And according to this proper, and generally received meaning of the word, a FREEMAN, _is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to_. But when the words _free_, and _liberty_, are applied to any thing but _bodies_, they are abused; for that which is not subject to motion, is not subject to impediment: and therefore, when it is said, for example, the way is free, no liberty of the way is signified, but of those that walk in it without stop. And when we say a gift is free, there is not meant any liberty of the gift, but of the giver, that was not bound by any law or covenant to give it. So when we _speak freely_, it is not the liberty of voice, or pronunciation, but of the man, whom no law hath obliged to speak otherwise than he did. Lastly, from the use of the word _free-will_, no liberty can be inferred of the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do. [Sidenote: Fear and liberty are consistent.] Fear and liberty are consistent; as when a man throweth his goods into the sea for _fear_ the ship should sink, he doth it nevertheless very willingly, and may refuse to do it if he will: it is therefore the action of one that was _free_: so a man sometimes pays his debt, only for _fear_ of imprisonment, which because nobody hindered him from detaining, was the action of a man at _liberty_. And generally all actions which men do in commonwealths, for _fear_ of the law, are actions, which the doers had _liberty_ to omit. [Sidenote: Liberty and necessity consistent.]