incapacity of defence, and the wants which they cannot fupply, in a state of nature, induce them to affociate together, and may confidered as the bafis of civil fociety.

bo

A ftate of fociety when contrafted to a ftate of nature, must not be confidered as merely artificial, and therefore unnatural. The truth is, that the focial state is perfectly congenial to the feelings of the human heart. Man is a gregarious animal, and the principles of his nature lead him to the formation of focial connexions.

The act of uniting in fociety, is called the original compact, or focial contract, and is fuppofed to be a voluntary agreement be tween individuals, by which they form the conftitution of govern ment, and fecure the enjoyment of political liberty, and the purfuit of private happiness. Governments that have been established by force do not admit of this idea: but fuch is the origin and foundation of all free governments, tho generally it is impoffible to find any records of the formation of the focial compact. In America however, many inftances of that nature have taken place At the diffolution of our connexion with Great-Britain, tho we could not be literally faid, to be in a state of nature, yet the states which had been directly dependent on the British crown, were fo in a political point of view, and they proceeded to enter into focial compacts, and adopted conftitutions for their government. The conftitution of the United States, is the moft illuftrious example of a government founded on the voluntary contract of the people, that the page of hiftory has ever recorded.

Mankind when they enter into a ftate of fociety, refign to the community a certain portion of their natural liberty, to acquire civil liberty. They refign a part of their natural rights, to ac quire focial rights. Natural liberty confifts in a man's having the power to do whatever he pleases, uncontrouled by any fuperior, and regarding only the moral law. Civil liberty, confifts in a perfon's having the power to do whatever he pleafes, confiftent with the laws to which he has voluntarily fubjected himself.→→→ The object of a man in furrendering to the community any portion of his natural liberty, is to obtain compleat protection and fecu rity for political liberty. He does not therefore consent to the

impofition

impofition of any other reftraint upon his conduct by the government, than what is neceffary to fecure and preferve his focial rights.

We may therefore establish it as a maxim in legislation, that the rule to be adopted in enacting laws, must be to reftrain no acts but those which tend to the injury of individuals and the diffolution of government. Every law that deviates from this rule, is arbitrary and unjust, and reduces the people to political flavery. Every government that adopts this rule fecures to the fubjects political liberty.

Every citizen owes obedience to the laws of the ftate, and is entitled to protection and fecurity in his life, liberty, and property. The duties of protection and allegiance, are reciprocal.

Where civil government is once formed by the operation of natural principles, we find its fupport is derived from the fame fource. Man will as foon put an end to his existence, as withdraw himself from fociety, or ceafe to maintain it. The all-wife creator, has given mankind feelings that lead them to perform the courfe of conduct which he has defigned. Thefe principles refult from the neceffary conftitution of things. Man when alone is feeble and defenceless, incapable of protecting and defending himself. He is conftantly alarmed with fears of danger, and furrounded with wants which he cannot fupply. But when individuals unite together, they become capable of mutual protection, and defence, and of fupplying all their wants. From the combined and collected strength of the whole community, each individual derives a fecurity, which he cannot obtain when alone and feparate. The strongest of all motives, therefore, felf intereft and felf prefervation, co-operate to ftrengthen the bands of fociety. The happiness of men depend upon their connexion and union with their fellow creatures. Man banished from fociety is a miferable, melancholy being. In the company and converfation of his friends, he obtains all the pleafure that renders life worth enjoying. We muft eradicate from the human heart, the defire of happiness before man will cease to adhere to the community.

Political writers have generally entertained an idea, that men when they enter into a state of fociety, facrifice, or give up to the

community

a

community fome portion of natural rights, to acquire protection and fecurity for the remainder. A late writer on government whofe talents command our refpect, and whofe exertions to conununicate juft fentiments refpecting government, merit our approbation, has pointed out the error of this general propofition, and has advanced the principle, "that the rights of man are relative to his focial "nature, and that they exift only in a coincidence with the rights "of the whole, in a well ordered state of fociety, and civil gov"ernment: that fociety in the administration of right, grants "nothing to any of its members, and that every man is a propri❝ctor, and draws on the capital as matter of right." His opinion feems to be, that man makes no facrifice when he enters into the focial state, and that it is congenial to his nature.

The pofition that when men enter into the social state, they give up fome portion of natural right, to acquire fecurity for the remainder, is manifeftly erroneous. To fuppofe that men by uniting in fociety, only obtain fecurity for the rights they have referved, is contrary to fact. To fay that our natural and our focial rights are the fame, perhaps, is not perfectly correct. Some confufion probably has arifen with refpect to this fubject, from not annexing accurate ideas to the words, which have been used. To contrast the focial state, to the natural state, as tho the former was artificial, and the latter natural, is contrary to truth. No prin. ciple of human conduct, is more perfectly natural than that which prompts mankind to affociate together for matual benefit.

words focial, and natural, are not therefore to be confidered as defignating oppofite states, in which mankind are placed. They are only to be confidered as two diflinct ftates in which they may be contemplated to afcertain the rights and character of man.-I doubt whether a ftate of nature ever did, or can exift; but I can imagine fuch a ftate, and thence infer the advantages derived from a union in fociety.

In a natural state, the moral law would be the only rule of conduct. Admitting that mankind would pay a compleat regard to that law, what would be the confequence? It is eafy to obferve that they would not remain like fome favage tribes, in a rude un civilized

a Chapman's principles of government, 77.

Ibid. 112.

civilized state: nor would they live alone unconnected with each other. They would build towns and cities, improve in agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, and obtain all the pleasures of fociety. There would be no neceffity of a code of laws to regulate their conduct, or of a government to carry them into execution. They would be able to attain under the invariable influence and direction of the moral law, all that happiness which could be attained in a well regulated government. Human induftry, unfhackled by laws, might be exerted in every direction, and extended to the highest point of improvement. There would be no reftraint upon the conduct of man, but the moral law.

But fuppofing, that men would not pay a perfect obedience to the moral law, and yet did not carry their injuftice to an extreme, which required the ftrength of government to fupprefs it. The confequence would be, that whenever an individual fuftained an injury from the misconduct of another, he would have a right to be his own judge, to afcertain the recompence to which he is entitled, and the strength of his own arm must carry his decree into execution : he would be bound however to govern his judgment by the principles of moral justice.

But on actual experiment, it is found that men will not regard the dictates of the moral law, and that individual ftrength is infufficient to repel the violence of injuftice. It is therefore impracticable for them to exist in a state of nature, and they are under the neceffity of combining together for mutual protection and defence. This is the operation of a natural principle. But when men have arrived to the focial ftate, when they have adopted a civil government, how are their rights varied from what they are in the natural ftate? Every individual gives up the right of judging in his own cafe, and avenging his own wrong, to the community. In this refpect, natural right is varied. In confequence of this he acquires from the community, a right that his claim for the reparation of any injury, he has fuftained, fhall be afcertained by known and just principles, and that the whole ftrength of the community fhall be exerted to do him juftice. This is a right which he had not in a state of nature. It is a right which he acquires as a mem

ber

ber offocicty. In a fiate of nature, no man is bound to aid and af fift another in the profecution of justice, or the defence of his rights unless he pleafes. But in the ftate of fociety, every individual becomes obliged to exert his ftrength, in obedience to the order of the community, for the benefit of an individual, or for the prefervation of public tranquility.

Every member of the fociety fubmits to numerous restraints upon his conduct, which are not required by the moral law, or in the natural state, for the purpose of vefting in the hands of governinent, the power of furnithing him compleat fecurity and protection.We fubmit to many formalities refpecting contracts, which are the offspring of pofitive, and not of natural law, to render our property fecure. We confent to be refrained from doing many acts which are innocent in themfelves, and to be obliged to do many acts which the natural ftate does not require, to obtain compleat protection for the rights we mean to enjoy. In confequence of this, we acquire many rights, and advantages of a civil nature, which could not be obtained in the natural ftate. Hence it is evident that there is a diftinction between natural and civil rights, as they may be called more properly, than focial, because a perfon may enjoy focial rights, in what is properly called a ftate of nature. Natural and civil rights cannot be enjoyed at the fame time. must give up the one to attain the other. But the natural rights which we facrifice, are of but very little value, when compared with the civil rights we acquire in a free and well regulated government. Indeed they are of little value, because they are difficult to be exerted, but the civil rights are of immenfe value, and are capable of being realized.

This leads us to a correction of that opinion which has been maintained by fo many philofophers, that men refign part of their natural rights, to obtain fecurity for the remainder, by substituting the propofition that men give up to the community, a part of their natural rights to acquire civil rights. From this fame principle it follows, that the opinion that fociety in the adminiftration of right, grants nothing to any of its members, is not well founded. For in the civil fate, which is deemed the fame as the focial state, by the adminiflration