A Treatise of the Laws of Nature. Richard Cumberland

are necessary or highly serviceable to this end. In §3. is shewn, that the common Good of the whole System of Rationals ought necessarily in both Cases to be regarded; and that the Nature of Mediocrity consists in giving no Part more or less, than a due regard to the whole requires. From the former are deduc’d (§ 4.) Precepts; 1. Concerning Gifts, in which Liberality; and, 2. Concerning Civility or good Manners, in which the Virtues peculiar there to are conspicuous. In §5. Liberality is defin’d, with its subordinate Virtues, Prudence, and Frugality, and the Vices opposite to these. In §6. the Virtues relating to Conversation or good Manners are defin’d in general; and in particular, Gravity, Courteousness, Taciturnity, Veracity and Urbanity, and the contrary Vices. From the latter part of the Law explain’d in the 2d Section, is deduc’d (§ 7.) the Obligation to a limited Self-Love, whose Branches take care of the Mind, and of the Body, which is chiefly provided for by Temperance; which §8. is defin’d, and its Parts enumerated: those belonging to the Preservation of the Individual are here explain’d, as in §9. are those that relate to the Propagation of the Species; and it is prov’d, that the same Law commands us to take care of the Education of our Children. §10. Passes on to the Care of the Means, which are Riches and Honours; whence Occasion is taken to define Modesty, Humility and Magnanimity. In § 11, 12, 13. is explain’d the Method of deducing the practical Rules of right Reason, by which Actions are directed according to all the Virtues. In § 14, 15, 16, 17. is shewn, that the common Good, as being the greatest of all, is a Measure naturally fix’d and divided into Parts, by means whereof the value of all things Good and Evil, and consequently the measure of all Affections conversant about them, may be naturally ascertain’d and determin’d.

       Chapter IX

      Deduces Corollaries from what has been already deliver’d, which regard, 1. The Decalogue. 2. Civil Laws. The Decalogue is taken in to Consideration, because in that God himself has collected the Fundamentals of the Jewish Polity. But in the Fundamentals of every Polity it is necessary, that all those Laws should be comprehended, which naturally oblige all. Tho I deny not, that in those Fundamentals of the Jewish Polity something is contain’d peculiar to that Nation. But we have purposely omitted that in our Deduction, which is included in the four first Sections. From our Principles we do deduce more particularly (§ 5.) that it is necessary for the publick Good, that Societies with Power Imperial, or Civil Government, be establish’d and preserv’d. The first appearance of Civil Government is to be seen in a Family. The Power of the Husband over the Wife, of the Fathers over their Children; and the just Bounds of Imperial Power, are drawn from the Relation which they bear to this, as to the End intended. In §7. it is prov’d, that supreme Powers cannot lawfully be punish’d by their Subjects. And (§ 8.) that a very extensive Power is given to Sovereigns, according to these Principles; but that Hobbes’s Principles overthrow the Foundations of all Government. 1st, (§ 9.) Because they represent the Nature of Princes as more fierce and cruel than that of wild Beasts. 2dly, Because he denies to all, and consequently to Princes, that right Reason, by which they might determine, according to the nature of Things, or of Causes and Effects, what sort of Actions are good or bad to any others besides themselves: And Hobbes’s Argument is likewise refuted, by which he endeavours to prove, that we ought therefore to obey the Reason of the Commonwealth, be cause there is no such thing as Reason which is right, or which can judge according to a Rule establish’d and enforc’d by the Nature of things. It is shewn, (§ 10.) that Hobbes’s Doctrine of the Right of every Man to every thing, would not suffer any Man to enter into Civil Society; and that his Notions excite Subjects to Rebellion: That his Doctrine, concerning Compacts and Oaths, (§ 11.) is dangerous to the supreme Powers. It is shewn, (§ 12.) that by transferring of Rights to the same Person, (by which alone Hobbes teaches, that a Commonwealth can be form’d,) no one is bound to yield Obedience to a Prince. (§13.) That Hobbes takes away from Princes, all those things, which, for Flattery’s sake, he would seem to bestow upon them more than other Philosophers have done. He even accuses them of the worst of Crimes, whilst he contends, that they are bound by no Laws. He deprives Princes of all Commendation for Wisdom and Justice; and they themselves, in most States, openly and constantly reject what Hobbes ascribes to them; the very same things being elsewhere denied them by Hobbes himself, as is prov’d by undeniable Instances: as also a Confutation of his Opinion, that Compacts do not bind Supreme Powers to their Subjects, nor to other States. It is lastly shewn, that Hobbes’s Doctrine concerning Treason, encourages Subjects to commit that Crime.

THE INTRODUCTION

      The Design of this Treatise.

      Two ways of deducing the Laws of Nature.1. From their Effects.

      This insisted on by Grotius, Sharrock, &c.

      §I. It concerns us both, friendly Reader, “That you should be briefly acquainted with the Design and Method of this Treatise”; for thence you will immedately perceive, “What I have perform’d, or, at least, attempted; and what is further to be supply’d from your own Understanding, or the Writings of others.” The Laws of Nature are the Foundations of all moral and civil Knowledge, as in the following Work will at large appear. But these, as all other Conclusions, discoverable by the Light of Nature, may be deduc’d two ways; either from those manifest Effects which flow from them, or from the Causes whence they themselves arise. I have endeavour’d to discover them in this latter Method, by arguing from the Cause to the Effect. To the former Method of proving their Obligation, (by arguing from the Effect to the Cause,) belongs what has been written by Hugo Grotius, and by his Brother, in his Posthumous Work, and by our Countryman Sharrock, who establish them from the approv’d Sentiments of various Authors of different Nations and Ages, as also from a Harmony in the Manners and Laws, if not of all, at least of the politer, Nations.¹ Hitherto also is to be referr’d that Work of Selden’s, concerning the Laws of Nature and Nations, according to the Sentiments of the Hebrews.² And, in my Opinion, all these Authors have deserv’d well of Mankind. But especially the Work of Hugo Grotius, which was the first of the kind, I think worthy, both of the Author, and of Immortality. For a few Slips, and those in Matters, in which the Customs of his Country seem to have biass’d that great Man, will easily obtain Pardon from a candid Reader.

      Useful, tho objected against.

      §II. Nor, truly, are the Objections, which are usually brought against this method of proving the Laws of Nature, (by arguing from the Effect to the Cause, as Grotius does,) of so great weight, as to prove it altogether fallacious and useless; altho I readily acknowledge, that they may so far prevail with candid Inquirers after Truth, as to convince them, That it would be more useful and safe, to find out a fuller Proof, by searching into the Causes, which produce in the Mind of Man the Knowledge of the Laws of Nature. This, however, will more plainly appear, if we briefly propose those Objections, with the Answers to them.

      First Objection from insufficient Induction.

      In the first place it is objected, “That the Induction is weak, which infers, from the Writings or Manners of a few Men, or Nations, the Opinion or Judgment of all.” Now there is scarce any Person so well acquainted with the Laws and Customs of any one State, that can ever have a perfect Knowledge of them all; much less that can attain to such a Knowledge of the Laws of all States, still less, of the inward Sentiments of each Individual, as may enable him, upon a just Comparison, to conclude, what those Notions are, in which all agree.

      To this it is answer’d, “That the Judgments made by different Nations concerning matters of daily publick Practice, (such are Religion, or some sort of divine Worship in general, and a degree of Humanity, sufficient