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 fay, 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 itself a very ftrong Motive and Argument for Holiness; yet, in the Nature of the Thing, Example is but a fecondary Argument, and supposes 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 some 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 discoverable 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 Reason 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 Holiness. Did Reason 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 Holiness 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 discover the Difference of moral Good

and Evil, and the Obligations confequent upon 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 Reason and Nature, which holds forth to us the Rule of our Duty, holds forth also 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 should 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 also the Perfections which we afcribe to the Deity: So that whether we follow the VOL. III.

Y

Dictates

we are to search for a Reason, why some 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 discoverable 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 arises 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 Reason 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 Holiness. Did Reason discover to us the moral Perfections of the Deity, without shewing us, at the same time, any Obligation incumbent on us to follow after the like Perfections, the Holiness 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 discover the Difference of moral Good

and Evil, and the Obligations confequent upon 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 also 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 Case being the Light of our own Minds; it muft 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 fo, 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 Holinefs, Juftice 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 also the Perfections which we afcribe to the Deity: So that whether we follow the VOL. III.

Y

Dictates