It is the business of the moral Sensibility or Conscience, by means of the moral Emotions and the feelings of moral Obligation, to bring us into conformity to this standard, and to indicate all deviations from it. The standard of right, as we have just had occasion to intimate, is revealed in the Intellect; and not in the Intellect acting on the doubtful information of the senses, but by its own inherent and unerring promptings. The power, the object of which is to secure a conformity to this standard, exists in the Sensibilities. Accordingly, it may be added, although men may go astray, and, in point of fact, this is too often the case, notwithstanding the admonitions of the Conscience, yet Rectitude itself remains unchanged. It is not a mere outside, a mere superficies without any substantiality. Nor is it a mere image, of which it can be said, in the spirit of cavilling and skepticism, that it is inscribed over with characters of doubt and uncertainty. In its developement in the inward vision, it not only reveals itself with a stamp and likeness of its own, which cannot possibly be mistaken for anything else, but it is also true, which is both philosophically and practically of great importance, that it stands in its own nature immutably and eternally based, not, as some seem to suppose, in the fickle foundations of personal interest and of mere positive enactment, but in the unalterableness of the constitution of things.-This, at least, is essentially the view which we feel ourselves obliged to take of it, and which we now propose to support by the following considerations.

285. The immutability of moral distinctions supported by the views which men take of things in their nature or essence.

The doctrine of the permanent nature of Rectitude, and of the immutability of Moral distinctions, seems to find support, in the first place, from the views which men are generally found to take of things in their nature or essence. Everything which exists necessarily has a nature; not merely in the general sense of that term, but a specific nature of its own. "Everything," says Bishop Butler, "is what it is, and not another thing." In other words, there is something (although perhaps that some

thing is wholly unexplainable) which renders the thing that exists what it is in distinction from everything else; some element, some distinctive quality, some primordial characteristic, something (we do not profess nor consider it necessary to be exact in the expression of it) which is truly and absolutely essential both to its existence and the mode of its existence, and without which it would not be what it is. And this is equally true, whether the thing in question be made known to us as something material or immaterial; whether it is objective or subjective, an object which the mind contemplates exterior to itself, or an internal and purely mental modification; whether it be regarded as an independent entity, an attribute, or a mere relation. This seems to be self-evident and undeniable; because, if the thing which exists has not a specific or distinct nature, then it is not a distinct existence, but is identical with something else. And this is so clear that we need not hesitate to assert, although God, to the full extent of his omnipotence, can create things even out of nothing, and can modify them with every possibility of modification, He cannot do either without giving them a nature; without imparting some distinctive element. These simple and common-sense views we may apply to everything which exists or is conceived to exist, to the whole universe of mind and of matter, of thought and of objects of thought.

286. Illustrations of the views of the preceding section. (1.) Beginning with those things which are addressed to the senses, we may remark, in illustration of what has been said, that every kind of colour has something in it by which it is distinguished from every other colour which is truly diverse from it. Every variety of the sena sations of taste also, such as sweet, bitter, acrid, sour, has its specific nature (whether we consider the sensation merely, or include the outward cause that produces it), which stamps and characterizes it as such a sensation, and not another one. All the varieties of sound, numerSous as they are, have each their peculiarity, their distinctBive trait or quality, and which cannot fail, really and for ever, to separate them from all other varieties of sound.

th

In no one of these cases can one sensation or perception be another; each stands by itself in its own nature and essence, and it is not possible even to conceive of them as interchangeable.-(2.) If we turn our attention to those objects of thought which are internal, and which are not so closely connected with and dependant on outward causes, as those things just mentioned, we shall find it to be the same. We are able, by means of that power of Original Suggestion, which constitutes one of the effective elements and characteristics of our mental structure, to frame the abstract notions of existence, unity, identity, succession, number, power, time, space, and the like. And all these have respectively a nature appropriate and peculiar to themselves. Although we are unable to give a verbal definition of Unity or of Time, yet every one knows what is meant by these terms; every one has a knowledge for himself, sufficiently clear and satisfactory for all the common purposes of reasoning and practice. But while, in themselves considered, they lie clear and distinct in our perceptions, we also perceive, with the entire clearness of intuition, that they are not the same; that each has its appropriate sphere; that they stand truly and for ever apart from each other. The same may be said of Space and Power. Both of these are made known to us by the original, the suggestive power of the mind alone; and as the mind is the source, so it is the measure of the knowledge which we have of what we thus term. And we may confidently assert, that the mind pronounces them not only wholly distinct, but wholly unlike. And it is utterly impossible for the human mind (as we doubt not every one will find on fully making the experiment) to conceive of Power becoming Space, or of Space becoming Power, as much so as to conceive of the actual identity of UNITY and TIME, or of the identity of mere EXISTENCE and SUCCESSION. And it is the same with every other simple notion which we form, whether of external or of internal origin; that is to say, whether wrought in the mind by the presence of some external object, or flowing from its own fulness. Whatever we perceive or feel to exist which is elementary and simple, we never can perceive or feel to exist otherwise

than it is; and perceiving it to be just what it is, and nothing else, we cannot possibly perceive it to be something different. (3.) We might carry these illustrations into the Sensitive part of our nature. As an example, every man is capable of putting forth, or, what is, perhaps, a more proper expression of the fact, of experiencing the emotions of pleasure and pain; and although it is admitted we cannot give an available definition of these emotions, still every one knows what they are. And if there is any elementary proposition whatever, which is so simple as to be beyond doubt and to possess a truly intuitive character, it is, that our experience of pleasure is not the experience of pain, and, on the contrary, our experience of pain is not the experience of pleasure. And, furthermore, the abstract notions which we are obviously able to form of the emotions of pleasure and pain, and which, in point of fact, we always do form whenever we make them the subjects of abstract inquiry and philosophical analysis, are entirely distinct from each other, as well as the emotions themselves. But, in respect to the emotions in particular, the pleasure and pain actually experienced, the difference which by nature exists between them, is perhaps more fully and promptly recognised. Without the least hesitation, we may appeal to the testimony of any man's consciousness, whether it is not utterly impossible for him even to conceive (we do not say of the mere substitution of pleasure and pain for each other, which is a wholly different thing) of pleasure, in itself considered and in its own nature, as actually being pain, or of pain, while it exists as pain, as actually being pleasure. In themselves considered and in their own nature, they are utterly, fundamentally, and entirely distinct; so much so that the human mind itself cannot mingle and confound them, without confounding and subverting its own nature as a percipient. Even the Supreme Being, although he may cause, and prolong, and diminish them in particular cases, cannot make them. identical. While they exist, there is necessarily something which constitutes and authenticates their existence; and this constitution or nature of the thing can never be any otherwise than what it is.

1

287. Application of the foregoing views to the doctrine of the immutability of moral distinctions.

The views which have been given, and which are obviously fundamental, apply to the abstract conceptions of RIGHT and WRONG, as well as to any other thoughts, emotions, or objects of thought which have been referred to. As to the fact that men universally form the notions of RIGHT and WRONG, there can be no question. These ideas take their place as clearly and distinctly in the series of our intellectual conceptions as the notions of existence, personality, duration, space, and the like. A person who should be known to be incapable of forming them, would be considered an anomaly; a creature altogether out of the line of the ordinary precedents of human nature. And if we are able to frame these notions, as we obviously are, then each of them has its distinctive nature; and if there is any foundation for the remarks and illustrations already given, as we cannot doubt there is, we cannot possibly conceive of them as identical, or interchangeable with each other. They are as truly unlike as our conceptions of unity and time, or of space and power. We can no more conceive of their being identical, than we can conceive of the identity of black and white, of bitter and sweet, of pleasure and pain, of love and hatred, of a square and a circle, of a triangle and a hexagon, or of any other things in nature which are entirely diverse from each other. They are placed for ever apart; they respectively occupy their own sphere, and stand upon their own basis; they do indeed sustain a sort of relation to each other, and perhaps it may be said that we cannot have a conception of them without at the same time having some conception of this relation; but this relation itself not only involves their entire diversity, but places them at the greatest possible remove, and stamps them as the direct opposites and antipodes of each other.

Hobbes maintained, and in this he seems to have followed in the track of some ancient philosophers, that our ideas of right and wrong are not representative of something permanently existing in the nature of things, but are relative to the enactments and operations of human laws and systems of government. In other words, he