582 Professor Stewart's History oj 



deuce, where a refutation of Ilobbism is 

 not to be found. 



The fundamental doctrines inculcated 

 in the political works of llobbes are con- 

 tained in the followinj^ propositions. I 

 recapitulate them liere, not on their own 

 account, but to prepare the way for some 

 reniaiks which I mean afterwards to 

 olTer on the coincidence hetwren the 

 principles of llobbes and those of Locke. 

 Id their practical conclusions, indeed, 

 with respect to the riohts and duties of 

 citizens, the two writers differ widely; 

 hut it is curious to observe how very 

 nearly they set out from the same hypo- 

 thetical assumptions. 



All men are by nature er,ual ; and, 

 prior to government, they bad all an 

 equal ri<;lu to enjoy the good things of 

 this world. Man, too, is (according to 

 Hobbes) by nature a solitary and purely 

 selfish animal ; the social union beini;: en- 

 tirely an interested league, suggested by 

 prudential views of personal advanta<;e. 

 The neeessary consequence is, that a 

 state of nature must be a state of perpe- 

 tual warfare, in which no individual has 

 any other means of safety than his own 

 strength or ingenuity; and in which 

 there is no room for regidar industry, be- 

 cause no secure enjoyment of its Iruits. 

 In confirmation of ihis view of the ori- 

 gin of society, llobbes appeals to facts 

 falling daily within the circle of our (»wn 

 experience. '' Does not a man," he 

 ask?, " when taking a journey, arm him- 

 self, and seek to go well accoin|)anied i* 

 When going to sleep, does he not lock 

 his doors! Nay, even in his own house, 

 does he not lock his chests? Does he not 

 there as mucli accuse mankind by his 

 actions, as I do by my words?" A\\ ad- 

 ditional argument to the same purpose 

 may, according to some later Hobbists, 

 he derived from the instinctive aversion 

 of infants for strangers, and from the 

 apprehension which (it is alleged) every 

 person feels when he hears the tread of 

 an unknown foot in the dark. 



For the sake of peace and security, it 

 IS necessary that each individual should 

 surrender a part of his natural right, and 

 be contenteci with such a share "f liberty 

 as he is willing to allow to others; or, to 

 use Hobbes's own language, " every man 

 must d:vest himself of the rio;ht he has to 

 all things by nature; the right of all men 

 to all tilings being in effect no better 

 than if no man had a right to :iny thing." 

 In consequence of this transference of 

 natural rights to an individual, or to a 

 body of individuals, the multitude be- 

 come one person, under the name of u 



the Progress oj Philosophif. 



State or Republic, by which person the 

 common will and power are exercised 

 for the common defence. The ruling 

 power cannot be withdrawn from thosa 

 to whom it has been committed ; nor 

 can they be punished for misgovernment. 

 The interpretation of the laws is to be 

 sought, not trom the comments of philo- 

 sophers, but from the authority of the 

 ruler; otherwise society would be every 

 moment in danger of resolving itself into 

 the discordant elements of which it was 

 at first composed. The vvill of the ma- 

 gistrate, theiefore, is to be regarded as 

 the ultimate standard of right and ivrong, 

 and his voice to be listened to by every 

 citizen as the voice of conscience. 



Not many years afterwards, Hobbes 

 pushed the argument for the absolute 

 power of princes still further, in a 

 work to which he gave the name of" Le. 

 viathan." Under this appellation hs 

 means the body politic; insinuating that 

 man is an untameable beast of prey, and 

 that government is the strong chain by 

 which he is kept from mischief. The 

 fundamental principles here maintained 

 are the same as in tlie book " De Give}" 

 but, as it inveighs more particularly 

 nKaiir-t ecclesiastical tyranny, with the 

 view of Subjecting the consciences of 

 men to the civil authority, it lost the au- 

 thor the favour of some powerful pro- 

 tector, he had hitherto enjoyed among 

 the Knglish divines who attended Charles 

 II. in France; and he even found it 

 coiivenient to quit thr;t kingdom, and to 

 return to England, where ('romwell (to 

 whose government his political tenets 

 tveie now as favourable as they were 

 meant to be to the royal claims) suffered 

 him to remain unmolested. The same 

 circumstances operated to his disadvan- 

 tage aficr the Restoration, and obliged 

 the king, who always retained for him a 

 very strong attaclimcnt, lo confer his 

 marks of favour on him with the utmost 

 reserve and circumspection. 



DrSCARTtS. 



Tt has been repeatedly asserted by the 

 iMaterialisls of the last century, that 

 Descartes was the first metaphysician by 

 whom the pure immateriality of the liu- 

 mati soul was taught; and that the an- 

 cient pliilosopliers, as well as the school- 

 men, went no farther than to consider 

 yiiinci as the result of a material organi- 

 zation, in which the constituent elements 

 approached to evanescence, in point of 

 subtlety. Both of these propositions I 

 conceive to be totally unfounded. That 

 many of the schooiinen, and that the 

 wisest of the ancient philosopbe/s, when 



thej? 



