Lectures on Moral Philosophy

MORAL Philofophy is that branch of science which treats of the principles and laws of duty, or morals. It is called Philosophy, because it is an inquiry into the nature and grounds of moral" obligation by reafon, as diIlin(El from revelation.

Hence arifes a queflion, Is it lawful, and is it fase or ufeful, to feparate moral philofophy from religion ? It will be said, it is either the same, or different from, revealed truth ; if the same, unnecessary —if different, false and dangerous.

An author of New England fays, * Moral philofophy is jufl reducing infidelity to a fyllem.' But however specious the obje£lions, they wiU be found at bottom not folid. If the scripture is true, the difcoveries of reafon cannot be contrary to it 5 and

Vol. VIL B

10 LECTURES ON Lecl. t.

therefore it has nothing to fear from that quarter. And as we are certain it can do no evil, so there is a probability that it may do much good. There may be an illustration and confirmation of the inspired writings from reafon and obfervation, which .will greatly add to their beauty and force.

The noble and eminent improvements in natural philofophy, which have been made fince the end of the lad century, have been far from hurting the interefl of religion ; on the contrary, they have greatly promoted it. Why should it not be the same with moral philofophy, which is indeed nothing elfe but th6 knowledge of human nature ? It is true, that iniidels do commonly proceed upon pretended principles of reafon. But as it is impoflible to binder them from reafoning on this fubje6l, the bell way is to meet them upon their own ground, and to shew from reafon itself the fallacy of their principles. I do not know any thing that serves more for the fupport of religion, than to see, from the different and oppofite fystems of philofophers, that there is nothing certain in their schcmes, but what is coincident with the word of Cod.

Some there are, and perhaps more in the present than any former age, who deny the law of nature, and say, that all such fentiments as have been ufually afcribed to the law of nature, are from revelation and tradition.

We must distinguilh here between the light of nature and the law of nature : by the first is to be underilood what we can or do dil'cover by our own powers, without revelation or tradition : by the feLe£l. I. MORAL PHILOSOPHY. II

cond, that which, when difcovered, can be made appear to be agreeable to reafon and nature.

There have been some very shrewd and able , writers of late, viz. Dr Wilfon of Newcastle, and Mr Riccalton of Scotland, who have written against the light of nature, shewing that the firll principles of knowledge are taken from information : — That nothing can be fuppofed more rude and ignorarrt, than man without instru^liori : — That when men have been brought up so, thej have scarcely been fuperior to brutes. It is very difficult to be precise upon this fubjedi, and to distinguiih. the difcoveries of reafon from the exercise of it. Yet I think, admitting all, or the greatefl part, of what such contend for, we may, notwithstanding, confider how far any thing is confonant to reason, or may be proven by reafon ; though perhaps reafon, if left to itself, would never have difcovered it.

Dr Clark was one of the greatest champions for the law of nature ; but it is only iince his time that the shrewd oppofers of it have appeared. Tlie Hutchinfonians (so called from Hutchinfon of England) infifl, that not only all moral, but also all na-. tural knowledge, comes from revelation, the true fystem of the v/orld, true chronology, all human arts, &:c. In this, as is ufual with mofl other claiTes of men, they carry their nostrums to extravagance. I am of opinion, that the scripture is perfectly agreeable to found philofophy ; yet certainly it was never intended to teach us every thing. The political laxv of the Jews contains many noble principles of equity, and excellent examples to future lawgivers ; yet it was so local and peculiar, that certainly it was never intended to be immutable and univerfal.

It would be more just and ufeful to say, that all fimple and original difcoveries have been the produdlion of Providence, and not the invention of man. On the whole, it feems reafonable to make moral philofophy, in the fenfe above explained, a fubjest of study. And, indeed, let men think what they will of it, they ought to acquaint themfelves with it. They must know what it is, ifl they mean even to shew that it is false.

The Droision of the Subject,

Moral philofophy is divided into two great* branches, ethics and politics ; to this some add jurifprudence, though this may be confidered as a part of politics.

Ethics relate to perfonal duties ; politics to the conllitution, government, and rights of societies ; and jurifprudence, to the administration of justice in constituted Hates.

It feems a point agreed upon, that the principles of duty and obligation must be drawn from the nature of man. That is to say, if we can difcover how his Maker formed him, or for what he intended him, that certainly is what he ought to be.

The knowledge of human nature, however, is either perplexed and difficult of itself, or hath been made so by the manner in which writers in all ages have treated it. Perhaps this circumstance itself is a strong presumption of the truth of the scriptureted. I. MORAL PHItOSOPfir* 23

do£lrine of the depravity and corruption of our nature. Suppciing tills depravity, it muil be one great cause ofdissicultj and confusion in giving an account of human nature as the work of God.

This I Take to be indeed the cafe with the greatest part of our moral and theological knowledge.