I.Another of the Lawes of Nature is,to performe Contracts,or to keep trust;for it hath been shewed in the foregoing Chapter that the Law of Nature commands every man,as a thing necessary,to obtain Peace;to conveigh certain rights from each to other,and that this (as often as it shall happen to be done)is called a Contract:But this is so farre forth onely conducible to peace,as we shall performe Our selves,what we contract with others,shall be done,or omitted;and in vaine would Contracts be made,unlesse we stood to them.Because therefore,to stand to our Covenants,Or to keep faith,is a thing necessary for the obtaining of peace,it will prove by the second Article of the second Chapter to be a precept of the naturall Law.
II.Neither is there in this matter,any exception of the persons,with whom we Contract,as if they keep no faith with others;Or hold,that none ought to be kept,or are guilty of any other kind of vice:for he that Contracts,in that he doth contract,denies that action to be in vaine,and it is against reason for a knowing man to doe a thing in vain;and if he think himself not bound to keep it,in thinking so,he affirms the Contract to be made in vain:He therefore,who Contracts with one with whom he thinks he is not bound to keep faith,he doth at once think a Contract to be a thing done in vaine,and not in vaine,which is absurd.Either therefore we must hold trust with all men,or else not bargain with them;that is,either there must be a declared Warre,Or a sure and faithfull Peace.
III.The breaking of a Bargain,as also the taking back of a gift,(which ever consists in some action,Or omission)is called an INJURY:But that action,or omission,is called unjust,insomuch as an injury,and an unjust action,or omission,signifie the same thing,and both are the same with breach of Contract and trust:And it seemes the word Iniury came to be given to any action,or omission,because they were without Right.He that acted,or omitted,having before conveyed bis Right to some other.And there is some likenesse between that,which in the common course of life we call Injury;and that,which in the Schools is usually called absurd.For even as he,who by Arguments is driven to deny the Assertion which he first maintain'd,is said to be brought to an absurdity;in like manner,he who through weaknesse of mind does,or omits that which before he had by Contract promis'd not to doe,or omit,commits an Injury,and falls into no lesse contradiction,then he,who in the Schools is reduc'd to an Absurdity.For by contracting for some future action,he wills it done;by not doing it,he wills it not done,which is to will a thing done,and not done at the same time,which is a contradiction.An Injury therefore is a kind of absurdity in conversation,as an absurdity is a kind of injury in disputation.
IV.From these grounds it followes,that an injury can be done to no man but him with whom we enter Covenant,or to whom somewhat is made over by deed of gift,or to whom somwhat is promis'd by way of bargain.And therefore damaging and injuring are often disjoyn'd:for if a Master command his Servant,who hath promis'd to obey him,to pay a summe of money,or carry some present to a third man;the Servant,if he doe it not,hath indeed damag'd this third party,but he injur'd his Master onely.
So also in a civill government,if any man offend another,with whom he hath made no Contract,he damages him to whom the evill is done,but he injures none but him to whom the power of government belongs:for if he,who receives the hurt,should expostulate the mischief.and he that did it,should answer thus,What art thou to me?Why should I rather doe according to yours,then mine owne will,since I do not hinder,but you may do your own,and not my mind?In which speech,where there hath no manner of pre-contract past,I see not,I confesse,what is reprehensible.
Injury can be done against no man]The word injustice relates to some Law:Injury to some Person,as well as some Law.For what's unjust,is unjust to all;but there may an injury be done,and yet not against me,nor thee,but some other;and sometimes against no private Person,but the Magistrate only;sometimes also neither against the Magistrate,nor any private man,but onely against God;for through Contract,and conveighance of Right,we say,that an injury is done against this,or that man.
Hence it is (which we see in all kind of Government)that what private men contract between themselves by word,or writing,is releast againe at the will of the Obliger.But those mischiefes which are done against the Lawes of the Land,as theft,homicide,and the like,are punisht not as he wills,to whom the hurt is done,but according to the will of the Magistrate;that is,the constituted Lawes.
