To this view of the subject, the following remarks of Bishop Butler manifestly tend: "Perhaps divine goodness, with which, if I mistake not, we make very free in our speculations, may not be a bare single disposition to produce happiness; but a disposition to make the good, the faithful, the honest man happy. Perhaps an infinitely perfect mind may be pleased with seeing his creatures behave suitably with the nature which he has given them, to the relations which he has placed them to each other, and to that in which they stand to himself; that relation to himself, which during their existence is ever necessary, and which is the most important one of all. I say, an infinitely perfect mind may be pleased with this moral piety of moral agents in and for itself, as well as upon account of its being essentially conducive to the happiness of his creation. Or the whole end for which God made and thus governs the world, may be utterly beyond the reach of our faculties: there may be somewhat in it, as impossible for us to have any conception of, as for a blind man to have a conception of colors." Analogy, part 1, ch. 2.

Again. "Some men seem to think the only character of the Author of nature, to be that of single, absolute benevolence. This, considered as a principle of action, and infinite in degree, is a disposition to produce the greatest possible happiness, without regard to persons' behavior, otherwise than as such regard would produce the highest degrees of it. And, supposing this to be the only character of God, veracity and justice in him would be nothing but benevolence, conducted by wisdom. Now surely this ought not to be asserted, unless it can be proved; for we should speak with cautious reverence upon such a subject. There may possibly be, in the creation, beings, to whom the Author of nature manifests himself under this most amiable of all characters, this of infinite, absolute benevolence; for it is the most amiable, supposing it is not, as perhaps it is not, incompatible with justice; but he manifests himself to us under the character of a Righteous Governor. He may, consistently with this, be simply and

absolutely benevolent, in the sense now explained; but he is, for he has given us a proof, in the constitution and government of the world, that he is, a Governor over servants, as he rewards and punishes us for our actions." Analogy, ch. 3.

For these reasons, I think it is not proved that an action is right because it is productive of the greatest amount of happiness. It may be so, or it may not, but we ought not to believe it to be so without proof; and it may even be doubted whether we are in possession of the media of proof, that is, whether it is a question fairly within the reach of the human faculties; and, so far as we can learn from the Scriptures, I think their testimony is decidedly against the supposition. To me the Scriptures seem explicitly to declare, that the will of God alone is sufficient to create the obligation to obedience in all his creatures; and that this will, of itself, precludes every other inquiry. This seems to be the view of St. Paul, in the passage which we have quoted, as well as in several other places, in his Epistle to the Romans. To the same import is the prayer of our Savior, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes; even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight."

It seems, therefore, to me, that these explanations of the origin of our moral sentiments are unsatisfactory. I believe the idea of a moral quality in actions to be ultimate, to arise under such circumstances as have been appointed by our Creator, and that we can assign for it no other reason, than that such is his will concerning

us.

If this be true, our only business will be, to state the circumstances under which our moral notions arise. In doing this, it would be presumption in me to expect that I shall be able to give an account of this subject more satisfactory to others, than theirs has been to me. I merely offer it as that which seems to me most accurately to correspond with the phenomena.

The view which I take of this subject is briefly as follows:

1. It is manifest to every one that we all stand in various and dissimilar relations to all the sentient beings, created and uncreated, with which we are acquainted. Among our relations to created beings are those of man to man, or that of substantial equality, of parent and child, of benefactor and recipient, of husband and wife, of brother and brother, citizen and citizen, citizen and magistrate, and a thousand others.

2. Now, it seems to me, that as soon as a human being comprehends the relation in which two human beings stand to each other, there arises in his mind a consciousness of moral obligation, connected, by our Creator, with the very conception of this relation. And the fact is the same, whether he be one of the parties or not. nature of this feeling is, that the one ought to exercise certain dispositions towards the others to whom he is thus related; and to act towards them in a manner corresponding with those dispositions.

The

3. The nature of these dispositions varies of course with the relations. Thus, those of a parent to a child are different from those of a child to a parent; those of a benefactor to a recipient, from those of a recipient to a benefactor: and both of them differ from that of a brother to a brother, or of a master to a servant. But different as these may be from each other, they are all pervaded by the same generic feeling, that of moral obligation; that is, we feel that we ought to be thus or thus disposed, and to act in this or that manner.

4. This I suppose to be our constitution, in regard to created beings; and such do I suppose would be our feeling, irrespectively of any notion of the Deity. That is, upon the conception of these and such like relations, there would immediately arise this feeling of moral obligation, to act towards those sustaining these relations, in a particular

manner.

5. But there is an Uncreated Being to whom we stand in relations infinitely more intimate and inconceivably

more solemn, than any of those of which we have spoken. It is that Infinite Being, who stands to us in the relation of Creator, Preserver, Benefactor, Lawgiver, and Judge; and to whom we stand in the relation of dependent, helpless, ignorant, and sinful creatures. How much this relation involves, we cannot possibly know; but so much as this we know, that it involves obligations greater than our intellect can estimate. We cannot contemplate it, without feeling that, from the very fact of its existence, we are under obligations to entertain the disposition of filial love and obedience towards God, and to act precisely as he shall condescend to direct. And this obligation arises, simply from the fact of the relation existing between the parties, and irrespectively of any other consideration; and if it be not felt, when the relations are perceived, it can never be produced by any view of the consequences which would arise to the universe from exercising it.

6. This relation, and its consequent obligation, involve, comprehend, and transcend every other. Hence it places obligation to man, upon a new foundation. For if we be ourselves thus under illimitable obligations to God, and if, by virtue of the relation which he sustains to the creation, he is the Protector, Ruler, and Proprietor of all, we are under obligations to obey him in every thing. And as every other being is also his creature, we are bound to treat that creature as he its Proprietor shall direct. Hence we are bound to perform the obligation under which we stand to his creatures, not merely on account of our relations to them, but also on account of the relations in which we and they stand to God.

And hence, in general, our feeling of moral obligation is a peculiar and instinctive impulse, arising at once by the principles of our constitution, as soon as the relations are perceived in which we stand to the beings, created and uncreated, with whom we are connected.

The proof of this must rest, as I am aware, with every man's consciousness. A few illustrative remarks may, however, not be altogether useless.

I think, if we reflect upon the subject, that the manner

in which we attempt to awaken moral feelings, confirins the view which I have taken. In such a case, if I mistake not, we always place before the mind the relation in which the parties stand to each other.

If we wish to awaken in ourselves gratitude to another, we do not reflect that this affection will produce the greatest good; but we remember the individual in the relation of benefactor; and we place this relation in the strongest possible light. If this will not produce gratitude, our effort, of necessity, fails.

If we desire to inflame moral indignation against crime, we show the relations in which the parties stand to each other, and expect hence to produce a conviction of the greatness of the obligation which such turpitude violates.

So, if we wish to overcome evil with good, we place ourselves in the relation of benefactor to the injurious person; and, in spite of himself, he is frequently compelled to yield to the law of his nature; and gratitude for favors, and sorrow for injury, spontaneously arise in his bosom.

And, in the plan of man's redemption, it seems to me that the Deity has acted on this principle. Irrespectively of a remedial dispensation, he is known to us only as a Creator, all wise and all powerful, perfect in holiness, justice, and truth. To our fallen nature, these attributes could minister nothing but terror. He, therefore, has revealed himself to us in the relation of a Savior and Redeemer, a God forgiving transgression and iniquity; and thus, by all the power of this new relation, he imposes upon us new obligations to gratitude, repentance, and love.

And hence it is, that God always asserts, that, as from the fact of this new relation, our obligations to him are increased; so, he who rejects the gospel is in a special manner a sinner, and is exposed to a more terrible condemnation. The climax of all that is awful in the doom of the unbelieving, is expressed by the terms, "the wrath of the Lamb."