From this even abstracting from any thing else there results a loathsomness in our persons to God and that doth naturally and by necessity infer a detestation in God of what ever proceeds from us Hence Austin expresly affirms privationem malam esse per eam immundum fiâ—ri Spiritum The very privation of Rectitude to be an Evil and that thereupon the Soul becomes actually defiled and unclean lib. 1. de civitat Dei cap. 10. And again Naturae in tantum vitiosae sunt in quantum ab ejus a quo factae sunt arte discedunt That so far as our Natures recede from what they were at first so far they become tainted and impure idem de lib. Arbitr lib. 13. cap. 15. Yea Bellarmin sayes that carentia doni Originalis macula mentem Deo invisam reddens appellari potest The loss of Original Rectitude is a stain rendering our Souls loathsome to God de Amiss Grat. Stat. peccat lib. 5. cap. 17. This serves to perstringe a late Author who tells us that a decayed and ill-addicted Nature is not a Crime but an Infelicity That being an act of Gods Will it can be no fault of ours and that to impute to our selves as a Crime what was intended meerly as a punishment is new at least crudâ— Divinity Def. Contin p. 198. That it is not New were easie to shew by innumerable Testimonies out of the Ancients The Fathers generally being at an agreement herein And for the Crudeness of the Divinity of it it is as defensible as the imputation of Adams particular offence which our Author contends for and which is more therein with Pighius Salmeron Catharinus and some Arminians States the whole of Original sin which even the Jesuite Bellarmine stiles a heresie But for the thing it self viz. that the want of the Divine Image is not only an infelicity but a Crime I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 produce a few arguments in proof of it 1. The Scripture which useth not to Baptise things with undue names expresly stiâ—es it so see Psal. 51.5 Rom. 7.17 Heb. 12.1 2. That which renders us unclean and by consequence loathsome and abominable to God is in the strictest propriety of speaking a sin seeing God hates nothing simply but sin nor any thing but upon that account Meer disasters render us the Objects of Gods pitty and compassion not of his Wrath Hatred Now that we are impure hateful in the sight of God upon the account of the want of an inherent Rectitude hath been already declared 3. That which is opposite to Righteousness can be nothing less than sin these two only being immediate contraries for punishment formally as such is not in the same praedicament with Righteousness and so cannot in propriety be its oppositum 4. The want of that which the Law requires and which is naturally due and suitable to our Faculties must necessarily be sin for as much as only sin is a transgression of the Law Now that the Law requireth Habitual Holiness or Rectitude of Nature doth necessarily follow upon the consideration that the Sanction of it doth not only reach the outward and external Action but the Heart and Principle 5. Every Innocent Holy and Undefiled Nature is at the least a subject suitable and disposed for Communion with God here and Fruition of Him hereafter but that Naturally we are not so is written as with a Sun-beam Rom. 8.8 Heb. 11.6 Joh. 3.6 6. That which dissolveth the subordination of the Rational Creature to God and the Regular Harmony of the Soul in its actings is surely sin it lying in plain opposition to what we are especially obliged to Now the imputation of Adams meer single transgression precluding the corruption of our Nature could have no influence upon this no more than the Rebellious act of a Father in the forfeiture of whose Estate the Son is involved can have upon the Son to the alienating him from his loyalty But that the due subordination of Man to God and the Harmony of the Soul in its actings is dissolved every mans experience will inform him and if he please he may learn it from the Philosophers who generally tell us that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Natural to men to sin Many more arguments to this purpose lye in view which to avoid prolixity I at present wave And as to our Authors Objection That what is a Punishment cannot be a Crime 1. What if a clear solution could not be given to it Shall we therefore renounce a truth so strongly confirmed Nunquam ideo negandum quod apertum est quiâ— comprehendi non potest quod occultum est saith Austin lib. de persev Sanct. cap. 14. Turatiocinare ego credam idem I know not one Truth in Natural Philosophy but I could muster some one or other objection against that I think would puzzle our Author clearly to answer Doth it become us to be more immodest in our Divinity than in Human Sciences 2. What if I should say that it is only a Crime and not at all a Punishment I have no less person than Placeus not to name others preceding me in it Adam sinning did thereby shake off his dependance on God prefer a subordinate Good to him and thereby divest himself of that rectitude of Nature he was vested with upon a mutation as to his chief End there was a change in all his Moral Principles And thus becoming corrupt himself it was impossible that any but such as are corrupt should be begotten by him That which is of Flesh is Flesh nor can any bring a clean thing out of an unclean Nor supposing Adam to have sinned could it fall out otherwise without the substitution of a New Protoplast and subversion of the designed and declared order for the propagation of Man-kind But 3. What hinders but that one and the same thing materially considered may under different formal respects be both a Sin and a Punishment Was not Achitophels and Judas's hanging themselves both the one and the other Doth not God frequently threaten upon the commission of some sins to relinquish men in way of judgment to more see 2 Thes. 2.10 11. Rom. 1.21 24 26 28. Not only Philosophers will have sin to be also a punishment but the very Poet could say Invidiâ Siculi non invenere Tyranni Majus tormentum What absurdity to say that Adam divesting himself of the Divine Image God thereupon suspends the immediate Universal perfect restoring of it either to him or his Posterity and that as the denying to restore it is an act of Righteousness and Justice in God so the want of it is nevertheless a sin in us Is there any thing more easie to be proved than that according to the tenor of the Old Covenant it was impossible that it should be restored yet that by the tenor of that very Covenant the want of it is chargeable as a crime upon us It is only in the vertue of the
the matter it self And that what is afterwards to be offered may be the more clearly apprehended and the lines measures principles of Vertue and Grace the more duly stated I shall in this Chapter propose and endeavour to establish several conclusions which as they are of considerable import in themselves so of no less influence to the enlightninâ— of what we have undertaken First then All moral actions become Good â— Bad from their agreeableness or disagreeableâ—ness to some Rule which is as their measâ—â—â— and standard to which being commensurâ—â—â— they appear either equal or unequal As in mâ—â—terial and sensible things we judg of theâ—â— streightness crookedness by their agreeâ—ment or disagreement to a material rulâ— which is the measure of their Rectitude anâ— Obliquity so in things Moral we judg wheâ—ther a thing or action be Good or Evil bâ— their agreement or disagreement to somâ— moral Rule For an Action then to bâ— good or bad it imports two things thâ— entity of the Action the Rule to whicâ— it is commensurate They greatly misâ—take who state the moraâ—lity of an action As Compton doth de bonitate malitiâ humanorum actuum Disp. 89. Sect. 1. N. 4. formally to consist in its being spontaneous voluntary and free for though no action can be Moral that is not free yeâ— its morality doth not lie formally in its freeâ—dom Hence those very Philosophers who made Vertue and Vice to be thingâ— only Arbitrary founded alone in the imaginations of men did nevertheless acknowledg man to be a free agent and that â—iberty is inseparable from every Humane â—ction Freedom intrinsecally belongs to eâ—ery action as it is an human action whereâ—s morality is but partly intrinsecal namely â—s it imports and includes the entity of the â—ction and partly extrinsecal viz. as it deâ—otes the measure by which it is regulated § 2. The second thing we premise is That â—he immediate and formal Rule of Moral â—ood or evil is Law or the constitution of the Rector as to what shall be due I â—â—ant that the fundamental measure of â—ctions unchangeably Good or Evil is 〈◊〉 Divine Nature and of things and â—ctions indifferent and variable the Diâ—â—ne Will But the formal and immeâ—â—ate Rule of both is Law No action 〈◊〉 otherwise Good or Bad than as it is â—â—ther enjoyned or forbidden It is imâ—ossible to conceive any action or omisâ—â—on to be a duty abstracting from obâ—â—gation and it is as impossible to conâ—â—ive obligation secluding Law This â—â—nd's abundantly confirmed by that of â—he Apostle John 1 Epist. chap. 3. ver ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sin is the transgresâ—â—on of the Law An illegality or deviation â—â—om law To which accords that of Paul Rom. 4 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where no Law is there is no transgressioâ— It is a great mistake which yet I find toâ— many guilty of to make either the objecâ— or circumstance of an aâ—ction In hoc hallucinantur Iâ—sâ—ite fâ—re omnes vid. Vâ—sâ— diâ—p 57. Compt. dist 84. Sect. 2. de act Ham. the rule of its Moâ—rality or to constituâ—â— them the measure whâ— we judg an action gooâ— or evil An action is â—ot otherwise Gooâ— or Evil with respect to its circumstances then as cloathed with them it is either prâ—â—hibited or enjoyned It is true the cirâ—cumstances of an action conduce and coâ—â—tribute towards the discerning and defiâ—â—ing when it is forbidden when commanâ—ded when allowed and when disallowed But still the Law permitting and enjoyâ—ning the action in such cases and circumâ—stances disapproving and prohibiting it iâ— other is the proper and immediat Rule oâ— its morality § 3. The Third premise it this that maâ— being created a rational creature was uâ—â—der the Sanction of a law It is a contraâ—diction for man to be such a creature as hâ— is and not to be obliged to love fear anâ— obey God All creatures according tâ— their respective and several natures anâ— necessarily subject to him that made them â—t is impossible that whatever owes its enâ—â—re being to God should not also be in â— suitable subjection to him Man then â—eing a Rational creature must owe God â— rational subjection and on supposition â—hat his being is of such a Species and kind â— necessarily follow 's from the constituâ—â—on of his nature and his Habitude to God as his Maker that he should be acâ—ordingly bound to love reverence and â—â—rve him that made him so this being 〈◊〉 only Reasonable subjection But forâ—â—much as not only Pyrrho Epicurus c. â—f old but Hobbs and some other wild â—theistically disposed persons of late have â—anaged an opposition to all natural Laws â—ontending that all things are in themâ—elves indifferent that Moral Good and Evil result only from mens voluntary reâ—training and limiting of themselves and â—ow that antecedently to the constitutions â—ppointments and custom's of Societies â—here is neither Vertue nor Vice Turpiâ—ude nor Honesty justice nor injustice That there are no laws of Right and Wrong previous to the laws of the Commonwealth but that all men are at liberty to do as they please I say matters standing thus I shall discourse this head a little 〈◊〉 amply That there have been some who eithâ—â— through a supine negligence in not exâ—â—â—cising their faculties or through have defiled and darkned their Reasons by coâ—â—verse with sin have lost the sence 〈◊〉 distinction of Good and evil as well 〈◊〉 memoir's of ancient times as the sad â—â—â—perience of our own do evidently 〈◊〉 Diogenes Laertius in the life of Pyrrho 〈◊〉 us that he denyed any thing to be just unjust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by nature But that all this were so only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by positive law 〈◊〉 Custom Nec Natura potest justo secernere 〈◊〉 quum There is no difference betwixt what 〈◊〉 call good and what evil by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Forasmuch as there are different lawes 〈◊〉 different places it thence follows that theâ—◠〈◊〉 nothing in it self honest or dishonest but that according to occasion the same thing may be sometimes the one and sometimes â—he other In Fragmentis Pythagoreorum â—nter opuscula edita a D. Theoph. Gale Seâ—eca as well as others chargeth the same â—pon Epicurus and saith that therein he will dissent from him Ubi dicit nihil esse â—ustum naturâ where Epicurus affirmeth â—hat by nature or natural law there is noâ—hing just and honest And this indeed â—ecessarily follows from Epicurus his disâ—harging God from the Government of the World For if there be no Government â—here is no law and if no law there is neither moral Good nor Evil As Good and Evil are relatives to law so is law the â—elative of Government and all these â—tand and fall together With those already produced doth Mr. Hobbs fully agree Ubi nulla Respublica nihil injustum where there is no Common-wealth there is
state of integrity to reward them provided that they persevered in their dependance on him by obedience to the Law of their Creation This doth abundantly testifie that He was under no antecedent obligation to it For the very Nature of a Covenant and Covenanting supposeth the thing Covenanted about to be free and in his power to do or forbear that makes the Covenant Where there is an Eternal and natural necessity a Covenant is not only superfluous but absurd What-ever accrueth to us either from intrinsick Equity or Essential Goodness we neither need nor do derive it from Graunt and Agreement Now that there was such a Covenant no man that hath read either his Bible and believes it or a System of Divinity though but a Dutch one can deny However see Heb. 8. from the sixt verse to the end and Heb. 12.24 All essentials to the constitution of a Covenant occur in that transaction as might be with ease evinced if we did but suspect that it came into question Now all this as it declares the wonderful condescension of God that He should humble himself to set bounds to his own Dominion and come to terms of agreement with a puff of precarious breath and a little enliven'd dust So it enhanceth the guilt of the first transgression being as well against Love as Soveraignty an act not only of Rebellion but Ingratitude § 7. Seventhly God having ratified the Law of Creation into a Covenant by annexing a Reward to the observance and keeping of it He took special care therein for the preserving and securing his own Glory what-ever should be the Event on Mans Part. Though he trusteth us with the mannage of our own happiness yet he would not trust us with the mannage of his Glory In case we should make an invasion on his Honour by transgressing the Law of our Creation and violating the terms prescribed us He did not leave himself to the necessity of retrieving it but provided for it in his first transaction with mankind Though the felicity of the Creature depend necessarily on its obedience yet the Glory of God doth not God having then in the Covenant of Works provided for the exaltation of the Glory of his Faithfulness and Goodness in the rewarding of man had he persevered in obedience to the Law appointed him He likewise in the same Covenant by constituting a penalty proportionable in his Justice to the demerit of sin took care for the securing of his Glory in the exaltation of his Holiness Righteousness Rectorship c. in the punishment of man supposing him to transgress the terms prescribed him However things should fall out no prejudice was to ensue thereon to God's Glory Had he therefore left us to stand or fall accordingly as we should demean our selves in reference to the tenor of that Transaction Though misery would have fallen out to be our Lot yet no dâ—triment would have arisen thereby to the honour of Gods Perfections of Government On the one hand then as man supposing his perseverance in integrity had groâ—nd afforded him of expecting good things from God on the account of his Fidelity and Righteousness his promise making life a debt though even in that case God did not become properly a debtor to us but what he was of that kind was to his own Veracity Which made one say Reddit debita nihil debens donat debita nihil pendens So on the other hand being once fallen the whole of our recovery can have had its rise in nothing but in the free and meer mercy of God For had he left us in our forlorn state He had lost no more honour by us than he doth by the Angels who kept not their first Habitation § 8. Man falling and thereupon forfeiting all that title to life which he had settled on him by the Covenant we have been discoursing of abode nevertheless still under the obligation of the Law of Creation For that resulting from the Nature of God and the Nature of man and the relation that man stood in to God as hiâ— Creator c. so long as those continue the Sanction of that Law must continue What-ever obligation ariseth upon us from our Nature must be as perpetual as our Nature is Now though the Lapse hath deprived us of the Rectitude of our Natures yet it hath taken nothing from us that is essential to our constitution as men Though we be transformed into Beasts and Demons in a Moral sense yet not in a Physical Though we have lost our Souls legally in that they are obnoxious to under the wrath of God yet we are not brought forth deprived of them nor of any thing essentially belonging to them Such a loss would render us unfit for Moral Government nor should we be so any longer men or that species of the Creation which supposing that we are at all we necessarily must be What we have said in proof of a Natural Law § 3. is all applicable to that we have now in hand so that all farther confirmation of it might have been here superseded But having met with a late Book of one Mr. George Bull stiled Harmonia Apostolica and therein with some principles altogether inconsistent with the proposition we have now asserted it will not be amiss to prosecute it a little farther Now the doctrines in the foresaid Author subversive of what we have been affirming are mainly two First That there is no Law of God now requiring perfect obedience or that any man is bound to live free from sin and his reason is quod justitiae Divinae repugnet ut quisquam ad plane impossibilia sub periculo presertim aeternae mortis teneatur Because it is repugnant to the Righteousness of God that any man should be obliged to that which is impossible And that a spotless sinless life is so to every one in the circumstances we now stand Dissertat posteâ— cap. 7. p. 105 106. 2. That there is no Law now in being threatning future death but the Law of Faith That the promises and threatnings of the Law of Moses were only Temporal and Earthly p. 210. If either of these be true that which I have affirmed must needs be false A refutation of these is so far then from being superfluous that it is a necessary service to the design which I have in hand First then If there be no Law now in Being threatning future death but the Law of Faith then of all men in the world the condition of the Heathen is the most eligible And the enjoyment of the Gospel is so far from being a priviledg that it is a snare For seeing where no Law is there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 Then for as much as the Gentiles are not under the obligation of the Law of Faith it naturally follows that what-ever courses they pursue or what-ever sins they are found in the practice of yet eternal Death they are not obnoxious to Instead therefore of pittying and
bewailing the condition of the Gentiles for their want of the Gospel we ought rather to lament their case that have it being brought only thereby under a hazard of Damnation which antecedently they were free from Secondly If there be no Law threatning Eternal Death but the Law of Faith then is there no such thing as forgiveness and remission of sin in the world The Reason is plain because all pardon supposeth guilt nor can any properly be discharged from that to which he is not obnoxious Now the Gospel denounceth damnation only against final Impenitency and Unbelief As on the one hand therefore these are neither pardoned nor pardonable so on the other hand if there be no Law threatning eternal death besides the Gospel then is there no other sin that we either need or are capable of having forgiven And by consequence there is no such thing as remission of sin in the World Thirdly If there be no Law threatning eternal Death but the Law of Faith then Christ never dyed to free any from wrath to come For it is non-sence to say that he hath freed us from the Curse of the Gospel yea it is a Repugnancy unless you will introduce another Gospel to relieve against the terms of this nor will that serve the turn unless you likewise find another Mediator to out-merit this If Christ then have at all delivered us from wrath to come it must be that of the Law and if so there must be a Law besides the Gospel that denounceth future wrath vid. Gal. 3.13 Fourthly To say that there is no Law now in Being requiring perfect Obedience and that no man is bound to live wholly free from Sin is in plain English to affirm a contradiction For There being nothing that is sin but what is forbid or what we are under obligation against all sin being a transgression of some Law 1 Joh. 3 4. To say that no man is bound to live free from sin is to tell us that he is not obliged to that that he is obliged to See Mr. Truman his endeavour to rectifie some prevailing opinions c. pag. 4. 14. I know well enough that some of these Consequences are things which the foresaid Author doth plainly detest but they are naturally the issue and birth of his Assertions For I would not fasten an odious inference upon any mans discourse if the cohaesion were not necessary and clear I reckon it an Unmanly as well as an Unchristian thing to wring conclusions out of others premises Nor would I drive the doctrine of any farther than it is apt to go and with the greatest Gentleness may be led § 9. That we are still under the Sanction of the Law of Creation hath been already demonstrated That which come's next to be declared is How that every Law of nature is of an Unchangeable obligation A late Author tell 's us that there are Rules of Moral Good and Evil which are alterable according to the accidents changes and conditions of humane life Eccles. polit p. 83. And accordingly a power is pleaded to belong to the Magistrate over the consciences of men in the essential duties of Morality Eccles. polit 68. And it is affirmed that He hath power to make that a particular of the Divine Law that God hath not made so ibid. p. 80. And from the power of the Magistrate over the consciences of men in Moral vertues which our Author tell 's 〈◊〉 are the most weighty essential parts of Religion the like power is challenged as appertaining to him over our consciences in reference to Divine Worship Eccles. polit p. 67 77 78 def continuat p. 356 357 358 371. c. I shall not at present meddle with his Consequence nor indeed can I without a digression Though I think it easy upon the Grounds that he states the Alterableness of Natural Laws to evidence the impertinency and incoherence of it For if either the matters of worship be already stated by God or if God should have precluded the magistrate by a declaration of his will as to medling in this matter and bequeathed that trust into other hands his Consequence falls to the ground But it is the Antecedent that I am to deal with and it is some comfort to me that there are men of equal learning with the foresaid Author who have been of a perswasion widely different from his Grotius a person of some account in his day and who will continue so while Learning is had in reputation judged otherwise in this matter Est autem jus naturale adeo immutabile ut ne a Deo quidem mutari queat De jure Belli Pacis lib. 1. cap. 1. § 10 Natural Right or Law is so unchangeable that it cannot be altered by God himself And that it may appear that he mean's those Rules of Good and Evil which have reference to contracts and positive Laws and in some sence depend upon them He adds a little after fit tamen interdum ut in his actibus de quibus jâ—s Naturae aliquid câ—nstituit imagâ— quaedam mutationis fallat incautos cum reverà non jus naturae mutetur quod immutabile est sed res de qua jâ—s naturae constituit quaeque mutationem recipit It comes to pass sometimes that a kind of resemblance and shadow of change in those acts which the Law of nature hath determined and unalterably fixed imposeth upon unwary men While indeed the Law it self is not at all altered as being immutable but the things which the Law regulates and about which it determines undergo an alteration ibid. It was of this Law that Philo gives us this character Lex corrumpi nescia quippe ab immortali naturâ— insculpta in immortali intellectu A Law neither subject to decay nor abrogation being engraven by the Immortal God into an immortal soul. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in men or not distracted there remains an immoveable unalterable Law which we call the Law of Nature Andron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing determined by Nature can be any wayes altered Arist. lib. 2. Eth. Hence he stiles the Laws of Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immoveable and immutable For the further demonstration of this we desire it may be observed that Law is nothing else but the will of the Rector constituting our duty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierocl made known to us by sufficient promulgation Now in order to the obtaining a signification of the Rector's will enacting what he exacts of us 1 a Rational faculty and a free use of it is necessary that being the only instrument by which we discern what the will of the Soveraign is Hence meer ideots children and men totally deprived of the use and benefit of Reason are under the actual Sanction of no law Not that there is any cessation abrogation or alteration of Law thereon but because through the incapacity of the subject it was never the Rector's will in those circumstances to oblige
〈◊〉 previous Images of the moral Beauty â—nd congruity or deformity and inconâ—â—uity of things in the Soul The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rudimental Princiâ—les of the Rational Nature There are 〈◊〉 well indubitable maximes of Reason â—elating to Moral Practice as there are â—elating to Science and these not only stand â—pproved by the universal assent of manâ—ind but they demonstrate themselves 〈◊〉 their agreeableness to the Rational Faculty It is not more certain that one â—nd the same thing cannot at once be and â—ot be That if equals be substracted from equals what remains will be equal c. Than that of whomsoever we hold our Beings Him we ought to love and 〈◊〉 That God being Veracious is to be belâ—â—â—ved That we are to do by others as 〈◊〉 would be done by our selves c. And 〈◊〉 deny these is in effect to deny Man to 〈◊〉 Rational for as much as the faculty 〈◊〉 call Reason exists in us necessarily 〈◊〉 these Opinions Now these Deterâ—â—â—nations being the natural Issues of 〈◊〉 Souls in their rational exercise in coâ—â—paring Acts with their objects come to 〈◊〉 called ingraft-Notions and universal Câ—â—â—racters wrought into the essential Coâ—â—position of our Nature And besidâ— what we have already said to demonstraâ—â— that some things being compared 〈◊〉 the Holy Nature of God and the relâ—â—tion that we stand in to him are intriâ—â—secally Good and other things intrinsâ—â—cally Evil It is inconsistent with the peâ—â—fections of the Divine Being particâ—â—larly with his Sanctity Veracity anâ— Goodness to prepossess us with such conâ—ceptions of things as are not to bâ— found in the Nature of the things themâ—selves In a word the Effluvia of the ranâ—kest and worst-scented Body do not strikâ— more harshly upon the olfactory-Orgaâ— nor carry a greater incongruity to thâ— Nerves of that Sensatory than what we call moral Evil doth to the intellectual â—aculty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some things â—hich all men think or wherein all Men agree and that is common Right or Inâ—ustice by Nature although Men be not â—ombined into Societies nor under any Covenants one to an other Arist. Rhet. â—ib 1. c. 14. Paul tells us that there are some â—hings which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ust and honest in all Mens esteem Rom. 12.17 The Third is this There being some â—hings so differenced in themselves with â—espect to the nature of God and our dependance on Him as hath been said and man being created capable of knowing what is so It is impossible that God should allow us to pursue what is contrary to his nature and the Relation we stand in to him or to neglect what is agreeable to it and the dependance we have on him God having made man with faculties necessarily judging so and so He is in truth the Author of those judgments by having created the faculties which necessarily make them Now what-ever judgment God makes a man with must needs be a Law from Goâ— given to man nor can he ever depart froâ— it without gainsaying and so offendiâ—â— Him that was the Author of it Whatevâ—â— judgment God makes a man with concerâ—â—ing either himself or other things it 〈◊〉 Gods judgment and whatsoever is his judgâ—ment is a law to man nor can he negleâ—â— or oppose it without sin being in his exiâ—stence made with a necessary subjection tâ— God Such and such dictates being the nâ—â—tural operations of our minds the Being 〈◊〉 essential Constitution of which in right reâ—â—soning we owe to God we cannot but esteeâ— them the voice of God within us and conseâ—quently his law to us saith Sr. Ch. Wolseley oâ— Scripture belief p. 32 33. And accorâ—dingly these dictates of right Reason witâ— the Superadded act of conscience are stileâ— by the Apostle the Law written in the heart◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For when the Gentiles whicâ— have not the Law viz. in writing as the Iews had do by Nature natural light or the dictates of right Reason the things contained in the Law those things which the Moral Law of Moses enjoyned these having not a Law a written Law or a Law â—ade known to them by Revelation are a â—aw to themselves have the Law of naâ—â—re congenite with them Which shew the â—ork of the Law that which the Law inâ—â—â—ucts about and obligeth to Written in â—â—eir Hearts Rom. 2.14 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ational Beings do in the light and through â—he conduct of Reason chuse and pursue â—â—ose very things which the law of God the Divine Law enjoyns saith Hierocles 〈◊〉 vers 29. Pythag. Sponte sua sine lege â—â—dem rectumque colebant as the Poet â—â—ith Hierocles in vers 63. 64 Pyâ—hag assigns this as the cause why men â—o not escape the entanglements of lust â—nd passion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they attend not â—o those common notions of Good and Evil which the Creator hath ingrafted in rational Beings for their conduct and Government It is of this Law that Austin speaks lib. 2. confess cap. 4. Lex Scripta in cordibus hominum quam ne ipsa delet iniquitas A Law written in our hearts which sin it self cannot expunge The Fourth and last is this that God for the securing the honour of his own wisdome and sanctity the maâ—â—â—taining his rectorship and the preserviâ—â— the dependance of his creature upon hiâ— annexed to this natural Law in case of meâ— failure a penalty The constituting of the â—â—â—ness of punishment on supposition of traâ—â—â—gression doth so necessarily belong 〈◊〉 Laws that without it they are but luâ—â—crous things Tacite permittitur quod 〈◊〉 ultione prohibetur what is forbidden witâ—â—out a Sanction is silently and implicitely aâ—â—lowed Tertul. Where there is no penalâ—â— denounced against disobedience Goverâ—â—ment is but an empty notion The fear 〈◊〉 punishment is the great medium of Moâ—â— Government coaction and force wouâ—â— overthrow obedience and leave neitheâ— room for Vertue nor Vice in the worlâ— The means of swaying us must be accomâ—modated to the nature of our Beings noâ— are rational Creatures to be otherwise inâ—fluenced than by fear and hope Thâ—â— Ruler governs at the courtesie of his Subâ—jects who permits them to rebel with imâ—punity Not only the Poets placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the throne with Jupiter for the punishment of disobedience but the Moralist makes Justice to wait on God to avenge him on those that Transgress his Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—lutarch As every law then must have penalty annexed to it so had this of which â—e are treating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their conscience also bearing â—itness and their thoughts in the mean â—hile accusing or else excusing one another saith the Apostle Rom. 2.15 of those â—ho were under no other law than the law of Nature Conscience is properly nothing else but the soul reflectâ—ng on it self and actions and judging of both according to Law Now where there is no Law there â—an be no guilt
of Religion then the New Covenant is nothing but a repetition of the Old Yea there is no such thing as a New Covenant with respect to the Terms of it onely it is so called with respect to the manner of its Promulgation For where the Terms and conditions vary not neither do the Covenants vary 'T is their differing in their Demands that gives them the Denomination of distinct Covenants To assert a coincidency as to the whole preceptive part betwixt the two Covenants is in effect to bid us disclaim a great part of the Bible What tendency some expressions of a late Author have this way I shall refer to the judgment of others As in the State of Innocence the whole Duty of man consisted in the practice of all those Moral Vertues that arose from his Natural Relation to God and man so all that is superinduced upon us since the fall is nothing but helps and contrivances to supply our Natural defects and restore us to better ability to discharge those duties we stand engaged to by the Law of our Nature and the design of our Creation c. def contin p. 315 316. The supposition of sin does not bring in any New Religion but only makes new circumstances and names of old things and requires new helps and advantages to improve our Powers and to encourage our Endeavours And thus is the Law of Grace nothing but a Restitution of the Law of Nature ibid. p. 324. Secondly there are several duties incumbent now upon us which also constitute the chief part of our Christian Obedience that the Decalogue as ' its a transcript of the Law of right Reason or of Nature is perfectly a stranger to For proof of this I shall only insist on Repentance towards God and Faith towards Jesus Christ. I suppose it will be granted by most that Repentance in all the parts and branches of it viz. conviction of sin Contrition for it and conversion to God from it are Duties we are all under the obligation of I said by most because of some expressions in a late Author which I can hardly reconcile with the account which the Scripture gives us of Repentance or with that modesty which we ought to exercise in the things of God The Fathers first preachers of the Christian Faith did not fill peoples heads with scruples about the due degrees of Godly sorrow and the certain symptoms of a through-Humiliation def contin p. 306 307. And a little after They says he meaning the Noncomformists examine the truth and reality of mens conversion by their orderly passage through all the stages of conviction And unless a man be able to give an account of having observed and experienced in himself all their imaginary Rules Methods of Regeneration i. e. conviction and contrition c. they immediately call into question his being a Child of God and affright him with sad stories of having miscarried of Grace and the New-Creature And he is lost and undone for ever unless he begin all the work of conversion anew and he must as it were re-enter into the Womb again pass through all the scenes workings of conviction in which state of formation all new converts must continue the appointed time and when the days are accomplished they may then proceed to the next operation of the Spirit i. e. to get a longing panting and breathing frame of soul upon which follows the proper season of delivery and they may then break loose from the Enclosures of the Spirit of Bondage and creep out from those dark Retirements wherein the Law detain'd them into the light of the Gospel and the liberty of the Spirit of Adoption p. 309 310. However I can justifie the forementioned steps and degrees of Repentance both by Scripture and Reason Now this the Moral Law as 't is a meer summary of the Law of Nature neither know's nor allow's I confess the Law of Creation obliging us to love God with all our Heart Soul and Strength and in all things to approve our selves perfect before him doth by consequence in case of the least faileur oblige us to sorrow And thus men wholly strangers to the renueing grace of the Covenant may repent witness among others Judas as to the act of betraying Christ. But to encourage us thereunto by any promise of acceptance without which no man will ever be found in the due practice of it Heb. 11.6 Or administer help for the performance of it this it neither doth promiseth nor can do or promise For being once violated it know's no other language but the thundring of wrath against the transgressour Now one and the same Covenant can not be capable of two such contrary clauses as denouncing an inevitable curse on whosoever shall not observe the Law in all points and promising mercy to those that repent of the transgressions which the do commit They like may be said of Faith This is the great condition of the Gospel Gal. 3.22 Act. 13.29 Rom. 10.9 One of the principal Duties we are now obliged to 1 Joh. 3.23 Joh. 6.29 Now this as 't is the condition of Gospel-pardon the Law is utterly unacquainted with know's nothing at all of it It is true there is a general Faith terminating on the Existence Authority and Veracity of God which comes under the Sanction of the Law of Creation But Faith as respecting a Mediator and Gods treating with us through him the Law is both ignorant of and at enmity with Gal. 3.12 The Law is not of Faith Rom. 9.32 33. Israel which followed after the Law of Righteousness hath not attained to the Law of Righteousness wherefore because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the Works of the Law I know not whether it be upon this account because Faith comes not smoothly enough within the compass of being a Moral Vertue that a late Author is pleas'd to scoff at Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ not only by stiling it in mockage the dear darling Article of the Religion of Sinners Def. Contin p. 322. but by representing what the Scripture every-where ascribes to it in such terms of Drollery Scorn and Contempt that I tremble to transcribe them They make says he a grievous noise of the LORD CHRIST tell fine Romances of the secret amours betwixt the believing Soul and the LORD CHRIST and prodigious stories of the miraculous feats of FAITH in the LORD CHRIST Reproof to the Rehears Transpros p. 69. See also Def. Contin p. 135· 140. But while men believe their Bibles they are not to be jeered out of their Duty and Happiness And this is all I shall discourse of the first Instrument of Morality viz. the measure of it and I hope it appears by what hath been offered that the Law of Creation which is the Alon◠Rule of Moral Vertue whether we take it subjectively as it is in Man since the Fall or objectively as it is in the Decalogue