our notions of human rectitude, of the conduct, that is suitable for men; yet will this of itself give us to understand, whether the Judge of all the earth, in certain supposed operations of his hand,does right? whether such or such administrations of divine government are equitable or not? No doubt we may argue from the less to the greater, in this case, and say, that whatever is right in man, cannot be wrong in God; as that, which is laudable in a private citizen, must be equally so, at least, in a public officer. But to turn the tables, and argue from the greater to the less, as that a man may be justified in doing, or wishing to do, any thing that he sees done by the arm of the Most High, would be glaringly absurd. If it be right for God to take vengeance on evil doers; will it follow, that men are to be allowed to do the same? Does not the scripture conclude rather, that man has no right to countenance himself in such an action, because this right is inherent in God? "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath : for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." It could not have been right for Abraham, nor for the angels, who were employed in the redemption of Lot, to counsel the destruction of Sodom, even upon their supposed perfect knowledge of the sins of that people. It would have been wicked in them to have desired such an event. But this does nothing towards proving, that the Judge of all the earth did

wrong, in turning their country into ashes, and condemning them with an overthrow. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Any thing, which may be fairly considered as a departure from truth and goodness, as it would be criminal in man, so, in Deity, it would render him undeserving of confidence from the rational world. It would be equally a blemish, a moral imperfection, in God. But if God is pleased to deluge a city in flames, or doom any number of men to perdition, would this be as evidently an infringement of truth and the maxims of goodness, as if a creature should take it upon him thus to do? The case is as plain, as that there is a difference between the Creator and the creature. Until we can reduce Jehovah to an equality with his own offspring, feeble, dependent creatures, we cannot subject him to the same rules of conduct that are binding upon them. Not that there are two or more kinds of right or wrong, in direct opposition to each other. Right is not an arbitrary, an equivocal, or a mutable thing. It is capable of being defined with the most exact precision; and cannot be supposed to require, at one time, what it absolutely disallows at another. The bounds of good and evil, and their true point of difference, are as clearly, critically, and

unaltably, fixed, as the nature of God. The rectitude of God and that of his creatures nicely agree and harmonize with each other, and nothing can cause or manifest a variance between them. Still we have a somewhat different course to pursue, in tracing the matchless excellence of the divine character, from that which leads us to a view of those moral beauties, which appear in the faithful among men. Through inattention to this. difference, some have been led to impeach the moral justice of God, in those judicial dispensations of his providence, which are the most unlike to the transactions that are proper for men. If Jehovah were to govern himself by all those particular rules of conduct, which are given to limit and regulate the actions of men, or other intelligent creatures, instead of doing right, he would fill the universe with wrong, and give just cause of universal alienation from, rather than of confidence in, him.

It ought to be remembered, that our confidence in God is not such as we sometimes have occasion to place in man. A creature, furnished with the best endowments, natural and moral, may justly claim to be respected and treated according to the excellencies he possesses, and the opportunity he has to render them beneficial to others. Our estimation of his worth will allure us to his bosom, and into his arms we shall throw ourselves, with expectations of sharing, liberally, in the fruits of his good-properties. But

here is nothing original, nor independent, to rest upon. Is he a king, or governor ? he will not protect, nor enrich us, of his own unborrowed lenity or power. He will do us good, only as his heart is moved, and his hands strengthened, by the great Lord and Benefactor of the world. By such considerations is our confidence modified and rcstricted. But can we address ourselves to God, and cast ourselves on his beneficence, with these narrow and impoverished views of his grace, his power to sustain and save us? If we set our hope in God, it is not as if he were man, that he might lie, or the son of man, that might repent. It is not as if he were domesticated to the little spot of earth we inhabit; or were immured within the walls of the town, in which we dwell. It is not as if he had taken his stand, for purposes of government, at the head of our nation, or commonwealth, in preference to all others. It is not as if he had abandoned the vast interests and concerns of the universe, or had naturally no connection with them, that he might be the more especially and closely attentive to our little affairs and movements of yesterday, to-day, and to-morrow. It is not, as if, within a few years or lustrums past, he had begun to plan for our existence and welfare; and would never suffer his care to be drawn forth beyond that circle of objects, which compasses our own more particular and appropriate interests. It is not as if he were posted, as a sentinel, upon the watch

tower, to descry the hostile movements of an enemy, that must be repulsed by defensive arts and exertions. It is not, in fine, as if we had enlisted him in our cause, to be ready upon all our occasions, to make every desired sacrifice to our security and enjoyment. Shall he, who has the care of the universe upon him, as its author and end, its preserver and user, be called from this high designation, this elevated sphere, to busy himself, chiefly, about the things, which lie scattered in the vicinity of our worthless pursuits; but which, though comparatively less than nothing, our microscopic eyes magnify to objects of incomparable value? It is not a part, but the whole collective mass of being, that God looks to and regards as his proper charge. He has not selected any part of creation, and set it up as an ultimate end, bringing all the rest into subordination to it. His dispensations towards one are of the same final importance, as his dispensations towards another. The ways of God, viewed aright, lead us to the conclusion which is happily expressed in the words of the apostle, viz. that God is all in all. The divine rectitude may be likened to the tree in Nebuchadnezzar's vision. "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof unto the end of all the earth. The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt