A Continuation of morning-exercise questions and cases of conscience practically resolvedA Continuation of morning-exercise questions and cases of conscience practicaly resolved

And they that think all this alleged difference is but fancy, show they understand little of humane nature, and less of Religion: Though they may have that in themselves too which they do not so distinctly reflect upon, even that peculiar gust and relish, which they make so little account of. For have they not as great a disgust of the others way, as they have of theirs? would They not as much regret to be tied to theirs? Have they not as great a liking of their own? And doth not common experience show that there are as different mental relishes as bodily? How comes one man in the matters of Literature to savour Metaphysics? another Mathematics, another History, and the like? and no mans Genius can be forced in these things. Why may there not be the like difference in the matters of Religion? And I would fain know what that Religion is worth that is without a gust and savour, that is insipid and unpleasant, much more that would, being used in a constant course, this or that way, be nauseous and offensive?

And they that think all this alledged difference is but fancy, shew they understand little of humane nature, and less of Religion: Thô they may have that in themselves too which they do not so distinctly reflect upon, even that peculiar gust and relish, which they make so little account of. For have they not as great a disgust of the others way, as they have of theirs? would They not as much regret to be ty'd to theirs? Have they not as great a liking of their own? And doth not common experience shew that there are as different mental relishes as bodily? How comes one man in the matters of Literature to savour Metaphysicks? another Mathematicks, another History, and the like? and no mans Genius can be forc't in these things. Why may there not be the like difference in the matters of Religion? And I would fain know what that Religion is worth that is without a gust and savour, that is insipid and unpleasant, much more that would, being used in a constant course, this or that way, be nauseous and offensive?

If indeed men nauseate that which is necessary for them, the Gospel, for instance, or Religion it self, that is certainly such a distemper, as if the grace of God overcome it not, will be mortal to them, and we are not to think of relieving them, by withdrawing the offending object, which it self must be the means of their cure. But is there any parity between the substance of Religion, which is of Gods appointing, and the superadded modes of it, that are of our own?