The GOOD, therefore, as an ultimate _genus_, is much more extensive in meaning than the RIGHT. It extends to all _physical_ as well as _moral_ good. Our subject requires us to consider it only so far as it applies to humanity. And how far is this? When Jehovah created man, he pronounced him to be “very good,” i. e., essentially good in the attributes of his nature. He was created in “his own image: in the image of God created he him.” “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and _man became a living soul_.” That is, he was created a pure spiritual intelligence. He had a clear and correct perception and judgment of pure abstract truth, and of the relations of truth; with the corresponding feelings of obligation to duty, and a power of will sufficient to control the mental states within the sphere of its operations. Now, as a pure intelligence, thus endowed, he is within the limits of his capacity a cause within himself--strictly a self-acting agent, and hence accountable. And as he was created with a feeling of obligation to observe the good as a rule in all his conduct, he was created a subject of duty--he was under obligation to do, to act; and as in each of these respects, and in all others, he was created in conformity with the essential good, he was _rectus_, _right_. All this is implied in that declaration of his essential nature, as a pure spiritual intelligence, (who was therein made in the image of God,) which defined him to be “_very good_.” Nor can we think of this good as a quality or attribute of humanity, without being conscious, if we reflect closely, of associating in our minds the idea that the being who personates it is for that reason _free_; that for that reason he is _rectus_, _straight_, conformed to the good as the rule, that is, _right_; and that for the same reason he is under obligation--it is his _duty_ to act according to that rule. Every instance of moral action that is good implies these ideas: it is _free_, it is _rectus_, _straight_, and it is done in accordance with _duty_. In the same sense in which _life_, _sense_, and _motion_ enter into and so form the comprehension of the creature, animal; so _liberty_, _rectitude_, and _duty_ form the comprehension of moral good, so far as it applies to humanity. These are distinct ideas. Still they coincide, and either implies the others as correlatives. Hence we say of a _free_ action that it is _good_, implying that it is at the same time _rectus_, and done in accordance with duty; and of an action in conformity to a proper rule, that it is _good_, implying at the same time that it is _free_, and done in accordance with _duty_; and also of an action in compliance with _duty_, that it is _good_, implying that it is also _free_, and straight, i. e., conformed to rule: thus in each case we imply the correlative ideas.