Observations, censures, and confutations of notorious errours in Mr. Hobbes his Leviathan and other his bookes to which are annexed occasionall anim-adversions on some writings of the Socinians and such hæreticks of the same opinion with him / by William Lucy ...

Sect. 11.

In the 104. page he undertake's boldly that he will prove, by most efficacious Arguments,* 1.1 there is a right to the whole world belonging to every man▪ Page 105. he be∣gin's his proof; first, saith he, because in extreme necessity a man's ancient right doth revive; he prove's that, because, saith he, my calamity cannot produce a right in me to such things, to which I had no right before; my first answer to this is, that it is no more then what was said before;* 1.2 secondly, I answer, as before, that no man can have such an extremity as may need the whole world; he can∣not eat, drink, or clothe himself with the whole, but parts, onely; thirdly, I answer, his calamity revive's no title in the miserable man, but onely reduceth him to be the object of mercy; and what inconsiderable title he hath, is a capability of a passive right to acts of humanity, by which every man, who look's upon that wretched spectacle, is bound to relieve him, and, when extremity give's not leave to any man to stay for the convenience of asking, he take's that, out of a supposall that it will not be denyed.

His second Argument begin's in the last line of Page 105. and is thus framed; the most Learned part of Di∣vines

and Lawyers consent, that in a moderation of a Law∣ful defence,* 1.3 the defendant is not made a publick person, but doth use his ancient right which God hath granted to every man. I will not trouble the Reader with every word, the sense of the Argument consist's in this, that a man may defend himself against violence; that in that de∣fence he may Lawfully kill another; And this ariseth not out of that, that he hath done me wrong or injury, but out of that regard, that God would have me defend my self; Now, saith he, if it be lawfull to kill another, much rather to take his goods in defence of my self.

To understand the force or invalidity of this Argu∣ment,* 1.4 let us look back to what hath been said, how far my life is to be cared for, and preserved by me, one rule of which is, when a more publick concernment will not be obtained by the losse, I am not to preserve my life by the ruine of multitudes of my Nation, or Kingdom, of which I am a member; again, since he in this Discourse supposeth that men believe there is a God; and that this God is a just judge punishing vice, and rewarding vertue, therefore I am to forsake this life, and resign it rather then commit such sinnes which are of a greater moment, and esteemed so by him, of which nature are Regicides, Paricides, nor ought a man, in re∣scue of himself, to kill his King or his Father; I am perswaded there is none that think's there is a God, which doth not think that such things are an abomination to him; then we will suppose two men, private persons, the one assaulting the other; surely if a man can safely avoid the danger, he ought to do it; but if he cannot, he may kill rather then be killed, because there is no rea∣son why a man should not think himself of as usefull a condition as another private man to the publick state,

or glory of God; but my killing this man is not be∣cause I have a right over his person, but because I have a right to defend mine own person from the injuries which are offer'd to it by another private person, who hath no more right to kill me, then I him, which is none but in my own defence; for of two evils the Less is to be cho∣sen; either are evils in se, but this the Less to me; and this is no other then the former; for it is not Lawfull for me to kill another man, if I can avoid his assault, but when there is an extreme necessity, and his assault is other∣wise unavoidable; so that it is still in an extreme necessity, and that may be relieved with a few things, much lesse then the whole world.

Notes

• * 1.1

  His first Ar∣gument for universal right returning, ex∣treme neces∣sity.
• * 1.2

  The Bishop's severall an∣swers to it.
• * 1.3

  His second Argument for ancient right in a lawfull defense.
• * 1.4

  How the force o•• invalidity of this argu∣ment m••y be understood, and how the practice mo∣derated.