It was procured, Mr.Collyer informs us, by the merit of his "Lectures on Scripture facts." It should have been "Lectures on 'Scriptural' Facts." What should we think of the grammarian, who, instead of 'Historical', should present us with "Lectures on 'History' Facts ?" But Law Tracts?
And is not 'Scripture' as often used semi-adjectively?
Ib.p.

98.
"Do you really believe," says Dr.Hawker, "that, because man by his apostacy hath lost his power and ability to obey, God hath lost his right to command?
Put the case that you were called upon, as a barrister, to recover a debt due from one man to another, and you knew the debtor had not the ability to pay the 'creditor', would you tell your client that his debtor was under no legal or moral obligation to pay what he had no power to do?
And would you tell him that the very expectation of his just right 'was as foolish as it was tyrannical' ?" * * * I will give my reply to these questions distinctly and without hesitation.

* * * Suppose A.to have lent B.a thousand pounds, as a capital to commence trade, and that, when he purchased his stock to this amount, and lodged it in his warehouse, a fire were to break out in the next dwelling, and, extending itself to 'his' warehouse, were to consume the whole of his property, and reduce him to a state of utter ruin.

If A., my client, were to ask my opinion as to his right to recover from B., I should tell him that this his right would exist should B.ever be in a condition to repay the sum borrowed; * * * but that to attempt to recover a thousand pounds from a man thus reduced by accident to utter ruin, and who had not a shilling left in the world, would be 'as foolish as it was tyrannical'.
But this is rank sophistry.

The question is:--Does a thief (and a fraudulent debtor is no better) acquire a claim to impunity by not possessing the power of restoring the goods?
Every moral act derives its character (says a Schoolman with an unusual combination of profundity with quaintness) 'aut voluntate originis aut origine voluntatis'.