excellent obfervation of Cicero, "Legum denique idcirco omnes Servi fumus, ut liberi effe poffumus."

From this preface, we fay, we were at firft induced to expect a differtation purely political on the Law of Nature; as, from the immediately fucceeding paragraphs, we were taught to expect an investigation moral and philofophical on the principles of action in man.

"We may learn, fays Mr. Sharp, from the hiftories of all nations, that Luft, Avarice, Pride, Revenge, Love of Power, Jealousy, &c. are Principles of Action, which unavoidably produce oppreffion and wrongs, to the destruction of the human fpecies, in all places where will and pleasure (whether in political or private dominion) are fupreme; or whenever Self-Love and Private Intereft become entirely predominant among men. That Self-love is predominant with the generality of mankind is but too apparent; yet we are not, therefore, obliged to admit that "Self-love" is "the universal principle of action;" though an eminent and learned law-writer has (with very good intentions, as his argument proves) thought proper to give it that title.

Honefty (indeed) is the beft policy," even for a felfish man to purfue; and, it is certain, that the folid attainments of virtue and justice afford a real and fubftantial fatisfaction, which in the end, most amply fulfils the purposes of Self-love.

"But though Virtue and Honefty are thus favourable to Self love in their natural effects, yet this, by no means, proves that Self-love is the motive of all virtuous and honeft men; or that it is the univerfal principle of action" for, if that were really the cafe, many of the most amiable virtues must be esteemed mere empty names. There could be no true Generofity or Benevolence; no Difinterested Goodness of heart; no fincere Natural Affection between parents and their children, huf bands and their wives, brethren, friends, &c. whereas history affords many undoubted inftances of Self-love being loft in the Juperior actions, natural to generous minds, in all these different degrees of connection; but it is needless to recite them, fince, even in the brute creation there are natural affections fuperior to Self-love.

"The common hen is fo inflamed with Natural Affection, and anxious care for her tender brood, that she feems to have as little fenfe of Self-love in time of danger, as of her own weakness; for the will boldly fly in the face of every invader (except man) however fuperior in fize or ftrength to herself.

The timorous cow, it is faid, will attack the fierceft tiger, when her calf is by her fide. Many inftances of very extraordinary Affec tion in dogs to their mafters have been well attefted. Thofe faithful animals have fometimes been known to lofe all sense of danger to themselves in the neceffary defence of their owners. And the very fwine discover such a Natural Affection and real fympathy for their brethren of the fty, whenever they hear their cries of distress, that their example ought to fhame the depraved part of mankind (imperial tyrants and royal robbers, who extend their dominion by breach of faith, unlawful invafion, murder and rapine, as also thofe petty ty rants and destroyers of mankind the African traders, and American

flaveholders) left the affectionate brute, notwithstanding his fenfuality, fhould feem, on comparison, a more generous, and therefore a more noble animal than that Man, who ftifles all Natural Affection, Fellowfeeling, and Charity to his kind, merely for the fake of acquiring power, or worldly profit to himfelf; and furely a time will come, when all fuch offenders against the Law of Nature (who prefer the wages of unrighteoufnefs to the natural dictates of Humanity and Confcience) will have reafon to esteem the lot of the most contemptible brute infinitely more eligible than their own!"

All this has the appearance of a defign to difcufs the points in queftion, in the modes of philofophy and mo.ality. This, however, was, by no means, the writer's intent; as appears from the changing of this ground at once, and purfuing his tract in a manner altogether theological and religious.

"As it appears, proceeds he, that Self-love is not the univerfal Principle of Action even in brutes, much lefs ought it to be esteemed fo in mankind, because the human foul (b fides the Natural Affection which men ought to have in common with other creatures) is endowed with a much more noble principle, or motive to good actions, I mean Reafun, or that "Knowledge of good and evil," which we in herit from our firft parents, and which they unlawfully took upon themselves, at the inftigation of their spiritual enemy, that they might thereby be rendered accountable for all their actions, and, through Knowledge, become guilty before God!

"The history of that fatal tranfaction demands our most careful confideration, fince all mankind are particularly affected by it! And furely the principles of our own Nature are fubjects of enquiry infi nitely more important to us, than all the other branches of natural Philofophy; and yet perhaps they are lefs examined by men of science, and confequently are lefs understood, than any other! But in vain is the most accurate knowledge of plants, drugs, foffils, and minerals; or of the exact revolutions of the heavenly bodies, and of the nature and properties of all the elements, &c. if the philofopher is unacquainted with bimjilf, and the properties and state of his own foul, which is too foon the cafe! Knowledge, in all the former particulars, is indeed honourable and praife-worthy; but, in the latter, it is indifpenfable; for when men, through ignorance of the compound Nature of man, flight the common means, which God has revealed, to guard their minds against intellectual deceptions, they are fure to be perverted in their principles, to the imminent danger both of body and foul! Such an one, probably, thinks himself too judicious a critic to admit the Mofaic account of the subject now before us, viz. the Fall of Man; at least in the literal fenfe of the text: fo that the doctrines, which I propofe to collect from it, will have very little weight, I fear, with men of that ftamp. Nevertheless, as there are many doctrines in other parts of Scripture, which corroborate the literal mean. ing of that relation, and as there are alfo feveral circumstances difcoverable in the Nature of Man, which cannot otherwise be reafon. ably accounted for, I must beg my readers to excufe me, even if they think me too prolix in my examination of that part of the fu VOL. VI.

1 i

cred

cred hiftory, which I conceive to be abfolutely neceffary for the ob taining a true practical idea of the Law of Nature and the Principles of Action in Man.”

Such is Mr. Sharp's expofition of the general plan and defign of his tract; on which we muft obferve that, as every. author has an undoubted right to treat his fubject in his own way, fo it would be impertinent in the critic to fcrutinize it in any other. At the fame time it would be as unfeasonable in the reader to expect more from a writer than he engages for, or any thing different from what he profeffedly undertakes. Advocates, as we are, therefore, for keeping Natural Philofophy and Divine Revelation apart, we shall not take upon us to enquire, into the propriety of making the Law of Nature and the principles of moral action, the objects of theological and religious difquifition. Taking fuch propriety for granted on the prefent occafion, we fhall of courfe proceed to fhew in what manner our learned author hath acquitted himfelf of his talk.

Agreeable to his declaration of founding his argument on the Mofaic Hiftory, he ftates the command of God to our firft parents in paradife, viz. the prohibition to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as the first and only penal law, the breach of which involved all mankind in guilt, and fubjected them to the penalties of labour, pain and mortality.

"Perhaps, fays this writer, the haughty philofopher will now be ready to arraign the juftice of the divine decree, which involved the innocent progeny (that is, innocent with refpect to this particular crime) in the punishment of their guilty parents; but if he will par tiently follow me through this examination of Human Nature, he will, perhaps, be able to form a better idea of the Nature of original Sin, and of the cause of its being intailed (or rather the effects of its being intailed) on all the defcendants of Adam. For the im mediate effect of that original Sin of our first parents, was the ac quifition of an additional faculty (even of a divine attribute) to the Nature of Man, which of courfe defcends from thefe original flocks by natural inheritance to all their progeny, and thereby inevitably involves them all in the fame condemnation; the manner of which fhall be more particularly explained hereafter. This very ancient example of punishment for a contempt of God's word (the direful effects of which, labour, pain, and mortality, are ever before us) should teach mankind the extreme danger of paying attention to any doctrines, and interpretations of Law or Religion, that have the least ten dency to oppofe or contradict the literal or moft obvious meaning of God's word; for the efforts of our Spiritual Enemy are never more baneful, than when he is pleased to affume the office of a commentator on the Laws of God; in which character he is frequently difcoverable; for though he does not now prefent himself outwardly or apparently, as at first, in the affumed shape of a ferpent, yet the venom

of

of his doctrines is too often fufficiently diftinguishable, both in the writings and difcourfes of men! And it is remarkable, that his first attempt against mankind fhould be in the capacity of a critick on the Divine Law!"

The influence of fpiritual enemies our author affumes as a diftinct principle of action in man: who, by the fall, is reduced, from his original ftate of nature, and ignorance to an unnatural state of knowledge and art. His principles of action in this ftate are reprefented to be first confcience, an univerfal inftance implanted in the heart of every man, neceffarily implying a natural knowledge of Good and Evil; a divine faculty, fays he, whereby men, who have not the law are a law unto them felves.

"This I apprehend to be, properly, "THE LAW OF NATURE” in MAN, the Law written in our hearts, or the Confcience, which bears witness with us, as the Apostle declares in the following verse:-Our "thoughts the mean while accufing, or else excufing us ;"—for there are few men fo bad, as not to have been, at fome time or other, fenfible of remorse, through the accufation above-mentioned of their thoughts, or Confcience. For what are thefe thoughts which accuse and excufe, but Confcience itself; that is, the very fame Principle, only differently expreffed by the Apostle, for the fake of explanation? And again, this Confcience, which bears witness, is not a different, or diftinct Principle from "the Knowledge of Good and Evil," but only another name or mode of expreffing the fame Principle; or if it be fo defined by fome writers, as to appear in any degree different or diftinct from the latter, it cannot, at most, be otherwife efteemed than as a different effect of that fame Divine Knowledge: and the like may be faid of Sinderefis fourrnenois) as well of "the Law of Reafon;" both of which some authors have treated as diftinct Principles from Confcience, notwithstanding that all these feparate heads, Sinderefis, Reafon, and Gonfcience, are neceffarily refolved into one fingle principle or foundation, viz, the Knowledge of Good and Evil," to which the enquirer is naturally led, in attempting to define them; for indeed this fame identical Principle or Power is equally attributed to them all. Sinderefis" (lays the author of Doct. et Student) " is a natural Power of the foul, fer in the high"elt part thereof, moving and firring it to Good, and abborring Evil." What is Sinderefis therefore, when thus explained, but the natural Knowledge in Man to reject the Evil, and chufe the Good? REASON is alfo explained by this celebrated author to the fame effect:-" After "(or according to) the Doctors-Reafon (fays he) is the power of the Soul that difcerneth between Good and EVIL, and between Good and "BETTER, Comparing the one with the other: the which alfo "fheweth virtues, loveth GooD, and flieth VICES."

We fhall not enter, for the reafons before given, into any controverfy about our author's affumption of this principle of Sinderefis, &c. That may be good divinity which is but indifferent philofophy; and yet certain modern philofophers have affumed a fimilar principle of action in a moral inflint, on

I 2

which

which they have argued with fhrewdnefs and plaufibility. In eftablishing the knowledge of Good and Evil as an univerfal principle of action, natural to mankind, Mr. Sharp takes upon him to correct the celebrated Commentator on the Laws of England.

"A modern, though very learned and refpectable, law-commen tator, has referred us to a different Principle, as a Rule of Obedience," which is very liable to be misunderflood: he informs us in page 41, vol. 1. that the Creator "has graciously reduced the Rule of Obe"dience to this one paternal Precept,That Man fhould pursue his own Happiness." "This" (fays he)" is the foundation of what we "call Ethics, or natural Law." Yet, in juftice to the worthy author, it must be allowed, that the Happiness, which he speaks of, is not Jelfih, partial, or fenfual Happiness (for that would be a very improper fubject for a " paternal Precept") but "real Happiness," and, "fub"flantial Happiness," as he further expreffes himself in the fame page; and no Happinels can be "real," or "fubftantial," which is not lafting; fo that it is plain this eminent writer means that laffing and "fubftantial Happiness" alone, which arifes Obedience to the will of God for the Knowledge of which he refers us, at the fame time, to the Holy Scriptures.

Yet even fuch "fubftantial Happiness" can only be called an effect, of which a confcientious Obedience to the will of God is one of the causes; but the primary cause, or motive to that Obedience in good Men, is fill different from both; and yet none of them can be the proper foundation of Ethics, or natural Law.

"The learned author has himself affigned a more probable foundation in the preceding page, to which perhaps he might mean to refer by the pronominal adjective "This" in the fentence which immediately follows his "one paternal Precept," viz. "This is the foun"dation of what we call Ethics, or natural Law") for he obferves in p. 40. that, "CONSIDERING the Creator only as a Being of infinite

Power, he was able unquestionably to have prefcribed whatever "Laws he pleafed to his creature Man, however unjust or severe. "But as he is also a Being of infinite Wisdom, he has laid down "only fuch Laws as were founded in those relations of Justice that existed "in the nature of things, antecedent to any pofitive Precept."THOSE RELATIONS of JUSTICE," then, on which the other Laws are founded, are properly THE FOUNDATION. And thefe" (the learned writer himteit tells us in the following fentence)" are the "eternal, immutable Laws of GOOD and EVIL, to which the Creator himfelt, in all his difpenfations, conforms; and which he has "enabled Human Reafon to discover, fo far as they are neceffary for

the conduct of human actions." Thus THE FOUNDATION is clearly laid down, and there is no occafion to affign any other Mo tive of Obedience to the feveral Laws on this Foundation, than what is mentioned in the fame sentence, viz. Human Reafon, by which men are enabled to difeover" these eternal and immutable Laws of "Good and Evil." For the Knowledge of what is Good, or what is Evil, is furely a fufficient Motive for chafing the one, and rejecting the

other;