In conclusion, I would say, estimating the works of Hobbes from their general scope and bearing, and not from individual or insulated passages, that there is nothing in them decidedly hostile to good morals, civil liberty, or sound religion. Many circumstances have conspired to throw a cloudy haziness over his name and reputation, and to induce a contrary opinion amongst a considerable portion of ethical writers; but when we come to make due allowance for the heated zeal which results from political feuds and religious bigotry, we will be better able to draw aside the veil of misrepresentations which has so long hid his merits from public view. His popularity has suffered from two principal circumstances. In the first place, he incurred, by his attachment to the cause of Charles the First, and by the general tone of his political writings, the ill-will and hatred of all those who were struggling for national freedom, and who at that time could not endure the slightest opposition; and by his religious speculations, he rendered himself obnoxious to the catholic party, whose religion he ridiculed with

in literature. "Hobbes and Locke, who maintained the selfish theory of morals, lived irreproachable lives; though the former lay not under any restraint of religion which might supply the defects of his philosophy." Hume's Inquiry respecting the Principles of Morals, p. 331.

great coarseness and severity. The united hostility of these two formidable bodies followed him to the termination of his earthly career; and long after his death, his writings continued to be the topic of general animadversion by authors of very opposite moral and political views, who had followed in the wake of Hobbes' immediate cotemporaries, and who had imbibed a considerable portion of that party and angry spirit which more turbulent and troublesome times had created. Added to all this, the scarcity of his books, some of which seem to have been published more for the gratification of his private friends than for general use. Several of them were also written in the Latin language, a circumstance which also contributed not a little to confine their knowledge within a narrow sphere. It has been justly observed by Mr. Stewart, that Hobbes' writings possess the rare merit of engrossing the reader's attention, and of exciting the mind to thought and reflection; an infallible sign, he adds, of a writer possessing original genius.

CHAPTER V.

A TREATISE CONCERNING ETERNAL AND IMMUTABLE MORALITY.

DR. RALPH CUDWORTH.

RALPH CUDWORTH was born at Aller, in Somer setshire, in 1617, of which place his father was rector. He was early admitted a pensioner of Emanuel Hall, Cambridge; in which university he was matriculated in 1632. In 1642 he published "a Discourse concerning the true Nature of the Lord's Supper." In 1654, he was chosen master of Christ's College, Cambridge; in which place he spent the remainder of his days. He published, in 1678, his great work "On the true Intellectual System of the Universe;" a work which has handed down his fame to posterity. He died in 1688, in the seventy-first year of his age. He left several books in manuscript, but one only has been printed since his death, namely, the one at the head of this

essay.

The "Treatise concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality" was not published till 1732, long after the author's death. It was edited by Dr. Chandler, the then bishop of Durham. This work of Dr. Cudworth, is the only one published which professes to treat of morality as a distinct branch of science.

To furnish the reader with a key to understand the general nature and scope of all Dr. Cudworth's writings, his "Intellectual System," as well as the work immediately under notice, it will be necessary to make him acquainted with the leading purpose that the Doctor had in view, that of removing infidelity and scepticism. These he assumed rested solely upon the doctrine of necessity, "as upon their proper foundation." Whether this opinion, to maintain which his whole writings were directed, be true to the full extent, is a matter of no moment for us here to inquire. It is sufficient for our present purpose to know, that he considered the various uses to which the doctrine of philosophical necessity was generally applied as very prejudicial to the true interests of morality and religion.

The necessity against which he so strenuously contended, assumed, in his opinion, three different shapes or aspects. 1st. We have material or na

tural fate, which entirely excludes all notions of Deity whatever, by supposing there is nothing in the universe but mere matter, 2d. The theological or divine necessity, which assumes the separate nature and existence of an intellectual Being, yet maintains that that Being has decreed and determined all things, whether good or evil, so that nothing could have been different from what we find it to be. Sd. The stoical fate, or necessity, affirmed that all things depended upon an eternal chain of causes and effects, proceeding necessarily from the first great Being, who had preordained every thing, so that there was nothing left to liberty or contingency.

The first, or material necessity, is discussed at great length in Dr. Cudworth's voluminous and learned work "On the Intellectual System of the Universe;" but the last two species of fate he has enumerated are but slightly alluded to in that performance. This treatise on immutable morality is intended to supply the place of the brief notice given to the theological and stoical fates in his principal publication.

We find Dr. Cudworth's principles laid down pretty fully in his second chapter in his "Eternal Morality." He says, "wherefore in the first place,