aftributed to the fimple effences as actually exifting. For when I fay, for inftance, that every part of a circle is equally diftant from the centre, this propofition does not hang in fufpence, then to be verifyed when the things fhall exift in nature, but is at prefent actually true, as true as it ever will or can be; and confequently may I not thence infer, that the things themfelves already are, fince they are actually related, and fince they are eternally related, that therefore they eternally are.

But fecondly, Suppofe I grant what the objector would have, that thefe habitudes are not abfolutely attributed to the fimple effences, but only by way of hypothefis; yet I don't fee what he can gain by this conceffion. For thus much at leaft is attributed to the fimple effences at prefent, that whenfoever they fhall exift, fuch and fuch habitudes will attend them. I fay, thus much is attributed actually, and at prefent: But now how can any thing be faid of that which is not? The things therefore themselves really and actually are. There is I confefs no neceffity they should exift in nature, (which is all that the objection proves); but exift they muft, fince of nothing there can be no affection. There is therefore another way of existing besides that in rerum natura; namely, in the Mundus Archetypus, or the ideal world; where all the Rationes rerum, or fimple effences of things, whereof there are ftanding and immutable affirmations and negations, have an eternal and immutable existence, before ever they enter upon the ftage of nature.

Nor ought this ideal way of fubfifting to seem ftrange, when even while things have a natural fubfiftence, the propofitions concerning them are not verify'd according to their natural, but according to their ideal fubfiftences. Thus we demonftrate feveral própofitions concerning a right line, a circle, &c. and yet 'tis most certain, that none of these are to be found in nature, according to that exactness fuppofed in the demonftration. Such and fuch attributes therefore belong to them, not as they are in nature, but as they are in their ideas. H.4

And

And if this be true in propofitions, whose fubjects are in nature, much more is it in eternal propofitions, whofe fimple effences have not always a natural existence. These can no other ways be verify'd but by the coeternal existence of fimple effences in the ideal world.

One thing I have more to add in the vindication of this Effay; Whereas in the third Section it was afferted, that the nature of truth is fteady and immutable, and fuch as has no precarious exiftence or arbitrarious dependence upon any understanding whatever; and yet in the fifth Section 'tis affirm'ď, that it owes its exiftence to fome mind or other; left one part of this meditation fhould be thought to clash against another, I thought it requifite to adjust this feeming contradiction. For the clearing of which, we must be beholding to that distintion of a Platonick Author, of the divine mind into vas voses and vas votos, conceptive and exhibitive. Truth does by no means depend upon any mind as conceptive, whether human or divine; but is fuppofed by it; which is the fenfe of the third Section. But upon mind as exhibitive, it may and does ultimately depend; fo that if there were no God of eternal mind, there could be no truth; which is the fenfe of the fifth Section. So that here is no contradiction, but all harmony and agreement.

The

The Chriftian Law afferted and vindicated: Or a general Apology for the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, both as to the obligativeness and reafonableness of the inftitution.

I

I Defign here to confider two things concern

ing Chriftianity:

Firft, That it is a ftate of fervice.

Secondly, that it is a reasonable service.

The eviction of these two propofitions, will contain both the affertion of a chriftian law, and its vindication; and be a plenary juftification of its divine author, from the imputation of two forts of adverfaries; thofe that reflect upon his wifdom, by fuppofing that he requires nothing to be done by his fervants; and those that reflect upon his goodnefs, by fuppofing him a hard mafter; and that he requires unreasonable performances.

2. I begin therefore with the firft propofition concerning the christian inftitution, that it is a fer vice. It is most certain, that the chriftian religion, according to the genuine sense and design of its divine author, is the most wife and excellent inftitution that could poffibly be framed, both for the glory of the divine attributes, and the best ins tereft of mankind. And without controverfie (if we take it as 'tis exhibited to us in the inspired writings) Great is the mystery of Godliness, 1 Tim. v. 16. But if we confult the perverfe gloffes and comments of fome of our Christian Rabbins, and take our meafures of the Chriftian Religion from thofe ill-fayour'd fchemes and draughts of it we meet with in fome fyftemes; as fome chriftians are the worst of

men, fo will their religion appear to be the worst of religions, a fenfelefs and ridiculous inftitution; not worthy the contrivance of a wife politician, much lefs of him who is the wifdom of the Father. It fares here with chriftianity, as with a picture that is drawn at fo many remote hands, till at length it degenerates from the original truth, and wants an under-title to difcover whofe it is. And indeed, whatever declamations are made against Judaifm and Paganifm, the worst enemies of the chriftian religion, are fome of thofe that profefs and teach it. For if it be in reality, as fome (who call themselves orthodox) defcribe it, I may bodly fay, that 'tis neither for the reputation of God to be the author of fuch a religion, nor for the interest of men to be guided by it; and that as Sin took occafion by the law, Rom. vii. 11. fo may it (and that more juftly) by the Gofpel too, to deceive and ruin the world; by that Gofpel which was intended as the inftrument both of its temporal and eternal welfare.

3. For if you look upon chriftianity as fome men are pleased to hold the profpective, it is no way accommodated for the promotion of holiness and virtue; but is rather a perfect difcharge from all duty, and a charta of licentioufnefs. For among other mifreprefentations of the Gospel, this is one, (and think the most pernicious one that the fophiftry of Hell could ever fuggeft) that it requires nothing to be done by its profelytes. A notion fo tidiculous and mischievous, as is fit for none but a profane epicure to embrace; who may be allow'd to make his religion as idle and fedentary, as he does his God. Nay, 'tis not only ridiculous and mifchievous, but in the highest measure antichriftian. For what greater antichriftianism can there be than that, which ftrikes not only at fome of the main branches, but at the very root of chriftianity; and at once, evacuates the entire purpose and aim of the Gospel?

4. But to fet this mark upon the right forehead; there are three forts of men that come in

fome

fome measure or other under this charge. The firft are the Antinomians, who are impudent and ignorant enough in exprefs terms to affert, that the facrifice and fatisfaction of Chrift does wholly excufe us from all manner of duty and obedience ; as if we libertines of the Gospel were fo far from being bound to work out our Jalvation with fear and trembling, that we are not to work at all; and as if the defign of Chrift's coming, were only to fatisfie for the tranfgreffions committed against the old covenant; and not at all to introduce a new one; and to discharge us from the obligation of the moral, as well as ceremonial law.

5. Nay, fome there are among them that carry the business yet higher, and exclude not only the repentance and good works of men, but even the mediation of Chrift himself, at least the neceffity of it, by fuppofing an anticipating juftification or pardon from all eternity; which they found upon the fecret decree and counsel of God.

6. The next that have a fhare in the forementioned charge, are those who make chriftianity a matter of bare fpeculation; and think all religion abfolv'd in orthodoxy of opinion; that care not how men live, but only how they teach; and are fo over-intent upon the Creed, that they neglect the Commandments. Little confidering, that opinion is purely in order to practice; and the orthodoxy of judgment is neceffary only in fuch matters, where a mistake would be of dangerous influence to our actions, that is, in fundamentals: So that the neceffity of thinking rightly, is derived from the neceffity of doing rightly; and confequently, the latter is the more neceffary of the

two.

7. I am as ready to grant, as the moft zealous ftickler for orthodoxy can defire, that our underftandings are under obligation in divine matters; but withal, I think it abfurd that the obligation fhould terminate there; fince then 'twould follow; First, That all theological fcience were merely fpeculative; Secondly, That we are bound to exact

H 6

ortho