permit, is but the natural Confequence arifing from the Knowledge we have of God, and the Obligation we are under to cultivate and improve our own Minds. God is a rational Being, and fo are we, though at a great Distance from him. As we are thus far made in the Image and Likeness of God, fo are we capable, by the Enlargement of our Faculties, of a nearer Approach to him: For the moral Perfections of all rational Minds are in Kind the fame, however vaftly they differ in Degree. Were it otherwise, the Perfections of the Deity could not be fo much a Pattern for us to follow. Were Holinefs, Righteoufnefs, Juftice and Mercy, of a different Nature confidered in God, from what they are when confidered in Man, it is plain, that the Holiness or Goodness of God could be neither the Example nor the Motive of Holinefs in Men: And it would be abfurd to fay, as the Scripture does, Be ye boly, for I am boly; unlefs Holiness in both Cafes as applied to God, and as applied to Man, denoted a moral Perfection of the fame kind, proper to both as rational Beings, though attainable by us only in that Proportion which our weak Nature will allow. Since then the Perfections which are effen

tial to God, confidered as a rational Being, are the very fame which we, as rational Beings, ought to afpire, to, fince they are in him in the utmost Perfection alfo; to fay, that we ought to conform ourselves to the divine Nature, and to imitate the Excellencies of it, is no more than to say, that we ought to endeavour after those Perfections, which are natural and proper to rational Minds; and which belong to us in Confequence of that Image and Likeness of our Maker, which was ftamped upon us at our firft Creation.

But though the Example of God be in itfelf a very strong Motive and Argument for Holinefs yet, in the Nature of the Thing, Example is but a fecondary Argument, and fuppofes' an antecedent Obligation to the Duty, the due Performance of which we learn from the Example fet before us. It is no Reason for me to endeavour to do this or that, because I fee another do it; for it may be fit for him to do, and yet very unfit for me to attempt; and therefore Example can have no Place, till the Rule of Duty is first fettled. It would be very abfurd to think, that every thing that God does, yields a proper Example for us to follow; and therefore

we

we are to search for a Reason, why fome of his Perfections are proper Examples, and others not fo; that is, we are to search for their primary Rule of Duty, which obliges us to endeavour after some of the Perfections difcoverable in the Deity, and not the others.

In all Inquiries of this kind, the last Refort must be to the Light of our own Minds; from hence arifes the Obligation we are under to moral Virtue. We are a Law to ourfelves, and fuch a Law as no Power whatever can abfolve us from the Obedience due to it, as long as we continue to enjoy the fame Powers and Faculties of Reafon which at present we are endowed with. From this Light of Nature we learn both the Law and the Example which we are now inquiring after, that is, we learn our own Obligation to Holiness, and we learn to know God, who is perfect Holinefs. Did Reafon difcover to us the moral Perfections of the Deity, without fhewing us, at the fame time, any Obligation incumbent on us to follow after the like Perfections, the Holinefs of God fo discovered would be no more an Example for our Imitation than his Power is. It is therefore from the Light of our own Minds, that we difcover the Difference of moral Good

upon

and Evil, and the Obligations confequent that Difference; it is from the fame Light that we find the moral Perfections to be poffeffed by the Deity in their utmost Beauty: So that the fame Reafon and Nature, which holds forth to us the Rule of our Duty, holds forth alfo the perfect Example of it. Now, fince no Example is a good one, which does not teach the fame Doctrine with the Rule of Duty, and the Rule of Duty in this Cafe being the Light of our own Minds; it must neceffarily follow, that to obey the Dictates of Reason, and to imitate the Example of God, is in the End one and the fame Thing.

That it must be so, will appear by confidering, that we can no other Way trace the Perfections of the Deity, but from those natural Notions of Perfection which we find in our own Minds: We fhould not afcribe to God Holiness, Justice and Mercy, did not the Light of Reason discover to us the Excellencies of these Attributes. Now the Holinefs, Juftice and Mercy which the Light of Reafon discovers, are the moral Virtues which we are obliged to follow after; they are alfo the Perfections which we afcribe to the Deity: So that whether we follow the VOL. III. Dictates

Y

Dictates of Reason in endeavouring after these Virtues, or whether we look up to the Deity, and copy from the Perfection of his Nature; it is evident, that in both Cafes we follow the fame Virtues, though placed before us in a different View. For, fince our Notion of the Perfections of the Deity must be formed from fuch natural Notions of moral Perfection, as Reason and the Light of Nature can fupply; whether we confider these Perfections as inherent in the Deity, and endeavour to copy after the first and great Original, or

whether we take our natural Notions of moral Virtue, as Principles and Rules of Religion, which ought to influence and direct our Lives, the Iffue will be the fame with respect to our Practice. It is easier for Men, when once they have a Notion of a perfect righteous Being, to confider, in particular Cases, what fuch a Being would do or approve, than to run up in an abstracted Way of reasoning to firft Principles and Maxims for Direction. But, which ever Way you take, the Inquiry is the fame, namely, what is fit and reafonable to be done in this or that Cafe: And let the Method of Inquiry be what it will, the Judgment must be such as our present Share of Reafon will enable us to make.

And