torture was very common, its use has been wisely exploded in modern times, as well for its cruelty as inefficacy. For if the sufferer be obstinate, he will sink under it whether innocent or guilty; or if the desire of relief from insupportable pain compel the prisoner to speak, one is as likely to say what is false against himself and others, as another is to confess the truth. It is plain that this ambiguity is fatal to the ends of justice; and therefore its use becomes an act of gratuitous cruelty. 2. Barbarous spectacles of human agony are justly found fault with, as tending to destroy our sympathy with the suf ferings of our fellow-creatures, and even to counteract the design of employing terror, by sinking the abhorrence of the crime in the commiseration of the criminal. But if a mode of execution could be devised, which would increase the terror of the offenders without lacerating the feelings of the spectators, it would effect, what is now wanting, an increase in the scale of punishment, especially if reserved for the most atrocious crimes. To meet this view of the case, it has been proposed to cast murderers into a den of wild beasts, where they would perish in a manner dreadful to the imagination, yet concealed from view. Punishments called infamous ought to be confined to offences held in universal detestation. Such punishments may be employed with effect on offences in higher life, such as perjury or subornation of perjury, peculation, breach of trust, abuse of authority, or corruption in confidential or judicial offices; where the more elevated the station of the criminal, the more conspicuous would be the triumph of justice. The certainty of punishment is of more consequence than its severity. Persons intending to commit a crime think less of the severity of the sentence they shall undergo if detected, than of the chance of escaping altogether. Hence, a vigilant police, backed with the influence of pecuniary 527 What is said of torture? 528 Is it proper that there should be barbarous spectacles of human agony? 529 What farther is said of them? 530 What is said of infamous punishments? 531 What circumstance attending punishment is of the most imporWhy? tance? 532 What does this principle teach us to be the best means for preventing crime? rewards to discover offenders, and an undeviating impartiality in executing the laws, will more completely suppress crime than any severity of punishment. Hence too the utility of facilitating convictions. Thus, in the case of counterfeiting coin, the crime could scarcely be checked by any severity, if the act of coining was necessary to be proved; but when the possession of implements for coining is admitted as evidence of guilt, the difficulty of conviction is removed. From an ignorance of this principle, much harm is done to society by juries; who frequently demand such proofs of guilt as the secrecy of the crime is unable to give; and are unwilling to condemn, while there exists the slightest possibility of the prisoner's innocence. It is not, however, meant to say that juries should magnify suspicions into proofs, or weigh probabilities in gold scales; but if the evidence be such as would safely decide doubts on ordinary occasions, to reject it as uncertain in the case of a criminal, from the fear of shedding innocent blood, is a conduct, although natural to a mind studious of its own quiet, that it is not authorized by any considerations of rectitude or utility; as it only encourages villany by diminishing the chance of conviction. The injudicious acquittals here complained of are defended by the maxim, that circumstantial evidence falls short of positive proof. This, as an unqualified assertion, is not true. A chain of circumstantial evidence is stronger than positive testimony taken by itself. Circumstances cannot lie; a solitary witness may: and though the former may mislead, the instances of actual deception are fewer than where the latter has been mistaken unwittingly, or has wilfully perjured himself. Besides, in a chain of circumstantial evidence, if the charge be fabricated, so many false witnesses are required, and such skill to bring the scattered rays of their evidence to a focus; while there is so little difficulty of detecting a deficient link, and so great a probability of betrayal by some slight and unforeseen inconsistency, that even the chance, much less the power, to impose on a court, is none when compared with direct proof. For that, being confined to the knowledge of a single person, and unconnected 533 What happens from an ignorance of this principle? with collateral circumstances, cannot be confronted with opposing probabilities. Another maxim has been pressed into the service, “that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape, than for one innocent man to suffer." But if by better be meant more expedient, the proposition can hardly be maintained. The security of life and property is protected chiefly by the dread of punishment; nor can the misfortune of an individual, (for so may be called the sufferings or death of an innocent person,) be placed in competition with the general good. No person ought of course to be sacrificed knowingly but when crimes can be reached only by adopting certain rules of adjudication, and giving credence to evidence seemingly satisfactory, justice must not be deterred from following such rules and believing such evidence, through the mere chance of confounding the innocent with the guilty; and a person so suffering innocently must consider himself as a sacrifice for his country's good; since by that which occasions his sufferings, the welfare of the community is maintained and upholden. CHAP. XV.-RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS AND TOLERATION. [A national religious establishment has but few advocates in this country. In the constitution of the United States, it is declared that "Congress shall make no law respecting an esta blishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And the same spirit prevails in the respective state constitutions. But for those who wish to know Dr. Paley's opinion on this matter we subjoin his summing up of his argument.] The result of our examination of those general tendencies, by which every interference of civil government in matters of religion ought to be tried, is this: "That a comprehensive national religion, guarded by a few articles of peace and conformity, together with a legal provision for the clergy of that religion; and with a complete toleration of all dissenters from the established church, without any other limi 537 What other maxim has had a similar effect? 538 Is that maxim correct? Why? 539 In what light should an innocent sufferer be esteemed in such cases? Why? 540 Is there any prospect of a national religious establishment in the United States? 541 What is Dr. Paley's opinion relative to a national religion? 542 What does he say of tolerating dissenters ? tation or exception than what arises from the conjunction of dangerous political dispositions with certain religious tenets; appears to be, not only the most just and liberal, but the wisest and safest system which a state can adopt ; inasmuch as it unites the several perfections which a religious constitution ought to aim at-liberty of conscience, with means of instruction; the progress of truth, with the peace of society; the right of private judgment, with the care of the public safety." CHAP. XVI.-WAR AND MILITARY ESTABLISHMENTS. Because the Christian Scriptures describe wars as crimes or punishments, some Christians have been led to believe that it is unlawful for them to bear arms. But they must remember that it may be necessary to the mutual benefit of individuals, for them to unite their forces and to resign themselves to the guidance of a common will; and yet that will may often be actuated by criminal motives, and directed to destructive purposes. * Hence, though war is ascribed in Scripture to lawless and malignant passions,† and though it is numbered amongst the direst calamities of a land, yet the profession of a soldier is no where condemned. And even in the reply of John the Baptist to the soldiers, "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any man falsely, and be content with your wages," we find only a caution not to indulge in the vices of their profession; and so far from an intimation, that to gain the kingdom of God they must renounce it altogether, the very precept, "Be content with your wages,' supposes their continuance in it. Nor can we discover in the history of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert to Christianity, that his profession of a Roman soldier was objected 543 Why does he think such an arrangement wise and just? 544 What has been the opinion of some Christians on the subject of wars? Why? 545 What political principle does Dr. Paley propose as an argument against their suppositions? 546 Is a soldier's life condemned by Scripture? 547 What does Dr. Paley determine from the reply of John the Baptist to the soldiers? * In this chapter, we shall first insert the reasonings and conclusions of Dr. Paley, and afterwards subjoin a few contrary opinions from other authors. † James iv. 1. + Luke iii. 14. § Acts x. 1. to, or his continuance in it considered as inconsistent with his new character; and though little stress may be laid on the fact, still it is worthy of notice, that Christ pronounced that memorable eulogy of a Roman centurion, "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel."* It may be well to mention as a preliminary remark, that in applying the principles of morality to the affairs of a nation, a difficulty presents itself, in finding that contrary to our principles, the particular consequence sometimes appears to exceed the value of the general rule. In the transactions of individuals, no private advantage, arising from the violation of a law, can compensate the general disadvantage of such violation; but this maxim, in the case of nations, sometimes admits of doubt. Thus, though promises between individuals ought to be kept as far as was intended by the parties, if that intention be lawful; yet when the rigid adherence to a treaty would nearly destroy a nation, the magnitude of the particular evil leads us to doubt the obligation of the general rule. And these are doubts which moral philosophy cannot solve; because as no rule of morality can be so rigid as not to admit of exceptions, cases of doubt must arise from the impossibility of previously comprising such exceptions within a general rule. She confesses that the obligation of every law depends upon its ultimate utility; and that situations may possibly arise, in which the general evil is outweighed by the particular mischief. But, at the same time she recals to the consideration of the inquirer the almost inestimable importance of fidelity, whether personal or national. For instance, she cannot help suggesting, that if treaties are to be held no longer binding than suits the convenience of either party, a general distrust will arise respecting the faith to be put in any treaty, and mankind be thus shut out from almost the only method of preventing or putting an end to war. And that although if a case presents itself, where destruction, or something like it, would be the result of a rigid adherence to a treaty, yet the happiness that 548 What from the history of Cornelius? And the centurion? 549 What difficulty is found in applying the principles of morality to the affairs of nations? 550 Give an illustration. 551 What is the extent of moral philosophy on such subjects? 552 What however does she suggest relative to treaties? * Luke, vii. 9. |