instincts, by which they are carried on to the end the Author of
their nature intended them for, is not man in the same condition--
with this difference only, that to his instincts (i.e., appetites
and passion) is added the principle of reflection or conscience?
And as brutes act agreeably to their nature, in following that
principle or particular instinct which for the present is strongest
in them, does not man likewise act agreeably to his nature, or obey
the law of his creation, by following that principle, be it passion
or conscience, which for the present happens to be strongest in him?
Thus different men are by their particular nature hurried on to
pursue honour or riches or pleasure; there are also persons whose
temper leads them in an uncommon degree to kindness, compassion,
doing good to their fellow-creatures, as there are others who are
given to suspend their judgment, to weigh and consider things, and
to act upon thought and reflection. Let every one, then, quietly
follow his nature, as passion, reflection, appetite, the several
parts of it, happen to be strongest; but let not the man of virtue
take upon him to blame the ambitious, the covetous, the dissolute,
since these equally with him obey and follow their nature. Thus, as
in some cases we follow our nature in doing the works CONTAINED IN
THE LAW, so in other cases we follow nature in doing contrary."

Now all this licentious talk entirely goes upon a supposition that
men follow their nature in the same sense, in violating the known
rules of justice and honesty for the sake of a present
gratification, as they do in following those rules when they have no
temptation to the contrary. And if this were true, that could not
be so which St. Paul asserts, that men are BY NATURE A LAW TO
THEMSELVES. If by following nature were meant only acting as we
please, it would indeed be ridiculous to speak of nature as any