The Whole Duty of Man, According to the Law of Nature. Samuel Pufendorf

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Man how to live as a Christian; who is not only obliged to live honestly and virtuously in this World, but is besides in earnest Expectation of the Reward of his Piety after this Life; and therefore he has his Conversation in Heaven, but is here only as a Stranger and a Pilgrim. For although the Mind of Man does with very great Ardency pursue after Immortality, and is extremely averse to its own Destruction; and thence it was, that most of the Heathens had a strong Persuasion of the separate State of the Soul from the Body, and that then Good Men should be rewarded, and Evil Men punished; yet notwithstanding such a strong Assurance of the Certainty hereof, upon which the Mind of Man can firmly and entirely depend, is to be derived only from the Word of God. Hence it is that the Dictates of the Law of Nature are adapted only to Human Judicature, which does not extend it self beyond this Life; and it would be absurd in many respects to apply them to the Divine Forum, which concerns it self only about Theology.

      4th Difference in respect to the Object of each of them.

      From whence that also follows, that, because Human Judicature regards only ^*the external Actions of Man, but can no ways reach the Inward Thoughts of the Mind, which do not discover themselves by any outward Signs or Effects; therefore the Law of Nature is for the most part exercised in forming the outward Actions of Men. But Moral Divinity does not content it self in regulating only the Exterior Actions; but is more peculiarly intent in forming the Mind, and its internal Motions, agreeable to the good Pleasure of the Divine Being; disallowing those very Actions, which outwardly look well enough, but proceed from an impure and corrupted Mind. And this seems to be the Reason why the Sacred Scripture doth not so frequently treat of those Actions, that are under certain Penalties by Human Laws, as it doth of those, which, as Seneca expresses it, ^*are out of the Reach of any such Constitutions. And this will manifestly appear to those, who shall carefully consider the Precepts and Virtues that are therein inculcated; altho’, as even those Christian Virtues do very much dispose the Minds of Men towards the maintaining of mutual Society; so likewise Moral Divinity does mightily promote the Practice of all the main Duties that are enjoyn’d us in our Civil Deportment: So that, ^†if you should observe any one behave himself like a restless and troublesome Member in the Common-wealth, you may fairly conclude, that the Christian Religion has made but a very slight Impression on that Person, and that it has taken no Root in his Heart.

      In regard to the Law of Nature we are to consider Man, in the depraved State he has been, since the first Transgression.

      And from these Particulars, I suppose, may be easily discovered; not only the certain Bounds and Limits which distinguish the Law of Nature, as we have defined it, from Moral Divinity; but it may likewise be concluded, that the Law of Nature is no way repugnant to the Maxims of sound Divinity; but is only to be abstracted from some particular Doctrines thereof, which cannot be fathom’d by the Help of Reason alone. From whence also it necessarily follows, that in the Science of the Law of Nature, a Man should be now consider’d, as being deprav’d in his very Nature, and upon that Account, as a Creature, subject to many vile Inclinations: ^‡For although none can be so stupid as not to discover in himself many Evil and inordinate Affections, nevertheless, unless we were inform’d so much by Sacred Writ, it would not appear, that this Rebellion of the Will was occasioned by the first Man’s Transgression; and consequently, since the Law of Nature does not reach those Things which are above Reason, it would be very preposterous to derive it from the State of Man, as it was uncorrupt before the Fall; ^*especially since even the greatest Part of the Precepts of the Decalogue, as they are deliver’d in Negative Terms, do manifestly presuppose the deprav’d State of Man. Thus, for Example, in the First and Second Commandment, it seems to be supposed, that Mankind was naturally prone to the Belief of Polytheism and to Idolatry. For if you should consider Man in his Primitive State, wherein he had a clear and distinct Knowledge of the Deity, as it were by a peculiar Revelation; I do not see how it could ever enter into the Thoughts of such a one, to frame any Thing to himself to which he could pay Reverence, instead of, or together with, the true GOD; or to believe any Divinity to reside in that which his own Hands had form’d; therefore there was no Necessity of laying an Injunction upon him in Negative Terms, that he should not worship other Gods; but this Plain Affirmative Precept would have been sufficient; Thou shalt love, honour, and adore GOD, whom you know to have created both your self, and the whole Universe. And the same may be said of the Third Commandment: For why should it be forbidden, in a Negative Precept, to blaspheme God, to such a one who had at the same time a clear and perfect Understanding of his Bounty and Majesty; and who was actuated by no inordinate Affections, and whose Mind did chearfully acquiesce in that Condition, wherein he was placed by Almighty God? How could such a one be Guilty of so great Madness? But he needed only to have been admonish’d by this Affirmative Precept; That he should glorifie the Name of GOD. But it seems otherwise of the Fourth and Fifth Commandments; which, as they are Affirmative Precepts, neither do they necessarily presuppose the deprav’d State of Man, they may be admitted, Mankind being consider’d as under either Condition. But the thing is very manifest in relation to the other Commandments, which concern our Neighbour; for it would suffice plainly to have enjoyn’d Man, consider’d as he was first created by GOD, that he should love his Neighbour, whereto he was beforehand inclin’d by his own Nature. But how could the same Person be commanded, that he should not kill, when Death had not as yet fall’n on Mankind, which enter’d into the World upon the account of Sin? But now there is very great Need of such a Negative Command, when, instead of loving one another, there are stir’d up so great Feuds and Animosities among Men, that even a great Part of them is owing purely to Envy, or an inordinate Desire of invading what belongs to another; so that they make no scruple, not only of destroying those that are innocent, but even their Friends, and such as have done them signal Favours; and all this, forsooth, they are not asham’d to disguise under the specious Pretence of Religion and Conscience. In like manner, what Need was there expressly to forbid Adultery, among those married Persons, whose mutual Love was so ardent and sincere? Or, what Occasion was there to forbid Theft, when as yet Covetousness and Poverty were not known, nor did any Man think that properly his own, which might be useful or profitable to another? Or, to what purpose was it to forbid the bearing False Witness, when as yet there were not any to be found, who sought after Honour and Reputation to themselves, by Slandering and Aspersing others with false and groundless Calumnies? So that not unfitly, you may here apply the Saying of Tacitus,^*Whilst no corrupt Desires deprav’d Mankind, the first Men liv’d without Sin and Wickedness, and therefore free from Restraint and Punishment; and whereas they coveted nothing but what was their due, they were barr’d from nothing by Fear.

      Whether the Law of Nature would have been the same it is now, had Man continu’d in his State of Innocence.

      And these Things being rightly understood, may clear the way for removing this Doubt; ^*whether the Law was different, or the same, in the Primitive State of Nature, before the Fall? Where it may be briefly answer’d. That the most material Heads of the Law were the same in each State; but that many particular Precepts did vary, according to the Diversity of the Condition of Mankind; or rather, that the same Summary of the Law was explain’d by diverse, but not contrary Precepts; according to the different State of Man, by whom that Law was to be observ’d. Our Saviour reduced the Substance of the Law to two Heads: Love God, and Love thy Neighbour: To these the whole Law of Nature may be referr’d, as well in the Primitive, as in the Deprav’d State of Man; (unless that in the Primitive State there seems not any, or a very small Difference between the Law of Nature, and Moral Divinity.) For that Mutual Society, which we laid down as a Foundation to the Law of Nature, may very well be resolv’d into the Love of our Neighbour. But when ^†we descend to particular Precepts, there is indeed a very great Difference, both in relation to the Commands and Prohibitions.

      And as to what concerns the Commands, there are many which have place in this State of Mankind, which seem not to have been necessary in the Primitive State: And that partly, because they presuppose such a Condition, as, ’tis not certain, could happen to that most happy State of Mankind; partly, because there can be no Notion of them, without admitting Misery and Death, which were unknown there: As for Instance, we are now enjoyn’d by the Precepts of the Law of Nature, not СКАЧАТЬ