For the manifestation whereof we are to consider;first,that when a man doth a thing,which notwithstanding anything can be foreseen and reckoned on tendeth to his own destruction,howsoever some accident,which he could not expect,arriving may turn it to his benefit;yet such events do not make it reasonably or wisely done.Secondly,that in a condition of war,wherein every man to every man,for want of a common power to keep them all in awe,is an enemy,there is no man can hope by his own strength,or wit,to himself from destruction without the help of confederates;where every one expects the same defence by the confederation that any one else does:and therefore he which declares he thinks it reason to deceive those that help him can in reason expect no other means of safety than what can be had from his own single power.He,therefore,that breaketh his covenant,and consequently declareth that he thinks he may with reason do so,cannot be received into any society that unite themselves for peace and defence but by the error of them that receive him;nor when he is received be retained in it without seeing the danger of their error;which errors a man cannot reasonably reckon upon as the means of his security:and therefore if he be left,or cast out of society,he perisheth;and if he live in society,it is by the errors of other men,which he could not foresee nor reckon upon,and consequently against the reason of his preservation;and so,as all men that contribute not to his destruction forbear him only out of ignorance of what is good for themselves.
As for the instance of gaining the secure and perpetual felicity of heaven by any way,it is frivolous;there being but one way imaginable,and that is not breaking,but keeping of covenant.
And for the other instance of attaining sovereignty by rebellion;it is manifest that,though the event follow,yet because it cannot reasonably be expected,but rather the contrary,and because by gaining it so,others are taught to gain the same in like manner,the attempt thereof is against reason.Justice therefore,that is to say,keeping of covenant,is a rule of reason by which we are forbidden to do anything destructive to our life,and consequently a law of nature.
There be some that proceed further and will not have the law of nature to be those rules which conduce to the preservation of man's life on earth,but to the attaining of an eternal felicity after death;to which they think the breach of covenant may conduce,and consequently be just and reasonable;such are they that think it a work of merit to kill,or depose,or rebel against the sovereign power constituted over them by their own consent.But because there is no natural knowledge of man's estate after death,much less of the reward that is then to be given to breach of faith,but only a belief grounded upon other men's saying that they know it supernaturally or that they know those that knew them that knew others that knew it supernaturally,breach of faith cannot be called a precept of reason or nature.
Others,that allow for a law of nature the keeping of faith,do nevertheless make exception of certain persons;as heretics,and such as use not to perform their covenant to others;and this also is against reason.For if any fault of a man be sufficient to discharge our covenant made,the same ought in reason to have been sufficient to have hindered the ****** of it.
The names of just and unjust when they are attributed to men,signify one thing,and when they are attributed to actions,another.
When they are attributed to men,they signify conformity,or inconformity of manners,to reason.But when they are attributed to action they signify the conformity,or inconformity to reason,not of manners,or manner of life,but of particular actions.A just man therefore is he that taketh all the care he can that his actions may be all just;and an unjust man is he that neglecteth it.And such men are more often in our language styled by the names of righteous and unrighteous than just and unjust though the meaning be the same.
Therefore a righteous man does not lose that title by one or a few unjust actions that proceed from sudden passion,or mistake of things or persons,nor does an unrighteous man lose his character for such actions as he does,or forbears to do,for fear:because his will is not framed by the justice,but by the apparent benefit of what he is to do.That which gives to human actions the relish of justice is a certain nobleness or gallantness of courage,rarely found,by which a man scorns to be beholding for the contentment of his life to fraud,or breach of promise.This justice of the manners is that which is meant where justice is called a virtue;and injustice,a vice.
But the justice of actions denominates men,not just,but guiltless:
and the injustice of the same (which is also called injury)gives them but the name of guilty.
Again,the injustice of manners is the disposition or aptitude to do injury,and is injustice before it proceed to act,and without supposing any individual person injured.But the injustice of an action (that is to say,injury)supposeth an individual person injured;namely him to whom the covenant was made:and therefore many times the injury is received by one man when the damage redoundeth to another.As when the master commandeth his servant to give money to stranger;if it be not done,the injury is done to the master,whom he had before covenanted to obey;but the damage redoundeth to the stranger,to whom he had no obligation,and therefore could not injure him.And so also in Commonwealths private men may remit to one another their debts,but not robberies or other violences,whereby they are endamaged;because the detaining of debt is an injury to themselves,but robbery and violence are injuries to the person of the Commonwealth.
