Sect. 3.
His third thing to be censured in this Chap. and Pag. is his definition of a Law of nature which is this [A law of nature (Lex naturalis) is a precept, or general Rule found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to doe that which is destructive of his life or taketh away the meanes of pre∣serving the same, and to omit that by which it may be best preserved.* 1.1] He is a most unhappie man in his definiti∣ons, which are foundations upon which he build's his discourse, yet are so weake as they cannot themselves withstand the least opposition which many Reasons may assault them with. First for this, we may observe, that if he had said, such a Precept, as he se••s down, had been a law of nature, or a conclusion deduced out of a law of nature, he had spoke truth; but saying, a law of Nature is such a precept, he makes this precepe to be the Predicate, as we University-men, abused with University••learning, terme it, and then it must be as large as the subject. A law of nature is what this is not; for, first, he makes this pre∣cept to be only a prohibition, To a negative law. A precept (saith he) by which a man is forbidden &c. when cer∣tainly, although there are negative precepts; yet they are founded upon affirmative precepts; no negative which is not supported by an affirmative, and this law forbid∣ding, must be founded upon this affirmative duty enjoy∣ned by the law of nature that a man must love his own life. Certainly had not Mr. Hobbes proudly contemned Uni∣versity learning, he would have writ more properly, and