Human Nature and Other Sermons | Page 5

indeed, possibly be denied, that our being God's creatures,
and virtue being the natural law we are born under, and the whole
constitution of man being plainly adapted to it, are prior obligations to
piety and virtue than the consideration that God sent his Son into the
world to save it, and the motives which arise from the peculiar relation
of Christians as members one of another under Christ our head.
However, though all this be allowed, as it expressly is by the inspired
writers, yet it is manifest that Christians at the time of the Revelation,
and immediately after, could not but insist mostly upon considerations
of this latter kind.
These observations show the original particular reference to the text,
and the peculiar force with which the thing intended by the allusion in
it must have been felt by the primitive Christian world. They likewise
afford a reason for treating it at this time in a more general way.
The relation which the several parts or members of the natural body
have to each other and to the whole body is here compared to the
relation which each particular person in society has to other particular
persons and to the whole society; and the latter is intended to be
illustrated by the former. And if there be a likeness between these two
relations, the consequence is obvious: that the latter shows us we were
intended to do good to others, as the former shows us that the several
members of the natural body were intended to be instruments of good

to each other and to the whole body. But as there is scarce any ground
for a comparison between society and the mere material body, this
without the mind being a dead unactive thing, much less can the
comparison be carried to any length. And since the apostle speaks of
the several members as having distinct offices, which implies the mind,
it cannot be thought an allowable liberty, instead of the BODY and ITS
MEMBERS, to substitute the WHOLE NATURE of MAN, and ALL
THE VARIETY OF INTERNAL PRINCIPLES WHICH BELONG TO
IT. And then the comparison will be between the nature of man as
respecting self, and tending to private good, his own preservation and
happiness; and the nature of man as having respect to society, and
tending to promote public good, the happiness of that society. These
ends do indeed perfectly coincide; and to aim at public and private
good are so far from being inconsistent that they mutually promote
each other: yet in the following discourse they must be considered as
entirely distinct; otherwise the nature of man as tending to one, or as
tending to the other, cannot be compared. There can no comparison be
made, without considering the things compared as distinct and
different.
From this review and comparison of the nature of man as respecting
self and as respecting society, it will plainly appear that there are as real
and the same kind of indications in human nature, that we were made
for society and to do good to our fellow-creatures, as that we were
intended to take care of our own life and health and private good: and
that the same objections lie against one of these assertions as against
the other. For,
First, there is a natural principle of BENEVOLENCE {2} in man,
which is in some degree to SOCIETY what SELF-LOVE is to the
INDIVIDUAL. And if there be in mankind any disposition to
friendship; if there be any such thing as compassion--for compassion is
momentary love-- if there be any such thing as the paternal or filial
affections; if there be any affection in human nature, the object and end
of which is the good of another, this is itself benevolence, or the love of
another. Be it ever so short, be it in ever so low a degree, or ever so
unhappily confined, it proves the assertion, and points out what we

were designed for, as really as though it were in a higher degree and
more extensive. I must, however, remind you that though benevolence
and self-love are different, though the former tends most directly to
public good, and the latter to private, yet they are so perfectly
coincident that the greatest satisfactions to ourselves depend upon our
having benevolence in a due degree; and that self-love is one chief
security of our right behaviour towards society. It may be added that
their mutual coinciding, so that we can scarce promote one without the
other, is equally a proof that we were made for both.
Secondly, this will further appear, from observing that the SEVERAL
PASSIONS and AFFECTIONS, which are distinct {3} both from
benevolence and self-love, do in general contribute and lead us to
PUBLIC GOOD as really