now hinted at, is supported by the opinions of the great. mass of mankind in relation to the character and the administration of the Deity.

In the opinion which mankind generally form of the Supreme Being, we notice that they always include the idea of right, equity, or justice. They never think of him as a God possessed of knowledge or power merely, but as a God of righteousness. And they constantly speak of Him as a just, holy, or righteous Being. Whatever He does, they assert, is done rightly or justly. Now, unless we suppose, which we certainly are not at liberty to do, that they apply these epithets without any meaning, we are to regard these terms as expressing a distinct and important fact in their belief. But this is not true if the doctrine under consideration be false. For, if God's will or mere enactment constitutes of itself, and independently of everything else, all right and wrong, then the assertion that God is right or just, and does justly, is obviously an identical proposition; and is the same as to say that he is what he is, and does what he does. But we do not suppose any one will pretend to say that men use terms with such an absence of all meaning. They obviously have a clear perception of the distinction between power and equity, between the mere command and the justice of that command in their own case, and in the applications of human power and laws generally; and they apply the distinction without any hesitation to the character and doings of the Supreme Being. And they not only apply the distinction, but they obviously involve in it the same great ultimate fact which is implied when they apply it to men, viz., that Rectitude is a thing which is not dependant on mere power, enactment, or will in any case whatever.

For instance, a preacher asserts, in the presence of his congregation, that the law of God is holy, just, and good; everybody understands it; everybody assents to it. But if he should go on to state that the Law is just because it is a Law, and for that reason solely, and that, if it were directly the opposite, it would be equally just for the same reason, they would undoubtedly reject the statement at once as utterly inconsistent with the common feelings

and common sense of mankind. If they are not capable of making philosophical distinctions, they are so constituted, in the very elements of their moral nature, as to entertain a far higher notion of a just law than such a statement would imply. They may be asked what they mean by right; what they mean by the immutability of moral distinctions; what they mean by the nature of things; but although, as has already been remarked, they may be puzzled in giving an answer, they are not at all perplexed and darkened in their perceptions; and would as soon be brought to disbelieve in the truth of the simplest mathematical axioms, as to disbelieve in the distinction, the utter and immutable distinction, between right and wrong, justice and injustice.

◊ 293. Further remarks on the subject of the last section.

It will, of course, be understood, that we would not be guilty of the impiety of suggesting that God ever does in fact otherwise than right, or that his Law ever is, or can be, otherwise than perfectly just. What we mean to say is, that God is not just in his acts simply because he has power to perform those acts, and that his Law is not just simply and solely because it is a Law; which, if we are not wrong in our views, would involve the annihilation of all justice whatever. The doctrine of the immutability of moral distinctions does not, as some might be led to suppose on a slight examination of it, set up an authority in opposition to that of God, but merely asserts a great fact in the nature of things, which, in whatever point of view it may be contemplated, is entirely, and in all cases whatever, consistent with his character and his acts. If it be true, as undoubtedly it is, that God cannot, by a mere volition, make right wrong or wrong right, it is not the less so that this does not in any respect militate with his essential attributes. It constitutes no derogation from his perfections, and interposes no obstacle to the administration of his affairs. And we here take the liberty to inquire of those who hold that the doctrine under consideration is derogatory to the character of the Supreme Being, whether there are not other things, besides the distinction of right and wrong, which do not depend upon

his mere arbitrary will. It certainly, so far as we can perceive, does not depend upon the mere enactment or will of God, whether a thing shall exist or not exist at the same time. The mere supposition implies something which is inconceivable. It does not depend upon his mere choice or will (and we hope it may be said without incurring the suspicion of any want of due reverence for his exalted character) whether three and three shall make six, and four multiplied by four shall make sixteen; whether the whole shall be greater than a part, and things equal to the same shall be equal to one another; whether there shall be motion without change of place, or figure without extension; whether the three angles of a triangle shall be equal to two right angles; or whether a square, circle, and triangle shall be different figures. These are things which it seems to be universally conceded do not depend upon the will of God or of any other being; and it is impossible that they should. But if we are right in our supposition that no one regards this as derogatory to the character of the Supreme Being, why is it more so that there is an immutable distinction between right and wrong; that whatever is right or wrong to-day will be right or wrong (all the circumstances of the action remaining precisely the same) to-morrow, next day, next year, and forever? 294. Further proof from a consideration of the relation which the doctrine bears to the original and permanent character of the Supreme Being.

(VII.) In the seventh place, if the distinction between right and wrong be not permanent and immutable, but depends wholly upon God's volition, then, antecedently to such volition, God himself could not have possessed a moral character, but must have been wholly destitute of all moral excellence.-Obviously the act of volition implies, whenever it takes place, the antecedent existence of the being who puts forth such volition. If there is anything self-evident, it certainly is so that there can be no volition unless there is a being already actually existent from whom the volition proceeds. But if moral distinctions be not involved in the nature of things, but are subsequent to a particular volition, which volition creates them, and brings them into entity and form, then moral rectitude was VOL. II.-G G

not predicable of God nor of any other being until he had put forth such volition. If morality, which of course involves the distinction between right and wrong, be a matter of creation, then the Divine character must necessarily have been a moral blank until the act of creation had taken place. It was necessarily, in a moral point of view, neither morally good nor evil; because, by the supposition, the distinction between moral good and evil was not yet established. The volition had not yet come to its birth h; the resolve of the Most High was still dormant; the command had not been issued which was destined to call up virtue from its unexistent state, to dislodge it from the chaotic mixture of other elements, and give it an impress and character. The Supreme Being, therefore, antecedently to the origination of morality (whether that origination took place sooner or later, after the lapse of a million of years or of a single moment), was necessarily destitute of moral perfections.

And this is not all. If right and wrong are not immutable, but are liable to be abolished or to be interchanged with each other by a mere enactment or volition, then it cannot be said with propriety and truth that God is immutably a holy or just being. If he can, by a mere command, change virtue into vice or vice into virtue, he can certainly destroy all moral excellence whenever he pleases, and blot it out from the universe. If his Law can create the distinction of right and wrong, his Law can also annihilate it. If morality depends upon his arbitrary and unrestricted volition, it of course depends upon it in the same way in which the creation or destruction of a world depends upon it. And whenever he issues his overwhelming fiat, the columns of the moral universe will crumble and fall to pieces as readily as those of the physical. On this system, the Being whom we worship and adore to-day as holy, just, righteous, may to-morrow undergo the erasure of his own volition, and not exhibit one trait of holiness, justice, righteousness.It will perhaps be said that we have the authority of his own word for the permanency of his moral perfections; in other words, that he has promised he will continue to manifest and to do justice. Granted. But why is he

bound to keep his word? Because there is a right and wrong in the case; because, as an incident to this right and wrong, there is a moral obligation, a duty, which is firm and immutable. Here, undoubtedly, is firm footing; but on the opposite system, which makes right and wrong depend on a mere enactment or volition, the obligation to keep his word may cease whenever he wills it to be so; and his word, his law, his moral excellences may all suddenly sink together, and the Being whom we worship as perfectly spotless and holy, may become a Spirit of unmixed and unmitigated evil.

295. Of the proofs of this doctrine from the appeals which are made in various parts of the Scriptures.

(VIII.) Finally, if we rightly understand the Revelation which God, in his great goodness, has made to the children of men, He has himself taken the ground, not only that the principles of rectitude are eternal and immutable, but that he himself, with all his transcendent excellences, is amenable, and desires to be considered as amenable, to them. He speaks of his throne not only as established, but as established in righteousness. He speaks of himself not merely as the Creator, not merely as a God of wisdom and power, but as a just, a holy, a righteous God. And these expressions are employed so frequently and in such connexions as to place it beyond all doubt that they have a distinct and substantive meaning, and are not identical in their import with expressions which intimate his ascendency, power, or greatness. And not only this, he seems to have authorized the whole universe of moral and intelligent beings (the human race in particular, among others) to act as arbiters and judges in the case, whether his character and conduct are not in all respects in perfect accordance with the requisitions of that fixed and immutable rectitude, which exists interwoven and imbedded in the very nature and constitution of things. He does not, in moral things, impose mere arbitrary commands, but only such commands as he can support by an appeal to their own moral judgments. And such appeals are actually made in a number of instances, as in the following passages: "Oh, my people, what