From the definition of punishment, I infer, first, that neither private revenges, nor injuries of private men, can properly be styled punishment; because they proceed not from public authority.
Secondly, that to be neglected, and unpreferred by the public favour, is not a punishment; because no new evil is thereby on any man inflicted; he is only left in the estate he was in before.
Thirdly, that the evil inflicted by public authority, without precedent public condemnation, is not to be styled by the name of punishment, but of an hostile act; because the fact for which a man is punished, ought first to be judged by public authority, to be a transgression of the law.
Fourthly, that the evil inflicted by usurped power, and judges without authority from the sovereign, is not punishment, but an act of hostility; because the acts of power usurped have not for author the person condemned, and therefore are not acts of public authority.
Fifthly, that all evil which is inflicted without intention, or possibility of disposing the delinquent, or, by his example, other men, to obey the laws, is not punishment, but an act of hostility; because without such an end, no hurt done is contained under that name.
Sixthly, whereas to certain actions there be annexed by nature, divers hurtful consequences; as when a man in assaulting another is himself slain or wounded; or when he falleth into sickness by the doing of some unlawful act; such hurt, though in respect of God, who is the author of nature, it may be said to be inflicted, and therefore a punishment divine; yet it is not contained in the name of punishment in respect of men, because it is not inflicted by the authority of man.
Seventhly, if the harm inflicted be less than the benefit or contentment that naturally followeth the crime committed, that harm is not within the definition; and is rather the price, or redemption, than the