good principle of the orthodox?  At least he would be neutral and, as it were, suspended between the two, or even sometimes the one and sometimes the other.  That would be as if someone were to say that Oromasdes and Arimanius reign in turns, according to which of the two is the stronger or the more adroit.  It is like the saying of a certain Moghul woman.  She, so it seems, having heard it said that formerly under Genghis Khan and his successors her nation had had dominion over most [238] of the North and East, told the Muscovites recently, when M. Isbrand went to China on behalf of the Czar, through the country of those Tartars, that the god of the Moghuls had been driven from Heaven, but that one day he would take his own place again.  The true God is always the same:  natural religion itself demands that he be essentially as good and wise as he is powerful.  It is scarcely more contrary to reason and piety to say that God acts without cognition, than to maintain that he has cognition which does not find the eternal rules of goodness and of justice among its objects, or again to say that he has a will such as heeds not these rules.

178.  Some theologians who have written of God’s right over creatures appear to have conceded to him an unrestricted right, an arbitrary and despotic power.  They thought that would be placing divinity on the most exalted level that may be imagined for it, and that it would abase the creature before the Creator to such an extent that the Creator is bound by no laws of any kind with respect to the creature.  There are passages from Twiss, Rutherford and some other Supralapsarians which imply that God cannot sin whatever he may do, because he is subject to no law.  M. Bayle himself considers that this doctrine is monstrous and contrary to the holiness of God (Dictionary, v.  ‘Paulicians’, p. 2332 in initio); but I suppose that the intention of some of these writers was less bad than it seems to be.  Apparently they meant by the term right, [Greek:  anypeuthynian], a state wherein one is responsible to none for one’s actions.  But they will not have denied that God owes to himself what goodness and justice demand of him.  On that matter one may see M. Amyraut’s Apology for Calvin:  it is true that Calvin appears orthodox on this subject, and that he is by no means one of the extreme Supralapsarians.

179.  Thus, when M. Bayle says somewhere that St. Paul extricates himself from predestination only through the consideration of God’s absolute right, and the incomprehensibility of his ways, it is implied that, if one understood them, one would find them consistent with justice, God not being able to use his power otherwise.  St. Paul himself says that it is a depth, but a depth of wisdom (altitudo sapientiae), and justice is included in the goodness of the All-wise.  I find that M. Bayle speaks very well elsewhere on the application of our notions of goodness to the actions of God (Reply