difregarding it as a circumftance of no moment. Of these contradictory opinions, we have pregnant evidence in the two tragedies of Oedipus; the first taking it for granted, that a crime confifts entirely in the external act and its confequences; the other holding intention to be indifpenfable. Oedipus had killed his father Laius, and married his mother Jocafta; but without criminal intention, being ignorant of his relation to them. And yet history informs us, that the gods punifhed the Thebans with peftilence, for fuffering a wretch fo grofsly criminal to live. Sophocles, author of both tragedies, puts the following words in the mouth of Tirefias the prophet.

any

Know then,

That Oedipus, in fhameful bonds united,
With those he loves, unconscious of his guilt,
Is yet moft guilty.

And that doctrine is espoused by Aristotle in a later period; who holding Oedipus to have been deeply criminal, tho' without intention, is of opinion, that a more proper fubject for tragedy never was brought upon the stage. Nay as a philo

fopher

fopher he talks currently of an involuntary crime. Oreftes, in Euripides, acknowledges himself to be guilty in killing his mother; yet aflerts with the fame breath, that his crime was inevitable, a neceffary crime, a crime commanded by religion.

In Oedipus Coloneus, the other tragedy mentioned, a very different opinion is maintained. A defence is made for that unlucky man, agreeable to found moral principles; that, having had no bad intention, he was entirely innocent; and that his misfortunes ought to be ascribed to the wrath of the gods.

Thou who upbraid'ft me thus for all my woes,
Murder and inceft, which against my will
I had committed; fo it pleas'd the gods,
Offended at my race for former crimes.
But I am guiltlefs: can'ft thou name a fault
Deferving this? For, tell me, was it mine,
When to my father, Phoebus did declare,
That he should one day perish by the hand
Of his own child; was Oedipus to blame,
Who had no being then? If, born at length
To wretchednefs, he met his fire unknown,
And flew him; that involuntary deed

Can't thou condemn? And for my fatal marriage,
Doft thou not blush to name it? was not she
Thy fifter, the who bore me, ignorant

And

And guiltless woman! afterwards my wife,

And mother to my children? What fhe did, fhe did unknowing.

But, not for that, nor for my murder'd father,
Have I deferv'd thy bitter taunts: for, tell me,
Thy life attack'd, wouldst thou have ftaid to ask
Th' affaflin, if he were thy father? No;
Self-love would
thee to revenge

urge

the infult.

Thus was I drove to ill by th' angry gods;
This, fhou'd my father's foul revifit earth,
Himself would own, and pity Oedipus.

Again, in the fourth act, the following prayer is put up for Oedipus by the cho

rus.

O grant,

That not opprefs'd by tort'ring pain,

Beneath the ftroke of death he linger long;

But fwift, with eafy steps, defcend to Styx's drear

abode;

For he hath led a life of toil and pain;

May the just gods repay his undeserved woe.

The audience was the fame in both plays. Did they think Oedipus to be guilty in the one play, and innocent in the other? If they did not, how could both plays be relished if they did, they must have been grofsly ftupid.

The statues of a Roman Emperor were held fo facred, that to treat them with

any contempt was high treason. This ridiculous opinion was carried fo far out of common sense, that a man was held guilty of high treason, if a stone thrown by him happened accidentally to touch one of these statues. And the law continued in force till abrogated by a refcript of Severus Antoninus (a).

In England, fo little was intention regarded, that cafual homicide, and even homicide in felf-defence, were capitally punished. It requires strong evidence to vouch fo abfurd a law; and I have the strongest, viz. the act 52° Henry III. cap. 26. converting the capital punishment into a forfeiture of moveables. The fame abfurdity continued much longer to be law in Scotland. By act 19. parl. 1649, renewed act 22. parl. 1661, the capital punishment is converted to imprisonment, or a fine to the wife and children. In a period fo late as the Restoration, strange blindness it was not to be fenfible, that homicide in felf-defence, being a lawful act justified by the strictest rules of morality, fubjects not a man to punishment,

(a) 1. 5. ad leg. Jul. Majeft.

VOL. IV.

A a

more

more than the defending his property against a robber; and that cafual homicide, meaning homicide committed innocently without ill intention, may subject him to reparation, but never to any punishment, mild or fevere.

The Jefuits in their doctrines feem to reft on the external act, difregarding intention. It is with them a matter of perfect indifference, from what motive men obey the laws of God; confequently that the service of those who obey from fear of punishment, is no lefs acceptable to the Deity, than of those who obey from a principle of love.

The other error mentioned above, is, That the end justifies the means. In defence of that propofition, it is urged, that the character of the means is derived from the end; that every action must be right which contributes to a good end; and that every action must be wrong which contributes to an ill end. According to this reafoning, it is right to affaffinate a man who is a declared or concealed enemy to his country. It is right to rob a rich man in order to relieve a perfon in want. What becomes then of property,