| CHAPTER. III. |
| |
| Of the State of War. |
| |
| |
| |
|
Sec. 16. THE
state of war is a state of enmity
and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty,
but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him
against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's
power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses
his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which
threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be
preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is
to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an
enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such
men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of
force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious
creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.
|
| |
|
Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get
another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with
him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have
reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use
me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it;
for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by
force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free
from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him,
as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it;
so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war
with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any
one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as
he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that
society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing
else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.
|
| |
|
Sec. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who
has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by
the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he
pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power,
let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take
away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And
therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war
with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever
introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.
|
| |
|
Sec. 19. And here we have the plain difference between the
state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far
distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state
of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction, are one from another. Men living
together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge
between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force,
upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for
relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of
war even against an aggressor, tho' he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief,
whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may
kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was
made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force,
which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of
war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to
our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may
be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature:
force without right, upon a man's person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and
is not, a common judge.
|
| |
|
Sec. 20. But when the actual force is over, the state of war
ceases between those that are in society, and are equally on both sides subjected to the
fair determination of the law; because then there lies open the remedy of appeal for the
past injury, and to prevent future harm: but where no such appeal is, as in the state of
nature, for want of positive laws, and judges with authority to appeal to, the state of
war once begun, continues, with a right to the innocent party to destroy the other
whenever he can, until the aggressor offers peace, and desires reconciliation on such
terms as may repair any wrongs he has already done, and secure the innocent for the
future; nay, where an appeal to the law, and constituted judges, lies open, but the remedy
is denied by a manifest perverting of justice, and a barefaced wresting of the laws to
protect or indemnify the violence or injuries of some men, or party of men, there it is
hard to imagine any thing but a state of war: for wherever violence is used, and injury
done, though by hands appointed to administer justice, it is still violence and injury,
however coloured with the name, pretences, or forms of law, the end whereof being to
protect and redress the innocent, by an unbiassed application of it, to all who are under
it; wherever that is not bona fide done, war is made upon the sufferers, who having no
appeal on earth to right them, they are left to the only remedy in such cases, an appeal
to heaven.
|
| |
|
Sec. 21. To avoid this state of war (wherein there is no
appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is
no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reason of men's putting
themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature: for where there is an
authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance
of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power. Had there
been any such court, any superior jurisdiction on earth, to determine the right between
Jephtha and the Ammonites, they had never come to a state of war: but we see he was forced
to appeal to heaven. The Lord the Judge (says he) be judge this day between the children
of Israel and the children of Ammon, Judg. xi. 27. and then prosecuting, and relying on
his appeal, he leads out his army to battle: and therefore in such controversies, where
the question is put, who shall be judge? It cannot be meant, who shall decide the
controversy; every one knows what Jephtha here tells us, that the Lord the Judge shall
judge. Where there is no judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in heaven. That question
then cannot mean, who shall judge, whether another hath put himself in a state of war with
me, and whether I may, as Jephtha did, appeal to heaven in it? of that I myself can only
be judge in my own conscience, as I will answer it, at the great day, to the supreme judge
of all men.
|
| |
| |
| |
