Some person will perhaps say—should not the wise man, then, if himself famished with hunger, wrest food from another, some good-for-nothing fellow? By no means; for my life is not more useful to me, than such a disposition of mind that I would do violence to no man for the sake of my own advantage. What! If a worthy man could despoil Phalaris, a cruel and outrageous tyrant, of his garments, that he might not himself perish with cold, should he not do it? These points are very easy to decide. For if you will wrongfully take away anything from a good-fornothing man for the sake of your own interest, you will act unsociably and contrary to the law of nature. But if you be one who can bring much advantage to the state, and to human society if you remain in life, it may not deserve to be reprehended should you wrongfully take anything upon that account from another. But if that be not the case, it is rather the duty of each to bear his own misfortune, than wrongfully to take from the comforts of another. Disease, then, or poverty, or anything of this sort, is not more contrary to nature than is the wrongful taking or coveting what is another's. But the desertion of the common interest is contrary to nature, for it is unjust. Therefore, the very law of nature which preserves and governs the interest of men,

omnipotence are requisite for the full exertion of it; the one to discover every degree of uprightness or iniquity in thoughts, words, and actions; the other to measure out and impart suitable rewards and punishments.

"As to be perfectly just is an attribute in the divine nature, to be so to the utmost of our abilities is the glory of a man. Such a one who has the public administration in his hands, acts like the representative of his Maker, in recompensing the virtuous and punishing the offender. By the extirpating of a criminal he averts the judgments of Heaven when ready to fall upon an impious people; or, as my friend Cato expresses it much better in a sentiment conformable to his character :

"When by just vengeance impious mortals perish,

The gods behold their punishment with pleasure,
And lay th' uplifted thunderbolt aside.'

it

When a nation loses its regard to justice; when they do not look upon as something venerable, holy, and inviolable; when any of them dare presume to lessen affront, or verify those who have the distribution of it in their hands; when a judge is capable of being influenced by any thing but law, or a cause may be recommended by any thing that is foreign to its own merits, we may venture to pronounce that such a nation is hastening to its ruin."-Guardian, No, 99.

decrees undoubtedly that things necessary for living should be transferred from an inert and useless fellow to a wise, good, and brave man, who, if he should perish, would largely take away from the common good; provided he do this* in such a manner, that he do not, through thinking well of himself, and loving himself, make this an excuse for committing injustice. Thus will he always discharge his duty, advancing the interests of mankind, and that human society of which I so often make mention.† Now, as to what relates to Phalaris, the decision is very easy; for we have no society with tyrants, but rather the widest separation from them ; nor is it contrary to nature to despoil, if you can, him

* That is, provided he transfer to himself the necessaries of life from a worthless person.

"In a loose and general view," says Godwin, "I and my neighbour are both of us men; and of consequence entitled to equal attention. But, in reality, it is probable that one of us is a being of more worth and importance than the other. A man is of more worth than a beast, because, being possessed of higher faculties, he is capable of a more refined and genuine happiness. In the same manner the illustrious Archbishop of Cambray was of more worth than his valet, and there are few of us that would hesitate to pronounce, if his palace were in flames, and the life of only one of them could be preserved, which of the two ought to be preferred. But there is another ground of preference, besides the private consideration of one of them being farther removed from the state of a mere animal. We are not connected with one or two percipient beings, but with a society, a nation, and in some sense with the whole family of mankind. Of consequence that life ought to be preferred which will be most conducive to the general good. In saving the life of Fenelon, suppose at that moment he conceived the project of his immortal Telemachus, I should have been promoting the benefit of thousands who have been cured by the perusal of that work of some error, vice, and consequent unhappiness. Nay, my benefit would extend further than this; for every individual thus cured, has become a better member of society, and has contributed in his turn to the happiness, information, and improvement of others. Suppose I had been myself the valet, I ought to have chosen to die rather than Fenelon should have died; the life of Fenelon was really preferable to that of the valet. But understanding is the faculty that perceives the truth of this and similar propositions, and justice is the principle that regulates my conduct accordingly. It would have been just in the valet to have preferred the archbishop to himself; to have done otherwise would have been a breach of justice. Suppose the valet had been my brother, my father, or my benefactor, this would not alter the truth of the proposition. The life of Fenelon would still be more valuable than that of the valet; and justice, pure and unadulterated justice, would still have preferred that which was most valuable. Justice would have taught me to save the life of Fenelon at the expense of the other."-Political Justice, book ii. chap. ii.

whom it is a virtue to slay-and this pestilential and impious class ought to be entirely exterminated from the community of mankind. For as certain limbs are amputated, both if they themselves have begun to be destitute of blood, and, as it were, of life, and if they injure the other parts of the body, so the brutality and ferocity of a beast in the figure of a man, ought to be cut off from the common body, as it were, of humanity.

Of this sort are all those questions in which our duty is sought out of the circumstances of the case.

VII. In this manner, then, I think Panætius would have pursued these subjects, had not some accident or occupation interrupted his design; for which same deliberations there are in his former books rules sufficiently numerous, by which it can be perceived what ought to be avoided on account of its baseness, and what therefore need not be avoided, because it is not at all base. But since I am putting, as it were, the top upon a work incomplete, yet nearly finished, as it is the custom of geometers not to demonstrate everything, but to require that some postulates be granted to them, that they may more readily explain what they intend, so I ask of you, my Cicero, that you grant me, if you can, that nothing except what is virtuous is worthy to be sought for its own sake. But if this be not allowed you by Cratippus,* still you will at least grant that what is virtuous is most worthy to be sought for its own sake. Whichever of the two you please is sufficient for me, and sometimes the one, sometimes the other, seems the more probable; nor does anything else seem probable.†

And in the first place, Panatius is to be defended in this, that he did not say that the really expedient could ever be opposed to the virtuous (for it was not permitted to him to say so), but only those things which seemed expedient. But

* Cratippus, as a Peripatetic, held that virtue was not the only good, but that other things, such as health, &c. were good, and therefore to be sought for their own sakes, though in a less degree than virtue; or, in other words, the Peripatetics admitted natural as well as moral good-the Stoics did not.

That is to say, he does not admit the probability of the correctness of such as Epicurus, or Hieronymus, &c. who held that pleasure, the absence of pain, &c. were worth seeking on their own account

Because he was a Stoic.

he often bears testimony that nothing is expedient which is not likewise virtuous-nothing virtuous which is not likewise expedient; and he denies that any greater mischief has ever attacked the race of men than the opinion of those persons who would separate these things. It was not, therefore, in order that we should prefer the expedient to the virtuous, but in order that we should decide between them without error, if ever they should come in collision, that he introduced that opposition which seemed to have, not which has, existence. This part, therefore, thus abandoned, I will complete with no help, but, as it is said, with my own forces For there has not, since the time of Panatius, been anything delivered upon this subject, of all the works which have come to my hands, that meets my approbation.

VIII. When, therefore, any appearance of expediency is presented to you, you are necessarily affected by it; but if, when you direct your attention to it, you see moral turpitude attached to that which offers the appearance of expediency, then you are under an obligation not to abandon expediency, but to understand that there cannot be real expediency where there is moral turpitude; because, since nothing is so contrary to nature as moral turpitude (for nature desires the upright, the suitable, and the consistent, and rejects the reverse), and nothing is so agreeable to nature as expediency, surely expediency and turpitude cannot co-exist in the same subject. And again, since we are born for virtue, and this either is the only thing to be desired, as it appeared to Zeno, or is at least to be considered weightier in its entire importance than all other things, as is the opinion of Aristotle, it is the necessary consequence, that whatever is virtuous either is the only, or it is the highest good; but whatever is good is certainly useful-therefore, whatever is virtuous is useful.* Wherefore, it is an error

The following parallel passage will not only show how nearly the ethics of Cicero approach to those of a Christian philosopher, but will also suggest the reason why they are not entirely coincident. "It is sufficiently evident," says Dymond, upon the principles which have hitherto been advanced, "that considerations of utility are only so far obligatory, as they are in accordance with the moral law. Pursuing, however, the method which has been adopted in the two last chapters, it may be observed that this subserviency to the Divine will, appears to be required by the written revelation. That habitual preference of futurity to the present time which

of bad men, which, when it grasps at something which seems useful, separates it immediately from virtue. Hence spring stilettos, hence poisons, hence forgery of wills, hence thefts, embezzlements, hence robberies and extortions from allies and fellow citizens, hence the intolerable oppressions of excessive opulence—hence, in fine, even in free states, the lust of sway, than which nothing darker or fouler can be conceived. For men view the profits of transactions with false judgment, but they do not see the punishment-I do not say of the laws, which they often break through, but of moral turpitude itself, which is most severe. Wherefore, this class of sceptics should be put out of our consideration (as being altogether wicked and impious), who hesitate whether they should follow that which they see is virtuous, or knowingly contaminate themselves with wickedness. For the guilty deed exists in the very hesitation, even though they shall not have carried it out. Therefore, such matters should not be at all deliberated about, in which the very deliberation is criminal; and also from every deliberation the hope and idea of secrecy and concealment ought to be removed. For we ought to be sufficiently convinced, if we have made any proficiency in philosophy, that even though we could conceal any transaction from all gods and men, yet that nothing avaricious should be done, nothing unjust, nothing licentious, nothing incontinent.

IX. To this purpose Plato introduces that celebrated Gyges, who, when the earth had opened, in consequence of

Scripture exhibits, indicates that our interests here should be held in subordination to our interests hereafter; and as these higher interests are to be consulted by the means which revelation prescribes, it is manifest that those means are to be pursued, whatever we may suppose to be their effects upon the present welfare of ourselves or of other men. If in this life only we have hope in God, then are we of all men most miserable.' And why did they thus sacrifice expedieney? Because the communicated will of God required that course of life by which human interests were apparently sacrificed. It will be perceived that these considerations result from the truth (too little regarded in talking of expediency' and 'general benevolence'), that utility as respects mankind cannot be properly consulted without taking into account our interests in futurity. Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,' is a maxim of which all would approve if we had no concerns with another life. That which might be very expedient if death were annihilation, may be very inexpedient now."Essay on Morality, Essay I. chap. III.

K