Religion either by rational deduction or Natural inscription Orall Traditionâ— haveing not found that good success in the World as to Divinity as much to encourage others â—o urge or to prosecute thâ— same in morality But he says that tho' relations of matters of fact ancient customs and difficult articles of Faith may suffer much by â—eing convey'd this way c. But was not Gods instructing Adam in these things matter of fact Or may not matters of Fact done by God be misrepresented as well as those done by Men As for difficult Articles of Faith if he mean such as are of a more complex nature and include a long series of propositions or if he supposes this Tradition to extend to the modes and circumstances of things then this way might be very lyable to mistake and corruption by passing through so many hands but suppose God had taught Adam to believe a Trinity in the God-head the Resurection of the Body with out the respective modes of either I doe not see but that these might as safely and securely have been delivered down to posterity as those other precepts he mentionsâ— but these plain Rules of morality he says such as worship God Honour thy Parents c. Are so natural to the understanding so easy â—o be imbraced by it and appear upon proposal to be so extreamly usefull â—o Mankind c. Here he seemes to relinquish his own principle Tradition and to found the belief and ready reception of these rules of Morallity in their being so natural to the understanding c. That they must be assented to and can never be mistaken or forgot But pa. 33. he tells us that there are some very barbarous People who we are very certain want most of these Moral Notions so that here must have been some mistake or forgetfulness on some hand or other But he says Pa. 37. If Morality was inscrib'd on Mens hearts Parents might with as muh wisdom pretend to teach their Children to eat and drink to love their Children c. So that it seems there is such a Natural Duty or instinct for Parents to love their Children that they cannot but do it But why is not the Duty reciprocal Why may not Children be in the same way bound to honour their Parents as Parents to love their Children and yet he says Pa. 72. That among the ancient Heathens it was a common thing to throw their Children when born into the next ditch they met with No great Argument of such a Natural Love and Affection towards 'em as they could not but show and exercise Pa. 33 he tells us 't is odd to think that these Propositions should come into the minds of Men by such an unaccountable way as that of Inscription and yet he says Pa. 92. That Gods permission of Vice is no sign of his liking it he having otherwise declar'd his will by giving to all Men a Law of Vertue This cannot be understood of the traditionary Law because that has not by some defect or other extended to all Men. Pa. 38. 'T is further remarkable that Parents Deut. 6.6 are commanded by God to teach their Children these Moral Dutys But what then Did ever any body assert that this Natural Inscription doth superâ—ede the necessity of other Instructions or the use of those other means which God and Nature have made requisite in order to the more perfect knowledge of our Dutys But after the recital of the Ten Commandments viz. The Moral Law Moses adds and these words which I command Thee this day shall be in thy heart and thou shalt teach them diligently to thy Children c. But these words were not introduc'd immediately after the recital of the Ten Commandmentsâ— The ten Commandments were recited about the middle of the 5 th Chap. and v. 31. God there speaking to Moses says Stand thou here by me and I will speak unto thee all tâ—e Commandments and Statutes and Iudgments which thou shalt teach them that they may do-them in the Land which I give them to posssess it Now these words Commandments Statutes and Iudgments are generally understood to signifie all the Precepts of the Moral Ceremonial and Judicial Law and certainly the Jewes were oblig'd to observe some other Laws besides the Tenâ— Commandments in the Land which theâ— Lord gave 'em to possess it The like words are repeated Ch. 6. 1. Whereupon â— 6. it follows These words which I command the this day shall be inâ— thy heart He proceeds 'T is further remarkable that what Moses here says shall be in the Iewes hearts the Apostle says Rom. 2. 15. was written in the Gentiles hearts so that unless there can be a substantial difference evinc'd between being in the heart and written there all the Doctrine of inscrib'd Propositions falls to the ground I perceive that those who are any ways concern'd for the Doctrine of Inscrib'd Propositions must either now speak or else for ever hereafter hold their peace But to this I answer 1. That if that expression of Moses of Being in their hearts relate only to the Ten Commandments viz the Moral Law Why then may not Moses be as well explain'd by St. Paul as St. Paul by Moses and so Natural inscription be understood by both 2. I know not whether I can show a substantial difference betwixt â—â—ose expressions or no yet I hope I shall sâ—ow such an one as may be sufficient to satisfie any impartial and considerate Reader 1 Moses and St. Paul do not speak Secundum idem or ad idem Moses speaks of the Precepts of all the three Laws Moral Ceremonial and Iudicial St. Paul only of the Moral 2. They do not speak Eodem modo Moses's expression of being in their hearts according to the best Interpreters signifies no more than being in their Memory 's and affections St. Pauls being written in their hearts signifies something more as supposing the Gentiles naturally conscious of the observation and breach of the Moral Law So that I humbly conceive there can be no Argument drawn from the comparing those two places of Moses and St. Paul in prejudice to the Doctrine of Natural Inscriptions rightly understood Pa. 129. No body says that God reveals these Natural truths to us but only gives us facultyes of discerning them And may not the same be said of some Moral truths which we commonly call Natural Religion that God does not reveal these truths to us but only gives us facultys by vertue whereof we may either find or frame such propositions as are agreeable to the morral as well as to the Natural frame and constitution of the Soul I cannot too often remind the Reader that I never asserted these Natural ot Innate notions to be imprinted upon the mind in any gross or litterall sense upon which mistaken Ground and perswasion only I am apt to believe that they are oppos'd by some Pa. 83. Of my former discourse there speaking of the Archetypall formes and
humbly conceive that Mr. Norris doth too much undervalue Christianity even as it containes a Doctrine of Morality when he tells us pa. 6. 7. Of his Reason and Faith that there is nothing in Christianity considerable enough when the great misteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are taken away to make it appear an Institution worthy of God or to challenge the assent of any thinking or conâ—iderate Man I grant indeed that the misterys of Christianity do render it more awfull and venerable and that more especially upon these two accounts 1 st Because they are really true and not such Phantasticall whimsies as may be met with all in the Pagan Theogonia's 2 d. They have a natural tendency either as motives or arguments or encouragements to promote our duties both to God and Man But yet is there nothing in that admirable contrivance of the whole nothing in that exact correspondence and agreement of the parts of Scripture tho' writ at several times and upon different occasions nothing in that 〈◊〉 â—f Divinity that seemes as it were to 〈◊〉 thro' all both Gospels and Epistles 〈◊〉 ing in that most exact systeme of Morality that ever appear'd in the World nothing in all this worthy of a Man of clear Ideas and distinct perceptions to believe or imbrace Nothing in all this worthy of a rational assent We have not thus learned Christ. Since therefore Christianity consists of these two principal parts Mistery and Morality and both excellent and necessary I think they ought not to be oppos'd to or unseasonably compar'd with one another the Theory and practice of Religion mutually supporting and defending each other Thus that great and Learned Man the Reverend Bishop of Worcester pa. 57. Of his Preface To his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity the principles of Natural Religion are those that commâ—nd Christianity to me for without them the misteries of Faith would be far more unaccountable than now they are c. And however dismall the fears and jealousies of some Men may be of an universal deluge of Deisme overspreading the World tho' the lives of Men may be generally wicked enough yet I fancy the age is not ignorant and weak enough yet â—or that purpose for if Men be but either strict in their Lives or in their reasonings there will be no great fear of Deisme universally prevailing among 'em but since iâ— cannot be expected that they generally should be so therefore all ought in their respective stations to oppose the growing evill yea even the Sâ—ate it selfe ought to have a watchfull eye upon the growth of it for when Men once arrive at an opinion of indifferency of Religion they will soon from thence proceed to an inâ—ifferency in Goverâ—ment Yet we ought not in the mean time desperare nec de republica nec de Religione Some remarks upon a passage in Dr. Nicholls his Conference with a Deist pa. 32. 2. part I Would not here be thought to take pleasure in finding fault But this learned Author himselfe has taught me in Dr. Burnetts and Mr. Whiston's Case that ' its possible for one to differ from another in some particulars without any lessening of their learning without any Reflection upon their Persons or without any disparagement of their performances I perhaps might speak as great things in commendation of his Book as he doth of theirs but it doth not stand in need of the approbation of one of so mean a Character yet I hope I may without offence make use of that modest liberty which he takes in the like case Some are only for naturall Religion not granting any to be reveal'd others are all for reveal'd Religion not granting any in a strict and proper sense to be Naturall and I wish that some ill minded Men be not apt from hence occasion being thus given by dashing these assertions one against another to conclude that there is no such thing as any religion at all But I think the heat of opposing Deisme proceeds too far when Men in defence of the reveal'd Religion deny the natural for the granting of the one is so far from being any prejudice to the other that those two seem rather mutually to support and defend each other This learned Author in the place above cited tells us that the common Rules of Morality which we generally call Natural Religion were at first reveal'd by God and t is very odd he says to think how such propositions as these Parents are to be hoâ—oured friends aâ—sisted c. How these propositions which are the complication of so many distinct and â—imple Ideas which we are sure are generally attained by reason and experience should yet be asserted to come into the minds by such an unaccountable way as that of Inscription But here I would ask this learned Author whether it be possible for God to inscribe such propositions as thâ—sâ—â—pon the minds of Men I do not mean in any gross or literal sense if it be and I think I may challenge any one to prove the impossibility of it yet still we might urge the same difficulty against 'em Viz. That these propositions are only the complications of so many distinct and simple Ideas which we get by experience so that this is only such an objection as may be consistent with an acknowledg'd truth and therefore indeed is none at all I do not here suppose the simple Ideas of Parents and Honour of Friends c. to be inscrib'd by God and yet the truth of those propositions may be truly said to be so but I shall refer the Reader to what I have further said upon this particular in Answer to Mr. Lock As for Dr. Nicholls his Argument drawn from the poor honest Indian I think is so far good as to prove that he diâ— not come to the knowledge of those notions of honesty and fidelity by any such profound ratiocination to which some Men would ascribe the Original of all those moral duties But whether he came to 'em by Tradition or Instruction from his Father may be justly question'd because they who have liv'd long and conversed much with those Indians do find that it comes as little into the Parents minds to instruct their Children in the principles of morality as it does come into the Children's to make any diligent enquiry into the nature of it themselves So that tho' that learned Author doth say that that opinion of Innate notions has beâ—n of late generally Exploded by learned Men yet I think it still stands upon an equall level of probability with either of the other viz. Either Ratiocination or Tradition consider'd singly by themselves I do not here go about absolutely to oppose this way of Tradition Valeat quantum â—alere potest but yet I would not lay the whole stress of the cause upon it so as to deprive our selves of any advantage that may accrue to us by either of the other in the defence of our common cause of
ut ambae fides lex jure suo utantur necessario debent unà cum intellectu voluntatis actus eximios exerere But I do not see how there can be any necessary Argument drawn from the one to the other the one being purely Natural the other supernatural and Similitudes may indeed sometimes illustrate but never necessarily prove any thing He tell us indeed Pa. 333. Maximi viri his novissimis temporibus evidenter probarunt c. That great Men of late dayes have evidently proud that neither faith nor nè semen fidei is in us from our Infancy I do indeed believe that it was in these latter dayes that such novel Doctrine as this was Preach'd who he means by his viri maximi I know not but I am apt to believe that their authority is not indisputable and it will be very difficult for him or for any else who resumes the dispute to prove that there is not at least a semen fidei that is an inward principle of Divine grace so far as to regenerate the Infant convey'd in Baptism And therefore I wonder why he should call that an obsolete opinion because perhaps some Modern French Divines have been against it ut si vulgo omnes ac presertim Seneca de vertutum seminibus loquuti sunt distinctam sâ—orum dictorum notitiam non habuerunt It is an easy way of confuting those who differ from us to tell 'em as it is an usual custom now a days that they have no distinct Idea or clear perception of what they say But a greater degree of Modesty might very well become a greater Man than himself It is very strange that God who at first created Man after his own Image that he should not make as it were one actual stroke either of truth or holyness upon his Soul wherein if in any thing he might much more especially resemble his Creator So likewise in his new Creation or spiritual regeneration which is generally I think suppos'd to be begun in Baptism that he should do nothing by way of actual conveyance of grace and strength as an inward principle Here I beg the Readers Pardon If I so far digress as briefly to examine what the Reverend Author of the Catechetical Lectures has laid down in his 70 th Pa. Vol. 1 st Relating hereunto All who are the Children of God either in the sense of the Scripture or of the Catechism are not thus actually Regenerated Here the question is not to what degree they are regenerated in Baptism but whether they be really Regenerate or no. No one can here imagine that Children should be so Regenerate in Baptism as that they should be able to perform all the Offices and Duties of Christianity as adult Persons doe As to the Sence of Scripture he says it is plain that every one that beares the relation of a Child of God is not dutifull to his Father which is in Heaven No one ever doubted this But will it thence follow that even such an one was not once a true Child of God and regenerated in Baptism may not Men put themselves out of that state of Salvation wherein once they were by their gross and willfull Sins But then further every degree of Undutifulnes is not inconsistent with a Regenerate state indeed upon â—very commission of sin we ought to return again to God by repentance and reformation for the time to come yet every particular Sin doth not put a true Child of God into a state of damnation And as to the meaning of a child of God in the Catechisme it is plain that it is not only such as are renew'd in the spirit of their minds and imitate God that are here to be understood for every one that is Catechised is requir'd to answer that in his Baptisme he was made a Child of God whereas many Catechumens are not yâ—t renewed and really converted To this I Answer 1 st That these two expressions of being renewed in their minds and imitating of God are not here well joyned together because Children may be so renewed in their Spirits as to be really regenerated and yet not to be in a condition of actually imitating of God 2. Catechumens are indeed required to Answer so neither doth our Church herein require 'em to tell a lye for so they were made the Children of God and that by true and reall regeneration I still insist upon that Word because our Church asserts it tho' our Reverend and learned Author doth suppose that many Catechumens were never yet actually renewed in the Spirit of their minds or regenerated and many never will be â— Which makes Baptisme a more insignificant thing than either Scripture or the Church of England ever design'd to make it But why may not the Catechumen truly say that in Baptism he was made a Child of God more than by a mere Covenant-relation viz. By the laver of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. and why may we not charitably and truly too suppose the Catechumen by the blessing of God upon a Christian education still to have the seed of Baptismal grace remaining in him which we firmly believe God at first bestowed upon him for our Church tells us that Infants dying before the commission of sin are certainly saved and yet this we know that nothing impure or unholy can enter into that state But he proceeds So that a Child of God by Spirituall regeneration and God-like imitation express rather a duty what every one ought to be than c. By God-like imitation I suppose he meanes a pious imitation of God tho' I do not know whether that expression will bear it or no But then let us apply what he here says to the Office of Baptism and see what sense it will make when we Pray that the Child then comeing to Christs holy Baptism may receive remission of his Sins by Spirituall regeneration this is not to be understood of any thing then actually to be received at Baptism but at a certain critical moment of Conversion some Years after if perhaps such a thing ever happen at all and whereas in the last prayer of that Office it is said We yeild The hearty thanks most mercifull Father that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant with thy holy Spirit This must be understood so as that he is only at present put into a capacity oâ— being Regenerated hereafterâ— But he that thus explains the Catechism must at the same time destroy the Office of Baptism which is of equall Authority with the other but the Doctrine of the Church of England is not inconsistent with it self if Men do not come with prejudice and prepossession to the explication of it And tho' he tells us Pa. 60. That this matter was rightly stated by one thus that is in a way suitable to his own opinion yet I believeâ— upon examination neither his Authority nor his reasons would be found of any great force I shall only further take notice