Richard Cumberland - A Treatise of the Laws of Nature

a treat i se of the laws of nature

natural law andenl ightenment class ics

Knud HaakonssenGeneral Editor

Richard Cumberland

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuui ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii iuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

natural law andenl ightenment class ics

A Treatise of theLaws of Nature

Richard Cumberland

Translated, with Introduction and Appendix,by John Maxwell (1727)

Edited and with a Foreword byJon Parkin

l i b e r t y f u n d

Indianapolis

This book is published by Liberty Fund, Inc., a foundation established toencourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.

The cuneiform inscription that serves as our logo and as the design motiffor our endpapers is the earliest-known written appearance of the word

freedom (amagi ), or liberty. It is taken from a clay document writtenabout 2300 b.c. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.

2005 Liberty Fund, Inc.

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

09 08 07 06 05 c 5 4 3 2 109 08 07 06 05 p 5 4 3 2 1

Frontispiece: Portrait of Richard Cumberland used by permission ofthe Master and Fellows of Magdalene College, Cambridge.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Cumberland, Richard, 16311718.[De legibus naturae. English]

A treatise of the laws of nature / Richard Cumberland;translated, with introduction and appendix by John Maxwell (1727);

edited and with a foreword by Jon Parkin.p. cm.(Natural law and enlightenment classics)

Includes bibliographical references and index.isbn 0-86597-472-1 (alk. paper) isbn 0-86597-473-x (pbk.: alk. paper)

1. Ethics. 2. Christian ethics.I. Parkin, Jon ( Jonathan Bruce), 1969 . II. Title. III. Series.

b1201.c83d423 2005171.2dc22

2004048750

liberty fund, inc.8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684

contents

Foreword ix

A Note on This Edition xx

a treatise of the laws of nature

Dedication 3

The Translators Preface 4

Names of Subscribers 11

Two Introductory Essays 23

Essay I. Concerning the City, or Kingdom, of God in theRational World, and the Defects in Heathen Deism 25

Essay II. Concerning the Imperfectness of the Heathen Morality;from Both Which, the Usefulness of Revelation May Appear 68

a philosophical inquiry intothe laws of nature

The Contents 237

The Introduction 247

chapter i. Of the Nature of Things 289

chapter ii. Of Human Nature, and Right Reason 363

chapter iii. Of Natural Good 462

chapter iv. Of the Practical Dictates of Reason 481

vii

viii contents

chapter v. Of the Law of Nature, and Its Obligation 495

chapter vi. Of Those Things Which Are Containdin the General Law of Nature 651

chapter vii. Of the Original of Dominion, and theMoral Virtues 663

chapter viii. Of the Moral Virtues in Particular 684

chapter ix. Corollaries 708

Editors Note 753

Appendixes

appendix i. A Summary of the Controversy BetweenDr. Samuel Clark and an Anonymous Author,Concerning the Immateriality of Thinking Substance 759

appendix ii. A Treatise Concerning the Obligation,Promulgation, and Observance of the Law of Nature 795

appendix 1. Richard Cumberlands OriginalDedication to De Legibus Naturae 947

appendix 2. Hezekiah Burtons Address tothe Reader 953

Selected Bibliography 961

Index 973

foreword

The seventeenth century witnessed what has been called the heroicperiod in the development of modern natural law theory.1 Beginningwith Hugo Grotius, Protestant thinkers began to experiment with scho-lastic natural law ideas to produce a distinctive and highly successfultradition of natural jurisprudence that would come to dominate Eu-ropean political thought. Viewed from the eighteenth century, the suc-cess of the tradition could be, and often was, taken for granted, but suchretrospective views could often conceal the extent to which the early pi-oneers faced real challenges in their attempts to reconcile natural lawideas with the rigors of Protestant theology. In this context, RichardCumberland is perhaps one of the great unsung heroes of the naturallaw tradition. Cumberlands De Legibus Naturae constituted a criticalintervention in the early debate over the role of natural jurisprudenceat a moment when the natural law project was widely suspected of het-erodoxy and incoherence.

Hugo Grotiuss work undoubtedly generated a great deal of interestamong Protestant thinkers, but it also occasioned a critical response thatthreatened to undermine the whole project. The most dangerous writerin this respect was Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes simultaneously adaptedand subverted the new jurisprudence, producing a theory that wouldbecome notorious for its apparent atheism and absolutism. As a result,

1. For discussion of the modern theory of natural law, see Tuck, Natural RightsTheories: Their Origin and Development (1979), and also his The Modern Theoryof Natural Law (1987), 99122. For more recent discussions of the same tradition,see Haakonssen, Natural Law and Modern Philosophy (1996); and Hochstrasser, Nat-ural Law Theories in the Early Enlightenment (2000).

ix

x foreword

early natural law writers were dogged by accusations of Hobbism, thecharge that behind their attempts to forge a new tradition lay the re-duction of moral and political obligation to self-interest alone. Cum-berlands De Legibus Naturae, with its sustained assault on Hobbessideas, constituted one of the most important and influential responsesto this damaging accusation. Cumberland not only produced one of themost effective critiques of Hobbess ideas, but he also used the oppor-tunity to propose a new and distinctively scientific approach toquestionsof moral and political obligation. Cumberlands achievement was toprovide a much-needed defense of the natural jurisprudential projectwhile laying important theoretical foundations for the work of such laterwriters as Clarke, Shaftesbury, and Hutcheson.2

Richard Cumberland (16321718)3

Cumberland was born in London, the son of a Salisbury Court tailor.He attended St. Pauls School, and in June 1649, barely five months afterthe execution of Charles I, he entered Magdalene College, Cambridge.At Magdalene, Cumberland supplemented his regular studies with a richdiet of natural philosophy, developing the scientific knowledge that in-

2. For Cumberlands contribution to the natural law tradition, see Parkin,Science,Religion and Politics in Restoration England: Richard Cumberlands De Legibus Na-turae (1999), especially ch. 7; Kirk, Richard Cumberland and Natural Law (1987);Haakonssen, The Character and Obligation of Natural Law According to RichardCumberland (2001), pp. 2947; Schneider, Justitia Universalis (1967), pp. 16675;Darwall, The British Moralists and the Internal Ought (1995), pp. 80108; andSchneewind, The Invention of Autonomy (1998), pp. 10117. For Cumberlands in-fluence upon Scottish Enlightenment thought, see Forbes, Natural Law and theScottish Enlightenment (1982), pp. 186204. See also Forbes, Humes PhilosophicalPolitics (1975), pp. 1826; Moore and Silverthorne, Gerschom Carmichael and theNatural Jurisprudence Tradition in Eighteenth-Century Scotland (1983), pp. 7388.

3. The main source for Cumberlands life is a short biography written by his son-in-law Squire Payne: Brief Account of the Life . . . of the Author, prefaced toCumberlands Sanchoniathos Phoenician History (1720). Linda Kirk has produced thebest modern account in Richard Cumberland (16321718) and His PoliticalTheory,Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1976. Kirks discussion forms the basis for ch. 1of her Richard Cumberland and Natural Law. Some additional information is pro-vided in Parkin, Science, Religion and Politics, Introduction.

foreword xi

forms almost every page of the De Legibus. Cumberlands interest in thenew science was crucial to his natural law theory; the union of naturalphilosophy and natural theology created the basis for his science of mo-rality and his logical demonstration of divine obligation.

Cumberland left Cambridge after receiving his master of arts in 1656,becoming rector of the small Northamptonshire parish of BramptonAsh in 1658. This rural posting might have marked the end of Cum-berlands significance, but in 1667 he became a client of, and possiblydomestic chaplain to, Sir Orlando Bridgeman, formerly lord chief jus-tice of the Common Pleas and now in 1667 newly appointed lord keeperof the Great Seal.4 An ex-Magdalene man himself, Bridgemanemployeda number of Cumberlands colleagues, including Cumberlands friendHezekiah Burton. It is likely that Burtons recommendation securedCumberlands new and politically important patronage.

The connection with Bridgeman placed Cumberland at the center ofEnglish politics in the later 1660s and led directly to the publication ofDe Legibus Naturae. During this period, Bridgeman sponsored Heze-kiah Burton and another of Cumberlands friends, John Wilkins, intheir attempts to construct a religious compromise with Presbyteriannonconformists. Although the negotiations ultimately failed, the dis-cussion of the role of natural law in such a settlement formed the im-mediate political context to Cumberlands work on the subject. In 1670,Bridgeman established the newly married Cumberland in comparativelyaffluent livings in Stamford, enabling him to complete De Legibus Na-turae. Burton supervised the publication of the work, which was dedi-cated to Bridgeman. The book was published in the spring of 1672.

The same year would see Bridgeman resign in protest at Charles IIs

4. The lord keeper of the Great Seal was the judicial officer appointed in lieu ofthe lord chancellor. As well as being the head of the legal side of the government andthe senior judge in the Court of Chancery, the lord keeper authorized grants of of-fices, privileges, and royal charters. Virtually indistinguishable from the office of lordchancellor in theory and practice, the post was abolished in 1760. See G. E. Aylmer,The Crowns Servants (2002), p. 18.

xii foreword

decision to issue the Declaration of Indulgence, suspending the penallaws against Catholic and Protestant dissenters. Cumberland appears tohave survived his patrons fall, devoting himself to his parochial duties.In 1680 he proceeded to a doctorate at Cambridge University. His thesismaintained (against the Roman Catholic position) that St. Peter had nojurisdiction over the other apostles and (against the nonconformist po-sition) that separation from the Anglican Church was schismatic.5 In the1680s, Cumberland produced two works. The first was a pamphlet ded-icated to his school friend Samuel Pepys, by this time president of theRoyal Society, entitled An Essay Towards the Recovery of Jewish Measuresand Weights (1686). The Essay, originally designed as an appendix to anew edition of the Bible, was widely respected for its scholarship.Duringthe same time, Cumberland also produced Sanchoniathos PhoenicianHistory in manuscript. This work claimed to find the sources of RomanCatholic idolatry in the Phoenician corruption of sacred history. Theanti-Catholic bias of the work was such that, on the eve of the GloriousRevolution of 1688, Cumberlands publisher felt that the manuscriptwastoo inflammatory to be released. The book appeared posthumously, in1720.

In the wake of the revolution, Cumberland was called upon to replacethe nonjuring bishop of Peterborough, Thomas White.6 Cumberlandwas consecrated in July 1691, at age fifty-nine. From this time until hisdeath, Cumberland administered his diocese diligently but with declin-ing efficiency as old age took its toll. He attended the House of Lordsregularly until 1716, a loyal Whig supporter of Archbishop Tenison. In-tellectually, Cumberland busied himself with studies in ancient chro-nology. He died after suffering a stroke on October 9, 1718.7

5. Squire Payne, Brief Account, p. ix; Cambridge University Library GraceBook, Supplicats 167780.

6. The nonjurors were the eight bishops and some four hundred priests who,because of their belief in the divine right of kings, continued to see the Stuarts asthe legitimate monarchs and hence refused to take the oath of allegiance to Williamand Mary.

7. Payne, Brief Account, p. xxvi.

foreword xiii

De Legibus Naturae

De Legibus Naturae was a theoretical response to a range of issues thatcame together during the later 1660s. The immediate political circum-stances were English debates over the toleration of religious dissent.Cumberlands Latitudinarian friends sought to reachanaccommodationwith moderate nonconformists based upon an appeal to natural lawideas.8 If the nonconformists could accept that the magistrate had a nat-ural right to regulate adiaphora (religious ritual not prescribed by Scrip-ture), intractable theological disputes might be avoided, which wouldopen the way for accommodation within the church. The negotiationsfailed, resulting in the rise of more strident demands from dissenters fora pluralist, toleration-based settlement. For some Latitudinarian Angli-cans, notably Samuel Parker, such demands were unacceptable. ForParker, natural law required nonconformists to submit to the legal re-quirements imposed by the sovereign for the common good. Parkersilliberal use of the natural law argument soon attracted accusations thathe was following the arguments of Thomas Hobbes. Notoriously,Hobbess political theory had appeared to pay lip service to the obliga-tions imposed by natural law, whereas in practice vesting all practicalauthority in the hands of an arbitrary and absolute sovereign. AlthoughParker and others attempted to demonstrate that they were not Hobb-ists, their attempt to justify extensive sovereign power appeared to un-dermine their avowed commitment to natural obligation. By the timeCumberland began to write De Legibus Naturae, there was a clear needto separate the Anglican use of the natural law argument from Hobbessaccount. Such a project required a decisive attack upon Hobbess sub-versive natural law theory, but it also provided an opportunity to dem-onstrate the character of the obligation to natural law. Cumberlandsought to do both in De Legibus Naturae.

The question of moral obligation lies at the heart of Cumberlandstreatise, and it was a question that created profound difficulties for Prot-

8. For a discussion of the political context, see Parkin, Science, ReligionandPolitics,ch. 1.

xiv foreword

estant natural law theorists.9 Protestant thinkers were skeptical aboutGrotiuss appropriation of scholastic ideas. John Selden in particularwasscathing about the Dutchmans apparent assumption that conclusionsof reason alone could have the force of law. A law was properly the com-mand of a superior, in this case God. How, then, could it be shownnaturally that the conclusions of reason or empirically observed normswere the will of God and thus properly obligatory laws? Hobbes madethe same criticism: If the laws of nature are simply rational theorems,then they are not properly laws at all and need the command of a su-perior to give them obligatory force. Hobbess deeply skeptical answerwas that providing such obligatory force was the role of the sovereign,a position that potentially ruled out the possibility of divine moral ob-ligation altogether.

Cumberland accepted the force of this critique but rejected Hobbessdestructive conclusion, turning instead to a solution indicatedbySelden.Selden preferred to sidestep the problem by arguing that God had spo-ken directly to Adam and Noah; the natural law precepts delivered werehanded down within the rabbinical tradition. His second, rather un-derdeveloped, suggestion was that individuals might be capable of ap-prehending Gods will more directly, but he was understandably reluc-tant to develop a theory that blurred the distinction between reason andcommand. Like many readers of Selden, Cumberland was less con-vinced by the first solution, but he saw the potential in the secondargument.10

Cumberlands optimism about Seldens hint derived from two relatedsources. The first was the revaluation of mans rational capacity en-couraged by such Cambridge thinkers as Benjamin Whichcote andNathaniel Culverwell, both of whom sought an enhanced role for reasonand empirical observation in Protestant natural law discourse.11 The sec-

9. Ibid., ch. 2.10. See below, Cumberlands Introduction, sect. III.11. Parkin, Science, Religion and Politics, ch. 2, especially pp. 7287; see also

Haakonssen, Moral Philosophy and Natural Law: From the Cambridge Platoniststo the Scottish Enlightenment (1988), pp. 97110.

foreword xv

ond major influence was Cumberlands conviction that science mightoffer a more effective means of demonstrating both the contents and theobligatory force of the law of nature. At a time when Hobbess workappeared to suggest that the appliance of science undermined ratherthan supported the idea of obligatory natural law, Cumberlands De Le-gibus would recover a godly role for natural philosophy.12

To this end, Cumberland deployed the latest scientific evidence toreject Hobbess narrow emphasis upon self-preservation as thebeginningand end of natural obligation. Cumberland used evidence from thenature of things to show that an awareness of self-preservation ismerelythe starting point in developing an awareness of the natural duty ofsociability. The logical consequence of such evidence is to reinforce theidea that individuals are bound, both by their limitations and their po-tentiality, to a common social good. Given that the pursuit of the com-mon good results in a greater fulfillment of human nature than the nar-row pursuit of individual self-interest, the pursuit of the common goodpresents itself as the logical priority for individuals, given that their owninterests will be best served as a result. Such a proposition offered theprospect of a handy summary of the law of nature in one universal for-mula: Mans proper action should be an endeavor to promote the com-mon good of the whole system of rational agents.

Although Cumberland had derived this practical proposition from ascientific examination of the nature of things, he still needed to dem-onstrate that such a proposition could be considered the will of God.His solution to this problem, discussed at length in chapter 5 of De Le-gibus, is Cumberlands most distinctive theoretical move. Cumberlandargued that it was possible to identify the sanctions attached to the lawof nature, namely the structures of reward and punishment that Godhad ordained for the observance and dereliction of the law of nature.Punishments take various forms, ranging from the traditional scourges

12. For discussion of Cumberlands science, see Parkin, Science, Religion and Poli-tics, chs. 46; Forsyth, The Place of Richard Cumberland in the History of NaturalLaw Doctrine, pp. 2342; Stewart, The Rise of Public Science: Rhetoric, Technologyand Natural Philosophy in Newtonian Britain 16601750 (1992), pp. 3739.

xvi foreword

of conscience through to the state of war, a natural punishment for un-reasonable, Hobbesian behavior. Rewards include simple happinessthrough to the benefits of peace, prosperity, and security. Cumberlandstressed that such sanctions are not in themselves the causes of moralobligation. They are merely clues indicating that the practical proposi-tion concerning the common good is indeed the basic principle of Godsjustice. The knowledge that such a proposition is Gods will gives theproposition the force of law. Cumberlands theory of obligation riskedthe suggestion that God himself is bound by the laws of nature, butCumberland avoided the implication by arguing that an essentially freeGod binds himself to the observance of the regularities in his creation.Although not an unproblematic solution, Cumberlands schemealloweda reconciliation between natural law and the requirements of Protestanttheology, one of the many reasons for Cumberlands profound influenceupon later writers in the tradition.

The practical implications of Cumberlands solution are scatteredthroughout the book but particularly in chapter 9, where the politicalimplications of his argument are made clear. Having clarified the dif-ferences between Hobbess natural law theory and his own, Cumberlandattempted to show that his position sustains a more durable account ofsovereignty justified by the common good. The magistrates competenceextends universally to things divine and human, of foreigners andfellow-subjects, of peace and war.13 Cumberlands sovereign possessesextensive civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, all warranted by divinelyordained natural law. Paradoxically, one of Cumberlandsmajorachieve-ments was to demonstrate that an almost Hobbesian sovereignty couldbe part of an orthodox natural law theory.14

Reception

The reception of De Legibus gives some indication of its impact uponthe natural law tradition. Cumberlands thesis was particularly impor-

13. Ch. 9, sect. VIII.14. Kirk, Richard Cumberland, ch. 4; Parkin, Science, Religion and Politics, ch. 1,

pp. 4855.

foreword xvii

tant for Samuel Pufendorf, whose De Jure Naturae et Gentium was pub-lished in the same year. Pufendorf was accused of Hobbism and in re-sponse deployed Cumberlands arguments in his own defense. Thesecond edition of De Jure Naturae (1684) included no fewer than fortyreferences to De Legibus, reinforcing Pufendorf s anti-Hobbesian cre-dentials but also adding weight to his theory of obligation.15 In Englandit is perhaps no surprise to find Samuel Parker freely adapting the centralargument of De Legibus in his Demonstration of the Divine Authority ofthe Law of Nature (1681). James Tyrrell, who had urged John Locke topublish something similar, produced an English abridgement of thework (with Cumberlands approval) under the title A Brief Disquisitionof the Law of Nature (1692). Cumberlands combination of positive the-ory and anti-Hobbesian critique ensured that the work would continueto find an audience until the early eighteenth century. After that time,Cumberlands ideas were developed by writers like Samuel Clarke; An-thony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury; and Francis Hutcheson;but the waning of the Hobbesian threat and Cumberlands outmodedscience made the book itself less urgent and rather dated to an audiencethat had become used to more sophisticated treatments of natural law.16

Editions

The original Latin edition was published by the Little Britain booksellerNathaneal Hooke and seen through the press by Hezekiah Burton; butas Burton admitted in his address to the reader, the job was not welldone.17 The text is littered with transcription errors allegedlyperpetratedby an unnamed youth who did the typesetting. The first edition was

15. For discussion of Pufendorfs critics, see Palladini, Discussioni Seicentesche suSamuel Pufendorf (1978), pp. 99122, and Haakonssen, Natural Law and ModernPhilosophy, pp. 4346. For Cumberlands influence, see Kirk, Richard Cumberland,ch. 5; and Parkin, Science, Religion and Politics, ch. 7. For another view, see Palladinisdiscussion in Samuel Pufendorf: Discepolo di Hobbes (1990).

16. For Cumberlands impact upon these writers, see Kirk, Richard Cumberland,chs. 5 and 6. For Cumberlands place in the wider tradition, see Darwall, The BritishMoralists and the Internal Ought; and Schneewind, The Invention of Autonomy.

17. A translation of Burtons Alloquium ad Lectorem (Address to the Reader)is reproduced as an appendix to this edition.

xviii foreword

licensed by Samuel Parker on July 25, 1671, and the work was advertisedin the term catalogues in February 1671/72. As Linda Kirk has estab-lished, there are two variants of this edition, with slightly different def-initions of the law of nature at the beginning of chapter 5.18 Thepossiblesignificance of these differences is discussed in this edition in the notesto that chapter. A second edition of the Latin text was published in Lu-beck and Frankfurt a.d.O. by Samuel Otto and Johann Wiedermeyerin 1683, followed by a third in the same places in 1694. A fourth editionof the Latin text, based upon the 1672 edition, was published in 1720 byJames Carson in Dublin.

In terms of translations, Cumberlands text was, as we have seen,adapted by Samuel Parker and James Tyrrell, whose Brief Disquisitionwent into a second edition in 1701. Cumberlands work would have towait until 1727 for a full translation into English, by John Maxwell, thetext used in this edition. Maxwell was prebendary of Connor and chap-lain to Lord Carteret, then lord lieutenant of Ireland. Maxwells prefacemakes it clear that his intention was to produce a full translation for thefirst time, given that Cumberlands original Latin text was both difficultto acquire and complicated to read. Cumberlands anti-Hobbism mayhave appealed at a time when Bernard Mandevilles Fable of the Bees(1714, 1723) appeared to revive central Hobbesian arguments. Maxwellsproject was probably also occasioned by discussions of natural law in-spired by Francis Hutchesons work. Hutcheson headed a private acad-emy in Dublin during the early 1720s and developed his own naturallaw position in his Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty andVirtue (1725), a work critical of some aspects of Cumberlands projectbut with clear debts to the argument of De Legibus. Maxwell was familiarwith Hutchesons work and saw the latters project as a supplement toCumberlands own.19

Whatever the gains Maxwell hoped for, his Treatise of the Laws ofNature also registers considerable anxieties about the text. The transla-tion comes with two introductory essays and lengthy appendixes by

18. Kirk, Richard Cumberland, ch. 2.19. Ibid., ch. 6.

foreword xix

Maxwell, all of which are designed to head off wayward readings ofCumberlands work.20 The opening essays, in particular, qualify Cum-berlands use of pagan philosophy, both by rejecting deist assumptionsthat might flow from such sources but also by asserting the importanceof revelation in guiding the use of natural reason. The appendices carryout the same task with lengthy extracts from Samuel Clarkes defensesof the immateriality of a thinking substance and Maxwells own essayon obligation, which reinforces the orthodox character of Cumberlandstheory of obligation. Cumberlands work, so advanced for its own time,contained rather too many hostages to fortune to be published on itsown in the very different world of the 1720s.

The next major translation of Cumberlands work produced what isundoubtedly the best edition of De Legibus, Jean Barbeyracs Traite Phi-losophique des Loix Naturelles, published in Amsterdam in 1744. Bar-beyrac was able to obtain a transcript of Cumberlands manuscript al-terations, together with Richard Bentleys corrections,21 and these wereincorporated into extensive notes, together with commentaries on thetext and even on Maxwells English translation. As a critical edition, Bar-beyracs work is an astonishing feat of scholarship, an essential startingpoint for a modern editor.

The last edition of Cumberlands work was produced in Dublin in1750 by John Towers. Towers produced a new but rather wayward trans-lation and annotation inferior to Maxwells earlier attempt. Towers alsoincluded considerable ancillary material, including translations of pref-atory addresses that Maxwell had left out. These pieces have been in-cluded in appendixes 1 and 2 of this edition.

20. Maxwell borrowed most of this material from Richard Brocklesbys An Ex-plication of the Gospel Theism and the Divinity of the Christian Religion (1706). Onsome copies Maxwell acknowledged his debt to the obscure Brocklesby on the titlepage, but the most common state of the work lacks any reference to the earlier writer.

21. Cumberlands son Richard had supplied Bentley with his fathers interleavedcopy (Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. adv.c.2.4), containing Cumberlands ownrevisions for future publication of a corrected Latin edition. The project never cameto fruition. For Barbeyracs account of how he came by this material, see his TraitePhilosophique des Loix Naturelles (1744), pp. vviii.

a note on thi s ed it ion

The current edition reproduces Maxwells complete text, together withadditional material taken from Cumberlands copy of De Legibus, Bar-beyracs Traite Philosophique, and Towerss Philosophical Enquiry. Theonly substantial changes to Maxwells text are to the footnotes.Maxwellsfootnotes use a variety of conventions, but they are unnumbered and inthe introductory essays and appendixes consist usually of very generalabbreviated references that provide hardly any guidance for a non-specialist modern reader.

For ease of reference, Maxwells footnote callouts (normally asterisks)in the text have been silently deleted and replaced by arabic-numberedfootnotes for each essay or chapter. In some instances multiple referencesoccurring close together have been rationalized into one note. In Max-wells supplementary essays, the notes have been expanded to includethe full title of the work referred to and, where it can be identified, theedition used. Book, chapter, page, and section numbers have been leftin the form of the original note. In his supplementary essays, Maxwelloften both loosely paraphrases his source and quotes it verbatim in theoriginal Greek or Latin; in those cases, the quotation is left out and onlythe reference is retained.

In the translation of Cumberlands text, Maxwell supplementedCumberlands brief textual references (mostly to Hobbess works) withnotes of his own. Maxwells comments are identified in the notes to thisedition, as is material taken from Barbeyracs notes and Cumberlandsmanuscript. Additional information is the work of the current editor.In order to facilitate comparison, references to appropriate modern edi-tions of Hobbess major works have been used.

xx

a treat i se of the laws of nature

aTREATISE

of theLAWS of NATURE.

By the Right Reverend Father in God,Richard Cumberland , Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Made English from the Latin by John Maxwell , M. A.Prebendary of Connor, and Chaplain to his Excellency

the Lord Carteret , Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

To which is prefixd,An Introduction concerning the mistaken Notions which theHeathens had of the DEITY, and the Defects in their Moral-ity, whence the Usefulness of Revelation may appear.

At the End is subjoind,An Appendix, containing two Discourses, 1. Concerning the Im-materiality of Thinking Substance. 2. Concerning theObligation, Promulgation, and Observance, of the

LAW of NATURE, by the Translator.1

LONDON:

Printed by R. Phillips; and Sold by J. Knapton, in St. Paul s Church-Yard, J. Senex, over against St. Dunstans Church, in Fleet-Street, F.Fayram, at the South-Entrance of the Royal-Exchange, J.Osborne, andT. Longman, in Pater-Noster-Row, and T. Osborne, by Grays-Inn-Walks. 1727.

1. In some copies the following variant text replaces by the Translator: theIntroduction and latter part of the Appendix being chiefly extracted out of the writ-ings of the learned Mr. Brocklesby, by the translator. Richard Brocklesby (16361714) was the author of An Explication of the Gospel Theism and the Divinity of theChristian Religion (1706). Maxwell makes liberal use of Brocklesbys text, particularlybooks I and V, adapting, paraphrasing, and sometimes plagiarizing the text withoutreference.

3toHis EXCELLENCY,

JOHN,Lord CARTERET,

Lord Lieutenant of IRELAND.1

May it please your Excellency,

When I was to publish the following Sheets, I knew not under the Authority ofwhat great Name so properly to introduce them to the Publick as your Excel-lencys, and that for several Reasons.

The Design of the Work, is, to enforce the Obligation of the Dictates of Rea-son, and the Necessity of Revelation, the Practice of Virtue and Religion,to Mankind; which could, with no Propriety, be addressd to a Person of anexceptionable Character.

How I have succeeded in my Performance, no one is a better Judge than yourExcellency, who have made the Authors of Antiquity, which I have made use ofin the following Work, the Diversion and Improvement of your retird Hours.

The Relation also, which you bear to my native Country, which is happy underyour Excellencys Administration, was another Inducement to my taking the Lib-erty of this Address, to which I was the more emboldend, by having had theHonour of being receivd into your Excellencys Service.

That your Country may long enjoy the Advantage of your Example and yourCounsels; that you and your Family may be long Happy in one another; andthat, after a long and prosperous Life here, you may receive an eternal Rewardof all your Labours hereafter, is the sincere Prayer of him, who is, with the pro-foundest respect,

May it please your Excellency,your most devoted, and

most faithful humbleServant and Chaplain,

London March8th, 17267. John Maxwell.

1. John Carteret (16901763), 1st earl of Granville, but more commonly knownas Lord Carteret, was lord lieutenant of Ireland between 1724 and 1730. Maxwell wasCarterets domestic chaplain.

4the translator s preface

The Original of Moral Obligation, and the fundamental Principles ofLaws Divine and Human, of Society, of Virtue, and of Religion,are Points, which, in my Opinion, best deserve our Consideration, of any,which the Mind of Man can contemplate. Tis to these we chiefly owe allthe Happiness we enjoy here, or hope for hereafter. Tis from Enquiries ofthis kind, that we learn our Duties of every sort, to God, our Creator andsupreme Governor, our Fellow-creatures, and Ourselves; that we learn thatunerring Rule and Standard of right Reason, by pursuing whose Dictateswe regulate our Passions, and preserve them in a due Subordination. Whilstwe preserve them under the Conduct of that governing Principle in the Mindof Man, which they were formd to obey, they are our chief Instruments ofHappiness; as, when they grow exorbitant, headstrong, and irregular, theyare the Causes of all our Misery.

For these Reasons, being led as much by Inclination, as in pursuance ofthe Profession which I have undertaken, I was willing to inquire into whatthose Authors had offerd, who had treated upon this Subject, among whomBishop Cumberland seems to me, to have handled it in the most masterlyand rational Manner, and to have gone farthest in the Argument, of any Ihave had the good Fortune to meet with. But at the same time that I ownmyself an Admirer of his Reasoning in the main, I cannot but acknowledge,that his Periods are very perplexd and intricate, and that his Language istoo Scholastick and Philosophical; which have deterrd many from readinghim, and have been the Occasion of his valuable Works not being so uni-versally known as it deservd. His Book labourd also under another Dis-advantage; his Manuscript was transcribd for the Press (as he himself says)by a Person unskillful in such Matters, whose Performance was, in conse-

translator s preface 5

quence, very incorrect;1 and the Author, living in the Country at a distancefrom London, where the Book was printed, left the Care of the Edition toa Friend, who was not at sufficient Pains, to see that it came out correctly,2

as whoever examines the Original with attention, will perceive in every Sheetof the Book, in which many of the Errata are more than literal Mistakes,or Mispointings, and disturb the Sense extremely, which are a great Hin-derance to the Reader, especially in an Argument otherwise intricate. ThisFault has not been corrected in the subsequent Editions, but in the last greatlyincreasd.3 His Paragraphs also, in many places, are not divided in such amanner as to give the most Light to his Argument, sometimes joining themwhere they should be divided, and dividing them where the Reasoning re-quires that they should be joind. All these Circumstances conspire to makethe Reading of his valuable Work, a laborious Task, which, therefore, fewReaders will be at the Pains to do. This I thought well deservd a helpingHand, to which I have, therefore, contributed what lay in my power.

In order to remedy these Inconveniences, I thought it would be no dis-service to the Publick, to publish his Work in English; Morality and theLaw of Nature being Subjects, which many, who dont understand Latin,would willingly inquire into; and the Poison, which Mr. Hobbes and otherWriters of his Stamp, have spread far and wide, subversive of the Principlesof all Morality and all Religion, having strongly infected many, who dontunderstand that Language; beside, that many, who are conversant in otherLatin Authors, dont care to be at the Pains of reading Cumberland.

In my Translation I have usd my utmost Endeavours, throughout, reli-giously to preserve my Authors Sense, and at the same time to free him fromas many of his Scholastick Terms as I could, without hurting the Sense,

1. In the errata to the first edition of De Legibus Naturae, Cumberland blames theinaccuracies upon the youth who did the typesetting.

2. Cumberland lived in Stamford in the early 1670s and left the printing in thehands of his friend Hezekiah Burton. See also Burtons Alloquium ad Lectorem,reproduced as appendix 2 to the current volume.

3. Maxwell refers to subsequent editions of the Latin text; slightly improved sec-ond and third editions were published in Lubeck and Frankfurt by Samuel Otto andJohann Wiedermeyer in 1683 and 1694. The problematic fourth edition, based uponthe 1672 edition, was published in Dublin by James Carson in 1720.

6 translator s preface

explaining such of the rest as seemd most to require it, altering and increasingthe Breaks into Paragraphs, where it seemd necessary, and giving the Headsof each Section at the Beginning of it, in order to render more clear theConnexion of the Authors Reasoning, and his Transitions; for whichpurposeI have likewise frequently made use of inverted Commas and a differ-ence of Character, adding at the End a particular Analysis of the wholeWork, and a copious Index. In the Notes at the Bottom of the Page, I haveendeavourd, either to explain, illustrate, or confirm, what the Author hasadvancd, and in some places where I differd from him, to give my Reasonsfor it, which are submitted to the Judgment of the Reader, with all duedeference to the Character of so Judicious and Learned a Writer. I haveadded, likewise, at the End of most of the Chapters general Remarks, withthe same View.

The Appendix which I have added, consists of two Parts. The Author,in the Beginning of his second Chapter, which is concerning the Nature ofMan, where he comes to touch upon the Distinctness of the Soul from theBody, refers, for the Proof of it, to Several Authors, Des-Cartes, More,Digby, and Ward, whom the Reader may, perhaps, not have at hand, norLeisure and Inclination to consult em, if he had:4 And, as that is a mostimportant Point in the present Inquiry, and has, in my Opinion, been setin a clearer and stronger Light by Dr. Clark, than by any other Writer Ihave met with, I have reducd into as narrow a Compass as I could, theSubstance of his Controversy upon that Head, with an Anonymous Adver-sary; as to which, I dare venture to appeal to both the Gentlemen themselves,whether or no I have not fairly represented their Arguments.5 The secondPart of the Appendix is a Discourse concerning the Promulgation, Ob-ligation, and Observance of the Law of Nature, in which I have en-deavourd to supply what seemd to me wanting in Cumberlands Scheme,in order to render it more compleat.

4. Rene Descartes, Henry More, Kenelm Digby, and Seth Ward. For the worksreferred to, see ch. 2, n. 2.

5. Maxwells piece summarizes the arguments that emerged from Samuel Clarkesattack upon Henry Dodwell; the anonymous adversary was Anthony Collins, whoattacked Clarkes work in turn. See A Summary of the Controversy Between Dr.Samuel Clark &c., in Cumberlands appendix 1, below, pp. 75993.


Inquiries of the present kind and upon the present Argument, are suchas can be made concerning the Will of God, as discoverable by the Light ofNature; but yet, tho, by the help of Reason only, we may discover many andimportant Truths, with respect to our moral and religious Conduct, HumanReason alone and unassisted is not sufficient to inform us of all thoseTruths, which it greatly concerns us to know, with such a degree of Cer-tainty, as that the Mind of Man can acquiesce therein with Satisfaction;and, consequently, a farther Light, the Light of Revelation I mean, mustbe added to crown our Inquiries, without which we do but still grope in theDark, as I have endeavourd clearly to make out in my Introduction; for Iwould lay no greater stress upon any thing, no, not even upon Reason itself,than I think it can bear. If we strain the String too high, it will crack, andthen it is of no farther Service. In order to discover the true Foundation ofall Religion and Piety, and what our Duty to God is, we must first knowwho he is; that is to say, we must first learn so to distinguish him from allother Beings, whether Real or Imaginary, as not to give his Glory toanother.The Heathens, indeed, plainly discoverd, what it was impossible theyshould avoid discovering, that there was a God, a wise, powerful, and goodGovernor of the World, but yet they did not discover the one true God; fortheir supreme God was only the Imperial Head of their Polity of Gods,whomthey set at the Head of their Heathen Religion; so that their supreme Godwas as different from the true God, as their Heathen Religion was from thetrue Religion. And the better Sects of the Heathen Philosophers, such as thePythagoreans, Platonists, and Stoicks, made God no better than theSoul of the World, so deifying the World as a part of God, and his Body;and this Notion introducd the Worship of the Universe, and of the Heav-enly Bodies among them. And as for Aristotle, he made no more of Re-ligion, than a mere Civil or Political Institution. Thus the true God and thetrue Religion were Strangers among them all. As for their Morality, I havelikewise shewn how imperfect that was. Thus were their Notions defective,with respect to God, Religion, and Morality; and without the Knowledge ofthe true God it is as impossible to form a true Religion, as it is impossible fora blind Man to take a true Aim, or for an Architect to raise a firm Buildingwithout a Foundation. This, therefore, is the Scope of my Introduction; for,as great a value as I set upon Reason, I would not over-rate her: Where she

8 translator s preface

convinces me, that she is a sufficient Guide, I will follow her Directions; butwhere she owns herself at a loss, and that another Guide is necessary, I willfollow her Directions in the Choice of that Guide, among the Pretenders,and in explaining the Directions and Institutions given me by that Guide.Thus is Reason justly subservient to, and consistent with, Religion; and thus,if our Practice be suitable, we make a right Use of both.

There is only one thing more, with which I think it proper to acquaintthe Reader, and I have done. In the last Page but one of the IntroductionI affirm, That the Knowledge of the Being and Attributes of God are pre-viously necessary to the Belief of a Revelation; and I have before in the sameIntroduction provd, That the Heathens were ignorant of the true God;my Meaning, which is perfectly consistent, is this. It is plain, that they maybelieve in a God, who are ignorant of the true God, as was the Case ofthe Heathens. All that is necessary for me to know, in order to give a firmAssent to a Revelation, is, to be convincd that the Revelation comes fromone, who neither can be deceivd himself, nor will deceive me; for, otherwise,how can I give a firm Assent to any thing upon his Testimony, if either Hehimself may be mistaken, or He be willing to misguide me? But more thanthis is not necessary, in order to the Belief of a Revelation. And so far theHeathens might and did know without the help of Revelation, by the Lightof Nature only, tho at the same time they were ignorant of the true God.For tho they believd in a wise, powerful, and good Governor of the World,in consequence of which they must believe, that his Wisdom could not bedeceivd, and that his Goodness would not suffer him to deceive; and tho allthis was a true Notion of God, yet it was not a Notion of the true God,because they tackd to it one or both of these Notions, That he was the Soulof the World; and, That he was the supreme of their Heathen Deities;both which, being equally false, could be no parts of the Notion of the trueGod. If then this wise and good Governor of the World, in whom they beforebelievd without a Revelation, thought fit to give proper Credentials to anyMissionaries, as coming from him, by whom they were informd, that thisGovernor of the World was the supreme God (contrary to what Platotaught,) and that he was the only God (contrary to what was taught by thePlatonists and Stoicks,) and that he was the Creator of the World, notthe Soul of it (contrary to what was taught by the Platonists, Pythag-


oreans, and Stoicks;) and if these Missionaries should likewise informthem, that Religion was not a merely Civil and Political Institution (asAristotle made it;) would not they, in Reason and Duty, be bound tobelieve all this, and to practice accordingly? Yes undoubtedly. And thus bothparts of my Assertion are very consistent.

I know not, whether it be worth while to take notice here of a Passage inPage 12th of the Introduction,6 where I say, That the Canaanites, amongwhom the Patriarchs sojournd till their Descent into Aegypt, were all ofthem Idolatrous Nations; I do not mean, that all the Canaanites were thenIdolaters, but only all the Canaanites, among whom the Patriarchs so-journd; because it is certain, that Melchizedek, and probably his People,were no Idolaters then; but then we have no Account that the Patriarchs eversojournd in Salem.

6. Maxwell refers to p. xii of his opening essay (p. 39 of this work).

11

names of subscr ibers

Those markd with * are for largePaper.

A.*His Grace the A. Bp. of Ardmagh.*Sir Arthur Atcheson.The Rev. Mr. Abbot.Mr. John Abernethy.Mr. Nathaniel Adams.The Rev. Mr. John Addenbrooke.The Rev. Mr. Alexander Alcock,

Dean of Limerick.Edmund Allen, Esq;*Francis Allen, Esq;*James Anderson, Esq;John Arbuthnot, M. D.Mr. Charles Arbuthnot.Henry Arkwright, Esq; Collector of

Dublin.*Margeston Armar, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Edward Arrowsmith.*Benjamin Arthur, Esq;Capt. Beaumont Astle.*William Aston, Esq;*The Rev. Mr. Walter Atkin, Vicar-

general of Cloyne.The Rev. Mr. John Thomas Atkin.Mr. Henry Aubin.Mr. Richard Auchmooty.Capt. Sheffield Austen.Nicholas Aylward, Esq;

B.The Rt. Hon. the E. of Barkshire.The Hon. William Brabazon, Esq;The Hon. Mr. Justice Bernard.Montague Bacon, Esq;John Bailie, Esq;William Baker, Esq;*Seignior Beneditti Baldassari.*The Rev. Dr. Richard Baldwin,

Provost of Dublin-College.William Balfour, Esq;Mr. Samuel Ballard.Mr. Thomas Ballard.Benjamin Barrington, Esq;Mr. William Barwell.Mr. Richard Baylis.Capt. Philip Beard.Lieut. Peter Beaver.William Becket, Esq;Mr. William Becket.*Henry Bellingham, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Edward Benson.Mr. Bentham, for 2 Books.*The Rev. Dr. Geo. Berkely, Dean of

Derry.William Berry, Esq;Mr. David Bindon.The Rev. Dr. Birch, Chan. of

Worcester.The Rev. Mr. George Black.Robert Blackwood, Esq;

12 names of subscr ibers

James Blackwood, Esq;Francis Blake, of the Mid. Tem. Esq;*Col. William Blakeny.Mr. John Blackley.The Rev. Mr. Francis Bland.Arthur Blenerhasset, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Richard Bolton.Mr. Sam. Bonamy Jun. of Guernsey.Edward Bond, Esq;Mr. Arden Bonell.Mr. John Bonvill.The Rev. Mr. Peter Bonworth.*The Rev. Mr. Booth.Mr. John Boushman.Mr. Bowles.Mr. David Boyd.Mr. Will. Boyle, of Cork, Merchant.*The Rev. Mr. Alexander Bradford.Mr. William Bradford.Mr. Graham Bradford.Mr. Rowland Bradstock.Mr. Robert Bransby.*The Rev. Mr. Jasper Brett,

Chancellor of Connor.The Rev. Mr. William Brett.Edward Brice, Esq;William Bromley, of the Middle

Temple, Esq;*The Rev. Mr. Brooke, Fellow of

Brazen-nose-College, Oxford.Mr. John Broughton.Mr. John Brown.Mr. Ulick Brown. Brown, Esq;Mr. Daniel Brown.Mr. Ellis Brownsword.Charles Brumstead, Esq;Eustace Budgell, of the Middle

Temple, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Robert Bultfell.*Mr. Josiah Bullock.Mr. Burchett.

Thomas Burgh, Esq;William Burgh, Esq;* Burroughs, Esq;Mrs. Jane Burton.*Francis Burton, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Butler.

C.*His Grace the A. Bp. of Canter.*His Excellency the Ld. Carteret, Lord

Lieut. of Ireland.His Grace the A. Bp. of Cashel, for 4.The Rt. Rev. the Ld. Bp. of Clogher.*The Right Hon. Thomas

Clutterbuck, Esq; 4 Books.*The Rt. Hon. Marma. Coghill, Esq;*The Hon. John Chichester, Esq;*The Hon. Mr. Justice Caulfield.Mr. Andrew Caldwell.Stratford Canning, of the Middle

Temple, Esq;*The Rev. Mr. Robert Carlton, Dean

of Cork.*Henry Cartwright, Esq; one of the

Commissi. of the VictuallingOffice.

Rev. Mr. Cartwright, Fell. Dub. Coll.Mr. John Carty.Francis Cashell, Esq;Mr. John Caswell of London, Merch.*Mr. Patrick Cassedy.*Mr. Thomas Causlon.Mr. Samuel Chandler.Bejamin Chapman, Esq;Capt. John Charlton.Capt. Philip Chenevex.Mr. Chester.Mr. William Cheselden.Mr. Richard Choppin.Thomas Christmass, Esq;*The Rev. Dr. Samuel Clark, Rector of

St. Jamess.

names of subscr ibers 13

Mr. Darby Clark.Mr. Francis Clay.*The Rev. Dr. Clayton, Fellow of

Dublin College.*Theophilus Clements, Esq;Mr. Clements.The Rev. Mr. Samuel Close.The Rev. Dr. Cobden.*William Cockburn, M. D.David Cockburn, M. D.John Coddington, Esq;Henry Coddington, Esq;Mr. Dixey Coddington.Mrs. Mary Coghill.*James Coghill, L. L. D.Thomas Coke, Esq;Mr. Thomas Colborne.Mr. Colebatch.Richard Colley, Esq;*Anthony Collins, Esq;Mr. Alexander Colvil.The Rev. Mr. Conybeare, Fellow of

Exeter College.*Williams Conyngham, Esq;Capt. Henry Conyngham.Mr. Richard Conyngham.Mr. Daniel Conyngham.*Edward Cooke, Esq;*Mr. Thomas Cooke.The Rev. Mr. Thomas Cooke.Mr. Peter Cooke.The Rev. Mr. Thomas Cooper.The Rev. Dr. Chidley Coote.The Rev. Mr. Richard Corbet.Mr. Thomas Corbet.*Mr. Richard Cosins.Rev. Mr. Cotterel, Dean of Raphoe.Major John Cotterel.Mr. Courthope.Joshua Cox, Esq; for 2 Books.*Richard Cox, Esq;Mr. John Cox.

*Brigadier Creighton.*Mr. Joseph Creswick.Mr. James Croft.Mr. Edward Crowe.The Rev. Mr. William Crowe.John Cuffe, Esq;Maurice Cuffe, Esq;Capt. Cumberland.The Rev. Mr. James Cunningham.George Cunningham, Esq;Mr. Daniel Cunningham.William Curtis, Esq;Mr. William Curtis.Mr. John Curtis.Mr. Christopher Cusack.Mr. Thomas Cutbert.Mr. Nathaniel Cutler.

D.His Grace the A. Bp. of Dublin.*The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bp. of Derry,

for 2 Books.The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bp. of

Down.*The Rt. Rev. the Ld. Bp. of

Dromore.*Sir Francis-Henry Drake.Mary Lady Dunne.*Mr. Isaac Dalton.Mr. Thomas Dance.The Rev. Mr. Richard Daniel, Dean

of Ardmagh.*Gebhard DAntheny, Esq; for 2.Mr. Ferdinando Davis.Mr. Charles Davis.Ephraim Dawson, Esq;Thomas Dawson, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Thomas Dawson.The Rev. Caleb Debutz, L. L. D.Edward Deering, Esq;*Stephen Delacreuze, Esq;*Charles Delafay, Esq;


The Rev. Dr. Delany, Fellow ofDublin-College.

Mr. Samuel Derham.The Rev. Mr. Benjamin Digby.Robert Dillon, Esq;Mr. Henry Dixon.Robert Dixon, Esq;Arthur Dobbs, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Dobbs, Fellow of

Dublin-College.Mr. John Dobyns.Mr. Robert Donaldson.The Rev. Dr. Richard Dongworth.The Rev. Mr. Dean Dopping.*John Dowdall, of the Middle

Temple, Esq;Edward Dowdall, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Lancelot Dowdall.Whitfield Doyne, Esq;*Montague-Gerrard Drake, Esq;Mr. Francis Drake.The Rev. Dr. Edward Drury.Lieut. James Drysdale.The Rev. Dr. Pascal Ducasse, Dean of

Ferns.Jeremiah Dummer, Esq;Jeremiah Dunavan, Esq;Mr. James Duncan.The Rev. Mr. Hancock Dunbar.The Rev. Mr. John Dunlap.Mr. Samuel Dunlap.John Dunne, Esq;The Rev. Dr. Dunstar.*Mr. James Durand, for 4 Books.*Mr. Dynes.

E.*Sir Joseph Eyles.*Sir Laurence Esmond.Sir Henry Echlin.Mr. John Eastman.The Rev. Mr. Robert Echlin.

Mr. John Eden.Mr. William Edgell.Mr. Thomas Edlin.*Francis Edwards, Esq;Richard Elliot, Esq; Commissioner of

the Excise.Mrs. Frances Empson.Bury Erwin, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Charles Este, Student of

Christ-Church.Eyre Evans, Esq;Benjamin Everard, Esq;Kingsmill Eyre, Esq;

F.The Rt. Rev. the Ld. Bp. of Ferns.*The Rt. Hon. the Lord Ferrard.The Rt. Hon. the Lord Fitz-Morris.Mr. Thomas Fairchild.*Mr. Henry Faure, of Lond. Merch.Mr. Francis Fayram.Felix Feast, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Philip Fernesly.The Rev. Mr. Richard Fisher.Michael Fleming, Esq;Mr. Fletcher.The Rev. Mr. Arthur Fletcher.Warden Flood, Esq;*Martin Folkes, Esq;Mr. John Foord.*Richard Forster, Esq;Mr. John Forsyth.James Forth, Esq;*Mr. Nathaniel France.The Rev. Mr. Thomas Frazier.*Mr. Stephen Freeman.The Rev. Mr. William Freeman.*Mr. Edmund French.Nicholas-Ambrose French, Esq;Mr. William French.John Fuller, Esq;Samuel Fuller.


G.*The Hon. Mr. Justice Gore,

for 2.*Sir Ralph Gore.Arthur Gahegan, Esq; for 5 Books.The Rev. Mr. Gale.*Luke Gardiner, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Nicholas Garnett.Mr. John Garnett.The Rev. Mr. Garwood.Mr. William Gavan.The Rev. Mr. John Giffard.The Rev. Dr. Gilbert, Vice-Provost

of Dublin-College.Mr. Henry Gill.Mr. Thomas Gladstanes.Mr. Thomas Glen.Philip Glover, Esq;Mr. John Glover.The Rev. Mr. Goolat.Mr. Hugh Gordon.Mr. John Gore.Mr. Robert Gosling.*Mr. Nathaniel Gould, of London,

Merchant.The Rev. Mr. John Graham.Mr. George Graham.*Mr. Hugh Granger. Granger, Esq;James Gratton, M. D.The Rev. Mr. Robert Gratton.Mr. William Graves, of Drogheda,

Merchant.Mr. William Green, of the Post-

Office, for 2 Books.Mr. William Green, Surgeon.Mr. Thomas Green.The Rev. Mr. Benjamin Gregory.Mr. John Gregory, for 2 Books.Mr. John Griffitt, for 2 Books.Mr. William Grigson.Mr. Groenewege.

Mr. Nicholas Groubere.Mr. Fletcher Gyles.

H.The Rt. Hon. the Ld. Vis. Hatton.*The Rt. Hon. the Ld. C. B. Hale.Mr. Samuel Haliday.Mr. John Hall.The Rev. Dr. Hall.Mr. Hannibal Hall.Edward Hamage, Esq;Mr. Henry Hamage.Mr. Alexander Hamilton.*John Hamilton, Esq;The Rev. Mr. John Hamilton.The Rev. Mr. Hamilton, Arch-Deacon

of Ardmagh.Mr. William Hamilton.Anthony Hammond, Esq;Mr. James Haning.*Mr. Nicholas Hansard.The Rev. Mr. Ralph Hansard.Mr. John Hara.Ambrose Harding, Esq;The Rev. Mr. John Hare.Mr. Harper.Mr. Samuel Harper.Mr. John Harris.Nicholas Harris, of the Inner-

Temple, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Harrison.William Harrison, Esq; Commissioner

of the Revenue in Ireland.*Francis Harrison, Esq;Marsh Harrison, Esq;*The Rev. Mr. Henry Harrison.The Rev. Mr. Hartson.*Pryce Harstonge, Esq;Mr. John Hasty.The Rev. Mr. William Hatsell.Mr. Francis Hauksbee.John Hawkshaw, L. L. D.


The Rev. Mr. Heald, Fellow of St.Johns Cambridge, and Curate ofSt. Georges, Southwark.

*Mr. Paul Heeger.*Hugh Henry Esq;Mr. Henry.The Rev. Mr. Henry Herbert.The Rev. Mr. John Herbert.Mr. Philip-Parry Hetherington.*Mr. Richard Hewerdine.Mr. Robert Higinbothom.Mr. Rowley Hill.Major Edward Hill.*Henry Hoare, Esq;*The Rev. Mr. Samuel Holt.*Mr. Christopher Hopkins.The Rev. Mr. Richard Hopkins.Mr. John Horan.James Horn, Esq;The Rev. Dr. Howard, Dean of

Ardagh.Jabez Hughes, Esq;Mr. Hughes, of Wadham-College.The Rev. Mr. Bartholomew Hughes.The Rev. Mr. Thomas Hunt.Miler Hussey, Esq;Mr. Hans Hutcheson.The Rev. Mr. John Hutchinson, 2.The Rev. Mr. Samuel Hutchinson.The Rev. Mr. Charles Huxley, Fellow

of Brazen-nose.*Mr. Thomas Hyam.

I.Thomas Jacomb, Esq;The Rev. Dr. Jenkins.Mr. Thomas Ingram.Thomas Jobber, Esq;Mr. Serjeant Jocelyn.Robert Johnson, Esq;George Johnston, Esq;Mr. Hugh Johnston.

The Rev. Mr. Thomas Johnston.The Rev. Mr. Jones, Fellow of Baliol-

College.Mr. Lewis Jones.Roger Jones, Esq;Valentine Jones, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Walter Jones.Mr. William Jones.Mr. Matthew Jones.Mr. Talbot Jones.James Jurin, M. D. Secretary to the

Royal-Society.

K.The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bp. of Kilmore.*The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bp. of Killala.*The Rt. Rev. the Ld. Bp. of Killaloo.Mr. Nathaniel Kane.The Rev. Dr. Kearny.Col. Maurice Keatinge.Maurice Keatinge, Jun. Esq;William Keatinge, Esq;Mr. Samuel Keeling.Benjamin Keene, Esq; Consul at

Madrid.John Kelly Esq;The Rev. Mr. Daniel Kemble.Mr. Robert Kendal.John Kennedy, M. D.John Ker, Esq;Col. Peter Ker.*Abel Kettleby, Esq;Mr. Benjamin King.The Rev. Mr. Oliver King.The Rev. Mr. James King.The Rev. Mr. Thomas Kinnersly.Mr. James Kirkpatrick.Mr. James Knapton.Mrs. Anne Knight.Mr. William Knight.The Rev. Mr. Knipe.Mr. Ralph Knox, of London, Merch.


L.*The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bp. of

London.Sir Richard Levinge.Montague Lambert, Esq;Mr. James Lancashire.The Rev. Mr. Vere-Essex Lanergan.The Rev. Mr. La Placette.The Rev. Mr. Leche, Fellow of

Brazen-nose. Lee, of the Mid. Tem. Esq;Thomas Le Hunt, Esq;Mr. Leigh, Fellow-commoner of

Wadham-College, Oxford.*The Rev. Mr. Theophilus Leigh,

Head of Baliol-College.Mr. John Leland.Mr. John Lennox.Capt. Edmund Lesly.The Rev. Mr. Lewis, Arch-Deacon of

Kells.The Rev. Mr. William Lewes.Mr. Thomas Lewes.Mr. Lindsay.Mr. William Lingen.The Rev. Mr. Richard Lisset.Mr. John Lisset.Mr. William Livingstone.The Rev. Dr. Anthony Locay.Mr. Christopher Lock.The Rev. Dr. Edward Lovell.Robert Lowry, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Richard Lucas.Mr. Cornelius Lyde.The Rev. Mr. Roger Lynden.The Rev. Mr. Patrick Lyon.*Colley Lyons, of River-Lyons Esq;Capt. John Lyons.

M.*The Rt. Hon. the E. of Meath.*The Rt. Hon. the Ld. Mountjoy.

*The Rt. Rev. the Ld Bp. of Meath.*The Hon. Mr. Justice Maccartney.The Hon. Edward Moore, Esq;The Rev. Mr. John Mac Arthur.Mr. Alexander Mac Aulay.George Maccartney, Esq;Mr. Isaac Macartney of Belfast, Mer.Major John Maccollum.*Mr. Richard Macguire.Mr. Archibald Maclane.James Macmanus, Esq;Mr. Bartholomew Macneighten.Mr. Edmund Macneighten.Mr. Archibald Macneile.The Rev. Mr. John Maddin.Mr. John Mairs.Mr. William Maple.Thomas Marley, Esq; Sollicitor-

general of Ireland.The Rev. Mr. George Marley.The Rev. Mr. Able Marmyon.*Jeremiah Marsh, D. D. Dean of

Kilmore.*John Marsh, Esq; Recorder of

Rochester.*Robert Marshall, Esq; Recorder of

Clonmell.George Martin, M. D.Mr. John Martin.Mr. Adam Martin.Mr. Enoch Mason.Mr. John Mason.The Rev. Mr. Charles Massy.The Rev. Mr. Thomas Mathers.Mr. Edward Matthews.The Rev. Dr. Mawl, Dean of

Cloyne.Colin Maxwell, M. D.*Henry Maxwell, Esq;*Hugh Maxwell, Esq;John Maxwell, Esq;*Mr. John Maxwell.


The Rev. Dr. Robert Maxwell, ofFellows hall, for 8 Books.

The Rev. Dr. Rob. Maxwell, ofGraies.

Robert Maxwell, Esq;Capt. Robert Maxwell.Mr. Nathaniel May.*William Maynard, Esq; Collector of

Cork.*Edward Maynard, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Mears.Mr. Roger Medcalf.Thomas Medlicott, Esq;

Comissioner of the Revenue inIreland.

The Rev. Mr. Medlicott.*Mr. Charles Mein.*Thomas Meredith, Esq;Mr. William Meredith.Mr. Jean-Baptist Meulenaer.Mr. Samuel Mills.Charles Milne, Esq;Pooley Molyneux, Esq;William Monsell, Esq;*Alexander Montgomery, Esq;William Montgomery, Esq;Charles Moore, of the Middle-

Temple, Esq;Mr. John Moore.*William Moore, Esq; Commissary-

general of Ireland.The Rev. Mr. John Morgan.Mr. Richard Morgan.Richard Morley, of Grays-Inn, Esq;Mr. Thomas Mosely.Mr. John Murry of Chester, Merch.

N.*Sir Isaac Newton.The Rev. Mr. Arthur Nevin.Mr. Thomas Nevin.Brabazon Newcomen, Esq;

Mr. Newton.The Rev. Mr. Nicholson.Mr. John Noon.Mr. Robert Norman.Mr. William Norman.Mr. Richard Norris.The Rev. Mr. Bernard Northcote.Mr. Richard Nuttall.

O.*Sir John Osborne.*Mrs. Susannah OBryen*George Ogle, Esq;*Charles O Hara, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Felix Oneile.*Arthur Onslow, Esq;*Richard Ord, Esq;Mr. John Orr.Mr. John Osborne.Mr. Thomas Osborne.Mr. Osborne of Eaton.Mr. Henry Overton.The Rev. Mr. John Owen.

P.*The Rt. Hon. the E. of Pembroke.*The Rt. Hon. Benja. Parry, Esq;The Hon. Mr. Baron Pocklington.Sir Charles Potts.*Sir Henry Piers.Mr. Thomas Page.Laurence Paine, Esq;The Rev. Mr. William Paine.Mr. Samuel Palmer.Mrs. Mary Parker.Mr. James Parker, Fellow of Oriel

and Brazen-nose Colleges.Mr. Richard Parker.Robert Parkinson, Esq;*Robert Paul, Esq;Edward Palwet, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Francis Peck.


Mr. William Peers.Mrs. Pendarvis.Col. Matthew Pennyfather.The Rev. Mr. Thomas Penwarne.Mr. George Pepyard.Mr. William Peters.Mr. James Petit.*Ambrose Philips, Esq;Chichester Philips, Esq;Thomas Philips, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Marmaduke Philips.Mr. David Philips.Southwell Piggott, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Pilkington.*Mr. Thomas Pocklington.Col. Thomas Pollexsen.The Rev. Mr. Edward Pordage.Mr. John Porter.Mr. Joseph Pote.Mr. John Power.*Benjamin Prat, Esq;Col. John Preston.Daniel Preverau, Esq;Brigadier Nicholas Price.*Cromwell Price, Esq;William Price, Esq;Mr. Thomas Prior.Thomas Proby, Esq; Surgeon-general

of Ireland.George Purdon, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Edward Purdon.Mr. William Pyms.The Rev. Mr. Cornelius Pyne.

Q.The Rev. Mr. Questburn.

R.*The Rt. Hon. the Bp. of Raphoe, for

2 Books.Dorothy Lady Rawdon.*Matthew Raper, Esq; for 3 Books.

The Rev. Mr. John Ratcliffe, Fellow ofPembroke-College, Oxford.

The Rev. Mr. Gersham Rawlins.Mr. Edward Raymond.James Reilly, Esq;Mr. Reynolds, for 3 Books.The Rev. Mr. Thomas Rice.*Mr. Thomas Richardson 7 Books.*William Richardson, Esq;Edward Richardson, Esq;Mr. Robert Rigmaiden.Mr. Patrick Riley.The Rev. Mr. David Roberts.Col. George Robinson.Tancred Robinson, M. D. Physician

in Ordinary to his Majesty.The Rev. Mr. Rogers, Fellow of

Dublin-College.Mr. Rogers, Commoner of Wadham-

College.Woods Rogers, Esq;*William Rogerson, Esq; Attorney-

general of Ireland.Edward Roome, of Lincolns Inn,

Esq;Dr. William Rowen, Fellow of

Dublin-College.*Hercules Rowley, Esq;The Rev. Dr. Rundle.

S.*The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bp. of

Salisbury.*The Rt. Hon. the Ld. Southwell.The Rt. Hon. Edw. Southwell, Esq;*The Rt. Hon. Oliver St. George,

Esq;The Hon. Henry Southwell, Esq;*The Hon. Mrs. Wargaretta Sabine.*The Lady Stanley.Sir George Savil.Oliver St. John, Esq;


Mrs. Elizabeth St. John.The Rev. Mr. St. Paul.*John Sale, Esq;Mrs. Judith Sambrooke.Francis Savage, Esq;Dr. Sayer.The Rev. Mr. Sayer.John Gasper Scheuchzer, M. D.*Mr. David Scott.Mr. Hewit Scriven.Mr. John Senex.Capt. Shakleton.Mr. Francis Shaw.Mr. Hugh Shaw.Mr. Thomas Shaw.*Abraham Sherigly, Esq;Mr. Edward Shewell.Mr. John Shipton, Surgeon.*Mr. John Shipton, for 7 Books.Thomas Shrewsbridge, Esq; Consul at

Cyprus.Stephen Sibthorp, Esq;*Mr. Isaac Sierra.Mr. Henry Sisson.The Rev. Dr. Skerret.William Sloan, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Archdeacon Smith.The Rev. Dr. Smith.Mr. Christopher Smith.Mr. John Smith.Mr. Patrick Smith, of Belfast, Mer.*Mr. Ralph Smith.Mr. William Smith, of Amsterdam.The Rev. Mr. William Smith.William Smith, M. D.Mr. Samuel Smyth.Mr. Ralph Snow.The Rev. Mr. Philip Speke, Fellow of

Wadham College, Oxon.The Rev. Mr. Soley.*Edward Southwell, Esq;

The Rev. Mr. Thomas Squire.Mrs. Anne Stafford.Henry Stafford, Esq; for 2 Books.Kennedy Stafford, Esq;Mr. John Standish.Mrs. Sarah Stephens.Col. John Sterling.*The Rev. Mr. Luke Sterling.*James Stevenson, Esq;The Rev. Dr. Archibald Stewart.The Rev. Mr. Stewart, Fellow of

Dublin-College.Mr. James Stewart.The Rev. Mr. Edward Stillingfleet.Mr. John Stones.Jonas Stowell, Esq;Mr. George Strahan.Mr. John Stratford.*Mark Strother, Esq; for 2 Books.*Samuel Stroud, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Edward Synge.The Rev. Mr. Nicholas Synge.

T.His Grace the A. Bp. of Tuam.*The Rt. Hon. the Ld. Tyrawley.*The Rt. Hon. Richard Tighe, Esq;The Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas Taylor.The Rt. Hon. James Tynte, Esq;Charles Talbot, Esq; Solicitor-general.Thomas Taylor, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Archdeacon Taylor.Mr. David Tew.The Rev. Mr. Robert Thistlethwayte.The Rev. Mr. Aaron Thompson.William Thornton, Esq;The Rev. Mr. John Throp.Mr. Roger Throp.*Thomas Tickell, Esq;Mr. Samuel Tickner, for 2 Books.*Mrs. Tilier.


Mr. John Tod.The Rev. Mr. William Tod.Mr. John Tooker.Blaney Townley, Esq;Henry Townley, Esq;Col. Thomas Townsend.Frederick Trench, Esq;Mrs. Mary Trenchard.Thomas Trotter, L. L. D.William Trumball, Esq;Mr. John Tulidge.

U.*The Rt. Hon. the Lady Grace

Vane.Mr. John Vandeleur.*Mr. Francis Vanhemer.The Rev. Mr. John Veal.Mr. John Verdon.George-Venables Vernon, Esq;William Vesey, Esq;Mr. Philip Vincent.*Col. John Upton.The Rev. Mr. Samuel Usher.

W.*The Rt. Hon. Thomas West, Esq;

Ld. Chancellor of Ireland.The Rt. Hon. the Ld. Chief Justice

Whitshead.The Rt. Hon. the Lord C. Justice

Wyndham.*The Rt. Hon. Maj. General Wynne.The Hon. Sir Charles Wager, one of

the Commissioners of theAdmiralty.

*Captain William Wade.Mr. William Wahup.Mrs. Sarah Wahup.Mr. Henry Walker.*Col. John Waller.

*Robert Waller, Esq;Robert Waller, Esq;Capt. George Walsh.Capt. John Walsh.The Rev. Mr. Thomas Walsh.Philip Walsh, Esq;*Mr. Jacob Walton.*Richard Warburton, Esq; for 6.The Rev. Mr. James Ward, Dean of

Cloyne.Michael Ward, Esq; for 2 Books.Nicholas Ward, Esq;Henry Ware, Esq;Samuel Waring, Esq;Mr. Thomas Warner.The Rev. Mr. Simon Warner.Mr. John Warren.Richard Wastfield, Esq;John Webber, Esq;The Rev. Mr. William Webster.Paul Whichcote, Esq;*The Rev. Mr. John Whitcombe,

Fellow of Dublin-College.*John White, Esq;Boyle White, Esq;The Rev. Mr. William White.*Mr. Conway Whithorne.Mr. John Whitlock.The Rev. Mr. Peter Wibrants.The Rev. Mr. Wigget.Mr. Wilford.The Rev. Mr. George Wilkins.The Rev. Mr. Charles Wilkinson.*Mr. Roger Williams.Hugh Willoughby, Esq;*James Wills, Esq;*Col. Thomas Wilson.*The Rev. Mr. Thomas Wilson, Dean

of Baliol-College.Thomas Wilson, Esq;Ezekiel. Davys Wilson.


The Rev. Mr. William Wilson ofShinglis.

Joseph Wilson, Esq;The Rev. Mr. Winter, Dean of

Kildare.Mr. George Woodcraft.Mr. Thomas Woodward.Mr. Thomas Worrall.William Worth, Esq;Mr. Bruen Worthington.The Rev. Mr. Henry Wright.Mr. Thomas Wyat.The Rev. Mr. Wyat.The Rev. Dr. Mossum Wye.*Thomas Wylde, Esq; Commissioner

of the Revenue in Ireland.The Rev. Mr. John Wynne.

Y.*The Rt. Hon. Sir Will. Yonge,

one of the Lords of theTreasury.

The Rev. Mr. Francis Yarborough,Fellow of Brazen-nose-College.

The Rev. Mr. Young.

NAMES omitted.The Rev. Mr. Bennet.The Rev. Mr. Benson.Mr. John Brindley.Mrs. Mary Brown.The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bp. of

Durham.The Library of the Chapter of

Durham.

TWOIntroductory ESSAYS

I. Concerning the City, or Kingdom, of GOD in the Ra-tional World, and the Defects in Heathen Deism.

II. Concerning the Imperfectness of theHeathen Morality;from both which, the Usefulness of Revelation may appear.

LONDON:

Printed in the YEAR, MDCCXXVII.

25

u e s s a y i u

Of the City, or Kingdom, of God in theRational World, and the Defects in

Heathen Deism

Know thy-self, was certainly the Wisest of the Sayings of the sevenWise-Men of Greece; that Knowledge being the greatest Wisdom, asbeing the only Method, by which we are enabled to discharge those Du-ties and Obligations we lie under, and to obtain Happiness.

Man is considerd, in a double Capacity, Natural and Political.Man, in his natural Capacity, is composd of two Parts, Body and

Mind.His Body is considerd, by the Anatomist, as it is an Organizd Body;

and by the Physician, and Surgeon, as it is a Body liable to Distempers,that may be prevented, or remedied.

The Natural Philosopher, commonly so calld, considers the Natureof the human Mind, and of its Faculties; of which the two Principal arethe Understanding and the Will, the Object of the former being Truth;and of the latter, Good. Logick conducts our Understanding in the Searchafter, and Delivery of, Truth.1 Morality and Religion conduct our Willin the Pursuit of Good.

Man Political is considerd, as a Member of Society.The Societies are various, of which a Man may at the same Time be

1. [Maxwell] I take Logick here, not in the common restraind Sense, but so asto comprise all Arts, or Methods of Reasoning, such as the Algebraical, Geometrical,Metaphysical, &c.

Man con-siderd in hisvarious Capaci-ties.

26 essay i

a Member, who may, therefore, be considered in as many various Po-litical Lights.

Oeconomics regulate his Conduct, as Member of a Family; the Lawsof his Country, as Member of the Common-Wealth; the Laws of Nature,as he is a Member of Human Society; and Religion, as he is a Memberof a holy Society of rational Agents, with God at their Head, which con-stitute what we call a Church.

II. Whoever does not consider himself, as Member of a Society, at whoseHead God is, seems to me, to be truly an Atheist. For, whoever pretendsto acknowledge a God, or universal Mind, considering him only Nat-urally, as the Soul of the World, and not Politically, as the supreme Gov-ernor thereof, and so not acknowledging a Providence, (a particular Prov-idence, for, without that, a general Providence is an unintelligibleNotion;) as he cannot prove the Being of such a God, so neither doesthe Acknowledging him influence our Conduct, or answer any valuablePurpose in Life. If God were the Soul of the World, and not its supremeGovernor, it would be impossible for us to prove his Being, which we candiscover, only from the Effects of his Wisdom, Power, and Goodness, inForming and Governing the World. If you take away these, you may aswell call him by the empty Names of Chance, or Fate, or Nature, or anyThing else, as well as God: Nor could the Acknowledgment of such aGod influence our Conduct, any more than the Gods of Epicurus didhis.

III. Now every Wise, Good, and Powerful Governor, must be a Law-Giver; for, without Laws, there is no Government: Such a Law-Givermust therefore have promulgd his Laws, which God has done by Reasononly, to those, to whom he has not afforded Revelation; and they canoblige no farther, than they have been promulgd. Such a Law-Givermustalso have fencd his Laws, with the Sanction of sufficient Rewards andPunishments, otherwise his Laws were in vain; but a wise Being doesnothing in vain. Right Reason, from Experience, pronounces, That theRewards, and Punishments, naturally connected with the Observance,or Non-Observance, of the Laws of Nature, are not a sufficient Sanc-

The Denyersof Providence,

Atheists.

FutureRewards, andPunishments,

provd.

of the kingdom of god 27

tion. Human Wisdom has, therefore, every where guarded such of theLaws of Nature as could properly fall within their Cognizance, with theadditional Sanction of positive Rewards, and Punishments; which, how-ever, tho they pretty well support Civil Society, are by no Means a suf-ficient Fence to the Law of Nature, and that upon several Accounts,1. Many of the Laws of Nature are of such a Kind, as not properly tofall within the Design of human Laws, such as those, which enjoyn Grat-itude, Veracity, in many Cases, Temperance, Liberality, Courtesy, &c.2. Other Crimes, of which human Laws can take Notice, are sometimescommitted so secretly, as to escape the Knowledge of those, who shouldput the Laws in Execution. 3. Others, sometimes, escape unpunishd,for want of a sufficient Power to enforce the Laws; the Crimes of somebeing of such a Kind, as, in their own Nature, tend to enable the Crim-inal to trample upon the Power of the Laws, as the unjust Acquisition ofArbitrary Power. 4. Human Wisdom cannot proportion Punishments toCrimes, because that depends upon such a through Knowledge, both ofThings and Circumstances, as none but God has; the Pillory, being a fargreater Punishment to some, than the Gallows is to others. It is, there-fore, incumbent upon the supreme Law-Giver, and Governor of theWorld, as he would effectually Vindicate the Honour of his Laws, andpromote the publick Happiness, to let no Crime pass unpunishd; butthat a super-added Punishment should await Criminals after this Life,of what Kind soever these Punishments may be; whether such as arenaturally Connected with evil Habits, and the evil Company of theWicked, with one another, or by the farther Addition of Punishmentspositively inflicted, as the Nature of the Case and of Things requires. AllCrimes fall properly within his Cognizance; no Privacy excludes him;no Power can resist him; no Prejudice can byass him; and he, and heonly, knows how to proportion Punishments to the Crimes, and to theNature of the Sufferer, and to what the greatest Good of the Wholerequires, which seems to be the Measure of the Intenseness andDurationof Punishments.

If it be objected, That future Rewards and Punishments, super-addedto those of this Life, are not sufficient, if by the Word [Sufficient ] bemeant, what fully prevents the Transgression of the Law, in all the Mem-

28 essay i

bers of the Society. But that if by [Sufficient ] be meant, that which ren-ders the Observance of the Law more eligible, than the Breach, to a well-informd Mind; the natural Consequences of Action, without any futureRewards, or Punishments, super-added, are, in this Sense, Sufficient. Ianswer, That, according to this Reasoning, all civil Sanctions, super-added to those of Nature, would be unnecessary, Minds well-informdnot needing such Motives, and wicked Men, not being restraind bythese Sanctions super-added to those of Nature; yet we see, that CivilLaws and Sanctions, are of great Use, notwithstanding the Appearanceof this Reasoning to the contrary, many being movd by both Sanctions,that would not be movd by one only, as also others by the treble Sanctionof natural Rewards and Punishments, positiveRewardsandPunishments,inflicted by Men, and by the super-added Rewards and Punishments ofanother Life, who would not be influencd by the former Two.

Without such a State of future Rewards and Punishments, no End canbe assignd, why such a Maker and Governor of the World should haveplaced us here, such as we are. Upon that Supposition, the Shortness andUncertainty of human Life is unaccountable, and our Reason is often adisadvantage; the Bulk of Mankind losing Life, before they come to thefull and true Exercise of their Reason; and when we do, to what purposeis this Mind possessd of it, and of so many exalted and capacious Fac-ulties, but, like the Soul of a Swine, (as our Author well observes,) in-stead of Salt to preserve the Body from Putrefaction; 2 which, without thatReason, and those Faculties, it might support much longer than it does;several Brutes, without them, living longer than Man, and many Vege-tables, without even a Sensitive Soul, much more without a RationalOne, longer than either. Could such a Creator and Governor of theWorld, have given us Reason and Reflexion, with unbounded Prospectsand Desires, with respect to Futurity and Eternity, with Anxieties andDoubts from thence arising innumerable, at the End of a short Farce toshut up the Scene in Death? A Farce, where the Wicked often thrive bytheir Vice, and the Good suffer, even on account of their Virtue. And

2. Cumberland, A Treatise of the Laws of Nature (1727), 1.29. For the source ofCumberlands analogy, see Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II.64; De Finibus, V.13.


Wisdom, united with Goodness, would rather have so ordered it, thatwe should neither have feard to die, nor desird to live beyond the Timeappointed by Nature, as it is with the Beasts of the Field, often the Hap-pier of the Two, if that were the Case, neither knowing, nor caring,whence they come, or whither they go. The many and grievous Calam-ities, (beyond what the Brutes are subject to,) lengthend out by theMemory of what is past, and the Fears of what is to come, can fairly beaccounted for, if this Life be a State of Probation, and there be a Ret-ribution afterwards, otherwise not, under the Conduct of a Wise andGood Governor of the World, and he would have made us satisfydwith,and acquiesce under, our present Lot, whatever it were, like the BruteCreation, who when they suffer, do not redouble the Force of it by Re-flexion; and if we were like them in the one Circumstance, why not inthe other so? Why were we so made, that the Remembrance of certainpast Actions creates in us Grief, Fear, and Horror, from which neitherthe Tyrant, nor the Polititian, can free himself, if our Maker had notdesignd us for accountable Creatures, in giving us such an Idea of Guilt,and Punishment, even for the most secret Crimes?

But I would not be mis-understood here, as if I thought, ThathumanAffairs were so disorderly, as not clearly to shew plain Marks of a gov-erning Providence. To say, That the present moral Appearances are allregular and good, is false. But, That there is no moral Order visible inthe Constitution of Nature, is equally false. The Truth seems this,Moral Order is prevalent in Nature; Virtue is constituted, at present,the supreme Happiness, and the Virtuous generally have the happiestShare of Life. The few Disorders, which are exceptions to this generalProposition, are probably left to us as Evidences, or Arguments, for afuture State. This Argument has been finely touchd upon by LordShaftsbury, in his Rhapsody, thus. If Virtue be to it-self no small Reward,and Vice, in a great Measure, its own Punishment, we have a solid Groundto go upon. The plain Foundations of a distributive Justice, and due Orderin this World, may lead us to conceive a further Building. We apprehend alarger Scheme, and easily resolve ourselves, why Things were not compleatedin this State; but their Accomplishments reservd rather to some further Pe-riod. For, had the Good and Virtuous of Mankind been wholly prosperous

30 essay i

in this Life; had Goodness never met with Opposition, nor Merit ever lainunder a Cloud; where had been the Trial, Victory, or Crown of Virtue?Where had the Virtues had their Theater, or whence their Names? Wherehad been Temperance, or Self-denial? Where Patience, Meekness, Magna-nimity? Whence have these their Being? What Merit, except from Hardship?What Virtue without a Conflict, and the Encounter of such Enemies as ariseboth within, and from abroad?

But as many as are the Difficulties which Virtue has to encounter in thisWorld, her Force is yet superior. Exposd as she is here, she is not howeverabandond, or left miserable. She has enough to raise her above Pity, tho notabove our Wishes: And as happy as we see her here, we have room for furtherHopes in her behalf. Her present Portion is sufficient to shew Providencealready ingagd on her side. And since there is such Provision for her here,such Happiness, and such Advantages, even in this Life; how probable mustit appear, that this providential Care is yet extended further to a succeedingLife and perfected Hereafter? 3

Antient, Current, and Famous, were the Notices in Paganism, touch-ing the Souls Immortality, the Rewards and Punishments of another Life,touching Hades, Elysium, the Isles of the Blessed, Orcus, Erebus, Tartarus,Mercury the Soul-Carrier, the Judges of Hell, which the Stoicks laughdat, as vulgar Errors, because they were the Doctrines of vulgar Paganism.But without them Natural Religion would be but Matter of Ridicule.And, accordingly, it is an Article of natural Religion, which is antecedentto any Institution of Paganism, Judaism, or Christianity. And the Chris-tian Doctrine, touching the Rewards and Punishments of a future Life,is so con-natural to the Mind of Man, (which hath the Conscience ofGood and Evil,) so agreeable to his Reason, and his Notions of a Godand Providence, that it has met with a general Reception, and Appro-bation. Agreeably to these Sentiments, the generality of Pagan Religion-ists stiled the Soul Divine, of Kin to the Gods, a Part and Particle of God,deducing it from Heaven, and reducing it thither again, worshippingtheir Heroes and Benefactors. All which implyd, that their Religion had

3. Shaftesbury, The Moralists, a Philosophical Rhapsody (1714), p. 275. The firstedition was published in 1709; Maxwell is using the second edition.


this generous Sentiment in it, which Cicero (de Leg. 2.) accounteth oneof its Principles, That Virtue and Piety are Things which raise Men untoHeaven. 4 The Egyptians are particularly famd for their Doctrine of theSouls Immortality, and the Rewards of the Pious in another Life, as ismost conspicuous, from a Funeral Rite of theirs recorded by Porphyry,and which deserveth to be everlastingly rememberd. When they em-balmd one of their Nobles, they took out the Belly, (which it is henceplain, they did not make a God of,) and put it into a Chest, which theyheld up to the Sun, one of the Embalmers making this Oration for theDead Man. Porphyry de abst. L. 4. . 10

O LORD the Sun, and all ye Gods that give Life to Men, receive me,and transmit me into Consortship with the eternal Gods; for so long as I livdin the World, I piously worshippd the Gods, whom my Parents shewed me;those that generated my Body I always honoured; I neither killd any Man,nor defrauded any of what was committed to my Trust; nor have I done anyThing else of an atrocious Nature. If, in my Life-Time, I committed anyOffence in Eating and Drinking what was not Lawful, the Offence was notdone by my-self, but by those, pointing at, or shewing, the Chest, whereinthe Belly was. And having so said, he threw it into the River. The Rest ofthe Body was embalmd apart, as Pure.5

IV. It is evident, that his making us capable of Happiness, was theEffect of his Goodness. It will therefore, from thence, and from the Im-mutability of his Nature, necessarily follow, That he, who willd us onceinto Being, will always Will the Continuance of our Being, and that tooin a happy State, except where the Vindication of the Honour of hisLaws, and the Common Good requires the contrary.

V. God, the Author of Nature, has imprinted Characters of his in-dependent Power, Wisdom, Goodness, Providence, &c. upon hisWorks; he has given us Reason, by which we cannot but discover, if weattend, these his Attributes, and the Relation we bear to him. It is, there-

4. Cicero, De Legibus, II.19.5. Porphyry, De Abstinentia (in Select Works of Porphyry), IV.10.

The Immortal-ity of the Soul,agreeable tothe Notions wenaturally Formof the Deity.

It is the Willof God, thatwe shouldpractise Reli-gion.

32 essay i

fore, his Will, that we should know, and, knowing, acknowledge thesehis Perfections, and the Relation He and We, his dependent Creatures,bear to one another; that is, that we should pursue and promote, to ourPower, those beneficent Ends, which he had in creating us, and otherBeings like our-selves, capable of Happiness, and give him the Honourdue to him, that is, that we should practise Virtue and Religion, whichare, therefore, his Laws to us.

II. Let us, in the next Place, consider the several Parts of that Society ofRational Agents, of which God is at the Head; first, according to theNotion of the Pagans, and next, according to the Idea we have of it, byRevelation, and the Scriptures; for Truth, and Error, like all other Op-posites, will best illustrate each other. For we can no otherwise come tothe Knowledge of our-selves, in the political Sense, of our Duty, and theObligations we lie under, without considering the Relation we stand into the Kingdom of God, that great and holy Society, of which we are aPart; and to any other Society, if such there be, with which we may haveto do; for it is impossible, to understand a Duty which is Relative, with-out first understanding the Terms of the Relation, (to make use of aLogical Expression.) To begin then with the Pagan System.

The Heathen Philosophers, who acknowledgd a Deity, acknowledgdbut one single intellectual Head of the Universe, (whom they calld Jupiter,Zeus, Baal, &c.) and but one Universe; not such a One as the Epicureansimagind, who incoherently talkd of infinite incoherent Worlds in in-finite Space, but one total universal System, made up of several coherentsubordinate Systems.

This one Universe is capable of being considerd Politically and Nat-urally: Politically, the Heathens considerd it as a Universe of RationalAgents.

The Universe was Politically considered by the Heathen Theologers;for they supposd it to be a Political System, or Monarchy, having theforementiond intellectual Head presiding in and over it. But they con-siderd it also Naturally, supposing it to be an Animated System, or Mun-dan Animal, with the fore-mentiond intellectual Head, as the Soul

A View of thePagan System

of the RationalWorld.

In which theyconsiderd,

1. One intellec-tual Head ofthe Universe.

Whom theysupposd also

the Soul of theWorld.


thereof; yet so, as to be also the imperial Head of the Monarchy of theUniverse.

II. The Heathen Theologers, who do not acknowledge any suchSocietyas the Church of God, represented the Universe of Rational Agents, as butone Political System, which is their prime fundamental Mistake. For, inthis Scheme, God and the Creature are not sufficiently distinguishd,butcriminally confounded by deifying Creatures. The Kingdoms of Goodand Bad Angels (or Demons) are not distinguishd. The Church and theWorld are not distinguishd, but confounded, or rather, the Church isshut out of Being, for which there is no Place in the Heathen System.Heaven, Earth, and Hell, are not duly distinguishd, but confoundedinto one Political Society, under one Monarch; and they are supposd,as friendly conspiring together, whence they thought themselves securefrom any Disaster after Death. And, because they thought themselvesby Nature, the Citizens of Gods Kingdom already, they could not beprevaild with, to enter into the real Kingdom of God, when the Gospelwas preachd, which they opposd, as opposite to their System. Uponthis fundamental Error, was grounded their whole Morality; and uponthis Notion, That they were Fellow-Citizens with the Gods, their Practicewas, doubtless, grounded of making new Gods, as it were by a right ofSuffrage in Heaven it-self.

III. Some Christian Writers have, in great Measure, adopted these Sen-timents, not discerning the Difference between a Holy Divine Republick,and a Heathen Mundan System, heedlesly entertaining false Notions ofthe State of the Universe, and speaking the Language of Heathen Phi-losophers, which is irreconcileable with the Jewish, and ChristianReligion.

The Worshippers of the true God indeed are, in a large Sense,Citizensof this lower World; they have a Duty to discharge as such, and mustnot fail of a dutiful and virtuous Correspondence with Nature, andcom-mon Providence; but the proper Design, and Effect of Gods revealdLaws, was not to instate men Citizens of the World at large, nor was it

Representingthe Universe ofrational Agentsas but onepolitical Sys-tem, which is afundamentalMistake.

34 essay i

the proper Law of that Estate of Life, nor was it the Law of Naturegoverning all Things as such, but it was the Law of that King, who gov-erneth all Things as Law-Giver of his Church.

The foregoing Language of the Heathen Philosophers, our Author usu-ally speaketh, The most ample Society of all rational Agents, the City ofGod. The System of all rational Agents, or the whole natural City of God.The whole Aggregate of rational Beings, or the whole City, the Head whereofis God. The System of all rational Agents, the Kingdom of God. God, theHead and Father of all rational Beings, and other rational Agents, as hisSons. All men, altho they are not under the same human imperial Power,yet are in the most ample City of God. In the City of God, or in the Universe,they are Subjects, that in a human City are Supreme. This Law of Nature,Care of the publick Good, is the natural Law, uniting all rational Beings.The Summary of the Laws of rational Nature, or of the City of God, whichis the Aggregate of Mankind, subordinate to God the Rector, his City con-stituted by the Nature

Documents

Richard Cumberland - A Treatise of the Laws of Nature