An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature. Nathaniel Culverwell

1 . The Porch, or Introduction

Chapter 2 . The Explication of the Words

Chapter 3 . What Nature Is

Chapter 4 . Of the Nature of a Law in General

Chapter 5 . Of the Eternal Law

       Chapter 6 . Of the Law of Nature in General, Its {Nature Subject}

       Chapter 7 . The Extent of the Law of Nature

       Chapter 8 . How the Law of Nature Is Discovered? Not by Tradition

       Chapter 9 . The Light of Reason

       Chapter 10. Of the Consent of Nations

       Chapter 11. The Light of Reason Is a Derivative Light

       Chapter 12. The Light of Reason Is a Diminutive Light

       Chapter 13. The Light of Reason Discovers Present, Not Future Things

       Chapter 14. The Light of Reason Is a Certain Light

       Chapter 15. The Light of Reason Is Directive

       Chapter 16. The Light of Reason Is Calme and Peaceable

       Chapter 17. The Light of Reason Is a Pleasant Light

       Chapter 18. The Light of Reason Is an Ascendent Light

A DISCOURSE OF THE LIGHT OF NATURE. PROVERBS 20. 27.

       Mens hominis lucerna Domini, The understanding of a man is the Candle of the Lord. Φω̑ς κυρίου, πνοὴ ἀνθρήπων. Septuag. λύχνος κυρίου. Aqu. Symm. Theod. Λαμπτὴρ κυρίου. Sic. alii.¹

CHAPTER 1

       The Porch, or Introduction

      [13] Tis a work that requires our choycest thoughts, the exactest discussion that can be; a thing very material and desirable, to give unto Reason the things that are Reasons, and unto Faith the things that are Faiths;² to give Faith her full scope and latitude, and to give Reason also her just bounds and limits; this is the first-born, but the other has the blessing.³ And yet there is not such a vast hiatus neither, such a μέγα χάσμα⁴ [great gulf] between them as some would imagine: there is no such implacable antipathy, no such irreconcileable jarring between them, as some do fancy to themselves; they may very well salute one another, ἀγίῳ φιλήματι,⁵ osculo Pacis [with a holy kiss, the kiss of peace]; Reason and Faith may kisse each other.⁶ There is a twin-light springing from both, and they both spring from the same fountain of light, and they both sweetly conspire in the same end, the glory of that being from which they shine, & the welfare & happines of that being upon which they shine. So that to blaspheme Reason, ’tis to reproach heaven it self, and to dishonour the God of Reason, to question the beauty of his Image, and by a strange ingratitude to slight this great and Royal gift of our Creator. For ’tis he that set up these two great Luminaries in every heavenly soul, the Sun to rule the day, and the Moon to rule the night;⁷ and though there be some kinde of creatures that will bark at this lesser light, and others so severely critical, as that they make mountains of those spots and freckles which they see in her face; yet others know how to be thankful for her weaker beams, and will follow the least light of Gods setting up, though it be but the Candle of the Lord.

      But some are so strangely prejudic’d against Reason, and that upon sufficient reason too (as they think) which yet involves a flat contradiction, as that they look upon it not as the Candle of the Lord, but as on some blazing Comet that portends present ruine to the Church, and to the soul, and carries a fatal and venemous influence along with it. And because the unruly head of Socinus and [14] his followers⁸ by their meer pretences to Reason, have made shipwrack of Faith, and have been very injurious to the Gospel; therefore these weak and staggering apprehensions, are afraid of understanding any thing, and think that the very name of Reason, especially in a Pulpit, in matters of Religion, must needs have at least a thousand heresies coucht in it. If you do but offer to make a Syllogisme, they’l strait way cry it down for carnal reasoning. What would these men have? Would they be banisht from their own essences? Would they forfeit and renounce their understandings? Or have they any to forfeit or disclaime? would they put out this Candle of the Lord, intellectuals of his own lighting? or have they any to put out? would they creep into some lower species, and go a grazing with Nebuchadnezar among the beasts of the field?⁹ or are they not there already? Or if they themselves can be willing to be so shamefully degraded, do they think that all others too are bound to follow their example? Oh, what hard thoughts have these of Religion? do they look upon it only as on a bird of prey, that comes to peck out the eyes of men? Is this all the nobility that it gives, that men by vertue of it must be beheaded presently? do’s it chop off the intellectuals at one blow? Lets hear awhile what are the offences of Reason; are they so hainous and capital? what has it done? what lawes has it violated? whose commands has it broken? what did it ever do against the crown and dignity of heaven, or against the peace and tranquillity of men? Why are a weak and perverse generation, so angry and displeased with it? Is it because this daughter of the morning is fallen from her primitive glory? from her original vigour and perfection? Far be it from me to extenuate that great and fatal overthrow, which the sons of men had in their first and original apostasie from their God; that under which the whole Creation sigh’s and groanes:¹⁰ but this we are sure, it did not annihilate the soul, it did not destroy the essence, the powers and faculties, nor the operations of the soul; though it did defile them, and disorder them, and every way indispose them.

      Well then, because the eye of Reason is weakened, and vitiated, will they therefore pluck it out immediately? and must Leah be hated upon no other account, but because she is blear-ey’d?¹¹ The whole head is wounded, and akes, and is there no other way but to cut it off? The Candle of the Lord do’s not shine so clearly as it was wont, must it therfore be extinguisht presently? is it not better to enjoy the faint and languishing light of this Candle of the Lord, rather then to be in palpable and disconsolate darknesse? There are indeed but a few seminal sparks left in the ashes, and must there be whole floods of water cast on them to quench them? ’Tis but an old imperfect Manuscript, with some broken periods, some letters worn out, must they therefore with an unmerciful indignation rend it and tear it asunder? ’Tis granted that the picture has lost its glosse and beauty, the oriency of its colours, the elegancy of its lineaments, the [15] comelinesse of its proportion; must it therefore be totally defac’d? must it be made one great blot? and must the very frame of it be broken in pieces? Would you perswade the Lutanist to cut all his strings in sunder, because they are out of tune? and will you break the Bowe upon no other account, but because it’s unbended? because men have not so much of Reason as they should, will they therefore resolve to have none at all?