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

78 The Di'l:ision of Rights.
prE"~ed,· the best qualified candidate has a right
to success; yet if be be rejected~ be bas no remedy; .
He can neith,:r seize the tJflic£r by force, nor obtain
any redress at law; his right therefote is imperfect.
A poor neighbour bas a right to relief; yet if it be
refllSed ~dm, lie must not- extort it. A benefactor
ha!' a right to returns of gratitude from the person
he has obliged; yet if he meet with none~ he must
acquiesce. ChIldren have a right to affection and
ed1ucation from their parents; and parents, on their
part, to duty and reverence from their children ;
yet if these righ!s be on either side withholden, there
is no cornpulsion to enforce them.
I It may be at fir:.:t view difficult to apprebend how
fa person should have a right to a thing, and yet have
no right to use the means neces~ary to obtain it"
This difficulty, like most others in morality, iSJ~
svlY~ble- jDt(tt~ necessity of geI!eral ru!e~. The
reader recollects, that a person is said to have a
"right" to a thing, when it is "consistent Y~ith the
will of God" that he should possess it. So that the
. question is reduced to this; how _i!_ c,?me~ __ ~o pa_ss,
. that it shouI4_b~_cJ.?n~i~!ent with the will of God,
that a person shoul_4.pol'$e~$_ athrngL~nd yet !iot~e
(cc'nsistent with the __ same wilt--tnat he should u~.e
\ force -ti-_j:~btaili_ ii-? The answer is, that by reasen of
I
'the indeterminateness, either of the object, or of the
circumstances of the right, the l>~rmi~sion of force
in thi, case would, in its consequence, It-ad to the
\ pprmission of force in other cases., '" here there exist­
\ ed no right at aH. The candidate above described
'ha