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
looks not upon it as an act of murder; because there wanted a power to
deliberate, and consequently true liberty. Manslaughter may be as
voluntary as murder, and commonly more voluntary; because being done in
hot blood there is the less reluctation. Yet the law considers, that the
former is done out of some sudden passion without serious deliberation,
and the other out of prepensed malice and desire of revenge; and
therefore condemns murder, as more wilful and more punishable than
manslaughter.”
(_b_) “He saith, ‘that no law can possibly be unjust;’ and I say, that
this is to deny the conclusion, which deserves no reply. But to give him
satisfaction, I will follow him in this also, if he intended no more but
that unjust laws are not genuine laws, nor bind to active obedience,
because they are not the ordinations of right reason, not instituted for
the common good, nor prescribe that which ought to be done; he said
truly, but nothing at all to his purpose. But if he intend, as he doth,
that there are no laws _de facto_, which are the ordinances of reason
erring, instituted for the common hurt, and prescribing that which ought
not to be done, he is much mistaken. Pharaoh’s law, to drown the male
children of the Israelites (Exod. i. 22); Nebuchadnezzar’s law, that
whosoever did not fall down and worship the golden image which he had
set up, should be cast into the fiery furnace (Dan. iii. 4-6); Darius’s
law, that whosoever should ask a petition of any God or man for thirty
days, save of the king, should be cast into the den of lions (Dan. vi.
7); Ahasuerus’s law, to destroy the Jewish nation, root and branch
(Esther iii. 13); the Pharisees’ law, that whosoever confesseth Christ,
should be excommunicated (John ix. 22); were all unjust laws.
(_c_) “The ground of this error is as great an error itself (such an art
he hath learned of repacking paradoxes); which is this, ‘that every man
makes by his consent the law which he is bound to keep.’ If this were
true, it would preserve them, if not from being unjust, yet from being
injurious. But it is not true. The positive law of God, contained in the
Old and New Testament; the law of nature, written in our hearts by the
finger of God; the laws of conquerors, who come in by the power of the
sword; the laws of our ancestors, which were made before we were born;
do all oblige us to the observation of them; yet to none of all these
did we give our actual consent. Over and above all these exceptions, he
builds upon a wrong foundation, that all magistrates at first were
elective. The first governors were fathers of families; and when those
petty princes could not afford competent protection and security to
their subjects, many of them did resign their several and respective
interests into the hands of one joint father of the country.