“I have always been most obedient when most taxed with disobedience. But my RIGHT hand is not the RIGHT hand of Melinda. The RIGHT I revere is not the right ordered by sycophants: the _jus vagum_, the capricious command of princes or ministers. I follow the LAW _of God_, (what is _laid down_ by him for the rule of my conduct,) when I follow the laws of human nature: which without any human testimony we know must proceed from God; and upon these are founded the RIGHTS of man, or what is _ordered_ for man. I revere the constitution and constitutional laws of England, because they are in conformity with the LAWS of _God_ and _nature_; and upon these are founded the rational rights of Englishmen. If princes, or ministers, or the corrupt sham-representatives of the people, _order_, _command_, or _lay down_ any thing contrary to that which is _ordered_, _commanded_, or _laid down_ by God, human nature, or the constitution of this government, I will still hold fast by the higher authorities. If the meaner authorities are offended, they can only destroy the body of the individual, but never can affect the RIGHT, or that which is ordered by their superiors.”[5] [5] See his whole article on Rights. Thus he is found to agree with Webster, that the _will of God_ is the ultimate _genus_ of the RIGHT. That is RIGHT, which conforms to the will of God as _laid down in law_--whether that law be a _written revelation_, nature, or the customs of society, (as in the case of the _right_ and _left_ hand,) as the exponent of that will--they are what is ordered in the case, and make the RIGHT. Hence he condemns as “wretched mummery” the distinction admitted by M. Portalis, between obedience to a command, and obedience to what is RIGHT and JUST in itself, and, on the same ground, pronounces it “highly improper” to say, with Mr. Locke, “God has a RIGHT to do it: we are his creatures.” For truly if his will be the ultimate _genus_ of RIGHT, then he can have no _rights_, for there is certainly no superior to whose _commands_ he conforms in the acts of his will. But precisely at this point let us take our stand. I affirm on the authority of Scripture, no less than sound philosophy, (always in harmony,) that _God has_ RIGHTS, and that the distinction of M. Portalis is in many instances correct; and that hence Tooke, Dr. Paley, (who also concurs in this view--see his article Rights, in his Moral Philosophy,) Dr. Webster, with many others of great distinction, strangely err, not in their etymology of this word, but in that hypothesis by which they make it a significate of the _will of God_. We cannot agree with them that RIGHTS and DUTIES which are reciprocal, are resolvable only into the will of God--have his will alone for their ultimate foundation. I take ground back of this. True, I say with them--and I claim full credit in the declaration--that the volitions, the acts of God, are always RIGHT; but I do not say that his will makes the essential or true