guide in morals; nay, the very mention of deviating from nature
would be absurd; and the mention of following it, when spoken by way
of distinction, would absolutely have no meaning. For did ever any
one act otherwise than as he pleased? And yet the ancients speak of
deviating from nature as vice, and of following nature so much as a
distinction, that according to them the perfection of virtue
consists therein. So that language itself should teach people
another sense to the words FOLLOWING NATURE than barely acting as we
please. Let it, however, be observed that though the words HUMAN
NATURE are to be explained, yet the real question of this discourse
is not concerning the meaning of words, any other than as the
explanation of them may be needful to make out and explain the
assertion, that EVERY MAN IS NATURALLY A LAW to HIMSELF, that EVERY
ONE MAY FIND WITHIN HIMSELF THE RULE OF RIGHT, AND OBLIGATIONS TO
FOLLOW IT. This St. Paul affirms in the words of the text, and this
the foregoing objection really denies by seeming to allow it. And
the objection will be fully answered, and the text before us
explained, by observing that NATURE is considered in different
views, and the word used in different senses; and by showing in what
view it is considered, and in what sense the word is used, when
intended to express and signify that which is the guide of life,
that by which men are a law to themselves. I say, the explanation
of the term will be sufficient, because from thence it will appear
that in some senses of the word NATURE cannot be, but that in
another sense it manifestly is, a law to us.

I. By nature is often meant no more than some principle in man,
without regard either to the kind or degree of it. Thus the passion
of anger, and the affection of parents to their children, would be
called equally NATURAL. And as the same person hath often contrary