The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 02 (of 11)Hobbes, Thomas
Philosophy
The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 02 (of 11)
Hobbes, Thomas
Philosophy, English -- 17th century
14. Again the _civil law_, according to its two-fold manner of
publishing, is of two sorts, _written_ and _unwritten_. By
_written_, I understand that which wants a voice, or some other sign
of the will of the legislator, that it may become a law. For all
kind of laws are of the same age with mankind, both in nature and
time; and therefore of more antiquity than the invention of letters,
and the art of writing. Wherefore not a _writing_, but a _voice_ is
necessary for a _written law_; this alone is requisite to the
_being_, that to the _remembrance_ of a law. For we read, that
before letters were found out for the help of memory, that _laws_,
contracted into metre, were wont to be sung. The _unwritten_, is
that which wants no other publishing than the voice of nature or
natural reason; such are the _laws of nature_. For the natural law,
although it be distinguished from the civil, forasmuch as it
commands the will; yet so far forth as it relates to our actions, it
is civil. For example, this same, _thou shalt not covet_, which only
appertains to the mind, is a natural law only; but this, _thou shalt
not invade_, is both natural and civil. For seeing it is impossible
to prescribe such universal rules, whereby all future contentions,
which perhaps are infinite, may be determined; it is to be
understood that in all cases not mentioned by the _written laws_,
the _law of natural equity_ is to be followed, which commands us to
distribute equally to equals; and this by the virtue of the _civil
law_, which also punisheth those who knowingly and willingly do
actually transgress the _laws of nature_.
[Sidenote: That the natural laws are not written laws, neither are
the sentences of lawyers or customs laws of themselves,
but by the consent of the supreme power.]
15. These things being understood, it appears, first, that the _laws
of nature_, although they were described in the books of some
philosophers, are not for that reason to be termed _written laws_:
and that the writings of the interpreters of the laws, were no laws,
for want of the supreme authority; nor yet those _orations of the
wise_, that is to say, _judges_, but so far forth as by the consent
of the supreme power they part into custom; and that then they are
to be received among the _written laws_, not for the custom’s sake,
(which by its own force doth not constitute a law), but for the will
of the supreme commander; which appears in this, that he hath
suffered his _sentence_, whether equal or unequal, to pass into
custom.
[Sidenote: What the word _sin_, taken in its largest sense,
signifies.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account