to arise within us when any instance of right or wrong in actual life comes under our notice. The origin of the abstract notions of right and wrong is, where Cudworth has placed it, in the INTELLECT, using the term in distinction from the sentient part of our nature. We are so constituted, that, whenever occasions of actual right or wrong occur, these ideas or intellections (if we may use a good term, though somewhat antiquated) naturally and necessarily arise within us. God has so constituted us, that, in the matter of Morals, the intellect has a share as well as the sensibilities. It is the intellect, sometimes we say the pure intellect (that is to say, the intellect, wholly disconnected in its action from the senses), which makes known to us the abstract conception, the pure and beautiful ideality of rectitude, and which, therefore, constitutes for every action an inflexible rule or standard of right or wrong; but it is the Moral Sensibility or Conscience which makes known to us and to others whether we or they approximate to or diverge from that standard. Now, if we look into this interesting and important part of our mental nature (that is to say, into the conscience), and consider the emotions which have their origin there, we shall have additional evidence of the truth of our doctrine. In every instance of moral conduct, there is abstractly a right or wrong pertaining to that conduct; it is the province of conscience, in the exercise of those emotions of approval and disapproval which are appropriate to it, to determine which of the two it is. In other words, there is applicable to every instance of moral conduct the immutable standard of rectitude; and it is the province of conscience to determine whether the action in question is conformable to that rule or not. Conformity to the standard of rectitude is approved, divergency from it is disapproved; and the intensity of the emotions of approval or disapproval, if the conscience be not perverted, as it sometimes is, will be in proportion to the greater or less degree of divergency from the immutable rule. Now here is a distinct class of emotions, the emotions of moral approval and disapproval, which, when we consult our consciousness in respect to them, we know to be essentially different from emotions of beauty, of sublimity, of

the ludicrous, and from all other emotions; we know them to have a specific nature of their own, to be sui generis. Every person who is acquainted with the philosophy of the mind, knows that every class of emotions has its specific and appropriate objects. And what are the objects which are the basis of these emotions? in other words, what are the objects in connexion with which they are found to exist, and not otherwise? Undoubtedly human actions, in connexion with the great fact derived from the original and unalterable suggestions of the intellect, that they are placed under the surveillance and the requisitions of the immutable standard of rectitude. Actions thus circumstanced, and nothing else (neither beauty, nor interest, nor fame, nor any other possible object of contemplation and pursuit), are the appropriate objects of these emotions. They do not arise on any other occasions; they disdain to have anything to do with lower objects; they elevate themselves to a higher mark; they inquire not for the pleasure of actions nor for the emolument of actions, but for the right or wrong of actions. This is the true account of these emotions; and they therefore take for granted, in their very nature, the reality of Right in distinction from everything else, and the real and immutable separation of right from wrong.

But perhaps it will be said, that if mere personal interest, good, or happiness does not constitute right, that authority and law does. Is not human law, within the acknowledged sphere of its operation, the rule of duty? Does it not constitute the standard of right to those who come within its reach? And especially the Divine law, the express will of the Supreme Being, is not that the source of rectitude on the one hand and of crime on the other; of rectitude when it is obeyed, and of crime when it is disobeyed? These questions undoubtedly are worthy of consideration. We do not feel disposed to avoid an answer to them, even if it were practicable. Something has already been said having a bearing upon them; but we will let them have a distinct place, without, however, breaking the train of thought or altering the form of the argument.

291. Shown, in the fifth place, from the deportment and conduct of individuals, and from the character of codes of law and civil institutions.

(V.) The doctrine of the permanent nature of Rectitude and of the Immutability of moral distinctions, finds support, in the fifth place, from what we notice of the moral judgments of mankind in respect to the deportment and conduct of individuals, and also in respect to the character of codes of law, civil institutions, and forms of government. If the human mind were so constituted as to receive the doctrine as a fundamental truth, that Law of itself, whether human or divine, necessarily within the sphere of its operation, constitutes whatever it ordains right, and whatever it prohibits wrong, then men would universally agree in the application of this standard of rectitude, and would not feel the least compunction or hesitation in justifying all actions whatever which might happen to be performed under the requisitions of law. But this is not the fact. In a multitude of cases, the conduct of men, acting under the forms and requisitions of law, is condemned by the general voice of mankind as utterly unjustifiable and wrong.

One or two instances (perhaps, however, less to the purpose than some others which might be adduced) will illustrate what we mean. In the year 1605, the Dutch government, being then engaged in a fierce war with Spain, gave orders that Spanish prisoners, in retaliation of like severities alleged against the Spaniards, should be put to death. With these orders the Dutch Admiral Hautain set sail to intercept a re-enforcement of Spanish soldiers that were understood to be on their way to Flanders. Having succeeded in capturing them, as was expected, he ordered five companies, in obedience to the commands of the Dutch Government, to be tied together in pairs, and, at a given signal, to be thrown overboard into the sea. This diabolical transaction certainly finds no response in the human bosom. The heart and the conscience of mankind rise up against it as a great abomination, however it may have been sanctioned by law, and provoked by the severities of the opposing party.

The massacre of St. Bartholomew was perpetrated by public authority, and under the plausible forms of law;

but it was a requisition on the very face of it so highhanded and atrocious, that a number of Roman Catholic officers, acting at the almost certain risk of the displeasure of the French Government, refused to lend their agency to carry it into effect. Did they, or does any one else suppose that the mere order of the French Government affected either the right or wrong of that massacre? Had it not in itself a character heaven-daring, atrocious, black, even to the utmost limit of moral turpitude? But this could not be, if human law were in itself and necessarily a source of rectitude, and could spread the mantle of justice over all its requisitions. But it is not necessary to take up time with such instances. It is enough to observe, that men everywhere and in all ages of the world make a distinction between a legal enactment and the justice of that enactment, between the form and matter of a law and its rectitude; constantly pronouncing, with the utmost propriety of language and with the utmost truth in fact, one law to be right and another to be wrong, which would be abundantly absurd if the law itself were the source and the measure of right. In the same way men pronounce their opinions upon codes of law, taken as a whole, and upon systems of government. When the laws of Solon are pronounced to be wise and just, and, on the other hand, the code of Draco to be unjust, and in all similar cases, there is an obvious implication that justice is not necessarily identical with the mere requisition of government; that right is something above and beyond mere human law; revolving in a higher sphere; spreading abroad a light of its own, and holding all actions, all minds, all systems of government, and all laws amenable to itself.

It will be seen that we bring the subject here to the test of the common feeling and the common sense of mankind. Although sound philosophy clearly asserts and confirms the doctrine of the immutability of moral distinctions, and wholly denies the opposite doctrine that the distinction between right and wrong is a merely prescribed and arbitrary thing, dependant upon the enactment or will of some lawgiver, and, of course, subject to change with every change in such enactment, still it can

not be said with any justice, that the doctrine in question rests solely upon abstract, philosophical inquiry. It is emphatically, as is evident from the remarks which have just been made, the doctrine of common sense. There

is hardly a day passes when we do not hear in common conversation, and from those who have not had the advantages of a philosophical education, remarks made and opinions expressed which obviously involve it. You may be able to perplex a plain and illiterate man with subtile distinctions, to such a degree, perhaps, that he will not be able to give a prompt and satisfactory answer; but you will as soon overthrow his belief in his own personal identity, as convince him that right is not right, or that wrong is not wrong, or that any power on earth, to say the least, can make right wrong or wrong right. This is one of those cases where philosophy may confirm the opinions of the great mass of mankind if she pleases; but to overthrow or even to unsettle them is not at her option.

§ 292. The doctrine further shown from the opinions which mankind entertain of the character and government of God.

(VI.) The doctrine under consideration is supported, in the sixth place, by the opinions which mankind generally entertain of the character and the administration of the Supreme Being. Some persons may be disposed to admit, that human laws are not in themselves the source of right and wrong; and, at the same time, be strongly inclined to maintain that it is otherwise with the laws which emanate from God. They hold that the will of God, and nothing but the will of God, constitutes whatever of a moral nature takes place throughout the universe, either right or wrong. But the doctrine of the immutability of moral distinctions (in other words, that moral right and wrong always has its foundation ultimately in the nature and relations of things), if it be capable of being established at all, and has any real basis whatever, is of universal application; it reaches everywhere, and everywhere asserts the distinction between mere will and justice, between power and equity.-We proceed then to remark, that this doctrine, notwithstanding the exceptions