Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:28:45.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

JEAN BARBEYRAC, SUPEREROGATION, AND THE SEARCH FOR A SAFE RELIGION*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2014

GREG CONTI
GREG CONTI*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Harvard University E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Jean Barbeyrac was dismayed by the intrusion of theological controversy into the study of modern natural law theory. Yet the longest of the many annotations that he included in his own edition of Grotius was concerned with a theological matter. In this footnote, Barbeyrac attacked Grotius's understanding of Christian ethics as supererogatory; that is, as containing a distinction between the dictates of duty and the counsels of a higher holiness or perfection. The heart of his objection to this view was that it had pernicious psychological effects, that it fostered bigotry and immorality. He reiterated this psychological concern in his later work on the Christian Fathers. This objection to the real-world damages caused by the theory of supererogation was closely linked to his fear of skepticism and his quarrel with Bayle. Barbeyrac's rejection of supererogation also places him within an important strand of early modern thinking about the moral psychology of religion and about the ways in which religious belief could become an obstacle to moral behavior.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Intellectual History , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , April 2016 , pp. 1 - 31
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author would like to thank Sophia Rosenfeld and the three anonymous reviewers for MIH, as well as Sungho Kimlee, Eric Nelson, Erik Nordbye, Will Selinger, and Richard Tuck.

References

1 For example, in his Principes du droit naturel of 1747 Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui clearly thought of Barbeyrac's views as distinguishable from those of Grotius and Pufendorf; see e.g. Part I, chapter 10, section VI. Burlamaqui, Jean-Jacques, Principles of Natural and Political Law, ed. PetterKorkman (Indianapolis, 2006), 106–7Google Scholar.

2 Hochstrasser notes that Barbeyrac's “commentaries and notes,” in this as in his other translations, “were often considered as valuable as the texts themselves” by contemporaries. See Hochstrasser, T. J., “The Claims of Conscience: Natural Law Theory, Obligation and Resistance in the Huguenot Diaspora,” in Laursen, J. C., ed., New Essays on the Political Thought of the Huguenots of the Refuge (Leiden, 1995), 15–51, 39Google Scholar.

3 Haakonssen, Knud, “German Natural Law,” in Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler, eds., The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought (Cambridge, 2006), 251–90, 254Google Scholar.

4 From Barbeyrac's perspective “there is a lot to emend, in Pufendorf's principles, before they can be turned into a coherent defence for toleration”; see Petter Korkman, “Barbeyrac and Natural Law” (PhD diss., Åbo akademi, 2001), 38. For an overview of Barbeyrac's theory of toleration, including his areas of agreement with and dissent from Pufendorf, see Lomonaco, Fabrizio, Tolleranza e libertà di coscienza: Filosofia, diritto e storia tra Leida e Napoli nel secolo XVIII (Naples, 1999), esp. chap. 2Google Scholar.

5 See e.g. Rosenblatt, Helena, Rousseau and Geneva (Cambridge, 1997), chap. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hunter, Ian, “Conflicting Obligations: Pufendorf, Leibniz, and Barbeyrac on Civil Authority,” History of Political Thought, 25/4 (2009), 670–99Google Scholar; Hochstrasser, T. J., “Conscience and Reason: The Natural Law Theory of Jean Barbeyrac,” Historical Journal, 36/2 (1993), 289–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hochstrasser, T. J. and Schröder, Peter, “Introduction,” in Hochstrasser and Schröder, eds., Early Modern Natural Law Theories: Context and Strategies in the Early Enlightenment (Dordrecht, 2003), ix–xvi, xCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tuck, Richard, The Rights of War and Peace (Oxford, 1999), 181–2Google Scholar; Saunders, David, “The Natural Jurisprudence of Jean Barbeyrac: Translation as an Art of Political Adjustment,” Eighteenth-Century Studies, 36/4 (2003), 473–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Korkman, “Barbeyrac and Natural Law,” 12, 13.

7 Ibid., 16; De Vet, J. J. V. M., “Jean Leclerc, an Enlightened Propagandist of Grotius’ De Veritate Religionis Christianae,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis, 64/2 (1984), 160–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Tuck, Richard, “Grotius and Selden,” in Burns, J. H. and Goldie, Mark, eds., The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700 (Cambridge, 1991), 518Google Scholar.

9 Barbeyrac, Le droit de la guerre et de la paix (Leiden, 1759)Google Scholar, II.xx.50, 1045 n. 1. This posthumous edition of Barbeyrac's translation has been employed throughout. The book, chapter, section, and note numbers correspond both to those in Barbeyrac's French text and (unless otherwise noted) to those in the 1738 English edition reproduced by Liberty Fund in The Rights of War and Peace, 3 vols., ed. Richard Tuck (Indianapolis, 2005). The English translations that I have used are from this 2005 edition, and the page numbers given in citations to the Le droit de la guerre refer to this edition. Similarly, citations from Grotius's Latin text of De Jure Belli will give the standard book, chapter, and section numbers, as well as the page number from Tuck's 2005 edition. To help distinguish between citations to Barbeyrac's notes and Grotius's main text, I will always use the French translation of the title to refer to the former and the original Latin title to refer to the latter. (I will apply the same system to distinguish the main text of Pufendorf's De Jure Naturae et Gentium from the notes that Barbeyrac wrote for his translation, Le Droit de la nature et de gens.) The 2005 reproduction does not contain the prefatory material that Barbeyrac included with his French translation; consequently, all citations marked “Préface du Traducteur,” Le droit de la guerre (as below, at n. 12) are my own translations. Because there are no chapter or section divisions for this preface, citations of this portion of Le droit de la guerre will refer solely to the page number of the 1759 Leiden edition. The author apologizes for the complicated referencing system, which is something of an occupational hazard of Barbeyrac scholarship.

10 Barbeyrac, An Historical and Critical Account of the Science of Morality, §xxix, 79; §xxxi, 84. This text appeared originally as the “Préface du Traducteur” to Barbeyrac's translation into French of Pufendorf's De Jure Naturae et Gentium (Amsterdam, 1706). For English translations of this work I have used the translation of George Carew, under the title An Historical and Critical Account of the Science of Morality, which was included in the Basil Kennett translation of Pufendorf's Law of Nature and Nations (London, 1729). The “Préface” to Le droit de la nature consists of thirty-three sections (the last of which is left out of Carew's edition). Citations of this text will refer to the section number, which is the same in both the French and English editions, and to the page number from the Carew edition. On Barbeyrac's view that reason was sufficient on its own, independent of Scripture, to ascertain moral verities, see e.g. Hochstrasser, “Conscience and Reason,” 298.

11 A rare exception to this neglect is a brief mention of the annotation by Thomas Mautner in a review of the Liberty Fund edition of The Rights of War and Peace; see Mautner, “War and Peace,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 15/2 (2007), 365–81, 373CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 These commentators had, in Grotius's opinion, concentrated excessively on the sections of De Jure Belli that treated of Christianity, which were “the least important part of the work, and which could be separated from it, without losing anything essential.” Barbeyrac, “Préface du Traducteur,” Le droit de la guerre, xvi, xii.

13 Barbeyrac, “Préface du Traducteur,” Le droit de la guerre, iii.

14 Pace Darwall, Barbeyrac was deeply dissatisfied with Grotius's understanding of moral obligation; indeed, he thought the concept, rightly understood, was missing from the Grotian but not from the Pufendorfian or Lockean moral theories. See Darwall, Stephen, “Grotius at the Creation of Moral Modernity,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 94/3 (2012), 296–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 For the criticisms mentioned here see Le droit de la guerre, I.i.10, 151–3 n. 3; I.i.14, 163 n. 3; I.iv.2, 338–9 n. 1; II.ii.17, 448 n. 1.

16 Urmson, J. O., “Saints and Heroes,” in Meldon, A. I., ed., Essays in Moral Philosophy (Seattle, 1958), 198–216Google Scholar.

17 Ibid., 199, 205.

18 Notable contributions to this debate include Joel Feinberg, “Supererogation and Rules,” Ethics, 71/4 (1961), 276–88; Christopher New, “Saints, Heroes, and Utilitarians,” Philosophy, 49/188 (1974), 179–89; Raz, Joseph, “Permissions and Supererogation,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 12/2 (1975), 161–8Google Scholar; Heyd, David, Supererogation: Its Status in Ethical Theory (Cambridge, 1982)Google Scholar; Hale, Susan C., “Against Supererogation,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 28/4 (1991), 273–85Google Scholar; Mellema, Gregory, Beyond the Call of Duty: Supererogation, Obligation, and Offence (Albany, NY, 1991)Google Scholar; Flescher, Andrew, Heroes, Saints, and Ordinary Morality (Washington, DC, 2003)Google Scholar. This list is far from exhaustive.

19 Grotius, De Jure Belli, I.ii.9, 225.

20 Ibid., I.ii.9, 225.

21 Ibid., I.ii.9, 230.

22 Ibid., I.ii.9, 230.

23 Ibid., I.ii.9, 230.

24 Ibid., prolegomena 51, 126.

25 Ibid., I.ii.9, 225, 230.

26 In the English text, the number of the footnote referenced is incorrect. In Barbeyrac's edition, the footnote on supererogation is the nineteenth of Book One, chapter 2, and therefore, when the footnote is alluded to elsewhere in Barbeyrac's commentary to Le droit de la guerre, the translator John Morrice retains references to note “nineteen.” However, Morrice botched the numbering of the notes in that chapter and so the footnote on supererogation wrongly appears as number eighteen. Consequently, the English edition accidentally refers readers to the tiny list of references about the fourth council of Carthage that immediately follows our footnote. I will refer to the footnote by the number in Barbeyrac's French edition—that is, as note nineteen—but bear in mind that it appears as note eighteen in Richard Tuck's Liberty Fund edition.

27 Barbeyrac, Le droit de la guerre, prolegomena 51, 126 n. 1; II.xxvi.5, 1181 n. 3; III.iv.2, 1272 n. 2.

28 Ibid., III.iv.2, 1272 n. 2.

29 Ibid., I.ii.9, 226 n. 19.

30 There is in a sense a third category for Barbeyrac, that of matters “entirely indifferent” (I.ii.9, 226 n. 19). But this is not, strictly speaking, a moral category, since it consists of precisely those issues that are without moral relevance.

31 Ibid., I.ii.9, 226 n. 19.

32 Ibid., I.ii.9, 226 n. 19.

33 Ibid., I.ii.9, 226 n. 19.

34 Ibid., I.ii.9, 229 n. 19.

35 Ibid., I.ii.9, 226 n. 19.

36 Ibid., I.ii.9, 226 n. 19.

37 Ibid., I.ii.9, 226 n. 19.

38 Ibid., I.ii.9, 226 n. 19.

39 Ibid., I.ii.9, 228 n. 19.

40 Ibid., I.ii.9, 226 n. 19.

41 Ibid., I.ii.9, 226 n. 19.

42 Barbeyrac, Science of Morality, §ix, 22.

43 Samuel von Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium, V.iii.4, 479. Citations of this text refer to the book, chapter, and section number. I have also included the page number of the English translation I have used, which is that of Kennett, Basil, The Law of Nature and Nations (London, 1729)Google Scholar.

44 Ibid., V.iii.4, 479–80. Interestingly, though Pufendorf invoked such a law and acknowledged its existence, he denied that in this case the “Law of Courtesy and Good-Nature” had been violated.

45 Ibid., VIII.vi.7, 838.

46 Pufendorf, Two Books of the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, trans. W. A. Oldfather, ed. Thomas Behme (Indianapolis, 2009), Book Two, observation IV, §35, 362. The whole of Book Two, observation IV of this work contains a particularly clear treatment of the theme of supererogatory behavior in the context of war: “there are very many things which the enemy can suffer without wrong, which, nevertheless, the humane victor avoids inflicting” (Ibid., Book Two, observation IV, §18, 344).

47 See e.g. Grotius, De Jure Belli, III.xi.7, 1434–5; III.xviii.4, 1531.

48 Ibid., III.xiii.4, 1478.

49 Ibid., II.i.10, 407; prolegomena 51, 126.

50 Barbeyrac, Le Droit de la guerre, I.ii.9, 229 n. 19.

51 Barbeyrac himself gives a telling admission that a purely exegetical or theological disagreement would not, by his lights, merit inclusion in the volume by opening the footnote with the remarkable pledge to avoid “entering into Theological Disputes,” just before entering into precisely such disputes. Ibid., I.ii.9, 225 n. 19.

52 Ibid., I.ii.9, 229 n. 19.

53 Ibid., I.ii.9, 229–30 n. 19.

54 Grotius, De Veritate Religionis Christianae, V.vi, 186. Citations of this text refer to the book and section number, as well as the page number from the English translation which I have used: The Truth of the Christian Religion, translated by John Clarke (London, 1829) from Le Clerc's edition of De Veritate.

55 Other proofs included its promise of otherworldly salvation and its miraculous propagation. For a breakdown of the argumentative elements of De veritate see Heering, Jan Paul, “Hugo Grotius's De Veritate Religionis Christianae,” in Henk and, J. M. NellenRabbie, Edwin, eds., Hugo Grotius Theologian: Essays in Honour of G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden, 1994), 47–8Google Scholar.

56 Grotius, De veritate, VI.viii, 239, 238.

57 Grotius, De Jure Belli I.iii.3, 247.

58 Though we might say that this is the stance adopted in chapter 43 of Leviathan.

59 Barbeyrac, Droit de la guerre, I.ii.9, 225, 228 n. 19.

60 Posthumus Meyjes, G. H. M., “Hugo Grotius as an irenicist,” in The World of Hugo Grotius (Amsterdam and Maarssen, 1984), 48Google Scholar.

61 For an overview of the arguments of the Traité and a description of the context in which it appeared see van Eijnatten, Joris, “The Church Fathers Assessed: Nature, Bible, and Morality in Jean Barbeyrac,” De Achttiende Eeuw, 35/1 (2003), 15–25Google Scholar. Gibbon drew from the Traité as one of his sources on the conduct and teaching of the Fathers, referring to it in several footnotes and praising it as “very judicious.” Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1, ed. Womersley, David (London: Penguin, 1994), chap. 15, n. 87Google Scholar. However, as Pocock has pointed out, Gibbon's attack on the morality of the fathers did not follow Barbeyrac's closely. See Pocock, J. G. A., Barbarism and Religion, vol. 5, Religion: The First Triumph (Cambridge: 2010), esp. 270–71Google Scholar.

62 Interestingly, among these obviously indefensible positions Barbeyrac lists the argument that marriage is only for procreation: Traité de la morale des pères (Amsterdam, 1728), V.xviii, 50. Citations of this text refer to the chapter and section numbers. All translations from the Traité are my own.

63 Barbeyrac, Traité, V.xxxiii, 57.

64 Ibid., VIII.x, 110.

65 Ibid., XII.lxx, 206; VIII.x, 110.

66 Heyd, David, Supererogation: Its Status in Ethical Theory (Cambridge, 1982), 17Google Scholar.

67 Barbeyrac, Traité XII.lxv–lxix, 202–5; VIII.xii–xxviii, 110–8.

68 Ibid., VIII.xi, 110.

69 Ibid., VIII.xxiii, 115.

70 Ibid., XII.lxvii, 204.

71 Barbeyrac, “Memoir sur la Vie, & les Jean de Barbeyrac, Ecrits de Mr., lui même, écrit par,” in Barbeyrac, Ecrits de droit et de morale, ed. Goyard-Fabre, Simone (Paris, 1996), 77–92Google Scholar.

72 Barbeyrac, Traité, VIII.xxv, 116.

73 Ibid., VIII.xxix, 118.

74 Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. Schneewind, J. B. (Indianapolis, 1983), 73Google Scholar.

75 Barbeyrac, Traité, VIII.xxix, 118.

76 Ibid., VIII.xxix, 118–19.

77 Ibid., VIII.xxix, 119.

78 Ibid., VIII.xxix, 119.

79 Ibid., VIII.xxix, 119.

80 Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Tuck, Richard (Cambridge, 1991), chap. XLVIIGoogle Scholar, 477.

81 Barbeyrac, Traité, VIII.xxix, 118.

82 Officially Barbeyrac ascribed the origin of the belief that chastity was an “evangelical counsel” not to sinister interest but to lack of enlightenment. In consequence he was, unlike Hobbes, willing to allow that “these false ideas” had been “pardonable at their commencement,” though they were not any longer. Ibid., VIII.xxix, 118.

83 Heyd, Supererogation, 20–21.

84 Barbeyrac, Traité, VIII.xxix, 118.

85 The account offered here draws heavily on Heyd, Supererogation, chap. 1; Mellema, Beyond the Call of Duty, chap. 3. There has been some challenge to the vision of the Reformation as strongly anti-supererogationist; see Little, David, “The Law of Supererogation,” in Santurri, Edmund and Werpehowski, William, eds., The Love Commandments: Essays in Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy (Washington, DC, 1992): 157–81, 160–62Google Scholar.

86 Though Claire Brown makes no mention of Barbeyrac or Grotius, she does list as one of her five Protestant objections to supererogation the thought that the doctrine “fosters immorality.” See Claire Brown, “Supererogation for a Virtue Ethicist” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2011), 13. The only sources for this view that she cites are Calvin and Melanchthon.

87 Knudson, Albert C., The Principles of Christian Ethics (New York, 1943), 185–6Google Scholar.

88 In recent years both Fiammetta Palladini and Pott have produced studies of Barbeyrac's thought and its context which highlight disputes about the character of Protestant moral teaching and its relation to the natural law discourses of the time. See Palladini, Fiammetta, Die Berliner Hugenotten und der Fall Barbeyrac: Orthodoxe und “Sozinianer” im Refuge (1685–1720) (Leiden, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pott, Sandra, Reformierte Morallehren und deutsche Literatur von Jean Barbeyrac bis Christoph Martin Wielan (Tübingen, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Palladini's book provides a particularly detailed account of the theological debates in which Barbeyrac was involved.

89 Tuck, “Grotius and Selden,” 521; Posthumus Meyjes, “Grotius as an Irenicist,” 57–62.

90 Barbeyrac, Science of Morality, §xi, 35.

91 Hammond's fame would persist long after his death thanks to his introduction to The Whole Duty of Man (1658), the devotional guidebook to which countless British children, including the young David Hume, would be subjected; see Boswell, James, The Journals of James Boswell, 1762–1795, ed. Wain, John (London, 1992), 247Google Scholar.

92 One of Barbeyrac's principal targets was “the orthodox and authoritarian element in Protestant thought.” Korkman, “Barbeyrac and Natural Law,” 20. Barbeyrac suffered from religious intolerance at the hands not only of Catholics, but of Protestants as well; see e.g. Pocock, J. G. A., Barbarism and Religion, vol. 1, The Enlightenments of Edward Gibbon (Cambridge: 2010), 69Google Scholar.

93 Hammond, A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament: Briefly explaining the difficult places thereof (London, 1653), 694–5Google Scholar. His remarks on this subject occur in his commentaries to 1 Corinthians 9:17 and Colossians 2:23.

94 Novum testamentum domini nostri Jesu Christi, ex versione vulgate; cum paraphrasi & adnotationibus Henrici Hammondi; ex Anglica lingua in Latinum transtulit, suisque animadversionibus illustravit, castigavit, auxit Johannes Clericus. It first appeared in 1698. I have used the edition from 1700 published in Amsterdam. Le Clerc's discussions of supererogation occur at 103 and 252–3 in this edition. The English translations I have used for this text are from A supplement to Dr. Hammond's paraphrase and annotations on the New Testament . . . by Monsieur Le Clerc; to which is prefix’d a letter from the author to a friend in England, occasion’d by this translation (London, 1699).

95 Hammond, A Paraphrase and Annotations, 570.

96 Ibid., 694.

97 Ibid., 695, 694.

98 Le Clerc, A supplement to Dr. Hammond's paraphrase and annotations, 327.

99 Ibid., 472.

100 Ibid., 471.

101 Ibid., 471.

102 Shaver, Robert, “Grotius on Scepticism and Self-Interest,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 78/1 (1996), 27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Israel, Jonathan, “Enlightenment! Which Enlightenment?,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 67/3 (2006), 523–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hochstrasser, “Conscience and Reason,” 295. For Barbeyrac's sharply adversarial relationship with Bayle see James Moore, “Natural Law and the Pyrrhonian Controversy,” in Jones, Peter, ed., Philosophy and Science in the Scottish Enlightenment (Edinburgh, 1988), 20–38Google Scholar.

103 See e.g. Haakonssen, Knud, Natural Law and Moral Philosophy: From Grotius to the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1996), 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tuck, Richard, “The ‘Modern’ Theory of Natural Law,” in Pagden, Anthony, ed., The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1991), 99–122Google Scholar. For a dissenting interpretation of Barbeyrac that minimizes the importance of his hostility to skepticism see Korkman, Petter, “Barbeyrac on Scepticism and on Grotian Modernity,” Grotiana, 20/1 (1999), 77–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Barbeyrac, Science of Morality, §iv, 11–12.

105 For Locke's influence on Barbeyrac, see Hochstrasser, “Conscience and Reason”; Richard Popkin and Mark Goldie, “Scepticism, Priestcraft, and Toleration,” in Goldie and Wokler, The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought, 79–109, 93. For Barbeyrac's correspondence with Locke see Goldgar, Anne, Impolite Learning: Conduct and Community in the Republic of Letters, 1680–1750 (New Haven, 1995), 161–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Barbeyrac, Science of Morality, §iv, 11.

107 Ibid., §xxvii, 74.

108 Ibid., §xxvii, 74.

109 Knudson, Principles of Christian Ethics, 186.

110 Barbeyrac, Science of Morality, §xi, 35. Bayle's central text on toleration is the Commentaire philosophique sur ces paroles de Jésus-Christ: “Contrains-les d’entrer” (A Philosophical Commentary on These Words of the Gospel, Luke 14.23, “Compel Them to Come In, That My House May Be Full”).

111 James Moore has made this point very insightfully. See Moore, “Natural Law and the Pyrrhonian Controversy,” 23.

112 See Grotius, Meletius, ed. G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden: Brill, 1988), e.g. 103–5; Heering, “Grotius’ De Veritate Religionis Christianae,” 52.

113 Korkman, “Barbeyrac and Natural Law,” 14.

114 Barbeyrac, Le droit de la nature, I.ii.4, 16 n. 3.

115 Barbeyrac, Le droit de la guerre, I.ii.9, 228 n. 19.

116 For the purposes of this essay, I am bracketing the question whether Barbeyrac's view of Bayle as the arch-skeptic was correct. This view, while the dominant one, has been frequently challenged, most notably by Elisabeth Labrousse.

117 Barbeyrac, Science of Morality, §iii, 7.

118 Barbeyrac, Le Droit de la guerre, I.ii.9, 226 n. 19.

119 See e.g. Barbeyrac, “Discours sur la permission des loix,” in Barbeyrac, Ecrits de droit et de morale, 142–3.

120 Barbeyrac, “Jugement d’un anonyme sur l’original de cet abrégé. Avec des réflexions du traducteur,” in Barbeyrac, Écrits de droit et de morale, 215. My translation.

121 Barbeyrac, Traité, VIII.xxv, 116.

122 Grotius, Meletius, 132–3.

123 Barbeyrac, Science of Morality, §xi, 36.

124 Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Woolhouse, Roger (New York, 1997), 487Google Scholar.

125 Locke, Essay, 616.

126 Grotius, Meletius, 125.

127 Ibid., 126.

128 Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae, II.iv.4, 162.

129 Ibid., II.iv.4, 162.

130 Kant, Religion, 6:169.

131 Ibid., e.g. 6:120, 6:167.

132 Ibid., 6:37.

133 See Pott, Reformierte Morallehren, chap. 2, on Barbeyrac's vision of “einfaches Christentum.”