the rights of war and peace book i

natural law and enlightenment classics
Knud Haakonssen
General Editor

Hugo Grotius

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu i i i i i i i i natural law and i i enlightenment classics i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i book i i i i i Hugo Grotius i i i i i i i i Edited and with an Introduction by i i i i Richard Tuck i i i i From the edition by Jean Barbeyrac i i i i Major Legal and Political Works of Hugo Grotius i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i liberty fund i i Indianapolis i i i i uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

The Rights of War and Peace

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

The cuneiform inscription that serves as our logo and as the design motif for our endpapers is the earliest-known written appearance of the word “freedom” (amagi ), or “liberty.” It is taken from a clay document written about 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 1 09 08 07 06 05 p 5 4 3 2 1 Frontispiece: Portrait of Hugo de Groot by Michiel van Mierevelt, 1608; oil on panel; collection of Historical Museum Rotterdam, on loan from the Van der Mandele Stichting. Reproduced by permission. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Grotius, Hugo, 1583–1645. [De jure belli ac pacis libri tres. English] The rights of war and peace/Hugo Grotius; edited and with an introduction by Richard Tuck. p. cm.—(Natural law and enlightenment classics) “Major legal and political works of Hugo Grotius”—T.p., v. 1. Includes bibliographical references. isbn 0-86597-432-2 (set: hard) isbn 0-86597-436-5 (set: soft) isbn 0-86597-433-0 (v. 1: hc) isbn 0-86597-437-3 (v. 1: sc) 1. International law. 2. Natural law. 3. War (International law). I. Tuck, Richard, 1949– . II. Title. III. Series. kz2093.a3j8813 2005 341.6—dc22 2004044217 liberty fund, inc. 8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300 Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684


volume 1
Introduction A Note on the Text Acknowledgments the rights of war and peace, book i ix xxxv xxxix 1

volume 2
the rights of war and peace, book ii 389

volume 3
the rights of war and peace, book iii Appendix: Prolegomena to the First Edition of De Jure Belli ac Pacis Bibliography of Postclassical Works Referred to by Grotius Bibliography of Works Referred to in Jean Barbeyrac’s Notes Index to This Edition 1185 1741 1763 1791 1815

Brumfitt and John C. Hall (Everyman 1973). At his side stands his dear son. D. and it is to be presumed that it never will”). and. a dishonest child. living by the work of his hands. 34. nevertheless. H. without any of Rousseau’s reservations. the book had the same standing as the great works of classical antiquity. ix . ed. “I see him still. but he never lost his sense of the book’s importance. had led the Elector Palatine in 1661 to endow a chair in the University of Heidelberg for the express purpose of providing a commentary on the De Iure Belli ac Pacis. lying before him in the midst of the tools of his trade. Plutarch. see The Social Contract and Discourses.” Rousseau’s reminiscence is testimony to the authority which Grotius’s De Iure Belli ac Pacis had come to possess in the century since it was first published in 1625. Cole. and Grotius. G. he “is but a child. Political Writings. .” and that “true political theory is yet to appear. E. H. J. 2:147. a fact which is noted in the Life prefaced to this edition. Jean-Jacques Rousseau drew a vivid picture of his father sitting at his watchmaker’s bench.introduction In the famous dedication of his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality to the Republic of Geneva. receiving. as the Life also notes. . the book was issued as a full edition with notes by 1. and feeding his soul on the sublimest truths. Rousseau was to devote much of his life to a complicated and subtle repudiation of Grotius. I see the works of Tacitus. describing Grotius in Emile as “the master of all the savants” in political theory (though he added that. the tender instruction of the best of fathers. . trans. revised ed. what is worse. see Rousseau. Vaughan (Oxford: Oxford University Press. for Emile. in the eyes of both father and son.1 The same sense of Grotius’s importance. C. 1915). For the dedication. alas with too little profit.

3 By the end of the seventeenth century there had been twenty-six editions of the Latin text. six French. This information is from J. He worked tirelessly to put his own version of modern natural law before the European public. and French (1687. J. Boecler. . prefaced to his edition of Pufendorf.2 “by which means our Author. obtained an Honour. for many eighteenth-century readers the definitive version of the book had appeared in Latin in 1720. followed by a French translation in 1724 with elaborate notes. when Jean Barbeyrac issued a new edition. which was not bestowed upon the Ancients till after many Ages.x introduction various commentators.” which began to appear in the late seventeenth century. This was the edition that appeared in 1691 from a press at Frankfurt-on-Oder. reissued once). A. J. Bibliographie des ´crits imprimes de Grotius (The Hague. five German. the network of scholars whose families had been driven out of France following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV in 1685. Osiander. See Barbeyrac’s remark in his An Historical and Critical Account of the Science of Morality. two English. within 50 Years after his Death. circulated in manuscript). English (1654. reprinted with extensive additional material by R. and one Italian (and one Russian. E. with commentary by Gronovius. For an exemplary modern edition e ´ of the Latin text. the French version was dedicated to George I of England. The Law of Nature and Nations (London.4 However.” The idea that the book represented something new and important for the modern age was repeatedly voiced in the “histories of morality.5 Barbeyrac was a leading figure in the French Protestant diaspora. Persenaire (Aalen: Scientia Verlag. 1950). reissued three times in the century). Both the Barbeyrac Latin and French editions were from Amsterdam. Feenstra and C. reissued twice). and Ziegler. Diermanse. and it had been translated into Dutch (1626. 1993). 4. De Kanter–van Hettinga Tromp’s 1939 edition. Its popularity scarcely slackened in the eighteenth century: there were twenty Latin editions. J. 1749). and his editions of Grotius built on the success of a similarly elaborate edition which he had produced of Samuel Pufendorf ’s De Iure Naturae et Gentium in 1706. 5. Henniges. two Dutch. see B. names that will become familiar from Barbeyrac’s notes in this edition. The notes to these editions 2. Grotius was described as “breaking the ice” after the long winter of ancient and medieval ethics. ter Meulen and P. 3. 67.

professor of international law at Cambridge and translator of Grotius. see “A Note on the Text” at the end of the introduction. Political Writings. by the time of the post–First World War settlement. 103. Many intellectual developments of the period contributed to this shift. which is now in the Houghton Library at Harvard. including the criticisms of Grotius found (alongside his admiration) in Rousseau. Nisbet. possessed a copy. The French version of De Iure Belli ac Pacis was reprinted steadily through the middle years of the century. Immanuel Kant. it would be hard to imagine any work more central to the intellectual world of the Enlightenment. . and it found an audience beyond the French-speaking polite world in an English translation of 1738. trans. 7. ed. tried in the mid-nineteenth century to restore Grotius as a major moral thinker. An Italian translation appeared in 1777. the stream of new editions dried up. For full details. and are found in most academic and private libraries of the period—for example. since states as such are not subject to a common external constraint. 2d ed. “international law” (a term coined by Jeremy Bentham in 1780). (New York: Cambridge University Press. H. but with limited success. which is reprinted in this edition. 1991). and as a suitable tutelary presence for the new 6. But from the late eighteenth century onward.introduction xi keyed their texts into all the relevant discussions of natural law from antiquity down to the 1720s. like most well-educated English gentlemen. and the contempt expressed by Kant for the “sorry comforters” such as Grotius and Pufendorf. although their philosophically or diplomatically formulated codes do not and cannot have the slightest legal force. and the book came to be treated not as the formative work of modern moral and political theory but as an important contribution to a different genre. whose works “are still dutifully quoted in justification of military aggression. Hans Reiss. and the two works together quickly became the equivalent of an encyclopedia of moral and political thought for Enlightenment Europe.”7 William Whewell. and which seems to have been produced in a large print run.6 Copies of it are very common. B. General Washington. As this publishing history in itself illustrates. Grotius was regarded almost exclusively as the founder of modern civilized interstate relations.

In Grotius’s case.xii introduction Peace Palace at The Hague. qualities that entitle him to an essential place in the history of political theory. The generation before Grotius’s birth. Formed out of a union of various smaller companies in 1602. and many of Grotius’s writings display the intense patriotism engendered by that struggle. As we shall see. All his life. the overseas trading and military activity of the Dutch East India Company.” the province of Holland and Zeeland. in its first year of operation its gross income already exceeded the ordinary revenue of the English government. like many other Dutch cities. to one of the wealthy ruling families in the Dutch city of Delft. his relatives had fought in the great struggle that established the freedom of the northern provinces of the Netherlands from the rule of the Spanish Crown. and somewhat wary of bigger states. and gave himself an appropriately Latin name) were regents of the city. The De Groots were . in some ways that was to radically misunderstand Grotius’s views on war. they were also participants in one of the great sources of Dutch wealth and power. that is. Grotius remained wedded to the oligarchic republicanism of cities such as Delft. and (like the English East India Company a hundred years later) it sent out military forces as well as trading vessels in order to overawe its rivals and offer help to dissident groups all over the Far East. the East India Company was the first of the enormous corporations that were to dominate the European overseas expansion in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. which had collectively asserted their independence. The De Groots (“Grotius” is the Latinized version of his Dutch name—in common with intellectuals all over Europe. His family had not merely fought in the war of independence. they were members of the self-selecting oligarchy which governed Delft. his patriotism was as much focused on what he called his “nation. he was in fact much more of an apologist for aggression and violence than many of his more genuinely pacific contemporaries. Grotius spoke and wrote to his fellow writers in Latin. and which form the modern kingdom of the Netherlands. as it was on the wider United Provinces. It was also and more seriously to ignore the genuinely innovative qualities of his moral theory. Hugo Grotius was born on 10 April 1583.

The young Grotius was educated as a humanist. Jan van Oldenbarnevelt. using all the ancient arts of rhetoric. For these rhetorical skills he was picked (as well-trained humanists always hoped to be) as an adviser and secretary by a leading politician.introduction xiii shareholders in the company and sat on the board of one of its “chambers” in Delft. Grotius quickly became caught up in the political struggles of the new republic. the Statholders. while most of the provinces had come to appoint the same man as their Statholder. The assemblies sent delegates to an Estates General of the Union at The Hague. Technically. was prized above all things. Although Grotius frequently cited philosophical texts written in a more “scholastic” style (that is. the United Provinces was a kingdom with a vacant throne: the King of Spain had been driven out but had not been replaced. an involvement that was ultimately to prove personally disastrous for him. In his absence. and in which the ability to write and speak persuasively. the Prince of Orange. The Union thus possessed both a monarchical and a republican element in its constitution. government was divided between the old royal governors of the seven provinces. in the tradition going back to the Italian Renaissance in which the study of classical texts provided an entire education. in which moral or legal issues were discussed in a kind of Aristotelian terminology. and the old representative assemblies for the provinces. The fact that one of the principal actors in international politics at the beginning of the seventeenth century was not a state but a private corporation was to be of enormous significance in the formation of Grotius’s political thought. his own writing was always essentially humanist in character. Grotius was a prodigy within this education system and quickly made his reputation as a Latin poet and historian. with little regard for literary elegance). the Estates. and pending the appointment of a new monarch (which was seriously considered for the first fifty years of the republic’s existence). the style of the “schoolmen” of the Middle Ages. who was in effect prime minister of the Dutch Republic. The De Iure Belli ac Pacis is full of literary and historical material from antiquity. and Grotius would have been delighted that a Genevan watchmaker should think that his book was a natural companion to the works of Tacitus and Plutarch. though the constitutional basis for the powers of the .

the Calvinist Church and its ministry looked to the princes of the House of Orange to secure its power over the population. both Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius seem to have concluded that the only way to secure religious toleration in the republic was in effect to mount a military coup against the Statholder and thereby to remove the principal weapon in the hands of the Calvinists. Prince Maurice arrested them both and had them arraigned for treason. van Dam in his edition of Grotius’s De Imperio Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra (Leiden: Brill. Each element also had a different range of supporters: broadly speaking. Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden: Brill. H.xiv introduction different elements was far from clear. written in 1611. the Statholder possessed military authority as the commander in chief of the republic’s armies. discussed by H. His Meletius sive De iis quae inter Christianos convenit epistola. Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius worked tirelessly on behalf of the Estates to try to protect the more liberal theologians (in particular. though only after a long and bloody civil war. . in the United Provinces. Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius lost.8 But in the end. in practice. M. when the representatives of heterodox religious groups in the House of Commons also came to the conclusion that only a coup against their prince would destroy the power of the church that he supported. 1988). while other more heterodox religious groups looked to the oligarchical urban rulers for their protection. In England. the Commons won. See also his writings from 1614 onward on ecclesiastical power. 2001). Grotius also circulated privately a theological work of his own in which he argued for a minimalist and irenic version of Christianity. During the first two decades of the seventeenth century. Many people (including to some extent Grotius himself ) felt that there had been little point in throwing off the tyranny of Spain if it was to be replaced by the tyranny of an organized and intolerant Calvinist Church. edited by G. while the Estates possessed the power of taxation and finance. J. Grotius gave evidence against his old friend 8. the religious antagonisms within the republic reached the point where civil war was threatened. the ministers who agreed with Jacobus Arminius’s denial of the Calvinist doctrine of grace) from the attacks of the Calvinists. There is a close parallel with events thirty years later in England.

As we shall see. Grotius was taken in the winter of 1618 to his prison. hoping that Maurice’s successor as Statholder. his ship was caught in a storm in the Baltic and wrecked on the coast near Rostock. and Grotius slipped out of the country again in April 1632. Grotius (who was quite a small man) hid in the empty basket and was carried out of the castle. could arrange for him to be rehabilitated. There was always a certain amount of unease in Sweden about using him in this important position. he passed briefly through the United Provinces on his way. without molestation. Political pris- . and took refuge in France. since Grotius issued a second edition of the work during this period in which some of his more disturbing claims were modified in order to win over his Dutch opponents. and died in Rostock on 28 August 1645. and left the country. He returned to the United Provinces under a false identity in October 1631. He succeeded in crossing the border to the Spanish Netherlands undetected. Though it was not published until four years after his escape. Louvestein Castle. and in 1645 Grotius visited Sweden to defend himself against criticism. however. His body was returned to Delft and given an honored burial by the same Dutch authorities who had kept him in exile for twenty-four years. when he escaped in famous and romantic circumstances: his wife arrived with a basket of books. in the south of the United Provinces. but in the end Frederick William could not deliver an annulment of the original conviction. De Iure Belli ac Pacis really grew out of Grotius’s time in prison. a post that allowed him to play a major role in the complex diplomacy surrounding the last years of the Thirty Years’ War. Grotius collapsed on shore after being rescued. He failed to persuade the Swedes to renew his appointment. until at the beginning of 1635 the government of Sweden appointed him as their ambassador to France. He lived there until March 1621.introduction xv and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Frederick William (who had always been personally sympathetic to Grotius). where he lived for most of the rest of his life. while Oldenbarnevelt was publicly beheaded in May 1619. For the next three years he moved around Germany. these six months in his native land had an important effect on the received text of De Iure Belli ac Pacis.

Grotius had been staying at Buon’s house since he arrived in Paris. “I have resumed the study of jurisprudence [iuris studium ] which had been interrupted by all my affairs. Political Writings. In 1622 he also published his Disquisitio an Pelagiana sint ea dogmata quae nunc sub eo nomine traducuntur. 12. and his Apologeticus eorum qui Hollandiae ex legibus praefuerunt.12 but once settled in France he concentrated on his juridical and moral project and wrote De Iure Belli ac Pacis between the autumn of 1622 and the spring of 1624. Briefwisseling. vol.10 and the effect of this approach to the subject is visible on every page of the De Iure Belli ac Pacis. 2 (The Hague. defending his conduct in the attempted coup of 1618. Grotius. 1936). They also differ in their method. all the rest is the same. The book was published in Paris by Nicolas Buon. Rousseau was to remark sardonically that Grotius’s use of quotations concealed the fundamental similarity between Grotius and Hobbes: “The truth is that their principles are exactly the same: they only differ in their expression. 11. J. C. wrote his massive History of the World while awaiting execution in the Tower of London. Rousseau. Molhuysen. and Grotius on the poets. in a volume entitled Dicta Poetarum quae apud Io. 590). P. the Dutch forerunner of his later De veritate religionis Christianae. In 1623 he published these translations. Stobaeum exstant. the same printer who was to produce De Iure Belli ac Pacis. His two years in Louvestein allowed Grotius to revisit old projects.”9 He told Vossius that to help his work in moral philosophy he was giving a Latin dress to the ethical passages in the Greek poets and dramatists collected by the Byzantine anthologist Stobaeus. Hobbes relies on sophisms.”11 Grotius also turned his attention to rewriting and expanding his earlier work on theology. In 1622 he published Bewys van den waren godsdienst. ed. as he wrote to his old friend G.xvi introduction oners in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries enjoyed full access to their books and papers. for example. picking up on the themes in debate between the Arminians and their opponents. partly while staying as a guest at the country house of one of the presi9. . with an introduction that broaches some of the themes later developed in De Iure Belli ac Pacis. and unlimited time to write: Sir Walter Raleigh. Vossius in July 1619. which he had composed in prison. and it was this which he brought to fruition first after his escape. five years later he produced the Latin version. 2:147. 10. and the rest of my time is devoted to moral philosophy [morali sapientiae ]. 15 (no.

422. though this may not have been authorized. 327.15 and in May Grotius was at last able to give a presentation copy to the book’s dedicatee. De Iure Belli ac Pacis and Mare Liberum did appear together in an Amsterdam edition of 1632. King Louis XIII of France. as the famous Mare Liberum (1609). 17.”18 Dutch expansion in the Far East was a peculiarly fertile context for Grotius’s political theory to develop. for example. 449. He clearly did not suppose then that De Iure Belli ac Pacis had superseded the earlier work.17 The manuscript lay unknown among Grotius’s papers until 1864. when it was discovered and published. 958). but Grotius himself referred to it more loosely as his De Indis. 2:433. Ibid. 417. Henri de Mesmes.14 copies were rushed to the Frankfurt Book Fair in March in order to catch the eye of the European public. It was a defense of the military and commercial activity of the Dutch East India Company in the Far East. 2:426). no doubt with a view to publishing it. but in the end only Chapter XII of the manuscript had appeared in print. before the practical requirements of Dutch politics came to occupy all his time and attention. 426. and in it the central themes of De Iure Belli ac Pacis were already adumbrated. 2:254.. 18. 16. . and its real scope was expressed by the subtitle of Mare Liberum. See. Briefwisseling.13 Printing took place slowly and inefficiently from January to March 1625. 15. Grotius was thinking about a new edition in which the work would appear alongside Mare Liberum and his essay on the Dutch constitution. Grotius decided that his enforced leisure at Louvestein was an ideal opportunity to rewrite this early draft and finally put it in a publishable form. 358. 296.introduction xvii dents of the Parlement of Paris. its first editor gave it the title De Iure Praedae. at Balagny near Senlis. clearly. The copies at Frankfurt lacked the indexes (Briefwisseling.16 Among the papers to which he must have turned while in prison was a long manuscript which he had written in 1606. Even as the De Iure Belli ac Pacis was being printed. since (as I said earlier) it was essentially driven by a private corporation. no. 14. He had begun to circulate the manuscript among his friends. interacting with local rulers 13. De Antiquitate Batavicae Reipublicae of 1610 (Briefwisseling. De jure quod Batavis competit ad Indicana commercia dissertatio. 260. See among other references Briefwisseling. 283. 2:409. “a dissertation on the law which covers the Hollanders’ trade with the Indies. The Law of Prizes.

The principles that were to govern dealings of this kind had to be appropriately stripped down: there was no point in asserting to a king in Sumatra that Aristotelian moral philosophy was universally true. customs. 1950). The Indian Ocean and the China Sea were an arena in which actors had to deal with one another without the overarching frameworks of common laws. Zeydel (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. some better than others. for they seemed to offer the prospect of an understanding of political and moral life to which all men—the poor and dispossessed and religiously heterodox of Europe as well as the exotic peoples of the Far East or the New World—could give their assent. De Iure Praedae Commentarius. For what is that well-known concept.” other than the power of the individual to act in accordance with his own will? And liberty in regard to actions is equivalent to ownership in regard to property. Hence the saying: “every man is the governor and arbiter of affairs relative to his own property. The minimalist character of the principles that emerged from this setting caught the imagination of modern Europe. Grotius boldly stated his central argument as follows: God created man auteqousion.xviii introduction such as the sultan of Johore and offering them military protection and beneficial trading arrangements. Oxford University Press. as the states of Western Europe themselves came to terms with religious and cultural diversity. it was a proving ground for modern politics in general. Williams and Walter H.”19 Grotius remained committed to this view in De Iure Belli ac Pacis. “free and sui iuris. and every one may chuse what he 19.” so that the actions ◊ ´ of each individual and the use of his possessions were made subject not to another’s will but to his own. “natural liberty. or religions. this view is sanctioned by the common consent of all nations. Moreover. . Gwladys L. remarking in one of its most striking passages that “there are several Ways of living. 1:18. and not much more point in telling the admiral of the Dutch East India Company’s fleet that he had to wait for some judicial pronouncement by an appropriate sovereign before making war on a threatening naval force. trans.

V.”20 He thus presupposed the naturally autonomous agents familiar to us from later seventeenth. with the same meaning as in De Iure Praedae.2. and which they always contrasted with “civil Society” (the product of agreement among naturally free men). 20. For on this point the Stoics.III. in the Latin as well as the English texts. who constructed their political arrangements through voluntary agreements. occur at II. Moreover. no member of any sect of philosophers. and was always used as such by later writers.XXI.V.15. those things which are useful for life. I. and to retain. indeed. and also II. 6 and II. As its context illustrates. The term auteqousion also occurs three times in De Iure ◊ ´ Belli ac Pacis. secondly.8. the Epicureans.XX. without violating the precepts of nature.8 is the famous defense of absolutism. The Prolegomena to the work began with two fundamental laws of nature: first.1. ◊ ´ at his own Disposal ” (II. Though he did not have precisely the concept of the “state of nature.introduction xix pleases of all those Sorts. that which is important for the conduct of life. though they contrast nature with grace.2 n. we shall interpret with Cicero as an admission that each individual may. 21.III.5.9. that It shall be permissible to acquire for oneself. for example.27.12.V.6).VII. in the original Latin refers to ius naturae. for example. that It shall be permissible to defend [one’s own] life and to shun that which threatens to prove injurious. in a more traditional fashion.2.21 and of course the domain of foreign trade and war was in itself the best example of such a state. when embarking upon a discussion of the ends [of good and evil]. has ever failed to lay down these two laws first of all as indisputable axioms. The latter precept. . The principles governing these autonomous natural individuals were also stated very plainly in De Iure Praedae.VI.and eighteenthcentury political theory.IV.” II.” which was so central to Hobbes and his successors. which contrasts “the State of Nature” with civil “Jurisdiction. prefer to see acquired for himself rather than for another. his description of a child who has grown up and left home as “altogether auteqousioc. Other references to the state of nature.2 and II. of course. this stress on fundamental moral liberty is compatible with a voluntary renunciation of civil liberty—I. See in particular II. Grotius uses the term civil society: see. I. he did use the terms in somewhat similar ways.48. See. which in the English translation also refers to “a meer State of Nature” in opposition to civil society.

it is evident that the right of chastisement was held by private persons before it was held by the state.II. Therefore. It also includes what we would normally think of as punishment. since no one is able to transfer a thing that he never possessed. where I only seek my own Advantage. De Iure Praedae Commentarius. the leader of the Skeptical Academy. 2:10–11. He was aware that this was an extremely disturbing idea. his minimalist principles should be acceptable. too. and this is what he duly did in De Iure Belli ac Pacis. and therefore.xx introduction and the Peripatetics are in complete agreement.II. just as every right of the magistrate comes to him from the state. the law of nature. and similarly.. that is. yet it derives no power over the latter from civil law. the exercise of violence against a third party by whom we are not directly threatened. . Grotius termed these “laws” of nature. extends beyond merely responding to an immediate attack.e. has great force in this connexion: the state inflicts punishment for wrongs against itself. which is binding upon citizens only because they have given their consent. so has the same right come to the state from private individuals.11) are the basic rights which recur throughout the book. but since they were permissive in form they might be better termed “rights”.22 The last part of this passage emphasizes Grotius’s concern that whatever one’s ethical commitments. as the person whom he needed to defeat in argument. and apparently even the Academics [i.3) and the right “of innocent Profit. the Skeptics] have entertained no doubt. not only upon its own subjects but also upon foreigners. Grotius always believed. as traditionally this right was the special prerogative of civil sovereigns. . Is not the power to punish essentially a power that pertains to the state [respublica ]? Not at all! On the contrary. . or law 22. . in De Iure Belli ac Pacis he made the same point by selecting Carneades. without damaging any Body else” (II. The following argument. in defence of one’s own Life” (I. The right to defend oneself. Williams and Zeydel. where the “Right of recurring to Force. the power of the state is the result of collective agreement. trans.

1:21. For the Latin text.9). In the earlier work he specified the laws as “Let no one inflict injury upon his fellows” and “Let no one seize possession of that which has been taken into the possession of another. Two Treatises of Government. 1988).3. he would not have found this particular point in De Iure Belli ac Pacis.XX. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. but yet does not shew that to be absolutely necessary. 272 (II. Hanaker (The Hague.23 xxi This last argument is of course identical to the one used later by Locke and described by him as “a very strange doctrine. 25.1. 1:91–92. 244–45. 91. it indicates that by nature’s ordinance each individual should be desirous of his own good fortune in preference to that of another. . 24. It suggests indeed so much. in the manuscript which seems to be part of the working papers for the De Indis. trans. For natural Reason informs us.”24 Intriguingly.” However. unless by Superior we mean him who is innocent.25 23. that is. Hugo Grotius: “Commentarius in Theses XI” (Berne. De Iure Praedae Commentarius. the Person to whom the Right of Punishing belongs. . for example at II. for an early statement of this idea. is the source from which the state receives the power in question. and place them among the Beasts that are subject to Men. G. . which is the Doctrine of some Divines. that it is the fittest to be done by a Superior. Williams and Zeydel. is not determined by the Law of Nature. in both De Iure Praedae and De Iure Belli ac Pacis. and detrude the Guilty below the Rank of Men. trans. De Iure Praedae Commentarius. properly so called. by two laws. ed. Williams and Zeydel. 1994). he was at pains to stress that the rights of nature took precedence (as they were to later in Hobbes): the order of presentation of the first set of laws and of those following immediately thereafter has indicated that one’s own good takes precedence over the good of another person—or. let us say. 1868). These natural rights of self-defense are balanced. but not who ought to punish him. The Subject of this Right. that a Malefactor may be punished. the easiest source (since the Carnegie Endowment text is a photocopy of the manuscript) is still the original edition by H. though he would have found a clear statement of the general claim. . See also Peter Borschberg.introduction of nations.

both as a whole and as individuals. Individual citizens should not only refrain from injuring other citizens.. and the Restitution of what we have of another’s.6. so as to prefer sometimes one of greater before one of less Merit.26 In De Iure Belli ac Pacis he said the same. And he made clear in his long defense of violence.II.xxii introduction In the later work. . Book I. that these laws did not supersede our natural right to defend ourselves: “The Christian Religion commands. In a “city. which many both 26. in his discussion of the difference between “corrective” and “distributive” justice. the Obligation of fulfilling Promises. he argued. Ibid. whether these be held privately or in common. and the Nature of the Thing require. and that according as each Man’s Actions. the Reparation of a Damage done through our own Default. Distributive justice. and the Merit of Punishment among Men. The natural state of man was thus one of wary defensiveness: men should not unnecessarily injure one another. with the express intention of improving one another’s lives and creating something richer than the state of nature. . he most clearly listed the basic laws of nature in a passage in the Preliminary Discourse. 21. § VIII: the Abstaining from that which is another’s. Citizens should not only refrain from seizing one another’s possessions. but should furthermore protect them. but who will pretend to say. or of the Profit we have made by it. a Relation before a Stranger. . Only if they formed civil associations. Chapter II. that we should lay down our Lives one for another.” First.2). that we are obliged to this by the Law of Nature[?]” (I. secondly. was concerned with a prudent Management in the gratuitous Distribution of Things that properly belong to each particular Person or Society. would principles such as mutual aid apply. . but should furthermore contribute individually both that which is necessary to other individuals and that which is necessary to the whole. but they need not actually help one another. a poor Man before one that is rich.

Grotius more than once in De Iure Praedae described this trait as “homini proprium. Ibid. Grotius presented these principles of natural law as themselves derived from some fundamental metaethical commitments. that is law. 8. has a quite different Nature. both in his own time and later.”28 and from it he derived the remaining part 27.” though he acknowledged that only part of justice was based on self-defense.” even in that work Grotius refused to derive the laws of nature from “oracles and supernatural portents. see also page 13. and even inanimate objects) possessed a fundamental drive to preserve themselves. Hanaker. and the character of these commitments occasioned extensive controversy. individuals had other goals. Justice properly understood involved merely a commitment not to injure other people. ed. but also animals. In both De Iure Praedae and De Iure Belli ac Pacis.introduction xxiii of the Ancients and Moderns take to be a part of Right properly and strictly so called. properly speaking. Self-defense was the first and most basic of all principles: all individuals (not just men. Once their preservation was secured. they were endowed with a desire for a social life with other individuals of the same kind.” “special to men.”27 Instead. Grotius was even prepared to say (quoting Horace) that to this extent “expediency [utilitas. “profit” or “self-interest”] might perhaps be called the mother of justice and equity. or in doing for them what in Strictness they may demand. “mediam justitiam. since it consists in leaving others in quiet Possession of what is already their own. 12.” . in the case of men (and to a degree far exceeding that of other creatures).. when notwithstanding that Right. (Preliminary Discourse. unless doing so was necessary in order to protect one’s own rights. De Iure Praedae Commentarius. they were to be deduced solely from “the design [intentio ] of the Creator” as manifested in the generally recognized constitution of the natural world. Although the Prolegomena to De Iure Praedae began with the simple statement “What God has shown to be His Will. 28. quae humano generi propria est. X) Aristotle (the most relevant “Ancient” referred to) was therefore wrong: it was not part of basic justice to think about the needs of others.

In the Prolegomena to De Iure Belli ac Pacis. Just as in De Iure Praedae he had restricted the derivation of natural law to what all men agreed on as the basic physical principles governing all beings. and all peoples at all periods of history. irrespective of their religious commitments.Hanaker. so called from the Latin for “even if we were to suppose. ed. though its similarities to the earlier work were appreciably clearer in the first edition than in the edition he produced while attempting to return to the United Provinces. but one did not need to think about the divine character of the creation to apprehend what the constitution of the physical world was.”31 As in De Iure Praedae. declaring in the most famous remark of the book that “what I have just said would be relevant even if we were to suppose (what we cannot suppose without the greatest wickedness) that there is no God. the laws obliging us to abstain from injuring our fellow men. pervenerit ].”30 He was now even more blunt about the exiguous role of God. 31. had agreed on the principles of natural law. But in his discussion of this part he always insisted on its subordinate status to the right of self-preservation and on its minimal character—mutual aid and distributive (as distinct from corrective) justice were not part of this natural “cognatio ”29 but appeared with cities and civil society. See my translation of the Prolegomena in the appendix to Book III. or that human affairs are of no concern to him. so in the Prolegomena to De Iure Belli ac Pacis he asserted that it “necessarily derives from intrinsic principles of a human being.xxiv introduction of natural justice. 30. Self-preservation was still the first of these principles: “nature drives each animal to seek its own interests [utilitates ]. This is the notorious etiamsi daremus clause.” But this was balanced by the same ideas as in 29. 13. Grotius set out a very similar theory.” De Iure Praedae Commentarius. “relationship” or “similarity.” . Grotius accepted that God had indeed created the world and peopled it with beings constituted along these lines. That is.” and this was true “of man before he came to the use of that which is special to man [antequam ad usum eius quod homini proprium est.

that every Creature is led by Nature to seek its own private Advantage. whether that law stems from nature itself or from custom and tacit agreement. Grotius toned down his argument. being obliged to keep promises. This desire is the basis for our respect for one another’s rights.” Anything further. In order to accommodate the book more to their views when he produced the second edition. and none hitherto treated of universally and methodically ”—Grotius now allowed that the law of nature might be “instituted by Divine Commands. or instituted by Divine Commands. few have touched upon. but since he had qualified his endorsement of the remark in De Iure Praedae. expressed thus universally. It is clear that both Grotius’s derogation of the role of God and the priority he gave to self-interest were alarming to many of his contemporaries. involving distributive justice and the recognition of merited distinctions between people. which is common to many Nations or Rulers of Nations. he . that what is proprium or special to man is a desire for a much richer social life than is possessed by any other animals. giving compensation for culpable damage. and in particular for a social life governed by rational principles. to which belong abstaining from another’s possessions. in 1625 the very first sentence of the Prolegomena included the claim that “few people have tackled the law that mediates between different countries or their rulers. might arise from this natural justice but was not. this read “that Law. and incurring human punishment. part of it. or introduced by Custom and tacit Consent.” In 1631. his new comment on the passage did not represent a major repudiation of his old view. properly so called. and so far no one at all has dealt with it comprehensively and methodically. For example.” Similarly. particularly among the Calvinists who surrounded the Prince of Orange. he contrived to widen the scope of God’s authority.” Similarly.introduction xxv the earlier work. must not be granted. and is “the source of ius. Thus he cut out the claim that man was driven purely by self-interest “before he came to the use of that which is special to man” and replaced it with the emphatic assertion that “the Saying. whether derived from Nature. restoring anything which belongs to another (or the profit from it). Grotius now denied that Horace had been right in saying that utilitas was the mother of justice. strictly speaking.

See for example what he did to Grotius’s remark at I. it was necessary to keep a strict Hand over them. into some confusion.” 33. Barbeyrac supposed that aliis consulunt should read male consulunt. and has forbid us to give way to those impetuous Passions.xxvi introduction dropped the word “necessarily” from the sentence where he had said that the natural law “necessarily derives from intrinsic principles of a human being” and added to his discussion at that point the thought that God by the Laws which he has given.” which appears in all the editions seen through the press by Grotius. but that seems to me to be a misrepresentation of what Grotius was saying. quique aliis consulunt.I. and to confine them within certain narrow Bounds. XIII) So he now conceded that the natural law might properly be deduced not from the necessary constitution of the physical world. qui nobis ipsis. though they might (as he claimed in 1631) need some sort of control by God to make sure that they did so. Grotius’s point was that our self-interested and benevolent impulses did in principle keep us on the right road. Barbeyrac consistently sought to emphasize the wider character of Grotian sociability and to bring him in line with Pufendorf (whose main aim was to attack the account of man’s narrow and self-interested natural life found in Hobbes). even to those who are less capable of strict Reasoning. 32 for as they are exceeding unruly. Almost all these changes are found in the Prolegomena. and that of others.10. that ius naturale is “a dictate of right reason. by strictly restraining the more vehement of them and by coercing them in both their ends and their means. This is a translation of the sentence “& in diversa trahentes impetus. and consequently whether it was forbidden or permitted by God the author of nature” .33 But anyone who read the first edition (as Hobbes himself 32. the remainder of the book continued to lay out the same case that Grotius had advanced in the first edition. (Preliminary Discourse. A better translation would read. from its congruity or incongruity with rational nature itself. which. has made these very Principles more clear and evident. including Barbeyrac. The result of this was to throw many of his later readers. even to those whose powers of reasoning are feeble: and he has forbidden those powerful impulses which attend to the interests of both ourselves and others from straying into the wrong courses. “God has made these same principles more conspicuous by giving laws. divert us from following the Rules of Reason and Nature. indicating of any act whether it possesses moral turpitude or moral necessity. contrary to our own Interest. but from the records of God’s pronouncements about the law directly to mankind. vagari vetuit.

The first and most obvious implication was that private war was legitimate. and against those who practise Piracy. Grotius permitted the company. . And (my translation). Grotius was still an adviser to the company when he wrote De Iure Belli ac Pacis. Chapter XX) that We make no Doubt. or who could see through the confusion artfully introduced by Grotius (as Rousseau seems to have done). . before Alexander persuaded them to renounce their Brutality. . and anyone else dealing with the complicated power struggles and internecine violence of the world in which the European traders found themselves. against those who eat human Flesh. I now want to turn to the practical implications of Grotius’s ideas. . though legally a private individual. The second implication. and he continued to assert its right to engage in this kind of activity. as were the Sogdians. . though less obvious. could indeed make war as if it were a state when it encountered any people with whom it did not already have some kind of civil association. Grotius was quite clear in De Iure Belli ac Pacis about the interventionary character of his theory. Barbeyrac inserted at his own initiative the words “and social” (ac sociali ) after the word “rational” in this passage—a revealing attempt to make Grotius more of a theorist of sociability than in fact he was. arguing in his great chapter on punishment (Book II. even if there was no immediate threat to the Europeans themselves.” he may well have been surprisingly close to the mark. . was even more far-reaching: the kind of war that private individuals could make included acts of punishment—that is. to make judgments about the morality of the various parties and to punish those who seemed to be violating other people’s rights. would be aware that Grotius’s theory of the law of nature was more like Hobbes’s than Pufendorf and Barbeyrac were ever prepared to acknowledge. . The East India Company. but War may be justly undertaken against those who are inhuman to their Parents. it encompassed much more than the limited violence which almost all moralists (other than the radically Christian ones) had allowed individuals to use in their own immediate self-defense.introduction xxvii probably did). When Rousseau said of Grotius and Hobbes (in the passage I quoted earlier) that “their principles are exactly the same.

Perhaps the most surprising and historically important was any refusal by hunter-gatherers. this view was very contentious. but to use it to meet the needs [inopiam ] of other men. or that he has some Jurisdiction over the Person against whom the War is made.xxviii introduction so far we follow the Opinion of Innocentius [Pope Innocent IV]. nor to leave it unproductive [inutile ]. had expressly denied that the conquest was a crusade against immoral barbarians. and others. according to the theory. (II. that it proceeds from the Law of Nature. to let agriculturalists settle on their land.XX. or by lending it to those who ask. we have to consider the most striking of all the implications that Grotius drew from his guiding principles. whereas our Opinion is. which is contrary to the Opinion of Victoria. As for what God has granted us in addition. we are commanded not to throw it into the sea (as some Philosophers foolishly asserted).40) As Grotius said. For they assert. Molina. . . in Grotius’s view. even at the cost of another person’s survival. towards making a War just. . he summed up his views as follows: our natural needs are satisfied with only a few things. that the Power of Punishing is properly an Effect of Civil Jurisdiction. such as the principal theorist of the Spanish conquest of Mexico and Peru. modern writers. who hold that War is lawful against those who offend against Nature. who seem to require. and others. such as the aboriginals of North America. nor to waste it. and had usually been associated with enthusiasts for the medieval crusades. such as Innocent IV. entitled one to seize the necessities of life. as is appro- . Azorius. To understand this. namely his theory of property. could count as grounds for intervention in order to punish breaches of the natural law. which may be easily had without great labour or cost. In De Veritate Religionis Christianae. Many practices of non-European peoples. that he who undertakes it be injured in himself. The basic right of self-preservation. Vasquez. but it did not entitle one unnecessarily to take from someone else what one needed. or in his State. either by giving it away. we would be indirectly injuring them. If we were to insist on our ownership of any commodity that we did not need and that someone else might make good use of. which (as we have seen) also came out of the period of reflection allowed to Grotius in the early 1620s. Francisco de Vitoria.

1).II. in the sense that each man took what he needed from the common store of nature and left what he did not need for other people to use. The similarity to Locke’s sentiments in Chapter V of the Second Treatise is obvious and unaccidental. The paradoxical consequence was that.II.34 Throughout his discussion of property. The same was true of the original wastelands of the world. as he insisted throughout Mare Liberum and in II. all commodities were in common. according to Grotius. 1679). A regime of private property did not give people a moral right to more extensive possessions. 3:43 (II. especially in Book II. .3 of De Iure Belli ac Pacis. over which wild animals roamed. Thus the sea could not be owned. . before those of anyone else (II. The last sentence is a reference to 1 Tim.8).14) (my translation). . 18. .III. Agricultural land. on the other hand. it merely changed the method by which they laid claim to the necessities of life. entitling their own needs to be met by the commodity that they owned. 6:17. it was the primitive peoples themselves who were be- 34. since (Grotius believed) only settled possession enabled the farmers to plant seed and harvest crops unmolested. Chapters II and III of De Iure Belli ac Pacis. and thereby to produce new commodities that could be used to fulfill basic needs. Grotius always argued. Grotius. allocation of resources was simply on the basis of “first Occupancy” (II. but representatives or stewards [procuratores ac dispensatores ] of God the Father. Opera Omnia Theologica (London.introduction xxix priate for those who believe themselves to be not owners [dominos ] of these things. because use of the sea itself (as distinct from the fish taken from it) could not be regarded as answering a basic need. In a state of nature. The introduction of private property gave the owners merely a presumptive right to first use. it was not the European settlers who were guilty of any injurious actions when they took hunting grounds away from the primitive peoples of the world. could be owned. the surplus could be claimed by the genuinely needy. but once the owners’ needs had been met. Grotius made clear the extremely weak character of private property. but also in Mare Liberum (which was the relevant portion of De Iure Praedae ).

are Notions universally received. See II. for that perpetual Obligation to Service. and confined within the Bounds of Nature. “That there is a Deity. if it be thus understood. A third and equally surprising practical implication of Grotius’s minimalist political principles was that he sanctioned certain kinds of slavery. on the Account of human Society in general. is that which obliges a Man to serve his Master all his Life long. which those who let themselves out to daily Labour. (II. so an aboriginal nation could regulate the use of its territory. is recompensed by the Certainty of being always provided for. to be restrained. It had occasionally been argued that “infidels” could rightly be conquered by Christians. but Grotius was always adamant that war could never be made against any theists on the grounds that their religion was false. Grotius there and elsewhere distinguished between “Property” and “Jurisdiction”: Just as a fleet at sea can claim the right to regulate the use of the sea in its neighborhood (always allowing for the moral rights of other people to use surplus resources).17. which indeed. for Diet and other common Necessaries. perfect and utter Slavery.XX.” and “those who first attempt to destroy these Notions. But any religion that corresponded to this minimal definition should be tolerated. As he said in II. and Christianity could not be forced on its adherents (II. which they thus. But if it failed to allow settlement under its aegis. as it was to be for Locke (though not for Hobbes). without any just Grounds. one practice that could not be used as justification for the conquest of primitive peoples was their religion. As he said in his discussion of the issue in chapter V of Book II. . and who could be punished for their conduct. .” So atheism was a moral crime. though Christianity itself had to be tolerated by nonbelievers on pain of international punishment ( introduction having badly when they tried to resist the settlements. .27) 35.46. has nothing too hard and severe in it. . are often far from being assured of.V. injure. as in all well-governed Communities has been usual. (one or more I shall not now consider) and that this Deity has the Care of human Affairs. whether true or false. the land could be taken from it as punishment for its breach of the law of nature.II.48). ought. and are absolutely necessary to the Essence of any Religion.XX.XX.35 However.49).

if one’s circumstances were such that only such a course of action would keep one alive. including the private right to make war. These implications of Grotius’s theory. . . all in various ways.” the word which continued to be used by. associated together to enjoy peaceably their Rights. Grotius believed that all its rights “come to the state from private individuals. the power of the state is the result of collective agreement. since such a right would defeat the object of the relationship from the point of view of the slave (II. as were the Roman Provinces. but the less considerable Members of a great State. In the Latin original.” . trans.14. . As we have seen. 1:91. relate to his defense of individual rights.29). parents could reasonably sell their children into slavery (II. As long as this “body of free persons” was independent of any other such body. But De Iure Belli ac Pacis also contains an influential account of the nature of a state. As he said in De Iure Belli ac Pacis I. and it was of course one of the primary reasons why Rousseau was to turn in disgust from the Grotian tradition. it was itself free and sovereign: “we . for example. for those Nations are no longer a State.III. . Hobbes and Pufendorf in their Latin writings to mean “state. But of course. This—to our eyes—disconcerting consequence of Grotius’s minimalist liberalism was a common feature of the rights theories of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. and in addition to help their fellow citizens in ways that they would not think of doing in a state of nature. “The State37 is a compleat Body of free Persons.7).I.” But Grotius had to tread very carefully over the question of how such 36. as we now use the Word.V.28). 37. he used the word civitas or “city. who are brought under the Power of another People. as Slaves are the Members of a Family. De Iure Praedae Commentarius.introduction xxxi The fundamental right to preserve oneself naturally (on Grotius’s view) led to the legitimacy of voluntary slavery. .V. and for their common Benefit” (the last phrase expressing what is added by civil association) (I. Williams and Zeydel.”36 Individuals agree to pool their rights of self-preservation. exclude the Nations. Similarly. the master of a slave could have no right to kill the slave.

every wise Man sees. Why should it not therefore be as lawful for a People that are at their own Disposal. as often as they abuse their Power. which I have before called a perfect Society of Men.8) Since the civitas. Grotius immediately went on to make one of his most famous claims. It is lawful for any Man to engage himself as a Slave to whom he pleases. in the People. but what may be lawfully done? In vain do some alledge the Inconveniences which arise from hence. without reserving any Share of that Right to themselves? Neither should you say this is not to be presumed: For the Question here is not. it simply followed on Grotius’s . so the common Subject of Supreme Power is the State. according to the Laws and Customs of each Nation. which will be without Inconveniences and Dangers. I shall refute it with these Arguments. for you can frame no Form of Government in your Mind. the civil association or civil society. as appears both by the Hebrew and Roman Laws. what may be presumed in a Doubt. (I. The proper Subject is one or more Persons. but it is not the government that acts and creates political identity.xxxii introduction a body might be governed. the Eye the proper. What Mischiefs this Opinion has occasioned. But that does not mean that the association can dispense with its particular rulers. who will have the Supreme Power to be always. but it is not my eyes that see: it is me. any more than I can dispense with my eyes.III. After the passage just quoted. He used the subtle analogy of the human eye: As the Body is the common Subject of Sight. Grotius argued. Similarly. if once the Minds of People are fully possessed with it. we cannot have a state without a government of one or more persons. properly speaking. and may yet occasion. and cannot see without them. continues to be the whole association acting through its rulers. I see with my eyes. . The state. was an individual with the rights of any other individual. that here we must first reject their Opinion. or may arise. . to deliver up themselves to any one or more Persons. . and transfer the Right of governing them upon him or them. and without Exception. so that they may restrain or punish their Kings.

for the essence of Grotius’s natural justice (as distinct from the distributive justice characteristic of civil societies) is that it treats all men as equal and does not recognize distinctions of rank or even of merit. “Nor let any Man pretend to tell me. The world Grotius depicted is indeed recognizably our world. as in its Subject. eager to conquer new territories if that will promote the rational use of the world’s resources. Richard Tuck 38. furthermore.VI. And yet. the idea that sovereignty is like the soul (rather than the head) is precisely the analogy used by Hobbes. as a Thing that properly belongs to it. They are equal. and without any Division into several Parts. the authority of a minimal kind of natural law. For if the Sovereignty resides in the Body. for in De Iure Belli ac Pacis we have indeed found many of the central themes of modern political theory. and eager to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations if they see injuries being suffered by the innocent. We should also remember in this context Grotius’s strong conviction that the United Provinces was an alliance of independent states and not a full union. that the Sovereign Power is lodged in the Body. Interestingly. in nature our property is extremely exiguous. Only if it amalgamated with another association. Grotius’s men are born free. but this could not be an act of the civil society itself. by which all Things return to a mere State of Nature” (II. on the other hand. and no one can claim property rights at the expense of the poor.VI. would it destroy itself. and may therefore be alienated by it.6). or was treated as no longer a separate entity.5) might lead individuals to break up their own state and seek security in another. his men are competitive and censorious.introduction xxxiii account that it must be free voluntarily to enslave itself in the interests of its own survival. Whatever their different views about what he had done. Grotius’s readers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were united in their praise for his originality. after the same Manner as the Soul is in perfect Bodies” (II. . it is as in a Subject which it fills entirely. in a Word. for good or ill. under no authority but that which all men will recognize. any such union was tantamount to suicide by the state and could not be justified by the principle of self-preservation.38 “Cases of extreme Necessity.


819.1145.A.3 1. .S. 1988). governed by a constant anxiety over money and preferment. John Spavan (1685–1718). p. vicar of Great Maplestead Essex 1713–18 ( Joseph Foster.). . 12 (f. M. Eighteenth Century Medics. Littlehales2 were my partners in this Work. which was reprinted as the translation of Grotius’s text in the 1738 edition.D. M. and we had a Guinea a sheet for Translating it. from Sidney Sussex College Cambridge 1709. V. Newcastle upon Tyne: n. Mr. Edmund Littlehales (1690–1724). Morrice was born in Shropshire in 1686 and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Lincoln College Oxford in 1709. and at the same time appointed chaplain to the Earl of Uxbridge. 2. the following year (as he said in the longer of the two autobiographies) I published Grotius of the Rights of War and Peace. was in large part the work of John Morrice. Bartholomew’s by the Royal Exchange in London. . 1875. MS Rawlinson D. p. Morrice’s papers survive in the Bodleian Library. Alumni Oxonienses. xxxv . Wallis. Oxford (including two autobiographical sketches).a note on the text The 1738 English translation of Barbeyrac’s French edition. n.p. P. Spavan & Dr.1145.. F. from Harderwyck. (Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae MDCXXV–MDCCCLXXV. 7v). 3. upon which Occasion I was introduced to the prince and princess. which is reprinted here. The Hague.p. in 3 Vol. and Dedicated it to the prince of Wales. In 1714 he was chosen Lecturer at St.1 and they give a vivid sense of a life that was a combination of Grub Street and the lower reaches of the Church of England. J. In 1715 he and two collaborators had published a translation of the Latin text of Grotius’s work. matriculated at St. and R. Barbeyrac’s notes were translated from the French and added to the Morrice translation at the same time.R. MSS Rawlinson D. Edmund Hall Oxford in 1701. matriculated as medical student at Leiden University 1710.736 and D.

for example. in 1718. .14. . and it is likely that these passages were translated by Spavan or Littlehales. he died in 1740. a Latin edition of De Iure Belli. Mr. (The longer autobiography goes down to 1740.) The notes were translated by someone with views of his own about some of the material (see. Brigman.1 n. which may suggest Morrice. which is extremely rare. Brown. Elsewhere. w ch was very graciously rec d: Ld. T. without having received 4.4 The quality of the translation of Grotius’s text varies. The prince succeeded to the throne as George II in 1727. about Grotius. In the meantime he made money acting as minister of the chapel in the New Way. given that Barbeyrac had dedicated his edition to the king’s father). . 5. to deliver a Memorial to His Majesty. Westminster. . my notes at III.5 It is unclear whether Morrice envisaged some new edition of Grotius as a way of winning the favor of the king (not unreasonably.xxxvi a note on the text The publishers of this edition (D. Ward also published. and the two projects were clearly regarded as similar. Ibid. translating. Dec r. 31 (no folio numbering). II. and Morrice continued to hope for great things. Ward. 17th 1730.V. for example. at Half Hour past One a-Clock. with most of the more egregious errors being toward the end (see.14). when he was appointed chaplain to the prince. Pagett [son of the Earl of Uxbridge] was Ld of the Bed-Chamber in waiting. and my having been Chaplain. Morrice remembered that at the presentation to the prince “he was promised Great Things. plac’d me at the Door between the Bed-Chamber & Closet.XIX.” though nothing materialized until 1724. from a monarch who clearly had a rather vague memory of him: Thursday. the publishers of the various English translations of Pufendorf also included some of the publishers of both the 1715 and the 1738 Grotius. Meares) included one of the publishers of the 1738 edition (Brown). and W.. Closet-Keeper to the King.VII.9 and III. and writing anonymously for the Tatler and the Spectator. 2). but it is very sketchy about the last few years of Morrice’s life. nor is it clear whether he in fact had any hand in the 1738 edition.

and asterisks (*) to label their footnotes and marginal notes.a note on the text xxxvii any sign of royal favor. it is marked in the text with the symbol †. For example. Where I have introduced a footnote of my own. thus: [[ . this is because Barbeyrac and Grotius themselves used numbers. ]]. though they can also function in the same way as ordinary parentheses. . and the publishers may have recruited someone other than Morrice to translate the notes. Page breaks in the 1738 edition are indicated here by the use of angle brackets. letters. It is likely that the 1738 edition was largely a project driven by its publishers (this is implied by the absence of a dedication. My own editorial remarks in the text or notes of the edition are contained within double square brackets. . Again. This is because both Barbeyrac and his translator use ordinary parentheses and square brackets. other than the translation of Grotius’s own dedication to Louis XIII). page 112 begins after <112>. the latter usually signify alterations or comments added to Grotius’s own text. .


acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the constant help and support in this project of the General Editor. for her patience and helpfulness. Istvan Hont. Knud Haakonssen. and the scholarly assistance of Tim Hochstrasser. T. I would also like to thank the editor at Liberty Fund. . Diana Francoeur. and Noah Dauber. R.


the rights of war and peace book i .


Osborn. Knapton. To which are added. in three books. MDCCXXXVIII. Wherein are explained. And Translated into ENGLISH. D. All the large Notes of Mr. Written in LATIN by the Learned HUGO GROTIUS. T. . Manby. And Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Berlin. Wicksteed. Brown. and E. LONDON: Printed for W.THE RIGHTS OF WAR AND PEACE. BARBEYRAC. Innys and R. The LAW of Nature and Nations. and The Principal Points relating to Government. and P. J. Professor of Law at Groningen. J.


Right. nor is this conversant about Things common. nor that about Things private. Of expletive and attributive Justice. and Credit. VI. and the Original of the Word (Bellum). Right taken for Quality divided into Faculty. VIII. VII. The Order of the Treatise. 133 134 136 138 138 140 141 142 147 3 . defined and divided into natural and voluntary. and what Right is. taken for a Rule or Law. V. divided into Power. 1. Faculty strictly taken. Right. as it is attributed to Action. The Definition of War. What Aptitude is. II. IV. III. Property. and divided into that of Governors. Sect. described. I. Another Division of Faculty into private and eminent. and Aptitude or Fitness. that they are not properly distinguished by Geometrical and Arithmetical Proportions. Omitted in original table of contents. IX. and that of Equals.the contents [The Life of Hugo Grotius]1 [Dedication]1 [The Preliminary Discourse]1 59 71 75 Book I chapter i What War is.

XVI. XII. That the Law given to the Hebrews did not oblige Strangers. The Opinion of the Primitive Christians concerning this examined. Certain Cautions concerning the Question. Human Right divided into a Civil Right. and a more extensive Right. III. Proved by History. divided. V. and the Objections answered. Proved by a general Consent. proved by Reasons. XIII. VIII. The Divine Law divided into that which is universal. That the voluntary divine Law before Christ. and distinguished from such as are not properly called so. and that which is peculiar to one Nation. 180 185 187 189 190 195 197 208 222 . 150 157 159 162 162 164 166 175 chapter ii Whether it is ever lawful to make War. IX. VII. and how. What Arguments Christians may fetch from the Judaical Law. That to make War is not contrary to the Law of Nature. proved. out of Holy Writ. XIV. How the Law of Nature may be proved. a less extensive Right than the Civil. Voluntary Right divided into human and divine. That War is not contrary to the Law of Nations. whether War be contrary to the Law of the Gospel. XV. VI.4 the contents X. Arguments for the negative Opinion. Sect. was not against it. The Arguments out of Scripture for the Affirmative answered. II. XVII. The Law of Nature defined. That Natural Instinct does not make another distinct Law. IV. XI. I. or the Law of Nations: This explained and proved.

be a publick one.the contents 5 chapter iii The Division of War into publick and private. and when it is so. What Power is supreme. The Division of War into publick and private. The Opinion refuted. after the erecting of Tribunals of Justice. In what the civil Power consists. tho’ not supreme. Some Powers. XII. This appears from the different Ways of assigning Regents and Guardians in Kingdoms. Some Cautions for judging of the sovereign Power: The First is. That every private War was not by the Law of Nature unlawful. Sect. with an Answer to the Objections. provided what he promises does not regard the Law of GOD or Nature. XIV. VI. That the sovereign Power is sometimes divided into subjective and potential Parts. I. to distinguish a Right from the Manner of possessing that Right. V. Some sovereign Powers are held with a full Right of Alienation. VIII. 240 241 242 248 252 257 259 260 276 277 279 285 293 296 297 300 305 . IV. Mutual Subjection of King and People refuted. X. together with an Explication of the Supreme Power. XV. XIII. A Sovereign does not lose his supreme Power by any Promise. II. are yet held with the Right of Alienation. which holds that the supreme Power is always in the People. when the Affair is altogether different. XVII. Nor by the Evangelical Law. III. The Second Caution is. VII. and the Arguments for it answered. and that which is not solemn. XVI. Publick War divided into that which is solemn. Others have no such Right. to distinguish a Likeness of Terms. Whether a War made by the Authority of a Magistrate who has not the supreme Power. IX. defended with some Examples. XI.

And against a King who has abdicated his Kingdom. Nor allowed by the Hebrew Law. II. as such. A Confederate on unequal Terms. or sharing of the Sovereignty between King and People. VII. XI. But that there is such a Division. V. XXIII. VIII. a Prince or State. Or against a King who evidently declares himself his Subjects Enemy. Even they who pay Tribute may however have this Power. X. tho’ obliged to acknowledge another Prince or State superior. XII. that Princes will have some of their Acts confirmed by the Senate. XX. And they who hold their Dominions by a feudal Tenure. XIX. refuted by Reason and Scripture. XXIV. IV. The Question stated. What are real Precedents in this Case. III. Several other Examples ill drawn into such a Conclusion. War against Superiors.6 the contents XVIII. Sect. The Opinion which maintains that it is lawful for inferior Magistrates to engage in a War against the Sovereign. XXI. XXII. 336 338 342 344 349 354 356 372 373 373 375 376 . this proved by Scripture. 307 308 309 318 331 332 335 chapter iv Of a War made by Subjects against their Sovereigns. may yet be invested with sovereign Power. And against a King who breaks the Condition upon which he was admitted. A free People may make War against their Prince. A Man’s Right distinguished from the Exercise of that Right. is unlawful by the Law of Nature. Or against a King who would alienate his Crown. that is. I. is ill inferred from this. What is to be done in Case of extreme and inevitable Necessity. And by the Practice of the Primitive Christians. but this only to prevent the Delivery of it. VI. IX. Nor by the Law of the Gospel.

when for Defence. III. invades the other. Or if there is reserved to the People a Liberty of resisting in some certain Cases. The efficient Causes of War are those who engage in it. or one’s Debt. IV. as Assistants. II. Or upon the Account of others. Sect. What Causes of War may be termed justifiable. IV. the Recovery of one’s Property. And against a King who. 389 393 397 398 . or for the Punishment of an Offence committed. XIV. War in Defence of Life lawful.the contents XIII. as Servants and Subjects. 384 384 386 386 Book II chapter i Of the Causes of War. How far an Usurper is to be obeyed. Or by Vertue of an antecedent Law. Sect. XV. XVIII. XVI. But only against the Aggressor. private Persons ought not to take upon them to determine the Pretensions. By the Law of Nature none prohibited to take up Arms. by Vertue of the Right of War still continuing. Or by his Commission who has a Right to the Crown. and first of the Defence of Persons and Goods. either upon their own Account. as Principals. XX. An Usurper may be opposed and treated as an Enemy. having but one Part of the sovereign Power. Why an Usurper is not to be resisted but in these Cases. XVII. II. Justifiable Causes of War are. I. III. XIX. 7 376 377 377 378 379 380 381 383 chapter v Who may lawfully make War. Or are instrumental only. In a controverted Title to a Crown. I.

VI. I. How far permitted by the Law of Moses. Self-Defence may sometimes be omitted. Murther in Defence of our Goods. or only dispenses with the Punishment of it. XI. Lands not inhabited are his who takes Possession of them. For the Preservation of a Limb or a Member. VIII. are his who catches them. unless a whole Nation lay Claim to them by the same Right of Possession. XVII. Self-Defence against a Person very useful to the Publick. not lawful. Whether the Civil Law permitting Murther in one’s own Defence. The Division of what is our own. or to avoid running away. 398 401 401 402 403 406 408 408 413 415 415 416 417 417 chapter ii Of Things which belong in common to all Men. XVI. Sect. as the Sea. or such other slight Injury.8 the contents V. permitted by the Law of Nature. but not in such a one as is only Matter of Opinion. X. gives a Right to the Fact. II. 420 420 428 432 433 . either taken in whole. War only to weaken a neighbouring Power. and the Reason why. a Crime from the Law of Charity. XV. XII. Wild Beasts. That it is not lawful for Christians to murther a Man for a Box on the Ear. IV. Nor in him. IX. Whether permitted at all. XIII. or in Regard to its principal Parts. And especially in Defence of Chastity. When a Duel or single Combat may be lawful. and Birds. Some Things can never become a Property. XVIII. Fish. III. V. In a present and certain Danger. unless there be a Law to the contrary. explained by a Distinction. Of Defence in a publick War. The Beginning and Improvement of Property. who himself gave the just Occasion for a War. and how far. by the Gospel. XIV. VII.

XX. A Right to Marriage explained. XVI. how to be understood. XIV. A Right of doing what is permitted indifferently all Strangers to do. where it can be made. This Right is to be understood of those who are entitled to it by the Law of Nature. explained. XVIII. and not thro’ Favour and Indulgence. Or unless the Owner’s Necessity is equal to ours. The Right of passing Lands and Rivers. be lawful. XIII. VIII. XIX. A Right to waste Places. provided that they submit to the Rules and Government of the Place. Whether a Duty may be laid on Goods that only pass by. In Case of Necessity Men have a Right of using that which others have a Property in. An Obligation to Restitution. This holds good. if thereby there arises no Detriment to the Proprietor. Whether a Contract made with a People to oblige them to sell their Commodities to those only with whom they have bargained. and not to any others. XXII. A Right to purchase Necessaries. XVII. But no Right always to sell their own Commodities. From hence there is a Right to running Water. IX. XV.the contents VI. VII. Those who are driven out of their own Country have a Right to settle in any other. X. A Right to such Actions as the Occasions of human Life require. An Instance of this Right in War. 9 433 435 436 436 437 438 438 439 444 446 447 448 449 450 450 450 451 452 452 . Men have a Right to use those Things which are another’s Property. XXI. XII. XI. unless where the Necessity is avoidable some other Way. and from whence this Right arises. A Right to stay for some Time. XXIV. XXIII.

Upon what Right the Property of Infants and Madmen is founded. II. XI. Of Treaties which forbid some People to pass beyond certain prescribed Bounds. and how long it may endure. Jurisdiction and Property. III. XIII. XVI. Original Acquisition made by Division or Seisure. VI. X. Such a Property may be had. unless the State has acquired a Right to a general Property. inclosed in the Land. XV. A River belongs sometimes wholly to one Territory. VIII. IV. Such a Property can give no Right of obstructing an inoffensive Passage. Whether the Sea may not be so too? IX. as it were. Other Means of Acquisition rejected. Whether if the Course of a River be changed it alters the Territory. Sect. A Duty upon some certain Occasions may be imposed on those who go by Sea. V. XII. the Distinction explained. XIX. explained with a Distinction. Or a Specification. But the Law of Nature is not against a Property in a Part of the Sea. such as the granting an incorporeal Right. Rivers may be held in Property. VII. XIV. which is. I. if the Channel be quite altered? XVIII. where also is treated of the Sea and Rivers. are the Right of the next Possessor. That there may be Jurisdiction over Part of the Sea. The taking of Things moveable may be hindred by a Law. 454 454 455 455 458 459 459 460 460 463 465 466 466 470 471 474 478 479 479 . XVII. and how. What Judgment must we make. Things that are quitted. ’Twas not allowed formerly in Countries depending on the Roman Empire. Possession is double.10 the contents chapter iii Of the original Acquisition of Things.

the contents 11 chapter iv Of a Thing presumed to be quitted. in this Manner. Why Usucaption or Prescription. that without any Conjecture at all. Those Rights of Sovereignty that may be separated from it. The Opinion that Subjects may at any Time assert their Liberty. be deprived of their Rights. III. who has the Sovereign Power. and what such a Time is. VII. But also from an Overt-Act. and of the Right of Possession that follows. Sect. or their Sovereigns. this explained with some Distinctions. That even the Right of Sovereign Power may be obtained either by a King or a People by long Possession. How Time joined with Non-Possession and with Silence. I. or Deeds done. An Answer to the Objection that no one is to be presumed willing to abandon or throw away what he has got. which Conjectures are derived not from Words only. XIV. Whether the Civil Laws of Usucaption and Prescription oblige him. or be communicated to others. XIII. may not. Whether Persons not yet born. IV. But even among these. VI. XII. has nothing to do among different People. an immemorial Possession transfers and constitutes a Property. XI. are gained and lost by Usucaption or Prescription. X. VIII. V. The Reason of Possession inquired into from the Conjectures of a Man’s Will and Intention. II. IX. It appears. That a Time exceeding the Memory of Man is commonly sufficient for such a Conjecture. and how such Possession differs from Usucaption and Prescription. 483 485 486 487 488 491 491 492 496 497 499 500 502 503 . refuted. long Possession is frequently urged as a Right. And from an Inaction or a Forbearance of Acting. conduces to the Conjecture that the Right to the Thing is quitted. properly so called.

of a Father-in-Law with his Daughter-in-Law. III. and such other Matches as these. Marriages with another Woman’s Husband. but when the Person does still continue in the Family. Of the Right of chastising Children. Whether an Incapacity of parting with a Wife. VII. or only from that of the Gospel. IX. or another Man’s Wife. and when the Person is out of the Family. V. XIII. Of the Season past Childhood. 508 509 510 511 511 512 512 513 514 523 526 526 531 . XI. Those Rights which consist in a bare Power of doing such or such a Thing. of a Mother-in-Law with her Son-in-Law. By the Law of Nature only. The Right of Parents over Children. XII. are unwarrantable and void by the positive Law of GOD. Marriages are not void for Want of the Consent of Parents. are never lost by Time. Sect. I. where too of Children’s Property in Things. Of the Season past Childhood. By the Law of Nature. or a Confinement to One. this explained.12 the contents XV. are null and void. VI. and over Slaves. II. 504 chapter v Of the original Acquisition of a Right over Persons. VIII. A Distinction of Seasons in Children. the Marriages of Parents with their Children are unwarrantable and void. X. are essential to Marriage from the Law of Nature. A Distinction of the natural and civil Power of Parents. Of the Right of selling Children. Of the Husband’s Right over his Wife. The Marriages of Brothers with Sisters. where also is treated of the Right of Parents: Of Marriages: Of Societies: Of the Right over Subjects. IV. By the evangelical Law.

There may be some very warrantable Matches. What Opinions are to be divided. XXVIII. what to be joined. when contracted. from his voluntary Subjection to him. How far the Power of Life and Death may be said to be comprehended in this Right. Whether Subjects may leave the State they belong to. XVII. XIX. which yet may be termed by the Laws Concubinage. may yet. XXXI. What Power there is over a People who voluntarily become Subjects. Some Marriages not allowed to be contracted. What Opinion ought to prevail when the Number of Votes is equal. XX. XXIX. XXX. What Power is granted a Man over his adopted Child. XXVI. 13 537 542 544 545 547 548 550 550 551 552 553 555 555 556 558 559 561 563 564 . The Power of a State over its Subjects. XXII. Marriages with Relations of a more distant Degree. stand good. XXIII. A State has no Power over those it has banished. even if they be crowned Heads. XXI. XXXII.the contents XIV. XVIII. What the Law of Nature directs about Children born of Slaves. XXVII. XXV. What Power over a Person who has forfeited his Liberty by some Crime. The Right of the Absent devolves on those who are present. What Rank is to be observed amongst Equals. do not seem so unwarrantable. Several Sorts of Servitude. What Right a Person has over his Slaves. The Right and Authority in all Sorts of Societies is in the Majority. XV. XVI. XXIV. In Societies founded on a certain Thing the Votes are to be considered with Regard to every one’s Share in that Thing. explained by a Distinction.

X. What in the Receiver. Crowns may be alienated sometimes by the King. or Patrimony. The Revenue of the Demain. refuted. VII. That a Will or Testament is a Kind of Alienation. or founded on Custom. and of the Things and Revenues that belong to that Government. or out of Necessity make over some Parts of his Kingdom. XIV. either particularly expressed. How far. and of natural Right. II. XII. The Jurisdiction over a Place may be transferred. is required to the transferring even of Jurisdictions and Employments in the State. Sect. XI. where also of the Alienation of a Government. The Opinion that a Prince may for Advantage. sometimes by the People. What is required in the Giver to make the Alienation valid. The People’s Consent and Approbation. and why some Parts of the People’s Patrimony may be mortgaged by the Prince. I. XIII. 566 567 568 568 569 570 572 573 573 574 575 576 577 577 . IV. Nor can such a Part transfer the Government over its own self. must be distinguished from the Demain or Patrimony itself. The Reason of this Difference. V. VIII. Princes cannot alienate the People’s Demain. unless in Case of extreme Necessity. VI. that are not sovereign.14 the contents chapter vi Of an Acquisition (Possession or Purchase) derived from a Man’s own Deed. Infeoffment and mortgaging are a Sort of Alienation. IX. The Government over one Part of the People cannot be alienated by the other. III. if that Part do not give their Consent.

Natural Children have no Right to these Crowns. such are those that Confiscate the Goods of shipwrecked People. If such Kingdoms are not to be divided. What has been newly purchased goes to the next Relations. XIII. XV. In Case of any Dispute. IX. or to their Posterity. In a Succession Children are preferred to the Father and Mother of the Deceased. Upon Failure of Issue. VII. Such Crowns continue hereditary no longer than there are Descendants of the first Prince living. What Kind of Succession there is in patrimonial Crowns. I. How the Succession to the Estate of him who dies without a Will does originally and naturally arise. and therefore do not transfer a Property. Of Abdication and Disherison. and why. The Original of that Succession called a Representation. must not be divided.the contents 15 chapter vii Of an Acquisition derived to one by Vertue of some Law. V. XIV. X. Sect. A Variety of Laws about Succession. II. where also of succeeding to the Effects and Estate of a Man who dies without a Will. and where there is no Will. 579 581 583 584 588 589 591 591 594 598 600 601 603 604 606 606 . VI. the eldest is to be preferred. Some Civil Laws are unjust. IV. XI. VIII. and when this holds good. where one Person comes in the Room of another who was deceased before. XII. the Kingdom. the antient Estate and Effects must return to them from whom they at first came. in Satisfaction for his own Debt. III. Whether any of the Parents Effects are by the Right of Nature their Children’s Due: This explained by a Distinction. XVI. nor an express Law. Of the Right of natural or illegitimate Children. By the Law of Nature a Man gains a just Right to that which he has taken from another. that is no otherwise Hereditary than by the People’s Consent.

XXVI. XXVII. XXIII. whether the Crown was Freehold. abdicate and renounce all Title to the Crown. It is to be presumed that the Succession to the Crown is such as was usual in Successions to other Effects. at the Time when that Kingdom first began. XXXIII. Whether such a Crown be Part of the Inheritance. XXXII. What the lineal Agnatic Succession is. XXX. 607 607 610 613 613 614 616 616 618 621 622 625 627 628 631 632 632 632 . XXXIV. XVIII. Unless it appears that the Crown was conferred on some other Condition. Whether the younger Grandson by the Son is to be preferred before the elder by the Daughter. this explained by a Distinction. XXIV. In such Kingdoms Males are preferred before Females in the same Degree of Blood.16 the contents XVII. Or held in Fee. XXIX. Whether a Prince may for himself and his Children. XXI. XXVIII. XIX. XX. XXII. Whether the Grandchild by the elder Son is to be preferred before a younger Son. XXV. XXXI. What a lineal Succession is. A Succession that always regards the nearest in Blood to the first King. as not to succeed in his Father’s Kingdom. Among Males the eldest is to be preferred. So likewise whether the King’s surviving younger Brother is to be preferred before his elder Brother’s Son. and how the Right is in that Case transmitted. Whether the King’s Brother’s Son is to be preferred before the King’s Uncle. Neither Prince nor People have a Right to pass an absolute and peremptory Judgment on the Succession to the Crown. to be preferred before one born after. The Son born before his Father’s coming to the Crown. Whether the Grandson by the Son is to be preferred before the elder by the Daughter. Whether the Son may be so disinherited.

is neither natural nor from the Right of Nations. 17 632 633 633 chapter viii Of such Properties as are commonly called Acquisitions by the Right of Nations. are not so. Many Things are said to be by the Right of Nations. and the Variety of Laws about it. that is. IX. Whether the Sister’s Son is to be preferred before the Brother’s Daughter. 634 636 636 638 638 639 640 641 643 646 648 . which. XXXVI. Sect. are by the Law of Nature one’s own peculiar Property. II. and how. properly speaking. VI. That a Flood does not. To whom Money found does naturally belong. Whether the Grand-daughter by the elder Son is to be preferred before the younger Son. if they can know them again. take away a Property in Land. V. That an Island in a River. X. VIII. How the Possession of other Things that have no Owner may be gained. XXXVII. if in Dispute. Fish in Ponds. Improvements made by Floods. Whether Possession may be gained by Instruments. XI. That what is delivered us by the Roman Laws concerning Islands and Alluvions. are naturally his to whom the River. and a dried up Channel. they are the Publick’s. notwithstanding whatever the Roman Laws have declared to the contrary. according to Nature. IV. III. Whether the elder Brother’s Daughter is to be preferred before the younger Brother. belong to the Publick. or that Part of the River. Wild Beasts that get away. VII. and Beasts in Parks. belongs. I.the contents XXXV. It is not against the Law of Nations that all wild Beasts should belong to the Crown. cease not to be the first Owners.

XXVI. XVIII. XXV. He. tho’ by Unskilfulness or Design the Matter be spoiled. XVI. Sect. That an actual Delivery is not required by Nature in the transferring of a Property. XX. XXI. two Parties are naturally admitted Sharers. where also other Mistakes of the Roman Lawyers are taken Notice of. as by Confusion or Mixture.18 the contents XII. or of any Part of the Channel that is dried up. The same may be said of the Shore that the River leaves. XXII. XVII. The Design and Use of what has been hitherto said. and what an Island. or Building upon another Man’s Ground. on the Account of the other’s greater Worth. go along with it. That it is not natural that the Young should follow the Dam only. XXIII. XXIV. Sowing. XV. XIX. But they seem to be granted to those whose Lands have no other Bounds but the River. 649 650 651 651 652 653 653 654 656 657 659 659 660 660 663 chapter ix When Jurisdiction and Property cease. but may charge him with all the Expences that he is at about them. That a Thing according to Nature becomes common. And this he may do. answered. XIV. tho’ he got them unjustly. who had the Right. as it were. XIII. By Planting. dies and leaves no Successors. who has another Man’s Things in Possession cannot claim the Profits of them. That it is not natural that a Thing of lesser Value should. What is to be reckoned a Flood-Addition only. 664 . The Arguments with which the Roman Lawyers would prove their Rights to be. Nay. I. That Property and Jurisdiction cease when he. as well by its Specification or Form. the Rights of Nature. When the Alluvions belong to Vassals. An Highway naturally hinders any Advantage of Alluvions. where the Matter is another’s.

We are obliged to restore the Things we have by us. or are in Being. III. if they cease to be a People. But he is obliged to restore the Fruits or Produce of it that remain. XI. To whom now do those Things and Dominions belong. XIII. III. 19 665 665 669 670 670 671 671 673 673 674 684 684 chapter x Of the Obligation that arises from Property. Sect. or a People that is lately become free. VIII. VI. if the Family be extinct. Even those that are spent and wasted. When the whole Body of the People is subverted. unless it appears that had he not had them by him. where it does not appear that they have been alienated? XII. X. this illustrated by several Examples. What if two Nations be united. He who has honestly got what is another’s. or they are not in Being. So does the Right of a Family cease. V. or be lost. V. IV. 685 689 692 693 693 693 . and to do what we can that the Owner may have them again. I. from whence. But not those which he neglected to take the Advantage of. So does that of a People too. and what Manner of Obligation it is. What if the same People be divided. Of the Right of Heirs. which were once under the Roman Jurisdiction. II. Where we have not the Things by us. Which happens when its essential Parts are gone. The Obligation to return what is another’s to the Owner. IV. IX.the contents II. he would have had no Occasion to have spent such Things. Of the Right of a Conqueror. where also of the Rank that is due to a new King. When that Form is lost which makes them a People. VII. is not obliged to restore it. But not by only changing of Place. VI. Nor upon the Change of Government. we are obliged to restore what we have gained from them. if it perish.

20 the contents VII. but no Right arises from thence to the Person who receives it. from whence a Right to another does arise. XII. The Opinion which maintains that no Promises are naturally obliging. III. VII. 699 703 703 704 709 710 712 714 . and do not know the Owner. That such a one is not obliged to make Restitution for what he has given away. but he who caused that Fear is bound to disengage or indemnify the Person promising. When he. may pass without the Consent of the Owner. but to the Owner. this with a Distinction. refuted. XI. V. I am not. VIII. Number. A Promise made through Fear obliges. II. That an imperfect Promise does naturally oblige. or part of what it cost him. IV. First. 694 694 694 697 697 697 698 chapter xi Of Promises. may claim all. I. To make the Promise valid. it must be in the Power of the Promiser to perform it. What that Promise is. Nor if he only sells what he bought. where the Law of Nature is distinguished from the Civil Law in the Case of Minors. it is required that the Promiser has the Use of his Reason. or Measure. who has fairly bought what is another’s. or for doing a Service that I am obliged to. that the Property of Things which consist of Weight. VI. and how far it does so. Whether a Promise given through Mistake does naturally oblige us. XIII. this with a Distinction too. by the Law of Nature. The Opinion. I am not obliged to part with it to any body. X. to make a Promise compleat. bound to restore it. A bare Assertion does not lay one under an Obligation. If I buy what does not belong to him who sells it. If I have got a Thing in my Hands. VIII. IX. If I take a Fee upon a dishonest Account. Sect. refuted. I must not return it to him.

or that imply a mutual Obligation. X. XXI. XVIII. Such human Acts as are advantageous to others. and of Embassadors who go beyond their Commissions. into simple and mixed. The Manner of confirming a Promise made by others. are obliged by the Law of Nature. this explained by a Distinction. are divided. II. What we are to judge of a Promise that entitles us to something due before. I. Sect. How an invalid Promise may become obliging. Whether a Promise accepted by Proxy may be reversed. XVI. first. Promises made without any Motive are not therefore naturally void. The Manner of making a firm Promise in our own Persons. where also is observed the Error of the Roman Laws. Whether a Promise may be revoked. explained by some Distinctions. Simple Acts are divided into such as are merely gratuitous. XIX. XI. Whether it may be revoked upon the Death of the Person employed to signify it. XX. 729 729 . A Promise must be accepted before it can be binding. Whether a Promise made on an ill Account be valid. How far the Master of a Ship. How far he who promises for what another is to do. XV. 21 715 717 717 717 718 719 720 722 723 725 727 727 728 728 chapter xii Of Contracts. explained by a Distinction. explained by some Distinctions. XII. XXII. Within what Time some Conditions may be tacked to a Promise. and Factors. XVII. stands himself naturally obliged. the Person to whom it was given dying before he had accepted of it. Whether this Acceptance should be signified to the Persons promising.the contents IX. XIV. XIII.

By what Law the taking of Interest is forbidden. and what if the first Tenant being not able to use it. What Rules one must go by in a Contract for saving harmless. How Things are to be valued in selling. XVI. And. X. What Monopolies are against the Rights of Nature. Acts mixt. What Advantages do not come under the Name of Interest. XV. How a just Salary may be encreased or lessened. V. One is to know every Thing that relates to what he is dealing about. And into such as are permutatory. XVIII. and these are either such as adjust what each has to give or to do. secondly. or the like Accidents. What Equality is to be observed in Acts of Beneficence in such as are altogether so. One is to be left entirely to one’s Freedom. it be lett to another? XIX. IV. are either so essentially. XVII. an Equality required in the Bargain itself. 730 735 735 736 736 736 737 739 740 741 742 743 745 749 750 751 752 753 759 760 760 . VI. Which of these Acts are called Contracts. or by Way of exchange. VIII. When a Sale is compleat by the Law of Nature. XXI. and in such as are only so in part. XIV. and to have no Force put upon his Will. XII. XXIII. XIII. XI. this explained. Or by Reason of some Accessory. XX. in the Acts that are previous to them. Or such as put Things upon a common Foot. or of Insurance. or the Rules of Charity. What Power the Civil Laws have in this Affair. There is.22 the contents III. in the Thing we are bargaining for. and of themselves. How Money goes for every Thing else. There is an Equality required in Contracts. VII. By the Law of Nature nothing is to be abated of the Rent or Hire on Account of Barrenness. and for what Reasons the Price may be raised or lowered. XXII. and first. if it be permutatory or by Way of Exchange. IX. and when the Property of the Thing is transferred. thirdly.

is believed to understand them. 23 761 762 763 chapter xiii Of an Oath. and when to GOD only. An Oath procured by Fraud. with a Regard to GOD. XXVI. By the Law of Nations an Inequality in the Terms. I mean. That a deliberate Mind or Intention is required in such an Affair. in which he to whom we swear. VIII. II. where also several Kinds of it are explained. IX. that an Oath given to a Pirate or Tyrant binds not before GOD. Or if it hinders any greater moral Good. XXV. When an Oath lays us under an Obligation both to GOD and Man. How one is to be regulated in a Company or Partnership. 768 770 771 775 777 778 780 781 781 781 782 785 786 786 788 . Sect. Or if the Thing engaged for be impossible. Of a Sea-Company. The Oath that engages any Thing unlawful does not oblige. that he who swears is willing to do so. The Effects of an Oath. one at the Time of Swearing. VI. And by the Name of other Things too. this distinctly explained. the other after. XII. even in the Opinion of the Heathens. IV. is not minded as to external Acts. I. when binding. It is an Oath tho’ sworn by false Gods. V. III. XIV. VII. whence arises a twofold Obligation. What if that Impossibility be only for a Time. if agreed upon. The Words of an Oath oblige in that Sense. How great the Authority of an Oath is. and in what Sense they do it. Men swear by the Name of GOD. and in what Sense this is said to be natural. The Opinion. X. XIII. XI.the contents XXIV. confuted. The Words of an Oath not to be extended beyond their usual Sense and Acceptation. XV.

without Swearing. and in Consideration of which. What Circumstances have by Custom. who hold that Restitutions to the full.24 the contents XVI. or if that Quality or Circumstance of Condition. and when not. What Manner of Oaths CHRIST forbids. who does not desire that it should be kept. XIX. He who is bound to GOD alone does not oblige his Heir after him. under which. ceases. It is no Perjury not to keep one’s Word or Oath to him. or by the Civil Law too. When a King is obliged by his Oath. IV. that Kings are not obliged by their own Oaths. XXI. VI. XXII. The Use of what has been said of the Force of the Laws about the Contracts of Kings. extends to the Acts of Kings. How far the Prince’s Power extends concerning what his Subjects have sworn to Strangers. How a Right gained by Subjects may lawfully be taken away. The Opinion of those refuted. the Oath was made. How far a King is obliged to what he has promised without any Cause or Reason. 802 804 806 806 806 806 810 . V. Contracts. II. When that which is done contrary to one’s Oath becomes void. XVII. Sect. or Strangers to them. To what Acts of Kings the Laws extend. and Oaths of those who have the Sovereign Power. explained by a Distinction. as also. In what Sense a King may be said to be obliged to his Subjects by the Law of Nature only. III. XX. explained by several Distinctions. the Force and Obligation of an Oath. which arise from the Civil Law. 790 791 791 792 792 795 800 chapter xiv Of the Promises. VII. explained by a Distinction. XVIII. when he prohibits Swearing at all. Whether an Oath given to one who does not regard his own Word be to be kept. I. as such.

and other Agreements. II. XIII. The Difference between Leagues and Engagements. or Sponsions. be bound by the Contracts of them who invade or usurp the Kingdom. and from whence this arises. I. V.the contents VIII. and these are either upon equal Terms. IV. Whether he. Nor by the Christian Law. which are again divided. VIII. What publick Conventions are. And into those that add something to it. XI. IX. Sect. They are divided into Leagues. X. VI. Menippus’s Division of Leagues rejected. and how far publick Engagements oblige. and which not. And how far. Or upon unequal. Alliances made with those who do not profess the true Religion. XIV. How by the Contracts of Kings they who inherit all their Goods stand obliged. 25 810 810 811 811 812 816 816 chapter xv Of Publick Treaties as well those that are made by the Sovereign himself. The Distinction of Things gained by the Law of Nature. Whether the Contracts of Kings are Laws. How by those Contracts they who succeed in the Kingdom may be obliged. are allowed by the Law of Nature. whose the Crown really is. XI. and when they are so. Cautions about such Leagues. Leagues divided into those that injoin the same that the Law of Nature does. VII. X. Nor universally forbidden by the Hebrew Law. Which of the free Grants of Kings are revocable. as those that are concluded without his Order. publick Engagements. III. XII. and by the Civil Law. 817 817 818 820 821 823 826 827 828 833 835 . or Sponsions. IX. rejected.

VI. explained by Distinctions. and when and how this Conjecture is of Service. How far the Sponsors are obliged. unless there are good Conjectures to the contrary. as commonly taken. The Distinction of Significations into such as are loose and extensive. Sect. The Distinction of Promises into favourable. or because such Conjectures do naturally offer themselves to us. I. Whether a Violation on one side frees the other from being obliged. Words to be understood. All Christians obliged to enter into League against the Enemies of Christianity. From the subject Matter. and such as are strict and precise. Terms of Art are to be explained according to the respective Art they belong to. this explained with some Distinctions. odious. V. IX. How Promises do outwardly oblige.26 the contents XII. does by its being known and passed over in Silence lay an Obligation. not disapproved of. XIV. if what they undertake for be disallowed. VIII. II. 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 854 855 856 . VII. XVI. XVII. and mixt or middle ones. From the Circumstances and Connection. or Engagement. If several of our Allies are at War. 837 837 841 841 842 846 chapter xvi Of Interpretation. Whether a League may be renewed tacitly. or the Way of explaining the Sense of a Promise or Convention. III. XIII. We use Conjectures. From the Effect. IV. To this belongs that Conjecture which is drawn from the Motive. where Words are ambiguous or seem contradictory. Whether a Sponsion. where also of the Caudine Engagement. XV. X. which of them we ought to assist. where also of Lutatius’s Treaty.

XXIV. XVII. What Treaties are to be esteemed real. rejected. Or it restrains the Sense. Where also of executing an Order in some other Manner than what was prescribed. XVIII. Out of these Distinctions some Rules are formed. XIX. and such as are due in Strictness of Law. which is discovered by the Absurdity of it. that Carthage shall be free. A Conjecture freely offering itself.the contents XI. and that either from some original Defect in the Will. 27 858 858 860 863 864 865 868 868 869 871 874 875 875 875 876 876 877 879 880 . XXVI. as when the Thing is unlawful. as when the Parts of an Act clash and interfere. this explained by Distinctions. Or from the ceasing of the Motive. XX. and when it does so. XXII. may either enlarge the Sense. XXVII. Or from a Defect in the Matter. and how far they are so. XII. How is it to be understood. XXIX. tho’ he be expelled his Kingdom. The Difference between Contracts due in Equity. About the Words. A League with a King remains good. XXVIII. as to the Acts of States and Princes. XXV. Whether under the Name of Allies. when made to him who shall first do such or such a Thing. all Circumstances considered. that may direct us in our Interpretations of the Meaning of Words and Promises. And from other Signs. An Observation on the Conjectures last mentioned. To whom the Promise is due. XXI. that one Party shall not make War without the other’s Leave? XV. XVI. What Rules are in such a Case to be observed. and such Controversies as these. future ones are comprehended. XXIII. Or when some Accident happens inconsistent with the Speaker’s Design. if it be done by many at once. where also of the Romans Treaty with Asdrubal. and what personal. XIII. XIV. But it does not reach to the Usurper of the Crown. Or too burthensome.

28 the contents XXX. Damage is that which is contrary to a Man’s Right strictly so called. Damage occasioned by doing what we ought not. IX. XVII. A Fitness for a Thing is carefully to be distinguished from a Right strictly so called. a Robber. who are bound to repair the Damage. Also by not doing what we ought. II. XXXI. Whose Words are most to be observed. XI. That Damage is to be extended even to the Fruits or Increase of any Thing. or his who accepts it. 884 884 886 887 887 887 888 888 888 889 889 890 890 891 891 892 892 . XII. In what Order they are bound. And secondarily. In an Adulterer and Fornicator. XIII. this explained by Distinction. and of the Obligation thence arising. IV. XVI. In a Thief. 882 883 883 chapter xvii Of the Damage done by an Injury. This Obligation to be extended even to the consequent Damage. primarily. XIV. What those must contribute towards the Act. and others. That upon a Scruple a Writing is not essential to the Validity of a Contract. That the Contracts of Kings are not to be interpreted by the Roman Law. whether his who offers a Condition. An Instance in a Manslayer. VI. primarily. III. V. X. Sect. And also to the ceasing of that Increase. That an Injury obliges us to repair the Damage. VII. XV. And secondarily. XXXII. In one who procures a Promise by Fraud or unjust Fear. In one who maims another. VIII. I.

That by the Law of Nature no Man is bound to repair Damages done by his Beast or Vessel without his Fault. if the Embassadors please. VI. VIII.the contents XVIII. where the Question is handled concerning Prizes taken at Sea. from Allies. XI. That he. And to their moveable Goods. VII. 29 892 893 894 895 897 chapter xviii Of the Right of Embassage. IX. but not by Way of punishing. How great this Right of Embassage is. Sect. without the Right of Compulsion. What. That Defence is lawful against Embassadors. XXI. Embassadors not subject to the Law of Retaliation. What. is not bound to observe the Rights of Embassage. Among whom this takes Place. if by Fear that is accounted just by the Law of Nature? XIX. 898 900 903 906 916 918 919 920 922 922 924 . That even an Enemy to whom the Embassador is sent. such as the Rights of Embassage. That the Rights of Embassage are to be extended even to the Attendants of Embassadors. IV. if by Fear accounted just by the Law of Nations? XX. is bound. XXII. contrary to publick Command. I. X. How far the Civil Powers are bound for Damages done by their Subjects. to whom the Embassador is not sent. That certain Obligations arise from the Law of Nations. III. Instances of an Obligation. and how this is to be repaired. II. by Way of preventing Mischief. Whether an Embassy be always to be admitted. That we may do a Man Damage in his Reputation and Honour. V.

IV. In what Sense Revenge is naturally unlawful. Sect. 949 951 955 956 959 961 963 966 972 977 984 . XI. but that it is otherwise with GOD. V.30 the contents chapter xix Of the Right of Burial. The Argument drawn from the Mercy of GOD declared in the Gospel. What the Gospel has enjoined in this Case. VIII. Whether even to notorious Malefactors. III. Sect. And for the Benefit of all Persons. III. From the same Law of Nations arises the Right of Burying the Dead. but that Punishment may be lawfully required according to the Law of Nature. From whence this Custom comes. where of Revenge allowable by the Law of Nations. VII. by any Body who is not guilty of the like Crime. and how. VI. answered. ’Tis due even to Enemies. The Benefit of Punishment threefold. That among Men Punishment is not to be required but for the Sake of some Benefit that may accrue thereby. II. That to punish does not naturally belong to any one Person. What other Rights belong to us by the Law of Nations. Punishment is for the Benefit of the Offender. I. 925 931 938 941 943 948 chapter xx Of Punishments. Whether also to those who kill themselves. VI. That Punishment belongs to expletive Justice. IX. The Definition and Original of Punishment. II. and that any one has by the Law of Nature a Right to inflict it. IV. I. For the Benefit also of the Person offended. but this with a Distinction. X. and why? V.

But not always. XVII. The Punishment is to be proportioned to the Crime. And also after the penal Law is made. XVI. by Way of tacit Exception. XXI. XIX. XIV. XV. and some other Things. To the Capacity also of the Offender. with Respect to our Neighbour. XXII. Or to be forward in a Prosecution. XVIII. even when the Law of Nations permits them. That internal Acts are not punishable by Men. What extrinsick ones. And that from the cutting off of the Opportunity of Repentance. but what is included in the Law. XX.the contents XII. which Capacity is variously considered. Whether human Laws. XIII. XXX. 31 985 987 989 989 989 990 991 992 994 995 996 998 998 1000 1000 1002 1002 1003 1005 1009 . where of the Degrees of the Precepts in the Decalogue. Or to affect the Office of a Judge in capital Crimes. XXIX. rejected. that are unavoidable by human Nature. Nor external Acts. Imperfect Divisions of Punishment rejected. XXVII. Nor those Acts that are neither directly nor indirectly hurtful to human Society. The Opinion of those who hold that it is never lawful to pardon. which permit one Man to kill another. grant him a Right so to do. XXIV. ’Tis shewn here that Punishment is allowable before the Establishment of any penal Laws. XXV. rejected. The Opinion that there is no just Reason for dispensing with a Penalty. explained by a Distinction. or only Impunity for doing it. XXVIII. And to the Causes too which ought to restrain us. What reasonable intrinsic Causes justify the doing of it. Regard is to be had here to the Motives which we are to compare with one another. XXVI. the Reason of which is assigned. either for one or t’other. XXXI. XXIII. That it is not safe for private Christians to punish.

and how the Custom of offending either excites us to punish. The Law of Nature is to be distinguished from civil Customs generally received. What the Hebrews and the Romans had Regard to in Punishments may be referred to the Places above-mentioned. And from the voluntary divine Law. That a Punishment is to be alleviated out of Charity. and why. How the Easiness of offending inclines to Punishment. or dissuades us from punishing. and the Opinion that would have Jurisdiction naturally necessary towards punishing. and how they are contained in the first Precepts of the Decalogue. XXXIX.32 the contents XXXII. That those who first violate these Notions are punishable. The Use of Clemency in mitigating Punishments. XLVII. 1032 XLVI. unless a greater Charity opposes it. Of War made for the exacting of Punishments. XXXVII. The Opinion of harmonical Proportions in Punishments. XLI. XLVIII. XXXVI. not known to all Nations. That War cannot be justly made upon those who refuse to embrace the Christian Religion. XXXV. XXXIII. Whether War may be made for Offences against GOD only. Whether a War on the Account of Offences just begun is lawful. What is manifest in the Law of Nature is to be distinguished from that which is not so. XLIII. XL. But not others. 1035 1038 1041 . XXXIV. rejected. this explained. XXXVIII. That the Punishment may exceed the Proportion of the Damage done. Whether it be lawful for Kings and States to make War upon such as violate the Law of Nature. XLIV. XLII. tho’ they have committed nothing against them or their Subjects. Which are the most common Notions of a GOD. rejected. 1010 1012 1013 1013 1015 1017 1018 1018 1020 1025 1026 1026 1027 XLV. which is shewn by an Argument drawn from the Mosaick Law. explained by a Distinction.

I. and its being the real Cause of it. if they allow a Retreat and Admittance to such as have done an ill Thing somewhere else. War may justly be made against those who persecute Christians only for their being so. Tho’ justly against those who are impious towards such as they believe to be Gods. but to the unfortunate. III. this illustrated by Authorities and Examples. LI. 33 1044 1045 1051 chapter xxi Of the Communication of Punishments. How Subjects participate of their Sovereign’s Crime. How long after the Commission of a Fault. But not against those who are mistaken in the Interpretation of the divine Law. Sect. The State. The Difference between a Crime’s being the Occasion of Punishment. 1081 XI. A Distinction between what is directly intended. and the Reason why. and do not prevent them when they can and ought to do so. till their Cause be decided. The Privilege of Suppliants or Refugees belong not to Offenders. No Man properly speaking can be justly punished for another’s Fault. 1082 1084 . L. or the superior Powers are accountable for the Crimes of their Subjects. and what happens consequentially. 1081 X. Whether one free from the Fault may be liable to the Punishment. and by what Law such a Decision is to be had. XII. V. or the Members of a Community of the Crimes of that Community. Unless they punish or deliver them up. may a Community be punished for it. VIII. 1053 1055 1061 1062 1067 1075 1076 1078 IX. How the Partakers of the Crime must partake of the Punishment. VII. VI. and how the Punishment of a whole State differs from that of particular Persons.the contents XLIX. But all Sorts of Refugees are to be protected. IV. II. with an Exception. if they know of them. And so are they.

XIV. IV. I. but will not bear the Test of Examination. Such as an uncertain Fear. III. There are some Reasons which upon first Appearance seem justifiable. if the Punishment pass into an Obligation of another Nature. is also an unjust Reason. Nor Children for the Faults of their Parents. And the Desire of ruling others against their Wills. Nor particular Persons for the Faults of the Whole. An Advantage without a Necessity.34 the contents 1085 1087 1091 1091 1092 1093 1093 1094 XIII. chapter xxii Of the unjust Causes of War. answered. XVI. Much less should other Relations be punished. The Desire of Liberty in a People who are subject. if they refused their Consent. XV. II. XII. VI. XVII. 1096 1099 1099 1102 1102 1103 1104 1104 1104 1105 1105 1106 . Nor are the Subjects properly punishable for the Prince’s Crimes. But what if the first Possessors are Fools? XI. The Heir not liable to Punishment. Sect. But he is liable. as such. The Difference between the real and pretended Causes of War shewed. X. The Refusal of Marriages when there is Plenty of Women. VII. The Objection from GOD’s Proceedings in Relation to the Children of Offenders. XVIII. V. The Discovery of Things that belong to others. VIII. under Pretence of its being their Interest to be governed by them. But yet may Children and Relations of Offenders be denied what they would otherwise have enjoyed. To engage in a War without either of these Causes is brutish. and why. XIX. A War without just Reason is no better than Robbery. The Desire of a better Land. XX. IX.

XVII. tho’ some give him such a Title. V. 1108 1111 1112 1113 chapter xxiii Of the dubious Causes of War. we must chuse the safest Resolution. XII. Or by casting of Lots. Or by the Authority of others. 1106 XIV. VII. Nor a Desire of accomplishing Prophecies without a Commission from GOD. Nor the Church. 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1123 1127 1127 1129 1129 . and we are obliged to determine one Way or other. III. II. that we are not in such a Case to declare for War. Whence it follows. We are to do nothing against our Conscience. Or by Arbitration. The Roman Emperor has no Claim to universal Monarchy. in Respect of the Parties at War. Whether Duelling may be allowed for preventing War. Nor a Debt not due in Strictness of Justice. XI. IX. VI. the Thing depending may be divided. That the Person in Possession has the better of it. where the Case is equally doubtful. but by some other Way. If a Scruple arise in a Matter of Importance on both Sides of the Question. VIII. where the Case is equally dubious. I. XV. and the different Effects of both. From whence Causes of Doubt in moral Matters proceed. If neither be in Possession. The Distinction between a War whose Cause is unjust. X. as others alledge. IV. Sect. where of the Duty of Christian Kings. For this may be avoided by a Conference.the contents 35 XIII. tho’ it be erroneous. XVI. That our Resolutions are determined by Reasons drawn from the Thing itself. and that which is faulty in some other Respects.

Sect. And particularly must an injured Prince do so. Sect. 1133 1134 1137 1139 1140 1142 1145 1146 1147 1148 chapter xxv Of the Causes for which War is to be undertaken on the Account of others. when it is to save a State from utter Ruin and Destruction. for preventing some manifest Danger. directing our Choice of what is good. 1151 1152 1152 1155 . III. But it is not always to be so undertaken. II. I. Rules of Prudence. The Miseries of War displayed.36 the contents XIII. VII. X. An Example directing us in our Consultations about Liberty and Peace. whether the Alliance be equal or unequal. Whether a War may be just on both Sides. IX. We are often to abate of our Right for avoiding a War. both for his own and his Subjects Safety. That he ought to forbear pursuing a Punishment by Force of Arms who is not very much superior in Power. Whether an innocent Subject may be delivered up to an Enemy. joined with a very favourable Opportunity. tho’ for just Reasons. II. V. Especially when that Right consists in inflicting Punishments. I. VIII. VI. That we may lawfully undertake a War in Behalf of our Allies. Or when there is an important Reason. War not to be engaged in. but out of Necessity. War may be justly undertaken by a Prince for the Interest of his Subjects. A Prince is often to decline going to War. III. IV. IV. explained by several Distinctions. 1130 chapter xxiv Exhortations not rashly to engage in a War.

without any Regard to the Reasons of the War. for a Prince. or that he must kill the Aggressor. tho’ commanded. Whether that War is just which is made for the Defence of another’s Subjects. That it is an Act of Clemency and Goodness in such a Case. X. and in the Lieu of it.the contents V. What they must do in Case they are allowed to deliberate. explained by a Distinction. What they must do. is a Crime. They must not take up Arms. or have a free Choice. Yet it may be let alone without any Crime. engage in War. That it is very unjust for People to enter into Confederacies. III. I. Sect. 37 1156 1157 1158 1159 1162 1166 chapter xxvi Of the Reasons that justify those who. 1167 1167 1167 1173 1180 1182 . V. VIII. under another’s Command. And also for our Friends. To bear Arms for Pay only. II. IX. to impose upon them some extraordinary Taxes. IV. VI. to dispense with the Service of his scrupulous Subjects. or for the meer Sake of Booty. who may be said to be under another’s Jurisdiction. And indeed for any Body whatever. VI. or to list themselves Soldiers for Money. VII. if they are not satisfied whether the Cause be good or bad. if they are persuaded that the Cause is bad. if one is afraid for himself. When Subjects may lawfully take up Arms in an unjust War. Who are they.

The Form of a Lye. consists in a Repugnancy to another’s Right. where also the Author treats of Deceit and Lying. Whether Fraud be lawful in War. And when it is to deceive one our Discourse is not directed to. this explained. which would be no ways lawful. V. Of that in the latter Sense. explained by Distinctions. What we may do against them who supply our Enemies with Necessaries. XIII. and People out of their Senses. XII. who would be willing to be deceived. 1204 1208 1212 1215 1215 1216 1218 . 1201 IX. not always unlawful. as it is unlawful. had they been purposely and originally designed. distinguished either into such outward Acts as admit of several Constructions. Fraud. but also from incident Causes in the Course of it. And when he who speaks only exercises that Prerogative he has over his Inferior. III. the Question is difficult. In War all Things necessary to the End are lawful. II. 1185 1186 1187 1187 1189 1194 1198 VIII. in its positive Act. The Subject and Design of this Book. The Use of Words in another Sense. Sect. XI. VII. and whom. What is lawful and right. in its negative Act. XIV. VI. IV. I. we might be allowed to deceive. without it. does not arise only from the Occasion of the War. Fraud. And when our Discourse is directed to him. shewing what by the Law of Nature is allowable in War. X. XV. than that wherein we know they are understood. or such as always signify the same by Agreement: Fraud in the former Sense unlawful. That it is lawful to speak what is false to Children. Some Things may by Consequence be acted without any Injustice.38 the contents Book III chapter i Certain general Rules. is not of itself unlawful.

V. in this Case. And upon Goods. 39 1221 1222 1225 1225 1226 1229 1230 chapter ii How Subjects Goods are by the Law of Nations obliged for their Princes Debts. even to our Enemies: This illustrated. The Distinction between the Civil Law and the Law of Nations. That we ought not to force another to what is not lawful for him to do. Nor to Oaths. where also is shewed. But yet we may use the Service that he freely offers. But by the Law of Nations the Goods and Acts of Subjects are obliged for their Prince’s Debts. tho’ it be for us. XIX. cannot otherwise be preserved. when the Life of an innocent Person. or something equal to it. but the Heir. 1231 1232 1235 1238 1239 1242 1243 . IV. XXI. What Authors have thought it lawful to tell an Enemy a Lye. XVII.the contents XVI. VII. VI. and more agreeable to Christian Simplicity. XVIII. That it is however more generous. And perhaps. II. I. That this takes Place only after our Right has been denied us. But this does not affect their Life. to abstain from Falshoods. This is not to be stretched to the Words of a Promise. XXII. No Body. XX. yet it does properly neither give nor take away any Man’s Right. Sect. and when such a Denial is to be presumed. that tho’ the Thing be adjudged. where also of Reprisals. III. is naturally bound by another’s Fact. An Example of this in seizing upon Men.

XIV. X. It is required in a solemn War. II. and of the Declaration of such a War. the other absolute. But not as considered in themselves. distinctly explained. and not to the Law of Nations. The Difference between a People. That a solemn War by the Right of Nations. What in the Proclamation of a War is required by the Law of Nature. Whether Acts of Hostility may commence as soon as ever War is declared.40 the contents chapter iii Of a just and solemn War. tho’ acting unjustly. and all his Adherents. IV. That there are two Kinds of Declarations of War. IX. Sect. and what by the Law of Nations. War denounced against a Prince is denounced also against his Subjects. one conditional. XI. is to be between different People. Whether there is any Occasion to declare War against him who has violated the Rights of Embassadors. III. XII. XIII. I. V. that he who makes it has the sovereign Power. this illustrated by Examples. Yet sometimes there happens a Change. 1246 1247 1251 1252 1252 1253 1257 1262 1265 1265 1267 1268 1268 1269 . VII. according to the Right of Nations. VIII. What in denouncing a War belongs to the Civil Law. That those Effects are not to be found in other Wars. And that there be a publick Proclamation of it. The Reason why a Proclamation is requisite to some Effects of War. and how this is to be understood. VI. and a Company of Pirates and Robbers.

and exercising other Violence on their Persons. XIII. may be killed or hurt. But not any other Ways to spoil and corrupt the Waters. X. That the Subjects of Enemies are every where to be attacked. The Word lawful distinguished into that which may be done with Impunity. Sect. tho’ it were an Act of Virtue to let it alone. XVII. but are not accepted. The Effects of a solemn War explained in general. IX. relate to Lawfulness with Impunity. V. XVIII. And to Prisoners at any Time. II. I. And to such as surrender at Discretion. XII. 1270 1271 1275 1275 1277 1280 1280 1281 1283 1284 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1293 1293 1300 .the contents 41 chapter iv The Right of killing Enemies. XIX. And even to such as are willing to surrender. That this Right is very improperly ascribed to any other Cause. Whether Ravishing of Women be against the Law of Nations. XV. XI. VI. Whether it be against the Law of Nations to employ Assassins. That the Effects of a solemn War. with the Addition of several Examples. and that which is not criminal. That this Right of ill Treatment extends to Women and Children. That it is forbidden by the Law of Nations to poison any Body. That it extends also to Hostages. Proofs of these Effects. What if they came thither before the War. unless in the Territories of a neutral State. all who are found in the Enemy’s Territories. III. considered in their Generality. XVI. Or to poison Weapons or Waters. By Virtue of this Right. VII. tho’ not without a Crime. Why such Effects were introduced. VIII. in a solemn War. explained. XIV. IV. such as Retaliation or Obstinacy of Defence.

XIII. II. Sect. or carried off. That Things taken from the Enemy are not always theirs who take them. Even Things that are sacred. IV. Things not our Enemies are not to be acquired by War. whether animate or inanimate. VII. 1314 1316 1320 1322 1323 1324 1325 1327 1328 1330 1331 1332 1333 1333 . or his who maintains the War. V. What the Law of Nature is. That what is taken by a publick Act is the Publick’s. III. III. And Sepulchers. with several Proofs relating to it. I. IV. Sect. What belongs to an Enemy may be spoiled. VIII. concerning Things taken in War. this with a Caution. IX. II. and how this is to be understood. 1303 1304 1312 1312 chapter vi Of the Right to Things taken in War. When Lands are said to be acquired. That both Possession and Property may be naturally gained by another. Unless the Civil Law ordains otherwise. A Distinction of Actions done in War into publick and private. What of Things found in Enemies Ships. which is confirmed by several Proofs. XIV.42 the contents chapter v Of Wasting and Plundering. I. tho’ they took them from others. XI. XII. What the Law of Nations is in this Respect. That the Lands taken are the Publick’s or his who maintains the War. How far Tricking and Fraud may in this Case be allowed. When moveable Goods are by the Right of Nations reputed lawful Prize. VI. are the Captor’s. That Things moveable. X. when taken by a private Act. Things taken from our Enemies are ours by the Law of Nations.

XXIII. III. All Prisoners in a solemn War are by the Law of Nature Slaves. Or divide them among the Soldiers. 43 1337 1337 1339 1345 1347 1347 1349 1351 1351 1352 1357 1357 1358 chapter vii Of the Right over Prisoners. XXVII. That this Right was not always allowed in every Nation. and how? XXI. Or dividing them into Shares and Parts. What Use may be made of what has been here said. XXIV. Sometimes to Subjects. XX. IV. V. Whether they may resist him whose Prisoners they are. And their Posterity. That all that belongs to the Prisoners. may alter something of this common Right. XVIII. Sect. XVII. Whether Things taken out of the Dominions of either Party. The Reason why this was ordained. Sometimes the Booty is imbezzled. Nor now among Christians. 1360 1362 1362 1363 1364 1366 1370 1371 1372 . dispose of some one Way. Whether Prisoners may make their Escape. IX. or any other Act of the Will. XXII. is his who makes them Prisoners. XXVI. But the Generals are usually allowed the Disposal of such Things. Thus sometimes the Spoil is given to Confederates. some another. XVI. XIX. VI. How particularly proper this Right is to a solemn War. even what is incorporeal. XXV. Or suffer them to be plundered. I. II. Who either bring them to the Treasury. be lawful Prize. and what is introduced in its Stead. That any Thing is done to them with Impunity. VII. VIII. which is illustrated by several Examples both by Land and Sea. and how this is done. Or grant them to some others.the contents XV. That a Law.

This Right of Postliminy is of Force in Peace and War. III. and some are recovered. and what not. That all Rights in regard to him are restored. return by this Right of Postliminy. VII. V. When a Man who is free. What Rights of the Civil Law those who return by Postliminy have. What Rights he may recover. That some Things return. How Slaves are recovered by Postliminy. IV. how Fugitives.44 the contents chapter viii Of the Jurisdiction that Victors gain over those they conquer. where the Question concerning the Thessalian Bond is treated of. may be acquired by War. and the Effects of such an Acquisition. and then they cease to be a State. I. VI. III. That a despotick Power may be acquired over a People. II.Whether Subjects may be recovered by Postliminy. 1374 1377 1378 1378 chapter ix Of the Right of Postliminy Sect. may during the War. The Original of the Word Postliminium. That all that belongs to a People. whether in King or People. II. and what if nothing be said of it in Peace. I. even what is incorporeal. That sometimes these two Powers are intermixed. That Sovereignty. How a People may obtain this Right of Postliminy. by this Right of Postliminy. 1381 1383 1384 1384 1388 1389 1390 1390 1393 1395 1399 1401 . may be acquired by War. IX. X. Where this Right takes Place. VIII. XII. Sect. XI. IV. and how those who are redeemed. Why they who surrender themselves are not capable of the Right of Postliminy.

1411 1414 1416 1416 1417 1418 chapter xi The Right of Killing in a just War. 45 1401 1403 1405 1406 1407 1407 1409 chapter x Some Advices concerning what is done in an unjust War. XVI. I. qualified. Sect. the Nature of which is explained. Sect. according to internal justice. IV. That the Civil Law of some States makes Alterations in what Regards their own Subjects. Whether Things taken in an unjust War are to be restored by the Captors. II. a Fault between Misfortune and Fraud. And whether by him who is in Possession of them. What Difference was formerly observed in Relation to Moveables. who are forced to follow a Party. and how far they are so. In what Sense Honour and Conscience may be said to forbid what Law permits. Who may be killed. I. IV. What the Law says now of Moveables. What is done in an unjust War is in itself unjust. No Man can justly be killed for his Misfortunes. XIV. III. II. V. as they. XVII. What Things are recoverable without this Right of Postliminy. When this Right may now be in Force. XIX. This applied to what is allowed by the Law of Nations. That some Acts in a just War are unjust in themselves. VI. Nor for a middle Fault.the contents XIII. XV. Who are hereby obliged to Restitution. 1420 1422 1423 1425 . How Postliminy was observed among those who were not Enemies. XVIII. That Lands are recovered by Postliminy. III. for Instance.

XIV. Offenders may be pardoned. That those who are willing to surrender upon reasonable Terms are to be accepted. XVII. and how far it is so. XV. If the Enemy can be supplied any other Way. We must take all possible Care that the Innocent be not. I. killed. 1439 1439 1443 1445 1446 1446 1449 1450 1451 1454 1455 1456 chapter xii The Right of Wasting. 1434 VIII. Which holds good. That Hostages must not be put to Death. qualified. III. That even to Enemies who have deserved Death. II. Or if there be probable Hopes of a speedy Victory. And Prisoners. the Punishment may oftentimes rightly be remitted. Merchants. and not in the Enemy’s Power. Sect. 1431 1432 VII. The principal Authors of a War to be distinguished from those drawn into it. IX. VI. XI. X. IV. on Account of their Multitude. That in the very Authors we must distinguish the probable Reasons from the improbable ones. Children to be spared. XIX. They are also to be spared who surrender at Discretion. If the Thing itself be of no Use for the Support of the War. The Clergy and Scholars to be spared. What Wasting is just. and the like. V. unless personally faulty. XVI. That we should keep from wasting of a Thing that is of Service to us. XII. 1457 1459 1463 1464 1466 . XVIII.46 the contents V. All needless Fights and Skirmishes to be avoided. And also Husbandmen. and how this is to be understood. provided they were not guilty of some very enormous Crime before. and such other Violences. XIII. and also old Men. tho’ without our designing it. and Women unless highly criminal.

Whether Slaves may run away. III. Humanity bids us not use this Right to the utmost. Nor to punish him unmercifully. qualified. Whether the Children of Slaves are the Master’s. What is to be done where the Slavery of Prisoners is not in use. 1475 1476 1477 1478 chapter xiv Moderation in Regard to Prisoners. and how far they are so. But not for the Punishment of another’s Crime. II. VIII. IX. III. extend. VI. Nor to lay too hard Labour upon him. VIII. II. Instances of this. 1481 1482 1484 1485 1487 1489 1495 1495 1496 . The Advantages which arise from this Moderation. does by Vertue of an internal Justice. V. And in Burial Places. 47 1467 1470 1472 chapter xiii The Right over Things taken in War. What a Master may do to a Slave. by the Right of internal Justice. This especially ought to take Place in Things sacred. IV. Sect. VII. or thereunto belonging. I. IV. and how far the Slave’s.the contents VI. VII. Sect. I. That the Goods of the Enemies Subjects taken in War may be detained by Way of Debt. It is not lawful to kill a Slave who is innocent. remarked. How far the Right of seizing upon Men. By Debt is here understood the consequent Charges of a War. The improved Stock how far the Master’s.

Sometimes putting Garrisons into Places. V. Examples of this. that Part of it be left to the Conquered. XII. At least we ought to use the Conquered with Mercy. IX. X. if unjustly possessed. II. Sect. Especially in Religion. I. Examples of it. Or by leaving the Sovereignty in the Hands of those who possessed it before. That internal Justice requires that what is taken away by an Enemy in an unjust War.48 the contents chapter xv Moderation in obtaining Empire and Sovereignty. If the Sovereignty must be assumed. Either by mixing them with the Conquerors. VII. II. How far internal Justice allows the Gaining of Empire. 1498 1499 1500 1501 1503 1503 1504 1506 1507 1508 1509 1509 chapter xvi Moderation concerning those Things which by the Law of Nations have not the Benefit of Postliminy. Sometimes imposing Taxes and such like Charges upon them. The Advantage of this Moderation. IV. Or at least some Shew of Liberty. or Part of them to be restored. VI. I. VIII. V. VI. The People. changed. and why. be restored. XI. What is to be done in a dubious Case. III. Sect. IV. Whether any Thing may be deducted. and of the Form of Government among the Conquered. To wave this Right over the Conquered is a very commendable Act. III. In what Time the Obligation of Restitution ceases. 1512 1513 1515 1517 1518 1518 .

1533 1536 1537 1538 . III. the Law of Nations. That it signifies nothing to urge that the Promise was extorted by Fear.the contents 49 chapter xvii Of Neuters in War. Sect. What he stands obliged to. IV. V. 1527 1530 1530 1531 1531 1532 chapter xix Of Faith between Enemies. That one’s Word or Faith is to be kept with all Sorts of Enemies. but upon extreme Necessity. explained by the Principles of the Law of Nature. Sect. What may they by internal Justice do against an Enemy who take up Arms. The Opinion refuted. who. and the Civil Law. III. if the Promiser was not himself affrighted. that such deserve Punishment. What may they do in Respect of the State they are Subjects of. I. How Neuters are to behave themselves towards those who are engaged in War. Whether a private Person is allowed to do a publick Enemy a Mischief. The Objection answered. VI. which denies that Faith is to be kept with Pirates and Tyrants. II. 1519 1519 1525 chapter xviii Of private Actions in a publick War. Nothing is to be taken from those we are at Peace with. II. IV. or equip a Fleet. at their own Expence. and it is shewn that this is not minded when we treat with them as such. explained with a Distinction. What the Law of Christian Charity requires of them. I. II. and with a Design to restore the full Value. I. without a Commission attacks and hurts an Enemy. How a private War may be mixt with a publick one. Some Instances of Precepts about such a Moderation. III. Sect.

Here comes in a particular Difficulty relating to the Promises made to Subjects. The Division of Faith between Enemies. How the publick State may be changed. That Fear in a solemn War is by the Law of Nations no just Exception. XVI. whether such Promises.50 the contents V. The same applied to the Wars of a Sovereign against his Subjects. What is to be understood by such a Fear as is allowed by the Law of Nations. How these take Place in War. XIV. But not if the Condition ceases. XV. and of Pawns. 1551 1551 . IX. XIX. II. of Surrenders. which happens when the other refuses to stand to his Part of the Agreement. VII. And it is shewn. XIII. do oblige. Or for some Punishment due. agreeable to the Order of what follows. of Set Combats. of Arbitration. tho’ with Men such a Violation is not punishable. Or of some Damage done. if the Government be regal. The Power of making Peace is in the King. XVIII. VIII. XI. 1538 1539 1540 1541 1543 1543 1543 1545 1545 1546 1547 1548 1548 1548 1549 chapter xx Of the publick Faith by which War is concluded. VI. Tho’ by Virtue of another Contract. XVII. XII. Sect. of Hostages. Nor if there is a just Compensation opposed. That Faith is to be kept even with the Perfidious. Or if there passed an Oath. that such Promises are confirmed by the Oath of the State. X. of Lots. where also of Treaties of Peace. by Reason of the sovereign Power. Or if the Promise be made to a third Person. I.

are not to be restored. VI. A general Rule for the interpreting Articles of Peace. and had voluntarily submitted themselves. or an Exile? IV. XVIII. but disputed. Then they who were before free. VIII. XIII. Punishments also before the War publickly due. if in Doubt. mad. are to be presumed forgiven. that Things should be restored to the same Condition they were in before the War begun. that Things should remain as they are. or his Successors. which before the War was publickly claimed. Things taken after Peace to be restored. No Distinction here between Things got by the Law of Nations. 51 1552 1553 1553 1555 1556 1557 1557 1558 1558 1559 1560 1560 1561 1562 1563 1563 1564 1564 1564 1565 1566 . is easily presumed to be passed by. What is done for a publick Good. are obliged by a Peace made by the King. In an Aristocratical or Democratical State. What of Things already lost in War? IX.the contents III. and those by the Civil Law. XX. whereby Things taken in War are to be restored. Damages by War. Of the Fruits and Profits. but with the Condition of repairing the Lots. XXII. V. That Right. XV. if in Doubt. In doubtful Cases it is to be believed that the Agreement was. is taken by Foreigners to be what is universally approved of. Some Rules of Agreement. XVI. That the Goods of Subjects may by a Peace be granted away for the publick Good. But not those which before the War were due to private Persons. VII. XXIII. XI. How far the People. How the Sovereignty. or the Revenues of the Crown. What of the Right of private Persons to Punishment. or any Part of it. a Prisoner. XXI. XIX. XVII. are supposed to be forgiven. What if it should be agreed. Of the Names of Countries. XII. What if the King be an Infant. X. this Power is in the Majority. may be validly alienated to obtain Peace. XIV.

XLII. who prescribed the Conditions. Of Delay. What if Allies? with a Distinction too. and of the Obstruction there. XXVII. How a Peace may be broken. and breaking the Peace. XXXIII. XLIII. What comes under the Notion of Friendship. XXVIII. XXVI. 1566 1566 1567 1567 1568 1569 1569 1570 1571 1571 1572 1572 1573 1573 1574 1574 1574 1575 1576 1577 1580 1580 . XLIV. XXIX. Whether the Fact of the King does in this Case oblige the People. XXXI. XXXV. The Peace shall stand firm. How a Peace may be broken by doing contrary to what is expressed in the Peace. That there is a Distinction between giving new Occasions of War. XL. What if hindred by absolute Necessity. What if Subjects be injured. if the injured Party be willing to it. and how their Act may be judged approved. What if we be invaded by Allies. XXXVIII. What if by Subjects. and whether it be lawful. In a doubtful Case the Interpretation is to make against him. XLI. Who is to be judged the Conqueror. XXX. XXV. XXXIV. Of the Reference to some former Agreement.52 the contents XXIV. Whether to entertain Subjects and Exiles be contrary to Friendship. How a Peace may be broke by doing contrary to what is supposed to be in every Peace. Whether any Distinction is to be made between the Articles of Peace? XXXVI. XLV. What if Subjects serve under another Prince? XXXII. What if some Penalty be added? XXXVII. this explained by a Distinction. How War may be ended by Lots. by doing what is contrary to the Nature of every Peace. XXXIX. How by a Duel or set Combat.

and one of them is not bound for the Fact of another. Arbitrators ought not to judge of Possessions. IV. XLIX. LVIII. That Hostages are sometimes obliged. Arbitrators in doubtful Cases bound to Equity. Sect. How War may be ended by Arbitration. the Hostage to be free. What Right is given over Hostages. whether the Hostage may be retained. LIX. LI. Upon the Death of the Principal. Of a conditional Surrender. LX. and whether it be a Time of Peace or War. How far the Force of pure Surrender extends. and here Arbitration is to be understood without an Appeal. 53 1581 1583 1584 1584 1586 1589 1589 1590 1591 1591 1592 1593 1593 1593 1594 chapter xxi Of Faith during War. How the Time of a Truce is to be computed. XLVII. LIV. 1595 1598 1599 1599 1601 1602 . III. with Respect to those who thus surrender. Whether Hostages may lawfully make their Escape. L. Whether an Hostage may be lawfully detained upon any other Account. LII. Who may and ought to be given for Hostages. LIII. LV. of Safe Conduct. What is the Duty of the Conqueror. What a Truce. LVII.the contents XLVI. LVI. XLVIII. The Right of Redemption when lost. is. What may be lawfully done during a Truce. where of the Cessation of Arms. V. Upon the ending of a Truce there is no Need of denouncing War again. What Obligation lies upon Pawns. VI. When it begins to bind. or Cessation of Arms. I. The King dying. and the Ransoming of Prisoners. as Principals. The Original of the Word Induciae. II.

XXVIII. explained. The Ransom of one may be due to more than one. To go. during the Truce? X. to come. XXVI. VIII. Whether he may return who was forcibly detained. XIV. and what Queries usually arise from thence. XVI. Whether one may retire. the other being dead. What Goods of a Prisoner belong to the Captor. Free Passage. A Truce broken on one Side. to depart. IX. XIII. without a Truce. What if it be given only during the Pleasure of the Granter? XXII. how to be interpreted? XV. Whether a Passport be valid upon the Death of the Party who granted it. ought to return. The Right in a Prisoner may be transferred.54 the contents 1603 1603 1604 1605 1606 1606 1606 1607 1607 1608 1609 1609 VII. or the like. 1609 XX. XVII. because his Estate and good Circumstances were then unknown. How far unto Goods. 1610 1610 1611 1611 1612 1613 1613 1613 1614 1615 1615 . Who may come under the Name of Attendants. Whether the Heir be chargeable with the Prisoner’s Ransom. XXVII. What if some Penalty be added. XXIX. XIX. Whether one is intitled to Security beyond that Territory. Who may come under the Name of Soldiers. Of the particular Clauses of a Truce. Whether he who is released to free another. XXIII. how to be here understood. XXI. XVIII. Whether such a Redemption can be forbidden by any Law. XXV. XI. A Distinction concerning seizing of Places. and of a Nation. How this extends to Persons. the other may renew the War. Whether the Ransom agreed upon may be made void. XXIV. XXX. The Redemption of Prisoners favourable. and repair Breaches. When the Actions of private Persons break the Truce. XII.

the contents 55 chapter xxii Of the Faith of Generals and Officers. IV. 1621 1622 1623 1625 1625 1625 1625 chapter xxiii Of the Faith or Promises of private Persons during the War. XII. Whether they may grant a Truce? This distinguished. What if any Thing be done contrary to Command? This explained by Distinctions. The several Kinds of Officers. In such a Case. 1617 1618 1619 1619 1621 VI. A Minor here not excepted. What the Generals. What Protection of Persons or Things may be granted by them. XIII. whether the other Party stands obliged. and why. Faith given to Pirates and Thieves is binding. or other Persons in Commission. 1621 VII. confuted. An Objection drawn from a publick Advantage. The aforesaid Observations applied to our Parole of returning to Prison. Sect. VIII. How the Promise of delivering up a Town is to be understood. IV. Or gives Occasion to such an Obligation. X. XI. I. II. III. How far an Agreement made by them obliges the sovereign Power. if the King or People please. II. VI. V. Sect. can do about or for those under their Command. III. It is not in the Power of Generals to make a Peace. How a Surrender accepted by a General is to be understood. V. Whether a Mistake excuses it. I. and how far it is so. Such Agreements are to be taken in a strict Sense. That Faith given by private Men to a publick Enemy is not binding. 1626 1626 1627 1627 1627 1628 . IX. How that Caution is to be understood. answered.

I. 1629 VIII. Of some dumb Signs to which Use and Custom have given a Signification. 1630 1630 1630 1631 1631 1631 1631 1632 1632 chapter xxiv Of Faith tacitly given. cannot yield himself to another. to perform what they have promised. 1633 1633 1634 1635 1636 1636 1637 . provided that he does not injure the other he is in Conference with.56 the contents VII. or of never bearing Arms. VI. An Example of this in one desiring to be received into Protection by any Prince or People. IV. XV. In one who desires or admits a Parley. V. Of not making an Escape. XIII. Whether private Men may be compelled by their Sovereign. When a Penalty or Punishment is presumed to be tacitly remitted. Cloaths. Of the silent Approbation of a Treaty. In what Sense we must take these Words of Life. XIV. III. What Relief is sufficient when the Affair is a Surrender. The Manner of executing a Promise makes no Condition of it. in Case the Place be not relieved. A Prisoner taken by one. XVI. II. Sect. XI. X. How one’s Faith may be tacitly engaged. IX. Of the Hostages or Bail for such Promises. Who may be said to return to the Enemy. What Interpretation is to be allowed in such Promises. VII. But he may promote his own Interest. XII. To our Word and Honour of not returning to such a Place. the Coming of Relief.

That Peace once made ought to be religiously maintained. V. Admonition to Princes to keep their Words.the contents 57 chapter xxv The Conclusion. especially among Christians. VII. 1640 . VI. And of the Conqueror. 1638 1639 1640 1641 1643 1643 1643 III. That this is for the Advantage of the Conquered. with Exhortations to preserve Faith and seek Peace. II. The Author’s Wish. Peace to be embraced. I. And of those whose Affairs are in a doubtful Posture. and the Conclusion of the Work. VIII. Sect. tho’ with Loss. IV. The Design of War to settle a firm Peace.


we admire the Example. This Life of GROTIUS is not writ with a Design to enlarge upon his Merit. and transmit the Beauties of his Life into our own Conduct by Practice and Imitation. it opens a large Scene for Observation. very wide and extensive in her Speculations. and the Wonder of Posterity. ´ advances human Life beyond the Power of Precept. who has left such Illustrious Testimonies of his Learning. or the Determination of the Schools: filosofia ek para´ ‹ deigmatwn. Philosophy from Example.the life of hugo grotius <i> To look into the Manners of Antiquity. it establishes very lasting Impressions of Virtue in us. and as she is blind to the Transactions of Futurity. so she receives a greater Lustre from the Reflection of Instances that are past. that the Letter’d World submits to his Authority. as to derive an Honour upon the Century he lived in. and recover the Memory of preceding Ages. Zeal. and to recommend him as a Pattern to succeeding Ages. in the Opinion of the Historian. and offer us to the Notice of Mankind. than from the Rules of Wisdom. for the Mind of Man is of a searching Nature. or the Distinctions of Morality. is an Entertainment of the highest Pleasure and Advantage to the Mind. . how far Application and Industry improve the Abilities of the Soul. enlarges the Soul. and moves our Emulation to follow and excel the leading Characters before us. when we are tracing the Exploits of some Worthy of Old. 59 Thucydides. it displays all the Occurrences and Revolutions of Providence. and reveres his Judgment so much. with what Delight do we pursue him in every Circumstance of Action. and Piety. <ii> that his Name will be venerable to latest Ages: Our present Aim is only to reduce the Circumstances of his Life into such a Method as will shew us by what Steps and Degrees he attained to so high an Esteem. or to adorn his Character.

in Dutch. let it go without opening it as they used to do. and to forfeit his Estate. he was not Twenty four Years old when he was made Advocate-General. as he made it appear by the Commentary he writ at that Age upon Martianus Capella. and condemned to perpetual Imprisonment the 18th Day of May 1619. and being returned into his Country. a very difficult Author. he took there his Degree of Doctor of Law. he applied himself to the Bar. de Groot. by the Contrivance of Mary de Regelsberg his Wife. Divinity and the Civil Law. where his Family had been Illustrious between Four and Five Hundred Years. he wrote a Treatise upon that Subject. the famous Barnevelt. that he writ some Verses before he was nine Years of Age. he would not accept of that Employment. by reason of the Misunderstanding between the Merchants of both Nations. advised her Husband to put himself into it. being weary of searching a large Trunk full of Books and Linnen to be washed at Gorcum. or a Treatise shewing the Right the Dutch have to the Indian Trade. and at Fifteen he had a great Understanding in Philosophy. would occasion many Revolutions in the chief Towns.60 the life of hugo grotius HUGO GROTIUS. but upon Condition that he should not be deprived of it. and was Pensionary of that Town. He found himself so far engaged in the Affairs which undid Barnevelt. having made some Holes with a Wimble in the Place where the fore-part of his Head was. So prodigious was his Memory. He followed her Advice. that he might not be stifled. who having observed that the Guards. He made so early a Progress in his Studies. was born at Delft the 10th of April. and called it Mare Liberum. that he was arrested in August 1618. which formed already a thousand Factions in the State. he was sent into England in the same Year. but he was still better skill’d in Philology. he made his Escape. he remembered the Names of every Soldier there. In the Year 1598 he accompanied the Dutch Embassador. into France. where he was severely used for above 18 Months. and was in that manner carried . he was confined to the Castle of Louvestein the 6th of June in the same Year. and pleaded before he was Seventeen Years of Age. from whence. 1583. for he foresaw that the Quarrels of Divines about the Doctrine of Grace. one of the greatest Men in Europe. a neighbouring Town. where Henry IV gave him several Marks of his Esteem. he settled at Rotterdam in 1613. that being present at the Muster of some Regiments.

never omitted an Opportunity to advance its Interest. that the Birds were fled. and returned into Holland full of Hopes. the Dutch Embassadors endeavoured to prepossess the King against him. in the Year 1634. who succeeded his Brother in that Republick. who being so ill used in his Country. and therefore he was forced once more to leave his Country. and had a Pension assigned him. and praised by every Body. after he had crossed the publick Place in the Disguise of a Joyner. by reason of a kind Letter he received from Prince Frederick Henry. which had never come out of the Darkness of Louvestein. where he met with a kind Reception at Court. and therefore they endeavoured again to ruin and defame him. He applied himself very closely to Study. He left France after he had been there Eleven Years. for having by her Wit procured her Husband’s Liberty. where he stayed till he accepted the Offers he received from the Crown of Sweden. with a Ruler in his Hand. The first he published after he settled in France. was An Apology for the Magistrates of Holland. but also to be canoniz’d. and encrease its Grandeur. she told the Guards. he resolved to go to Hamburg. and to compose Books. The contrary Party was very much displeased with this Treatise. if he had remained there all his Life-time. to give him time to make his Escape into a Foreign Country: But when she thought he was safe. but by a Majority of Votes she was released. and gave a glorious Testimony to the Virtue of that Illustrious Refugee. but that Prince did not regard their Artifices. as some Judges appointed by his Enemies designed it. for we are indebted to her for so many excellent Works published by her Husband. That good Woman pretended all the while that her Husband was <iii> very Sick.the life of hugo grotius 61 to a Friend of his at Gorcum. from whence he went to Antwerp in the usual Waggon. He retir’d into France. they thought GROTIUS made it appear that they had acted against the Laws. and admired the Virtue of the Man. who had been turned out of their Places. At first there was a Design to Prosecute her. Such a Wife deserved not only to have a Statue erected to her in the Commonwealth of Learning. and some Judges were of Opinion she should be kept in Prison instead of her Husband. but his Enemies prevented the good Effects of that Letter. laughing at them. but the Protection of the French Court secured him against their Attempts. Queen Christina made him one of her Coun- .

continued to travel by Land. made himself illustrious by his Embassies. He was sent Embassador to the Northern Crowns in the Year 1668. which displeased some great Men. and received many Honours at Amsterdam. upon his Departure. gave him several Marks of her great Esteem for him. GROTIUS being sick. he returned into his Country. and discharged the Duties of that Place with great Ability for the Space of Seven Years. whilst the Peace was treating there. he saw Queen Christina at Stockholm. and then to Cologne. The second. that it <iv> was granted him at last. and one Daughter. he went through Holland. appointed him his Resident in Holland: He was made Pensionary of the City of Amsterdam in 1660. The Queen gave him no positive Answer when he asked leave to retire. which he had enjoyed ever since his Return from his Embassy into Sweden: He was deprived of it during the Popular Tumults. but his Illness forced him to stop at Rostock. and was so pressing to obtain his Dismission. where he died in a few Days. whose Name was Peter de Groot. which occasioned so many Alterations in the Towns of Holland. At a Year’s End he went into France with the same Character. who was very much talk’d of. The Ship on Board which he embarked was violently tost by a Storm on the Coasts of Pomerania. and . who were afraid that she would keep him in her Council: He perceived their Discontent. and died without being married. Having discharged the Duties of that Employment about Eleven Years. and uneasy in Mind. he set out from France to give an Account of his Embassy to the Queen of Sweden. on the 28th of August 1645. that she would grant him his Dismission. he left behind him three Sons.62 the life of hugo grotius sellors. and acquitted himself in that Employment with great Dexterity and Wisdom. The Elector Palatine being restored to his Dominions by the Treaty of Munster. He retired to Antwerp. and was deprived of his Office of Pensionary at Rotterdam. on Occasion of a Trouble he was brought into soon after the French had passed the Rhine in the Year 1672. His Body was carried to Delft to be buried among his Ancestors. he most humbly begged of her. The Daughter was married to a French Gentleman called Mombas. and after he had discoursed with her about the Affairs he had been entrusted with. The eldest Son and the youngest pitched upon a Military Life. The Queen. When the War was kindled 1672. and sent him Embassador to Lewis XIII.

I am that Publican. I understood you very well. and to ask him. and begged God’s Mercy. he asked him whether he understood <v> him. in order to enjoy a more happy Life. to acknowledge his Sins. he was sorry for them. that his last Thoughts were those that are contained in the Prayer of dying People. His Relation imports. The Calumnies. and to repent of them. Do you understand me? and that GROTIUS answered. and it is certain that the Lutheran Ministers were no less displeased than the Calvinists with the particular Opinions of GROTIUS. that he went on and told him he should have Recourse to Jesus Christ. “That he went to GROTIUS who had sent for him. and found him almost dying. I hear your Voice. called John Quistorpius.” It were an absurd thing to call in Question the Sincerity of Quistorpius. that he repeated in a loud Voice a Prayer in High-Dutch. about his Death. the sick Man answered. are irrefragably confuted by the Relation of the Minister who attended upon him when he was dying. and yet when he returned into Holland he was accused of a State Crime. I place all my Hopes in Jesus Christ alone. and expired soon after. he confess’d his Faults.the life of hugo grotius 63 acted for the Good of his Country as much as ever he could. and that the sick Man said it softly after him with his Hands joined. nothing could move him to be false in his Account. and that GROTIUS replied. that he continued to repeat to him some Passages of the Word of God. that having mentioned to him the Publican. and his Answer was. and if such Evidence is not sufficient in Matters of Fact. The Minister. who confessed himself a Sinner. that he exhorted him to prepare for Death. that he placed all his Hopes in Jesus Christ alone. that having ended. maliciously dispersed by the Enemies of GROTIUS. we make way for Scepticism. and it will be difficult to prove any thing. without whom there is no Salvation. was Professor of Divinity at Rostock. It is therefore an undeniable Case that GROTIUS being a dying. and implor’d the Mercy of his heavenly Father. but I do not understand every thing that you say. and therefore the Testimony of the Professor of Rostock is an authentick Proof. was affected like the Publican mentioned in the Gospel. . where he died at 70 Years of Age. which dying People are usually put in Mind of. the Cause was tried and he was acquitted: He retired into a Country-House. that with this Answer the sick Man lost his Speech.

I am willing to be accounted a most wicked Calumniator. Arnauld. and therefore very unworthy of our Belief.” I should be too long should I mention what he says upon the third Head. There is a solid Answer to that Reflection upon our Author made by a Book entitled l’Esprit de Mr. Sir. entertain an ill Opinion of GROTIUS upon that Account. that they are guilty of a rash Judgment. “When Mr. viz. but because some are so weak. and that sometimes a prodigious Malice and Detraction are concealed under the zealous Pretence of defending the Church of God. desire your Friends to read GROTIUS’s Annotations upon the Passages of St. “But. than Jansenius’s Relations upon slighter Calumnies. and if they do not say that it is an abominable Calumny. that one ought to suspect those who appear so zealous for Truth. he slanders every Body in that Book. for whom they have so great an Esteem.64 the life of hugo grotius according to the Liturgy of the Lutheran Churches. That GROTIUS was a violent Arminian. because some of those to whom you shew my Letters. but some Persons highly approve their waving all Juridical Proceedings. I shall not dwell on what <vi> he says upon the first Head. was a Socinian. what that Author and Father Simon say of GROTIUS. Several People have wondered that his Grand-Children did not ask Satisfaction for this Injury done to his Memory. The Apologist for the Character of GROTIUS begins thus. GROTIUS. says our Author. John which I have mentioned to you. Arnauld says . if compared to what the nameless Author of the scandalous Libel intitled l’Esprit de Mr. Mark and St. this will teach them. See also the DXLVIIIth Letter among the Literae Ecclesiasticae & Theologicae. Sir. in the second Place. guilty of the most horrid Calumny that ever was. is nothing. you will give me leave to undeceive them. they are Persons prejudiced against the Character of this Great Man. as to be imposed upon by his bold way of speaking. it is a plain Sign he has been convicted of Calumny. and since the Accuser made no Reply to it. I shall only set down this Passage out of it. ought to make one disbelieve every thing else. and that they appeared less sensible in this Point. and the manifest Lies that are in it. Arnauld says of him. The Result of which is. Afterwards the Apologist examines the four Accusations one after another. as appears from his enervating the Proofs of Christ’s Divinity. Perhaps they will not be displeased to find an Author. would be too gently used if they were only told. it is true. that those who say he died a Socinian.

”—Quistorpius acted the Part of a wise Man in not asking him what Communion he would die in. that a Man who believes the Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity. Arnauld. coessential and consubstantial with the Father. because the Communion. but when he says something that may serve this Satyrical Writer to inveigh against those whom he hates. Arnauld blames the Lutheran Minister for not asking GROTIUS in what Communion he would die. and not by Virtue of that of the Bishop of Rome. but by one who has forgot the Notions of Things or Definitions of Words.the life of hugo grotius 65 something that is injurious to the Reformed. it serves him to fill up his Page. that his believing all the Sects that receive the Gospel to be in the way to Salvation is an Heresy. notwithstanding which. and maintain it cannot be denied that such a Man is a Christian. says Mr. an Infamous Calumniator. “with respect to a Man who was known to have had no Communion a long time with any Protestant Church. and Mr. cannot be accounted an Atheist. by Virtue of which we are saved. that a Man has no Religion when he joins with none of the Factions that condemn Mankind. we allow you to say. Arnauld and the Author of the Libel do wrongly fancy. the Author of the Libel exclaims violently against him. can it be said that <vii> those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God. an unfair Accuser. but forbears receiving the Communion. that Mr. Arnauld is then an unsincere Man. since he saw him dying in the Communion of Jesus Christ. Whereupon the Apologist says. nay. or of the several Protestant Societies.” I must not forget that Mr. we allow you to assert. and to have confuted in his last Books most of the Doctrines that are common to them. that it is a pernicious and dangerous Doctrine. and each of which pretends to be the only Church of Christ. as well as with the Papists. and to prevent his being placed among the little Authors. this is a material Thing. which was appointed by Christ as a Symbol of Peace and Concord among his Disciples. GROTIUS abstained from communicating with the Protestants. is accounted in those Societies a Sign of Discord and Division. we go farther. that he died for . we observe. every thing is then right. because he looks upon that Action as a Sign that one damns the other Christian Sects. Without enquiring whether Quistorpius was in the Right or the Wrong for not asking such a Question.

I encouraged them. before he was Embassador of Sweden. can it be affirmed that such People are not Christians? No Man of Sense can affirm it. and . but especially for Seamen. who believed the Fundamental Doctrines. “he translated into Latin Prose his Book concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion. we shall now take a short Survey of the most eminent Books that were published from him. without approving Calvinism or Popery. but he is very much to blame for giving such a mean Notion of the Author’s Design. Arnauld. this is the Character he gives of it himself. &c. and use it for the propagating of the Christian Religion. belong to the true Church. not only for their Benefit and Gain. in respect to his Principles in Religion. My Resolution was to do something of Advantage to all my Countrymen. whatever Sect they may be of. Greek. which infinitely excels all others in this Art. whereby it appears. &c. that one ought to obey his Precepts. that GROTIUS. was a Member of the true Church. French. but that they would regard it as the Mercy of Heaven.66 the life of hugo grotius us. for GROTIUS aimed at a nobler End. German. We suppose that what has been delivered may be of sufficient Force to overthrow the Calumnies that have been raised against our Author. It was translated into English. who travel to the Indies. It is an Excellent Work. that one may be saved in all Religions. During his Stay at Paris. that they might have some Diversion in singing such a pious Poem. we only mention such Doctrines as he cannot deny.” Thus du Maurier speaks of it. And therefore beginning with a Panegyrick upon my own Nation. he had a Mind to enable the Dutch. they may use their Time with Profit to themselves. in every thing. Dutch. and the Notes upon it are very learned. wherein he shews that all those who believe the Fundamental Points. for the Use of the Seamen who travelled into the Indies. that Men are saved by Faith in his Death and Intercession. we say. which he had writ in Dutch Verse. to promote the Conversion of the Infidels. but none would be more unreasonable in affecting such a thing than the Author of l’ Esprit de Mr. that he sits at the right Hand of God his Father. and according to which he ought to acknowledge. since he published another Book. and not loiter away their Hours as some do. that they would improve their Art. and repent of one’s Sins. We omit several other Maxims advanced by him. that in all their Leisure they have Aboard. Persian.

and will endeavour. who had translated that Book into Arabick.the life of hugo grotius 67 Arabick. was printed at London in the Year 1660. was desirous his Translation should be printed in England. is so far from having that Character here. or to convert the Mahometans that are in the Turkish. who judge of others by themselves. There came a very learned Englishman to me within these few Days. but we do not know whether all those Translations have been published. whereby it may appear that he had Reason to complain of him. as if he had never been ill treated by him. the Mahometans who are in that Kingdom. as a Book which the Pope’s Missionaries had a Mind to publish. who lived a long time in the Turkish Dominions. speaks well of it in a Letter written from London to Thuanus. that is accounted Socinian by some. to have it published in England: He thinks no Book more profitable. and two French Translations in Prose. That Translation made by the famous Dr. In the Year 1641. The Judgment of the Author of the Parrhasiana runs thus. and one in Verse. that it is to be turned by the Pope’s Missionaries into the Persian <viii> Tongue. Punic. the History contains eighteen. Casaubon. It is divided into Annals and History. I mean the incomparable HUGO GROTIUS. either to instruct the Christians of those Parts. which shews that it is not impossible to overcome one’s Passion. the Greek was not printed in the Year 1637. says he. and speaks of him according to his Merit. it contains an Account of what happened in the Netherlands from the Departure of Philip II. Persian.” The . this is a remarkable Instance of Impartiality. GROTIUS writ an History of the Low-Countries. who though he had been a Sufferer by the Injustice of a great Prince. a famous Historian among the Moderns. and begins in the Year 1588. and speak well of one’s Enemies. to convert. “We may add to Polybius. In the Year following GROTIUS mentions the Persian Translation only. who speaks in his History of the Netherlands of Prince Maurice de Nassau. who had read something of it in the Year 1613. an Englishman. Tartarian. if he can. or Indian Empire. concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion. relates his noble Actions as carefully as any other Historian. as several People fancy. Edward Pocock. says he. by the Favour of God. without saying any thing. There are three German Translations of that Work. and translated my Book of the Truth of the Christian Religion into Arabick. two in Prose. the Annals comprehend five Books. My Book.

and that they hoped to recommend their Histories as it were by a manly Eloquence. cannot justify the Moderns. “None. and therefore deserves a more particular Account. and when a Reader is obliged to stop continually. the more it deserves to be of a general Use. they should endeavour to make themselves easily understood. in order to look for the Sense. The more a History deserves to be read by reason of the Events contained in it. and thereby they fell into that Obscurity for which they are justly reproved. “King Gustavus of . There is nothing in Tacitus that less deserves to be imitated. it makes the Translation of his Writings more difficult. are read by few People.” says he.68 the life of hugo grotius Author who observes this fine Passage in GROTIUS ’s History. I cannot apprehend why some learned Men undertook to imitate them. or rather contrary to good Sense. for he blames him afterwards for a thing that deserves to be blamed. the Authority of the Ancients who neglected the Clearness of the Style. for certainly good Thoughts need not be obscure to be approved by good Judges. and <ix> how they could relish such a Style. it was printed at Paris in 1625. “of those who spoke well at Athens. and Dionysius Vossius in his Translation of Rheide ’s History.” But his Book Of the Rights of War and Peace was the Master-piece of his Works. whereby it seems that many things are expressed in few Words. and consequently obscure Style. and his Thoughts more obscure. who have imitated them contrary to the Reasons I have mentioned. and raised above the Capacity of the Vulgar. It cannot be denied they have an affected Style. as HUGO GROTIUS. he does not approve GROTIUS ’s Style. than his too concise. whereas if those Historians designed to write for the Instruction of those who have a sufficient Knowledge of the Latin Tongue to read a History with Pleasure. and at Rome. did it not out of Flattery. this is the Reason why some Histories. and shews thereby that he is a Man of a good Taste. as Thucydides and Tacitus did in their Histories. expressed himself so obscurely in Conversation. doubtless they had a Mind to raise themselves above common Use. he does not think himself in the least obliged to an Historian who gives him the Trouble. and useful to as many People as ever they could. and dedicated to Lewis XIII. I am sorry GROTIUS was one of those who did not avoid it. though excellent as to the Matter.

which is as well printed as the Subject deserves it. “The Subject of it was thought to be so important and useful. Elector Palatine. Perillan his Kinsman. that there is Reason and Justice in a Subject. I have been told that a great King had it always in his Hands. some Professors have been appointed on purpose in the Universities. but that Prince having been killed at the Battle of Lutzen in the Year 1632. since that Book shews. I have read it again with a wonderful Pleasure. and in order to teach it he appointed M.”—Here follows the Judgment which M. nominated him to be sent Embassador into France. because a very great Advantage must accrue from it. M. which is not printed. in a Letter he writ to him. when he presented him with the Copy of that Work. “I had almost forgot. where it was placed among prohibited Books the 4th of February 1672. in Perseo omnem ingenii conatum effudimus. whom he took to be a great Politician by reason of that Work. Bignon.the life of hugo grotius 69 Sweden having read and admired it.” says he. that he thought fit it should serve as a Text to the Doctrine concerning the Right of Nature. Chauvin ’s Memorial concerning the Fate and Importance of that Work is so curious. He himself says so. that it gave Occasion to make a particular Science of it. and the Design of the late King Gustavus. “to thank you for your Treatise De Jure Belli. It informs us that GROTIUS undertook to write that Book at the Solicitation of the famous Peireskius.” They did not make the <x> same Judgment of it at Rome. Chancellor Oxenstern. those who read it will learn the true Maxims of the Christian Policy. which is thought to consist only in Confusion and Injustice. and indeed that Work of GROTIUS is an excellent Piece. and I do not wonder that it has been explained in some German Universities. Charles Lewis. and I believe it is true. and the Law of Nations. that unblamable Magistrate. which are the solid Foundations of all Governments. “It is believed that GROTIUS exhausted his Parts upon that Book. in a Letter to Mr. that we cannot forbear transcribing some things out of it. 1633.” Colomies says. resolved to make use of the Author. makes of that Book in a Letter to GROTIUS. for the Explication of which. and that he might have said of it what Casaubon said of his Commentary upon Perseus. according to his own Inclination. did so highly value that Book. de Puffendorf in the University of Heidelberg. dated the 5th of March. and in Imitation of that Prince. the like Set- .

whom I had rather resemble. Thus have we given the History of this great Man. which was not bestowed upon the Ancients till after many Ages.70 the life of hugo grotius tlements have been made in other Universities. by bestowing a Title upon me. It does not appear that any Body criticized upon this Work of GROTIUS during his Life-time”. obtained an Honour. by which means our Author. but as an Improvement of his Character receive the Testimony of Salmasius. cum Notis Variorum. You have laid but a small Obligation upon the Cardinals. It came out at last. and was published over all the World of Letters. the Purple. which is peculiar to the most eminent GROTIUS. taken from the best Accounts that have contributed to derive his Memory to our Times. one of his Enemies. for why should I not call him so. and upon myself likewise. but when he was dead it occasioned many Disputes. in a Letter to him. and Grandeur of the Sacred College? <xi> . and commented upon by the most learned of all Nations. than enjoy the Wealth. within 50 Years after his Death.

but at the same time Merciful too. Africa. another of his Brother. no less than that of LEWIS. another the Lover of his Mother. not of itself. most illustrious Prince. It was the Height of Glory to the Roman Generals. as You deprive Your Subjects. and are now every where known by the Name of JUST. to the utmost of Your Power. whom the Ignorance of Your Goodness had caused to transgress the Bounds of their Duty. Asia. of nothing but 71 . and the general Consent of Mankind. not of any Nation or Man. King of France and Navarre. for one of them to be stiled. by which you are declared the irreconcileable Enemy. but of the Subject Matter of it. oppose the growing Wickedness of the Age: JUST. But how far short these of Your Name. This Book presumes. But how much more glorious Your Sirname. but of Injustice? It was esteemed a great thing among the Egyptian Kings. which comprehends not only those. as You procure the greatest Matches for Your Sisters: JUST. as you honour the Memory of the great King your Father by imitating him: JUST. and the like. You have acquired a Title worthy so great a King. but none more than that of Your own Example: JUST. as You revive the Laws almost dead.H. but every thing else that can be conceived beautiful and virtuous? You are JUST. to be sirnamed from some of their conquered Countries. both from Your own Merits. from a Confidence. and perpetual Conqueror. which is Justice. Numidia. that by it. to intitle itself to Your great Name. or its Author. as You instruct your Brother by all imaginable Methods. a Virtue in so distinguishing a Manner Yours. GROTIUS to His Most Christian Majesty LEWIS XIII. as Crete. and. the Lover of his Father.

the Affairs of Peace and War. so that which concerns the Subject of this Book. so you. and Lewis. not of Men only. For who of the meanest People. like a Star of most benign Influence to the Earth. is properly Yours. nor use any Violence to those who differ from You in Matters of Religion: JUST. or given Succour to Nations. but together with War. as near the Divine as Human Nature can admit. as you relieve by Your Authority oppressed Nations. which others scarce are able. have condescended to give Protection and Comfort to me also. and especially as King of France. to compleat the Measure of Justice. when ill-treated by my Native Country. For as the coelestial Bodies not only influence the great Parts of the World. and distressed Princes. obliges me even in this publick Address to return You my private Thanks. But as there is no part of Justice which does not belong to You. and comprehends so many spacious and happy Provinces. and that in this Life. but also suffer their Virtues <xii> to be communicated even to every individual Animal. Vast is Your Dominion. but with a Desire of bringing it to a speedy Conclusion. attains to that Perfection of Purity and Virtue. which the Piety of the Age attributed to your Ancestors Charles the Great. viz. but of Saint also. but it is a greater Dominion than this. or even of those who have sequestred themselves from the Conversation of the World. Worthy is this of Your Piety. in a Court amongst so many so various Examples of Vice. or the Alteration of ancient Limits. but of the blessed above. in a Crowd. only after their Deaths: This is to deserve the Title of most Christian. as deserves the Admiration. not by Descent. to carry on Negotiations of Peace. and controul the exorbitant Power of Fortune. not to attempt the Invasion of any Man’s Right by Force of Arms. Which singular Beneficence in You. but your own proper Right. often are not able to do in Solitude? This is to merit the Name not of JUST only.72 to his most christian majesty the Liberty of offending. added such Innocence and Sanctity of Life. as you whom the Splendor of Fortune exposes daily to innumerable Charms of Vice? But how great is it to attain that in a multiplicity of Business. To Your publick Actions You have. which extends from Sea to Sea. not contented to have raised up dejected Princes. and at the same time Compassionate. nor to begin it. as you are a King. not to desire others Dominions. When it shall please God . worthy of Your high Pitch of Grandeur.

which alone is better than that which You now possess. now grown weary of Dissention. This Sword. as the Effect of the Friendship lately contracted. are encouraged to hope for this. between You and the King of Great Britain. a Prince eminent for his great Wisdom and ardent Love for the Peace of the Church. innocent. received from thee for the Safeguard of Justice. but to the Churches. Which thing itself. as the most perfect Pattern. that Wars every where ceasing. The Minds of Men. by reason of the growing Animosity of Parties: But of two such great Kings nothing is Worthy but what is Difficult. though of great Importance. how joyful to the Conscience will it be for You to be able to say with Boldness. not only to Civil States. the Honour of accomplishing this great Work. and by the happy Marriage of Your Sister confirmed. how glorious. <xiii> . in which all unanimously acknowledge the Christian Faith to have been true and uncorrupted. Peace may be restored. most Just and Peaceable Prince. shall hereafter be learned from Your Actions. A Work indeed of vast Difficulty. and to all others impracticable. that his most christian majesty 73 to call You to his Kingdom. how becoming. and our Age submit itself to be modelled after the Pattern of the Apostolical Age. together with all other Happiness. stained with no Man’s Blood rashly shed? Thus it shall be. The God of Peace and Justice grant to Your Majesty. I restore again pure. that the Rules which we now seek for in Books. yet the Christian World presumes to require something still greater from you. MDCXXV.

the preliminary discourse
Concerning the Certainty of Right in general; and the Design of this Work in particular.

I. The Civil Law, whether that of the Romans, or of any other People, many have undertaken, either to explain by Commentaries, or to draw up into short Abridgments: But that Law, which is common to many Nations or Rulers of Nations, whether derived from Nature, or instituted by Divine Commands, or introduced 1 by Custom and tacit Consent, few have touched upon, and none hitherto treated of universally and methodically; tho’ it is the Interest of Mankind that it should be done. II. Cicero 1 rightly commended the Excellence of this Science, in the Business of Alliances, Treaties, Conventions between States, Princes, and foreign Nations, and in short, in all Affairs that regard the Rights of War and Peace.

I. The LAW of Nations.

Of War and Peace.

I. (1) The Author here means what he calls the Law of Nations, which he distinguishes from the the Law of Nature as making a separate Class. But in this he is mistaken; as is acknowledged by most, who have pursued this Study. See Note 3. on B. I. Chap. I. § 14. II. (1) This is not Cicero’s Sense. The Words here quoted only signify that Pompey, of whom he is speaking, was very well versed in Alliances, Treaties, and Conventions made, concluded, and formed, between States, Princes, and foreign Nations, &c. Equidem contra existimo, Judices, quum in omni genere ac varietate Artium, etiam ` illarum, quae sine summo otio non facile discuntur, Cn. Pompeius excellat, singu` larem quamdam laudem ejus et praestabile messe scientiam in foederibus, pactionibus, conditionibus Populorum, Regum, exterarum Nationum: in omni denique Belli Jure ac Pacis. Orat. pro L. Corn. Balbo, Cap. VI.



the preliminary discourse

And Euripides prefers this Science before the Knowledge of all other Things, whether Divine or Human, when he makes Helen say thus to Theonoe:
’Twould be a base Reproach To you, who know th’ Affairs present and future Of Men and Gods, not to know what Justice is.

Some think Interest alone the Rule of Justice.

III. And indeed this Work is the more necessary, since we find some, both in this and in former Ages, so far despising this Sort of Right, as if it were nothing but an empty Name. The Saying of Euphemus in Thucydides is almost in every ones Mouth, 1 To a King or Sovereign City, no-<xiv>thing is unjust that is profitable. Not unlike to which is this, 2 That amongst the
2. ◊Aisxron ta men se jeia pant◊ eqeidenai, ’ ’ ´ ÷ ´ ◊ ´ Ta t◊ onta, kai mh, ta de dikaia mh eidenai. ´ ⁄ ’ ’ ’ ’ ´ ’ ◊ ´ Helen. Ver. 928, 929. This Theonoe was an Egyptian Priestess, who dealt in Divination. Helen does not here design to prefer the Knowledge of what is just and unjust, to that of all things human and divine, as our Author pretends. The Poet only intimates, that we ought to join the Study of Morality with the Study of Religion. In this Sense the Verses here quoted may very justly be understood as addressed to all employed in the publick Ministry of Religion, either to remind them of their Duty, or reprove them for the Faults committed in the Discharge of it, which has been but too often the Case at all Times. See what I have said on this Subject in my Preface to Pufendorf, § 7, &c. III. (1) These Words occur in the sixth Book of that Historian. (Chap. LXXXV. Edit. Oxon.) We find the same Maxim in the fifth, where the Athenians, whose Power was then very considerable, speak thus to the Melians. For you cannot but know that, according to the common Notions of Mankind, Justice is regulated by the equal Necessities of the Parties; and that those who are invested with a superior Power, do all they find possible, while the Weak are obliged to submit. (Chap. LXXXIX.) Grotius. The former of these Passages is not properly applied. It may be observed that the Word here used is alogon, which signifies unreasonable, not unjust. Besides, it appears ⁄ from the Sequel of the Discourse that the Question does not here turn on what is just, or unjust. Hermocrates, the Syracusan Embassador, had remonstrated to the Camarinians, that there was not the least Probability, that the Athenians would, after the Reduction of Chalcis, grant the Leontines their Liberty, who were Inhabitants of the same Country. Chap. LXXIX. To which Euphemus replies, that the Athenians had an Interest in making that Distinction, and shews how they would find their Account in it. So that alogon in this Place signifies, what is not conformable to the Rules of good ⁄ Policy, and is the same as ouk eulogon in Chap. LXXVI. ◊ ⁄ 2. The Words here used by the Author, are taken from Tacitus. Id in summa ˆ ˆ fortuna, aequius, quod validius. Annal. Lib. XV. Cap. I.

the preliminary discourse


Great the stronger is the juster Side; and, That no State can be governed 3 without Injustice. Besides, the Disputes that happen between Nations or Princes, are commonly decided at the Point of the Sword. Now, it is not only the Opinion of the Vulgar, that War is a Stranger to all Justice, but many Sayings uttered by Men of Wisdom and Learning, give Strength to such an Opinion. And indeed, nothing is more frequent than the mentioning of Right and Arms, as opposite to one another. Thus Ennius, 4
They have recourse to Force of Arms, not Law.

And Horace 5 thus describes the Fierceness of Achilles:
Laws as not made for him he proudly scorns, And every Thing demands by Force of Arms.

Another Latin Poet 6 introduces another Conqueror, who entering upon War, speaks in this Manner,
Now, Peace and Law, I bid you both farewell.

Antigonus, 7 though old, laughed at the Man, who presented him with a Treatise concerning Justice, at the very Time he was besieging his Enemies

3. The Author alludes to a Fragment of the second Book of Cicero’s Treatise De Republica, preserved by St. Augustin; where Scipio, on the contrary, maintains, that ˆ it is impossible to govern a State well, without observing the Rules of Justice with the utmost Exactness. De Civit. Dei. Lib. II. Cap. XXI. 4. This Fragment, which may be seen in Cicero’s Oration for Muraena, Cap. XIV. is more entire in Aulus Gellius, Lib. XX. Cap. X. Non ex jure manu consertum, sed mage ferro Rem repetunt, regnumque petunt, vadunt solida vi. ˆ But the Poet speaks only of Civil Laws; and sets violent Measures, the distinguishing Characteristicks of War, in Opposition to the legal Proceedings, used for composing Differences in Times of Peace. The same is to be observed of some of the following Passages. 5. Art. Poet. Ver. 122. 6. Lucan puts this Speech into the Mouth of Julius Caesar on his passing the Rubicon. 7. Plutarch De fortuna Alexand. Mag. p. 330. Tom. II. Edit. Wech.


the preliminary discourse

Cities. And Marius said 8 he could not hear the Voice of the Laws for the 9 clashing of Arms. Even the 10 modest bashful Pompey 11 could have the Face to say, Can I think of Laws, who am in Arms? IV. Among Christian Writers we find many Sayings of the same kind; let that of Tertullian suffice for all; 1 Fraud, Cruelty, Injustice, are the proper Business of War. Now they that are of this Opinion, will undoubtedly object against me that of the Comedian,

You that attempt to fix by certain Rules Things so uncertain, may with like Success Strive to run mad, and yet preserve your Reason.

8. He spoke of the Civil Laws. The Words here referred to are that General’s Answer on Occasion of his being blamed for conferring the Freedom of Rome on a thousand valiant Soldiers, who had signalized themselves in the War against the Cimbri, without the Authority of any Law. See the Passage at Length in Plutarch’s Apophthegms, p. 202. Tom. II. See likewise the Life of Marius by the same Author; and Valerius Maximus, Lib. V. Cap. II. Num. 8. 9. The Inhabitants of Argos being ingaged in a Dispute with the Lacedemonians about some Lands, and the former having supported their Claim with the best Reasons, Lysander drew his Sword, saying: He, who is Master of this, reasons best about the Boundaries of Lands. Plutarch’s Apophthegms, p. 190. The same Author, in the Life of Caesar, p. 725. Tom. I. relates that Metellus, Tribune of the People, opposing that General for taking Money out of the publick Treasury, and alledging some Laws against that Practice, Caesar replied, that the Laws must give Place to the Exigencies of War. Seneca in his fourth Book De Beneficiis, Cap. XXXVII. observes, that Princes make many Grants, without enquiring into the Reasonableness of the Demand, especially during a War, when a just and equitable Man is not able to gratify so many Passions supported by Force. He adds, that it is not possible to be at the same Time an honest Man, and a good General. Grotius. 10. He was very apt to blush, especially when he was obliged to appear in the Assembly of the People. See Seneca’s eleventh Epistle, and Gronovius’s Note on it. 11. Plutarch, in the Life of Pompey, relates the Matter thus, The Mamertines pretending to be independent on Pompey, by Virtue of an old Roman Law, that General broke out into the following Expression: Will you still continue to alledge the Laws against us, while we have our Swords by our Sides? Quintus Curtius observes that War inverts even the Laws of Nature. Lib. IX. (Cap. IV. Num. 7.) Grotius. IV. (1) This Passage is taken from the ninth Book of his Treatise against the Jews. 2. Terence in his Eunuch, Act I, Scene I, Ver. 16, &c.

the preliminary discourse


V. But since it would be a vain Undertaking to treat of Right, if there is really no such thing; it will be necessary, in order to shew the Usefulness of our Work, and to establish it on solid Foundations, to confute here in a few Words so dangerous an Error. And that we may not engage with a Multitude at once, let us assign them an Advocate. And who more proper for this Purpose than Carneades, who arrived to such a Degree of Perfection, (the utmost his Sect aimed at,) that he could argue for or against Truth, with the same Force of Eloquence? This Man having undertaken to dispute against Justice, that kind of it, especially, which is the Subject of this Treatise, found no Argument stronger than this. 1 Laws (says he) were instituted by Men <xv> for the sake of Interest; and hence it is that they are different, not only in different Countries, according to the Diversity of their Manners, but often in the same Country, according to the Times. As to that which is called Natural Right, it is a mere Chimera. Nature prompts all Men, and in general all Animals, to seek their own particular Advantage: So that either there is no Justice at all, or if there is any, it is extreme Folly, because it engages us to procure the Good of others, to our own Prejudice. VI. But what is here said by the Philosopher, and by the Poet after him,

The Existence of Right asserted against the Objections of Carneades.

By naked Nature ne’er was understood What’s Just and Right. Creech.

1. Natural.

must by no Means be admitted. For Man is indeed an Animal, but one of a very high Order, and that excells all the other Species of Animals much more than they differ from one another; as the many Actions proper only to Mankind sufficiently demonstrate. Now amongst the Things peculiar to Man, is his Desire of 2 Society, that is, a certain Inclination to live with
V. (1) In Lactantius, Instit. Divin. Lib. V. Cap. XVI. Num. 3. Edit. Cellar. VI. (1) Horace, Lib. I. Sat. III. Ver. 113. 2. The natural Inclination of Mankind to live in Society is a Principle which has been admitted by the Wise and Learned of all Ages. Aristotle advances it in all his Books of Morality and Politics. Man, says he, is a sociable Animal in regard to those, to whom he is related by Nature. There is therefore such a Thing as Society, and somewhat that is just, even independently of what we call Civil Society. Eadem. Lib. VII. Cap. X. p. 280. Edit. Paris. The same Philosopher observes elsewhere, that Man is by Nature more strongly inclined to Society than Bees, or any other Animals, which are observed


the preliminary discourse

to flock or herd together. Polit. Lib. I. Cap. II. p. 298. And this he proves from the Consideration of Man alone being in Possession of the Use of Speech. See Note 3 on the 3d Section of Chap. I. Book VII. of Pufendorf’s Law of Nature and Nations. Cicero, reasoning on the Principles of the Stoicks, lays it down for a certain Fact, that no Man would chuse to live in absolute Solitude, even though he might enjoy an Infinity of Pleasures. From which he immediately infers, that we were born for Society. To this he adds, that as we make Use of our Limbs, before we have learnt what was the Design of Nature in furnishing us with them; so we are naturally formed for civil Society; without which there would be no Room for the Exercise of Justice or Goodness. De finib. Bon & Mal. Lib. III. Cap. XX. See also Lib. V. Cap. XXIII. and De Officiis, Lib. I. Cap. IV. VII, and XLIV. Seneca, De Benef. Lib. VII. Cap. I. and Epist. XCV. p. 470. Diogenes Laertius, Lib. VII. § 123. and the Passages quoted in Note (6) on the following Paragraph. And here I cannot conclude this Note without a beautiful Passage taken out of Epictetus’s Discourses, collected by Arrian, in which we have an excellent Argument ad hominem against such as deny the natural Inclination of Men to Society. The Stoick Philosopher thus attacks his Antagonists. “Epicurus, while he is endeavouring to destroy the Principle of natural Society, reasons on the very same Principle. Suffer not yourselves to be imposed on, says he; beware of Illusion. Take my Word for it, there is naturally no such Thing as Society amongst reasonable Creatures; those, who affirm there is, only abuse your Credulity. But, we may ask him, how does this concern you? Leave us in quiet Possession of our Error. What Damage will you suffer, if all but you and your Followers should be persuaded that there is a natural Society amongst Mankind, and that we ought to do all in our Power for its Support? Why so much Concern for us? What can induce you to light up your Lamp, and spend whole Nights in Study for our Sakes? Why are you at the Pains of composing so many Books? You will tell us, it is with a View of undeceiving us in this Particular, That the Gods interest themselves in our Affairs; and that Happiness essentially consists in something else than Pleasure.—But what is it to you whether others form a right Judgment on these Points or not? What tie is there between you and us? What Interest have you in what regards us? Have you any Compassion for the Sheep, because they submit to be shorn, milked and slaughtered? Ought not you to wish, that Men, inchanted and lulled to sleep by the Stoicks, would as tamely deliver up themselves to the Direction of you and your Companions?—In short, what was it that deprived Epicurus of his Rest, and engaged him to write all he published? Nature, without doubt, that most powerful Principle of human Motions, which strongly influenced him, and forced his Obedience, in spite of all the Resistance he could make, such is the invincible Force of human Nature!—As it is neither possible nor conceivable that a Vine should shoot like an Olive-tree, and not according to the Impulse of its own Nature, and so vice versa; so neither is it possible for Men to be entirely free from human Motions. If you castrate a Man, you cannot extinguish all carnal Inclinations and Desires in him. Thus Epicurus, as much as in him lies, has cut off all the Relations of Husband, Master of a Family, Citizen and Friend, but the Inclinations of human Nature are still entire in him. It was no more in his Power to divest himself of those, than it was in that of the wretched Academicks to throw away or

the preliminary discourse


those of his own Kind, not in any Manner whatever, but peaceably, and in a Community regulated according to the best of his Understanding; which Disposition the 3 Stoicks termed ◊Oikeiwsin. 4 Therefore the <xvi> Saying, ´ that every Creature is led by Nature to seek its own private Advantage, expressed thus universally, must not be granted.

blind their Senses, though no Set of Men ever took so much Pains to do it.” Dissert. Lib. II. Cap. XX. p. 201, &c. Edit. Colon. 1591. The late Lord Shaftesbury has reasoned in the same manner, but with a lively Turn, which gives his Piece the Air of an Original, against Hobbes, who with still more Warmth than his Master Epicurus, undertook to persuade the World that all Men are by Nature so many Wolves one to another. See that Lord’s Essay on the Use of Raillery, &c. p. 64, & seq. printed at the Hague in the Year 1710. 3. “We have,” says St. Chrysostom, Hom. XXXII. ad Roman. “a certain natural Affection one for another, which subsists even amongst Beasts.” See what the same Father says farther on the first Chapter to the Ephesians, where he affirms that Nature has furnished us with the Seeds of Virtue. To all this let us add the Words of that great Philosopher, the Emperor Antoninus. “It has long since been shewn that we are born for Society. Is it not evident that Things which are less perfect were made for the Use of the more perfect, and that those which have greater Degrees of Perfection were designed for the Service one of another?” Lib. V. § 16. Grotius. 4. ◊Oikeiwsic. The Author, in the preceding Note, alledges no other Authority ´ but that of St. Chrysostom; for the Word in question does not occur in the Passage quoted from Antoninus. In the following Passage of Porphyry the Term is used precisely in regard to the natural Sociability of Man. Taxa men kai fusikhc tinoc ´ ’ ’ ÷ ’ oikeiwsewc uparxoushc toic anjrwpoic proc anjrwpouc, &c. De Abstin. Anim. Lib. ◊ ´ ÿ ´ ÷ ◊ ´ ’ ◊ ´ I. p. 13. Edit. Lugd. 1620. See also Lib. II. p. 159. Lib. III. p. 294, 328. and Plutarch, De Stoicorum Repugn. p. 1308. Tom. II. Edit. Wech. Antoninus uses the Adverb oikeiwc in the same Sense. Lib. IX. § 1. And Arrian has the Verb oikeiousjai. Dissert. ◊ ´ ◊ ÷ Epict. Lib. III. Cap. XXIV. They all seem to have copied Aristotle in this Particular, ’ who says ⁄Idoi d◊ an tic, kai en taic planaic, wc ◊OIKEION apac anjrwpw kai ⁄ ’◊ ÷ ´ ÿ ¤ ⁄ ´ filon. Ethic. Nicom. Lib. VIII. Cap. I. ´

Philo. Addressing himself to Men in regard to the Duties of the fifth Commandment. For even of the other Animals there are some that forget 1 a little the Care of their own Interest. has a beautiful Passage to this Purpose. XI.” See concerning the particular Care of Pigeons about their Young. (1) It is an old Proverb that a Dog will not eat Dog’s Flesh. or put their Children in a Condition of acquiring them. and neglect those who alone. the Jew. The old ones. proceeds from 3 some extrinsick VII. live in Plenty and Pleasure. XL. Thus they are taught by Nature to provide with Pleasure for the Sustenance of those. Lib. Lib. And as to certain Fishes. “At least. stay in their Nests. and sometimes succeeds in the Attempt. enjoying a Repose suitable to their Age. and that the wildest Beasts spare those of their own Species. Which. in order to set him at Liberty. which know how to make an affectionate Return for Favours received. let us pass on to the Consideration of the Birds of the Air. When one Saurus sees another taken by a Hook. when rendered incapable of flying by Age. and their Parents when in the Decline of Life. in my Opinion. 71. or at least preferably to all others. Cap. XVI. and even expose their Lives in Defence of their Masters. Edit.82 the preliminary discourse VII. VI. whilst their Young traverse Sea and Land in quest of Food for them. have a Right to their Assistance? especially when they consider that in this Case they only return what they have received. Dogs keep the House. See likewise Erasmus’s Adagia. III. when not able to take Care of themselves. & seq. and the comfortable Expectation of the same Assistance in their old Age. Grotius. H. 159.” says he. Lat. from whom they received it. Varro De Ling. Is it not most shameful that Man should be outdone by a Dog in Point of Gratitude. he gnaws the Line. perform this necessary Office at a proper Time. in return for the Treatment they have received. p. For all that Children call their own is received from their Parents. Porphyry De non esu Animalium. the tamest and most civilized Creature. when in imminent Danger. In regard to the Fishes our Author mentions. “imitate the Behaviour of some brute Beasts. Ver. with the Satisfaction they find in acquitting themselves of their Duty. who either gave the Things themselves. ——— ——— parcit Cognatis maculis similis fera ——— Indica Tigris agit rabida cum Tigride pacem Perpetuam: saevis inter se convenit ursis. or those of their own Kind. Lib. rather than suffer any of their Cattle to be lost. called Scari and Sauri. Steph. Cassiodorus Var. in Favour 2 either of their young ones. which shew a Concern for those of their own Species. they seem to express a Concern for their Species in the following Instances. and learn our Duty from them. whilst the young ones supporting the Fatigue of their Course cheerfully. by the most brutal of Beasts? But if the Conduct of terrestrial Animals is not sufficient for our Instruction. The Storks. Sat. And it is no uncommon Thing to observe several of them unite in a . Juvenal remarks that Tigers live peaceably together. Thus the same Birds feed their Young whilst unfledged. Is not this sufficient to confound such as shew no Concern for their Parents. It is said that Shepherds Dogs go before the Flocks and fight till they die.

Chap. If he puts out his Head. for proving any one particular Thing conformable or contrary to the Law of Nature. Lib. II. Nor are we less acquainted with the Fervour. where he expresses himself more clearly. Obrecht. V. XI. have given his Thoughts a wrong Turn in this. as Elian observes.” The latter in his Instit. The Weakness of their Criticism sufficiently appears from this single Consideration. Cap. of the last Edition of Amsterdam. I. IV. The same may be said of Infants. III. that he may fasten on it. as he usually does. with which Bees and Pismires unite their Labours for the Good of their respective Communities. and thus disingage himself. Lib. C. The Words of the former in the 19th Chapter of his 3d Book De Finibus Bonorum & Malorum. § 7. the Bees and Pismires. in whom is to be seen a Propensity to do Good to others. ˆ p. which bring the Game to their Masters. XXXII. labour for the common Good. This Union is much stronger among Men. but still he does not give us a more just and philosophical Idea of the Thing. Cap. 303. we are therefore formed by Nature for Society. as remarked by the same Annotator from Cicero and Quintilian. Gronovius on this Place brings the Example of Hens which feed their Chickens. because they do not shew the same Dispositions in other Matters. Ver. Ovid’s Halieutic.” Several of those who have undertaken to criticize. Lib. Book II. referred to in the preceding Note. In which. that we find some faint Tracks of it even amongst irrational Animals. Cap. See what he says Book I. . Edit. while the other throws himself forward and drags him along. mutual Assistance. See the Passage of Pufendorf. Every one has observed this Practice. p. “they act like Men. as appears from his Treatise Of the Truth of the Christian Religion.” Hist. gives this Direction: “If you press a Concern for the Commonwealth. so that if it endeavours to escape by the Tail. 13. See also Pliny’s Nat. § II. in regard to those of their own Species. 1717. or comment on our Author. one of them presents his Tail. they assist him to the utmost of their Power. 2. do some Things for the Sake of others.the preliminary discourse 83 intelligent Principle. By this intelligent and exterior Principle our Author means God himself. Pismires and Storks. and my Remark in the Notes on Pufendorf’s Law of Nature and Nations. Chap. Consult Mr. Fragm. De Solertia Animalium. that our Author only affirms that the Principle of Sociability has so real a Foundation in the Nature of Man. Plutarch. 977. Le Clerk’s Note on that Piece. Tom. Lib. Orat. and living in Community. with which the wildest Beasts expose their own Lives in Defence of their Young. are. &c. Animal. 3. and practise the Laws of Friendship. He does by no means pretend either that there is any Right common to Men and Beasts. “Even Bees. that are not more difficult than these. p. I. I. 13. II. or that any certain Consequences can be drawn from the Actions of Brutes. and many other Places. which they learn only from Nature. and the Abstinence of Hounds. § 2. and Cocks which feed the Hens out of their own Mouths. you may shew how those little dumb Creatures. as well as the Ardour. Hist. before they Body to deliver a Captive.

so that it may be maintained that all Men. there is still great Room to believe. Tom. at an Age when their Inclinations act with most Freedom. Wech. are rather the Result of a bad Education and Custom. Augustine De Doctrina Christiana. even before they arrive to Years of Discretion. to which they are impelled. has. 5. 608. who for Conveniency. § 42. He also asserts that “we may sooner find a terrestrial Body entirely separated from all that is terrestrial. 221. from the Love of our Country. as Plutarch 4 well observes. “that. are obliged to a strict . a Passion. and mutual Affection. But it must be owned that a Man grown up. The Emperor Marcus Antoninus observes that “whenever Man. § 9. Lib. See Tom. than of a natural and invincible Inclination. which is all our Author designs to advance. Nicetas Choniates. besides an exquisite Desire 6 of Society. was so surprisingly sweet tempered and benevolent. ad Uxorem.” Lib. 6. Whereas Beasts act in a certain and uniform Manner only in regard to one Thing. have the Seeds of Sociability. Edit. p. Consol. as a Reason for being more sensibly affected by her Death. such Dispositions as are contrary to Humanity.” See St. where that Philosopher speaks of this natural Propensity or Inclination of Children. being capable of acting <xvii> in the same 5 Manner with respect to Things that are alike. who naturally herd for Company’s Sake. “Nature has engraved and planted in us a sort of Sympathy for one another as Members of the same Family. printed in 1727. II. Grotius. The Earl of Shaftesbury proves the Existence of this natural and social Affection. I know of no other Place in Plutarch. which contains a remarkable Reflection. he tells us. I think it very probable that. which is found in some Degree in the Hearts of all Mankind. exerts an Act of Beneficence. which our Author indeed does not insinuate. p. 141. whatever was most agreeable to herself. But we have another Passage much shorter in the same Volume. that notwithstanding the infinite Diversity of Tempers. than a Man divided from all other Men. 220. or from which they are diverted by their natural Instinct. though the Principles and Maxims of the Law of Nature cannot be deduced from the Behaviour of Children. which consequently are founded in human Nature. and Compassion likewise discovers itself upon every Occasion in that tender Age.” says he. sharing with others. there are few. who. and have no Dependence on a View of Interest. But he is not there speaking of the common Inclination of all Children: On the contrary. but even to her Puppets and Play-things. Cap. who is born with a Disposition to do good Offices. says.” Ibid. IX. III. As to the Thing itself.84 the preliminary discourse are capable of Instruction. III. p. The Arguments of that ingenious and penetrating Author are too long to be inserted here. XIV. but in his Account of his little Daughter. though there are so many Animals. of his Characteristicks. “Well it is for Mankind. he does no more than what he was formed for by Nature. for the Satisfaction of which he alone of all Animals has received 4. he seems to attribute something particular to his little Girl. and by Necessity. &c. one of the Writers of the Byzantine History. that she expressed a Desire that her Nurse should give the Breast not only to other children.

which is peculiar to Man. (1) Hence it appears that our Author does not mean that bare natural Instinct in the Rule of the Law of Nature. The major Part of these political Animals and Creatures of a joint Stock. we should with all our invented Machines. which we have now described in general. or to all of our own Species. properly and strictly called. in some Manner or other. and are therefore necessitated to accumulate in another. viz. for Instance. besides that. I. Book I. but that he adds Reason for the Direction of such Instinct. I. and a single Animal. VIII. are as inconsiderable as the Race of Ants or Bees.” VIII. but properly and peculiarly agrees to Mankind. and induce us to consult only our private Interest. &c. of which we find some Traces in Beasts. should he have grown up into a Society. that the Desire of Society. to extend to all Men. or this Care of maintaining Society 1 in a Manner conformable to the Light of human Union. have found it hard to dispute with him the Dominion of the Continent. which in Bulk or Strength exceed the Beaver. as the Elephant. are obliged to make themselves Habitations of Defence against the Seasons and other Incidents. and made him withal as prolifick as those smaller Creatures commonly are. the Use of Speech. or to one single Community. who according to the Oeconomy of their Kind. which have been fought by human Race. without which it might misguide us. For Reason. I have ever heard of. of a more easy Subsistence and Support. as the looser Kind. or even with one single Family: and that Highwaymen and Pyrates have also their Societies. it might have gone hard perhaps with Mankind. so that what relates to this Faculty is not common to all Animals. and provide withal for the Safety of their collected Stores. and kind of confederate State. clearly teaches us that it is not proper to confine Sociability and Affection to a small Number of Persons. a Faculty of knowing and acting. But. and which is more natural to him than the Desire of Society. Num. might be gratified. Of these thoroughly-associating and confederate Animals. who in some parts of the Year are deprived of all Subsistence. though a Man were united in Society and Friendship with one Nation only. § 12.the preliminary discourse 85 from Nature a peculiar Instrument. there are none. and on the Account of their being naturally all alike and equal. as Gaspar Ziegler has done. had Nature assigned such an Oeconomy as this to so puissant an Animal. Peculiar to Man. Hence it is also that he elsewhere makes what belongs to the Law of Nature consist in a necessary Conformity to. I say. they. This Sociability. on whom it is equally diffused by Virtue of the Design of Nature. or Difformity from a reasonable and sociable Nature. are by their Nature indeed as strictly joined and endowed with as proper Affections towards their Community. and the Propagation of their Species. that he has. are united in what relates merely to their Offspring. So that it is ridiculous to object. Chap. who by his proper Might and Prowess has often decided the Fate of the greatest Battles. The Creatures. according to some general Principles. with a Genius for Architecture and Mechanicks proportionable to what we observe in those smaller Creatures. which Grotius lays down as the Foundation of the Law of Nature. but that it ought. I shall not here enlarge on this Subject. .

render him very strong and powerful. Whereas Man is defenceless on all Sides. but on the mutual Exchange of good Offices? Certainly nothing but this Commerce of Benefits can make Life commodious. Relief and Comfort in the midst of Sorrows and Afflictions. the Obligation of fulfilling Promises. 2. Book II. and whose natural Ferocity doth not allow them to go in Bodies. I mean. Grotius. is no better than destroying the Disposition to Society. leaves no room for any plausible Objection. and had no Resource. Now to maintain that Ingratitude is not a detestable Vice and what ought to be avoided for its own Sake. a Man must be very wrong headed. to which belongs the Abstaining 3 from that which is another’s. as this shameful Vice. So that he. 2 is the Fountain of Right. properly so called. the Abstaining from what is another’s. IV. III. Porphyry. has furnished him with two Things. XVIII. and the doing no Injury to those that do none to us. but refer the Reader to the Explication and Defence of the general Principle of Sociability. by this Union becomes Master of all. in a Word. which when well understood. Weakness itself. or of the Profit we have made by it. and <xviii> the Restitution of what we have of another’s. so many Persons exposed every Moment to be the Prey and Victims of other Animals: Blood continually ready to be spilt. All such as are designed for a wandering Life. Lib.” says he. and put us in a Condition of guarding against unforeseen Insults and Invasions. In reality. . 3. “That a Sentiment of Gratitude.” De Benefic. How miserable would Mankind be. Reason and a Disposition to Society. and you will at the same Time destroy the Union of Mankind. Nature to make him amends. Cap. but in himself? So many Men. not even excepting those bred in the Sea. Book III. as I may say. Seneca makes an excellent Application of this Principle. come into the World armed. “is a Thing valuable in its own Nature. who when alone was not able to resist any other. in my Notes on Pufendorf’s Law of Nature and Nations. Of Abstinence from Animals. Chap. But in Society with his like he finds the wanted Succours. which from weak and miserable as he would have been. the Reparation of a Damage done through our own Default. who will hereafter expose himself by starting and multiplying frivolous Difficulties against a Truth.86 the preliminary discourse Understanding. This is what puts him in a Condition of defying Fortune. which live in another Element. It is Society also that furnishes him with Remedies against Distempers. on the whole. Take away the Disposition to Society. So that. having neither Claws nor Teeth to make him formidable. Justice consists in this. if I may use the Expression. and the Merit of Punishment among Men. but only on the Account of its pernicious Consequences. on what does our Security depend. Other Animals are strong enough to defend themselves. on which the Preservation and Happiness of Life depend. there being nothing so destructive of Concord and the Union of Mankind. appears from the odious Character which Ingratitude bears in the World. if every one lived apart. Grotius. Assistance in his old Age. The Disposition to Society gives him the Dominion over all the Animals.

or those who represent it. Ambrose treats of this in his first Book Of Offices. he did not observe the Omission in reading over this Place. as usual. or designed to write. but likewise with Judgment to discern Things 1 pleasant or hurtful.]] Our Author speaks here of such Rewards as are given by the State. that according to the Measure of our Understanding we should in these Things follow the Dictates of a right and sound Judgment. 2. which recommended them. (1) Indicium ad aestimanda quae delectant aut nocent—& quae in utrumvis possunt ducere. IV. or the Allurements of present Pleasure.the preliminary discourse 87 IX. These Words Mr. or are placed in the latter. and I suspect some Omission in the Text. which are enjoined him even by the Frame of his Nature. ´ ´ &c. in a loose and confused manner of the Rules to be followed in the prudent Management of the Good we do to others. See Book II. had no full Right to demand them. and speaks. and that the Words here given in the Roman Character being left out. The Word delectant. [[The footnote is wrongly included as part of the previous one in the original. For they who receive the former. as also of the Collation of publick Offices. and not be corrupted either by Fear. and which may be seen at large in Pufendorf ’s Law of Nature and Nations. to Persons distinguished by their Merit. . Chap. § 2. it must therefore be agreeable to human Nature. From this Signification of Right arose another of larger Extent. quae juvant. aut nocent. Quae delectant aut dolorem creant. For by reason that Man above all other Creatures is endued not only with this Social Faculty of which we have spoken. And whatsoever is contrary to such a Judgment 2 is likewise understood to be contrary to Natural Right. XVII. &c. XXX. or how glorious soever the Actions are. that Grotius wrote. is not directly opposed to nocent. though the Passage appears the same in all Editions of this Work. Grotius. how great soever their Merit may be. It is probable. says he. continues our learned Commentator. 2. Barbeyrac renders—choses agreables & desagreables. On which Occasion he professes to follow the Author’s Sense. Our Author probably had his Eye upon Chap. nor be carried away violently by blind Passion. Book II. and such as may prove to be so in their Consequences. Improperly and more loosely. where that Father treats of Beneficence. And to this belongs a 1 prudent Management in the gratuitous Distribution of Things that properly belong to each particular Person or 2 Society. and those not only present but future. nor to claim considerable ones as their due. X. rather than his Expression. the Laws of our Nature. It is evident that this includes those Duties of Man in regard to himself. IX. (1) St. X. that is. Chap.

and make the Distribution in Question belong to distributive Justice. 4. and Reputation. and what the Author says. since it consists in leaving 7 others in quiet Possession 3. are actually his own. quoted at large in my Pufendorf ’s Law of Nature and Nations. Since it consists in leaving others in quiet Possession of what is already their own. who reckons it part of private or rigorous Justice. which many both of the Ancients and Moderns take to be 6 a part of Right properly and strictly so called. Book III. 8. intitled. sometimes require the Preference of a Person. Much Judgment and Circumspection are to be used in this Particular. wounding. and what was his own. Chap. In that Case. Chap. or in doing for them what in Strictness they may demand. whether designedly or through Inadvertency. as I have observed in my Edition of the Original. Mr. who should on that Consideration pronounce Sentence in Favour of a poor Man. When we forbear striking. For it would be a mistaken piece of Charity to bestow a publick Employ on one who is in great Necessity. much more capable of discharging the Obligations of such a Post. otherwise of less Merit. This is the Sense of the Author’s concise Expressions: Ut quae jam sunt alterius. when notwithstanding that Right. Buddeus has written an useful Dissertation on that Subject. by Virtue of which a Man may make a rigorous Demand of what is his Due. aut impleantur. alteri permittantur. De Comparatione Obligationum. robbing. his Goods. which is expresly forbid by the Law of Moses. xxiii. and other such Considerations. the Ties of Blood. When we repair the Damage he has sustained in his Person. and 5 the Nature of the Thing require. Book I. among the Selecta Juris Naturae & Gentium. because the Practice of this Duty is diversified by an infinite Variety of Circumstances. § 15. 6. 3. we only leave him in quiet Possession of what was his own. Exod. while he has done nothing to deserve such Treatment. would be a Respect of Persons as culpable as that of a Judge. to the Prejudice of another. A few Examples will explain his Meaning. quae ex diversis hominum statibus oriuntur. § 7. III. a poor Man before one that is rich. injuring or defaming any one. contrary to Law and Equity. all Things else being equal. See a beautiful Passage of Cicero to this Purpose. Goods. It is probable that he had written or designed to write. This takes Place. and that according as each Man’s Actions. and no Man has a Right to dispossess him of them. 7. Le Clerc. aut quae altera debentur. The Author speaks of such as follow Aristotle. I. which he had a strict Right to . has a quite different Nature. and it is difficult to lay down any general Rules in Relation to it. or Reputation. properly speaking. whose Business it is to dispose of publick Employs. on which Place see the Note of Mr. 5. But it does not always take Place in private Liberalities and the Services we do one another. a pressing Necessity. according to that Philosopher’s Acceptation of the Term. for the good Condition of his Limbs.88 the preliminary discourse so as to prefer sometimes one of 3 greater before one of less Merit. a Regard to the Poverty of the Candidate. it was printed in 1704. See the following Note. a Relation 4 before a Stranger. we restore what we had taken from him. This Maxim is always to be observed by those. impleantur.

and to whom we owe our Being. what he was once in actual Possession of. And indeed. that God. and the State of a reasonable and sociable Creature. partly from Reason. necessarily supposes a superior Power. De Courtin. from which certain Relations result. not to mention the Punishment of the Guilty. according to our Author’s Ideas. 2. The Reader may see on that Subject the excellent Treatise of our Author. as we shall see in the proper Place. between such and such Actions. prepossessed with Aristotle’s Ideas. Chap. who can be no other than the Creator. but he does that Subject no Wrong. of which our Author seems not to design to speak in this Place. The same is to be said of those. widely mistakes his Meaning. partly from a perpetual Tradition. The learned Gronovius. who is worthy of it. or the indispensibleNecessity of conforming to these Ideas. Concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion. on the very Constitution of Man. or the Reward. in which he has been faithfully followed by Mr. that there is no God. or does not reward the Person according to his Merit. fully confirm. The contrary of which appearing 2 to us. when we perform our Promise. and as we shall shew in our last Note on Book I. and perplexes the Question both here and elsewhere. But to speak exactly. but are founded on the Nature of Things. not in extreme Necessity. or the supreme Divinity. When we keep our Word to him. and not giving due Attention to the Matter. it hence follows. . XI. properly speaking. or that he takes no Care of human Affairs. 1 though we should even grant. or prefers one less capable of discharging the Duty. <xix> XI. and the Sequel of our Author’s Discourse. Chap. ought to be obeyed by us in all Things demand. or in doing for them what in Strictness they may demand. We shall treat of this Subject more largely in the fourth Note on Book I. as we have seen § 8. we do not indeed restore. he does indeed offend against the Law of Nature. taken in the strict and proper Sense of that Term. and less extensive Sense. but we perform what he might strictly require at our Hands. a supreme Master of Mankind. All this relates to the Law of Nature. the Duty and Obligation. L. and Maxims. as being our Creator. (1) This Assertion is to be admitted only in the following Sense: That the Maxims of the Law of Nature are not merely arbitrary Rules. or make good an Engagement. § 5. and all that we have. who refuse Relief or Assistance to the poor and miserable. for in that Case they have a strict Right to demand what they want. taken in an improper.the preliminary discourse 89 of what is already their own. attested by all Ages. When the Sovereign refuses to bestow an Employment on one of his Subjects. what without the greatest Wickedness cannot be granted. all we have now said would take place. though he ranks it in the same Class. because he had no full and rigorous Rights to demand the Employment. which many Arguments and Miracles. § 10. I.

and those eternal too. and the Sequel of the Discourse. The Impropriety of this Quotation will appear still more from the Words immediately following. § 15. believe he has. yet upon the Acknowledgment of a Deity. convinced by undoubted Testimonies. IV. Grotius. a free or arbitrary Will. according to the Merits of each Individual. This is evident from the very Terms he employs. viz. because it was his Pleasure to establish such interior Principles in Men. though sufficiently founded in itself. ◊ ÷ ◊ ÷ This Passage is beautiful. For. Num. whence we have Room to conclude that he is able to bestow. Voluntary. especially since he has so many Ways shewn his infinite Goodness and Almighty Power. that every Injustice is a real Impiety. renders himself guilty of Impiety. that the Law of Nature. or though the Frame of our Nature did not of itself engage us to act in such or such a manner. The Author ought to have placed it among those quoted in the following Note. but ill applied. besides that of Nature. for he calls the Will. he is here talking of Voluntary Divine Law. which we call the Holy Scriptures. 2. or that his Nature should be framed in the Manner it is. of whose Existence we cannot reasonably be ignorant or doubtful. &c. upon those that obey him. IX. for that God. that even though there were no Natural Right. § 3. which we say were imposed on them by the Frame of their own Nature. which is the Source of this Right. he who disobeys her Will. 1. . 4. which it is not amiss to produce. § 1. In Reality. who has so clearly revealed himself to Men in the Books. But it may be farther said that the Law of Nature. since he himself is eternal. Our Author’s Meaning therefore in this Place is. Book II. to which our UnderXII. especially if he has in express Words promised it. because God hath commanded or forbidden it. The Emperor gives a Reason for what he had advanced. See some Passages alledged in my Remark on Pufendorf. whatever he commands. according to the Sentiment of Marcus Antoninus. has there prescribed them a Set of Laws entirely like those. and that he is willing so to do ought even to be believed. being that which proceeds from the free Will 1 of God. (1) For this Reason. Thus we should always find a Source of Right there. being in its own Nature indifferent. and do no Hurt to others. ÿO adikwn asebei. as it were occasionally. Lib. may be also considered as flowing from the Divine Will. independently of Revelation. which does not appear at first Sight. is manifestly guilty of Impiety against the most antient Divinity. even though his Laws had no other Foundation but his absolute and arbitrary Will. Divine. who commits an Act of Injustice. Many Pagan Authors have also acknowledged that the Law of Nature is a divine Law. says he. Book I. as it was his Pleasure.90 the preliminary discourse without Exception. of which he has been laying the Foundation. or of that. which. XII. does likewise derive its Origin from God. we must likewise own ourselves obliged to obey him. And this now is another Original of Right. This I take to be the Meaning of our Author. universal Nature having made reasonable Creatures for one another. and the Connexion of his Discourse. that they may assist one another. Chap. as we Christians. every Man. Chap. becomes just or unjust. the greatest Rewards. and afterwards observes. as he himself calls it. I.

VII. so Jussum has been changed into Jus. Of the Gods. that is. than Jupiter and universal Nature. Lib. The Apostle St. It should be read male consulunt. Cicero also maintains. XIII. for there we must always begin. xi. 30. and Ambition. Chap.” And Chrysippus expresses himself thus. in his Treatise De Stoicorum repugnantiis. Chrysostom. may notwithstanding be justly ascribed 2 to God. Grotius. whose Works are not extant. Gen. IV. especially in the New Testament. This last Passage cited from a Stoick. Wechel. (1) Disorderly Passions are condemned through the whole Scripture. and even that of 1632 read it so. the Lust of the Flesh. “For it is not possible to find any other Principle or Origin of Justice. IX. See the preceding Note. ad Fam. that the wisest and most learned Men have been of Opinion that the Source of all Law and Justice is to be sought for in the Divinity. it is evidently faulty. Cap. even to those who are less capable of strict Reasoning. XXI. or that which in a looser Sense is so called. John includes them all under three Heads. But though all the Editions I have seen. whether it be that which consists in the Maintenance of Society. II. that God by the Laws which he has given. which was afterwards made Juris. Jusis. There is yet this farther Reason for ascribing it to God. and that of others. we ought to be subject: And even the Law of Nature itself. [[But see my introduction.” Book III. 4. Ver. divert us from following the Rules of Reason 2. from which Word Jupiter it is probable 4 the Latins gave it the Name Jus. Lib.]] .” says St. I. as I have corrected it in my Edition of the ` Original. xxiv n. Perhaps. which. and has forbid us to give way to those impetuous 1 Passions. though it flows from the internal Principles of Man. 3. under very severe Penalties. quique aliis consulunt. And in this Sense Chrysippus 3 and the Stoicks said. 1 Ep. whenever we design to treat of Good and Evil. In the Original it is quite the reverse: Quae nobis ipsis. that the Original of Right is to be derived from no other than Jupiter himself. Tom. Ep. which forbids us. as Papisii was turned into Papirii. Grotius. Edit. sensual Pleasure. XIII. 2. V. <xx> contrary 2 to our own Interest. has made these very Principles more clear and evident. See his Treatise de Legibus. is preserved by Plutarch. 3. the Lust of the Eyes. though he published a great Number. p. for he is the Author of Nature. “When I speak of Nature. Covetousness. in support of the original reading. 1035. II. because it was his Pleasure that these Principles should be in us. to allow ourselves to be hurried away by those blind Motions. where the Reader may see the Reason why the Word supplied is here absolutely necessary. on 1 Cor. p. and Lib. II. and the Pride of Life. See Cicero Ep. it might be rather said that as Ossum has been converted into Os. in the Language of the Philosophers. Cap. X. 16. “I mean God.the preliminary discourse 91 standing infallibly assures us.

Stoic. Jerom (Ep. See Justus Lipsius’s Physiolog. and terrestrial Deities. XIV. Plato calls Fathers and Mothers Images of the Divinity. Parents 1 are as so many Gods 2 in regard to their Children: Therefore the latter owe them an Obedience. 1. Hierocles. III. Book II. who imitate the unoriginated God. secunda post Deum foederatio. Lib. not indeed unlimited. § 1. 224. Add to this. XI. So that in this Respect also may be truly affirmed. in his Comment on Pythagoras’s Golden Verses. Tom. concerning the Origin of Mankind. Steph. They occur in Stobaeus. did not consist in their considering all Mankind as descended from the same Father and the same Mother. De Justitia & Jure. on the Decalogue. II. 761. and Gataker’s learned Notes on that Place. in producing living Creatures. St. Cap. because they gave them Birth. but only in the Conformity of their Nature. Tit. p. Nicomach. according to Aristotle. I. 930. says that a Father and a Mother are terrestrial Gods. Lib. Amongst Men. 461. Edit. IV. it was in a very different Manner from what Moses uses in his History of the Creation. in which Action. 2. Edit. it was necessary to keep a strict Hand over them. The Passage here quoted out of Hierocles. The Ideas of the Stoicks. who should call them (Parents) Gods of a second Class. and the Principles or Materials of which they thought them composed. which they conceived as subsisting among Men. Tom.) says that the Relation between Parents and their Children is next to that between God and Men. that sacred History. Edit. where he says a Man would not commit a Mistake. what Florentinus said in another Sense. De Legib. XIV. Pag. Ethic. affords no inconsiderable Motive to social Affection. and to confine them within certain narrow Bounds. The Kindred. that it is a Crime for one Man to act to the Prejudice of another. Lib. II. for Children are obliged to obey their Parents. (1) The Author here passes almost imperceptibly to another Species of Voluntary Law. XV. and though they introduced the Divinity. Wechel. XLVII. were very confused. H. (p. is not in his Commentary on the Golden Verses. though the Husband and Wife are no more than blind Instruments. LXXVII. (1) Digest. Grotius. besides the Precepts it contains to this Purpose. for as they are exceeding unruly. Dissert. III. 931. Leg. Lib. IX. Philo. Basil.) Parents are to be honoured like the Gods. See Marcus Antoninus. ˆ and such was this Lawyer. Paris. it is what a Father and a Mother prescribe to their Children. . which however is founded in Nature. Edit. XV. I. since it teaches us that all Men are descended from the same first Parents. That 1 Nature has made us all akin: Whence it follows. Serm. calls them visible Gods. they in some Measure imitate God. Pag.92 the preliminary discourse and Nature.

Again. XVII. which deriving its Force from the Law of Nature. ` Horat. or from the Nature of the Thing must be understood to have tacitly promised. a Consequence of that inviolable Law of Nature. Augustin says against this Opinion. III. though even the Necessity of our Circumstances should not require it. if we speak accurately. (1) Atque ipsa Utilitas Justi prope mater. the Great Grandmother of this Law also. which. 2. Nature may be called as it were. For those who had incorporated themselves into any Society. since the fulfilling of Covenants belongs to the Law of Nature. Lib. See below Book 1.” See what St. had either expresly. or those on whom the Sovereign Power had been conferred. Creech. 98. Ver. had ordained. IV. I. XVII. § 6. Civil of every State. XVI. “The Poet here opposes the Tenets of the Stoicks. Lib. (1) So that the Civil Law. that every Man in 3. but of others. though no kind of Law is in itself more arbitrary. would of itself create in us a mutual Desire of Society: And the Mother of Civil Law is that very Obligation which arises from Consent. De Doctrina Christiana. Grotius. ( for it was necessary there should be some Means of obliging Men among themselves. Therefore the Saying. Num. but derived from Interest. III. But to the Law of Nature Profit is annexed: For the Author of Nature was pleased. & Aequi. Sat. that they would submit to whatever either the greater part of the Society. and as great as the Dependence of both upon a common Superior permits. or Number of Men. and we cannot conceive any other more conformable to Nature) from this very Foundation 1 Civil Laws were derived. that Spring of Just and Right. makes the following Remark. whether Acron or any other Grammarian. is not true. Interest. Cap. an ancient Commentator on Horace. is at the Bottom no more than an Extension of Natural Law. Chap. Upon which Place. for his Design is to prove that Justice is not Natural. for the Mother of Natural Law is human Nature itself. XVI. that every one is obliged to a religious Performance of his Promise. XIV. . or subjected themselves to any one Man. not of Carneades only.the preliminary discourse 93 but as extensive 3 as that Relation requires. 1 2 Human.

And besides. of all or most States. For 2 as he that violates 2. breaks the Union of the State. that Citizen is no Fool. XVIII. 2. those who prescribe Laws to others. for the same Reason holds good in both. Ibid. Objections confuted: Justice not Folly. III. Every Action of yours. XIX. destroys the Harmony and Uniformity of Life: It is seditious. § 14. who for the Sake of their own particular Advantage. And in another Place he says. as its End. according to his own Confession. though out of Reverence to that Law he must and ought to pass by some Things that might be advantageous to himself in particular: So neither is that People or Nation foolish. See Pufendorf. § 23. which has not a near or remote Relation to the Publick Good. III. when notwithstanding. Book IX. II.94 the preliminary discourse particular 2 should be weak of himself. usually have. since he was to treat of the Law which is between Nations ( for he added a Discourse concerning Wars and Things got by War) he ought by all means to have mentioned this Law. § 5. § 23. § 8. who obeys the Law of his Country. And this is what is called the Law of Nations. Chap. Book VII. For these two Names are sometimes confounded. which respect the Advantage not of one Body in particular. who by forming Cabals. or ought 3 to have. 1 For as. and in Want of many Things necessary for living commodiously. began first for the Sake of some Advantage. some Laws agreed on by common Consent. § 10. Note 3. will not break in upon the Laws common to all Nations. like that of a Citizen. cuts himself off from all human Of Nations. . I. Book II. (1) See Book I. Chap. XVIII. so amongst all or most States there might be. The Emperor Marcus Antoninus makes a judicious Use of this Comparison. or that Subjection which we spoke of. Chap. 1 when used in Distinction to the 2 Law of Nature. XIX. But as the Laws of each State respect the Benefit of that State. (1) Add to all this what Pufendorf says Book II. IX. for that entering into Society. in the Division he made of all Law into Natural and Civil of each People or State. Chap. Regard to some Profit therein. He who divides himself from another. 2. and in Fact there are. to the End we might more eagerly affect Society: Whereas of the Civil Law Profit was the Occasion. This <xxi> Part of Law Carneades omitted. Note 2. but of all in general. But it is absurd in him to traduce Justice with the Name of Folly. See what I have said on Pufendorf. 3.

the preliminary discourse


the Laws of his Country for the Sake of some present Advantage to himself, thereby saps the Foundation of his own perpetual Interest, and at the same Time that of his Posterity: So that People which violate the Laws of Nature and Nations, break down the Bulwarks of their future Happiness and Tranquillity. But besides, though there were no Profit to be expected from the Observation of Right, yet it would be a Point of Wisdom, not of Folly, to obey the Impulse and Direction of our own Nature. XX. Therefore neither is this Saying universally true,

’Twas Fear of Wrong that made us make our Laws. Creech.

which one in Plato expresses thus, 2 The Fear of receiving Injury occasioned the Invention of Laws, and it was Force that obliged Men to practice Justice. For this Saying is applicable only to those Constitutions and Laws which were made for the better Execution of Justice: Thus many, finding themselves weak when taken singly and apart, did, for fear of being oppressed by those that were stronger, unite together to establish, and with their joint Forces to defend Courts of Judicature, to the End they might be an Overmatch for those whom singly they were unable to deal with. And now in this Sense only may be fitly taken what is said, That Law is that which the stronger pleases
Society. Book XI. § 8. In Reality, as the same Emperor elsewhere observes, what is useful to the whole Swarm, is useful to each particular Bee. Grotius. The Author, who probably trusted his Memory on this Occasion, has misquoted the second of these Passages; for instead of olhc thc koinwniac apopeptwke, he writes ¤ ÷ ´ ◊ ´ ou dunatai mh kai olou fulou apokekofjai, i.e. must necessarily be cut off from the ◊ ´ ’ ’¤ ´ ◊ ´ whole Body of Mankind. The Mistake was occasioned by the last Words immediately preceding the former Sentence, and making part of a Comparison; which the Author forgetting, and confounding with what follows, has changed futou, the Word in the ÷ Original, into fulou. The whole Passage runs thus: A Branch broken off from the ´ Branch to which it grew, must necessarily be broken off from the whole Tree; so likewise a Man, &c. The last Passage is in Book VI. § 54. and stands thus: What is not good for the Swarm, is not good for the Bee. XX. (1) Jura inventa metu injusti fateare necesse est. Horat. Sat. III. Ver. III. 2. Book II. Of the Common-Wealth, Tom. II. p. 359. Edit. H. Steph. See likewise Gorgias, Tom. I. p. 483, and Pufendorf, Book I. Chap. VI. § 10.


the preliminary discourse

to impose; by which we are to understand, that Right has not its Effect externally, unless it be supported by Force. Thus Solon did great Things, as he himself boasted,

By linking Force in the same Yoke with Law.

Justice brings Peace to the Conscience.

XXI. Yet neither does Right lose all its Effect, by being destitute of the Assistance of Force. For Justice brings Peace to the Conscience; Injustice, Racks and Torments, such as Plato 1 describes in the Breasts of Tyrants. Justice is approved of, Injustice condemned by the Consent of all good Men. But that which is greatest of all, to this God is an Enemy, to the other a Patron, who does not so wholly reserve his Judgments for a future Life, but that he often makes the Rigour of them to be perceived in this, as Histories teach us by many Examples. <xxii>

3. ÿOmou bihn te kai dikhn sunarmosac. Plut. in Solon. Tom. I. p. 86. Edit. ÷ ´ ’ ´ ´ Wechel. To the same Purpose Ovid: In causaque valet, causamque tuentibus armis. That is, “He has a good Right, and his Right is supported by Arms.” Metam. Lib. VIII. Ver. 59. Grotius. See Pufendorf, Book I. Chap. VI. § 12. In the Passage from Ovid, where Scylla, the Daughter of Nisus, speaks of Minos, King of Crete, the common Pointing, which our Author follows, is not just. The last Words of it are to be joined to the Beginning of the next Verse, and read thus: ——— causamque tuentibus armis: Ut puto, vincemur. ——— That is, “And it is my Opinion we shall be overcome by the Superiority of his Arms, which favour the Justice of his Cause.” See Mr. Burman’s Edition, published in 1713. XXI. (1) See Gorgias. Tom. I p. 524, 525, and Book IX. of Plato’s Republic. Tom. II. p. 579. Tacitus produces that Philosopher’s Thought on Occasion of the Remorse of Conscience, with which Tiberius was tortured. The wisest of Men had good Reason for affirming that if the Souls of Tyrants could be exposed to View, we should see them under violent Racks and Tortures; for as the Body is torn with Whips, so is the Mind with Cruelty, Lust, and Male-Administration. Neither the Splendor of the Imperial Dignity, nor Retirement, could secure Tiberius, or hinder him from confessing the Torments of his Soul, and interior Punishment of his Crimes. Annals, Book VI. Chap. VI.

the preliminary discourse


XXII. But whereas many that require Justice in private Citizens, make no Account of it in a whole Nation or its Ruler; the Cause of this Error is, first, that they regard nothing in Right but the Profit arising from the Practice of its Rules, a Thing which is visible with Respect to Citizens, who, taken singly, are unable to defend themselves. But great States, that seem to have within themselves all things necessary for their Defence and Well-being, do not seem to them to stand in need of that Virtue which respects the Benefit of 1 others, and is called Justice. XXIII. But, not to repeat what has been already said, namely, that Right has not Interest merely for its End; there is no State so strong or well provided, but what may sometimes stand in need of Foreign Assistance, either in the Business of Commerce, or to repel the joint Forces of several Foreign Nations Confederate against it. For which Reason we see Alliances desired by the most powerful Nations and Princes, the whole Force of which is destroyed by those that confine Right within the Limits of each State. So true is it, that the Moment we recede from Right, 1 we can depend upon nothing.

Equally concerns private Persons, Nations, and Rulers of Nations.

XXII. (1) Quae foras spectat. Gronovius observes, that our Author here makes Use of an Expression of Apuleius, Book II. Of Moral Philosophy, (p. 15, 16. Edit. Elmenhorst.) where that Platonist, treating of the Virtues according to the Notions of his School, says, that When Justice is advantageous to the Possessor of that Virtue, it is termed Benevolence; but when it extends to the Interest of others, it is properly called Justice. The Commentator, who produces this Passage, might have gone higher, and discovered the Source from which both Apuleius and Grotius derived this Distinction. Cicero, in Book II of his Republic, says, Justice regards what is without us; it is diffused and extensive. And in this he only follows Aristotle, whose Words are these: The Just Man acts for the Benefit of others; and it is for this Reason that we say Justice is a Good belonging to others. Ethic. Nicom. Lib. V. Cap. X. p. 67. Ed. Paris. XXIII. (1) The Words here used are taken from a Passage in one of Cicero’s Epistles, which our Author quotes in his Note on the next Paragraph. They do not relate to Right in general, but to Civil Laws only. The same is to be observed of the Passage in the Oration for Cecina, to which Gronovius refers us in this Place, as if the Author had it in View, and it exactly expressed his Thought.


the preliminary discourse

XXIV. If there is no Community which can be preserved without some Sort of Right, as Aristotle 1 proved by that remarkable 2 Instance of Robbers, certainly the Society of Mankind, or of several Nations, cannot be without it; which was observed by him who said, 3 That a base Thing ought not to
XXIV. (1) I am very much mistaken, if the Author has not put the Scholar’s Name for that of the Master. I am induced to think so, not only because he has not specified the Place of Aristotle either in the Margin, or the following Note, where he has thrown together several Passages of other Authors to the same Purpose; but also because I never saw that Philosopher quoted for the Observation in Question; nor do I remember to have found this Thought in any of his Moral or Political Works. On the contrary, the Commentators have quoted Plato, on a well-known Passage of Cicero, where the same Remark is very finely turned; so that it is surprizing that Grotius takes no Notice of either of those two great Writers. The Grecian Philosopher speaks thus: Do you imagine that a City, an Army, a Gang of Thieves or Highwaymen, or any other Body of Men, united in an unjust Design, could ever succeed in their Enterprizes, if they dealt unjustly with one another. No certainly, replied the other Person in the Dialogue. De Rep. Lib. I. p. 351. Edit. Steph. Such is the Force of Justice, says Cicero, that even they that live by their Crimes cannot subsist, without practising some Sort of Justice among themselves: For if any one of those, who rob in a Gang, defrauds or robs his Companion, he is no longer allowed a Place even in that infamous Society. A Chief of the Pyrates, who does not make an equal Distribution of the Booty, is either killed or abandoned by his Men. It is even said that Highwaymen have a Set of Laws, to which they submit, and which they observe. De Offic. Lib. II. Cap. XI. 2. St. Chrysostom has the same Observation. But you will ask how Highwaymen live peaceably together; and when this is the Case? Certainly, when they do not act like Robbers; for if in the Distribution of what they get, they do not observe the Laws of Justice, and give every one his Share, you will then see them quarrel and fight with one another. In Eph. IV. Plutarch having set down Pyrrhus’s Expression, that he would leave his Kingdom to that of his Sons, whose Sword should be sharpest, compares it with a Verse in the Phenician Women of Euripides. (Ver. 68.) They divide my Estate with a sharp Sword. To which he adds this Exclamation: So unsociable and brutal is the Passion of Avarice! In the Life of Pyrrhus, Tom. I. p. 388. Edit. Wech. Cicero says, We can have no certain Dependence on any Thing, when Justice is disregarded. Ep. ad Fam. Lib. IX. Ep. XVI. Polybius observes that the Dissolution of the Society of Villains and Robbers, is chiefly owing to unjust Practices among themselves, and their not being true one to another. Chap. XXIX. Grotius. 3. The Author probably had his Eye upon a Passage of Cicero, where that great Orator and Philosopher proposes this Question: Whether the Interest of a Community most conformable to the Law of Nature is always to be preferred to Moderation and Modesty; he answers in the Negative; For, says he, there are some Things so shameful and criminal, that a wise Man will not do them even for the Preservation of his Country. De Offic. Lib. 1. Cap. XIV. He afterwards asserts, that by good luck it can never happen

the preliminary discourse


be done, even for the Sake of ones Country. Aristotle 4 inveighs severely <xxiii> against those, 5 who, though they would not have any to govern amongst themselves, but he that has a Right to it, yet in regard to Foreigners are not concerned whether their Actions be just or unjust.

that the Interest of the State should require such Things to be done, which ought to be well observed. Grotius. 4. The Passage here alledged is in the seventh Book of Aristotle’s Politicks, Chap. II. p. 427. See also his Rhetorick, Book 1. Chap. III. p. 519 Tom II. Edit. Paris, 1629. For the better understanding his Thought, it is to be observed that he is opposing the Opinion of such as maintain that good Policy requires making Conquests, and extending them as far as possible, at the Expence of the Liberty of the neighbouring People. The Philosopher, amongst other Reasons against this way of thinking, urges that “It does not become an able Administrator of the State, and a wise Legislator, to do any thing which is not lawful, or agreeable to the Rules of Civil Society. But, says he, it is unlawful, and contrary to the Rules of Civil Society, to desire to have the Command of others at any Rate, justly or unjustly; and Conquests may be unjust. This way of reasoning holds good in regard to other Sciences. For Example, it is not the Business of a Physician or a Pilot to use Persuasion or Force indifferently in their respective Professions. But,” adds Aristotle, “the Generality of Mankind give into this Mistake, that political and despotick Governments are but two Names for the same Thing: They make no Scruple of doing that to others, which they look on as unjust, and prejudicial in regard to themselves. They are willing to submit only to those who command them with Justice; but when it comes to their turn to command, they give themselves no Concern about the Justice of the Action.” On reading these Words, one would conclude that Aristotle entertained very just Ideas of the natural Quality of each Man in particular, and Nations in general. But it appears from the Sequel, that he was of Opinion that some Men, and even some People, were naturally Slaves, on whom he thought War might be made without any other Reason; and he makes use of the Comparison of a Hunter, who is not indeed allowed to take or kill Men for Food or Sacrifice, but may lawfully pursue such Animals as are wild and proper for the Purposes designed. See what I have said on this Philosopher’s Notions in my Preface to Pufendorf, p. xcviii. § XXIV. Second Edition, Of the Law of Nature and Nations. 5. Plutarch, in his Life of Agesilaus, blames the Lacedemonians for making Virtue consist principally in the Interest of their Country, and being unacquainted with any other Justice, but what they thought might contribute to the aggrandizing of Sparta. Thucydides gives us the Sentiments of the Athenians concerning the Humour of that People. The Lacedemonians generally observe the Rules of Virtue among themselves, and in what relates to the Laws of their own Country; but several Examples might be given of their different Conduct in regard to others; in short, they esteem only that virtuous, which is agreeable to them, and only that just, which promotes their Interest. Book V. Chap. CV. p. 344. Edit. Oxon. Grotius.


the preliminary discourse

Governs Peace;

XXV. A Spartan King having said, 1 That is the most happy Commonwealth, whose Bounds were determined by Spear and Sword; the same Pompey, whom we lately mentioned on the contrary Side, correcting that Maxim said, That is happy indeed, which has Justice for its Boundaries. For which he might have used the Authority of another Spartan King, 2 who preferred Justice before 3 military Fortitude, for this Reason, that Fortitude ought to be regulated by some sort of Justice: And that if all Men were Just, they would have no Occasion for that Fortitude. The Stoicks defined 4 Fortitude itself to be the Virtue that contends for Justice. Themistius, in his Oration to Valens, says very elegantly, that Kings, who conduct themselves by the Rules of Wisdom, take Care, not only of the Nation whose Government they are entrusted with, but of all Mankind; and are, as he expresses himself, not filomakedonec Friends to the Macedonians only, or filorwmaioi to the ´ ÿ ´

XXV. (1) I know not whence this is taken. Plutarch says nothing like it, either in his Life of Pompey, or in his Apophthegms; and it is not probable he would have omitted so remarkable an Expression. Nor do I find the Saying of the Spartan King, as it stands here, in the Apophthegms of the Lacedemonians, or elsewhere. So that I much suspect our Author has depended too much on his Memory; and imagine the Mistake may be thus accounted for. Phraates, King of the Parthians, having sent an Embassy to Pompey, desiring him to be content with bounding his Empire by the Euphrates; that great General replied, that the Romans chose rather to make Justice the Boundary of their Empire. Plutarch, Apophthegm, p. 204. Tom. II. Edit. Wech. See also the Life of Pompey, Tom. I. p. 637. where the Story is told with some Difference. The same Philosopher ascribes the following Reply in one Place to Agesilaus, and in another to his Son Archidamus. One of these Kings being asked how far the Lacedemonian Dominions extended, brandished his Spear, and answered, as far as this can be carried. P. 210. See likewise p. 218, both of the second Volume. Out of these two Stories confusedly remembered, our Author has formed what he here relates, and which, as far as I know, is to be found no where as he gives it. 2. It was Agesilaus; and Plutarch has preserved this Saying as an Answer to a Question proposed concerning the comparative Excellency of the two Virtues. Apophthegm. Lacon. p. 213. Tom. II. 3. Agesilaus having observed that the Inhabitants of Asia had a Custom of distinguishing the King of Persia by the Appellation of Great, asked: How is that Prince greater than I, unless he is more just and more wise? Plutarch, Apopht. Lacon. p. 213. Grotius. 4. This Definition is produced and commended by Cicero, De Offic. Lib. I. Cap. XIX.

the preliminary discourse


Romans, but filanjrwpoi 5 to all Men without Exception. Nothing else ´ made the Name of Minos odious to Posterity, 6 but his confining Equity within the Limits of his own Empire. XXVI. But so far must we be from admitting the Conceit of some, that the Obligation of all Right ceases in War; that on the contrary, no War ought to be so much as undertaken but for the obtaining of Right; nor when undertaken, ought it to be carried on beyond the Bounds of Justice and Fidelity. Demosthenes 1 said well, that War is made against those who cannot be restrained in a judicial Way. For judicial Proceedings are of Force against those who are sensible of their Inability to oppose them; but against those who are or think themselves of equal Strength, Wars are undertaken; but yet
5. [[This footnote is wrongly included as part of the previous one in the original text. The Latin edition has it in the correct place.]] The Emperor Marcus Antoninus declares, that, as Antoninus, he considered Rome was his City and native Country; but as a Man, the whole World. (Book VI. § 44.) Porphyry says, the Man, who is conducted by Reason, forbears injuring his Fellow-Citizens, and observes the same Rule still more rigorously in regard to Strangers and all Mankind; and thus keeping the irrational Part in due Subjection, becomes more rational, and consequently more like Divinity than those with whom he deals in this manner. Of Abstinence, Book II. (p. 333.) Grotius. 6. We have a Verse of an old Poet to this Purpose. Kai nhswn deiraisi barun zugon embale Minwc. ’ ´ ´ ’ ’ ⁄ ´ King Minos has laid a heavy Yoke on the Necks of the Islands. See St. Cyril’s VIth Book against the Emperor Julian. Grotius. The Father from whom our Author has taken this Verse, quotes it as belonging to Callimachus; and gives it with some small Difference in the Words, though to the same Sense. Kai nhswn epeteine barun zugon auxeni Minwc. ’ ´ ◊ ´ ’ ’ ◊ ´ ´ Pag. 191. Edit. Spanh. XXVI. (1) The Passage, which our Author had in View, occurs in the Oration on Chersonesus, where Demosthenes, undertaking to dissuade the sending of a new General into the Hellespont, in the Room of Diopithes, who lay under an Accusation of Extortion and Pyracy, shews that it would be an extravagant Piece of Madness to proceed to that Extremity against a Subject of the State, whom they might easily punish without so much Noise. It is proper, says the Orator, and even necessary to pay Troops, employ Vessels, and erect publick Funds against an Enemy, who cannot be reduced by the Laws; a Decree, an Impeachment, and a single Galley are sufficient against our own Citizens, in the Opinion of all considerate Men. P. 38. Edit. Basil. 1572.
and War; hence the Laws of War.


the preliminary discourse

certainly, to render Wars just, they are to be waged with no less Care and Integrity, than judicial Proceedings are usually carried on. XXVII. Let it be granted then, that 1 Laws must be silent in the midst of Arms, provided they are only those Laws that are Civil and Judicial, and proper for Times of Peace; but not <xxiv> those that are of perpetual Obligation, and are equally suited to all Times. For it was very well said of Dion Prusaeensis, 2 That between Enemies, Written, that is, Civil Laws, are of no Force, but Unwritten 3 are, that is, those which Nature dictates, or the Consent of Nations has instituted. This we are taught by that ancient Form of the Romans, 4 These Things I think must be recovered by a pure and just War. The same ancient Romans, as Varro observed, 5 were very slow and far from all Licentiousness in entring upon War, because they thought that no War but such as is lawful and accompanied with Moderation, ought to be carried on. It was the Saying of Camillus, 6 That Wars ought to be managed with as much Justice as Valour: And of Scipio AfriXXVII. (1) See the Commentators on these Words of Cicero, in his Oration for Milo; silent enim Leges inter Arma. Cap. IV. 2. No written Law is of Force in Regard to Enemies; but there are certain Rules and Customs, which are observed by all, even when the Enmity is carried to the greatest Length. Orat. peri ejouc. This Passage is quoted by Peter du Faur, Semestr. Lib. II. Cap. I. ’⁄ p. 8. Edit. Genev. The Orator instances in the Permission of burying the Dead, the Security of Embassadors, &c. 3. Upon this Principle it was, that King Alphonsus, being asked which of the two he had been most obliged to, Books or Arms; answered, that he had learned by Books, both the Art of War, and the Rights of War. Plutarch says, that amongst good Men there are Laws of War; and that we ought not to push the Desire of conquering so far, as to make an Advantage of wicked and impious Actions. Grotius. Plutarch has put these Words into the Mouth of Camillus, when he generously declined making an Advantage of the Schoolmaster’s Treachery, who betrayed the Children of the Falisci into his Hands. Life of Camillus, Tom. 1. p. 134. 4. This Formulary is found in Livy, Book I. Chap. XXXII. 5. This occurs in a Fragment of that learned Author, preserved by Nonius, and was taken from his second Book De Vita Populi Romani. See what is said on this ˆ Passage, Book III. Chap. III. § 11. Note 2. 6. These are the Words of that great General, as related by Livy, on the Occasion of the perfidious School-Master; whence Plutarch has taken Occasion to ascribe to him a Speech very like this, which we have related above, Note 3. There are Laws of War as well as of Peace; and we have learnt how to carry on a War with as much Justice as Bravery. Book V. Chap. XXVII.

the preliminary discourse


canus, 7 That the Romans both begin and finish their Wars with Justice. An Author 8 maintains, There are Laws of War, as there are of Peace. Another 9 admires Fabricius for a very great Man, and remarkable for a Virtue which is extremely difficult, Innocence in War, and who believed that there are some Things, which it would be unlawful to practise even against an Enemy. XXVIII. Of how great Force in Wars is the Consciousness of the Justice of the Cause, Historians every where shew, who often ascribe the Victory


7. Livy makes him speak thus, in his Answer to the Embassadors from Carthage, who came to sue for a Peace, that, though he was almost secure of Victory, he does not refuse to make a Peace, that the whole World may know the Roman People have a strict Regard to Justice both in engaging in and finishing their Wars. Book XXX. Chap. XVI. The thing itself, however, is far from being indisputable. On the contrary, if we look into the Conduct of the Romans, we shall find Injustice practised in several of their Wars, either in regard to the Subject, the Manner, or Conclusion of them; though Alberic Gentilis has taken upon him to justify that People in his Treatise De Armis Romanis. See Mr. Buddeus’s Dissertation, intitled, Juris prudentiae Historicae Specimen, § 82, &c. among his Selecta Juris Naturae & Gentium; and what Grotius himself says in his Book De Verit. Rel. Christ. Lib. II. § 12. I remember a Passage in Cicero, where that celebrated Orator and Philosopher says, that Equity and Fidelity are most commonly observed in entering on, pursuing, and ending a War. De Legib. Lib. II. Cap. XIV. 8. Livy, whose Words have been quoted Note 6. 9. Seneca, Ep. CXX. We admired that great Man, persevering in his Resolution of giving a good Example, and unmoved by all the King’s Offers, or the Promises made him on the other Side; preserving his Innocence in War, which is extremely difficult, being persuaded that some Things were not allowable even in an Enemy, P. 595. Edit. Gronov. 1672. XXVIII. (1) Appian makes Pompey speak thus to his Army: “We ought to rely upon the Gods and the Goodness of our Cause, since we are engaged in this War out of an honest and just Desire of maintaining the Government and Liberty of our Country.” De Bell. Civil. Lib. II. p. 460. Edit. H. Steph. (p. 755. Edit. Amstel.) The same Historian introduces Cassius saying, that in War nothing gives so great Hopes as the Justice of the Cause (De Bell. Civil. Lib. IV. p. 645. H. Steph. 1034. Edit. Amst.) Josephus says that King Herod made use of this Consideration to animate his Soldiers, that God is with those, who have Justice on their Side. Antiq. Jud. Lib. XV. We find in Procopius many Thoughts to the same Purpose; as for Instance, what Belisarius says in the Speech he made, when he went into Africa. “Valour will not render us victorious, unless it be regulated and conducted by Justice.” (Vandalic. Lib. I. Cap. XII.) See also another Speech of the same General’s before an Engagement, near Carthage (Ibid. Cap. XIX.) In the Discourse of the Lombards to the Herculi, we have the following Passage, which I have a little corrected. “We call God to witness, whose


the preliminary discourse

chiefly to this Reason. Hence the <xxv> Proverbial Sayings, 2 A Soldier’s Courage rises or falls according to the Merit of his Cause; 3 seldom does he return safely, who took up Arms unjustly; Hope is the 4 Companion of a good
Power is so great, that the least Particle of it infinitely surpasses all human Force. There is Reason to believe, that having a Regard to the Causes of the War, he will give to it an End answerable to the Deserts of both.” (Gothic. Lib. II. Cap. XIV.) And it is remarkable, that this Prediction was soon accomplished by a wonderful Event, which the Historian afterwards recites. Totilas, in the same Author, says to the Goths: “It is not possible, no, it is not possible, that those who commit Acts of Injustice and Violence, should acquire Glory by Arms; but every one is fortunate or unfortunate, as he behaves himself well or ill.” (Ibid. Lib. III. Cap. VIII.) After the taking of Rome, Totilas makes another Speech, tending to the same Purpose. (Ibid. Cap. XXI.) Agathias, another Historian of those Times, tells us, Book II. Chap. I. that Injustice and Irreligion ought always to be guarded against, and are very prejudicial, but especially when we are obliged to make War, and to come to an Engagement with the Enemy. He proves it elsewhere (Cap. V.) by the Examples of Darius, Xerxes, and the Athenians in their Expedition against Sicily. See also what Crispinus says to the Inhabitants of Aquileia in Herodian, Lib. VIII. (Cap. VI. Edit. Oxon. 1678.) Thucydidesobserves, that the Lacedemonians believed they had brought upon themselves, by their own Fault, the Disasters they met with at Pylos and other Places, because they had refused to submit to the Decision of Arbitrators, though summoned thereto by the Athenians, according to their Treaty. But the Athenians having afterwards refused in their turn to give the same Satisfaction, after several Infringements and unjust Enterprizes, the Lacedemonians from thence conceived good Hope of success in their Affairs for the future. Lib. VII. Grotius. The Passage of Thucydides, which our Author means, is in § 18. p. 421. of the Oxford Edition. Several States of Peloponnesus making Preparations for War against the Athenians, the Lacedemonians joined them with so much the more Resolution and Confidence, as they believed the Event would not be the same as in the preceding War; which, they themselves acknowledged, had been occasioned rather through their own Fault, than that of the Athenians. For, having sided with the Thebans, when the latter came to attack Plataeae, during a Truce (Lib. II. § 1. & seq.); and having moreover refused, contrary to an express Clause of their Treaty, (Lib. V. § 18. p. 302.) to terminate some Difference in a judicial Way, though they had been summoned to it by the Athenians; they were fully persuaded they had been unsuccessful on that Account, and ingenuously ascribed to their Breach of Faith the Calamities that befel them at Pylos, and upon other Occasions. But after the Athenians, having equipped a Fleet, were gone to ravage the Lands of Epidaurus, Prasia, and other Places, and from Pylos made Incursions into their Country; after they refused, in their turn, to submit to a Decision in an amicable Manner, when any Dispute arose in relation to their Treaties: I say, after that time, the Lacedemonians believing they had made the Injustice to pass over to the other Side, eagerly sought an Opportunity of declaring War against them. 2. The Author here makes use of the very Terms of Propertius, and not of Ovid, as Gronovius pretends. His Memory failed him on this Occasion, which was also

the preliminary discourse


Cause; and others to the same Purpose. Nor ought any one to be moved at the prosperous Successes of unjust Attempts; for it is sufficient that the Equity of the Cause has of itself a certain, and that very great Force towards Action, though that Force, as it happens in all human Affairs, is often hindered of its Effect, by the Opposition of other 5 Causes. The Opinion that a War is not rashly and unjustly begun, nor dishonourably carried on, is likewise very prevalent towards procuring Friendships; which Nations, as well as private Persons, stand in need of upon many Occasions. For no Man readily asso-

the Case of the learned Mr. Menage. This Mistake has been corrected by the last Commentator on the Poet last mentioned. Frangit & adtollit vires in milite causa: Quae nisi justa subest, excutit arma pudor. Lib. IV. Eleg. VI. Ver. 51, 52. Edit. Brockhuis. 3. This Thought is contained in the following Verse of Euripides, taken from one of his Tragedies, not now extant. ◊Oudeic strateusac adika, swc hljen palin. ’ ´ ⁄ ÷ fi ´ Erechtei Fragm. Ver. 44. Edit. Barnes. 4. Lucan introduces Pompey employing this Reason for encouraging his Soldiers before the Battle of Pharsalia. Causa jubet melior superos sperare secundos. Our better Cause bids us hope for the Favour of the Gods. Lib. VII. Ver. 349. But long before that Poet’s Time, Menander had said in general: ¤Otan ti pratteic osion, agajhn elpida ´ ¤ ◊ ’ ◊ ´ Proballe sautw, touto ginwskwn, oti ´ ‚ ÷ ´ ¤ Tolmv dikaia kai Jeoc sullambanei. ´ ´Ù ’ ’ ´ When you engage in any good Action, entertain Hopes of Success; being assured that God favours a just Enterprize. Fragm. e Vulcanalib. p. 190. Edit. Cleric. ` See also some Passages cited by our Author, Book II. Chap. I. § 1. 5. Tacitus makes Otho say that good and lawful Undertakings are frequently attended with very bad Success, for want of a judicious Manner of proceeding, Hist. Book I. Chap. LXXXIII.


the preliminary discourse

ciates with those, who, he thinks, have Justice, Equity and Fidelity in Contempt.
III. The Author’s Reasons for writing this Book.

Restraining the Licentiousness in making War.

XXIX. Now for my Part, being fully assured, by the Reasons I have already given, that there is some Right common to all Nations, which takes Place both in the Preparations and in the Course of War, I had many and weighty Reasons inducing me to write a Treatise upon it. I observed throughout the Christian World a Licentiousness in regard to War, which even barbarous Nations ought to be ashamed of: a Running to Arms upon very frivolous or rather no Occasions; which being once taken up, there remained no longer any Reverence for Right, either Divine or Human, just as if from that Time Men were authorized and firmly resolved to commit all manner of Crimes without Restraint. XXX. The Spectacle of which monstrous Barbarity worked many, and those in no wise bad Men, up into an Opinion, that a Christian, whose Duty consists principally in loving all Men without Exception, ought not at all 1 to bear Arms; with whom seem to agree sometimes Johannes Ferus 2 and our Countryman 3 Erasmus, Men that were great Lovers of Peace both Ecclesiastical and Civil; but, I suppose, they had the same View, as those have who in order to make Things that are crooked straight, usually 4 bend them as much the other Way. But this very Endeavour of inclining too much to the opposite Extreme, is so far from doing Good, that it often does Hurt,

XXX. (1) Gladius bene de Bello cruentus, & melior homicida. Tertul. De Resurr. ´ Carnis. Cap. XVI. Grotius. See below, Book I. Chap. II. § 8. and my Preface to Pufendorf, § 9; where I have inserted other Passages from the Fathers of the Church, who have condemned War as absolutely unlawful. 2. He was a Franciscan Preacher at Mentz, who lived in the Reign of Charles V. Ziegler on this Place quotes Sixtus of Sienna, Biblioth. Lib. VI. Annot. 115, 156; where the Author produces and criticizes the Passages of those two Writers on this Subject. 3. This great Author has a long Digression on the Proverb, Dulce Bellum inexpertis. 4. This has very often been the Practice of several Moralists, in all Ages. See a beautiful Passage of Seneca on this Subject, which I have given at Length, with a Translation in my Treatise On Gaming, Book I. Chap. III. § 12.

the preliminary discourse


because Men readily discovering Things that are urged too far by them, are apt to slight their Authority in other Matters, which perhaps are more reasonable. A Cure therefore was to be applied to both these, as well to prevent believing that Nothing, as that all Things are lawful. XXXI. At the same Time I was likewise willing to promote, by my private Studies, the Profession of Law, which I formerly practised in publick 1 Employments with all possible Integrity; this being the only Thing that was left for me to do, being unworthily 2 banished my Native Country, which I have honoured with so many of my Labours. Many have before this designed <xxvi> to reduce it into a System; but none has accomplished it; nor indeed can it be done, unless those things (which has not been yet sufficiently taken Care of,) that are established 3 by the Will of Men, be duly distinguished from those which are founded on Nature. For the Laws of Nature being always the same, may be easily collected into an Art; but those which proceed from Human Institution being often changed, and different in different Places, are no more susceptible of a methodical System, than other Ideas of particular Things are. XXXII. But if the Professors of true Justice would undertake to treat of the several Parts of that Law which is perpetual and natural, setting aside every Thing which owes its Rise to Voluntary Institution, so that one for Instance would treat of Laws, another of Tributes, another of the Office of Judges, another of the Conjecture of Wills, another of the Evidence in Matters of Fact, there might at last from all the Parts collected together be a Body of Law composed. XXXIII. What Method we thought fit to use, we have shewn in Deed rather than in Words in this Treatise, which contains that Part of Law, which is by far the noblest.
IV. The Contents and Order of the Work. An endeavour to promote the Knowledge of Law, by giving an Example of a Method for it.

XXXI. (1) The Author had been Advocate-General, and Pensionary of Rotterdam. 2. He wrote this at Paris in 1625. 3. Laws merely positive.


the preliminary discourse

Book I.

XXXIV. For in the first Book, after premising some Things concerning the Origin of Right, we have examined the general Question, whether any War is just; afterwards to discover the Difference between a publick and private War, our Business was to explain the Extent of the Supreme Power, what People, what Kings have it in full, who in part, who with a Power of alienating it, and who have it without that Power. And then we were to speak of the Duty of Subjects to their Sovereigns. XXXV. The second Book, undertaken to explain all the Causes from whence a War may arise, shews at large, what Things are common, what proper, what Right one Person may have over another, what Obligation arises from the Property of Goods, what is the Rule of Regal Succession, what Right arises from Covenant or Contract, what the Force and Interpretation of Treaties and Alliances, what of an Oath both publick and private, what may be due for a Damage done, what the Privileges of Embassadors, what the Right of burying the Dead, what the Nature of Punishments. XXXVI. The third Book treats first of what is lawful in War; and then, having distinguished that which is done with bare Impunity, or which is even defended as lawful among foreign Nations, from that which is really blameless, descends to the several Kinds of Peace, and all Agreements made in war. XXXVII. But I thought this Undertaking still the more worth my Pains, because, as I said before, this Subject has not been fully handled by any Body; and those who have treated of the Parts of it, have done it so, that they have left a great deal for the Labour of others. There is nothing of this Kind extant of the ancient Philosophers, whether those of the Pagan Greeks, (amongst whom Aristotle had composed a Book intitled, Dikaiwmata Polemwn, 1 ´ ´
XXXVII. (1) The Author is misled here by a corrupted Passage of Ammonius the Grammarian, in his Treatise Of like and different Words, upon the Word Nhec, ÷ where we read, Dikaiwmata polemwn, The Laws of War, instead of polewn, States; ´ ´ ´ as it is quoted by Eustathius on the seventh Book of the Iliad. See Menage on Diogenes Laertius, Book V. § 26. and Selden, Of the Law of Nature and Nations, Juxta Discipl. Hebr. Lib. I. Cap. I. p. 4.

Book II.

Book III.

V. The Necessity of Writing.

Nothing of the ancient Authors extant on this Subject.

A Dutchman. 4. as they call them. Civil and Canon. § 4 and 8 of this Treatise. His Treatise De Bello appears in the same Volume of that Collection. A Spaniard. (1) He was a Spanish Dominican. XVI.) or those of the Primitive Christians. his Name is Arias. De Indis & Jure Belli. ˆ 7. 8 Martinus Laudensis. as of other Things. XXXVIII. 3 Wilhelmus Matthaei. XXXVIII. 2. I have likewise seen some particular Treatises concerning the Rights of War. He lived about the Middle of the XVth Century. who lived in the XVIth Century. The Justice of War is taught most strictly by Fecial Law of the Romans. of Promises. of an Oath. which our Author speaks of a little lower. 6 Franciscus Arius. of those Books of the ancient Romans concerning the 2 Fecial Law. have made only Chapters. and most of them in such a Manner. Divine. Grotius. Cap. I. of Nations. 6. and wrote a Treatise De Bello Justo. which was very much to be wished for. A Native of Bologna in Italy. as 5 Johannes Lupus.the preliminary discourse 109 The Rights of War. and appears among his twelve Theological Lectures. and his Book is in the same Volume of the same Collection. 2. XXIII. Tom. we have nothing transmitted to us but the bare Name: Those who have made Sums of Cases of Conscience. as 1 Franciscus Victoria. Lib. His Treatise De Bello & Bellatoribus. and Chancellor of Cologn. without any Order. some of which were written by Divines. some by Professors of Law. De Courtin has translated his Name Matthison. Cicero. they have all of them said but very little. His Name was Garat. with the Treatise of Ayala. so of War. in 1609. or what Countryman he was. See Book II. His Treatise De Bello. The Defects of the Moderns. It was reprinted at Louvain in 1647. Henricus 2 Gorichemus. But upon so copious a Subject. His Book was printed at Rome. Mr. so named from the Place of his Birth. XI. and the Treatise here mentioned is intitled. . of Reprizals. called Tractatus Tractatuum. Nay. is inserted in the same Volume of the Collection already specified. 5. and thus he appears to be an Englishman. 8. but perhaps this is only done by guess. may be found in the large Collection. mixed and confounded together those Things that belong severally to the Law Natural. A Native of Segovia. Johannes 4 de Carthagena. I know not who. under the Title of De Bello & ejus Justitia. that they have. Chap. 3. De Offic. 7 Johannes de Lignano.

2. Cap. Mr. by Balthazar 2 Ayala. He was a Native of Antwerp of Spanish Extraction. The Edition I make use of is that of Louvain. This Reproach does not fall on the modern Lawyers alone. 4. Lib. . not a few of which are 4 accommodated to the Interest of those that consult them. See his Probabilia Juris. XL. from whence a War is denominated just or unjust. He was Scholar to Cujas. viz. 3. His Work intitled Semestrium Libri tres. What was most wanting in all those. In proving the Law of Nature. Illustrations from History. This Author has written De Jure Belli: My Edition is printed at Hanau. so that it might be easy to determine any Question that may happen to be omitted by us. 1648. We have been careful that nothing of this Kind be passed over in Silence. I leave to the Reader’s Judgment. and with what Care I undertook this Work. and Geneva. he is often wont to follow either a few Examples that are not always to be approved of. in Method. in 8vo. afterwards Master of Requests. The Causes. whose Labour. His Treatise. is full of Erudition. and confess it has been to me. or even the Authority of modern Lawyers in their Answers. as I know it may be serviceable to others. and that by applying a Multitude of Examples to some general Maxims laid down. having likewise shewn the very Foundations upon which we build our Decisions. The Author’s Case. I. Ayala has not so much as touched upon: Gentilis has indeed described after his Manner some of the general Heads. It has born several Impressions at Paris.110 the preliminary discourse XXXIX. so what may be faulty in his Stile. I shall only say this. but neither has he touched upon many famous Questions. II. that in the Decision of Controversies. II. 1612. and only by alledging some Authorities. and the several Kinds of Right. and still more largely by Albericus 3 Gentilis. but no farther than <xxvii> served his Purpose. Lyons. and at last First President of the Parliament of Toulouse. that I briefly declare with what Assistance. 1. and not formed by the invariable Rules of Equity and Justice. It remains now. Noodt has plainly proved that the antient Professors of that Science have sometimes been guilty of the same Fault. Jori. the most Learned 1 Faber has undertaken to supply in some Chapters of his Semestria. The same has been done more largely. De Jure & Officiis Bellicis. Counsellor in the Grand Council. was printed in that City in 1597. to refer the Proofs of those Things that belong to the Law of Nature to some XXXIX. My first Care was. which turn upon Cases that are very common. in distinguishing of Questions. (1) Peter du Faur of St.

without doing Violence to his Judgment. 2. XL. Cassiodorus observes. that to teach Men the Duties of Justice is indeed a Work of some Difficulty. ’ ÷ ´ ⁄ ÿ ◊ ’ ÷ Ver. if you rightly consider. (1) Why should they not be thus employed? The Emperor Alexander Severus read every Day Cicero’s Books De Republica. as none can deny. that even they. See my Preface to Pufendorf. For the Principles of that Law. mater. deliver himself thus: 1 I speak not Things hard to be understood. § 1. who are unacquainted with the Principles of Law. almost after the same Manner as those Things are that we perceive with our outward Senses. I have likewise. Poets. (which consisted of Women and those too Barbarians) approving what he said. „ ÷ ´ ◊ ’ „ ´ ◊ ´ ´ “What is dishonourable or dishonest among them. But such as. &c. Var. The same Poet introduces Hermione speaking thus to Andromache. XLI. VII. ◊ ´ ´ ◊ ÷ ´ “We do not govern our State by the Laws of Barbarians.the preliminary discourse 111 such certain Notions. whose Cause he would have to be represented manifestly just. and his Treatise Of Offices. are manifest and self-evident. and if other Things necessary are not wanting. because the Divinity has been so indulgent to all. founded on the Rules of Good And Just.” To which Andromache replies: Kakei ta g◊ aisxra kanjad◊ aisxunhn ferei. if the Organs are rightly disposed. 242. (1) Taut◊ anjekasta. made Use of the Testimonies of 1 Philosophers. are yet sensible of the consequential Truths derived from them. Historians. 243. 497. ouxi periplokac ÷ ◊ ´ ÷ ◊ ’ ’ Logwn ajroisac eipon. but not impossible. 26. which do not deceive us. Orators. XLI. bears the same Character also among us. and in the last Place. written by Aelius Lampridius. And he immediately adds the Judgment of the Chorus. u barbarwn nomoisin oikoumen polin. wc emoi dokei. &c. ˆ This Account is taken from the Life of that Prince. Ver. Therefore Euripides in his Phoenissae makes Polynices. alla kai sofoic ´ ◊ ´ fi ◊ ’ ’ ÷ Kai toisi fauloic endix◊. . 2 are known alike to Learn’d and Rude.” Androm. Grotius. towards the Proof of this Law. Grotius.

and the Morality of the antient Philosophers. with a View of keeping up the Character of the Persons introduced. which may serve to prove beyond Dispute what he here advances. I. Our Author. The Academists were particularly remarkable on this Account. and yet appears to be every where observed. See what I say on Book I. valuing themselves on the Art of maintaining both Sides of all manner of Subjects. 5. can be no other than either a just <xxviii> Inference drawn from the Principles of Nature. but the Poets exceeded the Historians in this Particular. Notes 1. or an universal Consent. 200. Note 1. and sometimes very gross. In distinguishing both of them. and 4 the Interest of their Cause: But that when many Men of different Times and Places unanimously affirm the same Thing for Truth. § 21. 6. § 16. in Consequence of certain false Principles. abridged in my Preface to Pufendorf ’s great Work. III. and On the Commonwealth. I. who says. 2. Chap. For that which cannot be deduced from certain Principles by just Consequences. the one Greek. Book IV. which are false and contrary to Natural Law. for it is usual with them to accommodate themselves to the 2 Prejudices of their Sect. and the other Latin. § III. with which they were infatuated. See Buddeus’s Dissertations Of Moral Sceptism. the Nature of their 3 Subject. Mr. . Book III. and as to what concerns the latter. 4. Note 3. Le Clerc’s Parrhasiana. on several Subjects. he preferred none to Cicero’s Pieces Of Offices. often put Maxims into their Mouths. the other the 5 Law of Nations. This relates to the Orators. p. when he read Latin Books. and not as if they were to be implicitly believed. among his Analecta Historiae Philosophicae. at the Entrance of this Preliminary Discourse. 2. and the Errors of the Stoicks. and sometimes contradicted themselves. which in the Questions treated of by us. The Historians. See on Pufendorf. 3. Chap. The Writers of both Classes entertained likewise some Ideas which were far from being just. must owe its rise to a free and arbitrary Will. § 23. The former shews the Law of Nature. 2. We have already seen some of them. The Difference between which is not to be understood from the Testimonies themselves ( for the Law of Nature and of Nations are Words used every where 6 promiscuously by Writers) but from the Quality of the Subject. which are taken from Thucydides and Tacitus. see my Preface to Pufendorf. &c. In regard to the former. produces a great Number of Passages. frequently advanced very false Maxims. in the Course of this Work. Chap. See Pufendorf’s Law of Nature and Nations. this ought to be ascribed to a general Cause. The Philosophers. § 14.112 the preliminary discourse Of Nations. Tom. XXX. as well as the Poets. I. two of the greatest and most judicious Historians of Antiquity. Cap.

or the Weight of his Reasons. Aristotle. . Among Philosophers Aristotle deservedly holds the chief Place. that there was no one Sect that had discovered all Truth. how necessary it is in many Respects. whether you consider his Method of treating Subjects. VII. Edit. is now oppressed by nothing more than the very Name of Aristotle. 1. Instit. nor any but what held something that was true. Therefore these two I have very carefully endeavoured always to distinguish no less from one another. We have been no less careful in distinguishing Things belonging to Right properly and strictly so called. but were of Opinion. I have made a Distinction between that which is truly and in every Respect lawful. who espoused no Sect of Philosophers. Would any one but collect what Truths are scattered through the Writings of each of them. I. Book III. Philosophers. VII. Assistance in the Work. will appear in the following 1 Treatise. they conceived to be nothing else. Divin. Cellar. Cap. for Instance. says he. or the Acuteness of his Distinctions. 4. than from the Civil Law: And even in the Law of Nations. but 1 to deliver the true Christian Doctrine. from those which are only said to belong to it.the preliminary discourse 113 XLII. his Praise. for the Sake of some Advantage that attends it. Therefore to collect into a Body the Truths that were dispersed in the Writings of each Philosopher and each Sect. and that which only produces a certain external Effect after the Manner of that primitive Law. and diffused through the several Sects. XLIII. VII. so that. § 6. or that it even ought to be every where defended with the publick Force. Lib. (1) This is what Lactantius says. because the Doctrines of Plato are entirely different from the Civil Law. both in this and in all my other Writings.) Justin Martyr speaks to the same Purpose in his first Apology: Not. The Species of each. so that Truth. because that the acting otherwise is repugnant to some other Dictate of right Reason: Which Distinction we have already touched upon. whence arises the Obligation of making Restitution. he would not differ from us. II. it may be lawful to resist it. (1) See. for my Part. (Num. not that they held with those who asserted that nothing can be known. for Example. than which there is nothing more foolish. for the Discovery of which Aristotle took so great Pains. or that some great Inconveniences may be avoided. Chap. 7. Which Observation. I could only wish that the Authority of this great Man had not for some Ages past degenerated into Tyranny. XLII. XLIII. take to myself the Liberty of the ancient Christians. and reduce them into one Body.

that of Virtues of a different Kind. 187. utile vel noxium. (that I may mention this by the by. Oxon. 3 Liberality and Frugality. drove him to this. 338. 1216. and two distinct Ideas. he should be reduced to a Station.114 the preliminary discourse His Faults. See what the same Father says in regard to the Platonists. and of the Poets and Historians. on certain Occasions. for each of them. Oxon. VI. Grotius. and actually does it on proper Occasions in a judicious manner. he made but one. It is a very different Modification of the Soul. 2. IX. our Seneca. 34. XLIV. 3. II. Olearius. but it does not therefore follow that Frugality. and because those three Virtues. I. but because they are not conformable to them in every Particular. and that which directs him to a prudent Regulation of his Expences. II. like most others. LVI. Book VII. whom he maintains to be almost Christians. diffused through the whole World. &c. which indeed puts us in a Condition of performing more numerous and more considerable Acts of Liberality. Edit. Let us add this Passage of Cassiodore: Non adfectibus moveri. is only Part of Liberality. which compose the Character of a good Manager. Ethic. Stanley’s Philosophical History. and Confess. ˆ Grotius. Strom. Cap. Which is also the Case in regard to the Tenets of the other Philosophers. which being once laid down. Whatever the learned Gronovius may say on the Subject. Among other Things. III. that some of the Platonists and ancient 1 Christians seem to dissent from Aristotle in this. by which a Man is inclined to give freely. discovered something conformable to it. 349. mutually assist one the other. is so far truly liberal. Tom. Lib. p. Books VI. these are really two different Virtues. XVI. but they are in Reality two different Dispositions. none but Christ could give us a complete Body of Spiritual Virtues. the more saving we are.) St. Chap. See the Life of that Father. and Care of his Affairs. (Adv. Nicom Lib. It is true. the more we have to give away. IX. Jud. Augustine lays it down as a Fact that those Rules of Morality. (1) Lactantius treats on this Point at large in his Divine Institutes. than Sobriety and a Love of Work are Parts of Chastity. To these Authorities we may add that of Clement of Alexandria. who talks in the same manner. p. because they are good Preservatives against Temptations to Impurity. but then he observes that. and as far as his present Circumstances permit. and the Dissertation of the late Mr. XV. written by Mr. X.) it is not without Reason.) Tertullian frequently calls Seneca. Ep. in his Treatise De Vera Religione. or a commendable Savingness. but which is not therefore more a Part of Liberality itself. Whoever takes a Delight in relieving the Indigent with his Substance. printed at Leipsick in 1712. Cap. as for Instance. Le Clerc. and <xxix> those of Christ. Ep. De Philosophia Eclectica. p. which are so highly commended by Cicero. XLIV. and Book VIII. Chap. in which he is no longer able to give as much as would otherwise . being directed by a Ray of the Light of innate Divine Reason. in his Bibliotheque Universelle. Aristotle might give the Greek Word ◊Eleujeriosthc a com´ pound Idea. Chap. as of the Stoicks. including both that Disposition. as not being foreign to our Purpose. CCII. are taught and learnt in the Christian Churches. Cap. even though for want of that Oeconomy. in the Latin ˆ ˆ Version of Mr. XVII. that he placed the very Nature of Virtue 2 in a Mediocrity of Passions and Actions. and spoke well so far (p. sed secundum eos moveri. Edit.

Thus he makes a faulty Distinction of two Sorts of Sincerity. and understands by it that Disposition ◊ ´ ´ which directs a Man to love Truth. Cap. says he. which relate only to the Person of him. viz. the other by Excess. Cap. for. which are obligatory. He no where treats of that other Sort of Veracity and Sincerity. are two different Virtues. Nicom. which either are not in Nature. though they often do it without much Judgment. on some Action or Quality of another Man. or at least confine the Exercise of it to too narrow a Compass. so that it is the Business of a liberal Man rather to give to whom he ought to give. than to receive from those who are indebted to him. The Use of Money seems to consist in Expences and Gifts. who speaks or acts. or a sufficient Regard to all Circumstances. which does neither good nor harm to any one?: Strictly speaking. and keeping one’s Money. who give freely. We shall sometimes see Persons. but Prodigality is so far from being in itself contrary to Liberality. and bestow it freely on all. for Example. in spite of all their Negligence. a Phaenomenon of Nature. and after their superfluous Expences. which at least is not incompatible with it. IV. or dissemble in a thousand other indifferent things. have still something to give. Lib. and commit no violence on it by his Actions. and Veracity. 1. 2. 4. which is only occasionally mentioned in this Place. relates to another Virtue. If some prodigal Persons become niggardly. who. one relating to Things indifferent. and take a Pleasure in doing good.the preliminary discourse 115 assigned 4 to Veracity two Opposites between which there is not an equal Contrariety. and imposed the Name of Vice upon some Things. are both of them contrary to Truth and Sincerity by Defect. on a Point of History. IV. for receiving and keeping it are rather to be called Possession. will any one deny such Men the Character of Liberality? In a Word. which Aristotle gives us for the two opposite Extremities. the other to those. that it bears some Resemblance to that Virtue. Boasting and false Modesty. Lab. consists more in giving and spending judiciously than in getting Debts in. Nicomach. according to the common Ideas. according to his Definition. for Avarice is indeed opposite to Liberality. in Things indifferent. but the Want of the latter should hinder the Practice of the former. would privilege the Multiplication of that Virtue into as many different Species. Ethic. and Frugality. and may have some Tendency toward promoting the Practice of it. Liberality. The Philosopher himself owns that Liberality. Ethic. There are several Faults in this Distinction.e. i. there are others. in order to find two opposite Vices. But is it not possible for a Man to lie. I. whom they have an Opportunity of assisting. one by Defect. Sincerity in Dealings. The Philosopher does not distinguish the Virtue in question by any particular Name. when the Necessitous are to be relieved. but they are both to be equally acquired and cultivated. Boasting and Dissimulation. feign. . and not receive where it is not due. Both he who attributes to himself Qualities. and that which he here treats of is entirely reduced to indifferent Things. Thus our Author rightly observes that Aristotle was obliged to reduce the two Virtues under Consideration to one. as if the Diversity of the Objects on which one and the same Virtue is employed. and not by Excess. an Event. but only calls the Person endowed with it alhjeutikoc and filalhjhc. XIII. in regard to which we were otherwise under no Obligation to speak and act sincerely from the Laws of Fidelity and Justice. or in themselves are not have been in his Power. and every thing that regards Justice and Injustice.

it must be the Result of a very singular Constitution. Ethic. are faulty in deviating from the Truth. but purely physical. finds nothing delightful. a deep Melancholy. while we either seem unwilling to acknowledge our Merit. with saying that Boasting is diametrically opposite to Veracity. &c. which treats of these two Vices. is commonly to acquire more Esteem than we deserve. that even Brutes make a Distinction in their Food. in a new Edition of the Select Dialogues. Mr. from which it appears how loose and useless his Principle of Mediocrity proves. to whom every thing is indifferent. if they deny themselves the Use of several Things. in his beautiful Remarks on Lucian’s Timon. which discovers either by Words or Conduct what was not proper to be known. or not in so high a Degree. and he himself observes that it sometimes seems to be a sort of Boasting in Disguise.116 the preliminary discourse Vices. 5. XIV. of Timon the Man-hater. and he who refuses to acknowledge or extenuates those of which he is really possessed. and all the Particulars to be found in History concerning him. are nothing to the Purpose. or some other Indisposition of Body. and who takes a Pleasure in nothing? If any one be found insensible to the natural Pleasures of the Taste and Touch. and with an excessive Simplicity. there is no Name assigned him. without being at any Expence. <xxx> and an Insensibility to Injuries. or what arises from a Contemplation of the Beauties of Painting. Hemsterhuis has given us his Character. to which the Philosopher confines Temperance. which 7 hinders us from being angry against Men. In regard to other Pleasures. One might with more Propriety here alledge the Example of Misers. The same Inequality of Opposition is found between several other Vices. and even worse. they indulge themselves without Re- . he is far from being a Man. and concludes the Chapter. as. notwithstanding his Enmity to Mankind. III. and are pleased with one Kind preferably to another: If any one. they only take two different Ways of saying things otherwise than they are. Cap. or undervalue it. for where is the Man. Nicom. says he. That famous Humourist. The opposite Extremity in the Excess would be to speak and act too sincerely. and some other Pieces of Grecian Antiquity. and the Conduct of Mark Anthony. but from the Preference they give their Money. an Insensibility to them is not a thing evil in itself. But. and his Aversion to Society. took a Pleasure in cultivating his Garden. who deprive themselves of the Comforts and Conveniencies. as that of Musick. Lib. and makes this Insensibility the Extremity by Defect. besides that it is no common thing to see the Matter carried to that Excess. with which he either is not endowed at all. the 5 Contempt of Pleasure and 6 Honours. for when it is in their Power to taste those Pleasures. or makes no Distinction between one thing and another. As there is no such Person in the World. Besides. If one says more than true and the other less. and that human Nature is a Stranger to such an Insensibility. Our Philosopher owns himself that no Man is without a Relish for Pleasure. It appears from this passage that Aristotle had an Idea of a thing that has no Existence. of which the Philosopher discourses. or Architecture. who copied his Example for a short Time. and in this Case the Defect will not be moral. and sometimes even of the Necessaries of Life. that’s Dissimulation. published in 1708. the End of Dissimulation. The Instance here alledged by Gronovius. this does not commonly proceed from a stupid Insensibility to the most natural Pleasures.

IX. who having left his Kingdom. But. as Justin tells us.—That such Persons seem rather chargeable with Laziness than Folly. than those who pay for the Use of what Nature offers them. and there is commonly great Reason for presuming. but only of the Contempt of Reputation. Book XXI. and Ignorance in this Case is the more excusable. that he is to be commended for not aiming at them. retired to Corinth. 7. in order to avoid the Illusion of Self-Love. Chap. and sink into a base and sordid way of living. § 6. and the ambitious Part of Mankind. as to give a loose to Passion without Reason. 8. as we are much more inclined to the opposite Extreme. Chap. and are more apt to exceed the Bounds of Moderation. Tyrant of Syracuse. III. I. as unworthy of appearing in them. than Ambition. Aristotle. They. it will appear that there is more Greatness of Soul in refusing Honours than in pursuing and embracing them. maintains that Pusillanimity (by which Term he means an Indifference to Honours) appears more frequently in Opposition to Magnanimity. those who had a Right to aspire at the Consulship. Gronovius is of Opinion that the Philosopher would not be understood to speak of the Contempt of Honours. V. to get above the Consideration of what will People say. drank freely with all he met. it must be allowed that the Philosopher speaks conformably enough to the Notions of the Vulgar. that the Man who declines Honours. as . Ethic. Such a Disposition has nothing in it that is of itself vitious. to be convinced that the learned Gentleman. that require Qualifications. though they deserve them.—they forbear engaging in good Actions and glorious Enterprizes. which the Philosopher considers as real Goods. frequented Taverns and Brothels. IV. who are not angry. it is no less a Folly not to be angry on just Occasions. It is good always to entertain a Diffidence of ourselves in that Point.the preliminary discourse 117 serve. for Example. Hence it was that among the Romans. According to our Philosopher. and to flatter ourselves with the Possession of good Qualities. which is not Evil. makes them still worse. and that it is the more culpable of the two. of which he believes himself not possessed. as I have shewn in my Treatise On Play. for want of a due Sense of their own Merit. where he wore dirty and ragged Cloaths. Nicom. they entertain of themselves. p. of which we are entirely unprovided. does it rather on a Principle of Modesty. and declined the Charge. and even comes near to Humility. 6. because they are guilty of no Crime: That the pusillanimous are faulty only in depriving themselves of those Honours. Graev. in which he makes the Extremity opposite to Magnanimity in the Defect consist. disguises the Philosopher’s Thought out of a too warm Concern for the Credit of the Antients. Experience shews the Falsity of the former of these Assertions. But we need only observe Aristotle’s Description of the Contempt of Honours. See Cicero’s Epistles to Atticus. Ibid. however. The Opinion. or Meanness of Soul. than out of Indolence. whose Explication I have given. As long as a Man is ignorant of his own Merit. Aristotle says: Those who are subject to the Fault in Question do not seem to be bad Men. to avoid the Reproach of Pusillanimity. Lib. and forego the Possession of some valuable Thing. and decline the Enjoyment of exterior Goods. consulting the Ideas of sound and right Reason. He instances in the famous Dionysius. by which a Man is induced to act ill. Ep. Book I. Cap. in regard to the latter. he is so far from being culpable for not aspiring at Honours. of which the Pagans had some Idea. Edit. and amused himself with chattering about Trifles with the Refuse of Mankind. were particularly careful to offer the Reasons for their Conduct in the strongest Terms. Book I.

the natural Effect of that Passion. For supposing. or less able to maintain his just Rights. that . Nicom. This Distinction being made. But that this Principle of Mediocrity. Hence it appears that Aristotle considers the Disposition of all those in general. Justice is a Mediocrity. taken universally. Justice therefore is a Disposition to act what is right with Choice and Deliberation. On the contrary. less than his due. but as the Medium is its Object. too much and too little. Injustice. appears from the Instance of Justice itself. both in our Dealings with others. is not rightly laid. and Injustice includes the two Extremes. and that he does not. without any regard to exact Proportion. including the Practice of all the Virtues which relate to our Neighbour. (1) He speaks in the following Manner of Justice. or less of what is disagreeable and prejudicial than is our Due. and to render every one his Due. because it consists in giving too much and too little. Ethic. XLV. Lib. is a Mark of a mean and servile Mind. XLV. Cap. and that of his Friends. which being in itself vitious. the Tranquillity of a Mind. IV. and neglect the Defence of our Friends. confine that Censure to the stupid and mean Patience of Buffoons and Parasites. or revenging an Injury. as a Vice opposite to Lenity by Defect. whose Opposites. properly so called. 1 he sought for Both in the Things themselves <xxxi> about which Persons. nor will such a Man be less disposed. it is never absolutely necessary. Times. and may be allowed to a certain Point. and he who is injured.118 the preliminary discourse All Virtue has not Vice in Excess. and Things require. Thus there is both Excess and Defect in Injustice. as well as in the Distribution to be made among others. and manage his Interest better than those. that is of giving each Person too much or too little of what is advantageous or prejudicial. that he is seldom or never angry. so that we do not take to ourselves more of what is agreeable and advantageous. as Gronovius pretends. free from Anger. They seem miserable. and of a peaceable Disposition. and a Desire of Revenge. support our Dignity and maintain our Right. and those which others have with one another. a Man either naturally or by the Force of long Custom so hard to be moved. he will be able to take more just Measures. and that with more Security. We always may. in Consideration of some paultry Advantage. He that does an Injury. without being in a Passion. incapable of being affected. XI. on the contrary. But if we consider the Matter in itself. has more. But it is evident that our Philosopher makes a Virtue of a moderate Degree of Anger. and too much of the latter. by being Master of his Passions. who are actuated by a Passion so hard to govern as Anger. Though Anger is not evil in its own Nature. who command their Passion. when they have just Reason to be angry. as being secured from the Excesses of a blind Passion. it is evident that a just Action consists in observing a Medium between doing an Injury and receiving one. are chargeable with Folly. he is thus very happy. but observe a just Proportion here. to distinguish it from universal or general Justice. is not a moral Defect. leaving others too small a Share of the former. never allows Anger to be kept within due Bounds. is a Disposition of doing Wrong designedly. not in the same manner as the Virtues already spoken of. what is very seldom to be found. who tamely submit to the greatest Affronts and Indignities. To which he adds that to suffer patiently in such Cases. when he could not find in the Affections and their subsequent Actions. which he terms particular or private.

is to receive an Injury. Terence Heautont. as one may say. Lib. is Flattery: on the contrary. and introduces a real Inequality contrary to Equity. is a Vice opposite by Defect. so as to be found between two opposite Extremes of the same Thing. must be specified. for Example. A Disregard of this Equality. and sometimes that of Arithmetical Proportion. IV. the more or the less is not then in Matter of Justice. and what constitutes its Nature. whether we take or give more or less than it requires. it is a Defect of Equity: He offends against the Spirit of the Law. that rigorous Justice. too little is Audacity. too much Fear is Timidity. and taking too little of what is prejudicial. Where then is the other opposite Extreme. Cap. or rational Courage. but in the Things about which it is employed: We do not observe this Equity too much or too little. as Aristotle himself makes appear. VII. Chap. its Medium consists in a certain Equality.the preliminary discourse 119 is. or a reasonable Complaisance. in short all we say or do in Conversation are in themselves indifferent. which ought to consist in an excessive Concern for maintaining the Equality in question? It will not be the Jus summum. is Clownishness or Incivility. is a Passion not evil in its own Nature. whereby we practice Justice. in which the Essence of Moral Virtue consists. IX. Book V. even when we take or give too much. Scene V. But the present Question does not turn on the Nature of the Medium. VI. and sometimes on the other. or certain Persons on all Occasions. To return to Justice. and observing the same unequal Distribution in regard to other Men.) For when a Man pushes his Demands as far as he may according to the Rigor of the Law. Speaking. 48. by deviating from that Medium. I. this is no more than a different manner of Inequality. an equal Distribution of Advantages and Disadvantages. is planted. so that here is only an Explication and Distinction of Terms. Chap. deviating from the Rule of Proportion sometimes on one Side. and thus form two opposite Vices. Book V. or Cowardice. Act. or presses the Terms of the Law too severely in pronouncing Sentence. Cicero De Offic. or the Proportion to be observed for determining it. according to our Philosopher. whatever Proportion is observed for determining it. in which this Medium is placed. See Ethic. laughing. standing still. we do not exceed the just Equality. Fear. Chap. (Summum Jus. Book II. or a rash Boldness: The just Medium is Fortitude. in appropriating to ones self too large a Share of what is simply advantageous. a regular Composure of the Face and exterior walking. Behaving ourselves in these Particulars so as to endeavour at pleasing every one. to act as if we had no Concern for pleasing any one. Summa Injuria. not vicious in themselves. that by way of Excess. which is called the Height of Injustice. the other by Defect. The Extreme in unjust Actions. Ethic. An exact Observation of this Equality. The Subject. the Virtue under Consideration. relate. by saying. Justice observes sometimes the Medium of this Geometrical Proportion. by way of Defect. Ver. but which become such. the just Medium is Civility. for this is what he means by that Equality to which the Actions. X. one by Excess. but always fall short of it. against that very Equality which the Law designs to establish. XIV. the Medium. is the proper Employment of Justice. According to Aristotle. In a . Nicom.that whereas in other Virtues there is but one Medium. Nicom. to do one. not a Transition from one kind of Thing to another. Gronovius thinks Aristotle sufficiently defended against our Author’s Criticism. in certain Sorts of Passions and Actions. fixed by Geometrical Proportion.

we immediately perceive the tacit Allusion which Grotius makes to it. as well doing an Injury. It is evident that both receiving and doing an Injury are evil. because he acted with a View of Gain. The Philosopher explains himself clearly in another Place. and in the next Place. which occurs in the Close of the Passage quoted in the foregoing Note. or to particular Justice. xciv. that the Nature of all the Virtues may be accurately explained without having recourse to that Principle. relates either to universal Justice. 73.—So that receiving an Injury is in itself the less evil. and shews it plainly enough in the Words already quoted. though it may by Accident become a greater. This abundantly shews the Uselessness and Insufficiency of Aristotle’s Principle. Ethic. V. xcv. Grotius has his Eye on the Definition of an Unjust Action. according to which receiving an Injury. Lib. We see here that the Philosopher does not sufficiently distinguish between the Principle or Motive. as the Agent is influenced . for he pretends that one and the same Action. says he. but not sensual. while he explains it. and pays for it. Cap. V. Supposing one Man commits Adultery for Lucre’s Sake. 2. Grew. But he is himself guilty of the Fault with which he charges our Author. where he says. abandoning one’s Comrade in an Engagement. which induces a Man to commit an Injustice. another is guilty of the same Crime out of a Motive of Lust. according to Aristotle. since it consists wholly in abstaining from that which is another Man’s. and Injustice only is its opposite Vice. to receive less 2 than one’s Due may indeed happen to be a Vice. and Murder from Word. On reading this last Sentence. and the unjust Action itself. 3. for by the former a Man has less. Cap. an ingenious Englishman. but certainly it cannot be repugnant to Justice. but as a Medium is its Object. or an Inclination to Injustice. Besides. Ethic. and not Profits and Advantages. XV. on a careful Examination of the Matter. when the Circumstances of himself or his Family cannot allow of any Abatement. or taking more than one’s Due. not in the same manner as other Virtues are. which alone includes the two Extremes. when applied to this Virtue. this less. to Anger. it will appear. Like to which Mistake is that of his not allowing 3 Adultery proceeding from Lust. He owns that Justice is a Mediocrity. whereas a Man receives an Injury without Malice. relates to Hardships and Disadvantages. and by the latter more than the Medium requires—But doing an Injury is the more culpable of the two. Thus Adultery relates to Intemperance. Besides. The learned Gronovius calls this Chicanry. quoted in my Preface to Pufendorf. which is Justice properly so called. p. to Cowardice: striking. and refutes the Philosopher’s Opinion. The latter seems rather sensual than covetous. or having less than one’s due is comprehended in the Idea of Injustice. See a Passage from Mr. because. it relates only to Injustice. Lib. and receives his Reward. 4. p. But when a Man gains by his Crime. whereas the former is unjust. every other unjust Action has always a Relation to some View. our Philosopher was very sensible of the Lameness of his Principle of Mediocrity. which he deservedly blames in others. Nicom. Nicom.120 the preliminary discourse Justice is conversant. because done maliciously. by which we invade another’s Property. of the second Edition. Which very thing is in the first Place to leap from one kind of Thing to another.

. and an Act of Intemperance. or Anger. yet not for the Reason. is indeed the proper Business of Justice. the Diversity of Principle may indeed make us offend at the same Time both against Justice. He may. To return from this Digression. every Action tending to the Prejudice of another’s Right. So that the Comedian ought still to have persisted in his Refusal. the Distinction between unjust Actions committed maliciously. this notwithstanding. it is sufficiently specified in the Passage here quoted. Anger. but even granting that a Husband can yield to another Man his Right to his Wife’s Body. but if we judge of his Conduct in a moral Manner. Cap. to belong properly to Injustice: Whereas the very Nature of Injustice consists in nothing. and that it could only be from Eth. Book III. besides this Consideration. XI. But the Question there turns on a different Thing. and taking more than one’s Due. X. and such as are done without any premeditated Design. 68. or imprudent Pity. and all that Gronovius has advanced in Defence of Aristotle. true indeed it is. and that for this only Reason. which is not the present Question. nor does it signify. and without being actuated by some Passion. few Men doing an Injury merely for the Sake of doing it. but in the Violation of another’s Rights. V. that it by a Motion of Sensuality. who was proof against all the Solicitations of Messalina. p. whose general Order to obey the Empress did not extend to this Action.the preliminary discourse 121 Anger. relates to Anger. I own he was not so culpable. without which they would rather choose to leave their Neighbour’s Right untouched. Chap. and by his Compliance he certainly became even more guilty of Injustice than Intemperance. or by a formal Design of seizing on what belongs to another. that to some Virtues it happens. Lib. the preserving of Human Society inviolable. which are usually the Sources of the greatest Injuries. such as Adultery and Murder. I say. is nothing to the Purpose. striking. whether it proceeds from Avarice. XLVI. or Lust. till the Emperor Claudius. for he himself quotes and commends this very Passage. he was neither chargeable with Injustice nor Intemperance. though this single Action did not denominate him habitually unjust or intemperate. and against some other Virtue. viz. So that Gronovius had no Reason to say he knew not whence this was taken. Nicom. but. that they moderate the Affections. if he pleases. properly so called. Cowardice. alledge the Example of Mnester the Comedian. Now besides that this formal Design is seldom found in Injustice. according to our Commentator. This Comedian. or Ambition. did indeed commit an unjust Action. her Husband. For to resist all Temptations of what Kind soever. As to Murder committed by a Motion of Anger. in which he pretends our Author contradicts himself. will always be a real Injustice in itself. this was by no means the Emperor’s Intention. § 4. relating either to ourselves or others. as if he had solicited Messalina. else. commanded him to do whatever she should require of him. viz.

on which I have two observations to make. and from the Reason assigned by Lycurgus for a Law he had made for regulating the Expence of the Sacrifices. Apophthegm. We cannot. The other Answer is. as he did. eligible and our Duty. but because right Reason. IX. Bell. and hindering the Commission of it. p. are always found in the just Medium. Wech. for the Crime of XLVI. as they are known only by Revelation delivered to Christians. In Reality. and sound Reason allows? Thus. and the same is to be said of all other Virtues. VII. Book V. Tom. Now Excess in this Case is possible. as much as in us lies. as soon as we acknowledge a Deity. conformably to Aristotle’s Principle. Catilin. Piety will certainly hold the middle Way between Superstition. to what Length soever they are carried. Lib. which have a contrary Tendency. but that there may be Excess in exterior Actions. This is our learned Commentator’s Reasoning. Chap. 2 serve God with too much Ardour. good. that solid Piety indeed cannot be carried too far. but an Excess of that Passion is to be avoided as prejudicial. without the least Mixture of Evil. by abstaining from every thing. &c? Now who does not know that in each of these Particulars we may do more than God requires. In vain does Gronovius pretend that according to the Ideas of all the ancient Heathen Writers. 2. by reading and meditating on the Holy Scriptures. that the Philosopher is to be excused for not ranking Piety. This Idea is followed by Sallust. which is its Defect. which we think contains any Impiety. as appears from that ancient Law: Pietatem adhibento: opes amovento. For how do we make it appear that we serve God? Is it not by frequenting Places of Worship. it is no very easy Matter entirely to justify Aristotle’s Omission of so considerable a Virtue as Piety. speaking of the Presents offered in the Temple of Delphos. VIII. Lacon. and with our Hands joined and raised up to Heaven: By giving Alms. § 24. Edit. so far as animates us to Action. in others it excites us to the utmost we are capable of. Faith. are to be indulged without Restraint. VI. II. if we reason with ever so little Exactness. the Worship of the Divinity . for instance.) Grotius. Cicero de Legib. Cap. Plut. In suppliciis Deorum magnifici. by praying on our Knees. II. by which alone one Man can form a judgment of another’s Sentiments. Hope and Charity among the Moral Virtues. Cap. Ethic.122 the preliminary discourse Consists often in the utmost we are capable of. which Virtue always follows. which makes its Excess. and Impiety or Atheism. Thus Prudence is in the Opinion of all Mankind a pure Good. is commendable. Thus we see several of the Pagan Philosophers have spoken very finely on that Subject. which. (1) Agathias makes a famous General speak thus: Those Motions of the Soul. (Chap. by observing Festivals. Book XXIV. and several judicious Authors have with good Reason blamed him for allowing Religion no Place in his System of Morality. as such. and Anger. we must necessarily discover certain Duties in which we stand engaged to that Being. as all the ancient Pagan Philosophers did. Nicom. IV. Here Gronovius makes two Replies in Favour of Aristotle. is the proper and perpetual Office of all Virtue to do so. and by Justin. First. &c. Those. for Aristotle. which by Nature prompt us to what is pure. included the Worship of the Deity under Magnificence. 1 prescribes a Measure to be followed in some Things. First. 229. Cap. are not to be followed on all Occasions. bear-headed. In Belisarius’s Speech. by contributing to the necessary Expences of the publick Worship. V. as I have shown in my Preface to Pufendorf. Lib. but only so far as is consistent. says he.

is included in that Virtue. 3 there are some Things whose Extent has no Bounds. Secondly. there is no Medium. For the Philosophers are not the only Persons. most holy and most pious Worship of the Gods is always to honour them with Purity. equally or almost equally removed from two opposite Extremes. ˆ and the Passages quoted from Seneca and Epictetus in my first Note on Pufendorf. Edit. that many of the wise Pagans made Piety. respect and love him too much. § 3. nor too much hate Sin. The best. but in serving him perversely. but so as to reserve to ourselves the same Liberty which he himself took with his Masters. Examples. Lib. II. with Graevius’s Notes. which might easily be produced. Cellar. IV. Wisdom does not consist in moderating them. Attic. and to be very violent without leading to any Crime at all. Chap. It is evident from those and several other Authorities. IV. &c. for the Sake of finding Truth. it will still be certain that here. Book I. III. Deor. and the Worship of the Divinity consist principally in the interior Sentiments. which Aristotle calls Magnificence. . Cap. who have distinguished Piety from Superstition. for they supply us both with Examples 1 and Judgments. De Nat. Cap. Noct. Chap. as in several other Virtues. See the Author’s Reflection on that Subject. It is therefore truly said of Gellius. VI. says. (1) Which are to be used with much Caution. Instit. 6. XLVII. 4 after having discoursed largely on the Passions. XXVIII. Histories have a double Use with respect to the Subject we are upon. for they are excited by external Objects. Lactantius. Lib. nor too much dread eternal Misery. Num. Lib. Cap. and which are so much more commendable as they are carried to a higher Pitch. XVI. IX. but in regulating the Impressions of the Causes that produce them. 7. He had forgot that beautiful Passage of Cicero. Neither can we too much desire eternal Happiness. Our Purpose is to set always a high Value upon Aristotle. we must then find out two vicious Extremes in the interior Sentiments: It must be possible for a Man to entertain too exalted an Idea of God. our Ancestors have done the same. and not in the exterior Acts of Devotion. XLI. Div. in all which there never can be any Excess. ad Pontifices. XLVII. See also his Oration Pro domo sua. Book II. which are the proper Object of Virtue. at the End. in the same Kind of Things. because it is possible for them to be very weak in those who commit the greatest Crime. be too submissive to his Will. So that whatever they may say who are resolved to reconcile Aristotle with Reason and good Sense at any Rate. § 5. the purest. Num. 4.the preliminary discourse 123 Superstition consists <xxxii> not in serving God with too much Ardour. the better Histories. Neither ought a Restraint to be put principally upon them. 3. and Integrity both of Mind and Words. Sincerity. Cap.

1. no Consequence can be drawn that the same Thing is ordered in Regard to Men. . From what God is pleased to do or command by Virtue of his supreme Authority over the Life and Goods of his Creatures. and Book III. after having seized on their Country. Of this Sort. § 4. but of the Law of Nations there is no other Proof but this. Num.124 2 the preliminary discourse the Times and the wiser the People were. and several Political Laws. I often use. are of so much the greater Authority. and also another 2. Chap. says our Author. On this Occasion are alledged the Example of Abraham. II. Nor are the Judgments we meet with in Histories to be despised. I. or the third Punick War. § 10. Sacred Books. which yet is never repugnant to the Law of Nature itself. not so much for the Sake of building any Thing upon them. Poets. and those in the Grecian History to the Peloponnesian War. We have therefore avoided. down to the six hundredth Year from the Foundation of Rome. Chap. I. for which Reason we have preferred those of the ancient Grecians and Romans before others. Book II. from the Rights of <xxxiii> Men among themselves. XLIX. are these found in the Roman History. The Old Testament. but they are undoubtedly in the wrong: For many Things 2 in it proceed from the Free Will of God. whom God commanded to sacrifice his Son: And that of the Israelites who received an express Order from him to carry off the Egyptians Gold and Silver Vessels. but with a Difference of the Old and New Law. 3. provided we carefully distinguish the 3 Rights of God. 2. Book I. as that their Expressions may add an Ornament to what we have a mind to say. Chap. Num. either writ or approved of. Orators. § 14. The Ceremonial. 6. as much as we could. XXI. (1) The same Gronovius. especially when they agree: For the Law of Nature. and so far an Argument may be rightly drawn from it. or allowed by the Law of Nature. XLVIII. which God sometimes exercises by the Ministry of Men. according to Gronovius. as we have already said. is in some Measure proved from hence. both this Error. Some there are who 1 urge the Old Law for the very Law of Nature. 6. had Bodin and other Judaizing Christians in View in this Place. and utterly exterminate the seven Nations of Canaanites. The Authority of those Books which Men inspired by God. and all their Possessions. The Opinions of Poets and Orators are not of so great Weight: And we often make use of them. See what our Author says on this Subject. XLIX.

XXIV. like Grotius. viz. This some Anabaptists maintain. is a good Proof of what I advance. 139. (1) This is an Observation of Cassian in his Divine Institutions. David le Clerc’s Quaestiones Sacrae. I. who lived some Centuries after Jesus Christ. § 17. II. IV. § 1. VI. and also because the Nature of the New Testament is such. 118. are the Authors of the Talmud. p. Ziegler here quotes a Passage of Isaac Casaubon’s Exercit. and John le Clerc’s Quaestiones Hieronymianae. 198. and had recourse to all the Monuments of Antiquity. 285. Quaest. 83. VII. Ziegler refers us to Sixtus Senonensis’s Bibliotheca Sanct. that whatever are the moral Precepts in the Old Testament. in Baron. III. Cap. Lib. L. Letter VI. L. Vol. 247. p. Vol. Bibliotheque Choisie. So that they are on no Account comparable to Christian Interpreters. . &c. those 1 especially who were thoroughly acquainted with the Language and Manners of their Country. But to understand the Sense of the Books of the Old Testament. De Repub. p. and the Defence of that Book. 15. the Bibliotheque Universelle. and indulge their Inclination to Fables and Allegories. who. and are of Opinion that those Doctors are of very little Use for understanding the Old Testament. p. they were very bad Criticks. both upon Account of what we have said already. &c. Vol. Book I. The most antient Rabbies. whose Writings are extant. Le Clerc’s Thoughts on Father Simon’s Critical History. Mr. 4. Grotius. and Men of little Judgment. &c. ac Gent. and another from Joseph Scaliger. and my first Note on Book I. Lib. have studied the Languages methodically. I. XXIV. the Hebrew Writers may afford us no little Assistance. The Hebrew had then long been a dead Language. We are of a contrary Opinion. not of the Spirit of the Law. See my The Hebrew Writers. De Emendat. 5 are enjoined by the New also: And in this Manner we see the Testimonies of the Old Testament made Use of by the Writers among the Primitive Christians. To supply their Defect of Knowledge. the same. or the Intention of the Legislator. Chap. 115. p. Vol. Temporum. This is to be understood of the Letter. and were unacquainted with Heathen Authors: Their Traditions must have undergone much Alteration and Corruption by Length of Time. See what I have said in my Treatise Of Play. VII. But the Rabbies are least to be depended on in Matters of Morality and Law. than the Books of the Old Testament. Hebr. Book VIII. 199. But the most judicious Part of the learned World have at present but little Value for the Rabbies. they had no Book in that Tongue but the Old Testament. they have invented the most extravagant and chimerical Facts and Customs. Chap. Vol. 117. of this Work. p. secundum Disciplinam Hebraeorum. VII. p. or more perfect.the preliminary discourse 125 contrary to it. 315. They had no other antient Monuments of the History of their own Nation. &c. Haeres. Selden’s Treatise De Jure Nat. See Cunaeus. Num. 4 that since the Promulgation of the New Testament the Old one is of no Use. X. 5. how advantageous an Opinion soever that learned Gentleman may have entertained of the Jewish Doctors. XVI. 84.

So that. it is well known that the Proceedings of most of the Councils were very irregular. I have notwithstanding. Our Author gives us to understand as much. or on Ecclesiastical Discipline. First. or corrupted in several Places. and lost too much of his Time in perusing them. and confining himself almost wholly to Moses the Son of Maimon. are either supposititious. even in such Things as were very easy. Thirdly. is the Part of a generous Mind. when he says.e. when well interpreted. what cannot be elsewhere learned. the Doctrine of the Church must have been in its greatest Purity. what Things in it are rather 1 recommended to us than commanded. and that will not fail of a proportionable Reward. Secondly. Recourse must be had to the Scripture. Chap. than the meer Law of Nature in itself requires. which. which Thing itself. to the Intent we may know. (1) See my nineteenth Note on Book I. perhaps. § 7. . that as to transgress the Commands is a Crime that renders us liable to be punished. Those Synodical Canons which are just and reasonable. but have very often actually erred. LII. are Consequences drawn from the general Maxims of the Divine Law. LI. in order to see whether they are just and reasonable. will think he allows them too much Weight. though the Strength of his Judgment preserved him from the Contagion. so to aim at the highest Perfection. what is lawful for Christians to do. The New Testament I use for this Purpose. II. But others. generally speaking. 1 when they are just and reasonable. that I may shew. when. Boecler accuses Grotius of not reading the Books of the Rabbies with sufficient Care and Attention. (1) These Canons can be of no great Use to our Author’s Design. The Canons of Councils. Synodici Canones. and they were generally only so many Cabals of Men devoted to the Emperors. because the Councils not only were subject to Error.126 the preliminary discourse 2. or bring an upright and Christian Heart to such Assemblies. Nor have I for all that omitted observing. The Canons of Councils. The New Testament. because. that in that most holy Law a greater Sanctity is enjoined us. in what is but barely recommended. because we have very little remaining of the Councils of the two or three first Centuries. qui recti sunt. fitted to particular Cases that happen: These likewise either shew what the Divine Law commands. contrary to what most do. i. according to him. as being fully assured. or exhort us to what God recommends. distinguished from the Law of Nature. Lastly. is the Touchstone for examining the Decisions of the Councils. 3. the Decisions of Councils commonly run either on speculative Points. LII. after all. or some other prevailing Party. and several of those that have come to our Hands. § 9. LI. falsified. And this is the Office of Preface to Pufendorf. so that the least Concern on those Occasions was to furnish the Mind with necessary Knowledge.

The Manners and Customs of the first Christians. and that the more. It is a great Mistake to imagine the Generality of the primitive Christians Men of a Piety and Probity exactly conformable to the Rules of the Gospel. Anno LVII. Thus too great a Veneration for the uninlightened Simplicity of those first Ages seems to have induced our Author to give into the Distinction of Evangelical Councils. 5. and on the other. 3. as appears from Book I. to take an Oath. § 9.the preliminary discourse 127 the true Christian Church. that the Fathers of the Church. are the Decisions of those who 3 were famous in their Times for their Christian Piety and Learning. Saec. § 6. their Judgment and Conduct cannot be here admitted as a Rule. and were not charged with any gross Error: For even what these assert with great Positiveness. But even the Customs 2 likewise that <xxxiv> were received or commended amongst those antient Christians. have deservedly the Force of Canons. to go to Law. and in the same Manner as they are delivered. Every one knows that several of them entertained too high a Notion of the Necessity of Martyrdom. to carry on Trade. I have not changed my Opinion since Father Cellier. and Precepts. II. all which it is impossible to prove evil in themselves. The Generality of them seemed to think it unlawful to engage in a War. of whom our Author speaks in this Place. nothing to the Purpose. to bear publick Offices. The next in Authority to these. that I have advanced nothing on the Subject in Question. not to mention an Infinity of trifling Things. in my Preface on Pufendorf. distrusting the Force of his Proofs. ought to have no little Weight in interpreting the Places that seem obscure in Holy Scripture. calls in Invectives and abusive Language to his Assistance. See Mr. to deliver to us those Things that are delivered to her of God. But how good soever they might have been. on one Side. in Matters not otherwise clearly and expresly decided in Scripture. and thus prepossessed run to it with some Rashness. or receive Interest for Money. does not understand the State of the Question. either from Reason or Scripture. and the Justness of their Judgment were not always equal to the Warmth of their Zeal. as if they were certain of it. or the Weakness of the Reasons he offers in Favour of these antient Doctors of the Church. entitled. and the Integrity of their Heart. I could easily make it appear that I have been so far from dealing in false Accusations. published at Paris in 1718. are but indifferent Masters. who maintained the Dignity of so high a Title. but what may be demonstrated either by the Confession of my Antagonist himself. and even bad Guides in Law and Morality. Their Cause is not in very good Hands. whom he undertakes to justify at any Rate. and the nearer they are to the Times in which the Church was 2. to marry a second Time. and 10. Both the Writings and the Consent of the Fathers. I. I have been pretty large in shewing. § 9. a Benedictin Monk opposed me on that Head in a Book in 4to. . 4. where my Remarks on that Subject may be seen at Length. &c. An Apology for the Morality of the Fathers of the Church. since their Apologist. Chap. The Extent of their Knowledge. Le Clerc’s Ecclesiastical History. by how much the more there are that consent in the same Thing.

as a Recompence of their Services. as being quick in discerning those Things that are blameable in the Sayings of others. . one of that Number. and Professors in all Sciences had been lately settled at Bologna. and Lotharius and his Successors gave it the Force of Law. of those who succeeded 1 Irnerius. and not. He made short Scholia on the Body of the Civil Law. and the Novels. as the Custom of late hath been. who had been Professor of the Liberal Arts at Ravenna. 6. LIV. Soon after the Roman Law made its Way to the Bar.e. preserved in the East. Bartolus. the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian. nor Faction. Irnerius. and thus gave Birth to the Glosses. and other Greek Books of the Roman Law. (1) This Irnerius. The Roman Law had been for some Ages. if not absolutely unknown and out of Use in the West. at the Solicitation of Matilda. or as the Abbe ´ D’Ursperg says. when the Town was taken by the Emperor Lotharius II. that among many Things. The Schoolmen that succeeded these. lived at the Beginning of the XIth Century. Of those that profess the Knowledge of the Roman Laws. they set us a laudable Pattern of Modesty. there are three Sorts. or. that for LIV. and even in this their prevailing Humour of contradicting. in the Kingdom of Naples. in Conjunction with Pope Innocent II. in the War which he made. See Delineatio Historiae Juris Romani & Germanici. Pepo. undertook to explain the Roman Law. The Digest in particular seemed then quite buried in Oblivion. and obtained it. i. others a German. But the famous Pandects of Florence being found at Amalphi. The first is of those whose Works appear in the Digest. The second is. Wernerius. as 2 Accursius. on Roger King of Sicily. but their Misfortune was to live in unhappy Times. in their Writings commendable. the base Offspring of an impotent Mind. Lawyers. when as yet neither Dominion. as some call him. took his Place. Countess of Tuscany. And yet when they agree in Matters of Morality. at least but little known or followed. as disputing against one another with Arguments. some make him a Milanese. either of his own Head. the Inhabitants of Pisa. LIII. to the Dishonour of Learning.128 the preliminary discourse most pure. which increased very much under his Successors. there are some that need Indulgence. 3 and many others. when good Learning was entirely neglected. Schoolmen. give us many Proofs of their great Capacities. The Taste of Learning was then beginning to revive. written by III. The Light of the Law. desired that Copy. had studied the Basilics. The less Wonder then. and introduced the Roman Law into the Schools. was able to corrupt the primitive Truth. with Reproaches. who had furnished the Emperor with some Ships. Irnerius. who understood Greek. He was called Lucerna Juris. But he did not succeed in that Post. they seldom err.

and the barbarous Language of the Schools into the Law. when he entered upon that Study. in 1704. to the End of the Book. See Gravina’s Book quoted in the preceding Note. that he is deservedly esteemed the chief Restorer of the Roman Law. 2. a Native of Florence. Chap. p. III. first at Bourges. he returned to Bourges. Mr. Book I. either by Consequences. Francis Accursius. Lib. a Lawyer of Milan. often 5 confound these Words. Professor at Rome. a Town in Umbria. he has left us Glosses on the whole Civil Law. 101. I. See Mr. Thomasius. p. yet so as that they. &c. and the chief of their Successors in Mr. as well as others. Gravina’s Origines Juris Civilis. where a Distinction is also made between the Disciples of Bartoli. at Valence in Dauphiny. That great Man was a Native of Tholouse. but which he undertook to deduce from them. as making a Class of Lawyers different from that of Accursius’s Scholars. The great Cujas places him above all the Expositors both Greek and Latin. published at Leipsic. called at present Sassoferrato. Ancient. and afterwards at Avignon. and lived in the middle of the XIVth Century. where he died in 1590. Gravina’s Origines Juris Civilis. somewhat larger than the former. which ought to be inseparable. and also often give Testimony to it. but still pretty short. 108. as well as to the Law of Nations. Returning into his own Country he taught publickly at Bologna and Ferrara. Character. where he died in 1550. Francis Cujas went so far beyond him in this Point. . He made a Collection of all the Explications of the Lawyers before his Time. was the first who united these two Studies. and 1. § 170. nay and often call that the Law of Nations. Law of Nature and Nations. For the first I have a great Deference. with considerable Additions of his own. and Turin. 4. as to the Decision of an Infinity of Cases and Questions. See Note the third on Pufendorf. by the late Mr. or without any Grounds. &c. Gravina. which prevails among some Nations only. We meet with the most considerable Particulars relating to the Life. and those often very remote. He brought the Subtilties of Logick. so that he did not so much apply himself to the Explanation of the Roman Law. lived in the Close of the XIIth and the Beginning of the XIIIth Century. 112. Andrew Alciati. &c. The third comprehends 4 those who joined <xxxv> the Knowledge of the Belles Lettres with the Study of Laws. p. to demonstrate what belongs to the Law of Nature. p. 121. and Writings of those two celebrated Lawyers. with whom he was acquainted. of which the Laws take no Notice. he then retired to Pavia. at the Head of Francis Hotman’s Anti-tribonianus: and Origines Juris Civilis. 5. aged about 59. § 153. for they both supply us with Reasons. printed in 1717. § 164. Book II. about 70 Years of Age. § 143. He was Professor. He taught in the Universities of Cahors and Bourges. so that though he was almost forty Years old. Having appeared to great Advantage in all those Places. &c. and those often the very best. § 121. the last Edition. 3. He was born at Sentinum.the preliminary discourse 129 a long time reigned at the Bar. § 23.

or even by a casual Consent. as now in our Time passes for a Law of Nations. though otherwise sagacious enough in searching into the Nature of Equity: From whence it comes. those Things which really belong to the Law of Nations. Spaniards. confining themselves within the Limits of the Roman Law. 2. Therefore we took Pains to have these distinguished. It is divided into six Books. See Book III. But these were likewise hindered. but by Imitation of one another. they often handle promiscuously and indiscriminately with those that belong to the Roman Law. at the same Time that they are but bad Interpreters of Laws already made. His Controversiae Illustres is the chief Piece used in this Work. Our Author has some Quotations from his Book De Successionibus & ultimis voluntatibus. and died Bishop of Segovia in 1577.130 the preliminary discourse that not by a sort of tacit Agreement. Modern. The second Class. and was the first Professor of Canon Law at Salamanca. studied to determine all Controversies between Kings and Nations from the Roman Laws. Frenchmen. Chap. and not without some Exactness of Judgment. have joined Scholastick Subtilty with the Knowledge of Laws and Canons. and has born more than one Impression. from discovering the true Sense of those Laws. meddling with this Law common to Princes and Nations. and either never. LVI. . LVI. His Works have been printed several Times. that they often make very good Overtures for new Laws. or but lightly. Fernando Vasquez. The French have with most Care at- 3. But again. so that they could not forbear treating of the Controversies between Nations and Kings. 2. the one with a great deal of Freedom. the other more modestly. IX. But they are then chiefly to be attended to. in two Volumes in Folio. He enjoyed several publick Employments. as appears from the 6 Title concerning Captives and Postliminy. 6. LV. (1) Diego Covarruvias was born at Toledo. Covarruvias 1 and Vasquez. being regardless of the Divine Law and ancient Histories. which makes three Volumes in Folio. to which they sometimes joined the Canon Law. 2 two Spaniards. The Professors of the third Class. when they give Testimony to such a Custom. are scarce of any Use to us in our Subject. by the Infelicity of their Times. Those of the middle Age. was Scholar to Covarruvias. Amongst these.

the preliminary discourse


tempted to introduce History into the Study of Law, amongst whom Bodin, 3 and Hottoman 4 are in great Esteem, the one for a continued Treatise, the other for some scattered Questions. Their Decisions and Reasons will often furnish us with Matter for the Search of Truth. LVII. In this whole Work there were three Things that I chiefly proposed to myself; to render the Reasons of my Decisions as evident as possible, to dispose the Matters to be treated of into a regular Method, and to distinguish clearly those Things which might appear to be the same, but were not. LVIII. I have forborn meddling with those Things that are of a quite different Subject, as the giving Rules about what it may be profitable or advantageous for us to do: For they properly belong to the Art of Politicks, 1 which Aristotle rightly so handled by itself, that he mixed nothing foreign with it: Bodin on the contrary has confounded it with that which is the Subject of this Treatise. Yet in some Places I have made mention of the useful, but by the by, and to distinguish it more clearly from a Question of the just. LIX. He will do me wrong whoever shall think that I had Regard to any Controversies of the present Age, either already risen, or that can be foreseen
VII. The Design and Order observed through the whole Work explained.

3. John Bodin, a Lawyer of Anjou, died in 1585. The Work here meant by our Author, is his famous Treatise of the Commonwealth, which is extant both in Latin and French; but the Latin Edition is the better and more compleat. That which I make use of is printed at Francfort in 1622. 4. Francis Hotman, a Native of Paris, and descended from a Silesian Family, died at Basil in 1590, after having written a great Number of Books. His Quaestiones Illustres, the Treatise here meant, appeared in 1573. LVIII. (1) Good Policy ought to authorize nothing against the invariable Rules of Justice; and that of the Machiavellians, which makes the Advantage of the State, or of those who rule it, the only Principle, is false and abominable. However, the Just and the Useful are really two different Things, even in Politicks; as will be easily comprehended by one single Example taken from the Matter of the Work before us. Before engaging in a War, it is above all Things necessary, that a just Cause should appear for so doing. But how good soever the Reasons for such a Step may be, if Circumstances do not allow of taking Arms, without acting to the Prejudice of the Publick Good, if there is Danger of losing as much as, or even more than will be gained, it would then be contrary to good Policy.


the preliminary discourse

to arise. For I profess truly, that as Mathematicians consider Figures abstracted from Bodies, so I, in treating of Right, have withdrawn my Mind from all particular Facts.
A concise way of speaking.

LX. As to the Style, I was not willing, by joining a Multitude of Words with a Multitude of Things to be treated of, to create a Distaste in the Reader, whose Advantage I consulted. I have therefore followed, as much as I could, a concise way of speaking, as convenient for such as undertake to instruct; that so, they who are employed in publick Affairs, may, as at one View, see, both what Kinds of Controversies usually arise, and also the Principles by which they may be <xxxvi> decided; which being known, it will be easy to suit the Discourse to the Subject Matter, and enlarge upon it as much as they please. LXI. I have sometimes quoted the very Words of the ancient Writers, when they were such as seemed to be expressed, either with a singular Force or Elegancy; which I have done sometimes in regard to Greek Authors, especially when either the Sentence was short, or the Beauty of it such as I could not hope to equal in a Translation; which notwithstanding I have always subjoined, for the Use of those who have not learned the Greek Language. LXII. And now, whatever Liberty I have taken in judging of the Opinions and Writings of others, I desire and beseech all those, into whose Hands this Treatise shall come, to take the same with me. They shall no sooner admonish me of my Mistakes, than I shall follow their Admonitions. And moreover, if I have said any thing contrary either to Piety, or to good Manners, or to Holy Scripture, or to the Consent of the Christian Church, or to any Kind of Truth, let it be unsaid again. <1>

The very Words of Authors quoted.

The Liberty of judging left to the Reader.

Book I
u chapter i u

What War is, and what Right is.

I. All 1 the Differences of those who do not acknowledge one common Civil Right, whereby they may and ought to be decided; such as are a multitude of People 2 that form no Community, or those that are Members of different Nations, whether 3 private Persons, or Kings, or other Powers invested with an Authority equal to that of Kings, as the Nobles of a State, or the Body of the People, in Republican Governments: All such Differences, I say, relate either to the Affairs of War, or Peace. But because War is undertaken for the Sake of Peace, and there is no Con-

I. The Order of the Treatise.

I. See Pufendorf, Law of Nature and Nations. B. I. Chap. I. § 8. Note I. 2. Such were the antient Patriarchs, who lived in Tents, and travelled from Place to Place, without forming a Community or depending on any Government; though there were civil Societies already established in the World at that Time. The learned Gronovius on this Place, alledges the Example of the Aborigines, the first Inhabitants of Italy, and of several People in Africa; The Aborigines, a savage People, free and independent, without Laws or Government. Salust. Bell. Catil. Cap. VI. The Getulians and Libyans, a rough and uncivilized Set of Men, were the first Inhabitants of Africa . . . they lived without any Government or Laws, or the least Measures of Discipline among them. Idem Bell. Jugurth. Cap. XXI. Edit. Wass. They (the remote Inhabitants of Cyrenaica ) being scattered about the Country in Families, and living under the Direction of no Law, had no common Regulations. Pomponius Mela, Lib. I. Cap. VIII. Num. II. Edit. Voss. We find even at this Day amongst the Arabians, and Africans several Nations of Savages, and Vagrants, without Laws, Magistrates or any Form of Government. 3. See B. II. Chap. XI. § 1. Num. 5.



chapter i

troversy from whence War may not arise, all such Quarrels, as commonly happen, will properly be treated under the Head of the Right of War; and then War itself will lead us to Peace, as to its End and Purpose.
II. The Definition of War, and the Original of the Word (bellum).

II. 1. Being then to treat of the Right of War, we must consider what that War is which we are to treat of, and what the Right is which we search for. Cicero 4 defines War a Dispute by force. But Custom has so prevailed, that 5 not the <2> Act of Hostility, but the State and Situation of the contending Parties, now goes by that Name; so that War is the State or Situation of those (considered 6 in that Respect) who dispute by Force of Arms. Which general Acceptation of the Word comprehends

4. II. For since there are two Ways of disputing Things, one by Debate, the other by Force, &c. De Offic. Lib. I. Cap. XI. See Pufendorf. B. V. Chap. XIII. where he treats of other Ways of deciding Differences in the independent State of Nature. 5. Philo the Jew considers as Enemies not only such as actually attack us by Sea or by Land, but also those who make Preparations for either, those who erect Batteries against our Ports, or Walls, though no Battle is given. De Specialib. Lib. II. p. 790. Edit. Paris. Servius, on Verse 545, of the first Book of the Eneid. ——— Quo justior alter Nec pietate fuit, nec bello major & armis. Makes this Remark. This is not an idle Repetition; for the Word Bellum, (War) includes Counsels, and Measures, taken against the Enemy; that is a Skill in Military Affairs. Whereas the Word Arma, (Arms) is used only to express the very Act of employing Forces: thus the former relates to the Mind, the latter to the Body. The same Commentator, on Verse 547. of B. VIII. says: Bellum is the whole Time employ’d in making the necessary Preparations for fighting or in Acts of Hostility: and Praelium denotes an actual Engagement. Grotius. 6. For not only those who are at War, stand in several different Relations to other Persons, who observe a Neutrality, by Vertue of which they do many Things that by no Means relate to a State of Hostility: but they also may and frequently do act towards each other, as if they were not Enemies; so that in such Cases the Use of Force, and the Laws of War are suspended. This takes Place when two Enemies enter into an Agreement, or Treaty; as the Author shews at large in the proper Place. Gronovius, in a Note on this Place, and Huber De jure Civitatis, Lib. III. Sect. IV. Cap. IV. §. 2. allow of no Difference in the Main between Cicero’s Definition, and that given by our Author. It is sufficient however, if the latter is more clear and extensive than the former. Obrecht, in his Dissertation De ratione Belli (which is the eighth in the Collection published in 1704.) has defended our Author’s Definition against the mistaken Criticisms of some Commentators.

what war is, and what right is


all the kinds of War of which we shall hereafter treat, not even excluding single Combats, which being really ancienter than Publick Wars, and undoubtedly of the same Nature, may therefore well have one and the same Name. This agrees very well with the Etymology of the Word; for the Latin Word Bellum (War ) comes from the old Word Duellum (a Duel ) as Bonus from Duonus, and Bis from Duis. Now Duellum was derived from Duo, and thereby implied a Difference between two Persons, in the same Sense as we term Peace Unity (from Unitas ) for a contrary Reason. So the 7 Greek Word Polemoc, commonly used to signify ´ War, expresses in its Original an Idea of Multitude. The ancient Greeks likewise called it Luh, which imports a Disunion of Minds; just as by ´ the Term Duh, they meant the Dissolution of the Parts of the Body. ´ 2. Neither 8 does the Use of the Word (War ) contradict this larger Acceptation. For tho’ sometimes we only apply it to signify a Publick
7. Our Author, giving the Etymology of polemoc, derives it from poluc; while ´ others search elsewhere for the Origin of that Word; nor are we to be surprised at this. The Country of Etymologies is of a very large Extent, and affords great Numbers of different Roads, where each Man may walk at his Ease. However, in Complaisance to those who delight in such Enquiries, and for the Sake of clearing up our Author’s Meaning, we must say something on the last Words of this Paragraph, which stand thus in the Original: Veteribus etiam luh dissolutione, quomodo & corporis dissolutio ´ duh. Here the Commentators are silent, not excepting Gronovius, a Critic by Pro´ fession; who only explains duh by other Greek Words, signifying any Sort of Unhap´ piness. But this neither shews the Reason of our Author’s Etymology, nor his Application of it. At first sight it might be imagined that the Text is faulty; and I know some have been of Opinion, that luh ought to be repeated in this Place; but we find ´ duh in all the Editions of this Work; and I firmly believe I have found out what our ´ Author Means, and what induced him to propose the Etymology of this Word, which he tacitly derives from duw. He took duh in the Sense which some Lexicographers ´ ´ give to luph, dolor; and at the same Time was thinking of Plato’s Etymology of ´ luph, Pain, which he derives from luw, to dissolve; because, says he, when we suffer ´ ´ Pain, the Body suffers a Dissolution; in Cratylo, p. 419. Vol. I. Edit. H. Steph. Our Author in Imitation of that ancient Philosopher, derives duh from duw for the same ´ ´ Reason; for on a Separation of the Parts of the Body, it follows that those which before appear’d only as one continued whole, by their Union, become more than one. The Principles of the old Philosophy, in which our Author was educated, helped him moreover to form this Etymology; for we know that according to those Principles, Pain is caused by a Dissolution of Continuity. 8. See, for Example, Horace B. I. Sat. III. v. 107. and Terence Eunuch. Act. I. Scen. I. v. 16.


chapter i

Quarrel, this is no Objection at all, since ’tis certain, that the more eminent 9 Species does often peculiarly assume the Name of its Genus. We do not include Justice in the Definition of War, because it is the Design of this Treatise to examine, whether any War be just, and what War may be so called. But we must distinguish that which is in Question, from that concerning which the Question is proposed.
III. Right, as it is attributed to Action, described, and divided into that of Governors and governed, and that of Equals.

III. 1. Since we intitle this Treatise Of the Rights of War, we design first to enquire (as I said before) whether any War be just; and then what is just in that War? For Right in this Place signifies meerly that which is just, and that too rather in a negative than a positive Sense. So that the Right of War is properly that which may be done without Injustice with Regard to an Enemy. Now that is unjust which is repugnant to the Nature of a Society of reasonable Creatures. So Cicero says, it is unnatural to take from another to enrich one’s self; which he proves thus, because, 10 if every one were to do so, all Human Society and Intercourse must necessarily be dis-<3>solved. Florentinus 11 declares, that it is a villainous Act for one Man to lay an Ambush for another, because Nature has founded a kind of Relation between us. And Seneca 12 observes, As all the Members of the Human Body agree among themselves, because on the Preservation of each depends the Welfare of the Whole, so should Men favour one another, since they are born for Society, which 13 cannot subsist but by a mutual Love and Defence of the Parts. 2. But as in Societies, some are equal, as those of Brothers, Citizens, Friends and Allies. And others unequal, kaj◊ uperoxhn, 14 by Preemiÿ ’
9. The Author gives Instances of this B. II. Chap. XVI. § 9. 10. III. De Officiis. Lib. III. Cap. V. 11. I have quoted this Law in my first Note on § 14. of the Preliminary Discourse. 12. De Ira. Lib. II. Cap. XXXI. 13. In Ep. XLVIII. he says thus: We ought to observe carefully and religiously the Laws of this Society, which unite us all together, and teach us that there is a Law common to all Mankind. The Reader may likewise see what S. Chrysostom says on this Subject on 1 Cor. Chap. XI. v. I. Grotius. 14. Kaj◊ uperoxhn. But the Philosopher makes this Distinction with Regard to ÿ ’ Friendship, which is the Bond of Societies. The Friendships already mention’dtherefore, are founded on Equality. . . . But there is another Sort of Friendship, established on Pre-

what war is, and what right is


nence, as Aristotle terms it; as that of Parents and Children, Masters and Servants, King and Subject, 15 God and Man: So that which is just takes Place either among Equals, or amongst People whereof some are Governors and others governed, considered 16 as such. The latter, in my Opinion, may be called the a Right of Superiority, and the former the b Right of Equality.

Jus Rectorium. Jus Equatorium.


eminence, such as that between Father and Son, the Elder and the Younger, Husband and Wife, and between every Prince and his Subjects. Ethic. Nicom. B. VIII. Chap. VI. VII. 15. Concerning this Society, see Philo the Jew, on these Words eqenhye Nwe Noah ◊ ´ ÷ awaked ( from his Wine) p. 281, 282. Edit. Paris. Plutarch also has something on the same Subject in his Life of Numa. p. 62. Edit. Wech. Vol. I. Grotius. I am surprised that our Author has not quoted the following remarkable Passage of Cicero, which is much more express, and more to his Purpose than those, to which he refers us. Since therefore nothing is more excellent than Reason, which is common to God and Man, the first rational Society is between God and Man. For where there is a Participation of Reason, there is also a mutual Participation of right Reason. Now this being a Law, we are to conclude a Society between the Gods and Men founded on Law. Farther, where there is one common Law, there is likewise a common Right; and those who hold these in common, are to be esteem’d, as it were, fellow-citizens. De Legib. Lib. I. Cap. VII. But, properly speaking, there is no Law, or Right common to God and Man. See Pufendorf B. II. § 3. and Chap. III. § 5, 6. As also Mr. Thomasius’s Dissertation call’d, Philosophia Juris, de Obligat. & Action. which is the third in the Collection printed at Leipsic. Cap. I. § 8, &c. 16. This Restriction is to be carefully observed. For, as Ziegler very well remarks on this Place, in all Dealings between a Superior and an Inferior, independently of the Relation of Superiority, the Right of Equality takes Place, as amongst Equals; thus, for Example, Contracts between a Prince and one of his Subjects require no other Rules than those which ought to be observed between two private Persons. When a Merchant has sold his Goods to his King, the King is as much obliged to pay for them, on the Terms, and at the Time agreed on, as the meanest Purchaser. To which I add, that there are some Cases, wherein a Superior becomes in certain Respects the Inferior; and that then the Right of Superiority is changed in Regard to the same Persons, according to the Nature of the Things. Thus a Magistrate is bound to honour his Parents, and consequently to submit to their Will to a certain Degree, whenever the Administration of publick Affairs is not concern’d; but, in the Character of Magistrate, he is to have no Regard for the Will of his Parents, but may even command them. See B. II. Chap. V. § 6. Note I.


chapter i

IV. Right taken for Quality divided into Faculty, and Aptitude or Fitness.

IV. There is another Signification of the Word Right different from this, but yet arising from it, which relates directly to the Person: In which Sense Right is 17 a moral Quality annexed to the Person, enabling him to have, or do, something justly. I say, annexed to the Person, tho’ this Quality sometimes follows the things, as 18 Services of Lands, which are called real Rights, in Opposition to Rights, 19 meerly personal, not because the first are not annexed to the Person, as well as the last, but because they are annexed only to him 20 who possesses such or such a Thing. This moral Quality when 21 perfect, is called by us a Faculty; when imperfect, an Aptitude: The former answers to the Act, and the latter to the Power, when we speak of natural Things. V. Civilians call a Faculty that Right which a Man has to his 22 own; but we shall hereafter call it a Right properly, and strictly taken. Under which are contain-<4>ed, 1. A Power either over our selves, which is term’d 23 Liberty; or over others, such as that of a Father over his Children, or a

V. Faculty strictly taken divided into Power, Property, and Credit.

17. IV. See Pufendorf, B. I. Chap. I. § 19, 20. 18. See the same Author, B. IV. Chap. VIII. 19. Such, for Example, is the Power of a Father over his Child, the Right of a Husband over his Wife, the Usufructuary Right and the Right of demanding the Performance of a Promise, by which a Man has personally engaged himself, &c. 20. Thus the Right of Passage, belonging to the Proprietor of a Country House in the Neighbourhood, is inherent only in the Possessor of the said House, and is transmitted to all, who shall possess the same, till that Right is extinct. 21. Perfect Right, is that which we may assert by Force, and the Violation of which is a Wrong properly so called. Whence it is easy to judge what is Imperfect Right. See Pufendorf, B. I. Chap. I. § 7. and our Author, B. II. Chap. XXII. § 16. 22. V. As when we say, Suum cuique tribuendum est, we must give every Man his own. 23. Hence the Roman Lawyers very well called this Liberty Facultas. Grotius. This Definition occurs twice in the Body of the Law: Libertas est naturalis Facultas ejus, quod cuique facere libet, nisi quid Vi, aut Jure, prohibetur. Digest. Lib. I. Tit. V. De statu Hominum. Leg. V. and Instit. Lib. I. Tit. III. De Jure Personarum, § 1. In order to understand it thoroughly, it will be proper to read Mr. Noodt’s excellent Commentary on the first Part of the Pandects, p. 29. See Pufendorf’s Remark on the Manner, how this natural Power of Man over himself is to be understood. B. I. Chap. I. § 19.

what war is. without Reason. of Property. XI. The Scholiast on Horace says the Word Jus is taken for Property or a Right to a Thing. Promise. Note 3. and what right is 139 Lord over his Slave. v. I. § 1. 174. or Pledges. say the Interpreters. which is either compleat. id est. The whole Matter is. Creditum: Debitum. &c. Our Author probably had the following Passage in View: Permutet Dominos. till the Time of the Tenure is expired. The last obtains in the Case 26 of Farms. I. Ch. qui pecuniam crediderunt. & rerum signif. because some other Commentators. properly so call’d. and to this 27 answers the Obligation of rendering what is owing. § 20. The Faculty of demanding what is due. 3. that by the Word Creditum. XI. I. 2. who remains solely such. 24 Property. quibus ex qualibet causa debetur. De verborum. taken from the Roman Law. Tit. but also the Right we have to require Satisfaction for any Damage or Injury received. and the Creditor have a Sort of Right of Property. 25 or imperfect. during that Time. ut si cui ex empto. ˆ vel ex locato. XVII. The learned Gronovius. Jus Pignoris. mihi videtur Creditoris loco accipi. Note 5. Leg. that the Enjoyment of the Goods by the Usufructuary. or Law. without the least Hesitation. that he did not observe. See B. Digest. Ep. II. § I. § 2. 25. the latter to the Thing pledged in his Hands for Security of the Debt. Grotius. have perceived this Allusion. 26. I believe our Author goes still farther. we are here to understand. § 2. & cedat in altera Jura. has not all the Profits. restrains the Terms in Question to Contracts of Loan. 27. 24. IV. As these Words stand. Chap. not only the Right a Man hath to demand what is due to him by Vertue of some Contract. and the Right to them near to that of Property: Jus dominio proximum. Bargain. Lib. On which the Scholiast says: In altera Jura. IV. and thus they are often considered as such. of which the Master of the said Things. and very proper Expressions. and Chap. vel ex alio ullo debetur: Sed etsi ex delicto debeatur. that our Author here imitates the Language of the Roman Lawyers. properly so called. if we reason conformably to the Ideas of the Law of Nature. in alterius Dominium. Chap. neither of them has any such Right. and the Detention of the Pledge by the Creditor till he is pay’d. the former to the Goods in his Possession by vertue of his Tenure. in the same Manner as if they were the real Proprietors of them. II. which allows an Usufructuary Creditor. and . Ut Ususfructus. Creditorum Appellatione non hi tantum accipiuntur. In my Opinion it may be affirm’d. a real Action for recovering the Possession of another Man’s Goods. II. XII. they insinuate that the Usufructuary. renders the Property imperfect. much less skill’d in Criticism. sed omnes. of the second Edition: and B. See Pufendorf. for Instance. V. I. and the more so. or full Exercise. all which is included in the Idea affix’d to that Word by the Roman Lawyers. Chap. But. But our Author had the Niceties of the Roman Law in View. XVI. B. says our Author. Jus pro Dominio. Lib. See what I have said on Pufendorf B. Short. It is surprising. though imperfect.

&c. B. XX. for the Panegyrist says the direct contrary. Est quod Caesar non suum videat. Chap. Besides. 28 which tends to the particular Advantage of each Individual: Or eminent and superior. XIII. of which the Author has spoken in his preliminary Discourse. such as a Community has over the Persons and Estates of all its Members for the common Benefit. independently of the Relation of a Citizen. It is very probable therefore. § 8. Right strictly taken is again of two Sorts. natural or acquired. because he elsewhere actually ranks Debitum ex poena. And a little after: What does Cesar see. than to those in Possession of them. 28. and 28. B. Cap L. that those who violate its Maxims.) p. B. Secondly. This takes in all those Rights. The Author produces Examples of this kind which are sufficient for making the Matter clear and intelligible. Now one of the general Rules of that Law is.140 chapter i VI. to which the Debitum & Creditum in Question relate. Because the Design and Good of civil Society necessarily require. that a Prince. in commendation of Trajan. So that a Subject ought to obey his Prince preferably to his Father and his Master. that the natural and acquired Rights of each Member should admit of Limitation several Ways and to a certain Degree by the Authority of him or them. answers to the Law of Nature. properly so called. 30. 2. and all other valuable Things. § 7. would not forget the Punishment of Criminals. § 20. while he was enumerating the several Things which may be required in Rigour. belong more to those who govern. ’ ´ Edit. Lugd. Cap. Edit. or poenale among those things. 1639. VI. III. This is the Observation of Philo the Jew. Chap. Thus a regal Power is above 30 that of a Father and Master. Note 7. Gold. Edit. there is some- . peri futourgiac (of Noah’s Planting. 3. Pliny the younger declares. and makes a Right to punish belong to Justitia expletrix. and that of Debitum to the Obligation of submitting to condign Punishment. Lib. p. 29. See what I have said on § 10. V. 335. or Natural Right. Cap. XIII. Cellar. II. 31. See what he says concerning Promises. II. Paneg. I. with which each Man is invested. who says: Certainly Silver. The latter Passage of Pliny is not rightly quoted or applied. which Subjects treasure up. and Chap. See B. Grotius. which we may demand of another in Rigour. Another Division of Faculty into private and eminent. because first the Perfect Right. II. VI. § 8. Num. XVII. and therefore it 29 excells the former. or Member of the State. Paris. Chap. XI. in whose Hands the sovereign Authority is lodged. § 1. which is the Matter of Perfect Right. to whom the Possessions of every one of his Subjects belong. as he shall judge most conducive to the Public Good. and Slaves. 222. And the Prince may allow a Father and a Master more or less Power over their Children. that is not his own? See John of Salisbury in his Polycrat. is as rich as all of them together. that our Author. IV. That Caesar sees something which is not his own. deserve to be punished. and that the Prince’s Empire is now larger than his Patrimony. Chap. § 12. either private and inferior. a King has a 31 greater Right in the Goods of his Subjects for the publick extends the Word Creditum to the Right of punishing. I am induced to think so.

Huber. After the fatal Battle of Cannae. Cap. the Dictator ordered publick Notice to be given. 1 aqian 2 Worth. VII. even against their Will. the Goods of each Subject belong no more to his own Sovereign than to a foreign Prince. Chap. & in Pandect. II. XIV. than the Proprietors themselves. which answers to the Greek ◊Aqia. The whole Truth of the Matter is. if they would list under him. XIV. Aristotle calls Aptitude or Capacity. not as Proprietor of such Goods. Num. in his Treatise De Jure Civitatis. strictly speaking. XX. quoted by our Author. than 32 to satisfy his Creditors. ( pro dignitate cujusque ) Ad Heren. ascribed to that great Orator and Philosopher. that he would pardon all who had been guilty of capital Crimes. dispose of the Goods of his Subjects. II. VI. or Merit: And Michael of Ephesus terms that which is called Equal or Right. and imperfect Right by Dignitas. III. Lib. he pretends that Cicero expresses perfect Right by the Term Jus. Justitia est habitus animi. makes Justice consist in rendering to every one his due. for the publick Advantage. as if he had read quae cuique jus suum & dignitatem tribuit. VII. § 6. or forever. by Vertue of which we are to give every one what is due to him. suam cuique tribuens Dignitatem. Fit and Decent. 2. in favour of which every one of its Members is engaged. And the Author of a Treatise on Rhetorick. either for a certain Time. if the publick Good requires it. And when <5> the Exigencies of the State require a Supply. Cap. ◊ ´ VII. that in case of a pressing Necessity. III. De Invent. B. either expressly or tacitly. Cicero has given us an Example of several Degrees of Merit and Fitness. III. to whom we are obliged to render most Service. 3. the Sovereign may. and what right is 141 Advantage. B. But he then acts. communi utilitate conservata. Num. which is here produced by Gronovius. § 7 and B. in a large Sense. the Sovereign may discharge a Debtor from the Obligation of paying. in the same Manner as if they were his own. to make such a Sacrifice. which I shall here set down. translated from the Author’s Note on this Place. in the Expressions of the antient Writers. But I find that Cicero uses the Latin Word Dignitas. What Aptitude is. And consequently. or at least too figurative. 4. We have an Example of this in Livy. Lib. Lib. Ethic. to whom we stand most indebted. quotes these two Passages wrong. I. who imitate them. . in Institut. II. hold the first Rank. according to that Merit. Chap. 32. and on the sole Authority of this false Quotation. (1) ◊Aqia. but as Head of the Society. ( Jus ) according to his Merit. Marcus Junius Pera.what war is. Cap. The Philosopher uses this Word when he treats of Distributive ´ Justice. according to his Merit. V. Chap. B. LIII. let our Country and our Parents. ’ ´ ’ ’ ´ what extravagant. Chap. But if there be any Dispute or Enquiry. XXIII. which confer more or less of this imperfect Right. See what is said. For. including both perfect ´ and imperfect Right: His Words are. as well as in those of the Moderns. and exempt from Payment all such as were in Chains for Debt. Nicom. § 7. and his Praelect. to prosarmozon kai to prepon. every Man is more obliged to contribute towards it.

In the next Place we must think of our Relations. and the more so. and sometimes even Reproofs. &c. in my Note on the Passage of the latter. according to Aristotle’s Sense of it. with whom we live in a good Understanding. Lib. X. But living in Society. and which the learned Gronovius improperly compares to Quasi contractus. § 9. I am not therefore surprized that Gronovius grounds his Argument on it. See St. 10. IV. that ever since the Establishment of Property. Chap. The same Commentator (in order to shew. in favour of his dear Aristotle. Justice properly and strictly taken. by ´ which he understands Contracts properly so called. Justice of Contracts. Christ. if I have a Right to demand Restitution of my Goods. has been justly censured. Nicom. Consolations. 1 and yet it is the Justice in question that gives me such a Next to these are our Children. it is not by vertue of any Contract. Cap. of this Treatise. Lib. or ´ . speaking of Wills. Loans. and Involuntary. expresses all Dealings Men ´ may have one with another. XXVIII. Of Expletive and Attributive Justice not properly distinguished by Geometrical and Arithmetical Proportions. I. Bail. V. but this does not give us an adequate Idea ’ of that Sort of Justice. Lib. than at examining and considering Subjects of this Nature. Non ex maleficio substantiam capiunt Institut. take Place chiefly in Friendship. and can have no other Refuge.142 chapter i VIII. B. who depend on us alone. (or Merit. dignissimos) to whom we may leave our Estates. Conversation. Hiring. The Philosopher. for the Word sunallagma. De Benef. De Doctr. laid down by our Author himself. Seneca. We look out for Persons of the greatest Worth. or by open Violence. II. what the Roman Lawyers call Delictum. See B. ’Tis expletive Justice. for besides that he had a better Talent at commenting on the Thoughts and Expressions of others. Exhortations. under which he comprehends all Sorts of Damage and Injuries done to another. in which he has been followed by Pufendorf. Lib. here referred to. Grotius. § I. says.) distinguishes these sunallagmata into voluntary. according to them. XXVIII. Tit. giving Advice. either clandestinely. This is a false Principle. Lib. nor is this con- VIII. as it depends on a grammatical Nicety. and our whole Family. that the Word sunallagma does not signify the Foundation of the Obligation ´ arising from the Justice under Consideration. and is called by Aristotle sunallaktikh. XVIII. 1. Augustin. VIII. by which each of them is obliged to restore the Goods of another. and in which any Inequality appears that ought to be redressed by the Exercise of the Species of Justice in question. and whose Fortune is most commonly united with our own. The necessary Supports of Life are therefore principally due to those whom I have already mentioned. § 3. VII. very proper for supporting his Criticism. I have confuted them both. Chap. For. Cap. Trusts. that the Example of a Person in possession of another Man’s Goods may relate to Aristotle’s Permutative Justice ) observes. or perfect Right. De Offic. and XXIX. in short. which. as those of Sale. he thus found an Argument ad hominem. which are in the Possession of another. II. IV. against Grotius. which respects the Faculty. Cap. But it is very strange that he has not added a Remark. XI. (Ethic. Cap. I. there has been a tacit Agreement among all Men. Dikaiosunh. XIII. but only the Object or Matter on which this Sort of Justice is employed. viz. (1) Our Author’s Criticism in this Place. V. which Aristotle therefore calls. B. III. Chap.

VII. does no more answer exactly to our Author’s Expletive Justice. See Note 1. as also our Author. as several Authors have observed. and the Notes of that Place. and myself repulsed upon groundless Surmises. B. § 9. in Justification of his Conspiracy. respects Aptitude or imperfect Right. 5. . Nicom. both in regard to their Foundation. Lib. Edit. 65. for tho’ the Prince on such Occasions ought to prefer Persons of most Merit. 1. B. Or. B. than the Distributive Justice of the former does to the Attributive Justice of the latter. and to diorjwtikon. and that there is a wide Difference between those two Distinctions. to en toic sunallagmasi diorjwtikon. Thus when our Author says. 2. is founded on an Inequality subsisting to the Prejudice of the Proprietor. the attendant of those Virtues 4 that are beneficial to others. VII. stiled by Aristotle dianemhtikh Dis’ tributive. Deprived of the Fruits of my Labour and Industry. Cap. § 15. to feel the Effects of them. ´ 3. Westenberg. is useless at present. I saw Men of no Worth promoted to Honours. p. I. ´ ’’ ÷ ´ ´ ’ ´ o ginetai en toic sunallagmasi kai toic ekousioic kai toic akousioic Cap. XXXVI. by a prudent choice of Persons the most worthy. versant about Things common nor that about Things private. Attributive Justice. VII. that Aristotle’s Corrective or Permutative Justice. I. See the second Note on Paragraph 7th. Wherefore he also calls it more properly epanor-<6>jwtikhn. which conveys a very different Idea. which consist in doing such Things in favour of others. but the Obligation of restoring. (ek ◊ sunallagmatoc) that the Possessor of another Man’s Goods is obliged to restore ´ them. So that Catiline made use of a very frivolous Pretence. by Mr. sunal´ lagma is here a Detention of what belongs to another. § 106: As also the Principia Juris. Cap. a Term which Interpreters would have done well to preserve. or barely corrective Justice. when he said. . Chap. But all this is of little Consequence in the Main. secundum ordinem digestorum. II. For the Justice in question regulates the Exercise of those Virtues. Cap. See Pufendorf. V. II. . and what has been said in the Preliminary Discourse. Tit. an Inequality which the Justice under Consideration requires to be redressed. VII. See Pufendorf. and it would be better to leave the Philosopher with his Division. as much more expressive of the Philosopher’s Sense than that of commutative Justice. Lib. on this Paragraph. I. no private Person can in Rigour demand this Preference. The Author has here in view. . and prudent Administration of 5 Government. § 12. that ¤ ´ ◊ ÷ ´ ’ ÷ ÿ ´ ’ ÷ ◊ ´ is. which besides that it is very defective. Bell. ◊Epanorjwtikh Ethic. as cannot in Rigour be demanded. 2 ◊ ’ 3 corrective Justice. and greatest Abilities. Mercy. Diorjwtikh. Lib. &c. It is not the same Thing. Professor at Franeker. To which it may be added. as Liberality. 4. Chap. Edit. Wass. and directs a proper Application of the Acts of those Virtues. Cap. V. I. Num. § 10. Lib. Thomasius’s Institutiones Juris Divini. I was not raised to a Post equal to my Merit. Vol. it is not by Vertue of a Contract. Sallust. ´ as Aristotle more frequently calls it. and what right is 143 Right. Mr. according to whose Principles. Chap. and the Extent of each particular Member. Catilin. Paris. But whereas the same Philosopher Dikaion.what war is. it makes nothing against Aristotle. I. chiefly the Distribution of Rewards and publick Employments. V. I. I. § 11. corrective Justice in Mans Dealings one with another.

and 3. Nicom. according to Aristotle. 1589. has been fraudulently sold for nine. Cassiodorus calls it Habitudinis comparatio. and what is disagreeable or disadvantageous. Ulysses. as often as the third contains or is contained in the fourth. instead of edwke he gave. and made the Soldiers change their Arms. and you come to an Arithmetical Proportion between 9. into which Jupiter had been thrown at Juno’s Entreaty. xereia de xeironi doken. which he terms gew◊ ’ metrikhn 7 Geometrical. ◊Esjla men ◊sjlw edwke. ⁄ ⁄ . Simple Proportion. VII. Cap. this may hold in some Cases. See Ethic. or Three is to six as twelve to twenty-four. but Attributive. but in the Matter. Homer gives a pretty good Description of this Sort of Proportion. between three Quantities. where he says. but not in all. 8. as when we say. sed quaedam habitudinis comparatio. or is surpassed by the third. in order to give it to him who has too little of them. when he says. and Things of less Value to him. in which Justice consists. exhorts the Grecians to march against the Trojans. where Neptune taking his Advantage of a profound Sleep. as much as the second surpasses. that Expletive Justice follows 6 a simple Proportion. ’ ’ ⁄ ´ ’ ´ ´ He gave valuable Things to him who deserved most. which he calls arijmhtikhn Arithmetical Justice. 6. Edit. and give them to the latter. Grotius. the first of which exceeds. And therefore in a 6. and Agamemnon ran from Rank to Rank. Paris. as much as is added to or taken from the second. giving the best to the most valiant. the first of which contains or is contained in the second. it is not well supported. because 9 exceeds 6 as much as 6 does 3. as we have said already. In Barnes’s Edition therefore we read edune he put on. or Arithmetical. In this Place we are to add or take away what is agreeable or advantageous. is found. or is exceeded by the second. As for Homer’s Verse.144 chapter i says. which the Philosopher calls kerdoc Gain. This Geometrical Proportion subsists between four Quantities. whereupon Diomedes. In proportione non est similitudo. the Seller has three Crowns too much. we must take from or add to the first Quantity. who had less Merit. 7. V. Neither does Expletive Justice of itself differ from Attributive in such use of Proportions. p. 408. and ’ which is the only Proportion 8 allowed by the Mathematicians. and the worst to those that had less Courage. about which it is conversant. Lib. The Passage of Cassiodorus is taken from his Treatise De Dialectica. and zhmia Loss or Damage. for we take ´ ´ away part of both from him who has too much of either. It occurs in the fourteenth Book of the Iliad. Thus supposing a Thing worth only six Crowns. which commonly belongs to Attributive Justice. so that to reduce Things to a just Medium. Six is to three as twenty-four to twelve. and the Buyer three too little: Take away three Crowns from the former. is regulated by a comparative Proportion.

An Opposition. there will be a perfect Equality in the Division of the Profits. who deposits the same Sum. according to Aristotle. and consequently. the whole Dispute is of very little Importance. by which Distributive Justice is regulated. it is certain. Nor does our Author pretend he does. It is also true. and as Gronovius observes. Paris. Lib. so that the Question is not whether a Man of a good or bad Character cheats. I. Chap. (en toic sunallag◊ ÷ ´ masi) an Arithmetical Proportion is to be observed. looking on them as equal in other Respects. by which the Merit of the Persons is compared with Things. Nicom. is cheated. as opposed to Distributive. as Aristotle describes. because the Merit of that Person. is compared with the want of Merit in all the other Subjects. 10. though his Commentator insinuates as much. and that the other is not sufficient. VII. and particularly from a Passage where the Philosopher says. and what right is 145 Contract of Society. and if only one <7> 10 Person be found worthy of a Publick Office. as well as to the Advantage or Disadvantage arising to either of the Parties. and how faulty soever Aristotle’s Division may be. Men do not always observe such an Arithmetical Proportion. But as they may be. the Merit of the Persons is compared with the Things themselves. It has been justly remarked. It is true. p.what war is. and very frequently are unequal. Cap. and with the Loss or Gain. a Regard is paid to the Quality of the Persons. that the Use of Arithmetical Proportion is not sufficient in Contracts. 63. for upon dividing the Profits among several Proprietors. who alone is capable of an Employment. VI. which belongs to Aristotle’s Corrective or Permutative Justice. Some reply. Lib. VII. 9 the Shares are made by a Comparative Proportion. this is not a Geometrical Proportion. which plainly insinuates. is to the Quantity of what is given to another. Others say. according to him. or commits Adultery. But then the Comparison is not made between Things of the same Kind. that in the Administration of Corrective or Permutative Justice. B. that is. for Example. that it seldom happens. V. So that in a Contract of Society. if the Prince of Orange puts 1000 Crowns. that in Geometrical Proportion. which is all our Author contends for. he receives no more Dividend than a private Person. as the Merit of one is to the Merit of the other. of which each is to have his Part. who have engaged in a Partnership in unequal Shares. All he means is. V. that Geometrical Proportion is observed even in that Case. Chap. In reality. that the Case is not possible. the Shares of the Partners may be equal. it may justly be affirmed. in which Case. so that the Quantity of what is given to one. as Pufendorf observes. § 9. & VII. is concerned. Edit. but that the Law considers no other Difference than that of the Damage sustained. that in Affairs where Corrective or Permutative Justice. our Author had better have proposed his own. no Regard is to be had to the Quality of the Person. a simple Proportion is all that is necessary in disposing of it. Geometrical Proportion cannot take Place here. than have given himself the Trouble of reconciling . and that it is enough that the Things themselves are compared together. that Geometrical Proportion must be observed. but all that can be said with Certainty is. This evidently appears from Ethic. 9. that in the other sort of Justice. into the India Company’s Stock. each Person’s Share with that of others.

. but only between what is advanced. who gave only two small Pieces of Money for the Use of the Poor. This Distinction Cyrus learnt of his Tutor: For when Cyrus had adjudged the lesser Coat to the lesser Boy. 62. oti opote men katastajein tou armottontoc ÿ ÿ ´ ’ ´ ÷ ÿ ´ it with the other. and often will happen. who have expressed most Zeal for the publick Good. there is no Comparison between the Degree of the Merit of the Persons. it must be made in Proportion to what each has contributed. and Expletive about Things belonging to private Persons. by depriving themselves for some Time of a Sum. that on this Supposition. deserve to receive in Proportion to a larger Share of the Sum. 11. that Attributive Justice is exercised about Things belonging to the whole Community. 42. If it be said that each Person deserves more or less to be reimbursed. how little Justness there is in Aristotle’s Ideas. that this Circumstance is but a very ambiguous Proof of more or less Merit. upon a Distribution of the Publick Money. have not lent so much in Proportion. in the Judgment he pronounces of a poor Widow’s Charity. so each receives in Proportion to what he lent. as he had lent more or less. he does it commonly by Attributive Justice. the proper Officers are inclined to reimburse them. p. who have furnished the largest Sums. it only performs an Act of Expletive Justice. For. I am inclined to think the Author here had in view a Passage of Aristotle. For. where he says. and what is restored. very inconsiderable in comparison of what remained in their Hands. &c. continues the Philosopher. Now can it be doubted. Nicom. and the Quantity of the Things. VII. For on the contrary. than they whose Debt is in itself the most considerable? I reason here on the Principle established by our Lord Jesus Christ. to that bigger Boy. as will easily appear on a careful perusal of that great Philosopher’s Moral Treatises. tho’ it belonged to another Boy of a bigger size. Several private Persons have furnished the State with Money for the Demands of the Publick. I suppose the Philosopher designed to speak of the following Case. but the Sum destined for that End. that those. which is not sufficient to discharge the whole Debt. is not sufficient for the Payment of all the Creditors. V. and that in different Sums. as he has rectified it. as Persons of smaller Fortunes. they. if a Man would bequeath his Estate by Will. Cap. in regard to Alms. whilst the former have suffered little or no Inconvenience. who perhaps have very much streightened themselves to assist the Publick.146 chapter i 2. Lib. it may be easily shewn. But this very Example may serve to shew. Ethic. and have suffered most by promoting it. for it may. and when the State repays out of the 11 publick Funds what some of the Citizens had advanced for the Service of the Publick. that Distributive Justice always follows Geometrical Proportion. His Tutor told him. and so on the other side gave his Coat. Neither is that more true which some maintain. properly speaking. Mark xii. being the bigger. for they are still very different at the bottom.

xix. he ought to have done as he did: But since he was to determine whose Coat it was. Oxon. “Where is the Necessity of such a Condescention? said Chrysanthes. whereas they are persuaded that the general Command of the Army belongs to me. and Behaviour in the Time of Action. any one Passage. <8> IX. 15. De Judice. p. of the Cyropaedia. and what right is 147 krithc. Cyropaed. Edit. One of that Prince’s Favourites proposed to him. Grotius. Cyrus thought the Proposal reasonable. That 12 had he been appointed Judge of what fitted each of ’ them best. 720. but that it should be divided according to each Man’s respective Merit. 13. Grotius. §10. III. as Philo the Jew observes. Oxon. Sat. So that I believe they think I commit no Injustice. Right taken for a Rule or 12. to which our Author refers his Readers. Levit. or respect the Person of the Poor. according to which it signifies the same Thing 1 as Law. § 14. . to any one. 11. Cap. In truth. I. that the Consent of the whole Army should be first asked. did not you at the same Time regulate each Person’s Reward?” To which Cyrus replied. Lib. Cap. when I dispose of the Charges in the Army. or he who made it. or bought it. and that the Distribution shall be made on that Foot? When you established Combats for the Prize. Exod. II. III. but the following Reflection of Cyrus. whether he who took it away by Force. for I imagine the Soldiers will look on all the Plunder that shall be made. I. as their own Property. when taken in its largest Extent. and perhaps is even my Birth-Right. Lib. 3. Lib. Art. II. in giving Judgment. (1) In this Sense Horace says. his Business was to have considered 13 which had a just Title to it. Edit. Lib. but was of Opinion. I do not find in the second Book of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. 122. v. IX. The Case is not parallel. There is also a third Sense of the Word Right. On which Words the Scholiast says. that can relate to the Matter before us. the Merits of the Cause are to be considered in themselves. that all his Soldiers should not equally share the Booty taken from the Enemy. xxiii. as IX. &c. and abstractedly from any Regard to the contending Parties. To the same Purpose God forbids the Judges of his People to countenance a poor Man in his Cause. Jura inventa metu injusti fateare necesse est. v.what war is. 3. See the same Writer. “Is it not enough that you declare such is your Pleasure. and Jura neget sibi nata. Edit. Legum sit contemptor. Paris. Poet.

As to Permission. has a Right of positively directing either all the Actions of those who depend on him. But no Superior exercises his Authority so extensively. he actually and positively allowed them the Liberty of eating or not eating all others. So that. I say. by which the Superior or Legislator makes an Abatement of his Right. so far as it imposes an indispensible Necessity of doing the former. there is always a considerable Number of Things subject to his Direction. if he had pleased. Where he explains the Nature and Foundation of moral Actions. but a meer In-<9> 2. See Pufendorf. whereas Permission ought to be joined to it. or at least. This is not a mere Inaction. Permission is as real an Effect of the Law. I. all those of a certain kind: In regard of all those Actions. from some Intelligent Being. See Pufendorf. and in that Case. where they are silent. The Superior. who alone can regulate all the Actions of Men. a Permission of doing several other Things of that Kind. all Laws derive their Power of obliging from a Superior. and such other Precepts. the Actions permitted. Chap. and merely as it is a Rule. B. or in Part. but a real positive Act. There is no manner of Necessity of an express Permission. forbad the Jews the Use of certain Animals for Food. taken in its utmost Extent. as he might. which seldom takes place in Divine or Human Laws: The Silence of the Legislator sufficiently infers a positive Permission of whatever is neither enjoined nor prohibited. which is a necessary Consequence of Impunity: Or they relate . I. of what Nature soever they be. as the strongest and most indispensible Obligation. which he without Reason excludes. lay us under no Obligation. 5. or Negation of Action. so far as the Law either originally gives a Power of doing or not doing them at Pleasure. by his only forbidding some Particulars. he has a Power of imposing a Necessity of acting or not acting in a certain manner. that the Law obliges by its self. who makes them. as our Author pretends. Thus when God. obliging: for 4 Counsels. are likewise positively regulated by the Law in their own Way. who gives Being to the Law. however honest and reasonable they be. To which may be added. The Author’s Expression in this Place seems to insinuate.148 chapter i Law defined and divided into Natural and Voluntary. who has a Right of imposing an indispensible Necessity of submitting to his Direction. [[have]] extended the Prohibition to several other Kinds. either they turn on Things already commanded or prohibited in some manner by Divine Law. 3. VI. as the Actions commanded or prohibited. it is not 5 properly speaking an Action of the Law. obliging 3 us to that which is good and commendable. are regulated positively by the Law. which. Chap. in which he leaves every one the Liberty of doing as he pleases. though commonly tacit. § 1. or Right. and according to their own Nature. B. come not under this Notion of Law. V. which it might have taken away either entirely. that is. or confirms and leaves Men in Possession of a Liberty. natural or revealed. and forbearing the latter. I cannot be of our Author’s Opinion in this Point. As to human Laws. that the Author reduces the whole Effect of the Law to the Obligation. whereas. on those whose Liberty he restrains. 4. being a Rule of 2 Moral Actions. they give as much as in them lies.

because another is obliged to do it. I. in Regard to such Actions. Perizonius. when he is disposed to do what the Law permits. Note 2. and what right is 149 action. because. . by vertue of which we are also empowered to resist those. By way of Supplement for this Omission. Cap. I. if we may believe Elian. every one knows. To which may be added what I have said on this Subject against Pufendorf. We have an Example of this in a Law made by Zaleucus. in a Note on the Abridgment of The Duties of a Man and a Citizen. in my Opinion. and ought necessarily to arise from a Right inherent in him. Whence then arises this Right? It can certainly arise only from the Permission granted by the Law. does by that very Action express how far he grants Men Liberty to go. This severe Law made the Offence capital. § 4 in the Text and Notes. VI. whoever fixes certain Limits. so that. inflicting a Penalty on those. III. or only to some in Particular. if they please. Lib. not barely to that which is just: Because Right in this Sense does not belong to the Matter of Justice alone (such as I have before explained it) but also to that 6 of other to Things otherwise indifferent in themselves. B.what war is. or at least all those of a certain Kind. lays an Obligation on others not to form any Obstacle to his acting. by which Will he directs either all the Actions in general of those who depend on him. when we are in a Condition of having Recourse to the Protection of a proper Judge. he either imposes on them a Necessity of doing or not doing certain Things. because we have a Right to require it. See Pufendorf. who should drink Wine against the Physician’s Orders. Chap. of the last Editions: The Will of a Superior sufficiently notified in some manner or other. that the Laws grant an express Permission. This Way of Reasoning is the more just. for in all Obligations in which we stand engaged to others. who is of the same Opinion with Grotius. either to all such as depend on the Legislator. § 2. but on the contrary. he is obliged to do it. that the Law obliges us to that which is good and commendable. unless as it obliges every other Person not to hinder the doing of that. Grotius. Chap. a Permission. or leaves them at Liberty to act or not act as they shall judge proper. and declares no one shall be allowed to exceed them. B. In short. From all which it appears. XXXIV. who disturb us in the Enjoyment of this Right. if we have no other Way left of righting ourselves. II. Now this Obligation arises. that a Man invested with Authority may lay a Restraint on the Liberty of others. I add moreover. § 15. Hist. that the Author had no Reason for excluding Permission from the general Idea of the Law. Lib. and some others. Chap. to whom the Law gives a Liberty of acting as he pleases. Cap. 6. there is some correspondent Right. there being an Infinity of Actions of such a Nature. the Permission which a Law gives to any one. and employ either the common Means of Justice. I. as our Author owns. XXXVII. VI. II. B. I am of Opinion that Law should be defined as I have already defined it. and then they of course permit whatever they do not forbid. and we have not a Right to require a Thing. Var. which the Law permits any one to do. or Force. with the Note of the late Mr. which the Law of Nature allows only so far as a lawful Superior does not think proper to bound it. To which we may add what Elian says of the Lacedemonians and Romans. In one Word.

X. which he commonly calls Lawful Right. I. is not unworthy our Notice. So that his Division is not exactly the same with that of our ’ Author. and written on the Tables of Nature? De Corona Miˆ litis. Edit. 6. when speaking of ’◊ ´ Injustice. Lib. in his Guide to the Doubtful. Lib. The Law of Nature defined. Natural Right is the Rule and Dictate of 1 Right Reason. p. and engraved by an immortal Nature on an immortal Mind. secundum Disciplinam Hebraeorum. 119. § 24. 10. into Natural and Voluntary. to be liberal to those who want our Assistance. The Emperor Marcus Antoninus declares. Grotius. and Scotus. in a larger Acceptation. VI. p. Of this Right. whatever is conformable to this Right. is to follow the Reason and Laws of the most antient Commonˆ wealth. that this Distinction is not always observed. h taqei. written by this or that mortal Man. See Selden. Luke i. 871. Thus we say: It is just to acknowledge Favours. Cap. Grotius. speaks thus. Lib. 11. St. ◊Adikon men gar esti tv fusei. on Papers or inanimate Pillars. What Thomas Aquinas says. to take a prudent Care of our Health and Fortune. of the second Edition. Cap. as making part of what he calls Dikaion ´ ’ ´ ’ ´ politikon Civil Law. Paris. I. Cap. 68. who also adopts this Rabbinical Remark. Thus Maimonides. viii. thus taken. 37. for a Constitution absolutely depending on the Will of the Legislator. and Dikaion nomikon. XXVI. II. See a Fragment of Cicero’s Treatise De Republica. III. To en taqei. to have Compassion for the Poor.VII. In his Ethic. tho’ otherwise. and the Voluntary Right µyqj Statutes. That is. Lib. Will you enquire where the Law of GOD is? says Tertullian. & Gent. in his Treatise. VIII. 9. The Philosopher makes use of this Expression. The End to be proposed by all rational Creatures. 1. ´ ◊ ’ X. Right Reason is an unerring Law. quoted by Lactantius. in his Treatise. who when they speak distinctly. shewing the Moral Deformity or Moral Necessity there is in any Act. III. Edit. (1) Philo the Jew. &c. according to its 7. as he expressly acknowledges in his Commentary on St. p. where he makes a Distinction between Dikaion Fusikon. VI. De Jure Nat. 4. Chrysostom has several fine Thoughts on this Subject. 120. 98. may also. Lib. Lib. the former of which the Septuagint call dikaiwmata. X. We find the same Difference among the Hebrews. the best Division is that of 8 Aristotle. when you have a common Law exposed to every one’s View. be termed 7 Just. Le Clerc. V. Cap. But our Author here gives us to understand. Ethic. but incorruptible. Nicom. 8. where he undertakes to prove that every good Man is free. the Word Law being taken in 9 its stricter Sense: Sometimes also 10 an Instituted Right. See Mr. V. and in his Additions to Dr. . call the Natural Right twxm 11 Precepts. See my Preface to Pufendorf. Nicom. Lib. Cap. and the latter entolac. p. X. X. Hammond’s Notes on Rom. not corruptible or lifeless. 97. on Genesis xxvi. Secunda Secundae. 2. II. III. Paris. 5. X. § 16. ’ ’ ´ ◊ ÷ ´ ‹ ´ Vol. Dist.150 chapter i Virtues. Cap. in his twelfth and thirteenth Homilies On the Statues.

It must be acknowledged with the Patrons of the Opinion which I oppose. that is. and that the Author overlooked the Omission. and prescribing Rules for our Conduct. and distinguished from such as are not properly called so. 1. or by our own Reason. Num. Num. & Sociable in the Text of his Latin Edition. Some however. The Fitness or Unfitness. 2. be understood divided. aut illiciti per se. are in themselves either 3 Obligatory or Unlawful. independently of the Will of GOD. and a Deformity to others. I shall endeavour to put the Question in a clear Light in a few Words. and shew the Foundation of the Negative. abstractedly from the Will of an intelligent Being. is indeed a Reason for acting. The Relation of Fitness or Unfitness between our Ideas. that there is a certain Proportion or Disproportion. § 1. something more is necessary for obliging us to make our Actions conformable to it. that we are. that such an Act is either forbid or commanded by GOD. or not acting. can of itself only oblige us to acknowledge such a Relation. He thinks it probable. Now the Nature of Things cannot impose any Obligation properly so called. The Author here supposes we should be under an Obligation of doing or not doing certain Things. which is implied in the Idea of an Obligation. a certain Fitness or Unfitness between most Actions and their Objects. since we see at this Day not only the Generality of Philosophers and Scholastick Divines. properly speaking. that these Rules are really founded on the Nature of Things. because his Author expresses himself in the same Manner. The Question here is not whether we can discover the Ideas and Relations. from which all the Rules of the Law of Nature and Morality are deduced. Our Annotator adds the Words ac Sociali. and in the following Chapter. 3. consequently. that the Transcriber or Printer omitted those two Words. This Note may be joined to what I have said on the same Subject in my Preface to Pufendorf. 36. as he has done in several other Places. that the Rules of the Law of Nature and Morality do in themselves impose an indispensible Necessity of conforming to them. which I take against the Author. This Necessity can come only from a superior. 2 and consequently. reason so as to make it seem a mere Dispute about Words. § 12. it must be laid on us either by the Nature of the Things themselves. If there were any Obligation independently of the Will of a Superior. which give a Beauty to some. which may be termed the natural Morality of Actions. Actus debiti. But it does not follow from this Concession. 2. from some intelligent Being existing without us. even tho’ we were not answerable to any one for our Conduct. Second Edition. and must. that they are agreeable to the Order conceived necessary for the Beauty of the Universe. and what right is 151 Suitableness or Unsuitableness to a reasonable Nature. but also some Authors. who has a Power of restraining our Liberty. Nor can Reason of itself lay us under an indispensible Necessity of following those Ideas of Fitness or . otherwise very judicious. § 6.what war is. We are not to be surprized that his Notions on that Subject are not entirely just. 3. the Author of Nature. but then it is not such a Reason as imposes an indispensible Necessity. The Actions upon which such a Dictate is given. obliged to do or not to do such a Thing. and far from being Slaves to the Schools. strenuously maintain. p.

considered as independent on the Being who endowed us with it. Content. GOD can command nothing contrary to . which it places to our View. . that it cannot cease at the Pleasure of the Person subject to it. properly speaking. is at the Bottom nothing but Ourselves. It is true. The very Notion of Necessity implies. by observing the Rules which she prescribes. and reduced to Nothing. when a Debtor succeeds to the Estate and Rights of his Creditor. he may disengage himself from it. while no other Person is concerned in his acting conformably to it. and the Person who lays the Obligation be one and the same. or invested with a Right of requiring he should consult it as much as is in his Power? How much soever a Man acts in contradiction to his real Interest. In a Word. and imposes an indispensible Necessity on us of conforming to them. and as often as he pleases. whereas the Interest to which Reason would engage our Attention. as Seneca very well observes. and the Constitution of our Being. Cap. a Relation of Pleasure. No Man owes any thing to himself. properly so called. If our Understanding diverts us from such Actions. . Even tho’ we were convinced that. than in being guided by our Passions. as he judges proper. preferably to the latter. the Passions oppose these abstracted and speculative Ideas with sensible and affecting Ideas. For. But secondly. which attend them. If then the Person obliged. . as grounded on the Nature of Things. and Satisfaction. till this same Reason has discovered the Author of the Existence and Nature of Things. VIII. is that our Reason. all Things well considered. and this makes the Law of Nature differ not only from Human Right. and which alone is sufficient for proving the Thesis here advanced. they are by no Means obligatory. as soon as we resolve to perform them. he will. From all which I conclude. or rather there will be no real Obligation. V. by Vertue of his Right to restrain our Liberty. if there is no exterior Principle that obliges us so to do? On this Supposition. whose Will gives those Maxims the Force of a Law. De Benef. for that does not command or forbid such Things Unfitness. Lib. that how conformable soever the Maxims of Reason be to the Nature of Things. Why then should we comply with the former. they shew us in several Actions contrary to the Maxims of Reason. Reason evidently shews us that we shall act more conformably to our Interest. but from a Voluntary Divine Right. and prescribe what Bounds he pleases to the Faculties we received from him. on this Supposition. be only imprudent: He will be guilty of no Violation of any Duty or Obligation. what ought to be particularly observed. The Word Owe takes Place only between two. and perhaps therefore to be looked on as uncertain. because the Satisfaction which they offer is present and certain. first. is future and distant. Now no Man can impose on himself an indispensible Necessity of acting or not acting in such a particular Manner. when. as. But the Passions will dispute this Advantage. otherwise it would be ineffectual. are not the Inclinations of our Heart as natural as the Ideas of our Mind? Do they not arise from a certain Disposition in our Nature? You will say. is not every one at full Liberty to renounce his Interest. it would be advantageous to us to listen to the Dictates of Reason. the Inclination of our Heart carries us toward them with much more Force. and even pretend it lies on their Side. the Debt ceases.152 chapter i to be either com-<10>manded or forbid by God himself.

to which the Law of <11> Nature is not 4 repugnant. and the Maxims of the Law of Nature. but still the Obligation of regulating our Conduct by those Ideas proceeds only from his Will. as our Author observes elsewhere. that some Things are said to belong to it. I have treated this Matter more at large in my Reflections on The Judgment of an anonymous Author. not properly. because they would be already obliged to act in that Manner: The Will and Authority of GOD would. at the End of the fourth Edition of my Translation of the Abridgment of Pufendorf’s Book Of the Duties of a Man and a Citizen. which. not being immutable. are called Just. in the former Acceptation of the Term. would only make the Obligation stronger. that is.what war is. properly speaking. 3. at most. wills that they should follow them in their Conduct. B. But it is evident from what I have said. we could reasonably persuade ourselves that the Divinity is such as he is represented by the Epicureans. The Question is not. In short. practise the Rules of Virtue. and what right is 153 as are in themselves. II. and thus the Things which the Author means. a Being who does not interest himself in the Actions of Men. be no more than a Sort of Accessory. If. 4. or the late Mr. § 5. supposing an Impossibility. unless a lawful Superior makes some positive Law in that Point. or in their own Nature. as some Things. on this Supposition. He speaks here of such Things as are neither commanded nor forbidden by the Law of Nature. that the Will of GOD is the Source of all Duties appears from this Consideration. whatever Ideas we might entertain of Order. printed in 1718. not principally and precisely because they acknowledge such Rules conformable to the natural and invariable Ideas of Order. for Example is not in itself a solid Foundation of Obligation. in regard to which we are left to our Liberty to act as we judge proper. which Reason shews us in certain Actions. in Reality. and Justice. as it is in his Power. but because GOD. that when they who are in Possession of a Religion. Whether that Will be arbitrary or not? It is still that alone which. their Sovereign Master. and natural Justice. the other Obligatory. Leibnitz. Fitness. C. it renders the one Unlawful. Obligatory and Unlawful. that there is a Natural Law of bare Permission. and by commanding. has no Concern for their living well or ill. because they have no Injustice the Ideas of Fitness and Unfitness. as well as one which is obligatory. they ought so to do. 1. Fitness. But that we may the better understand this Law of Nature. I. it would otherwise be unnecessary for GOD to give any Orders on that Head. on the preceding Paragraph. we have now said. may very well be considered as belonging to Natural Law. as far as the Perfection of his Nature requires. requires nothing at their Hands. we must observe. which is agreeable to the Law of Nature only in the Manner here specified. . imposes the Necessity. but (as the Schoolmen love to speak) by way of Reduction or Accommodation. n. but by forbidding. And. the Consideration of such a Divinity would not be sufficient for imposing an indispensible Necessity of taking those Ideas for our Rule. even tho’ we believed he himself acted conformably to them. Note 5.

C. or comparatively good. XII. for the Air and Earth are common to all Men. Theft is a fraudulent taking of a Thing. Tit. The Words of the Emperor Julian on that Subject are. who discovers to another. § 6. mentions Concubinage. III. 6. See also Pufendorf. of the Existence of something Divine. B. Wherefore 7 Paulus the Civilian infers. 7. § 2. against his Will.) as so many Examples of Things belonging to this Class. II. C. X. § 3. C. Lib. Our Author. Digest. Leg. § 9. 10. and the like. p. and allows us not to make any Attempt on it. Fol. or even in our secret Thoughts. § 6 n. § 15. II. and being once admitted. 2. De Verborum significatione. where it may be omitted without any Violation of Natural Law: (B. 9. For the Deity abhors violence. there is a second Law. Digest. and sometimes by the wrong Use of the Word. XLII. for the Sake of making an Advantage either of the Thing itself. There is no Injustice in seeking ones own Advantage. C. Property for Instance. 3. either by Word or Action. what is properly his own. but no Rapine is allowed. III. n. 4. De Offic. § 1. Thus. the Action of a Person. Spanheim. what he is not by the Law of Contract obliged to discover: (B. n. Polygamy. Theft and Adultery are in their own Nature Evil and Infamous. I. Cap. but it is contrary to Equity to take away from another. See Pufendorf. B. &c. It is his Will that all Men should remain in quiet Possession of their own Goods. Lib. when they increase their Possessions. Orat. without Instruction. C. III. 909. We must further observe. &c. Riches unjustly acquired are to be renounced. 209. tho’ they are not enjoined us. De Furtis. that it is a wicked Thing to take away from any Man. B. B. II. will help to explain the Principle here laid down by our Author. C. II. Leg. 6. they are not to detain or take away what belongs to others. that 8 Theft is forbid by the Law of Nature: Ulpian.154 chapter i in them. I. Edit. n. and on B. was introduced by Man’s Will. sacred and divine by Nature. C. The Philosopher Chrysippus. as represented by Cicero. I. § 22. by which we are all convinced. Divorce. 2. 2. this Law of Nature informs us. XLVII. Second Marriages. XVI. as you may see in these Verses of Helena. and § 22. Besides that. III. (B. Helen. 5.) The Vow of Celibacy. I. Grotius. in another Part of this Work. or of the Use or Possession of it: All which is forbidden by the Law of Nature. III. said. II. L. are said to belong to this Natural Law. 24. which orders us entirely to abstain from another Man’s Property. IV. VII. n. that it is 9 Dishonest by Nature: And 10 Euripides calls it Hateful to GOD.) The Care of declaring War in certain Cases. Note 5. 5 those Things which our Reason declares to be honest. but also many 6 Things which are consequent to some Act of that Will. . V. that this Natural Law does not only respect such Things as depend not upon Human Will. III. What we shall say on those Places. where. as now in use. and shew wherein he has misapplied or extended it too far. 8.

implies a Contradiction. VI. is absolutely inseparable from them. the Actions of giving or receiving. which is such a manifest Contradiction as can never be the Object of the Divine Omnipotence. If therefore God should command a Thing in which we find a necessary Incongruity with the Nature of Things. Of this Sort are a malicious Joy at our Neighbour’s Misfortunes. Aversion. but manifestly imply a Contradiction. and what right is Misei gar o jeoc. implies no less Contradiction. the Law of Nature is so unalterable. founded on the very Nature of Things. Confidence. II. Ethic. and the same essential Relations. For Instance then. Theft. is another Ques- . differ only in Name.e. of Virtue and Vice. C. If it be said. Compare this with what Pufendorf says. ÷ ’ ÿ ’ 155 5. And this is Aristotle’s Meaning. 14. or as we depart from it. &c. As for the Rest. and when closely examined. as Man. whether the moral Evil. For either the Things would not be the same. tho’ called by the same Names. B. as long as the Things remain the same. XIV. prohibit a Thing in which we discover a necessary Congruity with the Nature of Things.what war is. He means no more than that some Passions and Actions are of such a Nature. But. enia eujuc onomastai. they would no longer be endowed with the same Properties. as a just Medium is observed. ⁄ ◊ ’ ◊ ´ 14 Some Things are no sooner mentioned than we discover Depravity in 11. Nicom. that God can change the Nature of Things. See Mr. II. Adultery. 12. Sorrow. that what is intrinsically Evil 13 should <12> not be Evil. the Proposition is unintelligible. The Application of this Passage is not entirely just. and yet want one of the greatest. The Definition of moral Good and Evil. always inherent in the former Sort of Actions and Passions. and on the contrary. that they can be innocent in no Case. he would act in Contradiction to himself. B. they would and would not be the same. § 5. Anger. when he says. and the Thing itself. that twice two should not be four. or Things remaining still the same. would be no longer a rational and sociable Creature. 13. for Example. for the Essence of a Thing. as God himself cannot effect. For tho’ the Power of God be infinite. III. Envy. and Evil Good. he would have all Perfections. that 11 God himself cannot change it. that there are some 12 Things to which this infinite Power does not extend. C. Le Clerc’s Ontology. yet we may say. and give into either Extreme: Such are Fear. Compassion. nor in what Manner soever they are admitted. whereas some other Passions and Actions are Good or Evil. Aristotle is not here speaking of the Mutability or Immutability of Moral Evil. Desire. i. C. &c. which we perceive between certain Ideas. to say the Good becomes Evil. Joy. even by the Will of God. because they cannot be expressed by Propositions that contain any Sense. of speaking or being silent. and Murder. Impudence. &c. so neither can he. being established on the necessary Congruity or Incongruity. because he is the Author of that Nature: Thus he would be wise and not wise at the same Time. and sometimes in the latter.

7. but it is also requisite. 1. B. § 2. which very Words always include a Crime. § 2. Gen. but because what I did owe ceases to be a Debt. C. it is not enough that ◊ ’ the Money was lent. before Property was introduced. 6. VII. 2. II. For as Arrian rightly argues in Epictetus. 3. C. ◊ ÷ ’ ´ ’ ’◊ ´ alla dei proseinai kai to epimenein epi tou daneiou kai mh dialelus◊ ’ ÷ ÷ ’ ’ ◊ ´ ◊ ’ ÷ ´ ’ ’ ´ 15 jai auto. Thus. 3. 25. but that cannot be Murder or Theft. ii. n. C. &c. not that the Law of Nature ceases to command me to pay what I owe. by way of Comparison. ◊Ouk arkei to daneisajai proc to ofeilein. num. tho’ indeed the Law of Nature. 16. 17. II. This Example is employed. § 9. So when God commands 16 any Man to be put to Death. C.156 chapter i them. I. ii. not absolutely. As for Example: If my Creditor forgive me my Debt. To make a just Debt. C. § 49. concerning which the Law of Nature has determined something. v. I am not then obliged to pay it. III. § 2. . 9. Mich. in relation to a very different Subject. Yet it sometimes happens. and B. 6. on which the Philosopher says nothing either directly or indirectly. which is done by the express Command of him who is the Sovereign Lord of our Lives and Estates. but according to a certain State of Affairs. xviii. but the Things concerning which the Law of Nature determines. 2. Rom. 15. B. 3. II. See Preliminary Discourse. Murder and Theft do not thereby become lawful. Jer. that in those Acts. which always remains the same. num. Ezek. which leaves us Room to suppose he had it in his Thoughts. 17 every Man had naturally a full Power to use what- tion. 25. and B. This is treated of in B. and which may undergo a Change. as we may find. I. or his Goods to be taken away. n. so neither do the Properties which necessarily follow that Being and Essence. iii. compared with a Nature guided by right Reason. some Sort of Change may deceive the Unthinking. For as the Being and Essence of Things after they exist. xviii. Therefore God suffers himself to be judged of according to this Rule. XI. is not changed. depend not upon any other. vi. There are also some Things allowed by the Law of Nature. II. 6. that the Obligation continue undischarged. VII. Non sufficit. Isa. Now such is the Evil of some Actions.

C. XV. I. on the contrary. which they call in a strict Sense the Law of Nature. B. V. 2. of inventing and exercising divers Arts. wild Beasts. XI. See also Cicero. IV. Juvenal makes the same Observation. Sat. Brutes have not a Power of forming abstracted or general Ideas. III. which they often style the Law of Nations. v. 11.” St. even in regard to inanimate Beings. § 8. Oper. De Officiis. The common Creator of the Universe has given to them Souls endowed only with Sense. 4. because Justice doth not take place amongst them: But to 4 Men he has prescribed the Law of Justice.what war is. that a mutual Affection might encline us to ask and give mutual Assistance. Edit. 3. B. § 1. . We ought not to transgress the Rules of Justice. C. 276. B. That Natural Instinct does not make another distinct Law. & Dier. of all Animals. § 2. have obtained a wonderful Capacity of apprehending divine Things. 142. Ep. but a Being that is capable of forming 2 general Maxims. C. See B. This Understanding we derive from Heaven. This Thought of St. of Epist. Ton de gar anjrwpoisi nomon. &c. <13> 3 Jupiter has ordained that Fishes. 18. 124. to suppose some Sort of Law common to Men and Brutes. it must be granted. On VII. II. C. and what right is 157 ever came in his Way. to the Romans. 3. of immutable Right into such as is 1 common to Men with Beasts. And it is also upon that Account that we only. is of very little or no use. and to form Notions. Locke has shewn in his Essay on the Human Understanding. C. Grotius. XX. and B. C. and Seneca. “It is that which distinguishes us from Brutes. XI. to unite together. I. &c. as Mr. Chrysostom says. II. at least. But that Distinction. &c. 1. as Hesiod has well observed. ´ ´ ◊ ´ ´ XI. XI. and. that they are not very extensive. (1) See Pufendorf. it will be hardly possible to deny them some universal Ideas. according to all Appearance. and such as are void of Sense. whose Bodies are formed to look towards the Earth. which is the most excellent Thing in the World. are raised only by the Impressions of some particular Object which is present. Chrysostom seems. Cleric. for nothing is properly susceptible of Right and Obligation. which the other Animals. and that which is peculiar to Men. that by allowing Brutes Knowledge. § 10. And before Civil Laws were made. but to us he has moreover given Reason. III. and Birds should devour each other. 2. are intirely deprived of. II. &c. which we find in the Books of the Roman Laws. every one was at Liberty 18 to right himself by Force. Or if it be imagined.

XVI. &c. having the Knowledge of Good and Evil. in the natural Desire of Generation. giving this Reason for it. For since human ÷ ’ ´ ÷ ◊ ´ ´ Kind does in this differ from other Animals. &c. 31. but by a Metaphor. Gen. VII. St. Ethic. III. when they saw any one offending his Parents or Benefactors. De Off.158 chapter i Cicero in his first Book of Offices 5 remarks. We by Nature observe Law and Justice. V. that they alone enjoy Reason and Understanding.) Lib. Sat. tho’ one Species of Animals differs widely from another. that we do not say Horses and Lions have any Justice. nomw men gar. Hom. that in Egypt. 22. and the Punishment of his Crime. Cap. IV. VII. Lib. and Greediness in Eating. And Lactantius. 6. 7. I. Cap. that We never say Beasts are temperate or intemperate. ’tis very unlikely that they should (as other Animals) pass by an Action so repugnant to their Nature. I. Cap. XIII. LXXIV. destitute of Wisdom. Nor does our Nature differ in any Thing more from that of Beasts. X. without reflecting on. Edit. tells us. for having killed the Man’s Son who entertained and fed him. Nicom. adds. which he terms divinatio quaedam Justitiae. . Grotius. In regard to what the Philosopher says of Offences committed against Parents. Our Author might have added a Passage from Aristotle. abstains from hurting others. Num. we have an Example of that Kind in Ham. C. XVII. Pliny. Grotius. 97. VI. it is improperly. VIII. Lib. remarks. 8. where that Philosopher observes. Cellar. in his fifth Book. Lib. to which we attribute Strength. in the Life of Cato the Elder. 7 Polybius having related in what Manner Men first engaged in Society. Cap. Lib. speaks of a Sort of Sense of Justice in Elephants. 2. &c. ix. The same Writer. Equity. they could not but resent it. The Scholiast on Horace. for they know not what it is to hurt with a View of hurting. an Asp was known to kill one of its own Young. 92. v. p. only towards ´ ’ ’ Men. on the Credit of another Author. And Plutarch. we immediately become Enemies to the Offenders. for. (Polyb. 6 We find that all Animals. for they have neither the Use of Reason nor Speech. They injure others to procure themselves some Advantage. If at any Time 8 Justice be attributed to brute Beasts. 30. Cap. follow the natural Biass of Self-Love. or Beneficence. that We are naturally inclined to join in our Indignation with those who have been injured. tho’ we have no Share in the Injury. in his Natural History. and testifying their Displeasure at it. that Our Sentiments of Indignation upon hearing of a Murther. and only on the Account of some Shadow or Resemblance of Rea- 5. says he. but never Justice. Tou gar genouc twn anjrwpwn tautv diaferontoc. B. are different from those that arise in our Soul when we are inform’d of a Robbery. De Statuis. tho’ to his own Detriment. But Man. and with a Sense of the Evil that is in it. as a Horse and a Lion. Chrysostom observes.

for the Poet means only that we ought to endeavour at securing a good Reputation in . Lib. Lib. by Reasons taken from something ` external. &c. III. properly so called. § 7. than what is called Common Sense. See Pufendorf. with a reasonable and sociable Nature. Nations. 9. And there cannot well be any other Cause assigned for this general Opinion. because only the most general Maxims of that Law have been received by most Nations. is generally proved either a priori. or at least. How the Law of Nature may be proved. Seneca says. The Lion seems to be angry. Brutes. 309. The Peripaticks said. II. Grotius. De non esu Animalium. The Proof by the former is by shewing the necessary Fitness or Unfitness of any Thing. But it is not material to the Nature of Right.what war is. as the Worship of God. (1) This Way of proving the Existence of the Law of Nature is of little Use. and what right is 159 son 9 in them. that Beasts are not susceptible of Vice. con-<14>clude that to be by the Law of Nature. and what I have said in my Preface to that Author. 2. on which the Law of Nature has decreed. B. III. whether the Act itself. as the bringing up of our Offspring. Lugd. 8. an universal Effect requires an universal Cause. I. were long considered as indifferent in the most civilized Countries. are void of human Passions. &c. 1 yet with very great Probability. 1620. but that we find in them something that resembles Vice. by Arguments drawn from the very Nature ` of the Thing. Porphyr. De Ira. penult. Cap. be common to us with other Animals. which is generally believed to be so by all. Edit. Some Practices even contrary to the most evident of them. when we cannot with absolute Certainty. or a posteriori. Fhmh d◊ outic. subject to Anger. For. & Dier. § 4. that wild Beasts are not. but have a Sort of blind Impetuosity in its stead. XII. Now that any Thing is or is not by the Law of Nature. but have certain Impulses resembling those Motions. very much commended. as appears from the horrible Custom of exposing Children. Chap. or peculiar to us only. The former Way of Reasoning is more subtle and abstracted. III. that is. Contra Celsum. That which is generally reported amongst many Nations is not intirely vain. p. Opp. vers. properly speaking. But the Proof by the latter is. There’s a Passage in Hesiod to this Purpose. the latter more popular. that is. says he. the most civilized. Origen also observes. But the Passage is not well applied in this Place. ´ ⁄ 2 XII. XII.

There is no Nation in which the same Customs are generally established: One City frequently differs from another in this Point. for this is the common Concern of all Mankind. Epist. undertaking to prove that no Duty is more evident than that of Gratitude. but Justice is equally proper for all Men. 133. 3. I. This is taken from Sextus Emtricus. Seneca. being extremely useful both to the Greeks and Barbarians. said Heraclitus. 5. § 134. and that great Master of Rhethoric had a little before declared. Cicero. 7 The the World. Lib. and that. To the same Purpose. ´ ´ ’Tis the strongest Proof. Paris. not only for forming a Stile. Ethic. Lib. II. 5 Common Reason ´ ’ ’ to be the surest Mark of Truth. X. XVI. adv. that Whatever is equally received by great Numbers of People. Cap. and prejudice the Person to whose Disadvantage they are spread. As our Laws have a strict Regard to that Virtue. that good Men were never the Majority. but there is nothing in it that insinuates that all Men entertain the same Ideas of that Virtue. . 6 kratiston pantac.160 chapter i Ta xoinh fainomena pista. the Rule of Life. Aristotle maintains. Sextus Empiric. except the two first. This is what we are to require from Laws: Nor are others to profess an Aversion to them. Lib. p. Haeret. but a real Tradition. VII. they will all unite in declaring that a proper Return is to be made to those who have deserved well of us. Adv. Josephus. Fabric. for it is well known. 130. determining logon ton qunon. they render us. Nicom. I know not whence this is taken. Cap. Judaic. X. VII. Adv. XXVIII. and the Consent of good Men. if religiously observed. that Custom. is not an Error. which universally appears ’ ÷ ´ ’ 4 to be so. Edit. Edit. The Passage of Josephus comes to no more than this: That the Practice of Justice is equally useful to all Men. will advance nothing much more worthy of Credit. Are not en´ ◊ ´ tirely without Effect. the Jewish Historian. Grotius. 4. but rather to consider whether our Laws have a Tendency to promote Probity and Virtue. Tusculan Quaest. that What all Men conceive in a certain Manner. &c. Antiq. p. 7. Lib. and is of itself sufficient for maintaining human Society. And Aristotle. LXXXI. De praescript. is really such as it appears. because false Reports always make some Impression. benevolent and friendly to all Men. if all the World agree to what we say. XIII. Whoever attempts to discredit such a Belief. Lib. but also for regulating our Lives. 6. None of these Quotations. I will therefore call the Consent of the Learned. Quintilian says. the Standard of Language. Lib. 399. ◊Ou pampan apollutai. § 131. Cap. Mathem. on the Account of the Difference between their Institutions and ours. Tertullian says. Mathem. Cap. gives the following Reason for it: How different soever the Opinions of Men may be on other Subjects. [[sic: Empiricus]]. are to our Author’s Purpose: That of Quintilian seems rather to insinuate the contrary of what he would prove. will give most pernicious Precepts. Cap. I. if it received its Name from the Practice of the Majority. 3 That is certain. for I do not find it in any of those Books where it might be supposed that Philosopher has said any Thing of this Nature. VI.

Edit. Lib. p. made him sociable. Epist. Some People are savage and brutish. for we all allow Honey to be sweet. whose Manners cannot. by contracting new Habits. Philo the Jew observes. Topic. it argues nothing to the Purpose. Justin Martyr makes this Exception. contrary to the Rules of Nature. Wech. Lib. 15. cum Tryphone. He instances in the Belief of a Divinity. And ÷ ¤ ´ 8. be reckoned a Reproach to human Nature in general. when it produced the tamest of all living Creatures. tina twn ´ ÷ 11 ejnwn. 1620. and by changing their Method of living. p. Edit. 13 ´ ’ No Man either was or is by Nature a wild and unsociable Creature. as peculiar to him. She also gave him the Use of Speech. 12. and the Obligation under which Children lie of loving and obeying their Parents. that It is surprizing any Man should be so blind. Heins. Num. Except such as being possessed with impure Spirits. 8 What all Men believe must be true. That Law 12 which is ◊ ´ called the Law of Nature. And Andronicus Rhodius. Likewise Quintilian. is unchangeable. par◊ anjrwpoic. Orator. I with some Reason said. and corrupted by a bad Education. In his Treatise proving all good Men to be free. . Cap. Grotius. Vol. Instit. 871. 399. St. p. but some have grown so by addicting themselves to Vice. as not to perceive certain Properties of Things. IV. Vol. Edit. Nicom. an⁄ 14 15 jrwpoc zwon hmeron fusei. p. &c. V. Paris. In his Homily on the Divinity of Jesus Christ. tho’ it may taste otherwise to a sick Person. Cap. for as 10 Porphyry well observes. V. says he. have lost their natural Ideas. To which agrees that of Plutarch. 633. So Seneca. evil Customs. Lugd.what war is. 2. 228. 11. Burman. which are as clear as the Sun. for promoting an Harmony and a Conformity of Manners. p. ◊ ÷ with Truth and Justice. Edit. &c. On the Decalogue. Chrysostom cautions us against forming a Judgment of Things from the Opinion of such as have a corrupt Mind. St. We allow 9 that to be certainly true which all Men agree in. CXVII. in the Opinion of all Men who are of a right and sound <15> Mind: But if it does not appear so to Men of weak and disturbed Judgments. By the most civilized Nations. X. Of Abstinence. and yet these. Nature. and what right is 161 Consent of all Nations is to be reputed the Law of Nature. Edit. Paris. Chrysostom says the same in his eleventh Homily On the Statues. have returned to their natural Gentleness. Philo the Jew is larger on this Point. 10. Aristotle gives this Description of Man. Lib. Colloq. and disposed to Concord. and unjust Laws. in the Life of Pompey. II. Edit. In the Life of Pompey. 428. Man is by Nature a mild Creature. 14. I. Ethic. 9. 13. I. Fusei men. X. &c. Cap. V. Lib. and Place of abode.

and is either Human or Divine. and not those that are corrupted. The Civil Power is that which governs the State. and the like. XIV. That Philosopher considered Civil Society. 2. Its Objects are Things in themselves indifferent. The Sovereign in this Case can only lay a Restraint on that Authority. 16 To judge of what is natural. we told you. is by no Means founded on the Will of the Civil Power. being by Nature endowed with the Gift of Speech. as far as the Publick Good requires. Of the Immortality of the World. and a more extensive Right than the Civil: This explained and proved. 945. XIII. according to their Nature. And in another Place. of a Master to his Servant. is the Right of Nations. and the Obligations incumbent on Men as Members of a State. The less extensive Right. 16. Chap. as more generally known. See also Lib. Voluntary Right divided into Human and Divine. Man is the most tractable of Animals. before there were Princes and Subjects. p. though subject to it. &c. all which depend on the Will of a Superior. that of a Master over his Servant. a less extensive. or a more extensive Right than the Civil. as Time. Masters and Servants. VI. III. as a perfect Society. The Definition of a State may be seen in Pufendorf. &c. including in it the Commands of a Father to his Child. V. VII. which p. VI. B. Grotius. Lib. Politic. XIII. we must ÷ ’ ÷ consider those Subjects that are rightly disposed. See Pufendorf. &c. by which the most savage Passions are charmed into Tameness. autarkh. § 13. Cap. is various. a less extensive. Cap. I. We will begin with the Human. The Authority of a Father over his Child. XIV. Cap. Polit. The State is a 1 compleat Body of free Persons. I. The other kind of Right. Human Right divided into a Civil Right. Edit. I. Lib. and for their common Benefit. as being derived from the Will. associated together to enjoy peaceably their Rights. and this is either a Civil. and consequently admit of different Regulations.162 chapter i elsewhere. is the 1 Voluntary Right. § 18. or such as are not founded on the Constitution of our Nature. which is therefore called Arbitrary. . Place. containing all ◊ ´ that is necessary for living commodiously and happily. I. The Civil Right is that which results from the Civil Power. and the Note on that Place. dei de skopein. IV. as shall be shewn in the proper Place. B. but has a different Origin. & Lib. II. But the more extensive Right. and which is not 2 derived from the Civil Power. Paris. VII. Chap. and other Circumstances require. XIII. (1) This is usually called Positive Law. For there were Parents and Children. which is the only Foundation of this Kind of Law. (1) The Author follows Aristotle in the Addition of this Epithet. Cap. XIV. 763.

on the Account of the different Ways taken by Communities for determining Disputes. See Pufendorf B. For this Law is. or at least of 4 many. and the Testimony of Men skilled in the Laws. besides that the Obligation to obey those Laws. common to all Nations. in Regard to one another. and Postliminy or the Right of Returning. Controv. I grant there are some Laws common to all Nations. Chap. as Dio Chrysostom well observes. See Vasquez. which cannot take Place here. and may be supposed to conform to such a Custom. distinct from the Law of Nature. with the Notes. As to Customs received by the Generality of Nations. II. This is evident from the Example of Reprisals.what war is. while we give no Proof of the contrary. properly so called: The whole Difference consists in the Application which may be made in another manner. and what right is 163 derives its Authority from 3 the Will of all. III. continual Use. Grotius. VII. Chap. LIV. 4. 5. IX. § 23. or certain Things which ought to be observed by all Nations. But. 6. Orat. 6 eurhma biou kai xronou. 4. III. it is not because they are obligatory in themselves. for a Man in the State of Nature. the Work of Time ¤ ´ ’ ´ and Custom. viz. are in Reality the same with those of the Law of Nature. B. without which the Customs in Question have no Force. when we come to treat of Prisoners of War. Nay. for any Injury received from one who lives out of all Civil Society. as we shall shew 5 hereafter. Now the Proofs on which the Law of Nations is founded. De Consuetudine. . that which is reputed the Right or Law of Nations in one Part of the World. does not arise from the Consent of Nations. and concerning which the Law of Nature has given no Directions. we are. Nations. And to this purpose eminent Historians are of excellent Use to us. is a mere Chimera. LXXVI. is not so in another. who are really not concerned in the Affair. which are founded on that general Maxim of the Law of Nature and Nations. and this may very well be termed the Law of Nations. because there is scarce any Right found. but because as soon as we know a Thing is generally practised. of any of his Relations or Friends. 3. the Principles and Rules of such a Law. except that of Nature. II. that Damages ought to be repaired. <16> are the same with those of the unwritten Civil Law. cannot demand Satisfaction. if we are obliged to submit to them. Illustr. which is also called the Right of Nations. Thus the whole Obligation arises from this tacit and private Agreement. I say of many. This Positive Law of Nations.

that is. XVIII. (1) We have the following Passage on this subject in one of our Author’s Epistles. which we find prescribed to Noah. which I have employed as a proper Term for characterizing and distinguishing nonnatural divine Law. Chap. I do not understand what positive Laws the Author means. And this Law was given either to all Mankind. num. Chap. and for establishing which the free Determination of the Divine Will intervenes. V. The Divine Law divided into that which is universal. and Chap. 24. which he. The Moment he is determined to create Man. as will appear still more evidently from what I shall say on the Places here referred to. and not because he could not act otherwise. II. 1. as we have said above. V. I have produced and explained the Passage of Plutarch. 5.164 chapter i XV. § 13 that the Consequence drawn from Levit. 4. § 19. I. 589. B. supposes were given to Adam and Noah. But all this is grounded only on a very uncertain Tradition. 429. 5. “Salmasius. II. which in some Sense. is not well founded. to which our Author here alludes. We shall shew in Note 1. Chap. as soon as they are known. Immediately after 3 the Creation of Man. 685. juxta disciplinam Hebraeorum. in his Collegium Pufendorfianum. with the Rabbies. which can never have the Force of a general Law.) he spends much of his Time in opposing the Epithet Voluntary. of this Book. and as necessarily disapproves of those which are contrary to it. &c. Lib. 2. Cap. & Gent. The Divine voluntary Law (as may be understood from the very Name) is that which is derived only from the 1 Will of GOD himself. Others. and which are still obligatory. as also Selden. II. Num. because he thought fit so to do. duly promulgated. 4. which is not invariably attached to the Nature of Man. in his Treatise De Usuris. 6. but it is just. (as Mr. De Jure Nat. But there are several other Things which he commands or prohibits. III. 2. See Num. I do not see what more proper Word could be found for expressing this Sort of Law. It is probable he understands by those Terms the several Sorts of Incest in the Collateral Line relating to the fourth of the six Commandments. Part II. ix. God was at full Liberty not to create Man. Thus (p. Gen. III.) with more Reason refer this to the Prohibition given to . frequently disputes about Words. and that which is peculiar to one Nation. as is also the Seventh. that is. he necessarily approves of such Actions as are suitable to that Nature. may be called Divine also. n. or to one People only: We find that GOD gave it to all Mankind at three different Times. and opposes voluntarius to necessarius. on B. though they are only distinguished by the Name of the latter. (but too generally) that 2 GOD does not will a Thing because it is just. X. XV. § 5. in my Remarks on Pufendorf. First. Exercit. § 4. because GOD wills it. whereby it is distinguished from the Natural Law.” Epist. Ep. as Plutarch relates in the Life of Alexander. Hochsteter. § 13. a Nature endowed with Reason. II. concerning Abstinence from Blood. 3. B. and formed for a Society of an excellent Kind. which God delivered at the beginning of the World. of the following Paragraph. And here may take Place that which Anaxarchus said. XV. it lays one under an indispensible Obligation. Professor at Tubingen. But he did not observe that Cicero calls a bad Action Facinus voluntarium.

Under the Gospel. iv. ibid. Secondly. the Penalty consists rather in the Necessity laid on Wives. Nothing can hence be concluded either for or against Polygamy or Divorce. and the Law could never take Place afterwards. those Authors. The Word Flesh. without some Direction. The fourth Chapter of Genesis gives us only one Example of Sacrifices offered by two Sons of Adam. in that more perfect re-establishment our first Parents in regard to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. that Right being grounded on the Law of Nature. both of Affinity and Consanguinity. 16. is. and only touches by the by on the Reason why GOD afterwards instituted the Feast of the Sabbath. in consequence of Sin. v. I say. that GOD had commanded them to render him that Kind of exterior Worship. Thirdly. and the Punishment of Murther. but it does not thence follow. that Men should so soon have thought of it. that when Moses. Le Clerc has observed. v. and pretend to find it in Gen. When GOD says to Eve. that GOD had then prescribed that Practice. according to the Hebrew Idiom. The Prohibition of eating the Flesh of Animals. had they remained in Paradise. as Mr. but there is not the least Insinuation. tho’ Moses says. yet as the Matter of the Prohibition was but of short Duration. xxix. with their Blood or Life. The same Author. ii. Le Clerc very well observes. ix. A Man shall leave his Father and his Mother. after Mr. after the History of the Creation. for diverting Men . In regard to the Sabbath. a Man may be said to be one Flesh with several Wives. the Use of Sacrifices. 14. of obeying ill Husbands. it is owned by the most judicious Divines. it is to no Purpose to make it an Example of an universal positive Law. Thomasius. Thus Laban says to Jacob. and shall cleave unto his Wife. Gen. 4. than in any Right conferred on Husbands to command them in certain Cases. place the Prohibition of Polygamy and Divorces among the universal positive Laws given to Adam. Thy Desire shall be to thy Husband. Thou art my Bone and my Flesh. was a Sort of symbolical Law. and what right is 165 <17> Secondly. First. 3. 2. and without some good Reason. Fourthly. so. 24. and not barely on Divine Positive Law. first. The Expression. and he shall rule over thee. 3. 17 iii. 16. that it ought not to be admitted rashly. I own you for one of my Relations. Shall be one Flesh. 3. and several others. and sanctified it. as we shall see in the proper Place. 6. who first reduced this Sort of Laws to a System. tho’ that positive Law would have been equally obligatory to their Posterity. as Mr. GOD blessed the Seventh Day. but afterwards ruined his own Edifice. As therefore all the Relations of a Man are his Flesh. the Authority of a Husband over his Wife. Gen. iii. But.what war is. and they shall be one Flesh. but it does not imply that a like Tie cannot at the same Time subsist between a Husband and two or more Wives. so considerable among the Jews. that is. And all that can be inferred from the same Text. It is not probable indeed. ii. as also the Observation of the Sabbath. Of this Sort are usually said to be the Prohibition of eating Blood. in regard to the Dissolution of Marriage. in the Form of an universal and perpetual Law for all Mankind. and to a certain Extent. says. But. in itself means no more than that there shall be the strictest Union between a Man and his Wife. 4. he speaks by Anticipation. But. And thirdly. Gen. in the same Way of Speaking. signifies all Ties. Upon the Restoration of Mankind 4 after the Flood.

See Mr. 5. &c. (1) Some Commentators. num. Professor of Law at Francfort on the Oder. He hath not dealt so with any Nation. properly so called. iv. XVI. either from Man or from GOD. and as for his Judgments they have not known them. These three Laws do certainly oblige all Mankind. who have Statutes and Judgments so righteous. See the following Chapter. by an Effect of the Divine Providence and Vengeance. in 1707. some Lawyers. Thomasius. Whoso sheddeth. as well Lawyers or Criticks as Divines. note 2. § 5. and in all Places. that any but the moral Part of this Law was to be obligatory at all Times. § 6 num. but that those Jews (among whom Tryphon also in his Disputes with Justin ) do egregiously err. De Jure aggratiandi Principis Evangelici in causis Homicidii. as the late Mr. See also the following Chapter. as soon as they are sufficiently made known to them. and such as pretend it not allowable. 3. his Statutes and Ordinances unto Israel. which I set before you this Day. by way of Confirmation. This is not a Law. in which he opposes this Error. where God says. which was that of the Jews. § 5. 2. we have not the least Insinuation. that the Question concerning the Salvation of the Pagans ought . Cocceius. For in the Image of GOD made he Man. if they would be saved. Of all the Nations of the Earth. to eat the Blood of any Animal.166 chapter i by 5 CHRIST. XVI. They need not have given themselves so much Trouble. had they but considered. at a Time when a Tenderness in that Particular was of the greatest Importance for the Multiplication of Mankind. (Dissert. This is evident from the preceding Words. And the Psalmist. printed at Hall. 20. who think that Strangers too. Le Clerc’s Comment on the Place. Deut. From this Passage misunderstood. XVI. inveigh strongly against this Assertion of our Author. even under the Gospel Dispensation. but a bare Declaration of the just Punishment which Murtherers are to fear. 7. by Man shall his Blood be shed. Neither is it to be doubted. 1 must submit to the Yoke of the Mosaick Law: For a Law from Cruelty towards one another. 19. have been sufficiently confuted. That the Law given to the Hebrews did not oblige Strangers. there was but one. To which he adds. When GOD says. to whom Moses thus speaks. Whoso sheddeth Man’s Blood.) infer that even at this Day no human Power can pardon a Murtherer. Secondly. De Sacrosancto Talionis Jure § 29. See a Dissertation of Mr. What Nation is there so great who hath GOD so nigh unto them. At the Hand of every Beast will I require it: (the Life of Man) At the Hand of every Man’s Brother will I require the Life of Man. to whom GOD peculiarly vouchsafed to give Laws. cxlvii. &c. as the LORD our GOD is in all Things that we call upon him for? And what Nation is there so great. as all this Law. but they only copy the common Places of Scholastick Divinity. and entitled. Besides. He shewed his Word unto Jacob. See the following Chapter.

which evidently shews the Laws of Moses. This Law was undoubtedly directed only to the Israelites. Whence he infers. and that they were chosen to be the peculiar People of GOD. Le Clerc’s Prolegomena to the Eccl. See Mr. not to be brought into this Dispute. § 10. Their being deprived of such a Means of Salvation. and render the Church universal. For whether the Heathens could or could not be saved without some Knowledge of JESUS CHRIST. and Judiciary Laws. relating to the Observation of the Sabbath. I. how moral soever they may live. Cap. to whom it is given. and that the Reason of the Fifth. that therefore there was a Necessity of another Prophet. Cap. so neither did he command them to be circumcised. if the Pagans lay under any Obligation to practise the moral Parts of the Decalogue. Hear O Israel. beside that the fourth Commandment. Eusebius. whom he impeaches of not distinguishing between the Moral.what war is. As to those Pagans who lived in the Neighbourhood of Judea. tho’ the short Preface which ushers them in is addressed to Israel. whom GOD had brought out of Egypt. who neither did or could know that there was such a People in the World. did not oblige the Pagans. as our Author observes. The learned Gronovius objects. as GOD did not forbid their being received when they offered themselves. as such. to whom GOD had given particular Laws. The Prophets. which Maimonides owns to be true. will be their Misfortune. and that while they remained in their own Country. as being nothing to the Purpose. Lib. So that Ziegler’s Criticism does not affect our Author. 2. And 2 to whom that Law is given. But. which GOD was not obliged to allow them. Thus supposing that the Efficacy of the Sacrifice of JESUS CHRIST cannot be extended to such as have not had the Assistance of Revelation. itself <18> declares. but for a Multitude of other Sins. Sect. &c. it cannot be reasonably said. but as so many Precepts which all Men may learn from natural Reason. it is still certain. either distinct or typical. not their Crime. they were under an Obligation of observing them. were not to encroach on the Functions of the Messiah. . xxxiii. and what right is 167 obliges only those. Ceremonial. and thus had it in their Power to embrace Judaism. Gronovius was sensible of this. call all Men. being therefore in an absolute Impossibility of having any Acquaintance with them. that thy Days. The Law of Moses was delivered only to the Jews. to qualify themselves for sharing the Advantages of the Mosaick Law. and an infinite Number of Pagans. VIII. it was not as they were a Set of Laws delivered from Heaven on Mount Sinai. and we read every where that the Covenant was made with them. who alone was to unite the Nations. I. Hist. evidently proves the same in regard to that. they will not be condemned for not submitting to Laws of which they neither had nor could have any Knowledge. that the Law of Moses. as such. 4. says. in his Evang. I. was only for the Jews. and proves it from Deut. and another Law. as appears from the whole Tenor of the Words in which it is drawn up. though through no Fault of their own. Demonst. laid no Obligation on the Pagans. that the Laws of the Decalogue are universally obligatory. and even gives a Reason for it. says he.

Luke with ever so little Attention. 175. 4. xxii. as it is read in the Talmud. Paul. that such pious Gentiles will partake of the Happiness of the World to come. on the Credit of Wagenseil. He instances in Melchizedeck. But it is well known. He (the Apostle) here speaks not of the idolatrous Greeks. on Misnajoth. who has ÷ ’ ´ ’ ’ ´ taken this from the Epithet given to Cornelius the Centurion. he observes. The Quotation of Tit. twmwa wdysj the Righteous amongst the Gentiles. Of what Sort of Jews. Matt. Job. The Author. 4. Title of the King. without being tied down to the Observation of the Jewish Rites. and Cornelius the Centurion. Such a Stranger is distinguished from a Proselyte. 1 Cor. at his Entrance on this Note. who except only that they do not observe the Jewish Ceremonies. Acts x. says. or circumcised Stranger. Acts x. Grotius. and elsewhere. ÿOi sebomenoi ÿEllhnec. in his Exposition of Romans ii. Lev. Circumcision. in Reality. Not.168 chapter i But among the Hebrews themselves there always lived some Strangers. He afterwards repeats it. Chrysostom. xii. as our Author. They were so called in relation to their Conversion to Christianity. if we read the Words of St. eusebeic kai sebomenoi ton jeon. 25. To which he adds. 14. This Sort of Strangers are likewise called simply. Acts xvii. as we are told by Boecler. has these Words. in his Treatise On Idolatry. ix. the Ninevites. in the He÷ ´ ´ brew. or. of Men. for he has not yet brought his Discourse down to the Times of Grace. xv. that by the Term Greek. not in regard to their former State. 45. St. who says. were likewise called Proselytes. ix. but a Man who worships one GOD. Greeks who feared or ´ adored (GOD) Acts xvii. And Cornelius. and of what Sort of Greeks does he here discourse? Of those who lived before the Appearance of Christ. one twn sebomenwn ÿEllhnwn of the devout Greeks. 2. in his Com. but of such of them as worshipped GOD. but yet makes the Study of Wisdom and Piety appear through his whole Conduct. Grotius. that the other Strangers. De Synedrio. XI. does not thereby mean an Idolater. that the Apostle using the Word Greek. Homily De Statuis. and such as feared GOD. 6. ◊ ÷ ’ ´ ’ ’ as the Syrophenician Woman. bçwtw rg 6 a Stranger. 22. Cap. 3 Pious Persons. 4. Grotius. To them that are without Law. such as Keeping of the Sabbath. The same Writer. settled among the Jews. as without Law. He pursues the same Ideas in explaining those Words of St. Of such Persons see also Exod. Cap. 21. seems to appropriate the Term Proselyte to those Pagans who had intirely embraced Judaism. 4 and he who is such a one is called in the Law gbr ˆb a Stranger 5 simply. ◊Eusebeic kai foboumenoi ton Jeon not sebomenoi. And in his XII. they were absolutely obliged to renounce Pagan Idolatry. For nothing is more groundless than the Assertion of Gronovius. because. and the several Sorts of Purifications. and a 3. Maimonides talks much of these pious uncircumcised Persons. but a pious and virtuous Man. tho’ they were not subject to the Observation of the Mosaick Ceremonies. the Apostle means not an Idolater. 2. X. It is impossible to give into this Thought. And Tit. and make a Profession of . of Men who follow the Dictates of natural Reason. p. as appears from Numb. De Rege is false. 5. practise all the Duties of Piety. not subject to the Ceremonies of the Law. § 6.

I. De Bello Jud. But. For. which was a requisite Qualification for bearing Arms in the Roman Troops. XXX. num. 10. were obliged to keep the Precepts given to Adam and Noah. xiv. that this proves only. which shall be mentioned hereafter in their proper Place. so that without a Compliance with that Prohibition. where it is expressly declared. Le Clerc on Esdras vi. 8. or such as were naturalized. Lib. It was also allowed to Strangers who came from Abroad. There are only <19> 8 some Laws. 7. § 7.what war is. which affords a great Number of Instances and Authorities to this Purpose. 21. tho’ a Jew by Birth. that Gronovius should entirely forget. thou art an holy People. of itself sufficient to defeat this Argument? And is it not surprising. because those Laws were not given for them. And therefore. and what right is 169 Sojourner. 810. Lips. Nor. or at least. The learned Gronovius pretends that GOD allowed . that they were given for the Strangers as well as for the Natives. To the Passages of Scripture produced by our Author. is not the Example of St. Edit. we may add the Testimony of Josephus. was a Roman Citizen. that GOD allowed these Strangers Liberty of Conscience. See also what our Author says in the following Chapter. xx. he plainly discharged them from the Obligation of submitting to the rest. These therefore were termed Proselytes of the Gate. That is. which gives us any Room to suspect he was not publickly a Proselyte of the Gate. II. Where the Chaldee Paraphrast calls him. they were not permitted even to live in the Country. 5. XVII. to abstain from Idols and Blood. could he have retained the Title of a Roman Citizen. See Mr. and 9 never worshipping the one true GOD. for enjoying an honourable Employment in them. unto the LORD thy GOD. by the late Baron Spanheim. but it does not thence follow. The learned Gronovius is mistaken. Exod. when he tells us that Cornelius forbore making an open Profession of Judaism. Cap. Exerc. says GOD. p. the Creator. 809. an Uncircumcised Inhabitant. who. 10. and from other Things. Acts x. says that Commentator. xxv. Cap. as the Hebrew Rabbins say. Deut. since GOD absolutely required they should observe certain Laws. for Fear of losing his Post in the Army. to distinguish them from the Proselytes of Justice. but these Strangers are dispensed with in that Point. but not the Laws peculiar to the Israelites. that they were exempt from all Obligation of submitting to the whole Law. Paul. 47. These. Lev. or take no Notice of so well known an Example? See Orbis Romanus. which was the great and fundamental Article of the Jewish Religion. established for you in particular. Such as the Prohibition of working on the Sabbath Day. So that it is surprising our Commentator should alledge those Words as a Proof of what he asserts. This is insinuated in the Reason given in the Passage under Consideration: For. You Israelites ought not to eat of what is forbidden by the Laws. yet it was allowed 7 to the Strangers that dwelt among them. tho’ it was not lawful for the Israelites to eat of any Beast that died of itself. when they make directly against him. as that against Idolatry. 9. beside that we find nothing in the whole Account given of him. Here the learned Gronovius replies.

. well applied. He likewise observes. which he had delivered to the Israelites by Divine Direction. 11. where he treats of Solomon’s Temple. to worship GOD in the Temple at Jerusalem. transmitted every Year to Jerusalem. VI. quoted by Justus Lipsius in one of his Notes. Every one of that detestable People sent their Tribute thither. 35.170 chapter i submitted to the Levitical Law. Nor do we find that 11 Elisha Strangers to pray and offer Sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem. . for proving that the Jews were enriched by the Offerings and Presents of the Pagans. 2 Macc. See Antiq. in a Note on that Place. Cap. Lib. in Contempt of the Religion of the respective Countries in which they lived. 20. appears from the Passages of Philo and Josephus. but yet 10 they were obliged to stand in a particular Place. &c. Tributa & Stipes illuc congerebant. Grotius. as he permitted that People to carry off the Spoils of the Egyptians. & Gent. on Matt. ult. Lib. Hilary. when offered with pious Dispositions. . joins to these the Example of Moses. that there was originally an Inclosure round the Court of Israel. thy Dwelling-Place. it may be inferred. XIV. There is no Mention of this Court in the Old Testament. xii. as doth thy People Israel. who did not exhort Jethro. III. 10. and thus the Jews grew rich. and Hiram King of Tyre to furnish Solomon with Materials for building the Temple. Lib. § 7. which Gronovius himself has inserted in his Edition of the Latin Historian. VI. as Solomon supposes they might be. so that GOD had a very different View on this Occasion from what our Commentator pretends: Nor is the Passage quoted from Tacitus. V. Cap. in several Parts of his History. III. From which it is evident. but cometh out of a far Country for thy Name’s sake. Lib. B. iii. XII. De Jure Nat. The Jewish Historian. as those relating to the . De Bello Jud. See Selden. See Josephus. V. Contra Apion. Cap. 41. Grotius. unde auctae Judaeorum res. II. Money raised by the Sale of their First-Fruits. 27. Hear thou in Heaven. Hebr. his Father-in Law. Pessimus quisque. and do according to all that the Stranger calleth to thee for. was called The Court of the Gentiles. Cap. Lib. to embrace the Ceremonies of the Law. that GOD accepted of the Homage of Strangers. secund. But this great Critick did not observe Solomon’s Words at the Dedication of the Temple. Jud. Cap. That this was their Practice. Acts viii. where Tacitus evidently speaks of the Money which the Jews themselves dispersed through several Parts of the World. to fear thee. 1 Kings viii. Our Author. The Place allotted for Strangers. Lib. We have a Reflection to the same Purpose in St. Histor. but from Ezekiel xliv. separate from that of the Israelites. John xii. that all People of the Earth may know thy Name. and to offer Sacrifices. speaks of a Prohibition against passing the Limits of it. from whom the Passage is taken. 7. V. 1 Kings viii. Moreover. where Strangers were allowed to enter. only with a view of rendering them in some Manner tributary to the Jews. in his Treatise of The Truth of the Christian Religion. spretis Religionibus patriis. concerning a Stranger that is not of thy People Israel. XV. and perform their Devotions. that some of the Mosaick Laws were impracticable to the Generality of other People.

and that the Jews themselves made a Distinction between their Circumcision and that used by the Ishmaelites of Arabia. 17 Origen. Steph. XIII. was circumcised in that Country. XCI. See his little Piece On Circumcision. where he observes. Lib. Cantab. III. nor the other Prophets to the Tyrians. the Introduction to the Law. Hebr. that the Law of Moses obliged only the Israelites. Cap. some of whom. 776. Lib. Cap. spoken of Lib. in order to qualify . 15. besides the Jews. p. and the People of Colchis had not the same Reason for Circumcision. but that of Circumcision obliged all the Posterity of Abraham. XXVIII. as quoted by Ammonius under the Word ◊Idoumaioi. 811. 17. to whom they wrote. XXXII. by whom he understands the Jews. First-Fruits. Ptolom. 771. and Lib. De Jure Nat. and my 19th Note on this Section. Edit. a People of Ethiopia. See Josephus.what war is. I. 263. and the People of Colchis. says that Pythagoras. Whence we read in the Jewish and Greek Histories. XVII. p. Lib. and solemn Feasts. 13. as also to the Phenicians and to the Syrians. XVII. 16 Justin. H. Cap. That Father. XVI. p. in his Account of the Troglodytes. where he speaks of the Idumeans. Moabites. 824. Jud. I would be understood to mean of Circumcision too. Paris. I. that the Egyptians. in his Stromata. the Founder of their Nation. and Ishmael. Selden. There is only this Difference. Lib. XV. Lib. 17 and 115. V. 810. Lib. Lib. 14. p. II. and Egyptians. that obliged the Jews to the Practice of that Ceremony. according to 13 Herodotus. which were to be observed in only one Place in Judea. De Vita Herodis. 15 Phi-<20>lo. were circumcised. 14 Strabo. Cap. 18. II. which was. nor Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar. acknowledge the Truth of this Account. travelling into Egypt. 12. What I have here said of the whole Law of Moses. are circumcised after the Manner of the Egyptians. Lib. Tenths. 18 Clemens Alexandrinus. Edit. 16. Antiq. Edit. Cap. p. He asserts that the Use of Circumcision was derived from the Egyptians to the other two Nations. nor Jonah to the Ninevites. In his Answer to Celsus. Oxon. secund. (as there were many. Cap. and p. That Father of Historians speaks of the Egyptians and Ethiopians. as far as it relates to them. & ´ Gent. Edit. that the 12 Idumeans (the Edomites ) were compelled by the Jews to be circumcised: Wherefore those People who. according to him. and what right is 171 signified to Naaman the Syrian. 354. that there was any Necessity for them to receive the Law of Moses. who. See his Geography. as it were. tho’ the People last mentioned were Descendants of Abraham. See also Diodorus of Sicily. In his Dialogue with Tryphon. CIV. II. he tells us. where it was impossible for all the Nations of the World to convene. I. had been circumcised by the Hands of that Patriarch. who inhabited Palestine. where he treats of the Cacophagi. Edit. Paris. Pag.

I imagine he would have changed his Opinion. instead of a Law. . Esau. Edit. But of all other Nations that of St. Since the Gentiles. Cap. that it was derived from the Hebrews to all other Nations. were circumcised as well as the Jews. and the Homerites. They are therefore the Objects of our Wonder. But. do by Nature (that is by 23 fol- himself for being initiated in the Mysteries of the Egyptians. 60.172 19 chapter i Epiphanius. and enabling him to learn the Philosophy of their Priests. Amsterd. 8. The Homerites were part of the Idumeans. were to blame. He both there and here supposes the Truth of the common Opinion. the same Wagenseil. II. are sufficient. but . IX. in his Time concerning the Origin of Circumcision. ii. and his Descendants. Vol. but that most of these People used that Ceremony out of Custom. written on Tables of Stone. who forced the Idumeans to be circumcised. Besides. He says. St. To which he adds. 20 St. Bas. yet the Law of Circumcision ceased to oblige their Posterity. § 30. and acknowledged. and our Author does not remember that he himself said so. to whom he prescribed that Ceremony in a different Manner. Those Ethiopians whom Herodotus ranks among the circumcised. p. Jud. Rom. who had no Knowledge of that Institution: So that the Action of Hyrcanus. If Men would govern a State well. and observed by the Patriarchs. they ought not to fill the Portico’s with Letters. in his Notes on The Truth of the Christian Religion. the Samaritans. that tho’ the first Persons who neglected Circumcision. Edit. Tertullian asserts. mentioned in Note 4 of this Paragraph. 23. observes. p. the Idumeans. Epiphanius calls them Homerites. and by no Means with a View of obeying the Divine Law which prescribed it. after Boecler. Chrysostom understands this of natural Inferences. because ÷ they stood not in need of a Law. 20. the Saracens. 287. that all Abraham’s Posterity were obliged by the Law of Circumcision. Haeres. viz. and thus occasioned its being abolished among the Nations descending from Abraham. 14. a Thought of Isocrates. In his third Question on Exodus. that the Egyptians. and 21 Theodoret ) were probably descended from Ismael. 19. . and the Use of Reason. without assigning any Reason for it. . or Ishmaelites. Le Clerc on Genesis xvii. there was an unwritten Law. could he have read what Sir John Marsham and Doctor Spencer have written on that Subject. that Before the Law of Moses. Conscience. 22. Paul holds true. 21. Adv. See Mr. who have not the Law. In his Commentary on Jerem. must necessarily be considered as violent and unjust. Cleric. Hence we may observe. that Maimonides says the direct contrary of what our Author advances in this Place. &c. which was understood naturally. and with a different View than those which induced the Egyptians to use it. and that the Jews forced the Idumeans to observe that Ceremony. and not authorized by him who is the sole Master of Men’s Consciences. Jerom. To these may be added. Toic thc jusewc ÷ ÷ ´ logismoic. that Circumcision was practised among the Egyptians before GOD made it a Sign of his Covenant with Abraham. Lib. viz. seem to have descended from the Posterity of Keturah: St. § 16. I. V. or 22 the Posterity of Keturah. 15. XXX.

in the History of Josephus. to that which the Jews had by means of the Law. Doth not Nature itself teach you. 14. their Consciences also bearing Witness. Tom. Much more then may it be said. did of themselves. by Force of Instruction and Practice: So that what the Grecian Orator says. Mr. did very well instruct Izates Adiabenus. speaking of a Custom established in his Time. He did by Nature the Things contained in the Law. which are looked on as what we know naturally. and what right is 173 lowing in their Manners. 15. Le Clerc’s Ars Critica. I. that is. 15. which they were taught almost from the Cradle) the Things contained in the Law. Edit. several Things are learnt without a Master. We find St. v. we find Tzates. (25 Ta- carve the Maxims of Justice on the Minds of the Citizens. 25. are but little known. 4. and which were the same with those prescribed by the Law of Moses to the Jews. in the 26th Verse. 24. 163. Paul. In the last Editions of this Historian. as shewing the Work of the Law written in their Hearts. so that when a Pagan acted according to those Precepts. xi. he could easily form such Ideas. rather supposes in itself that the Rules of Justice. the Rules which flow from the primitive Source. in Opposition to the Way of Instruction. Which shewed the Work of the Law (that is. p. tho’ grounded on natural Reason. and without Instruction. the moral Precepts of the Law) written in his Heart. with his Mother Helena. shall not his Uncircumcision be counted for Circumcision? And therefore. which was probably the true Name of that Adiabenian Prince. who was converted to Judaism. . that the Gentiles. or in his Mind. and without that Assistance. that if a Man hath long Hair it is a Shame unto him? But if a Woman hath long Hair it is a Glory unto her. This Passage is a little too far fetched. For even positive Laws. Areopag. 1 Cor. Ananias the Jew. and several other Things. and in those which have the best Reputation among the Learned. which gives us the Knowledge of certain Things. who were deprived of Revelation. See. and generally neglected. If the Uncircumcision keep the Righteousness of the Law. may be carved on the Mind or Soul. and so 24 oppose the Knowledge which the Gentiles acquired of themselves. concerning this last Expression. x. says. And again. 14. Edit. these having not the Law are a Law unto themselves. 148. not derived from natural Light common to all Men. know the Precepts of Morality.what war is. This is the Apostle’s true Meaning. the Words Nature and naturally are often used by the Greek and Latin Authors. H. unless you had rather refer the Word Nature to what goes before. and retain them in his Memory. &c. which the natural Light of Reason led them to discover. Rom. Steph. or from Nature. Grotius. This Exposition is justified by daily Observation. and their Thoughts the mean while accusing or <21> else excusing one another. p.

(as St. Tryphon the Jew. by the Destruction of their City. is considered as one of the same Country. making some Abatement in this Point. Gal. but as to the Rest. for it cannot be said to be abrogated in respect to them whom it never bound. Peter. that we (who are not Jews) are obliged to no Part of the Levitical Law. does not then consist in being 26. But the Obligation of it was abolished to the Israelites. and partly. after that People ceased to be a People. Acts x. owns to Justin Martyr. 48. See what I have said in my second Note on this Paragraph. 30.. Paul expounds it.) was partly that they might be naturalized. tho’ we were not circumcised.). that it was the Will of GOD. xv. for Proselytes (called by the Hebrews qdx yrg Proselytes of Righteousness ) 27 enjoyed the same Rights and Privileges with the Israelites. St. which was manifestly revealed to St. beside the Israelites. 3. arising from the Law of Nature. as a Law 30 properly so called. but it cannot be made appear. Thus Justin Martyr. Hence we may conclude. and therefore. that A Proselyte. xii. as soon as ever the Evangelical Law began to be published. particularly in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. should be bound by that Law. Grotius. and the utter Desolation of it. it is by no Means necessary to prove the abrogating of that Law. that 28 they might be Partakers of those Promises which were not common to Mankind. but that in latter Ages some entertained an erroneous Opinion. that there could be 29 no Salvation without the Pale of the Jewish Church.174 chapter i citus calls him Ezates ) that GOD might be rightly worshipped. he had some Hopes left of a better State. who receives Circumcision. See Exod. 27. Such Proselytes were therefore admitted to the Celebration of the Passover. v. (Numb. The Advantage which we who are Strangers have obtained by the Coming of CHRIST. 28. Paul frequently argues against this Opinion. Grotius. and 26 well pleased with us. is derived from the Will of the Law-giver. 29. observes. and is ranked among the ( Jewish) People. but peculiar to the Hebrews only. as to the ceremonial Part. without any Hopes of Restauration. because all Obligation beyond that. that If he persisted in that Manner of philosophizing. 15. as to us. 19. 47. . in his Dialogue with Tryphon. Now the Reason why so many Strangers were circumcised (among the Jews) and by that Circumcision obliged to keep the Law. that any other People. Tho’ I cannot deny.

when GOD gave written Laws to the Jewish Nation. as in other like Cases. ii. For the Knowledge of it may be necessary in many Points. nothing could be commanded by GOD. xxxv. XVII. which we are to treat of. Paul. As therefore there is no Civil Society. that he does not design to employ the Means in his Power for hindering Men from doing such Things. and consequently. the Law of the antient Hebrews serves to assure us. were of a temporal Nature. 21. and what right is 175 freed from the Law of Moses. that nothing is injoined there contrary to the Law of Nature. Levit. by an express Covenant. I speak of its Precepts. We can only infer from it. and by the Apostle St. 16. assured thereof. he acted rather as the temporal Master and Sovereign of that People. and how. For which Reason all the Punishments. Besides. Numb. . for since the Law of Nature (as I said before) is perpetual and unchangeable. in Quality of Civil Legislator of the Jews. 30. (1) That is. as well in regard to the Right of War. Since then the Mosaick Law cannot directly oblige us (as I have already shewed) let us see of what other Use it may be to us. Rom: vii. and good. and signifies the Removal only of Hindrances. For Silence alone is not an incontestable Proof. together with the Jews. XVII. The only Case in which Silence can be taken for a Mark of Approbation. 12. (for that which is of the 1 bare Fact. (the Children of the Patriarchs) are made one Church. than as the perfect Teacher of Mankind in general. that the Legislator designed to forbid whatever he judged to be evil. by the Law of Moses. 17. In reality. positively. Psalm xix. First then. in which Men might kill one another XVII. Now we have no Reason to believe that GOD designed to forbid. Now the Permission. which consists solely in the Silence of the Law. that the Legislator approves of what he does not forbid. we are now. he had not left several Things in themselves evil unpunished. should be attended with some Penalty. or some Law of Nature. and we. the Law of Moses is called pure and right. we had only very weak Hopes in the Goodness of GOD. 8. it was even necessary. GOD would have acted contrary to his own Wisdom. been silent on such Articles. is when it clearly appears.what war is. Eph. On the contrary. which as a Partition Wall divided us. 14. with which he threaten’d the Offenders. but. And that with good Reason: A Civil Society. for we must treat more distinctly of its Permissions. just. What Arguments Christians may fetch from the Judaical Law. being quite taken away. whereas before. every Thing that is any way evil. that he should not prohibit some such Things. for Example. especially when he had to do with so gross and stubborn a People. their Law. holy. if. Murder was punished with Death. whose Interest permits that every Thing contrary to some Virtue. who can never be unjust. Thus. positively granted by the Law. xxiv. contrary to this Law.

but such Motions of Anger as tended only to do some Injury. in particular. For he would act in Contradiction to himself. properly speaking. which gives us only an Impunity with Men. that what the Law allows. are the Consequences which may be drawn from the Divine Permission. 3 for the Terms with Impunity. which he permits either in express Terms. These then. The Permission granted by human Laws. were not prohibited. Grotius. and consequently. appear doubtful. but only supposes that he judges proper not to punish the Thing in Question. in my Opinion.176 chapter i on the Part of the <22> Law. because. v 21. however it may be given. it follows. never of itself implies any Approbation of the Legislator. which must always be considered. at least as innocent. But the same Thing cannot be said of GOD. that the Thing permitted is not evil in its own Nature. to make Men good. From the first of these Permissions. For Example. because if the Legislator had annexed a Punishment to a Thing so common among all People. and from which the Jews. so as that no Man shall molest and hinder us. Exod. for the Reason given in Note 1. on due Consideration. and a Right to do a Thing. all positive Permissions from him are certain Proofs of Approbation. 3. for that Character does not divest him of his Sanctity. on the Close of Rom. is not to the present Purpose) is either compleat. that the Design of Legislators. I should think that we ought to reason in a different Manner on Divine from what we use to do on Human Laws. and leave them unpunished in this World. and that the rather. or in regard to certain Nations. Permission is given to kill a Thief in the Night. or their Incompatibility with what is clearly commanded. In what Manner soever he acts. he always proposes making Men virtuous. would have much Difficulty to abstain. cannot be contrary to the Right of Nature. when the Reasons deduced from the Nature of Things. . as well as from a positive Precept. for the Regulation of each Man’s exterior Actions. on this Paragraph. in any Circumstances. 2 the Case is entirely different: But it seldom happens that there is Occasion to draw that Consequence with Certainty. 3. or by a necessary Consequence from some formal Law or Ordinance. considered as such. it will appear that the Evil of such Things may be easily discovered by Consequences drawn from their Conformity with what is expressly prohibited. and without Reserve. &c. But as to the latter. The Reason is. could not subsist. which gives us a Right to do something with an intire Liberty in all Respects. When GOD permits a Thing in certain Cases. is to make the best Provision in their Power. First. But GOD cannot positively permit the least Thing evil in its own Nature. the Regulation would have produced more Harm than Good. 2. and not. xxii. Chrysostom. See Matt. and with Reserve. 2. or in Favour of any Person. vii. it may be inferred. and to certain Persons. or less compleat. in order to secure the publick Safety and Tranquillity. He may indeed be silent in regard to certain Things which imply some Vice. if he authorized any Thing evil. even when he acts as a temporal Monarch. but he still may and ought to be thought to approve of every Thing. See St.

that neither Divorces nor Polygamy are essentially contrary to the Law of Nature. if he found him out of his Asylum. He shall not be guilty of Blood. without excepting the Proselytes of the Gate: Therefore lending on Interest is not evil or unlawful in its own Nature. or makes some other Regulation in regard to that Thing. either by itself or by its Consequences. whatever some Divines and Lawyers may pretend. This was one single Act. who might have been secure. that GOD considered this Action as innocent before the Tribunal of Conscience. Secondly. Piracy. a Permission always implies a real Approbation of the Thing in Question. When therefore we find him directing the Manner of Divorces. we are to enquire whether this is one single occasional Action. in order to discover what Kind the Permission is of. to have more than one Wife. as in Deut. Assassination. under any Sort of Conditions. after the first Motion of his Passion was over: Besides. before the Civil Judge. Deut. and repent of it. that all Sorts of War are not in their own Nature unjust. or a Thing. and sufficient to justify such Contracts. to a Man who had killed another through a Spirit of Revenge. without any Prejudice to the Divine Sanctity. tho’ he attempts only our Goods. 2. too rigid on that Point. But when it is one single Act. Numb. The Law of Moses. or contrary to the Law of Nature. lest they should induce him to violate the Law: This Prohibition implies a tacit Permission.what war is. to the nearest Relation or Heir of a Person killed without any Malice or premeditated Design. xxxv. which necessarily supposes it permitted. we may very reasonably conclude. reduced to a Habit. as in its own Nature lawful. and a continual Practice. The Consequence is demonstrative. and conformable to the Law of Nature. that when we resist an unjust Aggressor so far as to kill him. and regulating certain Cases which suppose the Permission of Polygamy. Duelling. But it does not follow. and what right is 177 which express the Per-<23>mission being equivocal. Thus it is impossible that GOD should permit the Practice of Robbery. it is better to have Recourse to the Principles of the Law of Nature. GOD forbid the Jews to lend Money to one another on Interest. the Permission may imply no more than Impunity. xvii. &c. even tho’ he had been declared innocent by the Judges. See our Author’s Application of this Principle in the following Chapter. this Revenger of Blood was allowed to kill such an involuntary Murtherer. In the last Case. 27. without which it would be superfluous: Polygamy therefore is not in its own Nature evil and unlawful. when reduced to lawful Bounds. When GOD regulates the Manner of a Thing. against the Opinion of some Doctors. which does not intail a Series of Sins. forbids Kings to multiply Wives to himself. . but only. 15. this Defence is not criminal in itself. 17. but he permitted that Practice in regard to Strangers. in order to shew. xxi. both for them and all other Men. that is. Of this Kind is the Permission granted by the Law of Moses to the Revenger of Blood. had he not left his Asylum against the express Orders of GOD. § 2. than to conclude from the Manner in but not in the Day: Whence we may safely conclude. and the Person might be sensible of its Injustice. that he thought proper to grant an Impunity in that Case. the Person thus killed was in fault. num.

founded on the Interest of the State. and without any other Reason than his own Will. Humanity. 6. 14. Tertul. if the Use of certain Meats are prohibited for good Reasons. which related to the Distinction of Meats. Charity. XCIV. Lib. when they are not suited to the Constitution of the State under his Government. established by our Saviour. As also St. The Sovereign has an undoubted Power to impose such Abstinence in that View. De Virginitate. has abolished all the Laws in general. See the same Father.178 chapter i which the Permission is conceived. Justice. and Modesty. for the Case will be widely different. The Ground of this Observation is. &c. Thus JESUS CHRIST having repealed the Husband’s unlimited Permission of putting away his Wife for any Cause whatever. not then published. excepting these three Reasons. Irenaeus. That Christian Princes may now make Laws of the same Import with those given by Moses. JESUS CHRIST. or that CHRIST himself has either in 4 general. We ought to shew greater Degrees of Virtue. The third Observation may be this. Patience. The Author of Synopsis Sacrae . ought now as much. remain intire. XXVI. Fidelity. should now be unlawful. in his Discourse. I suppose this done on a Principle of Religion. for Example. Christian Liberty has done no Prejudice to Innocence. such an Attempt is an open Violation of the Christian Liberty. why that which the Law of Moses formerly established. Chastity. Truth. Mercy. VI. whatsoever was enjoined by the Law of Moses. vii. vi. that the Thing permitted is conformable or not conformable to the Law of Nature. unless they be such Laws as wholly related either to the Time of the expected Messias. no other can be imagined. or in 5 particular commanded the contrary: For. on a Principle of Religion. And on Rom. tending to shew that Vice is occasioned by Negligence. Chrysost. permitting Divorces in that Manner. as Humility. that he will have no farther Commerce with her. Sanctity. Benevolence. only obliging the Husband to testify in a Writing delivered to his Wife. as he may be allowed to decline making the wisest political Regulations in the Mosaick Law his Model. which relates to those Virtues that CHRIST requires of his Disciples. If therefore any Civil or Ecclesiastical Power pretends to oblige Men to Abstinence from any Sort of Food. 6 to be observed by us Christians. and the Advantages resulting from the Coming of CHRIST are very great. 7. IV. because what Virtues are required of Christians. 5. the Law of Piety. Cap. if not more. are to be practised in a 7 more eminent Degree. viz. Cap. a Christian Prince cannot make a Law. Grotius. because we have now a plentiful Effusion of the HOLY SPIRIT. and the Gospel. De Jejuniis III. than under the State of the Hebrew 4. The next Observation is not unlike this. 5. De Pudicit.

and 8 that relating to Tythes. Irenaeus. on the Close of the last Chapter of 1 Cor. Athanasius. writing of Matt. and on Ephes. among the Works of St. IV. shew. and what right is 179 Law. in comparison with the Gospel. XXXIV. but the Law only our Schoolmaster. observes. because the Promises of Heaven are more clearly proposed to us in the Gospel. that our Lord enlarges the Extent of the Precepts of the Law. nor no less than the tenth Part of their Income for the Maintenance of those who are employed in Holy Affairs. And CHRIST is termed the End ⁄ of the Law. 7. Gal. 10. and that with good Reason too. in regard to Christians. Thus the old Law concerning the Sabbath. Heb. 24. ii. . x. Scripturae. Cap. Lib. is said to be neither perfect nor amemptoc faultless. vii. iii. 19. that Christians are obliged to set apart no less than the seventh Part of their Time for the Worship of GOD. 8. or Guide. to bring us unto CHRIST. Chrysostom. The same Use is made of this Law. by St. Rom. Grotius. Grotius. And St. 5. or for other Sacred and Pious Uses. Wherefore the old Law. viii. v.what war is.

let us proceed to the first and most general Question. 180 . Gel. Cap. and loves its Condition. and in other Places. some that go before.u chapter ii u Whether ’tis ever Lawful to make War. c. II. as well as those which follow. is that Instinct whereby every Animal seeks its own Preservation. and every Thing that seems to threaten it. says he. and whatever tends to maintain it. from the Writings of the Stoicks. who had not rather have all the Members of his Body perfect and well shaped. which is. De Finib. but ought to be the Rule of our Actions. that there are two Sorts of natural Principles. 1. VII. ’ ÷ ’ ´ The first Impressions of Nature. VII. Whether any War be Just. avoids its Destruction. or. but on the other Hand. that there’s no Man left to his Choice. III. 1 What he calls The first Impressions of Nature. proved by Reason. and are called by the Greeks Ta prwta kata fusin. and to avert those which are repugnant. which he approves of. (1) Cicero gives this as the Opinion of the Stoicks. and others that come after. is to be first examined by the Law of Nature.]] That to make War is not contrary to the Law of Nature. § 14. V. and confirms. Chap. Cap. preferably to the former. And that ’tis the first Duty of every one to preserve himself in his natural State. VI. See also Lib. Hence comes it. xii. Cicero learnedly proves. to seek after those Things which are agreeable to Nature. But this Question. and Pufendorf. V. Having viewed the Sources of Right. both in the third Book of His Bounds of Good and Evil. I.5 I. Whether ’tis ever Lawful to make War? <24> [[I. B. than maimed and deformed. Lib. III.

What is most valuable in Man? Reason. so what makes the real Good of Man is not to be found in Man. Grotius. allowable by the Law of Nature. num. Since these Things are undoubtedly true. rather than be wanting to the inviolable Rules of Decorum. according to the Doctrine of Zeno. quaedam Pro vita facienda putat ——— ˆ Sat. to take another Man’s Goods. That is most valuable in every Being. V. yet Right Reason should still be dearer to us 3 than that natural Instinct. according to the Nature of the Things upon which it turns. which is a Faculty more excellent than the Body. 106. Chap. but also by all Means to be sought after. 4. II. 5. &c. CXXI. there are some Things which we ought never to do. ——— Melius nos Zenonis praecepta monent: Nec enim omnia. to which we have no Right. sometimes consists (as I may say) in an indivisible Point. quoted by our Author in his Margin. B. even tho’ our Life was at stake. As every other Nature only then shews what is its real Good. Ep. to break a valid Promise or Agreement. CXXIV. § 5. Grotius. first consider 4 whether the Point in Question be conformable to the first Impressions of Nature. because. Juvenal says. consequently. v. XV. (according to the same Author) 2 the Knowledge of the Conformity of Things with Reason. and CXX. V. which. This last Principle. and which makes its Excellence. to which it is destined by Nature. for Example. till Reason is perfect in him. LXXVI. XII Cap. 3. Thus. that. Lib. we must then. ought (says he) to be preferred to those Things. to fail in Point of Gratitude to a Benefactor. whether it agrees with the other natural Principle. Seneca. After that follows. which mere natural Desire at first prompts us to. in which Decorum consists. . and afterwards. which we call Decorum. in examining the Law of Nature. tho’ the first Impressions of Nature recommend us to Right Reason. Epist. See also Epist. and easily allowed by Men of solid Judgment. is more excellent. and this Conformity. when it is arrived to Perfection. Senec. 1. we are obliged to expose ourselves to suffer some exterior Inconveniency or Damage. so that the least 5 Deviation from it is a Vice: And 2. See our Author’s Application of this Principle to the natural Motions of Revenge. Aulus Gellius. 3. When we are reduced to that Strait. tho’ posterior. it is never decent (honestum ) nor. says.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 181 2. without any farther Demonstration. XX. and ought not only to be embraced when it presents itself.

when we enquire into what belongs to the Law of Nature. the Robbery. independently of any positive Law against Polygamy. I. or the Murder. as the Commentators on this Work have imagined. 7. for Example. but in regard to the Quality of the Actions themselves. the Affront. to be content with one Wife. we would know whether such or such a Thing may be done without Injustice. VIII. In all which there may be different Degrees of Turpitude. one passes immediately from one Extreme to the other. and by unjust we mean that which has a necessary Repugnance to a reasonable and sociable Nature. who instance in the several Manners of discharging the Duties of Beneficence. whereas before they were only commendable. should be admitted Witness to a Will. which by prescribing Things relating thereto. Vol. according to the Variety of Circumstances. . as it appears from the Examples to which our Author himself applies his Principle. or is equally removed from both. III. but the Man who takes two. which the antient Lawyers had only advised.182 chapter ii sometimes it has 6 a large Extent. render them obligatory. viz. The Question in this Place turns on the Nature of Actions in general. De secundis Nuptiis. For. The last Sort of Decorum is most commonly the Subject of Laws both Divine and 7 Human. without being guilty of any Crime. Thus. and the Law of Nature to particular Cases. Tit. X. than the greatest. Lib. With Godfrey’s Comment on that Law. he may not follow it. to deprive the Innocent of Life. Institut. or may even act quite otherwise: Just as in contradictory Things. a Thing either is or is not. 285. Liberality. The Author does not here speak of the Application of the general Maxims of Decorum. Tit. he does something commendable. See the Theodosian Code. II. as we have said above. De Test. on having given the Force of a Law to a Thing of this Nature. and as the Ingratitude. &c. are more or less heinous. referring to B. But the Matter in Question is concerning the first Sort of Decorum. bears a Relation. which either partakes of both Extremes. and the Law of Nature. Friendship. properly so called. Leg. it is commendable and decent. according to our Author. and yet. p. there is no Medium: But be-<25>tween Things that are opposed after another Manner. the Failure. is not less contrary to the Rules of Decorum. II. Among the first Impressions of Nature there is nothing repugnant to to prejudice any one’s Honour. commits no Fault: That Action is not contrary to the first Sort of Decorum. &c. II. § 5. § 10. 6. The Emperor Justinian congratulates himself. I. to which the Law of Nature. ordinandis. so that if one follows it. there is a Medium. the least Fraud. Lib. That neither the Heir. where he treats of the Extent of Time allowed for a just Defence of one’s self. nor any one under his Jurisdiction. Chap. as between Black and White.

in case of Necessity. De Abst. This passage agrees with that quoted from Galen in the Text. he has made them separate from my Nature. Cap. for sometimes I quit my Dart. Nat. but also of their Enemies Power to hurt them: They know the Use of their own Weapons. 2. to shew that Man is a tame and sociable Creature. and which strong: That he takes Care of the former. III. p. and that I am not to employ those Arms at all Times. For all Animals have this Understanding. the Lion of his Claws and Teeth. since Nature has given to every Animal Strength to defend and help itself. The same Observation is made by Martial. and to make use of Force. and not be obliged to carry my Arms always with me. as the Panther of his Teeth. Cap. Lib. Porphyry says. All Sorts of Animals. XI. all Things rather favour it: For both the End of War (being the Preservation of Life or Limbs. and at others I handle it: That I might therefore be free from Incumbrance. § 5. 9. and the weak Side of their Adversaries. and how to defend themselves: They are sensible of the Force and Quality of their Weapons. as yet but weak. tho’ his Horns be not yet grown. 268. in his First Book Of the Functions of the Members. Grotius. And the same Author tells us. and the Bulls with Horns: Whence is it but from Instinct? But Lucretius more fully. tho’ yet tender. Animal. The Wolves assault with Teeth. nay. and 10 will push with its Head. Hom. XXV. Chrysostom. the Lion his Claws: But GOD has given me Arms distinct from my Body. and are sensible. the proper Opportunities for an Attack. Edit. and the Whelp bites with his Teeth. that Every Animal knows which Part of him is weak. 58. and makes use of the latter. Lugd. says Xenophon. carry their Arms on their Bodies. in a Fragment of Ovid’s 9 Halieuticon: Or. 10. We see every living Creature employ his strongest Part in his own Defence: The Calf pushes with his Head. II. which they learnt no where but from Nature. Art of Fishery. thus the Ox has his Horns. Vitulusque inermi fronte prurit ad pugnam. Lib. III. Epigr. De Cyri Institut. Oxon. 8 understand some Way of Fighting. VIII. when provoked. Hist. So. De Statuis. and either the securing or getting Things useful to Life) is very agreeable to those first Motions of Nature. Irrational Animals. Edit. Which Galen thus expresses. says St. and the Ox of his Horns. All Animals naturally know their Enemy.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 183 War. Lib. even before they are grown. That Man is 8. III. Every Animal knows its own Power: A Calf is sensible of its Horns. This is very well explained by a Passage in Pliny. the Colt kicks with his Hoofs. the Horse of his Hoofs. And in Horace. v. is in no wise disagreeable thereunto. 1620. . the wild Boar his Tusks. not only of their own Advantages.

that he cannot. p. (without manifest Injustice) invaded. Lib. either by Law or Custom. II. 15. had been the Right of the first Possessor: And if any one had attempted to hinder him from so doing. Chap. and Arms. and the Nature of Society. so that we see the very Infants defend themselves with their Hands. but only that which is repugnant to Society. with the Help. For our Lives. Cap. Paris. Grotius. had still been properly our own. Edit. to have made use of Things that were then in common. that he is not indeed born with Arms. But so that he is designed by Nature rather for Peace than War. B. <26> and by the united Force of the whole Community. and other such Weapons. Man has a Hand. or Flight. B. X. like other Animals. which I shall express in the Words of 15 Tully. It may be easily conceived. . this is more easily understood. Anim. So also. Edit. and could not have been. If every Member of the Body was capable of Reflection. As the Body of Man is formed in such a Manner. if it could attract to itself the Nourishment of the next Member. by Horns. does not prohibit all Manner of Violence. 296. VI. he had been guilty of a real Injury. See Pufendorf. Paris. even tho’ what we call Property had never been introduced. the whole Body would of Necessity languish and decay: So if every Man were to seize on the Goods of another. Teeth. Cassiodore. De Offic. IV. provide for his own Defence and Security. III. and to have consumed them. So 13 Aristotle says. as far as Nature required. Cap. that every one should quietly enjoy his own. But Right Reason. See Pufendorf. that the Necessity of having Recourse to violent Means for Self-Defence. 1034. that he might defend himself with his Hands. ˆ 13. 14.184 chapter ii an Animal by Nature fitted for Peace and 11 War. and did really think that it should enjoy a larger Share of Health. a Sword. which invades another’s Right: For the Design of Society is. De Partib. Chap. But since Property has been regulated. VIII. might have taken Place. Nature has given him a strong Breast. instead of a Spear. which is to be examined in the second and chief Place. but with Hands 12 proper to make and to use Arms. and by presenting his Body as a Shield. without being taught. and Liberties. De Anima. and should thereupon do it. as being capable of grasping and holding every Thing else. V. and enrich himself by the Spoils 11. § 1. Lib. p. 14 that is. § 2. 12. Limbs. V.

Cap. XI. is not unjust. with the Assistance of his hired Servants and Confederates. had vanquished the four Kings which had plundered Sodom. human Society and Commerce would necessarily be dissolved. and the former being peculiar to Man. Nature allows every Man to provide the Necessaries of Life. for every one to provide for. The Laws permit us to take Arms against those who are armed to attack us. Ep. Lib. What can be opposed to Force. 19 Armaque in armatos sumere jura sinunt. Proved by History. Blessed be the most high GOD. xiv. So in Ovid. Lib. De vi & de vi armata. For when Abraham. Epist. as is testified of him even by Strangers. by his Priest Melchisedech. Tit. 16. but moved thereunto by the Law of Nature. 17. which the same 16 Cicero has thus expressed. may be further proved from sacred History. XII. Gen. II. XVI. but Force? And in Ulpian. so it be not to the Prejudice of another’s Right. Lab. Lib. I. which does not invade the Right of another. v. It is not then against the Nature of Human Society. 18. and take Care of himself. but when the first cannot be employed. 1. and the other to Beasts. GOD was pleased. II. What I have said already. De Arte amandi. rather for himself than for another. the other by Force. XLIII. to approve of his Action. 18 To repel Force by Force is naturally lawful. De Offic. that every War is not repugnant to the Law of Nature. Yet had Abraham.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 185 of his Neighbour. Digest. III. but also very wise. Leg. for thus said Melchisedech to him. (as appears from the History) taken up Arms without any special Warrant from GOD. the one by Argument. Since there are but two Ways of Disputing. ˆ 19. who hath delivered thine Enemies into thine Hand. we must not have recourse unto the last. 20. . ad Famil. being a Man not only very holy. by the Spoils and Plunders of another. § 27. 492. and therefore the Use of Force. but it does not suffer any one to add to his own Estate. III. And 17 again.

&c.186 chapter ii as 1 Berosus and 2 Orpheus. for their notorious Abominations. Lib. in a literal Sense. he thereby supposes that they may be easily discovered by the Light of Nature. Oxon. whom GOD delivered up to be destroyed by the Israelites. I. Cap. xvii. I. It is more to our Purpose to remark. Lib. V. Hebr. xvii. And it is very remarkable. XIX. and which he himself has quoted in a Note on his Treatise Of the Truths of the Christian Religion. and not the Will of <27> Man. thereby plainly shewing. that War might sometimes be just. and Selden. to a Text which at first Sight might seem proper to be alledged in this Place. 2. XIII. as being undertaken by the Command of GOD. VI. Wherefore those Wars in Holy Writ are called. Lib. VIII. . Edit. But it is more natural to understand by these Words. Schickard. in 1 Sam. (1) See Josephus Antiq. as Mr. p. And Euseb. 31. for the War (Battle. 3. Cap. Deut. V. He was thinking of the Rabbinical Distinction between commanded and voluntary Wars. who assumed the Name of Orpheus Clement of Alexandria. having by Force of Arms repelled the Amalekites. 2 Sam. x. because they had a special Commission from GOD to execute this Judgment upon them. tho’ he had given no Orders upon that Head before the Action. II. xx.) is the LORD’s. Lib. And in his Comment on Matt. Praep. Judges xi. Exod. p. De Rep. Such was the Cause of the War made by Jephtha against the Ammonites. in defence of their Borders. And further. § 16. Lib. De Jure Regio. Nor does our Author produce any other Passage to the same Purpose. 66. for affronting his Ambassadors. at the Close of this Paragraph. E. De Jure Nat. XII. that the Israelites. and afterwards by David against the same People. 10. Or rather an antient Poet. that the Success of the War depends on GOD. Cap. Lib. & Gent. Evang. All this Assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with Sword and Spear. Potter. and he will give you into our Hands. 1717. Cap. v. B. for there he makes a manifest Difference between the Cause of those seven Nations. have preserved this Fragment. Stromat. where David says to Goliath. under the Conduct of Moses and Joshua. And since he does not declare the just Reasons of making War. The War is the LORD’s. even without a special Command from GOD. to which our Author here alludes. Edit. who attacked them. II. Our Author found the Expression in this Sense. 15. Le Clerc explains them. 723. I shall not instance in the seven Nations. 47. GOD himself prescribed to his People certain general and established Rules of making War. he even gives a different Exposition. where he quotes the Passage of that profane Historian. Battles of the 3 LORD. and that of other People. GOD approved the Conduct of his People. Chap. On which see Cuneus. Jud. XII.

Tit. for natural Reason. Edit. I shall be innocent. (1) Orat. or our Lives. where treating of the Right of recurring to Force. (as we may gather from the Context) under the Notion of Faith. 1 Sam. Quintilian lays it down as a Rule for an Orator. VIII. p. in defence of one’s Life. put to flight whole Armies of the Aliens. that what they did was pleasing to GOD: And upon this Account David is said. every Man being charged with the Care of his own Person. II. Every Body knows that fine Passage of Cicero. xxv. Ad Leg. but taken and drawn from Nature itself. VI. I. received. III. that Had he defended himself fairly and openly. Cap. XI. 1 This (says he) is not a written. Aquil. p. and Nature herself the wild Beasts. Sampson. To speak in his Client’s defence. v. pro Milone. or at least the wisest Nations. 604. by a Woman distinguished for her Wisdom. 3 Natural Reason allows us III. that if our Lives be brought into Danger by Force or Fraud. Cap. 33. VI. Ibid. before he attempts to retort the Crime on the Accuser. Lib. may be also confirmed. Leg. 34. Heb. The Quotation from Seneca is not directly to the Purpose. Lib. &c. IX. all Force (or Violence) offered to our Bodies. but for which we are made. 282. is included their assured Confidence. Custom the Nations. that is. To fight the LORD’s Battles. Barack. IV. And again. The most secure Means of Defence is always at hand. Samuel. and lays Wait for me. Lib. 3. that Gideon. Edit. he renders this Testimony to Nature. 281. Orat. justly observes. but a Law born with us. waxed valiant in Fight. Inst. p. Necessity the Barbarians. Tit. xi. either by Robbers or Enemies. Ep. This. our Members. in which Place. are 2 fair and honest. by Faith subdued Kingdoms. to make just and lawful Wars. IV. II. . 341. but with which we are imbued. by the Consent of all. Cap. (against Iphitus ) Jupiter would have pardoned his killing him. III. Proved by Consent. Caius the Lawyer says. Cap. Obrecht. by any Means whatsoever. Steph. Digest. in which we have not been instructed. Sophocles therefore. Jephtha. because our own Safety is naturally preferable to the Destruction of our Adversary. which we have not learned. or read. who is a Highwayman. Therefore if I kill your Servant. 2. Gronov. Seneca says.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 187 what the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews records. all Means that we can use for our Preservation. Var. speaking of Hercules. Grotius. 403. a Law to which we have not been formed. Reason has taught the Intelligent. See also the Laws of the Wisigoths. 28. Edit. CXXI. at all Times to repel. Trachin. and others. What we have here proved from Holy Writ.

of Chap. but in the first he has no Action against him. quoted in a Note on § 7. that even in Beasts. is incapable of doing Wrong. 7. the Owner has an Action of Damage against the Master of the other Beast. quotes this Passage of Pliny. VII. III. as fierce as they are.188 chapter ii to defend ourselves against Danger. to be desirous of Life. Jud. which are not supposed to understand what a Benefit is. Lib. Lib. Lib. and that we therefore look on them as our Enemies. I. This Principle is founded on Reasons of Equity. but have only some slight Resemblance of it. De Bell. or two Bulls fight. or have any Notion of its Value. that 4 It is but just. 5. so evident. Lib. a Book published some Years before this. but if Violence be offered them. and compare it with that of Philo the Jew. The first Clause only occurs in Pliny. explaining Law III. but. fixed in all living Creatures. should be held lawfully done. that Beasts. and taking occasion to treat of the natural Right of Self-Defence. of the Title in the Digest. & Jure. Hist. 5 Josephus observes. 42. Digest. When two Rams. we distinguish between the Attack and the Defence. none so patient of Injury. in his Membranae. III. that An Animal 8 without Knowledge. Grotius. Lib. 852. are gained by constant good Usage. Tit. & Jure. When Ulpian 7 had said. I. See the whole Passage. De Just. nor do Serpents bite Serpents. Tit. I. 9 Lions. p. Mu-<28>tius ) whether that which is killed was the Aggressor. 6. Marcus Lycklama. do not fight with Lions. but I do not find the following Words in that Author: They probably belong to some antient Author. Edit. or not. Which may be explained by that of Pliny. I. and subjoins what here follows in the Text of Grotius. of the Preliminary Discourse. Leg. (according to Q. that is. IX. XXV. 8. Seneca reasoning in the same Manner on another Occasion. That it is a Law of Nature. I. De Just. he immediately adds. as far as I can judge by the Stile. § 3. Lib. without the Use of Reason. III. VII. there are none so tame but will exert their Anger. for I believe I have discovered whence it was taken. Digest. . Nat. Leg. upon receiving Hurt. 11. and one kills the other. Lips. See § 11. 4. I. that whatever any one does in defence of his Body. And Florentinus the Lawyer. 9. without specifying the Place. will make an active and vigorous Defence. says. it must be considered. De Benef. Eclog. which (as I said 6 before) are not susceptible of Right. in the last Case. Cap. This Mixture was occasioned by our Author’s taking the Quotation at second hand. who would openly deprive us of it. Cap.

The same is to be said of Law V. by the Rules of that Law.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 189 IV. VII. B. Chap. That War is not contrary to the Law of Nations. . which yet does not therefore cease to be just. See what I have said on Pufendorf. from which it appears. II. Vita Them. Fabrot. De Justitia & Jure. (that is. 4. History. they only mean. Cap. which may also be called the Law of Nations. And Florentinus 5 declares it to be allowed by the Law of Nations to repel Violence and Wrong. Edit. that War is not disallowed of by the Voluntary Law of Nations: Nay. between a solemn War. common to all living Creatures. an Action allowable by the common Law of Nations. in the Manner used by the antient Lawyers in explaining that Distinction. V. § 3. § 27. have. For tho’ the Law of Nations does not authorize Wars not solemn. See our Author. num 4. De Just. Edit. By the Law of Nature then. Vol. Lib. which I think ought to be interpreted somewhat different from what it generally is. as the first. which is also called Just. 1 Hermogenianus declares. IV. Grotius. for when the Lawyers refer War to the Law of Nations. and to defend our Lives. which is the Principle and Rule of the Law of Nations. viz. Chap. 2. agreeable to Right. and § 23. Lib. Tit. 3. That the Law of Nations has established a certain Manner of making War. that is. quoted by our Author. Digest. Cap. 29. in his Life of Themistocles. (1) Digest. Lib. 23. p. Cornelius Nepos. &c. that Florentin. Note 3. 5. certain peculiar Effects: Whence arises that Distinction which we shall hereafter make use of. (says Livy) 4 it is allowed to repel Force by Force. Note 1. Cellar. that the Athenians had. I. by his Advice. yet it does not condemn them. whether the Question concerns the Law of Nature or the Law of Nations. it is plain. XLI. Note 11. Leg. (provided the Cause be just) as shall hereafter be more 3 fully explained. Tit. Leg. prompts Man to defend himself in the best Manner he can. and the Laws and Customs of all People. XLII. B. IV. I. VII. See Cujas on the Laws in Question. that Wars were 2 introduced by the Law of Nations. spoke of what our Author terms the Law of Nature. III. says. III. that every Kind of War is not to be condemned. regular and compleat) and a War not solemn. forbids them to make War. so that those Wars which are conformable to it. I. that General freely owned to the Lacedemonians. I. Reason. in order to defend them more effectually against the Enemy. that whereas the natural Instinct. secured their Temples and Houses with Walls. of the same Title. and directs them to keep within certain Bounds. III. VI. without a just Cause. By the Law of Nations. fully inform us. in this Law. & Jure. even in their own Defence.

and not an Approbation. 2. I. as it were. See my 4th Note on § 15. where GOD thus speaks. as by Murder we understand not every Act whereby the Life of a Man is taken away. to be a bare Threatening. There is a greater Difficulty concerning the Voluntary Divine Law: But let none here object. 5. as shall be thought proper. that a V. ought to be understood in that Sense which implies a Crime. . for in the Image of GOD made he Man. but the premeditated killing of an innocent Person. extinguished by wicked Customs. reaches no further than that in the Law. for it is true. 6. 2 as the Right that Men have to put Murderers to Death. It is not unjust by the Law of Nature. prohibited by the Law given to Noah. and the other. obscured. brought by some. and the Law given to Noah. proved. Surely the Blood of your Lives will I require. of shedding Blood for Blood. of the same Chapter. both the <29> Law of Moses. and at the Hand of Man. nor Wars undertaken by publick Authority. than to establish any Thing new: So that the Shedding of Blood. at the Hand of every Man’s Brother will I require the Life of Man. being properly 1 without the Bounds of the Law of Nature. is that Law given to Noah and his Posterity. at the Hand of every Beast will I require it. § 9. may be either prohibited or commanded. That the Voluntary Divine Law before Christ was not against it. but not as to those that are barely permitted by the Law of Nature. seems to me not so much to denote the bare Fact. V. (1) See Chap. Note 5. Thou shalt not kill. GOD himself cannot decree any Thing against it. tend rather to explain and renew the Law of Nature. Therefore. The first Objection then against War. which neither disproves Capital Punishments inflicted on Criminals. and the Objections answered. by Man shall his Blood be shed.190 chapter ii V. and. or what shall happen. that the Law of Nature being unchangeable. Whosoever sheds Man’s Blood. Gen. as to those Things which the Law of Nature either positively forbids or commands. that Blood shall be shed in its turn. for they. And here some take the Phrase of requiring Blood in a general Sense. ix. And that which follows. neither of which Explications can I agree to. I thus explain the Case. For the forbidding to shed Blood.

it was not so necessary to punish it. on 1 B. *In Lib. &c. says of himself. Apollodorus gives the Law of Rhadamanthus in this Manner. II. Steph. 4 It often happens that one suffers. 1. §. 4. 14. that it was practised by the old Greeks. v. observes that All the Punishments inflicted by the Antients were . IV. II. Kalwc ejento. p. Cain. Whosoever finds me shall kill me. Cap. thought fit to prohibit what was naturally permitted. 6. § 9. Antiq. Gen.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 191 Man should suffer himself as much Evil. V. 511. should not appear in the Sight of any one in the Country: Banishment was the Punishment inflicted on him for the Murder. Var. as he has caused (to others). III. Quoted by Aristotle. V. Cap. Pelopon. Oxon. in the same Manner that one had designed to make another suffer. Gale. See Pufendorf. Th. 140. But GOD in those early Days. Vol. as also Everhard Feith. Chap. iv. had wisely ordered. B. 864. either upon the Account of the Scarcity of Men. Praefat. II. 350. * It 3. &c. Lib. Note 2. but that their Lives should be spared. Orestes. To suffer what one has done. De Legib. 1672. The Author here alludes to the Defilement or Uncleanness. v. and ordered that all Intercourse with. according to that which is called The 3 Law of Rhadamanthus. with the late Mr. Hist. Perizonius’s 4th Note. Nicom. or because there being yet but few Examples of Murder. Lib. VIII. Edit. 5. but it was not permitted to take away his Life. as he had taken away the Life of another. Let him who takes his Revenge on an unjust Aggressor escape with Impunity. But these confused and obscure Ideas were not in Being in Cain’s Time. Lib. Grotius. Controvers. p. in these Verses. Cap. guilty of Parricide. VI. Servius. Ethic. 16. De Bell. Homeric. in antient Times. Lib. Contactum ac commercium. by a most just Retaliation. and 7 Euripides informs us. As 6 Plato also appointed in his Laws. Lib. V. And Seneca the Father expresses it thus. Edit. Biblioth. To which we may refer that of Thucydides. is Just and Right. 136. even innocently or lawfully. ÷ ⁄ Our Fathers. And Elian. Edit. Gronov. Cap. Lib. &c. of Virgil’s Aeneid. IX. 7. H. which the Antients thought was contracted by touching a Man who had killed another. Ed. From a Sense of this natural Equity. V. that whoever embrued his Hands in the Blood of another. § 45. and even the 5 Touching of Murderers should be avoided. VIII.

. It does not fully appear that Lamech promised himself Impunity. Grotius. On consulting Mr. iv. and thus reduced him to a Necessity of quitting the Country. for even supposing that Prohibition extended to all other Cases of the like Nature. Or rather. by Virtue of GOD’s Prohibition in relation to Cain. 23. it was founded on a manifest Reason. truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold. The same Inference is drawn from those of Scelus expendere. 24. on the Supposition of his committing it hereafter: For the Words of Moses will admit of that Sense. or even banish them in Form. * As yet it was reputed a Sin to put even the greatest Offenders to Death. v. Le Clerc’s Comment on the Place. when he said. 23. Nat. which occurs II. I think it much more probable. that is. &c. Cap.192 chapter ii is probable. and a Boast of his Strength. Div. 24. B. Pliny tells us. LVI. and Pendere poenas. Lib. Their Conjecture of the Divine Will. by which he imagined himself able to take a Revenge for the least Injuries done to him. but when in Time these Punishments came to be despised. but promised himself Impunity. for as yet. Hack. iv. Lib. Lib. Hist. used in that Place. and is immediately preceded by these Words. and a young Man to my hurt. Cap. GOD was pleased pecuniary. so that they are of no Use towards establishing the Consequence our Author would draw from them. v. VII. Gen. when Money was delivered by Weight. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold. on the Multiplication of Mankind. they were changed into Death. in the Times of the Giants. that this Speech of Lamech is a mere Rodomontado. that nothing can be inferred from them in favour of the Opinion he opposes. 229. he had not then been guilty of such a Crime. alluding to the Practice of those early Times. from this Example promised himself Impunity. on the Cessation of which. 478. 20. Murders were very frequent and common. *This Passage is taken from his Instit. that The first capital Sentence was passed in the Areopagus. I shall slay. VI. X. And Lactantius. more extensive than the Punishment with which those who should kill Cain were threaten’d. (I have slain) a Man to my wounding. concerning GOD’s Prohibition in relation to Cain. p. 8. that in former Days heinous Crimes were slightly punished. that the same Licentiousness might not become customary. Num. grounded on that remarkable Instance (of Cain ) passed into a Law. Gen. II. Edit. <30> But as before the Flood. which he concludes from the Phrase Lucre commissa. this will appear the most natural Explication of the Words. Cellar. They (the antient Romans ) used to forbid their Exiles the Use of Fire and Water. Edit. they only laid a strict Prohibition against furnishing the Criminal with any of the Conveniencies or Necessaries of Life. so that Lamech having 8 committed the like Fact. the Prohibition vanished of itself. For it was not their Custom to put a Citizen to Death. It is sufficient for his Purpose. after the Restoration of Mankind.

24. Besides. was transferred solely to the Judges. Antiq. . II. So Moses commanded the People of Israel to fight against the Amalekites that came to attack them. yet so. Lib. p. Num. conjugal Fidelity. 10. he expressly permitted what Nature dictated not to be unjust. for very strong Reasons. IV. They concluded from the Light of natural Reason. even after the Law of Moses. Virgin-Chastity. and that those who kill be punished. that the Punishment appointed for Murderers might. Grotius. Leips. in the Right granted to him that was next of Kin to the Person killed. as thinking it enough to include them afterwards in the peculiar Laws of the Hebrews. Josephus expresses it thus. xxxviii. See B. took up Arms against the four Kings. xviii. Chap. and declared every Person 9 innocent that killed a Murderer. and that not only among the Gentiles. Thus it is plain from Levit. as Reputation. Having then abolished the Indulgence of former Ages. Cap. Ex. I command that Men abstain from Murder. that some Track of that antient Custom was to be seen. 9. Edit. When Civil Tribunals were erected. Hither we may refer that antient Tradition among the Hebrews. for it does not appear that he particularly consulted GOD in this Case. without any other Reason than the Law of Nature. be inflicted on other most heinous Offenders. as Reverence to our Sovereigns. vi. § 8. 9. that it was consonant to the Divine Will. that GOD gave more Laws to the Sons of Noah. Jud. Gen. xvii. who not being ignorant of the Law given to Noah. I. for there are some Things which we prize equally with our Lives. without Injustice. but even among the Patriarchs themselves. and preserve themselves undefiled with Blood. which were not all recorded by Moses. which he believed not repugnant to that Law. against which those who offend are to be accounted as bad as Murderers. that Permission. he put Men in Possession of their natural Right. of which 10 I shall treat more largely hereafter. We have the great Abraham to justify this Interpretation. 10. 9. XX. and those Things without which our Lives cannot be safe.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 193 to restrain it by more rigorous and effectual Means. capital Punishments were not only inflicted on Murderers. but also on other Sorts of Criminals. that there Gen. 8.

and Rapines should be punished with Death. the other Nations would have done very well to take them for a Model? It is even probable. xx. at Paris. 15. Among those Commands of GOD to the Sons of Noah. that not only Murders. they say 12 this was one. carry so visible a Character of the Divine Will. with respect to criminal Matters. 25. which the Words of Job seem to confirm. and yet that the Prophets should never have intimated to those Nations and Powers. See B. II. and to defend themselves by War. as they frequently admonished them of other Sorts of Sins which they were guilty of. 24. in the Jurisprudentia Ante-Justinianea. and from thence of the Roman 15 in the Twelve Tables. Lib. V. that GOD condemned every Kind of War. De Jure Nat. Ps. & Gent. that the Law given to Noah is not to be taken in that Sense which they imagine. § 13. An antient Lawyer has drawn a Comparison between the Laws of Moses and the Roman Law. 11. all other Nations and Powers should be denied the same Privilege. is it not most evident. that the Land cannot be cleansed but by the Blood of the Slayer. 27. a learned Professor of Law at Leiden. See our Author’s Treatise. p. 11. Prov.194 chapter ii Job xxxi. it would be absurd to think. Disciplinam. that the Greeks at least. Numb. This is enough to prove. Schulting. tho’ not mentioned by Moses in its proper Place. by Mr. 31. Collatio Mosaicarum & Romanarum Legum. and even the Law of Moses gives Reasons for these capital Punishments. I find nothing in or near these two Texts. ci. Edit. 8. 1717. secund. Besides. with Mr. I. 14. that whilst the Jews were allowed to secure their publick and private Safety by capital Punishments. with the Hebrew Laws. did so: Whence proceeds so great an Agreement of the old Attick Law. 33. Incests. xxxv. but also Adulteries. than with the Hebrews themselves. 28. On the Truth of the Christian Religion. relating to the Subject in Hand. and all Use of the Sword of Justice. Hebr. of which we have lately been presented with a beautiful Edition. who would thence conclude all Wars to be unlawful. under this Title. was an 11 antient Law against incestuous Marriages. and particularly 14 the Athenians. Lev. Chap. 13. Peter Pithou published that Work for the first Time. xviii. that since the Laws of Moses. <31> Nay on the contrary. § 15. 5. in 1572. 28. Le Clerc’s Note. See Selden. and particularly it is said of Murder. 12. 13 which Reasons suit no less with other Nations. .

3 To live only according to the Law of Nature. because he gives it more at large on B. who are of that Opinion. Grotius. that we suffer Death for the Gospel. who supposing another Principle very considerable. rightly understood. The Arguments brought out of the New Testament against War are more plausible. 16. in the Sense that most Divines take it. which others do. Jerom. VI. than the couragious Resolution of such as sacrifice their Lives for the Interest of its holy Doctrines. II. I cannot think true. § 9. in the Precepts he gives in the fifth and following Chapters of St. and the Sacraments) but what is injoyned by the Law of Nature. that certain Things which are forbid by the Gospel. but I see no Reason to allow. 1 as Concubinage. Certain Cautions concerning the Question. ad Zenam. The Law of Nature. because nothing is more advantageous to Society. V. 1 John iii. than a sincere and judicious Profession of the Christian Religion. which I at present omit. The Christian Religion therefore. And those. Thus we find the wise Pagans thought it their Duty to die for their Country. . 3. Neither shall I follow them. that we should lay down our Lives one for another. but who will pretend to say. 3. 2. whether War be contrary to the Law of the Gospel. Justin Martyr says. Epist. I shall not suppose that. 4. are likewise condemned by the Law of Nature.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 195 VI. that the Laws of CHRIST do not oblige us to any Thing but what the Law of Nature already required of itself. This Instance is not altogether just. pretend that CHRIST. for that. Indeed these are such that Reason itself informs us it is more Decent to refrain from them. (1) The Author. only furnishes us with much more powerful Motives for the Practice of this Duty. which is not agreeable to natural Decorum. Num. that there is nothing in the Gospel (except Points of Faith. is to live like an Infidel. as (without the Divine Law) would be criminal. This I freely grant. Matthew. Divorce. The Christian Religion commands. if it were true. when a considerable Advantage may result from such an Action to the Publick. by proposing the certain Hope of a Life to come. 1. that we are obliged to this by 2 the Law of Nature. in a Note on this Place. It is the Will of JESUS CHRIST. but this is no more than an Extension or Application of the Law of Nature. but yet not such. only interprets VI. and consequently. requires us in certain Cases to sacrifice our Lives for others. Chap. We meet with a like Thought in Origen’s Philocalia. 2. in examining which. quotes a Passage from St. are strangely embarrassed to prove. which will make us ample Amends for the Loss of the present. Polygamy. that there is nothing commanded us in the Gospel.

Heb. or the same Sense. vii. 30. 21. either in those very Words. For those Words so often repeated. that is. as Thou shalt not kill. xix. Ex. Rom. Now those of old are certainly the Contemporaries of Moses. on Deut.196 chapter ii Ex. but shall perform unto the Lord thine Oaths. as also the Syriack. 21. 2. an Israelite ) and hate thine Enemy. Ex. not only from the Books of the New Testament. that is. . and so maintained the Order of Civil Society amongst the antient Hebrews. (4 that is. 16. xxv. Ex. Thou shalt not forswear thyself. 12. 11. the Law allowed the Jews to hate those People. Heb. xix.plainly declare. 14. iii. Ex. 19. 4. (the Carnal ) despised the other. for what is there mentioned to be said to them of old. Deut. as it restrained the most heinous Crimes by the Fear of visible Punishments. Lev. 19. Deut. The Doctors of the Law and Pharisees contenting themselves with that first Part of it. Psal. <32> 4. vii. which may be omitted without the Fear of temporal Punishment. An Eye for an Eye. with whom the Hebrews are commanded to have an implacable War). Whosoever killeth shall be in Danger of Judgment. 1. Lev. xx. ii. xx. xxiv. (which the Latins call the xviiith). 14. as Vobis is to. Deut. (You have heard it has been said to them of old: But I say unto you ) which Opposition. Numb. (the Spiritual ) which yet is the more excellent. xx. xvii. was not spoken by the Doctors of the Law. but also from Josephus and the Rabbies. Or it may be considered as to what it has peculiar to Divine Laws. in which Sense it is termed A spiritual Law rejoicing the Soul. 21. and some Acts. either as to what it has in common with Laws merely human. and not by you. 17. Rom. 20. Whosoever shall put away his Wife. you may demand it in Justice). vii. Lev. let him give her a Writing of Divorcement. xxx. and The Law of Works. Deut. that the Word Veteribus must be render’d to. Grotius. The famous Rabbi Abarbanel. the Law of Moses. xxxv. imply something else. the seven Nations with whom they were forbid to make any League. But to understand the Words of CHRIST. 27. (that is. xxiv. 1. which appears plainly. xix. 7. 8. in which Sense it is called The Law of a carnal Commandment. 18. and not by them of old. xxiii. that the Law delivered by Moses may be considered two Ways. and the other Translations. Numb. as it also requires the Purity of the Mind. 2. Thou shalt not commit Adultery. says. we must carefully observe. 13. and neglected to teach it the People. and a Tooth for a Tooth. but by Moses himself. xxiv. Thou shalt love thy Neighbour (that is. To these are to be added the Amalekites. or shew them any Mercy. 16. xxxiv.

Cap. to take an Eye for an Eye. the Way is become much narrower. VII. the Law permitted a Man to have two Wives at the same Time. the first and chief Testimony. in all 5. VI. yet it was not 5 in so high a Degree. have a greater Share in the Blessing. he affirms. that the Gospel contains a greater Number of Precepts. ii. on the contrary. and those carried to a higher Degree of Perfection. But even as to what relates to this second (spiritual ) Part. And in his Discourse on the Coequality of the Son to the Father. who were falsely accused of despising Kings and Magistrates. but also to many other Subjects. Nay more. and in both these Respects CHRIST opposes his Precepts to those of the Antients: Whence it is plain. great Indulgence was granted in those and other Particulars. Vol. Prayers and Supplications. omitting those Arguments of less Weight. 1. The whole Epistle is well worth reading. De Virgin. Therefore. in short. and hate an Enemy: Nor was there any Prohibition against living luxuriously. XLIV. or putting away a Wife and taking another. LXXIII. Tho’ all enjoy the Benefit of this Tranquillity. . Arguments for the negative Opinion out of Holy Writ. 1. The same Degree of Virtue was not required from them (the Jews ) that is expected from us. 1 Epist. VII.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 197 5. in which we have likewise this Observation. In the same Work he says. Paul to Timothy. and be solicitous for amassing Riches. says he. that his Words imply more than a bare Interpretation. and such as are in Authority. to swear. than those who enjoy Ease and Tranquillity under their Protection. 3. asserts that. wherein the Authority of the antient Law might be misemployed. those who make a good Use of it. that tho’ the Virtues which are required of Christians. be made for all Men. Grotius. LXXXIII. and return Reproach for Reproach. ought to be understood according to our Author’s Distinction between the Spirit and the Letter of the Law. These Remarks not only serve to the Matter in Hand. Formerly. Chrysostom has a beautiful Passage on this Subject. so great a Degree of Virtue was not enjoined. See to this Purpose what has been said in the Close of the preceding Chapter. Several of the Examples alleged by that Father. Epist. because none have greater Obligations to them. nor with so great an Extension. (1) Seneca. 2. Cap. whereby we may prove that the Right of making War is not absolutely taken away by the Law of the Gospel. Edit. that above all Things. being angry. we must know. But since the Coming of CHRIST. 1 that we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life. making an Apology for the true Philosophers. is that of St. It was then allowable to take Revenge for Injuries received. no Men are more faithfully obedient to Persons in publick Authority. VII. provided it was done with a good Conscience. for Kings. St. Savill. were recommended and injoined to the Hebrews. Intercessions and giving Thanks. I exhort you.

L. of this Paragraph. the Church prays. 3. No Man can transfer to another the Power of the Sword which is given him. LXX. xiii. Apol. for Example. Why may he not innocently take Arms against Strangers? Why should he be more tender of the Lives . as that Expression is 3 also taken. not only for the Reason given at the End of Num. And Thirdly. for Christian Magistrates. Noodt’s Treatise. p. 4. Cap. But how? He explains This in another Place: He is the Minister of GOD to thee for Good. The second 2. that Christian Kings should contribute their utmost to the Quiet of others. Secondly. who would have all Men to be saved. which he ought not to have omitted. 4. I. Hence we are taught three Things. is incompatible with Christian Clemency. but yet so. which are sometimes prejudicial only in regard to some temporal Interest. I. and ought to punish certain Crimes with Death. that the true 4 and effective Use of the Sword. That being converted to Christianity they still continue Kings. be found to have wise and reasonable Sentiments. Juris. Oxon. is figuratively comprehended every Sort of Punish-<33>ment. sometimes among the Lawyers. which Justin Martyr thus expressed. Digest. an Avenger to execute Wrath upon them that do Evil. for this is good and acceptable in the Sight of GOD our Saviour. when guilty of certain Crimes. yet they are to his Purpose. be afraid. 10. Leg. Because there can be no plausible Foundation for condemning War absolutely. or that of inflicting any other Punishment. *These Words may be interpreted a Christian End. 5. 2 We pray. have a direct Tendency to shew only that Princes and Magistrates. or a Death worthy of a Christian. That ’ ’ ´ it is acceptable to GOD. for he is GOD’s Minister. * xristiana ta telh. Grotius. And in the Book intitled. for he beareth not the Sword in vain. and to come to the Knowledge of the Truth.198 chapter ii Rom. but also for another more strong and direct. may. See Mr. together with their Royal Power. Now. The Constitutions of Clement. The Lawyers usually make this Distinction between the Right of the Sword. De Jurisdictione & Imperio. That it is pleasing to GOD that Kings should become Christians. Lib. Though this Proof. even under the Gospel Dispensation. if thou do ill. be not excluded. Under the Right of the Sword. if a Prince may and ought to put any of his Subjects to Death. especially on the Account of some temporal Advantage. First. Lib. Godliness and Honesty. which is the principal 5 Part. that the Right of taking away a Man’s Life. and the Power of punishing Criminals without putting them to Death: Thus. that Kings and Princes may. they say. IV. 32 Edit. viz. Tit. and several others which follow it. but on a Supposition. XVII. De Diversis Reg.

as he does Acts that are sinful. We must therefore understand this Power. v. LI. not only in Things that have Relation to human Society. XX. and the Apostle had said nothing. are said to be of GOD. as established with the Approbation of GOD: Whence it follows. we must add what he himself says afterwards. 6 In this Kings serve GOD. when they do for his Service what they could not perform unless they were Kings. Contra Crescon.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 199 Psalm may not a little help to explain this Place. all Transgressions of the Commandments of the LORD? For he serves GOD one Way as a Man. Herein Kings serve GOD as Kings. yet does it more fully and perfectly relate to CHRIST. which Psalm. Cap. as we may learn from Acts iv. And in another Place. that the Sovereign Power in itself. Ad Bonis. to shew themselves his Servants as Kings. That Place which I have before quoted in the thirteenth to the Romans. and obligatory on all Men. 25. Grammatic. that we ought to be subject to them. and discourage Wickedness in their Kingdom. but also in what regards Religion. when he so highly magnified and exalted this Power. 5. 6. 7 How then do Kings serve the LORD in Fear. when they promote Virtue. so that to resist them is to resist GOD himself. 7. and the Apostle calls them likewise.) Arg. And a little after. 2. where the higher Powers. If by Ordinance we only understand what GOD only permits. especially in regard to Conscience. II. as St. . § 12. xiii. then no Obligation would follow of Honour or Obedience. Chap. unless by prohibiting. and punishing with a religious Severity. of Strangers than of those of his own Subjects? See what our Author says farther on capital Punishments. and according to the Practice of (2. III. Lib. 33. L. whose Words relating to this Subject I shall here set down. Austin rightly expounds it. as they are Kings. 8. In order to compleat our Author’s Argument. and that for Conscience sake. 13. to respect and honour them. but what he might have said of Thefts and Robbery. affords us a second Argument. Ep. the Ordinance of GOD: Whence he infers. and Heb. B. that is. Now that Psalm advises all Kings to kiss the Son with Reverence. such as Kings. tho’ it was really verified in the Person of David. (since GOD cannot will Things that are inconsistent) that this Power is not 8 repugnant to the Will of GOD revealed in the Gospel. according to the Divine Command. and another as a King.

Tesmar. which two Sorts of Sovereignty cannot be conceived without the Right of the Sword. Grotius. which we say the Apostle denies. as appears from several Medals. Cap. the Emperor Nero. Paul so earnestly exhorted to turn Christians. but which seems to be founded on some Truth. VI. tho’ offered by wicked Priests. This Story of Abgarus’s Epistle to JESUS CHRIST. which. whether they were Christians or Infidels. I. is no better than a mere Fable. (Excerpt. whom St. this is not universally true. contained in it any Thing contrary to Piety. but whether that Function. lately published. in his Notes. Hist. Edessa is a City in Osroene. where he says it is or-<34>dained of GOD. 476. Acts xvi. Appian. Vice-Praetor of Cyprus. since Sergius Paulus. includes the Right of making War. the Soldiers in the Gospel. who being asked by the Jewish Soldiers. were not Christians. B. would . § 2. had long before professed the Christian Faith. tho’ administred by a wicked Person. 3. Besides. and the Power of making War. For first. Du Pin’s Preliminary Dissertation on the Bible. Chap. to say nothing of what is reported of the 9 King of Edessa. where he employs this Example to shew that War is not absolutely condemned by the Gospel. Lib. and our Lord’s Answer. the one his Empire. Eccl. As then the antient Sacrifices were nevertheless holy. for the Security of their Salvation. In the first he reasons thus. and the Name of Abgarus is very common in that ¨ Country. and therefore to be honoured and respected. Neither does it prejudice our Argument. If all Wars were condemned by the Christian Doctrine. perhaps intermixt with some Falsities. 10. St. Vales. and King Agrippa. is under the Dominion of GOD only: And therefore. (many thousands of all Nations. 10 so Civil Government is holy and sacred. Grotius. properly speaking. II. according to the Law. Augustin. with regard to Conscience itself. (3. 9. even at that Time. at the Time when St. The third Argument is taken from 11 the Words of St. 11. exercised by Infidels. from Tacitus. p. or the other his Royalty. 12. John the Baptist. See my 5th Note on this Paragraph. Paul wrote this. both produced by Eusebius. the Question is not about the Persons. without being obliged to renounce.200 chapter ii Acts xiii. Chrysostom makes this very plain in his Observations on this Text. XIII. when they asked Advice. and from the Fragments of Dio Capitolinus. quotes two Passages from St. and that of punishing certain Crimes with Death.) as well as from Pieces which have been long extant. that the Sovereign Powers.) Arg. See Mr. might have become the Subjects of JESUS CHRIST.

John is said to preach the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins. for both John and our Saviour declare the Sum of their Doctrine in the same Terms. But this I cannot agree to. so are the Apostles said to do in the Name of CHRIST. CHRIST. 77. if it had been GOD’s Will. 26. 2. as appears from Josephus. John is called greater than the Prophets. And the Beginning of the Gospel is reckoned from John.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 201 whom served the Romans. And CHRIST himself says. and threatens Destruction to those that did not bring them forth. Now when they are commanded to be content with their Pay. iii. 18. that is. Mark i. 4. The Law is said to continue unto John. Matt. Do Violence to no Man. a spiritual and heavenly King. which plainly allow of a Military Life. iii. 4. that he seemed to preach one Doctrine and CHRIST another. the new Law. and to be content with their Pay. neither accuse any falsely. the true Light. did differ so much from what our Saviour commanded. where that Father reasons from the Example of David. — iii. Matt. 13. rather have been commanded to lay down their Arms. for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. for the Hebrews used to call their Law by the Name of Kingdom) begun to suffer Violence from the Days of John the Baptist. many object. He also requires Works of Charity above the Law. But to these Words of the Baptist. Epistle. 8. Repent ye. from him a more perfect Law did begin. Luke iii. xi. but only to abstain from Extortion and Falshood. 77. and other Writers) What they should do to flee from the Wrath to come. (4. 12. and by Way of Elements. 14. 9. he did not bid them quit their Military Employment. Mark i. xi. 10. Matt. which he ought to have done. Luke iii. Luke i. Matt. The fourth Argument is this. iii. John required Fruits meet for Repentance. that JESUS was the promised Messias. delivered clearly and distinctly) but only by this. Matt. Luke iii. because he was sent to give Knowledge of Salvation to the People. John i. 4. and the two Centurions. Acts xi. the Kingdom of Heaven. The other Passage is taken from his CV. 29. (that is. — ii. who should give the Power of the HOLY GHOST to those that believed on him. Matt. 38. 16. and to preach the Gospel: Neither does John ever distinguish JESUS from himself by any Difference of Doctrine. If it were not permitted to punish certain Criminals with Death. 11. they are not forbid to continue in the military Profession. (tho’ what John declared more generally and indefinitely. xi. . V. Epist. 11. 17. Luke vii. that is. that what the Baptist prescribed. Mark i. 8. and be content with your Pay. Acts xix. 4.) Arg. which seems to me of no small Weight. and entirely renounce their Profession. whereas it is only said. 1.

and favourably to explain those that are ambiguous.) Arg. that it cannot by any good Reason be proved. without any Hope of re-establishment. ad Patrem fidel. 3. that To this End Tribunals were erected. Punishments appointed. 12 since even now that Tribunals are erected.202 chapter ii (5. Grotius. there would of Necessity follow a terrible Inundation of Crimes. v. as was never heard of before. and with it the Form of the State. . in <35> order to avoid that Sense which may bring along with it the greatest Inconveniencies. that he came not to destroy the Law. would thereby be inevitably exposed to become a Prey to Villains and Usurpers. he would certainly have declared in most distinct and plain Words. Acts xxiii. which is easily understood to refer to the ceremonial Part. and even to recede somewhat from the Propriety and common Acceptation of the Words. which is not agreeable to the Goodness and Wisdom of GOD. Nay. but to fulfil it. nor to defend the Subject by Arms against Highwaymen and Pyrates. 13. such Christians as observed the Precepts of their Religion with the greatest Exactness. Serm. for the Lines of a rough Draught are compleated. To which add. 13 5. Laws made. when the Picture appears in all its Perfection. that if the Gospel absolutely condemned War and capital Punishments. The fifth Argument may be this. For neither is there in the Law of Moses any Term fixt to that Law. which we no where read that he did. St. Chrysostom says. and common Sense. And CHRIST himself in the Preface to his Precepts. which regarded the Punishments of Crimes. ’till the City of Jerusalem was destroyed. Paul says. that the Laws of Moses. St. 17. it is very difficult to restrain the Boldness of profligate Persons. Wherefore if it had been the Design of CHRIST to have introduced a new Kind of Regulation. were abolished. that none should pronounce Sentence of Death against a Malefactor. But as to the 12. for what is brought to this Purpose. and a Deluge of Evils. Matt. neither does CHRIST or his Apostles ever speak of the abolishing of that Law. and various Kinds of Penalties enjoined. that the High Priest (at that Time ) was appointed to judge according to the Law of Moses. But Equity itself. unless so far as it may seem comprehended (as I said) in the Destruction of the Jewish Government. on the contrary. said. teaches us to restrain Words that are general. is either very general or obscure. or carry Arms in Defence of one’s Country.

ought. decline the Magistracy. that heard our Saviour pronounce those Words. that they could not on any Account. that they cannot decline it merely because the Exercise of it was attended with the Obligation of passing Sentence of Death for certain Crimes. I find nothing. ’till they saw none else would accept of it. So that they only declared. (tho’ all the Editions agree) or our Author expresses himself improperly. as some imagine. Having thoroughly consider’d all Things. where it is said. v. and a Person injured to seek Reparation by Course of Law: But tho’ between CHRIST’s Precepts and those Permissions. even such as turned Christians. that the Jews. and on John xviii. quoted by Buxtorf. consequently. as. in his Florileg. to put away a Wife for every Offence. 183. and. such or such a Person guilty of a capital Crime. abolished it at his Coming? And if the Obligation of that Law continued as long as the Jewish State subsisted. when converted to Christianity. and he that parts with his Right of taking Vengeance. some Things were tolerated (either as to outward Impunity. yet there is no Contradiction: For he that keeps his Wife. and that even then they did not take Place in the Council. that JESUS CHRIST had not abolished the political Laws. for Instance. 22. if 14 they were called to the Magistracy. if Magistrates. is sufficient for our Author’s Purpose. should take them in any other Sense. to judge according to those Laws. however.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 203 Judaical Law. 31. whatever that passionate and injudicious Divine Osiander may say. does nothing contrary to the 14. p. but it by no Means follows. how can it be true. that every one called to the Magistracy was obliged to accept of that Charge. 15. that the antient Sages declined publick Offices. See our Author’s Commentary on Matt. could not avoid it. or even in regard to Conscience. If the Political Law continued in force. there is a certain Difference. it follows. or for any Reason. which I have not now Occasion or Leisure strictly to examine) which CHRIST did not allow to his Followers. that the Jews. which supposes. I cannot indeed find the least Reason. as appears from a Passage of the Talmud. from whence it can be inferred. why any pious Man. Either there is some Omission in this Place. Hebraic. and excused themselves from undertaking the Function of a Judge. . but were under a Necessity of obtaining the Roman Governor’s Permission for executing a Criminal. at least in the Books of the Old Testament. if CHRIST. The Author probably means. I own. that before the Time of the Gospel. The Jews however in our Saviour’s Time. but at the earnest Intreaty of the People and Elders. nor judge 15 otherwise than Moses had prescribed. according to their Law. had not the Power of Life and Death. it follows indeed. The Jews acknowledged no such Obligation.

he would have abolished the Law. he shall be guilty before GOD. the Centurion. Peter. The same is to be said of the Law of the Satisfaction allowed to the Injured. Indeed if it were certain. without doing any Thing contrary to that Law. but acts most agreeably to 16 the Intention of the Law. who received the HOLY GHOST (an infallible Sign of Justification) from CHRIST. (7. for hindering private Persons from doing themselves Justice by violent Means.) Arg. or was ever advised to it by St. but command.) Arg. but since that appears no where else. yet we no where find that he laid down his Commission. was not to put Men on dismissing their Wives. who would have been exposed to very bad Treatment. Peter. It is quite otherwise in a Judge. So that the Intent of the Legislator was to prevent the greater Inconveniency. it would have been proper to have said something of it. they would say something to the Purpose. 19. whom the Law does not allow. the Design of that Law which allowed of Divorces. that War was forbid among the Precepts of CHRIST. for in the Account of his Conversion. that future Ages might not be ignorant of the Rules of their Duty. The sixth Argument is taken from the Example of Cornelius. But some may answer. which I have already alledged. but to provide for the Security of the Wife. particularly Acts xix. is taken from the Example of Sergius Paulus. among such a People as the Jews were. and nothing would have been more pleasing to him than to see Husbands keep their Wives. This is what the Spirit or nobler Part of the Law required. besides that every one may renounce the Benefit of a Law. 7. 6. while they gave no just Cause for a Separation. at least in this Place. and could be proved. and was baptized into the Name of CHRIST. . and if he neglect it. there is no Mention made of his quitting his Government. Neither does St. tho’ that Part was least studied by the Generality of the Jews. 16. as we may see in several Places.204 chapter ii (6. to which the Jews were strongly inclined. he may be supposed at the same Time to have been exhorted to quit his Employment. that being instructed in the Christian Religion by St. Peter. he would have ordered something directly contrary to the Law. to punish a Murderer with Death. Law. For. If CHRIST had forbid such a <36> Person to put a Murderer to Death. if a Husband had not been at Liberty to dismiss her when she became disagreeable to him. The seventh Argument like to this. by the Apostle St. Luke use (where the Quality of the Persons required a special Change of Life) to pass such a Thing over in Silence.

4. neither did he in the least insinuate. And Epist. Now Silence. que les Puissances ayent de quoi fournir aux Depenses. he immediately acquainted the Commander of the Roman Garrison with it. and in CLIVth. Paul. iv. This is certain. and the End of Tribute is. Tributorum autem finis est. since the Apostle Paul. To which he adds. among other Considerations. . (9. Taxes are raised. Can. xiii. who neglected no Opportunity himself. Paul. 18 to enable the Sovereign Powers 17. 2. 2 Tim. of warning Men of their Duty. Here some Commentators charge our Author with advancing an inconclusive Reason. Paul expresses it. where he says. Augustin frequently urges this Example. that it was displeasing to GOD to repel Force with Force. implies. Rom. that the Powers may have wherewithal to defray the Expences. entr’ autres. The Design of raising Taxes is. &c. for. But with what View are such Burthens laid on the Subject? Is it not.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 205 or of his being advised to do it. 8. the Apostle would not have thought himself guilty of the Effusion of their Blood. that this Version. Against whose Fury we may call for such Defence as is not unusual. or say it is the only Design of imposing Taxes. 3.) Arg. Caus. The ninth Argument is. The Council of Africa makes use of this Passage. as St. Quaest. and very necessary not to omit. &c. Epistle to Boniface. XXIII. secured himself against a Conspiracy of factious Men by a military Force. Augustin may be found in the Canon Law. that St. made conformably to the Author’s Thought. &c. Paul. to Publicola. or to blame the Neglect in others. as in his Lth. The second of these Passages of St. who guarded St. say they. had fallen on his factious Enemies. as we read in the Book of Acts. 5. he observes. The eighth Argument is drawn from the Conduct 17 of St. that If the Soldiers. and even one of the most considerable Ends proposed. 6. but also for defraying several other necessary Expences in Time of Peace. nor does our Author himself deny it. or disallowed by the Scripture. as I have just said. 9. when he understood that the Jews lay in Wait for him. Barbeyrac therefore translates the Words thus. leaves (8. &c.) Arg. to justify the Resolution of imploring the Assistance of the temporal Power against the Factious. and yet this is that St. and also a Precept obliging the Conscience. Paul took care to provide himself with a strong Guard for his Defence. not only for supporting War. VIII. he did not refuse it. Mr. either to the commanding Officer or the Soldiers. that they never were. because the proper End of any Thing that is honest and obligatory. and when the Commander had sent Soldiers to convoy him safe to Caesarea. V. And St. 18. Mais quel est le but de ces sortes de charges imposees aux ´ Sujets? N’est ce pas. must also be honest and obligatory: To pay Tribute is honest. It is sufficient that this is one. CLXIV. in regard to Things which it was natural for one to mention. Grotius.

Tom. 22. to protect the Good. the Senate. Grotius. I had done nothing worthy of Death. no Arms without Pay. Lib. Petitam armis Rempublicam. St. but not exactly in the same Terms. utque reus agi posset. as the Words stand in the Edition here specified. Lib. 20 For this Cause we pay Tribute. Cap. ii. there were some Crimes which Equity allowed. VI. that Soldiers may have Money to buy them Necessaries. Vander Muelen has done Justice to the Author in this Place. Austin. 1528. and the whole Body of the Roman People. Whence I conclude. that some Wars may be lawfully made. relating to Piso. Num. XIII. Edit. Hist. But if it had then been GOD’s Will. Nations can have no Peace without Arms. 2. acie victum. Justin Martyr makes this Declaration in his second Apology. 20. may be punished. The same Apostle says elsewhere. Paul did believe. Caus.) Arg. 11. This Passage (in which our Author writes propter necessaria militi. Peter teaches. or done any Thing worthy of Death. and no Pay without Taxes. but he ought not to leave such an Opinion in the Minds of Men. Basil. as if to punish Offenders with Death had been now no less lawful than formerly. 1 Pet. 299. 20. that is. There was no Cause of Death in me. 21. 19 Tacitus speaks appositely to this Purpose. Cap. and among some short Extracts of what goes before. Contra Faust. and even required. Acts xxviii. to be punished with Death: Which also St. 19. LXXIV. I. instead of propter bella necessario militi. XXII. Paul might indeed have cleared himself. that even after the publishing of the Evangelical Law. Eras. as against a Multitude of armed Offenders. that St. Paul pleads thus. If I have wronged any Man. But having proved that capital Punishments were justly inflicted after the Coming of CHRIST.206 chapter ii (10. 22 before they can be brought to a Trial. Cap. who are to be overcome by Arms. XXIII. and the no Room for Criticism. I refuse 21 not to die. LXXIV. . To which agrees that of St. or follows. III. even by your Authority. addressed to the Emperor. But we desire that such as do not live conformably to the Precepts of JESUS CHRIST. as the learned Gronovius has observed on this Place. Indeed the Forces of Criminals. Can. and restrain the Wicked. Acts xxv. IV. I think it also proved. where St. and that Mr. Annal. The Historian puts this Speech in the Mouth of Petilius Cerealis. 18. 19. p. <37> 10. The Author here alludes to a Passage in Tacitus. Lib. Quaest. and are only nominal Christians. which probably he used) is quoted in the Canon Law. The tenth Argument is taken from that Place of the Acts. that capital Punishments should be no longer used. IV.

only because GOD had given them the Land of Canaan. than if GOD had (immediately) given it to him. that 23 in the Revelation of St. The eleventh Argument is. who pretend that the Israelites had a Right to make War. in regard to those Things which separated the Jews from the Gentiles. it was so far from abrogating. or by the tacit Consent of civilized Nations. in considering whether it be proper to pursue them with the utmost Rigour. which was probably the Printer’s Fault. by the by. This eleventh Argument occurs both in the first Edition of the Work before us. (11. and elsewhere. upon other Occasions. The twelfth Argument may be this. 12. . 6. and that Right is not taken away by the Gospel. 11. and repelling Injuries by Arms. xi. and also the Israelites themselves afterwards. being misled by the Resemblance of the Words Undecimum and Duodecimum. which the Author assures us he had carefully revised. For even before those Times. what every man possesses. John. 14. (12. but it had been restored before my Edition appeared. xviii. Phil. by Vertue of human Laws. I make this Observation. who skipped over two Lines. And here. 23. are by Nature reputed laudable. Eph. ii. Chap. with manifest Approbation. holy Men did make War by following the Light of Reason. 8. that it comprehends them under the general Precept to think on every Thing that is honest and vertuous. as David. may have some Weight. because it is omitted in several Editions. Besides. we may observe the Error of them. 14. and in that of 1632. This Article was wanting in the Edition of 1642. but what Things were accounted honest by the Law of Nature.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 207 Boldness wherewith they resist.) Arg. for the affronting of his Ambassadors.) Arg. 1 Cor. Now the Punishment of Crimes. is not less his own. that the Law of CHRIST did only abolish the Law of Moses. but still that lessens nothing of the Right itself. iv. and referred to the Virtues of Justice and Beneficence. Indeed this is a just Cause. the last published in the Author’s Life Time. but not the only one. some Wars of the Righteous are foretold.

Rob. We have exactly the same Explication in Euseb. But since the Coming of CHRIST. I. p. and live up to it. either conditionally. and militaryEmployments are confined to a particular Rank of Men. and converted into less dangerous Instruments VIII. 4. Discourse on the Divinity of CHRIST. Cap. Shields. for it is certain. In Reality. Salmas. as that should be the State of Affairs. neither shall they learn War any more. Chrysostom likewise says. Lib. but also that it shall bring much Peace on the Earth. Lib. St. (1) St. not so much from the Shape of their Bodies. Lugd. would lend an Ear to his salutary and peaceable Lessons. Edit. But this Prophecy is to be understood. I. that the several Aristocracies and Monarchies shall be destroyed. . the greatest Part of which shall enjoy Peace in a more perfect Manner than before: For formerly Artificers and Orators bore Arms. De Praep. Chrysostom explains this Prophecy of the universal Peace established by the Foundation of the Roman Empire at the Time of our Saviour’s Birth. and not presumptuously follow their own Fancies rather than his Exhortations. That the Nations should beat their Swords into Plow-Shares. Iron would have been employed for gentler Purposes. that the pious Reader may more easily judge which are the most weighty. as many others are. (1. Isa. as because they are endowed with Reason. The Arguments out of Scripture for the Affirmative answered. In his Treatise proving every good Man is free. Christians have no Enemies among themselves to fight with. Which is exactly what Philo ÷ ÷ ◊ ÷ the Jew said of the Essenes. and lived in perfect and indissoluble Union. 1. It is foretold. Evang. there would be no capital Punishments. 6. and went to the Wars. 877. If all Persons who look upon themselves as Men. Paris. and their Spears into Pruning Hooks. if all Nations would 2 submit to the Law of <38> CHRIST. ◊Ou polemoumen toic exjroic. p. or any Sort of Armour or Machines. whereunto there should nothing be wanting on GOD’s Part. not only that this Religion shall be well established. Grotius. the whole World would long since have enjoyed profound Peace. that Practice has been abolished. X. and lived like Christians. Nation shall not lift up Sword against Nation. if all were Christians. as Justin Martyr observes. Cuirasses. says that Father. You can find among them no Artist who makes Javelins. 2. Grotius. If Men loved one another as they ought to do.208 chapter ii VIII. and immoveable. First they alledge the Prophecy of 1 Isaiah. Steph. Let us now see the Reasons for the contrary Opinion. Helmets. Adversus Gentes. who foretold. ii. Edit. VIII. Swords. Darts. Edit. and that there shall be one Kingdom raised above all the others. 3. 8. there would be no Wars: Which 3 Arnobius expresses thus. p.) Arg.

And 4 Lactantius thus. if Men would lay aside their pernicious and impious Rage. that no Injury is to be repelled or revenged. 13. they would resolve to live innocently and justly. he would have done it in most plain and exact Terms. turn to him the other also. but I say unto you. and of the general Conversion of the Jews. Div. Will no one be worthy of Heaven. . The second Argument brought to defend their Opinion is out of those Words. and a Tooth for a Tooth. and destroy one another? Instit. on Account of the great Importance and Novelty of the Thing. It is where he reproaches the Pagans with the Deification of their Conquerors. Matt. nor of all Injuries 4. it is plain that this Prophecy is not yet fulfilled. there can be nothing hence inferred against the Lawfulness of War. and become innocent and just. and who insult such as love Peace. concerning Judgments and other political Affairs. ([çdl which answers to the Greek Word tw adikounti him that injures thee). Ex. (2. Num. 16. if an universal Concord was established in the World? And this certainly might be effected. 38. if banishing their deadly and impious Rage. Who will have Gods. Acts vii. You have heard it has been said. From hence some infer. that we remember what was said a little before. because none of the Jews could imagine but that the Laws of Moses.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 209 than what it has hitherto served for. if all Men would unite in Concord? Which certainly might be done. What would be the Consequence. either publickly or privately. Celler. to judge of which it is necessary. 1. but that the Accomplishment of it. 39. is yet to be expected. merely because Men are not allowed to give a Loose to their Passions. but if any Man ‚ ◊ ÷ strike thee on the one Cheek.) Arg. But take it which Way you will. as long as their Government subsisted. let us examine these Places in order. Several Arguments are drawn from the fifth of St. on which Occasion he reasons thus. 2. After this general Remark. on this Supposition? Will Virtue lose its Existence. If CHRIST had intended to have abolished all capital Punishments. and the Right of (making) War. If Immortality can be acquired only by shedding Blood. but to those that are injured. 27. xi. Edit. Lib. Cap. viz. an Eye for an Eye. and then. but this the Words do not imply. Matthew. v. Or this Place is to be understood literally. XVIII. resist not Evil. as long as there are those who will not suffer others to live in Quiet. for CHRIST does not here speak to Magistrates. ought to preserve their Force in regard to the Jews. and so much the more.

De Patientia. If any Man will sue thee at the Law. 6. Noodt’s excellent Commentary on the first Part of the Digest. Jerom ˆ says. IV. Orat. 274. or a Cloak with a Coat. if I undertook to give the . that you should not follow him like a Slave. does not relate to the Action of sacrificing some Part of our Property. But it does not fully appear. It was not like a Philosopher to sue for a little Money. but only would have Christians not go to Law with one another before the Heathen. p. amongst whom it was a received Maxim. The Praetor (said Ulpian 7) does not disapprove the Action of 5. The Case is widely different. Cap. Lib. however well founded it may be. as a Box on the Ear. Fell. Digest. Cap. JESUS CHRIST commands you. ˆ ˆ This Law considered in itself. nor prosecute our Right according to Law. Tit. for the Words following limit those that go before. Libanius. Edit. if one run a Risque of being deprived of both. St. but go before him like a Freeman. <39> and that from the Example of the Jews. commends those who did not go to Law for the Recovery of a Coat or a Cloak. and take away our Coat by litigious Chicanry. And St. 216. So in the following Precept. This is evident from the Interpretation of St. de Custodia Reorum. but of slight ones. 204. Adv. See Mr. as if we had freely given what is taken from us. not to demand the Restitution of what is taken from you.) 7. Cyprian. Irenaeus says. for the Person here supposed to avoid the Multiplication of Law-Suits. § 1. like Men who cannot bear to be defrauded. p. 4. who had read the Gospels. Paul. says the same Father. Basil. XXVI. however general they may at first appear. neither. who does not prohibit every Kind of Law-Suit. who sees the Proprietor disposed to recover them into his own Hands. rather than engage in a Suit of Law. Tyan. that that Father designed it as an Explanation of the Words of the Gospel that follow. (XXXIX. Tom. Grotius. Lib. profanes the Name of GOD. to exercise our Patience. the Gospel directs us to grant him our Cloak also. that He that brings the Cause of an Israelite before Strangers. 5 Our Saviour does not forbid absolutely to have Recourse to Law. XV. or to take Arbitrators in order to decide a Difference. St. would not have us dispute for Things that may be easily recovered. is in his Treatise De Bono Patientiae. Apol. And if any Man shall compel thee to go a Mile. let him have thy Cloak also. here quoted by our Author. De alienat. Lib. Edit. Dialog. Vit. IV. but CHRIST. That is. The Passage of St. that When any Man would sue us. I. Brem. Leg. p. mutandi causa facta. and take away thy Coat. VII. Cyprian explains the Text thus. IV. go with him two. Apollonius Tyanaeus 6 said. II. judicii. not to be sorrowful. Edit.210 chapter ii 1 Cor. as a Coat. is in Possession of the Goods of another Man. 203. II. Pelag. but to be chearful. that our Lord here commands us. vi. Olear. for I should be too long in this Place.

may be applied here. 11. II. that our 10 Patience and good Nature may be known unto all. Justin Martyr says. We are to refuse our Alms to no one. What Ulpian here says to be approved of by good Men. is to engage us to the Practice of Patience and Civility to all Men. So in that which follows. Give unto him that asks of thee. Apol. Cicero recommends making large Abatements of our Right. De Offic. Cap. I. Cap. and the Trouble and Hindrance occasioned by it almost nothing at all. Lib. III. If these Words were understood Grounds of this Explication. but have in their way a certain Extension. 9. XLV. and if occasion be. Lib. . What therefore uses to be said of moral Things in general. Our Saviour adds. that they do not consist in an indivisible Point. which supposes an Acquaintance with the Niceties of the Roman Law. Testim. is what CHRIST himself commands. Let him endeavour to make it up. And in another Place. that our Saviour’s Design in laying down this Precept. what his Child or Pupil cannot subsist without. even sometimes to our own Prejudice. and to avoid Passion. Grotius. In Clement’s Constitutions. 11 and from him that would borrow of thee. For a Coat or Cloak is one Thing. it is said of a Christian. who had rather lose his Substance than be engaged in a Multiplicity of Law-Suits. If any Man shall compel thee to go with him one Mile. and one’s whole Maintenance another. turn not away. II. communicating our Goods to every needy Person. The Meaning then is. that in Things which will not incommode us much we must not insist with Rigour upon our Right. 8. which might draw one too far from his necessary Business. Lib. Cyprian says. but rather 9 yield more than is desired. for the Recovery of it. and avoiding LawSuits and Quarrels. St.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 211 a Man. tho’ it be somewhat to his Loss. I. chusing the Subject of his Precepts from Things most honest and commendable: But we cannot justly infer from hence. The same Father explains this of that Chearfulness with which we ought to divide our Substance with the Indigent. which is only a kind of a Walk. go with him two: Our Lord did not say a hundred Miles. Grotius. II. 10. Cap. two. and the Care we ought to take to avoid Ostentation in all our Actions. for this Aversion to Suits of Law is not to be condemned. XVIII. but one. that a Parent or Tutor ought not to defend by Law. when he is forced to it. Apol. if 8 he have a Suit depending.

Gellius. the best Interpreter of his Master’s Law. according to Xenophon. XV. 13. who exhorting the Corinthians to Charity towards the Poor at Jerusalem. which 16 the Law of the Twelve Tables afterwards established. Lib. but that by an Equality. I. that is. he adds. not indeed by his own Hand. De Benef. He that takes not care of his own Family is worse than an Infidel. This law ordered a strict Retaliation. St. 9. Le Clerc on Exod. 21. says. See A. See Mr. on the Passage of the Epistle to the Corinthians here quoted. which only imposed a fine on such as wounded any one. Paul. says Seneca. Chrysostom. 16. He that breaks a Limb. Noct. XV. II. v. according to the Enormity of his Crime. but if any Man. 13. xix. Paul. according to the Law of Moses. Cap. are therefore only proverbial Expressions. to come to an Accommodation. without any Restriction. And to explain himself more fully. Oxon. Edit. that every Man should be punished by the Judges. . 8. it would indeed be very hard. xxi. Attic. This was not literally a Punishment of Retaliation. you may relieve the Necessities of others. As CHRIST required of his Disciples an higher Degree of Patience. VI. An Eye for an Eye. the Sense of which is. Cap. to which the Israelites were extremely inclined. viz. but does not oblige the Achaians to do the same. As 14 Cyrus did towards his Friends. Lib. but so as not to reduce myself to Poverty. observes. but by the Law of 15 Retaliation before the Judge. Resist not Evil. it allowed the injured Person to avenge him-<40>self. that The Apostle commends the Thessalonians for giving more than they could afford. &c. Lib. Cap. and Festus on the Word Talio. that he does not allow some Injuries to be repelled 12. 15. (to use Livy’s Words on a like Occasion) 13 That out of your Plenty. Cyropaed. § 11. 24. Let us use then the same Equity in explaining the Precept we have just now mentioned. to prevent the Cruelty of Husbands towards their Wives. so also to obviate all private Revenge. I will give to the Indigent. if Death did not ensue. Grotius. he was so far from approving this Demand of Revenge in the Person injured. Let us then follow the Explication of St. Lib VIII. 2 Cor. and Deut. let him suffer the like. XX. for no Criminal was to lose an Eye or a Limb. 12 your Abundance should supply their Wants. Not that others should be eased and you be burthened. that GOD requires of every one according to his Abilities only.212 chapter ii 1 Tim. Num. Cap. unless the Criminal could prevail with the Person injured. As the Law of Moses allowed the Liberty of a Divorce. viii. says St. II. 14. a Tooth for a Tooth.

or Law. and lest any one 17. De Constantia Sap. 18 in his Book of the Constancy of a wise Man. 22 That Grief (arising) from an Affront. So one in Pacuvius. rather than revenge. Digest. Seneca. De Paenis. Ch. Tit. but does no hurt. And the same Seneca a little lower says. are so chiefly when given as a Mark of Contempt. tho’ a Grievance to a free Man. which we may complain of. And in Demosthenes. and even an Injury. Such is the Weakness and Vanity of our Minds. 19. and which the Laws have not judged worthy of any Punishment. 20. Leg. Grotius. So another in Caecilius. 21 Blows. De Constantia Sapientis Cap. X. CHRIST enjoins Patience. The former (said he) is by Nature more grievous. ˆ . and is hard to digest only for those that are very delicate.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 213 by Force. XIX. 18. Gen. 19 I easily bear an Injury. See St. Cap. ˆ *Ibid. These Words are taken from a Piece intitled Fallacia. X. Grotius. 17 not but that it is praise-worthy to suffer even grievous Injuries without demanding Satisfaction. V. An Affront is less than an Injury. 395. page 430. Chrysostom in the Place quoted Note 12. thus you will find a Slave. XLVIII. and are quoted by Nonius Marcellus. the other more light. This Passage is quoted by the Roman Lawyers. B. it offends. is a Passion moved by a Meanness and Narrowness of Mind. In his Peribaea. § 6. p. but that he is contented with a more limited Patience: Therefore he proposes the Example in a Box on the Ear. Therefore in such a Case. Oration against Midias. And the same * Author in another Place. but only declares a certain Contempt of us. that the last Words should be read Nisi circumstant Contumeliae. which diminishes nothing of our Merit. Gronovius conjectures. as well as those of the preceding Note. Paris. instead of Nisi constat Contumelia. who had rather be scourged than take a Box of the Ear. distinguishes an Injury from an Affront. nor maim the Body. 22. Mercer. that some Men think nothing more insupportable. 20 I can easily bear Misfortune. affected by some disobliging Action or Word. unless accompanied with an Affront. But what Sort of Injuries? Such as might be easily born. if not the Result of an Injury done me. so it be without an Affront. XVI. Edit. Edit. which does not indanger Life. 21.

Livy says. It is the 753d in Gruter’s Collection: On which see his Notes. published at Leyden in 1708. 10. . To turn the Cheek. those 28 of their own Nation. bless them that curse you. It is a glorious Victory. Lib. I. In VII. and pray for them that despitefully use you. Vol. page 205. 25. Cap. Num. by the Greatness of our own Patience. and the Laws which prohibited doing an Injury to another. and exceed the Bounds of his vicious Desires. thou shalt love thy Neighbour. as appears from Lev. Matt. invites novam. is used by 26 Tacitus and 27 Terence in the same Sense.) Arg. Act.214 chapter ii (3. Cap. But that is easily answered. 24. page 32. De Statuis. of whom we have spoken. Num. Hist. according to the Disposition of those who suffer. XXXI. iii. but what consists 25 in a false Imagination. 3. XIV. v. To turn the Face. 26. See also Cicero’s first Epistle to Atticus. is a Hebraism for to bear a Thing patiently. 6. for so is the Word Neighbour to be understood. Praebere ad contumeliam os. 44 should object the trite Proverb. we should also rather 24 bear a second Injury than repel the first: Because from thence no Hurt comes to us. Lib. Grotius. love your Enemies. Ed. § 16. that is. were also extended to those uncircumcised Inhabitants. 7. Grotius. by comparing the 17th Verse with the 18th. III. but I say unto you. not according to the Intention of those who offer it. if we consider well the Words of the Law of Moses. Graevii. he adds. You have heard it has been said. Num. The Proselytes were placed on the Level with the Hebrews in this Particular. and Os & offere contumeliis. Noct. 3. Veterem ferendo injuriam. 6. and Jer. Lib. And against Verres III. Qui potui melius. LXXXV. XXXV. The same Father says in another Place. Ch. to which our Lord opposes this Precept. II. 5. Scen. This is acknowledged by the Talmudists. 43. This is one of Publius Syrus’s Sentences. 23. as appears from Is. Chrysostom. ad Romanos. Ibid. says St. Chap. preserved by Aulus Gellius. 1. XLIX. Mox ut praeberi ora contumelis. IV. Orat. His Oration for Sextus Roscius. Cap. 27. that An Affront either subsists or falls to the Ground. The third Argument is usually taken from the following Words in St. page 145. 23 By bearing an old Injury you invite a new one. The Hebrews were commanded to love their Neighbour. Cap. and persecute you. where the same Expression is used in the same Sense. I. Grotius. Sa. III. Vers. to give the Offender more than he requires. I. and hate thine <41> Enemy. xix. 28. Matthew. XVII. qui hodie usque os praebui? ` Adelph. Atticae. Nevertheless. &c. There are some who think both capital Punishments and Wars repugnant to this Love and Kindness (to be shewn) to our Enemies and Persecutors.

But let the Word Neighbour more largely extend to all Men whatsoever. Judges xx. I. that under the Evangelical Law there is required a greater Degree of Love. but a Parent (for Instance) more than a Stranger: Thus also we are to prefer the Good of the Innocent to that of the Guilty. Jerom having acknowledged himself obliged by the Divine Precept to love his Enemies. Chrysostom. Ep. xxiv. in the Justinian Code. II. no People are now condemned by GOD to utter Destruction. De defensoribus civitatum. These are Seneca’s Words. 3. and Arcadius. 21 29. encourage the Growth of Wickedness. but out of Humanity. Tertullian says. LIV. to Macedonius. that To commit a Crime. 31 that To spare all is as cruel as to spare none. 30. yet what was formerly lawful against the Israelites. speaking of human Punishˆ ments. B. In I. Dial. that all are not to be 30 equally loved.) Totila declared. so there is also a tender Cruelty. Cap. under the same Title. by the Law of a well regulated Charity. But if you urge. Chap. Theodosius. and other notorious Offenders: Notwithstanding this likewise. Augustin. So also David. &c. for all are received into common Grace. and pray for his Persecutors. the eleven Tribes justly made War upon the Tribe of Benjamin for their horrid Crime. will still be as lawful against all Men: Since it was then commanded to love them. says. which by favouring the Guilty. St. See the moral Sentence which is in Prov. in the third Law of the Theodosian Code. 31. to the same Purpose. who fought the 29 LORD’s Battles. VI. Let all Protections be removed. are to be obeyed. Whether it is just that he should love them like his near Relations? And that no Difference should be made between an Enemy and a bosom Friend? Against Pelag. I. Now out of Love to the Innocent. arise capital Punishments and pious Wars. of this Chapter.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 215 the Magistrates were commanded to put to Death Murderers. ad Cor. CHRIST’s Precepts then of loving and promoting the Good of every one. 11. IV. iii. De Clementia. this may also be granted. Lib. speak thus. Basil. The first Degree of Goodness is that exercised toward Relations: The second. Grotius. And St. Nam tam omnibus ignoscere Crudelitas est quam nulli. These Things are not done by Men out of Cruelty. asks. did recover by Arms the Kingdom promised him from Ishboseth. 12. and screen the . As there is sometimes a punishing Compassion. St. VII. Vol. Against Marcion. (This Law occurs in almost the same Terms. That employed on Strangers. See § 2. Num. unless a greater and juster Love interpose: It is a known old Saying. provided also it be allowed. and assisting the Criminal. XVI. Edit. at the End. and a publick Good before a private one. Leg. as it is now to love all Men. The Emperors Valentinian. page 274.

and in clear and express Terms. Cap. against Marcion. III. VIII. Page 173. Matt. iv. and a Spirit of Severity. is well explained by St. 20. Spanheim. were Actions equally culpable. Gothic. merciful. but yet it was CHRIST who 33 grievously punished the rebellious Jews. B. 21. Quest. We are frequently commanded to imitate the Mildness and Patience of CHRIST. but the same GOD does even in this Life punish some wicked Persons. See likewise Matt. Cause XXIII. Chap. Augustin in the following Manner: We are therefore forbidden to resist Evil. See also his second Oration against the Jews. &c. 5. xxxiv. X. in his Treatise Of Patience. Render to no Man Evil for Evil: Provide Things honest in the Sight of all Men: If it be possible. xiv. 14. 27. Tertullian. St. 21. 33. as much as lies in you. Luke xix.216 chapter ii Ex. II. Chap. 1 Cor. Numb. where he has something to the same Purpose. Augustin. 8. — v. iv. Rom. By which at the same Time are solved all the Arguments that use to be drawn from the Meekness that is prescribed to Christians: For tho’ GOD is called gentle. 32. Besides. and others quoted by Gratian. long-suffering. The Passage of St. 1 Tim. 4. See St. — xiii. Paul. The Apostles imitated their Master’s Gentleness. 35. 34 yet they used the Power given them from GOD in the Punishment of heinous Sinners. and will do it very severely in the next. 6. I. Cyril on this Subject. xxi. <42> The fourth Objection is taken from Rom. Chrysostom. 34. yet he punished Offenders. live peaceably with all Men: Dearly beloved. and the Magistrate is appointed to be the Minister of this Wrath. and will condemn the Wicked at the Day of Judgment for their Crimes. his Design to punish them. Jonah iv. Ep. Moses is famed for his extraordinary Meekness. 1 Cor. De Sermonibus Domini in Monte. i. XVIII. The Vulgate reads defendentes in this Place. Grotius. Grotius. having enumerated the Calamities which befel Jerusalem. Chrysost. In Romans xiv. . And to shew you that CHRIST himself did all this. Grotius. but that Word is frequently used by Christian Writers for revenging. 17. xii. 2. 35 avenge Guilty from Punishment. that is. that we may not be delighted with Revenge. Procop. and that capitally. CLIV. adds. See likewise St. in his fifth Book against Julian. Lib. ii. Lib. Edit. we are commanded to love our Enemies from the Example of GOD himself. both in Parables. hear him foretelling it. here under Consideration. 7. 41. who makes his Sun to rise upon the Wicked. yet Holy Writ does every where declare his Wrath against 32 obstinate Sinners. 12. 18. which feeds the Mind with the Damage sustained by others. xxii. VIII. Shall I kill? Shall I cut off a Limb? For there is a Spirit of Lenity.

and Deut. a Cardinal. between the Revenge that is exercised in GOD’s Stead. xxiii. &c. but rather give Place unto Wrath. if thine Enemy hunger. feed him. for the publick Good. Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers. xix. . for it is written. For if we would comprehend even that Revenge which is required for the Sake of the publick Good in that Prohibition. and the less. made towards the Close of the fourth Age. as we have said above. but overcome Evil with Good. I will repay. But in this Discourse St. Num. without Prejudice however to the Right of inflicting capital Punishments. and what follows. and taking up Arms against them for just Reasons. and fourteenth Chapters in our Editions make but one. The present Distinction of Chapters is attributed to Hugo de Sancto Charo. 4. if he be athirst.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 217 not yourselves. See Levit. 37. but 37 much later. be wrested to such a Sense. Paul says. 905. that the publick Powers are GOD’s Ministers. and that private Revenge which is intended only to satisfy the Resentment of an Injury. or the like Precepts. According to that. I will repay. because the Division of Chapters was not made by the Apostles. for when 36 GOD said. what now begins the thirteenth Chapter. thirteenth. the twelfth. give him Drink. and there were written Laws touching Wars. and which the Apostle had a little before forbid. as may be seen in the said Doctor’s beautiful Edition. tho’ taken more largely. where we have the Sense of the Words. and Revengers to execute Wrath (that is. What would be more 36. at the very same Time capital Punishments were in Use. See Dr. and that ought to be referred to the Vengeance which GOD has reserved to himself. 5. was formerly joined to those Precepts of not taking Revenge. for the Convenience of Readers. Kuster. to those who were of the same Nation. But here also we may give the same Answer as to the former Passage. Vengeance is mine. or in their Time. saith the LORD: Therefore. 8. that is. even on the Israelites themselves. 35. Be not overcome of Evil. and for the more easy quoting of the Places: And therefore. for in so doing thou shalt heap Coals of Fire upon his Head. Wherefore neither can the same Words now. Before that Time there was a much more antient Division. who lived in the thirteenth Century. Edit. Mills’s Prolegomena. Vengeance is mine. or to others not much earlier. Ex. xxxii. Punishment) upon those that do Evil: Most plainly distinguishing thereby. We find likewise an express Command to do Service to one’s Enemies.

. 3.218 chapter ii (5. The sixth Place produced is. From whence come Wars and Fightings among you? Come they not hence. and yet ye have not. that war in your Members? Ye lust. upon which Account he was contemned. to add immediately. and have not: Ye envy. as Christians. &c. 1. St. x. Chrysostom is of Opinion. for we wrestle not against Flesh and Blood. he affirms it to be most strong. and Alexander. through GOD. (6. 12. because the Church at that Time was destitute of the Assistance of the publick Powers. because ye ask amiss. and what follows. absurd than. and cannot obtain: Ye fight and war. which some alledge is. He therefore denies this Power to be carnal. James iv. to the pulling down of strong Holds. Paul opposes his own Weapons. The seventh Place that is brought is. Tho’ we walk in the Flesh. as the Manna ceased as soon as the Israelites were come into a fruitful Country. not of that which they may have in common with other Men upon certain Occasions. &c. He speaks of that Warfare which Christians have. and desire to have. 3. but mighty. for the Weapons of our Warfare are not 38 carnal. after the Manner of the Hebrews ) but against Principalities. Paul there meant the weak State of his Body. shews that by the Word Flesh St. vi. ye ask and receive not. which began to cease almost as soon as the Church had Christian Emperors. the Power given to him as an Apostle. Eloquence. Grotius. or of War? Nay. nay. the incestuous Corinthian. But this Place makes nothing to the Purpose. that the publick Powers were ordained by GOD to this End. for both what goes before. Flattery. 2. that ye may be able to stand against the Wiles of the Devil. 2 Cor. to punish the Refractory. Address. GOD raised up that miraculous Power for its Defence. are understood Riches. 11. that by carnal Weapons in this Place.) Arg. Put on the whole Armour of GOD. To this St. (7. weak. Glory. on the contrary. Power. which he used to Elymas the Sorcerer. Eph. What is this to the Right of capital Punishments.) Arg. Intrigue.) Arg. even from your Lusts. on the contrary. 7. that is. we do not war after the Flesh. because ye ask not. The fifth Place. when he had bid them abstain from capital Punishments. <43> 6. as to outward Appearance. that ye may consume it upon your 38. Hymenaeus. (add only. and Hypocrisy. to execute Punishment in GOD’s Stead? 5. that is.

observes. tho’ he has given Occasion to this false Interpretation. Lib. under the Word ⁄Abioi. as the Author of the short Scholia observes. Iliad. In the Verse quoted from Homer. Grotius. XV. that Robbers and Warriors were not to be found among such as lived on Water-gruel. and in great Poverty. p. B. B. ´ ◊ ´ ´ ◊ ´ Men who live on Milk. for which only reasonable Men are obliged to take Arms? Diogenes the Philosopher said. 7. 8. following the common Explanation. and making it common among Men. Edit. Justin. Faginus adstabat quum scyphus ante dapes. IV. p. speaking thus to that Prince. B. p. Brockhuys. there Covetousness is found. B. Paris. II. II. dikaiotatwn anjrwpwn. This contains no general Maxim. that those Nations 41 lived 39. 40. Upon consulting Strabo’s Geography. having told us that the Scythians made a Profession of Despising Gold and Silver as much as other Men idolized them. 300. Philo the Jew makes the same Remark. 11. 144. Q. Ch. B. as a particular People. at the Beginning of this Note. our Author. 892. 39 Gold is the Cause of so many Quarrels: There were no Wars whilst People drank out of wooden Goblets. but are remarkable for their Probity. abiwnte. B. Arrian’s Account of Alexander’s Expedition. James. whereas it is the ´ proper Name of some of the antient Scythians. 300. which absolutely condemns the Use of Arms. II. Curtius. Num. for Example. Paris. it only says. B. Vol. introduces Taxiles. nor necessary Food. Divitis hoc vitium est auri. Paris. p. that the Poet here speaks of the Abians. and that the Case is the same still. that those Wars and Fights with which the dispersed Jews were at that Time miserably harassed among themselves (part of which History we meet with in Josephus ) did arise from wicked Causes. Plutarch. I. VII. for. The Passage is worth reading. that The Innocence of their Morals and Freedom from Avarice proceeds from this excellent Disposition. and it is surprising. 8. See. if you neither come to deprive us of our Water. Edit.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 219 Lusts. we know. upon quoting that Verse of Homer. Lugd. II. What Necessity is there of Fighting and Wars between us. VII. Nicephorus Gregoras says something like this of the same People. Edit. Ch. 656. Eleg. B. where the Use of Riches is known. VII. and lament. VI. p. says he. And Stephanus. an Indian King. 1620. Porphyry looks on a simple and cheap Diet. B. v. in his Life of Alexander the Great. That of Tibullus has a Meaning not unlike this Passage of St. that Madam Dacier is the . XIV. Chap. 698. Wechel. 713. I. in his Treatise Of a contemplative Life. and B. Of Abstinence from Animal Food. &c. Edit. De Urbibus. 41. p. Num. I. 6. v. Edit. as what contributes very much towards establishing Piety. takes ◊Abiwn for an Epithet. 296. p. XIII. XI. Edit. nec bella fuerunt. Glaktojagwn. And we find it remarked 40 often in Strabo. it will appear.

by Sea and by Land! Vain Pomp of splendid Tables! Learn. with a View of making splendid Entertainments. or by what Fatality. which the Editor has not observed. We see Armies drawn up in Battle Array. an antient Rhetorician. but little regarded. Edit. that peaceable Animal. II. at the Instigation of an insatiable Desire of Gain? ◊Anjrwpi. but also Mr. as beautiful as those already quoted. writes thus. tho’ he assures the Publick. §12. but also those of the late Mr. 43. What forces Man to commit this Crime on Man? Since even the wild Beasts do not make War one with another. and if they did. undertook to make the necessary Supplements to it. without telling us where he found it. how little is sufficient for Life. 42. for not only Wetstein’s small Edition. Vol. are here conformable to those which had appeared before.—O profuse Luxury. whose Diet was most simple. IV. not only of Mr. Fabianus Papirius. Rich and old Wines cannot raise the Sick. Wech. Should it be asked. v. It will not be improper to confirm it by some other Passages. X. In the latter the Printer has omitted the whole Greek Scholium on the sixth Verse. which our Author produces. who hath not made a Mistake in this Place. p. why take you so much Pains for evil Things. Amst. who when he translated that excellent Piece into Latin. Page 1049. who are one Family. Pharsal. A good Fountain. 94. Stanley. and of the same Blood? Or what Fury animates you to shed one another’s Blood? By what Chance. This is a very just Observation. in The Contradictions of the first Translator of Homer. and most nearly resembling the Divinity? What excessive Rage actuates you. and worthy . It is fair Water that restores Health. is enough for Men. Wretched Mortals! Why then do they go to War? To which we may add that of 43 Plutarch. Barnes’s large and beautiful Edition. The Philosopher Athenaeus. because this Saying is one of those which have escaped the Enquiries. and adorning Palaces with Gold? No Doubt those Things must be great. how small a Portion Nature is contented with. &c. together with Bread. 473. it is not necessary for them to drink out of Gold or Porcelain Cups. What 42 Lucan says is agreeable to this. I am the more willing to make this Observation. B. kai dia kerdoc ´ ÷ ´ ’ ’ ´ ⁄Aplhston neikwn arxete kai polemon ÷ ⁄ ’ ´ Diogen. in his Philosophical History. Would the same Conduct become Man. in a Greek Epigram. B. every where searched for. and soon after the whole Country is covered with dead Bodies. written in English. may be seen in Porphyry.220 chapter ii most innocently. I. that is never satisfied with small Provision! Ambitious desire of Dishes. Lib. where often fellow Citizens and Relations are ready to engage one with another: The Hills on both Sides are covered with Cavalry. Edit. Olearius. and engage in Quarrels and Wars. or Plunderers. moxjeite ti xeirona. has so pernicious a Practice been introduced among Mankind? Must Parricide be committed. The Saying of Diogenes. he has placed it in better Order than it ever was in before. Mortals. Laert.

Elziv. Wars. nor would the Sword carry off greater Numbers than die of a of Commendation. I shall conclude all the fine Passages I have quoted. Lib. wholly addicted to Injustice. p. the Ruin of Cities. and were as scrupulous of grasping at other Men’s Goods and Possessions. which induce us to admire our sumptuous Tables. It were to be wished that the rest of Mankind practised the like Moderation. Num. either with one another. ◊Autarkeia. St. Claudian says. ad Patrem fidelem. v. Paris. In 1 Cor. but to a Fondness for exquisite Food and Dainties. II. I. Jovinian. &c. xiii. another from Covetousness. says. Edit. Histor. are not owing to a Desire of purchasing a simple Diet of Herbs and Fruit. on the Decalogue. There is no War among Men. Apud Suidam. II. of a Woman. Are not they (the Rich) the Authors of Seditions. Hist. B. prove the Cause of small and common Evils? Doth not this divide the nearest Relations. and all other Vices. II p. Lib. Lib. or among themselves. the Destruction of Cities. 77. by Means of Fleets and Armies? The Wars of the Grecians and Barbarians. Quarrels. Captivity. that Tyranny. Rapines. but what arises from Vice. Ought we not to desire to enslave the whole World. no one would injure another. Seditions. 206. Chrysostum observes. that The Magnificence of Riches has a Tendency to promote enormous Crimes. we should not hear the Sound of the Trumpet. one needs no other Philosophy or Master. by domestick Seditions? Is it not this that daily fills both Sea and Land with new Calamities. I. In Rufin. Murthers. 2. Glory. the Desire of Riches. Adv. that If mutual Love was maintained among all Mankind. Destruction. Basil. and rich Cielings. and convert their natural Affection into irreconcileable Hatred? Is it not for this that large and populous Countries are reduced to so many Desarts. Why are pernicious Riches sought for with so much Eagerness. St. We should not then see so many continual Wars carried on in all Ages. 3. IX. fill the World with War and Confusion. Agathias maintains. which are described by the Tragick Writers. voc. Slavery. would be banished out of the World. I. with a Saying of Polybius. Philo the Jew. one from the Desire of <44> Pleasures. Jerome. Edit. &c. and War. and in all Countries. nor be exposed to Sieges. that we may have it in our Power to indulge our Appetites and Passions without Restraint? In fine. 44 Justin commending the Manners of the Scythians. When one knows how to be contented with the Necessaries of Life. that The Minds of Men. Cap. and a third from Ambition. II. Wars.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 221 Stoicks. Murder. and in another Place. ´ 44. but with a Design of leaving them to our Children? Seneca. or Pleasure. and insatiable Desires. Pliny observes. 153. rather than retain our Innocence. p. . Controvers. If Men would be content with the little Nature requires. foreign and intestine Wars. Cap. he asks. and an Infinity of other Calamities? Orat. LXIII. of Glory. and live in the open Air. Natural Lib. 765. are all derived from one Source. or any Thing else that affords Pleasure. II. Doth the Love of Riches. Cap. Controv. The Philosopher Diogenes says. Edit. B. insatiable Desires.

should suddenly. That from those Passages nothing else can be gathered. against which I have three Things to say. and to teach something more sublime. not the common Opinion of the Churches. Cap. 142. that the Churches. but properly to the Use of Arms between private Persons. are the Causes of Wars. such as. First. use <45> to alledge some Passages of the primitive Christians. and inspire all Mankind with a Desire of adding to their Possessions. for the sake of procuring what is pleasant and advantageous to them. who are not always consistent with themselves.222 chapter ii Matt. Seditions. in its common Acceptation. But what was said to St. Seditions. For nothing but an excessive Concern for the Body. § 3. than the private Sentiment of some Persons. XIII. 46 Maximus Tyrius. and more largely explained by Word of Mouth. 142. Dissert. Edit. for Example. The Opinion of the primitive Christians concerning this. But they who condemn all Kind of War without Exception. and the Passions which direct making an extravagant Provision for it. examined. Dissentions. natural Death. For the same IX. I. because His Kingdom was not of this World ) shall be treated of in its 48 proper Place. for Men engage in War. & Mal. which were founded by the Apostles. affected to be singular. Besides. Whensoever there is any Dispute about the Sense of what is written. All Places are now full of War and Injustice. and the Authority of the Judicious. Davis. All they that take the Sword. for irregular Passions are every where let loose. Cap. 46. For it is not probable. (for CHRIST himself gives this Reason of his forbidding or neglecting his Defence. XIII. And 47 Jamblichus. 45. shall perish with the Sword. 36. and Wars. p. and Quarrels. or had even reduced into Practice. Discord. or all at once. p. fall off from the Maxims which the Apostles had briefly given them in Writing. which is also to be observed in Holy Scripture. In the next Chapter. xxvi. IX. most of them who are cited. the Practice afterwards established. Origen and Tertullian. Bon. Peter. uses to be of great Weight. 52 John xviii. 45 Cicero says. XIII. . not belonging to War. 48. De Finib. Lib. 47. Disorderly Passions give Birth to Hatred.

5 Their Condition (says he) is plainly different. Matt. he presently distinguishes between them who were Soldiers before their Baptism. Peter instructed: 6 Provided that having embraced the Faith. after he had made some Reflections against War. (1) Proc to dikaiouc. 9. Human Justice does not bear the Sword in vain. Cap. kai tetagmenouc polemouc. and the Severity of Punishment is advantageous to Mankind. Cap. IX.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 223 Origen says. and in his Exhortation to Chastity. Bonum esse. of 1 the just and regular Method that Men ought to take in making War. eipote deoi. for in his Book Of Idolatry. But in his Book Of the Soldier’s Crown. said. Cap. where it is delivered in a more energetical Manner. and another St. viii. 4. and whether military Persons may be admitted into the Christian Church? And in that Place. that you yourselves are under the Power of the Sword. one of whom CHRIST approved of. He then was sensible that they continued Soldiers after Baptism. in his Treatise Of Monogamy. nor are we afraid of you. that Bees were given as a Pattern by GOD. will deny this? 3. and being sealed (by Baptism) they either presently quit their Employment. quum puniuntur nocentes. De Anima. XIX. Grotius. Thus our Author cites the Passage. but a Criminal. And the very same Tertullian. Qui hoc nisi Nocens. Bonum est. But I wish we could save all Men. Who. De Idololatria. as many have done. You may both exercise your Jurisdiction. 5. The same Father says elsewhere. but does not tell us in what Treatise it is to be found. and those who list themselves after Baptism. 2 No Body denies but it is 3 good to punish the Guilty. XXXIII. The Query is. even on this Consideration. . IV. or as those most pious Centurions. Cap. nemo negat. according to St. who in another Place seems to disapprove of capital Punishments. when there is a Necessity for it. Paul. which certainly they would not have done. Our Author quotes only these Words. 6. as those whom John admitted to Baptism. in the folˆ lowing Terms. gignesjai en ’ ’ ´ ’ ´ ´ ⁄ ´ ´ ◊ anjrwpoic. He addresses himself to the Proconsul Scapula. XI. We do not attempt to terrify you. 2. quum puniuntur Nocentes. negabit? It is good to punish the Guilty. without specifying the Place ◊ ´ whence he took them. by exhorting them not to fight against GOD. Tertullian applies this Distinction to Marriage. that. who were Soldiers before their Conversion to the Faith. Grotius. And he is at a Stand about Wars. Acts x. or be particularly careful that they do nothing to offend GOD. he 4 says. It is in the nineteenth Chapter of his Book De Spectaculis. he seems to incline to that Opinion which is against War. and be mindful of the Duties of Humanity. Whether the Faithful may be allowed to take up Arms.

and 7 other Professors of unlawful Arts. Cyprian. . because they are not allowed to bear Arms or March on the Sabbath Day. on account of the Circumstances of the Times. and other Customs belonging to that People. Cap. 8 O Soldier. Lib. in regard to a Comedian. in St. without committing some Actions contrary to the Laws of Christianity. Alexander. and in another Place he relates. and will not easily be able to observe the Distinction of Meats. That Christians did often disapprove or avoid War. namely for the Reasons mentioned before. See an Example of this Discipline. which is extant in Josephus. Jud. High Priest. Tertullian says. till they had renounced such criminal Engagements. which would scarce permit the bearing of Arms.224 chapter ii if they had understood War to have been forbidden by CHRIST. Cap. in St. This Account immediately follows the Passage quoted in the last Note. De Fide & Operib. Stage-Players. V. in Tertullian. Magicians. In the same Book. no more than Soothsayers. I. that for the same Reasons the Jews got Leave 10 of Lentulus to <46> be discharged. they could not well perform the Rites of their own Law. we find the Jews 9 desire to be exempted from all military Expeditions. has declared to me.) in regard to the Gladiators. and such as traded in Cattle for Sacrifices. of a Charioteer in the publick Games. Chap. Oxon. V. because mixt with Strangers. and Prince of the Jewish Nation. and make long Marches. The primitive Christians admitted neither Prostitutes. XI. 11. to the Sacraments of the Church. De Corona militis. Cap. as exercise Professions not allowed of by the Law of GOD. Jud. glorious in GOD! The second Observation is. Augustin. Cap. 8. Leips. nor Persons of any other infamous Professions. and because they were forced on the Sabbaths to bear Arms. to which there was sometimes added a third. the Son of Theodore. 11 some listed themselves Soldiers. and him a Christian. Epist. LXI. infamous Promoters of Debauchery. Cap. Antiq. ˆ 9. Antiq. he cries out. Grotius. 488. were allowed after Baptism to practise their Art. Edit. that his Countrymen cannot engage in the Army. Such Persons are not received into the Church. De Idololatria. when the Jews were commanded to depart from the City of Rome. but to bear 7. XIV. commending a certain Soldier. (2d Edit. deputed from Hyrcanus. XVIII. In Dolabella’s Letter to the Ephesians. As we learn from St. XVII. 10. pag. and the same Historian tells us. XVIII. others were punished for refusing to do it in Reverence to the Laws of their Country. De Idol. because they would be obliged to fight against their own Countrymen. Augustin.

Paris. will be sufficient for shewing how little Grounds there are for what has been formerly and still is said in many Places. Homil.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 225 Arms against their Nation was unlawful. if there were really any divine Counsels. which ought to be looked on as Sins? The third Observation is this. that they often took the divine Counsels for Precepts of an indispensible Obligation. concerning those pretended Evangelical Counsels. 13 The Oath of Fidelity to GOD. they served in the Wars. and to live according to them. and at the same Time discovering what gave Occasion to the Distinction between them and Precepts. Jupiter. Cap. 14. Lib. and shall he sup where he is forbid by the Apostle? Shall he guard those (Demons) by Night. Cap. de Legend. This is what Josephus says of Alexander the Great. pro Christian. Legat. as in his Book of Idolatry. XI. as Josephus testifies. 18 seems to be design’d rather <skips to p. De Corona Militi. which they first stipulated. and that to Man. Ibid. 14 Shall he (a Christian) stand Centry before the Temples which he has renounced. Salvian 17 said it was commanded by CHRIST that we should rather abandon those things that are contested than engage in a Law Suit. ˆ 15. that the Christians of the Primitive Times aspired with so much Ardor to the highest degree of Perfection. he says. XIX. 48> 12. when their Countrymen were in danger for observing the Laws of their own Country. then. 10. even under foreign Kings. Cap. p. that is. Oxon. Antiq. Der. and others. and those of the Devil. 13. are things inconsistent with one another: Because the Soldiers were obliged to swear by the Pagan Gods. p. the Banners of CHRIST. But as often as the Jews could avoid these Inconveniencies. Grecor. § 7. 74. Christians (says 16 Athenagoras ) do not sue at Law those that rob them. I. 1694. ult. Very like to these Dangers were those. 1645. properly so called. In his Book of the Crown of a Soldier. De Gubernat. they must necessarily relate to such things as on . 15 How many other Military Functions are there. Edit. But this taken so generally. which. which he has exorcised in the Day? And afterwards. Ed. 17. but yet 12 continuing to observe the Laws of their Country. First. Lib III. XI. 1706. Lib. who proposed their serving him on these Conditions. Basil the Great pretends that going to Law is expresly forbidden by the Gospel. 18. in my Opinion. Edit. I say. 16. De Idolol. which Tertullian objects to the Men of the Sword in his Times. Jud. St. Mars. Without entering into Theological Disputes. Cap. Oxon. I shall only make some Remarks.

it was highly improper for Christians to go to Law in the Courts of Pagan Judges. and Prudence equally require such a Cession. viz. who has taken it from us or detains it unjustly. which are the most considerable of those made to regard the Evangelical Counsels. that it would even be a bad one. who have made a Vow of Celibacy. III. have generally fallen into one of these two Inconveniences. 2. and some considerable Interest is at Stake. or occasioning any other Inconvenience. either they have not lived chastly. as he may likewise be either in Celibacy. we are to avoid them as much as possible. Animosities. it is a general Maxim. when. 2. §. supposing he believes himself entirely secure from Temptations of Impurity. This is not a Counsel. &c. and in certain Circumstances. It is but too evident from Experience that those. if while he lives in Celibacy. and chusing rather to lose one’s Property. &c. but a real Precept. 1. Paragraph 8. especially when certain particular Circumstances demand such a Moderation. 4. This was the Case in the Infancy of Christianity. Let us begin with second Marriages and Celibacy in general. A Man may be good or bad in a married State. so that they can in no Case be obligatory. and do the Publick more Service in a single Life (which depends on the Condition and Circumstances of each Person. and its Votaries. or not to marry a second Time. In regard to forbearing Law Suits. Now. or detain’d. here alledged by our Author from the ancient Fathers. than sue the Person. especially when he may thus make a better Provision for his Family. IV. it is so far from being a very commendable Action. for thus ill-designing . It is certain that whether a Person marries or lives single. See what our Author says. and more capable of discharging his Duty. The View of promoting Peace. which either are neither good.226 chapter ii one hand are always commendable. Covetousness. nor evil in their own Nature. of which they must judge for themselves) he is then under an indispensible Obligation not to marry. both the Gospel. Expences. 1. Divisions. left entirely to the Liberty of every Man. that we are obliged to make some Abatement in our Right. and the Law of Nature. which attend the pursuit of our most just Rights. But if one has good Reason to believe he shall be able to employ his Time better. and expose ourselves to a slight Loss rather than engage in all unhappy Consequences. Sloth. considering the thing in itself. Hatred. excellent. such as Anger. the Matter is then entirely indifferent. or have not proved less subject to other Passions and Vices very unworthy of a Christian. so neither is an unmarried Life an infallible Means for practising Virtue. numb. and in their own Nature agreeable to GOD: And on the other. Chap. So that Law-Suits bring commonly so many pernicious Sources of Hatred. of this Chapter. upon a careful Examination of the very Examples. if no such Inconvenience to ourselves or others is to be apprehended. it will appear that they turn on things. Discontent. quietly to permit our Property to be taken away. he does not for that Reason become more useful to Society. he does neither Good nor Evil in that. which our Author elsewhere ranks in this Class. num. Perplexities. or laid themselves under the same Tie in regard to a second Marriage. the Spirit of Domination. even though a Man’s Constitution will easily allow him to forego Marriage. But. Pride. or are really obligatory in relation to certain Persons. As the married State does not necessarily engage to Vice. to avoid giving an ill Opinion of that Religion. B. whenever that can be done without great Prejudice to ourselves.

Cap. or in a manner contrary to some Virtue. As to these Cases. we are to judge of them by the Principles already laid down in regard to Law-Suits. in a much greater Degree. In this Case it is no longer a pretended Counsel of extraordinary Perfection. 14. Fourthly. so that as we may Trade either innocently. V. as when things which regard the Glory GOD. So that Patience in the Case before us. or even barely accepting of the Dignities in Question. but when the Person is engaged so to do by some stronger Obligation. or knows he has great Reason to apprehend the Influence of Temptations to Vanity. for the worthy Discharge of the Functions annexed to them. or the Good of Mankind are concerned. that many of the antient Doctors of the Church condem’d all in general. which might prompt him to frequent Abuses of the Power and Privileges with which he would be invested. In regard to the latter. on whom they are conferred. But the Apostle St. There is no great Virtue in neglecting or rejecting the former: And as there is great Danger they will inspire us with Sentiments of Pride. or some other dangerous Temptation. because those who accepted of these Posts were obliged to exhibit publick Shews for the Entertainment of the People. 13. to which a Man finds himself disposed. is either useless or prejudicial. has nothing in it deserving Commendation. The thing therefore is in itself indifferent. Almost the same may be said of declining War. Fifthly. as it might add to the Inconveniences of one’s self or one’s Friends. Thirdly. In regard to the thing its self. when the primitive Christians refused the Edileship or Praetorship. either the Candidate is Possess’d of the Qualifications requisite for acting in a publick Character. when his own furnishes him with all Necessaries? Lib. and have no Tendency to promote the Good of Society: Or it is requisite that they. where our Interest only is concerned. or even if there are other Candidates who are possess’d of them. he commits a Fault in pursuing. says that Father. But the extravagant Ideas they had of several other things. taking an Oath is sometimes indispensibly necessary. . the Honours in question are either vain Titles and frivolous Distinctions. it was. in which there was some Mixture of Idolatry. or it is a real Duty. James manifestly supposes it lawful to go from Coast to Coast for the sake of Traffick and Gain. to abstain from trading. should be possess’d of certain commendable Talents and Qualities. v. give us room to believe. but an indispensible Obligation incumbent on every Christian. it would be either Sloth or false Modesty to decline it. If not. or what should be seek for in a foreign Country. to which one is called. For why should he go to Sea. XVII. which suppose no Merit in the Persons who receive them. that one is much more capable of acquitting one’s self of an honourable Employ. in which one may deceive himself. Lactantius does not allow a Christian to trade by Sea. But if one is convinced not only in one’s own Opinion. according to Gronovius. unless it be with a View of avoiding an insatiable Avidity of Gain. and it could not be reasonably done. or he is not. even that ought to be a Reason for avoiding them. and where the Distinction of Counsels and Precepts might take Place most. than others who aspire at them. or when the Magistrate for just Reasons requires it. and then it cannot deserve Commendation. iv. but also by the impartial Judgment of understanding Persons. who sought for or accepted of Honours and Dignities. and such a Moderation would be the more blameable. for which a Man can never be too well qualified. Chap.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 227 Men would be encouraged to do evil.

for which he had received an express Command from our Lord JESUS CHRIST. in Opposition to the Necessity imposed on him of preaching the Gospel. and he seems elsewhere to insinuate that he had one. It is taken from St. though the Persons to whom the Apostles preached. vii. and had no relation to his Duty. that if he had not made use of his Power. Besides. could with no shew of Reason require them to do it without some Salary. yet as soon as he was persuaded his Ministry would by that Means prove more efficacious (which probably he had room to conclude from some particular Reason unknown to us. In Reality. and expects to be rewarded for his Conduct. than barely refusing to take what others have in Rigour a Right to demand. 23. or at least not necessarily join’d with the Exercise of the Evangelical Ministry. xi. Thus St. He himself clearly gives us to understand the contrary. the Apostle here considers the Disinterestedness. which comes now to be consider’d. or be too humble. See what Grotius himself has said on this Point. strictly speaking. The Apostles made use of the Word Counsel. an Obligation founded on the general Engagement. ix. in regard to things either indifferent in themselves. and even ought to engage in that State.228 chapter ii Sixthly. not formally enjoin’d him by particular Order from Heaven. treating of Marriage. we have likewise more Reason to congratulate ourselves on so happy a Disposition. Thus. 14. v. in preaching the Gospel without receiving any Salary. when speaking to Christians of the Conduct they ought to observe in certain Circumstances. 13. had likewise adopted the Distinction of Counsels and Precepts. it does not thence follow that the said Act was entirely free in regard to him. 16. 2 Cor. 9. Paul’s Generosity. as a Duty. and that. to which Christians were then exposed. 15. 10. which requires every Man to seek and employ all Means necessary for acquitting himself of an important Charge. who. as in such Cases Persons make an Abatement of their Right in Favour of those with whom they have to do. that in Reality such as are not favour’d with the Gift of Continence might. as appear from his long Note on Colos. St. and that married Persons ought not to refuse one . ii. Paul was not obliged to do it. or concerning which they had neither any particular Order from JESUS CHRIST. out of respect to Ecclesiastical Antiquity. 18. 15. to all these Examples given by Grotius. that the first Preachers of the Gospel should carefully avoid all that could give the least Suspicion of their publishing the Christian Religion for their own Profit and Advantage: And it may be said in general that all who undertake to instruct others in that holy Religion. says. and may expect from the Divine Goodness a greater Recompence. 1 Cor. Acts xxii. and therefore a greater Stock of Virtue is requisite for resolving on such a Sacrifice. in the best manner he is able. in his Notes on Luke xvii. it was a Matter of the last Importance. Though the Apostle glories in not having made use of his Power of demanding a Salary.) he lay under a real Obligation so to do. for which he applauds himself. 1 Cor. can never appear too disinterested. 10. But on a close Examination of the Matter. we shall find nothing in it relating to a Counsel properly so call’d. it was that the Gospel might be without Charge. Paul. imposing an evident and indispensible Obligation of acting or not acting in such or such a manner. when he says. 12. nor any general Rule in the Gospel. Hammond. However. And this leads us to what gave Occasion to this false Distinction of Precepts and Counsels. let us add one alledged by Dr. and considering the Afflictions and Persecutions. 11.

than the Sacrifice they make by abstaining from Things permitted. and in themselves highly agreeable to GOD. he therefore calls his Exhortations bare Counsels. 10. 17. acquired as exact and extensive a Knowledge of his Duties. Lastly. As Men are fond of the Wonderful. 40. not expected from great Numbers. and those whose conjugal Tie had been dissolved by the Death of one or the other. as that to be found in the Gospel. which raises them above the common level. viii. not unlike this. concerning that Matter. than he demanded of the antient Jews. it may divert them from the Practice of Virtue. Another Reason. according to his State and Condition. He does the same. he arises to an extraordinary degree of Perfection. as that of true Christians. Hence some have. by this Abstinence from certain Things. is. that as GOD requires of Men more extensive Duties and in greater Number. which may have given Birth to the Distinction under Consideration. under the Jewish Dispensation. nor any Reason to be apprehensive of Punishment for such Omission. Experience shews the . that he has no Commandment of the Lord. they are in great Danger of being dazzled with the pompous Ideas of an imaginary Perfection. v. and even certain Virtues. as one who hath obtain’d Mercy of the Lord to be faithful. and imagine himself excused the Practice of them. nor separate. is so far from having any Tendency toward making Men virtuous. so that there is no evil in the neglect of them. to deceive himself grosly in regard to plain and common Duties. and who hath the Spirit of the Lord. that is as a good Interpreter of the Will of GOD. neglecting several Branches of their real Duty. such a Jew would then have been obliged to as regular and holy a Conduct. though of an excellent Nature. these are certain virtuous Acts. however. It has been particularly observed that GOD requires greater Sanctity from Christians. because there are but few in Circumstances will oblige them to such Practices. In which. and performs such Acts of Virtue as merit a singular Reward. 2 Cor. in Proportion to their Knowledge and Assistance on the Practice of them. if any one. But that he had rather those who had never been married. so that as he was obliged to leave the Matter to each Man’s Judgment and Conscience. or Counsel. which. which might have been done by a careful Examination of the Principles. the Exercise of which Virtue ought to be voluntary and proportion’d to each Man’s Abilities. the Practice of which their Passions sometimes render more difficult. without sufficient Grounds. or Advice. that in certain Cases. but that he gives his Judgment. It is even possible for Man. however. which each Person was to apply for his own Use and Direction. should remain as they are. are left to every one’s Liberty. to make himself Amends for the Violence committed on his Inclinations. but if any Man forms the noble Design of aspiring to them. and of every thing that flatters their Vanity. He declares. dispersed through the Writings of Moses and the other Prophets. taken Occasion to imagine there are some things. when he admonishes the Corinthians to practise Liberality to the Poor. v. 25.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 229 another the Marriage Debt. had by Force of Meditation and Reflection. unless it be done by mutual Consent. he could not avoid laying down some general Rules. and. while in pursuit of such Chimeras. it is to be observed that the Distinction of Counsels and Precepts. But it ought to be consider’d that. even though one of the Parties were not a Christian. in determining what was to be done in regard to the Circumstances of those Times. under Pretence of extraordinary Sanctity.

ii. Cellar. 2 Cor. Cap. XXVI. Philip. v. who believed that the Practice of inflicting capital Punishment. Hammond’s Note. whose Soul is always at Peace with all the World? Instit. Oxon. that a Christian. 21. XXI. For why should he (the just Man) go to Sea. 18. Grotius. 8. 23. and engage in other Men’s mad Quarrels. Ind. Paul himself did swear in Matters of Consequence. even though actually attacked. where we meet with the Sense. but not expressed in the same Words. How many of the Primitive Fathers dissuade Christians from second Marriages? All which. XLVI. 34. 20. Lactantius maintains. I. but not as an absolute Precept. reward the Good. Cap. Thus many of the Primitive Fathers condemn’d 20 all Oaths. Apolog. as also his Notes on the second Epistle of Sulpicius Severus. 420. already cited. 9. Lib. II. Divin. num. 19 and tending to a more sublime Life. X. Epist. 23. are not inconsistent with Christianity: Clemens Alexandrinus says. and Gregory the Great. 12. And Truth of this Reflection in such as make Vows of Celibacy and Poverty. as they are commendable. should be <49> (as Moses ) a living Law to the Subjects. 22. A Christian in Tatian said. if he be called to the Government. LVIII. without any Exception. . 20. that he should not go to Sea. de Offic. p. excellent. Edit. the Innocence of which depends on the Justice of the former. V. Cap. A Christian is not 22 ambitious of the Aedile’s Office. I refuse the Pretorship. X. and that of making War. Gal. i. II. The fourth Council of Carthage forbids Bishops to go to Law for temporal Concerns. Sermon. Ambrose. In Rom. that a just Man (such he would have a Christian to be) should not make War. and of Edit. 1 Now to confirm our own Opinion. 1709. and even more ancient ones than those that are opposed to us. Lib. XXVII. Le Clerc’s Addition to Dr. Cap.230 chapter ii as good Counsel. and Tillotson’s XXII. 23 but at the same time says. whereas 21 St. i. In Tertullian. i. first we want not Writers. (1) Our Author’s Thoughts were probably on what that antient Doctor says in his Stromata. See St. so they are not required of us by the Necessity of any Law. and punish the Bad. 19. See our Author’s Notes on Mat. and highly pleasing to GOD. 5. Leipsic. XVII. See Mr. XI. i. Lib. who is supplied with all he wants in his own? Why should he go to War. Lib. or what should he look for in a foreign Country. Edit. 1 Thes. These Remarks will suffice to answer all Objections founded on Ecclesiastical Antiquity.

4 Let a Soldier that desires to be baptized. a Fact which can never be disputed. in his Criticisms on Baronius. I. was more brave than the rest of his Fellows. In the aforesaid Constitutions. 6. We may add. the same Writer treats of those who formerly used to be admitted to Baptism. Cap. by the Prayers of his Christian Soldiers. be exhorted to abstain from Wrongs and Oppressions. Cap. In the Constitutions. VII. 7. 5. that some Soldiers that had suffered Torments and 2. 240.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 231 in another Place. . speaking in the Person of Christians. XXXII. 2 describing the Habit of a Christian. Cap. The Constitutions of Clemens Romanus. to be content with his Pay: If he complies with these. and which has given Occasion to all the Wonders invented concerning the thundering Legion. intitled. says. it would become him to go barefoot. Ibid. and yet we have filled all your Empire. Islands. he says. I. VIII. Cap. 8. but only that of the Innocent. that the Soldier who had thrown away the Garland. let him be admitted. Councils. Apolog. that Soldiers were never denied Baptism. 4. he says. XI. V. Father Pagi. and those who used to be rejected. In the same Book he had 7 told that Rain had been obtained in favour of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. I say then. has shewn that this Story has a great Mixture of Fables. Tertullian in his Apology. provided that this Right of putting to Death be reserved to the Magistrate alone. or Excommunicated by the Church. and others. But setting aside private Opinion. III. In his Book Of a Crown. Lib. Cap. p. Tom. He had said a little before. as it is called by Eusebius. XLII. unless he should happen to be a Soldier. (because they were Soldiers ) which yet ought to have been done. Castles. Not that all Killing is unlawful. that he had many Christian fellow Soldiers. if the military Profession had been repugnant to the Conditions of the new Covenant. 3. which ought to be of the greatest Weight. Paedag. and your very Armies. and would have been done. Cap. Lib. let us come to the publick Authority of the Church. Cap. II. Towns. and fight together with you. and he 8 informs us. that Marcus Aurelius had Christians in his Army. we 3 read. 5 We go to Sea. Lib. 6 We are but of a few Days standing. But it is sufficient for our Author’s Purpose. XXXVII.

It appears from Tertullian. and Valentinus. 10. to which he probably alludes. even before the Emperors were Christians. who suffered Martyrdom under Decius. which sufficiently appears in the single Instance of the 12 Silanian Decree of the 9. both Africans. and immediately precedes that Sentence. We have an Example of the Case in Tacitus. and that Father uses the very Terms which I have placed here. 12. Lib. XXXIX. as our Author has observed in a Note. XLII. (34. Thus the Words stand in all Editions. XIV. fifty under Aurelian. at Trials for Life. received from the Church the same Honour with other Martyrs. De Idol. among whom are recorded 9 three of St. since for the most part Christians themselves were to be tried. a Lieutenant-General under Maximian: About the same Time.232 chapter ii Death for the Sake of CHRIST. XIX. who quotes Quintilian and Seneca. that if a Master happened to be assassinated in his own House. in his Martyrology. Marcellus the Centurion. Victor. Cap. all the Slaves under the same Roof should be put to Death. were more severe than Christian Lenity could allow of. Grotius. it was ordered. By this Senatus Consultum. by ordering that only they should be racked. Besides. Hence it is plain. Epist. mentioned by Ado. under Valerian. or Decree of the Senate. to hear some Noise. but were truly the Soldiers of GOD in the spiritual Warfare. whilst they vanquished the Devil by the Confession of CHRIST. Pamel. Vita Hadriani. Severian under Licinius. even tho’ no Proof appeared of their being concerned in the Murther. Paul ’s Companions: Cerialis. baptized by Cornelius. the Palms. Cap. Annal. what the common Opinion of the primitive Christians was concerning War. Spartian. Cyprian concerning Laurentius and Ignatius. Grotius has before quoted what follows. Capitalibus suppliciis. Cap. &c. If the Christians in those Times did not willingly appear at 11 Trials for Life. and obtained by their Martyrdom. the Roman Laws in other Things. softened the Rigour of that Decree. pursuant to my Author’s Meaning. it ought not to be thought strange. The Emperor Adrian. and glorious Crowns of the LORD. was one of the Reasons why the primitive Christians made a Difficulty of bearing Arms. not as a bare Spectator of the capital Executions. as Tesmar ridiculously explains this Passage. . who were near enough to the Place. Marinus. says. but what follows makes it evident that the Author design’d to have said Capitalibus Judiciis. or having heard any Thing when the Blow was given. Edit. where the Master was killed. The Question is about acting as a Judge. Add to all these a Soldier.) 11. 10 They also were once Soldiers in the Armies of this World. Maurus. that the Obligation of being present at such Trials. Oxon.

or one that began to heal. Lib. Cap. IV. Vit. ought to be loved and reverenced by Mankind. Lib. tho’ most of those Bishops were very strict Observers of Discipline. Tit. VI. De publicis Judiciis. that it may not communicate the Infection to those that are sound. See the late Mr.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 233 Senate. for the Entertainment of the Publick. that exhorted Constantine not to put any Criminal to Death. but when he persisted in it on the Rack. among other Laws. Tit. 13. <50> and begun to promote. Cuper’s Notes on Lactantius. with a Dog. 1576. See the Commentators on the Institutes. I. XI. among so many Bishops. Constantini. 16. Nay. out of Fear of GOD’s Wrath. the Danes did the same in relation to their King Harold. Lib. do we read of so much as one. Constantine himself. a Cock. Tit. and the Receptae Sententiae of Paul the Lawyer. Grotius. as we learn from Saxo the Grammarian. 193. He used to say. XVII. made also this 13 of sowing up Parricides in a Leather Sack. Lib. which. See Cod. and the Majesty of the Emperor. some of whom had suffered very severely for Religion. IV. Northern Hist. and Mr. He had also a great many Christians in his Army. and far from disXVIII. Wechel. ult. But yet. Lib. Leg. and an Ape—and thrown either into the neighbouring Sea. Scriver. Such Criminals were burnt. 14. after that Constantine embraced. Lib. XIII. . If any one is guilty of the Death of his Parent. p. And this his Historian represents as the Result of his Tenderness for such as reformed their Lives. Viget. The distempered and rotten Limb must be cut off. but the Use of it was abolished. a Viper. Our Author says likewise. XXIV. II. Cap. Cap. De Re Militari. or a River. or any other Relation. and the HOLY GHOST. Plantin. IX. (as History informs us) and caused the Name of CHRIST to be put 15 on his Standard: From that Time also the military Oath was changed to that Form extant in Vegetius. with Mr. the Christian Religion. XVIII. or to engage in any War. V. 16 By GOD. next to GOD. It is well known this was the antient Manner of punishing Parricides among the Romans. we may add to the too rigorous Laws of the Romans. XXXI. I. Edit. or obliged to engage with wild Beasts. but not a sound one. Cap. in the same Note. tho’ otherwise he was so very mild towards Criminals. De servis fugitivis. Lib. capital Punishments did not thereupon cease. or Son. Schulthig’s Notes. Lib.—Let him be sewed up in a Sack. that which forbids admitting the Evidence of a Slave. As the Christians complained of that Prince’s Excess of Clemency. that he is 14 blamed by many Historians. Tit. Neither at that Time. Edit. V. which falls under the Denomination of Parricide. IV. Zon. for too much Indulgence. § 6. or that dissuaded the Christians from serving in Wars. Noodt’s Probabilia Juris. XLIV. 15. &c. and CHRIST. De Mortibus Persecutorum. Leg. 194. De his qui parentes aut liberos occiderunt.

addressed to Macedonius. Caus. inserted in the Canon Law. who in his seventh Sermon speaks thus. The very Passage. XXVII. let no Man remain in Prison. or our Companions from Robbers. and that about Easter. Grotius. that I will seek for no other. will find that they are only the Effects of 17. as appears from the rest of the Law. in his Notes on Matt. or protects the Weak at Home. Cap. ˆ III. Tit. We find a like Saying of St. is compleat Justice. Lib. and that Custom was introduced. See St. as any one may perceive from what he reads in the Gospels. 21. should not be delivered up. De Statuis. Augustin says. 43.234 chapter ii sembling those Things. or other Persons: Such was St. XXV. This Argument seems to me of so great Weight. Grotius. in the Time of Theodosius. As soon as the first Day of the Paschal Feast is come. 18. p. have 19 often interceded in favour of Criminals. 16. Cap. &c. 19. however. XXIII. &c. I. Chrysostom. Leg. Can. II. which either defends our Country by Arms from Barbarians. the Custom under Consideration had been before received by the Jews. Homil. says he. Augustin. II. I am not ignorant. Quaest. And in his Offices. III. as taken from his Book. Tit. 18 Valour. De verbis Domini. The Council of Orleans. VI. Tract or Sermon XIX. xxvii. under the Name of that Father. They were written by Barnabas Brisson. This is followed by his Reply to that Magistrate’s Objections. let every ones Chains be loosed. occurs in that Father’s fifty-fourth Epistle. III. De Episcopali audentia. Cod. where we have several of the like Thoughts of other Fathers of the Church. printed at Paris in 1564. 21 those who were committed to Prison should be released. that Bishops. I. which related either to the Duty of the Emperors. You ask me. Our Author. and the Laws of the Wisigoths. especially such as were condemned to Death. IV. It is a Priest’s Duty to intercede for Criminals. . XVI. See Observationes divini & humani juris. a President famous for his great Learning. a Judge. Tit. Why we say it is a Duty annexed to our sacerdotal Character to intercede for Criminals? &c. Lib. Lib. that they who 20 took Sanctuary in a Church. IX. But he that carefully considers all these and such like Things. De Offic. 20. here quoted by our Author. This Passage occurs also in the Canon Law already quoted. Cap. § 9. 15. B. Several Instances of such Acts of Goodness may be seen in that Father’s Epistles. conjectures that this Privilege was granted them by Augustus. and other Christian People. Ambrose. St. I. V. took Place only in regard to some certain Crimes. but to do it purely for Plunder is a Sin. Chap. And our Author quotes the same Words elsewhere. V. This. but upon promise to save their Lives. Lib. 17 To go to War is no Fault. Besides.

(XV. and shall think the Form of their entering into the Church to be sufficient for their Conversion. and therefore. Cap. Ep. Here some object against us. Tertullian. but have afterwards returned like Dogs to their Vomit. Zonaras. but limited to certain Times and Places. and quitted their military Employment. ought to be supposed tacitly repeated here. Oxon. Cap. The Crime here meant.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 235 Christian Goodness. But whosoever shall look on their Punishment with Indifference. in his Treatise Of Idolatry. sufficiently declares. which condemns in general all capital Punishments. Caemeterii. by Fear. Cap. which eagerly embraces all Opportunities of Mercy. by Tears. in the 11th Canon immediately preceding. it must be observed what Disposition they are in. Lib. and Rufinus. and not <51> the Consequences of a fixed and settled Opinion. &c. Lib. And St. Let such as (having at first resisted the Violence used on them) have afterwards yielded to Iniquity. calls it. XLIX. III. The most enormous Crime which Man can commit: The Heighth of Guilt. these shall fulfil the whole appointed Time. gravissimum & extremum Delictum. Var. Lib. VI. and by good Works. Grotius. shall at Length assist at publick Prayers. Simeon le Maitre expresses the Sense of this Canon thus. Cyprian. Cap. the 12th Canon of the Council of Nice. and engaged in the Army again. was undoubtedly 24 Idolatry. These Exceptions may be seen in Cassiodore. The very Term of thirteen Years Penance. X. but a heinous and incontestable Crime. give this Canon the same Sense. XI. which runs thus. But in regard to all these. Tit. XL. be excluded from Communion for ten Years. and in what Manner they do Penance. Balsamon. For whoever. I. Edit. so that some shall give Money. De immunitate Ecclesiarum. those Favours were not universal. 23. to be taken into the Service: They shall lye prostrate (in the Church) for ten Years. and make Interest. by Patience. and afterwards it shall be lawful for the Bishop to treat them somewhat more favourably. VI. See also the Decretals. 24. as the Sense of the following Canon often 22. 23 Whoever being called by Grace. have at first shewed their Zeal and Faith. after having been for three Years bare Hearers (of the Word). that the Matter in Question is not about a small or doubtful Sin. for the Mention which was made of the Times of Licinius. . these fulfilling the appointed Time of Hearing. XI. Grotius. testify the Sincerity of their Conversion.) Grotius. and even the Intercessions themselves were moderated 22 with certain Exceptions.

for which Reason we read Victricius. were left to their Choice by Constantine. of whom was Arsaceus. Num. XVII.236 chapter ii depends on the former. and had not. who would not 26 sacrifice to their Gods: And the Emperor 27 Julian afterwards did the same. Sacr. In the Time then of Licinius. (as Eusebius 25 informs us) dismissed those Soldiers from the Service. Hist. XXXIII. XXXIII. who had resigned their military Employments from a Motive of Conscience. Grotius. Sozomen. Cap. . and dismissed those from the Service who refused to comply. afterwards made Bishop of Mopsuestia. Lib. who was afterwards Emperor. We have likewise the Authority of Sulpicius Severus for this Fact. under Julian. Edit. For 28 History plainly testifies. because they could not continue in it without declaring for Arianism. Lib. by how much their former Act had shewn them to have a superior Knowledge of the Divine Laws. whether they would continue still discharged. LIV. And formerly 1104 Soldiers had done so in Armenia. under Dioclesian. that they who had quitted their Posts under Licinius. Cap. 2. Vorst. of whom there is Mention made in the Martyrologies: And Menna and Hesychius. Philostorgius. Wherefore those. <52> 25. had for the same Reason been deprived of a military Employment. in Egypt. therefore these Apostates were punished more grievously than those mentioned in the former Canon. II. Cap. many left the Service. 26. Hist. or return to a military Life: Which doubtless many did. V. returned to them again. ordered his Soldiers to offer Sacrifice. Lib. as we learn from Rufinus. See for an Instance the 11th Canon of the Eliberan Council. and Auxentius. because they would not violate their Christian Faith. Valentinian. See Sozomen. during his Reign. without any Danger of losing Life or Goods. II. quitted the military Profession for the Sake of CHRIST. In the Life of Constantine. 28. I. that under King Huneric. 27. But to interpret this Canon generally of all War without Restriction. could not be admitted again under Licinius. Lib. &c. and others. several quitted the Service. when he tells us. in the Life of Constantine. Eusebius. But Licinius. mentioned among the Confessors. Cap. is absolutely against Reason. who abjured Christianity. but by renouncing the Christian Faith: Which Crime was by so much the greater. Licinius. Theodore. being engaged in disputing the Empire with Constantine. Victor of Utica says somewhat like this.

in Proportion to the Liberty he has allowed himself in unlawful Acts. XXXIII. that the extraordinary Purity of their Lives might serve as much to Edification. But we must know. VIII. III. Priest.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 237 There are also some who object the Epistle of 29 Leo. in the same Epistle to Rusticus. Grotius. in the Letter written by the Bishops to Lewis King of Germany. Lib. X. VI. entelhc. Ecclesiastics ought not to have been diverted from their Functions by 32 any other Care or Work. that they might be the more reverenced for their venerable Name. V. Grotius. (al. Moreover. and the sacerdotal Function: For those Things that are Caesar’s. the other short of Perfection. I. 31. Quaest. and retain at the same Time a Roman Employment. that those Christians who did not aspire to Ecclesiastical Offices were not forbid to follow Arms. We find this Passage in the Canon Law. to return to the Profession of Arms. 30. I. Lib. 1640. who serve in a just War. Tit. should follow the War. far above that of the Generality of Christians. Cap. Cap. as it has been more impoverished by Crimes. Besides. Every Man ought to renounce the Use of what is in itself allowable. That it is against the Rules of Ecclesiastical Discipline. but of them who had given Proof of a most strict Life. Lib. which. could not be ordained Clergymen. that in Penitents. 32. Demonstr. De Paenitentia Dist. Eusebius observes. By which it appears. L. Can. and by the Council of Toledo. Evang. to represent their Duty to those. III. Let not Ecclesiasticks or Monks engage in temporal Affairs. Let every one endeavour to enrich his Soul with good Works. quoted in the Decretals. And in ˆ the Capitularies of Charlemagne. That no Bishop. Cap. there was required an eminent Degree of Sanctity. Edit. XC.) to Rusticus. Cap. that the Life of a Christian is of two Sorts. as you may see in the Epistles of Syricius and Innocentius. of greater Value. a Bishop. Canon of the Council of Mentz. He adds. ◊ ’ among other Things. ought. or Deacon. Civil or Military. are generally called the Apostolical Canons: Canon the 82d it is decreed. which says. the one perfect. they who after Baptism had served any Office. Pope Leo. CCLXIV. Epist. Likewise in the most antient Customs of the Church. says. We have almost the same Thought. Caus. And in the Capitularies of Charles the Bald. 29. must abstain from several that are in their own Nature lawful. after having done Penance. XCII. Paris. and those that are GOD’s should be given to GOD. Grotius. For Clergymen were not chosen 31 out of Christians of any Sort. that such as lead the latter. no less than in Clergymen and Monks. III. . that He who obtains Pardon for doing Things unlawful. should be given to Caesar. 30 as their bad Examples had before given Offence.

from the Service of the Altar. Ep. Deacons. See also Justinian’s Code. Whoever has attempted to divert the Priests and Ministers of the Church. Cyprian.) De Lapsis. XXI. because he. But we have the express Judgment of the Church for our Opinion. for having dared to name a Priest Guardian. the deceased deserves some Kind of Punishment even after Death. XIV. Lib. XXXI. Oxon. Cyprian. 35. p. For the Christians by the Word 35 Peace meant so. in his Biblioth. as Ziegler observes on this Place. &c. Oxon. X. Cap. who. And the sixth of the African Councils. 3. which was held under Constantine. occurs in the Canon Law. Can. As to those who throw away their Arms in Time of Peace. XII. Mr. Priest. Edit. Distinct. as appears from Cyprian and others. 3. that. Lib. forbids Oblations. in Opposition to the Regulation lately made in a Council. according to the Custom then introduced. which afterwards paved the Way to Superstition. 234. Tit. for the Repose of his Soul. Le Clerc’s Life of St. Cap. 1 & 2. or publick Prayers to be offered in his Name. should meddle in secular Affairs. III. and Caus. Cyprian holds it 34 unlawful for them to be appointed Tutors or Guardians. LII. that he should not act either as an 33 Attorney or an Advocate. Cap. we have thought fit to exclude them from the Communion. Cap. on the Anniversary of his Death.238 chapter ii that required continual Application. is not the VI. I. according to that Father. p. for which Reason the first Canon provided. Tom. Victor. in the first Council of Arles. to which our Author barely refers. See St. dared appoint a Priest to the Charge of a Guardian. XIX. 34. Num. when there was no Persecution. The Canon here quoted. Sulpicius Severus. and at the Beginning of his Hist. Oxon. Hist. or Deacon. is not to be allowed any Oblation among you. . Quaest. (Edit. Cyprian. See Bishop Fell’s Note on this Passage. III. Jerom’s Epistle to Nepotian. I. IX. Leg. Num. Can. that he should not be concerned in the administration of publick Affairs. (XVI. Univers. (pro Dormitione ejus) nor is any Prayer to be offered in the Church in his Behalf. and the 80th. but the VII. 33. I. Edit. Vorst. De fuga Persecut. Epist. II. Cap. Epist. Grotius. Grotius. To which may be added. for the third Canon of that Council runs thus. they who quit their military Employment. Lib. XXXIII. From which it appears. LXXXVIII. in his Treatise. Let us add the <53> Example of the Soldiers under Julian. I.) Addressed to the Priests. So St. deserves not even to be mentioned in the Priest’s Prayers at the Altar: For which Reason. Sacra. on that Account. 123. XXXII. III. that is. Cyprian. who had made so great Progress in Christianity. Examples of this Acceptation of the Word may be seen in Tertullian. &c. I. such as the Service in War. The Passage of St. that no Bishop. and Laity at Furni. Edit.) XXII. Num. IV. De Idololatria. and the Exercise of certain Civil Employments. and Dodwell’s fifth Dissertation on St. De Episcopis & Clericis. Grotius. Lib. (XXX.

XXVI. Ambrose. Quaest. 37. and afterwards left a memorable Example of Christian Constancy and Patience to all Ages. but when he said. by Zabda. § 3. 36. shewing that Relation to be a spurious Piece. Bishop of Lyons. which in the Reign of Dioclesian the Emperor were instructed in the Christian Religion. then they acknowledged the Emperor of Heaven. 38. We have always fought for Justice. and our fellow Citizens. which I shall speak of hereafter. which expresses accurately. to mention that Speech of theirs. Let it suffice. March (against the Enemy) in defence of the State. yet hold it a most heinous Crime to embrue our Hands in the Blood of Innocents: They can act vigorously against the Impious. of whom St. which is also produced in Can. they obeyed him. attributed to St. XCIV. This Declaration is taken from the Account of the Martyrdom of the Thebean Legion. We remember that we took up Arms for the Defence of our Countrymen.w h e t h e r ’t i s e v e r l a w f u l t o m a k e w a r 239 that they were ready to seal the Truth of the Gospel with their Blood. Chap. and not against them. &c. II. for Piety. Our Author says nothing that can assist us in guessing from what Part of St. at London. We have fought with Fidelity. from the Father last named. where it has been observed. Basil’s Works these Words are taken. tho’ an Apostate. III. See Mr. in a Note on B. Basil speaks thus of the antient Christians.) This Passage does not belong to St. for the Preservation of the Innocent. XCVIII. Augustin has something like it. when the Business is to massacre the Pious. tho’ attributed to him in the Canon Law. the thirtieth Bishop of Jerusalem. that St. How should we present it to you. as Murders. Pithou’s Note. Such was the Thebean Legion long before. Can. excusing them who fought for Virtue and Piety. Our Author himself elsewhere quotes a Passage not unlike this. yet had under him Christian Soldiers. 36 The Emperor Julian. March against the Christians. and in few Words. in this Place. XI. the whole Duty of a Christian Soldier. on Psalm cxxiv. and the Enemies of the State. . Eucherius. to whom when he said. published a Dissertation in 1705. (the Speech is made to the Emperor) if we neglect it towards GOD? And St. (The Emperor Julian. and that the Thebean Legion never had any real Existence. Dubourdieu. Caus. but have no longer Force. But Mr. Ambrose speaks thus. 38 Our Ancestors never accounted Slaughters committed in War. these have been hitherto the Recompence of our Dangers. 37 We offer you our Service against any Enemy whatever. Minister of the French Church in the Savoy.

Mixed War is that which is made on one Side by publick Authority. 240 . he understands all taking of Arms with a View of deciding a Quarrel. provided he always fixes the same Ideas to them.u chapter iii u The Division of War into Publick and Private. I. that it is not lawful. qui jurisdictionem habet. The Division of War into publick and private. without publick Authority. But let us first speak of private War. who do not consider. I think has been fully proved by what I have said above. Private War is that which is made between private Persons. for tho’ Courts of Justice are not from Nature. that our Author was at full Liberty to define his Terms as he pleased. even that which is carried on by an inferior Power. is. as far as respects the Law of Nature. and on the other. in opposition to the Way of terminating a Difference. by Recourse to a common Judge. The Reason of his expressing himself so. <54> That some Sort of private War may be lawfully waged. and reasons on them conclusively. An Explication of the supreme Power. I. which is made on each Side by the Authority of the 1 Civil Power. as appears from what he says. at least since the establishment of publick Judges. The most general and most necessary Division of War is this. By the Authority of the Civil Power. that is a publick War. Thus all the Criticisms of the Commentators fall to the Ground. includes under the Name of Publick War. that one War is private. for any one to repel Injuries by Force. but human Ap- I. another publick. (1) Auctore eo. where it was shewn. But perhaps some will think. and another mixed. which is the most antient. § 4 and 5. without the Orders of the Sovereign Power. that it is not repugnant to the Law of Nature. and on the other by mere private Persons. because on one hand. by the Term War.

X. In Aeneid. 4. the antient Commentator on Virgil. 6. was not unlawful. and natural Reason. I. (1) As when a Man is attacked either in the Night. for wherein does War differ from Peace. Leg. that one finds Judges to whom he may apply. or even by Day. without having Recourse to a Judge. Var. after the erecting of Tribunals of Justice. if private Persons determine their Disputes by Force? And Laws call that Force. To lay Hands on. II. II. in desart Islands. yet. in a Wilderness. Grotius. . ought to be understood with this equitable Restriction. 176. See James Godfrey’s Comment on that Law. This is what the ˆ Latins call. Tit. Undoubtedly. L. and more conducive to the Peace of Mankind. when the Way to legal Justice is not open. and do himself Justice. and CXXIV. 3. 2 That is not to be allowed to private Persons. that Differences should be decided by a third Person that is disinterested. De Diversis Reg. that is. either by Right or Fact: By Right. if a Man be 2 in Places not inhabited. XX. Ep. Chap. By Fact. in the Law Stile. Injicere manum. Cap. Num. defended. as on the Seas. X. Grotius. Tit. II. Cassiod. 419. Chap. &c. XIII. For the Law which forbids a Man to pursue his Right any other Way. It fails for some Time only. either for some Time or absolutely. X.war as publick and private 241 pointment. than that every Man should be allowed to do himself Justice in his own Cause. whensoever 4 a Man would take that which he thinks is due. That all private War. the Liberty allowed before is now much restrained. and any other Places where there is no Civil Government. will not. 7. and bring the Aggressor to Justice. Digest. which may be done publickly by a Magistrate. 3 that none should use Violence. v. advise us to submit to so laudable an Institution. Paulus the Lawyer says. wherein the Illusions of Self-Love are much to be apprehended: Equity itself. It fails absolutely. Lib. Now the Way to legal Justice may fail. in private Places. when the Judge cannot be waited for 1 without certain Danger or Damage. Quod metus causa. Lib. is. II. since it is much honester. since the erecting of Tribunals: Yet there are some Cases wherein that Right still subsists. See B. II. II. lest it be the Occasion of great Troubles. 2. or cannot. See B. Epist. Leg. Juris. if Subjects will not 2. XVII. IV. with some Examples. § 8. IV. by the Law of Nature. as is remarked by Servius. Digest. The Reason why Laws were invented. assist us. or when such as see us in Danger. says King Theodorick. See also the Edict of Theodoric. Lib.

against Timocrates. there shall no Blood be shed for him. it shall be lawful to kill him. ii. Acts vii. I. p. Grotius. when he saw one of his Brethren (that is. Demosthenes Orat. . but on common Equity. This Law is preserved by Macrobius. and if a Man kill him. an Israelite ) suffering Wrong. and avenged him that was oppressed. See hereafter. II. But our Question is. 24. So is he reputed innocent by the Laws of all known Nations. than to kill. that he dies. which so manifest a Consent is a plain Testimony. and that it is not founded on any particular Divine Command. 5. Solon’s Law runs thus. seems not only to import an Impunity. he shall be brought before the Council of the Eleven: But whoever steals any Thing by Night. who by Arms defends himself against him that assaults his Life. <55> III. which was undoubtedly taken from the 4 old Attick Law. and smote the Egyptian. whence we see that other Nations have followed the same Principle. III. If a Thief be found breaking up. 476. That of the Twelve Tables is well known. § 12. I doubt not but GOD. B. he is killed lawfully. xxii. (that is. I. For at that Time the Israelites had no Room to expect Justice from the Egyptian Judges. every private War is not repugnant to the Law of Nature. 1572. If any Man steals in the Day-Time. 5 If a Thief commit a Robbery in the Night. that there is nothing in it contrary to the Law of Nature. 2. Exod. Cap. might have required Patience of us to such a Degree. Chap. What we said before. where the Reason of the Law is more fully considered. Basil. I mean the Gospel. For this Law so accurately distinguishing the Cases. there shall be Blood shed for him. who urges it as a Proof. he defended him. we ought rather to suffer ourselves to be killed. 4.242 chapter iii Ex. that the Word Nox is by the Antients taken for Noctu. may be gathered from the Law given to the Jews. by Night) and be smitten. but also to explain the Law of Nature. This was the Case of Moses. Whether he has thought fit to tye us up so far? Two 3. Nor by the Evangelical Law. Lib. where GOD thus speaks by Moses. or wound him in the Pursuit. There is more Difficulty concerning the Divine positive Law. or the Judge refuse 3 openly to take Cognizance of Matters in Dispute. who has more Right over our Lives than we ourselves. but if the Sun be risen upon him. with an Answer to the Objections. submit to the Judge. that even since Tribunals of Justice were erected. Saturnal. that being brought privately into Danger. more perfect than the Law of Nature. Edit. IV. above the Value of fifty Drachms.

De Offic. as it is more common. avenge not yourselves. the Latin Version has it. is not to strike him again. so it seems to me more reasonable. tho’ he be attacked by a Highwayman. Epist. who indeed did not disallow of publick Wars. xii. xxv. IV. Put up thy Sword into the Sheath. Basil was of the same Mind. 4. 1782. to make Use of the Sword. Austin. that St. by Vertue of a lawful Authority. XXXII. 3 I do not dislike that Law. resist not him that doth Thee an Injury. that we are not obliged to such a Patience. but for others. And it plainly appears. not beIII. for we are commanded in the Gospel to love our Neighbours as ourselves. v. cited by Gratian. V. Rom. LV. I have already cited some Passages of St. but believed Self-defence between private Persons to be unlawful. CLIV. but how I shall defend them who kill them. when we examined whether War in general was lawful. 3. and other violent Aggressors) to be killed. 5. Dearly beloved. Amongst the primitive Christians there are some. XLIII. Cap. Can. who died for his Enemies. 2 A Christian. p. Grotius. 1 Perhaps CHRIST therefore said to Peter. It is enough. And in another Place. in favour of the Innocence of War: We find in St. Cap. unless he happen to be a Soldier. 19. Cap. I know not. Rom. X. Caus. Peter.war as publick and private 243 Places (of Scripture) are wont to be brought for the affirmative Opinion. Lib. See also a Canon of the Council of Orleans. from his 5 second Epistle to Amphilochius. Ambrose said. Edit. Defend not yourselves. for they that take the Sword shall perish by the Sword. Ambrose. Arbitrio. and more clear. III. v. which every Body knows. which we have already explained. Matt. upon his shewing him two Swords. lest in defending himself he offend against Piety. Matt. And St. I. by whom one is apprehensive of being killed one’s self. 4 I do not approve of the Maxim of killing him. in Lucam. or publick Officer. XXII. so that he does not do it for himself. . that the Doctrine of Equity might be in the Law. And again. 39. 2. 52. in the Canon Law. Quaest. But the contrary Opinion. De Lib. Yet the same St. (1) Lib. ad Publicolam. 10. XIII. Cap. in those Words of CHRIST to St. 8. There is also a third Place. Some also add the Example of CHRIST himself. Paris. as if it had been lawful to (the Time of ) the Gospel. 1569. Lib. Austin many more on that Subject. which allows those (Robbers. But I say unto you. II. and the Perfection of Goodness in the Gospel.

by defending ourselves. that the Person whom we permit to kill us. that the least bloody War should not sweep away a great Number of Wretches. Besides. that the Person assaulted may also stand in Need of Time to repent. It would also follow. To conclude. that Danger ought not to be regarded <56> into which a Man throws himself. Ch. when in the Terror occasioned by an approaching Death.” Treatise on the Right which every Man has to defend himself. as I have observed on Pufendorf. . Note 5. that he will only become more wicked. 7 Besides in moral Judgment. and that the Aggressor may likewise before his Death have some Time left him to repent. It is probable at least. who will die in bad Dispositions. without violating the Laws of Charity. Let us add. Those Wretches need only utter Blasphemies and Impieties. If an unjust Aggressor loses his Life. we only make use of our natural Right to endeavour our own Preservation. for as it is morally impossible. Cassiodore says. we are not forbid to take Care of ourselves 6 before others. Chap. We are not obliged by any Precept. And after all. II. in my Opinion. explaining the Rule of Beneficence. 7. with the late Mr. and say. or by any Reason. To this may be added. and consequently. to shelter themselves from the Punishment they have deserved. But it may be answered. V. nay. Second Edition. that they are not in a Disposition of making a good End. and more hurtful to Society. tho’ I may prefer my own Good before that of my Neighbour. “If Charity forbids us to kill Persons whom we know to be in a State of Sin and Perdition. rather than expose him to the Hazard of eternal Damnation. is by that Means secured from the Danger. than suffer the Aggressor to fall into eternal Damnation. it would follow. and from which he may deliver himself. Grotius. with which he is threatened by an unjust Aggressor. La Placette. It may even happen. except when we have Room to hope such an Action will put him in Possession of eternal Salvation. as we have already shewn from the Authority of St. when an equal Danger threatens us.244 chapter iii fore ourselves. is judged by the Criticks to be the Work of Peter of Blois. we are under a Sort of Obligation so to do in this Case. or prefer the Security of his Body to that of our own. that some of the Apostles wore Swords in Trav6. farther. or may reasonably think so. that the Magistrates have no Power to order the Execution of Criminals. § 2. to procure the Salvation of our Neighbour’s Soul by the Loss of our own. is the innocent Minister of the Divine Providence and Vengeance. that we have no Assurance. a Man has not Time to examine every Thing. no War could be carried on without exposing ourselves to that Danger. that no War is allowable. Paul. in defence of his own. yet this holds not in Things unequal. which is absurd and insupportable. wherefore I ought rather to part with my own Life. B. De Amicitia. whose Words and Actions make it appear. he who killed him. Perhaps some one may object. The Treatise here cited. V.

which intimates the Restriction. VI. 8. that there were two Swords in their Company. as Judith i. which 8 Josephus informs us. and in that Company there were none but the Apostles. 22. which shews that we are only obliged to suffer without resisting. that they should sell even their Garments to buy Swords. Orat. Ver. other Galileans also did in their Journey from their own Country to Jerusalem. but were provided with Arms. which was safe and prosperous. 12. XII. 6. 4. by the Instance of a Box on the Ear. Luke xviii.war as publick and private 245 elling. (as the Opposition of the first Time. De Bello Jud. 2 Thess. 8. whereas the Prohibition of Resistance has its Explication adjoined. pro Milone. 36. if it were not permitted to use it? But as to that Passage. II. And this Luke xxii. Resist not him that injures thee. a Practice which the Apostles looked on as innocent. that when any of that Sect travelled. for otherwise it would have been more natural to have said. Why should it be permitted to wear a Sword. the most quiet and peaceable of all Men. 7. the Apostles presently answered. Lib. and with the Knowledge of our Saviour. such a Time was at hand. Nay. as 9 Cicero very rightly says. 1 Thess. 9. 14. which is deduced only from the Rules of Equity. Rom. during the whole Time they accompanied him. declaring that most grievous Dangers were at hand. they took neither Baggage nor Provisions with them. (the Roads being much infested with Highwaymen) and who also tells us the same of the Essenes. when the Injury offered us is as slight as a Box on the Ear. but a proverbial Speech. i. Matt. He says. xxi. 39. on the Account of Highwaymen. Avenge not yourselves. Resist not him that injures you. Besides. ii. 1 Pet. but sacrifice thy Life rather than defend thyself by Force. Now. ii. which yet admits of an Exception. 1. what CHRIST himself then said. Give to every one that asketh. provided we do not too much incommode ourselves. Cap. In the Words to the Romans. there is nothing added to that Precept concerning giving. 8. .) seems however to allude to a common Practice. it is not more universal than that which follows. in the Sight. Hence it came to pass. 35. v. the Word ekdikein ◊ ÷ does not signify to defend but to revenge. xiii. Cap. or something like it. iv. tho’ indeed it was not a Precept. plainly shews. that when CHRIST told his Disciples.

which signifies. De Patientia. if thy Grief. he is thy Physician. according to the Opinion of Origen. XV. Paul also supports his Exhortation from that Place of Deuteronomy. Now what was said to St. 10 the very Connexion of the Words plainly shews. he is thy Reviver: What ought not Patience to do. shall I not drink it? And he says in St. Peter. he is thy Avenger. is either a proverbial Saying. John for forbidding it. 8. 10 GOD is a fit Depository of thy Patience. if thou layest thy Injuries in his Hand. in his own due Time. by anticipating the Vengeance which He. that Blood causes Blood. if thy Losses. In which Sense precisely. but this is the Description of Revenge. and it is evident. it shews. Therefore he gives this Reason in St. for he would not be defended. Besides. But what CHRIST also adds. xiii. Titus. of those thou hast given me I have left none. for the Words going before are Render to no Man Evil for Evil. Self-Defence cannot be meant in that Place. he is thy Surety. Vengeance is mine. Suffer these to go away. The Cup which my Father hath given me. 9 Ver. it is said. and Euthy-<57>nius. not of Defence. which in its proper and natural Sense signifies Vengeance. thought of Revenge. He that killeth with the Sword. he would have taken up Arms against them who came with publick Authority. if thy Death. How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled. that the Use of Arms is never free from Danger: Or. is a particular Question. With which agrees that of Tertullian. does indeed contain a Prohibition to use the Sword.246 chapter iii John xviii. that we should not incroach upon GOD’s Right. that shall be handled in its proper Place. and this. that has GOD for its Debtor? Moreover. in these Words of CHRIST there seems to be included. 11. Rev. and not of Defence. shall be killed by the Sword: Here is the Patience and Faith of the Saints. St. I will repay it: Where ’tis in the Hebrew µqnwl. Matthew. Cap. but not in the Cause of Defence. Theophylact. . Peter being then of a fiery Temper. for he had no Need to defend himself: CHRIST had already said concerning his Disciples. a Prophecy of those Punish10. that thus it must be? St. All they that take the Sword. shall perish by the Sword. and therefore. Nor was it necessary to defend CHRIST. will fully requite. That the Saying might be fulfilled which he spake. which whether it be lawful in any Case to resist.

that the Persons. who is said to have died for his Enemies. as either result from an Obedience to an indispensible Law. and the Ungodly. without Doubt. De Sent. one. Another. With the Moderation of an innocent Defence. LXIV. In fine. For in those most antient Canons called Apostolical. and kills him with one Blow. XVI. This is the Signification of the Word Brother. Lib. If an Ecclesiastick strikes a Man in a Quarrel. as a Fact. that all CHRIST’s Actions were indeed full of Virtue. quotes two Canons from the Decretals. did not only promise him the most exalted Glory. as it were. and that Imitation will certainly be rewarded. 12. Sister. he only was to have been 12 excommunicated. that he may be killed. that we may laudably imitate them. as far as ’tis possible. or Daughter. 7. Cap. but as it were by a special Covenant and Agreement with the Father. Can. or on finding him in Bed with his Wife. the Passages quoted from Christian Doctors. In both of them it is laid down. Excom. who. XXIX. 16. De Homicidio voluntario. V. v. this Fact of CHRIST was. as the former does. let him be deposed for his Rashness. it may be answered. 11. He at the same time supposes. Who profess the Christian Religion. 11 who profess the Christian Religion. which orders that if a Layman wounds an Ecclesiastick. Paul shews: And CHRIST himself commands us to expose our Life to Danger. singular. or any other unjust Aggressor. that all Laws allow of repelling Force by Force. and that we have good Grounds to believe such an Action will procure them some considerable Advantage. or contain only the Opinion of some private Persons. liii. he did it not by any Law. For that CHRIST died for his Enemies. which cannot be said in regard to a Highwayman. here used by the Apostle. V. deserve so great a Sacrifice at our Hands. not for every one. in Cases where a Man kills an Aggressor. let him be deprived of the Communion. upon his doing it.war as publick and private 247 ments which the Sword of the Romans would take of the Blood-thirsty Jews. If a Layman is guilty of the same Fault. but yet they are not all such. in whose Favour we hazard our Lives. but also a People that should endure forever. Besides. Rom. As to the Example of CHRIST. Cap. Tit. 1 John iii. rather than to establish an express Command. 10. and supposes. Cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae. in his Margin. but for our Brethren. he shall not incur the Sentence of Excommunication. which makes several Distinctions. Mother. III. who with the first Blow killed his Adversary Isa. . XII. of which we can hardly find any Example. in his own Defence. Tit. as St. vel casuali. Our Author. Lib. or constitute a Law to us. either seem to give an Advice of extraordinary Perfection.

Publick Wars are either 1 Solemn. seems yet to approve 14 of this Opinion. Tit. Edit. Justum Testamentum is opposed to Non justum Testamentum. I. De Re Rustica. Leg. on the Advice of our Saviour. he was not to be kill’d. legato. XIX. since you command me to purchase a Sword? Why am I order’d to carry a Weapon. For in the Law quoted from Digest. VII. 1782. in 2 Opposition to a Codicil. which gave them Force. And St. . Leg. precisely in Opposition to Codicils. Lib. Cap. vel instrum. De instructo. XXII. Tit. Cap. whether the Thief came to kill or barely to steal. on the Book of Exodus. Lib. (1) See B. Lib. in the Institutes. to sell our Coat and buy a Sword. through an 13 Excess of Passion. Recept. Publick War divided into that which is solemn. tho’ not so many as to make a Will good and valid. &c. p. Leg. but not in the Day. III. § 33. De servili cognatione. But St. and that which is not solemn. Cap. See also the Fragments of Ulpian. 14. which I am not allow’d to draw! Unless perhaps that I may be provided for my own Defence. Tit. Augustin in that Place only gives the Reason. IV. XXXIII. I do not know that the Terms Justum Testamentum occur in the Body of the Civil Law. Haereditate. 2. X. quoque servorum. Austin himself. & natos. De acquir. nor does he speak of what the Evangelical Law permits or requires in this Case. Lib. XXVIII. made in Form. II. LXXXIV. I. Tit. given by the Civil Law. XXVIII. XVII. Tit. it was not reckoned a lawful Marriage. in the same Sense as a Will is termed Lawful. Grotius. allow’d of killing a Thief in the Night. III. Lib. St. and in the latter Case. Varro calls the Wives of Slaves Conjunctae. And such Cohabitation is expressed by the Word Conˆ sortium. The Epithet Lawful is taken in this Sense in the very Definition of a Will or Testament.248 chapter iii in a Quarrel. Cod. according to the Law of Nations. Contubernales. Lib. or made in Form. V. Injusto. XXIX. vel amitt. Digest. has these Words: Lord. not arm’d for Revenge. Jul. id est. That Father makes no other Distinction. nam ex ejusmodi Contubernio servi nascuntur. Because. Qui Testamentum facere possunt. says he. which is expressed by Justa. in Lucam. initio facto Testamento. whom we quoted before on the other Side. or not solemn: What I here term Solemn is generally called Lawful. rupto. Contubernium potest. and this only is meant in the Title. Sent. at least when no Will has been made before or after. Lib. III. Inter Servos & Liberos Matrimonium contrahi non potest. why do you forbid me to strike. Contubernium. 3. Cap. after Sun rising a Man might distinguish. that certain Formalities are required even in Codicils. Paris. and a Woman cohabiting with a Slave was called Contubernalis: Even when a Freeman cohabited with a Slave. § 1. § 6. instructo fundo contineri verum est. II. IV. Leg. that is. IV. A Testament is there called. I. III. XXII. De incertis & inutilibus nuptiis. Lib. Cum Ancillis non potest esse Coannubium. XX. the very Word used by our Author. Tit. Our Author finds this in Quaest. IV. in Opposition of the 3 Cohab13. Tit. It is well known. Lib. or a Mar-<58>riage Lawful. why the Law of Moses. VII. uxores. Paulus. Digest. A Declaration of our (last) Will. III. XII. Ambrose. to a Will not made in Form.

Observationes Juris. there were nonlegitimate Marriages. XIII. B. § 1. XVI. and Suetonius. that is. according to him. Thus he explains the following Words of the Lawyer Paulus. II. was not reckoned married fully. mentioned in Law XIII. XIII. according to the Law of the Twelve Tables. are those contracted by Children. II. Paulus. Lib. Sculting’s Notes. and a Slave to cohabit with a Woman. Cap. sed contracta non solvuntur. between a Governor of a Province and a Woman of the same Province. and Digest. Digest. See Mr. qui in potestate Patris sunt. III. or in Conjunction with the Children proceeding from such a Cohabitation. Note 11. Quae non solemniter accepta est aqua & igni. Seneca. she was obliged to live a whole Year with her Husband. ’Till that Time she was called Uxor injusta. And our Author himself. Jul. de Adulteriis. was absolutely null and illegitimate. preserved by A. In which he follows the Opinion of Cujas. VI. But there is abundant Reason to believe the Roman Lawyer speaks only of Fathers being deprived of the Power of dissolving the Marriages of their Children under their Jurisdiction. married without his Consent. such Marriages were not dissolved. Ad Leg. who being under the Power of their Father. had been omitted. published before the sixth Book of Cujas’s Observations. XIX. Page 300 of his Jurisprudentia Ante Justinianea. when those Formalities. without lying three Nights out of his House. but because a 4. tho’ something was still wanting in that Union. Observ. quoted from Paul’s Receptae Sententiae. and consequently free. I. Lib. were added by Anjan. for. as the President Brisson has explained this Matter. which they would have had. sine voluntate ejus Matrimonia jure non contrahuntur. suspects that the last Words of the Passage. Noct. XL. to make a Codicil. Eorum. V. even with their Consent. Saturnal. For ˆ among the antient Romans. which they expressed by In manum Viri convenire: She had no Right of Succession to his Estate. Ad Leg. which produced illegitimate Children. De Vita Beata. Chap. Whereas Matrimony contracted without the Father’s Consent. Cap. XXIV. in Octav. de Adulterio. Grotius. V. either in the Whole. which consisted in what they called Confarreatio & Coemptio. where he conjectures. As to the Uxor injusta. § 14. Ad Leg. Jul. II. Lib. a young Woman. Cap. and according to Law: She was not yet a Member of the Family. nor placed under the Man’s Power. Referendary to the . The non-legitimate Marriages. that the Law under Consideration speaks of a Woman who has not been married with the ordinary Formalities. if authorized by the Father’s Approbation. in the same Manner as incestuous Marriages. V. Cap. and Macrobius. if he pleases. and such as were contracted between a Guardian and his Ward. which our Author here means. Cujas seems to have retracted in another Part of his Work. or that of the Person under whose Power the Father himself lived. In order to supply the Defect of the Formalities required. for investing her with all the Rights and Privileges of a legitimate Marriage. she was considered not as a Concubine but a real Wife. Lib. Even among such as were Citizens. § 1. when once contracted. Leg. Sentent. XLVIII. Cap. Jul. Gellius.war as publick and private 249 itation of Slaves: 4 Not because it is not allowed a Man. tho’ brought home to the House of her intended Husband. in his Treatise. &c. they only wanted the Effects of Law. likewise ˆ ˆ speaks of a Sort of illegitimate Liberty. de Adulter. III. Cap. Lib. Tit. Lib. Tit. Attic.

6. which it is convenient to observe. &c. II. Pufendorf criticises this Opinion. A Marriage cannot be good. V. and of those under whose Power they are. A Slave had not the Right of paternal Power over his Children. who refuse him Obedience. Lib. But it is easy to reconcile our two Authors. II. have 5 some peculiar Effects. stands in need of an express Order from the Sovereign in this Case. independently of the Civil Law of each particular State. The Libertas non justa. XXII. Lib. XXV. § 10. And indeed if we consider the thing without respect to the Civil Law. 33. or disinherit those who had a Right to the Succession. ten or twenty. I. may be made both without any Formality. as also. so that the Frame of civil Societies in general require it. and J. Now I ask. Lib. Two Things then are requisite to make a War solemn by the Law of Nations. that is. See the learned Torrentius on that Point. at least. as such. and against mere private Persons. De Ritu Nuptiarum. of two. Chap. to which that Epithet does not agree. 1. in his Commentary on the Passage of Suetonius. Chap. why may he not make use of the same Means against fifty. Tit. Lipsius. that it be made on both Sides. These Conditions are equally necessary. every Ma-<59>gistrate 6 seems to have as much King of the Wisigoths. Grotius fixes a more general Idea to the Term War. &c. the other is needless. Cap. a thousand. See my first Note on that Chapter. But a publick War not Solemn. and by the Authority of any Magistrate whatever. alledged by our Author in this Place. whether every Magistrate. p. above quoted. misunderstanding the Word Lawful. two thousand. who was a Slave. without the Consent of all. § 2. II. and a Marriage in Form. by the Authority of those that have the Sovereign Power in the State: And then. XIII. directly appoint an Heir. on Tacitus. the more he will stand in need of Force for . if such a Magistrate has a Right to employ Arms for the Reduction of one Person. De Codicillis.250 chapter iii Will. he is supposed to act with the Approbation of the Sovereign. B. First.? The larger the Number is. Tit. Lib. or attempt to hinder the Exercise of his Jurisdiction. neither intire nor irrevocable. who refuse to submit. that it be accompanied with some Formalities. think all Wars are condemned as unjust and unwarrantable. and to reduce those to their Duty. VIII. Annal. Noodt on Digest. a hundred. The Question therefore is only. It is certain. three. of those who contract. that the Roman Lawyer says the direct contrary in another Place. Thus a Man could not. was a Sort of Freedom. by a Codicil. Leg. nor even a Freeman over those born to him of his Wife. Digest. for many. Mr. when an inferior Magistrate takes Arms for the Maintenance of his Authority. invested him at the same Time with the Power necessary for the Exercise of his Charge. 5. who by entrusting him with a Share in the Government of the State. of which we shall treat in its proper Place. so that if the one be wanting. as appears by his Definition of it. According to him also. Tit. VI. Institut. XXVII. by the Civil Law. § 2.

419. Ut armorum usus. And the Cornelian Law. let Death be his Punishment? But if any Part of the State makes Peace or War of their own Heads. that it would be dangerous to allow an inferior Magistrate so much Power. and let the Criminal. where he gives a very good Explication of that Law. as if he weaken’d and destroy’d the first Principles of publick Law. There is such a Law in 7 Plato’s last Book de Legibus. by his own private Authority. XLVI. this only proves that Legislators do well in setting Bounds to what would otherwise be a Consequence of the very Design of placing the Magistrate in his Post. by the Laws of almost all Nations. going to a Kingdom without the Order of the People and Senate. De Legib. 10 Let no Man use any Sort of Arms without conquering the Resistance.war as publick and private 251 Right. made by Valentinian and Valens. who without Commission from the Prince presumed to make War. V. relating to Treason. in case of Resistance. of the same Title. 8. as to defend the People committed to his Protection. Corn. and shews that movere arma. In the Code of Justinian. XV. H. This Law is by Conjecture only ascribed to L. Edit. XII. p. in the Theodosian Code. Lib. whether a Person makes use of them or not. so that the Commentators on our Author have no good Reason for falling on him in this Place. thus. Lib. suffer Death. Tom. Cap. let the Officers of the Army convene the Authors of such an Attempt before a Councel of War. Jul. Leg. heading an Army. Vol. If any Man makes Peace or War. III. the Phrase here employ’d. on Conviction. And by the Roman Law he was reckoned 8 guilty of High Treason. list Soldiers. Orat. I take no notice of his going out of the Province. This Law has no manner of Relation to the Power of making War. XLVIII. inscio principe. Lib. which Actions as they are prohibited by several ancient Laws. Tit. Digest. in whatever Sense the Word is taken. signifies only to carry Arms. making War by his own private Authority. Lib. without Commission from the People. in order to proceed in a Manner attended with fewer Inconveniences. Majest. 955. Now this is what our Author includes under the Term War. without the Order of the State. Sylla. 9. Cornelius Sylla. where the Orator speaks of a Cornelian Law. 9 enacted by L. If it be objected. interdictus sit. therefore it is provided. But since by War the whole State is endangered. to take up Arms in order to execute his Jurisdiction. 7. XIV. 10. in Pison. there is a Constitution extant. that it be undertaken only by the Order or with the Approbation of the Sovereign. says. See Godfrey’s learned Comment on Law I. Tit. and the Julian de pecuniis repetundis. p. The Emperors Valentinian and Valens forbid such as are not Soldiers by Profession. Steph. XXI. or raise an Army. All we know of the Matter is grounded on a Passage of Cicero. to carry Arms on a Journey. . IV. XI. Tit. so are they most expresly forbidden by the Cornelian Law Majestatis. ad Leg. II.

a Sicilian Garrison. to reduce to their Duty. Tit. 3. p. 24. III. which the Prince neglects to revenge. See Pufendorf. See Selden. LXXIV. c. I. Disp. Mart. If the Danger be so pressing. and others deny it. See Godfrey on the Theod. Indeed. Molin. and so preserved the Place. Bartol. 9. jyçrh jmjlm. according to the Rules of Equity. Leg. that the Matter should be so regulated in every State. Cap. Tit. upon certain Information that the Townsmen designed to Revolt to the Carthaginians. whether in those Cases wherein it is allowed that inferior Magistrates have a Right to take up Arms. if by Publick we mean only that which is done by Vertue of a Magistrate’s Power. De rei Vindicatione. some affirm. XXII. Chap. This Law however ought to be understood with some Restriction. Governor of Enna. provided it requires not great Force to do it. Lib. as every Maxim is. a War of the Heads or Powers. It cannot be doubted. Pinarius. But Lawyers do not agree. Franciscus de Victoria has pretended to transfer the <60> Right of taking up Arms to the Inhabitants of a Town. in Leg. Digest. presuming on this Right. such a War ought to be called Publick. they that in such a Case resist the Magistrate. De Jure Belli. where he adds that the Jewish Doctors call every War not made by an express Order from GOD. & Jure. 11. Quest. Bartol. B. Austin. 12. Lib. but his Opinion is justly rejected by others. Idem Victoria. Lib. Caus. principali ad secund. & Gent. however general the Terms may be in which it is expressed. and when? 11.252 chapter iii Franc. a Few who are disobedient. XII. VI. by his Officers. Ex hoc jure Digest. 13. For this Reason the Tip-Staffs. 1. 2. Victoria. our Knowledge and Permission. 11 natural Order and the Peace of Mankind require. De Bynckershoek observ. 13 L. 54. the Passage is quoted in the Canon Law. de Repraes. 6. De jure Nat. and Mr. de Bello. that Time will not allow to consult the Sovereign. Qu. LXVIII. de Just. De officio judicis milit. but that it is lawful 12 for him who has any Jurisdiction. even without such a Case of Necessity. XIV. &c. contra Faustum. Again. as our Author observes in a Note on this Place. Can. with the Notes. VI. here also Necessity grants an Exception. juxta discipl. VI. IV. An militare sit peccatum. Tom. Code. Hebr. Lib. Laud. 6. I. IX. Lib. are in the Roman Law call’d manus militaris. Whether a War made by the Authority of a Magistrate that has not Supreme Power be publick. no doubt but such Wars are publick. First then. put them all to the Sword. n. I. § 10. V. or Judges Officers. n. According to St. 1. VIII. in order to have Satisfaction for those Injuries. Cap. . and therefore. Livy. XXIII. nor endangers the State. are liable to the Punishments due to those V. Cap.

sufficit etiam. n. n. D. 1. ubi sup. as without Dispute it is often taken. Livy. c. ¸ 3. verbo Bellum. 2. but it must rather be considered. which is. It would be in vain to object. in Conrad. without waiting for the Sovereign’s Order. XVI. For that is not so peculiar to a solemn War. verbo Bellum. Pract. that in such Kind of Quarrels. Art. and several other Circumstances. for that which is Solemn. the Goods of the Rebels 1 are taken. which. Hertius. B. Lorca. when taken generally. 2. intituled. spol. qu. num. whether. always subsists. § 5. But it is more difficult to decide. XXVIII. Consil. 20. for the Year 1676. there must be an express Resolution of the Sovereign. and when the Affair is doubtful. &c. ibi. 1. C. Marpurg. in the Journal des Scavans. Quaest. That is. Mabillon. Lewis. n. the inferior Powers 2 may have Authority granted them to begin a War. verbo Bellum. Cap. II. 2. and given to the Soldiers. Sylv. 7. if such an Authority be not granted. . (1) To the Lawyers quoted in the Margin. 1. if he were consulted in this Case. See the Law of Frideric I. p. II. sicut de Jure jurando. Ayala de Jure Belli. 50.war as publick and private 253 that rebel against their Superiors. they are not publick Wars. that ˆ formerly in France. But it may happen. may in such or such a Case 3 cease. n. where the Matter will allow Time. yet the same Reason. if a Law were thereupon to be made: For tho’ the Reason which determines a Sovereign to require that his Orders should be waited for. IV. Abbot of Usperg. 2. De Pace publica. Cajet. because. to Mr. de Captivitate. Goeddeus. LV. But if Publick be taken in a higher Sense. ˆ lit. Cap. Lib. 20. ad Leg. This Law relates to the Members of the German Empire. Victor. when particularly considered. then the War may be reputed as made by the Authority of the Sovereign Power: For he that gives to another the Right of doing a Thing. He refers us for Satisfaction on that Subject. De superioritate Territoriali. numb. XVI. De re Diplomatica. 202. Panormit. that in a very large State. is esteemed the Author of it. add Fran. Cons. 7. Aret. written by the late Mr. Du Cange’s Remarks on the History of St. by Joinville. Grotius. though no Damage has actually ensued from a Governor’s undertaking a War. olim de Restit. n. to render the Idea compleat in that Sense. as that it may not also be done in any other. what a Prince would have done without being advised with. 29. after Fa. Maimbourg. Chap. § 31. every Gentleman might make War on his Neighbours by his own private Authority. ib. Gailius. numb. n. Grotius. Sec. 1. Sylv. I. Bartol. Hostes. num. n. and to the Extract of a Book of Fa. where he also observes. See B. 25. §. 12. See a Dissertation on it. if so. the bare Conjecture of the Sovereign’s Will be sufficient? For my Part I cannot think it is: For it is not enough to foresee what the Will of the Sovereign would be. 40. Disp. Innocent. Cardinal Tuschus. 5. 8 & C. num. to prevent V. XX.

for sending Succours to those of Treves. So that Cato proposed giving Caesar into the Hands of the Enemy. Caes. Bell. 718 Tom. as Peace had been made with that Prince. LI. Wechel. And this . IX. but because that General had attacked the Germans. but to the People of Rome. 1. XXX. Lib. But Plutarch relates the Fact. Lib. to express their Gratitude to the Gods. Gall. with the Victory he gained over those of Treves about two Years after. as he himself says. Lib. The Manner in which Cato gives his Opinion is sufficient for forming a Conjecture. 567. that Cato had frequently declared on Oath. &c. CV. not Gagusioc. for Caesar did not till that Time carry the War into the Country of the Germans. yet. the Germans ) to expiate his Perfidy. over the Usipetes. IV. Cap. the Senate decreed publick Rejoicings and Sacrifices. Tanusioc de legei. without the Order of the People of Rome. and Freinsheim’s Supplement to Livy. Edit. that Caesar should be delivered up to the Barbarians. He likewise confounds the Defeat of the Usipetes and the Tenchterians. that our Author has not given the true Reason for Cato’s voting for delivering Caesar into the Hands of the Germans. Suetonius says. 38. 45. But. Where Plutarch produces the Authority of Tanusius Geminus. Davies’s Edition. and do honour to the General. he speaks in general of some Persons who were for giving him into the Hands of the Enemy. which happened before Caesar laid the first Bridge over the Rhine. &c. that they were persuaded at Rome that Caesar had not dealt fairly and honestly in the Matter under Consideration. in one Place. Cap. for that is the true ´ ’ ´ Reading. See his Commentators on this Place. (that is. but there is good Reason for believing that he here. that after the Victory gained by Caesar in the Belgick Gaul. that he would impeach him (Caesar) as soon as he was divested of the Command of the Army. &c. the Dangers to which the State would inevitably be exposed. and the Tenchterians. if every Magistrate should pretend to judge of the Usefulness or Necessity of War. Cneius Manlius was not therefore injuriously accused by his Lieutenants. XXIV. Cap. and divert the Curse from the State. in order to take his Revenge on them. it is evident from the Authority alledged. And in another Place. Cleric.254 chapter iii Livy. Edit. in Mr. it did not belong to Manlius. because he had made War upon the Galatians. II. See also what he says in his Parallel ´ of the Lives of Crassus and Nicias. who had passed the Rhine. Whereupon Cato delivered it as his Opinion. to determine whether that Injury was to be revenged on the Galatians. Cap. and seized several of their Deputies. Gall. which that Action might draw on it. Vit. and justified by a MS. with its several Circumstances: He tells us. for tho’ the Galatians had supplied Antiochus with some Troops. against the Promise and Assurance given them. Cap. XI. 4 Cato would have had 4. Cap. p. not because he had made War on the Germans without the express Orders of the Commonwealth. as appears from what he himself says in his Commentaries. as on other Occasions. He does indeed endeavour to put a Gloss on his Conduct. Bel. in order to turn them to his own Advantage. p. VI. in Order to settle themselves. disguises Things. whatever becomes of this Question.

as appears not only from his Notes on this Work. and therefore could have no Reason to complain of any Wrong done them. §10. if the Romans had just Cause to make War against the Gauls. Lib. and not to have pushed the War on the Germans in their own Country. XXIX. I. employed by the Carthaginians. Caesar’s War with Ariovistus being ended. in his Jurisprudentiae Historicae specimen. B. in Opposition to our Author. Edit. Buddeus makes the same Supposition. because Hannibal. XXI. For he there makes Plutarch say. § 13. but that the Germans had a Right to demand his Delivery into their Hands. At Caesar’s Approach the Enemy retired into their Forests. by understanding what he here says of Caesar’s war with Ariovistus. Cap. Cap. Ibid. But several of our Author’s Expositors have confounded Matters still more. the Province appointed to him. Steph. It is true here was a real Infraction of the Treaty. XL. had violated a Clause of the Treaty between the Romans and Carthaginians. 6. that the Roman People had at that Time no Right to punish Caesar. Cato gave his Opinion. § 110. III. Gal. 5. The learned Obrecht is one who gives in to this Mistake. The learned Gronovius thinks this Way of reasoning. And he maintains. that the Romans had . 151. related Bel. Caesar delivered up to the Germans. The Germans therefore had no Right to demand Caesar to be delivered up to them. For the Germans had assisted the Gauls. Chap. II. as I shall shew in another Place. Num. but also from a Corollary placed at the End of his Dissertation De Censu Augusti. without first consulting the People of Rome. XVI. Chap. but the People of Rome had to punish him. repassed the Rhine a few Days after. which is the ninth of the Collection printed in 1704. Lib. as the Carthaginians plainly answered the Romans. XVIII. Mr. p. B. &c. II. as to free the City from the Fear of a Man that wanted to render himself absolute. Even in the Application which they both make of Cato’s Vote. and the Roman General being apprehensive he should fall short of Provisions for his Army. Tho’ Dion Cassius attributes this Motion to his Fear of the Enemy. 5 The Question is not whether Hannibal Expedition took up but little Time.war as publick and private 255 C. they might say with Reason. was a mere Piece of Chicanry. as I shall shew elsewhere. especially when there was no Danger to be feared from thence. declared Enemies to the People of Rome. Lib. for making War on <61> them: I believe not so much in respect to Justice. when that Prince had possessed himself of Part of the Country of the Sequani. and was far from being considerable. the last Proposition advanced by Obrecht is as false as the first is true. where I shall have Occasion to speak after our Author of the War made on Ariovistus. But then that was the very Thing in Question. and till they were convinced of that. Livy. by attacking the City of Saguntum by his own private Authority. published by one of his Scholars without his Knowledge. But Caesar ought to have been contented with beating the Germans out of Gaul. III.

to have come to Terms of Peace. before he could give an Account of the State of Affairs. but an inferior Sort of Allies. Cap. Besides. Octavius and Brutus. in his Reply to the Rhodian Deputies. the Senate and People of Rome should have been allowed to consider. and as it were benumbed under the Power of Antony. In the third of his Philippicks. or to have recourse to Arms? For no Body is obliged to pursue his own Right. and the following Note. And had not Antony himself attacked Brutus merely by his own Authority? Had he not seized on Gaul? And did he not take the same Steps towards Tyranny as Julius Caesar? Good Men would be very unhappy if they were obliged to act in Form. LXI. and all Gaul with him. if the Senate had been free at that juncture. XI. in spight of the Liberty they in one Sense enjoyed. Cassius. told them. § 21. tho’ Antony had been declared an Enemy. Had Brutus waited for Orders from Rome. But then further. where ill designing Persons trample on all Laws human and divine. Whether it were for the Benefit of the State to have dissembled the Matter. is. he would have been ruined. 7. Cap. Lib. which is often attended with the Hazard of Damage. that a just Presumption of the Will of the Senate. In such a Case it might be justly said. might have been justly blamed. or to have revenged it. they were dependent on the Romans. . African. they bantered and trifled with him. ought to pass for an express Order. Num. 9. and Mark Antony’s Enterprizes had allowed sufficient Time for consulting the Senate and People: But. as Velleius Paterculus very well observes. or not? 6. VII. XXII. &c. See my 25th Note on that Paragraph. or not? For it is our Business to see whether our Subject has acted by Vertue of our Orders. ad Famil.256 chapter iii has besieged Saguntum by publick Authority. as our Author himself terms them. II. Ep. or of his own Head. Torpebat oppressa dominatione Antonii Civitas. Tho’ in Reality. who made War upon Antony of their own Heads. <62> they should have staid for the Decision of the Senate and Roman People. Epist. Gronovius undertakes to defend Cicero’s Opinion against the Criticism of our Author. or by his own private Authority? But whether in that he has done you an Injury. whether the Thing could be done without Prejudice to our Treaties? 6 Cicero defends what Octavius and Decimus Brutus did. Cap. See Cato’s Speech to the great Pompey’s Son in Hirtius. But tho’ it were plain that Antony had deserved it. whom to employ as Generals to command in that War: Thus the Rhodians 7 anno Business to enquire whether Hannibal had acted by the Orders of their Republick. the Commonwealth was oppressed. for the Rhodians were not subject to the Romans. The only Point to be decided between you and us. Bell. Lib. This Example is not exactly to the Purpose. XI. says he. according to Cicero’s Advice to the same Brutus.

In what Things the Civil Power consists. that is. pays Tribute to no foreign Power. as we have said. VI. . and often according to their own Passions. tw petrw stajmhn. Edit. and I am surprized the learned Gronovius has taken no Notice of this Passage. which may be rather excused than commended. XIV. what this Sovereignty is. (of Cicero’s Apology ) and many more that one may meet with. p. and not Things to the Rule of Equity. The Moral Power then of governing a State. and not rashly draw those Things into Example. V. have made that which was of itself not very clear. Magistrates. Edit. Civilib. which uses to be called the Civil Power. than according to Truth. ought to teach us. Lib. And this is the Sense which the Greek Scholiast gives that ambiguous Word. VI. in which respect we often fatally err. (1) Lib. the Line ‚ ´ ´ to the Stone. 3 1. and in whom it resides. 627. each of them handling this Argument rather according to the present Interest of the Affairs of his Country. This helps to confirm the Reflections made in the preceding Note. Steph. 2. 2 and Tribunals. § 18. or the Rule of Equity to Things. where he calls a State that is really so. when he desired their Assistance by Vertue of a Treaty. One may also translate the original Word autotelhc. Cap. Wherefore we must endeavour in the Examination of such Matters. IV. but by the Authority of the Sovereign. Consultation about publick Affairs. Grotius. and several other Things that depend upon it. much more perplexed. Paris. Oxon. a publick War ought not to be made.war as publick and private 257 swered Cassius. not to approve of every Thing that is said by the most famous Authors: For they often reason according to the Circumstances of the Times. that Body being then dispersed by the Oppression of the Tyrants. 379. De Bell. which has its own Taxes. Aristotle divides the Administration of the Government into three Parts. ◊ ’ or Imposts. because learned Men in our Age. fitting. 3. The Establishment VI. IV. it will be necessary to be thoroughly informed. Appian. for the understanding both this Affair. Edit. to use an unbiassed Judgment. that they would give it if the Senate ordered it. Thucydides describes by three Things. H. Politic. and the Question concerning a Solemn War. and so much the more. 2. 1 A Body that has its own Laws. p. This Example. when they talked of the Consent of the Senate. Lib. Since then.

The Right of making Peace or War. Omni in this Place. The Command of the Armies. is better than omnis. were from the very Beginning possessed of three great and most necessary Branches of Power. and of calling Assemblies. as when a Person is accused of raising Sedition. War. with the Cognizance of the most considerable Violations of both. To the first he refers the Power of making War or Peace. Judgments. Antiq. and Officers for the Army. Oxon. by Judgments he means those that concern Crimes committed directly against private Persons. the Judgments that relate to publick Crimes. he may easily find all Things relating to it. 4. the inflicting of Death. 3. Banishment. For he that governs a State. what concerns general Affairs relates to the making or repealing of Laws. 2. Lib. in regard to Peace. The Convening of the Senate. Confiscation of Goods. II. whereas. giving their Votes first. Lib. Lib. elsewhere. and putting in Execution whatever was carried by a Plurality of Voices. The Right to create Magistrates. he says. and other Parts of Religious Worship. But if any one would divide it right. Edit. Dionysius Halicarnassensis chiefly takes Notice of these 4 three Things. in the third Class. 7. where he requires. 1st. especially in Causes which nearly concern the Good of the Commonwealth. IV. Rom. Rom. 5. The Direction of what related to the Sacrifices. Cap. Grotius. that of enacting and abrogating Laws. 1. Antiq. The Greek Writer is there speaking of the Roman People. II. that of creating civil Magistrates. 7 the Right of Regulating the Affairs of Religion. of concluding or breaking Treaties and Alliances. The Maintenance of both the Natural and Civil Laws. What he does himself respects either general Affairs or particular. to which he adds. that the People should be allowed a Share in the Administration of Justice. Assembling of the People. Oxon. Omni Ditione. 6. In another Place he adds. 3. 445. XIV. does it either by himself or by another. In a Speech made by Manius Valerius. p. and again. so as that nothing may be wanting or superfluous. or betraying it to the Enemy. LVI. Who. . to express their enjoying all Power. Cap. and Laws. 215. says he. Cap. the Right of Judging as a 6 <63> Fourth. viz. Edit. The Right to 5 make Laws and repeal them. in my Opinion. and the Punishment of Peculation and Extortion: That is. VII. Cap.258 chapter iii of Magistrates. XIV. and that of regulating whatever belonged to Peace and War. Our Author has his Eye on the Place where the Grecian Writer speaks of the Power given by Romulus to the Kings. which was reduced to the following Heads. See likewise Lib. 2dly. of enacting or repealing Laws. 3dly. endeavouring to enslave his Country by the Exercise of despotick Power. The Grammarian Servius describes the Power of the Romans in the same Manner. which extends as well to sacred Things (as far as he has a Right to meddle in them) as 4. p. XX.

whose Acts are not subject to another’s Power. and consequently. 10. Those Things which are dispatched by another. so that they cannot be made void by any other human Will. who enjoys the same Right. so far as the Repose of the Society requires the Decision of them by publick Authority: And this Art Aristotle calls 11 Dikastikh. written by Rabod Herman Schelius. as we now use the Word. concern either certain Actions. VIII. VII. so the common Subject of Supreme Power is the State. see a Treatise De Jure Imperii. Treaties. as the making of Peace. 132. the 8 chief Art of Govern’ ment. Nicom. Aristotle calls this ◊Arxitektonikh. (1) What Pufendorf says. for the publick Use. As to our Author’s Definition of the Sovereign Power. Those which are directly publick. has the same Power. I exclude the Sovereign himself. Again it 8. VI. In these then consists the Civil Power. 139. &c. I. Cacheranus Decis Pedem. Aristotle calls this Art by the general 10 Name Politikh. or other Ministers. but the less considerable Members of a great State.war as publick and private 259 to profane. p. for those Nations are no longer a State. but considered as they relate to the publick Good. which I have before called a perfect Society of Men. Political. Lib. as were the Roman Provinces. 9. and such like. and their Goods. Cap. are ’ either done by Magistrates. Nicom. among whom we may put Embassadors. Chap. The Particular Affairs are either directly publick or private. VII. Lib. by any other. Let us then see what this Sovereign Power may have for its Subject. VIII. Ethic. Cap. . V. That is called Supreme. When 1 I say. Ethic. 11. as also his Successor. § 6. in which is comprehended that 9 eminent Dominion which a State has over its Subjects. or certain Things. We then exclude the Nations. as Slaves are the Members of a Family. and by another (Bouleutikh) ’ ’ that signifies the Art of Deliberating. See Chap. Ibid. who are brought under the Power of another People. Judicial. and no other. War. may serve as a Comment on all this. VII. The Subject then is either common or proper: As the Body is the common Subject of Sight. Alliances. as Taxes. VII. VI. Private Affairs are here the Differences of private Persons. What Power is supreme. B. n. 6. who may change his own Will. the Eye the proper.

Pufendorf treats of this at large. p. Amst. Edit. (664. when speaking of the Amphictyons. and make a 3 Compound. (1) See my Remarks on Pufendorf. Edit. He makes use of the Term susthma. which is the eighth in his first Volume of Commentationes & Opuscula. 980. VIII. He calls those Bodies Summaxiai. V. happens sometimes. § 16. to several distinct Bodies. Tom. The proper Subject is one or more Persons. Cap. Add to this the particular Interests and Passions. ´ Paris. Note 2. 2 that upon the Extinction of the reigning Family. II. Lib. Amster. that several States may be linked together in a most strict Alliance. ´ IX. Hertius has left us a whole Dissertation on this Question. as in other Cases. Chap. have carried the Disputants on both Sides into vitious Extremes. and Lib. and without Exception. 348. Alliances. for it is not in the moral Body. See B. as Strabo more 4 than once calls it.) 5. But if we examine Things without Prejudice. p. and yet each of them continue to be a perfect State. Paris. and yet each of those People make a compleat Society.260 chapter iii Vict. which is observed both by others. II. 6. 3. 313. ÿH prwth arxh. according to the Laws <64> and Customs of each Nation. It must be owned. 1. I believe we shall VIII. of which this is a certain Proof. II. &c. It is worth while to consult him on the Subject. B. Polit. The late Mr. where one Head cannot belong to several Bodies. Lib. & Plat. as ’tis in the natural. in the Sense I have just mentioned. Where we have a particular and exact Account of the Books published on both Sides of this Question. VII. because such Sort of Confederacies are commonly formed chiefly with a View of mutual Defence against the common Enemy. the Sovereign Power reverts to each People. under a different Consideration.) and of the Lycians. p. The State then is. Chap. XIV. there has been much Misunderstanding in regard to the whole Subject of the respective Rights of the Sovereign and People. that divers People have one and the same Head. in the People. VIII. (420 Paris. n. 7. IX. So it may also happen. the common Subject of Sovereignty. ´ ◊ ’ the first Power of the State. &c. IX. Lib. The first who wrote on it with any Extent. p. 1 who will have the Supreme Power to be always. Cap. so 2. having only confused Ideas of the Law of Nature. And here we must first reject their Opinion. Ed. were not sufficiently acquainted with the Topick of such Questions. Hyppoc. VI. The Opinion . 4. VII. in Galen. for there the same Person may be head. B. III. which in this. de jure belli. Chap. II. § 5. 643. and by 5 Aristotle in several Places. de placitis. Lib. § 8.

quoted by our Author. 1. And it is certain. Num. that Diogenes from a Freeman became a Slave. and keep it still in our own Hands. as often as they abuse their Power. II. Chap. and remarkably. we have here a Quotation from A. in the following Chapter. § 11. Tit. contrary to the End for which it was conferred. but also misapplied. 6. in a Note on that antient Writer. tit. as appears from his Florum Sparsiones ad Jus Justinianeum. without reserving any Share of that Right to themselves? Neither should you say this is not to be presumed: For the Question here refuted which holds that the supreme Power is always in the People. De Jure Personarum. find it not very difficult to establish certain Principles. Cap. § 4. Noct. A Passage from Dion of Prusa. to say we confer a Power on any one. but he was sold into Slavery. alledged by Gronovius on that Place. It is lawful for any Man to engage himself as a Slave to whom he pleases. for he was taken by Pirates. 14. that among the antient Grecians every Man had a Right to sell his own Liberty directly. nor the Spirit of Independence and Rebellion. Attic. This Reserve is sometimes expressed. In the Margin of the Original. who sold him. that a Prince entirely forfeits his Right for the least Abuse of the Sovereign Authority. where he makes use of this Passage for proving the pretended Difference between the Grecian and Roman Laws in this Particular. But the Latin Compiler of Miscellaneous Observations only means. if once the Minds of People are fully possessed with it. and transfer the Right of governing them upon him or them. as well as the meanest private Person. XVIII. For I do not know any Man has ventured to maintain.war as publick and private 261 that they may restrain or punish their Kings. that the People pardon them a great Number of crying Injustices. that we have conferred it so as not to reserve a Right to reassume it in any Case. and consequently. when they are invested with their Power. every wise Man sees. before they think of recovering their natural Liberty. really such. Amstel. which neither favour Tyranny. Why should it not therefore be as lawful for a People that are at their own Disposal. I shall refute it with these Arguments. . 3. l. The Passage in Question is as follows. It is certain. II. § 27. But it does not thence follow. the Effect of which appears. 1. and there is always a tacit one. Instit. that as soon as a People in any Manner submits to a King. Gellius. for it implies a Contradiction. that Consideration is supposed to be taken in. Diogenes the Cynick was a Slave. and may yet occasion. as has been observed by Gronovius. when the Person on whom the Power has been conferred abuses it in a Manner directly. de jure person. which is not only faulty in all the Editions before mine. and so lost his Liberty. See our Author. tho’ he is entirely silent in this Place. as appears from the Passages of Diogenes Laertius. would have been more to his Purpose. Our Author by this designs to let us know. p. What Mischiefs this Opinion has occasioned. 2. they are no longer possessed of the Sovereign Power. subject to Faults. Lib. to deliver up themselves to any one or more Persons. B. and the Arguments answered. V. Edit. Princes being Men. Ex. as appears both by the Hebrew 2 and Roman Laws. xxi.

without that Mixture of Inconveniencies. is not. Imperii Rebus publicis. The City of Augsbourg petitioned Charles V. VII. or 4 refuse both. Chron. O ye Senators. Lib. but what may be lawfully done? In vain do some alledge the Inconveniences which arise from hence. and the City of Capua. Cap. Terence. that the Resolutions of their Senate might be allowed no Force. p. p. Quintus. or may arise. 179. some better than others. and every one may chuse which he pleases of all those Sorts. of which divers Men have divers Opinions. XXXI. of his Commentationes & Opuscula. Scene II. 6 We yield up. Lib. what the Historians say of Sigismund. n. for you can frame no Form of Government in your Mind. that the Tribuneship is exposed to many Abuses. submitted themselves to the Romans in this Form. they cannot otherwise be supported. our Fields. Carion. but by the Extent of the Will 5 of those who conferred it upon him. and place Abuses to View. Cap. Our Author is mistaken here. obliged by Necessity. 5. what may be presumed in a Doubt. &c. II. Rom Germ. But it is unjust. Ver. in Tom.262 chapter iii Gail. II. which will be without Inconveniences and Dangers. to enumerate Inconveniencies. Temples. for which he quotes Melancthon. and all that we have. For if the Campani formerly. 84. See his Dissertation De specialib. I am beholden to Mr. But as there are several Ways of Living. Act II. 206. Cicero speaking of the Power of the Tribunes of the Roman People says. Livy. the People of Campania. Num. 6. or being in great Want. 4. without taking any Notice of the Advantages resulting from the Thing under Consideration—But we should not enjoy the Advantage sought for. The Norimbergers desired the direct contrary. in attributing to Charles the Fifth. de Arestis c. Grotius. and yield it to another: As when they are upon the Brink of Ruin. Hertius for this Remark. 22. De Legibus. 6. in the Prosecution of any Accusation. Heautontim. X. You see plainly. <65> There may be many Causes why a People should renounce all Sovereignty in themselves. 4. Grotius. &c. as has been observed by Wagenseil. . § 23. XXIII. 3. De Norimbergae rebus notabilibus. Cap. III. so a People may chuse what Form of Government they please: Neither is the Right which the Sovereign has over his Subjects to be measured by this or that Form. &c. 3 Either you must take the one with the other. Lib. without the Assent of the Masters of the Tribes of the People. says the Comedian. and they can find no other Means to save themselves.

where Dido. It is taken from the fourth Book of the Aeneid. after having made a disadvantageous Peace. and the Sense. or one may have a great many Slaves. ——— Nec. ˆ Sed cadat ante diem. &c. See the late Mr. Where he explains that Historian’s Account of the several Sorts of Slaves among the antient Germans. into your Power. (3 H. The Master de7. Lib. Thucydides. in the middle Age. Nec cum se. 7. A remarkable Example how far the Memory imposes on such as depend on it too much. by changing the Punctuation. and the Exiles. § 24. but that any People may. wishes that. and Lib. The same Author instances in the Libyans. Thus likewise the Epidamnii. who had joined them.war as publick and private 263 both Divine and Human. 619. are also brought as an Example on this Occasion. among the Imprecations with which she loads Aeneas. See a Dissertation by Mr. as has been observed by the Commentators of the Work before us. ——— Nec cum se sub leges pacis iniquae ` Tradiderit. when they offered to submit themselves to the Power of the Romans. See Livy. § 66. regno aut optata luce fruatur. The Falisci and the Samnites did the same. p. Tol. &c. the Illyrians. Cap. will suffer no Body to dwell in them upon any other Condition. makes the unfortunate Lover say. V. It may also happen. cum se sub leges pacis iniquae ` Tradiderit regno. and paying some Taxes: Of which we have many Instances. 7 And some People. that a Master of a Family having large Possessions. XXV. Edit. Oxon. were refused. Steph. 8. 10. v. Thomasius. Edit. 25. yield up themselves to one powerful Prince. Grotius. This Passage of Virgil is nothing to the present Purpose. Tacitus speaks thus of the German Slaves. after the 9 same Manner. p. The Liti or Lidi. and governs his own House. Edit. . 10 Every one has his Dwelling. Lib. upon Condition of acknowledging him for their Sovereign. Cap. he may enjoy neither Kingdom nor Life. surrendered themselves to the Corinthians. IX. 6. Toll. being abandoned by those of Corcyra. and make them free. to engage that People in their Defence against the Taulantii. ——— Our Author. De hominibus propriis Germanorum.) 9. De moribus Germanorum. 1. Cap. as 8 Appian relates: What hinders. See Appian’s Preface. XXVII. We read in Virgil. XLII. 618.

since there is no better Government than that of a good King: In flattering himself with the Hopes of Liberty. mands of him. would not have changed 15 their Condition with any free State whatever. the Examples of other Nations. III. 13. laudat Evag. 329. declaring that they could not live without one. Orat. Moreover. after which the Slave is under no Obligation. Cap. Cap. Tyan. Grotius. since they don’t like it. Lib. cap. H. and settled at Salamis in Cyprus. Edit. not to assert their Liberty. Lib. V. or Stuffs. I. De Benef. Thus Philostratous in the Life of Apollonius. V. will bear no Change in their Form of Government. in his Comment. p. III. Lips. Olear. that the State seems to be undone without Remedy. and deviated from the Maxims of the Stoicks. 14 The Cities under <66> Eumenes. Mysians. may have influenced some. Bizar. And some Nations also are of such a Temper.) Justin xxxviii. Olear. they preferred living under a King. Edit. II. Thus Isocrates tells us. Steph. . as of a Farmer. 11 some Men are naturally Slaves. 15. (540 Paris. and Getae at Liberty. xii 815. XX. 2. Ed. § 4. And sometimes the Situation of publick Affairs is such. Tom. XXXIV. Philostratus makes Dion say. but to decide who should be their Master. Grotius. Edit. Seneca. Lib. and put the Laws duly in Execution. Chap. who for many Ages 13 lived happily under an arbitrary Government. &c. Genuensium. 16 unless the People submit to the absolute Government of Hertius. 14. 11. & Opuscula. De hominib. 12. a certain Proportion of Corn. Num. Cap. when being offered their Freedom by the Romans. Grotius. § 81. Cap. says. says Livy. Vita Apol. p. 16. at a Time when both those who aspired at Power. B. turned for Slavery. 2. speaking of Marcus Brutus. Tho’ he was a great Man in other Respects. that they know better how to obey than to command. that several Citizens of the free States of Greece left their own Country. II. I think he was extremely mistaken. Where he examines this Opinion of the old Philosopher. in a State where he had seen thousands in Arms. who have been long accustomed to Monarchy. See Pet. which the Cappadocians seem to have been sensible of.264 chapter iii Strabo l. because Evagoras reigned there. 199. 3. when the antient Morals were corrupted. See Pufendorf. XLII. Besides. II. Vita Apollonii. 12 It is a Folly to pretend to set the Thracians. propriis. had so large a Reward in view: Or in imagining the State could be re-established in its first Form. and those who should submit to it. and that it was possible to settle the Equality of a Commonwealth. Lib. that is. Lib. Hist. Amst. Sect. in dreading the Name of King. as Aristotle said. XIV. VII. Cattle. I fear the Romans.

Lib. by the Greatness of Favours received. the Prospect of some Advantage. does not tend solely to maintain the Sovereign Authority of a Monarch. I. therefore the whole People. We are therefore . III. 97. who have no Share in the Administration. or those of an Aristocracy on the Council of the Chiefs of the State. after the Death of Augustus. for there is the same Right. Annal. and depend on the Assembly of the People. because in the most popular Commonwealths. Edit. But now as Property. is not permitted to resist a Tyrant. IX. Cap. 6. Lib. II. Not even a Commonwealth was ever 19 found so popular. or an Apprehension of being forced to obey: They are captivated by the Hope of a valuable Consideration.) is designed to shew that it is not contrary to the End of Civil Society in general. p. that People should be subject to an independent Power. 670. 19. who govern a State exclusive of the People. v. p. as we see is frequently the Case in our Commonwealth. 2. that Men submit themselves to the Government and Power of another. I. so may also Civil Dominion. in 1652. for that of the Nobles. and the same Reason. Cap. Num. there is always a considerable Number of Persons of both Sexes. in whose Hands the Sovereign Power is lodged. 575. Lib. but that of submitting to the Government of One. For these and such like Reasons. Num. as Cicero 18 observes in his second Book of Offices. Num. the Argument would be downright impertinent. 4. 18.war as publick and private 265 a single Person. VI. which many 17 wise Men thought to be the Case of the Roman Republick. in Places where it is established. In Reality. De Offic. or Right to the Goods of an Enemy. Sic apparet Argumenti Vanitas. Cap. Lib. Whereupon the Commentator concludes with an Air of Contempt. but that those who were 17. or an absolute Right to command and govern the Enemy. and Large Promises: Or lastly. it not only may happen. Steph. They are hired to make their Submission. 262. Thus Tacitus says it was the Opinion of wise and discerning Persons. as much as the Subjects of a Monarchical Government depend on their Prince. And Dion Cassius. I. Hist. the Word Lawful being taken in the Sense I before mentioned. that there was then no Way of composing the Dissensions of the State. even in extreme Necessity. IX. LIII. in the Time of Augustus Caesar. or the greater and better Part of them. IV. This Reflection (which our Author has inserted in his short Remarks on Campanella’s Politicks. Lib. See also Hist. H. There are several Reasons which induce Men to submit to the Command and Power of another: They are engaged either by Benevolence. the Dignity of the Person’s Character. if it had been included in the Words of our Author. Florus. I make this Observation because the learned Gronovius makes our Author reason thus: There are some Persons who are ordinarily excluded from publick Debates. I Cap. who was not capable of such an Extravagance. but often does. Lib. may be acquired by a lawful War. Lucan’s Pharsalia. What I have said. of the Collection printed at Amsterdam.

XXXIII. 2. Tom. Geogr. XXXV. Cap. who flourished under Augustus and Tiberius. Those were Towns in Caria and Lysia. p. Cap. and as appears from what I have said in my Latin Edition of this Work of Grotius. Lib. XIV. Paris. and Lib. XXXVIII. and the City of Caunus belonged to the Rhodians. Edit. IV. The Country of Atarnes in Mysia. IX. Lib. LV. from the Time of Phileus. Neither did Adrian take the Island of Cephalenia from the Athenians. 75. as we learn from Herodotus. Livy. Pliny speaks of seven (Grotius says six) Cities given to those of Halicarnassus. XXIX. There are also some People that have other 20 Peo-<67>ple under them. Exc. was partly in the Hands of the Corinthians. Hist. which gives such a Number of Instances of what is well known. Lib. 639. . Lib. II. and partly in those of the Corcyrans. On the contrary. Ep.) Our Author has confounded Salamis with Egina. p. Num. in explaining an Author whose Principles he did not thoroughly understand. Cap. Cap. Thucyd. Anactorium in the Gulph of Ambracia. but here on this and other Subjects. 20. Cap. as we learn from the Author here quoted. there is no such Island as Lindos. The same Writer says. ad Quintum Fratrem. p. Grotius. Num. Lib. Steph. formerly belonged to those of Chios. 21 Are the Collatine People in their own Power? And when the Campani had delivered themselves up to the Romans. Whence arose that Question. Augustus distressed the Athenians. Edit. Thus Salamis depended on the Athenians. and Eurysaces the Son of Ajax. In a Treaty of Peace concluded between the Romans and Etolians. Livy. expressly tells us. I. Lib. I. See Polyb. X. Lib. Cap. were excluded from publick Councils. The Romans gave several Towns to the same Rhodians. Lib. they received it from that Emperor. Cap. which is also attested by Cicero. for Xiphilin says. and XCIII. Lib. 6. XXXVIII. The Emperor Augustus took that Island from the Athenians. 264. p. I. Eutrop. p.should belong to the Acarnanians. Augustus did not take Salamis from the Athenians. Nat. as I have long since observed in my Notes on Pufendorf. which is the Name of a City in Rhodes. V. as Adrian afterwards did Cephalenia. in return for their Assistance in the War with Antiochus. Edit. Amst. I. XI. Xiphilinus. who are no less subject to them than if they were under Kings. I. Cap. there are several Mistakes in it. Edit. Secondly. Paris. Cap. XXXI. Legat. Thirdly. 603. I. as Plutarch informs us in the Life of Solon. has often made strange Mistakes. Strabo. and took Egina from them. Cap. Edit. Cellar. Num. the Island of Lindus. according to Strabo. Edit. the Women and young Folks.266 chapter iii very poor. First. they 22 are said to have passed under a foreign Doto place it to the Account of his Expositor. Besides that this Note is superfluous. H. II. 21. and the Samians were Masters of several Towns on the Continent. with its Territories and Inhabitants. XXXI. it was stipulated that the City of Oeneades. VII. Wech. or Strangers. who is in other Respects a very great Critick. Idem. Ep. as Pliny assures us. by Alexander the Great. that the Island in Question depended then on the Athenians. Cap. 83. Lib. which the Senate afterwards took from them. Num. (394. XXV. 22. V. Oxon. Lib. 9. Lib. CLX. IV.

Seneca thus describes the three Forms of Government. which of Course could not have a Sovereign Power over those Cities. Strab. cxliv. that he had subdued the People under him: And CHRIST says. c. in Xenophon. xiv. I. 1. when the greatest Part of Publick Affairs are in the Hands of that 23. that there are some Kings who do not depend on the People. c. Caudium to the Colony of Beneventum. Ode I. that the Right of Government is always at the Discretion and Will of the Persons governed. 26. — v. The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them. 25. without the Emperor’s Will and Pleasure. Lib. (said GOD to the Israelites ) I will set a King over me. And to Samuel. But both sacred and profane History do testify. considered even as a Body. sometimes the Persons of Credit in a Council. 4. xv.war as publick and private 267 minion. Pydna was given by Philip to the Olynthians. Shew them the Manner of the 24 King that is to reign over them. That Passage of Horace is well known. — x. Exp. If thou shalt say. 25 Regum timendorum. See what is said on the following Chapter. — xv. Luke xxii. when they were delivered from their Government. xvi. The City Cotyora is said to have belonged to the People of Sinope. 25 Liv. Ps. 2 1 Kings iv. Diod. 24. and over the Inheritance of the LORD. All which were absolutely void. for it speaks of a Province of the Roman Empire. III. 26 Sometimes we have Reason to fear the People. As Acarnania and Amphilochia are said to have been under the Power of the Aetolians: Peraea and Caunus under that of the Rhodians. Formidable Kings have Dominion over their own People. 1. So we read in Frontinus. that the Town Calatia was adjudged to the Colony of Capua. 1. xlv. &c. Epist. And those Towns which had been under the Spartans. Strab. and over Israel. if we allow. xxxii. Otho gave the Cities of the Moors to 23 the Province of Boetica. c. as it is in Tacitus. 25. Deut xvii. XIV. 1. . 33. Cyri I. iv. but Kings themselves are subject to the Dominion of Jupiter. 26. 2. viii. Hor. 24 xxxviii. with their Territories. Hence the King is said to be anointed over the People. Solomon is called King over all Israel. were called Eleutherolacones. 2 Sam. Paus. 16. § 3. ( freed Laconians). 14. iii. v. c. 9 — ix. in Strabo: And the Island of Pithecusa to the Neapolitans. I. 3. So David thanks GOD. 1 Sam. This Example is nothing to the Purpose. Nice in Italy was adjudged to the People of Marseilles.

I. 591. Anton. 271. Aristotle says. Edit. 30 No one but GOD only can be the Judge of a Prince. This is said in Justification of Augustus’s Conduct. 30. H. Vit. that he did not stay till the Command was given him. So after the chief Men of Rome began to assume to themselves the Regal Power. opposes regal Government to that which must give Account of its Actions. Defens. Tom. when the Good of the State required it. but even command the Laws themselves. IV. Lib. LIII. and Liberty of Conscience. Ad Institut. Gronovius gives them the same Sense. p. General. Edit. joins and explains that Prince’s Words. Otanes thus describes Monarchy. as 29 Theophilus expounds it. 382. that he understood not only how to command according to the Laws. Wech. Bruxelles. p. Hence is that Saying of Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher. Steph. there are some Kings who have the same Power as the whole Nation has in another Place over their Persons and Goods. not Sovereign of the Achaeans. and 31 Dion. the People conferr’d on him all the Authority and Power. whom he thought discharged from all Obligation of Obedience to the Laws. Compar. Such are those who 27 Plutarch says. that He was so great a Master of the Art of War. and illustrated with Notes. & Flamin. 53. 644. for by the Lex Regia. in Marc. § 6. Anglic. Edit. Edit. De Constit. the 28 People are said to have <68> bestowed all their Dominion upon them. Fabroti. Pausanias to the Messenians. Mr. as if he meant to say. without being accountable to any Person. Vol. p. And Dion Prusaeensis describes Royalty: So to govern. 29. 31. Edit. 28. I. being persuaded. but took it when Opportunity offered. The Lex Regia gave the King all Manner of Power over the People. 49. rather than he whom they chose. De Tillemont. p. in the second Edition of Mr. and over the People. Noodt’s Discourse on The Power of Sovereign Princes. Principum. He feared not the Mutinies of the Soldiers. and observes. H. Tit. who is invested with the Power of the People. and sometimes one single Person. but even how to command the Laws themselves. That Piece was published in 1714. pro Pop. Philopoem. 22. IV. in his History of the Emperors. This Passage of Plutarch is not very well applied. II. Leg. . Lib. that the Person who had better Skill and Judgment than those at the Helm. which I have translated into French. I. And in Herodotus. B. Tit. Xiphilinus. The Historian speaks there of Philopemenes. p. Cap. was their General. as not to give Account to another. The Prince’s Pleasure has the Force of a Law.268 chapter iii Council. Steph. made by his Authority. A Power to command as one pleases. Lib. Digest. p. I. See the learned Gronovius’s Oration De Lege Regia. and Power even over themselves. because GOD alone is the Master of Empires. II. of such a 27. See Milton’s Exposition of this Passage. Not only command according to the Laws.

and the Origin of Inachus. who desiring the King of Argos’s Protection and Assistance against the Aegyptian Fleet in Pursuit of them. 21. 429. as was that of Athens. falling on the common Place of the Necessity of Subordination and Obedience in a State. 13. &c. Grotius. See also v. v. p. ii. 14. not by the People. in relation to his Prohibition of burying Polynice. 1 Maccab. Pausanias plainly tells us. xv. as is evident from that Prince’s own Words. 682. in his Defens. in Imitation of those of the East. 681. in another Place. referred to by our Author. The Will of him whom the People has placed at their Head. among other Things. In regard to the Anakim. The Poet puts those Words into the Mouth of some foreign Women. Cap. is to be obeyed. Syntagm II. says. in Sophocles. That Prince. for the Syriac Word lgp. 174. who thence takes Occasion to harangue on the Advantages of a popular Government. as Milton observes. Lib. And Theseus. according to the Language of those Times. v. and what he doth not please he need not do. the Inachidae were Pelasgi. that Creon’s Edict was unjust and inhuman. the People thus address the King in Aeschylus. that the Kings of Thebes were absolute. Hence the Name of the Goddess ⁄Ogka hqn[. v. I have already told you. 516. Master of himself. is taken from that great Poet’s Antigone. v. made by the People. but one Person’s Will is the only Law. tho’ they were persuaded in their Hearts. But we cannot say quite the same of the Kings of Argos. that is. p. Edit. and of the Laws. that is the Reason why the Thebans dared not open their Mouths. from whence they came. that is. De Diis Syris. From that Time. 1.war as publick and private 269 Prince. in supporting the Honour of his Authority? The Theban Herald in Euripides speaks thus. to do and say what he pleases. Now as the Kings of Argos were arbitrary. and affirms. is governed by one Man. as tending to prove the Kings of Thebes in Boeotia absolute. 33 32. than to let every Thing depend on one Man. He is free. says he. The State from which I am deputed. and whom the Grecians called Pallas. for which Reason the Lacedemonians called themselves Descendents of Abraham. But. The new King is introduced speaking like a most absolute Prince. The first Inhabitants of Lacedemonia were Pelasgi. the Thebans judged it better to be governed by a Number. what is just or unjust. This appears from the Words of Creon. when he commands Things of small Consequence. Chanaan. for in the Argive Tragedy of Suppliants. Antigone owns It is one of the many Advantages of a Tyrant. 1. so were the Kings of Thebes. see Bochart. V. These are the Anakim µyqn[. 10. whether he was guilty of a Fault. &c. of a King. and those of the Theban Herald. Cap. &c. V. Anglic. Second Edition. to whom Cadmus built a Temple at Thebes. 33. 411. Le Clerc’s Compendium of Universal History. in Opposition to Monarchy. observes. IV. which did not belong to him. mentioned Deut. when he speaks of the Revolution that happened after the Demise of Xanthus. and Mr. flatter him with an absolute Power. For what concerns the Goddess ⁄Ogka consult Selden. Wechel. that in a Kingdom there are no common Laws. He then asks. so that he does what he pleases. p. I will not do it. Eschylus says. 287. pro Pop. Exiles. without the . Cap. in the Suppliants of Euripides. 410. who descended from the Phoenicians. Such a Kingdom was that of the 32 Inachidae antiently in Greece at Argos. 748. the last Theban King. Boeotic. Cap. The Passage of Sophocles.

p. but the whole Power was lodged in the Hands of the Ephori. Demophoon the Son of Theseus. Heraclid. 404. So after Lycurgus. This City is not governed by a single Person. Cap. Num. 805. Num.270 chapter iii Sir. 38 Plutarch. For it has long been a standing Custom among the Lacedemonians. 425. XXI. where the People reign. Note 40. But Agesilaus. Seated on your Throne. but if I govern with Justice. Agesil. v. Thes. Cellar. 37. nothing but the bare Consent of the People. The Argives. 36. Cap. the Lacedemonian Kings are said by 37 Poly-<69>bius. For Theseus. VIII. in Name. 2. have limited the Regal Power as much as possible. Vit. Lib. I. who are such more in Name than Authority. Edit. and the Guardian of their Laws. Graec. 40. XIX. Vit. like the other Spartans. quoted by our Author. as they think fit. which Example others also followed in Greece. that Kings who are accountable to their People. was only their General in Time of War. I shall be treated as I deserve. 39. Supplic. as 35 Plutarch explains it. of old great Lovers of Equality and Liberty. you alone govern all by your absolute Commands. like the Kings of the Barbarians. Conformably to this Declaration. . and 39 Cornelius Nepos. but it is a free City. Tom. Corinthiac. are said to be called Kings improperly. Wech. as upon an Altar. 34. v. Wech. Hence it comes to pass. Quite otherwise than King Theseus himself speaks of the State of Athens in 34 Euripides. 35. not in Power. he convenes the People. VI. 61. Thus 40 Pausanias says (of the Argives ) to the Corinthians. & Cleomen. And Cap. &c. I am not invested with absolute Power. I. even tho’ it was in my Power. His Words are these. See also the Passage of Pausanias. in other Things upon 36 a Level with the Citizens. which is the Place our Author had in View. 38. 424. p. to have two Kings. had only the Name of King. &c. It is where he speaks of Cleomenes. and having obtained their Approbation. Wech. so that they have left to the Sons and Posterity of Cisus. 2. you are the City and the Publick. Cap. De Regibus. Grotius. speaks thus in one of Euripides’s Tragedies. promises the Petitioners to comply with their Request. and not in Reality. That Historian speaks only of the Manner how the Kings of Lacedemonia were limited. Vit. as he observes. chosen out of the two Families of Proclus and Euristhenes. Agid. by establishing new Magistrates every Year. Edit. p. to be Kings only in Name. you are an independent Judge. and especially after the Ephori were constituted. Edit. who. 11. was King of the Lacedemonians. Edit.

I have transposed a Note of the Author to that Place. which he shews from Plutarch. have had. and of the Dictators 44 in the first Ages at Rome. Sect. Or perhaps. Francof. (dia ’ biou). 42. used to bring the Kings before the Senate by Night. XVI. Polit. for Amnemones is the true Reading. relating to what he says of the Power of those extraordinary Magistrates. Generals invested with as large a Share of Authority in Military Affairs. Graec. Edit. even in Democracy and Aristocracy. For the sixty chosen Men. so absolute an Authority ever since the Year 1629. there mentioned. or being obliged to answer for their Conduct when out of Office. Cap. from whence he was called into the Academy of Franecker. we meet with some Instances of a Sort of temporary Monarchy. Cap. that they do what they please. Tom. . p. &c. 359. our Author might have produced a more suitable Example nearer Home. Lib. but that there may be. Such was the Power of the 43 Amymones among the Cnidians. from whom there was no Appeal to the People. The Officer who had the Care of the Prison. But whatever led him into this Error.war as publick and private 271 Name of King. Lat. Nay.Quaest. who compose the supreme Council of State. p. whence a Dictator’s Edict was held 41. VIII. he took it from that Writer. Edit. Amymones. De Jure Civitatis. and some others. So that this cannot be alledged as an Instance of temporary Sovereignty. Our Author. held their Office during Life. without consulting the Original. because they do but make Part of an Aristocratical or Democratical State. Plutarch. and are elected every Year. III. even among Nations. 3. where the Senators. who has been successively Professor and Member of that Sovereign Council. Quaest. See § 11. Edit. 1622. 126. p. See Ulric Huber. 44. Graec. I am inclined to believe this was the Case. as Gronovius observes. I. But ´ our Author. Cap. Num. I. 292. Lib. and not give them their Liberty till they were cleared by that Body. without consulting any one. This I learnt from a Lawyer of that Country. But I am surprized that no one has taken Notice of the Misapplication of this Example. thought Plutarch wrote di ´ etouc. because they agree in giving the Magistrates of Cnidos the Appellation of Amymones. which is that of the Government of Friesland. during that Time. who makes the same ⁄ Mistake in his Treatise Of the Commonwealth. VIII. as the Persons who bear the Title of King. who governed in the most important Affairs with absolute Authority. which is not subject to the People. 42 Aristotle denies that such Kingdoms constitute any proper Form of Government. where the Author treats professedly of the Dictators. So also Plutarch 41 observes. 291. having read Bodin. were chosen annually. The Philosopher does not say such Kings made Part of an Aristocratick or Democratick State. 292. which are not always under Kings. II. 43. That the Senate had Power to judge Kings among the Cumaeans. nor can any Act of theirs be abrogated. miscall this People. Lib. because it contains an Example taken from the Roman History. Wech. II. Paris. trusting his Memory on this Occasion.

Cap. Neither is that true which is supposed. Cap. and not on you. says 45 Livy. Theodoret makes the Emperor speak thus to his Army. Grotius. 2 Arg. whence it follows. it was your Business to deliver me the Reins of the Government. 46. to obey. The Words are these. VI. The Arguments which are brought for the other Opinion are easily answered. Cap. who had made him Emperor. but of the Manner in which Julius Caesar had employed it. O ye Soldiers! <70> But after you have chosen me. 8. I. The contrary sufficiently appears from the Examples I have already alledged. I. that all Government was ordained for the Sake of the Governed. Philippic. 48. IV. XVIII. Cap. must be superior to the Person constituted. Num. Lib. cannot afterwards be revoked by him that has once conferred it. not yours. not of the Governor. but not in regard to a Power which. Lib. tho’ at first one was at Liberty to confer it or not. upon Condition of Subjection. Cap. Lib. when they desired something which he did not like. and of Nations reduced under one’s Dominion by the Right of War. whom she must from that Time always obey. . which had possessed itself of the whole Force of the Royal Authority. Sozomen. but from the Moment I received them. as is evident from the whole Series of the Discourse. He (M. as Subjects. As when a Woman chuses herself a Husband. Idem. And 47 Cicero. It is your Duty. Num. what you request depends on me. XXXIV. Anthony) entirely abolished the Dictatorship from the Commonwealth. it is only true in regard to those Powers whose Effect depends always upon the Will of their Author. The Roman Orator does not speak of the proper and ordinary Power of the Dictators. to consider what is expedient for the Commonwealth. and mine to consider what is proper to be done. Hist. Neither was there any 46 Security but in a careful Obedience. as sacred. VI. For first.272 chapter iii 1 Arg. During the Vacancy of the Throne. Valentinian told his Soldiers. II. as they pretend. VI. 2. 47. VIII. Another Argument they fetch from a Saying of the Philosophers.— The perpetual Dictatorship being fresh in every one’s Memory. it was my Business. 48 It was indeed in your Power to chuse me your Emperor. that all Kings are constituted by the People. 2. that the Governed are 45. Eccl. of a Master of a Family that receives Strangers into his Lands. when he found Means to make that Office perpetual. Lib. that the Person constituting. that the Dictatorship had possessed itself of the whole Force of the Royal Authority. Whereas it is alledged.

are called Tyrants. that all Government was designed for the Sake of the Governed. in his Life of Miltiades. That Kings were constituted to administer 49. 49 as that of a Master over his Slave: For there the Benefit of the Slave is extrinsical and accidental: As the Gain of the Physician has no Connection with the Art of Physick. See likewise Mr. and was called Tyrant. See Mr. Lib. second Edition. The Poet says the Muses give Kings the Art of Persuasion. &c. which 51 Cicero said from 52 Herodotus. Noodt’s Discourse on The Rights of the Sovereign Power. in a State that was once free. 53. XCVI. for which End they were placed in that exalted . 241. and that it is true. I. This Word had not an odious Meaning originally among the Grecians. that they may engage the People to submit to their Decisions. and some living Languages. implies Injustice. and Herodotus from 53 Hesiod. 11. p. unable to defend themselves. All who are in Possession of perpetual Power. The Author has his Eye on that Place where the Historian relates how Dejoces was raised to the Royal Dignity. French Translation. Some Governments may also respect the Benefit as well of the Governor as of the Governed. as when a People. submit to the Dominion of a powerful Prince. 52. I shall here add a Passage of Cornelius Nepos. as the Word is 50 now taken. II. but received it at the Hands of the Persons governed. during his Stay in that Country. neither is or can be supposed to engage farther than the Condition shall be supportable. from whom it passed into the Latin. since the End is more noble than the Means. De Offic. Coste’s Preface to his excellent Translation of Xenophon’s Hiero. XCVII. 50. but are not therefore to be reputed Tyrannical. Cap. We have an Instance of this in what I have said in the 32d. each of the Parties has his own Interest in View. &c. as the Kingdoms which a Prince acquires by the Right of Conquest. and retained it by his good Administration. I do not deny but that the Good of the Subject is the direct End proposed in the Establishment of most Civil Governments. as in all other Sorts of Conventions. 51. So that there may be some Civil Governments established for the Benefit of the Sovereign. There are other Powers that tend to the mutual Advantage of him who commands. as the Authority of a Husband over his Wife. for some Powers are of themselves established for the Sake of the Governor. and of him that obeys. Lib. which is fully to the Purpose. For he had obtained a perpetual Power in Chersonesus. for Tyranny. But neither is that universally true. p. but with the Epithet of just: For he did not acquire that Power by Force. But in this. XII. insomuch that he who is to obey. Note on this Paragraph. Cap.war as publick and private 273 superior to the Governors.

and GOD of Princes. or in an Assembly. Storms. Hist. The Author has the Passage of Xiphilin in View. and yet it gives to the Guardian 54 a Power over the Pupil. who either punishes them. IV. Theog. This last Passage is in the Formula Praefecturae Urbanae. Neither does it avail. since it is derived from Heaven. because we have no Judges. but the Evil is not perpetual. and without the Consent of the People. as long as there are Men. whose Faults. 83. 4. Hist. as Servius defines the Term. LXXIV. where he also quotes two Expressions of two other Princes. 4. the Magistrates are to judge of private Persons. he may be punished by you: But if you yourself should Station. it is to be considered. VI. It is admirably said of 55 Tacitus. because there must be some dernier Resort. Cap. And 56 M. is a Power over a free Person. because they have no superior Judge. V. 54. and the other Inconveniences of Nature: There will be Faults. But I do not know where our Author found. De Tutelis. Princes of Magistrates. if there be a Necessity for it. § 1. to the same Purpose. 56. (in Cassiodorus) declares. 55. He sets it down in a Note on this Place. for the Chastisement or Trial of a People. &c. Lib. that the People are superior to the King: For Guardianship was undoubtedly designed for the Benefit of the Pupil. Aurelius said. But it does not therefore follow. 31. Lib. xxx. King Vitigis. for the first Kings were properly no more than Judges. The first Words of the former are taken from Lib. that a Guardian may be removed if he does not manage his Charge well. XIII. 12. X. For as to a Guardian. and therefore there ought to be the same Power over a King. Tit. where that Bishop thus 57 addresses the King of France. GOD declares. Lib. If any one of us (O King!) should transgress the Bounds of Justice. who had no Power to inflict Punishments by their own Authority. . We cannot be subject to another. Var. and is accountable to Heaven alone. 57. it must be fixed either in one Person. or tolerates them. that he has a Power superior to him: But in Civil Governments. that he takes Cognizance of. as you do Barrenness. that what regards the Royal Power (he should have said Dignity ) is to be judged by the Powers above. Instit. Since. as they infer. which I have quoted Note 30 of this Paragraph. 1. &c. and <71> is compensated by the Good which happens from Time to Time.274 chapter iii Jer. In the same Author a King says. You must bear with the Luxury or Covetousness of Princes. Guardianship. Justice to the People. There is a remarkable Place in Gregory of Tours. v. &c. Num.

Titi. 389. Cap. Lib. 58 That it is not without a particular Providence of GOD. that Kings did not attain the Sovereign Power without a Divine Providence. Aurel. Var. who shall condemn you? There is none. Lib. 2 Kings xvii. as it is expressed by Suetonius. Cap. that we read of some People punished for the Offences of their Kings. Neither is it an Objection to what I have said. and that this is true in a particular Manner. Grotius. XXIV. . the Christian Emperor. XII. at least a tacit Consent to his Vices. Ed. Lib. Augustin says. I. bestowed it on Domitian. Epitom. knowing that he is chosen of GOD. Porphyry mentions this. but because they seem to give. because they do not punish or 62 restrain their King. Steph. Num. XC. the Apostate. received it from the same Hand which conferred it on Constantine. Who shall call you to Account? When we make Representations to you. 59. proper for them who are governed by them. V. You shall fear the King. The Emperor Titus declared. This Passage. p. Iliad. in short. in regard to that of a Sovereign. We have the same Thought in 61 the Constitutions of Clement. 61. 7. See what I have said in the foregoing Note. who. 10. II. 2 Sam. This Reason may sometimes take Place. IV. with Philo. De Civit. Among the Maxims of the Essenes. is our best Guide in what relates to the Essenes. V. 1 Kings xiv 6. Do not the worst of Tyrants exercise their Power by the Permission of Providence? 60. Lib. IX. or perhaps. on the Account of Saul ’s exterminating the Descendants of the antient Gibeonites. mean no more than that such or such Princes reign by the Permission of Providence. Le Clerc’s Reflections on the Famine with which GOD punished the Israelites. By whose Orders 60 Men are born. Homer says. according to Diodorus of Sicily. De Abstin. Josephus the Jewish Historian. and those quoted both in the Text and the following Note. De Bello Judaic. The Aegyptians. you hear us. Or. Julian. Lib. The same who gave the Empire to Flavius and Titus Vespasian. Cap. Cap. Victor. that the Power of Commanding falls to the Lot of some Persons. for this does not happen. XVII. VII. Cap. that The Powers were established by Fate. remarkable for his Cruelty. says exactly the same. without 58. But this is not to the present Purpose: For the Question here is about Right. 197. II. 62. So that it would have been more proper to have quoted the original Author. if you please. but he who has declared himself to be Justice itself. That every Promotion to Dignity is to be considered among the Gifts of the Divinity. And 59 Irenaeus says excellently. In Vit. Lib. Lib. XXI. v. X. St. Cassiodorus makes King Vitigis say. See Mr. by his Command also are Kings ordained. xxi. but if you will not. Besides. were of Opinion. not Fact. Cap. 31.war as publick and private 275 offend. that The Dignity of Princes was bestowed by Fate. Dignity is derived from Jupiter. &c. Dei. Cap. X. Princes of the greatest Lenity.

they must necessarily come to an open War. It is better therefore. while he remains really a King. but likewise. who fancy to themselves a reciprocal Dependence between the King and the People. <72> But the Goodness or Badness of an Action. according to them. which are not really so. and to the Obligation under which whole Nations. as often as the King should do any Thing that seems unjust. and proceed against him authoritatively. he becomes in his Turn dependent on the People. (1) That is. 2. that the People can never judge of the King’s Actions. are not fit to distinguish those Limits. as to give just Occasion to consider him no longer in that Character. IX. and suffer every Thing. . For this Restriction is always to be understood. That is. according to the Difference of Places. or to command him. but this implies no Right to compel 1 the King.276 chapter iii respect to this. that the People. that our Duty to our Sovereign does not oblige us to do any Thing manifestly unjust. they say but the Truth. So that the King. that the Extent of their respective Jurisdictions might be easily discerned. and the People thinking the contrary. if the People had a Right to consider themselves as independent of the King. Now if by what they say. being persuaded he had not abused his Power. GOD may make use of that Sovereign Power which he has over the Life and Death of every Man. (of which we shall say something 2 hereafter) there ought to be Bounds assigned to the Power of each Party. the People ought to obey the King whilst he makes a good Use of his Power. because. to chastise their King. or prejudicial to the publick Good. so that. from whence would necessarily follow the utmost Confusion. But then it does not follow. 3. on such Occasions. or Affairs. especially in Civil Concerns. 3 under Pretence that an Action appeared IX. and has not so far abused his Power. with Impunity. because it might easily happen. which are liable to frequent and intricate Discussions. This is contrary to the natural End of all Society. See § 17. But suppose they had a Design to divide the Government with the King. and no Judge being to be found for deciding the Difference. at certain Times would judge some Things unjust or prejudicial. when he abuses it. Mutual Subjection refuted. lye of preserving themselves. a perpetual Source of Quarrels and Disorders would be opened. IX. and the Inconvenience on this Side is less than that on the other. that the Sovereign should sometimes do Things really Evil. There are others. as well as each Man. and that they are obliged to submit to. they mean only. Persons. in regard to whom it is a great Punishment to lose his Subjects. of this Chapter.

or the Shew of outward Things. Tho’ among the Latins. X. but ambitiously to have affected the Regal Power. Cap. De Morib. II. 5. after 5 they were subjected to the Ephori. VII. Yet we see these two Words often confounded together. The Kings of Lacedemonia. . among the Romans. VII. That we be not deceived by the Ambiguity of Words. Cap. as when Caesar said. there were some Kings. I. Cap. XXII. XI. 4. IV. were set up to check the Consular Power. to whom the Sovereign Power in every Nation belongs. Annal. Edit. in order to direct us how to judge rightly. Cap. Lib. when it degenerated into Tyranny: As the Tribunes of the People. Num. no Nation (as I know of ) ever yet thought to introduce.war as publick and private 277 Good or Bad. Let this then be the first. Lib. as Tacitus says. CVIII. Num. Gall. 8. the King and People would each. Oxon. 8 that Evander reigned more by the Esteem X. Cap. a Kingdom and a Principality are generally Opposites. Having confuted these Errors. Germanor. X. for the Spartan Chiefs descended from Hercules. 6. but was slain for aspiring to the Royalty: And when Piso. 1711. but the Ephori were established to oppose the Kingly Power. Vita Calig. p. Cap. were not subject to the Ephori. it remains that we give some Cautions. Cap. who. 6. 2. as the learned Gronovius observes on this Place. 7. 8. said. Lib. And in antient Germany. LVII. This we learn from Valerius Maximus. IV. II. assume to themselves the Cognizance of one and the same Thing. Cautions in judging of the Sovereign Power. were yet called Kings (as we have 6 seen above). Lib. (1) De Bell. For Example. rather than by any Power they had of commanding. 3 that Caligula wanted but little of changing the Ornaments of a Prince into those of a King: And Maroboduus is said in 4 Velleius not to have been contented with the Principality. which he possessed with the Consent of those that depended on him. which Disorder. in Tacitus. Livy relates. 115. not of a Parthian King: And Suetonius. 1 the Father of Vercingetorix had obtained the Principality of Gaul. by Vertue of their Power. I. 3. Lib. 2 that Germanicus was the Son of a Prince of the Romans. 7 governed by the Deference paid to their Counsels. See the 39th Note on Paragraph 8.

The same Title is given him twice or thrice in the same Place. 904. Nobles. relates that Hanno. As the Doge of Venice. B. according to Gunther. On the other Side. Steph. Such was Darius. VI. XIII. 12 Strabo 13 speaks of Scepsis in Troas. at that Time passed under the Name of Aemilius Probus. He likewise observes. . II. 334. divided into three Orders. after they exercised openly. and without any Disguise. or Judges of the Carthaginians: And Hanno is so called by Solinus. 10 and Diodorus. that having incorporated the Milesians into the State. Amst. 1026. that is. a Passage from the Writer of Hannibal ’s Life. improperly so called. IX. proceres. 11. Ed. Geogr. 16. Prelates. (607.278 chapter iii People had for him. Edit. than by his own Authority. Chap. Tom. p. 15. Artax. p. in 16 some Places. H. and has the Title of Serene. Politic. XLIX. who were real Kings. missisque potentibus Urbes. &c. Cap. The Author here adds. Cap. Lib. it formed itself into a Democracy. Edit. The Carthaginians. King of the Carthaginians. Num. on the contrary. XV. See Puffendorf. § 12. the Princes on whom their Fathers. bestowed the Title of King. 13. VI. where the chief Magistrates 14 are honoured with the Ensigns of Royalty. It had before been formed into an Aristocracy. 465.travelled into those Islands. Lib. a most absolute monarchical Power. Biblioth. He means Cornelius Nepos. without divesting themselves of the Sovereign Power. and a Senate invested with Aristocratical Power. tho’ not a Sovereign Prince. Cellar. VII. Xenophon. VII. who is crowned. were nevertheless called Princes. 9 and Polybius. Lib. and something of the Dignity. He tells us the Carthaginians conferred the Title of King on their General Mago. whose Lives of illustrious Generals. but the Learned very much doubted their being the Work of that Grammarian of the middle Age: For two Kings were chosen yearly at Carthage. Hist. 10. and Deputies of Towns. that we may rank among those Kings. Cap. 4. in a Note. Those States. leaving the Name of King to the Descendants of their antient Kings. says that Historian. 15 Praelati. II. There are also some Republicks. the States of a Kingdom. Wech. had Kings. Paris ). are only. as we learn from Plutarch. I say. Vit. as the Consuls were at Rome. Cap. the Assembly of those who represent the People. Edit. Cap. XV. LVI. of Lampsacus. p. Aristotle. p. whom Artaxerxes condemned to die for a Conspiracy against him. But afterwards they (the Scepsians ) were changed into an Oligarchy. 12. as appears from the Words immediately preceding those quoted by our Author. In Ligurin. Lib. 9. 11 gave the Title of Kings to the Suffetes. <73> The Roman Emperors. 14.

´ ÷ ÷ ÿ ’ ’ ´ ◊ ’ ai de airetai. Polit. 19 and Dionysius 20 of Halicarnassus. to whom one succeeds. . and no more. XI. that Maxim is not generally. XIV. others Elective. Lib. See the Passage quoted at Length. This Point of History is treated at large. 21. § 11. On the contrary. that in the Times of the Heroes. successive Kingdoms only are Sovereign. I. Paris. Of those Kingdoms. 19. B.war as publick and private 279 as it were. and the King has nevertheless a Power afterwards to ordain whatever he thinks fit. observe. 357. VII. which shall oblige the Prince himself. When a Family is chosen to reign. 21 was conferred by Election. Edit. I. and the Extent of the Power of him that governs: It imports only a Continuation of the Rights of him. Many think. 17. Another Caution may be this. Cap. and the Manner of enjoying it. Chap. Note 1. The second Caution. even after all Power was taken from the Senate and People. come to his Ear. The ÿ ’ ÿ ’ same Author. most of the Kingdoms of Greece were so. some are Hereditary. Chap. § 7. which takes Place not only XI. the King’s Great Council. that is. by whose Means the Complaints of the People. He there speaks of such as had only the perpetual Command of the Armies. III. on Pufendorf. We must distinguish between the Thing itself. p. even after the constituting of the Ephori. in regard to the Matters in Question. that in Order to know whether a Prince be Sovereign or not. 18 and Thucydides. Lib. which the Members of his Privy-Council often conceal from him. II. the Roman Empire. the Right conferred upon it passes from Successor to Successor. 17 Toutwn twn Basileiwn ai men kata genoc eisin. IX. But it is certain. and without Restriction. But in other Countries they have a Right to take Cognizance of the Actions of the Prince. Ibid. 20. 18. p. B. Among the Lacedemonians the Kingdom was Hereditary. with the same Power that the first Election had given. 256. for according to them. Aristotle speaks. of the chief Dignity of the State. true. and also to prescribe Laws. And of such a Kingdom. For Succession is not a Title that determines the Form of the Government. or by Means of Election. § 53. we need only consider whether he mounts the Throne by Right of Succession.

some by an usufructuary Right. this may be called a Patrimonial Kingdom. (1) See Note 5. It is acknowledged that the Sovereign Power may be disposed of in Traffick. III. the Dictator was Sovereign for a Time. Thus it stood in all the Editions before mine: But I chose to read Reges plerique. since him. Besides. 4 as those who have acquired the Sovereignty by Right of XI. expressly allows the Prince a full Right of alienating the Crown. amongst the Romans. But the late Mr. For when it is asked. in Opposition to which others may be termed Usufructuary. we are told it is a Kingdom of which the Prince has a Power of alienating the Crown. and others by a temporary Right. 3 as well those who are first elected. as those who succeed to them in the Order established by the Laws. and is reduced to a vitious Circle. others give that Appellation to despotic Kingdoms. 69. ` De Courtin has. or Carriage through a Ground. But these some have by a full Right of Property. 70. 16. Grotius. the Doctors reply. We have an Instance of a King chosen for a Time in Nicephoras Gregoras. XXVII. But there are some Kings. The Substance of what he says is this. 2. and the Author himself uses the same Expression. in his Notes on Huber. Genesis. on the Oder. Lib. § 14. § 16. and by the Generality of Commentators and other Writers. Cap. gl. such as are in Possession of a Patrimonial Kingdom. enjoy the Sovereign Power by an usufructuary Right. 3. In order to extricate themselves from this Perplexity. what Princes have a Power of alienating the Crown. tit. and the Disputes of the Doctors about the Power of alienating the Crown. I perceive. II. has been adopted by Pufendorf. B. 2 The Generality of Kings.280 chapter iii See Carolus Molinaeus on the Customs of Paris. Plerique Imperia summa non plene habentur. who possess the Crown by a full Right of Property. Thomasius has reasoned on it very judiciously. IV. De Jure Civitatis. corrected it in his Translation. Cocceius. This supposes nothing contradictory to the Nature of the Thing. the Mistake was so gross. IV. Reges denique. Lib. in Things corporeal. is no less a Thing 1 than the Ground itself. 18. but also in incorporeal: For a Right of Passage. Professor in the University of Franckfort. § 7. p. The Sequel of the Discourse necessarily requires this Correction. rejects it. and when we desire to know what is meant by a Patrimonial Kingdom. But in Questions relating to this Matter. Some indeed pretend that successive Kingdoms are Patrimonial. on Pufendorf. Chap. 4 n. Sect. § 19. I. second Edition. the Enquiry is commonly concerning Kingdoms founded without such a formal Compact. the Examples of such Compacts being very few. &c. 4. Chap. B. II. § 2. The Generality of Kings. relate to Cases in which there has been no Compact between the Prince and People on that Point. some have invented the Distinction under Consideration. for we shall hardly find any but that made between the Egyptians and their King. Thus. 17. that Mr. VII. Our Author’s Distinction of Patrimonial and Usufructuary Kingdoms. mentioned in the sacred History. Cap. IX. § 16. And. and if the Compact between the Prince and the People.which only confounds the Matter. in a Dissertation De Testamento Principis. while others confer it . Mr. VI. without mentioning it.

does not thereby give him a Right of Sovereignty over that Estate: So. or those to whom a People. as is here granted. unless such a Power is taken away by a Clause in the Contract. Bohmer’s Introductio ad Jus Public. only continues the Right of the first King. it was his business to explain himself. In a Word. in that Case. if they had been pressed. 5. is and ought to be supposed to have had no Thoughts of giving the King a Power. VII. when a whole People submits to the Dominion of any one. B. which enables him to change their Master as often as he thinks fit. every Kingdom ought to be reckoned Non-patrimonial. and the People not having spoken of it. the Sovereign Power. but. and who has been followed by several Authors. unless it is specified by a formal Clause. on the contrary. Univers. that where any Doubt arises. Chap. according to Grotius himself. 15. have submitted without Conditions. But either those Alienations took no Effect. Nor does it follow from a People’s submitting by Force or Necessity. Neither can I agree with those. p. and make the People explain themselves on that Article. See Mr. B. however conferred. but when the Question turns on the Meaning of an ambiguous Clause. For Silence.war as publick and private 281 <74> Conquest. VI. that they have by that Action invested the Prince with a Power of transferring his Right to whom he please. or have been supported by Force only. under Pretence that the Parties would probably have extended their Engagements farther. in order to prevent greater Mischief. leaves Room for presuming that there was no such tacit Concession. 228. I am of Opinion it ought to be laid down as a Principle. VIII. on the contrary. and yet the Grand Signior has no Power either to alienate the Crown. because had the King pretended to acquire a Right of alienating the Crown. . It is in vain to object that if. §. The Turkish Empire is the most despotick in the World. and among the rest by Pufendorf. the Prince had demanded such a Power. Whatever becomes of this Question. does not in itself imply a Right of Propriety: They are two very different Ideas. or they were made or approved by an express or tacit Consent of the People. Succession. nor change the Order of Succession at Pleasure. As therefore a Prince. and attended with a Power of alienating the Crown. the Conveyance of Sovereignty does not of itself include a Power of alienating. strictly speaking. be- on such as have been conquered. such a Grant does not of itself imply a Concession of a full Right of Propriety. if Contracts are to be explained beyond their express Terms. So that the Conveyance of Property does of itself and in its own Nature include a Power of alienating. Such Conjectures have no Place. Nothing therefore remains to be considered but the numerous Examples of Alienations made by Sovereigns. Chap. by transferring the Property of an Estate to a Subject. 5 who say the Roman Dictator had not the Sovereign Power. A Door is opened to Chicanry. which have no necessary Connexion. I. or established in some other Manner by a forward Consent of the People. who explains himself on that Subject in his Treatise of the Commonwealth. the People would have given it. But all this lays no solid Foundation of a Right of Property. The Author means Bodin. See my 20 Note on § 12.

Either this is a mere Dispute about Words. For it would follow. which I deny. It would likewise follow. but which might come. in that Case the Master has no Right to sell him. during 6. If a private Person sells his Liberty for a Term of Years only. and according to the Exigency of Circumstances. can reign but a very short Time. which indeed was not limited. as he shall judge proper. Now if it is not contrary to the Nature of Sovereignty. as the meanest of their Subjects. and they designed to confer it only for a Time. that all Sovereignty ought to extend as far as it is possible. but the Moment the Person. The Power of commanding. that it should end at a Time. It is pretended that the Limitation of Time destroys the Nature of Sovereignty. There are several . If this is not granted. who is deposed. than a Prince established for Life. on whom it is conferred. the most absolute Princes forfeit the Sovereignty. according to the Course of Nature. I do not understand why several Authors so obstinately maintain that there can be no Sovereignty for a Time. during the Time fixed. But our Antagonists agree with us in owning that. or at least. because that is the only Way to render it perpetual. while Princes are under the same Necessity of dying. and as all Princes may commit such Abuses. It is farther objected. but the Power of Alienation is not. 6 Now the <75> Dictator. even absolutely. should be called by the same Name.282 chapter iii cause it was not perpetual: For the Nature of moral Things is known by their Operations. and consequently must be successive. that however a Sovereign behaves himself. or the Reasons alledged are no better than so many different Ways of begging the Question. a King. is actually invested with it. is thereby possessed of a Power of exercising all the Acts and Parts of the Sovereignty. he cannot be deposed. who maintain that Perpetuity of Duration has a necessary Connection with the Nature of Sovereignty. it is evident that on that Account all Sovereignty is for a Time. would not be a Sovereign. But it is sufficient that the Person established Sovereign for a Time. that such a Limitation confines the Sovereignty to certain Acts of Sovereignty. I do not see why it may not end at a fixed and determined Time. or. without ceasing to be such. as if he had taken a Master for Life. was not a Sovereign during the Time of his good Administration. is of Course dependent. all the Difference is. Those. which have the same Effects. it may be said he is a Sovereign during that Time. and is no more dependent on them. that when the Time is expired. is of such a Nature that it may be conferred for a Time. who either has reigned. a necessary Consequence of Slavery. without consulting any one. If therefore the People confer all the Right of exercising all the Parts of Sovereignty on any one for a Time. it is not necessary that he should actually have Occasion to exercise them all. that a Prince. even though he should carry his Tyranny to the utmost Excess. and was considered as possible to come. he is above the People. according to the Law of Nature alone. in that Case. It is said that a sovereign Power conferred for a Time. much less of Sovereignty in general. are not aware that this Assertion will carry them farther than they would wish. but then it is falsely supposed that all Sovereignty ought to be perpetual. wherefore those Powers. It is indeed conferred by the People. his Superiority and Independence are at an End. or being accountable for his Conduct. It is true. he will be as effectually a Slave during that Time.

speaking of Titus Lartius. and that which they enjoyed in later Times. That he was called Dictator. Fabius Maximus Rullianus.) observes likewise in a Note. or Royalty. because he might command and prohibit what he pleased. 45. Cap. Livius Salinator was Censor. 8. with as much Authority as the most absolute King. Chap. for Example. We have already (§. and is esteemed less glorious. on which we may conceive that the sovereign Authority is expressly so conferred on a Person. if the Censors were absolute. if such a Sovereignty. for saving the Life of Q. He had before observed that the Senate decreed that this extraordinary Magistrate should be accountable to none for his Conduct: That his Authority should be equal to that of Ty- . I think he has Reason to mention the Dictators. He says. the People were obliged to have Recourse to Intreaties. The Author. XXXVII. XXIX. XXIX. where it is not thought proper to establish a Regent. it was not universal like that of the Dictators. that when M. between the Power of the Dictators. (§. ancient Authors. General of the Cavalry (Magister Equitum ) whom L. 46. stiles him a Monarch. And the Continuance of a other Conditions. give us an Idea of a real Sovereignty for a Time. All that remains therefore is to enquire whether the Instances alleged are to the Purpose or not. had condemned for giving Battle without his Orders. Lib. the People desirous of settling the Crown on the late King’s Son. says our Author in a Note on this Place. who had before spoken of the Dictatorship. num. and that the Dictatorship was in Reality an elective Tyranny. In Regard to the former. Liv. This would certainly be a Sovereignty for a Time.war as publick and private 283 the whole Time of his Office. as an Instance of temporary Sovereignty. which I have reserved for this Place. the Dictator.) produced Passages from Livy on that Subject. V. as a sort of temporary Sovereigns by distinguishing. But whatever was his Design. as he does. because not perpetual. VIII. XXXV. when it had suffered such gradual Changes. So that. he disfranchised all the Tribes (aerarias reliquit ) except one. he had an absolute. if he lives to the Time of his Majority. it is not in itself a less real Sovereignty. independent Power in Affairs of War and Peace. 7 exercised all the Acts of civil Government. and thus shewed he had a Power over the whole People. which is here under Consideration. Lib. both Latin and Greek. See the following Note. Notes. 8. Hence we may conclude. much more ought we to consider the Dictators as such. such as it was originally in the first Ages of the Roman Commonwealth. the first Dictator. that in an elective Kingdom. as divested it of the Character of intire Independence. and nothing he had done could be annulled by any other Power. Lib. that the Execution or Defect of such Conditions may render it a Power for a Time. and conveyed an Idea of Oppression. 7. 13. Perhaps our Author made this Remark only with a View of shewing that. Cap. Papirius Cursor. Dionysius Halicarn. and all others. on Condition that he shall resign the Crown to the young Prince. That the Romans did not think it proper to give him a Title (that of King ) which was odious to a free State. is therefore less advantageous to the Possessor. and above the whole People in what concerned their Office. who is a Minor. Let us suppose. That the very Appellation of Dictator expressed the Extent of his Authority. choose another King. Livy. But how considerable soever the Power of the Censors was in certain Respects. LXXIII.

and supposes the Romans took that Form of Government from the Grecians. Cap. &c. came to Age. XI. since I had written all I have here said on this Subject. I. Duke of Burgundy. Lib. which happen but seldom. Chap. Du Cange’s Glossary. Pag. though if the Question be concerning Dignity. King of France. V. or in some particular Affairs. LXX. III. A learned Man. by Obrecht. See Mr. VIII. III. viz. 8 so rants. or were hindered in the Execution of their Office by the Senate. for those who have criticized him on this Occasion. Note 4. in the Cases in Question. was. Politic. maintains that. Rom. Edit. B. doubtless he that has a perpetual Right. Alberic’s . Lib. Cap. Antiq. III. in his Dissertation De extraordinariis Populi Romani Imporiis [[sic: Imperiis]]. It is to be observed that the Author speaks only of such as are appointed Regents in the Cases here specified. Jens’s. Cap. which. XIV. was crowned as King. See Charles Du Fresne’s Gallo-Byzantine History. Hertius. VI. according to the first Institution. Lunacy. was made Guardian of Baldwin II. under the Word Heredes. among the old Greeks. on Condition that when his Ward. The late Mr. or Captivity of their Kings. Viceroy of Jerusalem. LXXIII. as might be easily made appear. ibid. &c. has a greater Majesty. as during the Minority. only in not being Hereditary. which is generally called Majesty. All the Facts alledged. Hist. compares the Power of the Dictators with that of the Aesymnetae. Cap. (or Kings) and that he should be superior to all Laws. The same Thing may likewise be said of such. See Chap. B. who was to marry his Daughter. adds some others. seem to suppose he speaks of all Regents in general. are appointed Regents of the King-<76>dom. who has published a short but good Dissertation de Dictatoribus Populi Romani. and Eutropius. an elective Monarchy: and differed from those of the Barbarians. which is published in the first Volume of his Commentationes & Opuscula. he should faithfully resign the Empire to him. In the second Note on this Paragraph he refers us to an Instance of the extraordinary Case in Question. Dionysius Halicarn. Pufendorf. Odo. in Mr. Some of them governed during Life. in his Notes on our Author. printed in 1717. the Dictators either did not exert their whole Power out of a Principle of Goodness. by supposing this Distinction. 8. Paris. John de Brienne. 239.284 chapter iii Thing alters not the Nature of it. than he that enjoys it but for a Time. are of a later Date. which seem to prove the contrary. VII. and crowned as Emperor. exercised all the Parts of Sovereignty. Lib. that of the Aesymnetae. because the Manner of holding adds to the Dignity. being named Guardian to Charles the Simple. In Reality the Dictator. that he might govern with more Authority. Cap. and his Authority was limited only in certain Things of little Consequence. in a Dissertation De Tutela Regia. and. See also Polybius. others for a certain Time. of that Dissertation. we shall find all their Objections fall to the Ground. Rom. §. 41. and some other Writers. LXXXVII. 356. Fer[[c]]ulum Literarium. properly speaking. or Eudo. Lib. &c. he says. who thus exceeded the Bounds of their own Authority. on examining what has been said by Boecler. which is given at large in Pufendorf. as before quoted. p. Hist. Breviar. Aristotle furnishes us with a more ancient Example of a temporary Sovereignty.

2 Livy thus opposes them. 22. XVIII. See Procop. For even the Stoicks 1 acknowledge there is a kind of Servitude en upotaqei in Subjection. See Mr. Cap. In the German Empire. Before Men had tasted the Sweetness of Liberty. and of the Goths in Spain. § 124. XV. whom the People might 9 depose. upon any Dislike. whoever killed a King. It seemed a shameful Thing that the People of Rome. num. VI. XII. so does civil Liberty exclude Royalty. XII. Lib. xxii. Fr. so neither is the Authority the same. IV. Hotoman. 3. Edit. 467. XVII. 1196. Cap. Whatever such a Prince does. D’Ursperg’s Chronicle. and cannot be deprived of their Authority before the Time fixed by Law. and that of the whole Body of the People another. Lib. VII. XXVIII. 2. so likewise there is a Difference between civil Liberty. VI. Qu. 1 Sam. by way of Patrimony. as we learn from Guillilm Neubrig. Of the Burgundians. II. . num. VII. Chronicle. Of the Moldavians. Lib. that some Governments are held in full Right of Propriety. p. 994. Against what I have said before. 2. 2. they desired a King. Lib. Cap. 2. XII. and ◊ ÿ ´ in Holy Writ the Subjects of Kings are called their Servants. 819. some learned Men make this Objection. 1. may be abrogated by those who vested him with a Power so liable to Revocation. and that of a Master over his Slave. x. that Free-men are not to be barter’d away. 1. and consequently as the Exercise of his Authority has not the same Effects as the Acts of a true Sovereign. during the Minority of his Nephew Frederic II. B. In Norway. Cap. 9. I. 3. by Ammian Marcellin. by Paul Warnefrid. An. (1) Diogen. XII. XV. Quaest. Some Sovereign Powers held fully. and all manner of Sovereignty properly so called. We have Instances of the same kind among the Quadi. Cap. XIV. II. as were the Kings of the ancient Vandals in Africk. succeeded to the Throne. num. The same is related of the ancient Hercli by Procopius. and Jazyges in the Fragments of Dio. Cap. and which may be at any Time recalled. Lib. Lib. and Bussieres’s History of France. 9. Vandalic. V. But as there is a Difference between the regal Power. But it is otherwise with those who are invested with a precarious Power. XLV. by Laonic Chalcondyl. An. and that of Godfrey the Monk. 1 Kings ix. As then personal Liberty excludes the Dominion of a Master. Of the Lombards. Again. Lib. that is. c. p. 17 2 Sam. Illustr. num. Vales. Philip governed with the Title of King. with a Right of Alienation. Gothic Lib. Laert. by Joan Leo.war as publick and private 285 that they depend not on the People. and that which is personal: The Liberty of a private Person is one Thing. 1. Of the King of Agades in Africa.

Paris. Epist. II. Natur. 6. (a City of Pontus ) that it was sometimes free. So those Cilicians who were not under Kings were called Eleuthero Cilices. 7 free Cilicians. and Judgments 3. 1. IV. To the Kings and free Cities. nor besieged by an Enemy. Lib. Cap. Oxon. 1. Cap. but being a free People should be besieged by the Hetrurians. The Author. num. And after them 4 Tacitus.) And Caecina in 6 Seneca. 6. 1672. VI. And every where in the Roman Laws. Lib. XXIX. & ad Attic. Brutus brought in Liberty. III. XII. II. Idem De Morib. were never attacked in War. X. Hist. Lib. Ep. to them that lived under Kings. 822. he opposes those Nations that were free. or the chief Places of a free City: The Meaning whereof is that the State is threatened with a regal Power. 5. German. Lib. Lib. and 3 Cicero said Either the Kings should not have been expelled. Cicero says he had procured the Assistance of free States. Cap. that treat of War. Edit. XIX. Edit. This Teres. The People of Rome are not now under a King but at Liberty. Cap. Indic. Lib. and the consular Government. And Pliny speaking of some Nations as free. Ad Famil. and in another Place. Amsterd. 4. Seneca Pater Suasor I. for great Part of Thrace is free. in a Note on this Place. that they were not subject to Kings. Ep. 4. 8. The Liberty of the Germans is more severe than the regal Power of Arsaces.) . Histor. XIII. V. B. 7. XX. Free Cilicians. Lib. Cap. XX. 5. Lib. Cap. Antiq. XLIX. and sometimes under Kings. Men are not to speak their Minds in the same Matter in a free State. Cap. and not in Words. Elziv. num.286 chapter iii when they served under Kings. XII. XXXVII. or the People should have had their Liberty in Deed. Cap. p. And 8 Strabo says of Amisus. IV. Gronov. but L. 1. as under Kings. Lib. And elsewhere. (those that live after ´ ¤ ◊ ´ their own Laws. and confederate Kings. the Father of Sitalces. We have an Instance of this Presage in the History of Genoa. adds. produces the following additional Passages to prove that the ancient Greek and Latin Writers opposed Liberty to Monarchical Government. Thucyd. (547. Geograph. Edit. by Peter Bizar. And 5 Arrian Basileusi kai thsi ÷ ’ ÷ polesin osa autonoma. was the first who enlarged the Kingdom of the Odrysae so much. Lib. p. XV. Cicero mentions them Ad Fam. De Legibus. Nat. XI. that he exceeded the other Kings of Thrace. Josephus distinguishes between Kings and free States. The City of Rome was at first under Kings. Annal. Edit. XVII. The regal <77> Thunderbolts are those whose Force affects either the Assembly of the States. Quaest. And again in another Place.

that this Distinction of our Author is not well grounded. Our Author’s Argument. which obliged the People to put themselves under his Dominion without Reserve or Restriction. we cannot say he disposes of his Subjects. or tacit. which is called the Right of recovering a Thing lost. it ceases to be free. when a People is alienated. who are Members of a People not free. XI. for the Liberty of a Man consists in his having no particular Master. really such. each Subject is still as free as before. in Note 4 on § 11. When it is said. that they are not their own Masters. Foreigners are distinguished into 10 Kings and free People. and Estate. Lib. Numb. which Men were once under the Power of the Aetolians. and thus. no Sovereign having a Right to alienate his Dominions. which is not delivered very clearly. Idem. though the whole People is not so. free Nations and Kings. And again. and restoring it to its former State. even according to the Maxim objected against our Author. and those. Now single Persons who are Members of a People. Leg. but the perpetual Right of governing them. invested with a full Right to govern them as long as he lives. the Prince. but one common Master. without a Concession from his Subjects. Cap. after he has sold or given away his Kingdom. considering each of them in particular. 12. XV. who has a Right to command them as his Subjects. . such a People may be sold. Thus when a King alienates his Crown. 13. in what Manner soever he obtained the Crown. that free Persons are not to be sold. I. As to the Body of the People. and has only another Sovereign. as such. XXXVIII. as is evident from what he says. 11. a full Right to alienate the Sovereignty. is not to the Purpose. Livy. have. may transfer his Right to another. who do not enjoy this publick Liberty. XXXVIII. for in this consists the Alienation of the Sovereignty. Tit. or by making his Advantage of a pressing Necessity. which Lands. that is. 9. established between us. as well as of those who are deprived of personal Liberty. to such as have acquired the Kingdom by just Conquest. Digest. Num. 2.war as publick and private 287 of 9 Recovery. It is said even of those. are free. not of the whole Body of a People. But we have shewn. &c. he confines this Power to some only. but clear. and § 14. as they are a People. as such. barely by having a King. by Laws and Customs. this is to be understood of single Persons. 12 Are the People of Collatia their own Master? The Argument then which is here used. which Cities. 10. De Captivis & Postliminio. Lib. and even to dispose of his Person. since 13 the Question does not relate to personal but civil Liberty. In the Law Definition of Postliminium. Thus when a Freed- 9. it is not the Men themselves. § 11. See Paragraph 21. who has a Power of commanding his Actions. XLIX. But then it must be observed that our Author does not pretend that every Sovereign Prince has. that is. Hence that in 11 Livy. But properly. for. stands thus. Cap. their own Way. XIX. but that they belong to those on whom they depend. either formal.

§ 8. XXXVI. See B. having drained his Treasury in the Marcomannic War would not lay any new Tax on the People. so that Ziegler’s Criticisms on both are mere Chicanry. . III. Anton. yet are those Revenues properly his own: Just as. as we learn from Mariana. than to his Person. For. Aurel. 18. VIII. which he has in View. Num. Cap. 15 For it is possible. I. <78> as he has to the Sovereignty over the People who have chosen him. XVI. XVII. Chap. Grotius. 16. XVIII. the Freeman is not alienated. but exposed his Plate to publick Sale. Lib. with his Chrystal and Porcelane Vessels. Victor. and not that the Dominion gained over the vanquished People cannot be accompanied by a Right of Property. De Adsignatione Libertorum. the Incomes are not restored. Ad Senatuscons. Lib. V. This Right rather relates to the Succession to the Freed-Man’s Estate. See Julius Capitolinus. 17. appropriated to himself half the Kingdom of Granada. Trebell. and exclusively of his Subjects. That is from such Things as compose the Substance or Essence of the Inheritance. should rather belong to them than to the Prince. See the Law itself Digest. as he explains the Matter. For this Ferdinand. whether his Kingdom is patrimonial. Philosophi. Leg. and the true Sense of the Law. See Institut. which alledges. under whose Command the Conquest was made. XXVIII. or not. But it does not thence follow. if well grounded. Tit. Num. Breviar. M. This is our Author’s Meaning. Vit. Chap. King of Arragon. See § 11. Hispan. Histor. prove only that the conquered People ought to be dependent on the victorious People. Rom. but the Right which one had over that Person is transferred. which he had conquered with the Revenues of the Kingdom of Castille. while his Wife Isabella was alive. because they are accounted to arise from 18 the Thing itself. Edit. or out of 17 the Revenues of the Crown Lands. Cap. 1. before Restitution. his own. or on the State rather than the King. though a King has but an usufructuary Right to those Lands. he acquires to himself. implies in itself a Power of alienating the People conquered. illustres. And that is as weak. II. Lib. Note 4. 9. and a great Quantity of Jewels. Cellar. VI. § 2. Hist. when one is obliged to restore an Inheritance. So too our Author’s Reply to this Objection proves no more than that. The Emperor Marcus Antoninus. that because a King conquers other Nations by the Blood and Sweat of his Subjects. that the King may maintain 16 his Army out of his private Estate. Cap. and which were fully enjoyed by the Possessor.) would. III. Lib. when a Prince has carried on a War at his own Expence. As the Objection. Tit. Grotius. and his Wife’s rich Clothes. by the civil Law. therefore what he so conquers. Hotoman’s (Quaest. Eutrop.288 chapter iii Man is assigned to one of his Patron’s 14 Children. 15. and Pufend. Cap. and not to make Part of the 14. a Sovereignty over the People conquered. VIII. which is Mr. IX. VIII. Epitome. § 2. that the most lawful Acquisition. B. made by Conquest.

Note 4. submitted without Opposition to their new Sovereign. because when Hiram 22 had restored them. 11. In Regard to those Instances it should be observed. Provinces. That the Island Cythera over-against Taenarus 21 did belong to Eurycles a Lacedemonian Prince. and partly conquered by Solomon himself. that those Cities were not at that Time inhabited by the Israelites.war as publick and private 289 Inheritance. 19. and other Countries. the King of Egypt. on § XI. Lib. they had taken. 558. p. twenty Cities. viii. had held to that Time. considered in itself. as has been observed. first. Those who accompanied Baldwin in his Eastern Expedition. unless they expressly declared the contrary. 20. of annexing such a full Power of Property to the Right of absolute Sovereignty. those who submitted to such a Sovereign. Enemies to the Hebrews. were judged to have done it in Conformity to the established Custom. expressed no Opposition to that Action. (363 Paris. en merei kthsewc idiac. (for so it is in the . though not under the Constraint of superior Forces. Jos. VIII.) 22. a Custom being introduced into the East. There might have been a tacit Consent. For Cabul (which Name is given to those Cities) was seated without the Bounds of the Hebrews. given when the People. Amst. Grotius. which some conquered Nations. There might have been some formal Clause. 27. (for so Philo Byblius. xix. Geograph. who translated the History of Sanchuniaton. and given to him in Dowry with his Daughter. Edit. 1 Kings ix. entirely free. calls him in Greek ) King of the Phoenicians. not of those that were inhabited by the Hebrews. as authorized the Prince to alienate his Dominions at Pleasure. and Plunder. and however acquired. that it may be in his Power even to alienate it. and we find in History 20 many Instances of Sovereignty accompanied by that Right. to be alienated. Secondly. 12. thus alienated. Therefore it may happen that a King may so enjoy a Government over 19 some People in his own proper Right. 2. in his own proper Right. but of those Cities. allowed him half of the Cities. Thirdly. by which those People gave their Sovereign a Power of alienating the Sovereignty. 2 Chr. and became lawful only by Vertue of a subsequent Consent. So King Solomon ◊ ÷ ´ ◊ ´ gave to Hiram. It is not certain that the Cities which Hiram gave Solomon. or because. That we are not sufficiently acquainted with the Terms on which the Princes or States here mentioned acquired the Sovereignty over the respective People. and were partly subdued by Solomon’s Father-in-Law. Those Alienations were frequently supported by Force alone. Strabo says. Imposts. at the very Time of the Alienation. For it is plain. either when the People. So that all these Examples do not amount to a Proof that the Power of Alienation is necessarily attached to the most absolute Sovereignty. 21. Solomon planted Hebrew Colonies in them.

§ 7. &c. by Will. Lib IX. II. VI. left his Kingdom. as a Portion with his Daughter. Marcellinus. says. Ed. V. Lib. Cychreus King of Salamis. of which he was Governor. whose Country was situated near Parnassus. Num. Edit. III. XVIII. 251. every one in his allotted Part. on Condition. Iliad. Bas. Gron. III. Thus. Biblioth. made a Present of them to Apollo. that he bequeathed by Will his Kingdom to Artaxerxes. 480. 23 gave the Sovereignty of it to Tyndareus. his eldest Son. See Henry De Valois’s Note on that Passage. 146. ` p. 479. Grotius. as we learn from Servius on Aeneid. Edit. 60. 398. therefore it is not to be wondered at. 48. 2. Peleus received a third Part of the Dominions of Eurytion King of Phthia. This Fact is recorded by Demosthenes. with Part of his Kingdom. I. 27. the <79> Successors of Alexander the Great 27 are to be considered as having succeeded him. The same Hercules having conquered the Dryopes. as a Reward for his Assistance. Aegimius. tho’ not conformably to the Truth of History. which had been formerly under the Persians. XXIII. that Alexander the Great bequeathed that whole Kingdom to one of his Successors. 1572. p. lying on the Borders of Phthia. Vales. p. XII. Corinthiac. Grotius. Lib. Peleus gave Phenix the Country of the Dolopes. in the full Right of Property. Lanassa marrying Pyrrhus. Apollodor. to Telamon. 25. Text. v. Lib. XI. III. Edit. dying without Issue. King Anaxagoras gave two Parts of his Kingdom to Melampus. Cap. Jobates gave his Daughter to Bellerophon. v. King of Epirus had for her Portion the City of Corcyra.290 chapter iii Thus we read. Plut. by Vertue whereof he governed those Nations. XI. Le Clerc’s Commentary of the Passages. Wech. Cap. Idem. 23. Cap. VI. See Mr. Idem. IV. quoted in the Margin. conquered by her Father Agathocles. IX. 10. 118. and to Cyrus the Cities. . § 7. Cap. Grotius. So Amphipolis 24 was given in Marriage Dowry to Acamas Son of Theseus. in the War against the Lapithae. speaking of Persia. Lib. Num. which Servius explains. v. in his Oration De male obita legatione. Lib. he should restore it to them. 26. v. and 25 Agamemnon promises in Homer to give Achilles seven Cities. VII. as Phenix himself testifies. in Pyrrho. with half his Royal Honours. King of Syracuse. that they claimed to themselves the Right of Alienation. Edit. gave Hercules part of his Dominions. that if Hercules left any Children of his own. King of the Dorians. Porca King of Alba bequeathed his Kingdom to Numitor. not restored ) were the same he had received as a Gift from the King of the Hebrews. 149. Lib. or else as having acquired that Sovereignty themselves. And 26 Justin tells us of Darius. § I. Livy. See Servius on Virgil. by Right of Conquest. 24. Ammian. Paris. Cap. v. Lib. Thus likewise in Homer. that Hercules having conquered the City of Sparta. and Pausanias. On Aeneid. Cap. Cap. Iliad.

Procop. 413. King Arsaces. Procop. (to the Roman People) by his Will. but in a fairer Way. who had made the Roman People Heirs of the Dry Libya. King of the Ostrogoths. Mithridat. mentioned by Ammian. Attalus did this out of a Principle of Gratitude. XXII. and the other Cities of Libya Pentapolis from the Liberality of Ptolomy: For that King of Cyrene was called both Apion and Ptolomy. Cap. that Apion. 75. Grotius.] To these may be added the following Examples. possessed themselves of his Kingdom. VIII. 6. Cap. II. De Lege Agrar. reduced it into the Form of a Province. 2. Lib. divided it among his Children. they immediately reduced the Kingdom into the Form of a Province. Gizeric. Num. De Bell. Fredegar. contra Rull. Cap. and the smaller to Tigranes. We have got a good Inheritance. De Aedificiis. in his fourteenth Annal. Ammian. Vit. p. Lib. they. divided Armenia in such a Manner. Lib. 580. was left by King Apion. Eutrop. XX. by the Disposal of King Apion. for her Portion. Edit. We became possessed of the drier Libya. Lib. V. Vandalic. Cap. the Roman People had a very good Title to that Country. Theuderic. I. Graev. LXX. under the Name of Goods. by Right of Inheritance. So that Part of Libya. 68. We have Testimentary Disposals of Burgundy. 28 the Son of Eumenes. Therefore the Romans entering upon it as Heirs. Pepin having conquered Aquitain. followed this Custom in Regard to his Spanish Dominions. 3. Valerius Maximus tells us. V. Lib. Mithridat. by his Will. II. Jud. See Breviar. by Will. had made the People of Rome his Heir. called Cyrenaica. a Bastard of the Race of the Lagides. 30. We find the same Practice established in other Nations. [But see Henry De Valois’s Notes on that Place. by his Will. 31. XVI. that Prince altered his Will several Times. King of Bithynia. III. Ibid. the People of Rome Heir to his Goods. Cap. were. speaks of another Apion. to the Romans. Eusebius in his Chronicle at the Year 1952. the Kingdom of Bithynia. Plut. Tom. had made. I.war as publick and private 291 When King Attalus. Civil. Marcellin. that the greater Part of it fell to his Son Arsaces. Tacitus. 3. that on that Account. II. 1. Num. Num. that the Emperor Augustus having allowed Herod to leave the Kingdom of Judea to which of his Sons he pleased. Chron. Lib. That Prince himself came to the Throne by his Father’s Will. Lib. Marcell. in Sicily. in his second Oration against Rullus. King of the Vandals. Cap. Wech. Edit. as we learn from Justin. XXXIX. when Nicomedes. we received Cyrene. XVI. & Bell. XV. Of which Florus 29 thus speaks. speaks of this Legacy. mentions some Lands 31 which formerly belonging to King Apion. And afterwards. Orat. We learn from Josephus. left the Country of Cyrene. Among the Goths and Vandals the Kings disposed of their Conquests by Will. Cap. . Liv. The King of Fez bequeathed Fez to his Appian Bell. says thus. p. XV. gave his Sister Amalesfrida the Country of Lilybaeum. I. VII. Sertorius affirmed. Lib. Sertor. Appian of Alexandria tells us. 29. together with 28. not by Force of Arms. And 30 Cicero. Cap. Antiq. in Aimonius III.

not by Force. Idem. Alphonso. II. and those Parts of Arcadia that bordered on the Sea. Consult Bembo. had thought of leaving his European Dominions to his Son Amurat. Lib. Nicetas. speaking of Paphlagonia. VI. for her Portion. The City of Castro in Sardinia. his King-<80>dom. 32. Robert gave Dyrrachium and Aulone to Baimund. Cap. Bizar. Mariana. Zonar. not by Force. Lib. says. Lib. was a long while de- second Son. and sold Boeotia to Anthony. Hist. Turc. by which he had been adopted. Lib. Every Body knows that the Romans are become Masters of the Kingdom of Aegypt. XII. and others depending on Cagliari. Chuschin Bega gave Murat the Cities lying near the Euxine Sea. 4. Lib. Thus the Kingdoms of Jerusalem and Cyprus were partly bequeathed by Will. 415. Lib. I. on this Paragraph. and by Default of Heirs of the Family. Jacup Beg. Musal divided the Turkish Dominions in Cappadocia among his Children. by which he divided Acarnania among his natural Sons. V. De Bello Pisano. Orat. . See Note 20. Ital. Lib. Mahomet. Lib. II. Lib. left it to Ferdinando. Gregoras. The Prince of Etolia left Athens to the Venetians. appointed the Sultan Murat Heir of his Dominions. V. Which (Paphlagonia) became hereditary to his Father. The Sultan Mahomet bequeathed his Kingdom to Murat. were Gifts to the Genoese. Lib. that that Kingdom fell to the Roman People by the Will of King Alexander? 33. For who among you does not know it is said. The Sultan Aladin left Ozmin several Cities by his Will. I now come to the Practice of such Christians as were victorious in the East: Michael Despota divided Thessaly among his Children. 42. or Superiority of Arms. 4. The Passage stands thus in Cicero. Num. Lib. on her Marriage with the Son of Thomas the Grecian Emperor.292 chapter iii Lib. XXXVIII. Ithome. V. Lib. Prince Charles made a Will. that Orodes King of Parthia. V. who had conquered the Kingdom of Naples. Hist. II. Idem. Lib. in Honour of his Wife. Lib. See also what the same Historian says of Bugia. by Vertue of the Will of the King of Alexandria. Lib. The Prince of Arcadia gave his Daughter. XVI. V. in Basil Porphyrog. bequeathed to the Romans. Leunclav. The same Author also relates. Sister to the said Stephen. Anna Comnena. gave her what he possessed in Phrygia. Idem. Lib. but by a testamentary Adoption. who married his Daughter to Bajazet. Idem. and partly alienated by Contracts. Chalcocondyl. 33 Which fell to his Father. Emperor of the Turks. for what relates to Cyprus. III. p. and gave several Parts of Etolia to his Mother’s Relations. Leo Afer. and the Superiority of his Arms. VII. Grotius. and Paruta. Mithridates. I. c. III. The King of Germianum. The Emperor Basil Porphyrogennetus was by David Curopalates made Heir to his Possessions in Iberia. Lib. Lib. XIV. And in 32 Cicero. IV. but by Vertue of a Will. in Justin. contra Rull. Lib. and those in Asia to his other Son Mustapha. Hist. Cap. Nicephor. IV. Id. Messina. his natural Son: And Ferdinando bequeathed some Cities in that Kingdom to his Grandson. Chalcocondyl. XXX. Cap. IV. King of Arragon. Hisp. Bajazet gave Stephen the Cities of Servia. Prince of Germianum. Idem. II. Leunclav. his younger Son. De Lege Agrar.

in general Terms. 1645. 1. or convert his extensive Kingdom into a Patrimony for the Indigent. who therefore could not bequeath the Nations which he governed. Paris. I. c. l. as a Thing never heard of. Grotius. Salvian. speaking of Nebuchadnezzar. by shewing Mercy. I. since he might have in View the Customs of the antient Germans. XIII. Dan. Hist. in order to raise Money for the Relief of the Poor. left his Wife Heiress of his Dominion. 12. like Lands and Slaves. to the King not of one single City. because you cannot dispose of your Crown. XIII. 2 cap. Prince of the Tibarenians. that is. Cathol. It is very probable he only means. but. 4. VI. and those of Babylon in particular. will shew us that it is possible he never thought of the Subject in Question. But as to Kingdoms which were originally established by the full and free Consent of the People. Ad Eccl. after a long Enquiry. 2. or of some one in particular. of the whole World. according to Salvian. Break off thine Iniquities. which also Mausolus had formerly done in Caria. he seems to have commanded him to give his All. a Power of alienating their Dominions at Pleasure. and that it would not be proper or possible for him to leave them his Dominions. When he only does not command him to give what he could not bestow. that could be given to the Poor. Tacit. Lib. (a People of Cappadocia ) and of the Country adjoining. that therefore the King of Babylon ought to give Alms. in his Quaestiones illustres. bestow the several barbarous People under his Jurisdiction. (1) Vopiscus. as was then supposed. which our Author has quoted in such a Manner. 1. but as a very rich Man: Whence the good Priest concludes. tho’ he had several Brothers alive. But that Author’s Argument. 2 we have no Reason to blame. who. that a Prince is not obliged to sell his Subjects. iv. Wherefore what Crantzius observed in Unguinus. 356. it would not have appeared whether Salvian was speaking of Kings in general. that since Daniel exhorts the King. to which of his Sons he should leave his Kingdom. that if I had not found it by Chance. 13. So that no Consequence can be drawn from those Words for deciding whether Kings in general. which gave Occasion to it. Some are held not so fully. And Polemo. Cap. makes the following Observation. thus considered intire. not as a King. he by these Words directed the King to employ his whole Treasure in Alms.war as publick and private 293 bating. XIII. I confess 1 it cannot be presumed. to redeem his Sins by Alms. that by his Will he had bequeathed Norway. . Id. criticises on the German Historian’s Observation. to the Poor. Cap. had. For he (the Prophet) spoke to the King. like Money. Edit. declared that the Empire ought not to be left by Will. a Roman Senator. King of Babylon. because you cannot bestow your Kingdom upon them: Distribute your Substance among them. p. Strabo. that it was ever their Design to allow the King to alienate the Sovereignty. without excepting any Thing in his Possession. give the Poor Money. says he. I have set down the last Passage at Length. in a Manner worthy of the Age in which he lived. on the Needy. The Author here has Hotoman in View. and the Passage of Daniel.

Ann. Eginhart. that when he designed to disinherit his Son 4. that Religion. The learned Boecler. and published by ˆ P.294 chapter iii amongst whom the Kings had no Power to alienate their States. Lewis the Pious. King of Arragon. XXX. . for the Good of the Kingdom. &c. were rather bare Recommendations to 4 the People. which does not correspond to any number in his text. &c. To this Purpose is the Will of Pelagius. 806. Imper. De Gestis Ludov. King of Leon. and that of Alphonso. Pithou. as that of Alphonso. 20. It contains the note that Grotius himself put at the point where Barbeyrac put note 4. Schminkre. exclusive of his Sons. and his Successors. 499. for securing the Disposals they made. This Proposal (of Charlemagne ) was received with great Satisfaction by all present. in his last Edition of that Work. afterwards called the Pious. and Theganus. 813. The Matter was carried so far. XII. Ado expressly remarks. Tom. because not ratified by the People. <81> The like is reported of Philip King of Macedon. Cap.]] See the Capitularies of Charles the Bald. p. See also Anselm. says Eginhart. He made them confirm his Will by an Oath. and Castille ) to Alphonso and Ormisinda. 203. for they thought him divinely inspired on this Occasion. 577. Lib. Lib. Hisp. in Vita Caroli Magni. assembled the Grandees of all his Dominions. relating to Denmark. on this Place. by which he left Spain (or the Kingdoms of Leon. Cap. Ziegler. In which that Prince evidently supposes the Approbation of the People absolutely necessary: But if either of those three Brothers shall have a Son. and declared him his Successor. quotes the very Words of Charlemagne’s Will. Grotius. Asturias. XXX. Ann. Cap. The Historians say also that Charlemagne. Hist. We are not therefore to be surprized that the Wills of some Princes have been set aside. as also some Particulars in Saxo Grammat. and also others afterwards among the Vandals and Hungarians. that he much desired to have his Will 5 confirmed by the chief Nobles of France. Mag. than a true Alienation. But it is not easy to reconcile this with all the Precautions taken by Charlemagne. as Eginhart assures us in another Work. who quotes the Passage in his Short History of the ninth and tenth Ages. which they made. and that with their Approbation he associated Lewis King of Aquitain. III. Annal. De Vit. is of Opinion that the Succession was fixed and constantly observed at that Time. written by an anonymous Monk of Angouleme. For as to what is related of Charles the Great. by which he had appointed his Daughters his Heirs. VI. See the other Authorities alledged by Mr. Cap. As likewise in the large Collection of Melchior Goldast. X. Mariana. or rather Superstition was called in to their Assistance. Idem. [[Barbeyrac’s notes are wrongly numbered at this point. p. p. Francor. Car. or in his Annals. in which he is joined by several other Authors. p. 5. whom the People shall elect to succeed his Father. Dissert. which we find after his Life. Conventus ad Carisiacum. And of Charles. XII. the testamentary Dispositions. or the Debonnaire. toward the Close of his Life. who were to choose their Successors. He introduces a note 3.

The Whole is founded on a spurious Act. De falso credita & ementita Const. as is owned by the most understanding and sincere Authors of the Romish Communion. acknowledged as such. Valla’s Oration. When the Popes had engaged those Cities of Italy. That Historian says the same of the Will of Henry King of Navarre. Lib. Cap. See Henn. that the Popes were not Sovereigns of the City of Rome. Arnisaeus. p. he bestowed the City of Rome. Imp. Lib. his Brother’s Son. Cap. as also Herman Conring. 8 it is nothing to the 6. in Anastasius. VII. nor in the uncertain Author of that Emperor’s Life. Charlemagne confirmed the Donation made by his Father. Several Objections may be made in this Place. 7. Lib. of the Collection of his Dissertations. III. Item de Translatione . See the Notes on Eginhart. Edit. the other appears in the Canon Law. Cap. p. In the Will of Charlemagne. Hisp. as we learn from Mariana. by which he made John his Heir. The Fact itself is false. 1612. It appears from History. We find no Account of this pretended Donation. XXX. had presented that Prince with the Keys and Standard of Rome. De Subjectione & Exemptione Clericorum. Du Plessis Mornay’s Mystery of Iniquity. Some Authors say that the Romans had promised Pepin the Imperial Crown. We have something like this in Cassiodore. Lib. and Gronovius’s Notes on this Place. Hisp. In Regard to what is said of Lewis the Pious. 512. & X. concerning the mutual Succession to the Crown of Aragon. as 7 Livy informs us. were confirmed by the Nobility. Lib. (or Append. And when Pepin came in to their Assistance against the Lombards. on that Foot only. Rom. Epist. 23. p. that he restored the City of Rome to Pope Paschal. &c. Cap. III. De Gestis Ludov. Num. The Donation of Constantine is a Fable. in his History De Reb. VIII. Imperio Rom. And of that of Isabella Queen of Castille. and dedicated to Leo X. and temporal Government of the City of Rome. pag. First. as appears by the very antient Annals of France. 6 he went over all the Cities of Macedon to recommend Antigonus to the Princes. he took from the Vatican Library. III. X. by Boecler. 8. and its Dependencies ’till long after the Time of Lewis the Debonnaire. which Raphael Volaterran (Geogr. Hist. Secondly. Saec. LVI. Episcopos non eligant. 796. 597. one. etiam principes magni. See the Life of Charlemagne. to shake off the Yoke of those Princes. 7. of which two different Copies are produced. Thus the Agreements made between Sanches and James. and settle the Crown upon Antigonus. Tom. and the other Parts of the Exarchate of Ravenna on the Popes. M. XXXIII. see Laur. XL. Imp. and Places adjacent: This was not done in Quality of real Sovereigns. and even before he was declared Emperor. Distinct. intreating him to depute a Person for receiving the Homage of the Romans. as given us by Eginhart. Among others.) tells us.war as publick and private 295 Perseus. Cap. 336. pub` ˆ ˆ lished in 1517. XXVIII. tho’ they had found Means to make themselves Masters of the Revenues. Laıci. Lib. See ¨ Mr. took Cognizance of the Affairs of Leo III. Rome is mentioned as one of the metropolitan Cities of his Dominions. XXVIII. and giving an Oath of Allegiance. De Germ. either in Aimonius. Ann. donatione. last Edition. Grotius. who immediately after his Promotion to the Pontificate. which remained in the Hands of the Emperors of the East. 243). or in Theganus. IX. XIII. LXIII. &c. &c. Saumur. in Eginhart’s Annals. Hist. p.

Hisp. 12. against the supreme Pontifs of the Church. that they submitted to the Pope as their Head. since the Popes had constantly possessed it on the Foot already mentioned. whence it happens. II. which is the Power in Dispute. who had alledged the pretended Donation of Lewis the Debonnaire. 16. Herman Conring. And a Book intitled. according to him. or whatever Appellation is given to the Right of the Emperors over the City of Rome. only in the same Manner as the Venetians do to the Doge. they defended their Liberties as far as was in their Power. who represented them. and his Successors. which our Author admits. yet fully held. &c. and printed in 1713. Le Clerc’s Biblioth. translated from the Italian. that not only the Generality of Sovereigns are not Masters of their States with a full Right of Property. XIV. it is evident from History. which. the Question is not. and the Pontificate of Gregory VII. Cap. the Distinction we make between Sovereignty. that they exercised it till the Reign of Henry IV. as an Instance of the Power of alienating the Crown. during the Space of almost three Ages. See Mr. since the French having received the Sovereignty over the City from the People of Rome. Now. c. and before that had no greater Power. See Mariana on the Principality of Urgeti. But whatever becomes of this Question.296 chapter iii Purpose. but also. He undertakes to refute Hotoman. and that till the Year 1431. than Kingdoms. <82> XIV. that is. and bequeathed by Will. How the Sovereignty of the City of Rome was formerly translated to the Kings of France. Some Power not supreme. De Germanorum Imp. . belonged to the Kings of the antient Germans. from Pepin’s Time. carrying the Resemblance of Sovereignty. I. But now. So that I do not see how it can be affirmed. that Marquisates and Earldoms are more easily sold. Thirdly. VII. Romano. nor in whose Favour they divested themselves of it? It should only be enquired whether Lewis the Debonnaire made that Restitution by his own Authority. who have a full Right of Property over the Countries within their Jurisdiction. as being Chief of the first Order of the State. supposing the Truth of that Fact. and the Manner of holding it is so well founded. Hist. in the Person of him. only the High Domain of Rome. XXIII. A learned Italian has lately ventured to maintain. Art. seems neither exact nor to the Purpose. or with the Approbation of the People. might well restore it to the same People. Les Droits de l’Empire sur l’Etat Ecclesiastique. that they gave Charlemagne. Choisie. Cap. that the Romans did not lose their Liberty by calling in the Kings of the Franks. that Lewis the Debonnaire restored the City of Rome to Paschal. Imperii Rom. VII. not only that the Popes had no more than a dependent Jurisdiction. VI. but also there are several Powers not Sovereign. The Answer here made by our Author. Tom.

) § 10. Sect. makes it appear. I am of Opinion. and Note 6. Tho’ in that Case the People doth not become free. and dispose of the Succession as he pleases. to 1. if we consider Things in themselves. Grotius. 1. speaking of Alphonso V. during the Minority of the Heir to the Crown. upon default of a particular Declaration of his Will. . Hertius. De Tutela Regia (in Tom. in a Dissertation De Tutelis illustrium. seems to be of Opinion. during the Minority of the Person. The late Mr. or upon their Deficiency. De Jure Civit. was XV. 41. Ptolomy King of Aegypt made the Roman People Guardians to his Son. or any general Regulation of the Matter. it is certain that such a Prince has a Right to name those whom he would entrust with the Regency during his Successor’s Minority. the People sometimes disposed of the Regency. 2 it belongs to <83> those whom XV. on this Paragraph. &c. if their King. and without Prejudice. Hist. in the Dispute before us. is the Manner in which the Regency of a Kingdom is regulated. cons. XVIII. VI. the Consent of the People shall consign it. 2. p. as in Cases of disputed Successions. 287. For which Reason Mr. in his Notes on Huber. II. But. But. yet since that Person is not yet in a Condition of exercising the said Right. Num. For Instances of the latter Case. the Regency belongs to those. the Regency has been named. that the Lawyers will always find wherewithal to maintain both Sides of such Questions. that is. of his Comment.war as publick and private 1 297 XV. 11. I agree with him. see a Dissertation by the late Mr. as they might have done. that no certain Principle can be laid down in this Matter. whether that Right was formally granted to the first King. that in those which are owned not to have been Patrimonial. there is a Sort of Interregnum. or by his Relations after his Demise. to establish the Right. Valer. as the Interest of the Party they espouse shall require. during the Minority of the Heir to the Crown: And. the Right of governing being still lodged in some Person. Hisp. Thomasius. But in Kingdoms Patrimonial. Cocceius. n. King of Leon. it will not perhaps be so hard as is imagined. no Difficulty remains. Lib. But these Examples may be eluded by other Instances of the contrary Practice. Another Thing that proves the Reality of our Distinction. (1) See Mariana. For in Kingdoms not Patrimonial. either by the last King. § 4. But the Will of King John. Lib. to whom the publick Laws. 288. and when he has done it. so it is their Business to regulate the Regency as they think proper. I. such as a Prince hath Power to alienate. published in 1693. was disapproved of by the Grandees. or at least in conjunction with those of the Royal Family. Grotius. during which the People may provide for their own Security and Advantage. that as the People are most nearly concerned in the right Government of the Kingdom. that in the same Kingdoms which our Author considers as patrimonial. or acquired by his Successors by a tacit but plain Concession of the People. Maxim. ˆ &c. See Cothman. who is to be their Master. on the other Hand. who is old enough to govern. VI. This appears from assigning Tutors and Guardians in Kingdoms. If there is in Reality any Patrimonial Kingdom. or when the King is disabled by any Distemper from exercising the Functions of Government. Cap. tho’ there may be no small Difficulty in applying it to the Fact. & Opusc. which names Regents of the Kingdom. as we learn from the same Historian.

as for Example. and lodged in different Hands. . in Relation to the Guardianship of his Children. Cap. And thus the different Manner. but they may be separated. I. 66. These two Rights are indeed usually united. for settling the Regency as he pleases. have any Privilege in this Case. he has no more to do than to take proper Measures in good Time. and if the King refuses them the Exercise of it. Thus we see in the Kingdom of 3 Epirus. Neither those of the Royal Family. who have a Right to the Succession. 3. Guardians were nominated by the People to their young King Aribas. which had been founded by the Consent of the People. to do him Justice. or nearest Kindred shall chuse. according to his Principles. to anticipate the Time of their Succession. Num. some Years ago. and take Care of his private Patrimony. What I have here laid down ought with more Reason to take Place in Kingdoms established by an entirely free Consent of the People. in private Families. Lib. as our Author pretends. but the Administration of the Government is of a very different Nature. the People may allow the King a Right to regulate the Regency. so neither can they deprive the People of the Right of providing for their own Preservation and Interest. that Right cannot yet operate. But. because this might prompt them and give them an Opportunity. and without any Concession of a Power of Alienation: For even in such Kingdoms. of establishing a Regency. Tom. if he was a Prisoner in the Hands of an Enemy. and the Guardianship of the Royal Minors have been entrusted in different Hands. who have a Power of alienating their Dominions. and it was impossible for him to give any Orders. XVII. That. absent.298 chapter iii the Father. on this Paragraph. is of itself of no Service toward proving the Distinction of patrimonial. III. Justin. it should be observed that he speaks only of the Regency of a Kingdom (Tutela Regni) not of the Guardianship of a King under Age. and usufructuary Kingdoms. because it is only in Expectation. a private Person will have more Power than a King. during a Minority. in the Parliament of Paris ) to see. separated from the Regulation and Administration of their Estates. and could find no Means of signifying to whom he would have the Care of the Government committed. The people may and ought to be supposed to have reserved to themselves this temporary and provisional Right. can never do it in a Manner disadvantageous to their Subjects. where there is no fundamental Law relating to the Affair. and as even those Princes. See Note 6. and even the Interest of the actual Heir requires that the Administration of the Government should not be regulated absolutely by their Will. and History is full of Instances.”Recueil General des Pieces touchant l’ Affaire des Princes Legitimes & Legitimez. exclusive of the People. 10. “It is neither new. in what concerns his Education. when the deceased King has made no Provision of that Kind. nor singular (said a Gentleman. So that. As to the other Relations of the Royal Minor. according to their respective Ranks. the Objection of some Commentators on this Place doth not affect our Author. nor even the Mother of the King under Age. and the Administration of his private Patrimony. or of the Power to direct his Actions. where the Regency of a Kingdom. p. the Education of Minors. The Mother may indeed act as Guardian to her Son. viz.

according to Plutarch. that Alexander the Great had conquered Asia. p. IV. in the War with Antiochus. The Author takes this Fact from Livy. 489. In the Lesser Asia. See Strabo. Lib. for having ranked the Lesser Asia. 14. Eumenes not only appointed his Brother Attalus Guardian to the Heir of the Crown. That this Hieronymus was Grandson to Hiero. left the Crown to his Nephew. but took Care of his Nephew’s Education. King Eumenes. Lib. for. the Brother here mentioned. they had acquired by Force of Arms. Strabo indeed relates the Matter in a different Way. The learned Gronovius finds Fault with our Author. Plut. II. p. Edit. But our Author does not pretend that Eumenes himself conquered the Lesser Asia. That the Kingdom in Question was not patrimonial. for Gelo. and consequently. Idem. acquired by Right of Conquest. Cap. XIII. it descended to his Successors with the same Right. The Commentator’s Criticism therefore is ill grounded. and his Dominions were enlarged by the Romans. 5. XXIV. 5 Eumenes appointed his Brother Guardian to his Son Attalus: So did Hiero in Sicily nominate 6 such as he thought fit to be Guardians to his Son Hieronymus. First. he speaks of Attalus as having been named Guardian only of the King’s Son. as it shews what Liberty Kings. in return for his Assistance. placed him on the Throne. Edit. Num. Lib. (623. The learned Gronovius takes Notice of two Mistakes on this Occasion. fratrem suum tutorem dedit. the second of that Name who had reigned in Sicily. the Father of Hieronymus. which had been gained by Conquest. that Prince did not conquer Asia. but really and absolutely left him the Kingdom itself. quoted by our Author in his Margin. 4. but he tells us that Attalus dying. Now it is certain. after his Death. says he. For which Reason the Philosopher gives it. Paris. according to our Author’s Principles.war as publick and private 299 and by the Nobles of 4 Macedon to the posthumous Son of Alexander the Great: But in Asia the Less. that Attalus. XIII. and Regent of the Kingdom during the Minority. 624. 490. Rex Eumenes Attalo. This Want of Exactness in our Author is therefore the more remarkable. he only means that that Country was originally a Conquest. and. ˆ filio suo. Cap. Geograph. as soon as he came to Age. 926. because the Fact thus related. bello parta. Secondly.) 6. since this Hiero. and that. p. they transferred their Right to him. Geogr. was made King by the formal and express Consent of the People. was dead. as we learn . Tom. 11. was still more to his Purpose. (624. Edit. That is. where Eumenes reigned among the patrimonial Kingdoms. In Asia Minore.) To which it should be added. XIII. that was won by the Sword. Amst. Amst. and obliged him to marry his Widow. who looked on the Kingdom as their own Patrimony. then his Wife. and in making that Donation. but he might have made one more just. but received it as an Inheritance from his Father Attalus. would not prefer any of the Children which he had by his Sister in Law. Edit. 925. 926. conformably to the Sense of the Greek Writer. Paris. and Regent of the Kingdom. was a patrimonial Kingdom. &c. by observing. de Amore Fratern. Lib. that. as an excellent Instance of fraternal Friendship. took in disposing of it. that what the Romans gave Eumenes. after a Reign of twenty one Years. as appears from the very Words of the Roman Historian.

Num. tho’ the Sovereign at his Inauguration solemnly promises some Things to GOD. are not to his Purpose. as we learn from Zonaras. Hadrian. Cap. the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. 2. if he knowingly and wilfully violated the Laws. 16. took an Oath that he would discharge that Office faithfully. this is extrinsick to Sovereignty. We have an Example of the Promises made by the Gothic Kings in Cassiodorus. Chap. till he had been condemned by the Senate. as the Kings of Aegypt. or as the Kings of India. XVI. and has no Relation to the Nature of it: Thus there neither results from it another Form of Sovereignty. not what Promises they make after that Time. after the Times of Joseph. Grotius. But whether the King is Proprietor of every particular Spot of Ground in his Kingdom. but of the Observation of certain Rules. The third Observation is this. IV. Cellar. VII. or even of the Law of Nations. Sovereignty not lost by any Promise made of Things which belong not to the Law of God or Nature. Var. and in some Manner. For the Question is into what Engagements Princes enter before they are actually invested with the Sovereign Authority. 1. or whether he is not. So that Instance is so far from confirming our Author’s Principles. to which they would not be obliged but by their Promise. XXIII. &c. which may be less binding. and other Writers. VI. I do not here speak of the Observation of the natural and divine Law. the Sovereign of his Family. from Justin. Num. (1) See Pufend. Lib. Cap. or to his Subjects. The Emperor Anastasius took an Oath to observe. Paneg. that it actually destroys them. LXIV. Vit. Lib. X. nor another Manner of holding it. and elsewhere. submitting himself and his whole Family to the Divine Vengeance. . 15. even such 2 Things as respect the Government of the State. The Emperor Trajan. Spartian. who has promised his Family something that regards the Direction of it: For tho’ he is bound to perform his Promise. That 1 Sovereignty is not less Sovereignty. 17. Cap.300 chapter iii Gen. xlvii. XVI. The Truth of what I say appears by the Example of a Master of a Family. according to Diodorus and Strabo. Adrian swore he would never punish a Senator. Edit. Lib. yet he does not therefore cease to be the Head. and put in Execution. tho’ they have promised no-<84>thing. or when they ascend the Throne. 2. The later Greek Emperors took an Oath to the Church. 2. See Zonaras. in the Life of Michael Rangabes. as far as the End and Constitution of that little XVI. § 10. Pliny. to which all Kings stand obliged. 3. B. Cedrenus. Lib. All the Instances here alledged by the Author. VII. when he was chosen Consul by the free Votes of the People.

or enquire whether they think it necessary to impose extraordinary Taxes. Such a Division is mentioned in the following Paragraph. every true Promise gives a Right to him to whom it is made. For. the People exercise that Part of it which they have reserved to themselves. the People cannot. But sometimes the People stipulate. without depriving him of a Power to make others. and when such a Consent is given. This deserves particular Notice. 4. is unjust. and void at the same Time. chuse no Magistrates. and as strong. where such Promises are made. Sovereignty is thereby somewhat confined. makes the War. whether the Obligation only concerns the Exercise of the Power. cause the Laws of the Country to be observed. 3. and in certain Cases. hath no more Right to impose Taxes on Commodities. than to raise any without the Consent of the People. that when the Sovereignty is really divided. for Example. or other Things excepted by the fundamental Laws. and the Difference is. Our Author’s Meaning. and without any Obligation to consult the King. there are some which he cannot exercise without the People’s Consent. The King. seems to me equally unjust. that the King shall. not on the Power itself. but then he can lawfully lay them only on such Things as are specified by the fundamental Laws. when he hath entered into a solemn Obligation to observe that Condition. that the King shall levy no Taxes. or raise them in this or that Quantity. The same is to be said. without the Consent of the People. and void in itself. as on Lands or Commodities. which he stands obliged to fulfill.war as publick and private 301 Society permits. in all civil and criminal Cases. for Example. Yet I must confess. because the Commentators understand our Author’s Words as if he supposed a Division of the Sovereignty. 4 In the latter. whatever is done contrary to Promise. In which Case the King has a Power of raising Taxes. A Husband likewise loses nothing of his Authority over his Wife. In the former Case. because. for Example. the King. but have only a Right to require that the King shall not enter into one without their Consent. B. and the Grounds of his Distinction. make no Laws. he is not obliged to consult the People. whereas. independently of. make War of their own Heads. All that the King doth in both Cases. 2. in the Case under Consideration. I see no Ground for this Distinction. tho’ the Prince is possessed of all the Parts of the Sovereignty. ch. as we shall shew elsewhere. or 3 falls directly on the Power itself. . So that then the Limitation falls on the Exercise of the Power. contrary to his Engagements. 11. which is a Branch of the Sovereign Authority. are these: Sometimes the People require. which limits one Part of the Sovereignty. The Engagement is as real. when the People have stipulated. not the People. and then the Limitation of the Royal Authority affects the Power itself. the Act is unjust. which shall not be contrary to them: That he shall chuse him Magistrates only out of a certain Rank of Men: Or that he shall enter into no Offensive War. that the King shall raise Taxes only on certain Things. for having promised her somewhat. but on certain Conditions. or engage in no War.

that the Persians and their Kings entered into the same Engagements in his Time. Plutarch makes Artabanus a General under King Artaxerxes. Tom. To which he adds. Lib. if what he hath done is not annulled. Oxon. Among the Persians their 5 Monarch was. and it was not 11 allow- in the former as in the latter Case. whom he had convened for that Purpose. from whom our Author takes this Fact.302 chapter iii through the Defect of Power. Num. absolute. Lips. Plutarch. Edit. Tom. 8 I have called you together. 9. Lib. Num. in his Account of Queen Vasthi (Vasta) tells us there was a Law that would not allow the King to be reconciled to her. but by Right itself. De trib. V. 24. in the same solemn Manner. Tho’ we have a great Number of good Laws. 6. Antiq. I. It does not however follow from thence. and adore him as the Image of GOD. Lib. Edit. 2. pub. ◊ ´ and adored as 6 an Image of the Divinity. &c. 125. Themistoclis. 11. And yet upon his Accession to the Crown he took an Oath. Cap. or on other Considerations. speak thus. Lib. made that Prince promise on Oath to defend the Persians against their Enemies and maintain their Laws. 7. as 9 Xeno-<85>phon and 10 Diodorus Siculus observe. to support and defend the Crown and Dominions of Cyrus against all Attempts. p. Wech. 10. Josephus. depends on a Superior. p. XI. II. as Plutarch declares. V. to the utmost of his Power. Rerum. having declared Cyrus his Successor in the Presence of the Nobility. and accountable to none. and consequently. by a superior Authority. that the Prince who makes such Promises. 2. for the Act is not made void in this Case. 1. I. See Brisson. p. Edit. It is surprizing that the learned Brisson should omit this Circumstance in his Collection De Regno Pers. Lib. VI. rather than advise. 826. § 12. De Regno Pers. 5. X. but remember it is your Duty to obey. and engaged the Persians. or the Effect of their tacit Toleration and Ratification. as it is in Justin. Brisson. 22. 13. and very much doubt his saying any Thing of it. VIII. Vit. the most excellent of all is to honour the King. extern. p. generib. 1. I do not know where Diodorus of Sicily mentions this Oath. The Passage here meant by our Author occurs in the Cyropaedia. ◊Autokrathc kai ’ ’ anapeujunoc. Such Laws were called Laws of the Kingdom. as is observed by Rabbi Jacchiades. it is either for want of sufficient Strength in the People. IX. that none might think I have followed only my own Counsel. Edit. nor. Lib. 7 was he changed but by Death. He was a King that spoke thus to the Persian Nobility. who may wave their Right for Peace sake. the King has no more Right to violate one than the other: So that. gives it as an Example of great Insolence. Edit. Cap. 374. Valerius Maximus. De Regno Persarum. 8. Sylburg. Cap. Sylburg. See Barn. p. . where the Historian tells us that Cambyses. Cap. who preserves all Things.

on Daniel vi. who had any bodily Imperfection or Deformity. De Bell. Cap. Plutarch in the Life of Themistocles. I. but also the Grandees of the Kingdom. V. The King was displeased at the Request. Cap. which the Kings of Persia were obliged to observe. he delivered the Lady. whereupon he laid hold of the Reins himself. XVII. v. I. Persico. supposes that the Formality required for making the Laws and Ordinances of the Persian Monarchs immutable. making Use of that Privilege. 14. demanded Aspasia. 8. where the Greek Writer makes a Remark on a Thing that Darius did out of Fear. The Persians had a Law that when the King had nominated and solemnly declared his Successor. Steph. as both Daniel ’s History and 12 Plutarch in his Life of Themistocles inform us. but probably he had the following Passage in View. The Fact is this. one of the King’s Concubines. 18. 17. being thus appointed by his Father Artaxerxes. and reported by Procopius. 15 where there is a remarkable Story to this purpose. forbad leaving the Crown to a Person. and thus was forced to put himself into a Posture unsuitable to his Dignity. vi. and the King should be obliged to comply with him. the Person so named should have a Power of making what Demands on him he pleased. vi. Cap. II. after he had lost the Day near the River Issus. Darius. to bestow it on a Stranger. Brisson has also omitted this remarkable Circumstance. See Mariana. here meant by our Author. 102. p. See Lib. The same Author tells us. Cap. Grotius. as the Historian observes. Steph. His Horses being frighted carried him in his Chariot into the Midst of his Enemies. 13 Diodorus Siculus too. however. Here our Author only refers to the XVII Book of Diodorus of Sicily. 12. but took her again soon after. Grotius. v. but doth not approve of the Change. Hist. . Diodorus Siculus 16 says the same Thing of the Kings of Aethiopia.war as publick and private 303 able for him to change the Laws that had been made in a certain Manner. being compelled to it by the Law. Cap. Ibid. H. and grounds his Conjecture on what is related in Daniel ’s Revelations. I am very much mistaken. p. H. and a long Time after. 13. Hist. 580. III. or I am rather inclined to believe he was thinking of another Law. who doubtless exercised a Sovereign Authority no less than the other Eastern Ch. Tom. and contrary to the Laws. 44. Lib. against depriving a Family of an Office. Chap. Wech. Ibid. 15. 12. &c. Mr. H. Edit. Lib. if what he asked was possible. Edit. if he had not his Eye on a Passage in that of Artaxerxes. v. 15. consisted in their being sealed not only by the King. 16. V. LXX. 45. 17. Cap. concerning the Laws of the Kingdoms of Spain. VI. 17 that the Kings of Egypt. Edit. xvii. in his Notes on the Book of Esther. V. Lib. The Law. XX. XXXIV. 1025. 13. Steph. 14 Procopius in his first Book of the Persian War. Lib. Our Author. p. which was altered by the King of Persia. Chap. B. Hisp. i. Edit. The same Historian speaks of a Law relating to the Fort of Lethe. We have no such Life in Plutarch.

and that. they could not during their Lives be called to an Account. of the second. Antiq. in 2 Kings. I. 21. 385. Steph. in 2 Chron. But. yet after their Deaths. Lib. Toll. their 18 Memories might be arraigned. of the third. shall not come unto the Sepulchre of thy Fathers. speaking of the two Jehorams. Tom. H. VI. V. In Pyrrh. His Words are these: At Passaron. and for the People to maintain his Power. Grotius. say they. obey’d GOD’s Commandments. it was customary for the Kings to sacrifice to Jupiter ◊Areioc. and yet it is not probable that only such as did were buried in the Sepulchre of the Kings. xxiv. p. VIII. that very few of the many Kings of Judah and Israel. that they were not buried with their Ancestors. III. 1 Kings. though some more so than others. the Bodies of Tyrants were to remain unburied. Lib. ibid. ix. Edit.304 chapter iii 2 Chr. by saying that the Words last quoted mean that some Honour was shewn to his Corpse. on which Occasion they quote 2 Kings. his Father. See also the following Chapter. in the Territories of Molossia. however that may be. of the first in 2 Chron. Grotius.) The Emperor Andronicus Paleologus forbad the Burial of Michael. III. but spoken by one Prophet to another]. were not interred in the Royal Sepulchres. The Commentators on the Work before us pretend that this Custom was not constantly observed. says he. 19. the Sacredness of sovereign Majesty was preserved. some of them. 26. Kings. xii. spoken of in the sacred History. Edit. 26. were obliged to observe many Things. Our Author endeavours to reconcile these two Accounts in his Notes on the Old Testament. [these Words are not directed to Jeroboam. 20 Plutarch also <86> tells 18. as we learn from Appian. for having embraced some Doctrines of the Latin Church. One of the Prophets expressly declares it such to Jeroboam. But besides that those Princes were wicked. that Joash was buried with his Fathers in the City of David. Their Opinion is founded on this Observation. why the Bodies even of those whose Crimes deservedly reflected Dishonour on their Memory. and xxi. 873. and being found guilty were refused solemn Burial. and yet their Kings were restrained from breaking their Engagements for fear of a future Condemnation. See Josephus. p. 25 — xxviii. might not actually be treated in this Manner. it is certain that the sacred History represents it as a Punishment on the Jewish Kings. ix. Lib. the one King of Judah. By the Roman Laws. but not the greatest usually bestowed on such as had always reigned well. . But we read in 2 Kings. 22. xxiv. there may have been some particular Reasons. 20. And what he says of Joash. 28. by this wonderful Temperament. v. when it was practised. Niceph. xxi. xiii. De Bello Civili. Cap. 20. 13. which was to be buried in the Sepulchre of the Kings. This Circumstance of the Burial of the three Kings is recorded. as 19 the Bodies of wicked Princes amongst the ancient Hebrews. Cap. to govern according to the Laws. IX. and take an Oath to the People of Epirus. King of Judah. inflicted by Men. Greg. thy Carcass. it was not always by Way of Punishment. Grotius. 27. Wech. the other King of Israel. (537. 18. according to the same Laws. which if they did not perform. even seem to have given Orders for their being deposited in other Places. 25.

the Power does not cease to be supreme. and then it runs thus: Lands held as Feoffments of Trust are no less our own. a King of the Sabaeans. Chap. Suec. We see 22 some Treaties of Alliance made on that Condition with neighbouring Nations: or even by those Treaties it is stipulated. Lands held as Feoffments of Trust are no less our own. or our Author had that Law of the Digest in his Mind: Non ideo minus recte quid Nostrum esse vindicabimus. It may sometimes be divided. Thus. quod abire a nobis Dominium ˆ ` ` speratur. and yet if he were ◊ ´ found without his own Palace. II. Such a commissory Clause may be added not only in Compacts between the People and the King. on the Year 1074. consisting of those Parts above mentioned. & XXI. that if the King breaks his Faith. 16. which Strabo also observes out of Artemidorus. 21 than if we possessed them with full Property. but yet they are capable of being lost. than if we possessed them with full Property. Photium. that the Kings of Epyrus were accustomed to take an Oath. Ap. that is. was anapeujunoc. But what shall we say of Promises. . si Conditio Legati aut Libertatis extiterit. B. 22. 9. Grotius. that they would govern according to the Laws. that the Subjects 23 shall not assist their King.war as publick and private 305 us in the Life of Pyrrhus. but the Manner of holding it will be limited by such a Condition. The fourth Observation is this. VI. the most absolute Prince in the World. Thus the Passage stands in all the ` ` Editions of the Original before mine. but also in other Contracts. Lib. We have likewise an Instance of this Sort of Stipulation in the Chronicle of Lambert De Schafnaburg. on whom they confer the sovereign Authority. he might be stoned to Death. 21. Our Author himself elsewhere asserts that this commissory Clause is tacitly included in all Treaties of Alliance. &c. See Martin Cromer. Leg. I am very much mistaken. XV. in the Reign of Henry IV. I. with the Addition of Supremacy. where I have inserted the Word noster after fundus. XVII. De rei vindicat. nor obey him. which the Sense evidently requires. Agatharchides said. LXVI. accompanied by this Clause. Polonic. Lib. § 15. if he violates his Engagements. tw anupeujunw. and the Sovereignty will not be unlike a temporary one. Tit. L. Though the sovereign Power be but one. 23. 1. XIX. non minus quam. he shall forfeit the Crown? Even in that Case. Est quidem Fundus. and of itself undivided. XVII. Emperor of Germany. ac‚ ◊ ´ See an Example in Crantzius His. &c.

See on this Subject Pufend. for naturally every Man has Power to compel his Debtor. Vopiscus. that one ruled in the Eastern Part. that the King may be compelled or punished. . Lib. IV. and another in the Western. So also it may happen. 3. LVII. that is. 4. B. Lib. Cap. 2. VII. 4.306 chapter iii countable to none. This however does not take place. to which the XVII. Num. may reserve certain Acts of Sovereignty to themselves. for Governing even those Provinces which were reserved to the Emperor. See also Gailius. or into several Parts. Chap. either amongst several Persons. § 9. but it is repugnant to the State of an Inferior. and on the Abridgment of The Duties of a Man and a Citizen. B. II. Grotius. VII. and assigned the Consuls their Deputies. The last Words of the original Passage are Legatos Consulibus darent. who possess it jointly. in the third and fourth Editions. VII. (that is. XXVII. Num. or if any Thing be added. either into subjective Parts. or potential. Chap. And Compulsion is not always indeed an Act of a Superior. § 14. &c. yet it 2 often happened. named the Consular Lieutenants. by way of a perpetual Ordinance. in Probo. and confer others on the King absolutely and without Restriction. whom they are chusing. therefore from Compulsion there at least follows an Equality. Note 1. created Proconsuls. as they are called. 4 For every Ordinance flows from a Superior. when either 3 the Partition is expressly made. whereby it is implied. but only then. IV. that the People in chusing a King. <87> Many alledge here a great Number of Inconveniencies. Chap. whereof one is in the Hands of one Person. shall require certain Things of the King. (of which also we have treated above) or when the People being (as yet) free. This Example is not well applied. II. the true Reading is Legatos ex consulibus darent. took Cognizance of Appeals. nay. § 1. B. Observ. Tit. V. (1) See what I have said on Pufendorf’s Law of Nat. V. that it is divided. and another in the Hands of another). who has given some more exact. But as the learned Salmasius has shewn in a Note on that Place. Thus though there was but one Roman Empire. (1) yet it sometimes happens. and sometimes the Empire was divided among three. See Pufend. B. VII. the Senate confirmed the Laws made by the Prince. Chap. § 15. XIII. and Cardinal Mantica. 7. and consequently a Division of the sovereign Power. at least in Regard to what is ordered. In the Reign of the Emperor Probus. De tacitis & ambiguis conventionibus. (as I have shewed already) as often as the King is obliged by some Promise.

to a bare Formality. Tom. where a certain Assembly must approve of the Edicts and Ordinances of the Prince. that is. We have several Examples of this Sort in the History of the Northern Nations. Moreover. as also each Nation to the two neighbouring Kings. Sued. the Subjects had a Power of exercising some Acts of Sovereignty. we shall find that. Ill inferred from this. who by that Means (1) would take Care. III. 6. & XXIX. and whilst they did so. But on a careful Examination of it. and each King to the two neighbouring Nations. pursuant to the Alliance. all of them together promising mutual Assistance. which makes of it as it were a Body with two Heads. but in the Matter of civil Government. and was a Kind of Limitation of the legislative Power. Sued.war as publick and private 307 State is exposed by this Partition of Sovereignty. and not to suffer any one to take it from them. For the 5 Heraclidae (the Posterity of Hercules ) being settled at Argos. for Fear of incurring the Prince’s Displeasure. none of the Members of the Assembly daring to give his Opinion on such Edicts. The Commentators pretend that the Example is not well applied. that conferred that Right. or some other Assembly. VIII. A very ancient Example of this Division is brought by Plato in his third Book of Laws. De Legib. For whatever Acts are thus annulled. But they are much mistaken. this Approbation had originally more Force. Lib. wisely established for preventing Abuses. II. that some Princes will have their Acts confirmed by the Senate. their Kings were obliged to govern according to Laws prescribed to them. and we must judge of a Right. who requires a blind Obedience. Lib. XV. XVIII. of which sometimes only the Titles are read. Pontanus. Dan. that in those Kingdoms. (1) It is very probable. XVIII. because Kings will not allow some of their Acts to be of Force. the People were bound to continue the Kingdom to them and their Posterity. p. . not by the Ideas that such or such a Person may form of what is best. as we have already observed. who suppose. besides the reciprocal Engagement of each People and their King. XVIII. because as they tell us. the three Kings 6 stood engaged one to the other. Hist. ought to be reputed as annulled by the King’s Authority. Lib. it turns only on an Alliance. Steph. 684. Crantzius. the Kings found Means to reduce it to a Verification. and to which no one pretends to make Objections. independently of their Prince. But in Process of Time. the three Nations one to the other. but by the Will of him. Lib. 683. that there is a Partition of Sovereignty. Edit H. that noth5. Grotius. till they are ratified by the Senate. See Joannes Magnus. it is impossible to provide against all Inconveniencies. however. V. Hist. Messena and Lacedemon.

But the most able Lawyers are of Opinion that this Custom is founded only on a Misinterpretation of some of the Roman Laws. & Anton. unic. that a posterior Will would not proceed from the real Intent of the Testator. However. VII. Reg. if that is not done. Plut. 183. See Cujas. XI. What I have 2. This express Revocation is necessary. and there is a Law of Constantine. (1) who reckons the Roman Republick amongst those States. that they should not obey him. X. (1) Hist. Observ. Thus. Tit. in Decret. Lib. Cap. 1. Tit. p. XIX. if we may judge of it by the Law of Nature alone. which he compares to Monarchy. ing deceitfully obtained of him. XIV. Lib. XXXVII. See likewise Lib. Leg. so may the Act of a Prince by his express Command. Wherefore this is like those Wills. de Const. XIX. of the following Paragraph. For such a Clause implies. but also that of the <88> Consuls. 3 even though the Emperor’s Order were produced. For at the Time in which he wrote. which have this Clause added to them. or any special Declaration of his posterior Will. and the Liberty of the Testator to change his Mind. it ought to be expressly revoked. 3. there is Reason to presume the Testator supposed that this very Clause would sufficiently evince the Invalidity of the posterior Will. which he refers to Aristocracy. shall pass for his Will. since not only the Authority of the Senate. Grotius.308 chapter iii See Boerius ad ¨ c. II. Neither will I here (in order to establish the Truth of what I have now said concerning the Partition of Sovereignty ) make use of the Authority of Polybius. or there is Room to believe he forgot the derogatory Clause. IX. Antiochus the third 2 wrote to the Magistrates. . Edit. Leg. But as this Clause may be made void by 4 an express Revocation. I should think our Author in the Right. Cap. were both dependent on the People. XIX. &c. Tom. Cod. III. De Erroribus Pragmat. & Imperat. So that. Wech. which enacts that Orphans and Widows should not be forced to come to the Emperor’s Court for Judgment. Quando Imperator. Apophtheg. whose Government was mixt. &c. VI. Decad. XIV. Faure. VII. 4. if he commanded any Thing contrary to Law. 2. according to the Practice of the Bar received in several Places. &c. if we consider the Right and not the Manner of acting. that no Will hereafter made shall be of Force. the Government was merely 2 popular. which lets it remain. Some other Examples ill drawn. See Note 38. I. unless it doth not appear that the former Will was not conformable to his real Intentions. Lib. and that his Decision equally preserves the Force of the derogatory Clause inserted in the former Will. De Petitionibus Bonorum sublat. [where such as were weak and infirm were also excused Attendance]. Error.

Those Princes commanded the Armies. He speaks of three Sorts of Governments between those two. were entrusted with the Affairs of Religion. But. and such as requires a Degree of Virtue above the common Force of human Nature. that such a King regulates the Succession to the Crown by his own Will. ibid. and differs from Tyranny also. who may dispose of his Estate. who. XVI. of which he gives us no Example. and the free Consent of the People. where the Crown was bestowed by the Consent of the People. than the Nature itself of Sovereignty. the King has a Power of doing whatever he pleases: Cap. to determine what Difference Aristotle makes between his Kingdom on the Plan of the Barbarians. where the Kings have less Power than absolute Monarchs. against the Will of the People. Giphanius. he says it is very dangerous for a Prince to leave the Crown to his Children. . but more than the Kings of Sparta. I say likewise of other Authors. as that is a Power usurped. More to the Purpose is that of Aristotle who says (1) there are some Sorts of Royalty of a mixt Kind between an absolute Monarchy. which was not always Hereditary. where he compares the Authority of an absolute Prince to that of a Father. is the same that my Author entertains of a patrimonial Kingdom. and all judiciary Matters. and the Manner in which Affairs are commonly administered. of § XI. established by Law. may think it more agreeable to their Purpose. Cap. to avoid giving Offence to his Pupil Alexander. though the Philosopher expresses himself obscurely in several other Places. 659. XV. and his absolute Monarchy. the former. For. This Conjecture is plausible enough. (1) Politic. True Examples. for beside this perpetual and absolute Command in War. printed at Frankfort in 1608. and made hereditary. p. XIV. where he speaks of such mixt Kingdoms.war as publick and private 309 said of Polybius. a ´ full and absolute Monarchy. must have been XX. Cap. for if. how despotic soever. this appears from a Passage before quoted. as he pleases. III. of which I have already spoken in Note 7. says the Philosopher. when it is in his Power? This indeed is a difficult Conquest of himself. in his imperfect Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics. XV. The third is a Kingdom like those of the Heroic Times. XX. in writing on Politicks. at first Sight. where he had not the same Reason. p. they had no Power but in what related to Religion. almost as extensive as that of Tyrants. (or absolute Monarchs). h Barbarikh Basileia. The second is that of the Aesymnites. to regard the external Form of Government. Those Kingdoms are however. in the following Chapter. is of Opinion that his Author designedly treated this Subject obscurely. XX. See ibid. h Pambasileia. treating of the Inconveniencies attending such a Royalty. according to our Philosopher. will he not make his Children his Successors. I imagine that the Idea by him fixed to what he calls Pambasileia. The first are such as are established among some of the Barbarians. is despotic. From this Account it is not easy. On this Foot then the Kingdom formed on the Plan of the Barbarians. He also observes. who were but little better than a Kind of Generals for Life. in Return for the Obligations they had to those first Kings. with a new Version. 357. on § 8. Lib. where the Kings are hereditary and invested with a Power. ÿ ’ ´ ÿ ´ in the latter. Cap. even though virtuous.

Cap. 7. v. Georg. Oxon. IV. that the Eastern Nations have naturally a profound Veneration for the Name of a King. ◊ ’ ´ ’ ◊ ´ eqousia autotelhc. De Prov. vinct. Lib. like those Governments. have not a more profound Respect for their King. p. which he calls pambasileian. In S. Euripides says that among the Barbarians. Lib. II. p. XIV. Edit. and not such as the Arabians. Servius & Philargyrius. De IV. This is spoken of the Bees. Antiq. 85. p. in Strabo) and a Kingdom like that of Lacedemon. as was established among the neighbouring Nations.) Grotius. quote a Passage from Sallust. 280. VI. Cicero speaks of the Jews and Syrians as People born to Slavery. 6 <89> to which agrees with that of Apollonius in 7 Philostratus. all are Slaves except one Man. Cyril. that Damis being an Assyrian. ◊Autokrathc basileia. of such a Mixture we have an example (I think) in the Israelitish Kings. The People. in Plutarch. and all the Barbarians of the East and the South. kai anupeujunoc. where that Historian observes. Consular. But. xxxvi. ◊ ´ ◊ ’ which is only the first Dignity of the State. and People of Asia are Men born to Slavery. but the Power of the Eastern Kings was very absolute. not accountable to the ◊ ÿ ´ ´ 4 State for his Actions. 3 such a one as the neighbouring Nations had. And in 5 Livy: The Syrians. Armenians and Syrians. which Lucan applies to Caesar. (87 Sylb. ouk upeujunoc polei. did not admit of a real Division of the Sovereignty. as being of a middle Sort between the Spartan Kingdoms and absolute Monarchy. autokrathc basileia. Georg. Thus Aeschylus brings in Atossa speaking to the Persians of their King. 5. v. And that of Virgil is well known. 306. hereditary. Lib. 3. Num. Speaking of the Lacedemonians. 283. IV. 138. and a Neigh- . it appears from the Passages already quoted that the Kingdoms. XVII. that he commands a free People. v.310 2 chapter iii L. Cap. absolute. For the People desired a King. 2. II. Helena. XXXVI. The Emperor Julian speaks of the servile Temper of the Syrians. Spanhem. whatever becomes of that Question. Lips. Dionys. v. ’ ´ says they were not autokratorec. mentioned by Aristotle. of Halicarn. In which he imitates a Thought of Eschylus. Lydians. Prometh. (the same is pantelhc Monarxia in Soph´ ’ ´ ocles’s Antigone. IV. Persians. Cap. Grotius. on Virgil. Edit. and independent. Lib. Consulatu Honorii. to use the Words of Josephus. 2. 5. Parthians and Medians. 210. Grotius. thought it not absurd or unreasonable to submit to the same Form of Government. ◊ ´ Edit. Cap. V. 4. which our Author distinguishes by the Appellation of Mix’d. only as far as the People allowed them to be so. who declares no one is free but Jupiter alone. Parthians. 2100. for without Doubt in most Things they ruled with an absolute Power. Lib. 174. He makes Apollonius of Tyana say. 281. 6. &c. The Egyptians. Claudian tells the Emperor Honorius. in Opposition to the Love which the ancient Germans had for Liberty. who were governed by despotic Princes.

but tho’ his Post secured him. than commanding Power. and the learned Rabod Herman Schelius in his posthumous Treatise De jure Imperii. p. he had no Superior. See also Arnobius the younger on the same Psalm. Murder. and in Tacitus. and however strong an Obligation they may impose on Subjects of Non-Resistance. VII. so they are obliged to justify themselves to Heaven alone. Cassiodore. they draw from them. 3.war as publick and private 311 ◊Assurioi kai Mhdoi tac turannidac proskunousi: The Assyrians. X. Hist. oi peri thn ÿ ’ ’ ◊Asian upomenousi thn despotikhn arxhn. 383. how extravagantly soever they may compliment Kings with Impunity. But see the following Chapter. To which he elsewhere adds. Jerom. Edit. in the late Edition of his Works. Basil. and Isidore of Pelusium. he was subject to GOD by the Ties of Faith and Religion. ˆ Tom. I am surprized that our Author. who takes away the Life of an innocent Polit. more by a persuasive. and that he intended to boast of a pretended Power. in his Defensio pro Pop. See § 8. 221. said. § 3. entertained no noble Sentiments of Liberty. fully shews. he feared no Man. Lib. Apol. St. Apollon. that a Prince. de Paenitentia. but as the same Author observes. Note 56. King of the Goths. for as their Power is derived from Heaven. 255. Edit. . § 20. would venture to maintain. We have also observed before. that the whole Hebrew Nation depended on their King. Cap. to whom he was not subject. St. that of Civilis Batavus to the Gauls. which authorized the Commission of Rapin. and Adultery. who adored arbitrary Government. Cap. they governed in a precarious Manner. To speak with Milton. p. can be punished by no Laws: He did not therefore sin against Man. Let Syria and Asia serve. observes. V. iv. Oxon. David. and ´ ’ ÷ ´ ÷ Medes adore arbitrary Government. Cap. 51. which the 9 Ancients rightly gather from that of the Psalmbour to the Medes. that as David was a King. The Actions of Kings are to be judged at the Tribunal of GOD. and Samuel describing the Right of Kings. c. thought of the Prerogative of Kings. 1. XIV. both here and in his Treatise De imperio summarum Potestatum circa sacra. and left his Subjects no Room for Complaint? I cannot think the most zealous Defenders of arbitrary Power. and that of Aristotle. IX. is there any Probability that David. on this Place. II. Vitiges. Epist ad Rusticum. For at that Time there were Kings in Germany and Gaul. Erasm. when he spoke these Words. and the loose Conclusion. I. 9. p. Cap. ouden dusxerainontec: The ´ ÿ ´ ’ ’ ◊ ’ ◊ ’ ´ Asiaticks submit to despotick Power without Difficulty. Grotius. Epist. penetrated with Sentiments of Humiliation and Repentance. 14. Lib. 8. Ambrose reasons in the same Manner on this Passage: For he was a King. that there remained 8 no Power in the People against the Injuries of their Kings. Angl. for Kings cannot transgress (against Men) and being secure under their own Power. and the East accustomed to Kings. as that given by the Fathers of the Church. could adopt so unreasonable an Explication of David’s Words. and obliged by no Laws. Vit.

Luke xv. Against thee.312 chapter iii Ps. See Glassii Philolog. Because as a King. p. I have sinned against Heaven and against Thee. See Selden. 874. Note 2. because he was accountable to no Man for his Actions. 21. 10. not of the Punishment or Consequences of it. 5. Hence it is that the prodigal Son declares to his Father. and that he is not guilty of a real Injustice in Regard to the Person killed. Therefore he did not sin against Man. who probably imitated the Grecian Writers in that Particular. We may read the same in Isidore of Pelusium. and Cap. their Kings were so free from all coactive Punishment. He might have added the Expression. XXVI. Lib. III. . ist. Lib. II. Can. and the King suffered it voluntarily. Cap. 10 that if their Kings offended against those Laws. did not affect them. Salmasius. Mr. and the Number of Stripes were regulated according to his own Pleasure. Ambrose. Lett. taken from Latin Authors. or the Husband. V. but to love a Person very much. &c. he feared no Man. which occurs in good Authors. 18. Le Clerc’s Defense des Sentimens sur l’ Histoire Critique du P. unice amare ` aliquem. 145. v. in his Defensio Regia. li. he was subject to no Laws. But the Critics have alledged some other Texts of Scripture. or takes away a Subject’s Wife. This is a mere Fable. 9. but also offended GOD himself. can be punished by no Law.) and being secure under their own Power. V. to give thereby some Marks of his Repentance. which were written concerning the Duty of a King. sins against GOD alone. thee only have I sinned. Now it appears evidently from the whole Sequel of the Discourse that David here speaks of the Morality of Action. This would be sufficient to shew that the Words against Thee only are not to be taken literally. that the very Law <90> of Excalceation (the pulling off the Shoe) because it had something of Dishonour in it. As for the rest. The Sentence of the Hebrew Bar- Man. Sacr. VI. Tract. xxv. they were scourged for it. but that sort of Punishment carried no Infamy with it. so that. as has been most evidently proved by several Authors. III. Jerom descants. See that learned Gentleman’s Notes on Seneca’s Hippolytus. IX. though the Sin was not committed directly against the Divine Majesty. Deut. I know indeed that the Jews themselves grant. nor was it a publick Officer that scourged him. De Synedriis. it principally regards GOD. but such a Person as he himself chose. And St. Simon. as being a Violation of his most indisputable Laws. It is certain therefore that he means no more than that he had not only injured his Neighbour. or preferably to others. and signifies not to love one Person alone. where this Manner of speaking has not an exclusive Signification. but is reduced to against you yourself. Gronovius produces several Examples of the same Kind. for Kings cannot transgress (against Men. in his 383 Epistle of the last Edition. Cap. or you principally. Upon which St.

published at the End of his Commentary on the historical Books of the Old Testament. be called Causes relating to GOD. as well civil as criminal. so that all our Author says here falls to the Ground. and there is a plain Distinction made between the Things of God. But in all other Cases. and the Things of the King. there were some Cases which. quoted in the Margin. . their Kings were in other Respects as absolute. as any other Eastern Power. as is evident even from the Place in the Book of Chronicles. is entirely destroyed by Mr. which could be decided by the Law of Moses. the Kings had no Right to judge. I suppose. and were referred to the 11 Sanhedrim (the Council) of 70 Elders. and of the Power in Matters of Religion. 8. This is a figurative Expression. i. and not by the Authority of Men. In Religious Affairs and private Causes. 6. 13. From all which let us conclude. in Note 14. xxii. what gave Occasion to the Mistake into which he has fallen after several other Writers. continued without any Interruption to the Days of Herod. lxxxii. from which we can conclude no more than that the Judges were invested with some Authority. delivered by Moses. which by no Means imply that they had an Authority independent of the King. in his Sentimens sur l’ Histoire Critique du P. but only a Limitation of the legislative Power. Lett. They appointed proper Persons to take Cognizance of both those Sorts of Causes. 17. under the Title of Judges. which was the fundamental Law of the State. that were to be rendered 14 according to the Law of God. Wherefore both Moses and David called the Judges 12 Gods. might in that Sense. 8. without excepting Jerusalem. that there was no Division of Sovereignty in the Monarchy of the Hebrews. for we there find Judges appointed by Josaphat. Deut. Ex. Le Clerc. And the Judges are said to judge by the Authority of God. and their Judgments 13 God’s Judgments. xix. And this is the whole Foundation of such Expressions. which being instituted by Moses at God’s Command. which depended on it. So that our Author’s Application of this Example is not just. ii. Yet notwithstanding all this. 14. 1 Chr. but that the Kings of Judah 11. God only has that Power. 32 2 Chr. their Power was unlimited. and in a Dissertation on that Subject. X. Ps. We shall see in Note 17. the Kings were not allowed to make any Alteration by their own Authority. the Judgments. Those Magistrates were obliged to judge according to the Law of GOD. but were obliged to judge according to that Law. and here the Term of Royal Causes took place. (as the most learned among the Jews interpret it) are meant. I do not deny. 12. The Continuation of this grand Council. notwithstanding which. xxvi. Where by the Things of God. Simon. on this Paragraph. See an occasional Proof. which had been disputed by several able Writers. 2 Chr. so that all Affairs. i.war as publick and private 313 nachman is still extant in the Sayings of the Rabbins. in all the Cities of Judah. which likewise serves to refute the Fable of the Perpetuity of the grand Council among the Jews. No Creature judges the King. xix.

when any one had been accused before the Sanhedrim. and had assumed the Title of King. The Author speaks rather of the Manner. as in Hebrew Authors. ◊ ´Ù ◊ ’ ´ ´ ⁄ ´ 15. or by the High Priest. The Question there is not concerning the Rights of the Royal Power. 19. Lib. as concerning Crimes committed by a Tribe. Joseph. 15. in Conjunction with the Heads of their own People. viz. Le Clerc in his Dissertation. and one. it was not in the King’s Power to screen him from the Judgment of that Tribunal: and therefore Hyrcanus. XI. or by a false Prophet. having shook off the Syrian Yoke. sought out Expedients to elude the Sentence. David exercised the same Severity on the Man. that is. i. 27. those that descended from Caranus. xxxviii. Jer. and this is plain from the Story of the Prophet Jeremy. than of the Manner how they exercised the Royal Authority. Moreover. 33. that he ordered the Execution of the Criminals. to share it with the Sanhedrim. and on the Assassins of Isbosheth. as Callisthenes says in Arrianus: 19 ou bia alla nomw Makedonwn arxontec dietelesan. Cap. Lib. Behold he is in your Power. upon any other Account whatsoever. Lib. who. 16. who boasted of having killed Saul. how Alexander’s Predecessors had acquired the Throne. confound the Government of the Hebrews before the Babylonish Captivity. But do we not read that Solomon deposed Abiathar. 2 Sam. he is obliged to yield to the importunate Demands of the Heads of the People. 15. &c. IV. finding there was no Way to hinder Herod from being tried. but it seems that the Cognizance of some Causes was not allowed to them. iv. without Usurpation or Violence. . <91> In Macedonia. In Regard to Crimes committed by a whole Tribe. for confirming their Authority.314 chapter iii Luke xiii. Antiq. who held a Correspondence with their Enemies the Chaldeans. Zedekiah only declares that. IV. Our Author. or by a Prophet. according to the judicious Conjecture of Mr. without any Formality of Justice. ibid. II. the King answered them. 17. § 1. or by the High 17 Priest. which had been established since the Jews. as has been observed by Commentators. the High Priest. 5. and the King can do 18 nothing against you. 1 Kings ii. in which Maimonides prefers them 16 to the Kings of the ten Tribes of Israel. though they wore the Crown. as well in Holy Writ. De Expedit. who looked on Jeremiah as a Traitor. And this was carried so far. de Synedriis. Cap. 18. § 7. Cap. in such sort of Affairs. III. Alexandri. and those whom he has followed. and that plainly appears from many Examples. XIV. with the State of the Commonwealth of Israel under the Asmonean Princes. See Selden. did 15 of themselves take Cognizance of some criminal Affairs. in that Conjuncture. whom when the Princes demanded to put to Death. See Selden. de Synedriis. were obliged. began to be governed by the High Priests.

Cap. than those of other Nations in Germany. Lib. But elsewhere he describes an absolute Monarchy in these Words. and Curtius. in Time of War. VIII. the Army took Cognizance of capital Crimes. who were only the chief or principal Men of the State. 20 in his fourth Book. 22. and the People in Time of Peace. 25. 7. VI. in my Opinion. Ibid. 21. pretends that from those Passages it follows only that the Power of the Kings of Macedon was limited. so that in this Respect the Kings had no Power. than by their Authority. 22 The Macedonians decreed. But. Num. Pufendorf. it will. but by the Way of Persuasion. They were under the Government of 23 Kings. but so as not to leave them an entire Liberty. He had said before (in speaking of the Germans in general ) that their Kings. which appears among his Academical Dissertations. 31. § 16. There is also in another Place of the same Author another Instance of this Mixture. VII. 26.war as publick and private 315 reigned according to the Laws. Num. 25 They (the Suiones) are under the Dominion of a Prince. who kept them a little more in Subjection. 23. appear that they suppose somewhat more than a bare Limitation. in a Dissertation De rebus gestis Philippi. Num. VIII. that according to the Custom of their Nation. Lib. Cap. at least if we consider the Origin of those Customs. 25. 18. whose Authority is absolute. or without being attended by some of the Nobles and of his Favourites. though the Macedonians were used to regal Government. 3. and not precarious. Lib. Cap. and not by Force. 24. 24 governed rather by Persuasion. This Passage is followed by the ensuing Words: They opposed him (Alexander) in his Pursuit of Immortality with more Vigour than was expedient either for themselves or the King. Num. and others which he quotes. XLIV. And Tacitus of the Goths. 6. German. 21 By an ancient Custom amongst the Macedonians. Num. and the Manner how they had been long practised. Cap. Cap. Num. I. Lib. And Eustathius describing the Republick of the Corcyreans. . yet they lived in a greater Appearance of Liberty than other Nations: For the King himself could not judge of capital Crimes: And the same Author in the 6th Book. XLIII. their King should never hunt on Foot. XI. VI. On Odyss. Cap. Ibid. 26 said it was a Mixture of 20. on a careful Examination of those Authorities. IV.

p. De origine Juris. Elziv. 28. Lib. they lost their Dignity. in the Kingdoms of Arragon. Digest. Epist. 2. but by a Plurality of Voices. and English. says. Pufendorf. p. maj. II. I. Cap. which at that Time supplied the Place of all Laws. 1672. without the Consent of the People. Tit. That. but denied all Commerce. 5. 31. See the same Historian. Laonicus Chalcochondylas says. he was deposed. 30. VIII. 4.316 chapter iii regal and aristocratical 27 Government. Num. 16. Num. Grotius. the Kings had all Power. Cap. Omniaque manu a Regibus gubernabantur. XXXIII. after Cato. Cap. XXVI. II. in regard to Horatius. of the Opuscula. v. and no Man received Sentence of Death. VI. Romanae. and it is certain. We have an Instance of the same Kind in Livy. that the Government of Carthage was a Mixture of Democracy. says 29 Pomponius. published in 1719. Cap. that Pomponius had before mentioned that Will of the Kings. CVIII. . and even Discourse with his Subjects. viii. But if we had rather believe the Roman Authors. Lib. De Bynkershoek thinks this is spoken of the Power of the Magistrates. Appeals might be made from the King to the People. ad. &c. Aristocracy. on Paragraph 6. III. as we learn from the same Writer in the Place last quoted. which was a great Blemish to their Character. 682. &c. Lib. See the Praetermissa. Hist. XXII. 29. to prevent the Kingdom’s becoming Hereditary. I. it will appear that they are not strong enough to destroy the Testimony of the Greek and Latin Authors. as Seneca 31 gathers 27. in a Dissertation De forma Reipub. maintains that the old Kings of ˆ Rome were invested with all the Parts of Sovereignty. and Monarchy. But. Servius. Edit. § 1. and others subject to the Laws. That. he was punished with Death. The Magistrates were not created by the King of Navarre. on Eneid. Lib. their King was dressed like Bacchus. Yet Dionysius Halicarnassensis 30 affirms. L. on examining his Reasons. Nat. If he had any Issue after his Accession. and Navarre. there was such a Mixture among the Pannonians. the Son of Gerson remarks. whose several Functions were exercised by the Kings. § 14. in some Cases. is curious: That the People chose a King distinguished by Age and Clemency. he placed no Garrisons. Lib. What Pliny says. though not actually killed. some Things were reserved in the People. De origine Juris. If no more than thirty of them voted the Person not guilty. He owns. II. when he says. Lib. Rabbi Levi. That thirty Ministers or Counsellors were assigned him by the People. 538. 17. that even at that very Time. V. I have already given the Passage in Note 4. 8. in his Account of the Island of Taprobane. Annal. Romulus (says 28 Tacitus ) governed us as he pleased. Lib. that some Kings are absolute. that in the first Beginnings of the City. But Mr. and had no Power to command any Thing contrary to the established Customs. who named seventy Judges. and one who had no Children. XXXVI. Leg. however. who had killed his Sister. and the others like Arabians. § 4. I observe that there was something like this in the Times of the Roman Kings: For then almost all Affairs were managed by the King. who give us a different Idea of the Power of those first Rulers. But an Appeal was allowed from that Council to the People. on 1 Sam. when the King committed a Fault. ` D.

as the same Livy 37 says. since the Senators ratified the Deliberations of the Assembly of the People. or the Right of Opposition. III. 33. Vit. Sylb. IV. III. was in the Hands of the Patricians. (242. Edit. that is. who ascended the Throne through the Favour of the People. that the Senate named the Interreges. II. Hist. Wherefore no wonder if 33 Livy makes only this Difference between the Power of the first Consuls. if the Senate approved of the Person thus chosen. Servius Tullius. as Tacitus says. Sylb. Oxon. making Laws. the Power of the People being increased. Note 4. Tom. 85. without the previous Approbation of the Senate. Rom. that the Consulship was but for one Year. and § 6. Num. That is. still more diminished the royal Authority. Cap. or Regents of the State. VI. III. Lib. of the Senate. he entered on the Government. 227.) See the Passage of Livy. what the People commanded was of no Force. p. Note 4. 32 to which the Kings themselves were to submit. . In the Election of Magistrates. XIV. and entering into War. the People gave the Senate Power to establish what Form of Government they pleased. II. Grotius. 32. De Legib. Lib. (87. The like Mixture of Popular and Aristocratical Government was in Rome 34 during an Interregnum. and the Auguries proved favourable. and in the Times of the first Consuls. Annal. Lib. 34. 35 For in some Things. 233. XXXVII. V. the Consent of the Senate was no more than a mere Ceremony. and of the Kings. or command any Thing. or among those of other Nations. Cap. and the Relief. Antiq. in the Hands of the Tribunes. of the People.war as publick and private 317 out of Cicero’s Book of a Commonwealth. and Fenestella.) See the two following Notes. Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells us. Cap. Lib. See Cicero. as we learn from Dionysius of Halicarnassus. and a vain Image of their antient Right. Oxon. 7. Num. 37. p. and those of Moment. Cap. XXVI. Edit. 35. either among their own Countrymen. <92> and also out of some pontifical Books. 5. XL. I. p. II. he enacted some Laws. Antiq. Wech. for. the People gave their Consent. Cap. 36 without the previous Approbation of the Senate. Chalcochondylas observes. that. that In those early Times. Lib. that is. Lib. that those Magistrates made Choice of the best Man they could find. that there was a like Mixture in the Republick of Genoa in his Time. Edit. Rom. Coriolani. Lib. to be quoted in Note 38 on this Paragraph. whilst the Power. And there remained something of this Mixture even later. to be their King. 36. But afterwards. Cap. The People had no Right to make a Law. on the Demise of the King. rather than by Vertue of a just Title.

B. IX. Whether a Power inferior to any other by Vertue of a Treaty of unequal Alliance. We may see in Gronovius’s Observations on B. 5. in the 39 Time of Solon. (1) See Pufendorf on this Subject. § I. Isocrates pretends that the Government of Athens was. XXV. that this was to be done. where he says that Lycurgus copied that Form of Government. 9. he maintains. let us examine some Questions. XIV. § 12. VIII. and Cap. Chap. To conclude. who gives an Account of this Treaty. that the Government of Rome was Democratical: So that some of his Commentators have unjustly accused him of contradicting himself in this Point. Max. without the Cognizance of the Senate. Our Author means to speak of those Times. But I mean. XI. Plutarch. that in his Time the Resolutions of the People had the Force of a Law. XXI. Livy. may have the Sovereignty? 1 By unequal Alliance I mean. when by the express Articles of the League. adds. Antiq. Cap. De forma ˆ Reip. XV. Num. XVII. Justin. II. Cap. tho’ he does all in his Power for saving the Authority of the Senate. A Confederate on unequal Terms may have the Supreme Power. c. among other Things. De Jure Imperii. See also Paul Merula. 5. In Vit. Lib. II. Lib. It will not be improper to read a Dissertation of Pufendorf. In his Panathenaic Oration. 39. XXI. some lasting Preference is given from one to the other. Romanor. 4. says that Artaxerxes granted. And Rabod Herman Schelius. l. § 3. 2. sine dolo malo. &c. Dionysius of Halicarnassus says. I. as when 2 the City of Thebes in the Time of Pelopidas made a League with the King of Persia. &c. 41. Lib. XXI. or performing any other Thing once for all. without Fraud. That the Thebans should be considered as the King’s hereditary Friends. B. and afterwards with King Masinissa. Cap. which are often produced on this Subject. when § 19. not such as is made between two Powers whose Strength is unequal. These Things being premised. as it was in the 3 League between 38. Cap. c. 2. § 7. 43. p. A Democracy mixed with an Aristocracy. upon paying the Charges of the War. De Leg. as when an Enemy is reconciled. how the People by degrees incroached on the Right of the Senate. III. and the Romans with the Massilians. and at last swallowed it up. as Livy 38 and Dionysius observe. from whom the Author has certainly taken this Fact. Valer. 3. l. The first is. 294. nor such as stipulates some transient Act. Pelopid. as much as was possible. Num. Chap. Edit. p. already quoted. compared with our Author. Chap. II. but that the Orders of the Senate were subject to the People’s Determination. Rom. against Polybius. Wech. I. . or whereby the one is obliged to maintain the Sovereignty and Majesty of the other. Rom.318 chapter iii even before they knew what would be resolved in it. 2. XXXVIII.

who were not under the Dominion of the Romans. 37. in a Dissertation written by the late Mr. which are now called Right of 7 Protection. Hertius’s Dissertation De specialibus Romano-Germ. Rom. 5 Other People. Tom. &c. We have likewise a great Number of curious and instructive Observations on the same. V. § 36. 5. We have several Examples of this Kind in the German Empire. Num. This Term is used when one Prince or State takes another less powerful Prince or State under Protection. that this is proper to Friendship between Unequals. See likewise the Jus Ecclesiastic. II. Imperii Rebus pub. Ed. that is. p. Paraphr. XXIX. which is denoted by the Word Majesty. and elsewhere. 3. So Florus. that the more Honour be given to the more powerful. Imperii Rebus pub. II. V. Tom. Lib. § 34. but only of the Impression made by the Roman Grandeur on other Nations. Advocatia. XVIII. 7. Cap. and 4. Professor of Law at Hall. 6. 1617. Cap. Protectionis. to be respected. were sensible of their Grandeur. 567. quotes several Authors who treat on this Subject. De consultationib. 6 Andronicus Rhodius rightly observes after Aristotle. either without any Consideration. See the Origin of this in the Bibliotheque Universelle. who stiles himself Supreme Patron of the Roman Church. yet in Mind and Will they act with us. Hertius. III. Cap. Hein. 4. in the second Volume of his Comment. and his Paraemiae Juris Germanici. Lib. and beyond the Limits of our Empire. and has long had no Right over the Temporalities of the Pope. IV. legib. which is that of the Emperor of Germany. See the late Mr. nor that in the following Note. Neither this Passage. 8. where he gives a compendious History of the Right of Patronage. Tacitus 4 calls that the having a Reverence for the Roman Empire. De morib. &c. tho’ he is not supreme Head of that Church. The learned Gronovius on this Place. speaks of any Alliance. by Mr. Lib. and to make <93> their Dignity. Tho’ placed on their Banks. 97. of his Commentationes & Opusc. Lib. I. Right of 8 Patronage. & Opusc. XII. p. Germ. § 17. and points out such Authors as treat of it most satisfactorily. It will be sufficient to produce one considerable Example of this Kind of Patronage. Advocati were those who engaged to defend a Church or a Monastery. & judiciis in specialib. Num. to hinder any Attack on their Sovereignty. which comes to our Author’s Purpose. To the Inequality in Question may be referred some of those Rights. German. or on Condition of receiving a certain Tribute.war as publick and private 319 the Aetolians and the Romans. Protestantium. and engages in its Defence. Bohmer. . 61. and the more Assistance to the more weak. &c. and reverenced the Conquerors of Nations. Cap. Cap. VIII. which he thus explains.

fi 12. Mundiburgium. that 13 every People that does not depend on another is free. not in regard to Power and Jurisdiction. 12 concerning that antient League between the Romans. 504. before quoted. Mr. If then a Nation bound by such a Treaty remains yet free. and were obliged to render her ta gera ta nomizomena. . Cap. Guilliman. §. Cap. and the same may be said of a King. Num. 506. as also that which 10 Mother Cities had over their Colonies among the Grecians. And Proculus adds. VII. Oxon. 6. Franc. on B. So long as the Colony is well treated. in the Collection made by Mr. &c. 11. that in that Treaty the Romans were acknowledged Superiors. Num. Hertius’s Dissertation. viz. those Colonies enjoyed the same Right of Liberty with the other Cities. and immediately after his Death. is derived from the old Teutonic Munto. And our Author. IX. 34. I. IX. Edit. Livy. Others assign it a different Derivation. we have Mundiburnium. XV. De Rebus Helvet. I. § 10. and Mr. LII. Lib. says. We know what Proculus replied to this Question. Eu men pasxousa Lib. Tit. Tit. and call it a Sort of Right of Protection. Respect. 10. Lib. that this Word was used particularly. that it still retains its Sovereignty. Thus the Word was written in the Editions published in our Author’s Life Time. imports only that one Nation is superior. even tho’ by a Treaty of Alliance they are bound to maintain and reverence the Majesty of another People. I. But. and the Latins descended from Alba. Jerom Bignon on Marculphus. Du Cange’s Glossary. p. (for he had said before. Leg. XXIV. however it is written. 7. to defend or protect. De Captivis & Postlimin. who were become absolute Masters of Alba. but they owed a Reverence to the City whence they derived their Origin. See Cujas. the Term. and not that the other is not free. I. In those which appeared since. 13. De Feudis. and not subjected to the Power of another. and a King that is really so. The Person introduced by the Historian. as Thucydides 11 says. § I. IV. 1710. Cap. It is pretended. when speaking of a Prince’s Right of protecting a Bishop or an Abbot. The Word Superior ought to be understood here. it follows. See the learned Henry de Valois’s Notes on the Excerpta Constantini Porphyrog. and Burde.320 chapter iii a Right termed 9 Mundiburgium. that the People inferior by the Treaty do not 9. charge or burthen. that such a Clause inserted in a Treaty of Alliance. Lib. makes this Exception. and certain ’ ´ ’ ´ Expressions of Honour. B. De Peiresc. For. For there is no Difference between a free People. II. Ed. XLIV. Chap. 4. but all agree in its Signification. Lips. according to some. from which the French have made Mambournie. Digest Lib. p. 14. II.

I. V. They are under their Protection. VIII. See Krantzius’s Saxonic. tho’ not equal to us in Strength. X. that the Nations there mentioned had been given to Eumenes. We have an Instance of this in the Dilimnites. are to be considered as free. in such a Manner as to make those who should be born afterwards. Goth. De Bell. Practic. by defending the Provinces. 452. Cap. XIV. which the following <94> Words do explain by a proper Similitude.] Thus the Empress Irene designed to divide the Empire among her Husband’s Children. which our Author here follows. Lib. who are inferior by a Treaty of Alliance.war as publick and private 321 depend on the other. a People of Persia ) who tho’ free. Mithrid. here quoted without the Author’s Name.) So that those People were not independent. Amster. Cap. speaking of the Osroeni and Armenians. VIII. Hist. 15. and not under their Subjection. Bell. than Governors of the World. Herodian. 356. IV. in his second Book of Offices. This is the common but corrupt Reading. Cap. Edit. Dignity. and independent. concerning the Cities which put themselves under the Protection of the House of Austria. with Equity and Honour. It appears from the Passage here quoted. See Cardinal Tuschus. Clients are under the Protection of their Patrons: So Nations. Cap. II. tho’ they be not equal to us in Authority. p. inferior to them in Dignity. Lib. 17. Oxon. H. 1678. As we know (says he) our Clients to be free. and such as we are to suppose our Author is speaking of. XVII. Edit. The Historian speaks there of the Olcadians. and not the Masters of their 14. II. not under their Dominion. Lib. The Passage at length stands thus: Our Magistrates and Generals endeavoured to acquire a glorious Character. See also Lib. proposed between Irene and Charlemagne. Cap. says. may be taken from Theophanes. Lib. on their Side. but each of them Master of himself. neque viribus. Lib. III. as Livy 17 says. I should rather choose to read with Haloander. and Baron Spanheim’s Orbis Rom. then in Alliance with the Romans. Steph. The Greek Passage. 15 are under the Protection of the People who are their Superior in Dignity. XXI. observes that the former were Subjects (to the Romans ) the latter their Friends and Allies. Lib. furnished the Persians with Troops. V. 18 They were the Protectors. and their Allies. [See likewise Procopius. Exercit. 935. 18. and governed by their own Laws. So that the Romans might more properly be termed Protectors. VII. a People of Spain. (King of Pergamus ) and to the Rhodians. (Cap. Num. . in regard to the Carthaginians. Cap. XI. speaking of those Times when Virtue reigned amongst the Romans. De Offic. 16. as Sylla speaks 16 in Appian. (or Dolomites.) Grotius. And Cicero. Jure omni. and relate to the Terms of the Marriage. that are superior to them) but in regard to Reverence and Dignity. (212. so they that ought to maintain and respect the Majesty of our State. 3. nor 14 every Right. Conclus. p. as we learn from Agathias.

III. which cannot be conceived without Sovereignty. Caesar De Bello Gall. as Boecler would insinuate. according to Spanheim. That Expression became ambiguous. X. 10. XV. Cap. III. Amst. make an Addition of some Word. Lib. B. as well as all the others from the West to Euphrates. 4. Manus ad Caesarem tendere & voce significare coeperunt (Bellovaci) sese in ejus Fidem & Potestatem venire. as when Pheneas. Antiq. but only Minister or General to Obodas. & Clientela Regnum (Numidia) erat. Cap. Num. Num. 299. And elsewhere. sed in Fidem tuam nos tradimus. Lib. (nec ditione) Lib. 572. Our Author doth not give us a just Idea of the Condition of the Kings of Arabia. See Spanheim’s Orbis Rom. Geograph. that the Latin Writers. Lib. in fidem se tradere. to that of those who are under their Dominion. 307. Cap. Cap. 22. Lib. I. signifies as much as the second. in which there is no Contradiction. To which agrees that of Scipio Africanus the Elder. Num. for those Kings. This Menace regards Herod. VIII. ˆ Cap. He himself observes. Paris. p. and what Strabo 20 relates of the Lacedemonians after the Coming of the Romans into Greece. Syllaeus was not King of the Arabians. Therefore you may see Livy opposes the State of those who 21 are under the Protection of another People. p. but for the future would use him as a Subject. King of Part of Arabia. Lib. 3. but put ourselves under your Protection. Quorum in Fide. Num. Lib. is opposed to in servitutem. Livy. I. XXXVI. 19 The People of Rome had rather engage Men by Kindness than by Fear. XX. concerning his Expedition into Arabia. speaking of the Sidicinians. Cap. whom Syllaeus had accused to Augustus. contributing nothing but what they were obliged to do as Friends and Allies. XLIX. § 50. whereupon Augustus wrote to the King of the Jews. 562. as above quoted. for avoiding the Ambiguity. 8. who shewed me the Passages here quoted. Secondly. that in those Days the Romans. As private Protection takes not away personal Liberty. Exercit. than subject them by hard Bondages. Ibid. And Augustus threatned 22 Syllaeus King of the Arabians (as Josephus <95> relates) if 19. Thirdly. who were neither under the Protection (in fide) of the Roman People. Here are several Mistakes in this Sentence. XXVI. Bellovacos omni tempore in Fide atque Amicitia Civitatis Aeduae fuisse. p. which the learned Gronovius has observed. Non in servitutem.) 21. ˆ III. as the Romans began to act like Masters with their Allies. by in fidem tradere understood surrendering at Discretion. Idem. XVI. XXVIII. Josephus. they continued free. But the first of these Expressions. Florus. VIII. Thus. in his Orbis Rom. that he had till then treated him like a Friend. as in the following Passages. II. XIV. But the Consul soon let the World know. First. See our Author’s Observation. so publick Protection does not the Civil. 20. . who appeared at the Head of the Embassy sent from the Etolians. Chap. nor subject to their Jurisdiction. (865. when they would speak justly. XIII. Cap. said to a Roman Consul. Cap. In fide & in ditione.322 chapter iii Allies. Jud. Edit. we do not offer ourselves as your Slaves. p. and gain foreign Nations by Protection and Alliance. and submitting to their Jurisdiction.

XIII. VII. for entering on his Reign. Lib. § 4. went to Rome immediately after his Father’s Death. XVI. IV. as Diodorus calls them. who makes a clear Distinction between Foedus aequum. Lib. as were also the Kings of Cyprus. XV. II. De Angustea Orbis terrarum Descriptione. VIII. and consequently more Kings in Name than Reality. De Captiv. and some others. which was the Condition of the Kings of Armenia. 25 Those who are Members of confederate States are summoned to appear before us. that after the Defeat of Tigranes. in the very Place I have quoted. but a real Dependence and Subjection. or to a King chosen by the Emperor. The Inequality of those Alliances. 25. and even a Son could not succeed his Father without their Consent. than that of receiving their Governors from the Romans. but less subject and devoted (minus subjecti atque obnoxii) to the Romans. Cap. and in the following Chapter. IX. 534. and at the same Time a perpetual Alliance. See the late Mr. implied not a bare Inferiority of Respect. had they made this Application at a Time when Fortune was favourable to them. 5. Annal. Pompey required no other Subjection of the Armenians. The Alliance and Liberty of the Kings and People in Question. that they received the Crown from them. See Spanheim’s Orbis Romanus. and Foedus iniquum. The Armenians had always been subject to the Roman Power. Lib. 6. were widely different from what our Author conceives them to have been. that Archelaus. XLVI. ¨ Son to the Herod already mentioned. p. & Postlimin. Digest. and what Submission that Prince was obliged to make for appeasing the Emperor. who. Tit. Leg. after the Demise of Obodas. § 3.war as publick and private 323 he did not leave off injuring his Neighbours. ÿ ´ Here may be objected what Proculus adds. B. the Emperor banished him to Vienna. formerly Subjects 24 to the Persian upotagentec. Steph. Lib. XXX. to solicit the Confirmation of the Kingdom of Judea. Num. VII. as the Alliance would have been of a more early Date. ˆ 23. 23 were under the Roman Jurisdiction. &c. as Paetus writes to Vologeses. See what Pufendorf says to this. Cap. Cap. H. Tacitus. tells us how much Augustus was provoked at Aretas. The Rest of their Speech speaks this Dependence. Num. so it would have been bound by a weaker Tye: For then. Biblioth. where I have joined what he had written in two different Places. X. 2. they are tried at our at that Time depended on the Romans so much. they said. makes Paetus say. he would take Care that he should be made a Subject of a Friend. in the first Note. Josephus. as they should have remember’d they contracted it on equal Terms. on the Complaints of the Jews. Exercit. Num. When the People of Campania applied to the Romans for their Assistance against the Samnites. which he gained only under the Title of Ethnarch. without waiting for his Approbation. 452. XII. 4. p. and some Years after. 24. Lib. Florus tells us. who relates this Fact. Perizonius’s Dissertation. The Difficulty will vanish on reading Spanheim’s Orbis Rom. Cap. Edit. Chap. 43. It is well known likewise. § 2. tho’ they had not yet declared their Disposition to put themselves at . (ex aequo) they perhaps had been as truly Friends. Hist. XV. as is evident from several Places in Livy. XLIX. Cap.

and before the Sicilian War. with the Property of their Lands. were so called. whom they termed Free. and the Lawyer Scevola makes it Treason maliciously to hinder the King of a foreign Nation from obeying the Roman People. as well as the allied Kings. XLVIII. and this was the Reason why all the World was to be enrolled. The same Historian informs us. but from that Time they were only nominally such. We are not to be surprized therefore. Allies and Friends. and from Time to Time receive such Governors as were sent to regulate Affairs: They paid Tributes and Imposts. But then they were to acknowledge that all this was a Concession from the Roman People. Add to all this. Ad Leg. not prejudicial to the Sovereignty of their Allies. If the King. and that People made this Dependence appear by diminishing or taking away that Liberty as they pleased. Jul. Those People could neither undertake a War. as being really independent. that those Nations. IV. (in ditione Populi Romani). whose Words gave Occasion to the Objection discussed by our Author. 1. and much more the Cities and Nations called Free and Allied. Tit. all our Author’s Distinctions are superfluous. that the Romans made Alliances. If the Allies under the <96> Protection of the Discretion under the Roman Power. so that it is sufficient to examine them in themselves. Lib. and are punished by Vertue of the Sentence passed against them. when they thought proper. as dependent on them. and exercised the Power of Life and Death on them. Num. Luke ii. lays down a bad Definition of the Liberty of the People in Question. First. or enter into an Alliance. are accused of having done any Thing contrary to the Treaty of Alliance. On which see Mr. (neque aequo foedere) but on Condition that they should be subject to the Roman People. But to make this more plain. Cap. gave them a Permission to be governed by their own Laws. that the Romans. only on a Refusal of forming an Alliance with them on the Terms proposed. in the Application he makes of them. we must know there are four Kinds of Differences. Digest. IV. IX. already quoted. took Cognizance of Charges brought against the Members of allied Cities or Nations. 8. If the Subjects of the King or State under Protection. and even that Exemption did not secure them from paying in certain extraordinary Cases. or the States themselves be accused. which they had Orders to do. unless they had obtained a particular Exemption. XX. Secondly. and the proper Magistrates of their respective Countries. The People. A plain Proof that the Romans considered the allied Kings. that the Apulians gained an Alliance (Foedus) not on equal Terms. Perizonius’s Dissertation. or Subjects of Complaint. without Permission from the Romans: They were obliged to find Quarters and Provisions for their Generals and Armies. It was only in the Time of the first Consuls. Leg. that the Lawyer. consequently. In Note 22 on this Paragraph we have given an Example of their Manner of treating Kings. Majestatis.324 chapter iii Tribunals. It must be owned however. . were obliged to furnish the Romans with Troops on every Demand. (qui nullus alterius potestati subjectus est ) and. Lib. because the Roman People. Thirdly.

As to the third Case. A Recovery is when the Law decides between King and People. 28. Reciperatores. Chap. Cap. and sent to Cyrene. And Gallus Aelius in Festus says. which in Rome was called the 27 Delegate’s Office. declared. that he was seized by Hannibal contrary to the Articles of the League. which takes Place not only between unequal Confederates. how Things may be restored by the Assistance of a Judge Delegate.war as publick and private 325 same King or State do quarrel among themselves. and upon refusal to punish him. the same Thing takes Place between equal Allies. John Price. or to deliver him up to them that are injured. See Torrentius’s Commentary on Suetonius. Fourthly. B. have also that Right in regard to one another. Grotius. If Subjects complain of Injuries done by their Sovereign. But neither is this peculiar to unequal Alliances. and how private Mens Cases may be prosecuted among themselves. which 28 shall be treated of elsewhere. but also equal. and thereupon was set at Liberty. XXI. XX. therefore Decius Magius. first . a Campanian. The superior Ally has a Right to compel the inferior to stand to the Articles of the Treaty. § 4. in Nerone. 27. by which those People reciprocally bestowed the Right of Citizens one on the other. 23. to have a Right to punish any one that has rendered himself guilty. The Sovereign is also obliged to endeavour to have Satisfaction made. it is sufficient that one is not subject to him. and from thence to Alexandria. l. a learned Englishman. As to the second. as we shall shew in 26 another Place. X. Controversies are generally referred to 29 a Convention of the Associates. in an antient Inscription. and even between such as are not engaged in any League. and that of Theod. He should have said Hierapytnii. who are not in- Livy. Marcilly. where ´ we find the Articles of a Treaty between the Priansii and the Hieropotamii. 26. But one of the Confederates has no Right directly to seize or punish the Subject of another. For. This Sort of Assembly is called Koinodikion. II. being seized by Hannibal. As to the First. B. XVII. § 3. wherefore Kings or Nations not allied. how they may be recovered. Mr. As in an equal Confederacy. on the Life of Vespasian. Cap. Nations and Foreign States. the King or State are obliged either to punish the Offender. If any Thing has been committed contrary to the Articles of Treaty. Chap. 29. II.

Exercit. But this should not affect us. as to a common Arbitrator: So in an unequal Confederacy. Lib. II. for this is. CV. . As to Things of common Concern. Edit. and that to obey. Valerius Maximus. or to the Decision of Arbitrators. Cap. IV. Paris. as Agamemnon did the Grecian Princes. See Spanheim’s Orbis Rom. 348. I. Grotius. that Historians make use of the Word to command. Politic. when the Assembly does not sit. 31. that ’tis the Business of Allies to take Care that no Injuries be done by one to the others. Cap. Legat. Lib. Cap. and Germans. CXX. Cap. Therefore this does not imply any Jurisdiction. who is the Head of the League. it did not belong to them to meddle in Affairs belonging to the Republick of Carthage. and as a King. See another Instance in Polybius. 6. &c. 30. and afterwards the Lacedemonians did the Grecians. in his Notes on Apuleius’s Apology. 33. xi. Dan. Lib. Paris. or even to the Judgment of the chief of the Confederacy. he that is chosen Prince of the League (tyrb dygn. Antiq. as we find was formerly practised amongst the Greeks. We read in 33 Thucydides’s published this curious Inscription. VIII. 22. 59. and Exercit. I.) commonly commands the other Allies. I. and after them the Athenians. As to the fourth and last. for even Kings have often their Causes tried before Judges appointed by themselves. 31 Scipio told the Senate. in speaking of the Engagements of the inferior Ally. XVI. IX. Lib. p. even in an equal League. Cap. Latins. both as a Father. 116. Jud. XVI. 30 You might have punished us by your own Right. Cap.326 chapter iii terested in the Affairs in Question. III. Oxon. or the private Advantage of the Superior in the League. Associates have no Right of Judging: When therefore Herod accused his own Sons before Augustus of certain Crimes. in speaking of the Prerogatives of a superior Ally. And ’tis in this 32 Aristotle says an Alliance differs from a State. Excerpt. they replied. IV. when the Things concern either the common Good of the Allies. but not that the Subjects of a confederate State do not injure one another. Num. And when Hannibal was accused at Rome by some Carthaginians. It is also found among the Oxford Marbles. Edit. It may again be objected. 1635. it is commonly agreed that the Things in Dispute shall be determined before him. 32. p. p. Edit.

p. to maintain in common their Liberty. And again. 34 were contented to take Care of common Affairs. extant in Livy. LIV. Num. Cellar. 471. H. did regulate which Cities should contribute Money against the Barbarians. that in an unequal Alliance. Edit. they left to every People their Liberty: And elsewhere. Remember you are sent into the Province of Achaia. that is. Edit. Oxon. and which Ships. we must not wonder. See Spanheim’s Orbis Rom. 36. that the antient Athenians. by the Thebans. 62. Steph. Lib. Managing their Affairs like Confederates. XV. But if he. Num. Ibid. the superior Ally does the same Thing.war as publick and private 327 Oration of <97> the Corinthians. 2. Edit. Therefore Imperium. 311. speaking of those 34. under the Conduct of the Athenians.—that you are sent to regulate the State of free Cities. that Right of the principal Ally. Lib. 96. does not take away the Liberty of others. XXIV. in their Oration to the Roman Senate. as 36 Thucydides relates it. 394. to regulate. 24. Lib. 381. 35 being persuaded that they ought to have the Command of the War. Isocrates says. Dion Prusaeensis. chief ´ Command. 38. 37. . Ep. VIII. to command. but the Greeks more modestly use the Term tassein. whilst they were the Chiefs of Greece. that in the Administration of common Affairs they have the Preeminence. 35. XXXVII. but as for the Rest. p. In Panegyr. not despotically. The Latins express by the Word imperare. As the younger Pliny says to one of his Friends. 38 The Grecians formerly were strong enough to command: Where the Command is now. Steph. Edit. not being able to do it with their own. and not to rule over their Allies. The Rhodians. p. 395. 62. p. governs the common Affairs in the Manner I have now said. Thus Diodorus tells us. they are contented to defend their Liberty with your Arms. H. ÿHgemonia. 37 are said to be sent to regulate the State of the free Cities. The Athenians having the Conduct of the War ´ against the Persians. in this Sense. many Grecian Cities 39 joined in a League. 56. thus addressed them. Lib. they wish it may be forever. after the taking the Fort of Cadmea. The Chiefs of an Alliance ought not to challenge any Advantage in what concerns their particular Interest: But it is just. I. So they who were sent from Rome into Greece. 39. Cap. Cap. who is only chief of the Confederacy.

properly so called. but that Way of Speaking is used. or any Ways burdensome to our Confederates. 42. especially if the League be perpetual. 9. and that he has a Right to plant Garrisons in their Towns. said. and the same Regard is paid to them. our Generals were abundantly supplied with Mules. when they suffered their Allies to appeal to them. VI. Lib. Tents. and the Advices of a Physician Prescriptions. Lib. B. as the Athenians did. they obliged several of the Achaians to appear at Rome. and having gained the Ionians with their Allies. But as to those Things which respect the particular Interest of each Ally. I do not know in what Piece of the Gretian Orator these Words occur. because those Demands produce the same Effect. In the mean Time it is true. and answer to the Charges exhibited against them. that they should not command the Allies to furnish them. These People are here mis-named. LXXVI. The learned Gronovius suspects that the Author’s Memory failed him on this Occasion. In this Sense the Intreaties of a King are called Commands.328 chapter iii very Athenians in the Time of Philip of Macedon. 44. I. Whereupon 40. 44 which the Lacedemonians <98> never did. that if he who is superior in the League. if the Demands of the superior Ally are often called Commands. 43. Cap. (Socii) which the Romans sometimes gave to the People of their own Provinces. and another to Morrow. Posthumius) no Body. I find Thucydides making this Observation on the Athenians. Edit. 42. that the Word Imperium is not to be taken in an improper Sense. Num. that it often happens. were really subject to the Nervii. because the Nations here mentioned. Caesar calls them Nervii. Lib. viz. says Livy. be much more powerful than the Rest. that after the War with Perseus. over them. whom a little before he had said were under the Command of the Suevians. Cap. V. he by 43 Degrees usurps a Sovereignty. XLII. Whereupon the Historian observes. of having favoured that vanquished Prince. 40 Having at that Time abandoned the Command in War. De Bello Gall. was ever chargeable. Cap. Oxon. The learned Gronovius observes also. Sub imperio Suevorum. that does not imply any Right to require such Things with Authority. as Commands properly so called. and all Baggage necessary for War. but that of Allies. they only retained their own Liberty. and that he attributes to the Athenians what Pausanias says of the Romans. Thus 41 Caesar calls those People Confederates. XXXIX. 42 Before this Consul (C. induced those People to intrust them with the Command of a War on the Medes. 41. who seeking one specious Pretext to Day. that this Way of pro- .

p. says they had till that Time been under an easy Slavery.) To which may be added. than had been impeached and tried by the Athenians since they inhabited that City. 245. but in Process of Time accustomed themselves to obey the Romans. Cap. Tacit. Observ. Lieutenant-General of the Roman Forces. at first they enjoyed Liberty. Lib. Conclus. Cap. Num. (and the Inhabitants of other Islands) observes that. Gailius. (or as he is called by others. Grotius. Hist. Landassii. VII. Our Author probably had his Eye on a Passage in his Oration on Peace. the Athenians. they had formerly been under the Jurisdiction (of those of Auvergne. X. I. For if we can now bear Slavery. having spoken of some People as Friends and Clients of the Aedui. H. tho’ in Reality. Cap. 46. Julius Caesar. (ad auream Praxim Calvoli) §. but almost the same Words he uses may be found in Livy. with pretending to be of Opinion. Arat. where the Historian makes a Praetor of the Latins say. 246. that in regard to the Practice in Question. II. IV. referr’d such Cases to the Amphictyons. Vit. Wech. 1045. De processibus. Achaic or Lib. since nothing of that Nature had been attempted by the Macedonians. (Cap. &c. 4. p. XIV. Num. LIV. was oppressive. In the Passage. 45. Edit. It might be observed. on the contrary. Lib. and several other Things of which the Athenians were accused. 3. Thus the 46 Latins complained. Steph. who engaged them to it by kind Usage. under the Shadow of an equal Alliance. VI. Lib. he could make it appear. X. 6. and more oppressively than they. or Monarchical Government. Thus Plutarch says of Aratus. and pernicious. I. Orat. II. LVII. Lib. whom he afterwards quotes. Cap. where he reproaches his Countrymen. Cellar. Sextus Rufus) speaking of the Rhodians. LXXV. Edit. there is no Mention of Friendship. here quoted from Caesar’s Commentaries. IV. 86. Ziegler. Perhaps he at the same Time was thinking of another Place. Num. that Tyranny. Bell. Lib. that he was accused of imposing Masters on the Cities (of Achaia ). giving them the soft Appellation of Allies. I am persuaded our Author has really committed a Mistake. without the Formality of a Trial. it differs not in the least from a Monarchy. Edit. that he maintains. See also Agathias. they were ceeding seemed strange to the Grecians. which is as . that our Author probably imagined he had read what he relates. 216. Num. p. Cap. Lib. and that his Commentator has discovered what gave Occasion to it. the Athenian General. Ed. Wech. 47. (Tom. who when at the Height of their Power and Grandeur. or States General of Greece. Panath. tells us. that under the 47 Pretence of a Confederacy with the Romans. VII.war as publick and private 329 Isocrates compares the Rule which the Athenians exercised over their Confederates 45 to that of Kings.) Festus Rufus. speaking of some People of the Belgick Gaul. The Author in his Margin quotes Dionysius of Halicarnassus. not only to the Subject but even to the Prince himself. 2. Frederic Mindanus. and at the same Time acting as if they looked on the Empire of the Sea as productive of the greatest Advantages. I. But the Greek Orator is so far from saying any Thing like it. where the Goths are informed what they may expect of the Francs in Time. that the Lacedemonians had put more Grecians to Death. Gall. Num. Lib. To which he adds.) Dillius Vocula. in Isocrates. VIII. molle Servitium. that the Lacedemonians had acted much worse.

and empty Name of Liberty. See Spanheim’s Orbis Romanus. Cap. Cap. 52. 49. Cap. XXXIV. in Livy. by the tacit Concession of those who suffer it. in the Reign of the Emperor Justinian. XV. Num. Num. Cap. p 447. 48. 52 said the Confederates of the Rhodians were only so in Name. that they had a League in Show. But the Writer doth not say the Goths were informed. which was indeed a miserable Slavery. He speaks of Aligernes. 10. Lib. Lib. 50. Ibid. IV. Also the 53 Magnesians complained that Demetrias was free in Shew. II. 56. Chap. here referred to. I. Cap. of which we shall treat in another Place. Lib. 53. but in Truth under the Dominion of the Macedonians. under the Shadow of an Alliance and Protection. who under the pompous but empty Name of Liberty. 13. IV. II. XXXI. is in Lib. Cap. 51. a Gothick Prince. Persic. 8. 54. Lib. and where that Word is inserted. Eumenes also. 48 that they had nothing left but the bare Shadow. XXXIX. Livy. XII. Lib. Num. who being desirous of siding with the Romans. Lib. is determined to take that Step from the Consideration of the servile State to which he saw his Countrymen were on the Point of being reduced by the Francs. Lib. Cap. 55. like Confederates. Cap. § 14. Cap. Num.) Grotius. 3. and Polybius 54 remarks. and Usurpation is changed at last into Right. but in Reality a precarious Slavery. XXXV. a People of Colchis. but as mere Slaves: And in another Place. XVII. II. 56 then those who had been Allies become Subjects. XI. 53. but really their direct Vassals. When Things go in that Manner. 38. Cap. 51 they falsely called that Peace. or at least there is made a Partition of the Sovereignty. Histor.330 chapter iii brought into Servitude. See B. may happen some-<99>times. VI. 448. XXIII. So in 50 Tacitus Civilis Batavus complains of the same Romans. Lib. Num. Gall. much to his Purpose. that the Thessalians were in 55 Appearance free. Num. IV. Livy. XIV. 5. 4. He (Alexander Prince of the Etolians) accused the Romans of Fraud. Num. (Cap. Lib. and the 49 Achaeans afterwards. XVII. 12. LXXVI. . XXXV. Idem. So did the Aetolians. Exercit. as I said before. which. but in Effect all Things were managed as the Romans pleased. The Passage of Agathias. that they used them not as at first. XXXVII. Such were the Lazi. &c. De Bell. Cap. They were now loaded with more splendid and heavier Chains. XXXVII. Hist. &c. kept Garrisons in Chalcis and Demetrias. Procop.

. Sect. and of the 4 neighbouring Nations. either to secure themselves from their Insults. who invested him with that Dignity and Power. Jud. II. Sect. 3. They were ranked among the Allies of that People. The Example of the Kings of the Jews. H. Chrysostom expressly says. Lib. See Note 22 on the foregoing Paragraph. Josephus expressly observes. Edit. in Hadriano. V. Lib. Lib. and Subjection to the Romans. De Bello Civil. and received Governors of their Nomination. Oxon. in the Sense already explained. would not take Cognizance of the Charge urged against Herod. being gained by Presents. IV. Jud. What is here related of Marcus Antonius was said on Occasion of some Complaints laid before him against Herod. (Cap. § 9. and Part II. 1 who pay something to another. as now. declares it was not reasonable that Prince should be called to Account for what he had done. Lib. Miscellan. though he doth not mention his Name. Exercit. is not well applied. as King. and that is the Reason why he laid so much Stress on the Quality of King. Cap. The Turks give the Arabians of the Mountains Money. after XXII. and what Mr. on the Account of the Death of Aristobulus. on their Declension. See my 22d and 25th Notes on § 21. VI. XI. and it is evident from those very Words. were neither entirely free. Cap. in his Elementa Prudentiae Civilis. paid Tribute to their own Kings. The very Passages. I. (or Hist. paid Tribute to foreign Nations. Amsterd. Anthony. There are also Powers. Part I. See Procop. or to get Protection. After all. his Brother-in-Law. and that they had no more ’ ’ ÷ ´ ◊ ◊ ’ than the specious Title of Allies. XIX. Hertius says. ÿ ´ See Spanheim’s Orbis Rom. Lib. 2. who. ÿUpo thn twn ÿRwmaiwn etejhsan arxhn. For at that Time the Authority of all those Princes was merely precarious. De Eleemosyna II. in Regard to Herod ’s Subjects. (1) The Emperor Justinian paid the Persians a certain Sum yearly. 1135. as it is in Thucydides. XV. tho’ but too well grounded. without ceasing to be Sovereigns. p. VIII. should allow him to enjoy them. nor absolutely Slaves. XX. Cap. the Jews were subject to the Command of the Romans. speaking of Herod. See to the same Purpose Casaubon’s Note on Spartian. and punished their Delinquents according to the Custom of their own Country. 715.) and Gothick. XIV.) This was in soft Terms called A Tribute for securing the Caspian Gates. Josephus tells us that Marcus Antonius. and became Subjects (uphkooi) to the Romans. as before. are directly against him. Steph. The Jews. Grotius. § 11. X. the Jews lost their Liberty. Chrysostom. Edit. But the learned Gronovius quotes an Author who has produced more exact Instances of Princes. 2 Tributary Confederates. alledged by our Author in this Place. Of those that pay Tribute.war as publick and private 331 XXII. to secure them from their Incursions. II. Antiq. The Kings of those neighbouring Nations were not more independent than those of the Jews. They likewise followed their own Laws. qummaxoi ´ forou upoteleic. IV. tho’ in the Case then under Consideration. partly after him. and those of the neighbouring Nations. Cap. says St. Cap. Cap. Lib. Antiq. 4. for then he would not be a King: and that it was just that those. to prevent In- XXII. that after Jerusalem was taken by Pompey. p. XII. 516. St. Persic. XV. that all that Prince’s Power was dependent on the Romans. such ´ ÿ ÷ were the 3 Kings of the Jews.

Francof. Nullo jure in rem. when the Vassal is guilty of Felony. which consist in personal Obligation only. Without any Right to the Thing itself. which the Doctors do not allow. and no where found but where they have planted themselves) two Things are to be particularly considered. Lindenbrogius’s Note on the Place. tho’ lying 2 in another Place. Edit. which the Vassal holds in Fief.332 chapter iii the Time of M. yet ◊ ´ ´ ´ I see no Reason to doubt. § 12. The Exclusion of such a Right destroys the very Nature of a Fief. XXIII. (1) See my 4th Note on Pufendorf. p. The personal Obligation is the same. VI. By the Term Franc Fief is meant. II. as Appian speaks. 1 (which is peculiar to the German Nation. B. with Frid. or leaves no Heirs. 8. which require considerable Labour or Expence. Of those that hold their Dominions by a Feudal Tenure. I. Lib. 3. XXIII. so neither does it lessen the Sovereignty in a King or State. Vales. Marcell. Lib. still the Right of the latter would be per- . which is Civil Liberty. VI. Ch. First. As when the Kings of England paid Homage to those of France. and doing him all the Good in the Vassal’s Power. What our Author says here. as it takes not from a private Man personal Liberty. agrees neither with the Idea which the Feudists give of Franc Fiefs. under whom he holds. Tit. 172. XXV. so that the Obligation of the Vassal is reduced to Fidelity and Loyalty. securing him from Damage. tho’ the acknowledging their Weakness takes off something from their Dignity. Feudor. For in this Contract. and Tit. Anthony. 468. Cap. IV. But this Exemption from Charges and Services doth not deprive the Lord of a Franc Fief of a Right to the Thing itself. Cap. De forma Fidelitatis. as it is specified in the Form of the Oath of Fidelity. but that such Sort of Allies may have Sovereignty. The personal Obligation of the Vassal. 1622. that which is exempt from all Charges and Services. 171. Lib. or hinder it from returning to him. or any Thing else. epi foroic tetagmenoic. Which may be plainly seen in Franc Fiefs. The Right of the Lord to the Thing itself. whether a Man holds the Sovereignty by a feudal Right. VII. 2. nor with the Nature of Fiefs in general. See Bodin. Many think it more difficult to determine. Tho’ the Vassal of a Franc Fief had a Power to alienate the Thing without the Consent of the Lord. XXIII. De nova forma ˆ ˆ ˆ Fidelitatis. for the Provinces they possessed in that Kingdom. De Repub. which consist only in honouring the Lord. whether feudatory Princes may be Sovereign? But that Question may be easily decided by what has been said before. IX. p. See Amm. but 3 give <100> no Right to the cursions into their Countries. Edit. But such an Obligation. properly so called. Secondly. Gron.

except the Emperor and King of the Romans. nor into Treaties. for a Pension of 400 Marks. said he. And yet they held nothing from the Crown. in whose Favour the Fief should be alienated. who paid Homage to the Kings of England. on the Consideration of fifty thousand Crowns of Gold. Choisie. 176.except the Archbishop of Treves. An ingenious Gentleman. pro ratione quinquaginta millium scutorum auri. to be paid me before the Feast of St. § 44. I find Bodin had long ago made a like Observation. and several other Princes of the Empire. 10. observes. This Instrument is dated in the Month of June. p. 1101. says he. wherein one promises Services. the King obliges himself to give him 400 Marks of Silver yearly in Fief. Chap. on which Occasion Proxies appeared from both Parties. between Henry I. that Homage was frequently paid for simple yearly Pensions. who only calls himself Confederate. as in the Treaty of Alliance made between Philip de Valois. Remigii mihi solvendorum. and Lewis the Eleventh. (as B. John. I remember I have seen 48 Treaties of Alliance and Forms of Oaths.war as publick and private 333 Thing itself. entered into Obligations with the Kings Philip de Valois. as a certain Fact. and the other Defence and Protection. and Robert Count of Flanders. King of England. who has published curious Extracts from Rymer’s Foedera. But this is an Abuse of the Words Vassal and Liege. collated with the original Records. for the King’s Service. in the Presence of the King’s Deputies. promising and swearing. Our Ancestors. and Alphonso. for only the Pensioners of France took an Oath to serve the King. in Regard to the Counts of Flanders. in the Things. King of France. By the Agreement made May the 17th. printed in 1608. XX. The Oath of the Duke of Guelders and the Count of Juliers runs thus. and elsewhere. the French Edition. to serve him in his Wars against all Powers. That is. III. Bibliotheque Choisie. Regis Francorum. B. on Condition that Robert should be obliged to send 500 Horse into England. 99. if our Author has not here. and on the Conditions specified in the Instrument. King of Castille. and discovering the Origin of his Mistake. p. 175. for which Reason they are no longer admitted into the Oaths taken by the King’s Pensioners. Chap. when he should have Occasion for them. Sixth. p. XVI. and Seventh. to require and give Assurance of mutual Homage and Fidelity. others Pensioners. &c. Charles the Fifth. King of the Francks. which none of his Commentators have ob- . 100. I. abused the Word Liege in all their ancient Treaties of Alliance and Oaths. in the first Volume of this Collection. and in some other Places. I have set down this Passage at length. I am very much mistaken. of which we have treated already. with certain Engagements improperlytermed Fiefs.) confounded what are called Franc Fiefs. 1401. and all Liege Vassals. Biblioth. This same Way of speaking was used even between Sovereign Princes. But suppose a Vassal has prompetual over those. 1. ˆ ante festum D. by which the three Electors on this Side of the Rhine. Elector of the Empire. Tom. without expressing the Cause of such Homage. XX. I become the Liege Vassal of Charles. Ego Devenio Vasallus ligıus Caroli. IX. We have Examples of this Kind. as it is of singular Use for explaining our Author’s Meaning. p. Tom. Remigius. acknowledging themselves Vassals and Liege-Men of the King of France: Some of them stiling themselves Counsellors. in the Year 1336. on the Account of some Resemblance between them in the Respect and Homage paid. For these are nothing else but a Species of that unequal League. De la Repub.

Since I penned this Note. because obliged by a Clause in a Treaty of Alliance to reverence the Majesty of their Ally. & Opusc. that if the Family of the Vassal be extinct. enjoyed by a feudal Title. II.334 chapter iii See Bald. of his Comment. Consil. to assist him in all his Wars. or Liege-Vassal. It is in Chap. or if he falls into certain Crimes. 7. viz. § 4. But our Counts never owned themselves subject to this Sort of Obligation of Fief. But in Process of Time it has stood for a Liege-Man. because not equal in Dignity to their Patrons. I have found something in another Work of our Author to confirm my Conjecture. 12. But those Kingdoms were more than Feudatary. says he. § 6. See Notes 22 and 25. and some other Kingdoms. See Vossius. Cap. one who entered into an Engagement to respect his Lord more than all other Men. 5. To prove this Proposition he observes. Clients are not the less free. than when a Prince. Prooem. (for formerly that Word was of a larger Signification) that takes off nothing 5 from the Right of Sovereignty which the Vassal has over his own Subjects. as Strabo observes of Paphlagonia. XXV. nor a People. De antiquitate Reip. § 13. Subjects (ÿUphkooi) to the Romans. that even tho’ the old Counts of Holland were Vassals of the Empire of Germany. where he maintains. ised his Lord to serve him against all and every Man. and the Manner of holding it. Batav. III. See B. Strabo calls the Kings meant by our Author. and the late Mr. that according to the Lawyer Proculus. comes the Name of Franc Fief. Part II. and serve him against every other. not to mention. it is such indeed. promises another. that there is always a tacit Condition supposed. Lib. the Hollanders would still be a free and independent People. so that such a Vassal cannot be Vassal to two Masters in the same Manner. on § 21. Natta. 6. 485 Lib. As to the Right of the Lord to the Thing itself. a Term supposed to be derived from the German Ledig. 4. and ought to acknowledge no other Sovereign. to whom he is not feudatary. II. of his Treatise. Hertius’s Treatise De Feudis oblatis. Hence. which they now call 4 Feudum Ligium. empty. under the Word Liga. in Vol. XX. or Lidges. 7 <101> served. he may lose the very Right of Sovereignty: Yet the Power he has over his Subjects does not cease to be Sovereign. that the War undertaken by the Lord 6 be just: Of which we shall treat in another Place. originally signified no more than a Vassal. for as I have often said. and Ch. Digest. that upon the failing of the Royal Family the Sovereignty should return to themselves. by a Treaty of Alliance. there is a Difference between the Thing. De Vitiis Sermonis. Ch. Ligius Homo. And I find many Kings constituted by the Romans with this Condition. such an Engagement no more prejudices the Sovereignty of the Vassal Prince. &c. ´ . provided they are not subject to his Dominion. V. XV. In Reality.

war as publick and private 335 XXIV. VI. those of Egypt. surnamed Eupator. The Examples of the latter are Mithridates. has a Right to govern. I shall set down the whole Passage. forbad any Credit to be given to his Letters. of this Work. (1) See B. or between the first Act and the second. in Demetrius. ´ ◊ ’ ´ ´ ÷ ´ apanta ta entoc Fasidoc kai ◊Eufratou. Ta ’ d◊ omoia kai peri thn ◊Asian sunebh. of this Chap’ ÷ ter. A Man’s Right distinguished from the Exercise of that Right. but ordered that all Things should be administred as if he were dead. ◊ ´ ’ ⁄ ´ ’ ÷ ´ ´ kajaper epi Mijridatou sunebh tou ◊Eupatoroc. Among the former he reckons the Kings of Pergamus. and the Exercise of that Right. living confined under Seleucus. so that he is not at Liberty to exercise himself the Acts of Sovereignty: For in all such Cases they have their Lieutenants or Vice-Roys to act for them. We must also distinguish in Sovereignty. between the Right itself. kai ◊Aiguptiwn. so has a Prince that is Lunatick. See § 12. kaja ÿ ´ ⁄ ¤ ◊ ´ ◊ ´ ´per twn ◊Attalikwn Basilewn. XXIV. III. I am of Opinion. as they in the same Manner acquired the Kingdom of Pergamus. had given them Occasion to reduce their Dominions into the Form of Roman Provinces. whose Kings are here termed ◊Attalikoi Basileic. which is absolutely necessary) afistamenwn. that the Romans inherited Bithynia by the Will of Nicomedes. Katarxac men upo twn Basilewn diwkeito ¤ ’ ’ ’ ´ ´ ’ ’ ÿ ’ ÷ ´ ÷ uphkown ontwn. plhn ◊Arabwn tinwn. and. Queen of Egypt. and those who. ¤ ’◊ ’ ´ ’ ´ ’ ´ ÷ ÿ ’ ´ ◊ ’ &c. kai Kappadokwn. as it is in the original Text and the Latin Version. or a Prisoner. kai Paflagonwn. at least. p. that instead of ◊Aiguptiwn Strabo wrote Bijunwn. those of Syria. Amst. the last King of that Country. kai thc ◊Aiguptiac Kleopatrac. 440. Paphlagonia. kai epeita kataluomenwn. Plut. and being conquered by that People. ÷ ÷ ´ kai Surwn. Chap.Cappadocia. where these two Facts are quoted on the Credit of good Authors. § 3. The Geographer plainly distinguishes between the Kings of Asia. XX. Edit. XXIV. Lib. when an Infant. kai (I add this ’ ´ ’ ´ ’ ´ ´ ’ Particle. 1 For as a King. It is well ´ ÷ known. where I do not find any one has observed the Fault. Therefore Demetrius. revolting from the Romans. usteron d◊ eklipontwn ekeinwn. and Cleopatra. or Seal. . or that lives in a foreign Country. but cannot exercise that Right. because it is corrupted in one Place. as well as Property. whose Families were extinct. upo ÿRwmaioic esti.

1. it afterwards became publickly known. <102> I. that those who sided with Ishbosheth were his Subjects. who will not allow it to be just. 10. or Strangers. (1) This Example is criticised by Commentators. but not their own. and his Descendents. and that but Few were at first acquainted with the Will of GOD. x.u chapter iv u Of a War made by Subjects against their Superiors. Ibid. that thou wilt not cut off my Seed after me. 20. as Abraham did against the King of Babylon. over which he reigned two Years. The Promise. iv. in the Wilderness of Ziph. The Question stated. had been acknowledged King by the eleven Tribes. and that the Kingdom of Israel shall be established in thy Hand: Swear now therefore unto me by the LORD. 11. and not David ’s. xiv. ii. who designed he should succeed Saul. Private Men may certainly make War against private Men. according to a Promise from Heaven. and Sovereign Princes against Sovereign Princes. 21. nor was it to be fulfilled ’till after the Death of Saul and Ishbosheth. specifies no fixt Time. xxiv. which GOD had made of transferring the Crown to David. and I shall be next unto thee. and so may private Men against Princes. and that thou will not destroy my Name out of my Father’s House. Ishbosheth. whether their own Subjects. and that also my Father Saul knoweth. whom he had persecuted with so much Rage and Cruelty. 2 Sam. Jonathan says to David. I know well that thou shalt surely be King. Hence it is concluded. as David against the King of the Ammonites. and reached the Court of the Prince on the Throne. and other neighbouring Princes. Thou shalt be King over Israel. as David 1 against the Party of Ishbosheth. so may Sovereign Princes against private Men. I. Gen. Saul himself makes the same Declaration. 1 Sam. 17. when he acknowledges the Generosity of the Man. and punishes his Murtherers. say they. as the Romans against Pirates. 2 Sam. that he looked on David as the Man who was to be his immediate Successor. From which Words it is evident. as a Traveller against a Robber. 336 . David himself was so far from considering him as a rebellious Subject. Ibid. xxiii. that tho’ David had been privately appointed by Samuel. But it appears from the sacred History. that he gives him the Character of a just Man.

who being directed by no extraordinary Revelation. it is agreed on all Sides. For the Case was not the same among the Hebrews. or subordinate. And he himself would spare the Lives of Saul ’s Children. XLI. the Urim and Thummim. Ch. that if 3 the civil Powers command any Thing contrary to the Law of Nature. v. See Mr. Le Clerc. Man.war by subjects against superiors 337 The only Question is. ii. on 2 Sam. qui primus invenit. For Nehem. Chap. they are not to be obeyed. when he pleased. on Saul ’s Demise. Licentiam enim Domino (Praedii) actori. and the more so. who owned Ishbosheth. whether as supreme. ipsique plebi Serenitas nostra commisit. § 3. it was not because he did not look on him as an Usurper of his Right. against the neighbouring petty Princes. When the eleven Tribes made their Submission to David. This is allowed by all good Men. without any Injury received from him. might be considered as so many rebellious Subjects against the lawful Sovereign. in Compliance with their imprudent and obstinate Demand. XXVI. bestowed on their Kings all the Power they had over them. What is lawful for Subjects to do against their Sovereign. Cod. he did not thereby divest himself of the Right of making the immediate Choice of their Kings. therefore. So that. XII. The Israelites were but lately come out of the Theocracy. but he calls him innocent in Regard to Rechab and Baanah. ut eum. expellendi habeat facultatem. It was thus that Saul the first King of Israel ascended the Throne. nec ˆ crimen aliquod pertimescat: quum sibi arbitrium ultionis suae sciat esse concessum. Thus the 2 Roman Emperors allowed the Proprietor of an Heritage to drive away Harbingers or Quarter-masters. and consequently. and though GOD. and thou shalt be a Captain over Israel. rec` teque sacrilegum prior arceat. & iv. who had dispatched him by their own private Authority. But the main Question is. because they need only have consulted their usual Oracle. as having killed a just. Thou shalt feed my People Israel. 3. were obliged to receive David as their lawful King. or innocent. De Metatis & Epidemeticis. David. or those that act by his Authority. 11. 2 Sam. having been anointed by Samuel. on the Account of the Oath he had taken to their Father. whether private or publick Persons may lawfully make War against those that are set over them. If David punished the Murtherers of Ishbosheth. as Nehemiah did by the Authority of Artaxerxes. First. V. in Saul ’s Life-time. they owned they knew the Lord had said to him. all who were acquainted with it. iv. in Consideration of which he pardoned Ishbosheth. by Vertue of that Divine Election. . Leg. See Book II. as among other People. had granted them a Change of that happy Form of Government into a Human Monarchy. in Order to know the Will of GOD. and would never have hurt him. that they that are commissioned by the higher Powers may make War against their Inferiors. Tit. had an incontestible Title to the Succession. or the Commands of God. Lib. 2. qui praeparandi gratia ad possessionem venerit. 2. the eleven Tribes.

there is no Obligation to bear the latter. or any other Cause. . which doubtless it does. A Man. Were it so. as often as he thinks himself aggrieved by it. I. Consequently. or sufficient for producing the Effect. p. But civil Society being instituted for the Preservation of Peace. than before. without ever opposing Force with Force. and if we sometimes ought to bear them. or supportable Injustices. For. where they are to obey. it is certain that the End of civil Society in general requires that each of them should not have a Right to resist the supreme Power. that we must obey God rather than Man. 29. (1) We are here to consider. who never abuses his Power. and then the Body of the People. for which it is designed. whoever submits to human Authority. for every Abuse of it. The former are to be born. for maintaining publick Peace and good Order. that a particular Person either doth or ought necessarily to engage to suffer every Thing from his Superiors. which 4 Plato expresses almost in the very same Words. there immediately arises a superior Right in the State over us and ours. any Injury be done us by the Will of our Sovereign. Steph. Therefore the State has a Power to prohibit the unlimited Use of that Right towards every other Person. 29. than to resist by Force. where he makes that Philosopher express himself in the following Manner: I honour and love you. subject to Mistakes. we ought rather to bear it patiently. 4. and no Authority would be lasting. In Regard to single Persons. rather than you. engraved on the Minds of Men. and nothing could oblige them to divest themselves of that natural Liberty. But if for this. II. Tom. But it doth not thence follow. besides that a Superior may be wrongfully accused on that Article. first single Persons. In Socrates’s Apology. 19. must be sensible that the Person. he at the same Time grants him a Right. We must distinguish therefore between doubtful. [speaking to the Athenians] but will obey GOD. as such is unlawful by the Law of Nature. did but appeal to a Principle of Reason. ought to be considered as a Man not to be found. would have done better. H. as we said before. and manifest or insupportable Injustices. 1 for if that promiscuous Right of Resistance should be allowed. War against Superiors. those who enter into any Society. so far as is necessary for that End. it is by no Means II.338 chapter iv Acts iv. not to treat him in any Manner unjustly (no Man can ever give or have a real Right to commit the least Injustice ) but to require that he shall not be divested of his Authority. since otherwise it cannot obtain the End proposed. — v. and Failures in the Discharge of his Duty. in whose Favour he divests himself of part of his Liberty. the Apostles. Indeed all Men have naturally a Right to secure themselves from Injuries by Resistance. that is. when they alledged. had they continued in a State of War with him. and is therefore to be supposed to acknowledge him for his Master on that Foot. of which every Man is so jealous. is and always will be Man. if it could be so easily lost. but. Edit. strictly speaking. would without Dispute be in a worse Condition. Even such as submit to a Conqueror. II.

we may safely employ our whole Right against the Man. has discharged them of their Obligations to him. VIII. 2. . for Example. as hardly any Thing but a horrible Excess of Ambition and Madness could have obliged the Body of the Nation to rise against him. will not stop there. VI. and the Conduct of Sovereigns. whom Sallust mentions as a wild and savage People. § 6. who imagines himself allowed to do what he pleases to his Inferiors. can doubt that this is one of those enormous and insupportable Abuses of the supreme Authority. who command. without out of Regard to the Person. and for the public Peace. if there is no Room to apprehend that Resistance will occasion greater Evils and Disorders. Now. to oppose a Superior. and conceive an unwarrantable Prejudice against his Prince will be easily granted. particularly in Matters of Religion. Who can doubt. Eurip. I say. for no other Reason but his own good Pleasure. and entered into a State of War with us. or for some Reason evidently unjust. who. the Toleration of which. IX. the more the Oppressor deserves to be brought to Reason. The Tyrant in that Case has less Reason to complain. A Man. Cap. v. in Relation to a whole People. So that. than those to which the Society already is exposed. become Tyrants. and the Violation of his Engagements to them. but for the Good of Society. But this is a prudential Consideration. every one gives Law to his Wife and Children. that it is directly contrary to and destructive of both? Have we not even commonly very great Reason to believe. 120. Lib. as for his refusing to believe what he knows to be false. should suffer some Thing. What I have already laid down. it no less requires that those. Book VII. in regard to which a private Person cannot deceive himself. and no Hearers. that commonly speaking. whether a Prince. without any Crime committed by the Sufferer. The greater the Number of the Oppressed is. Note I. A Mob where all are Speakers. or deprive him of his Goods. v. 3. See what I have said on Pufend. takes Place.war by subjects against superiors 339 <103> there would be no longer a State. one. by an Excess of Madness. Or the 3 Aborigines. and without the Formality of a Trial. such as the 2 Cyclops were. which makes no Diminution in their Right. who by enormous and insupportable Acts of Injustice. It is true. and only draw greater Evils on their own Heads. or some few particular Persons. that there are some manifest and enormous Injustices. Odyss. indeed. and that much more. In Cyclop. 114. who. is capable of doing every Thing. who commits them. has disengaged us from the Tie of Subjection. without Laws. would resist to no Purpose. 115. should be afraid of putting their Patience to the utmost Trial. Catalin. who obey. is so far from being necessary for the Sake of preserving Order. Bell. but a Multitude without Union. who attempts to kill one of his Subjects. or the greater Part of it. or those to which it is in Danger of being exposed. and that the rest may expect the like Treatment? If the public Interest requires those. if we enquire well into the Nature of Things. Cap. that a Prince who proceeds those Lengths in Regard to one or more particular Persons.

But.340 chapter iv Government. This Passage. . nor Magistrates. 7. XXI. 103. we must obey. who exercises his Power with Severity. and quotes these Words of Val. And in another Place the 4 Getulians. But all the Poet means here is. as the same Poet informs us. Wass. is looked upon as unlawful. v. 102. 336. where he tells us. V. Our Author. VIII. non heic ullos reverentia ritus Pectora: mors habitat. 2. accountable to none. All human Societies (St. Bell. sacraeque hoc litore pugnae. hospita vobis Terra. from the same Author. only says that a Sovereign is to be obeyed. Laws. v. Idem. as appears from the Sequel. Flaccus: ——— Non foedera legum Ulla colunt. All the Authorities. in other Places sometimes bestow the most exalted Character on such as have had Courage enough to dispatch a Tyrant. The same Authors. So Aeschylus. ´ ◊ ¤ ÿ ´ ´ ’ 4. Jug. adds the Example of the Bebrycians. VIII. ÿ ´ ÷ 7 ◊Arxontec eisin. acknowledging his Fault in giving Way to a violent Excess of Passion. They are Princes. IV. Ajax. Confess. The following Verses. it is sufficient to say that the Country of the Bebrycians was a Kingdom. where Amycus reigned. loose and dissolute. sufficiently explain those already produced: ——— Non haec. ait. as a Matter of Fact only. Cap. Who doubts it? The Question is only how far he is to be obeyed. or others. So we find that the Resistance in Question. alledged by our Author. Sophocles makes Ajax say this in Regard to Menelaus and Agamemnon. who had neither Customs. because Achilles’s Arms had been given to another. do not prove it has been the general Opinion of all Nations. &c. And in Sophocles. 101. that those People observed no Law of Justice or Humanity in their Behaviour to others. 6. Augustine 5 tells us) unanimously agree to obey Kings. Cap. according to the Usage of all States. in a Note on this Place. 677. 146. A King absolute. Argonaut. Lib. 99. ti mh. that the Subject is to bear every Thing from the Sovereign. Can. as the learned Schelius observes. v. Viri. they killed all Strangers. and sacrificed them to Neptune. 5. Edit. and that it is never allowable to resist him in any Case. Eschylus speaks of an independent King. Lib. to evince the Want of Exactness in the Application. in whom we find such Sentences. placidas aut jura tenentia mentes. Distinct. p. who landed in their Country. wsj◊ upeikteon•. III. in his Treatise De Jure Imperii. which is quoted in the Canon Law. as the Partisans of absolute Non-resistance affect to heap together. 6 traxuc monarxoc k◊ oux◊ ’ ´ ◊ upeujunoc kratei. when well examined.

We must bear with the Follies of Princes. On this Occasion. v. with a View of facilitating his Return to his own Country. 8. 9. which we are not only to read and consider for our Amusement. is only a Parody of a Sentence in Plautus. 34. I. Cap. he sets forth all the Hardships of Banishment. in Med. Cap. v. It doth not contain a Precept. to which Men are reduced of suffering the Follies of those. King of Argos. and mounting the Throne from which he was debarred by his Brother Eteocles. 681. Lib. 9 The Gods have bestowed a sovereign Power on Princes. 10. leaving Subjects the Glory to obey. Captiv. but consider as a Lesson to caution us against coming under such a Power. Epist. Lib. VI. VIII. Terentius. This is the Stile of their Orders. 6. in the Place of their Exile. . he only meant that Affairs usually take this Course. in this Manner: The Gods have given you. 195. Indigna digna habenda sunt Herus quae facit. He had no Intention to compliment Kings with a Right to do what they pleased with Impunity. Annal. The preceding Line. Upon which Milton (Defens. Lib. II. VI. &c. Cap. you shall die. so that he is very far from designing to speak of a Right inherent in Kings to commit such Follies with Impunity. I find that Lipsius has parodied the Verse of the Latin Poet in the same Manner in his Politics. v. of which we shall speak in a Note on the next Paragraph. This Passage is entirely misapplied. must be looked on as good <104> Treatment. V. though Cicero calls it so. a Tribute of the Roman People. a Man is obliged to bear with the Follies and Extravagancies of those who reign. The bad Treatment we receive from a King. Seneca 10 says. 12 To do any Thing with Impunity. and in another Place he says. Act. Orat. Aequum atque iniquum Regis Imperium feras: These are the Words of Creon. from whom perhaps our Author took it. as if he was present. speak in the Senate.) judiciously alledges the following Quotation from Cicero. The Historian makes M. 396. Polynices excuses himself to his Mother for having married the Daughter of Adrastus. and the Success of their evil Actions. We must bear patiently whatever the King commands. II. is peculiar to a King. And likewise in Sallust. that in that Situation. which the Reader may compare with the Passage in the Book of Samuel. XXXVI. Indigna digna habenda sunt. Jugurth. I. Terms. Bell. and address himself to Tiberius. p. in a Letter to Atticus. that such is the Custom of Kings. 682. though we cannot speak of it from our own Experience. If I find you here a second Time. King of Corinth. and among the rest. Scn. 12. II. v. It only expresses the Necessity. Phoeniss. This is said by Memmius. And.war by subjects against superiors 341 why not? And in Euripides. 8 Tac twn kratountwn amajiac xrewn ’ ÷ ´ ◊ ´ ’ ferein. Cap. Take Notice. whether just or not: a Thought which he borrowed from 11 Sophocles. on whom they depend. XXV. Rex quae facit. Agreeably whereto is that ´ we quoted above out of Tacitus. a Roman Knight. and obey. and a zealous Assertor of public Liberty. Antigon. Num. if you add to your Requests Complaints: and this of their Menaces. None of us is unacquainted with the Practice of Kings. 11.

gives us a Paraphrase on the Words of the Prophet. xvii. the Dignity and Authority) of the Sovereign. by Plantin. strike one of his Inferiors. 14. 64. Lib. without just Cause. (1) The Law speaks of such as should insolently despise (for so it is in the Text) the Decision of the Judges established by GOD. 12. and not only of Fact. XI. Our Author. viii. Ethic. and maintains that it would not be suitable to the Character of such a Person. to shew that it would be sometimes contrary to Justice. We need only consider the following Words: He (the King) will take your Fields. Rabirio Postum. but if he wilfully break it. 14 If a Magistrate strikes. either 1 to the HighPriest. that. 11. 18. when Samuel told the Israelites how Kings would treat them. is fenced with so many Laws. if it were lawful to resist. he that was disobedient. of the foregoing Chapter. But in Order to perform this to his Mind. in a Note on this Place. § 4. V.342 chapter iv Hence it is. Jos i. 14. Leg. Deut. he spoke of Right. 13. XVII. 1 Sam. Paris. for explaining and applying the Laws of Moses. By the Hebrew Law. Cap. and by his Authority. or strike again. contrary to the Rules of Criticism. (for a far different pro C. that is. The Philosopher is treating of the Penalty of Retaliation. VII. and your Oliveyards. 2 to him that thoroughly considers it. Digest. XVI. VI. xvii. or to the extraordinary Governor appointed by God. Chap. Inferiors ought not to resist the supreme Power. Edit. 13 If a Soldier resist his Officer that corrects him. he is punished with Death. § 9. before alledged. Deut. So that this is wide of the Question in Hand. III. of a Power to do honestly and justly. III. on § 22. and your Vineyards. XV. in which he explains them to us so as to make them mean no more than what a King. in B. who should. Tit. where we must always suppose a manifest Injustice. in 1607. whether absolute or not. See Mr. XLIX. the best of them and give them . Cap. he is degraded. Pufend. p. Nicom. Nor allowed by the Hebrew Law. III. he is obliged to soften the Force of the original Expressions. with several Interpreters. 2. whether it be King or State. refers us to a Passage of Josephus. Le Clerc on Deut. De Re Militari. that the Majesty (that is. VIII. he shall not be struck again. Lib. which he had before quoted. acting in his Name. This Passage is not intirely to the Purpose. supposes that. Our Author. But that which in Samuel is spoken of the Right of Kings. XIII. Cap. and so many Penalties. that he should be sentenced to receive Correction in the same Manner. appears not to be understood of a true Right. he instances in the Case of a subaltern Magistrate. and that of Military Discipline. 12. which Authority could not be maintained. commonly speaking. It can be inferred only by Way of Consequence. may lawfully require. See Ruffus’s Leges Militares. in Note 3. if he lays hold on the Cane. in doubtful Cases. And in Aristotle. from this Example. published with Vegetius. was to be put to Death. or subaltern Officers.

after the Commentators. allow us to imagine he designed to give the least Insinuation. Or rather a physical Inability to resist. that Resistance is never allowable. that the most abandoned Princes dared not maintain that Subjects were obliged to suffer the Seizure of their Goods or Estates. as has in it some Effect of Right. could not lawfully resist the King. even though they are paid for them beyond their just Value. jus. The Prophet’s View. the divine Goodness and Sanctity do not. or Custom. which I have given. When were we suspected of Faction? When did not all the World look on us as a peaceable People? Is not our daily Behaviour irreproachable. it implies the Obligation 4 of Non-resistance. Whence it appears. See Milton. and neglect the Duties so clearly prescribed in the Law. But it doth not thence follow that the Jews. &c. even the Body of the People. where the Laws are observed. and such as tends to promote Concord. as before quoted. the Strength lodged in the Hands of Princes puts them in a Condition of oppressing their Subjects a thousand Ways. IV. unworthy of an infinitely perfect Being. 14. when they place their own Conduct in Opposition to that of the Natives of the Country. that it was not thought that Samuel in any Manner design’d to fix the Right of a King. for Example. The Israelites. v. who were killed in the same Kingdom of Israel. which might give Kings Occasion to believe themselves warranted to do what they pleased. This would be a sort of Contradiction. and the Story of Naboth sufficiently shews. requires no more. even after the Captivity. and the Example of several Tyrants. but then there is a wide Difference between the Injuries. which was to divert the Israelites from persisting in their Demands. and as every one plainly sees. never were of Opinion that no one. and the Good of Society? In Flaccum. usually rendered Right. These are manifest Acts of Tyranny. is sufficient for putting this beyond Dispute. in that Part of the Law which treats of a King’s Duty) nor of barely what he will do. that is. manifestly shew the contrary. Paris. or Servants by Force? 4. and that which a wicked Prince may do to his Subjects. For. Shall a Citizen. True. pag. or the Obligation of the Subject. as Mr. which private Persons may do one to another in a State. quotes what Philo makes the Jews of Alexandria say. I think. in a Note on this Place. but only to let the People know to what Calamities they would be exposed by the Abuse of the royal Power and Strength. and the original Word. Le Clerc observes on the Passage under Consideration. which are out of the Power of private Persons. with Impunity? Shall he take away his Children. This is evident from the Manner. 3. and the whole History of that Nation. on Pufendorf. when People are thus to his Servants. Therefore it is added. as it has been observed.war by subjects against superiors 343 Way of living is prescribed to a King. pag. when even private Men do likewise Injuries 3 to private Men. <105> whether just or not. for that would not have been extraordinary in him. in which the ten Tribes shook off the Yoke of Rehoboam. frequently signifies in Scripture the Manner of Proceeding. The Example. Defens. seize on his Neighbour’s Field or Vineyard. The Example of the Macchabees. 978. Besides. but it is to be understood of an Action. Cap. Our Author. were of Opinion. 115. When they were vi- . Edit.

even when he pronounces an unjust Sentence. He that resists the Power. Antiq. ˆ . Cap. xiii. and in some Manner against his Will. See Josephus. Lib. I only observe ◊ ´ that Josephus says. says among other Things. See Mr. De Bell. as when Petronius went with an Order from Caligula to place that impious Prince’s Statue in the Temple. Leg. and appease their Persecutors. XVIII. Jud. by his Providence. resists the Ordinance of God. to shew their Innocence. shall receive unto themselves Damnation. pag. XI. they sometimes valued themselves on their forced Patience. pag. Le Clerc on the Place. already mentioned. 5. Lib. XI. 133. not only for Wrath. And again. they submitted because they were not in a Capacity of resisting. 6. But the Israelites frequently implored the Divine Assistance. Paul (who could best interpret the Words of his Lord) largely describing the Duties of Subjects.344 chapter iv oppressed. 1025. IV. than what the Jews were bound to pay to their Kings. And a little further. Lib. and Philo. in the same Sense as it is said that 6 the Pretor renders Justice. I. Where Christ in the New Testament commands to give to Caesar the Things that are Caesar’s. Cap. that his Disciples should yield as great. And the Prediction was justified by the Event. Digest. XVII. that when Petronius was on his March for Judea at the Head of three Legions. and a Body of auxiliary Troops from Syria. because they were not able. Nor by the Law of the Gospel. Wherefore ye must needs be subject. and they that resist. 5 as if no Remedy were to be expected from Man. II. or were sensible of their own Inability to defend themselves. 1026. ad Caium. they should cry unto GOD for Help. IV. he certainly intended. Jud. when oppressed by any neighbouring King or People. I. though. It is then a Right. Polemein men ou boulomenoi. at any Rate. But I do not find in either of these Historians the Words quoted by the English Author. and will any one say they were then forbidden to resist the Oppressor. He includes in Subjection olently harassed by the Roman Governours. as proved by Scripture. Rom. would not change it. Which St. for he is the Minister of God to thee for Good. when it was in their Power? The Prophet certainly means no more than that GOD. the Jews either could not imagine they were to be employed against them. Tit. De Legat. dia to mhd◊ ÷ ’ ◊ ´ ’ ’ ´ andunasjai: that they would not fight. to punish them for demanding a monarchical Form of Government. as an Acknowledgement made by the Jews themselves of their own Weakness. if not a greater Obedience (both active and passive) to the higher Powers. De Justitia & Jure. when they came to feel the grievous Inconveniencies attending it. but also for Conscience Sake. in the Time of the Judges.

Fagii. and the Happiness of the Prince depends on the Happiness of his Subjects. wherefore the publick Powers are to be esteemed by us. wherein is comprehended that also of every particular Person. Grotius. De Statuis. if there was no Fear (of the Magistrate) Men would eat one another alive. for we make those Acts our own.war by subjects against superiors 345 the Necessity 1 of Non-resistance. Men would be more savage than Brutes. III. not only such as arises from the Apprehension of a worse Evil. 3 said one to Sylla. as I suppose. but . and employs his Authority for the Good of those whom he governs. whereby we stand obliged not only to Man. because such a Patience shall not lose its Reward. for. Chrysostom says very well that the Prince labours in Concert with a Preacher of the Gospel. than pertinently to the Apostle’s Meaning. 1541. say. Secondly. but such a one as flows from the Sense of our Duty. leave some to reign over. De Civit. that he supposes a Magistrate who acts like a true Minister of GOD. The Hebrews have a Proverb. First. more truly. Cap. But some may say. 472. we should swallow up one another alive. 3. which is the 2 publick Peace. in all Cases. 4. sint quibus imperes. 5. to bear Injuries is not advantageous. as ordained by GOD himself. 2. Dei. To which agrees that of 5 St. St. That Father repeats the same Thought in two or three other Places. and now in the Evangelical. Cap. XXI. or sentences of the Jewish Doctors. who have abused their Authority. Hom. not only biting but devouring one another. these Injuries are also advantageous to us. but to GOD also: He adds two Reasons for it. III. VI. Lib. which we support and countenance by our Authority. The Apostle seems to me to have regarded the general End proposed in this Ordinance. for the Peace of the Kingdom. III. And certainly this Advantage we <106> commonly receive from the sovereign Powers: For no Body ever wished ill to himself. Grotius. Take away the Governors of States. p. IV. num. Florus. you at the same Time take away all Order of Life. It occurs in the Pirke Aboth. Pray. So far from that. 42. 25. says he. Chrysostom. (1) True. and is attributed to the Rabbi Hananias. but the Apostle doth not here direct us how we are to behave ourselves toward the Powers. Fursidius to Sylla. Cap. If you take away the Courts of Judicature. 4 If there were no sovereign Power. because GOD has approved of this Ordinance of commanding and obeying. Lib. P. both formerly in the Jewish Law. XXVIII. to which others. Aug. See Plutarch in Sylla. ibid. Edit. and however they act. Tell me not of Persons. because this Ordinance tends to our Advantage. p. and St.

Lib. and an Evil which. Seneca speaks pertinently to this Purpose. II. We have another Passage to the same Purpose on the Epistle to the Ephesians. XXXIV. &c. says he. LX. VIII. as Tacitus 6 observes. 7. Lib. ibid. 6. or any other sad accident? They admitted of no Exception. Tit. XVI. De Benefic. We shall then have no Cities. or any Thing fix’d and certain. &c. De Legibus. even for private Men. The Philosopher says this in Regard to Laws concerning insolvent Debtors. 9. In Epist. that the Interest of each particular Person is the same with that of the Public. through Fear. Here we shall cite that remarkable 10 Saying of Pericles in Thucydides. VI. III. Ambrose lays it down for a Maxim. consider the Beauty of the Establishment itself. because that is much better. IV. it is enough. who has thrown away what he borrowed in Gaming and Debauchery. III. that leads to publick Tranquillity. If you take away them (the Magistrates) all is ruined. 10. Leg. no Lands. Cap. Tit. that Men might know they were obliged to keep their Word. that the State in general flourish. ad Romanos. (Cap. It is enough for the Laws to regard that which generally happens. 11 I esteem it better. sufficiently accommodated to all. IV. Leg. Thus likewise St.346 chapter iv If the supreme Magistrate sometimes. All Things will be turned Topsy-turvy. 11. V. as one who has lost both another Man’s Substance and his own by Fire. Hist. and to the greater Part. For though the Reason of the Law does not take Place in such or such a particular Case. Digest. and to which we may apply that of 8 Cato. to which particular Cases ought to make no Exception. For it were better. it ought to be considered as a rare Case. Livy. No Law can be convenient for every particular Person. though just. Cap. I. Robbery. or some other Passion deviates from the straight Path. Cap. Si pars hereditatis petatur. Lib. is made up by good Offices. Satis commoda omnibus &c. But as to such Cases. Lib. III. or to allow every Man to be a Law to himself. in the same Manner. Lib. IV. on which Occasion he asks: Do you suppose our Forefathers not prudent and judicious enough to understand it would be the highest Piece of Injustice to treat a Man. Anger. Edit.) The . from a few. as 7 Theophrastus said. and you will see the great Wisdom of the first Author of it. De Offic. &c. Oxon. num. See also Lib. than that all should be allowed to make what Excuse they please. III. which rarely happen. and the Stronger will devour the Weaker. LXXIV. 5. they ought to be submitted to the general Rules. yet it subsists in its Generality. 9 It is better not to admit of an Excuse. 8. if it be beneficial in general. no Market-Place. Grotius. Lib. Cap. than to live without Law.

De Legib. is the Care of the publick Good. Oxon. 13 to men gar koinon qundei. to prefer the Interest of the publick to that of particular Persons. H. . See also Cod. LI. ’ ’ ’ ’ ÷ &c. He that <107> mutinies against his General in War. And Xenophon. we have a Thought very like it in Hierocles. And Plato observed. I shall explain this out of an Lawyers hold the same in the contract of Partnership: For that is always to be done which is to the Advantage of the whole Company. XXXIX. Wherefore we are not to separate the public from the private Good. In Stob. but by betraying the Publick. ¤ ◊ ´ &c. for the whole. IX. Lib. yet if his Country be lost. and the Publick suffer. XVII. 12. abandon the Care of the publick Safety? Which Livy speaks in short. and shared by each in particular. a Man in bad Circumstances may mend his Condition. However. That which is the Bond of States. VI. Pro Socio. for as in the natural Body. not what is for the private Interest of one of the Partners. § 14. than that they should flourish in their Affairs. it secures every Man’s private Estate. so in the political. 14. Cap. considered as separate from the Parts. For what is advantageous to our Country. you will never preserve your own. if the State flourish. Edit. II. Leg. Tom. Serm. 14 ostic en polemw. And Jamblichus. § 19. nor in his Protrepticon. Lib. De Exped. Cap. but consider them as one and the same. LXV. I. the Preservation of the Parts depends on that of the Whole. Lib. 13. therefore it concerns both the State and private Men. unic.war by subjects against superiors 347 though they themselves do not thrive in it. Digest. 875. 12 If the Commonwealth flourish. For let a Man’s private Affairs be never so prosperous. Edit. Tit. VI. num. p. each particular Advantage is included in the Publick. which is incompatible with the Right of Resistance left to private Persons. instead of acting like you. being overwhelmed with your domestick Losses. Tit. Lib. Cyri. he must perish with it. XXXVI. is nothing. and that which destroys them is the minding only one’s private Advantage. De Caducis tollendis. who. Since then the State can relieve private Persons in their Misfortunes. I have not been able to find it either in Jamblichus’s Life of Pythagoras. is common to all. Perhaps he has used the Name of that Philosopher for that of some other. Steph. 15. Grotius. 9. XXVI. Leg. ought not every one to concur in defending it. Now. in publick Matters there is nothing more considerable than the Order of Government I have spoken of. On the contrary. II. Lib. 15 private Interest is inseparable from the Publick. § 5. offends against his own Safety. but private Persons cannot do the same Thing in regard to the State. Our Author has quoted this Passage in Latin only.

Noodt’s Discourse on the Power of Sovereigns. nor can one ever be in Safety. with all Fear. being built upon the same Foundation. when he meets with insupportable Treatment from his Master. excellent Place in Dion Cassius. Peter. if those who ought to obey pretend to command. if Children should be allowed to despise their Parents. Book II. respects the Duty 16. § 29. p.348 chapter iv 1 Ep ii. and even then it will not follow that the Subject is obliged to suffer every Thing. 189. Honour the King. in his Treatise De Jure Imperii. for this is thank-worthy if a Man for Conscience toward GOD endure Grief. and St. and what in Schools. Tertullian says that in fearing Men we honour GOD. if when ye be buffeted for your Faults. 18. were partly grounded on particular Circumstances. what our Author himself says of those which relate to the Submission of Slaves to their Masters. 17. Grotius. what Health for Patients that will not be ruled by their Physicians? Or what Security for those in a Ship. suffering wrongfully. 254. which recommend Submission to the sovereign Power. For that which follows. Let the Servant love ÿ ÷ his Master with the Fear of God. See Mr. Servants be subject to your Masters. and some should obey. See likewise Schelius’s Interpretation of these Passages of St. Peter. however froward they are. H. Steph. ou men toi kai egw. and useful to Mankind. In short. 18. This is Part of Julius Caesar’s Speech to his mutinous Soldiers at Plaisance. ye shall take it patiently? But if when ye do well. 316. De Poenit. And Clement in his Constitutions. that what is said of Submission to Masters. this is 17 acceptable with GOD. VII. For what Glory is it. as we shall shew in the 24th Note on the 7th Paragraph. . though he be wicked and unjust. that some should command. 20. but also to the Froward. the Precepts here laid down by the Apostle. XLI. second Edition of the French Translation. if the Sailors will not follow the Orders of the Pilot? For Nature has made it necessary. Besides. ye take it patiently. &c. Paul. 19. if Scholars should slight their Masters. one may say of those general Precepts. First. This Consequence can be drawn only by Accommodation. and suffer for it. since even a Slave has a Right to the Protection of the Laws. 16 I think it ◊ ´ ’◊ ’ neither decent for a Prince to submit to his Subjects. Chap. pag. we shall add that of St. Here we may observe two Things. But the Discourse there turns on a different Subject. Lib. To the Testimony of St. ought 18 to be applied to Kings. o douloc. 17. &c. not only to the Good and Gentle. whose Words are these. Paul. He immediately confirms this by the Example of CHRIST. Chap. &c. V. Ed. expresses the same Sense in these Words. p. Do but consider what a strange Disorder it would cause in a Family.

’ ´ He suffered the Cruelty of his King as patiently. that Men ought not only to be silent in Regard to the Injuries received from their Parents. And in Livy. 21 The Humours of Kings must be born. to which we are bound. II. Justin. the best Interpreter of the Law. Claudian 22 commends the Persians. they must be obeyed. implies an Obligation to bear Injuries with Patience. Orat. For though the Roman Emperors were sometimes the very worst of Men. of the Council in Trullo. 479. and his Commentator Simplicius have said. deviate from this Law of God. 3. Publ. and in his fifth Book against the Jews. Cap. Grotius. 19 Love your Parent if he is just. yet the Christians could never be persuaded to join with them. Good Emperors are to be desired. as it is usually said of Parents. Aelian. LXV. Lib. Lib. but whatsoever they <108> are. so also that of our Country. (1) This appears from Canon XVIII. who had been long a Disciple to Zeno. is to be softened by patient Suffering. and there wanted not those. To bear my Father’s Anger. 22. 10. To the same Purpose is what Epictetus. and Hist. repeated in Canon IV. Hist. 23. Hecyr. 3. Lib. XXXIV. In the Constitutions of Clement we have basileia ou jemiton epanistasjai. being asked. of the Council of Chalcedon. In Eutrop. III. and the Preliminary Discourse § 52. Lib. XV. See Note 24. though cruel. of every Thing having two Handles. what he had learnt. answered. XII. that the Submission. St. and secondly. XXXIII. IV.war by subjects against superiors 349 of Subjects as well as of Servants. So in Tacitus. III. who obeyed their Kings. Council of Toledo. 21. Chrysostom has some beautiful Thoughts on this Maxim on the Epistle to Timothy. the II. Cap. And in another Place. orghn ◊ ’ patroc ferein. as if he had been his Father. IX. Annal. on § 7. but also to suffer them with Patience. XXVII. 20. pro Cluentio. Act. And Tertullian says in his Apology. As the harsh Temper of our Parents. 20 A young Man of Eretria. Liv. 480. Cap. num. num. Lib. Cap. Capitulary of Charles the Bald. And by the Practice of the primitive Christians. Syrus. v. Neither did the Practice of the 1 primitive Christians. V. bear with him. num. Lib. Scen. I. v. in Villa Colonia. num. and by the V. Canon of the Council ˆ of Soissons. 21. And Justin says of Lysimachus. it is his Duty to bear with the ill Usage of his Mother. Terence makes a young Man say. Var. It is ´ ◊ ’ ◊ not lawful to resist the King’s Authority. V. Cap. v. 19. Cap. XI. and by the IV. VIII. who under the Pretence of serving the State opposed them. if not. Cicero lays it down as a Precept. 13. . V.

350 2 chapter iv Whence are your Cassius’s. II. who took up Arms in Syria. as the learned Gronovius observes on this Place. The Name of Sigerius is corrupted not only in Tertullian. and Clodius Albinus had been declared Emperors by the Soldiers under their Command. Grotius. Those Cassians were they who followed Avidius Cassius. from among those who are not Christians. See Herodian. Piscennius Niger 5 in Syria. 5. To these he compares Plautian the 4 Captain of the Guard. So that it might as well be said he took Arms against the two first. Ad Scapulam. or Cassians. What he says of the Wrestling relates to Commodus’s Murder committed by a Wrestler. and your Albinus’s? Whence those who besiege Caesar between the two Laurels? Whence those who wrestle with him only for an Opportunity of throttling him? Whence those who force the Palace Sword in Hand. But their Enterprize was also disappointed by the Christians. and Aurelius Victor who calls that Traitor Casperius. XVII. du Puys expressly has it) and Parthenius’s? If I am not mistaken from among the Romans. Martial. took up Arms against this Septimius Severus. 3. Epigr. Apolog. . Fellows bolder than so many 3 Sigerius’s (so the Manuscript in the Hands of those accomplished worthy Gentlemen Mess. but there never was a wickeder Wretch living than that Emperor. Edit. But. Cap. III. Parthenius. Boecler. as Tertullian glories in his Treatise to Scapula: 6 We are reproached with Treason. Cap. ´ ´ p. who were considered under the Character of Rebels. Lib. XII. He talks only of Sigerius’s and Parthenius’s. Steph. or Nigrians. who attempted to pass for a Courtier tells him. 237. Cap. as if out of Zeal and Affection to the Commonwealth. by the Order of Aelius Laetus. Lib. IV. only because they had the Misfortune to be defeated. where we find Stephanis in its Room. a Man of great Note. Captain of the Emperor’s Lifeguard. 8. but never could Christians be found to act the Albinians. addressing himself to one. Pescennius Niger. that is. who would have slain the bloody Emperor Septimius Severus in his own Palace. your Niger’s. Xiphilin. XXXV. and Sigerius (for it must be read Sighrioc not Sighroc) both Gentlemen of his Bed-Chamber. The Conspirators against him (Domitian) were Parthenius. LXXIX. 6. Cap. XI. where we find Saturius. at the same Time that Septimius Severus was named by his Troops. was he who killed that worst of Emperors Domitian. Num. under a Pre- 2. Cap. but also in Suetonius. Vita Domitiani. and Clodius Albinus in Gaul and Britain. whose Fact also Tertullian mentions here with Horror. 4. Edit.

because it is quoted. XIV. by Virtue of the late Edict. Ambrose was persuaded that Valentinian the second did him an Injury. and shew how little we ought to depend on the Opinion of those old Doctors. Caus. that it may even serve to prove the contrary of what is here inferred from it. found St. The Conduct of the Person under Consideration sufficiently made it appear. Can. that he thought Resistance allowable. Ambrose. Lib.” Hist. See Avidius Cassius’s Letter to his Son-in-Law. XX. formed on the Circumstances. In giving the Fact. but to his Flock. “He invested the Church. at the Instance of Justina (his Mother) allowing the Arians the public Exercise of their Religion. XXXIII. and particularly the Governors of Provinces. Gregory the Great says something of the same Nature (which is also quoted in the Canon Law. 9. Bayle’s Narration. written by Vulcatius Gallicanus. III. yet he would not take the Advantage of the People’s Inclination to resist. were written on the Occasion of a signal Act of Resistance done by that great Saint. But as all the Churches were in the Power of St. It is probable he retrenched it. “On the Death of Gratian. Note 25. Ambrose with all his People as it were barricaded in it. Even two Passages. but said. The Emperor going to take Possession of the Cathedral. here quoted from him. &c. he made an Edict. the Arians attempted to take one in Defiance of his Authority. and even to CHRIST. Will you hurry me to Prison? Will you lead me to Execution? I take a Pleasure in submitting. Authors of Sedition. Ambrose is so far from being to our Author’s Purpose. in his Life. Though 8 St. neglected the Discovery and Punishment of Offenders. Cyprian. vulgarly called the Fathers of the Church. that Nation had now been without King. Can. Liv. In the first Edition of this Work. Antonin 7 was like to ruin. Ambrose. admitted by Mr. &c. before what he here says of St. 9 <109> Whatever Violence is offered me. I shall borrow the very Words of Mr. I will not defend myself by raising the People. as above. The first of these Passages is inserted in the Canon Law. where it appears with more Exactness. 25. § 7. Maimbourg. Epist. and worthy of Death. 8. which the Negligence of M. VIII.war by subjects against superiors 351 tence of restoring the Commonwealth. VII. Dukes or Counts. Traitors. and declaring all who should oppose the Execution of the said Order. The Authority of St. Cap. Ambrose. and dispersed in the utmost Confusion and Disorder. An Episcopis vel quibuslibet Clericis sua liceat. de Theod. I. Flechier. to the last Drop of their Blood. and too great an Application to Philosophy. He pretended that that Prince by a natural Excess of Clemency. the Author had inserted a Passage of St.) If I would have had a Hand in the Death of the Lombards. XXIII. I cannot 7. XXI. (the second appears ˆ in the same Place). and Fa. A Remonstrance was made . Quaest. The former. who inriched themselves with the Spoils of the People. and not only to himself. in his Life of Theodosius: the latter in his History of Arianism. The Bishop answered that he would never willingly quit it. who were resolved to defend both the Church and Pastor. num. to surrender it. the whole western Empire falling to Valentinian. and summoned St. Grotius. his Brother. Disturbers of the Church’s Peace. Epist.

which only exasperated the rebellious Populace. for these are the Defences of a Priest. and revered his Power. without a Violation of Justice: That it was a Crime in a Bishop to surrender a Church. Ambrose signifying. He had indeed no Reason to envy him his Power. The Emperor and Empress. and said to his chief Officers: I perceive that I am here no more than the Shadow of an Emperor. Whereupon. the Prelate should do the same. the People according to their Pastor’s Intentions. who had the Insolence to seize the Churches. as the Prince made some Abatement in his Demands for Peace Sake. and Sacrilege in a Prince to seize on it: That. like a Tyrant. that no Accommodation could be made in this Case. and mourn. but did not envy him it. whom he exhorted to defend themselves only with Prayers and Tears. Several Lords of the Court went to St. and pretended to usurp the Empire. He then dispatched one of his Secretaries to St. nor even over the House of one of his Subjects. I have no other Arms but Tears. in any other Manner I neither ought nor can resist. But all to no Purpose. whenever he commands you. And presently after. The Saint answered. but when they were once spirited up to Rage and Fury. and put an End to the Disorder. The Emperor sent a very civil Message to St. This now appears to me a real and formal rebellion. since the Emperor demanded only one Church in the Suburbs. that he retained the Respect due to the Emperor. that Preparations might be made for disputing the Point by Force of Arms. Ambrose. because the Court was concerned in the Contest. and desired he would appease the People. cried out with one Voice. for his Authority was superior to that of the Emperor. and punished them severely. he did not raise the People. and that you are disposed to give me up to your Bishop. that he left him the quiet Possession of his Cathedral. The holy Archbishop replied. but that the Catholics were to be allowed the Churches which belong to them. I was to the Emperor concerning the Difficulties of that Affair. GOD alone could appease them. a Party of Soldiers was sent by the Court. pursuant to the Edicts and Orders of a Sovereign: On the other a Mob assembled about their Arch- . “St. with Instructions to ask him: Whether he was resolved on an obstinate Resistance of his Master’s Orders. observing that it was but just that the Emperor should be Master in his own Dominions. weep. with Orders to make themselves Masters of the Church in the Suburbs. and take Possession of old Basilic. as is evident from that Prince’s being at last obliged to leave Things as he found them. and would be satisfied with a Church in the Suburbs. that it was reasonable that. We see on one Side the Emperor’s Troops going to take Possession of a House. I can grieve. resolving to go in Person. Ambrose formally excommunicated all the Soldiers. Against Arms. and he was advised to extricate himself out of them by some Accommodation. as for his Part.352 chapter iv resist. sent a Party of Soldiers to put up the Imperial Canopy. Soldiers and Goths. but the People took Arms and opposed them: The whole City was in a terrible Confusion: The Magistrates sent the Mutineers to Prison. Ambrose. and recal the Edict published in Favour of the Arians. This Stroke surprized them so that they went over to his Party. The Emperor found himself reduced to the hard Necessity of fearing he should be abandoned by all his Subjects. which he could not seize by Force. that the Emperor had no Right over the House of GOD.

It is necessary for the Good of this Life. where he expounds those Words of St. Third Edit. that we submit to the Sovereign Powers. as the same Nazianzen observes. . which confines the Doctrine of Non-resistance to those Cases. V. Theodoret. Augustin adds. 10. and permits Men to believe what they please. designed for the Service of GOD. Augustine. I answered. Thus Gre-<110>gory Nazianzen relates. Orat. Paul to the Romans. There was neither a fundamental Law of the State. in Julian. which secured them the Possession of it against the Will of their Sovereign.” Lett. and resolved to spend the last Drop of their Blood in Opposition to the Execution of those Edicts. nor a perpetual and irrevocable Concession. Our Author has omitted these Words. And we see all this happen. Proposit. § 2. &c. and a great Persecutor of the Church. by Vertue of which they could pretend their Sovereign had no Right to take it from them without their Consent. XIV. 275. were not furnished with any particular Privilege. Colon. p. is the Inheritance of JESUS CHRIST. over which the secular Power has no Right. Ambrose would not make use of the Forces of Maximus against the same Emperor. that Cruelty of Julian was not only full of Injustice towards the Christians. 1690. Lib. LXXIV. Eccles. and not resist if they should take any Thing from us. But St. to which their Power over temporal Affairs is extended. but had exposed the State to the utmost Danger: To which we shall add that of 11 St. It may be added that the Persons who then obstinately refused to allow the Arians and the Emperor a Church. and serve GOD. General Criticisms on Mr. where the Sovereign does not exceed the Bounds of his Power. p. not under Circumstances. 3. &c. Cap. for determining what was St. even when an Emperor waves his Right. 11. But the Sequel of the Discourse is not sufficiently clear. Yet his Army was almost all Christians. according to their own Fancies. when the Prince makes a Demand of bare Walls. Besides. though an Arian. adding. bishop. I. Augustin’s Opinion at that Time. Hist. We see a whole People taking Arms. 10 this was the only Remedy against Persecution. but that it was only in the Power of GOD to quiet them. but at a Time. We see an Archbishop excommunicating Soldiers employed in the Execution of the Emperor’s Orders. as seeming to contain a Restriction.war by subjects against superiors 353 commanded to appease the Tumult. The same St. XXX. Maimbourg’s History of Calvinism. 94. and consequently dispensing Subjects from the Oath of Fidelity. it was in my Power not to stir them up. It is a surprizing illusion to imagine that a Building. which binds them to their Prince. Edit. that Julian the Apostate was diverted from bloody Designs (against the Church) by the Tears of the Christians. when a King requires his Subjects to do what is forbidden by the Law of GOD: For then it just to disobey.

See St. v. V. and that they fail in their Duty when they do not. and Danaeus. (1) The Author. 2. and upallhlismoc. which with Respect to the Genus above it is still a Species. In a Word. and then the extraordinary Servants. 612. on Judges iii. but not in Regard to inferior Magistrates. in short. suiting themselves to Times. but in Respect to their Superiors. are but private Persons. first (as I think) persuade themselves. are on that Account more particularly authorized to labour for the public Good. Statius.354 chapter iv VI. VI. but in Respect of the Species below it. in a Note on this Place refers his Readers to Peter Martyr. but it may be likewise said that. Averroes. Paraeus. All Things govern and are governed in their Turns. III. and shew others the Way. xiii. which may be here applied. are publick Persons. Chrysostom. who. Lib. that such Magistrates have. and they. 6. St. Junii Bruti Vindiciae. III. as we have already shewn it is. who therefore must be better acquainted with State Affairs. 2 All the civil Power. This is true. and are capable of making an effectual Resistance. that what we have already said (in Relation to Non-resistance) takes Place only in Regard to private Men. on 1 Cor. Thyestes. all Order necessarily relates to something that is First. a Genus: So those Magistrates. that whatever they do against his Will is done without Authority. and Places. is so subject to the Sovereign. it will follow that the Magistrates. as appears by the excellent 4 Sayings which we find on that Subject in Authors both VI. Seneca. 49. There are some 1 Learned Men in this Age. xiii. Thus in a Family. Politic. LVIII. If an Intendant of the Police commands . the Father is the first. v. com. 3. For as in Logick there is a middle Species. 3. the Degrees of Subordination in human Affairs. For. Every Kingdom depends on a more powerful Kingdom. VI. proved by Reason and Scripture. it is necessary that some-body should begin. who they think have Right to resist the Injuries of their Sovereign. Lib. Epist. which Opinion is not to be admitted. says that Father. Augustin has a remarkable Passage to this Purpose. on Rom. Sylv. Subÿ ’ ordination. That Order 3 which I have spoken of. &c. who think otherwise. 4. Inferior Magistrates to make War against the Sovereign unlawful. according to the Maxim of Philosophers. in Respect to their Inferiors. after them are the ordinary Servants. is not only apprehended by common Sense. supposing it lawful even for private Subjects in certain Cases to resist their Prince. when the lesser Gods did not submit to Jupiter. and consequently ought to be considered only as a private Act. and then others. seem to me to introduce such a State of Things as the Ancients fabled to have been in Heaven before there was a sovereign Majesty. 50. as Persons of a public Character. the Mother and Children hold the next Places. nay. contra Tyrannos. Grotius. Metaphys. Genus speciale as Seneca calls it. Consider.

obliged neither private Persons. and not forbids. De Verbis Domini. 1 Peter ii. who approves. where there were so many Kings regardless of all Right both divine and human. Neither do we find among the Hebrews. that GOD gave him such an Authority. We find almost the same in his VI Sermon. And so likewise the State of the publick Divine Worship always depended upon the Will of the King. Tom. gives these Words a different Explanation in his Notes on the New Testament: as Sovereign. This is quoted in the Canon Law. because that would be an Incroachment on his Right. Samuel instructs us. which every Israelite ought to have for his Religion. xv. you do not despise the Power. among whom there were many pious and valiant Persons. Caus. . 5. he also included inferior Magistrates. the Magistrates. But to Magistrates as deputed by the King. who before the Elders and the People gave to Saul. Paul would have every Soul be subject to the higher Powers. when the Proconsul orders the contrary. for St. the same is to be said when a Consul requires one Thing.war by subjects against superiors 355 Pagan and Christian. That is. 97. 7. In Joan. is it not to be done? But not. III. In which Case. That Father elsewhere says. that is deriving their Authority from him. <111> who has a sovereign Power over Kings themselves. on the contrary. nor inferior Magistrates. Our Author. 369. IX. unless they had a special Commission from GOD. 1. as subjected him to that of the Emperor. are at least uncertain. and the Emperor another. ever assumed the Liberty to resist their Kings by Force. together with the People. as one. the Attachment. Peter bids us be subject to the King. as the learned Gronovius observes. that ought to be understood. or in any other violent Manner oppose the idolatrous Worship introduced or tolerated by the King. that is. Rom. xiii. Grotius. to the King as supreme. But the present Question does not turn on such Cases. who owns no Superior. And when St. but it is also supported by divine Authority. otherwise than to Magistrates. 1 Sam. to become Iconoclasts by their own Authority. the usual Reverence. speaking of Pilate. 6. Basil Erasm. Quaest. 13. after the King. 30. p. Edit. supposed by our Author. 7 so far as it a Thing. XI. promised they would be faithful to GOD. our bearing of an Injury. but only to those Things which GOD directly commands. and the 6 Sanhedrim: For whereas. that is 5 without Exception. Nor ought the Inferior to resent this Conduct. but only chuse to obey a superior Power. what the Duty of great Men is to their King. that any inferior Magistrates. which gives the Preference to the Superior. though now governing wickedly. Can. I have already observed that the Antiquity and Perpetuity of the Sanhedrim.

248. or of the King. for so it was determined by the Jewish Doctors concerning the Law of their Sabbath in the Time 1 of the 8. and without any Mark of Approbation. But why is it not supposed that a good Emperor or modest Sovereign Prince may entertain a just Idea of the Extent of his Power? In Reality. Annal. and unless their Conduct belies their Words. Pertinax and Macrinus imitated Trajan in that Particular. seem to admit of tacit Exceptions in Cases of extreme Necessity. which were publickly set up. VII. Lib. What is to be done in case of extreme and inevitable Necessity. A more difficult Question is. For some of the Laws of GOD. that Trajan (as appears by Pliny’s Panegyrick) took particularCare to shew no Marks of Royalty. Grotius. as Mr. Since that Time the common Opinion of the Jews was. VII. in that Emperor’s Life. Our Author alludes to this in Mark iii. Cap. when the Government was Republican. consequently subject to the Judgment of the Senate and People. as appears from the fine Speeches put into their Mouth by Herodian. (1) See I Maccab. We must know. XIV. . Antoninus. but such may be found. Vit. if I govern well. Steph. we see but few of that Character. 4. 13. and against me. said. Xiphilin. when it was monarchical. but not to attack the Enemy. as we read. whose Decrees the Captain of the Guard was to execute. our Regard for their Dignity should oblige us to avoid harbouring Suspicions to their Disadvantage. Ed. were never thrown down. 41. H. the very Images of their false Gods. on the Sabbath Day. in his Abridgment of Dion Cassius. This Speech is preserved by Xiphilin. Cellar. Josephus.356 chapter iv should be in the Power of every one of them. Edit. p. 281. 8. LXVII. Those of the contrary Opinion often urge that Saying of the Emperor Trajan. And if Force was sometimes made use of against the Kings. and 9 to act merely as Head of the State. Pliny’s Paneg. VIII. Antiq. Var. in the Life of the same Emperor. VIII. 10. Traj. Nay. II. Tom. even against the Prince himself: The like we read of M. Num. 10 who would not touch the public Treasure without consulting the Senate. if ill. who delivering a Sword to a Captain of the Praetorian Band. that the Law allowed them to defend themselves. p. 8 Use this for me. See also Zonaras. it is related barely as a Fact that Providence had permitted. whether the Law of Non-resistance obliges us in the most extreme and inevitable Danger. 9. Cap. VII. and Cassiodorus. ii. but at the Command of the People. however general they be. Le Clerc has very well observed.

And the Treatise De Poenis militarib. and it is very probable that Men have not received so extensive a Power over themselves or others. which ought still more to be presumed as to human Laws. which Exception is approved of by CHRIST himself. 44. following an old Tradition. as that there should be some Allowance for human Frailty. Synag. So that it is evident. 43. written by Mr. without being observed. he who quitted his Post was punished with Death. De Militia Rom. I do not deny. ´ Cap. XIV. And the Jew in Synesius gives this Reason for the Breach of the Law of the Sabbath. 383. ix. because it gave him and his Men a fair Opportunity of entering the Camp. 10. xii. Cap. that such was the Intention of the <112> Legislator. who in that small Piece has let the World know what might be expected from him. and Buxtorf. But this Law (of which we now treat) seems to depend 1 Maccab. and advancing even to the King’s Tent. is where David having found Saul ’s Guard asleep. that this was a Crime worthy of Death. Sichterman. 3. Jud. 4. Antiq. We learn from Polybius. who commanded it. under the Word Prostma. See Josephus. here meant by our Author. xii. Mat. See our Author on Matt. Cap. 2 The Danger of Life drives away the Sabbath. 293. IV. we were ÷ ÿ ’ ÷ ´ in manifest Danger of our Lives. Cap. as also in that Law of not eating the Shew Bread. even though we should be thereby exposed to certain Death. rightly add the same Exception to their Laws concerning forbidden Meats. Not that GOD has not a full Right to oblige us to do or not do some Things. and some others of the like Kind. As for a Soldier not to quit 3 his Post. The Passage of Polybius is here quoted. and ought to be so enacted. For all human Laws are. 2. XVII. 11. XVI. the Case was not the same with that under Consideration. p. if his Fortune had not forced him out of the Road of Letters into that of Arms. for the Terms are very different in the Original. calls out to Abner. See likewise Justus Lipsius. Grotius. I.war by subjects against superiors 357 Maccabees. The Passage of Josephus. except in Cases where extreme Necessity requires it. And the Hebrew Rabbins. that among the Romans. safwc uper yuxhc jeomen. Lib. . but it is not easily to be imagined. This Sentence occurs in the Babylonish Talmud. where he speaks of Saul ’s Guards. Lib. Rom. V. VI. whence arose the famous Saying. but that some Acts of Virtue may by a human Law be commanded. as our Author found it in Suidas. but that some of his Laws are of such a Nature as cannot be easily believed to have been given in so rigid a Manner. Lib. though under the evident Hazard of Death.

upon the Intention of those who first entered into civil Society. have made use of the only Remedy left them. because GOD approved of this wholesome Institution of Men. in approving a human Law. of the publick Good. unless the Resistance would infallibly occasion great Disturbance in the State. armed Men. For what Charity recommends in such a Case to be done. Whether they pretended to impose on all Citizens the hard Necessity of dying. 3. I do not know. out of a Sense of the Inability of separate Families to repel Violence. the stoutest Assertor of Regal Power. whether they would have answered in the affirmative: It may be presumed. 23. is not imposed by any human but the Divine Law. I can easily apprehend that. 1 Sam. I doubt not. 13. But we must observe. or prove the Destruction of many Innocents.358 chapter iv 1 Pet. For David. Rom. But GOD. first four hundred. xxii. 13. 1. from whom the Power of Sovereigns is originally derived. c. the more considerable a Thing is which runs the Risk of perishing. c. to defend themselves against the higher Powers. xiii. which therefore St. rather than at any Time to resist an Injury offered by the Civil Powers. I. Adversus Monarchomachos. or a small Part of the People. but of their own free Will. Barclay. tho’ otherwise. that Author considers the King as above the whole Body of the People. 8. is thought to approve of it as human. on the contrary. in such a Manner as they have not neglected in the mean Time to take care. But I dare not condemn indifferently all private Persons. tho’ elsewhere it is called a Divine Ordinance. and afterwards more. the more Equity requires that the Words of the Law be restrained. Peter calls a human Ordinance. when he becomes excessively cruel. whence the Civil Power is derived. that this rigorous Obligation to suffer Death. who (bating some particular Facts) was so famed for living exactly according to Law. who finding themselves reduced to the last Extremity. may. 2. & 24. Some may say. did yet entertain about him. & I. Suppose then they had been asked. and to what End . ii. does thus far allow that the People. as far as they were able. rather than to take up Arms in any Case. have a Right to defend themselves against their King. that Men did not at first unite themselves in Civil Society by any special Command from GOD. 6. and after a human Manner. they would have declared that one ought not to bear with every Thing. or a considerable Part of them. — xxiii. to authorise the Care of preserving such a Thing. be prescribed by a human Law.

The Example of the Maccabees might likewise be alledged here. 210. But it has been judiciously answered by others. having been anointed King by Samuel. sometimes in by-Places. and that he himself. 15. this Reason has no more Weight in it than the other. he neither seized on any City. nor sought Occasions of Fighting. which made the Empire of the Medes succeed that of the Assyrians. tho’ his Antagonist. and the Patriarch Cyril. from the Time of his being anointed to the Death of Saul. was not from that Time to be considered as a private Subject. and those of their Party. that David was not to be King during Saul ’s Life. who pretends. or Nabonnides. but that ought to be understood of a voluntary Election. It is true the Law forbad a Stranger to be set over them. unless the Assertion is understood only of Darius the Mede. in Case he should be attacked? But we must also observe. that Saul really sought his Life: And moreover. that <113> the Maccabees acted by Vertue of the Right which their Nation had to demand Liberty. to whose Right Antiochus had succeeded. Edit. that both the Emperor Julian. that the Jews had been dependent on the Medes. and the whole Empire of the Medes and Persians 4. unless for 4 the Defence of his own Person. Spanheim. sometimes among foreign Nations. I find.war by subjects against superiors 359 did he so. which is false. since the Jews had for a long Time acknowledged the Kings of Macedonia for their Sovereigns. For the Jews having been formerly conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. In all History. that the Jews were under the Dominion of the Medes. p. to avoid all Occasions of injuring his own Countrymen. that David did not do this till he was assured by Jonathan. mentioned by the Prophet Daniel. we do not find that the Maccabees. For ’tis in vain that some pretend to justify their Enterprize. . xvii. give Antiochus any other Title than that of King: And indeed they could not call him otherwise. upon the Account that Antiochus was only an Usurper. or the Power of governing themselves. and not of what the People might be forced to do through the Necessity of the Times. under the Dominion of the 5 Medes and Persians. became subject to the Persians as soon as Cyrus took Babylon. constantly acknowledged him the lawful King of Israel. The Jews being conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. but lurked about. Some Commentators on this Place say. 5. and many other infallible Proofs. however. Deut. and in this they copied the Error of the common Chronology.