PHI LOS 0 P H Y . - Classic Works of Apologetics Online

258
u~ith the la\v of nature tllat rigllt \\thich the state cIainls
and exercises over the lives of its su~jects, when it Ol"­
dains or inflicts capita! punishments. Forthis right, like
all othe,· just authority in the state, can only be derived
from the compact and virtual conScllt of the citizel1S
\\yllich conlpose the state; alld it seems self.evident, if
any principle in morality be so, that no one, by his consent,
call transfer to another a right \vhicll he does 11()t
possess himself. It ,viII be equally difficlJlt to ~CCOl1nt
for the power of the state to commit its subjects to the
dangers of war, and to eXIJose their lives ,\~itllout scruple
in the field of battle; especially in oftensive hostilities,
in \vhich the privileges of selt~defence cannot be
pleaded \vith any appearance of truth; and still nlore
difficul~ to cxplai~l, how in such, or ill allY circunlstances,
prodigality of life can be a virtue, if the preservation
of it be a duty of our nature.
This whole reasoning sets out from one error, namely,
that the state acquires its right over the life of the
subject from the subject's O\Vll con8ent,as a part of \vhat
originally and personally belonged to himself~ and
which h/~ has made ()ver to his governors. The truth
is, the state derives this right, 11eirher fronl the consent
of the s'lbject,nor through the medium of that consent,
but, as I may say, immediately from the donation of
the Deity. Finding that stlch a power in the sovereign
of the comnlunity is expedient, if not necessary for the
community itself, it is justly presumed to be the will of
God, that the sovereign should possess and exercise it.
It is this presumption whicH constitutes the right ; it is
the same indeed which canstitutes every other; and if
there were the like reasons to authorize the presumption
in the case of private persons, suicide would be as
justifia"ble as war, or capital executions. But, until it
can be shown, that the power over human life may
be converted to the same advantage in the hands of in ..
dividuals over tlleir own, as in those of the state over
the lives of its subjects, and that it ma y be entrusted
with equal safety to both, there is no room for arguing
from the existence of such a right in the latter, to the
toleration of it ill the forlllt'r~