SECTION III.

OF THE MORAL LAWS.

Is man naturally a moral being?—that is, a being who, by his own nature, views his actions in relation to duty and justice?

Yes: there is in his constitution an inherent sentiment, entitled Moral Conscience, which produces such an effect.

Are the moral precepts of all men alike?

No; for the act which is considered just in one country, is often looked on as unjust in another.

What is the cause of this diversity of decision?

The sentiment of conscientiousness does not determine that which is just or unjust, it only feels the necessity of being just. The majority of mankind take for granted whatever they are told is right, and assume as just, the precepts to which they have been accustomed

from infancy. Among the few who think, Intellect determines Justice; but the conclusions are still influenced by the general mental frame. How may conscience be divided?

Into Absolute and Individual. The first is Conscience as it ought to be for all men; the second, as its name implies, is the Conscience of individuals.

In what does the Absolute Conscience of man consist?

In the sentiment of conscientiousness combined with the whole of the faculties peculiar to man, those common to the human kind and animals being held in subjection.

In what does Individual Conscience consist? It results from the sentiment of conscientiousness combined with the other faculties of individuals. He, therefore, who possesses the superior sentiments in great activity, will esteem those notions and actions as unjust, which another, whose inferior feelings are strong, and superior weak, would look upon as just. Intellect, it thus appears, is corrupted or swayed by the affective powers, and admits as just whatever these recognize as agreeable.

Can we trust to the Individual Consciences of mankind.

Be

No; it is impossible. Many feel very slightly the desire and necessity of being just, and seldom or never think of examining their actions with relation to moral rectitude. sides, people are frequently misled in their moral judgments by the influence of other feelings; and many things which the standard of Absolute Conscience pronounces unjust, pass for just when estimated by individual manners of judging.

Ought not the moral laws therefore to be studied, determined, and proposed as obligatory?

Certainly; Conscience should be Positive. Is there any difference between Positive and Absolute Conscience?

There ought to be none. In the world, however, Positive Conscience, or the Law, has most commonly been a product of the Individual Consciences of legislators.

Has the Natural Moral Law, or Absolute Conscience, any distinguishing characters? It has all those of the natural laws generally.* • See page 4.

Have men any right to make moral laws? They have none, any more than to fabricate laws to regulate their vegetative and intellectual functions. They cannot change the law of propagation, nor of alimentation, nor of any other functional operation; they can form no conception of an object without dimensions and. figure; they cannot conceive an effect without a cause; neither can they love pain, nor approve internally of that they perceive to be bad or immoral.

Who made the moral laws of man?

The same Great Cause that traced the laws of man's physical and intellectual parts also instituted laws for the regulation of his moral nature-God, the Author of the universe.

How does the Creator make known or reveal his laws?

To inform man of his enactments, God has endowed him with understanding, to observe and to learn those that implicate his physical and intellectual natures; and has implanted in his interior, sentiments which make him feel the moral laws.

Is there not another source whence knowledge of Moral Laws is derived?

Yes, Revelation; that is, knowledge communicated by God to man in a supernatural

manner.

What are the advantages of Revelation?

It is chiefly advantageous as it regulates man's uncertain notions of his Creator, and of his duties universally.

Can man, in the study of his vegetative and intellectual natures, acquire a greater quantity of knowledge than God has revealed to him? There can be no doubt of it.

Can the revelation of Moral Laws change or annihilate the laws of the vegetative and intellectual functions?

To say it can, would be absurd, as putting God in contradiction with himself; for the God who reveals the moral duties and the God who creates the physical and intellectual functions are one and the same.

Are the advocates of the natural laws Atheists?

On the contrary, they entertain the most noble, the most pure, ideas of God; they never suppose him in contradiction with himself; they regard him as the Impartial Parent of the uni