injurioufly to fupprefs it, and to hinder the power and efficacy of it upon our minds and actions; for fo the word xarxe fometimes fignifies, as well as to hold faft; and this every man does, who acts contrary to what he believes and knows; he offers violence to the fight of his own mind, and does injury to the truth, and keeps that a prifoner which would fet him free: Te fhall know the truth, (fays our Lord), and the truth Thall make you free.

And this is one of the highest aggravations of the fins of men, to offend against knowledge, and that light which God hath fet up in every man's mind. If men wander and ftumble in the dark, it is not to be wondered at; many times it is unavoidable, and no care can prevent it. But in the light it is expected that men fhould look before them, and difcern their way. That natural light which the Heathen had, though it was but comparatively dim and imperfect, yet the Apostle takes notice of it as a great aggravation of their idolatrous and abominable practices. Those natural notions which all men have of God, if they had in any measure attended to them, and governed themselves by them, might have been fufficient to have preferved them from difhonouring the Deity, by worthipping creatures inftead of God. The common light of nature was enough to have difcovered to them the evil of thofe lewd and unnatural practices which many of them were guilty of; but they detained and fuppreffed the truth most injuriously, and would not fuffer it to have its natural and proper influence upon them. And this is that which left them without excufe, that from the light of nature they had knowledge enough to have done better, and to have preferved them from thofe great crimes which were fo common among them.

And if this was fo great an aggravation of the impiety and wickednefs of the Heathen, and left them without excufe, what apology can be made for the impiety and unrighteoufnefs of Chriftians, who have fo ftrong and clear a light to discover to them their duty, and the danger of neglecting it; to whom the

wrath

>

wrath of God is plainly revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men? The truths of the gospel are fo very clear and powerful, and fuch an improvement of natural light, that men muft ufe great force and violence to fupprefs them, and to hinder the efficacy of them upon their lives. And this is a certain rule, by how much the greater our knowledge, by fo much the lefs is our excufe, and fo much the greater punishment is due to our faults. So our Lord hath told us, Luke xii. 47. That Servant which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himfelf, neither did according to his will, fhall be beaten with many fripes. And John ix. 41. If ye were blind, (fays our Saviour to the Jews), ye fhould have no fin. So much ignorance as there is of our duty, fo much abatement of the wilfulness of our faults; but if we fin wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more facrifice for fins, but a fearful expectation of judgement and fiery indignation, fays the Apoltle to the Hebrews, chap. x. 26. 27. If we fin wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth; implying, that men cannot pretend ignorance for their faults, after fo clear a revelation of the will of God, as is made to mankind by the gospel.

And upon this confideration it is, that our Saviour doth fo aggravate the impenitency and unbelief of the Jews, becaufe it was in oppofition to all the advantages of knowledge which can be imagined to be afforded to mankind: John xv. 22. 23. 24. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had fin; that is, in comparifon their fin had been much more excufable; but now they have no cloak for their fin. He that hateth me, hateth my Father alfo. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had fin: but now have they both feen and hated both me and my Father. How is that? Our Saviour means, that they had now finned against all the advantages of knowing the will of God that mankind could poffibly have; at once oppofing natural light, which was the difpenfation of the Father; and the cleareft revelation of God's will in the dif VOL. V. penfation

Hh

penfation of the gofpel by his Son: Now have they both feen, and hated both me and my Father.

The two remaining obfervations I fhall referve to another opportunity.

SERMON

CXII.

The danger of all known fin, both from the light of nature and revelation.

ROM. i. 18. 19.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteoufnefs; becaufe that which may be known of God, is manifeft in them; for God hath Shewed it unto them.

The fecond fermon on this text.

I Have handled four the obfervations which I ratfed from thefe words, and fhall now proceed to the other two that remain.

V. The fifth obfervation was, That the natural knowledge which men have of God, if they live contrary to it, is a fufficient evidence of their holding the truth of God in unrighteousness. For the reafon why the Apoftle chargeth them with this, is, because that which may be known of God is manifeft, in that God hath fhewed it unto them.

There is a natural knowledge of God, and of the duty we owe to him, which the Apoftle calls ò y'vaSov Tou Ho, that of God which is obvious to be known by the light of nature, and is as much as is abfolutely neceffary for us to know. There is fomething of God that is incomprehenfible, and beyond the reach of our understandings; but his being and effential perfections may be known, which he calls his eternal power and godhead; thefe he tells us are clear

ly

ly feen, being understood by the things which are made; that is, the creation of the world is a plain demonftration to men of the being and power of God; and if fo, then God is naturally known to men. The contrary whereof Socinus "pofitively maintains, though therein he be forfaken by most of his followers; an opinion, in my judgement, very unworthy of one, who, not without reafon, was efteemed fo great a mafler of reafon; and (though I believe he did not fee it) undermining the ftrongest and fureft foundation of all religion, which, when the natural notions of God are once taken away, will certainly want its beft fupport. Befides that by denying any natural knowledge of God, and his effential perfections, he freely gives away one of the moft plausible grounds of oppofing the doctrine of the Trinity. But becaufe this is a matter of great confequence, and he was a great man, and is not to be confuted by contempt, but by better reafon, if it can be found; I will confider his reafons for this opinion, and return a particular an fiver to them.

1. He fays, That if the knowledge of God were natural, it would not be of faith; but the Apoftle fays, that we must believe that he is. The force of which argument, if it have any, lies in this, that the object of faith is divine revelation, and therefore we cannot be faid to believe what we naturally know The schoolmen indeed fay fo; but the fcripture useth the word faith more largely, for a real perfuafion of any thing, whether grounded upon fenfe, or reafon, or divine revelation. And our Saviour's fpeech to Thomas, Because thou haft feen thou haft believed, does fufficiently intimate, that a man may believe what he fees; and if fo, what fhould hinder, but that a man may be faid to believe what he naturally knows; that is, be really perfuaded that there is a God from natural light?

2. His next argument is, becaufe the fame Apoftle concludes Enoch to have believed God, becaufe he pleafed God, and without faith it is impoffible to pleafe him from whence he fays, it is certain that men may be without this belief, which if it be natural

H h 2

they

they cannot. Indeed if the Apoftle had faid, that whoever believes a God, must of neceffity obey and please him, then the inference had been good, that all men do not naturally believe a God, because it is certain they do not please him. But it is not good. the other way, no more than if a man fhould argue thus, that becaufe whoever acts reasonably, must be endowed with reafon, therefore men are not natu rally endowed with reafon. For as men may naturally be endowed with reafon, and yet not always. make use of it; fo men may naturally know and be lieve a God, and yet not be careful to please him.

3. His third argument is, That the fcripture fays, that there are fome that do not believe a God, for which he cites that of David, The fool hath faid in his heart, there is no God; which certainly proves, that bad men live fo as if they believed there was no God; nay, it may farther import, that they endeavour as much as they can, to ftifle and extinguish the belief of a God in their minds, and would gladly perfuade themselves there is no God, becaufe it is convenient for them there fhould be none; and whether David meant fo or not, it is very probable that fome may arrive to that height of impiety, as for a time at least, and in some moods, to disbelieve a God, and to be. very confident of the arguments on that fide. But what then? Is the knowledge and believe of a God therefore not natural to mankind? Nature itself, as conftant and uniform as it is, admits of fome irregu larities and exceptions, in effects that are merely natural, much more in thofe which have fomething in them that is voluntary, and depends upon the good. or bad ufe of our reafon and understanding; and there is no arguing from what is monftrous, againft. what is natural. It is natural for men to have five fingers upon a hand, and yet fome are born otherwife but in voluntary agents, that which is natural may be perverted, and in a great meafure extinguifhed, in fome particular inftances; fo that there is no› force at all in this objection.

4. His fourth and last argument is, That there have

not