our behaviour be owing to the Author of Nature acting upon us every moment that we feel it, or to his having at once contrived and executed his own part in the plan of the world, makes no alteration as to the matter before us; for if civil magistrates could make the sanctions of their laws take place without interposing at all after they had passed them-without a trial, and the formalities of an execution—if they were able to make their laws execute themselves, or every offender to execute them upon himself-we should be just in the same sense under their government then as we are now, but in a much higher degree, and more perfect manner.” Then follows the passage which Mr Combe has adopted as the motto of his book: "Vain is the ridicule with which one foresees some persons will divert themselves, upon finding lesser pains considered as instances of divine punishment. There is no possibility of answering or evading the general thing here intended, without denying all final causes, for final causes being admitted, the pleasures and pains now mentioned must be admitted too as instances of them; and if they are if God annexes delight to some actions, and uneasiness to others, with an apparent design to induce us to act so and so, then he not only dispenses happiness and misery, but also rewards and punishes actions. If, for example, the pain which we feel upon doing what tends to the destruction of our bodies, suppose upon too near approaches to fire, or upon wounding ourselves, be appointed by the Author of Nature to prevent our doing what thus tends to our destruction, this is altogether as much an instance of his punishing our actions, and consequently of our being under his government, as declaring by a voice from heaven, that if we acted so, he would inflict such pain upon us, and inflicting it whether it be greater or less." I have quoted the whole of the above passage, as Mr Combe seems to lay much stress upon one part of it, though I think it will be evident that it affords no support to his system. In the first place, the "general thing intended" by Butler, is an analogical argument drawn from circumstances connected with our present state of existence, and rendering it probable that something similar may take place in a future state. This argument Mr Combe sets aside altogether, as what he has nothing to do with, and confines himself entirely to the situation of man in the present world. In regard to this last, Bishop Butler only refers to the cases (of which he gives an instance in the effect of fire upon our bodies) where the law is well known to all, and where it forces itself upon our notice in such a way that none can plead ignorance. He makes it particularly evident, that it is only these cases he refers to, as he states over and over again, that the pleasures or pains annexed to our actions, which we are beforehand informed of, are those which make us feel that we are under a government. These were quite sufficient for Bishop Butler's purpose, which was to shew, that as in certain cases we are rewarded and punished for our actions here, there is nothing incredible in supposing that there may be rewards and punishments in a future state. But certainly neither here nor anywhere else does Bishop Butler maintain, either that the arrangements of the present world amount to a perfect system of divine government, or that a perfect and sufficient rule of conduct either has been, or is ever likely to be, deduced by man's intellect, from a study of the laws of nature, and the constitution of things. He has expressly stated the contrary of both these propositions. First, in reference to the divine government, he has the following passage: "But it is particularly to be observed, that the divine government which we experience ourselves under in the present state, taken alone, is allowed not to be the perfection of moral government ; and yet this by no means hinders, but that there may be somewhat, be it more or less, truly moral in it. A righteous government may plainly enough appear to be carried on to some degree; enough to give us the apprehension that it shall be completed, or carried on to that degree of perfection which religion teaches us it shall; but which cannot appear till much more of the divine administration be seen, than can in the present life." Again, on the subject of a natural law, and the likelihood of its being discovered so as to serve as a sufficient rule of conduct, I may refer to what follows. "Some persons, upon pretence of the sufficiency of the light of nature, avowedly reject all revelation, as in its very notion incredible, and what must be fictitious. And, indeed, it is certain, no revelation would have been given, had the light of nature been sufficient in such a sense as to render one not wanting and useless. But no man, in seriousness and simplicity of mind, can possibly think it so, who considers the state of religion in the heathen world, before revelation, and its present state in those places which have borrowed no light from it; particularly the doubtfulness of some of the greatest men concerning things of the utmost importance, as well as the natural inattention and ignorance of mankind in general. It is impossible to say, who would have been able to have reasoned out that whole system, which we call natural religion, in its genuine simplicity, clear of superstition; but there is certainly no ground to affirm that the generality could. If they could, there is no sort of probability that they would." From the above, it appears that the system of Bishop Butler bears nearly the same relation to the speculations of Mr Combe, that a circle does to a straight line: they only touch at a single point, but do not and never can coincide in the smallest divisible part of their extent. Bishop Butler's argument, like the ladder seen in the vision of the patriarch, reaches from earth to heaven. Mr Combe, on the contrary, keeps grovelling on the earth. From that alone his views are derived, and in that they have their termination. Nothing, therefore, can possibly be more opposite than the views of Bishop Butler and those of Mr Combe. Butler, as we have seen, refers to certain cases as instances of reward and punishment, where the law which is spoken of is previously known, and it is obviously in such cases only where the pleasures or pains annexed to actions, can properly be termed rewards or punishments. It is of the essence of reward and punishment, that they follow as the consequence of obedience or disobedience of a law previously made known, and have reference to the state of mind of the party who is to be rewarded or punished. It is the intention or disposition of the mind, and not the mere act of the body, that is ever considered as obedience or disobedience, or thought worthy, in a moral sense, of either reward or punishment. If in any case we happen to act in conformity to a law of which we are ignorant, or which we had no intention to obey, and in consequence experience a certain pleasure, it is absurd to call this a reward: it is an accidental gratification, and nothing more. On the other hand, if we happen to transgress a law not previously made known to us, and in consequence are made to suffer pain which we did not and could not foresee, this is never called a punishment, but a misfortune. Mr Combe refers to the cases of human laws, where a maxim has been adopted that no one is to be excused on account of ignorance; but this maxim has arisen only from the necessary imperfection of all human institutions, and cannot be compared to I any thing connected with the divine government of the world. It may here be granted, for the sake of argument, that if all the qualities of objects, and laws of their operation, and all the consequences of our own actions, so far as our welfare is concerned, had been known to us by intuition, or had been announced to us in such a way as not to be misunderstood, this might perhaps have constituted a natural law sufficient for our guidance, and that there might in that case have been no occasion for any other, so far, at least, as the present world is concerned. But this is not the situation in which we stand. According to Mr Combe's doctrine, we are sent into the world not to obey a law of which notice has been given to us beforehand, which Bishop Butler says is the " proper formal notion of government;" but to obey laws of which all mankind have been, from the beginning of the world, and are at this moment, in a great measure ignorant; which the inquiries of six thousand years have not enabled them to discover, and which may not be discovered for thousands of years to come. This is Mr Combe's own statement. He says, (p. 9, col. 1,) "It is impossible, in the present state of knowledge, to elucidate all these laws: numberless years may elapse before they shall be discovered." What sort of a government is this, where we are commanded to obey an unknown law, and which punishes us for not obeying it? It is about as reasonable as the command of the frantic Nebuchadnezzar, who ordered his soothsayers and wise men to be put to death, because they could not tell him his dream, and the interpretation thereof. Mr Combe has here favoured us with a speculation, the drift of which is to shew, that man is happier in having |