LESSON VIII.

ANOTHER of the rules of Christian justice which will be found applicable to our subject, is, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matt. vii. 12.

The remarks made upon the first rule are in some measure applicable to this.

The desire of something to be done must be founded on good reason and conformable to justice. Folly ever marks an unreasonable desire; and that desire is always unjust which merely reaches to the taking from another without the corresponding desire to reciprocate. Such desires are changed instantly into the action of the mind called "coveting," and are most strictly forbidden, for this good reason, that very action of the mind is a mental theft; and the moral wickedness in the individual "coveting" is the same as though he were practically a thief. But, further, the desire must be predicated upon a presumable condition; for, by the rule, it would be unjust to desire that which it would not be possible to have done to us; so it would be to desire any other impossibility. Suppose A. should desire that you would make him rich, does it follow that he must make you rich when he has no ability to do so? The case is not founded upon a presumable condition, nor, on good reason, upon a desire to reciprocate, consequently unjust.

But suppose A. feels anxious for your warm regard for his prosperity in his lawful understandings, here the desire reaches to nothing unjust, to no disorder in society, or beyond your power, and clearly within his power to reciprocate; he is then bound by the rule to feel a warm desire for your prosperity in all your lawful undertakings. And who does not perceive that if one desires your good wishes, he must of necessity feel good wishes for you. Whether the desire imply merely a mental or physical action, similar examples will illustrate. The rule is truly a golden one, and, so far as acted upon, binds society together in peace and good-will.

It is quite analogous to the twenty-fourth maxim of Confucius, which reads thus: "Do unto another as thou would be dealt with

thyself; thou only needest this law alone: it is the foundation and principle of all the rest." And is in spirit with the fifty-third maxim of the same philosopher: "Acknowledge the benefits by the return of other benefits; but never revenge injuries." We trust the rule is none the less sacred because it was revealed to man at an early period.

Let us illustrate the correctness of these views by the inconsistency of those opposite. Others say that if we were in slavery we should wish to be made free, therefore we are bound by this rule to set free all who are in slavery now.

If this be true, in order that the whole circle of action may be consistent, there must be another link added to the chain; hence we find that the advocates of this interpretation say, also, "that same inward principle which teaches a man what he is bound to do for others, teaches equally, and at the same instant, what others are bound to do to him." Channing, vol. ii. p. 33. This proposition inevitably follows the preceding; for who is he that can say among men that that is a good rule which is not reciprocal.

This imaginary rule would perhaps be less obnoxious in case of universal equality. For, in that case, we may suppose an universal equality of desire, without which one wishes one thing and another its opposite. But so long as God rules, universal equality can only happen in case of universal perfection, in which case neither sin nor slavery can exist, and in which case the argument will not be wanted. But the rule as left by Jesus Christ was made for man in his fallen state.

But again, if the interpretation of our opponents be true, then the proposition may be resolved into this state:-A. is as much bound by the desire of B. as by his own, and the whole world is fully bound by both. But the whole world individually desire adversely to each other, yet each desire is to be harmoniously gratified. Let each one make out the examples; we think they will find them extremely ridiculous in the result. The doctrine involves plainly the most gross contradictions, and is therefore a naked nullity.

Again, if it be the law of God, that because we desire a thing, therefore we are bound to give that thing to another, it implies that the desire was the manifestation of God's will; in short, that the desire was a portion of his revealed law; consequently, whatever any man desires is a portion of inspiration. Hence Channing says, (page as above,) "his conscience, in revealing the

moral law, does not reveal a law for himself only, but speaks as a universal legislator." Now it follows, that, as each man desires an opposite, therefore there are as many opposite systems of the laws of God as there are individuals who desire them; in other words, it would be making God's law just what each one desired it to be. Thus making the law of God a perfect nullity.

But again, if the interpretation of the golden rule, as employed by them who use it to inculcate immediate emancipation, be true, then it contradicts the spirit of the command, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; nor his man-servant, (y ve abeddo, male slave,) nor his maid-servant, (in va amatho, female slave,) nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Exod. xx. 17. Here the word "covet" is used to mean a strong desire without the wish or ability to reciprocate; therefore without good reason-consequently unjust. It is the same exercise of the mind that leads a man to acts of theft that is here forbidden: an exercise of the mind that leads to many disorders in society, and hence this command. The command does not extend to him who desires his neighbour's house, man-servant, maid-servant, ox, or ass, upon the condition that the desire is founded upon good reason. The neighbour having the will and power to part with, and he who desires the power and will to reciprocate, these qualifications bring the desire within the purview of the golden rule, and remove all tendency to disorders in society. To buy and sell with the view to reciprocate gain, has a very strong tendency to bind society together in peace and good-will.

In the lesson of the golden rule, the Saviour gave a check to impetuous and improper desires,-to the wicked and improper hankering after the substance or condition of others,―by bringing to view the propriety of performing themselves such acts as they demanded of others: that they should prove themselves worthy of the solicited favour by a reciprocity of feeling and action.

This we think evident from what precedes: "If then ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father that is in heaven give good things unto them that ask him."

The doctrine of the golden rule seems to be often misunderstood. We quote from the great Selden: "Guided by justice and mercy, do unto all men as you would have them do to you, were your circumstances and theirs reversed. If the prisoner should ask the

judge whether he would be content to be hanged were he in his case, he would answer, No! Then says the prisoner, Do as you would be done to. Neither of them must do as private men; but the judge must do by him as they have publicly agreed: that is, both judge and prisoner have consented to the law, that if either of them steal, he shall be hanged." Selden.

"If the wickedest wretches among yourselves, the most peevish, weak, and ill-natured of you all, will readily give good gifts to their children when they cry for them, how much rather will the great God, infinite in goodness, bestow blessings on his children who endeavour to resemble him in his perfections, and for that ask his grace and other spiritual and heavenly blessings;" but God grants these blessings alone upon this condition, that, "animated by his goodness, you study to express your gratitude for it by your integrity and kindness to your fellow-creatures, treating them in every instance as you would think it reasonable to be treated by them, if you were in their circumstances, and they in yours; for this is, in effect, a summary and abstract of all the human and social virtues recommended in the moral precepts of the law and the prophets, and it was one of the greatest ends of both to bring men to this equitable and amiable temper." Doddridge.

Such are the comments of these men upon this subject.

But permit us to remark that the word man-servant, in the command just quoted, is translated from the Hebrew y ebed, and means what we mean by the word slave. And let it be remembered that, in the decalogue, in one of the original laws of God the Father, delivered to Moses from Sinai, the slave is classed with the ox, the ass, in short, with all other property, as an article of possession; and that we are commanded not to have a desire to change the possession unjustly. And that, by a fair interpretation of the golden rule issued by the living lips of Jesus Christ, if we reasonably and justly desire to change the possession, we must honestly reciprocate the full value thereof.

Let the candid world, the truth-searching philosopher, and the humble Christian examine, and say whether these conclusions are not founded on reason, justice, and the laws of God.

LESSON IX.

WE suppose all Christians will agree that God is a Spirit eternal and infinite, unchangeable and unaccountable, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, most wise, most true, most holy, and most good, without beginning or without end. Such from eternity were his qualities, and such to eternity they will remain.

In contemplation of these characteristics of Jehovah, we are led to deduce that God must originally and essentially within himself be eternally happy. "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Isa. xlvi. 10. If it is proper to say that God has desires, then it must be his desire that his "counsel shall stand," because it is inconsistent with happiness to be unable to gratify desire or fail in counsel; besides, it would prove some deficiency of power. Before God created some other being or thing, he existed alone. Can it be said he had wants? For what purpose then did he create other things? What object had he in view? The object must have been worthy of calling forth his action. What other object could have been worthy of his action than himself? Because his work must in all its parts reflect his power, his every quality, we must therefore conclude God is the sole and ultimate end of every thing he does. If all the labours of Deity were not solely for himself, then of the greatness and rectitude of many of his providences and acts, perhaps none could ever be comprehended or even perceived by mortals. For God legislates not merely for a city, a tribe or nation, but for the universe: not for an hour, a day or a thousand years, but for eternity. "I know that whatsoever God doeth it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it; and God doeth it, that men shall fear before him." Eccl. iii. 14.

If God himself is the ultimate end of all things, then that moral philosopher, a poor, ignorant man, a worm of but momentary existence, mistakes, who teaches in substance that true religion, that is, worship of God, consists in an advantageous, successful, and well-directed selfishness in favour of himself; for, upon that principle the vilest enemy may take shelter under the cloak of his adversary, but will he be the more worthy? If God is the supreme