Part 5 (2/2)
In this world it is only the effects of wisdom and power and greatness which we discern; it is not impossible that hereafter the qualities themselves in the supreme Being may be the immediate object of contemplation. What amazing wonders are opened to view by late improvements! What an object is the universe to a creature, if there be a creature who can comprehend its system! But it must be an infinitely higher exercise of the understanding to view the scheme of it in that mind which projected it before its foundations were laid. And surely we have meaning to the words when we speak of going further, and viewing, not only this system in His mind, but the wisdom and intelligence itself from whence it proceeded. The same may be said of power. But since wisdom and power are not G.o.d, He is a wise, a powerful Being; the divine nature may therefore be a further object to the understanding. It is nothing to observe that our senses give us but an imperfect knowledge of things: effects themselves, if we knew them thoroughly, would give us but imperfect notions of wisdom and power; much less of His being in whom they reside. I am not speaking of any fanciful notion of seeing all things in G.o.d, but only representing to you how much a higher object to the understanding an infinite Being Himself is than the things which He has made; and this is no more than saying that the Creator is superior to the works of His hands.
This may be ill.u.s.trated by a low example. Suppose a machine, the sight of which would raise, and discoveries in its contrivance gratify, our curiosity: the real delight in this case would arise from its being the effect of skill and contrivance. This skill in the mind of the artificer would be a higher object, if we had any senses or ways to discern it.
For, observe, the contemplation of that principle, faculty, or power which produced any effect must be a higher exercise of the understanding than the contemplation of the effect itself. The cause must be a higher object to the mind than the effect.
But whoever considers distinctly what the delight of knowledge is will see reason to be satisfied that it cannot be the chief good of man: all this, as it is applicable, so it was mentioned with regard to the attribute of goodness. I say goodness. Our being and all our enjoyments are the effects of it: just men bear its resemblance; but how little do we know of the original, of what it is in itself? Recall what was before observed concerning the affection to moral characters--which, in how low a degree soever, yet is plainly natural to man, and the most excellent part of his nature. Suppose this improved, as it may be improved, to any degree whatever, in the _spirits of just men made perfect_; and then suppose that they had a real view of that _righteousness which is an everlasting righteousness_, of the conformity of the Divine will to _the law of truth_ in which the moral attributes of G.o.d consist, of that goodness in the sovereign Mind which gave birth to the universe. Add, what will be true of all good men hereafter, a consciousness of having an interest in what they are contemplating--suppose them able to say, _This G.o.d is our G.o.d for ever and ever_. Would they be any longer to seek for what was their chief happiness, their final good? Could the utmost stretch of their capacities look further? Would not infinite perfect goodness be their very end, the last end and object of their affections, beyond which they could neither have nor desire, beyond which they could not form a wish or thought?
Consider wherein that presence of a friend consists which has often so strong an effect as wholly to possess the mind, and entirely suspend all other affections and regards, and which itself affords the highest satisfaction and enjoyment. He is within reach of the senses. Now as our capacities of perception improve we shall have, perhaps by some faculty entirely new, a perception of G.o.d's presence with us in a nearer and stricter way, since it is certain He is more intimately present with us than anything else can be. Proof of the existence and presence of any being is quite different from the immediate perception, the consciousness of it. What then will be the joy of heart which His presence and _the light of His countenance_, who is the life of the universe, will inspire good men with when they shall have a sensation that He is the sustainer of their being, that they exist in Him; when they shall feel His influence to cheer and enliven and support their frame, in a manner of which we have now no conception? He will be in a literal sense _their strength and their portion for ever_.
When we speak of things so much above our comprehension as the employment and happiness of a future state, doubtless it behoves us to speak with all modesty and distrust of ourselves. But the Scripture represents the happiness of that state under the notions of _seeing G.o.d_, _seeing Him as He is_, _knowing as we are known_, _and seeing face to face_. These words are not general or undetermined, but express a particular determinate happiness. And I will be bold to say that nothing can account for or come up to these expressions but only this, that G.o.d Himself will be an object to our faculties, that He Himself will be our happiness as distinguished from the enjoyments of the present state, which seem to arise not immediately from Him but from the objects He has adapted to give us delight.
To conclude: Let us suppose a person tired with care and sorrow and the repet.i.tion of vain delights which fill up the round of life; sensible that everything here below in its best estate is altogether vanity.
Suppose him to feel that deficiency of human nature before taken notice of, and to be convinced that G.o.d alone was the adequate supply to it.
What could be more applicable to a good man in this state of mind, or better express his present wants and distant hopes, his pa.s.sage through this world as a progress towards a state of perfection, than the following pa.s.sages in the devotions of the royal prophet? They are plainly in a higher and more proper sense applicable to this than they could be to anything else. _I have seen an end of all perfection_. _Whom have I in heaven but Thee_? _And there is none upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee_. _My flesh and may heart faileth_: _but G.o.d is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever_. _Like as the hart desireth the water-brooks_, _so longeth my soul after Thee_, _O G.o.d_. _My soul is athirst for G.o.d_, _yea_, _even for the living G.o.d_: _when shall I come to appear before Him_? _How excellent is Thy loving-kindness_, _O G.o.d_! _and the children of men shall put their trust under the shadow of Thy wings_. _They shall be satisfied with the plenteousness of Thy house_: _and Thou shalt give them drink of Thy pleasures_, _as out of the river_. _For with Thee is the well of life_: _and in Thy light shall we see light_. _Blessed is the man whom Thou choosest_, _and receivest unto Thee_: _he shall dwell in Thy court_, _and shall be satisfied with the pleasures of Thy house_, _even of Thy holy temple_. _Blessed is the people_, _O Lord_, _that can rejoice in Thee_: _they shall walk in the light of Thy countenance_. _Their delight shall be daily in Thy name_, _and in Thy righteousness shall they make their boast_. _For Thou art the glory of their strength_: _and in Thy lovingkindness they shall be exalted_. _As for me_, _I will behold Thy presence in righteousness_: _and when I awake up after Thy likeness_, _I shall be satisfied with it_.
_Thou shalt shew me the path of life_; _in Thy presence is the fulness of joy_, _and at Thy right hand there is pleasure for evermore_.
Footnotes:
{1} 1 Cor. xii
{2} Suppose a man of learning to be writing a grave book upon _human nature_, and to show in several parts of it that he had an insight into the subject he was considering, amongst other things, the following one would require to be accounted for--the appearance of benevolence or good- will in men towards each other in the instances of natural relation, and in others. {2a} Cautions of being deceived with outward show, he retires within himself to see exactly what that is in the mind of man from whence this appearance proceeds; and, upon deep reflection, a.s.serts the principle in the mind to be only the love of power, and delight in the exercise of it. Would not everybody think here was a mistake of one word for another--that the philosopher was contemplating and accounting for some other _human actions_, some other behaviour of man to man? And could any one be thoroughly satisfied that what is commonly called benevolence or good-will was really the affection meant, but only by being made to understand that this learned person had a general hypothesis, to which the appearance of good-will could no otherwise be reconciled? That what has this appearance is often nothing but ambition; that delight in superiority often (suppose always) mixes itself with benevolence, only makes it more specious to call it ambition than hunger, of the two: but in reality that pa.s.sion does no more account for the whole appearances of good-will than this appet.i.te does. Is there not often the appearance of one man's wis.h.i.+ng that good to another, which he knows himself unable to procure him; and rejoicing in it, though bestowed by a third person? And can love of power any way possibly come in to account for this desire or delight? Is there not often the appearance of men's distinguis.h.i.+ng between two or more persons, preferring one before another, to do good to, in cases where love of power cannot in the least account for the distinction and preference? For this principle can no otherwise distinguish between objects than as it is a greater instance and exertion of power to do good to one rather than to another. Again, suppose good-will in the mind of man to be nothing but delight in the exercise of power: men might indeed be restrained by distant and accidental consideration; but these restraints being removed, they would have a disposition to, and delight in, mischief as an exercise and proof of power: and this disposition and delight would arise from, or be the same principle in the mind, as a disposition to and delight in charity.
Thus cruelty, as distinct from envy and resentment, would be exactly the same in the mind of man as good-will: that one tends to the happiness, the other to the misery, of our fellow-creatures, is, it seems, merely an accidental circ.u.mstance, which the mind has not the least regard to.
These are the absurdities which even men of capacity run into when they have occasion to belie their nature, and will perversely disclaim that image of G.o.d which was originally stamped upon it, the traces of which, however faint, are plainly discernible upon the mind of man.
If any person can in earnest doubt whether there be such a thing as good- will in one man towards another (for the question is not concerning either the degree or extensiveness of it, but concerning the affection itself), let it be observed that _whether man be thus_, _or otherwise const.i.tuted_, _what is the inward frame in this particular_ is a mere question of fact of natural history not provable immediately by reason.
It is therefore to be judged of and determined in the same way other facts or matters of natural history are--by appealing to the external senses, or inward perceptions respectively, as the matter under consideration is cognisable by one or the other: by arguing from acknowledged facts and actions for a great number of actions in the same kind, in different circ.u.mstances, and respecting different objects, will prove to a certainty what principles they do not, and to the greatest probability what principles they do, proceed from: and, lastly, by the testimony of mankind. Now that there is some degree of benevolence amongst men may be as strongly and plainly proved in all these ways, as it could possibly be proved, supposing there was this affection in our nature. And should any one think fit to a.s.sert that resentment in the mind of man was absolutely nothing but reasonable concern for our own safety, the falsity of this, and what is the real nature of that pa.s.sion, could be shown in no other ways than those in which it may be shown that there is such a thing in _some degree_ as real good-will in man towards man. It is sufficient that the seeds of it be implanted in our nature by G.o.d. There is, it is owned, much left for us to do upon our own heart and temper; to cultivate, to improve, to call it forth, to exercise it in a steady, uniform manner. This is our work: this is virtue and religion.
{2a} Hobbes, ”Of Human Nature,” c. ix. 7.
{3} Everybody makes a distinction between self-love and the several particular pa.s.sions, appet.i.tes, and affections; and yet they are often confounded again. That they are totally different, will be seen by any one who will distinguish between the pa.s.sions and appet.i.tes _themselves_, and _endeavouring_ after the means of their gratification. Consider the appet.i.te of hunger, and the desire of esteem: these being the occasion both of pleasure and pain, the coolest self-love, as well as the appet.i.tes and pa.s.sions themselves, may put us upon making use of the _proper methods of obtaining_ that pleasure, and avoiding that pain; but the _feelings_ themselves, the pain of hunger and shame, and the delight from esteem, are no more self-love than they are anything in the world.
Though a man hated himself, he would as much feel the pain of hunger as he would that of the gout; and it is plainly supposable there may be creatures with self-love in them to the highest degree, who may be quite insensible and indifferent (as men in some cases are) to the contempt and esteem of those upon whom their happiness does not in some further respects depend. And as self-love and the several particular pa.s.sions and appet.i.tes are in themselves totally different, so that some actions proceed from one and some from the other will be manifest to any who will observe the two following very supposable cases. One man rushes upon certain ruin for the gratification of a present desire: n.o.body will call the principle of this action self-love. Suppose another man to go through some laborious work upon promise of a great reward, without any distinct knowledge what the reward will be: this course of action cannot be ascribed to any particular pa.s.sion. The former of these actions is plainly to be imputed to some particular pa.s.sion or affection; the latter as plainly to the general affection or principle of self-love. That there are some particular pursuits or actions concerning which we cannot determine how far they are owing to one, and how far to the other, proceeds from this, that the two principles are frequently mixed together, and run up into each other. This distinction is further explained in the Eleventh Sermon.
{4} If any desire to see this distinction and comparison made in a particular instance, the appet.i.te and pa.s.sion now mentioned may serve for one. Hunger is to be considered as a private appet.i.te, because the end for which it was given us is the preservation of the individual. Desire of esteem is a public pa.s.sion; because the end for which it was given us is to regulate our behaviour towards society. The respect which this has to private good is as remote as the respect that has to public good; and the appet.i.te is no more self-love than the pa.s.sion is benevolence. The object and end of the former is merely food; the object and end of the latter is merely esteem; but the latter can no more be gratified without contributing to the good of society, than the former can be gratified without contributing to the preservation of the individual.
{5} Emulation is merely the desire and hope of equality with or superiority over others with whom we compare ourselves. There does not appear to be any other _grief_ in the natural pa.s.sion, but only _that want_ which is implied in desire. However, this may be so strong as to be the occasion of great _grief_. To desire the attainment of this equality or superiority by the _particular means_ of others being brought down to our own level, or below it, is, I think, the distinct notion of envy. From whence it is easy to see that the real end, which the natural pa.s.sion emulation, and which the unlawful one envy aims at, is exactly the same; namely, that equality or superiority: and consequently, that to do mischief is not the end of envy, but merely the means it makes use of to attain its end. As to resentment, see the Eighth Sermon.
{6} Ephes. ii. 3.
{7} Every man in his physical nature is one individual single agent. He has likewise properties and principles, each of which may be considered separately, and without regard to the respects which they have to each other. Neither of these is the nature we are taking a view of. But it is the inward frame of man considered as a _system_ or _const.i.tution_: whose several parts are united, not by a physical principle of individuation, but by the respects they have to each other; the chief of which is the subjection which the appet.i.tes, pa.s.sions, and particular affections have to the one supreme principle of reflection or conscience.
The system or const.i.tution is formed by and consists in these respects and this subjection. Thus the body is a _system_ or _const.i.tution_: so is a tree: so is every machine. Consider all the several parts of a tree without the natural reselects they have to each other, and you have not at all the idea of a tree; but add these respects, and this gives you the idea. This body may be impaired by sickness, a tree may decay, a machine be out of order, and yet the system and const.i.tution of them not totally dissolved. There is plainly somewhat which answers to all this in the moral const.i.tution of man. Whoever will consider his own nature will see that the several appet.i.tes, pa.s.sions, and particular affections have different respects amongst themselves. They are restraints upon, and are in a proportion to, each other. This proportion is just and perfect, when all those under principles are perfectly coincident with conscience, so far as their nature permits, and in all cases under its absolute and entire direction. The least excess or defect, the least alteration of the due proportions amongst themselves, or of their coincidence with conscience, though not proceeding into action, is some degree of disorder in the moral const.i.tution. But perfection, though plainly intelligible and unsupportable, was never attained by any man. If the higher principle of reflection maintains its place, and as much as it can corrects that disorder, and hinders it from breaking out into action, this is all that can be expected in such a creature as man. And though the appet.i.tes and pa.s.sions have not their exact due proportion to each other, though they often strive for mastery with judgment or reflection, yet, since the superiority of this principle to all others is the chief respect which forms the const.i.tution, so far as this superiority is maintained, the character, the man, is good, worthy, virtuous.
<script>