¹ Niebuhr, H. Richard discusses these two symbols by means of which man has explained his knowledge of himself as an ethical agent in The Responsible Self (New York: Harper & Row, 1963)Google Scholar; see especially pp. 48-55.

² AMES wrote two versions of his treatise on technometry: Technometria, omnium et singularum artum adaequate circumscribens; and Alia Technometriae Delineatio, Per Quaestiones & Responsiones ad facorem captum institute, ac proposita. All references to either version of technometry are to Volume V of Ames', Opera, quae Latine scripsit, omnia (Amsterdam, 1658)Google Scholar. Ames' writings on technometry inspired many of the ”technological theses” which were debated at Harvard and Yale commencement exercises during the latter half of the seventeenth century and provided the staple of intellectual activity in New England until the beginning of the eighteenth century.

⁸ AMES asserts that there are only six arts which make up ”the golden chain of encyclopaedia”: logic is the art of discoursing well; grammar is the art of speaking and writing well; rhetoric is the art of speaking and writing ornately; mathematics is the art of quantifying well; physics is the art of doing the work of nature well; and theology is the art (or, preferably, the divine doctrine or teaching) of living well. He argues against the consideration of metaphysics and ethics as legitimate arts. He also argues that household economy, politics, and jurisprudence are not arts, because they derive their general rules, first principles, and foundations from the art of theology (see Technometria, 114-15, PP. 27--28; see also The Marrow of Theology, I, i, 2, p. 78). All references to Ames' Marrow are to Eusden's, John new translation, The Marrow of Theology (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1968)Google Scholar. This work was the standard textbook of theology at Harvard and Yale for almost one hundred years.

⁴ Technometria,, p. 3; cf. Alia Technometriae Delineatio, 5, p. 45.

⁵ See AMES, , The Substance of Christian Religion (London, 1659), PP. 5–7Google Scholar, see also Marrow, I, 7, n-23, PP. 95-9.

⁶ Technometria, 45-48! PP. 12-13, also Alia Technometriae Delineatio, 51-53 pp. 57-58.

⁷ Marrow, I, 10, 6-7, p. III. This voluntaristic use of the word ”law” (lex) should be compared with Ames' derivation of the word ”right” (us), which he uses interchangeably with the word ”law” (lex): ”The word us, signifying right, is derived from the Latin word iussus because it implies a power of some authority commanding this or that to be done” (Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof, V, i, i, p. 99 [misnumbered as p. 91]). All references to Ames' Conscience are to the 1643 London edition; here and elsewhere in quoting this edition I have modernized the spelling and punctuation. Ames' Conscience established the basic formulation of Puritan morality and became the standard textbook at Harvard and Yale for instructing students in ethics. For the significance of the voluntaristic and authoritarian derivation of ius from the past participle of the verb iubere, to command, rather than the more traditional intellectualistic derivation from the noun iustita, justice, see Suarez, Francisco, A Treatise on Laws and God the Lawgiver, I, 2, in Selections from Three Works of Francisco Starez (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1944), II, 28–31Google Scholar.

⁸ The clearest exposition of the voluntarist tradition of law as an independent and well-established theological and philosophical tradition is found in a series of related articles by FRANCIS OAKLEY. See especially his Medieval Theories of Natural Law: William of Ockham and the significance of the Voluntarist Tradition, Natural Law Forum 6 (1961), 65–83Google Scholar; and Christian Theology and the Newtonian Science: The Rise of the Concept of the Laws of Nature, Church History 30 (1961), 433–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ See Marrow, I, 6, 16-20, p. 93.

¹⁰ Conscience, V, i, 4, p. 100.

¹¹ Conscience, V, i, 6, p. 100.

¹² See Conscience, V, i, 13, p. 102; for the quotation from ULPIAN, see Digest, I, i, i in any edition of Corpus Itiris Civilis.

¹³ See Conscience, V, I, 4-13 P. 102.

¹⁴ Marrow, I, 9, 10, p. 108.

¹⁵ Marrow, I, 9, 23-24, pp. 109-110.

¹⁶ See Marrow, I, 3, p. no.

¹⁷ ”This law of God contained in the decalogue, or ten words (that is, brief sentences) is the most perfect rule [regula] for directing of the life of man…. Because it contains in itself a delineation or draft of that perfection, whereunto man in his first or innocent nature was created, according to the image of God. And therefore also it is called the law of nature, because that rule of life, which was written in the heart of man, according to its primitive and pure nature, is in this law explained” (The Substance of Christian Religion, pp. 209-10). See also Marrow, I, 10, 6 and 26, pp. 111 and 112.

¹⁸ See Conscience, V, i, 27, p. 107.

¹⁹ Marrow, II, 22, 19, p. 330. AMES declares that the duties of religion or piety set forth in the first table of the decalogue should be performed with more intensity and dedication than the duties of justice set forth in the second table; if the duties of piety and justice come into conflict, the duties of piety are to be given priority (see Marrow, II, 4, 7-15, pp. 237-38).

²⁰ ”See Conscience, V, i, 20, pp. 104-05.

²¹ Conscience, V, i, 17, pp. 102-03.

²² Conscience, V, i, 8, p. 103.

²³ Conscience, V, i, 22, p. 105.

²⁴ Conscience, V, i, 32, P. 108.

²⁵ See Conscience, V, 42, 1-4, P. 227.

²⁶ Marrow, I, 10, 9, p. III.

²⁷ Marrow, I, 10, 32, p. 113.

²⁸ See Marrow, I, 10, 10, p.111.

²⁹ See Marrow, I, 10, 30, p. 113.

³⁰ See Marrow, II, 10, 21, p. 221.

³¹ See Marrow, I, 32, 15 and 17, p. 180.

³² Marrow, I, 32, 18-19, P. 180.

³³ Conscience, V, 25, 2-3, p. 164.

³⁴ Marrow, I, 10, 13, p. 111; cf. Conscience, I, 1, p. 1, where he defines conscience as ”a man's judgment of himself, according to the judgment of God of him.”

³⁵ See Conscience, I, 1, 1-6, pp. 1-3.

³⁶ See Conscience, I, i, 7-11, pp. 3-4.

³⁷ Marrow, I, 10, 26, p. 112; cf. the following passage from The Substance of Christian Religion, p. 8: ”… God did not only prescribe a law unto man in the creation, but also engraved it upon his heart; by which means it was, that man had in himself a most certain testimony of his uprightness, in which and to which, he was created, and withall a most sufficient and ready means of living well and un-ameably to God. For the law of God perfectly and purely written in the heart of man, is as it were a solemn testimony registered in a table or book, that man was made fit and able to keep that law.”

³⁸ Conscience, I, 2, I and 4, PP. 4-5.

³⁹ Conscience, I, 2, 8, p. 6. Ames' negative evaluation of the capacities of man's nature and faculties after Adam's fall into sin emerges distinctly in the following passage: ”That nature upright (that is, as it was in the state of innocency) there was no need of such [a new] promulgation [of the law of nature through Moses]. But ever since the corruption of our nature, such is the blindness of our understanding and perverseness of our will and disorder of our affections, that there are only some relics of that law remaining in our hearts like to some dim aged picture, and therefore by the voice and power of God it ought to be renewed as with a fresh pencil. Therefore is there no where found any true right practical reason [recta ratio practical, pure and complete in all its parts, but in the written law of God” (Conscience, V, i, 28, p. 108).