fond mother might find a black cinder for her cnid, or a bious daughter a half-charred mass of bones for her father, although he had been only in an adjoining apartment, the slightest cry or groan from which would have brought her .o arrest the calamity.

In this instance, then, the law of combustion under which punishment is inflicted, is both benevolent and just, even when pair visits persons who were incapable of avoiding the offence; because the object of the law is the welfare of these very unconscious offenders themselves, so that if it were subverted, they would be greatly injured, and would loudly petition for its re-establishment.

Let us take another example. Opium, by its inherent qualities, and the relationship established by the Creator between it and the nervous system of man, operates, if taken in one proportion, as a stimulant; if the proportion is increased, it becomes a sedative; and if still increased, it paralyses the nervous system altogether, and death ensues. Now, it is generally admitted, that there is no want of benevolence and justice, when a full-grown and intelligent man loses his life, if he deliberately swallow an overdose of opium, knowing its qualities and their effects; because, it is said, he exposed himself to these effects voluntarily: When, however, an ignorant child, groping about for something to eat and drink, in order to satisfy the craving of its natural curiosity and appetite, stumbles on a phial of laudanum, intended for the use of some sick relative, pulls the cork, drinks, and dies, many persons imagine that it is very difficult to discover justice and benevolence in this severe, and, as they say, unmerited catastrophe.

But the real view of the law under which both events happen, appears to me to be this. The inherent qualities of opium, and its relationship to the nervous system, are very obviously benevolent, and are the sources of manifest advantages to man. If, in order to avoid every chance of accidents, opium, in so far as children are concerned, were deprived of its qualities, so that their nervous systems

received no greater impression from it than from tepid water, it is clear that they would be decidedly sufferers. The greatest advantages of the drug are derived from its scale of efficiency, by which it can be made to produce, first a stimulating effect, then a gently sedative, and afterwards a higher and a higher degree of sedative influence, until, by insensible degrees, absolute paralysis may ensue. A dose which kills in health will cure in disease and, if its range were limited to effects beneficial in health, its advantages in disease, arising from higher action, would necessarily be lost so that children, by the supposed arrangement, would be cut off from its beneficial administration. The parallel between it and the law of combusion is complete. If we could never have commanded a degree of heat higher than that which gently warms the human body, we must have wanted all the advantages now derivable from the intense heats used in cooking, baking, and manufacturing; if we could never have commanded more than the gently stimulant and sedative effects of opium on the body in a state of health, we should necessarily have been deprived of its powerful remedial action in cases of disease. The proper question then is, Whether is it more benevolent and just that children, after they have been exposed, from whatever cause, to that high degree of its influence, which, although beneficial in disease, is adverse to the healthy action of the nervous system, should be preserved alive in this miserable condition, or that life should at once be terminated? It appears obviously advantageous to the offender himself, that death should relieve him from the unhappy condition into which his organized frame has been brought by the abuse of this substance, calculated, when discreetly used, to ronfer on him no mean advan tages

The principle that divme punishments are founded in Denevolence, even to the sufferer, is strongly elucidated in the case of the organic laws. When inflammation, for example, has seized any vital organ, if there were no pain,

here would be no intimation that an organic law had been infringed, the disease would proceed quietly in its progress, and death would ensue without the least previous warning The pain attending an acute disease, the efore, is obviously instituted to warn the sufferer, by the most forcible of all admonitions, to return to obedience to the law which he has infringed. In the case of a broken limb, or a deep cut, the principle becomes exceedingly obvious. The bone of the leg will reunite, if the broken edges are preserved in close contact; and the subsequent serviceable condition of the limb will depend much upon the degree of exactness with which they have been made to re-approach and been preserved in their natural position. Now, in the first place, the pain attending a broken limb gives a most peremptory intimation that an injury has been sustained; secondly, it excites the individual most forcibly to the reparation of it; and, thirdly, as it recurs with a degree of violence exactly proportioned to the disturbance of the parts, after the healing process has commenced, it officiates like a sentinel with a drawn sword, compelling the patient to avoid every thing that may impede his recovery. The same observations apply to a flesh-wound. The pain serves to intimate the injury, and to excite to its removal. The dissevered edges of the skin, nerves, and muscles, if skilfully made to re-approach, will, by the organic law, reunite if left in repose. An accession of pain follows every disturbance of their condition, when in the process of healing; and it serves, therefore, as a most effectual and benevolent guarIdian of the welfare of the individual. If these views be correct, what person would dispense with the pain which attends the infringement of the organic laws, although such a boon were offered for his acceptance? It is obvious, that, if he possessed the least glimmering of understanding, he would thank the Creator for the institution, and beg in mercy to be allowed the benefits attending it; especially if he considered the fact, that, after the possibility of recovery coases, deh steps in to terminate the suffering.

The point to which I request the reader's special atten tion is, that the power of the individual to avoid, or not to avoid, the infringement of the law in the particular instance which brings the punishment, is not an indispensable circumstance in rendering the infliction benevolent and just The infliction is approved of by the moral sentiments and intellect, because the law, in its legitimate operation, is calculated altogether for the advantage of the subject; and because the punishment has no object but to bring him back to obedience for his own welfare, or to terminate his sufferings when he has erred too widely to return.

Let us now inquire whether the same principle prevails in regard to the infringement of the Moral and Intellectual Laws. This investigation is attended with great difficulty; and it may be best elucidated by attending, in the first place, to the liability to punishment for their actions, under which the lower animals are placed.

The physical and organic laws affect the inferior creatures in the same manner as they regulate man, so tha nothing need be said on these points. The animals are endowed with propensities impelling them to act, and a certain degree of intellect enabling them to perceive the consequences of their actions. These faculties prompt them to inflict punishment on each other for infringement of their rights, although they possess no sentiments pointing out the moral guilt of such conduct. For example, dogs possess Acquisitiveness, which gives them the sense of property: when one is in possession of a bone, and another attempts to steal it, this act instantly excites the Combativeness and Destructiveness of the proprietor of the bone, and he proceeds to worry the assailant. Or a cock, on a dunghill, finds a rival intruding on his domain, and under the instinctive inspiration of Combativeness and o Tended Self-Esteem, he attacks him and drives him off I call this inflicting animal punishment. In these cases it is not supposed that the aggressors possess moral faculties, intimating that their trespass is wrong, or free will by

which they could avoid it. I view them as mspired by their propensities, and rushing blindly to gratification. Nevertheless, in the effect which the aggression produces on the propensities of the animal assailed, we perceive an arrangement instituted by the Creator for checking out age, and arresting its progress.

Before the penalty inflicted could be viewed by man as just in such cases, it would be necessary to perceive that it was instituted for the benefit of the aggressors themselves; and, in truth, this is clearly observed to be the case. If all dogs neglected to seek bones, and dedicated themselves. solely to stealing; and if cocks, in general, deserted their own domains, and gave themselves up only to felonious mroads on each other's territories; it is evident that the races of these animals would soon become extinct. It follows also, that any individual among them who should habitually abandon himself to such transgressions, would speedily lose his life by violence or starvation. If, then, it is beneficial for the race, and also for the individual offender himself, in these instances, to be arrested in his progress, his chastisement is decidedly benevolent and just.

It is interesting to observe, that various provisions are nade under the animal law for bringing about substantial justice, even in creatures destitute of the sentiment of Conscientiousness. The lower animals make perfectly sure of punishing only the real offender; for he must be caught in the act, otherwise he is not visited by their resentment. In the next place, it appears to be the general law of animal nature, that, unless the offender has carried his inroad to an extreme extent, the punishment is relaxed the moment he desists; that is to say, the master of the bone or dunghill is generally satisfied with simple defence, and rarely abandons his treas ire to pursue the offender for he sake of mere revenge.

Farther, the animals, in inflicting punishment, make no inquiry into the cause of the offence. With them it affords no alleviation that the aggressor is himself in a state of the