phenomena connected with the production, health, growth, decay, and death of vegetables and animals; and lastly, the moral and intellectual laws, the lower intellectual being common to man with some of the lower animals, the higher intellectual and moral laws being peculiar to man.

Before going farther, I would here observe, that throughout the whole of the statements respecting the natural laws, either by Diderot, Volney, Doctor Spurzheim, or Mr Combe, there are two things included under one name, which are perfectly distinct and separate from each other. In the first place, there are the laws which result from the constitution of natural objects, and which regulate their mutual action on one another, such as the laws of the resistance, momentum, elasticity, &c. of solids, the laws of gravitation, the laws of the pressure of fluids, the laws of vegetation, and so on. Considered in this sense, every object and being in the world has its laws according to which it acts or is acted upon. These are the laws of nature referred to by Montesquieu, Blackstone, Erskine, and other writers quoted by Mr Combe in his appendix, and as to which there is no difference of opinion. These, however, are totally distinct from the "Law of Nature," or "Natural Laws," spoken of by Mr Combe and those from whom he has borrowed his system; these do not mean the laws of the constitution of things, but those rules which the intellect of man is able to deduce for the regulation of his own conduct, by means of his knowledge of those laws which govern the phenomena of nature. These last are perfectly distinct from the former, and it is a monstrous confusion of ideas to mix them up together.

These two notions, however, the laws of the constitution of things, and the laws of human conduct, are invariably confounded together by these writers. Thus, Volney, after mentioning certain general facts or laws of

the constitution of natural objects, and stating that these form so many positive commands to which we are bound to pay attention, adds, that it has been agreed "to assemble together the different ideas and express them by a single word, and call them collectively the LAW OF NATURE." And in like manner Mr Combe expressly states, that "a law of nature means the established mode in which the actions and phenomena of any creature exhibit themselves, and the obligation thereby imposed on intelligent beings to attend to it."

In consequence of this mixing up of different, and even opposite ideas under one name, we find an inextricable confusion running through the whole speculations of Mr Combe, Volney, &c. respecting the natural laws, so that we never know when they are speaking of the laws of natural phenomena, and when they are referring to the rules of human conduct. It is also important to notice, that they take advantage of this confusion to introduce another grand fallacy into their statements. This consists in attributing to the whole of what they include under the name of natural laws those characters of certainty, universality, invariability, &c. which only belong to one of these divisions. Every one will admit that the laws which regulate natural phenomena are "universal, invariable, demonstrable, reasonable, and of themselves sufficient" for all the purposes for which they were established; but it is a very different thing to say that this is the case with regard to any rules which the intellect of man has ever been able, or may ever be able, to deduce from his knowledge of these, for the regulation of his own conduct. This supposes that the intellect of man is perfect, which we know, in his present state, is not the case; that we have discovered all the laws which regulate the phenomena of natural objects, which we know is not the case; and lastly,

1

that we have discovered all the rules of conduct deducible from that knowledge, which Mr Combe himself admits will not be the case for an immense series of years.

Mr Combe seems to be anxious not to have it supposed that he has derived his views entirely from the French philosophers, and he thinks he is able to bring to his support the high authority of Bishop Butler. This excellent writer, in his work on the Analogy of. Religion, in maintaining the probability of a future state of rewards and punishments, uses the argument, that even in the present life, and in the natural world, certain actions are attended or followed by pleasing, and others by painful sensations, analogous to rewards and punishments, so that we are even here in a certain sense under a system of divine government. The passage is this: "Now, from this general observation, obvious to every one, that God has given us to understand he has appointed satisfaction and delight to be the consequence of our acting in one manner, and pain and uneasiness of our acting in another, and of our not acting at all; and that we find the consequences which we were beforehand informed of uniformly to follow; we may learn that we are at present actually under his government in the strictest and most proper sense, in such a sense as he rewards and punishes us for our actions. An Author of Nature being supposed, it is not so much a deduction of reason as a lesson of experience, that we are thus under his government, under his government in the same sense as we are under the government of civil magistrates; because, annexing pleasure to some actions, and pain to others, in our power to do or forbear, and giving notice of this appointment beforehand, is the proper formal notion of government. Whether the pleasure or pain which thus follows upon

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,