Putting Nature and Nations Asunder 177maintained, “if he expressly declares that he is not willing to be bound by
them, and that he will not complain should others also not observe them
towards him.”
A prominent follower of Pufendorf in the next generation was a German
scholar and offi ce- holder named Samuel Cocceji. Natural law ran strongly
in his family, as his father held professorships in the subject at the Universi-
ties of Heidelberg and Frankfurt- upon- Oder, where the son undertook his
studies (and later taught). Cocceji held a number of governmental posts in
the state of Prus sia, including a judgeship on the Supreme Court of Berlin,
and also undertook diplomatic missions. He became renowned for ser vices
in the area of judicial reform, fi rst in East Prus sia and later in Silesia (newly
acquired by Prus sia in 1740 as a result of a memorable act of aggression
against Austria), and also served as minister of war and of justice. In the
course of this busy life, he somehow found time to pen a major treatise,
Elementa jurispurdentiae naturalis et romanae (Elements of Natural and
Roman Jurisprudence), which was published in 1740. It contained harsh
criticisms of Grotius’s notion of voluntary law, which was condemned as a
“monstrous idea.” Th ere could not be such a law— or at least not a univer-
sal law—contended Cocceji, because it was simply not possible for the entire
world to arrive at the necessary agreement.
Th e most infl uential fi gure in the naturalist tradition in the eigh teenth
century was the Swiss writer Jean- Jacques Burlamaqui. Hailing from a prom-
inent and po liti cally active Genevan family, he served as a professor of natu-
ral law at the Academy of Geneva, attracting students from various parts of
Eu rope. His Principles of Natural and Politic Law (1747) drew heavily on
Pufendorf ’s work, but was more widely disseminated. It was published in
some sixty editions in seven languages, serving as a standard textbook at
Cambridge University in En gland, as well as at various American colleges.
Following Pufendorf, he pronounced the law of nations to be “nothing, but
the law of nature itself, not applied to men considered simply as such; but to
nations, states, or their chiefs, in the relations they have together.” Like
Pufendorf, he expressly rejected Grotius’s claim of the existence of a second,
man- made law of nations.
Of like view was the En glish natural- law scholar Th omas Rutherforth, a
professor of divinity at Cambridge University. His Institutes of Natural Law
was published in two volumes in 1754– 56. “[T]he law of nations,” he stated,