| OCR Text |
Show 10 No innate praClical Principles. Book I. ------ talions, excites and direCts ~he ~Ctions of aU Men : Or elfe,_ that it is a Truth which all Men have tmpnnted on thetr Mmds, and -.Juch therefore th~y know, and affent to. But in neither of thefe Scn~es is it innate. Firjl, That it is not a Principle, winch mlluences all Mens ACtiOns, ts, what I have proved by the Examples before CJted: Nor need we fcek fo far as Mingrelia or Peru, to lind tnftances of fuch as negleCt, abufe, nay and deftroy their Children ; or look on tt only as the more than Bruta· lity of fomc favage and barbarous Nat~ons, when we remember, that tt was a familiar and uncondemned PraCttceamongft the Greeks and Roma.ts, td expofe,wit!'mut pity or remorfe,their innocent Infants. Secondly ,Th•t it is an innate Truth, known to all Men, IS alfo falfe. For, Parents preferve your Cbildrtn, is fo far from an innate Truth, that it is no Truth at all; it being a Command, an_d not a Proi_Xlfitton, and fo not capable of Truth or Fa)fi1ood. To make tt capable of betng affcnted to as true, it mufi be reduced to fome fuch Propolition as this: It is tbe Duty of Parents to prrferve tbeir Cj;i/dren. But what Duty is, <;annot be underfiood without a Law; nor a Law be known, or fuppofed Wtthout a Law-maker, or without Reward and Punifhment: 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 Idea's of God, of Law, of Obligation, of Punifhment, of a Life after this, innate. For that Punifilment follows not,in this Life, the breach of this Rule; and confequently, that it has not the Force of a Lo.w in Countries, where the generally a!. low'd PraCtice runs counter to it, is in it felf evident. But thefe ldta's (which mufi be all of them innate, if any thing as a Duty be fo) are fo far from being innate, that'tis not everyfiudious or thinking Man, much lefs every one that is born, in whom they are to be found clear and difiinc: t: And that one of them, which of all others feems mofi likely to be innate, is not fo, (I mean the idea of God) I think, in the next Cha· pter, will appear very evident to aoy confidering Man. 9. '3· From what has been faid, I think we may fafely conclude, That, whate·ver pr'aflica/ Rule is,in any Place,generally,and with aUowance,broken, cannot lt [uppoftd inn4fe, it being impollible, that Men thould, without Shame or Fear, confidently and ferenely break a Rule, which they could not but evidently know, that God had fet up, and would certainly punifh the breach of(which they mufi 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 Lo.w ; hopes to efcape the Knowledge or Power of the Law-maker, or the like, may make Men give way to a prefent Appetite: But let anyone fee the Fault, and the Rod by it, and with theTranlgreffion, a Fire ready to punifh it; a Pleafure tempting, and the Hand of the Almighty vifibly held up, and prepared to take Vengeance (for this mull be the Cafe, where any Duty is imprinted on the Mind) and then tell me, whether it be poffible, for People, with fuch a Profpec:t, fuch a certam !{now ledge as this, wantonly, and without fcruple, to offend againfi a Law, whtch they carry about them in indelible CharaCters, and that fiares them m the Face, whilfi they are breaking it 1 Whether Men, at tho fame ttme that they feel in themfelves the imprinted EdiCts of an Omnipotent Law:maker, can, with affurance and gaity, flight and tram· pie under Foot hts mofi facred Injunchons ? And lafily, Whether it be pollible, that whtlfi a Man thus openly bids defiance to this innate Law and fupreme Law-giver, all the by-flanders; yea even the Governors and Rulers of the People, full of the f.1me Senfe, both of the Law and Law-maker, Chap. Ill No innate praflical Principles. maker, fi1ould fllendy connive, without tefiif.J:ing their dill ike, or laying. the leafl: bla'."e on It? Prmctples·of ACt10ns.mdeed there are lodged in Mens Appcmes, but thefe are fo far from bemg mnate Moral Principles that if they were left to their full fwiog , they would carry Men to th~ overturning of all Morality. Moral Laws are fet as a curb and rell:raint to thefe exorbitant D~flres, which they cannot be but by Rewards and Pumfi1ments, _that wtll over-balance the fattsfaction any one ll1all propofe to h1mfelf m _the breacl1 of the Law. If therefore any thing be imprmtcd on tlte Mmd of all Men as a Law, all Men muft have a certain and unavoidable knowledge, that certain, and unavoidable punifi1ment will attend the breach of it. For if Men can be ignorant or doubtful of what is innate, innate Principles areinfified on, and urged to no purpofe. Truth and C'1rtninty ( the things pretended) are not at all fecurcd by them; But Men are m the fame uncertam,lloattng efiate W<th,as without them. An evident indubitable knowledge of unav~idable punifhment, great enough to make the tranfgreffion very unehgtble, mufi accompany an innate Law: Unlefs Wtthanmnate Law,they can fuppofc an innate Gofj1el too. I would not be !)ere mtfiaken, as tf, becaufe I deny an innate Law, I thought there were none but poflnve Laws. There is a great deal of difference between an innate Law, and a Law of Nature; between femething imprinted on our Minds in their very original, and fomething that we may attam to the knowledge of, by our natural Faculties from natural Principles. And I think they equally forfake the Truth , who running into the contrary extreams, either affirm an innate Llw,or deny that there is a Law, knowable by the light of Nature; i.e. without the help of pofitive Revelation . . §. r~.Thediffere~cethcre isamongfi Men in. theirprac:tic~l Principles, IS foevtdent,that,Ithmk,I need fay no more toevmce,thattt wdl be impofllible to find any innate Moral Rules, by this mark of general alfcnt: And 'tis enough to makeonefufpec:t, that the fuppofitionoffuch innate Principles is but •n Opinion taken up at pleafure; fince thofe 1yho talkfoconfidently of them, are(ofpanng to teUus,whtch theyar<. Tlus m1ght Wtth Jufiice be expeCted from thofe ~en, wh~ lay firefs upon this Opinion : and it gtves occafion to dtftrufi etther thetr Knowledge or Charity, who declaring, That God has imprinted on the Minds of Men, the toundations of Knowledge, and the Rules of Living, are yet fo little favourable to the Information of their Neighbours, or the Q£iet of Mankind, as not to point out to them, which they are, in the variety Men are dillrac:ted with. But in truth, were there any fuch innate Principles, there would be no need to teach them. Did Men lind fuch innate Propolitions fiamped on their Minds, they would eaflly be able to di!l:inguilh them from other Truths, that they afterwards learned, and deduced from them . and there would be nothing more eafie, than to know what, and how ma: ny they were. There could be no more doubt about their number, than there is about the number of our Fingers ; and 'tis like then, every Syfiem would be ready to give themusbytale. But Iince no body, that! know, has ventured yet to gtve a Catalogue of them, they cannot blame thofe who doubt of thefe innate Principles ; Iince even they who require Men to believe,that there are fuch innate Propofitions, do not tell us wl1at they are. 'Tis eafle to brefee, that if different Men of different SeCts fl10uld go about to give us a Lill: of thofeinnate praCtical PriJ1ciples, they would let down only fuch as fuitcd their difiinct Hypothefes, and were fit to fupport the Doctrines of their particular Schools or Churches: A plain evidence, that there are no fuch innate Truths. Nay, a great part of Men are fo 2 I· |
