Your Honours most humble,and most devoted Servant,Tho.Hobbs.
The Authors Preface to the Reader Reader,I promise thee here such things,which ordinarily promised,doe seeme to challenge the greatest attention,and Ilay them here before thine eyes,whether thou regard the dignity or profit of the matter treated of,or the right method of handling it,or the honest motive,and good advice to undertake it,or lastly the moderation of the Authour.In this Book thou shalt finde briefly described the duties of men,First as Men,then as Subjects,Lastly,as Christians;under which duties are contained not only the elements of the Lawes of Nature,and of Nations,together with the true originall,and power of Justice,but also the very essence of Christian Religion it selfe,so farre forth as the measure of this my purpose could well bear it.
Which kinde of doctrine (excepting what relates to Christian Religion)the most antient Sages did judge fittest to be delivered to posterity,either curiously adorned with Verse,or clouded with Allegories,as a most beautifull and hallowed mystery of Royall authority;lest by the disputations of private men,it might be defiled;Other philosophers in the mean time,to the advantage of mankinde,did contemplate the faces,and motions of things;others,without disadvantage,their natures,and causes.But in after times,Socrates is said to have been the first,who truly loved this civill Science,although hitherto not throughly understood,yet glimmering forth as through a cloud in the government of the Common weale,and that he set so great a value on this,that utterly abandoning,and despising all other parts of philosophy,he wholly embraced this,as judging it onely worthy the labour of his minde.After him comes Plato,Aristotle,Cicero,and other philosophers,as well Greeke,as Latine.And now at length all men of all Nations,not only philosophers,but even the vulgar,have,and doe still deale with this as a matter of ease,exposed and prostitute to every Mother-wit,and to be attained without any great care or study.And which makes mainly for its dignity,those who suppose themselves to have it,or are in such employment,as they ought to have it,doe so wonderfully please themselves in its I daea,as they easily brooke the followers of other arts to be esteemed and styled ingenuous,learned,skilfull,what you will;except prudent:for this Name,in regard of civill knowledge,they presume to be due to themselves onely.
Whether therefore the worth of arts is to be weighed by the worthinesse of the persons who entertain them,or by the number of those who have written of them,or by the judgement of the wisest.certainly this must carry it,which so neerly relates to princes,and others engaged in the government of mankinde,in whose adulterate Species also the most part of men doe delight themselves,and in which the most excellent wits of philosophers have been conversant.The benefit of it when rightly delivered (that is)when derived from true principles by evident connexion,we shall then best discerne,when we shall but well have considered the mischiefes that have befallen mankinde in its counterfeit and babling form;for in such matters as are speculated for the exercise of our wits,if any errour escape us,it is without hurt;neither is there any losse,but of time onely:but in those things which every man ought to meditate for the steerage of his life,it necessarily happens,that not onely from errours,but even from ignorance it selfe,there arise offences,contentions,nay even slaughter it selfe.Look now,how great a prejudice these are,such,and so great is the benefit arising from this doctrine of morality,truly declared.How many Kings (and those good men too)hath this one errour,That a Tyrant King might lawfully be put to death,been the slaughter of?How many throats hath this false position cut,That a prince for some causes may by some certain men be deposed?And what blood-shed hath not this erroneous doctrine caused,That Kings are not superiours to,but administrators for the multitude?
Lastly,how many rebellions hath this opinion been the cause of which teacheth that the knowledge whether the commands of Kings be just or unjust,belongs to private men,and that before they yeeld obedience,they not only may,but ought to dispute them?
Besides,in the morall philosophy now commonly received,there are many things no lesse dangerous then those,which it matters not now to recite.I suppose those antients foresaw this,who rather chose to have the Science of justice wrapt up in fables,then openly exposed to disputations:for before such questions began to be moved,princes did not sue for,but already exercised the supreme power.They kept their Empire entire,not by arguments,but by punishing the wicked,and protecting the good;likewise Subjects did not measure what was just by the sayings and judgements of private men,but by the Lawes of the Realme;nor were they kept in peace by disputations,but by power and authority:yea they reverenced the supreme power,whether residing in one man or in a councell,as a certain visible divinity;therefore they little used as in our dayes,to joyn themselves with ambitious,and hellish spirits,to the utter ruine of their State;for they could not entertain so strange a phansie as not to desire the preservation of that by which they were preserved;in truth,the simplicity of those times was not yet capable of so learned a piece of folly.Wherefore it was peace,and a golden age,which ended not before that Saturn being expelled,it was taught lawfull to take up arms against Kings.
