ever is necessaiy to this justifiable end of bringing him to reason, and obtaining justice and security from him/ We have taken nothing in this necessary defence, but from the very offenders — those who unjustly attacked us: — for we had a right of considering every individual of the British nation as an enemy. This I prove by the same great writer, p. 519, sect. 139, of the same book. An enemy attacking me unjustly, gives me an undoubted right of repelling his violences; and he who opposes me in arms, when I demand only my right, becomes himself the real aggressor, by his unjust resistance. He is the first author of the violence, and obliges me to make use of force, for securing myself against the wrongs intended me, either in my person or possessions; for if the effects of this force proceed so far as to take away his life, he owes the misfortune to himself; for if, by sparing him, I should submit to the injury, the good would soon become the prey of the wicked. Hence the right of killing enemies in a just war is derived; when their resistance cannot be sup- pressed — ^when they are not to be reduced by milder methods, there is a right of taking mvay their life. Un- der the name of enemies, as we have already shown, are comprehended not only the first author of the war, but likewise all wJw join him, and fight for his cause.^ Thus I think the first part of my position confirmed and unshaken; that in common wars, a nation not resti^ained by the customary law of nations, has a right to confis- cate debts/^ In the second member of that point, he is released from the serviUty of quotation; and, to borrow a phrase of his own, " remitted to the amplitude" of his natural genius: the reader will therefore be amused by a more copious extract. " From this I will go on to the other branch of my position. That if, in common wars.
u u
�� �
