It is because of this incomprehensible relation between God and his creatures, that we are unavoidably ignorant of what God may justly require of us either in a state of _innocence_ or _sin_. For as the fitness of actions between beings _related_, must result from their respective natures, so the incomprehensibility of the divine nature, on which the relation between God and man is founded, makes it utterly impossible for mere natural reason to say, what _kind_ of _homage_, or _worship_, he may _fitly_ require of man in a state of _innocence_; or what _different_ worship and homage he may, or must require of men, as _sinners_.
And to appeal to the infinite perfections of God, as _plainly pointing this out_, is the same extravagance, as to appeal to the _incomprehensibility_ of God as a plain proof of our comprehending what God is.
As to the obligations of moral or social duties, which have their foundation in the several relations we bear to one another, these are the same in the state of _innocence_ or _sin_, and we know that we truly act according to the divine will, when we act according to what these relations require of us.
But the question is, What distinct kind of _homage_, or _service_, or _worship_, God may require us to render to him, either in a state of _innocence_ or _sin_, on account of that relation he bears to us as an all-perfect Creator and Governor?
But this is a question that God alone can resolve.
Human reason cannot enter into it, it has no principle to proceed upon in it. For as the _necessity_ of divine worship, so the _particular manner_ of it, must have its reason in the divine nature.
_Sacrifice_, if considered only as an _human invention_, could not be proved to be a reasonable service. Yet considered as a _divine institution_, it would be the greatest folly not to receive it as a reasonable service. For as we could see no reason for it, if it was of human invention, so we should have the greatest reason to comply with it because it was of divine appointment. Not as if the divine appointment altered the _nature_ and _fitness_ of things; but because nothing has the _nature_ and _fitness_ of divine worship, but as it is of divine appointment.
Man therefore, had he continued in a state of innocence, and without revelation, might have lived in an awful fear, and pious regard of God, and observed every duty both of moral and civil life, as an act of obedience to him. But he could have no foundation either to invent any particular _manner_ of divine worship himself, or to reject any that was appointed by God, as _unnecessary_. It would have been ridiculous to have pleaded his innocence, as having no need of a divine worship. For who can have greater reason, or be fitter to worship God, than innocent beings? It would have been more absurd, to have objected the sufficiency of their reason; for why should men reject a _revealed manner_ of divine worship, because God had given them reason of their own, sufficient for the duties of social and civil life?
And as reason in a state of innocence and perfection, could not have any pretence to appoint the manner of divine worship, so when the state of innocence was changed for that of sin, it became more difficult for bare reason to know what kind of worship could be acceptable to God from sinners.
For what the _relation_ betwixt God and sinners makes it fit for God to require or accept of them, cannot be determined by human reason.
This is a _new state_, and the foundation of a _new relation_, and nothing can be fit for God to do in it, but what has its _fitness resulting_ from it. We have nothing to help our conceptions of the fore-mentioned _relative characters_ of God, as our _Governor_ and _Preserver_, but what we derive from our idea of human _fathers_ and _governors_: which idea only helps us to comprehend these _relations_, just as our idea of human power helps us to comprehend the _omnipotence_ of God. For a father or governor, no more represents the _state_ of God as our _Governor_ and _Preserver_, than our living in our father’s _family_, represents the _manner_ of our living in God.
These relations are both very plain, and very mysterious; they are very plain, as to the _reality_ of their existence; and highly mysterious and inconceivable, as to the _manner_ of their existence.
That which is _plain_, in these relative characters of God, plainly shews our obligations to every instance of _duty_, _homage_, _love_, and _gratitude_.