{44} life? Though the greatest philosopher be of no more consequence
to the general system of things than an oyster, and though the life
of the one were, in every respect, as perfectly insignificant as
that of the other, still the meanest of mankind is not without
importance in his own eyes. And where is he who is guided uniformly,
in all his actions, more by a sense of his relation to the universe
at large, than by the value he retains for himself, or the deference
he has to his own opinion.

     NO deduction, however plausible, can produce conviction in
any rational mind, which originates in a supposition grossly absurd.
Is it possible to conceive the author of nature capable of
authenticating a deed, which ultimately terminates in the total
annihilation of the system? By which of the creatures beneath us is
the first law of their being thus daringly violated? And if suicide
be eligible to man, under any possible misfortune or distress, why
not to them? Are not they also subject to the various miseries which
arise from wayward accidents and hostile elements? Why, therefore,
open a door for our escape from those evils of which others have
their share, to whom, however, it must remain for ever shut? {45}

     IN truth, the existence of all animals depends entirely on
their inviolable attachment to self-preservation. Their attention to
all is accordingly the obvious and common condition of all their
natures. By this great and operative principle nature has chiefly
consulted her own safety. Our philosopher's notions are so extremely
hostile to her most essential institutions, that she could not
possibly survive a general conviction of them. And, in spite of all
the sophistry he is master of, the question here will eternally
recur, whether the wisdom of nature, or the philosophy of our
author, deserves the preference.

     (4) THIS apology for the commission, arising from man's
insignificance in the moral world, from the reciprocation of social
duty being dissolved, or from the benefit resulting from the
voluntary dismission of being, is contrary to the soundest
principles of jurisprudence, to the condition of human nature, and
to the general establishment of things.

     THAT a man who retires from life ad libitum, does no harm
to society, is a proposition peculiarly absurd and erroneous. What
is {46} lawful for one, may be lawful for all, and no society can
subsist in the conviction of a principle thus hostile to its being.

     IT seems to be a maxim in human existence, that no creature
has a right to decide peremptorily on the importance, utility, or
necessity of his own being. There are an infinite variety of secret
connections and associations in the vast system of things, which the
eye of created wisdom cannot explore.

     MAN is not, perhaps, so ignorant of anything, or any
creature, as of himself. His own system, after all the art and
inquisition of human ingenuity, is still to him the profoundest
mystery in nature. His knowledge and faculties are adequate to the
sphere of his duty. Beyond this, his researches are impertinent, and
all his acquisitions useless. He has no adequate notions what the
laws of the universe are with respect to any species of existence
whatever. A cloud rests on the complicated movements of this great
machine, which baffles all the penetration of mortals: and it will
for ever remain impossible for man, from the most complete analysis
of his present situation, to judge, with any degree of precision, of
his own consequence, either as a citizen of the world at large, or
as a member of any particular society. {47}

     FINAL causes form a system of knowledge too wonderful for
man. It is the perrogative of nature alone to decide upon them. In
the fulness of time, her creative hand brought him into existence,
and it belongs to her alone, in consequence of an arrangement
equally wonderful and mysterious to dismiss him from his present
mode of being. This is an authority with which she alone is
invested, and which, according to our apprehensions, it is
impossible fro her to delegate. Dissolution, as well as creation, is
hers. and he who would attempt to infringe her sovereignty in this
instance, would usurp a prerogative which does not belong to him,
and become a traitor to the laws of his being. Nay, on this
extravagant and licentious hypothesis, the right of assuming and
relinquishing existence is made reciprocal. For he who arrogates the
liberty of destroying himself, were he possessed of the power, might
also be his own creator; his imaginary insignificance to society
being as inconclusive in the one case, as any chimerical advantage
that may accidentally strike him can be in the other. It is a
strange doctrine, which cannot be established, but at the obvious
expence of what seem the plainest dictates of common sense.

     INDEED, the absurdities of this daring and paradoxical
doctrine are endless and infinite. {48} When we come to pronounce on
the condition of human infancy, and to separate childhood, or non-
age, from a state of maturity, we can scarce trace one useful or
salutary consequence it is calculated to produce in society. In this
view children seem less adapted to serve any special or important
end, than even beetles, gnats, or flies. Experience, however, has
long convinced the world of their present inestimable value from
their future destination. And were a legislator, from the plausible
pretext of their being a burden to the state, to exterminate the
race of mankind in the insignificant stage of infancy, his decree,
like that of a certain monster recorded in the gospel, would shock
the sentiments of every nation under heaven, in whom there remained
only the dregs of humanity.

     IT is not only impossible for a man to decide, in any given