3. And it is to be understood, that when a servant taken in the wars, is kept bound in natural bonds, as chains, and the like, or in prison, there hath passed no covenant from the servant to his master. For those natural bonds have no need of strengthening by the verbal bonds of covenant, and they show that the servant is not trusted. But covenant, (Part I. chapter II. section 9,) supposeth trust. There remaineth therefore in the servant thus kept bound, or in prison, a right of delivering himself, if he can, by what means soever. This kind of servant is that which ordinarily and without passion, is called a _slave_. The Romans had no such distinct name, but comprehended all under the name of _servus_; whereof such as they loved and durst trust, were suffered to go at liberty, and admitted to places of office, both near to their persons, and in their affairs abroad; the rest were kept chained, or otherwise restrained with natural impediments to their resistance. And as it was amongst the Romans, so it was amongst other nations, the former sort having no other bond but a supposed covenant, without which the master had no reason to trust them; the latter being without covenant, and no otherwise tied to obedience, but by chains, or other like forcible custody. [Sidenote: Servants have no property against their lord, &c.] 4. A master therefore is to be supposed to have no less right over those, whose bodies he leaveth at liberty, than over those he keepeth in bonds and imprisonment, and hath absolute dominion over both, and may say of his servant, that he is his, as he may of any other thing. And whatsoever the servant had, and might call his, is now the master’s; for he that disposeth of the person, disposeth of all the person could dispose of: insomuch, as though there be _meum_ and _tuum_ amongst servants distinct from one another by the dispensation, and for the benefit of their master; yet there is no _meum_ and _tuum_ belonging to any of them against the master himself, whom they are not to resist, but to obey all his commands as law. [Sidenote: The master hath right to alienate his servant.] 5. And seeing both the servant and all that is committed to him, is the property of the master, and every man may dispose of his own, and transfer the same at his pleasure, the master may therefore alienate his dominion over them, or give the same by his last will to whom he list. [Sidenote: The servant of the servant, &c.]