Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the…Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the…

But Seneca, when he had spoken thus, and much more, in the scorn of those gods, what doth he resolve upon that his wise man shall do in those times? Let him not religiously account of them in his mind, but feign them in his outward acts, In animi religione non habeat, sed in actibus fingat. And again, All which things a wise man will observe, as commanded by Law, not as acceptable to God, Quae omnia sapiens ser vabit tanquam legibus jussa, non diis grata. And further, Istam ignobilem deorum turbam, quam longo aevo longa superstitio congessit, sic adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum ejus ad morem magis pertinere quam rem. Some say, Seneca was coetaneous with Paul, and that he had Paul's Epistles; might he not (if so) see himself described in this phrase, detaining the truth in unrighteousness? But how well doth Austin in the same place stigmatize him? He worshipped, what he reproved; did, what he argued against; adored, what he blamed; Colebat, quod reprehendebat; agebat, quod arguebat; quod culpabat, adorabat. And are there not many such Popish spirits, that know their superstitions and falsehoods, yet, because of long custom, will not leave them? What else was the meaning of Domitianus Calderinus, when, speaking of going to Mass, he said, Eamus ad communem errorem? And so it was a speech of a disputing Sophister, Sic dico quando sum in scholis, sed, penes nos sit, aliter sentio. You see then by this, that natural truth would incline to better actions, but it is suppressed. When I say, natural light inclineth the heart to good, it is to be understood ⟨p. 70⟩by way of object merely, showing what is to be desired, not that we have any strength naturally to what is good. If you ask why truth, apprehended by natural light, should be less efficacious to alter and new-mould the heart and life, then truth received by faith (for in the Scripture we read of wonderful conversions; and the Heathens have but one story that they much boast of, of one Palemon (if I mistake not) who was a great drunkard, and came to deride Socrates, while he was reading his discourse to his scholars, but was so changed by that lecture, that he left off his drunkenness: This alteration was only in the skin, and not in the vitals. What then should be the difference?)

But Seneca, when he had spoken thus, and much more, in the scorn of those gods, what doth he resolve upon that his wise man shall doe in those times? Let him not religiously account of them in his minde, but feigne them in his outward acts, In animi religione non habeat, sed in actibus fingat. And again, All which things a wise man will observe, as commanded by Law, not as acceptable to God, Quae omnia sapiens ser vabit tanquam legibus jussa, non diis grata. And further, Istam ignobilem deorum turbam, quam longo aevo longa superstitio congessit, sic adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum ejus ad morem magis pertinere quam rem. Some say, Seneca was coetaneous with Paul, and that he had Paul's Epistles; might he not (if so) see himself described in this phrase, detaining the truth in unrighteousnesse? But how well doth Austin in the same place stigmatize him? He worshipped, what he reproved; did, what he argued against; adored, what he blamed; Colebat, quod reprehendebat; agebat, quod arguebat; quod culpabat, adorabat. And are there not many such Popish spirits, that know their superstitions and falshoods, yet, because of long custome, will not leave them? What else was the meaning of Domitianus Calderinus, when, speaking of going to Masse, he said, Eamus ad communem errorem? And so it was a speech of a disputing Sophister, Sic dico quando sum in scholis, sed, penes nos sit, aliter sentio. You see then by this, that naturall truth would encline to better actions, but it is suppressed. When I say, naturall light enclineth the heart to good, it is to be understood