much upon the Nature and Di­stinction of Moral Goodness, I cannot dismiss the Argument without bestow­ing a few Remarks on the Author of the Essay, concerning Humane Under­standing, upon his advancing a Law of Fashion, or Opinion, among the Rules, or Measures, of Moral Goodness. I shall not conceal what he has said in Vindi­cation of himself against Mr. Lowde, [See his Ep. to the Reader Ed. 2.] I was there not laying down Moral Rules, but shewing the Original and Nature of Moral Ideas, and enumerating the Rules Men make use of in Moral Relations, whether those Rules were true or false. Now certainly tho' the principal Design of this Chapter might be what this Author expresses; yet an Impartial Reader could not have believed but there was [Page 199]a professed Design too, to represent the true rules, or measures, of Moral Good, had he not expresly declared the con­trary. And for all this, I think a man must have a great deal of Charity to alter his Belief, notwithstanding this extorted Declaration. And to justify my Opinion, I shall appeal to that very Section which he refers to for his Vin­dication [Sect. 4. Chap. 28. B. 2.] speak­ing of Moral Duties, or Actions, viz. Gratitude, &c. he concludes, It is not enough to have clear and distinct Ideas of them, and to know what Names belong to such and such Combinations of Ideas, as make up the complex Idea belonging to such a Name, we have a further and grea­ter Concernment, and that is to know whe­ther such Actions so made up are morally Good, or Bad. Now, truly if the great concernment be to know or discover whether certain Actions are Morally Good or Bad, the true Nature of Moral Good must be fixed; for if it be not ma­terial, whether the Rule or Measure be true or false; I would fain know what Light we have given of Moral Good, or how we shall judge whether any particular action is Morally Good or Bad. Thus far there's a design to six the true mea­sures [Page 200]of Moral Goodness, and we are the more induced to believe it, because the very next Section presents us with a pro­fessed description of Morally Good and Evil, pursuant to the description he had before given of Good and Evil. Morally Good and Evil then is only the Conformity or Disagreement of our Voluntary Actions to some Law; whereby Good and Evil is drawn upon us, from the Will and Power of the Law-maker. Here's a standing defi­nition of Moral Good and Evil, and this Author must own that a definition of Things, (such as Good and Evil) is a discovery of the precise Nature of 'em, as they are in themselves, and conse­quently it must imply a discovery of the true measures of Morally Good and Bad. To proceed then, the Nature of Morally Good and Bad, is here made to consist in the conformity of Voluntary Actions to some Law, and therefore it's requisite an Account should be given of the seve­ral Rules or Laws of Moral Goodness, whereby we may view it in its several Species or kinds. This Mr. Lock per­forms in the Section immediately fol­lowing. Of these Moral Rules and Laws to which Men generally Refer, and by which they judge of the Rectitude or Pravity of [Page 201]their Actions there, seems to me to be three sorts, with their different Enforcements or Rewards and Punishments, so that we see he industriously represents 'em in all the formalities of Laws, and gives 'em their proper and peculiar Sanctions, that they may obtain the Authority and Character of Laws. Upon this, he proceeds to establish the several Species of Moral Good; and having enlarged very much upon the third Species of Moral Good, that of Virtue and Vice, he gives us to un­derstand his Intentions by the very Ti­tle of his Thirteenth Section. These three Laws are Rules of Moral Good and Evil, and Sect 14. he expresly tells us, That by taking the Rule from the Fashion of the Country, the Mind hath a notion of Moral Goodness or Evil, which is the conformity, or not conformity, of any acti­on to that Rule. Now what is all this, but to describe the real Nature of Mo­ral Goodness in its true measures, as well as kinds. It's evident, it was the Business of Sect. 5. and the rest Branches from it by the Laws of method and or­der; nay, it's expressed in the very Con­clusion, Sect. 14. and therefore we can­not (without robbing Mr. Lock of the [Page 202]Character he has justly merited of be­ing a Master of Reason) but conclude, that all this was in pursuance to his Great Concernment, Sect. 4. That is, to know whether such actions so made up, are morally Good or Bad. But further to take off all this, Mr. Lock appeals to Sect. 15.20. Whereas the latter only affirms, that we have a notion of Mo­ral Relation, whether the Rule be true or false; and this I think no body can deny, but yet I hope I have proved, that the notion of all Moral Goodness, depends on the truth of the Rule, not on the conformity of an Action, to a Rule, whether true or false. The for­mer affirms, that the Idea, or Notion, of Moral Goodness, arises from the conformity of an Action to one of his three Rules, but I hope, I have proved that they only represent the Idea of a Moral Action, not of Moral Goodness, which indispensibly requires the truth and goodness of the Rule. Lastly, in vindication of himself, he produces his own Authorities for the eternal and un­alterable nature of Virtue, by fixing it in the Will or Commands of God, Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. and 18. But yet we were at a loss, to know whether [Page 203]he designed the revealed Will and po­sitive Commands of God, or his Will discovered by the Light of Reason, had he not told us in a second Edition, That by the Divine Law, he meant as well a Law promulged by the Light of Reason, as the voice of Revelation, Book 2. Chap. 28. Sect. 8. If the Commands or Will of God are only those we receive from Revelation, or the positive Will of God (the first Edition of this Essay, sugge­sting nothing to the contrary) then Moral Good and evil Antecedent to Re­velation, is not Eternal and Unaltera­ble, but may be founded on a Law of fashion, as a true measure of Moral Good; for as this Author observes, the natural conveniences, and inconveni­ences of things themselves, may deter­mine our choices, without making 'em the inviolable Rules of Practice. See Sect. 6. Book 1. Chap. 3. and Sect. 6.2. Chap. 28. So that however, his second Thoughts stand affected, I can see no­thing in his first, to induce a belief that he did not intend to state the several measures of Moral Goodness, and con­sequently assign a Law of opinion for one of them. I have hitherto asserted nothing, but from Arguments which [Page 204]Mr. Lock's own Words have furnished me with; and if I have carried him be­yond his Intentions, I'm perswaded the remarks are justifiable, whilst the old expressions remain to propagate the In­fection, at least in every incautious Reader, that has not perused his Pre­face; for certainly, since in the entrance of this Essay, he has brought the foul­est Enormities, under the Character of a Law of Fashion or Opinion, Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 9, 10, 11. he either ought to have cancelled most of those passages I have cited, or at least ex­presly declared, that a Law of Opinion was never to be admitted a measure of Moral Good, unless the Opinion is ex­actly consonant to truth, or the nature of things; nor a rule of Action, but as it corresponds with the Law of Nature, or revealed Religion.

§. 2. Having said thus much, give me leave to offer something concern­ing the necessity of advancing such a Law. Now certainly, in order to the Description of Moral Goodness, or the several Branches of it, there's not the least necessity, for bringing a Law of Fashion into the List. I hope, I may [Page 205]without Arrogance or Presumption, conclude from what has been already offered, that Moral Goodness is indis­putably founded on the Truth or Good­ness of the Rule, or the intrinsick Goodness of the things themselves; and that neither the Sentiments or Opinions of Men, nor the Fashion of a Country without these Requisites, can give 'em so much as the bare Denominations of Mo­ral Goodness; and therefore that a Law of Fashion, should be advanced as a Rule, to represent the Nature of Moral Good­ness, can never be fairly accounted for. It's certain the Law of Nature, or at least the Law of Revelation in conjunction with it, is the only measure of Moral Goodness: Insomuch, that a Law of Fashion interfering with one or both of 'em, is not only destitute of every grain of Moral Goodness, but cannot can­cel one grain of sin or guilt, when fol­lowed in opposition to either. This is the case of Duels, or any other fa­shionable Enormities; for Laws of Na­ture, as well as revealed Laws, when duly promulged, are justly presumed to be the known fundamental Rules of Humane Actions, and the fashion or publick reputation of an Action, can [Page 206]add nothing towards its innocence. And therefore what necessity is there for inser­ting a Law of Fashion among the Rules or Measures of Moral Goodness, unless it were designed to establish something of Credit or Authority to it; things no sooner suggested, than embraced in an Age of Liberty; and therefore this Au­thor should no sooner have mentioned such a Rule, than represented the un­warrantableness of it. In a word, this Author might have considered, that he had given the grossest immortalities, the Authority of Laws of Fashion, and consequently, that such Laws are very unfit representatives of the Ideas of Mo­ral Goodness, certainly it had been as allowable, and necessary, to have brought an avowed Immorality into the List, given it the Character and Authority of a Law, and pronounced it a measure of Vir­tue, or Moral Rectitude, or Goodness; or at least a Branch of it. But truly, this is a method that rather confounds, than establishes the Ideas of Moral Good­ness, or instructs us to know whether such Actions so made up, are morally Good or Bad. Indeed, had he condescended to an old Distinction of Good and Evil, and pronounced Moral Good or Evil, [Page 207]either apparent or real, and Vertue and Vice reputed or real, then he had put himself under a necessity of enlarging very plentifully upon a Law of Fashion, and abundantly freed himself from Cen­sure and Reflection, especially, upon an express Declaration of the unwarranta­bleness of such a Law, when destitute of real intrinsick Goodness or Innocence; but till this is done, I hope, 'tis no crime to pronounce Mr. Lock's Law of Fashion (as it now stands Recorded) both dan­gerous and unnecessary.

§. 3. But further, besides the danger and frivolousness of the at­tempt, this Author seems to have gros­ly mis-represented the old received No­tions of Virtue and Vice, brought dis­grace upon the Ancient Moralists or Philosophers, and established a Law upon sanctions peculiar to it, that were never esteemed so. And first, it can­not be denied, but that Custom and Ex­ample have always been very prevail­ing Arguments, to influence the Judg­ments, as well as practice of Mankind, and when Practice is not only univer­sal, but pursued, abetted, and encou­raged by Authority, it will presently [Page 208]be received into the judgments of Men, as an indisputable Rule of Action, and when 'tis thus received, it becomes a Law or Rule of Action, and thus Cu­stom and Example accidentally contri­bute to the establishing a Rule, as they gradually new model the Judgment, and serve to create a real perswasion of the intrinsick goodness of any particu­lar Action; but yet I can scarce be­lieve that Custom, publick Reputation, or the Fashion of a Countrey, were e­ver assigned by the intelligent part of Mankind, for the measure of the Re­ctitude of a Rule, much less for a true and proper Rule of Action; no, an Opi­nion of the Intrinsick Rectitude of things has been ingendered by Habit or Cu­stom, and the fashionable practices of an Age, and then the Action has been pursued and embraced with as much Heat and Eagerness, as if it were en­dued with an Intrinsick Goodness, and were to be ranked under the Title of Moral Goodness. And therefore, this Author, has offered Violence to the notions of Mankind, and particularly of the Ancient Moralists and Philoso­phers, in pronouncing the Fashion of a Countrey to be a Law, and founding [Page 209]Virtue and Vice upon it. For first it can be no Law on this Author's own principles, since it wants a peculiar Sanction to enforce it. It's well known, Praise, Honour, or Reputation, is by no means peculiar to a Law of Fashion, for 'tis the reward that attends all sorts of Moral Goodness, or a Collateral Motive contrived by divine designation to en­force the practice of it. 2dly, Vertue and Vice among the Learned, was ne­ver measured by the Reputation it bears in the World, but by an Intrinsick Mo­ral Rectitude. This I could evince were it necessary, from the whole tribe of Heathen Moralists, who always fixed the Notion in its Agreements, with the dictates of right Reason, and the Origi­nal Frame, Ends, and Interests of our Na­tures. I shall at this time content my self with some Authorities, from that Learned Moralist he has cited to sup­port his own Opinion. Thus he agrees to these great Truths in a Multitude of passages: Virtutis hoc proprium, earum rerum quae secundum Naturam sunt, habere delectum. Lib. 3. de Fin. Sect. 4. Quaesita enim vir­tus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur, Ib. Lib. 4. §. 15. In homine Summa omnis Animi est, & in Animo Ra­tionis, [Page 210]ex qua virtus est, quae Rationis Ab­solutio definitur. Ib. Lib. 5. §. 14. Vir­tus eadem in homine ac Deo est,—est autem Virtus nihil aliud quam perfecta & ad Summum perducta natura; est igitur ho­mini cum Deo similitudo. Lib. de Leg. §. 8. So that Vertue was never esteemed that precarious Thing this Author has Sug­gested; the publick Reputation of any Action was never the measure of Ver­tue, but Right Reason, and the Frame, Ends and Interests of our Beings, else it's impossible Vertue in Men, should be the same with Vertue in God, and Men to resemble God in it, as this Au­thor excellently expresses himself.

From all this it's manifest, that Ver­tue was rather esteemed the Standard or Measure of Praise, than Praise of Vertue, and that Honour or Praise, was never extolled or appealed to, but as it is the Product of Vertue, and a kind of reward to it. Thus much this Au­thor could not be Ignorant of, when the Moralist explains the very passage he has cited almost with the same Breath; and makes it a description of the chiefest Humane Good, that con­sists in Vertue or is attained by it. Quod ipsum sit optandum per se, à Virtute [Page 211]profectum vel in ipsâ virtute situm, suâ sponte laudabile. Tusc. Quaest. lib. 2. §. 20. If this will not content him, I shall refer him to another passage that speaks out what I have already asserted, and will instruct him that Vertue is the Measure of Praise, not Praise of Vertue. Omnis honos, omnis admiratio, omne studium ad virtutem, & ad eas actiones quae virtuti sunt consentaneae, refertur: Eaque omnia quae aut ita in animis sunt, aut ita gerun­tur, uno nomine honesta dicuntur. Lib. 5 de Fin. §. 21. This, if I mistake not, is to define Honour by Vertue, not Ver­tue by Honour or Reputation, as Mr. Lock would have it. Upon the whole then I presume, it appears that this Law of Opinion, has no more foundation in the received principles of Morality, than there's necessity for the invention; that it practises as much injustice, upon the ancient Advocates for Morality, as it discovers Impertinence or Evil design in the Author, and in a Word, it's so miserably destitute of Solid Argument, or Principle to support it, that nothing but the fashionable Immoralities of a degenerate Age, can assert its truth or Authority.

CHAP. XVI. Of the Nature of Conscience in General.

I Shall not much enlarge on the No­tion of Conscience, which imports the knowledge of the Line of Duty, and a directing Power or Faculty, to consider the Nature of those Actions we are about to execute, by applying 'em to the Line of Duty. This is a truth so well known, that no one can dispute it, that allows the use of Reason, or make us creatures that can act by a Law, or are capable of being Governed by it. The principal enquiry then is concerning Conscience with respect to past Actions: And first it's a truth, I pre­sume, universally agreed upon, that Man is endued with a Power of Retain­ing, and reflecting on his own actions; The retentive Faculty is abundantly maintained upon the Power of Memory, and the Power of Reflection is founded in the very Power of Reason. For to Reflect and Animadvert upon our thoughts, is undoubtedly an Act of Reason, and Thought. And therefore [Page 213]as Man acts upon Thought, Deliberation, and Argument, he cannot but be consci­ous that he thinks, deliberates, and ar­gues, and consequently that he acts pur­suant to it. Indeed, I presume, to think, deliberate, and Act, and to consider or know that we think, deliberate, or act thus and thus, are two distinct acts of the Mind; but whether we think, and deliberate, and reflect upon our Thoughts in the same, or different Mo­ments, is no way prejudicial to the Doctrine of Consciousness. To pro­ceed then as we can reflect, so we can animadvert upon the nature of past Acti­ons; for those very faculties that enable us to deliberate, and judge of the Na­ture of an Action, before it is executed, will enable us to pass as clear, if not much better judgment upon it, after 'tis over: For then we view it in all its Aspects, Circumstantials, and Appen­dages. Now certainly Conscience con­tains both these Powers in it; I mean a Power of Recollecting and a Power of Animadverting on the Nature of our past Actions; for without such inspect­ing Powers, it's impossible there can be any such thing as Conscience. But then that which gives us the principal and [Page 214]formal Notion of Conscience, is a Power of trying the Nature of our Actions, by some Law or Rule of Action. What­ever the Nature of Moral Good and Evil may be; I mean whether it consists in the conformity of our Actions to a Law or Rule, or their disagreement from it, certain I am the Acts or Powers of Conscience imply the examination of an Action with reference to a Law or indispensable Rule of Action; whereby it carries the appearance of a Duty or not a Duty. For Conscience undoubt­edly implies a Condemning and absolv­ing Faculty in it, and these are exer­cised with respect to Duty, and Duty arises from the Obligation of a Law: So that Conscience is undoubtedly the measure of our Actions by a Law. In­deed, this is so much the formal No­tion of Conscience, that it runs thro' all the instances, and exercitations of Con­sciences; for they are no otherwise di­stinguished than by the different Laws that Regulate them, as from a Law of Nature, Law of Revelation, or Civil Polity. But then in order to the passing an Absolution or Censure on our Acti­ons, and our selves for them by a Rule, there must be a Power of Acting Con­formable [Page 215]to this Law or Rule; for without this, the Action with its Effects and Consequences, cannot be imputed to us. This is implyed in the very notion of a Law, being a Rule proposed to Rational Creatures that have a Power to Act, or not Act on Rati­onal Motives, and Convictions; so that Conscience contains a great many different movements, or workings in it. First, A Power of Retaining. Se­condly, A Power of Animadverting, or Reflecting on past Actions. Thirdly, A Power of applying, and comparing them with a Law or Rule. Fourthly. A Power of discerning the Truth, Good­ness, or Equity of the Rule, Fifthly, The Obligation and Authority of it; and Lastly, A Power of ascribing the Action to our selves, by acknowledg­ing a Power of Acting in Conformity to this Rule; whereby the Good, or Evil, Guilt or Merit of the Action may be some way imputed to us. So that Conscience may be justly defined to be the Judgment we pass upon our own Actions, whether past, or present, as scanned and measured by a Law, But now, tho' a Law in general is assigned for the measure of Conscience, it can­not [Page 216]be imagined that every thing we fansie, or are pleased to assign for the mark, or scope of our Actions, must pass for the true Law, or Measure of Conscience. It's certain, Custom, E­ducation, Example, or the Reputation of an Action gained by Numbers, and a Loose, Degenerous Age, cannot be a Law, or Measure of Conscience. No, the Passions, Prejudices, or By-inte­rests of particular Persons, the Super­stitious Fears, Enthusiasm, or Diaboli­cal Suggestions of too many, may as well challenge the Character of Laws, as any that have yet been mentioned. But to determine this matter in a few words. If we enquire into the true measure of Conscience, according to its Original Frame; it's certain, the Law of God, whether Natural, or Reveal'd, is to be esteemed the only proper mea­sure. For none but a Sovereign Crea­tor can be the Lord of Conscience, all other Powers, and Authorities, being only special Deputations from him; and that Duty, and Obligation that results from their Laws, rest upon a Divine Deputation that gives being to their Character, as well as Authority.

CHAP. XVII. Reflections on Mr. Lock's Description of Conscience.

THE Nature of Conscience being thus stated, I cannot but reflect a little on Mr. Lock's Account of Con­science, when he tells us, That it is nothing else but our own Opinion of our own Actions, and this Opinion sounded in a Perswasion, however got, as from Edu­cation, Company, or the Customs of a Country. See Lib. 1. Chap. 3. §. 8. This, to speak the least, I think, is a very loose, and imperfect Definition of Con­science. And to say, 'Tis nothing else but an Opinion however got; seems to Suggest, as if God had Instituted no fixed Rule of Conscience, but that it is to be resolved into little else but Cu­stom, Company, and Education. In a word, it's a Description calculated, purely for an Erroneous Conscience, that has no other Foundation but pre­sent Convictions, whether true or false. I will not deny, but that an erroneous, [Page 218]vitiated Conscience, is in a large sence, stiled Conscience, and that Custom, or Education may give being to such a Conscience; but then it's in Scripture distinguished by the Denominations of a weak, or defiled Conscience. I will grant, that it is a measure of Action to those that labour under it; because, as God has formed us Reasonable Creatures, we are to Act upon Rational Motives, and Convictions. He has given us no o­ther measure of Action as Men, and therefore the present Light, or Convi­ctions we are under, are the immediate Springs, and Principles of Action: for to Act Blindfold, or without Reason, or in contradiction to it, must over­turn the Frame of our Beings, and the Practice of all Moral Vertue. But yet God has set a sufficient mark upon an erroneous Conscience, by charging Sin on the Error, where-ever a Man can be charg­ed with Neglect as to the means of Infor­mation. On this Account St. Paul as­sures us, that the impure, or those that are under an erroneous Conscience, are Polluted as well in Mind, as Conscience. Tit. 1, 15. So that an erroneous Con­science being never a direct Rule, at least not any of God's Forming; nay, [Page 219]being a Rule occasioned by our selves, that enhances our Guilt, rather than Merit; it is not but in a very improper and extended Sence to pass under the Denomination of Conscience, at least, without some distinguishing Characte­ristick annexed, that the Divine Oeco­nomy of Conscience may not suffer by it. I am sure it is Conscience founded on the true Law, or Rule of Conscience, according to the Divine Establishment of it, that this Author should have Animadverted on, as a proof of Innate Ideas, not a Fictitious Conscience: And certainly it is a very imperfect account of such a Conscience, to affirm, that in the true, and proper Sence of it, it is nothing but our own Opinion of our own Actions, tho got by Custom, Com­pany, or Education; certainly the Foundation of Conscience ought not to have been omitted, which arises from the Conformity of our Actions to the proper Rule, or Law of Conscience, the Law of God.

CHAP. XVIII. Of the Foundation, and Authority of Natural Conscience in the original Oeconomy of it.

HAving offered thus much concern­ing the Nature of Conscience, we may easily represent the Foundation, and Authority of natural Conscience. By Natural Conscience, I mean a Con­science that exerts it self in a State of Nature antecedent to a State of Reve­lation. And certainly there's a Con­science Established by God upon an un­alterable Foundation, even in this State. For it's already concluded, that Man in his Original Frame is capable of Acting by certain Established Rules; It's con­cluded, that these Rules are discovered to him, as the special Institution of God, binding them upon him as his proper Laws, and indispensible Mea­sures of Action; It's concluded, that God has Created him with a Power of applying all his Actions to a Rule, and a Power of Judging whether his Actions accord with, or deviate from this Rule, [Page 221]and a Power of adjudging himself ac­countable to God, for the violation of this Rule, and consequently a necessity of acquitting or condemning himself by this Rule. In a Word, it's concluded that these Rules are eternal, and unal­terable, being founded in the Original Frame, Ends and Interests of Created Nature; therefore since these are Truths established upon the clearest Evidence, and Convictions, there's a natural Con­science resulting from the Frame of our Beings, and founded upon the most uniform, and unalterable Measures and Principles. It's visible God has framed us as exquisitely apprehensive of the vio­lation of the Line of Duty, and of be­ing accountable to him for it, as sensible of Torment and Misery; So that the workings of Conscience can never be destroyed; they will unavoidably break in upon us at one time or other, and fill us with Horror and Confusion. Tho' it cannot be denied, but that Ha­bit, and Custom may engender a false Light, or Sense of Things; and conse­quently a false conscience, either by mistaking the Nature, and Composi­tion of our Actions, or the Rules of 'em; by making a false application, or a false [Page 222]Rule; yet it's concluded there's a Conscience Established in the Original Frame or Nature of Things, and tho' it may for some time be suppressed or sti­fled, yet we can never secure it from re­turning upon us.

CHAP. XIX. The Truth and certainty of Conscience Demonstrated against the Latitudi­narian and Unbeliever.

NOw certainly if what has been al­ready asserted carries force and evidence in it, there needs nothing more to discover the falsehood, not to say Senseless Impudence of a prevailing position, That Conscience is nothing else but certain Superstitious Fears, contracted and rivetted by the Power of Education; for it's visible the Laws of Conscience are an Institution of God himself, as certain and unalterable, as the distin­ctions of Good and Evil; nay as cer­tain and unalterable, as the Frame, and Order of Nature. It's true there is one [Page 223]thing which the Libertine may retreat to, to blast or disparage the Truth and Reality of Conscience. I mean the in­consistence and contradiction of Erro­neous vitiated Consciences. For since Conscience sometimes as visibly disco­vers it self in the espousal and defence of open Immoralities, as the strictest vertues; and of palpable Falshoods and Errors, as the clearest Truths; it's with some colour concluded that Conscience is only the Effects of Habit, Custom and Education, Working the Mind up to certain Superstitious Sentiments and Opinions. But certainly the mistake is obvious, for this is an Argument that in reality proves no more, than that the mind is capable of receiving false Noti­ons of Things, and espousing 'em as real Truths and unquestionable Rules of Action. If this be admitted there's no necessity for discarding the Divine Oe­conomy or Institution of Natural Con­science, unless we must deny or reject every Divine Ordinance, because it was not established above the Possibility of violence, or distortion. It may easily be granted that the Mind or Understand­ing may be warped, or moulded to the reception of very absurd Opinions and [Page 224]Notions; there are a great many con­curring causes that conspire to the im­planting such habits; there are vitious appetites and propensions that carry a fatal biass over all our Motions or Acti­ons; there are examples and the fashion of an Age, which (once falling in with Native vitious propensions) will turn the Scale against the clearest Arguments and Convictions; so as to enforce a Practice contrary to received Sentiments and Opinions; and Practice engenders into habit, and at the same time Esta­blisheth a Powerful Familiarity; and Fa­miliarity takes off the unnaturalness or incongruity of Things, and by tract of time represents 'em to the Mind, as highly agreeable and innocent; so that it's possible a cultivated mind may be totally Debauched and Corrupted, that a pure Conscience may become defiled, and a regulated judgment perverted: The Force of habit may reconcile con­tradictions; the exorbitance of Lusts may send forth such Vapours as will suffocate not only the natural but im­proved light of the understanding: But the case of uncultivated Nations is highly convincing, where enormities become the Subject of Education, and [Page 225]are infused as Rules of Action from the very first dawnings of Reason. Native lust, and irregular appetites may do much to cramp and fetter the Mind, or Reason, to that degree as to suppress all Solemn enquiries into the nature of Things; and consequently oblige her to determine according to the Suggesti­ons and Impulse of sense; but when vi­tious propensions, and parental in­structions are mixed and twisted in with each other, and a People neither see nor hear of any thing but the depravi­ties of Nature, no wonder if a Judg­ment or Conscience pursuant to it is established (at least while Lust keeps the Ascendant) and that too as resolute and inflexible, as the most pure and re­gulated Conscience. I must confess it's a received Maxim among the Schools, that in Actions that are de primo dicta­mine naturae, the Conscience cannot err, but is always correct and regular, and on this account it was pronounced Ha­bitus naturalis & innatus. But I can discover no just foundation for this as­sertion, especially since Scripture, as well as Experience, seems to warrant the contrary; for St. Paul dictates no less, when he describes the state of the [Page 26]Heathen World, Having the Understan­ding darkned, being alienated from the Life of God thro' the Ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart, who being past feeling have given 'emselves over to work all uncleanness with greediness. But now after all this, tho' the Original Laws of Conscience may be thus shamefully subserted, and a false Conscience frequently erected in the room of that which God has insti­tuted, yet it is abundantly demonstra­ted it rests upon immutable foundati­ons. There's a Conscience which has neither Custom, nor Education, for its Creator, but that God that made the Heavens; it's founded in the immutable counsels of infinite Wisdom, and has the same frame and establishment with Nature it self. Let the Latitudinarian consider this, and every mouth shall be stopped. Let him consider, that as 'tis perfect demonstration that God has e­stablished an unalterable Oeconomy of Conscience, so he'll be infinitely con­cerned to assert the Power and Autho­rity of it; and tho' the exorbitance of his Lusts have bribed his Judgment, and buoyed him up into a Perswasion, that Conscience is a mere Chimora, or State, [Page 227]or Church-Engine, to reduce the multi­tude to a servile Obedience; and, in a word, tho' the Power and Authority of this perswasion has carried him on to the most execrable Impieties without reluctancy, or remorse; yet he may as­sure himself that the Divine Oecono­my of Conscience will one day be re­stored, and tho' want of means of In­formation (where there's room for a just Plea of this nature) may silence the loud cries of it, yet he may assure him­self it will exert in proportion to every neglect of means with all imaginable vigour and fury, upon every unrepen­ting Sinner, and then he'll find those superstitious empty Fears will prove real Accusations, to condemn him to an irrevocable state of Misery.

CHAP. XX. The uneasiness of Mind under Sickness, and the approaches of Death, resolv­ed into the Gripes and Convulsions of Conscience.

HAving thus discovered the primi­tive Oeconomy of Natural Con­science, it gives us an opportunity to account for those Insults, those Gripes, and Convulsions it makes upon the dis­solute at the approach of death, or in time of Sickness. I'm sensible that in endeavouring to assert a despised No­tion, that has been often resolved into a mere dejection of Spirits, an Hypo­chondriacal flatus, or certain superstiti­ous unreasonable fears impressed by the force of education. These are indeed very plausible colours and suggestions, to a mind that is steeped and impreg­nated with the over-flowings of Lust. But before this opinion can obtain cre­dit and admission, the Authors of it are indispensibly obliged to prove, that God has not Originally established a Con­science upon certain unalterable mea­sures, [Page 229]and principles. But instead of this, it has already been sufficiently de­monstrated, that Conscience hath the same Foundation, and Original with that of our Beings. It had its Birth, and Authority in the same Act, that made us reasonable Creatures, and free Agents; and therefore if upon a review of past Actions; Remonstrances arise by comparing 'em with a Rule that an­swers the true Ends and Interests of our Beings, all the reason in the World, will oblige us to conclude, that they are nothing but the returns of Natural Con­science. What tho' a contrary Con­science was Erected, acting upon the strongest Perswasions, or Convictions, yet it must now be allowed, that it is founded in Violence, and consequently the Mind is under a possibility of re­turning to right notices, and apprehen­sions. And certainly the present case affords the highest probabilities for the truth of the supposition. For first it must be confessed whilst Lust and exor­bitant Appetites maintain their Ground, a biassed Judgment at least cannot escape being chained to their Interest, but these seem to depend upon the Health and Vigour of the Animal part. As [Page 230]this is shocked, or enervated, whether thro' Age or sickness, so these must de­cline and suffer Disgrace. And there­fore as the hear of Lust expires, so the Judgment or Understanding will in pro­portion be discharged from her Fetters, she will view things with a new aspect, not thro' the Steams of Lust, and as it were thro' a Glass darkly, but Face to Face, and in their naked Shapes and Features, and consequently our Re­flections on past Actions will be form­ed upon new Measures and Principles, she'll be able to discern the true Ends and Interests of Humane Nature, and thereupon bring all her Actions to the Test of this Rule; and this cannot fail to beget new Perswasions and Convic­tions, according to the primitive Oeco­nomy of Conscience; so that it is not a fit of Melancholy, the effect of de­pauperated Spirits, no otherwise than a an expiring Vapour is the cause of Light, which before it obstructed; but the re­turns of Natural Conscience acted upon a right Basis, and exerting it self ac­cording to that frame in which it was created. Thus much the Latitudinarian may discern from the Natural efficacy of Things. But besides all this he may [Page 231]very well allow this wonderful change, to be in some measure compleated, by the concurrence of supernatural causes. If God upon a long train of unrelenting impiety, has at last consigned a Man over to irretrievable destruction, I would fain know why he may not suffer the Devil, or some of his Spiritual Crew, to display before his Mind a Scheme of his past Actions. No one can question but that Order of Spirits can converse with Spirits, or make their applications to a Spiritual Being, and consequently that he can, if permitted, excite such Mo­tions, and suggest such Ideas, as will re­vive the most considerable minutes of our whole Lives, and enable us to bring 'em to a new Test, and view 'em in their proper Lineaments and proportions; and consequently as they appear to clash with the Line of Duty, plunge a Soul into the most direful Agonies and Con­vulsions. This is but a kind of Anti­cipation of that future misery, which I'm confident he will be the Instrument to enhance upon all Reprobate Sinners. But on the other hand, if the patience and long-suffering of God, extends to the leading a Soul to repentance, who can dispute the Divine Influences of the [Page 232]Holy Spirit, in bringing all past Acti­ons to our remembrance. He can dis­cover such minute circumstances as will recover lost Ideas. He can excite such Meditations and Thoughts, as will suggest the true Rule of Action, and Line of Duty, and consequently such as will necessitate the Mind to pass Sen­tence on every Action pursuant to it. It's an Undisputed Truth that the Holy Spirit can move and excite the Powers of the Soul by a spiritual kind of Con­verse, as effectually as the Rheto­rick and perswasives of fellow Creatures, that must be Transmitted by Sounds thro' material Organs and Vehicles. This is an Assertion so clear and indis­putable, that I can see no reason why those ministring Spirits, the blessed An­gels by the divine Appointment, may not be allowed capable of maintaining Intercourses of this nature, even with this lower World, since it only places their Power upon a level with accursed Spirits, who have on all hands a Power attributed to 'em, of influencing the Souls as well as Bodies of Men. And certainly God, whose infinite Knowledge and Wisdom enables him to adapt all his divine Succours to sutable Seasons [Page 233]and Opportunities, could not exert 'em better, than when the Animal Part is disabled by Age, Sickness, or other hu­mane Calamities. And certainly its high­ly agreeable to the divine Wisdom, when a Change of Mind and Conscience is wrought, to give 'em a deep sense of their Folly and Error, and consequently to throw 'em into the severest Agonies and Convulsions, before he raises 'em up by his special Restoratives, the refreshings of the Lord. And now certainly we have foun­dation enough to answer for the Contra­dictions of Conscience, and at the same time assert the Divine Oeconomy of it. This is an Hypothesis cannot be disputed in a state of Revelation: And tho' in a state of Nature God has not covenanted to govern Mankind by spiritual Succours, or the Effusions of his Holy Spirit on the hearts of Men, yet I do not find he has a­ny where bound himself to the contrary; and its highly probable his infinite Good­ness and Wisdom may sometime incline him to dispense his Favours on this part of his Off-spring; and consequently con­tribute to the Establishment of Consci­ence upon its true foundation, I mean according to the primitive Model and Oeconomy of it.

CHAP. XXI. Of the Evidence of future Rewards, and Punishments from the Presages of Natural Conscience.

THat Mankind was Originally Form­ed, and Created under the Con­duct of a Law, and that Rewards, and Punishments are ascertained to the Ob­servance, or Violation of this Law, has already been proved beyond any just colour of Dispute. That which re­mains, is to fix the Stage where this great Scene shall be displayed, and a Formal Distribution Transacted. Now I am perswaded it will be easily granted, that Rewards, and Punishments cannot well be Executed in this State of Life. For first, the Established Coercive Pow­ers of this World can by no means pre­tend to it; they can determine no­thing beyond the Surface, or External parts of the Action. And these must be handed to them upon the evidence of Senses, the Authority of Circumstances, and the Veracity of Men, and Sinners; so that very often, the Innocent is Sen­tenced [Page 235]to Act his Part in Sufferings, in the room of the Guilty. By this means, the substantial parts of the Action lie Dormant, and escape the most subtle Re­marks, and Censures of Mankind; so that there may be a Thousand whited Sepul­chres, which indeed appear beautiful out­ward, but are within full of dead Mens Bones, and of all uncleanness. But this is not all, for must we not admit a vast Scroul of Enormities, that the nicest observations can never pretend to reach, or fathom; some that are sheltered by Studied Retreats, and Privacies, others by passing no further than Thought, or Intention, and the inward Workings of the Mind, so that it's impossible that any thing less than an infinite Power, or a Searcher of Hearts and Reins, can pre­tend to state the Deservings of Men, and adjust an Allotment of Rewards and Punishments in proportion to them. Indeed, an All-wise Creator, that know­eth the very Thoughts long before, is a­bundantly qualified to finish his Dis­pensations of this kind, even in this Life. But yet in Crimes that are Pub­lick, and Notorious, we sometimes see the Authors pass off the Stage of the World without any visible Marks of Di­vine [Page 236]Vengeance, at least, such as we may Read from others. It's true, God may Reward, or Punish by secret steps or motions, and by a train of Causes; and Events; but yet these are Methods not so agreeable to the Designs of in­finite Wisdom, in Rewarding, or Pu­nishing in this World, for when they are dispensed at a distance, and after an invisible manner, they cannot influence the Offender, or the Publick, because, by this means, they cannot well be re­solved into the direct, and immediate causes of them; and consequently, the great design of such Dispensations is in a great measure lost, or stifled. But now, since it is concluded, that the Vi­olation of Laws does not only infer a Right of Punishment, but that Punish­ment will infallibly follow upon the Violation of Laws; we may from hence further conclude, that there's another World assigned by God for a final, and strict Distribution of Rewards, and Pu­nishments. And certainly, since God is a God of Justice, and has, decreed Punishments, as well as Rewards; we must conclude, that his last Distributi­ons will be Acted upon the nicest Rules of Justice, and consequently proportion­ed [Page 237]according to the true Intrinsick Na­ture of every Action, without Preju­dice, or Partiality, or the least Respect of Persons. These are truths that fol­low in direct, and easie consequences, from the nature of the things themselves. But then if we allow the Divine Oeco­nomy of Conscience, it's impossible we can reject the evidence of them: That God should Establish a Register of our Actions in the very Frame of our Na­tures, is an uncontroulable Argument, that he has Created us to some solemn Tribunal. Nay further, that God should not only Create us with reten­tive Powers and Faculties, whereby we keep a kind of Diary of past Actions, but implant certain absolving, and con­demning Powers upon them, whereby we are necessarily possessed with Appre­hensions of Guilt, and Punishment, or Favour or Reward. It's a clear Indica­tion there will be a Tribunal erected, where these Divine Powers will display, and exert themselves to the utmost pitch of Activity. The Latitudinarian, may (if he pleases,) bring Disgrace up­on them, by resolving them into Super­stitious Fears, and the Biass of Educati­on; but I'm perswaded, it is unexcepti­onably [Page 238]proved there's the Finger of God in 'em. And therefore, we must conclude, that the Powers of Natural Conscience are only a kind of Vicege­rent, or Substitute, that acts for a time by way of Restraint on the one hand, and Encouragement on the other, but at last, she must give up all her Reports, and resign to a Supreme Judicature, she must as it were, deliver up the Kingdom unto God, and appear as a Witness, ra­ther than a Judge. These are the Na­tural Consequences, and Original De­signs, and Uses of such Divine Powers, for unless these be admitted, it's impos­sible we should account for them, as the Ordinances of an infinitely Wise Crea­tor. But further, that which most pow­erfully demonstrates a State of Future Rewards and Punishments, is the Ef­forts of Conscience towards the last Periods of Life. That the Powers of Conscience should awake, and grow Strong and Vigorous, when the Ani­mal Powers grow Faint and Languid, that her Apprehensions should be clear, and Piercing, her Resentments Rigid and Severe, and her Exultations full of Joy, and Consolation, when the powers of Animal Nature are sunk and wasted, [Page 239]and ready to Expire, is an Infallible Demonstration that we are Acted by a Principle highly distinct from Matter, from Flesh, and Blood, or Animal Spi­rits, or in a word, a Principle that will Live and Act after this Earthy Taber­nacle is dissolved. Indeed, when we consider that the Reflections of a well spent Life discover themselves at the point of Death, when the Passions of the Animal Part are sunk, and wasted, in the most grateful Applauses, and substantial Satisfactions; so that the whole World, and all its Charms and Beauties, appear flat and empty before it, what can a reasoning Mind conclude but that 'tis a Harbinger to some future Rewards. It implies a deep presension of some future Blessings that shall be conferred upon us by a Sovereign Pow­er, as a Recompence of that Labour of Love we have entertained for his Name's sake. On the other hand, when we consider those insupportable Gripes and Convul­sions, more bitter than the Pangs of Death, that are the fatal conclusion of a dissolute, impenitent Life; when we consider that the Tempest arises and grows loud and clamorous, in propor­tion to the decays of Nature, and tho' [Page 240]that cracks and groans and sinks, yet this will not be appeased; we must conclude that there are convictions that, will be carried into another State, and not only torment, but impeach every impenitent Criminal, before some other Tribunal. Indeed, were there no cer­tainty of Rewards and Punishments, annexed to the violation or observance of Laws, or were there an exact distri­bution made in this World, or in a Word, were there no real discovery of a divine Oeconomy of Conscience, then we must think of some other Method to dispel the Vapour. But since these are proved upon the highest evidences and Demonstrations, we must conclude that such black presages are the pro­logue to future Miseries, to certain Al­lotments, that will be the Award of some future Reckoning. These are E­vidences so clear and undenyable, that if the Latitudinarian will still persist, I'm confident his only conviction will be an actual perception of the Fruits of his dissolute Life, and his Impregnable Infidelity.

CHAP. XXII. How far Conscience shall be a Measure of the Divine Justice, in the distribution of future Punishments.

NOw since it's abundantly demon­strated that there's a divine Oeco­nomy of Conscience, and that it rests on the unalterable measures of moral Good­ness, or the original nature of things themselves, we may with force of reason conclude, that our past Actions shall be chiefly tried by this Original Standard. It may indeed be objected, That no o­ther Conscience can be the measure of a­ny Man's Condemnation but his own, nor upon any Actions than those he was conscious of when committed. The first part of the Objection is certainly an un­controverted truth, for when God puts any man on his Tryal upon the Evi­dence of Conscience, it must certainly be his own, and not another's Consci­ence, but yet it's highly probable our Consciences will not be such as they were when enslaved by vitious Habits and Dispositions, but reformed accord­ing to the divine Occonomy of Consci­ence, and consequently the Original [Page 242]Standard of Conscience will become our own, and appear as Evidence against us. It's highly evident from what has alrea­dy been suggested, that the Consciences of Men in another World will be fixed on a new bottom. It's highly probable that all the Minutes of every Action, toge­ther with the Natures and Reasons of the Line of Duty, will be displayed and pre­sented to the view of the mind; so that there will not be only a new discovery of lost Idea's, Thoughts and Actions; but of their incompatibility with the Line of Duty; nay, there will be a discovery of the Reasons and Original of all Miscar­riages; the Mind will plainly discern the Error and Absurdity of former Convi­ctions; she will confess that the violence and importunity of Lust, or a habit of Thoughtlesness, or Inconsideration, was the true and genuine cause of 'em, and consequently the frame and Oeconomy of Conscience will not only be altered, according to the Intrinsick Nature of things, and received as every Man's own proper Conscience, but it will dis­cover Sin and Guilt in the erring Con­science, and charge the mischief of it upon its proper owner, where-ever the Errors appear to be contracted from [Page 243]the neglect of means of Information. For certainly as God has endued us with Fa­culties to instruct us in the Line of Du­ty, so he has made us capable of at­taining it in that Course and Order which he has established, and conse­quently of pursuing and embracing such Means as are truly conducive to the at­tainment of it; and therefore when pro­per Means are instituted or proposed, or, as it were, lie before us in the com­mon road of Thinking, the Mischiefs, or iniquity of an Action, by the Laws of Conscience, will be imputed to us, tho' it was committed with a perswasion of its Innocence, because the Order of Nature, and the Laws of Humane Ac­tion are as much perverted by acting without the use of established means, as contrary to inward Convictions; and tho' the Action in the precise nature of it is not willfully wicked, yet the ne­glect of Means may be justly esteemed willfull, and consequently the Effects and mischiefs of the Action justly im­puted. I will not deny but there are thousands of miserable Wretches in the World under such fatal Circumstances, that they seem to be placed out of the reach of due Means of Information; but [Page 244]to judge precisely of this seems to be a peculiar of the searcher of Hearts and Reins. However I am perswaded the common Exigences and Necessities of Humane Nature will instruct Mankind in the most fundamental Rules of Na­tural Religion; and yet God will charge nothing upon us, but where he can con­vince our Conscience of notorious Ne­glects; and in this case it's consonant to the Rules of Justice, that Sentence should be passed not according to for­mer, but present Convictions. Indeed it can never be imagin'd, that the great Judge of all the Earth in his final Awards to Mankind, will erect a Tribunal that had not its Original from him, I mean from the Convictions of an erroneous Conscience; and therefore since it is de­monstrated that new Sentiments, and Convictions, will break in upon the Mind, even to the charging of Guilt upon those Neglects which were the immediate source of false Convictions, we may justly conclude that the judi­cial Proceedings of the Great Day shall be established upon a regulated Consci­ence; I mean, according to the Divine Oeconomy of it; and consequently it is not the Plea of former Convictions, nor [Page 245]want of consciousness when Enormities were committed, that will be sufficient to exempt any Man from the jurisdi­ction of it. For these may be resolved into Personal Neglects, and Personal Neglects are alone sufficient to derive a Guilt upon us. As for the want of con­sciousness it's a branch of the Objecti­on not yet replied to; and therefore I shall make some few Remarks upon it. And first, it's certain as long as Enor­mities are committed upon personal Ne­glects, as in the case of Drunkenness, it is not necessary the Mind should be conscious of the whole process, when ac­tually committed. It's abundantly suf­ficient, if upon a representation of Cir­cumstances we shall at last be forced to own them, or ascribe the Commission of 'em to our selves, for this will bring us under the dominion of Conscience at the last day. Certainly we may with as much force of Reason plead an Ex­emption from the guilt of Enormities, which thro' tract of time were wiped off the Table of the Mind, as deny to ac­count for Enormities, which when com­mitted we were not conscious of, when it was some former Enormity had disa­bled us from being conscious of 'em; [Page 246]whereas it can only be required in both cases that proper, and competent Me­thods are contrived to make us consci­ous at the last day, so as to pronounce our selves the Authors of 'em; for when this is done, Conscience will determine as effectually as if our present and past Convictions were consonant to each o­ther. Upon the whole then it's visible, it is not the present state of any Man's Con­science, any farther than it accords with the Divine Oeconomy of Conscience, no more than any present Act of Consci­ousness, that will be received for a fi­nal measure of the Goodness or Evil of our Actions; and consequently of a fi­nal Condemnation or Deliverance, but Conscience founded on the express Laws of God, the sole Rule of Duty, and the Agreement or Disagreement of our A­ctions with them. I would not be mis­taken, as if I intended to streighten, or fix Limits to the infinite Mercies of God; there's nothing but his own infi­nite Purity, Truth, or Justice, can at a­ny time divert his Mercies; but yet I think it's evident that we shall be jud­ged for our Actions, as they are in their own Nature, and that too on the A­wards of a rectified Conscience, where­ever [Page]an erroneous Conscience can be charged with Guilt. No one can dis­pute the Guilt of an Erroneous Consci­ence, where the Error is propagated thro' willfull Enormities, or manifest Neglects. Thus far the sacred Canon is express and clear, when we are told in the case of Error, that the Mind and Conscience is defiled, Tit. 1.15. And certainly where-ever there is Defilement, there must be Guilt, and where-ever there is Guilt there is at least Punishment due. And I presume it's sufficiently demonstrated that lost Ideas will be revived, that every Action will ap­pear in its proper Dress, and conse­quently the whole Oeconomy of Con­science will be changed. If what has already been offered be not conclusive, the State of the Wicked after Condem­nation will infer it. Now certainly whoever allows the divine Oeconomy of Conscience must allow a future Judg­ment, and if there's a future Judgment, and Men to be judged by their Con­sciences, the most Hardened, Unrelent­ing Sinner, will be brought to a clear ap­prehension of the Line of Duty, and by this means forced to own the Justice of his Sentence; tho' his Conscience [Page 248]was seered and past feeling, it shall now recover a double Force, and retain the quickest apprehension of Things; and Conscience thus enforced, and armed with fresh Power and Vigour, shall be the eternal Instrument of increasing the Torments of the damned. Since then Conscience shall be thus regulated in Order to enhance, and perpetuate their Misery, we may justly conclude that it's Regulation will commence at the great Tribunal, in Order to ratify the sentence of Condemnation; and certain­ly since it must be allowed that Con­science will be an Instrument of future Condemnation, as well as Misery; we must conclude that it will be one and the same Conscience, acted by the same Measures and Principles, and of the same Extent and Latitude, and consequently a Conscience cleared from all Error and Mistake, Partiality or Connivance; and in a Word, a Conscience established ac­cording to the Divine Oeconomy of it, the Law of God, and the eternal Mea­sures of Moral Goodness and Duty. This is that Candle of the Lord, as the Wiseman expresses it, that will display its Light into the deepest recesses of the Heart, and Search into the inward parts [Page 249]of the Belly, Prov. 20.27. In a Word it will be the inward Voice or Word of God, quick and powerful and Sharper than any two Edged Sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of Soul and Spirit, and of the Joynts and Marrow, and is a dis­cerner of the Thoughts, and intents of the Heart. Heb. 4.12.

§. 2. From what hath been said it may not be improper to make some fur­ther Remarks upon Mr. Lock's Notions of Conscience. It's observable Mr. Lock makes Consciousness and Conscience the same, and Conscience to consist in nothing else, but our own Opinions, of our own Actions; and pursuant to this, he affirms that in personal Identity which he makes to consist in Consciousness, is founded all the Right and Justice of Fa­vour, Rewards and Punishment. Book 2. c. 27. §. 18.

But certainly the Conscience that will prevail in the great day, will not be any Opinions we have entertained of Acti­ons when Committed tho' taken up at large: No, we shall then be acted by no other Opinions, but those of a regu­lated Conscience, and they shall sit as Judges, even over former Opinions, that were engendered by Neglect or Carelessness, and nothing but invincible [Page 250]Ignorance, or sincere Repentance, can deliver us from its Dominion. This is indisputably evident from the Regula­tions of Conscience that shall be made according to the divine Oeconomy of it, whereby our Opinions of past Actions shall not be measured by former Con­victions, but by the conformity of our Actions to the true Line of Duty, or means of Information. Again, that con­sciousness which some Men might be un­der when Enormities were commit­ted, cannot be the foundation of future Punishment, but that Consciousness of past Actions which will arise from a re­gulated Conscience. For it is conclu­ded that we may become conscious of Enormities committed, of which we were not conscious, when committed, and conscious of others by wrong Mea­sures and Convictions; but it will be that Consciousness, and those Convi­ctions we are under at the Great Tribu­nal, and result from a regulated Consci­ence, that will be the measure of a final Absolution or Condemnation. And cer­tainly if Mr. Lock will not suffer his Notions to be guarded by these limita­tions, he must pardon me if I cannot comply with 'em, or cannot but esteem 'em dangerous and false. On this ac­count [Page 251]I cannot suffer an Instance, that seems to interfere with what is asserted, pass off without a few Remarks. Mr. Lock in order to the establishing his Notion of Personal Identity, brings in E­normities committed in Dunkenness of which a Man is not conscious, and pla­ces them upon a level with those com­mitted by a Man in his sleep, making him no more answerable for the one than the other. He indeed makes the Drun­kard in this case obnoxious to the Ci­vil Laws, for no other reason, but [Be­cause in these cases they cannot distinguish what is Real from what is Counterfeit, and so the Ignorance in Drunkenness or Sleep, is not admitted as a Plea.] But in the great Day wherein the Secrets of all Hearts shall be laid open, it may be reasonable to think, no one shall be made to Answer for what he knows nothing of, but shall receive his Doom, his own Conscience accusing or excusing him. See Sect. 22. Book 2. Chap. 27. Here are a great many Passages that look with a very evil Aspect, and therefore I shall say something to each in their order. And first, I think this Author has drawn a very unjust Parallel between Crimes committed in Sleep and Dunkenness. It's well known that Sleep is a thing entailed on us as a Law, even [Page 252]a Law established in the frame of our Beings, and commences upon the neces­sities of corruptible Nature, and there­fore if Mischief accidently follows, it cannot well be imputed, because it is founded in a Cause or Principle that is inseparable from Humane Nature, or ra­ther is an Appendage of the most neces­sary Powers of it, that set us on a level with Brutes, and consequently the Ac­tions that flow from it cannot be impu­ted. But I hope this Author cannot plead a necessity of Nature for Drun­kenness. A quantity of generous Li­quor may sometimes be required for the actuating the Spirits, but never to in­toxicate, unman, or drown the Reason. In a word, Drunkenness argues a willful neglect in humane Conduct, and as such is an Act of a free Agent, and conse­quently the Actions that flow from it, tho' destitute of Choice or Delibera­tion are justly imputed. For in order to the imputing or charging an Action up­on us, it is not necessary that it should proceed from the free exercise of Reason, or previous Deliberation at the very Moment when Committed. It is suf­ficient that it's owing to a Cause that is to be esteemed truly Deliberate and Wilful. If this were not so, it's impos­sible [Page 253]any Sin of Ignorance can be Cul­pable; a Position so wide from the line of Christian Duty, that every Heathen Moralist will teach this Author the Ab­surdity of it. I shall for once Refer him to Aristotle, because he has culled out the case of Drunkenness to confirm the Doctrine. He assures us, Ignorance is Punishable whenever the cause of it can be charged upon us, and for this Reason, pronounces Crimes committed in Drun­kenness, liable to double Punishment. [...]. Ethic. ad Nichom. Lib. 3. Chap, 7.

But to proceed. As for the practice of Civil Governments in punishing Crimes committed when Disguised by Drink, he has shamefully Misrepresented it, when he Suggests that the only Reason, is, because they cannot distinguish what is Real from what is Counterfeit; and so the Ignorance in Drunkenness, or Sleep is not admitted as a Plea. It's a known truth, that Civil Judicatures take cognizance of nothing, but the out­ward Act, and when this appears, [Page 254]they constantly ascribe the internal Principles of the Action, Knowledge and Freedom, where the Criminal is under no Natural Disabilities, so that the Rea­sons that induce them to proceed to Censure in cases of this Nature, can be no other, but those which this excellent Moralist has assigned; for every such Criminal has [...], and is [...]. Tho' he was not Master of himself, when the Fact was committed, yet he is Acted by a Princi­ple that made him Master of the cause of it; and consequently the Govern­ment may exercise a Right of Punish­ment. Again, every Government pro­nounces the ignorance of Laws suffici­ently Promulged, as well as ignorance of the Action in respect of the Relation it bears to the Law, an affected igno­rance, and consequently, such as not only renders the Action criminal, but such as in the Eye of every Government is criminal in its own Nature; and this is the second Reason assigned for double Punishment, [...]. In a word, it's visible where there is, [...], there the Action may be imputed, and consequently Criminal; and for this Reason, Governments constantly pro­nounce [Page 255]it so; but then when this is want­ing, as in the case of down-right Madness, where the Mind rests under a Physical Dis­ability, if Crimes or Mischiefs, are com­mitted upon it, the Government only en­quires into the Symptoms of Madness, and upon Evidence, Acquits the reputed Crimi­nal; and in these cases I question not, but the great Judge of all the World will do the like. But now, I think 'tis perfect De­monstration, the true Reason why Humane Laws punish in the case before us, is not because they cannot distinguish certainly what is Real, what Counterfeit. Thirdly, As for the proceedings of the great Day, I presume, they may Lawfully move upon those Measures, and Principles, that Hu­mane Tribunals have recourse to, as their undoubted prerogative, and tho Enormities committed thro Madness, or Sleep, may not be strictly accounted for; yet I'm perswad­ed, no Ignorance founded in Drunkenness, will ever be admitted a plea of Innocence, as is apparently Suggested by this Author. It's abundantly concluded, that Conscience will be Regulated according to the Divine Oeconomy of it; and that it will ascribe to its self, and yield an Assent to a great ma­ny Actions, which the present State of some Mens Consciences either know nothing of, or at least have caused them to be pronounced Innocent. And certainly, where the Conscience can be convinc'd that such a particular Enor­mity is to be resolv'd into willfull neglects, as in the case of Drunkenness, it will ascribe the [Page 256]Action, and charge a Guilt upon us, and by this means a Man may be harassed with an Accusing Conscience at the Great Day, when the Secrets of all Hearts shall be laid oper, for things he at present knows little of.

The CLOSE.

I Have now performed what was at first design­ed, and I hope I have laid such a Platform of Natural Religion, as is consistent with the Do­ctrines of Revealed Religion, and the nature and reality of things; and I have been more parti­cular, that I might obviate not only the Irreligi­ous Notions, and Positions that obtain in the pre­sent Age, but obstruct the growth of New Ones, by the Artificial, but Pernicious insinuations of the Author, I have so much Animadverted upon. I have Formed no Designs from the undertaking, but the advance of Truth, and the Maintenance of a Spirit of Religion, by Establishing the Foun­dations of it; and if the performance does in some measure come up to it, and appears to be drawn according to the main Lines of Truth, I shall be ready to Vindicate it against the applauded Cavils of those, that I'm afraid are devoted to tear up the whole of Religion, both Root and Branch. But if among a great many Truths, I have made some false Steps, some few Errata that are any wise inconsistent with Truth, or Injurious to any part of Religion, or Piety, it is without Design, and upon the first Conviction, I shall make Satis­faction to God, and the World, by a free and ample Retractation.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.