CXII.

SER M. and disbelief of a deity. But to put an end to this argument, later and more perfect discoveries have found this not to be true, and do affure us upon better acquaintance with those barbarous people, that they are deeply poffeft with the belief of one fupreme God, who made and governs the world.

Having thus given a particular answer to Socinus his arguments against the natural knowledge of a GOD, I will now briefly offer fome arguments for it. And to prove that the knowledge and belief of a God is natural to mankind, my

Firft argument fhall be from the univerfal confent, in this matter, of all nations in all ages. And this is an argument of great force, there being no better way to prove any thing to be natural to any kind of being, than if it be generally found in the whole kind. Omnium confenfus naturæ vox eft," the con"fent of all is the voice of nature," faith Tully. And indeed by what other argument can we prove that reason, and speech, and an inclination to society are natural to men; but that thefe belong to the whole kind?

Secondly, unless the knowledge of God and his effential perfections be natural, I do not fee what fufficient and certain foundation there can be of revealed religion. For unless we naturally know God. to be a being of all perfection, and confequently that whatever he fays is true, I cannot fee what divine revelation can fignify. For God's revealing or declaring fuch a thing to us, is no neceffary argument that it is fo, unless antecedently to this revelation, we be poffeft firmly with this principle, that whatever GOD fays is true. And whatever is known antecedently to revelation, must be known

by

by natural light, and by reafonings and deductions SER M. from natural principles. I might farther add to this CXII. argument, that the only ftandard and meafure to judge of divine revelations, and to distinguish between what are true, and what are counterfeit, are the natural notions which men have of GOD and of his effential perfections.

Thirdly, if the notion of a God be not natural, I do not see how men can have any natural notion of the difference of moral good and evil, juft, and unjuft. For if I do not naturally know there is a GOD, how can I naturally know that there is any law obliging to the one, and forbidding the other? all law and obligation to obedience, neceffarily fuppofing the authority of a fuperior being. But the apostle expressly afferts, that the Gentiles who were deftitute of a revealed law," were a law unto them"felves;" but there cannot be a natural law obliging mankind, unless God be naturally known to

them.

And this Socinus himself in his difcourfe upon this very argument is forced to acknowledge. "In "all men (fays he) there is naturally a difference of

just, and unjust, or at least there is planted in all "men an acknowledgment that juft ought to be preferred before unjust, and that which is honest, "before the contrary; and this is nothing else but "the word of GOD within a man, which who"foever obeys, in fo doing obeys GoD, though "otherwife he neither know nor think there is a "GOD; and there is no doubt but he that thus obeys "GoD, is accepted of him." So that here is an acknowledgment of a natural obligation to a law, without any natural knowledge of a fuperior autho

SERM. rity; which I think cannot be; and which is worse, CXII. that a man may obey GoD acceptably, without

knowing and believing there is a GOD; which directly thwarts the ground of his first argument from those words of the apoftle, "without faith it is impoffible to please GOD; for he that cometh to GOD," that is, he that will be religious and please GOD, "must believe that he is;" fo hard is it for any man to contradict nature, without contradicting himself.

Fourthly, my laft argument I ground upon the words of the apoftle in my text, "that which may "be known of GoD, is manifeft in them; for GoD "hath fhewed it unto them :" " is manifeft in "them, duros among them," God hath fufficiently manifefted it to mankind. And which way hath GoD done this? by revelation? or by the natural light of reafon? he tells us at the 20th verse, "for the invifible things of him from the creation "of the world are clearly feen;" that is, Gon, who in himself is invifible, ever fince he hath created the world, hath given a vifible demonftration of himself, that is, "of his eternal power " and Godhead, being understood by the things "which are made." The plain fenfe of the whole is, that this wife and wonderful frame of the world, which cannot reasonably be afcribed to any other cause but God, is a fenfible demonftration to all mankind, of an eternal and powerful being that was the author and framer of it. The only queftion now is, whether this text fpeaks of the knowledge of GOD by particular revelation, or by natural light and reafon, from the contemplation of the works of God? Socinus having no other way to

CX I.

avoid the force of this text, will needs understand SER M. it of the knowledge of GOD by the revelation of the gofpel. His words are these ; His words are thefe; "the apostle "therefore fays in this place, that the eternal God"head of GoD, that is, that which God would

σε

always have us to do (for the Godhead is fome"times taken in this fenfe) and his eternal power, "that is, his promise which never fails, (in which "fenfe he faid a little before that the gospel is "the power of GoD) thefe, I fay, were never "feen by men, that is, were never known to "them fince the creation of the world, are known

by his works, that is, by the wonderful operation "of GoD, and divine men, efpecially of CHRIST "and his apoftles." Thefe are his very words, and now I refer it to any indifferent judgment, whether this be not a very forced and conftrained interpretation of this text; and whether that which I have before given, be not infinitely more free and natural, and every way more agreeable to the obvious fenfe of the words, and the fcope of the apoftle's argument. For he plainly fpeaks of the heathen, and proves them to be inexcufable, because " they

held the truth in unrighteoufnefs," and having a natural knowledge of GOD, from the contemplation of his works, and the things which are made, "they did not glorify him as GoD." And therefore I fhall not trouble myself to give any other answer to it; for by the abfurd violence of it in every part, it confutes itself more effectually than any difcourfe about it can do.

I have been the larger upon this, because it is a matter of fo great confequence, and lies at the botVOL. VII.

C

tom

SER M. tom of all religion. For the natural knowledge CXII. which men have of GoD, is, when all is done,

the fureft and fafeft hold that religion hath on human nature. Besides, how should God judge that part of the world, who are wholly deftitute of divine revelation, if they had no natural knowledge of him, and confequently could not be under the direction and government of any law? For "where there is "no law, there is no tranfgreffion ;" and where men are guilty of the breach of no law, they cannot be judged and condemned for it; for "the judgment of GoD is according to truth.”

And now this being established, that men have a natural knowledge of GoD; if they contradict it by their life and practice, they are guilty of" detaining "the truth of Gon in unrighteoufnefs." For by this argument the apostle proves the heathen to be guilty of "holding the truth in unrighteousness," because notwithstanding the natural knowledge which they had of GOD "by the things which are made," they lived in the practice of grofs idolatry, and the most abominable fins and vices.

And this concerns us much more, who have the glorious light of the gospel added to the light of nature. For if they who offended against the light of nature, were liable to the judgment of GoD, of how much forer punihment fhall we be thought worthy, if we neglect thofe infinite advantages which the revelation of the gofpel hath fuperadded to natural light? he hath now fet our duty in the cleareft and ftrongest light that ever was afforded to mankind, fo that if we will not now believe and repent, there is no remedy for us, but we muft" die in our fins; "if we fin wilfully after fo much knowledge of the "truth,

6