i

"done? when reproved? when not permitted ?" The Stoics" not only allowed, but pleaded for the ufe of obfcene words; and suremia, which is tranflated jefting, is reckoned by Ariftotle among moral virtues. Poligamy, or having more wives than one, was always a moral evil, and is generally understood to be fo; yet fome have pleaded for it, as not being criminal; and it was certainly practised by good men under the Old-Teftament-difpenfation, who do not appear to have had any notion of the immorality of it. To come nearer to our own times, the morality of the fourth command, especially that part of it which regards the time of worship, has been, for many years, difputed, and is still a subject of controversy; and the perfons on both fides of the question are men of religion, seriousness and morality; and to come nearer still, Mr Chandler and I have different fentiments about fome things, whether they are ftrictly criminal or not. "The many methods that are daily taking to debauch "the principles, and corrupt the manners of our youth, to infpire them with a "love of diversion and pleasure, to lead them into exceffive expences, and "costly luxuries; and, in a word, to prejudice them not only against the "principles of religion, but the plain duties of virtue and focial life;" fuch as the entertainments of the theatre, diverfions of mufic, like thofe of Ifrael of old, Ifai. v. 12. when his vices had almoft brought him to his final ruin, cards, and fashionable games *; these, and the like entertainments, Mr Chandler says', may not be strictly criminal in themselves; though he owns they tend to corrupt the manners, and deftroy the diligence, integrity, and virtue of the nation, and to be a fenfual kind of life. I, for my part, on the other hand, think these things are strictly criminal. Mr Chandler, doubtless, has many on his fide of the question, in his way of thinking, men of fuperior genius, and who are the more polite part of mankind; and I do not at all queftion, but that there are many of the fame mind with myself; and though they may be of a lower fize than the others, I will venture to say, they are at least equally as ferious, fober, religious, and of as good morals. I fhall not dispute the point who is in the right or wrong; it is enough to my purpose, and for which I take notice of it, that the moral nature and fitnefs of things is not of fo eafy and certain a difcernment.

I had almost like to have forgot what this author tells us ", " That this no"tion of the immutable and eternal obligation of moral virtue, is not one of "the peculiar difcoveries of the reafon and good fenfe of the prefent age, but is

h Vid Ciceron. Epiftol. 1. 9. ep. 22. Papirio Pato, p. 1266. Ethic. 1. 4. c. 14. p. 32. tom. 2. & magn. moral. 1. 1. p. 96.

66

plainly

* Of this fort, I fuppose, is the game called Faro, lately advertised in the public papers, as a fcandalous practice, and contrary to Act of Parliament.

plainly taught both in the records of the Old and New Teftament." The paffages in the Old Testament are, Pfalm cxix. 142. Thy righteousness is an everlafting righteousness, or, is a righteousness by for ever; that is, it endures for ever; and thy law is the truth. Ver. 144. The righteousness of thy teftimonies is everlasting by is for ever. Ver. 152. Concerning thy teftimonies I have known of old; or, as Mr Chandler fays the words fhould be rendered, which I do not dislike, I have known of old Ty from thy teftimonies, that thou hast founded them for ever. Ver. 160. Thy word is true from the beginning; or as the words DOX 7737 WNI may be rendered, The beginning of thy word is truth, and every one of thy righteous judgments is for ever. All which indeed clearly prove the perpetuity of the moral law, its immutable obligation upon us, the veracity and justice of God; which appear in it, and will abide by it, and continue with it, to defend the rights, and secure the honours of it; but, what is all this to the nature and fitness of things? or, How do these paffages prove the eternal and immutable obligation of moral virtue, as prior to, and independent of the will of God? When the Pfalmift is only fpeaking of the will of God as revealed in his law and teftimonies; from whence, and not from the nature and fitnefs of things, he had learned of old, many years ago, the truth, righteousness, and continuance of them. The only fingle paffage in the New Teftament that is produced, is, Phil. iv. 8. Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are boneft, whafoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatfoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise; think on these things. That thefe expreffions neceffarily fuppofe, and infer, that truth, honefty, juftice, and purity, are effentially different from their contrary vices, are lovely in their nature, praife-worthy in their practice, and which both God and man will approve and commend, will be easily granted but still the question returns, what is all this to the nature and fitness of things? To the immutable and eternal obligation of moral virtue, as prior to, and independent of the will of God? Does the apostle make moral fitness, in this sense, the rule of action, or of judgment, with respect to truth, honesty, justice, and purity, and not rather the revealed will and law of God? The latter feems to be manifeftly his fenfe, fince he adds, thofe things which ye have both learned and received, and heard, and feen in me, do, and the God of peace fhall be with you. Whence it appears, that the things he advifes them to were fuch as he had taught them, according to the will of God, and which they had received upon that foot, and had seen practised by himself, in obedience to it.

I conclude with obferving, that this notion of the moral nature and fitness of things, as prior to, and independent of the will of God, feems to have a tendency to introduce and establish among us, Polytheism, Deifm, Antinomianism, and Libertinifm.

VOL. II.

1. Polytheism, or the having more gods than one. It feems to favour the diftinction of a fuperior and inferior deity; for, as has been obferved, if the moral nature and fitnefs of things is eternal, does neceffarily exift, is prior to, and independent of the will of God, and is the fupreme rule of action to all reasonable creatures whatever, it must be God; yea, fince it is the unerring rule of God himself, by which he regulates and determines his own will, it must be both before, and above him; it must be fuperior to him; he can enact no law but what that is the rule and measure of; his will is no obligation of a diftinct kind from it; he appears to have no power or authority but what is derived from it. I am forry to obferve, agreeable to this notion, how diminutively Mr Chandler fpeaks of the divine being. You read nothing throughout the whole difcourfe of God being a legislator, enacting laws of his own will and pleasure, agreeable to the perfections of his nature; as armed with power and authority to enforce then, and as claiming obedience from his creatures to them, as being his will, and founded in the rectitude of his nature; but on the other hand, he is thruft down into the place of a reformer: He is indeed called" the great reformer of mankind, and has the honour to be accounted the Head of the Societies for the Reformation of Manners in England; though no more is allowed him in. this work of reforming mankind, than what the Societies themselves do; namely an "endeavouring to promote their happiness by methods difcouraging their ❝vices, and exciting them to the love and practice of universal virtue "." After this it is no wonder it should be fuggefted, that the great defign of our blessed. Saviour's coming into the world, and the miffion of his apoftles into it, were only the reformation and amendment of mankind; and that there can be no other valuable end of a standing miniftry in the chriftian church, than to carry on the fame defign. This ftrengthens my apprehenfion, that this notion has a tendency to introduce,

2. Deifm, or to explode divine revelation, with all the doctrines and ordinances of it. And indeed, if this nature and fitnefs of things is the univerfal and most perfect rule of action to all reasonable creatures whatever, then what neceffity is there, or can there poffibly be, of a divine revelation? This is. univerfal, and comprehends every thing fit to be known and practifed; it is most perfect, and therefore nothing can be added to it; it is as eafily difcerned. as the distinction between light and darkness, fweet and bitter, and therefore needs no revelation to explain and enforce it. Admitting a revelation; the things contained in it must be brought to this test and standard, the nature and fitness of things, to be tried by, and judged of. Let the revelation come ever fo well fupported, and the evidence of things, as they stand in it, be ever fo clear;

clear; yet if poor, fallible, fhort-fighted men, cannot fee the fitnefs of them, they must be at once rejected, and consequently the revelation itself. So if Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the peculiar ordinances of the chriftian revelation; if the doctrines of the divine perfons in the godhead; of the decrees of God; of the union of the two natures in Chrift; of the expiation of fin, in a way of fatisfaction; of juftification by the imputed righteousness of Chrift; of the refurrection of the fame body, or any other doctrines of the chriftian religion, how clearly foever they may be revealed; yet if men do but once take it into their heads, that they do not agree with the nature and fitnefs of things, they must be exploded; and the next that follows, is revelation itself. Whether the abettors of this notion really defign to encourage and establish Deifm, I know not; but this I am fure of, the Deifts are capable of improving it greatly to their purpose.

3. Antinomianism, or the setting afide of the law of God as a rule of action, feems to be the neceffary and certain confequence of this principle. For if the moral nature and fitness of things is the fupreme, original, univerfal, and most perfect rule of action to all reasonable beings whatfoever, prior to, and independent of the will of God, then what need is there of the law of God? or, what regard should be paid to it? Since, as it is faid, "It is impofiible that "there can be a rule of action more excellent in itfelf, or more worthy the regard "of reasonable beings." Now, to fet afide, and difregard the law of God, as a rule of life and converfation, or action, is strictly and properly Antinomianifm. For my part, I have been traduced as an Antinomian, for innocently afferting, that the effence of juftification lies in the eternal will of God; my meaning is, that God in his all-perfect and comprehenfive mind, had from all eternity, at once, a full view of all his elect; of all their fins and tranfgreffions; of his holy and righteous law, as broken by them, and of the compleat and perfect righteousnefs of his Son, who had engaged to be a furety for them; and in this view of things he willed them to be righteous, through the furetifhip-righteousness of his Son, and accordingly esteemed, and accounted them fo in him; in which will, esteem, and account, their juftification lies, as it is an immanent act in God. By this way of thinking and speaking I no ways fet afide, nor in the leaft oppose, the doctrine of juftification by faith; I affert, that there is, no knowledge of juftification, no comfort from it, nor any claim of interest in it, until a man believes. I abhor the thoughts of fetting the law of God afide as the rule of walk and conversation; and conftantly affirm, that all that believe in Chrift for righteousness, should be careful to maintain good works, for neceffary uses. The cry of Antinomianism, upon fuch a principle as this, must be mere noise and ftupidity. But here is a Gentleman that talks of fomething

A a 2

prior

• Sermon, p. 20.

prior to, and independent of the will of God, and antecedent to any law of his, as the fupreme, original, univerfal, and most perfect rule of action to reasonable beings; as the immutable and eternal obligation of moral virtue, or from whence moral obligation is derived; whereby all authority on God's part, and all obedience on ours, are at once entirely deftroyed. One fhould think, for the future, that not John Gill, but Samuel Chandler, muft be reckoned the Antinomian.

4. Libertinifm is another confequence, which, it may be justly feared, will follow upon this notion; for if men can once establish fuch a principle, that something prior to, and independent of the will of God, is the rule of action to them, called the nature and fitness of things, of which they themselves are the fole judges, as they may in confequence hereof be led on to explode divine revelation, and fet afide the law of God as a rule of action; fo what through a falfe way of reafoning, and the prevalence of their lufts, paffions and interefts, they may perfuade themselves, that it is moft fitting and agreeable to the nature of things, that they should do what makes moft for their own pleasure and profit. This feems to be the fource of all that wickednefs and licentioufnefs acted by the Jews in the times of Ifaiah, which occafioned the words, the fubject of Mr Chandler's difcourfe. They were not the meaner fort of the people, the refuse of the nation; they were the politer fort among them, that were wife in their own eyes, and prudent in their own fight'; men of reafon and good fenfe, as fuch vain mortals love to flatter one another; they were men of bold and strong spirits, as men of atheistical and deiftical principles delight to be called; in a haughty and daring manner, they faid', let him make speed and baften his work, that we may fee it; and let the counsel of the holy One of Ifrael draw nigh and come, that we may know it. They were indeed the Deifts of that generation, the contemners of revela tion; who caft away the law of the Lord, fet up fomething elfe as prior to it, and defpifed the word of the holy One of Ifrael; and fo being guided by the false reafonings of their minds, and influenced by their own lufts, called evil good, and good evil.

I would be far from fuggefting any charge of libertinifm against Mr Chandler, or any others, who are in the fame way of thinking with him; or that he or they are abettors of any of the above confequences; for though principles may be charged, perfons must not on that account. I judge it most unreasonable to charge persons with holding confequences which they themselves deny, though these confequences may follow never fo clearly from principles held by them. But I cannot forbear faying, that for Mr Chandler to reprefent stageplays, cards, and other fashionable games and diverfions, by which the nation • Verse 19:

Ifai. v. 21

is