v. 20. _Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil._ The conscience of every man testifies that there is an unchangeable difference between good and evil; but each man is prone to think his own vice little or no sin at all. He substitutes other names for his crime, and calls his evil good. +I. Many are self-deceived+ (Prov. xiv. 12). How many think themselves religious, merely because they pay some or much respect to the outward ordinances of religion, while there is no change in their character. How many justify their irreligion, by depicting religion as morose and gloomy. How many commit crimes without one misgiving of conscience, merely because they are varnished over by specious names. How often under the pretence of promoting the honour of true religion, massacres and murders have been sanctified, the torch of persecution brandished round, and the flame of civil discord raised, to light the path to heaven! +II. Many endeavour to deceive others,+ by false representations of sin and duty (Luke xvii. 1, 2).--_George Mathew, M.A., Sermons,_ ii. 101-118. ON THE PERVERSION OF RIGHT AND WRONG. v. 20. _Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil._ There is in many a wonderful propensity to perplex the distinctions between right and wrong, and to obscure the boundaries of virtue and vice. Their propensity is both absurd and wicked. It most frequently manifests itself in two ways:--1. _By bestowing soft and gentle names on crimes of real and destructive magnitude._ Thus, infidelity and scepticism have been called "free inquiry," indifference to all religion "a spirit of toleration," duelling "an honourable deed," adultery "gallantry," extravagance "a liberal expenditure," the selfish sensualist "a good-natured man." By the use of such false and misleading terms, we lower the standard of right and wrong, and expose ourselves to the temptation of practising what we have persuaded ourselves is not so very wrong. 2. _By applauding works of genius and imagination of which the real tendency is to inflame the passions, and to weaken moral and religious principle._ The tendency of such works should lead us unhesitatingly to condemn and reject them, whatever may be the literary fascinations of their style. Nothing is more dangerous than a book which imparts to vice the delusive appearance of a virtue. Thus, to confound the distinctions between right and wrong, is to renounce the superiority which man claims over the brute creation--that of being a rational creature, for the brutes are never guilty of anything so irrational as that of calling good evil, and evil good.--_Charles Moore, M.A., Sermons,_ ii. pp. 155-172. THE SIN OF USING WRONG NAMES. v. 20. _Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil._ What difference can it make what anything is called! "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."