of felf-defence that made affociation and a public neceffary; fo neceffary, that Diodorus Siculus mentions no other reafon for mens herding together *.

The fecond reason, under this head, that I affigned for affociation was the violence and injustice which men had to fear from one another. For as foon as men began to multiply very much in any country, there would neceffarily be an interference about provifions; about their layers, where they flept, or refted, and sheltered themselves from the weather;

defending themselves against wild beafts in the first ages of the world, Diodorus Siculus, in his 3d book, informs us of a favage nation in Africa, that he calls pα[or, from their feeding upon roots, who, he says, not having the use of arms, could not defend themselves against lions, and would have been quite destroyed by them, if it had not been for a multitude of flies that came at a certain feason of the year, and drove away the lions. It is in a fituation fuch as that of those root-eaters, that I fuppofe men would, from the motive of self-defence, enter into political fociety, and invent arts of defence. And not only by fuch fierce beafts have countries been rendered not habitable, but alfo by reptiles, fuch as ferpents; and fmall animals, fuch as mice, frogs, and fparrows, which, in feveral instances mentioned by Diodorus, lib. 3. p. 1 14. Stephani, have got the better of people with all the advantages of fociety and arts, and driven them out of the country.

* Diodorus, lib. 1. cap. 8.

Glandem et cubilia propter;

and, laftly, about their females, -Venerem incertam rapientes more ferarum. HOR.

Such interfering would produce ftrife and contention; of which the confequence would often be wounds and death, and in which the stronger would always have the better, as we observe in the herds of other animals, where there is no other law but that of the strongest. In this way there would be great violence, oppreffion, and deftruction of the fpecies; to prevent which, fo fagacious an animal as man would be naturally led to form a kind of public, by the ftrength of which the weaker might be made more powerful than the stronger, and the whole society benefited in every respect.

By what I have said here, I would not be understood to retract what I have faid above in oppofition to Mr Hobbes, that the state of nature was not a state of war: For I perfectly agree with Monf. Rouffeau, that there are in that state much fewer occafions of quarrel than in the state of fociety; for, in the natural state, men can quarrel only about the neceffaries of life, and the gratifications of na

tural appetite; whereas, in the civil ftate, men quarrel about fame, power, pre-eminence, and all the numberless gratifications of vanity and luxury. But what I maintain is, that when men grow numerous, and the neceffaries of life fcanty, they must, like all other animals, prefer each himself to another, and that will of neceffity produce ftrife. and contention. But this is not the confequence of the natural state in itself, but of the exceffive multiplication of the species; against which nature has provided several remedies, such as famine, peftilence, inundation, extraordinary severity of weather, and, among others, the deftruction of the animals by one another, when provifions become fcanty.

The third reason of this kind I mentioned was protection against foreign invaders. This proceeds upon the fuppofition of affociations being already formed by fome herds in the neighbourhood, for invading their neighbours, either from mere wantonnefs, and a fpirit of conqueft, which has produced many cruel wars among men; or for want of the neceffaries of life, which has obliged men very often to leave their own country, and try to find out another. Such invasion would

naturally lead the people of the country invaded to affociate themselves, in order to take common measures for their defence.

One or other of these reasons appears to me to have made men first affociate for the fake of self-defence; and this, joined with the want of the neceffaries of life, accounts for the origin of fociety among

men.

i

CHA P. XI.

Anfwer to the Objection, That inftinct was fufficient to provide men with all the Neceffaries of Life, and to defend them against their Enemies.

I

T may be objected, That all the neceffi

ties I have mentioned, whether of fuftenance or defence, might be fupplied by instinct, with which I have fuppofed man to be originally provided by nature, as well as other animals, for whofe wants we see it is

fufficient; fo that the reasons I have mentioned did not give rife to fociety; which therefore may ftill be from nature, and not an adventitious ftate, as I fuppofe it, introduced by the neceffities of life.

This objection is pretty much the fame with the argument which I stated in the first book, and endeavoured to refute, tending to prove, that our ideas are not from instinct*; and, if it be true, as I think I have fhewn, that they are not from inftinct, it will follow of neceffary consequence, that those arts of fuftenance and felf-defence, which cannot be without ideas, are likewife not from inftinct. I will, however, without repeating what I there faid, add fome further obfervations concerning the difference betwixt inftinct and art.

But, in the first place, it is to be obferved, that I do not deny, that, in those milder climates, which I fuppofe to have been the original country of men, nature has made fufficient provifion for the maintenance of men, as well as of other animals natives of the country. For those countries abound with wild fruits, fuch as yams, plantains, bananas, cocoa-nuts, and the like, which, I Ch. 13. Pag. 168.