Page images

astrologer declares them to have unhappy stars? And are there not places where, at a certain age, they kill or expose their parents without any remorse at all? In a part of Asia, the sick, when their case comes to he thought desperate, are carried out and laid on the earth, before they are dead; and left there, exposed to wind and weather, to perish without assistance or pity (a). It is familiar among the Mingrelians, a people professing christianity, to bury their children alive without scruple (b). There are places where they eat their own children (c). The Caribbees were wont to geld their children, on purpose to fat and eat them («). And Garcilasso de la Vega tells us of a people in Peru, which were wont to fat and eat the children they got on their female captives, whom they kept as concubines for that purpose; and when they were past breeding, the mothers themselves were killed too and eaten (e). The virtues, whereby the Tououpinambos believed they merited paradise, were revenge, and eating abundance of their enemies. They have not so much as a name for God (), and have no religion, no worship. The saints, who are canonized amongst the Turks, lead lives, which one cannot with modesty relate. A remarkable passage to this purpose, out of the voyage of Baumgar, ten, which is a book not every day to be met with, I shall set down at large in the language it is published in. Ibi (sc. prope Belbes in Egypto) vidimus sanctum unum Saracenicum inter arenarum cumulos, ita ut ex utero ma. tris prodiit, nudum sedentem. Mos est, ut didicimus, Mahometiştis, ut eos, qui amentes & sine ratione sunt, pro sanctis colant & renerentur. Insuper & eos, qui cum diu vitam egerint inquinatissimam, voluntariam demum pænitentiam & paupertatem, sanctitate renerandos deputant. Ejusmodi verò genus hominum libertatem quandam effrænem habent, domos quas volunt intrandi, edendi, bibendi, & quod majus est, concumbendi ; ex quo concubitu si proles secuta fuerit, sancta similiter habetur. His ergo homini

la) Gruber apud Thevenot, part 4. p. 13. (6) Lambert apud Thevenot, p. 38.

(c) Vossius de Nili Origine, c. 18, 19. (4) P. Mart. Dec, 1. (e) Hist. des Incas, 1. 1. C. 12. V) Lery, 6. 16, 216, 231,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

bus dum vivunt, magnos exhibent honores ; mortuis verð reltempla cel monumenta extruunt amplissima, eosque contingere ac sepelire mavimæ fortunæ ducunt loco.Audivimus hæc dicta f dicenda per interpretem à Mucrelo nostro. Insuper sanctum illum, quem eo loco vidimus, publicitus apprimè commendari, cum esse hominem sanctum, divinum ac integritate præcipuum ; co quod, nec fæminarum unquam esset, nec puerorum, sed tantummodo asellarum concubitor atque mularum, Peregr. Baumgarten, 1. 2. c. I. p. 73. More of the same kind, concerning these precious saints amongst the Turks, inay be seen in Pietro della Valle, in his letter of the 25th of January, 1616. Where then are those innate principles of justice, piety, gratitude, equity, chastity ? Or, where is that universal consent, that assures us there are such inbred rules? Murders in duels, when fashion has made them honourable, are committed without remorse of conscience, nay, in many places, innocence in this case, is the greatest ignominy. And if we look abroad, to take a view of men, as they are, we shall find, that they have remorse in one place, for doing or omitting that, which others, in another place, think they merit hy. Men have §. 10. He that will carefully peruse

the contrary history of mankind, and look ́abroad into practical

the seyeral tribes of men, and with indifprinciples.

ferencý survey their actions, will be able to satisfy himself, that there is scarce that principle of morality to be named, or rule of virtue to be thought on (those only excepted that are absolutely necessary to hold society together, which commonly, too, are neg. lected betwixt distinct societies) which is not, somewhere or other, slighted and condemned by the general fashion of whole societies of men, governed by practical opinions and rules of living, quite opposite to others. Whole na

§. 11. Here, perhaps, it will be objected, that tions reject it is no argument that the rule is not knowil

, several moçal because it is broken. I grant the objection rules.

good, where men, though they transgress, yet disown not the law; where fear of shame, censure, or punishinent, carries the mark of some awe it has upon But it is impossible to conceive, that a whole nation of

[ocr errors]




men should all publickly reject and renounce what every
one of them, certainly and infallibly, knew to be a law :
for so they must, who have it naturally imprinted on
their minds. It is possible men may sometimes own
rules of morality, which, in their private thoughts, they
do not believe to be true, only to keep themselves in
reputation and esteem amongst those, who are persuaded
of their obligation. But it is not to be imagined, that
a whole society of men should publickly and professedly
disown, and cast off a rule, which they could not, in
their own minds, but be infallibly certain was a law i
mor be ignorant, that all men they should have to do
with, knew it to be such: and therefore must cvery one
of them apprehend from others, all the contempt and
abhorrence due to one, who professes himself void of
humanity; and one, who, confounding the known and
natural measures of right and wrong, cannot but be
looked on as the professed eneiny of their peace and hap-
piness. Whatever practical principle is innate, cannot
but be known to every one to be just and good. It is
therefore little less than a contradiction to suppose, that
whole nations of men should, both in their professions
and practice, unanimously and universally give the lie to
what, by the most invincible evidence, every one of
them knew to be true, right, and good. This is enough
to satisfy us, that no practical rule, which is any where
universally, and with publick approbation or allowance,
transgressed, can be supposed innate. But I have some-
thing farther to add, in answer to this objection.

$. 19. The breaking of a rule, say you, is no argu-
ment that it is unknown. I grant it: but the gene-
rally allowed breach of it anywhere, I say, is a
proof that it is not innate. For example : let us

any of these rules, which being the most obvious
deductions of human reason, and conformable to the
natural inclination of the greatest part of men, fewest
people have had the impudence to deny, or inconside-
ration to doubt of. If any can be thought to be natu-
rally imprinted, none, I think, can have a fairer pre-
-tence to be innate than this; parents, preserve and

children,” When therefore you say, that


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

this is an innate rule, what do you mean? Either, that it is an innate principle, which upon all occasions 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 assent to. But in neither of these senses is it innate. First that it is not a principle which influences all men's actions, is what I have proved by the examples before cited: nor peed we seek so far as Mingrelia or Peru, to find instances of such as neglect, abuse, nay and destroy their children; or look on it only as the more than brutality of some savage and barbarous nations, when we remember, that it was a familiar and uncondemned practice amongst the Greeks and Romans, to expose, without pity or remorse, their innocent infants. Secondly, that it is an innate truth, known to all men, is also false. For, “ parents, preserve your children," is so far from an innate truth, ibat it is no truth at all; it being a command, and not a proposition, and so not capable of truth or falshood. To make it capable of being assented to as true, it must be reduced to some such proposition as this : "it is the duty of parents to preserve their children.” But wbat duty is, cannot be understood without a law; nor a law be known, or supposed, without a law-maker, or without reward and punishment: so that it is impossible, that this, or any other practical principle should be innate ; i. e. be imprinted on the mind as a duty, without supposing the ideas of God, of law, of obligation, of nishment, of a life after this, innate: For that punishment follow's not, in this life, the breach of this rule ; and consequently, 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 so) are so 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 seems most likely to be innate, is not so, (I mean the idea of God) I think, in the next chapter, will appear very evident to any considering man.

§. 13.


§. 13. From what has been said, I think we may safely conclude, that whatever practical rule is, in any place, generally and with allowance broken, cannot be supposed innate; it being impossible that men should, without shame or fear, confidently and serenely break a rule, which they could not but evidently know, that God had set 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 transgressor. Without such 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 law-maker, or the like, may make men give way to a present appetite : but let any one see the fault, and the rod by it, and with the transgression, a fire ready to punish it; a pleasure tempting, and the hand of the Almighty visibly held up, and prepared to take vengeance (for this must be the case, where any duty is imprinted on the mind) and then tell me, whether it be possible for people, with such a prospect, such a certain knowledge as this, wantonly, and without scruple, to offend against a law, which they carry about them in indelible characters, and that stares them in the face whilst they are breaking it? whether men, at the same time that they feel in themselves the imprinted edicts of an omnipotent law-maker, can with assurance and gaiety slight and trample under foot his most sacred injunctions ? and lastly, whether it be possible, that whilst a man thus openly bids defiance to this innate law and supreme law-giver, all the by-standers, yea, even the governors and rulers of the people, full of the same sense both of the law and law-maker, should silently connive, without testifying their dislike, or laying the least blame on it? Principles of actions indeed there are lodged in men's appetites, but these are so far from being innate moral principles, that if they were leit to their full swing, they would carry men to the overturning of all morality. Moral laws are set as a curb and restraint to these exorbitant desires, which they cannot be but by rewards and punishments, that will overbalance the satisfaction any one shall propose to himself


« PreviousContinue »