5.2dly,This is what he tells us in the beginning of the second of the two paragraphs:but all the time the first paragraph lasted,society meant the same as government.In shifting then from one paragraph to another,it has changed its nature.`Tis `the foundations of society',(35)that he first began to speak of,and immediately he goes on to explain to us,after his manner of explaining,the foundations of government.`Tis of a `formal beginning'of 'Society',(36)that he speaks soon after;and by this formal beginning,he tells us immediately,that he means,`the original contract of society',(37)which contract entered into,`a state',(38)he gives us to understand,is thereby `instituted',and men have undertaken to `submit to Laws'.(39)So long then as this first paragraph lasts,`society',I think,it is plain cannot but have been meaning the same as `government'.
6.3dly,All this while too,this same `state of nature'to which we have seen `Society'(a state spoken of as existing)put synonymous,and in which were it not for government,men,he informs us,in the next page,would `remain',(40)is a state in which they never were.So he expressly tells us.This `notion',says he,`of an actually existing unconnected state of nature';(that is,as he explains himself afterwards,(41)`a state in which men have no judge to define their rights,and redress their wrongs),is too wild to be seriously admitted'.(42)When he admits it then himself,as he does in his next page,we are to understand,it seems,that he is bantering us:and that the next paragraph is (what one should not otherwise have taken if for)a piece of pleasantry.
7.4thly,The original contract is a thing,we are to understand,that never had existence;perhaps not in any state:certainly therefore not in all.`Perhaps,in no instance',says our Author,`has it ever been formally expressed at the first institution of a state.'(43)8.5thly,Notwithstanding all this,we must suppose,it seems,that it had in every state:`yet in nature and reason',(says our Author)`it must always be understood and implied'.(44)Growing bolder in the compass of four or five pages,where he is speaking of our own Government,he asserts roundly,(45)that such a Contract was actually made at the first formation of it.`The legislature would be changed',he says,`from that which was originally set up by the general consent and fundamental act of the society.'
9.Let us try whether it be not possible for something to be done towards drawing the import of these terms out of the mist in which our Author has involved them.The word `Society',I think it appears,is used by him,and that without notice,in two senses that are opposite.In the one,SOCIETY,or a STATE of SOCIETY,is put synonymous to a STATE of NATURE;and stands opposed to GOVERNMENT,or a STATE OF GOVERNMENT:in this sense,it maybe styled,as it commonly is,natural SOCIETY.In the other,it is put synonymous to GOVERNMENT,or a STATE OF GOVERNMENT;and stands opposed to a STATEOF NATURE.In this sense it may be styled,as it commonly is,political SOCIETY.Of the difference between these two states,a tolerably distinct idea,.I take it,may be given in a word or two.
10.The idea of a natural society is a negative one.The idea of a political society is a positive one.`Tis with the latter,therefore,we should begin.
When a number of persons (whom we may style subjects)are supposed to be in the habit of paying obedience to a person,or an assemblage of persons,of a known and certain description (whom we may call governor or governors)such persons altogether (subjects and governors)are said to be in a state of political SOCIETY.
11.The idea of a state of natural SOCIETY is,as we have said,a negative one.When a number of persons are supposed to be in the habit of conversing with each other,at the same time that they are not in any such habit as mentioned above,they are said to be in a state of natural SOCIETY.
