not the Man of Virtue take upon him Ser. II.

to blame the Ambitious, the Covetous, "the Diffolute; fince thefe equally with "him obey and follow their Nature. Thus " as in fome Cafes we follow our Nature " in doing the Works contained in the Law, "fo in other Cafes we follow Nature in "doing contrary.

Now all this licentious Talk intirely goes upon a Suppofition, that Men follow their Nature in the fame Senfe, in violating the known Rules of Juftice and Honesty for the fake of a present Gratification, as they do in following those Rules when they have no Temptation to the contrary. And if this were true, that could not be fo which St. Paul afferts, that Men are by Nature a Law to themselves. If by following Nature were meant only acting as we please, it would indeed be ridiculous to fpeak of Nature as any Guide in Morals: Nay the very mention of deviating from Nature would be abfurd; and the mention of following it, when spoken by way of Diftinction, would absolutely have no Meaning. For did ever any one act otherwise than as he pleased? And yet the Antients fpeak of deviating from Nature as Vice; and of following Nature

fo

Ser. II. fo much as a Distinction, that according to them the Perfection of Virtue confifts therein. So that Language itself fhould teach People another Senfe to the Words following Nature, than barely acting as we please. Let it however be obferved, that though the Words Humane Nature are to be explained, yet the real Queftion of this Difcourfe is not concerning the Meaning of Words, any otherwife than as the Explanation of them may be needful to make out and explain the Affertion, that every Man is naturally a Law to himself; that every one may find within himself the Rule of Right, and Obligations to follow it. This St. Paul affirms in the Words of the Text, and this the foregoing Objection really denies by feeming to allow it. And the Objection will be fully answered, and the Text before us explained, by obferving that Nature is confidered in different Views, and the Word used in different Senfes; and by fhewing in what View it is confidered, and in what Sense the Word is used, when intended to exprefs and fignify that which is the Guide of Life, that by which Men are a Law to themselves. I fay, the Explanation of the Term will be sufficient,

because

because from thence it will appear that in Ser. II. fome Senses of the Word, Nature cannot

be, but that in another Sense it manifeftly is, a Law to us.

I. By Nature is often meant no more than fome Principle in Man, without regard either to the Kind or Degree of it. Thus the Passion of Anger, and the Affection of Parents to their Children, would be called equally natural. And as the fame Perfon hath often contrary Principles, which at the fame Time draw contrary Ways, he may by the fame Action both follow and contradict his Nature in this Senfe of the Word, he may follow one Paffion and contradict another.

II. Nature is frequently spoken of as confifting in thofe Paffions which are ftrongeft, and most influence the Actions; which being vicious ones, Mankind is in this Senfe naturally vicious, or vicious by Nature. Thus St. Paul fays of the Gentiles, who were dead in Trefpasses and Sins, and walked according to the Spirit of Difobedience, Ephef. ii. 3. that they were by Nature the Children of Wrath. They could be no otherwife Children of Wrath

D

by

A

Ser. II. by Nature, than they were vicious by Na

ture.

Here then are two different Senfes of the Word Nature, in neither of which Men can at all be faid to be a Law to themfelves: They are mentioned only to be excluded, to prevent their being confounded, as the latter is in the Objection, with another Sense of it, which is now to be inquired after, and explained.

III. The Apostle afferts, that the Gentiles do by NATURE the things contained in the Law. Nature is indeed here put by way of Diftinction from Revelation, but yet it is not a meer Negative. He intends to express more than that by which they did not, that by which they did the Works of the Law; namely, by Nature. It is plain the meaning of the Word is not the fame in this Paffage as in the former, where it is spoken of as Evil; for in this latter it is spoken of as Good, as that by which they acted, or might have acted virtuously. What that is in Man by which he is naturally a Law to himself, is explained in the following Words; Which Shew the Work of the Law written in their Hearts, their Confciences also bear

ing Witness, and their Thoughts the mean Ser. II. while accufing or elfe excufing one another.

If there be a Diftinction to be made between the Works written in their Hearts, and the Witness of Confcience; by the former must be meant the natural Difpofitions to Kindnefs and Compaffion, to do what is of good Report, to which this Apoftle often refers: That Part of the Nature of Man, treated of in the foregoing Difcourfe, which with very little Reflection and of Course leads him to Society, and by means of which he naturally acts a just and good Part in it, unless other Paffions or Intereft lead him aftray. Yet fince other Paffions, and Regards to private Intereft, which lead us (though indirectly, yet they lead us) aftray, are themselves in a Degree equally natural, and often moft prevalent; and fince we have no Method of feeing the particular Degrees in which one or the other is placed in us by Nature; it is plain the former, confidered meerly as natural, good and right as they are, can no more be a Law to us than the latter. But there is a fuperior Principle of Reflection or Confcience in every Man, which diftinguifheth between the internal Principles of his Heart, as well