The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Foreword
• A Note On This Edition
• A Treatise of the Laws of Nature
• To His Excellency, John, Lord Carteret, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland . 1
• The Translator’s Preface
• Names of Subscribers
• Two Introductory Essays
• Essay I: Of the City, Or Kingdom, of God In the Rational World, and the Defects In Heathen Deism
• Essay II: Concerning the Imperfectness of the Heathen Morality
• The Introduction
• A Philosophical Inquiry Into the Laws of Nature , &c. and a Confutation of the Elements of Mr. Hobbes ’s Philosophy .
• Chapter I: Of the Nature of Things .
• Chapter II: Of Human Nature, and Right Reason .
• Chapter III: Of Natural Good .
• Chapter IV: Of the Practical Dictates of Reason .
• Chapter V: Of the Law of Nature, and Its Obligation.
• Chapter VI: Of Those Things Which Are Contain’d In the General Law of Nature.
• Chapter VII: Of the Original of Dominion, and the Moral Virtues.
• Chapter VIII: Of the Moral Virtues In Particular .
• Chapter IX: Corollaries.
• Editor’s Note
• Appendices
• Appendix I: A Summary of the Controversy Between Dr . Samuel Clark and an Anonymous Author, Concerning the Immateriality of Thinking Substance .
• Appendix II: A Treatise Concerning the Obligation, Promulgation, and Observance of the Law of Nature
• Appendix 1. Richard Cumberland’s Original Dedication to De Legibus Naturae
• Appendix 2: Hezekiah Burton’s “address to the Reader”

Appendix II

A Treatise concerning the Obligation, Promulgation, and Observance of the Law of Nature

CHAPTER I.

The Obligation of the Law of Nature.

The Notion of the Law of Nature, according to the Jews.The Law of Nature is a moral Law, discover’d to all Men by the Light of Nature.

The Jews divide the Precepts of their Law into “Intellectual” and “those which are received by Tradition.”1 The former are such Precepts, as, tho’ not written, the Understanding would find out; such as the Precept of honouring Parents, against Homicide, Theft, false Witness, Adultery, and such like.

Christian Fathers, So the Fathers of the Christian Church say. “Before the Law of Moses, written in Tables of Stone, there was an unwritten Law, which was discovered by the Light of Nature.—Before the Jews receiv’d the Law, all Nations and the whole World receiv’d the Law of Nature.—That Law, which is written in the Heart, extendeth to all Nations, and no Man is unacquainted with it.—We have, in our-selves, a natural Discernment of the Good from the Evil.—What is the Law of Nature? Our Conscience hath given us plain Notice of it, and hath made the Knowledge of the Things that are honest, and that are otherwise, to be self-taught.”2

Civilians,The Civilians sometimes, unwarily, extend the Law of Nature to irrational Animals; yet, when they define it properly and accurately, they do it agreeably to the Sense of the Christian Fathers. “The Law of Nature is the Rule of right Agency, which Nature discovers, and flows from natural Affection and Reason.”3

Modern Divines, and School-men,Modern Divines, and School-men, define it thus, “The Law of Nature is that which proceedeth from the Institution of Nature it-self, and this is common to all.”4

and also of the Heathen Philosophers.The learned Heathens define it “Reason from the Nature of Things, which enjoineth the Things which ought to be done, and forbiddeth the contrary.”5 By Aristotle it is call’d, “The Law, which is common to all, that just and unjust, which is by Nature, and common to all.”6

The Notion of the Law of Nature is Twofold;Therefore, the Law of Nature, according to all these Definitions, is, the true Moral Philosophy; a Law of the great Morals of Nature’s Institution. But this great Law must be several Ways distinguish’d: For it must be consider’d, under a two-fold Notion, in a three-fold Respect: In Respect of the Obligation, Promulgation, and Observance of it.

First, in respect of its Obligation.First, in Respect of its Obligation, it is of a two-fold Notion; for the Law of Nature signifieth what is, in its own Nature, Law to all intelligent Agents; and it is, also, Law to all intelligent created Agents, by an Obligation from Authority. But, antecedently to this Obligation from superior Authority, it is of an Obligatory Nature, and must be consider’d as what is, in its own Nature, Matter of Law, or of Obligation; for, that this Law is of this Nature, will appear, as from other Considerations, so from a due Explanation of the Good, which it requireth, and of the Evil, which it forbiddeth.

Of the Meaning of the Word, Good.§2. Altho’ Mankind are, by Nature, furnish’d with, and agree in, the true Notions of Good and Evil, Just and Unjust, Decorous and Indecorous; yet they are not of one Mind about the Application of those Names to the Things themselves, to which they belong; and this is the matter of their Disagreement. There is no Appearance, indeed, of any considerable Disagreement, amongst the ancient Philosophers, touching the Definition of Good: But such a Disagreement there is in the Christian Schools; for the Metaphysicians, and learned Writers of Morality, are not agreed about the Notion of (Bonum) Good, the principal Source of which Disagreement is, an unavoidable Ambiguity in the Word.

For, sometimes, it is used Ironically; because Men are denominated Good, upon account of their Innocence and Harmlessness; hence, among the Heathen, it became a Term of Reproach, and, so us’d, it importeth Silliness. O bone, ne tu frustrere, Horat. Satyr. 2. O bone, num ignoras? Pers. Sat. 6. Bone custos, defensorque Provinciae, Cicer. 7. Ver. 10. Ehodum, bone vir, quid ais? Terent. Andr. 3. 5. 10.7 But, except when the Name Good is thus us’d Ironically, it always denotes, what is to be lik’d, and, in some Degree, commended, either really for sufficient Cause and Reason, or in the Opinion of the Speaker; for so it signifies, even when it is connected with Vices and Crimes. As when we say, A good Pick-pocket, a good Flatterer, it signifies one that is dextrous and expert at picking Pockets and Flattery. Usually Good signifieth (Bonum utile) the profitable Good, as every Tree, that is good for Food, Gen. 2. 9. So we say, A good House, a good Field, good Advice: And as usually it signifieth (Bonum jucundum) the pleasant Good; thus a joyful Day is call’d a good Day, Esth. 9. 22. Thus, also, we say, a good Companion. We say, Security is good, Money is good, a Bargain, Tender, or Grant is good, which is unexceptionable, and, so far, is to be lik’d. When we perform our Promises, we are said to make them Good, what is to be lik’d and allow’d of. If any Man’s Property be taken away, or damaged, Restitution, or Reparation, is call’d making it Good, as what is to be lik’d, and allow’d of, as an Equivalent. When Alexander was dying, his Friends ask’d him, to whom he would leave the Kingdom; his Answer was (ἀρ,ίςῳ) to the best Man, namely, with Respect to military Fortitude, which was a Quality in the highest Esteem among the Greeks, with whom κακὸς signifies a Coward. Usually, Things are denominated Good, with respect to their Size and Measure, which are to be lik’d, and Persons, with respect to their Rank and Degree in the World, in which Sense we say, A goodwhile, a good Way off, good Business, a good Estate, a good Price, Man of good Note, good Rank and Fashion, good Towns, a good Family. Good, therefore, usually signifieth, with respect to Rank and Degree; for, in such sense, Equals are denominated as Good; and the Best Man signifies him, that is highest in Rank and Degree, who, with regard to Esteem, is most to be lik’d, and superiors are styl’d the Betters. So the superior in Strength and Power is, in that respect, the better Man. Amongst the Lawyers [boni & legales homines] good and lawful Men are those who are to be lik’d, and are unexceptionable in Law. Well-born, are those who are of a Rank to be lik’d, with respect to their Birth. Bonus, sometimes, signifies a learned Man. “Viz. bonus & prudens versus reprehendet inertes.” Horat. in Arte Poet. 90.—“Boni quoniam convenimus ambo, Tu calamos inflare leves, ego dicere versus.” Virg. 5. Eclog. “Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.” Horat. in arte Poet. 73. Bonus sometimes signifies propitious, or favourable. “Adsit laetitiae Bacchus dator, & bona Junc.” Virgil I. Aeneid. “Sis bonus ô, faelixque tuis.” Virg. 5. Eclog. 6. Bonus, sometimes, signifies a Benevolent Man. “Vir bonus, qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemini.” Cicer. 3. Offic. “Deus Optimus Maximus, optimus, i.e. Beneficentissimus,” says Cicero 2. de Nat. Deor. 92, and 93. Sometimes a virtuous Man. “—Nemo sine crimine vivit, Optimus ille, qui minimis urgetur.” Horat. Bonus, sometimes, signifies Just, as in the Latin Phrase, Bonum & aquum. We likewise say, Good-nature, good Courage, a good Intention, Good-will, a good Old Age, (that is, such as Men desire to reach,) Anima melior, that is, fitter; “Hanc tibi Erix meliorem animam pro morte Daretis Persolvo.” Virgil. 5. Aeneid. 96.8 So we likewise say, Artes bonae, bonis avilus, a good Climate, a good Cause, a good Condition, a good Conscience, to take in good Part, a good Quantity, a good Event, a good Action, that is, such as ought to be done, good Fame or Name, Good-faith, a good Countenance, a good Family, a good Wrestler, Singer, &c. Good-liking, goodParts, Memory, Judge, Judgment, Journey, good Right, good Reason, &c. In all which Instances, and in numberless more, which might be given, without any Exceptions, that I know of, Good always signifies what is to be lik’d, or approv’d of, in its Kind. Somewhat near the Use of the Name Good, as it is expressive of Rank and Degree, is a peculiar Use of it in our English Language, wherein Things are said to be as good, (without any Intention to say, that they are good) only to signify, that one Thing is little less than the other, not valuably or considerably deficient. For, when we have near finish’d any piece of Work, we say, it is as good as finish’d; when any Thing is well nigh gone, we say, it is as good as lost; and our Translators say of Abraham, Heb. 11. 12. “Him as good as dead,” to signify, that he was little less than dead.

The Metaphysicians Maxim is of great Truth and Certainty; Every Being, as it is a Being, is Good. Every Being, properly so call’d, hath, as its Nature is, a certain Perfection and Form, whereby it is, what it is. And as a Being is that which is of some Kind, so it is that, which is necessarily of a certain Rank and Degree amongst Beings, above Nothing, and better than such a Something, that is worse than Nothing, which is a Good, or Well-being. Existence may be so complicated, as to be, in several respects, worse than Non-Existence; for we love Existence as a Good, and, therefore, prefer not Being before Ill-being. But Existence is, of itself, better than Nothing and Non-existence, and must, therefore, be counted a Good. To which the Schoolmen add, That Good, as an Attribute of Being, denotes that which is perfect. Every Being is without Defect of its essential Perfections, which is well-being, and that which is to be lik’d, as this Word [Good] always signifies.

§3. Good and Evil so far depends upon Perception, that, if there were no Perception of them, they would be of no more Regard or Consideration, than if they were not at all. But, notwithstanding this Connexion between Good and Perception, it ought not to be thus defin’d; “Good is that which is pleasant to a perceptive Life, jointly with the Preservation of the Perceiver.”9 For the Nature and Notion of Good does not consist in being pleasant, but in being worthy to be pleas’d with. This Definition of Good does not belong to the Metaphysical Good of Being in general, before describ’d; nor does it belong to profitable Good, as such, which is often painful and afflictive: Nor can it pretend to be the Definition of the Good of Duty and Virtue, as such; for nothing can be the Good of Duty and Virtue, which is good Practice, merely as pleasant to a Perceptive Life, jointly with the Preservation of the Perceiver. Intelligent Agents must not be told, “That nothing is good, but as it is pleasant to a perceptive Life, jointly with their Preservation.” But they should be told, “That they ought to make the Things that are Good, the matter of their Pleasure; that there is sufficient Cause and Reason, why they should be pleased with them, and that, upon this Account, they are good.” If nothing is good, but as it is pleasant to Perception, there can be no other Good in the Universe, than the Good of Happiness: Nor can the Evil of Sin and Wickedness, as such, be in the World, but only the Evil of Infelicity. But such Definitions of Good and Evil are defective and partial, and much too narrow, to be the Definition of Good and Evil in general; and there is the like Exception against another celebrated Definition of Good, That “Convenience and Inconvenience, to some Body, are the Definitions of Good and Evil. Good is that which is convenient to the Nature of a Thing, or what is not hurtful, but really helpful to Nature.” And Bp. Cumberland himself has given in to this Definition of Good, which is not only faulty, but productive of many Mistakes in the Contemplation of the Law of Nature.10 For,

Cumberland’s Definition of Good, supposes the Nature of Things, not to be Good.(1.) The Nature of Beings is manifestly a Good Antecedent to what is convenient and helpful thereto, preservative or perfective thereof. But, if nothing is good, except only as convenient to the Nature of Beings, their Nature, even the Nature of rational Beings, must not be suppos’d, to be good; and, consequently, there can be no sufficient Reason for, or Obligation to, an universal Love, which is a Summary of the Law of Nature; for it is not possible, much less laudable, to love that which is not suppos’d to be good. The Notion of Good, therefore, must be so large and general11 as to take in the Nature of Beings, especially, of created rational Agents, and, more especially, the Nature of God, who must not be thought good, only as convenient to himself and to us, as some suppose, who yet style him Goodness itself, which Attribute would not belong to him, if he be good only relatively.

2. It is not agreeable to that Notion of Good, which God is. (2.) In our Elogies, both of God and Creatures, Good usually signifieth in such a Sense, as cannot be explain’d by convenient. For we pronounce an Angel, to be superlatively good and excellent, where superlatively good and superlatively excellent are Words of the same Signification, but superlatively good, and superlatively convenient, are not so. So when God is intitul’d, The Supreme Good, the infinite and absolutely perfect Good, the Attribute Good must mean his Excellence. If we should suppose, what is impossible, God to do any thing contrary and destructive to the Godhead; such an Evil would not be merely an Inconvenience to himself, and to the Creatures, but it would be a horrible Wickedness beside. Evil, therefore, is not merely an Inconvenience to himself and to Creatures, therefore Good is not merely a Convenience to these. Men, truly religious, are the Admirers and Lovers of the Deity, and adhere to it by their devotional Esteem and Affection, not merely as supposing it a Convenience to any, but also upon account of its own intrinsick Worth, Excellence, and Pulchritude. That Good, which is merely relative, which is good only as convenient to something, cannot be absolutely the ultimate and final Good, which the Deity is.

3. It makes Self the ultimate End of all Agents. (3.) If nothing be good, but respectively only, as convenient to Nature, there can be no other ultimate End of Things, but Self and a great System of Selves, the Aggregate of all rational Beings. Whatever is good, merely as convenient to something, must be convenient to some or all of these; and it may be either natural Good, or moral Good. If it be natural Good, that is convenient to all these, it is call’d the common or publick Good or Happiness. If it be moral Good, that is convenient to all these, it is call’d Moral Virtue, which moral Good is productive of the natural Good, and is a Means subservient to the common Good and Felicity. “The common Good of all rational Agents is the greatest End.12Virtue is therefore good, because it determines human Actions to such Effects, as are principal Parts of the publick natural Good.13Moral Good is a kind of Profitable Good, which doth effect Delectable Good, the end of all our Actions, the Universal Good.14The general Preservation of Mans natural Good is the sole Root and Fountain of the moral: The universal Profit and Pleasure, the publick Happiness of human Life, giveth Being and Denomination to every Virtue and Vice; and the true Rules and Directions, to preserve and secure that Happiness, make the whole Volume, the Code and Pandect of the Law of Nature.”15 The Law of Nature, according to this Scheme of it, is an Institution of mere publick Self-convenience as the End, and of mere publick Self-convenience as the Means. For the publick Happiness, as such, is nothing else but the common and publick Self-convenience, of which an Aggregate of Selves, and every private Self, in his publick Capacity, is the ultimate End. “Happiness is the End of those good Things possess’d by Man, but Man is the End of Happiness; for we love our Happiness for our own Sake.”16 What Cicero says of Pleasure, must be said of Happiness, “We love it for the Sake of our-selves, but do not love our-selves for the Sake of it.”17 Wherefore, according to this Scheme of the Law of Nature, which supposeth, that nothing is good, but as convenient to Nature, there can be no other End of Things, but natural Self, or an Aggregate of Natural Selves; nor can there be any other ultimate Reason of Things, but private or publick Self-conveniency. And this would really be the State of Things in the Universe, if the whole Universe of rational Beings were Self-existents and Independents, that combin’d of themselves into Society, merely for their common Happiness, and for their own Sake; or, if they were merely political Animals, that were so combin’d into Society by Nature. But in the Kingdom of God, a Kingdom of Virtue and of Holiness, they are not thus combin’d into Society, but they are link’d together by an Adamantine Law of right and due Agency, and, by this legal Necessity, they are obliged, not to be wicked, but to be holy and virtuous. They practise Righteousness and true Holiness, for other ultimate Reasons, than personal Self-respects, and they shun Sin, for other ultimate Reasons, than merely because it is a publick Nusance and Inconvenience. In the Kingdom of God, Holiness and Virtue do not exist merely for the sake of the publick Happiness, nor is the Holiness of God to be considered as a Means to that End, but the publick Happiness existeth for his Holiness and Rectitude of Will.

4. It destroys the Self-eligibleness of Virtue, which it degrades to the Rank of profitable Good.(4.) This Scheme of the Law of Nature, and its Definition of Good, because it supposeth, “That nothing is good, but as convenient to Nature, that Virtue is of the Rank of profitable Good, and is no otherwise Virtue, but as it contributes to this great End, the common Good of rational Agents,” destroyeth the Self-amiableness and Self-eligibleness of Virtue, and the Self-odiousness of Sin and Wickedness. For it does not, nor can, acknowledge any other Beauty in Virtue, than the Fitness of it to this greatest End, the common Happiness of rational Agents; whereas, abstracting from all respect to Happiness or Misery, publick or private, “a foul Action, because it is foul, ought not to be done,” as Cicero18 usually insisteth and inculcateth. Wickedness is to be shun’d, not only as a publick Inconvenience, but for its own intrinsick Turpitude, as all the virtuous Philosophers, in consort with Christians, agree, and that Sin, as such, is to be avoided with an infinite Aversion. “To do an Injury is to be avoided for its own sake, whose Turpitude outweighs all Rewards encouraging to the Commission of Wickedness,” saith Seneca.19 It has been a Question, “Whether Justice be for Society, or Society for Justice? Do Men live in Society, merely that they may live justly? Or, do they live justly, merely that they may live in Society?” Neither of these can be affirmed with Truth, but Men live in Society for Society-sake, the innumerable Benefits of it; and they ought to live in Society for Justice-sake, which obligeth Children to live in Society with their Parents, and rational Beings to live in Society with God. Justice, therefore, is, in part, for its own sake,20 and, in part, for Society; and Society is, partly, for its own sake, and, partly, for Justice-sake. So Virtue is, partly, for Felicity, Holiness for Happiness: Felicity and Happiness are, partly, for Virtue and Holiness. For Virtue and Holiness design and endeavour the publick Happiness, and consist in the faithful Love of the Whole and its Interest; but, besides this Love of the publick Good, there is in all Men a good Disposition, a faithful Esteem and Love of Righteousness, and Hatred to Sin, for their own sakes. They practise Righteousness, ultimately, for Righteousness-sake, because of its own intrinsick Worth, Rectitude, and Pulchritude, “for this sole reason, because it is decorous, right and just.”21 So the virtuous Philosophers call that which is honest, “Self-amiable, Self-laudable, Self-desirable.”22“That which is right and just, is eligible, because it is such.”23 There is more good in Justice, than, merely, a Subserviency to the publick Happiness, and, consequently, it is not good, merely as a Convenience to Nature; else it is nothing better than a Contrivance for living in Society, and for publick Convenience.

5. It introduces a Virtue, not truly moral, but merely politick and prudential. (5.) This Scheme of the Law of Nature, and its Definition of Good, introduceth an Institution of Morality, not truly moral, but merely politick and prudential. For it supposeth, “That all the Acts of the Virtues are commanded, merely for the common Convenience of rational Agents; that the Dictates of Prudence, directing the Actions of Men to the publick Good, are the very Laws of Nature; that the Maker of the World must be suppos’d to be endowed with Prudence, in which there is a Volition of the best and greatest End, the common Good of all rational Agents, and a Prosecution of it by the most effectual Means, in which sort of Acts all Religion and Virtue is contain’d.”24 The Maker of the World is suppos’d, from a Principle of Prudence, to will the greatest End, the common Happiness; and, from the same Principle of Prudence, also to contrive and enjoin the most effectual Means thereto, which are called the “Acts of Religion and Virtue”; and this his prudential Institution of End and Means is the Scheme of the Law of Nature, which, therefore, is not a virtuous, but a political Institution. For it is one thing, to institute Men to live well, only as to a certain Interest; and another thing to institute them to live well, simply and absolutely. A mere prudential Institution of Morality careth neither, for Virtue nor Vice, for living well nor living ill, as such and for their own sake, nor any further than as they promote or hinder the publick Convenience. As if one, who foundeth a Family, should prudentially institute the Members of it to demean themselves humbly, that they may live in peace, without caring, either for Pride or Humility, but only for the common Peace. So this Institution affirmeth, “That the Laws of Nature, and all the Virtues, are nothing else but Means of obtaining the common Good.” It supposeth, “That Virtue is not good, but only as a Means to the common Happiness; and that Vice and Wickedness is not Evil, but as productive of publick Misery,” as will further appear presently.

6. It contradicts this Truth, That Virtue is the Rule and Measure of endeavouring the common Happiness of rational Agents.(6.) This Scheme of the Law of Nature, agreeably to its Definition of Good, supposeth, “That the common Good or Happiness is the whole Rule and Measure of Virtue,” as the adequate End is the Rule and Measure of the Means.25 It supposeth, also, That there is no other Rule or Measure of endeavouring the common Happiness of rational Beings, but “The Will determin’d to this supreme End and Good, to the utmost of its Power.”26 The “eternal Happiness of the whole Universe ought to have the greatest Strength of Volition that can be, which is no less than infinite.”27 Both which Propositions clash with this plain and certain Principle, That Virtue is the Rule and Measure of endeavouring the common Happiness of rational Beings. Which, including our own Happiness, may be sought, merely as an Interest, and, out of Interest, from a Principle of natural and lawful Self-love. But the common Happiness of rational Beings, must be sought also from a principle of Duty and Virtue, and, consequently, it must be sought, only in consistence with Virtue, nor otherwise than Virtue requireth. A Man may not violate Virtue, nor touch with Wickedness, no, not for the Happiness of the Universe. He may, in some degree, part with his own Happiness, which is part of the publick Happiness, and chuse his own Unhappiness, or several Inconveniences of Life; but no Man may chuse Wickedness in any degree, altho’ himself only were the material Object of his Sin; so much greater and stricter are his Obligations with respect to Virtue than Happiness. To chuse Annihilation rather than Sin is a laudable Choice, and it is therefore laudable, because it is virtuous. When Moses wisheth his own Name “blotted out of the Book of Life”;28 when St. Paul saith, “I could wish, that my-self were accursed from Christ, for my Brethren, my Kinsmen according to the Flesh”;29 these holy Men, in some degree, with their own Unhappiness, for the sake of a more publick Happiness; but their wishing is not to be understood absolutely, but with this Restriction and Limitation, so far as it is lawful and virtuous so to do. Virtue, therefore, is the Rule and Measure of endeavouring, both our own, and the publick, Happiness. God himself promotes the publick Happiness, yet cannot be said to do it, “to the utmost of his Power,” but so far as it is fitting so to do. We are obliged to endeavour his Glory, which is one Branch, and the chief, of the publick natural Good; but such a kind of endeavouring it, which is not consistent with Virtue, true Holiness, and Godliness, is not acceptable, but criminal in his Eyes. No pious Frauds. No doing Evil, that Good may come thereof. We are oblig’d to endeavour the Unhappiness of rational Creatures, but so, as to endeavour the Unhappiness of the Apostate Angels, and the Ruin of their Kingdom. And, if any Men be in the same State of Reprobation with the Apostate Angels, by notoriously sinning the Sin unto Death,30 we are not obliged to seek their Happiness.

7. According to Cumberland ’s Scheme, nothing is good but Happiness; other Things, only as productive of Happiness. (7.) According to its Definition of Good, this Scheme of the Law of Nature condemneth the Philosophy of the Stoicks, “Because, whilst they endeavour to establish the transcendent Goodness of Virtue, and the egregious Evil of Vice, they, incautiously, intirely take away the only Reason, why Virtue is Good and Vice Evil. For Virtue is therefore Good, (and in Truth it is the greatest Good,) because it determines the Actions of Men to such Effects, as are principal Parts of the publick natural Good, or Happiness.”31 Agreeably whereto, it is affirm’d, “That the best Compend of Ethicks is the Idea or Plan of that true Happiness, which is in every one’s Power, and of all the Causes thereof, dispos’d in their natural Order.”32 In this Scheme of the Law of Nature, nothing is counted good but Happiness, other Things, only as productive of Happiness; nothing is counted evil, but Misery, other Things, only as productive of Misery. Virtue, therefore, is degraded, to be of the same Rank with Food, Sleep, and Houses, that are good and necessary, as promoting the common Happiness of Mankind; which Happiness is generally suppos’d, to consist merely in Pleasure;33 and, consequently, Virtue is suppos’d to be good, only as subservient to Pleasure, private and publick; therefore the only Competition between Vice and Virtue, must be touching the Pleasure which they afford: And this must be the only Fault of the Pleasures of Sin, they are deficient in matter of Pleasure, or clash with greater Pleasure, as a lesser Good with a greater; no Vice or Villainy is to be discommended, but only as opposite to Pleasure, in itself, or its Effects; and, if it were not opposite to Pleasure, it would not be a Vice, nor at all to be discommended, as Epicurus said of Luxury. Vice and vicious Persons would be as good as Virtue and virtuous Persons, if the Nature of the Universe could be so contrived, that the former could be as subservient to Pleasure as the latter. Accordingly, the Goodness of Virtue and the Law of Nature is said to be no otherwise, nor any further, unalterable, than “whilst the Nature of Things” (that is, of Causes and their Effects) “continues such as now it is.”34 As the same Subserviency to Happiness, so the same Unalterableness, is ascribed to Virtue and to natural Things, (Victuals, Cloaths, Physick,) which are said to be unalterably good, that is, tending to the Preservation and Happiness of Mankind. The Immutability, therefore, of Virtue is not absolute, nor is it of an immutable Nature, in and of itself, as a Square and a Cube, but the Immutability which it hath, is owing to the unchang’d Nature of the Universe, to the Happiness whereof it is a Means subservient.

8. And Virtue is not good, as amiable, but as convenient. (8.) This Scheme of the Law of Nature, agreeably to its Definition of Good, derives the Necessity of Virtue in Men, merely from Necessity of publick Good, which necessarily requires it, and from their being enjoin’d it, merely in Order there to.35 Man must practise universal Benevolence, Justice, Temperance, Chastity, only for this great End. According to this Maxim, the Virtues have nothing to recommend them, at least nothing to necessitate their Practice, but only their necessary Serviceableness to a common Self-Convenience, for which sole Reason the several Clans of Thieves and Robbers strictly practise Justice among themselves. As they practise it, because it is necessary to their common Good, and Injustice would be a grand Inconvenience to their System of rational Agents; so, if Mankind, in general, practise Justice, merely because it is necessary to their common Good, and Injustice would be a grand Inconvenience to their System of rational Agents, altho’ their System, and the Good thereof, is of a different Nature from that of Thieves, yet is not their Respect to Justice and Injustice both of the same Kind?

But these Maxims not only destroy the Self-Amiableness of Virtue, and the Self-Odiousness of Vice, but their being by Nature, not by arbitrary Appointment. For let us suppose, that, antecedently to the Constitution of rational Agents, there was one only solitary Rational in being; this one solitary Rational, according to these Maxims, cannot practise any Virtue, nor is he, in his solitary State, capable, either of Virtue or Vice, which, therefore, are not in themselves necessary. Such they are not, according to these Maxims, after the Universe of rational Beings is constituted; they are necessary, only and merely, for the common Good of this constituted Universe, and by his Will, who, constituting this Universe, appointed them, only and merely, for the common Good thereof. They are, therefore, as arbitrary, as the constituted Universe, and as his Will and Appointment, in constituting the Universe. But whatever is in itself, in its own Nature, Well-doing, the right and due Practice, is, upon that Account and for itself, not merely for publick Good, indispensably necessary, upon that Account it is commanded by God, upon that Account it is Virtue, because it is Well-doing, and not, merely, because it is a promoting the common Good. To endeavour the common Good of rational Beings, is so far from comprehending all Virtue, that, unless our Endeavours to promote this common Good be duly qualified, it is not Virtue, but Vice and Crime. Such is all Benevolence and Beneficence, which is against Righteousness. To benefit another may sometimes be ill-doing, according to that of Ennius in Tullie’ s Offices, Book 2:

• Benefacta male locata malefacta arbitror.36

“I look upon Benefits misplac’d, to be evil Actions.” All are not oblig’d to perpetual and universal Benevolence and Beneficence without Limitation; but all are oblig’d to Righteousness without Limitation; this, therefore, is Virtue, and the Rule of Virtue, which must rule and limit our endeavouring to promote the common Good of rational Agents. Therefore Benevolence is but a Branch of good Life. So the Philosophers suppos’d, who so discoursed of Virtue, as to make Men the Admirers and Lovers of it for its own sake; and so Christians are Admirers and Lovers of the divine Image, the Life of Righteousness and true Holiness.

9. And the Sovereignty of God is not founded upon a sufficient Authority. (9.) This Scheme of the Law of Nature, agreeably to its Definition of Good, deriveth the Dominion and Sovereignty of God himself, merely “from the Necessity of publick Good, God did assume it to himself, because the common Good necessarily requir’d it.”37 But, if the divine Dominion and Sovereignty over all Creatures is thus founded, it is not so well founded as human Sovereignties; for these are founded upon Necessity of publick Good, and also the Law of a superiour Sovereign, from whom they derive their ruling Authority. But the divine Dominion and Sovereignty is suppos’d to be founded, merely, upon Necessity of publick Good, and the Dictate of the divine Mind concerning it. Which Dictate can give no Authority, unless one can give Authority to himself, merely, by the Dictate of his own Mind; nor can it pretend to be a Law, unless one can make a Law antecedently to his Sovereignty and legislative Power; nor are any oblig’d to be subject to this assum’d Sovereignty, founded merely upon the Necessity of the publick Good, but by the great Law of endeavouring the publick Good, which, therefore, must be made antecedently to this Assumption of the Sovereignty, and, consequently, it must be made by one, that had no Sovereignty, no legislative Power. To this assumed Dominion and Sovereignty, assumed merely from Necessity of common Good and in order thereto, he cannot claim our Subjection, save only from Necessity of the common Good, and in Order thereto. But, if this is the whole of the divine Dominion and Sovereignty, he is far from having the most supreme Dominion possible, which the Deity must have; nor hath he the supreme governing Power originally and essentially, for he could not have it, if the common Good did not require it; it accrueth to him adventitiously and derivatively; he is not sole Owner of his own Dominion, nor is it independent or plenary; but all is the Publick’s, the Publick is necessarily supreme Lord of all, for whatever Dominion God has, is from the Publick, from the Necessity of publick Good; for the Publick, for the sake of the Publick, and the Use thereof. But thus to derive his Dominion and Sovereignty from the Necessity of publick Good, is to say, that he must be God, merely because the publick Good requires it; for his Dominion and Sovereignty is his Godhead.

10. But a subordinate and subservient Means to the common Good. (10.) This Scheme of the Law of Nature, agreeably to its Definition of Good, makes God’s Dominion and Sovereignty, a subordinate and subservient Means to the publick Good. For it supposes “all Rights and Dues to be deriv’d from the common Good, and to be Means subordinate and subservient there to”;38 it supposes, “That the divine Dominion and Sovereignty is in Order to the common Good, and the Means necessary to the obtaining thereof. ”39 The Means are subordinate and subservient to the End; the End always excells the Thing which is to the End; the End is always desir’d for itself, the Means for the End, which are necessary, when the End cannot be had without them, not otherwise; they have their Goodness and Measure from it, and the Reason of them is taken from the End. The End has a greater Sovereignty in all Actions, than the Actor himself; he rules others, but the End rules him. The common Good of rational Agents, therefore, is highly dignified, because it is suppos’d, to be the End, the best and greatest End.40 But, with respect to this, we must distinguish between a made and unmade, a human and divine, Sovereignty. If the Sovereignty is a human Sovereignty made by the People, or made by God for the People, altho’ it has all the usual Rights of Sovereignty, yet it is necessarily, in the strict and proper Sense, a subordinate and subservient Means to an End, the common Good. But Things are quite otherwise, if the Sovereignty is unmade, and maketh the People, and is infinitely better than they; for such a Sovereignty is necessarily unsubordinate, and cannot be the subordinate and subservient Means to any End, but is, absolutely, as without an Efficient, so without any Final Cause. Whence a Judgment may be form’d; whether a pious Man would say, “That the common Good is a Law and End above God, that his Goodness is but a Means to it, that he is no further necessary, than in order to it; not so good, or great, or excellent, or amiable, or honourable, as the publick Good; nor are we to love him, or devote ourselves to him, or to adhere to him, so much as the common Good, in which we ought finally to acquiesce, which is thus exalted, even above God himself.”

11. And only one half of the common Good is represented as such. (11.) In this Scheme of the Law of Nature, agreeably to its Notion of Good, but one half of the common Good is represented, as such; for, by the common Good of rational Agents, it means only their Happiness, to which it renders God and Virtue subordinate. Whereas the common Good of rational Beings must be distinguish’d, into the Good which is for them, which is their Happiness, and into the Good which they are for, which is their Holiness, the Good of Virtue. “That which is absolutely good, is every way superior to us, and we ought always to be commanded by it, because we are made under it: But that which is relatively good to us, may sometime be commanded by us. Eternal Truth and Righteousness are, in themselves, perfectly and absolutely good, and the more we conform ourselves to them, the better we are.”41 If the Deity, if Virtue and Righteousness, were only relatively good, as convenient and commodious to us, if they were merely for us, as their End, they must be look’d upon as Things merely subservient to our Pleasure, and must be esteemed and loved accordingly. But, because they are absolutely and in themselves good, superior to us and our Pleasure, therefore our Pleasure ought to be accommodated to them, and all rational Agents should take the highest Complacence in them, both for their own sake, their own Excellence, and for our sake, as being our true Excellence and Felicity. “We love the Virtues for the sake, both of themselves, as being in themselves excellent and honourable; and of something else, that is, our Happiness.”42 So the Pagans philosophize at a more virtuous Rate, than those Christian Divines, who say, “There is some first and chief Good, which a Man desireth for itself, and for it all other Things, which Good is the Good of Pleasure, or the delectable Good. For this Good only a Man enjoyeth. Of the Good of Honesty, Profit, Decorum, there is in itself no Enjoyment. Only the Pleasure which resulteth from it, or is conjoin’d with it, a Man can enjoy. The Evil, contrary to this Good, can be nothing else but Misery or Pain, and that perpetual. For there is no Man, who does not hate that at the highest rate, and all other Things upon the account of it.”43 With this Discourse of a foreign Divine, I will confront a better and more religious Discourse of a Divine of our own, “Those are ignorant of the Nature of Sin, that imagine any Evil greater than it, or so great. Cicero’s Saying, in the first Book of his Tusculan Questions, hath, without doubt, not a little of Truth in it. Ne malum quidem ullum, cum Turpitudinis malo comparandum. There is no Evil comparable to that of Sin. Hierocles, a sober Philosopher, and very free from the high-flown Humour and ranting Genius of the Stoicks, though he would allow, that other Things, beside Sin, may be χαλεπὰ καὶδυσδιάθετα, very grievous and difficult to be borne, yet he would admit nothing besides, to be, ὄντως κακὸν, truly evil; and he giveth this Reason; viz. Because that certain Circumstances may make other Things Good, that have the Repute of Evil; but none can make this so. He saith, the Word καλῶς (well) can never be join’d with any Vice, but so it may with every Thing besides. As it is proper to say concerning such or such a Person, νοσεῖκαλῶς, ϖένεται καλῶς he is well diseas’d, he is well poor, that is, he is both these to good purpose, behaving himself well in his Sickness and Poverty, as he ought to do: But it can never be said, ἀδικεῖ καλῶς, ἀκολας αίνει καλῶς, he doth Injury well, or he is rightly and as becometh him intemperate.”44

12. And the Order of our Obligation is inverted. (12.) In this Scheme of the Law of Nature, agreeably to its Notion of Good, the due Order of Reasoning and of our Obligations is inverted. For, antecedently to the Law of endeavouring the common Good, there is an Obligation upon Mankind, and therefore a Law, of conscientious Subjection and Obedience to the Authority of the Lawgiver. He would not make this Law for them, if they were not antecedently under such an Obligation, if he could not claim Subjection and Obedience from them. Their Subjection to this the supreme Lawgiver is, therefore, the first Law of Nature. As all Governments, in the first Place, take care, to establish their Authority; and as a Man is bound to acknowledge Subjection to the King, before he is bound to obey the Law of endeavouring the common Good of the Kingdom: So Mankind are first oblig’d to consent, to be Subjects to God, and then, as his Subjects, to endeavour the common Good. The Order of their Obligations is not, to endeavour the common Good in the first Place, and so to be pious and virtuous towards God; but to be pious and virtuous towards God, and so to endeavour the common Good; for, if they endeavour the common Good, they are bound to do it, from a Principle of Piety towards God; and the Law of Nature is not Religion, if it does not oblige them to it. So in all our Actions Inquiry must be made, whether they be right in respect of Matter, Manner, Object, Measure, Principle, End, Circumstances, which sort of Inquiries would be impertinent, if Virtue is not Virtue, but merely as it is an Endeavour of the common Good. The Law of Nature instituteth Men, in the first Place, to be the Well-doers, not the Evil-doers, the Righteous, not the Wicked, and as such, Men have Rewards promis’d, and Punishments threaten’d in Laws; as such, they are justified or condemned in Law. Ethicks is the Art of living well, as to Virtue, and as to Felicity.

(13.) And Laws have no Obligation, but their Sanction. (13.) This Scheme of the Law of Nature, agreeably to its Definition of Good, seems to acknowledge no other Obligation of it, but merely from the Sanction of it, which is Self-Interest. “The whole Force of Obligation” (saith Cumberland45 ) “is this, that the Legislator hath annex’d to the Observance of his Laws, Good; to the Transgression, Evil; and those natural: In Prospect whereof Men are moved to perform Actions, rather agreeing than disagreeing with the Laws. The Mind of Man is not properly tied with Bonds. ...46I think that moral Obligation may be thus universally and properly defin’d. Obligation is that Act of a Legislator, by which he declares, that Actions conformable to his Law are necessary to those, for whom the Law is made. An Action is then understood to be necessary to a rational Agent, when it is certainly one of the Causes necessarily requir’d to that Happiness, which he naturally, and consequently necessarily, desires. I cannot conceive any Thing which could bind the Mind of Man with any Necessity, (in which Justinian’s Definition places the Force of Obligation,) except Arguments proving, that Good or Evil will proceed from our Actions.47Natural Rewards and Penalties, those Motives of Obedience, are the proper Sanction, to make the Law obligatory. For Obligation properly signifieth nothing, but laying a Necessity upon us, to act according to the Direction of the Law.”48 So that, according to this Scheme, the Law-giver is suppos’d to indicate to Men, “That the endeavouring the common Good, or universal Benevolence, is a necessary Means to that End, which Nature has determin’d them to pursue, which is their own Happiness contain’d in the common Good, and that, if they do not so act, this will be pernicious to themselves.” But, if this be the whole of the Law’s Obligation, the Transgression of the Law is not Unrighteousness, Sin, and Crime, but only Imprudence, and Infelicity, for the Sanction of the Law importeth no other Evil. But the Obligation or Bond of the Law is the jural Restraint, which is express’d by (Non licet) you may not do it; but, because a bare non licet or prohibition is not sufficient to enforce the Law, therefore the Sin and Punishment, the Precept and the Sanction both concur, to make the jural Restraint, which must be thus fully express’d,(Non licet impune) you may not do it with Impunity. But, altho’ Sin and Punishment are closely connected, yet the Obligation of (non licet) it may not be done, is distinct from the Obligation of (Non impune) not with Impunity, as Sin and Punishment are of distinct Consideration. But a Man is bound, both when he cannot do a Thing without Sin, and when he cannot do a Thing without Punishment, and both these Obligations are in every Law, and both concur to make the Obligation of it. But, because the Obligation of non licet is antecedent to the Obligation of non impune, the Precept to the Sanction, and the Sin is made by the Law, the Law hath so much Obligation, as to make the Sin, before the Penalty is enacted; therefore the Law has an Obligation antecedently to the Sanction of it. For every one is bound to avoid what is Sin, because none can have a Right to do what is unrighteous, which is a Contradiction to the Law of Religion (which is suppos’d to have its Name a Religando, which is call’d [Religionis nodus, vinculum Pietatis] the Tie of Religion, the Bond of Piety) cannot rationally be thought obligatory, merely from the Sanction of it; for to do any Thing contrary to the Holiness of the Deity, is necessarily, and in itself, Sin. No ingenuous Man looks upon himself as oblig’d to be grateful to his Benefactors, to love his Wife and Children, or to love and honour his God and Saviour, merely by the Sanction of Rewards and Punishments. Is there no Obligation upon Men from Right and Wrong, due and undue, Sanctity and Sin, Righteousness and Wickedness, Honesty and Dishonesty, Integrity and Guile, Worthiness and Baseness, Conscience or Crime, Virtue or Villainy, but merely from a prudent Regard to their own Happiness? But, if a Man should be so imprudent, as to discard all care and regard to his own Happiness, would he be discharg’d by this Imprudence from all his Bonds and Fetters of Obligation, and become loose and unbound, to live as he pleas’d? Cicero asketh the Men of Prudence, if they were secure from the Sanction of the Law, whether they would be dishonest or not?49 If they say, they would, let them (saith he) confess themselves wicked; if they say, they would not, let them acknowledge, that all Things foul and base are to be shun’d, because they are such. If a truly wise Man had Gyges’s Ring, “He thinketh not, that he hath more License to Sin, than if he had it not. We ought to be of this Persuasion, that, if we could be hid from all the Gods and Men,” (and, therefore, were secure from the Sanction of the Law,) “yet nothing is to be done avaritiously, unjustly, libidinously.”50 The Vulgar say, I am bound in Duty, in Justice, in Gratitude, in Conscience; and the Schools say, “That the Obligation of the Law of Nature is a Bond of Conscience.” According to our Author’s Scheme, a Man is oblig’d to choose to be annihilated for the Welfare of others, if the common Good did require it; which yet no Man can be oblig’d to do, out of regard to his own Happiness. Nor is it possible, to deduce a conscientious Obligation, merely from a Politick and Prudential regard to our own Happiness. But, because the Legislator annexes [honum jucundum] delectable Good to his Law, and, for the Sake of this, Men choose Virtue and Obedience; hence some infer, That delectable Good hath the precedence of [bonum honestum] the Good of Virtue; which Argument may be thus retorted. The Legislator annexes to his Law the Sanction of the Good of Pleasure, for the Sake of the Good of Virtue, which the Law enjoineth; this, therefore, is the principal in the Estimation and Intention of the Law-giver. Whose Will, if it be made known, is, without a Sanction, a Bond or Obligation upon us; for we owe Obedience thereto, and every one is bound to pay what he oweth.

(14.) And the Law of Nature is not Matter of Conscience, but Prudence; not a spiritual, but a civil Institution. (14.) The Law of Nature is certainly a Matter of Conscience, not of mere Policy and Prudence, not of mere civil Society, as it is made in this Scheme of it, which is a System of human Policy and Prudence, modelling the Universe of rational Agents into a civil Society, by Consent and Agreement in their Politicks, for the common Happiness of civil Life. The Universe of rational Agents is in a very divided State, but they are modell’d into one Society in this Scheme,51 which is an Institution to civil Society, into which the whole Universe of rational Agents is suppos’d to be combin’d. Civil Society, being Civil-religious, is not without a sacred Society; for all Civil People have their Deity, their Religion, their Priests, and their Sacra, which must be in this great Civil-Society, which consisteth of the Under-rational Agents, and of God the Head-rational, which looketh like, but is not, a Divine Society. Into this Society the Universe of rational Agents is suppos’d to be combin’d, not by the Bands of Right and Due, but in the Methods of human Policy and Prudence, by one common Interest (their common Happiness) and by Consent and Agreement in their Politicks. The Universe of rational Beings is suppos’d to be united, in order to the common Good, which is the common End. For God, in order to the common Good, assumeth to himself the supreme governing Power, and the under-rationals, for Necessity of common Good, do and must yield it unto him;52 by which Agreement in Politicks they are related as Rector and Subjects in Society. Which Society, being of no higher Kind than Civil, the common Happiness (that is, the End of the Association) can be no more than the Happiness of Civil Life; and, consequently, the universal Benevolence, and the other Virtues, which are in this Scheme of the Law of Nature, are no other, than those of Aristotle’s and Cicero’s Institution. This, therefore, being not satisfactory, we are obliged to recede from it, and to give a different Account of the Law of Nature, and of the Good, to which it instituteth.

What follows from my Lord Shaftesbury seems to me so just, so rational, and so much in Confirmation of what I have been here advancing, that I have thought it proper to add the Force of his Reasoning to what I have laid down.

I have known a Building, which by the Officiousness of the Workmen has been so shor’d, and screw’d up, on the side where they pretended it had a Leaning, that it has, at last, been turn’d the contrary way, and overthrown. There has something, perhaps, of this kind happen’d in Morals. Men have not been contented to shew the natural Advantages of Honesty and Virtue. They have rather lessen’d these, the better, as they thought, to advance another Foundation. They have made Virtue so mercenary a Thing, and have talk’d so much of its Rewards, that one can hardly tell what there is in it, after all, which can be worth rewarding. For to be brib’d only, or terrify’d into an honest Practice, bespeaks little of real Honesty or Worth. We may make, it’s true, whatever Bargain we think fit; and may bestow in favour what Overplus we please. But there can be no Excellence or Wisdom in voluntarily rewarding what is neither estimable, nor deserving. And, if Virtue be not really estimable in it-self, I can see nothing estimable in following it for the sake of a Bargain.53

If the Love of doing Good, be not, of it-self, a good and right Inclination; I know not how there can possibly be such a thing as Goodness or Virtue. If the Inclination be right; ’tis a perverting of it, to apply it solely to the Reward, and make us conceive such Wonders of the Grace and Favour which is to attend Virtue; when there is so little shewn of the intrinsick Worth or Value of the Thing it-self.

I have known it ask’d, Why should a Man be honest in the Dark? What a Man must be to ask this Question, I won’t say. But for Those, who have no better a Reason for being honest, than the Fear of a Gibbet or a Jail; I should not, I confess, much covet their Company, or Acquaintance. And, if any Guardian of mine who had kept his Trust, and given me back my Estate when I came of Age, had been discover’d to have acted thus, thro’ Fear only of what might happen to him; I should for my own Part, undoubtedly, continue civil and respectful to him: But for my Opinion of his Worth, it would be such as the Pythian God had of his Votary, who devoutly fear’d him, and therefore restor’d to a Friend what had been deposited in his Hands.

• Reddidit ergo metu, non moribus; & tamen omnem
• Vocem adyti dignam templo, veranique probavit,
• Extinctus tot â pariter cum prole domoq;54

I know very well, that many Services to the Publick are done merely for the sake of a Gratuity; and that Informers, in particular, are to be taken care of, and sometimes made Pensioners of State. But I must beg pardon for the particular Thoughts I may have of these Gentlemens Merit; and shall never bestow my Esteem on any other than the voluntary Discoverers of Villany, and hearty Prosecutors of their Country’s Interest. And in this respect, I know nothing greater or nobler, than the undertaking and managing some important Accusation; by which some high Criminal of State, or some form’d Body of Conspirators against the Publick, may be arraign’d and brought to Punishment, thro’ the honest Zeal and publick Affection of a private Man.

I know too, that the mere Vulgar of Mankind often stand in need of such a rectifying Object as the Gallows before their Eyes. Yet I have no Belief, that any Man of a liberal Education, or common Honesty, ever needed to have recourse to this Idea in his Mind, the better to restrain him from playing the Knave. And, if a Saint had no other Virtue, than what was rais’d in him by the same Objects of Reward and Punishment, in a more distant State; I know not whose Love or Esteem he might gain besides: But for my own part, I should never think him worthy of mine.55

As to the Belief of a Deity, and how Men are influenc’d by it; we may consider, in the first place, on what account Men yield Obedience, and act in conformity to such a Supreme Being. It must be either in the way of hisPower, as presupposing some Disadvantage or Benefit to accrue from him: or in the way of hisExcellency and Worth, as thinking it the Perfection of Nature to imitate and resemble him.

If (as in the first Case) there be a Belief or Conception of a Deity, who is consider’d only as powerful over his Creatures and inforceing Obedience to his absolute Will by particular Rewards and Punishments; and, if on this account, thro’ Hope merely of Reward, or Fear of Punishment, the Creature be incited to do the Good he hates, or restrain’d from doing the Ill to which he is not otherwise in the least degree averse; there is in this Case (as has been already shown) no Virtue or Goodness whatsoever. The Creature, notwithstanding his good Conduct, is intrinsically of as little Worth, as if he acted in his natural way, when under no Dread or Terrour of any sort. There is no more of Rectitude, Piety, or Sanctity in a Creature thus reform’d, than there is Meekness or Gentleness in a Tyger strongly chain’d, or Innocence and Sobriety in a Monkey under the Discipline of the Whip. For, however orderly and well those Animals, or Man himself upon like Terms, may be induc’d to act, whilst the Will is neither gain’d, nor the Inclination wrought upon, but Awe alone prevails and forces Obedience; the Obedience is servile, and all which is done thro’ it, merely servile. The greater degree of such a Submission or Obedience, is only the greater Servility; whatever may be the Object. For, whether such a Creature has a good Master, or an ill one, he is neither more nor less servile in his own nature. Be the Master or Superiour ever so perfect, or excellent, yet the greater Submission caus’d in this Case, thro’ this sole Principle or Motive, is only the lower and more abject Servitude, and implies the greater Wretchedness and Meanness in the Creature, who has those Passions of Self-Love so predominant, and is in his Temper so vitious and defective, as has been explain’d.

As to the second Case. If there be a Belief or Conception of a Deity, who is consider’d as Worthy and Good, and admir’d and reverenc’d as such; being understood to have, besides mere Power and Knowledg, the highest Excellence of Nature, such as renders him justly amiable to All; and, if in the manner this Sovereign and mighty Being is represented, or as he is historically describ’d, there appears in him a high and eminent regard to what is good and excellent, a Concern for the good of All, and an Affection of Benevolence and Love towards the Whole; such an Example must undoubtedly serve (as above explain’d) to raise and increase the Affection towards Virtue, and help to submit and subdue all other Affections to that alone.

Nor is this Good effected by Example merely. For, where the Theistical Belief is intire and perfect, there must be a steddy Opinion of the Superintendency of a Supreme Being, a Witness and Spectator of human Life, and conscious of whatsoever is felt or acted in the Universe: So that in the perfectest Recess, or deepest Solitude, there must be One still presum’d remaining with us; whose Presence, singly, must be of more moment, than that of the most August Assembly on Earth. In such a Presence, ’tis evident, that, as the Shame of guilty Actions must be the greatest of any; so must the Honour be, of well-doing, even under the unjust Censure of a World. And in this Case, ’tis very apparent how conducing a perfect Theism must be to Virtue, and how great Deficiency there is in Atheism.

What the Fearof future Punishment, and Hopeof future Reward, added to this Belief, may further contribute towards Virtue, we come now to consider more particularly. So much in the mean while may be gather’d from what has been said above; That neither this Fear or Hope can possibly be of the kind call’d good Affections, such as are acknowledg’d the Springs and Sources of all Actions truly good. Nor can this Fear or Hope, as above intimated, consist in reality with Virtue, or Goodness; if it either stands as essential to any moral Performance, or as a considerable Motive to any Act, of which some better Affection ought, alone, to have been a sufficient Cause.

It may be consider’d withal; That, in this religious sort of Discipline, the Principle of Self-Love, which is naturally so prevailing in us, being no-way moderated, or restrain’d, but rather improv’d and made stronger every day, by the exercise of the Passions in a Subject of more extended Self-Interest; there may be reason to apprehend, lest the Temper of this kind shou’d extend it-self in general thro’ all the Parts of Life. For, if the Habit be such as to occasion, in every Particular, a stricter Attention to Self-Good, and private Interest; it must insensibly diminish the Affections towards Publick Good, or the Interest of Society; and introduce a certain Narrowness of Spirit, which (as some pretend) is peculiarly observable in the devout Persons and Zealots of almost every religious Perswasion.

This, too, must be confess’d; That, if it be true Piety, to love Godfor his own sake, the over-solicitous regard to private Good expected from him, must of necessity prove a diminution of Piety. For, whilst God is belov’d, only as the Cause of private Good, he is no otherwise belov’d, than as any other Instrument or Means of Pleasure by any vitious Creature. Now the more there is of this violent Affection towards private Good, the less room is there for the other sort towards Goodness it-self, or any good and deserving Object, worthy of Love and Admiration for its own sake; such as God is universally acknowledg’d, or at least by the generality of civiliz’d or refin’d Worshippers.

’Tis in this respect that the strong Desire and Love of Life may also prove an Obstacle to Piety, as well as to Virtue and publick Love. For the stronger this Affection is in any one, the less will he be able to have true Resignation, or Submission to the Rule and Order of The Deity. And, if that which he calls Resignation depends only on the expectation of infinite Retribution or Reward, he discovers no more Worth or Virtue here, than in any other Bargain of Interest: The meaning of his Resignation being only this, “That he resigns his present Life, and Pleasures, conditionally for That which he himself confesses to be beyond an Equivalent; eternal Living, in a State of highest Pleasure and Enjoyment.”

But, notwithstanding the Injury which the Principle of Virtue may possibly suffer, by the Increase of the selfish Passions, in the way we have been mentioning; ’tis certain, on the other side, that the Principle of Fear of future Punishment and Hope of future Reward, how mercenary or servile soever it may be accounted, is yet, in many Circumstances, a great Advantage, Security, and Support to Virtue.

It has been already consider’d, that, notwithstanding there may be implanted in the Heart a real Sense of Right and Wrong, a real good Affection towards the Species or Society; yet, by the violence of Rage, Lust, or any other counter-working Passion, this good Affection may frequently be controul’d and overcome. Where therefore there is nothing in the Mind capable to render such ill Passions the Objects of its Aversion, and cause them earnestly to be oppos’d; ’tis apparent, how much a good Temper in time must suffer, and a Character by degrees change for the worse. But, if Religion interposing creates a Belief, that the ill Passions of this kind, no less than their consequent Actions, are the Objects of a Deity’s Animadversion; ’tis certain, that such a Belief must prove a seasonable Remedy against Vice, and be in a particular manner advantageous to Virtue. For a Belief of this kind must be suppos’d to tend considerably towards the calming of the Mind, and disposing or fitting the Person to a better Recollection of himself, and to a stricter Observance of that good and virtuous Principle, which needs only his Attention, to engage him wholly in its Party and Interest.

And as this Belief of a future Reward and Punishment is capable of supporting those who thro’ ill Practice are like to apostatize from Virtue; so when by ill Opinion and wrong Thought, the Mind it-self is bent against the honest course, and debauch’d even to an Esteem, and deliberate Preference of a vitious one; the Belief of the kind mention’d may prove on this occasion the only Relief and Safety.

A Person, for Instance, who has much of Goodness and natural Rectitude in his Temper, but withal, so much Softness, or Effeminacy, as unfits him to bear Poverty, Crosses or Adversity; if by ill Fortune he meets with many Trials of this kind, it must certainly give a Sourness and Distaste to his Temper, and make him exceedingly averse to that which he may falsly presume the Occasion of such Calamity or Ill. Now, if his own Thoughts, or the corrupt Insinuations of other Men present it often to his Mind, “That his Honesty is the Occasion of this Calamity, and that if he were deliver’d from this Restraint of Virtue and Honesty, he might be much happier”: ’Tis very obvious that his Esteem of these good Qualities must, in Proportion, diminish every Day, as the Temper grows uneasy, and quarrels with it-self. But, if he opposes to this Thought the Consideration, “That Honesty carries with it, if not a present, at least a future Advantage, such as to compensate that Loss of private Good which he regrets”; then may this Injury to his good Temper and honest Principle be prevented, and his Love or Affection towards Honesty and Virtue remain as it was before.

In the same manner, where instead of Regard or Love, there is rather an Aversion to what is good and virtuous (as, for Instance, where Lenity and Forgiveness are despis’d, and Revenge highly thought of, and belov’d) if there be this Consideration added, “That Lenity is, by its Rewards, made the cause of a greater Self-Good and Enjoyment than what is found in Revenge”; that very Affection of Lenity and Mildness may come to be industriously nourish’d, and the contrary Passion depress’d. And thus Temperance, Modesty, Candour, Benignity, and other good Affections, however despis’d at first, may come at last to be valu’d for their own Sakes, the contrary Species rejected, and the good and proper Object belov’d and prosecuted, when the Reward or Punishment is not so much as thought of.

Thus in a civil State or Publick, we see that a virtuous Administration, and an equal and just Distribution of Rewards and Punishments, is of the highest service; not only by restraining the Vitious, and forcing them to act usefully to Society; but by making Virtue to be apparently the Interest of every one, so as to remove all Prejudices against it, create a fair Reception for it, and lead Men into that Path which afterwards they cannot easily quit. For thus a People rais’d from Barbarity or despotick Rule, civiliz’d by Laws, and made virtuous by the long Course of a lawful and just Administration; if they chance to fall suddenly under any Misgovernment of unjust and arbitrary Power, they will on this Account be the rather animated to exert a stronger Virtue, in opposition to such Violence and Corruption. And even where, by long and continu’d Arts of a prevailing Tyranny, such a People are at last totally oppress’d, the scatter’d Seeds of Virtue will for a long time remain alive, even to a second Generation; e’er the utmost Force of misapply’d Rewards and Punishments can bring them to the abject and compliant State of long-accustom’d Slaves.

But, tho’ a right Distribution of Justice in Government be so essential a cause of Virtue, we must observe in this Case, that it is Example which chiefly influences Mankind, and forms the Character and Disposition of a People. For a virtuous Administration is in a manner necessarily accompany’d with Virtue in the Magistrate. Otherwise it cou’d be of little effect; and of no long duration. But, where it is sincere and well-establish’d, there Virtue and the Laws must necessarily be respected and belov’d. So that as to Punishments and Rewards, their Efficacy is not so much from the Fear or Expectation which they raise, as from a natural Esteem of Virtue, and Detestation of Villany, which is awaken’d and excited by these publick Expressions of the Approbation and Hatred of Mankind in each Case. For in the publick Executions of the greatest Villains, we see generally that the Infamy and Odiousness of their Crime, and the Shame of it before Mankind, contribute more to their Misery than all besides; and that it is not the immediate Pain, or Death it-self, which raises so much Horror either in the Sufferers or Spectators, as that ignominious kind of Death which is inflicted for publick Crimes, and Violations of Justice and Humanity.

And as the Case of Reward and Punishment stands thus in the Publick, so, in the same manner, as to private Families. For Slaves and mercenary Servants, restrain’d and made orderly by Punishment, and the Severity of their Master, are not, on this account, made good or honest. Yet the same Master of the Family, using proper Rewards and gentle Punishments towards his Children, teaches them Goodness; and by this help instructs them in a Virtue, which afterwards they practice upon other Grounds, and without thinking of a Penalty or Bribe. And this is what we call a Liberal Education and a Liberal Service: The contrary Service and Obedience, whether towards God or Man, being illiberal, and unworthy of any Honour or Commendation.

In the Case of Religion, however, it must be consider’d, that if by the Hope of Reward be understood the Love and Desire of virtuous Enjoyment, or of the very Practice and Exercise of Virtue in another Life; the Expectation or Hope of this kind is so far from being derogatory to Virtue, that it is an Evidence of our loving it the more sincerely and for its own sake. Nor can this Principle be justly call’d selfish: For if the Love of Virtue be not mere Self-Interest, the Love and Desire of Life for Virtue’s sake cannot be esteem’d so. But, if the Desire of Life be only thro’ the Violence of that natural Aversion to Death; if it be thro’ the Love of something else than virtuous Affection, or thro’ the Unwillingness of parting with something else than what is purely of this kind; then is it no longer any sign or Token of real Virtue.

Thus a Person loving Life for Life’s sake, and Virtue not at all, may, by the Promise or Hope of Life, and Fear of Death, or other Evil, be induc’d to practise Virtue, and even endeavour to be truly virtuous, by a Love of what he practises. Yet neither is this very Endeavour to be esteem’d a Virtue. For tho’ he may intend to be virtuous; he is not become so, for having only intended, or aim’d at it, thro’ Love of the Reward. But, as soon as he is come to have any Affection towards what is morally good, and can like or affect such Good for its own sake, as good and amiable in it-self; then is he in some degree good and virtuous, and not till then.

Such are the Advantages or Disadvantages which accrue to Virtue from Reflexion upon private Good or Interest. For, tho’ the Habit of Selfishness, and the Multiplicity of interested Views, are of little Improvement to real Merit or Virtue; yet there is a Necessity for the Preservation of Virtue, that it should be thought to have no quarrel with true Interest, and Self-Enjoyment.

Whoever, therefore, by any strong Persuasion, or settled Judgment, thinks in the main, That Virtue causes Happiness, and Vice Misery, carries with him that Security and Assistance to Virtue which is requir’d. Or, tho’ he has no such Thought, nor can believe Virtue his real Interest, either with respect to his own Nature and Constitution, or the Circumstances of human Life; yet, if he believes any Supreme Powers concern’d in the present Affairs of Mankind, and immediately interposing in behalf of the Honest and Virtuous, against the Impious and Unjust; this will serve to preserve in him, however, that just Esteem of Virtue, which might otherwise considerably diminish. Or should he still believe little of the immediate Interposition of Providence in the Affairs of this present Life; yet if he believes a God dispensing Rewards and Punishments to Vice and Virtue in a future, he carries with him still the same Advantage and Security; whilst his Belief is steddy, and no-wise wavering or doubtful. For it must be observ’d, that an Expectation and Dependency, so miraculous and great as this, must naturally take off from other inferior Dependencies and Encouragements. Where infinite Rewards are thus inforc’d, and the Imagination strongly turn’d towards them, the other common and natural Motives to Goodness are apt to be neglected, and lose much by Dis-use. Other Interests are hardly so much as computed, whilst the Mind is thus transported in the Pursuit of a high Advantage and Self-Interest, so narrowly confin’d within our-selves. On this account, all other Affections, towards Friends, Relations, or Mankind, are often slightly regarded, as being worldly, and of little moment, in respect of the Interest of our Soul. And so little thought is there of any immediate Satisfaction arising from such good Offices of Life, that it is customary with many devout People zealously to decry all temporal Advantages of Goodness, all natural Benefits of Virtue; and magnifying the contrary Happiness of a vitious State; to declare, “That, except only for the sake of future Reward, and fear of future Punishment, they would divest themselves of all Goodness at once, and freely allow themselves to be most immoral and profligate.” From whence it appears, that in some respects there can be nothing more fatal to Virtue, than the weak and uncertain Belief of a future Reward and Punishment. For the Stress being laid wholly here, if this Foundation come to fail, there is no further Prop or Security to Men’s Morals. And thus Virtue is supplanted and betray’d.56

Tho’ the disinterested Love of God be the most excellent Principle, yet, by the indiscreet Zeal of some devout well-meaning People, it has been stretch’d too far, perhaps, even to Extravagance and Enthusiasm, as formerly among the Mysticks of the antient Church, whom these of latter Days have follow’d. On the other hand, there have been those, who, in Opposition to this devout Mystick way, and as profess’d Enemies to what they call Enthusiasm, had so far exploded every thing of this ecstatick kind, as, in a manner, to have given up Devotion; and, in reality, have left so little of Zeal, Affection, or Warmth, in what they call their rational Religion, as to make them much suspected of their Sincerity in any. For, tho’ it be natural enough for a mere political Writer to ground his great Argument for Religion, on the Necessity of such a relief, as that of a Future Reward and Punishment; yet ’tis a very ill Token of Sincerity in Religion, and in the Christian Religion more especially, to reduce it to such a Philosophy, as will allow no room to that other Principle of Love; but treats all of that Kind as Enthusiasm, for so much as aiming at what is call’d Disinterestedness, or teaching the Love of God or Virtue for God or Virtue’s Sake.

Here, then, we have Two Sorts of People, who, in these opposite Extremes, expose Religion to the Insults of its Adversaries. For as, on one hand, ’twill be found difficult to defend the Notion of that high-rais’d Love, espous’d with so much Warmth by those devout Mysticks; so, on the other hand, ’twill be found as hard a Task, upon the Principles of these cooler Men, to guard Religion from the Imputation of Mercenariness, and a slavish Spirit. For how shall one deny, that to serve God by Compulsion, or for Interest merely, is Servile and Mercenary? Is it not evident, that the only true and liberal Service paid, either to that Supreme Being, or to any other Superior, is that “which proceeds from an Esteem or Love of the Person serv’d, a Sense of Duty or Gratitude, and a Love of the dutiful and grateful Part, as good and amiable, in it-self ?” And where is the Injury to Religion, from such a Concession as this? Or what Detraction is it from the Belief of an After-Reward or Punishment, to own, “That the Service caus’d by it, is not equal to that which is voluntary and with Inclination, but is rather disingenuous and of the slavish kind?” Is it not still for the Good of Mankind and of the World, that Obedience to the Rule of Right should, some way or other, be paid; if not in the better way, yet, at least, in this imperfect one? And is it not to be shewn, “That, altho’ this Service of Fear be allow’d ever so low or base: Yet Religion still being a Discipline, and Progress of the Soul towards Perfection, the Motive of Reward and Punishment is primary, and of the highest Moment with us; ’till being capable of more sublime Instruction, we are led from this servile State, to the generous Service of Affection and Love?”

To this we ought all of us to aspire, so as to endeavour, “That the Excellence of the Object, not the Reward or Punishment, should be our Motive: But that where, thro’ the Corruption of our Nature, the former of these Motives is found insufficient to excite to Virtue, there the latter should be brought in Aid, and on no account be undervalu’d or neglected.”

Now this being once establish’d, how can Religion be any longer subject to the Imputation of Mercenariness? But thus we know Religion is often charg’d. “Godliness, say they, is great Gain: Nor is God devoutly serv’d for nought.”—Is this therefore a Reproach? Is it confess’d there may be a better Service, a more generous Love?—Enough, there needs no more. On this Foundation it is easy to defend Religion, and even that devoutest Part, which is esteem’d so great a Paradox of Faith. For, if there be in Nature such a Service as that of Affection and Love, there remains then only to consider of the Object, whether there be really that Supreme-One we suppose. For, if there be Divine Excellence in Things; if there be in Nature a Supreme Mind or Deity; we have then an Object consummate, and comprehensive of all which is Good or Excellent. And this Object, of all others, must of Necessity be the most amiable, the most engaging, and of highest Satisfaction and Enjoyment. Now, that there is such a principal Object as this in the World, the World alone (if I may say so) by its wise and perfect Order must evince. Thus far the Lord Shaftesbury.57

That Good, to which the Law of Nature instituteth, is the Beauteous-Beneficial.§IV. The Good, to which the Law of Nature, and the Discipline of Morality, instituteth, is the good Life and Practice, of which there are many Branches, the Notion whereof is compounded of Two Notions, Beauteous-Beneficial. As the Works of Nature, are therefore said to be Good, because the Make of them is Beauteous-Beneficial. “For all the Parts of the World are so constituted, that they could not be better, either for Beauty or Usefulness.”58 The Lacedemonians had regard for both these, when they pray’d for [oulchra cum bonis] Things good and comely. The Antient Philosophers had regard to both these in their Definitions of Good and Evil. “All the good things are those that are profitable, conducive, beauteous, comely, cognate; but the Evils are the contrary, those things that are hateful, noxious, incommodious, alien, uncomely, and foul.” So Perfections in general, are ornamental, and useful, agreeably whereto the good Morals must be defin’d the Beauteous-Beneficial. “The Grecians, most divinely” (saith Judicious Mr. Hooker)59“have given to the active Perfection of Men, a Name expressing both Beauty and Goodness (καλοκ’ ἀγαθία) because Goodness, in ordinary Speech, is for the most part applied only to that which is beneficial; but we, in the Name of Goodness, do here imply both.” Good, therefore, in Morality, the good of Virtue, is τὸ καλοκ’ ἀγαθὸν the Beauteous-Beneficial Life and Practice. “Aristotle teacheth that all the Virtues are compriz’d τῇ καλοκ’ ἀγαθία, in what is Beautifully-beneficent.”60

Its Beauty;What is Beauteous is amiable, and is to be lik’d and lov’d; whence it is called τὸ καλὸν which signifieth it to be both Beauteous and Good; in both which Significations the Word is frequently us’d. Agreeably to this, the Nature of Good is to consist in these three things in Modo, in Specie, in Ordine; in Measure, in Comeliness, in Order, all which are certain Modes of Beauty.61“The good of Honesty [bonum honestum] is laudable for its Beauty and Form.62Wherein appeareth an Ornament and gracefulness of Life, Temperance, Modesty, a quieting of Perturbations, and a due measure of things, which is τὸ ϖρέπον, that which is decorous.63How come we to understand what is Virtue? By seeing the Order and Decorum that is in it.64Virtue is so graceful, that even bad Men approve of better things.”65 Of the excellent Beauty of Justice Aristotle saith, “Neither the Evening nor the Morning is so admirable.66Virtue sendeth its Light into the Minds of all, even they that are no Followers of it, yet see it.”67 Virtue is an Honourableness, as well as Amiableness, of Practice, whence it hath the Name of Honestas. Vice and Wickedness is that which is “foul, dishonest, indecorous, bad, flagitious, filthy,”68 that is, Foulness and Deformity, the Crookedness and Obliquity of Practice. The various Names, which the Philosophers, in concurrence with the generality of Mankind, have given to the virtuous practice, denote its Regularity and Beauty. τὸ εὖ, that which is well, τὸ δέον, that which ought to be, τὸ ϖρέπον, that which is decorous, τὸ ἴσον, that which is equal, τὸ καλὸν, that which is fair, τὸ ἁρμοζὸν, that which is fit, congruous, proportionate, τὸ ’Ορθὸν, that which is right.

We have all a Sense of what is naturally graceful and becoming. There is an Ear in Musick, an Eye in Painting, a Fancy in the ordinary things of Ornament and Grace, a Judgment in Proportions of all kinds; and a good Taste in most of those Subjects, which make the Amusement and Delight of the Ingenious.

How do we admire Beauty in the inanimate World, in Architecture, Musick, Stones, Metals, Vegetables, Mountains, Vales, Rivers; the terraqueous Globe, our whole solar System, and probably others like innumerable? Rising to the animate World, How do admire Beauty in a Dog, a Horse, a Hawk?

But, of all Beauties, the most delightful, the most engaging and pathetick, is that which is drawn from real Life, and from the Passions; such as the Beauty of Sentiments, the Grace of Actions, the Turn of Characters, and the Proportions and Features of a human Mind. What is the Beauty of Poetry, but, “In Vocal Measures of Syllables and Sounds to express the Harmony and Numbers of an inward Mind, and represent the Beauties of a Human Soul, by proper Foils and Contrarieties, which serve as Graces in this Limning, and render this Musick of the Passions more powerful and enchanting?”

Whoever has any Impression of what we call Politeness, is already so acquainted with the Decorum and Grace of Things, that he will readily confess a Pleasure and Enjoyment in every Survey and Contemplation of this Kind. Now, if in the way of Polite Pleasure, the Study and Love of Beauty be essential; the Study and Love of Sympathy and Order, on which Beauty depends, must also be essential in the same respect.

’Tis impossible we can advance the least in any Relish or Taste of outward Symmetry or Order, without acknowledging, that the proportionate and regular State, is the truly Prosperous and Natural in every Subject. The same Features, which make Deformity, create Incommodiousness and Disease. And the same Shapes and Proportions which make Beauty, afford Advantage, by adapting to Activity and Use. Even in the imitating or designing Arts, the Truth or Beauty of every Figure or Statue is measured from the Perfection of Nature, in her just adapting of every Limb and Proportion to the Activity, Strength, Dexterity, Life and Vigor of the particular Species or Animal design’d.

All Beauty is Truth. True Features make the Beauty of the Face, and True Proportions the Beauty of Architecture, as True Measures that of Harmony and Musick.

Thus Beauty and Truth are plainly join’d with the Notion of Utility and Convenience, even in the Apprehension of every ingenious Artist, the Architect, the Statuary, and the Painter. ’Tis the same in the Physicians Way. Natural Health is the just Proportion, Truth, and regular course of Things, in a Constitution. ’Tis the inward Beauty of the Body. And when the Harmony and just Measures of the rising Pulses, the circulating Humours, and the Spirits are disturbed or lost, Deformity enters, and with it Calamity and Ruin.

Should not this, one would imagine, be still the same Case, and hold equally as to the Mind? Is there nothing there, which tends to Disturbance and Dissolution? Is there no Natural Tenor, Tone or Order of the Passions? No Beauty or Deformity in this Moral kind? or, allowing that there really is, must it not of consequence, in the same manner, imply Health or Sickness, Prosperity or Disaster? Will it not be found in this respect above all, “That what is Harmonious and Proportionable, is True; and what is at once both Beautiful and True, is, of consequence, Agreeable and Good ”?

There is nothing more certain, than that a real Genius, and thorow Artist, in whatever kind, can never without the greatest Unwillingness and shame, be induc’d to act below his Character, and for mere Interest, be prevail’d with to prostitute his Art or Science, by performing contrary to its known Rules. Whoever has hear’d any thing of the Lives of famous Statuaries, Architects, or Painters, will call to Mind many Instances of this Nature. Or whoever has made any Acquaintance with the better Sort of Mechanicks, such as are real Lovers of their Art, and Masters in it, must have observ’d their Natural Fidelity in this respect. Be they ever so idle, dissolute or debauch’d; how regardless soever of other Rules; they abhor any Transgression in their Art, and would chuse to lose Customers and starve, rather than, by a base Compliance with the World, to act contrary to what they call the Justness and Truth of Work.

“Sir, (said a poor Fellow of this kind to his rich Customer,) You are mistaken in coming to me, for such a Piece of Workmanship. Let who will make it for you, as you fancy; I know it to be Wrong. Whatever I have made hitherto, has been true Work. And neither for your sake or any bodies else, shall I put my Hand to any other.”

This is Virtue! real Virtue, and Love of Truth; independent of Opinion, and above the World. This Disposition transferr’d to the whole of Life, perfects a Character, and makes that Probity and Worth, which the Learned are often at such a loss to explain. For, is there not a Workmanship, and a Truth in Actions? Or is the Workmanship of this kind less becoming, or less worthy of our Notice; that we should not in this Case be as surly as the honest Artizan, who has no other Philosophy, than what Nature and his Trade have taught him?

Who can admire the outward Beauties; and not recur instantly to the inward, which are the more real and essential, the more naturally affecting, and of the highest Pleasure, as well as Profit and Advantage? Of which the Roman Orator thus expresses himself. “Honestum is what may be justly Commended upon its own Account, tho’ destitute of any Advantage or Reward; which what it is, cannot be so well understood from any Definition as from the common Sentiments of Mankind; from the Pursuits and from the Actions of the Virtuous, who do many things for no other Reason, but because it is Decent, Right, Honest, tho’ they see no Advantage to ensue.” The Men of Pleasure, who seem the greatest Contemners of this Philosophical Pleasure, are found often to confess her Charms; they can as heartily as others commend Honesty, and are as much struck with the Beauty of a generous Part. See Ld. Shaftesbury’s Characteristicks Vol. 1.p. 135 &c. p. 142. p. 261, 262. Vol. 3. p. 182, &c. See also a further Explanation and Defence of these Principles by the Author of the Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue.69

Its Beneficialness.§V. Virtue is likewise the good Life and Practice, upon account of its Beneficialness and Utility, to which some have erroneously confin’d the Notion of Good. But, without confining thereto the Notion of Good, the Philosophers observe, “That Good, in common Acceptation, is Profit.” Which is agreeable to the common Sense of Mankind; for we all desire Profit. In their private Capacity, Mankind are intent upon their private Profit, and in their publick Capacity, upon their common Profit; for Laws are made for the common Profit, which is the End of the Society. What is profitable and beneficial, useful and needful, altho’ it be only wholesome, not sightly nor pleasant, for sufficient Cause and Reason ought to be liked, and is therefore Good. “He is a good Man (saith Cicero70 ) who profiteth whom he can, is hurtful to none.” The several Branches of Vice are mischievous and maleficial, simply and absolutely. In enormous Selfishness, Malevolence, Pride, Ambition, Fraud, Guile, Perfidiousness, Envy, Avarice, Circumvention, Wrath, Enmity, Calumny, Theft, Cruelty, Homicide, Profaneness and Contempt of God, and in all unjust and uncharitable Actions, there is a deadly Maleficent Deformity. The Definition, therefore, of the vicious Life and Practice, is the foul and ill-favour’d maleficial; as, on the contrary, the virtuous Life and Practice is the Beauteous-Beneficial. All the Branches of it are absolutely beneficial, and not only of Utility, but indispensible Necessity, to the Happiness of every one and of all. Thus Purity and Charity are, in Religion, inseparably connected, and the Connexion of them is a joining Beauty with Beneficialness. Now, tho’ the Beneficialness of the good Life may, in a large Acceptation of Beauty, be call’d the Beauteousness thereof; yet, in the strict Acceptation, these are distinguish’d, as the Beauty of the Rose is distinguish’d from its Medicinal Virtue.

He, therefore, is the good Man, who is voluntarily benevolent to others thro’ goodness of Affection, whence it will be proper to examine, which are the good and natural, and which the ill and unnatural, Affections, which I find already excellently-well done to my Hand by the noble Author lately quoted. Charact. Vol. 2. Pag. 22, &c.

In the first Place then, it may be observ’d, that if there be an Affection towards any Subject consider’d as private Good, which is not really such, but imaginary; this Affection, as being superfluous, and detracting from the Force of other requisite and good Affections, is in it-self vitious and ill, even in respect of the private Interest or Happiness of the Creature.

If there can possibly be suppos’d in a Creature such an Affection towards Self-Good, as is actually, in its natural degree, conducing to his private Interest, and at the same time inconsistent with the publick Good; this may indeed be call’d still a vitious Affection: And on this Supposition a Creature cannot really be good and natural in respect of his Society or Publick, without being ill and unnatural towards Himself. But