5. The lord therefore hath no less dominion over a servant that is not, than over one that is bound; for he hath a supreme power over both, and may say of his servant no less than of another thing, whether animate or inanimate, _this is mine_. Whence it follows, that whatsoever the servant had before his servitude, that afterwards becomes the lord’s; and whatsoever he hath gotten, it was gotten for his lord. For he that can by right dispose of the _person_ of a man, may surely dispose of all those things which that _person_ could dispose of. There is therefore nothing which the servant may retain as his own against the will of his lord; yet hath he, by his lord’s distribution, a propriety and dominion over his own goods: insomuch as one servant may keep and defend them against the invasion of his fellow-servant, in the same manner as hath been shewed before, that a subject hath nothing properly _his own_ against the will of the supreme authority, but every subject hath a propriety against his fellow-subject. [Sidenote: The lord may sell his servant, or alienate him by testament.] 6. Since therefore both the servant himself, and all that belongs to him are his lord’s, and by the right of nature every man may dispose of his own in what manner he pleases; the lord may either sell, lay to pledge, or by testament convey the dominion he hath over his servant, according to his own will and pleasure. [Sidenote: The lord cannot be injurious to his servant.] 7. Furthermore, what hath before been demonstrated concerning subjects in an _institutive_ government, namely, that he who hath the supreme power can do his subject no injury; is true also concerning _servants_, because they have subjected their will to the will of the Lord. Wherefore, whatsoever he doth, it is done with their will; but no injury can be done to him that willeth it. [Sidenote: He that is lord of the lord, is lord also of his servants.] 8. But if it happen that the _lord_, either by captivity or voluntary subjection, doth become a _servant_ or _subject_ to another, that other shall not only be lord of him, but also of his _servants_; supreme lord over these, immediate lord over him. Now because not the servant only, but also all he hath, are his lord’s; therefore his servants now belong to this man, neither can the mediate lord dispose otherwise of them than shall seem good to the supreme. And therefore, if sometime in civil governments the lord have an absolute power over his servants, that is supposed to be derived from the right of nature, and not constituted, but slightly passed over by the civil law. [Sidenote: By what means servants are freed.]