The answer is by referring here, as elsewhere, to the principle of the general rule, which forbids the use of force for the attainment of an object in itself indeterminate, through the fear of the consequence it would lead to, by the introduction of force in cases where no right existed. For instance, a candidate, the best qualified, has a right to success; but as the qualifications are of an indeterminate nature, there must be some person to determine them before he can demand success by force. Now such person cannot be the candidate himself, or any of his party, unless we extend the same allowance to other candidates. If we do that, all would resort to compulsion. In like manner, although the poor man has a right to relief, yet as the mode, time, and quantity of the relief are circumstances not ascertained, the relief must not be prosecuted by force. For to allow the poor to judge for themselves in such cases, would lead, as a consequence, to the general insecurity and loss of property. Where the right is imperfect, so is the obligation; for the terms are, as shown before, reciprocal. Obligations are here called imperfect, because they are called so by other writers. The term is, however, ill chosen; for it leads to the notion, that there is less guilt in the violation of an imperfect obligation than of a perfect one; which is a groundless opinion. For the degree of guilt is determined by circumstances unconnected with the distinction between a perfect and imperfect obligation; that distinction being used merely to determine, whether violence may or may not be used to enforce the obligation. He who discourages a worthy candidate commits a greater crime than he who picks a pocket; although, in the former case, he violates an imperfect, but, in the latter, a perfect obligation. As positive precepts are often indeterminate, and as the indeterminateness of an obligation renders it imperfect, positive precepts can merely produce an imperfect obligation; and, contrariwise, negative precepts, being precise, constitute perfect obligations. The fifth commandment is posi tive, and its duty is imperfect; the sixth is negative, and its 110 How is it solved? Illustrate by example. 111 Of what kind is the obligation when the right is imperfect? Why? Give examples. duty perfect. Religion and virtue find their voluntary exercise among the former; the laws of society compel the exercise of the latter. CHAP. XI.-THE GENERAL RIGHTS OF MAN. These rights, belonging collectively to the species, are— 1. To the fruits of the earth. The insensible parts of the creation are incapable of feeling hurt; and as God has given to man both the desire of food and the means of obtaining it; he, of course, intended us to use the fruits of the earth as food. 2. To the flesh of animals. This is a different claim; and, as a reason is necessary for depriving animals of their liberty and life, and for inflicting pain, to gratify the appetite; it has been said,-1. That as brutes prey on each other, so man, a species of brute, only obeys the general law in preying on other brutes. 2. That if animals were not destroyed by man, they would overrun the earth, and drive man from the occupation of it. But, first, the analogy between man and brutes is not correct. Carnivorous brutes cannot live by other means, man can; and, as in the case of the Hindoos, actually does live without tasting flesh of any kind. Secondly, the calculated increase of animals would not take place naturally; since many are forced into existence for the express purpose of subsequent destruction. Besides, as in the case of fish, how is man's occupation of the earth endangered by their unlimited increase? The only real defence of such a right is in the permission granted by God to Noah, in the words, "every moving thing shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things ;"-which last alone was included in the original grant to Adam, in the words— "every green herb shall be meat for you.' But although this extension of the grant over the beasts of the earth, the fowls of the air, and fish of the sea, did not take place till 116 What motives induce the fulfilment of either kind of obligations? 117 What is meant by general rights? 118 What is the first general right? How proved? 119 What is the second general right? Is it evident! 120 What two reasons are given in vindication of it? 122 Where is our only permission of that right? 123 Was this given in the time of Adam? after the flood, we are not told whether the antediluvians refrained or not from the flesh of animals. Abel, we read, was a keeper of sheep; but for what purpose, except for food, it is difficult to say, unless it were for sacrifices. If so, it is probable that Noah, with some other antediluvians, was scrupulous on this point, and consequently received a permission to do what he previously deemed sinful; for God would not have given as a new grant, a permission to do what had been practised long before without dispute. But even such a permission to destroy will not warrant the liberty of studied or wanton cruelty to brutes. From reason, then, and revelation, it appears that God intended the fruits of the earth for man's support; but as he did not intend any waste or misapplication of those productions, such acts are, like others more expressly mentioned, wrong, as contrary to God's will. Hence, the conversion of corn-fields into parks for deer, or covers for foxes; the non-cultivation of lands by parties in possession, or the refusal to let them to those who will cultivate them; the destruction or waste of food with the view to increase the price of stocks on hand; the expending on superfluous dogs and horses the sustenance of man; or the conversion of grain into ardent spirits. These, and, in short, all acts, by which the food of man is diminished either in quantity or quality, are sinful, as opposed to God's desire for the happiness of his creatures. This lesson Christ probably intended to inculcate, when he bade his disciples gather up the fragments, that nothing might be lost and this lesson men ought to bear in mind, when scheming plans for their own individual advantage; as they are apt to forget that it is their duty to obtain the greatest quantity of food from their estates, and that not to do so is a sin. From the same view of the intentions of the Deity, we 124 Might it not be allowed without being incorporated with Scripture history? 125 With that supposition, what is the probable reason that the permission was given to Noah? 126 What are we taught concerning the fruits of the earth? 127 What would oppose such intentions? 128 Give a few examples. 129 What would be the nature of such acts? 130 What negligence would this lesson reprove? prove that nothing ought to be exclusive property, that can be enjoyed in common. For example, two or more persons, thrown on a desert island, find an apple-tree loaded with fruit: each may take enough for his own immediate use, and every one plead the general intention of the Supreme Proprietor. But none can claim the whole tree; for it must be previously shown that God intended the tree to be given to one or a few individuals. Now this intention can be proved only by showing that the fruit cannot be enjoyed with the same advantage when distributed to all, as when confined to one or a few. But this will be true only, when there is not enough for all, or where the article in question requires labor for its preservation and production. But where no such reason obtains, it is an usurpation of general right to confine the use to one or to a few." If a medical spring, sufficient to supply all who wished to use it, were discovered on ground belonging to an individual; the owner of the ground, and the discoverer of the spring, if it was found by laborious search, may merit compensation and reward; but no human law would justify the owner in confining to himself the use of God's general gift. In like manner, all attempts to appropriate inexhaustible fisheries to individual nations is an encroachment on the general rights of man. On the same principle may be settled the contested question, whether the sea be free or not? What is necessary for each nation's safety may be allowed, even to the extent of three leagues from the coast; a limit far beyond the reach of any implements of war, by which the safety of the coast might be endangered. 3. The last universal right is the right of necessity; that is, the right to use or destroy another's property, when it is necessary to do so for self-preservation. For instance, to take, without the leave, and against the consent of the owner, goods or chattels, when we are in danger of perishing through want of them; a right to throw goods overboard to save a ship from sinking, or to pull down a house to stop the 131 What seems to be another intention of the Deity? 132 When can a reason be given to show that this is not his intention? 133 What is said of a medicinal spring ?-of fisheries?—and of the sea? 134 What is the last universal right? 135 What is meant by that right? Give examples. progress of a fire. This right is founded on the principle, that the institutions relating to property were intended to benefit all, even if it should happen to be at the expense of a few; and, consequently, the partial mischief resulting from the violation of a general rule is overbalanced by the immediate advantage. Restitution, however, is due, not to the full value of the property so destroyed, but to the value which it possessed at that time; and as it was in danger of perishing, that value might be but little. 136 On what is this right founded? 137 But what should always follow such destruction? 138 What amount of restitution would be due ? |