among Men who live in a Community,28 the Liberties for Self-defence ought not to be near so large. For here, tho’ I may know for certain, that another Man has armed himself in order to set upon me, or has openly threatned to do me a Mischief; this will by no Means bear me out in assaulting him; but he is to be informed against before the Civil Magistrate, who is to require Security for his good Behaviour. The Use of Extremities in repelling the Force being then only justifiable, when I am already set upon, and reduced to such Streights, that I have no Opportunity to require the Protection of the Magistrate, or the Help of my Neighbours; and even then I am not to make use of Violence, that by the Slaughter of my Adversary I may revenge the Injury, but only because without it my own Life cannot be out of Danger.
Of the Time when in a State of Civil Society Self-defence may be allowable.
Now the Instant of Time, when any Man may with Impunity destroy another in his own Defence, is, when the Aggressor, being furnished with Weapons for the Purpose, and shewing plainly a Design upon my Life, is got into a Place where he is very capable of doing me a Mischief, allowing me some time, in which it may be necessary to prevent rather than be prevented; although in foro humano a little Exceeding be not much minded in regard of the great Disturbance such a Danger must be thought to raise in the Spirit of Man. And the Space of Time in which a Man may use Force in his own Defence, is so long as till the Assailant is either repulsed, or has with-drawn of his own accord, (whether in that Moment repenting of his wicked Design, or for that he sees he is like to miss of his Aim) so that for the present he cannot hurt us any more, and we have an Opportunity of retiring into a Place of Safety. *For as for Revenge of the Wrong done, and Caution for future Security, that belongs to the Care of the Civil Magistrate, and is to be done only by his Authority.
XIX. Whether a Man may use his Right of Self-defence against one that assaults him by mistake. L. N. N. l. 2. c. 5. §5.
Farthermore,29 both in a State of Nature, and in a Civil State, it is lawful for every Man to defend himself, if the Precautions before-mentioned be taken against him who attempts to take away his Life; whether it be designedly, and with a malicious Intention, or without any particular Design against the Party assaulted: As suppose a Mad-man, or a Lunatick, or one that mistakes me for some other Person who is his Enemy, should make an Attempt on my Life, I may justifiably use my Right of Self-Defence; for the Person from whom the Attempt comes, whereby my Life is hazarded, hath no Right to attack me, and I am by no means obliged to suffer Death unnecessarily; on which account it is altogether unreasonable that I should prefer his Safety to my own.
XX. How the most just Self-defence ought to be managed: and of Duels.
Nevertheless though true it is, that we ought not to take away another Man’s Life, when it is possible for us after a more convenient way to avoid the Danger we are in; yet in consideration of that great Perturbation of Mind, which is wont to be occasion’d upon the Appearance of imminent Mischief, it is not usual to be over-rigorous in the Examination of these Matters; for it is not likely that a Man trembling under the Apprehension of Danger, should be able to find out so exactly all those Ways of escaping, which to one who sedately considers the Case may be plain enough. Hence, though it is Rashness for me to come out of a safe Hold to him who shall challenge me; yet, if another shall set upon me in an open Place, I am not streight obliged to betake my self to Flight, except there be at hand such a Place of Refuge as I may withdraw into without Peril: Neither am I always bound to retire; because then I turn my defenceless Back, and there may be hazard of falling; beside, that having once lost my Posture, I can hardly recover it again. But as the Plea of Self-defence is allow’d to that Person who shall thus encounter Danger, when he is going about his lawful Business, whereas if he had staid at Home he had been safe enough; so it is denied to him who being challenged to a Duel, shall by appearing set himself in that Condition, and except he kill his Adversary, himself must be slain. *For the Laws having forbidden his venturing into such Danger, any Excuse on account thereof is not to be regarded.
XXI. Defence of Members. L. N. N. l. 2. c. 5. §10.
What may be done for the Defence of Life may also for the Members;30 so as that he shall be acquitted for an honest Man who shall kill a Ruffian, that perhaps had no farther Intention than to maim him, or give him some grievous Wound: For all Mankind does naturally abhor to be maimed or wounded; and the cutting off any, especially of the more noble Members, is often not of much less value than Life itself; beside, we are not sure beforehand, whether upon such wounding or maiming Death may not follow; and to endure this is a Sort of Patience that surpasses the ordinary Constancy of a Man, †to which no man is regularly obliged by the Laws, only to gratifie the outragious Humour of a Rogue.
XXII. Defence of Chastity. L. N. N. l. 2. c. 5. §11.
Moreover, what is lawfully to be done for Preservation of Life,‡is adjudged to be so for Chastity: Since there cannot be a more horrid Abuse offered to an honest Woman, than to force her out of that which being kept undefiled is esteemed the greatest Glory of their Sex; and to put upon her a Necessity of raising an Offspring to her Enemy out of her own Blood.
XXIII. Defence of Goods or Estate. L. N. N. l. 2. c. 5. §16.
As for Defence of Goods or Estate, this may, among those who are in a State of Natural Liberty, go as far as the Slaughter of the Invader, *provided what is in Controversie be not a Thing contemptible. For without Things necessary we cannot keep our selves alive; and he equally declares himself my Enemy, who wrongfully seizes my Estate, as he that attempts upon my Life. But in Communities, where what is ravished from us may, with the Assistance of the Civil Authority, be recovered, this is not regularly allowed; unless in such case when he that comes to take away what we have, cannot be brought to Justice: On which account it is, that we may lawfully kill Highwaymen and Night-robbers.
XXIV. Self Defence in him that first injur’d. L. N. N. l. 2. c. 6. §19.
And thus much for Self-Defence in those who without Provocation are unjustly invaded by others: But for him who has first done an Injury to another, he can only then rightly defend himself with Force, and hurt the other again, when having repented of what he has done, he has offered Reparation of the Wrong and Security for the future; and yet he who was first injured, shall, out of ill Nature, refuse the same, and endeavour to revenge himself by Violence; [shewing hereby that he seeks not so much Reparation and Right to himself, as Mischief to the other.]
XXV. Self Preservation in Cases of Necessity. L. N. N. l. 2. c. 6.
Lastly, Self-Preservation is of so much regard, that, if it cannot otherwise be had, in many Cases it exempts us from our Obedience to the standing Laws; and on this Score it is, that Necessity is said to have no Law. For seeing Man is naturally inspired with such an earnest Desire to preserve himself, it can hardly be presumed that there is any Obligation laid upon him, to which he is to sacrifice his own Safety. For tho’ not only God, but the Civil Magistrate, when the Necessity of Affairs requires it, may lay upon us so strict an Injunction, that we ought rather to die than vary a Little from it; yet the general Obligation of Laws is not held to be so rigorous. For the Legislators, or those who first introduced Rules for Mankind to act by, making it their Design to promote the Safety and common Good of Men, must regularly be supposed to have had before their Eyes the Condition of Human Nature, and to have considered how impossible it is for a Man not to shun and keep off all Things that tend to his own Destruction. Hence those Laws especially, called Positive, and all Human Institutions are judged to except Cases of Necessity; or, not to oblige, when the Observation of them must be accompanied with some Evil which is destructive to Human Nature, or not tolerable to the ordinary Constancy of Men; unless it be expressly so ordered, or the Nature of the Thing requires, that even that also must be undergone. Not that Necessity justifies the Breach of a Law and Commission of Sin; but it is presumed, from the favourable Intention of the Legislators, and the Consideration of Man’s Nature, that Cases of Necessity are not included in the general
