From this review of things it appears, that whatever the Gospel prefcribes to us concerning our duty to our neighbour; whatever it has affured us of life and immortality; whatever it has taught us to believe of our prefent exiftence, as a state of probation only; whatever it holds forth to our view of the peculiar attention and care of Providence over us; whatever fubmiffion and refignation to the Divine will it recommends; whatever reliance on God's promifes it enjoins; whatever control over our irregular appetites and paflions (thofe firebrands of selfmurder) it directs; whatever faith it commands; whatever patience it requires ;— all these revelations, admonitions, and precepts, are fo many clear premifes, from whence it follows, even to demonftration, how much the Deity, in the discovery of his will to mankind, has discountenanced and forbidden the bloody maxims and practice of felf-murder. Nor is there any room to doubt this, because it has not been especially condemned by name in the Gofpel; fince numberlefs are the fins not fpecifically named in holy writ, or in fo many words forbidden, but which are clearly prohibited by implication and rational deduction; and of which, as being fins on Chriftian principles, none but fuch as are incredulous of the whole fyftem can entertain a moment's doubt. One instance may fuffice. The principle of exceffive gambling has no advocate in theory, though it meets with fo many upholders in practice. It is an acknowledged vice, and allowed by every one to be of the moft pernicious and deftru&tive tendency to individuals and fociety and yet where can that precept be found in the facred page, which enjoins in fo many words, "Thou shalt not game [G]?" It would have been unneceffary to have mentioned fo obvious a truth, as that there are many acknowledged fins not mentioned by name in fcripture, were we not called to it, in order to counteract the baneful effects of a poifon, which lurks under an extraordinary note, with which the pofthumous [H] Effay afcribed to the late

[G] St. Paul (Ephef. iv. 14.) ufes the word voux (a word plainly derived from the gaming-table of the Greeks) in a metaphorical sense—iv T xuông Two arpww, which we tranflate "by the flight of "men;" an apt allufion to the deceit and cunning of gamefters. It is plain alfo, how gaming was held in St. Paul's time, by the company with which he has joined Sua, viz. & in mareggia aos and Melodelar TYS Traves-" cunning craftinefs, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.".

It is curious to remark, that in Cruden's Concordance, the place which would naturally be filled by the word "gaming," were there fuch a word to be found in holy writ, is occupied by "gangrene," which fo well expreffes the baneful effects of gaming.

[H] The Effay itself will be confidered in a future part of this work.

Mr.

Mr. Hume is concluded; and which, extraordinary as it may seem, is the fingle notice he is pleased to take, how this subject is affected by the doctrines of Christianity.

After having concluded his effay, Mr. Hume thrufts what follows into a note, as if what is therein treated of did not deserve a better place." It would be eafy (fays he) to prove, that suicide is as lawful under the Chriftian difpenfation, as it was to the Heathens. There is not a single text of scripture "which prohibits it. That great and infallible rule of faith and practice, which "muft control all philosophy and human reasoning, has left us in this particular "to our natural liberty. Refignation to Providence is indeed recommended " in fcripture, but that implies only fubmiffion to ills that are unavoidable, "not to fuch as may be remedied by prudence and courage. "Thou fhalt not kill," is evidently meant to exclude only the killing of others, over whose "life we have no authority. That this precept, like most of the scriptureprecepts, must be modified by reafon and common fenfe, is plain from the "practice of magiftrates, who punish [1] criminals capitally, notwithstanding "the letter of the law. But were this commandment ever fo express against "fuicide, it would now have no authority, for all the Law of Mofes is [K] abolished, except fo far as it is established by the Law of Nature. And we "have already endeavoured to prove, that fuicide is not prohibited by that law. "In all cafes Chriftians and Heathens are precisely upon the fame footing. "Cato and Brutus, Arria and Portia [L] acted heroically; those who now "imitate their example, ought to receive the fame praises from pofterity. The power of committing fuicide is regarded by Pliny, as an advantage which men poffefs even above the Deity himself. "Deus (fays he, Nat. Hift. "Lib. II. 7.) non fibi poteft mortem confcifcere fi velit, quod homini dedit optimum in tantis vitæ pœnis.""

[1] See concerning the power of the magiftrate to punish capitally in Part II. c. iii.

[K] Or rather improved (he fhould have faid) by the law of Christianity. It happens alfo unfortunately for Hume, that this commandment, being of moral, not typical or ceremonial obligation, is not only not abolished, but even extended and enlarged by our Saviour himself. See Matt. v.

[1] Thefe examples will be mentioned in other places: as will also the quotation from Pliny. Suffice it to obferve here, that as the Deity is liable to no imperfection or trouble, He cannot want means of escaping it.

This note has been quoted at large, in order to avoid all imputation of misrepresentation; it is now time to attend to its extraordinary affertions. It may be allowed, in fome fenfe, that fuicide is as lawful at prefent, as it was in the days of Heathenism, because, in fact, it was never really lawful at all, but only lefs cenfurable in the times of ignorance and error, than in the brighter ones of revelation. Let us not, however, neglect to thank our author for the noble eulogy he has been pleased to bestow on Christianity, when he allows it must control all philosophy and human reasoning. However, it seems as if he thought that his own philosophy and favourite positions were subject to no such control, fince his method of reafoning and conclufions on many points cannot be true, unless this great and infallible rule of faith and practice be falfe. There is a wonderful propensity in man to except "his own cafe" from the authority of those general rules, which he fees the propriety, and even neceffity, of establishing for the conduct of others. The definition he next proposes of fcriptural refignation is curious; being one of those happy ambiguities with which this writer fo much abounds. If he means only, (a fenfe that his words may well. bear) that we are not commanded in fcripture to do nothing for ourselves, to fit with our hands folded, and " refign" ourselves up to the care of Providence, under thofe evils of life, from which, by an exertion of activity, of prudence and courage, we might free ourselves; but only to fubmit our cause to God, and to rely on his Providence under fuch evils as, after all our precautions and exertions, are ftill unavoidable-if this be his meaning, we heartily join iffue with him. But if by his "prudence" he means, a determination to get rid of evils at any rate, and by his " courage," the fort of refolution requifite to perpetrate fuicide, here we must widely feparate from following his opinion. It is not clear what ills can, in this cafe, be called "unavoidable," fince the power will always exift of getting rid of them at pleasure in this way; or, consequently, when an opportunity can ever occur of exercising that refignation to Providence, which he allows to be recommended in fcripture. These latter infinuations alone make to his purpose, otherwife he allows at once, that we ought to be refigned under evils, which we cannot by all our exertion avoid.

As to Christians and Heathens being precisely on the fame footing with respect to the innocence or criminality of fuicide, the affertion evidently rests on this false ground, that because it is not exprefly forbidden by name in the Gospel, it

1

is therefore (he concludes) not prohibited at all: whereas it appears from what has been said above in this chapter, that the whole scope and defign of the Gofpel-covenant is profeffedly at variance with every idea [M] which the impatience of fuicide fuggefts. Befides, if a fuperior degree of light thrown on the understanding demands a more precife and accurate judgment of things; if human ignorance and error cannot be weighed in the fame fcale with Divine wisdom and truth, then it must be unjust to determine on an Heathen's conduct by a Chriftian's line of duty. The former might well have his doubts. and difficulties with respect to his behaviour in this life and his existence in the next; the latter can have none: and as the obligation to the performance of every moral and religious duty is abundantly heightened by the illumination of the Gospel, fo the violation of those duties must be infinitely more criminal now than heretofore. If then fuicide were even allowed to be" lawful” in an Heathen, and were further allowed not to be particularly and exprefly forbidden by the general tenour of the Gospel, it does not neceffarily follow, that it would be lawful in a Chriftian alfo; because the moral and religious duties of a Christian, being founded on different obligations, must have different tendencies, and must lead to different modes of reafoning and different conclufions from an Heathen on the fame subject. But if fuicide were unlawful even in an Heathen, then its guilt must be much heightened in a Christian, even fuppofing he found no immediate precept concerning it in the Gofpel; becaufe every thing that was finful in the days of imperfection and involuntary error, must be surcharged with guilt in thofe of bright illumination. Whether, therefore, fuicide were or were not lawful in the days of Heathenifim, and allowing no immediate prohibition in the Gospel, yet a Chriftian ftands not on the fame ground with an

[M] A reafon has been affigned by fome writers, why felf-murder was not prohibited by name in the old law; because, whatever fins God, as a temporal lawgiver, especially prohibits by Himfelf, or his fervant Mofes, He prohibits with a certain penalty annexed of fuffering in property or perfon in this world; and the Jewish economy looked no further. But it was impoffible to annex any penalty to be fuffered in this world by the perpetrator of fuicide, and therefore his crime is not specially mentioned under the old law, though, perhaps, virtually included under the fixth commandment. (See Fleetwood's first fermon on Ahitophel's felf-murder.) It may be faid, but why then is it not mentioned in the Gofpel, where the above reafon could have no weight? Now the whole defign of the Gospel is fo evidently contradictory to the principles of fuicide, that it is impoflible to mistake it for a virtue, or even for an indifferent action under that difpenfation; wherefore it might feem the more unneceffary to brand it particularly by name for a finful one.

Heathen;

Heathen; fince his reafon being affifted, his judgment improved, his paffions regulated, his affections raised, his mind elevated, his duties cleared up and enlarged, his confidence in a fuperintending Providence ftrengthened, and his views of futurity expanded, it follows by juft confequence, that his determinations and decifions on many points of his conduct muft widely differ from thofe of an Heathen moralift. Inftead, therefore, of standing exactly in the fame predicament, their cafes are not at all to be deemed fimilar.

But furely one must imagine, that it could hardly be ferioufly concluded by Hume, that, because there was no fuch prohibition to be found in the Gospel, as Thou shalt not kill "6 thyfelf," felf-murder was, therefore, "not" intended to be forbidden. There are as few actual precepts for the performance of what is neceffary for felf-prefervation, as there are against self-deftruction: yet would an Hume (fuppofing him to have had fo much faith in fcripture, as to have determined to follow its direct precepts alone) have omitted to take his daily fuftenance, till he had found an exprefs written command, "Thou shalt eat "and drink to preferve life"? Or would he have chofen to continue in fome perilous fituation, furrounded by fire or water, because he had no where found it written in fcripture, "Thou shalt not stay to be burned or drowned, but "haste to make thy escape"? Yet he can triflingly maintain, (because it makes to his purpose) that it is a tacit allowance at least of suicide, because it is no where faid in the New Teftament in fo many words, "Thou shalt not drink "poison; blow out thy brains, or fall on thine own fword; in short, thou shalt "not kill thyself." Whoever is converfant with the facred writings, well knows that the express Gospel-precepts are generally fuch as teach us refignation, humility, patience, fubmiffion, which are all virtues not very favourable (as was before obferved) to the defperate plunge of fuicide; that the regulation of the paffions are their great aim, (a prevention this of the chief incitements to commit suicide) and that therefore they particularly warn us against falling into fuch practices as confpire with our irregular appetites and inclinations, deeming it unneceffary to mention fuch as our nature of itself is ready to abhor. To the illiterate and vulgar it fcarce feemed neceffary to obferve, "Thou shalt not "murder thyfelf;" genuine nature fays the fame to them every moment of their lives. But the philofopher, it seems, who attempts to argue away all natural