Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

much of their meditations this way. Or whatever elfe was the caufe, it is plain in fact, that human reafon unaffifted failed men in its great and proper bufinefs of "morality." It never, from unquestionable principles, by clear deductions, made out an entire body of the law of nature." And he that fhall collect all the moral rules of the philofophers, and compare them with those contained in the New Teftament, will find them to come fhort of "the "morality” delivered by our Saviour, and taught by his apostles: a college made up for the most part of ignorant, but infpired fifhermen.

Though yet, if any one fhould think, that, out of the fayings of the wife Heathens, before our Saviour's time, there might be a collection made of all thofe rules of "morality" which are to be found in the Chriftian religion; yet this would not at all' hinder, but that the world nevertheless stood as much in need of our Saviour, and "the morality" delivered by him. Let it be granted (though not true) that all the moral precepts" of the gofpel were known by fomebody or other, amongst mankind, before. But where, or how, or of what ufe, is not confidered. Suppofe they may be pickt up here and there; fome from Solon and Bias in Greece; others from Tully in Italy; and, to complete the work, let Confucius, as far as China, be confulted; and Anacharfis the Scythian contribute his fhare. What will all this do, to give the world: "a complete morality," that may be to mankind the unqueftionable rule of life and manners? I will not here urge the impoffibility of collecting from men, fo far diftant from one another, in time, and place, and languages. I wil fuppofe there was a Stobæus in thofe times, who had gathered "the moral fayings" from all the fages of the world. What would this amount to, towards being a fteady rule, a certain transcript of a law that we are under? Did the faying of Ariftippus, or Confucius, give it an autho rity? Was Zeno a lawgiver to mankind? If not, what he or any other philofopher delivered, was but a faying of his. Mankind might hearken to it or reject it, as they pleafed, or as it fuited their intereft, paffions, principles, or humours they were under no obligation; the opinion of this or that philofopher was of no authority and, if it were, you must take all he faid under the fame character. All his dictates muft go for law, certain and true, or none of them. And then, if you will take any of the moral fayings of Epicurus (many whereof Seneca quotes with efteem and approbation) for precepts of " the law of nature," you must take all the reft of his doctrine for fuch too, or elfe his authority ceafes and fo no more is to be received from him, or any of the fages of old, for parts of the law of nature," as carrying with it an obligation to be obeyed, but what they prove to be fo. But fuch a body of Ethicks, proved to be the law of nature, from principles of reafon, and reaching all the duties of life, I think nobody will fay the world had before our Saviour's time. It is not enough, that there were up and down fcattered fayings of wife men, conformable to right rea

fon.

fon.

The law of nature was the law of convenience too; and it is no wonder that thofe men of parts, and ftudious of virtue, (who had occafion to think on any particular part of it), fhould by meditation light on the right, even from the obfervable convenience and beauty of it, without making out its obligation from the true principles of the law of nature, and foundations of "morality." But thefe incoherent apophthegms of philofophers and wife men, however excellent in themfelves, and well intended by them, could never make a morality whereof the world could be convinced, could never rife to the force of a law that mankind could with certainty depend on. Whatsoever fhould thus be univerfally useful as a ftandard to which men fhould conform their manners, must have its authority either from reafon or revelation. It is not every writer of morals, or compiler of it from others, that can thereby be erected into a lawgiver to mankind; and a dictator of rules, which are therefore valid, becaufe they are to be found in his books, under the authority of this or that philofopher. He that any one will pretend to fet up in this kind, and have his rules pafs for authentic directions, muft fhew, that either he builds his doctrine upon principles of reason, self-evident in themselves, and that he deduces all the parts of it from thence, by clear and evident demonftration; or muft fhew his commiffion from heaven, that he comes with authority from God, to deliver his will and commands to the world. In the former way, nobody that I know, before our Saviour's time, ever did, or went about to give us a "morality." It is true, there is" a law of nature:" but who is there that ever did, or undertook to give it us all entire as a law, no more nor no less than what was contained in, and had the obligation of that law? who ever made out all the parts of it, put them together, and fhewed the world their obligation? where was there any fuch code, that mankind might have recourse to, as their unerring rule, before our Saviour's time? If there was not, it is plain, there was need of one to give us fuch a "morality," fuch a law, which might be the fure guide of those who had a defire to go right; and, if they had a mind, need not mistake their duty, but might be certain when they had performed, when failed in it. Such a "law of morality" Jefus Chrift hath given us in the New Teftament; but by the latter of thefe ways, by revelation. We have from him a full and fufficient rule for our direction, and conformable to that of reafon. But the truth and obligation of its precepts have their force, and are put past doubt to us, by the evidence of his miffion. He was fent by God: his miracles fhew it; and the authority of God in his precepts cannot be queftioned. Here" morality" has a fure ftandard, that revelation vouches, and reafon cannot gainfay, nor queftion, but both together witness to come from God the great lawmaker. And fuch an one as this out of the New Teftament, I think, the world never had, nor can any one fay is any where elfe to be found. Let me afk any one, who is forward to think that the doctrine of "Morality" was full and clear in the world at our Saviour's birth, whether would H he

VOL. IV.

he have directed Brutus and Caffius (both men of parts and virtue,
the one whereof believed, and the other difbelieved, a future being),
to be fatisfied in the rules and obligations of all the parts of their
duties; if they should have afked him where they might find the
law they were to live by, and by which they fhould be charged or
acquitted, as guilty or innocent? If to the fayings of the wife, and
the declarations of philofophers, he fends them into a wild wood of
uncertainty, to an endless maze, from which they fhould never get
out if to the religions of the world, yet worfe: and if their own
reafon, he refers them to that which had fome light and certainty;
but yet had hitherto failed all mankind in a perfect rule; and, we
fce, refolved not the doubts that had rifen amongst the ftudious and
thinking philofophers; nor had yet been able to convince the civi-
lized parts of the world, that they had not given, nor could without
a crime take away the lives of their children, by expofing them.

matter.

66

If any one should think to excufe human nature, by laying blame on mens negligence," that they did not carry morality to an higher pitch, and make it out entire in every part, with that clearness of demonftration which fome think it capable of, he helps not the Be the caufe what it will, our Saviour found mankind under a corruption of manners and principles, which ages after ages had prevailed, and muft be confeffed was not in a way or tendency The rules of morality were, in different countries to be mended. and fects, different. And natural reafon no where had, nor was like to cure the defects and errors in them. Thofe juft measures of right and wrong, which neceffity had any where introduced, the civil laws prefcribed or philofophy recommended, stood not on their true foundations. They were looked on as bonds of fociety, and But where conveniences of common life, and laudable practices. was it that their obligation was thoroughly known and allowed, and they received as precepts of a law, of the higheft law, the law of nature? That could not be, without a clear knowledge and acknowledgment of the lawmaker, and the great rewards and punishments for thofe that would or would not obey him. But the .religion of the Heathens, as was before obferved, little concerned itThe priests that delivered the oracles of hea felf in their morals. ven, and pretended to speak from the God, fpoke little of virtue and a good life. And, on the other fide, the philofophers who fpoke from reafon, made not much mention of the Deity in their Ethicks. They depended on reafon and her oracles, which con> tain nothing but truth: but yet fome parts of that truth lie too deep for our natural powers eafily to reach, and make plain and vifible to mankind, without fome light from above to direct them. When truths are once known to us, though by tradition, we are apt to be favourable to our own parts, and afcribe to our own underftandings the difcovery of what, in reality, we borrowed from others; or, at leaft, finding we can prove what at firft we learnt from others, we are forward to conclude it an obvious truth, which, if we had fought, we could not have miffed. Nothing feems hard

to

to our understandings, that is once known; and because what we fee, we fee with our own eyes, we are apt to over-look or forget the help we had from others, who fhewed it us, and firft made us fee it, as if we were not at all beholden to them for thofe truths they opened the way to, and led us into; for knowledge being only of truths that are perceived to be fo, we are favourable enough to our own faculties to conclude, that they, of their own ftrength, would have attained thofe difcoveries, without any foreign affiftance; and that we know thofe truths by the ftrength and native light of our own minds, as they did from whom we received them by theirs, only they had the luck to be before us. Thus the whole ftock of human knowledge is claimed by every one, as his private poffeffion, as foon as he (profiting by others difcoveries) has got it into his own mind and fo it is; but not properly by his own fingle induftry, nor of his own acquifition. He ftudies, it is true, and takes pains to make a progrefs in what others have delivered; but their pains were of another fort, who firft brought thofe truths to light, which he afterwards derives from them. He that travels the roads now, applauds his own ftrength and legs, that have carried him fo far in fuch a fcantling of time, and afcribes all to his own vigour, little confidering how much he owes to their pains, who cleared the woods, drained the bogs, built the bridges, and made the ways paffable; without which he might have toiled much with little progrefs. A great many things which we have been bred up in the belief of, from our cradles, and are notions grown familiar (and, as it were, natural to us, under the gofpel), we take for unqueftionable obvious truths, and eafily demonftrable; without confidering how long we might have been in doubt or ignorance of them, had revelation been filent. And many are beholden to revelation, who do not acknowledge it. It is no diminishing to revelation, that reafon gives its fuffrage too, to the truths revelation has difcovered. But it is our mistake to think, that, because reafon confirms them to us, we had the firft certain knowledge of them from thence, and in that clear evidence we now poffefs them. The contrary is manifeft, in the "defective morality of the Gentiles" before our Saviour's time, and the want of reformation in the principies and measures of it, as well as practice. Philofophy feemed to have spent its ftrength, and done its utmoft; or if it fhould have gone farther, as we fee it did not, and from undeniable principles given us Ethicks in a science like mathematics, in every part demonftrable, this yet would not have been fo effectual to man in this imperfect ftate, nor proper for the cure. The greatest part of mankind want leifure or capacity for demonftration, nor can carry a train of proofs, which in that way they must always depend upon for conviction, and cannot be required to affent to till they fee the demonftration. Wherever they ftick, the teachers are always put upon proof, and must clear the doubt, by a thread of coherent deductions from the first principle, how long, or how intricate foever that be. And you may as foon hope to have all the day-labourers and tradefmen,

H 2

the

the fpinfters and dairy-maids, perfect mathematicians, as to have them perfect in Ethicks this way: hearing plain commands is the fure and only courfe to bring them to obedience and practice: the greatest part cannot know, and therefore they must believe... And I aik, whether one coming from heaven in the power of God, in full and clear evidence and demonftration of miracles, giving plain and direct rules of morality and obedience, be not likelier to enlighten the bulk of mankind, and set them right in their duties, and bring them to do them, than by reafoning with them from general notions. and principles of human reafon? And were all the duties of human life clearly demonftrated, yet I conclude, when well confidered, that method of teaching men their duties would be thought proper only for a few, who had much leifure, improved understandings, and were used to abstract reafonings: but the inftruction of the people were best ftill to be left to the precepts and principles of the gofpel. The healing of the fick, the restoring fight to the blind by a word, the raifing, and being raised from the dead, are matters of fact, which they can without difficulty conceive; and that he who does fuch things must do them by the affiftance of a divine power. Thefe things lie level to the ordinarieft apprehenfion; he that can diftinguith between fick and well, lame and found, dead and alive, is capable of this doctrine. To one who is once perfuaded that Jefus Chrift was fent by God to be a king, and a Saviour of thofe who do believe in him, all his commands become principles; there needs no other proof for the truth of what he fays, but that he faid it: and then there needs no more but to read the infpired books to be inftru&ed; all the duties of morality lie there clear and plain, and eafy to be underftood. And here I appeal, whether this be not the fureft, the fafcft, and moft effectual way of teaching; efpecially if we add this farther confideration, that as it fuits the loweft capacities of reafonable creatures, fo it reaches and fatisfies, nay, enlightens the higheft. The moft elevated understandings cannot but fubmit to the authority of this doctrine as divine; which coming from the mouths of a company of illiterate men, hath not only the atteitation of miracles, bat reafon to confirm it, fince they delivered no precepts, but fuch as though reafon of itfelf had not clearly made out, yet it could not but affent to when thus difcovered, and think itfelf indebted for the difcovery. The credit and authority our Saviour and his apoftles had over the minds of men, by the miracles they did, tempted them not to mix (as we find in that of all the fects of philofophers, and other religions) any conceits, any wrong rules, any thing tending to their own by-intereft, or that of a party, in their morality; no tang of prepoffeffion or fancy; no footsteps of pride or vanity; no touch of oftentation or ambition appears to have a hand in it: it is all pure, all fincere; nothing too much, nothing wanting, but fuch a complete rule of life, as the wifett men muft acknowledge tends entirely to the good of mankind; and that all would be happy, if all would practile it.

3. The

« PoprzedniaDalej »