far our aim has been to separate philosophy from theology, and to proclaim the title to free thought and free discourse which these alike concede to all. It is now time to inquire how far this liberty of opinion and of speech extends in a well-ordered state. To discuss this subject with due order and regularity we must inquire into the foundations on which a commonwealth reposes, and first of the natural rights of individuals, without present reference to general polity and religion.
By right and institution of nature I understand nothing more than the rules of nature prescribed to individual things, whereby each is determined to existence and action in a certain specific manner. For example, — fishes are determined by nature to live in water, and the great to devour the small. Fishes therefore possess the water by the highest natural right, and by the same do the great live on the small. For it is certain that nature, considered absolutely, has unlimited rights within the bounds of possibility; in other words, the right of nature is as extensive as its power. The power of nature, however, is only another phrase for the power of God, who has the first and highest right to all and over all. But as the power of nature at large is nothing more than the aggregate power of every individual thing in nature, it follows that each individual thing has the highest right to all it can compass or attain, and that the rights of individuals are coextensive with their power. And as it is the highest law of nature that every individual thing should seek to continue in the state appropriate to it, and this with reference to itself alone and to nothing else, it follows that every individual has the highest right to its state, i.e., as I have said, to be and to do as its natural constitution determines. Nor do we here recognize any difference between man and the rest of the beings of creation; nor between the man endowed with reason and the man who knows nothing of reason, nor between the sane in mind and the insane or fatuous. For whatsoever does anything acts by the laws of its nature or by the highest right, because acting as it is ordained to do by nature, and incapable of acting otherwise. Wherefore, among men, so long as they are considered to be living under the empire of nature alone, he who as yet knows nothing of reason, or who has not yet the habit of virtuous conduct, lives with perfect right by the laws of mere appetite, even as he lives by the laws of highest right who regulates his life in conformity with the dictates of reason. In other words, as the wise man has the highest right to all that wisdom commands, or to live according to the laws of reason, so the foolish or ignorant man has entire right to live according to the laws of appetite. And this is what the Apostle Paul teaches when he acknowledges no sin before the promulgation of the law; that is to say, so long as men lived under the empire of nature they were not living in sin.
The natural right of every man therefore is determined by appetite and power, not by sound reason. For all are not constituted by nature to act according to the rules of reason. On the contrary, all are born ignorant of everything; and before they can know the true rule of life, and acquire virtuous habits, a great part of their lives must already have passed. Meantime, nevertheless, they are held to live, and, as much as in them lies, to preserve their state of being. But this they must do by the sole impulses of appetite or desire; for nature gives nothing else as a guide to the natural man, not conferring the power of living by the rules of sound reason. Men are therefore no more bound to live by the rule of absolute right than is a domestic cat to live by the laws of a lion's nature.