to suppose any Being not to love happiness, would be to suppose he did not love what was agreeable to him; which is a contradiction: or at least would imply, that nothing was agreeable or eligible to him, which is the same as to say, that he has no such thing as choice, or any faculty of will. So that every Being who has a faculty of will must of necessity have an inclination to happiness. And therefore, if he be consistent with himself, and has not some inclinations repugnant to others, he must approve of those inclinations whereby Beings desire the happiness of Being in general, and must be against a disposition to the misery of Being in general: because otherwise he would approve of opposition to his own happiness. For, if a temper inclined to the misery of Being in general prevailed universally, it is apparent, it would tend to universal misery. But he that loves a tendency to universal misery, in effect loves a tendency to his own misery, and as he necessarily hates his own misery, he has then one inclination repugnant to another. And besides it necessarily follows from self-love, that men love to be loved by others; because in this others' love agrees with their own love. But if men loved hatred to Being in general, they would in effect love the hatred of themselves; and so would be inconsistent with themselves, having one natural inclination contrary to another.

These things may help us to understand why that spiritual and divine sense, by which those that are truly virtuous and holy, perceive the excellency of true virtue, is in the sacred Scriptures called by the name of light, knowledge, understanding, &c. If this divine sense were a thing arbitrarily given without any foundation in the nature of things, it would not properly be called by such names. For, if there were no correspondence or agreement in such a sense with the nature of things any more than there would have been in a diverse or contrary sense, the idea we obtain by this spiritual sense could in no respect be said to be a knowledge or perception of any thing besides what was in our own minds. For this idea would be no representation of any thing without. But since it is otherwise, since it is agreeable in the respects abovementioned, to the nature of things, and especially since it is the representation and image of the moral perfection and excellency of the Divine Being, hereby we have a perception of that moral excellency, of which we could have no true idea without it. And it being so, hereby persons have that true knowledge of God, which greatly enlightens the mind in the knowledge of divine things in general, and does (as might be shown, if it were necessary to the main purpose of this discourse) in many respects assist persons to a right understanding of things in general, to understand which our faculties were chiefly given us, and which do chiefly concern our interest; and assists us to see the nature of them, and the truth of them, in their proper evidence. Whereas, the want of this spiritual sense, and the prevalence of those dispositions that are contrary to it, tend to darken and distract the mind, and dreadfully to delude and confound men's understandings.

And as to that moral sense, common to mankind, which there is in natural conscience, neither can this be truly said to be no more than a sentiment arbitrarily given by the Creator, without any relation to the necessary nature of things: but is established in an agreement with the nature of things; so as no sense of mind that can be supposed, of a contrary nature and tendency could be. This will appear by these two things:

1. This moral sense, if the understanding be well informed, and be exercised at liberty, and in an extensive manner, without being restrained to a private sphere, approves the very same things which a spiritual and divine sense approves; and those things only: though not on the same grounds, nor with the same kind of approbation. Therefore, as that divine sense has been already

been said by others (Mr. Hutcheson in particular) may abundantly show, that the differences which are to be found among different persons and nations, concerning moral good and evil, are not inconsistent with a general moral sense, common to all mankind.

Nor, secondly, is the use of the words, good and evil, right and wrong, when used in a moral sense, altogether unfixed and arbitrary, according to the variety of notions, opinions, and views, that occasion the forementioned variety of sentiment. For though the signification of words is determined by use, yet that which governs in the use of terms is general or common use. And mankind, in what they would signify by terms, are obliged to aim at a consistent use; because it is easily found that the end of language, which is to be a common medium of manifesting ideas and sentiments, cannot be obtained any other way than by a consistent use of words; both that men should be consistent with themselves, and one with another, in the use of them. But men cannot call any thing right or wrong, worthy or ill deserving, consistently, any other way by calling things so, which truly deserve praise or blame, i. e., things, wherein (all things considered) there is most uniformity in connecting with them praise or blame. There is no other way that they can use these terms consistently with themselves. Thus, if thieves or traitors may be angry with informers, that bring them to justice, and call their behavior by odious names, yet herein they are inconsistent with themselves; because, when they put themselves in the place of those that have injured them, they approve the same things they condemn. And therefore such are capable of being convinced, that they apply these odious terms in an abusive manner. So, a nation that prosecutes an ambitious design of universal empire, by subduing other nations with fire and sword, may affix terms that signify the highest degrees of virtue, to the conduct of such as show the most engaged, stable, resolute spirit in this affair, and do most of this bloody work. But yet they are capable of being convinced, that they use these terms inconsistently, and abuse language in it, and so having their mouth! stopped. And not only will men use such words inconsistently with themselves but also with one another, by using them any otherwise than to signify tru merit or ill deserving, as before explained. For there is no way else, wherein men have any notion of good or ill desert, that mankind in general can agree in. Mankind in general seem to suppose some general standard or foundation in nature for a universal consistence in the use of the terms whereby they express moral good and evil; which none can depart from but through error and mistake. This is evidently supposed in all disputes they may have one with another, about right and wrong; and in all endeavors used to evince or prove that any thing is either good or evil, in a moral sense.

THE GREAT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

OF

ORIGINAL SIN

DEFENDED;

EVIDENCES OF ITS TRUTH PRODUCED,

AND

ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY ANSWERED.

CONTAINING IN PARTICULAR,

A REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS AND ARGUINGS OF DR. JOHN TAYLOR, IN HIS BOOK, 66 ENTITLED, THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN PROPOSED

TO FREE AND CANDID EXAMINATION, ETC."

Matth. ix. 12. "They that be whole, need not a Physician; but they that are sick."

Et hæc non tantum ad Peccatores referenda est; quia in omnibus Maledictionibus primi Hominis, omnes ejus Generationes conveniunt.... R. SAL. JARCHI. Propter Concupiscentiam, innatam Cordi humano, dicitur, In Iniquitate genitus sum; atque Sensus est, quod a Nativitate implantatum sit Cordi humano Jetzer harang Figmentum malum....

ABEN EZRA.