up to an unsearching mind, suffered them to darken and put out the light of their understandings, and so to do [and to approve] things that were not convenient.

This being the true account of the diversity of human judgement, such diversity only proves that the light of nature has been misused, not, that it was never given. Whereas, on the other hand, if the Heathen world can shew us, in general, a conformity of judgement in moral matters, under their state of nature, with that of the world, under the light of Revelation, what follows, but that they, having not the Law, shew the work of the Law written in their hearts?

But now that there was, in fact, such a conformity, we conclude from the accounts of those times, the sense of writers, and the confessions of persons themselves: the only means, by which a point of this nature can be established. The pagan historians and moralists are full of such lessons, as we now profit by: and even their poets, on the stage itself where common nature is drawn for the sake of

s Rom. ch. i. ver. 283%, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα συνευδοκώσι τοῖς πράσσεσι.

common instruction) represent their characters, for the most part, as good or bad, according to the ideas we should now entertain of them. In writers of all sorts, we find abundant evidence of this truth. Numberless persons are upon record, who confess, in their own cases, and attest, this uniform power of conscience. They applaud themselves for, what we should call, a well-spent life, and they condemn themselves for, what we call, a bad one. To touch on a topic so known as this, is, in effect, to exhaust it. I shall then but just point to the great Roman patriot exulting in the memory of his Virtues and to the " Roman governour, so famous in sacred writ, whom the preaching of Paul, in concurrence with his own heart, made tremble for his Vices.

III. But if men did not feel the power of conscience operating within themselves, and declaring a Law written in their hearts, yet their daily conduct towards each other, in the civil concerns of life, would evidently proclaim it. For observe how studious men are to repel an injurious imputation, fastened on a friend; and still more, how they labour to assert their

t Cicero, passim.

"Felix, Acts xxiv. 25.

own innocence. What pains do we see taken, to overthrow a false evidence, and what colours of art do we see employed to palliate or disguise a true one! No man needs be told that this is the constant practice of Christians: and did not the Heathens the same? Here then is a fresh proof of the point in question; an argument of familiar evidence arising from the transactions of common life. For, in the altercations with each other, in reference to right and wrong, there is manifestly supposed some prior Law of universal reason, to which the appeal on both sides is directed, and by which the decision is finally to be made. And this, as the Apostle's argument suggests, whichever of the contending parties be in the wrong. For the charging another with wrong conduct, equally implies a Rule, determining my judgement of moral action; as the defending myself or others from such a charge, evinces my sense of it. Thus, whether I accuse, or answer for myself, either way, I shew a law written in my heart; whence I estimate the right or wrong of the supposed question. Thus much might be inferred from the ordinary topics of conversation: but the case is still clearer, when they come to be debated in courts of Justice. More especially, therefore, the strug

gles and contentions of the Bar (for the terms, employed in the text, being forensic, direct us chiefly to that interpretation), a series of civil and judiciary pleadings, such as have been preserved to us, from heathen times, in the writings of a Demosthenes, or Cicero, are a standing, unanswerable argument for the existence of a Rule of Right, or Law of natural For how should these debates be carried on without a Rule, to which the advocates of either party refer? or how should these judicial differences be composed, without a common Law, to arbitrate between them? And what though the Law, referred to, be a written institute: It was first written in the heart, before legislators transcribed it on brass, or paper.

reason.

You see then, the sum of the Apostle's reasoning stands thus. The Heathens, who had no revealed Law, DID by nature, the things of the Law: their JUDGEMENT, too, of their own actions, conformed to the judgement of the Law: and, lastly, their DEBATES with one another, whether public or private, concerning right and wrong, evidenced their sense of some Law, which Nature had scribed to them.

pre

VOL. VI.

量

And in this fine chain of argument, we may observe the peculiar art, by which it is conducted, and the advantage, resulting from such conduct to the main conclusion. For if the argument from WORKS should seem of less weight (as it possibly might, after the Apostle's own charge upon the heathen world, and in that age of heathen corruption) yet the evidence arising from CONSCIENCE, which was an appeal to every man's own breast, could hardly be resisted or, if conscience could be laid asleep (as it might be by vice and ill habits) it was impossible they could deny the DEBATES among themselves, or not see the inference that must needs be drawn from them.

It may, further, seem to have been with some propriety that the sacred reasoner employed these topics of argument, in an address to ROMANS: who could not but feel the weight of them the more, as well knowing the ancient VIRTUE of their country; as knowing too, that the Roman people had been famous for their nice sense of right and wrong, or, in other words, a moral CONSCIENCE; and that, as having been a free people, they had been always accustomed to DEBATES about moral action, public and private.