The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 05 (of 11) — Thomas Hobbes — John Shaqi
The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 05 (of 11)
Thomas Hobbes · en
(_d_) “Thirdly, that which T. H. makes the question, is not the
question. ‘The question is not,’ saith he, ‘whether a man may write if
he will, and forbear if he will, but whether the will to write or the
will to forbear come upon him according to his will, or according to any
thing else in his own power.’ Here is a distinction without a
difference. If his will do not come upon him according to his will, then
he is not a free, nor yet so much as a voluntary agent, which is T. H.’s
liberty. Certainly all the freedom of the agent is from the freedom of
the will. If the will have no power over itself, the agent is no more
free than a staff in a man’s hand. Secondly, he makes but an empty show
of a power in the will, either to write or not to write. (_e_) If it be
precisely and inevitably determined in all occurrences whatsoever, what
a man shall will, and what he shall not will, what he shall write, and
what he shall not write, to what purpose is this power? God and nature
never made any thing in vain; but vain and frustraneous is that power
which never was and never shall be deduced into act. Either the agent is
determined before he acteth, what he shall will, and what he shall not
will, what he shall act, and what he shall not act, and then he is no
more free to act than he is to will; or else he is not determined, and
then there is no necessity. No effect can exceed the virtue of its
cause; if the action be free to write or to forbear, the power or
faculty to will or nill, must of necessity be more free. _Quod efficit
tale, illud magis est tale._ If the will be determined, the writing or
not writing is likewise determined, and then he should not say, ‘he may
write or he may forbear,’ but he must write or he must forbear. Thirdly,
this answer contradicts the sense of all the world, that the will of man
is determined without his will, or without any thing in his power. Why
do we ask men whether they will do such a thing or not? Why do we
represent reasons to them? Why do we pray them? Why do we entreat them?
Why do we blame them, if their will come not upon them according to
their will. _Wilt thou be made clean?_ said our Saviour to the paralytic
person (John v. 6); to what purpose, if his will was extrinsically
determined? Christ complains, (Matth. xi. 17): _We have piped unto you,
and ye have not danced._ How could they help it, if their wills were
determined without their wills to forbear? And (Matth. xxiii. 37): _I
would have gathered your children together as the hen gathereth her
chickens under her wings, but ye would not._ How easily might they
answer, according to T. H.’s doctrine, ‘Alas! blame not us; our wills
are not in our own power or disposition; if they were, we would
thankfully embrace so great a favour.’ Most truly said St. Austin, ‘Our
will should not be a will at all, if it were not in our power.’ (_f_)
This is the belief of all mankind, which we have not learned from our