Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

be named, or rule of virtue to be thought on (thofe only excepted that are abfolutely neceffary to hold fociety to gether, which commonly too are neglected betwixt diftinct focieties), which is not fomewhere or other flighted and condemned by the general fafhion of whole focieties of men, governed by practical opinions, and rules of living quite oppofite to others.

§ 11. Whole Nations rejea feveral moral Rules. HERE perhaps it will be objected, that it is no argument, that the rule is not known, because it is broken. I grant the objection good, where men, though they transgrefs, yet difown not the law; where fear of thame, cenfure, or punishment, carries the mark of fome awe it has upon them. But it is impoffible to conceive, that a whole nation of men fhould all publicly reject and re-nounce what every one of them, certainly and infallibly, knew to be a law; for fo they must who have it naturally imprinted on their minds. It is poffible men may fometimes own rules of morality, which in their private thoughts they do not believe to be true, only to keep themselves in reputation and efteem amongst thofe who are perfuaded of their obligation; but it is not to be imagined, that a whole fociety of men fhould publicly and profeffedly difown, and caft off a rule, which they could not in their own minds but be infallibly certain was a law, nor be ignorant that all men they fhould have to do with, knew it to be fuch; and there-fore must every one of them apprehend from others,. all the contempt and abhorrence due to one who pro-feffes himself void of humanity, and one who, confounding the known and natural measures of right and wrong, cannot but be looked on as the profeffed enemy of their peace and happiness. Whatever practical principle is innate, cannot but be known to every one to be juft and good. It is therefore little less than a contradiction to fuppofe, that whole nations of men should, both in their profeffions and practice, unanimoufly and univerfally give the lie to what, by the most invincible evidence, every one of them knew to be true, right,

7

and good. This is enough to fatisfy us, that no practical rule, which is any where univerfally, and with public approbation or allowance, tranfgreffed, can be fuppofed innate. But I have something farther to add in anfwer to this objection.

§ 12.

THE breaking of a rule, fay you, is no argument that it is unknown. I grant it: But the generally allorved breach of it any where, I fay, is a proof that it is not innate. For example, Let us take any of these rules, which being the most obvious deductions of human reafon, and conformable to the natural inclination of the greatest part of men, fewest people have had the impudence to deny, or inconfideration to doubt of. If any can be thought to be naturally imprinted, none, I think, can have a fairer pretence to be innate than this; Parents, preferve and cherish your children. When, therefore, you fay, that this is an innate rule, what do you mean? Either that it is an innate principle, which upon all occafions, excites and directs the actions of all men; or else, that it is a truth which all men have imprinted on their minds, and which therefore they know and affent to; but in neither of these fenfes is it innate. First, That it is not a principle, which influences all mens actions, is what I have proved by the examples before cited; nor need we feek fo far as Mingrelia or Peru, to find inftances of fuch as neglect, abufe, nay, and deftroy their children, or look on it only as the more than brutality of fome favage and barbarous nations, when we remember, that it was a familiar and uncondemned practice amongst the Greeks and Romans, to expofe, without pity or remorfe, their innocent infants. Secondly, That it is an innate truth, known to all men, is alfo falfe; for, parents, preferve your children, is fo far from an innate truth, that it is no truth at all; it being a command, and not a propofition, and fo not capable of truth or falfehood. To make it capable of being affented to as true, it must be reduced to fome fuch propofition as this: It is the duty of parents to preferve their children. But what du

ty is, cannot be understood without a law, nor a law be known or fuppofed without a lawmaker, or without reward and punishment: So that it is impoffible that this or any other practical principle fhould be innate, i. e. be imprinted on the mind as a duty, without fuppofing the ideas of God, of law, of obligation, of punishment, of a life after this, innate; for that punishment follows not in this life, the breach of this rule, and confequently that it has not the force of a law in countries where the generally allowed practice runs counter to it, is in itself evident. But these ideas (which must be all of them innate, if any thing as a duty be fo) are fo far from being innate, that it is not every studious or thinking man, much less every one that is born, in whom they are to be found clear and distinct; and that one of them, which of all others feems most likely to be innate, is not fo (I mean the idea of God), I think, in the next chapter, will appear very evident to any confidering man.

$13.

FROM what has been faid, I think we may fafely conclude, that whatever practical rule is in any place generally and with allowance broken, cannot be fuppofed innate, it being impoffible that men fhould, without fhame or fear, confidently and ferenely break a rule which they could not but evidently know that God had fet up, and would certainly punish the breach of (which they must if it were innate) to a degree to make it a very ill bargain to the tranfgreffor. Without fuch a knowledge as this, a man can never be certain that any thing is his duty. Ignorance or doubt of the law, hopes to escape the knowledge or power of the lawmaker, or the like, may make men give way to a prefent appetite; but let any one fee the fault, and the rod by it, and with the tranfgreffion a fire ready to punish it; a pleasure tempting, and the hand of the Almighty vifibly held up, and prepared to take vengeance (for this must be the cafe where any duty is imprinted on the mind), and then tell me, whether it be poffible for people with fuch a profpect, such a certain knowledge as this, wantonly, and without

Book I. fcruple, to offend against a law which they carry about them in indelible characters, and that ftares them in the face whilft they are breaking it? Whether men, at the fame time that they feel in themfelves the imprinted edicts of an Omnipotent lawmaker, can, with afsurance and gaiety, flight and trample under foot his most sacred injunctions? And lastly, whether it be poffible, that whilst a man thus openly bids defiance to this innate law and Supreme Lawgiver, all the bystanders, yea even the governors and rulers of the people, full of the fame fenfe both of the law and lawmaker, fhould fi lently connive, without teftifying their diflike, or laying the leaft blame on it? Principles of actions indeed there are lodged in mens appetites, but these are so far from being innate moral principles, that if they were left to their full fwing, they would carry men to the overturning of all morality. Moral laws are fet as a curb and restraint to thefe exorbitant defires, which they cannot be but by rewards and punishments that will overbalance the fatisfaction any one fhall propofe to himself in the breach of the law. If, therefore, any thing be imprinted on the minds of all men as a law, all men must have a certain and unavoidable knowledge that certain and unavoidable punishment will attend the breach of it; for if men can be ignorant or doubtful of what is innate, innate principles are infifted on and urged to no purpofe; truth and cer tainty (the things pretended) are not at all fecured by them, but men are in the fame uncertain floating estate with as without them. An evident indubitable knowledge of unavoidable punishment, great enough to make the tranfgreffion very ineligible, must accompany an innate law, unless with an innate law they can fuppofe an innate gospel too. I would not here be mistaken, as if, because I deny an innate law, I thought there were none but pofitive laws. There is a great deal of difference between an innate law and a law of nature; between something imprinted on our minds in their. very original, and fomething that we, being ignorant of, may attain to the knowledge of by the ufe and due application of our natural faculties. And I think they e

qually forfake the truth, who, running into the contrary extremes, either affirm an innate law, or deny that there is a law knowable by the light of nature, i. e. without the help of pofitive revelation.

§14. Those who maintain Innate practical Principles tell us not what they are.

THE difference there is amongst men in their practical principles is fo evident, that I think I need fay no more to evince that it will be impoffible to find any innate moral rules by this mark of general affent; and it is enough to make one fufpect, that the fuppofition of fuch innate principles is but an opinion taken up at pleasure, fince those who talk fo confidently of them are fo fparing to tell us which they are. This might with juftice be expected from thofe men who lay ftrefs upon this opinion; and it gives occafion to diftruft either their knowledge or charity, who, declaring that God has imprinted on the minds of men the foundations of knowledge and the rules of living, are yet fo little favourable to the information of their neighbours, or the quiet of mankind, as not to point out to them which they are, in the variety men are distracted with. But, in truth, were there any fuch innate principles, there would be no need to teach them. Did men find fuch innate propofitions ftamped on their minds, they would eafily be able to distinguish them from other truths that they afterwards learned and deduced from them; and there would be nothing more eafy than to know what and how many they were. There could be no more doubt about their number, than there is about the number of our fingers; and it is like then every fyftem would be ready to give them us by tale. But fince nobody that I know has ventured yet to give a catalogue of them, they cannot blame those who doubt of these innate principles, fince even they who require men to believe that there are fuch innate propofitions do not tell us what they are. It is easy to foresee, that if different men of different sects fhould go about to give us a lift of thofe innate practical principles, they would fet down only fuch as fuited their distinct hypo

« ForrigeFortsæt »