ſuperadd any freſh obligation in foro conſcientiae to abſtain from it’s perpetration. Nay, if any human law ſhould allow or injoin us to commit it, we are bound to tranſgreſs that human law, or elſe we muſt offend both the natural and the divine. But with regard to matters that are in themſelves indifferent, and are not commanded or forbidden by thoſe ſuperior laws; ſuch, for inſtance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the inferior legiſlature has ſcope and opportunity to interpoſe, and to make that action unlawful which before was not ſo.
If man were to live in a ſtate of nature, unconnected with other individuals, there would be no occaſion for any other laws, than the law of nature, and the law of God. Neither could any other law poſſibly exiſt; for a law always ſuppoſes ſome ſuperior who is to make it; and in a ſtate of nature we are all equal, without any other ſuperior but him who is the author of our being. But man was formed for ſociety; and, as is demonſtrated by the writers on this ſubject[1], is neither capable of living alone, nor indeed has the courage to do it. However, as it is impoſſible for the whole race of mankind to be united in one great ſociety, they muſt neceſſarily divide into many; and form ſeparate ſtates, commonwealths, and nations; entirely independent of each other, and yet liable to a mutual intercourſe. Hence ariſes a third kind of law to regulate this mutual intercourſe, called “the law of nations;” which, as none of theſe ſtates will acknowlege a ſuperiority in the other, cannot be dictated by either; but depends entirely upon the rules of natural law, or upon mutual compacts, treaties, leagues, and agreements between theſe ſeveral communities: in the conſtruction alſo of which compacts we have no other rule to reſort to, but the law of nature; being the only one to which both communities are equally ſubject: and therefore the civil law[2] very juſtly obſerves, that quod naturalis ratio inter omnes homines conſtituit, vocatur jus gentium.
