PHI LOS 0 P H Y . - Classic Works of Apologetics Online

74 Of RigbJ.
But.if the divine will determine the distinction of·
ri~ht and wrong, what eise is it but an identical
proposition, to lay of God, that he acts right? or
':J.-how is it pos .. ible even to concei~e that he should act
wrODg? yet these assertiODS are intelligible and significant.
The case is this: bv yirtue of the two
){ principles, that God wills the happiness of his crea-
..,.. tures~ and that the will of God is the measure of
right .. and wrong, we arrive at certain conclusions;
which conclusions become rules j and we soon learn
to pronounce actions right or wrong, according as
they agree or disagree with our rules, without looking
any farther; and when the habit is once established
of stopping at the rules, we can go back and
compare with these rules even the divine conduct
!tself, and yet it may be true (only not observed by
us at the time) that the rules themselves are deduced
fro .. the dMne wilL
~t is ~~oality of ~ns_~ons~
£9I]XDQ~~ as when we- say, such a one has a
~'ngh~' to this estate; parents have a "right" to
reverence from their .children; the king to allegi ..
ance from his subjects; masters have :\ "right" to
their servants' labour; a man hath not a "right"
over his own life.
[Qf@9!iirasin such expressions as the following:
it IS "right" to punish murder with death; his be.
haviour on that occa&ion was " right;" it is not
"right" to send an unfortunate debtor to jail; he
did or acted "right," who gave up his place rather
than vote against his judgment.
I In this latter set of expressions, you may substitute
. the definition of right above given for the term itself,
,
I Y. g. it "is consistent with the will of God" to punish
murder with death-his behaviour on that occa.
sion was " consistent with the w~!l of God"-it is not
" consistent with the will of God" to send an unfor.
tUDale debtor to jail-he did, or acted " consistently