fytmll Hmw^itg p 
 
 itatg 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOl 
 PROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 1S91 
 
 ME 
 
 FUND 
 
 (c/..( a.1 9i . 
 
 J\,.H.HQrS:i :.: 
 
arV1139 °°""" ""'"•"'•V "-Ibrary 
 ^i»Si.lilSir.,.?I.te.aM..|oye as a law 
 
 olin.anx 
 
 3 1924 031 199 981 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 924031 1 99981 
 
^p tbe same autbor. 
 
 THE LAW OF LOVE, AND LOVE AS A LAW ; or, Chris- 
 tian Ethics. A new edition^ with importatii additioTis, 
 I2IT10, J1.75. 
 
 AN OUTLINE STUDY OF MAN ; or, The Body and Mind 
 IN One System. With illustrative diagrams. Revised 
 edition. i2ino, $1-75. 
 
 THE SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF MAN. i2mo, Ji.oo. 
 
 TEACHINGS AND COUNSELS. Twenty Baccalaureate Ser- 
 mons. i2mo, $1.50. 
 
THE LAW OF LOV£] 
 AND LOYE AS A LAW: 
 
 OR, 
 
 CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 
 
 VitU&en (EDttton. 
 
 THEORY OF MORALS RESTATED, 
 
 FOR USE WITH "THE OUTLINE STUDY OF MAN.' 
 
 BY 
 
 MARK HOPKINS, D. D., LL.D. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 E.M, 
 
\ 
 
 
 VM 
 
 Copyright, 1881, 
 Bt CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS. 
 
 The Riverside Press, Cambridge, M/ixs., U. S. A. 
 Fnated by H. O. Iloughton & Company. 
 
To THE 
 
 HON. WILLIAM E. DODGE. 
 
 My DiiAii Sib: — 
 
 As the foUowiug work, in its present form, is due to leisure 
 that came through youi' bciieficeiice, it is fit that it should be 
 dedicated to you. I wish, too, as my name has so long been 
 associated with yours in connection with a great movement for 
 the spread of Chiislianity, that it may also l)e thus associated in 
 connection with a svKtcni of Moral Science which is no less in 
 accord with Christianity than witli the constitution of man, and 
 which will, as I trust, aid in its promotion. 
 
 With high resjject and regard, yours, 
 
 MAKK HOPIilNS. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In the preface to the first edition of " The Law 
 of Love and Love as a Law," reasons were given 
 for the publication of that work in addition to the 
 ' Lectures on Moral Science." To the third edi- 
 tion a second preface was added, and of that the 
 larger part is here given. 
 
 " In publishing a third edition of the following 
 work some notice of the discussions to which it 
 has given rise seems called for. In these it has 
 apparently been forgotten by many how entirely 
 the work is an exposition of that cardinal pre- 
 cept of Christian philosophy, ' Thou shalt love the 
 Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neigh- 
 bor as thyself.' As imperative there is in that 
 precept Law ; and the one thing required by that 
 law is Love. This gives us ' The Law of Love,' 
 and the law practically carried out gives us ' Love 
 as a Law.' With this the doctrine of ends as 
 stated in the ' Lectures on Moral Science ' is co- 
 incident, since the end of Love, so far as there is 
 choice in it, and so morality, must be the good 
 of the person loved. 
 
n PREFACE. 
 
 " But while the cardinal principle of Christian 
 philosophy is as stated above, that of the prevalent 
 philosophy is, ' Do right for the sake of the 
 right.' Are these identical ? If so, those that 
 hold to the doctrine of an ultimate right may spare 
 their attacks, for I am substantially agreed with 
 them. If not, it is for them to reconcile their ao 
 ceptance of the precept with their acceptance of 
 Christianity as a philosophy. What we need is a 
 Christian philosophy. Not that philosophy is to 
 be received on the basis of revelation. To be 
 philosophy it must be received on the basis of rea- 
 son. But if a revelation really from God teach or 
 imply a philosophy, it must coincide with that 
 taught by reason, and ought to be seen thus to 
 coincide. If Christendom is ever to be a fair ex- 
 ponent of Christianity, its Moral Philosophy must 
 be that of Christianity. 
 
 " We need also a philosophy in which the prac- 
 tical shall be drawn from the theoretical part, so 
 that they shall not stand, as in most treatises, like 
 the two sides of the Yosemite Valley, with a deep 
 gulf between them. If, as Dr. Wayland says in 
 the opening of his ' Practical Ethics,' the whole 
 Moral Law is contained in the single word 
 ' Love,' it would seem self-evident that the theo- 
 retical part, the philosophy, must consist of an 
 exposition of Law and Love as they are in them- 
 selves, and as related to each other. Such an expo- 
 iition Dr. Wayland did not attempt, nor can it be 
 
PREFACE. VU 
 
 Buccessfully attempted by any one of his school, 
 or of the school of Right, except as it can be 
 shown that the two precepts above given are iden- 
 tical. 
 
 " That those precepts can be made identical I 
 do not believe. To me they seem to differ both 
 in their sphere and object. The sphere of the one 
 is choice, and its object good. To choose the good 
 of beings capable of good, disinterestedly and as 
 valuable in itself, is the love required. Here the 
 sphere is choice without volition or outward action, 
 and the obligation to choose thus is aifirmed in 
 view of good as valuable in itself, and with no in- 
 tervention of the idea of right as distinguished 
 from that of obligation. The sphere of the other 
 is volition and outward action, and its object is 
 right, or the right. As commonly defined, and in 
 its only intelligible sense, right is the quality of 
 an action. This makes the right to be an abstrac- 
 tion, a mere intellection, as it is acknowledged to 
 be, which can become a motive to action only as 
 an element is ' surreptitiously ' borrowed from the 
 sensibility to combine with it and make it obliga- 
 tion. 
 
 " But if the two precepts can be made identical 
 ill their material, the whole form and pressure of 
 a system of duty will be different as the one or 
 the other shall be made prominent. The Ptole- 
 maic and Copernican systems differ, not in mate- 
 rial, but in what they made central ; and yet the 
 
nil PREFACE. 
 
 transition from the one to the other was one of the 
 great steps of progress. And so it is here. Let 
 Love be made central, so that in testing actions 
 men shall be compelled to inquire whether they 
 proceed from Love, and the moral heavens would 
 come into order as a system, and order in society 
 would be the result. The idea of right I accept ; 
 I believe in it as obligatory from its relation to 
 good. As thus related, and so only, it loses that 
 affinity for fanaticism so conspicuous in its his- 
 tory, and which has made religious wars and per- 
 secutions more virulent and cruel than any oth- 
 3rs. The persecuting Sauls and assassinating 
 Balthazars of all ages have ' verily thought that 
 they ought to do ' what they have done, and the 
 step now needed is to preclude, as far as possible, 
 such mistakes by making good and Love central, 
 and the ' Law of Love ' the test of right. 
 
 " We also need, in practical morals, to see the 
 guidance which Love may find from the distinc- 
 tion between the susceptibilities and the powers ; 
 and from the whole constitution of nature and of 
 man through the unifying relation of conditioning 
 and conditioned forces and faculties, and the Law 
 of Limitation based on that. Whoever will be at 
 the pains to trace this out will, I hope, find a sys- 
 tem consistent with itself and in harmony with 
 aature on the one hand, and with the Scriptures 
 on the other. 
 
 " For the readier apprehension of the system, 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 which involves the step above mentioned, I ask 
 attention to the following propositions which con- 
 tain its principal points : — 
 
 (1.) " Moral philosophy regards man only as 
 choosing and acting from choice. 
 
 (2.) " Moral action is rational, as distinguished 
 from instinctive action. 
 
 (3.) " Rational action implies a recognized 
 end. 
 
 (4.) " There can be no conception of an end as 
 a ground of rational action except through a sen- 
 sibility. 
 
 (5.) " The end which man ought to choose is 
 indicated by his moral nature, which affirms obli- 
 gation to choose it ; but it is in his power to re- 
 ject it. 
 
 (6.) " This end is the good of all beings capa- 
 ble of good, his own included. 
 
 (7.) " This good has value in itself, absolute 
 value, which makes it an object of rational choice 
 for its own sake. 
 
 (8.) " The choice of this good as the supremo 
 end is the Love required by the Law ; and hence, 
 in Love, known as Law, wisdom and virtue are 
 identified. As obedience to moral law, it is vir- 
 tue ; as the choice of good, it is wisdom. 
 
 (9.) " When an act of choice alone is required 
 without volition or the use of means, as in Love 
 or good- willing, obligation is affirmed at once 
 without the intervention of the idea of riglit, and 
 
X PKEFACE. 
 
 with no place for it unless it be regarded as syn- 
 onomous with obligation. 
 
 (10.) " The choice of good being thus virtue, 
 action from this choice is virtuous action. The 
 good tree makes the fruit good. 
 
 (11.) " Action that would naturally tend to 
 promote this good is right action, and is obliga- 
 tory from that tendency. 
 
 (12.) " The rejection of the end, indicated by 
 the moral nature, and any form of choice incom- 
 patible with, that end, is lawlessness and wicked- 
 ness. 
 
 " Identifying as above, wisdom and virtue in 
 Love known as Law, we find a ground of har- 
 mony between teleological and intuitive systems. 
 It has not been sufficiently observed, that the 
 moral imperative, in which I believe fully, the 
 affirmation of obligation to love, can be legiti- 
 mately given forth only in the apprehension of 
 that very good which wisdom would choose for its 
 own sake. This imperative is not the product of 
 will. It is not, therefore, as the advocates of the 
 theory of right persistently assert, a part of vir- 
 tue. It is no more a part of virtue than it is of 
 vice, since there could be neither without it. It 
 is the voice of our moral nature made possible and 
 rational by the rational apprehension of good, and 
 can become Law only as that good is the good of 
 ill beings capable of good, or at least is compati- 
 bl(» with that. In this view of it, that ' Good 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 Desa of will,' of which Kant speaks as ' the one 
 absolute good,' is not a good at all. It is good- 
 ness — goodness because it is the choice of good, 
 and without the idea of that, the very idea of 
 goodness had not been possible. 
 
 " It is to be added that if the good be disin- 
 terestedly chosen, the fact that it is a good can 
 never make the system utilitarian. That the 
 system is one of Love, the very Love commanded 
 and made Law by God, would, it might have 
 been supposed, be a bar to the charge of utilitari- 
 anism. Love cannot be utilitarian." 
 
 The above is thus far retained, partly to show 
 that in rewriting, as I have now done, the theo- 
 retical part of the work, the system is not changed. 
 My objects in rewriting were two. Of these, one 
 was to bring the present work into closer relation 
 to the " Outline Study of Man." It is really a 
 continuation of that from the point where up- 
 building was completed, and would naturally fol- 
 low that in a course of study ; but as this was 
 written before that, the points of connection were 
 less numerous and less obvious than I could wish. 
 I wished also to carry over into moral science 
 the method of teaching by diagrams. For this 
 there is less scope hero than in mental science, 
 but it is hoped that what has been done may not 
 be without benefit. 
 
 Another object I had in view was, by giving 
 the system more unity, to state it so that it might 
 
til PREFACE. 
 
 be more readily apprehended. In attempting 
 this, I have started from a new definition, have 
 carried the subject of the science back from con- 
 duct, where it is placed by Mr. Herbert Spencer, 
 in his Data of Ethics, to man himself as choos- 
 ing and acting from choice, and have sought to 
 keep closely to an exposition of the definition. It 
 should be said, however, that a subject so complex 
 as this, and involving so much of mental science, 
 cannot be understood without careful study. 
 
 The system advocated in the following work 
 differs radically from that commonly received. 
 Some of the differences have been already men- 
 tioned, but as the interest of truth requires that 
 they should be clearly seen, the following propo- 
 sitions are stated. In common with most other 
 systems, it makes choice the moral act. It then 
 differs from them — 
 
 (1.) In making the ultimate object of choice 
 always a good as furnished by the sensibility, 
 and not right, or the right as furnished by the 
 moral nature. 
 
 (2.) In making the sensibility a condition for 
 moral ideas, while it holds to their origin as nec- 
 essary, and from the moral reason. That they 
 are conditioned on a sensibility no more affects 
 their character as rational, than the fact that the 
 ideas of personal identity and resemblance are 
 Eonditioned on the idea of being affects their 
 character as rational. 
 
PKEFACE. XUl 
 
 (3.) In making the idea of rights and of obli- 
 gation, as belonging to the person, the primary 
 product of the moral reason, instead of the idea of 
 right as the quality of an action, or of the right aa 
 an abstraction. 
 
 (4.) In making the idea of obligation in view 
 of a higher good to be chosen, independent of that 
 of right. 
 
 (5.) In the place and office now necessarily 
 given to the conscience as behind the will, and as 
 privy councilor in guiding its choices. 
 
 (6.) In the identity of choice, and also of wia- 
 dom and virtue, with Love. 
 
 (7.) In the ability we thus gain to reconcile, as 
 in no other way, teleological and intuitive, script- 
 ui-al and rational systems. 
 
 (8.) In bringing into moral science the law of 
 the conditioning and the conditioned, and the law 
 of limitation based upon that. 
 
 Other points might be mentioned, and are, in 
 the preface to the first edition, but these are suffi- 
 cient. 
 
 Among the above I ask special attention to the 
 second, in which the relation of a good in the sen- 
 sibility to moral ideas is affirmed. I hold to ob- 
 ligation as strongly as any one. I hold to a moral 
 aature, through which rights and obligation are 
 .mmediately and necessarily affirmed ; but I hold 
 that obligation is obligation to choose, and because 
 I hold further, that it is obligation to choose a 
 
nv PKEFACE. 
 
 good rather than the quality of an action, or an 
 abstract quality, I am regarded by some as a util- 
 itarian. Utility is a good thing in its place, but 
 that place is not at the basis of a moral system. 
 I would choose a good, not for its utility, for it 
 has none. It is the only thing I know of that 
 neither has, nor can have, utility. I would choose 
 it for its own sake, and also as under obligation to 
 choose it, and that behest of moral law would, or 
 should, lead me to adhere to the choice of the 
 good, and of the good of others, which is love, 
 under every extremity. A system which thus 
 recognizes a moral nature, and the sacredness of 
 obligation, is not what I understand a system of 
 utility or of expediency to be. Nor is it a blend- 
 ing of any two systems, but a statement of the re- 
 lation of the sensibility and the moral nature to 
 the will, of virtue to a good, and thus the solution, 
 or at least an attempted solution, of the most diffi- 
 cult problem in theoretical morals. 
 
 In the rewriting, I have given more prominence 
 than heretofore to Rights, making the idea of 
 them, in its necessary connection with that of ob- 
 ligation, the primary moral idea, and also making 
 them, in connection with the desires, active prin- 
 ciples. I have also placed the moral affections 
 among the active principles. • 
 
 As the doctrines of the work have not been 
 shanged, the correspondence with Dr. McCosh ia 
 retained, though with some want, not important, 
 of accuracy in the references.^ 
 
 ^ Soe Apjjcudix. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PART 1. 
 
 THEORETICAL. 
 THE LAW OF LOVE. 
 
 MAN CHOOSING UNUiiU MORAL LAW. 
 
 Dtfinitioa, Division, aud Preliminary Statements . 21 
 
 DIVISION L 
 rhe Intellect M 
 
 DIVISION II. 
 
 THB SKNSIBILITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 rhe Sensibility in General ... . H 
 
 CHAPTER IL 
 A Good . . . . 4) 
 
 CIIAPTEK III. 
 Different Kinds of Activity determining Tlie Quality of the Good 45 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Impulsive Principles of Action !i3 
 
 ^^ CHAl'TER V 
 
 Rational Principles of Action . . . . 59 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Q« Moral Aff«ct)op» (f 
 
^Vi CONTENTS. 
 
 DIVISION m. 
 
 TheWai ... 88 
 
 DIVISION IV. 
 
 CHAFTEB L 
 The Moral Nstuie . Tl 
 
 CHAFTEB n. 
 Uoral Law 79 
 
 DIVISION V. 
 The Penan . . . Si 
 
 DIVISION VI. 
 Sight and Wrong ■ ... .IT 
 
 DIVISION VII. 
 
 MAN CHOOSING. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Alternatives and Law . H 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 tfickednesa 108 
 
 DIVISION vin. 
 
 Soucience .111 
 
 — • — 
 
 PART II. 
 
 PRACTICAL. 
 LOVE AS A LAW- 
 MAN ACTINO FROM CHOICE DNDEB MOKAI. LAW. 
 CHAPTER I. 
 PRELIMIKABY STATEMENT. 
 
 U>re •■ a Law distinguished from the Law of Love . m 
 
CONTENTS. xvii 
 
 CUAFTEK U. 
 CUuBificBtion of Duties. X23 
 
 CJ^ASS I. 
 
 ODTIKS TO 0UKSELVK8. 
 
 ClaBSification . 127 
 
 DIVISION L 
 
 Toe Securing of our Rights . ... 127 
 
 DIVISION n. 
 
 Hie Supply of our Wants ... 129 
 
 DIVISION III. 
 
 TUB PERI'ECTING OF OUK POWEKB. 
 
 CHAPTEK I. 
 
 Perfection as related to Direct Action for others : of the Body 
 of the Mind . . .130 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Perfection as related to Unconscious Influence . 143 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 Perfection as related to Complacency . . . . 145 
 
 CHAPTEK IV. 
 Perfection as related to the glory of God ... 147 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 "erfection as related to Self-love . . ... 148 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 ^biU lil* 
 
XVlll CONTENTS. 
 
 CLASS n. 
 
 DUTIES TO OUK FELLOW-MEN. 
 
 PRELIMINAKY. 
 
 Belf-love and the Love of others . . . • 155 
 
 FIRST GREAT DIVISION. 
 
 DUTIES TO MEN AS MEN. 
 
 DIVISION I. 
 
 DDTIES REGARDING THB EIGHTS OF OTHERS 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Of Itights 157 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Personal Rights : Life and Liberty . 166 
 
 CHAPTER in. 
 Right to Property . 169 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Right lo Reputation .... 182 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Right to Truth ... IRB 
 
 DIVISION n. 
 
 DUTIES KEGAEDING THE WANTS OF OTHERS 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Justice and Benevolence 189 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Supply of the Wants of othen ... 194 
 
CONTENTS. XIX 
 
 DIVISION in. 
 
 PKRFECTINO AND DIKECTINO THB POWERS OF OTBBBS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Duty o{ Influence from the Relation of Character to Well-being. 
 — Obstacles to Cliange of Intellectual State and of CharaC' 
 rer . 198 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 Hpherea of Ellort: Who may labor in them 308 
 
 SECOND GREAT DIVISION. 
 
 DUTIKS FROM SPECIAL RELATIONS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Rights of Persons t Right and Rights : Special Duties : The 
 FamUy . 810 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 3orernment: Responsibilitj: Punishment 319 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 Relation of the Sexes : Chastity . 233 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Rights and Duties in Relation to Marriage 236 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 The Law of Divorce .... . . 244 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Sights and Duties of Parents and Children . ... 247 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Society and Government; The Sphere of Government: Origin 
 
 of Government: Mod* of Formation . . 855 
 
rx CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VUl. 
 
 fAttl 
 
 OoTemment Representatire and Instrnmental : The Right of 
 Suffrage . 369 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Venn* of GoTernment : Duties of Magiitntes and Citixeni 884 
 
 CLASS nL 
 
 DUTIES TO eOD. 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 Dnties to God defined . »1 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 Cnltivation of a Devotional Spirit 295 
 
 CHAPTER in. 
 Prayer .... Ml 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 The Sabbath . .... ... 109 
 
 AmiroiT ,...,... tS 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 DIFFERENT THE0KIE8. 
 
 Morality regards man as active. Hence moral 
 icience must imply a systematic knowledge of those 
 powers in man wliicli tend to, or regulate action, 
 as those powers are related to each other, and to 
 the objects that excite their action. These powers 
 are related to each other as a system capable of 
 harmonious action, and of securing through such 
 action the highest good of the individual and of the 
 whole. 
 
 Into the conception of a system of active powers 
 the idea of order, subordination, and of a supreme 
 controlling power must enter ; and that action of 
 such a system which would secure the highest good 
 of the individual and of the whole is right action 
 Such action must be rational. It presupposes an 
 end good in itself, and known to be good ; but it 
 tan be moral only as we have a moral nature 
 iifBrming obligation to such action. 
 
 Of the nature and foundation of moral obliga- 
 tion which I suppose to be thus affirmed, differenl 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 accounts have been given. This has arisen in part 
 from the ambiguity of language, but more from a 
 partial apprehension and wrong adjustment of the 
 facts and principles of our complex nature. A 
 striking fact, as of association, or a powerful princi- 
 ple, as of self-love or sympathy, is seized upon and 
 made to account for everything, ft becomes the 
 centre of a system having in it, perhaps, much tha 
 is plausible, and much truth in its details, but as a 
 system wholly false. Such systems are not useless. 
 They insure a careful examination of the facts 
 made central ; the incidental truth involved, as in 
 the treatise of Adam Smith, is often of much value ; 
 and somethmg is done in limiting and exhausting 
 the possibilities of error. 
 
 And not only are different systems produced from 
 Different ^^^ above causes, but the moral problem 
 t^e'^oraf "' '^^^^^^ '^ differently stated. By some it is 
 problem. made an inquiry concerning the moral 
 nature ; by some, concerning the nature of virtue ; 
 by some, concerning the source and nature of right ; 
 ty some, after an ultimate rule ; and by some, after 
 Jie nature and foundation, or ground, of obliga- 
 tion. This last I think preferable. In the fact of 
 obligation all are agreed. All are agreed that all 
 mankind are under obligation to do some acts and 
 to abstain from others. Without obligation there 
 lan be no morality and no law, and a statement of 
 the ground and conditions and limitations of obliga- 
 tion, would be a statement of the tlioory of morals 
 
INTKOUUCTION. 8 
 
 As I propose to use the term, a ground of obli- 
 gation for us must presuppose a moral nature in 
 us ; and the question what that nature is, is entirely 
 different from any that may respect the ultimate 
 ground or reason for its activity. The nature and 
 ■constitution of tlic eye are one thing, the nature 
 and constitution of light, without wliicli the function 
 of the eye could not be performed are another. 
 The eye and light are related to each other, and 
 each is so indispensable to vision that either might 
 be said to be at its f .indation. But the questiona 
 m optics respecting the eye, and those respecting 
 light, are entirely distinct ; and if the powers of the 
 eye were regarded by one man as the foundation of 
 the faculty of sight, and if the properties of light 
 were so regarded by another, and if, because they 
 were using the same word, they were to go on 
 under the delusion that they were treating of the 
 same thing, it is easy to see the confusion that 
 must ensue. In the same way the intellect, with 
 its capacities and laws, is one thing, and truth, the 
 object of the intellect, is another. Tliese so imply 
 each other that without truth the intellect could 
 not act, and either might be said to be the founda- 
 lion of mental activity. Here, also, there would 
 be the same confusion if men were to mistake one 
 for the other, or, without being aware of the transi- 
 tion, were to apply the same terms to both. 
 
 But this is precisely what has happened in specu 
 lations on morals. Men have sometimes spoken of 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the various faculties and powers mvolved in the 
 moral nature, such as conscience and free will, as 
 lying at the foundation of obligation; sometimes 
 they have spoken of that ultimate ground or reason 
 in view of which alone the moral nature can 
 legitimately act, and sometimes they have included 
 both. The fact of this confusion is said bj'- Sir 
 James Mcintosh to have been a great, and indeed 
 the main reason of the confusion there has been in 
 the perplexed speculation? on the subject of morals. 
 Speaking of the difference k.<^tween the " Theory 
 of Moral Sentiment," and the " Criterion of Mo- 
 rality," he says : " The discrimination has seldom 
 been made by moral philosophers ; the difference 
 between the two problems has never been uniform- 
 ly observed by any of them ; and it will appear in 
 the sequel, that they have been not rarely alto- 
 gether confounded by very eminent men, to the 
 destruction of all just conception and of all correct 
 reasoning in this most important, and perhaps most 
 difficult, of sciences." 
 
 But this confusion will not surprise us if we ob- 
 serve how the speculations on those different sub- 
 jects imply and almost necessarily run into each 
 other. If we would understand optics, we must 
 understand both the eye and light, and that not 
 merely as they are in themselves, but as they are 
 related to each other. If we would understand 
 moral acience, we must understand both the facul 
 "iies which act and that in view of which they act 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 out we must be careful to keep our speculations on 
 the one subject distinct froTu tlioso on thy other. 
 
 If I say that self-interest is the ground of obliga- 
 tion I mean that it is that in view of which obliga- 
 tion is affirmed by a moral agent fully constituted. 
 If, on the other hand, I say that free will is the 
 ground of obligation, I do not mean that it is that 
 in view of which obligation is affirmed, but that it 
 is a power essential to a moi-al agent, a necessary 
 condition of the affirmation of obligation by such 
 an agent. 
 
 If, again, it be said that self-interest is the ground 
 of obligation, and we would controvert that, we 
 need to know wliat otiier possible grounds there 
 may be ; if there may be what are called a priori 
 grounds we must know that, and be able to state 
 them, and this will involve the question of a priori 
 knowledge and principles of action, and a decision 
 of some of the highest and most disputed problems 
 if mental science. 
 
 Shall we then regard as the foundation of obliga- 
 tion those faculties which are necessary The ground 
 to constitute us moral beings ; or that in ^Lmu^^w 
 view of which, we being thus constituted, obug^uonn 
 ubligation is affirmed ? With given facul- ''®™^- 
 (ics I see a crow flying over my head. In view of 
 lliat ihct I feel no obligation. With the same 
 'acuities I see a man in danger of drowning. In 
 new of that fact I do feel under obligation to aid 
 nim if I can. Here is a ground of difference, and 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of obligation. What is that ground ? Is there anj 
 ground common to all cases? Without questioning 
 what others have done, and simply desiring distinct- 
 ness, I prefer to call that the ground of obligation 
 in view of which obligation is affirmed. In seeking 
 for this, however, we shall necessarily be drawn 
 into an examination of those faculties and mental 
 products on which moral agency is conditioned, for 
 it must be remembered that that in view of which 
 obligation is affirmed may itself, like the idea of 
 right, be the product of mental agency. 
 
 Moral philosophers have indeed been di^nded in- 
 Dcpendence ^^ ^^'^ classcs, as they havc belonged to 
 ra Se™tii one or the other of the two great schools 
 Kionce. q£ mental science that have divided 
 thinkers from the time of Plato and Aristotle — in 
 reality, as they have settled in one way or another 
 the great problem of the origin of knowledge. A 
 sensationalist, believing that all our knowledge is 
 from experience, that there ai-e no necessary prin- 
 ciples, or forms of knowledge given by the mind 
 tself, can believe in no a priori principles of moral- 
 ty, and will, almost of course, adopt a low, fluctu- 
 ating, and selfish system of morals. But one who 
 finds in the mind itself as well as in the senses a 
 source of primitive knowledge, given indeed, not 
 without the senses, but on the occasion of them, 
 may consistently, and will naturally, look to the 
 <ame source for the principles, or elements, or prim 
 tive facts, or ultimate ideas, or ground, or founda- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 1 
 
 rion, or whatever he may please to call it, of morals. 
 Hence, the great battle of scientific morality is to 
 be fought on the field of mental science. 
 
 On this field some, as those who so make the 
 mind the product of organization as to bring it 
 under the laws of matter and of necessity, and all, 
 indeed, wlio deny the fact of liberty, so decide 
 mental jjroblems as to make morality impossible. 
 Others necessitate a basis of self-interest, or of 
 mere sentiment, while others still so solve these 
 problems as to admit, in some form, of what may 
 be called a rational system. 
 
 Nor, I may remark in passing, need it discourage 
 those who have not studied mental science formallv, 
 that moral problems strike their roots so deeply into 
 that, for on this class of subjects sound judgment is 
 native to the common mind. It is even true that 
 where accurate statement is most difficult, intuition 
 is most certain, and when such statements are maoc 
 they commend themselves with great readiness to 
 the common consciousness. 
 
 With this view of the ground of obligation and 
 of the connection of mental with moral varioui 
 science, we pass to consider some of the ^y*'™' 
 bystems resjiocting obligation and its ground which 
 liave been adopted by different philosophers. 
 
 Of these the first commonly mentioned, as it waa 
 the first in point of time among modern pint theory 
 systems, is that of Hobbes. By him the ^"^^'^ 
 ^ound of obligation was found ip the authority 0/ 
 
8 INTRODUCTIOS 
 
 the Civil Law. According to Hobbes, a regard to 
 personal advantage is the only possible motive to 
 iiuman action. " Acknovvledgraent of power ia 
 called honor." " Pity is the imagination of future 
 calamity to ourselves." " Laughter is occasioned 
 by sudden glory in our eminence, or in comparison 
 with the infirmity of others." " Love is a concep- 
 tion of his need of the one person desired." " Re- 
 pentance is regret at having missed the way.'' 
 There are no social affections, no sense of duty, no 
 moral sentiments. As a desire for liis own pleasure 
 is supreme in every man, it will follow that the state 
 of society is naturally pne of war. But as nothing 
 can so interfere with this supreme desire or end of 
 man as war, it becomes obligatoiy on men to com- 
 bine, by an expression of their common will in the 
 form of law, for the preservation of peace : and as 
 there is no other possible standard, it follows that 
 men must bo bound by the behests of law, whatever 
 they may be. 
 
 A system resting on a view of our nature so low 
 and partial, and thus favorable to arbitrary power, 
 was not fitted for permanence among a free people, 
 and had nearly passed from remembrance, except 
 n the schools, when an attempt was made to revive 
 it in connection with the enforcement of the fugitive 
 slave law. This attempt gave rise to the expression 
 10 prevalent for a time, of " the higher law ; " and 
 it really seemed at one time that we had a partj 
 ^mong us who denied the existence of any sucl: 
 law. 
 
INTRODUCTION. fc 
 
 Of tliis system it lias been well said, that it must 
 fiithei' be right to obey the law and wrong to dis- 
 obey it, or indifferent whether we obey it or not. 
 ff it be morally indifferent whether we obey it or 
 not, the law which may or may not be obeyed with 
 equal virtue cannot be a source of virtue ; and if it 
 be right to obey it, the very supposition that it is 
 right implies a notion of right and wrong that is 
 antecedent to the law, and gives it its moral effi- 
 cacy. 
 
 A second theory of obligation is tliat it is based 
 on self-interest. second the- 
 
 Much might be said to show that this iateioat. 
 was the system of Paley, whose work was formerly 
 taught almost universally, both in England and in 
 this country. Many things in liis book are consis- 
 tent with this theory only, while others would seem 
 to imply that of general utility. Probably he did 
 not discriminate sharply between them. 
 
 This system supposes the same low and imperfect 
 riew of the facts of our nature as is implied in the 
 ^weceding one. It fails to show the distinction 
 between interest and duty, or \^hy all actions that 
 are for our interest, as a good bargain, are not vir- 
 tuous. It ignores or denies the fact of disinterested 
 iffection, contradicting thus the general conscious- 
 ness which attributes merit to actions in proportion 
 us self is forgotten. As that which is the founda- 
 tion of obligation should be supreme in our regard, 
 ►his svstem would require us to regard self-interesf 
 
to INTRODUCTION 
 
 Bupremely, and everything else as subordinate to 
 that. It would thus be -vsTong to love God su- 
 premely and our neighbor as ourselves ; and in- 
 deed any high, or noble, or generous act would, 
 according to this system, be either impossible or 
 wrong. 
 
 The plausibility of this system arises from ihc 
 fact that self-interest has its place in one that is 
 correct ; and also from the fact that men exalt self- 
 interest so unduly, and do so generally make it 
 practically the centre of their thoughts and actions. 
 
 A third system founds obligation on utility. The 
 Third sye- assertion is, not only that we are luider 
 utility. obligation to do those things that are use- 
 
 ful, but that their usefulness is the ground of the 
 obligation. 
 
 To set aside this view it is only necessary to 
 understand the meaning of terms. By a ground of 
 oblisation we mean the ultimate reason in view of 
 which it is affirmed. But by its very definition 
 utility cannot be ultimate. " Some things," says 
 Sir William Hamilton, " are valuable, finally, or 
 for themselves — these are ends; other things are 
 valuable, not on their own account, but as condu- 
 cive towards certain ulterior ends — these are 
 means. The value of ends is absolute ; the value 
 of means is relative. Absolute value is properly 
 called a good ; relative value is properly called a 
 atility." Whatever is useful, then, can have value 
 wily ijs it is related to the end which it may be 
 
 
INTRODUCTION. 14 
 
 used to promote. A plough is useful, but only as 
 it is related to the value of a crop. Unless there 
 be ends that have value in themselves, means can 
 have no value, and so nothing can be useful. But 
 no one will contend that wo can be under obligation 
 to choose that as an ultimate and supreme end 
 which can have no value except as it is related to 
 an end beyond itself. 
 
 The plausibility of this system is from the fact 
 that we are so often under obligation to choose that 
 whieh is useful, and from a failure, in doing this, tvi 
 distinguish tlie ground from a condition of obliga- 
 tion. The absolute value of an end may be the 
 ground of obligation to choose it, but we can be 
 under obligation to choose means only on condition 
 that they shall be useful in attaining the end. Of 
 course a system which should place obligation to 
 choose an end on the ground of an intrinsic value 
 that should have no end beyond itself, and so no 
 utility, could not properly be charged with being a 
 system of utility. 
 
 The woi'd utility expresses a relation — a relation 
 jetween that which is valuable in itself and the 
 means of obtaining it. A fourth system, Fourth 
 
 ° ^ intern; 
 
 that of Dr. AVayland, bases obligation on wayiiind. 
 the relations of one being to another. " It is," saya 
 le, " manifest to every one that we all stand in 
 various and dissimilar relations to all the sentient 
 beings, created and uncreated, wita whicli we are 
 acquainted. Among our relatons to created beings 
 
12 [NTRODUCTION. 
 
 lire those of man to man, or that of substantial equal- 
 ity,of parent and cliilcl,of benefactor and recipient, 
 of husband and wife, of brother and brother, citizen 
 and citizen, citizen and magistrate, and a thousand 
 otliers. Now it seems to me that as soon as a 
 human being comprehends the relation in which 
 two human beings stand to each other, there arisee 
 m his mind a consciousness of moral obligation, 
 connected by our Creator with the very conception 
 of the relation." 
 
 Here it will be observed that no enumeration 
 of the relations on which obligation depends is at- 
 tempted. Some are specified, and there are said to 
 be " a thousand others." Nor is any attempt made 
 to show what is common to all these relations in 
 rirtue of which they are the ground of obligation. 
 Relations as such cannot be the ground of obliga- 
 tion. Why must these relations be between sensi- 
 Uvc beings? Why are not all relations between 
 sensitive beings, as those of time and space, the 
 ;;round of obligation ? The relative height of two 
 men, as tall and short, constitutes a relation, but 
 not a ground of obligation. In themselves relations 
 nave no value, and aside from the beings related 
 tliey cannot exist. They cannot be made objects 
 of choice or grounds of action. There is in them 
 nothing ultimate. They are simply the occasion or 
 jonditinn of our apprehending a ground of oblio-a- 
 tion that lies wholly beyond themselves. It is true 
 that -vhatever we do we must do in some relation 
 
rNTRODDCTION. 18 
 
 and this gives the system its plausibility ; but this 
 incidental connection of relations with grounds of 
 action that lie beyond them can never make them 
 an adequate basis for a moral system. 
 
 Analogous to this system of relations are two 
 others — those of Dr. Samuel Clarke and rifthnna 
 )f Wollaston. Of these the first founds tmiu'vr. 
 obligation on the fitness of things ; and the woiiaeton. 
 second on conformity to truth, or to the true nature 
 of thinffs. A man owes a debt. It is accordino; to 
 the fitness of things that he should pay it, and that 
 fitness is the ground of the obligation. It is true 
 that there is a difference between a man and a tree, 
 and on the ground of this difference there is an 
 obligation to treat them differently. Not to do so 
 would be acting a lie, and so, according to Wol- 
 laston, all immorality is an acted lie. 
 
 Of these systems it is to be said that both fitness 
 and truth, as that is here used, express, not any- 
 thing ultimate, but only a relation. Between the 
 fact of the debt and its payment there is a fitness, 
 but it is not on the ground of its fitness that the 
 payment is to be made. The fitness has no value 
 in itself, and could exist only as the debt has value 
 in some relation to an ulterior good. If there were 
 no good of any kind to be gained by the payment 
 of the debt — no satisfaction of any sentiment — 
 there would be no fitness in paying it. So of 
 truth. It is true that there is a difference between 
 » man and a tree, and tha^ th"y are to be treated 
 
14 INTROUCCTJON. 
 
 differently, not however on the ground of tlie truth, 
 wliich lias value only for what it indicates beyond 
 itself, but because a man is capable of a rationa 
 good and a tree is not. 
 
 It is to be said, also, that both fitness and truth 
 aie terms quite too broad to be used accurately as 
 the basis of a system, since there is a large class of 
 fitnesses and of truths that have no relation to 
 morals. To use a pen for writing is according to 
 the fitness of things, and is a practical affirmation 
 of the truth that the pen was made for that, but 
 there may be in it nothing moral. Besides, there 
 is as much fitness in an immoral act to produce evil 
 as there is in a moral act to produce good, and it is 
 as much according to the true nature of things that 
 it should produce evil. It cannot, therefore, be 
 either the fitness or the truth on which the ob- 
 ligation depends. 
 
 The plausibility of these systems is from the fact 
 that all obligatory acts are in accordance both with 
 the fitness and with the true nature of things, 
 though these are not the foundation of the obliga- 
 tion to do them. 
 
 Another system of the same class is that of 
 Beventh Jouffi'oy, whicli makcs order the basis of 
 
 ► ,.<lem; . . 
 
 jouffroy obligation. This was mentioned by me 
 ■n my former volume, and I have nothing to add tc 
 what was then said. Order may be affirmed of 
 mere physical being, in wliich there can bo nothing 
 moral. It expresses a relation, and nothing ultimate. 
 
INTRODUOTION. 15 
 
 ft can never be chosen for its own sake. Beings 
 may place themselves in order for tlie sake of an 
 end beyond, but not for the order itself. At least, 
 such order cannot be obligatoiy. It would be ab' 
 surd for an army to preserve the order of its march 
 if that would insure its destruction. The order of 
 an army is for its safety and efficiency, and can be 
 obligatory on no other ground. The same jirinci- 
 ple applies in all cases of order. It can never be 
 80 valuable as to become obligatory, except as sub- 
 servient to an end beyond itself. 
 
 From several passages in Jouffroy it would appeal 
 that he identified the order of the universe with its 
 md. Doing this, we can readily see how he might 
 have adopted the system, but to do it is simply an 
 abuse of terms. Order cannot be the end of the 
 universe. That niust be some good of the beings 
 tliat coni]i()se the universe, which may or maj not 
 be attained by means of order. 
 
 According to an eighth system, the will of God 
 IS tlie eround of obligation. We are, it Eighth bj* 
 I'S said, under obligation to do whatever ofOod. 
 He commands, simply because He commands it. 
 
 I'liilosophically this is the same doctrine as that 
 n{ Hobbes, who referred everything to the will of 
 tlie lawgiver, or of the law-making power, regarded 
 sim]ily as will, and accompanii'd by power. The 
 question is, whether the wUl of any being, regarded 
 iunply as will and without reference to the ends 
 >hosen, can be the ground of obligation. It is true 
 
It) INTUODUCTION. 
 
 that tlie will of God is an infalliblo rule, and that 
 we are to do unhesitatingly whatever He- com- 
 mands. It is true, also, that this can be said of no 
 other will, whether of an individual or of any num- 
 ber of individuals however organized. It is tliia 
 fact, that the will of God is to be always and in.- 
 plicitly obeyed, that gives the system now in ques- 
 tion its plausibility. But are we to obey his will 
 simply because it is his will ? or from faith, that is, 
 because we have adequate ground for implicit con- 
 fidence in Him that his will will always be deter- 
 mined by wisdom and goodness ? It is precisely 
 here that faith comes in. God commands that for 
 which we can see no good reason except that He 
 commands it. He may even command that whioli, 
 aside fi-om his will, shall seem opposed to all our 
 apprehensions of what is right and best. This ren- 
 ders faith possible, and furnishes it with a distinct 
 field for its conflicts and triumphs. But if his will, 
 simply as vs'ill, be the ground of obligation, then 
 faith is impossible, and that great bond and actu- 
 ating principle of the social universe is annihilated. 
 On this supposition all the acts of God would be 
 equally right by a natural necessity, and the appeal 
 of Abraham to God, " Shall not the Judge of ail 
 the earth do right ? " was absurd. 
 
 Again, there is nothing ultimate in will whether 
 regarded as choice or as volition. In either case 
 '\e distinguish between the act and the object 
 The act is for the sake of the object, and can nevei 
 06 an end or object of choice for itself. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 Once more, on this supposition inoi-al science is im- 
 possible. Science supposes uniformity and grounds 
 of certainty. These may be found in those grounds 
 of action which ouglit to influence a free being, but 
 never in the acts of such a being. The ground of 
 our confidence that a free being will pursue a given 
 course must be faith, and not science. 
 
 This system has been strangely adopted under 
 the impression that it honors God. It renders it 
 impossible that He should be honored. 
 
 The next system we shall consider is that of those 
 who say that right is the foundation of ninth Bys- 
 obligation. According to this, we are to do '"^ ' "*'''■ 
 right for the sake of the right. This is, perhaps, 
 the prevalent theory at the present time. 
 
 On the face of it, nothing could seem simpler than 
 this theoi'y ; but the ambiguities of the word right 
 have produced confusion. If we take right as an 
 adjective expressing the quality of an action, and 
 opposed to wrong, it is obvious that it cannot be the 
 ground of obligation, because it expresses nothing 
 ultimate, but only a relation. Used thus, the only 
 conceivable meaning of the word right is either con- 
 formity to a standard or rule, or fitness to attain an 
 end. So it is commonly used by moralists. " Right," 
 says Pale}^ " means no more than conformity to 
 the rule we go by, whatever that may be." " The 
 adjective right," says Whewell, " means conforni- 
 \h\e to a rule." He who solves a sua according tc 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 R rule does it right. In this sense simple riglitncsa 
 does not even involve a moral quality, and so cannot 
 be the foundation of obligation. Whence then 
 comes the moral quality ? Here is a right act that 
 has no moi-al quality. Here is another morally 
 right. Whence the difference ? This can be only 
 from something in the rule, or standard, or end that 
 lies beyond the act ; and if tlie moral quality come 
 from one or the other of these, the obligation must 
 also. But whatever may be the origin of the moral 
 quality in an action morally right, it is plain that 
 the quality of an action can never be the ground oi 
 an obligation to do that action. Look at this. A 
 man docs a wrong action ; he steals. He does not 
 do this for the sake of the quality of the action — 
 its \'\rongness ; but for the end that lies beyona the 
 action. A man does a right action ; he gives money 
 in charity. He does not do this for the sake of the 
 rightness of the action, but to relieve a case of dis- 
 tress. If he were to do it for the sake of the riaht- 
 ness of the act, the act would not be right. Think 
 3f a man's doing good to another, not from good 
 will, but for the sake of the rightness of his own act. 
 Tliink of liis loving God for the same reason ! Cer- 
 tainly, if we regard right as the quality of an action, 
 110 man can be under obligation to do an act morally 
 right for which there is not a reason besides its 
 being right, and on the ground of w liich it is right. 
 That reason, tlien, whatever it may be, and not the 
 rightness, must be the ground of the obligation. 
 
INTKODUCTION. IS 
 
 But arc we not under obligation to do what is 
 morally right? Certainly, always. So are we 
 always under obligation to do what is according to 
 the fitness of things, and the truth of things, and the 
 flfill of God ; but these are not the ground of the 
 obligation, and the quality of right in an action 
 neither is, nor can be, the ground of the obligation 
 to do it. 
 
 Is there, then, in morals a right which is not the 
 quality of an action ? Yes ; a man has rights. He 
 has a right to life and liberty. Here the word right 
 is used as a substantive, and means a' just claim. 
 This we understand, and the ground of it will be 
 investigated hereafter, but it has no relation to our 
 present subject. 
 
 Is there still another sense of the word right? 
 This is claimed, and in this too it is used as a sub- 
 stantive, and with the article prefixed — "the 
 right." Can we here, as before, gain definite 
 notions ? I fear not. " The term right," says Dr. 
 Haven, in his excellent and popular work, — and he 
 represents a large class of writers, — " expresses a 
 simple and ultimate idea ; it is therefore incapable of 
 analysis and definition." "It expresses an eternal 
 and immutable distinction, iiiherent in the nature oi 
 things." And not only right, but wrong is also 
 >uch an idea, for he says, " Right and wrong are 
 distinctions immutable and inherent in the nature oj 
 things. They are not the creations of expediency 
 ■jor of law; nor yet do thev originate in tin; divine 
 
20 liJl'KOUUUTlON. 
 
 character. Tlicy have 710 origin. They are eter- 
 nal as the throne of Deity ; they are immutable aa 
 God himself. Nay, were God liimself to change, 
 these distinctions would change not. Omnipotence 
 has no power over them, whether to create or to 
 destroy. Law does not make them, but they make 
 law. They are the source and spring of all law and 
 all obligation." ^ 
 
 I am of those who believe that there are simple 
 and ultimate ideas. Tliat of existence, or being, is 
 one. All men have, and must have an idea of 
 sonietliing, of themselves, as existing. Here we 
 have the idea, and something actual which corre- 
 sponds to it ; and I understand what is meant when 
 It is said that existence, being, — not the idea, but tlie 
 thing, — had no origin, and that it maj' be the source 
 of law. Is then tlie idea of ritrht such an idea ? 
 Is there anything corresponding to the idea, but 
 different from it, that has existed from eternity ? 
 Is it like space, of which we might plausibly say 
 tliat it existed independently of God and of all 
 creatures, so that if they were withdrawn the 
 eternal right would still exist? Is this true also of 
 wrong ? If so, we might well, as some do, put 
 riglit above God, and wrong too. This seems to be 
 claimed, but cannot be, for we are told that " right 
 and wrong are distinctions," not things, but " dis- 
 tinctions imnuitable and inherent in the nature of 
 tilings." But wliat tilings ? We are told again 
 
 1 Moral Philosophy, p. 47. 
 
INTRODUCTION 21 
 
 " When we speak of things and the nature of things, 
 as applicable to this discussion, we do not of course 
 rolcr to material objects, nor yet to spiritual intelli- 
 |i;ences, but to the actions and moral conduct of intel- 
 ligent beings, created or uncreated, finite or in- 
 finite." Here, then, we have moral action wliicli is 
 eternal and has no origin ; for if tlie distinctions be 
 eternal, inhering in the nature of things, the things 
 themselves in which they inhere must also be 
 eternal. But further, if these eternal distinctions 
 inhere in these eternal actions, what is this but to 
 make them qualities of the actions, which, as we 
 have already shown, would preclude the possibility 
 of their being the ground of obligation to do the 
 actions. We have also distinctions in moral actions 
 — actions, observe, already moral, — which are " the 
 spring of all law and all obligation." But is this 
 what the author really means ? Probably not, for he 
 immediately adds, " We mean to say, that such and 
 such acts of an intelligent voluntary agent, whoever 
 he may be, are, in their very nature, right or 
 wrong." This is quite different from the proposi- 
 tions with which we have been dealing. It simply 
 amounts to saying that certain acts, not eternal, but 
 Buch as you and I may do, are right or wrong, and 
 that no reason can be given for it, except that they 
 lire so. Now I believe, and that, I suppose, is the 
 real difference between us, the point on which this 
 whole question turns, that when an action is right 
 i>r wrong a reason can always be given why it is so, 
 
22 INTUODCCTION. 
 
 »nd that in tliat reason the ground of the obligation 
 IS to be foxind. We are never to do, or to intend 
 to do right for the sake of the right, but we are tc 
 intend to do that, the doing of which is right, for 
 the sake of tliat which makes it right. 
 
 The analogy is often insisted on, it is by Dr. 
 Haven, between mathematical and moral ideas. 
 Mathematical ideas and truths, it is said, are neces- 
 sary and eternal. But how ? Is it meant that 
 either ideas or truths can exist except in some 
 mind? Is it meant that mathematical ideas are 
 any more eternal in the divine mind than any other 
 ideas that are there ? Is anything more meant 
 than that, by the very nature of intelligence it is 
 necessitated, if it act at all as intelligence, to form 
 certain ideas, and also to assent to certain proposi- 
 tions as soon as it understands them ? If this be 
 all, and it could be so understood, it would sweep 
 a«ay much \ague, not to say unintelligible phrase- 
 ology. Certainly it enters into our conception of 
 an intelligent being that he must have certain ideas, 
 and into our conception of a moral being that lie 
 must have a knowledge of moral distinctions ; and 
 if we suppose an intelligent and moral being to have 
 existed eternally, we must also suppose, according to 
 our inadequate mode of thinking on subjects invol- 
 ving the infinite, that certain intellectual and moral 
 ideas have also been eternal, though in the order of 
 nature the being must have been before the ideas, 
 But this does not make these ideas in any sense iii- 
 
INTRODUCTIOlSr. 23 
 
 dependent of God, or above him, or a fountain of 
 law, or of anything else. It simply enables us to 
 think of God as having always existed, and as hav- 
 ing always had M-ithin himself the conditions of in- 
 telligent, moral, and independent activity, so that 
 he might himself, in his own intelligence and wis 
 dom, become the fountain of all law. 
 
 When, as in the present case, the existence of a 
 simple and ultimate idea is claimed, the appeal must 
 be directly to consciousness. On this ground one 
 may assert, and another deny ; and there is nothing 
 more to be said. Neither argument nor testimony ■ 
 can avail anything. We can only so appeal to the 
 general consciousness by applying tests as to show 
 what that consciousness really is. 
 
 This system will be referred to again. It is 
 plausible, because every action that is obligatory is 
 also right, as it is also fit, and according to the 
 divine will. 
 
 The only other system of which I shall speak is 
 tliat of Dr. Hickok. According to him a reason 
 can be given why a thing is right. " The highest 
 good," he says — and in this I agree with him — 
 " must be the ground in which the ultimate rule 
 shall reveal itself" This is a great point gained. 
 It concedes that right is dependent upon good of 
 Bome kind, that is, tliat a reason can always be given 
 why a thing is right ; and it only remains to inquire 
 what that good is. 
 
 But here, if I understand hitn rightly, I am still 
 compelled to differ from my able and highly 
 
24 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Bsteemed cotemporary. That good we are told in 
 " the highest good," " the summum honum." What 
 then is that ? Says Dr. Hickok, " The highest 
 good, the summum honum, is worthiness of spiritual 
 appi'obation." By this, it would seem, must be 
 meant worthiness of approbation on the ground of 
 the acts, or states, of our own spirits. The doctrine 
 then will be, that the ultimate ground or reason 
 why a man should do a charitable act is not at all 
 the good of the person relieved for the sake of thai 
 good, but that he may preserve or place his spirit iv 
 such a state as shall be worthy of his own approba- 
 tion. This is stated most explicitly. " Solely," 
 says Dr. Hickok, " that I may stand in my own 
 sight as worthy of my own spiritual approbation, is 
 the one motive which can influence to pure moral- 
 ity, and in the complete control of which is the 
 essence of all virtue." ^ 
 
 To those aware of the endless disputes of the 
 Rncients respecting " the summum honum" further 
 progress may seem hopeless if we must first decide 
 wliat tliat is ; but it will be sufficient for our present 
 purpose if we decide the province within which it 
 is. By " the summum honum " is generally meant 
 the greatest good of the individual. That, it would 
 ueem, must be meant here, because worthiness of 
 approbation can belong only to tjie individual, and 
 uan be directly sought by the individual only for 
 himself. But if this be meant, then the " summurr 
 honum" and the end for which man was madp, are 
 
 > Moral Science^ p. 60 
 
INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 .lot the same. Man was not made to find the ulti- 
 mate ground of his action in any subjective state of 
 his own, of whatever kind. He was made to pro- 
 mote the good of others as well as his own, and the 
 apprehension of that good furnishes an immediate 
 ground of obligation to promote it. The good of 
 the individual is too narrow a basis to be the ground 
 of obligation ; and besides, it is not in accordance 
 with our consciousness to say, when we are laboring 
 for the good of others, that the ultimate and real 
 thing we are seeking is our own worthiness of 
 approbation. 
 
 But again, tlie man is worthy of approbation only 
 as he is virtuous. It is virtue in him that we 
 approve. But virtue is a voluntary state of mind, 
 and that can never be chosen as an ultimate end. 
 By necessity all choice and volition respect an end 
 Deyond themselves. But the ground of obligation, 
 as we now seek it, is that ultimate end in view of 
 which the will should act. As ultimate, the reason 
 of the choice must be in the thing chosen, and not 
 in the clioosing. It is therefore impossible that any 
 form, or quality, or characteristic of choice, any 
 virtue, or goodness, or holiness should be the ground 
 of obligation to choose. The same thing is to be said 
 of law in every form, and for the same reason. 
 Law can never be ultimate. 
 
 •In tliis case, as in most of the others, a rule may 
 be drawn from that wliich is assumed as the gi'ound 
 ©f obligation, because no man can be under obliga- 
 
26 INTRODDCTIOIT. 
 
 tion to do anything that is not in accordance with 
 his highest worthiness. This may be a criterion 
 or test, just as the will of God or fitness is, of what 
 he ought to do, but never a ground of the obligation 
 to do it. 
 
 Is it asked, then, what is your own system ? T' 
 Im implied in the opening remarks of the chapter, i 
 very siniple, and can be stated in few words. 
 
 In seeking the foundation of obligation, I suppose 
 moral beings to exist. As having intelligence and 
 sensibility I suppose them capable of apprehending 
 ends good in themselves, and an end thus good that 
 is both ultimate and supreme. In the apprehension 
 of such an end I suppose the moral reason must 
 affirm obligation to choose it, and that all acts that 
 will, of their own nature, lead to the attainment of 
 this end, are right. 
 
 This puts man, as having reason, into relation to 
 his end in the same way that the brutes, as having 
 instinct, are put into relation to their end, and gives 
 us a philosoi)hy in accord with other philosophies of 
 radical life. What is the philosophy of the eye ? 
 ft consists in a knowledge of its structure and use, 
 or end ; and fi-om these, and these only, can rational 
 ■ules be drawn for the right use of the eye when 
 well, or for its treatment when diseased. Knowing 
 tlicse, we know how we ought to use the eye. We 
 know the ground of our obligation in reference to 
 it. It is so to use it that the end of the eye may be 
 Host perfectly attained. So we ought to use the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 27 
 
 eye, and the ground of our obligation is the fact 
 that the eye has relation to an end that has value in 
 itself. If it had not, we could be under no such 
 obligation. The same is true of evei^r part of the 
 body, and of every faculty of the mind. And if 
 true of these, why not of the man himself? Has 
 he an end valuable for its own sake ? If not, what 
 is he good for ? But if he have such an end, why 
 not, as in case of the eye, find in this end the 
 reason of all use of himself, that is, of all rules of 
 conduct, and also the ground of obligation ? Can 
 there be anything higher or better than that a man 
 ihould propose to himself and choose the attainment 
 jr advancement of the very end for which God 
 made him ? What more can God ask of him — 
 •r man? What more can he wish for himself? 
 
PART 1. 
 
 THEORETICAL. 
 
 THE LAW OF LOVE. 
 
 KAN CHOOSING UNDER MORAL LAW 
 
DEFINITION, AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. 
 
 Moral Philosophy, Ethics, Moral Science, is 
 the science of man, choosing, and acting from 
 choice, under Moral Law. 
 
 This definition covers the whole field of inoial 
 action — duties to be done, rights to be around cor- 
 respected and maintained, actions mor definition 
 ally bad, as well as those morally good. It goes 
 back of conduct to those choices from which con- 
 duct proceeds, and limits the field of moral actiou 
 to such choices and actions from choice as are un- 
 der Moral Law. The definition also recognizes 
 the acknowledged dependence of Moral upon Men- 
 tal Science. 
 
 Of other definitions the following may bo 
 ftdded : — 
 
 " That science which teaches men their duty 
 and the reasons of it." — Paley. 
 
 " The science of Moral Law." — Way land. 
 
 " The systematic application of the ultimate 
 rule of right to all conceptions of moral con- 
 duct." — lEckok. 
 
 " The science of obligation or duty." — Preei- 
 icnt t'airchild. 
 
32 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 In former editions, the science was defined aa 
 that which teaches men their supreme end, and 
 how to attain it. In this, the moral element was 
 assumed. 
 
 In accordance with the above definition we need 
 , . . . , first, to know Man in all that is reqni- 
 
 lilTision of ' ^ ^ 1 
 
 wbject con- gj|-g j^g ^ condition to his choosing under 
 
 f -tquent on o 
 
 /.finition Moral Law. 
 
 (2.) We need to know bim as choosing under 
 Moral Law. 
 
 These two give us Theoretical Morals. 
 
 (3.) We need to know man as acting from 
 ihoice under Moral Law. 
 
 This gives us Practical Morals. We thus have 
 the division of our subject. 
 
 What, then, does man need as prerequisite to 
 his choosing under Moral Law ? 
 
 Since moral science is rational as well as moral, 
 choosing within it must presuppose the intellect 
 for insight and comprehension ; since it regards 
 man as active, and only as active, it must pre- 
 suppose the sensibility for motive, and t)ie will 
 for choice and volition ; and since he is to act un- 
 der moral law, it must presuppose a moral nature 
 to give moral ideas, and through which moviil 
 law may be revealed. We can no more have 
 moral science without a moral nature and moral 
 ideas originally given, than we can have intellect- 
 ual science without an intellectual nature, and 
 intellectual ideas originally given. As moral sci 
 
PRELIMINARY STATEJIENTS. 33 
 
 ence is thus the outcome of the whole being, it 
 can be conceived of only through the joint action 
 of the intellect, the sensibility, the will, and the 
 moral nature, and must therefore suppose man 
 fully constituted as a Person. It has persons onij 
 nothing to do with things, or with the o£the''^°°' 
 nature of things, but only with persons, soienco. 
 nor has it anything to do with them except aa 
 they choose and act from choice. 
 
 Of the above, the intellect, the sensibility, 
 the will, and the moral nature, each is Personality 
 essential to personality. They do not piei. 
 constitute it as if the person were compounded of 
 these, and so complex. They are, rather, different 
 forms in which the one indivisible person is mani- 
 fested. Nor is the moral nature anything differ- 
 ent from intellect sensibility and will. It is the 
 necessary manifestation of a personality that in- 
 cludes the three. 
 
 From man as thus constituted we have three 
 sciences. From the intellect simply. Three «ci- 
 we have intellectual science including ™'^'' 
 logic. From the intellect and sensibility combined, 
 we have aesthetic science, involving intellect and 
 feeling, but not action ; and from the intellect, 
 the sensibility, the will, and the moral nature com- 
 bined, we have moral science. This is more com 
 plex, and so more diiScult. It involves, and is 
 intended to control, the whole nature except that 
 which is purely organic and spontaneous. 
 3 
 
DIVISION I. 
 
 THE INTELLECT. 
 
 In examining, then, the constituents of our be 
 ing as they are related to choice, the first to be 
 noticed is The Intellect. 
 
 Of this, the bearing upon choice is indirect. 
 Indirectly Pure intellect cannot be a motive. For 
 
 related to , . -i.t 
 
 choice. that, some element from the sensibility 
 must come in. The office of the intellect is to 
 know what is, to judge of agreements or disagree- 
 ments, to comprehend relations, and to furnisli 
 Underlies tliosc idcas by which we become rational, 
 choice. Without the intellect the ideas of a good, 
 
 and of moral obligation, which underlie moral sci- 
 ence, could not be formed ; but no knowledge of 
 what is, or judgment of any kind, or idea from 
 the pure intellect, can furnish a motive, or have 
 authority. Knowing, comparing, comprehending, 
 having ideas, as of obligation, formed by the joinc 
 action of the three great constituents of our being, 
 and being free, our active principles hold a differ- 
 ent relation to us from that which the instincts of 
 the brutes hold to them. They are impelled di 
 rectly by instinct, that is, by an impulse to action 
 
INTELLECT. 35 
 
 without comprehending its end, and have no 
 alternative in kind. We are free to choose be- 
 tween principles of action comprehending their 
 end, and have an alternative in kind. Thus it is 
 that, through the intellect, choice, and action 
 from choice, which is conduct, become the choice 
 and conduct of a rational, and so of a moral, being. 
 Thus it is that in moral science the intellect is not 
 only essential for the knowing of the science, but 
 as aiding to furnish apportion of its elements. 
 
DIVISION II. 
 
 THE SENSIBILITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 THE SENSIBILITY IN GENERAL. 
 
 By the sensibility we feel. All feeling is the 
 iBttiUeeiing product of the sensibility and, as we 
 lensibiiityT ho\d, feeling is the concomitant of every 
 form of conscious activity. That all knowing 
 is by the intellect, and all choice and volition by 
 tlie will, is conceded. Is it also conceded that all 
 feeling is from the sensibility? This may be 
 doubted. 
 
 The sensibility is of great diversity, and it is 
 conceded that the desires, the affections, the emo- 
 tions, the passions, are forms of it. But in addi 
 tion to these there is feeling connected with the 
 activity of the intellect and of the will that is 
 simply the outgrowth or reflex of that activity. 
 
 Through the intellect we have the enjoyment 
 joncomitaiit that comcs from the pursuit and the ao 
 
 »f intellect- ... i ri-ii . 
 
 ani activity, quisitiou 01 truth. iJiis enjoyment u 
 the reflex of the activity of the intellect, and is in 
 
THE SENSIBILITY IN GENERAL. 37 
 
 separably connected with it. It belongs to man 
 as rational, is of a quality peculiar to itself, and 
 can be had in no other way. Is it from the sen- 
 sibility or from the intellect,? If the threefold 
 division of the faculties is to be made thorough- 
 going, it must be from the sensibility. That we 
 have a satisfaction in the very act of knowing no 
 one can doubt ; but if this satisfaction be not from 
 the sensibility, it ivill follow that the sensibility is 
 not distinctively the organ of feeling. 
 
 We have also, involved in the activity of the 
 will when it acts in accordance with the wiu— »c- 
 raoral nature, and inseparable from it, a *'""'"''• 
 satisfaction that is still higher and more intense. 
 Virtue is from the will as knowledge is from the 
 intellect. Shall wo say then that that satisfaction 
 from virtue which is the reflex of the activity of 
 the will, is from the will, or from the sensibility ? 
 The latter is our only consistent course. If we 
 are to have a sensibility at all, and define it to be 
 the faculty of feeling, it would seem unreasonable 
 not to refer to it one of the highest forms of feel- 
 ing we have. 
 
 Accepting then in full the threefold division of 
 the powers, we say, that all knowledge is from 
 the intellect, all feeling from the sensibility, and 
 all choice and conduct from the will. And say 
 ing this, we see what is meant when we pa„,at of 
 Bay that we do an act for its own sake, forlli'j^ 
 This is often said, and men are exhorted "'"■ 
 
• 8 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 to pursue knowledge, not for any utility con- 
 nected with it, but for its own sake. Certainly 
 knowledge may be pursued for the sake of an end 
 beyond itself, as money, or fame. It may also be 
 pursued with no thought of anything beyond the 
 knowledge itself, and the satisfaction involved in 
 its pursuit and attainment. It is then said to be 
 pursued for its own sake, and the activity of mind 
 in thus pursuing it is thought to be of a higher 
 order. But would the knowledge be pursued if 
 there were not this satisfaction ? Clearly not. 
 Of course there can be no activity in the first in- 
 stance, because of the reflex of that activity. As 
 in all our active principles, a spontaneous tend- 
 ency is presupposed ; but if there were no satis- 
 faction as the result of the activity, it would not 
 be continued. 
 
 And what is thus true of knowledge must be 
 
 true also of virtue. Whatever the ob- 
 OfTlrtue. . ... ... 
 
 ject of choice may be, it is conceded 
 
 that virtue consists in an act of the will, and 
 
 that there is involved in this act an inseparable 
 
 reflex action by which a satisfaction of the high 
 
 est kind comes to the virtuous person. It is a 
 
 consciousness of this satisfaction that I suppose 
 
 tu be identified with the act itself so as to form 
 
 a part of it by those who say that they do th« 
 
 act for its own sake. As the act is voluntary 
 
 whatever tlie original impulse or motive may 
 
 luive been, if it were Itnown that it neither dia 
 
THE SENSIBILITY IN GENERAL. 39 
 
 nor could result in the good of the agent him- 
 self or of any one else, it could not be ration- 
 ally continued. 
 
 From what has been said it will follow that 
 there is no act of the will that is not au motives 
 preceded, prompted, and accompanied Bcnaibiiuy. 
 by some state of the sensibility. All motives are 
 from that. This is generally admitted. What 
 we call rational motives are not from reason di- 
 rectly; but are those which are shown by reason 
 >o be superior to others with which they are com- 
 pared. With no desires or affections, no enjoy- 
 ment or suffering, all of which are forms of the 
 sensibility, there could be no choice, no volition, 
 no voluntary action. But since moral action 
 must be voluntary, it follows that there can be no 
 moral action without a sensibility. 
 
 And not only is moral action thus impossible 
 without a sensibility, but so also are jforai ideas 
 nini-al ideas. Except on the condition ^""feeMr.'* 
 of beings who can enjoy and suffer, there '"'''^' 
 can be no benevolence, no justice or injustice, no 
 rights and no obligation, no right or wrong, and 
 no moral law. 
 
 Hence, again, as the existence of beings having 
 a scnsibilitv, and motives from that, is Moral ideas 
 
 ^ , relate solely 
 
 a prerequisite to moral ideas, so those to persons. 
 ideas can have no such relation to the nature of 
 things as have those of space, and time, and math- 
 ematics, but only to the nature of persons, and of 
 
40 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 these as capable of enjoyment and suEferiug, wo 
 Bhall then have to deal, not solely with the prod- 
 ucts of pure intellect, but with those of the in- 
 tellect, the sensibility, and will, combined. These 
 lie in a different field and are of a dLSerent order. 
 
CHAPTER n. 
 A GOOD. 
 
 Undeestajjtding thus the relation of the Sen- 
 aibility to moral ideas and moral action, we pass 
 to the fundamental product given by it when act- 
 ing normally. This is a good. 
 
 Of the word good, the ambiguities have led to 
 80 much confusion, that we cannot be too careful 
 respecting it. By a good., I mean some result in 
 a sensibility that has value in itself. This may 
 be my own or that of another, but it must be 
 known as having value in itself, or it cannot be a 
 good. 
 
 What then has value in itself ? Nothing exter- 
 nal can have — nothing that is not subjective, and 
 so the product of some activity within the being 
 whose the good is. Not the activity is a good, 
 but its result. Food, clothing, houses, lands, have 
 .10 value except as they are related to some want, 
 — want lying wholly within the sensibility. To a 
 disembodied spirit they could have no value. So 
 of the products of art and of natural scenery. If 
 there were no feeling of admiration, none of 
 beauty or sublimity, they would have no value. 
 
12 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 So again of approbation, however exprebseO. If 
 there were no result in a sensibility we should be 
 affected neither by approbation nor disapproba- 
 tion. There could be no reward or punishment, 
 and so no government. 
 
 We conclude then that a good is that which has 
 A good uiti- value in itself, for its own sake, and that 
 
 mate for the ^ . i j i i • 
 
 lensibiiity. such good IS to be lound only in some 
 result in a sensibility. This will be ultimate for 
 the sensibility as truth is for the intellect. Con- 
 cerning this, the question cannot be asked, What 
 is it good for ? It is good for nothing beyond it- 
 self. It has no utility. It is simply a good. 
 
 As known by us, this good is the joint product 
 of the sensibility and of the intellect. In its es- 
 sence it is from the sensibility, but there must be 
 intellect, that it may be comprehended in its idea 
 as universally valuable, and to be chosen for its 
 own sake. As thus known, we can not only choose 
 it for ourselves and put forth efforts for its attain- 
 ment, but can choose it for others and put forth 
 efforts for its attainment by them. That which 
 prompts the choice is the intrinsic value of the 
 good ; that which prompts the effort is the desire 
 to attain it for ourselves, or that it may be at- 
 tained by others. 
 
 As, then, a good is alvays subjective, it must 
 Quality and be the result of some activity by, oi 
 
 quantity of , .,..,, 
 
 toed Within, the individual, and such gooi 
 
 will differ both in quality and in quantity, accord 
 
A GOOD. 43 
 
 ing to the source and degree of the activity. The 
 quality will be high or low, as the powers or sus- 
 ceptibilities in action are high or low ; and, within 
 limits, the quantity will be as the degree of the 
 activity. In quality, such good may pass from 
 the lowest animal gratification to the highest 
 forms of happiness, joy, blessedness ; in quantity, 
 it will be limited only by the capability of the 
 being to sustain the activity without injury. 
 
 When a good is thus spoken of, the word good 
 is used as a noun, and it would be well if 
 the sense here given could be uniformly ^ 
 adhered to, but it is not. When " the true, the 
 beautiful, and the good," are spoken of, " the 
 good " evidently means goodness. So also " moral 
 good " is constantly used by eminent writers to 
 signify goodness, whereas I mean by moral good 
 the satisfaction that is inseparably connected with 
 that form of activity which we call goodness, and 
 think that any other use of the phrase must lead 
 to confusion. 
 
 If what has now been said of the word good, 
 used as a noun, be accepted, we shall jheadjec- 
 readily see what its meaning as an ad- '■'™boo'»- 
 jective must be. Nothing will be good except as 
 it is directly or indirectly, voluntarily or invol- 
 untarily promotive of a good. This is obviously 
 ti-ue of mere things whether beautiful or useful. 
 If there be any thing which never has ministered 
 or can minister to a good as above defined, that 
 
44 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 thing is good for nothing. The value of such 
 things is wholly relative, and is in proportion to 
 their adaption thus to minister. 
 
 In the same way, substantially, the adjective 
 good is applied to persons. A person is good who 
 ministers voluntarily to the good of others. Such 
 a person has goodness in its only proper, or at 
 least, in its highest sense. In its proper sense 
 goodness is a fixed purpose and disposition to min- 
 ister to the good of others, and moral good is the 
 satisfaction inseparably connected with such min- 
 istration. To this satisfaction, the term " blessed," 
 involving blessedness, was applied by our Saviour 
 when he said, " It is more blessed to give than 
 to receive." 
 
 If the above be correct, it will follow that 
 neither knowledge as from the intellect solely, 
 nor virtue as from the will, is a good. As has 
 been said, from the activity involved in each 
 there is a satisfaction high and peculiar, and that 
 can be had in no other way, but this is propeily 
 from a pervading sensibility, as pervading as con- 
 sciousness, and not from intellect and will regarded 
 simply as powers of knowing and of willing. The 
 good from virtue with the hope it embosoms is 
 such that it may rationally sustain a man against 
 all the might of nature. It is such as to make a 
 true martyrdom possible, but the good is one thing 
 and the virtue another. They are as distinct ai 
 the fragrance and the flower. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 DBBTERENT KINDS OF ACTIVITY DETBRMINTNQ 
 THE QUALITY OF THE GOOD. 
 
 Since, as we have seen, the kind of activity de- 
 termines the quality of the good, we next need to 
 know what the different kiirds of activity are. Of 
 these there is a general division as the activity 
 originates from without or from within, Sunceptibii- 
 from the susceptibilities or the powers, powers. 
 These words, susceptibilities and powers, point to 
 a distinction that runs through our whole frame, 
 physical and mental. 
 
 In our physical constitution there is a double 
 set of nerves, the afferent and the efferent, like 
 the double track of a railway terminating in a 
 metropolis. Provision is thus made for action 
 upon us from without inward, which terminates in 
 sensation, and for action by us from within out- 
 Wards, which originates in choice and volition. 
 We are thus acted upon and we act ; we receive 
 and we give. We receive first, and as a condition 
 of giving, and there is a good in that; Giving m,j 
 we also give, and in that tl)ere is a "="""«• 
 higher good, for " it is more blessed to give than 
 
46 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 to receive." Universally it may be said that ac- 
 tivity from within, and its consequent good, is of 
 a higher order than that from without, and the 
 good from that. The application of terms here is 
 not uniform, but in general it may be said tbat 
 through the susceptibilities, the passivities, the 
 movement from without inward, we have pleas' 
 Pleasure "^'^ J ^""l that, through the activities, 
 indjoy ^jjg choices, the volitions, the movement 
 from within outward, we have joy, happiness, 
 blessedness. And as these forms of good are dif- 
 fei-ent in their origin, so are they in their quality. 
 By the one we are allied to the animals, by the 
 other to the angels, being made through the power 
 of rational activity and affection but little lower 
 than they. For the one we are dependent on cir- 
 cumstances, for the other on choice. 
 
 And here it may be remarked that it is in this 
 Two direc- divislou of our ufiture, and of the kinds 
 ictivity. of good, that we find the two great direc- 
 cicms of human activity. The prevalent tendency 
 of men Is to remain in indolent passivity, enjoying 
 the good there is in impressions from without, or, 
 if they act, doing so for the sake of those impres- 
 sions. Business men seek to surround themselves 
 with the means of such impressions and of such 
 good, and then retire. But the good that comes 
 thus, wanes, in part by habit, and in part by de- 
 cay of the organization. The deepest want is stil. 
 aninet, ajid the jjurest remains. It was of such 
 
QUALITY OF GOOD. 47 
 
 good that Solomon said " it is vanity ; " it was of 
 such good that Mohammed constituted his Para- 
 dise. But it is possible for man to subordinate 
 passive impressions and the pleasures from them 
 to some form of the activities. He may thus be- 
 come a curse or a blessing. He may ravage a con- 
 tinent through ambition, or may build up the 
 spirit in greater efficiency for benevolent and holy 
 activity. In doing this he will enter upon an up- 
 ward and ever brightening path. In such activ- 
 ity with its appropriate surroundings is the essen- 
 tial idea of the Christian heaven. 
 
 Of the good originated by movement from with- 
 out there are varieties and gradations. Pleasui-es 
 are higher and lower. And then there is an in- 
 termediate region of art, sensuous, but ^„ intenno- 
 not sensual, and in which high forms <*'»■'" '«««>"• 
 of activity are blended with impressions from 
 without. These, however, we need not here no- 
 tice, but proceed to consider what are distinctively 
 the active principles of our nature and the good 
 from them. 
 
 Active principles are indirectly known through 
 their solicitations and promptings. The ji„ti„ ^^^, 
 principles themselves are that in our l^^'l^* 
 constitution by which the solicitations, '"""™- 
 or cravings, or promptings occur when the occa- 
 sion is given. They are not mere capacities, as 
 the combustibility of wood, but are those in- 
 stinctive tendencies towards the objects needed 
 for our well-being which are the condition of ex- 
 
18 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 perience, or of any action at all. They suppose 
 Bomething outside of themselves in view of which 
 they are originally called into spontaneous actioii 
 with no knowledge by the person of the result. 
 Perhaps the wisdom and beneficence of God are 
 nowhere more distinctly shown in our constitu- 
 tion than at this point. The body needs nourish- 
 ment, and there is a principle placed in it by 
 which there is a direct correspondence between 
 the body of an infant and the mUk drawn from its 
 mother's breast. This principle abides and gives 
 occasion to the appetite when the milk is needed. 
 In consequence of this the appetite goes out spon- 
 taneously, or, as some would say, instinctively, 
 towards its object, and the result is found to be 
 in this and in all analogous cases, a good either 
 to the individual alone, or to both the individual 
 and to others. 
 
 But for such an immediate correspondence be- 
 tween the constitution and something without 
 there could be no original movement, and such 
 movement is said to be for the sake of the object. 
 It is in view of that, but not for that. These 
 principles, whether physical or mental, reveal 
 themselves both in attractions and repulsions, in 
 affinities and aversions, and it might as truly be 
 said of the aversions as of the attractions that 
 they are for the sake of the object. No, they 
 are not for that, but for the good of the being 
 himself and of others. They were intended by 
 fiod f(ir tliat, and when the individual comes to 
 
QUALITY OF GOOD. 49 
 
 take himself under his own guidance he is bound 
 to control all such principles, however they may re- 
 veal themselves, for the same end. In themselves, 
 so far as they are purely spontaneous, these prin- 
 ciples have no moral character. As de- Nomoai 
 signed by God, they may have for their «*>»"«"•'• 
 object our own good or the good of others, but 
 they are neither selfish nor benevolent. Moral 
 character is shown in their control. 
 
 As differently manifested the principles that 
 lead to action, called by Stewart active citLtM- 
 principles, may be classified. They may ""'""• 
 too, like the forces of nature, the functions of the 
 body, and the mental powers, be arranged as lower 
 and higher on the principle of the conditioning 
 and the conditioned. By Stewart, in his treatise 
 on the active powers, they are classified as the 
 Appetites, the Desires, the Affections, Self-love, 
 and the Moral faculty. He tlms makes the com- 
 mon mistake of placing the moral faculty in tlie 
 same relation to action as the rest and giving it an 
 obiect of its own. 
 
 The following arrangement of these principles 
 that have corresponding objects I think prefer- 
 iible : — 
 
 Iforal A&ctions, Impulsive after choice. 
 
 s5f5oTO ""*' I National and Impulsive. 
 Bights, Impulsive and Moral. 
 
 Desir^'"'""'" > Impulsive before choice, 
 
 i^^ti^;. JimpuUiv. from the body. 
 4 
 
JO MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 The place usually given to Conscience is above 
 Moral Love, with Right for its object ; while the 
 Moral Affections are not distinctively recognized. 
 
 That the above are in their order as condi- 
 tioning and conditioned will be readily seen. 
 
 But for those below, the higher could not be, 
 Law of con- ^^^ Y^* ^he lower have no agency in 
 and°co'Sdi- pioducing the higher. This is what I 
 tioned mean by the law of the conditioning 
 
 and the conditioned — a law that pervades the 
 structure of the universe, and renders necessary 
 an agent distinct from itself. This law is ex- 
 plained in the " Outline Study of Man." It ia 
 su£5cient to say here, that by a condition I mean 
 that in one being or thing which is indispensable 
 to the being of another, but has no eflBciency in 
 A condition pioduciug it. A conditiou is thus distin- 
 notaoaiiBe guigije,j from a cause. God is the cause 
 of matter and of the universe, but not its condi- 
 tion. Space is its condition, but not its cause. 
 The foundation of a house is its condition, but 
 not its cause, and any attempt to make it either 
 he cause or a part of it is in violation of the 
 common judgment as indicated by the settled 
 usages of speech. Besides the foundation, there 
 is needed a builder. In the same way the appe. 
 tites, which are common to animals and men, are 
 the condition, but not the cause of the higher 
 powers that belong to man ; and in the series 
 given, this principle applies all the way up. 
 
QUALITY OF GOOD. 51 
 
 Practically, the rank of these powers, and so 
 that of the quality of the good from their Rank intni- 
 activity, is known intuitively. Every knom». 
 man knows, and cannot but know, that the pur- 
 suit of knowledge and the good from that, is 
 higher, nobler, more human than that of sensual 
 pleasure. It is only by the possession and exer- 
 cise of noble faculties that man comes to a sense 
 of dignity, and in such exercise he comes to it in- 
 tuitively. No one who has not come to it thus 
 can tell another, or be told, what it is. And as 
 the sense of dignity is thus known, so is the rela- 
 tive dignity of the different powers and their prod- 
 ucts. This intuitive perception of an order of the 
 powers as higher and lower, and of the correspond- 
 ing quality of the good from them, is peculiar to 
 man, and is a marked distinction between him 
 and the brutes. Such recognition is sufficient for 
 practice, but for the purposes of science we need 
 a law. We need it not only to fix the quality of 
 the different kinds of good, but, as will be seen 
 hereafter, to fix the limit of action through the 
 law of limitation drawn from this. 
 
 Having then this law, and this arrangement 
 from it, we notice briefly the several powers. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 MPULSIVE PRINCIPLES OF ACTIOH. 
 
 THE APPETITES. 
 
 These are desires, but they are made a clan 
 by themselves, as originating from the body, as 
 periodical, and as having a physical limit. The 
 object of the appetites is the well-being of the 
 body and the continuance of the race. The more 
 prominent are three, hunger, thirst, and sex, but 
 any periodical craving indicating a physical want, 
 as that for air or for sleep, is of the nature of an 
 appetite. 
 
 INSTINCT. 
 
 That instinct has exclusive relation to the ap- 
 petites, is not supposed, but it is placed with them 
 as equally essential, and as most prominent in 
 that connection. All spontaneous tendencies are 
 of the nature of instinct, but in connection with 
 appetite it is indispensable. If the young bird 
 did not instinctively open its mouth it would per 
 ish. So also would the lamb if it did not kno\i 
 in the same way where to seek for its food. As 
 instinct is so far beyond the control of will, and a» 
 its function in man, after responsible action begins, 
 
IMPULSIVE PRINCIPLES OF ACTION. 63 
 
 IB ao obscure, it is not usually treated of in moral 
 icience. 
 
 THE DESIRES. 
 
 A« a good of some kind is the only ultimate ob- 
 jpct of choice, so desire is the chief, if Thederirei: 
 not the only impulse to action in seeking ore. 
 it, and indeed to any voluntary action. He who 
 dfcsires nothing will hope for nothing, will fear 
 nothing, and will do nothing. If there be aver- 
 sion, it will abide as a mere feeling till a desire to 
 be removed from the hated object leads to action. 
 Originally, the immediate objects of desire re- 
 lated to oui constitution as a means of good were 
 individual, but these were readily classified, so 
 that the objef.ts of the desires are now expressed 
 by general terms. What we now call the desire 
 of property originally revealed itself in the desire 
 of some particular thing ; and so of the others. 
 Desire passes up as an element into the affections. 
 There can be no love where there is no desire for 
 the good of the object loved. It also passes up 
 and blends with each of the principles of action 
 above it. 
 
 The desires being all of the same order, it was 
 'lardly to be expected that the law of 0^3,, fa,, 
 conditioning and conditioned should ap- "*"'«"■ 
 ply to them at all, and certainly not in so pro- 
 nounced a way as te different orders of powers. 
 Besides, as they are more intimately related, the 
 difficulty from interdependence, as recognized in 
 
64 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 the Outline Study when arranging the functions 
 of the body, would be greater. Still, the attempt 
 to arrange them in part according to that law was 
 made, and the desires of continued existence, of 
 property, of knowledge, of power, and of esteem, 
 were placed vertically in the order now mentioned, 
 as lower and higher ; while those of good, of lib- 
 erty, and of society, were placed by their side as 
 blending with the others. Probably all would 
 agree that there is room here for something of the 
 kind, but would not agree upon the order. Ac- 
 curacy here is not of the first importance; but 
 perhaps we may be aided in our estimate of their 
 relations if we place them all in a vertical line and 
 divide them into two equal parts, thus : — 
 
 Esteem, 
 
 Power, 
 
 Knowledge, 
 
 Property, 
 
 Society, 
 
 Liberty, 
 
 Good, 
 
 Continued Existence. 
 Of these the four lower are of'things into which 
 we naturally come without labor, and are the con- 
 dition of the successful pursuit of those above. 
 
 Of these several desires I have treated slightly 
 in the Outline Study, and more fully in my Lec- 
 tures on Moral Science, and nothing further need 
 be said of them here, excepting a word respecting 
 liberty and good. 
 
IMPULSIVE PEINCIPLES OP ACTION. 66 
 
 By liberty here is not meant the liberty of man 
 13 a moral being, that is, liberty of i,egi„io, 
 choice. That liberty he does not desire, "•""y- 
 He has it by necessity, and as a part of his being. 
 The liberty desired is freedom from unjust re- 
 straint by the will of another. 
 
 The desire for good is altogether peculiar as not 
 only blending with the others and al- De8i„for 
 ways present with them, as the idea of *°°*" 
 existence is with all our thoughts, but as that 
 which gives to the objects of the desires, and to 
 the desires themselves as a part of the constitution, 
 theii- whole value. It is also peculiar because a 
 good is the only thing that has value in itself, and 
 is that ultimate end in all forms of activity that 
 has no utility, and can never be directly sought 
 for. All we know of our being is its activities and 
 their results. The activities are in part directly 
 subject to our will; the results only indirectly, or 
 not at all. There are other ends, as the growth 
 of plants and our own growth, that can be 
 sought only indirectly; but they are of no value 
 except with reference to a good either of our- 
 selves or of others. If there were no conscious be- 
 ing capable of a good, the material universe, how- 
 ever beautiful or vast, would have no value. It is 
 with relation to this that our being is constituted, 
 and neither reason, nor Scripture, nor an enlight- 
 ened conscience, ever requires of us anything that 
 would not be for our own highest good, and, wh^t 
 
b6 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 is always coincident with that, the highest good ol 
 others. If Christ commands a man to " lose his 
 life," it is that he may " find it; " if to "hate his 
 life in this world," it is that he may "keep it 
 unto life eternal." 
 
 These peculiarities of a good as the only object 
 of desire really ultimate, and as incapable of be- 
 ing directly sought, are worthy of careful atten- 
 tion. They show us at once of how little value 
 external things may become, and, do what we may 
 ourselves, how constantly and entirely we are de- 
 pendent on an agency not our own for any good 
 we may enjoy. 
 
 THE NATURAL AFFECTION'S. 
 
 These differ from desires in their object. The 
 Natural af- objcct of the desires is things. The ob- 
 
 feotions. . - , t rr * • • 
 
 Their ob- ject of the natural attections is sentient 
 ure.'and beings, chieflv persons. The affections 
 
 elassiflca- ° i t-v • 
 
 Hon. are more complex. Desire enters into 
 
 them, and so is a condition for them ; but in their 
 distinctive character the affections are the oppo- 
 site of the desires. The desires receive ; the af- 
 fections give. Though not selfish, the desires 
 have reference to self, the affections to others. 
 True, as the desires are our desires there is a re- 
 flex of good to us; but that is not thought of. U 
 it could be, and become the motive, the distinct- 
 ive element of affection would be lost. Affectior 
 \s disinterested. It must be, or cease to be at 
 
IMPULSIVE PRINCIPLES OF ACTION. 67 
 
 all. Hence, and as spontaneous, its beauty. Aa 
 purely natural it has no moral character ; but 
 moral character is shown by dwarfing it through 
 selfishness and vice, or by giving it all the play 
 the higher powers will allow. Natural affections 
 are of great diversity, and the character of them 
 changes with their object. The affection of the 
 parent for the child is different from that of the 
 child for the parent. The affection of the brother 
 for the brother is not the same as that for the 
 sister. 
 
 These affections are usually classified as benev- 
 olent and malevolent. A better nomenclature 
 would be, beneficent, defensive, and punitive. 
 Nothing either benevolent or malevolent can be- 
 long to natural affection, but let any one come be- 
 tween the affection and its object, and the energies 
 of the being will be arrayed in opposition in pro- 
 portion to the strength of the affection. The de- 
 sires are for the well-being of the individual, the 
 affections for the preservation of the race in early 
 life, and for the well being of society. 
 
 EIGHTS. 
 
 It is with hesitation that I place rights among 
 oar active powers, and next in order. I Bights why 
 hesitate first, because no one, so far as I among mi- 
 know, has placed them there ; and second, piea. 
 because they involve an element from the moral 
 nature, which has not yet been reached. They ar« 
 
68 MOBAL SCIENCE. 
 
 among our active powers only as the idea of a 
 right is associated with a desire or an affection ; 
 but thus associated they are among the most pow- 
 erful. Men fight for their rights, and feel justi- 
 fied and ennobled in doing so. The idea of the 
 right of a man to himself, that is, to the unob- 
 structed exercise of his powers for their legitimate 
 ends, is immediately given by the moral reason 
 in connection with the exercise of those powers. 
 This idea is fundamental in moral action, and per- 
 vasive like the atmosphere. It stands ready to 
 rush in at any point that is opened for it by the 
 operation of a specific desire. Like its twin idea 
 of obligation, it may stand by itself, or it may be- 
 come, when associated with a desire or an affec- 
 tion, the leading feature in a principle of action 
 and give it its name. It is just thus that we get 
 a new principle by the combination of the element 
 of affection with desire. Having then an original 
 desire for property, the idea of a right immedi- 
 ately combines with it when that is brought into 
 action, and becomes the leading feature of the 
 whole. I therefore venture to place as springs 
 of action next above the affections, those rights 
 that spring from the desires, as the right to life, 
 to property, to freedom, to reputation, and the 
 Btill more sacred rights that spring up in conneo 
 lion with the affections. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 RATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF ACTION. 
 
 SELF-LOVE. 
 
 This has for its object our own good. In com- 
 mon with the principles of action already object and 
 
 , . . 1 ... T nature of 
 
 mentioned it involves an mstinctiye tend- seii-ioTe. 
 ency, and, in addition, a rational apprehension of 
 good as valuable in itself, together with a compar- 
 ison of the means of attaining it. In the lower 
 principles of action there is a direct correspond- 
 ence between the principle and its object, and so 
 no comparison. Each separate principle tends di- 
 rectly to its own object, and so, without some 
 governing principle, they would become a mob. 
 But here there is comparison, and if self-love be 
 true to its own function, there will be a choice of 
 that which is highest and best for us. This gives 
 us from the principle itself of self-love, in addition 
 to the good from the active principle adopted, a 
 rational satisfaction and sense of dignity in secur- 
 ing our own highest good. This we have because 
 there is in self-love, and in securing our highest 
 good, both rational activity and dignity. When 
 a being comes to know himself as rational and 
 
so MOKAL SCIENCfc. 
 
 moral, with impulses that are tc be controlled, 
 there is involved in that the activity of reason and 
 conscience, and a conception of the highest good 
 that is possible for a rational and moral being of a 
 Sell-love given capacity. It is this good that is 
 »duty the proper object of self-love. It is a 
 high and ineffable good, and the pursuit of it is 
 as much a duty as the pursuit of the good of our 
 neighbor. Why not ? God estimates it as highly. 
 He is as desirous it should be attained, and he 
 has intrusted the attainment of it especially to 
 us, and in the choice and pursuit of such a good 
 there is a consciousness of dignity and worthiness 
 wholly apart from any good that may come from 
 the activity of any particular desire or affection. 
 There is just .now a tendency to confound self-love 
 with selfishness, or, if that be not done, to dispar- 
 age efforts for our own good as compared with 
 those for the good of others. Such efforts are not 
 to be degraded from the high plane of duty. In- 
 deed the choice by each man of his own highest 
 good is a duty to others and to God as well as to 
 himself, for the moment an inferior good 
 
 gelflslmefiB . , ic i i 
 
 IS chosen as supreme, self-love becomes 
 belfishness in its principle, and will be sure to 
 manifest itself as such. No man can do this and 
 give God and his fellow-creatures their proper 
 place. 
 
 Next above self-love, and as having an object 
 of its own in the same way, is. 
 
RATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF ACTION 61 
 
 KATIONAli LOVE. 
 For this, self-love is a condition. Without a 
 knowledge in our own experience of what a good 
 is, and of its value, we can have no conception of 
 the good of another, and no wish for it. But 
 self-love being given, we shall have in Elements of 
 the formation of this love, first in the ioto 
 order of time, an idea of the worth or value of 
 the being as distinguished from his worthiness. 
 This involves an appreciation of both the capa- 
 bilities and liabilities of the being. This, how- 
 ever, is rather a condition of the love than one 
 of its elements. Second in the order of time, 
 though first in that of nature, we have what Ed- 
 wards calls a " propension " of mind, or, as Dr. 
 McCosh calls it, an " appetency " towards the be- 
 ing, and a desire that he should attain his end. 
 This is an indispensable element of the love, but 
 not the love itself. It is spontaneous, and may 
 be overcome by other forms of spontaneous action. 
 That it may become rational love there must be 
 (third) a choice for the being of his end and 
 good, and such a devotement of ourselves to him, 
 that is to the attainment by him of his end and 
 good, that we shall be willing to make sacrifices 
 for it as we would for our own. Of this love the 
 central element is choice, — the choice choice the 
 of the good of others for the sake of ment. 
 that good. If it be not for the ^ke of that it is 
 
62 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 not disinterested, it is not love. This choice is to 
 be made in view of the capabilities and liabilities 
 of others, without reference to their moral char- 
 ajter or to their relation to us as friends or ene- 
 mies. In no other way can we understand the 
 command of Christ to love our enemies; in no 
 other way can we follow his example. Here the 
 governing motive is not a sentiment, or impulse 
 from behind, but an apprehension of reasons 
 placed before us. It involves the will; and if it 
 do not so involve it that impartial efforts would 
 be made for the good of others as for our own, 
 it is not the love which our moral nature de- 
 mands, and which the Scriptures demand as the 
 fulfilling of the law. 
 
 The capacity for this love distinguishes man 
 Rational from all crcaturcs below him. It is ra- 
 tinctiTo pre- tioual, bccause none but a rational being 
 man can Comprehend the good and measure 
 
 its value; and it is moral, because it is demanded 
 by the moral nature, and so demanded as to be 
 involved in and to limit all the virtues. As the 
 idea of being underlies and is involved in all our 
 thinking, and as the idea of a good underlies and 
 is involved in all our choosing, so the idea of 
 love underlies and is involved in all the virtues, 
 and is so involved in them as to give them their 
 limit. It is what the moral law demands as affirm- 
 ing obligation; it is what it limits as guarding 
 rights, if that can be called limitation which it 
 
RATIONAL PBINCll-LliS OF ACTION. 63 
 
 but another aspect of love. The guardianship of 
 rights is that office of love that gives it an aspect 
 of severity. It is in this guardianship Rational 
 that we find justice and its cognates. If jSItiMl 
 there were no rights to be guarded there could 
 be no justice. But justice has no absolute claim 
 like that of love. If it had, mercy would be im- 
 possible, since there can be no mercy where law 
 is concerned unless punishment might be justly 
 inflicted. As law has its origin in love, having 
 always for its end the best good of those under 
 it, there can be no real contrariety between them, 
 and no apparent contrariety till the subject of 
 law incurs its penalty. Then law, supposed to 
 be just, can know no mercy; and love, as the 
 originator of law, can know no expedient that 
 will set it aside. To the law of love there can be 
 no exception; but the claims of justice may be 
 set aside in favor of that higher and more com- 
 ])reliensive law if that can be done, not only with- 
 out the violation of any right, but with the full or 
 even fuller security of all rights. This, we be- 
 lieve, can be done, and has been done; and when 
 tliis is done, "mercy rejolceth against judgment." 
 To express this love, benevolence would be the 
 best word if it were not ambiguous; but Benevoienc. 
 it has been mischievously so. By some ""'•''s"""' 
 it has been made identical with the love cora- 
 vnanded by the Scriptures, and so inclusive of all 
 the virtues. By others it has been regarded, aa 
 
64 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 in part at least, an impulsion which we share in 
 "•mmoii with the brutes; and others still have 
 riewed it sometimes in one aspect and sometimes 
 Dr. Aiei- ^^ ''^*^ Other. Says Dr. Archibald Alex- 
 ""*"■ ander : " No doubt much that deserves 
 
 the name of virtue consists in good-will to others 
 and in contributing to their welfare ; but it is not 
 orrect to confine all virtuous action to benevo- 
 ence. We can conceive of benevolence in a being 
 who has no moral constitution. Something of this 
 kind is observable in brute animals." ^ Again, 
 Bishop Bishop Butler says, as quoted by Dr. 
 
 Butler. Alexander : ^ " Without inquiring how 
 far and in what sense virtue is resolvable into be- 
 nevolence, and vice into the want of it, it may be 
 proper to observe that benevolence, and the want 
 of it, singly considered, are in no sort the whole 
 of virtue and vice." But in his sermon on the 
 love of our neighbor he says: "And therefore a 
 disposition and endeavor to do good to all with 
 whom we have to do, in the degree and manner 
 in which the relations we stand in to them re- 
 quire, is a discharge of all the obligations we are 
 under to them." He says further : " It might be 
 added that, in a higher and more general way of 
 consideration, leaving out the particular nature 
 of creatures and the particular circumstances in 
 which they are placed, benevolence seems in the 
 strictest sense to include all that is good an<J 
 
 1 Moral Science, p. 161. > Hid. p. 166. 
 
RATIONAL PKINCIPLES OF ACTION. 65 
 
 worthy, — all that is good which we have any 
 distinct, particular notion of, We have no clear 
 conception of any positive, moral attribute in the 
 Supreme Being but what may be resolved up into 
 goodness." The bishop even speaks of benevolence 
 as entering into our love of God, which some are 
 slow to allow. He says : " That which we call 
 piety, or the love of God, and which is an essen- 
 tial part of a right temper, some may perhaps im- 
 agine no way connected with benevolence. Yet 
 surely they must be connected if -there be indeed 
 in being an object infinitely good." With this 
 ambiguity in the word, it is not surprising that 
 those really in accord should have seemed to 
 di£Eer. 
 
 • 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE MORAL AFFECTIONS. 
 
 We have now completed the list of direct active 
 principles before acting, that is, before a generic 
 choice is made. When such a choice is made, 
 especially if it be a choice of some good regarded 
 as ultimate and supreme, we may be said to create 
 for ourselves active principles that are spontane- 
 ous, but that have, as determined by choice, a 
 moral character. Spontaneous action is never 
 either free or responsible except as it is deter- 
 mined by voluntary action. Active principles 
 thus generated are the moral affections, and 
 the difference between these and the natural affec- 
 tions is, that the moral affections, though seem- 
 ingly spontaneous in the same way as the natural 
 affections, are conditioned upon a previous choice, 
 and derive their character from the character of 
 that. 
 
 That the moral should have been confounded 
 sfatuiai and with the natural affections is not sur- 
 
 moral affec- . . _,. t fY» i i i 
 
 lions. prismg. Ihe dimculfcy has been m a 
 
 failure to perceive the relation just stated of oui 
 generic and radical choices to subsequent spoit 
 
THE MORAL AFFECTIONS. 67 
 
 taneoas action, the character of which is yet de- 
 termined by the choice. This relation is so inti- 
 mate that even where the choice is not of the 
 most radical kind, it will yet so control the char- 
 acter of a large class of desires, of affections, 
 hopes, fears, and subordinate choices as to cause 
 them to be the reverse of what they would have 
 been. Two men, who, with a full apprehension 
 of the principles involved, took opposite sides in 
 our civil war must have had opposite desires and 
 affections, and the events that caused hope and 
 joy to the one must have caused fear and sorrow 
 to the other. But all this is to be traced back to 
 the original choice. That determined the leaders 
 under whom they served, the army in which they 
 marched, the friendships they formed, and very 
 largely the direction and spontaneous jnovement 
 of their whole sympathetic and emotive nature. 
 
 And this, with the exception that the choice is 
 more radical and all-pervading, is what takes 
 place under the moral government of God. By a 
 thorough choice of Him and his cause, the whole 
 .nirrent of the soul, all its motives and subordi- 
 nate choices, its dispositions and tempers, its de- 
 sires and affections, its hopes and fears, its joys 
 and sorrows, and its ultimate destiny will be the 
 reverse of what they would have been if an 
 opposite choice had been made. All these are 
 Bpontaneous, are independent of volition ; we are 
 responsible for them, but only through their rela- 
 
68 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 tion to that generic and permanent choice which 
 determines character, and in which character con- 
 sists. 
 
 It is but recently that the distinctive character 
 of these affections has been seen, and hence they 
 have not been placed as a separate class among 
 our active principles. 
 
 By some the emotions are classed as active 
 BmotionB principles, and active principles are 
 priDcipioB classed with emotions ; but no pure 
 emotion, that is, no emotion destitute of the ele- 
 ment of desire, belongs here. Neither joy nor 
 sorrow is an active principle. These are emotions 
 that result from our active principles in success 
 or defeat, but the emotions themselves are not 
 active principles, nor, according to any proper 
 asage, are the active principles emotions. 
 
DIVISION m. 
 
 THE WILL. 
 
 Havinq thus considered the sensibility as it ii 
 related to choice, we pass to the third great divi- 
 Bion of our nature, the will. 
 
 Of will there are two functions — choice and 
 volition. These two, with rational in- iwofuno- 
 tellecfc and sensibility as their condition, wui. 
 fit man to hare dominion — dominion first over 
 himself, and then over nature and all inferior 
 creatures. Of these two functions choice is the 
 chief. In that alone is freedom, in that moral 
 quality. In its nature choice is free. If it be 
 not, it is not choice. Man is under a necessity 
 of choosing, but what he shall choose he himself 
 freely determines. Freedom in choosing, being 
 an essential mode in which our being is mani- 
 fested, is as certainly known as the being itself. 
 Not more certainly does man know the act of 
 choosing than he knows its quality as free. The 
 act itself is immediately known, and so cannot be 
 proved. It is too certain for that, and the same 
 may be said of its quality as free. Men may deny 
 freedom in words, but they universally affirm it \n 
 
70 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 their actions, and treat each other as if they sup- 
 posed themselves and others to be free. 
 
 Choice is completed, and responsibility under 
 vThenre- moral government incurred, when the 
 bincarred. choice is fuUy made. No outward act 
 is needed. A choice that will revolutionize a 
 nation may be made in the quiet and darkness 
 of midnight, and may abide for an indefinite 
 time simply as a choice. As thus completed 
 by an immediate act, choice requires no means. 
 Hence outward force cannot so reach it as either 
 to compel or prevent it. Hence too, as the ques- 
 tion, How? always has reference to means, no one 
 can tell another how to choose. No one can tell 
 a child how to love its father, or a man how to 
 love God. It will follow also, since no outward 
 force can compel choice or prevent it, that there 
 can be no excuse for making a wrong choice, or 
 for not making a right one. The cause must be 
 wholly within the man, and within him regarded 
 as free. 
 
 Choice is either specific, or generic. A specific 
 Specific and choicc is the choice of a single object. A 
 choice generic choice is the choice of an end 
 
 that can be attained only by a succession of subor- 
 dinate choices and volitions ; or, which is much 
 the same thing, the choice of some one principle 
 of action to which others are to be subordinated. 
 Of generic choices there is a great variety as they 
 are more or less generic. The choice of a pro 
 
THE WILL. 71 
 
 fession is a generic choice ; but the most generic 
 choice possible is that by which a man accepts or 
 rejects the law of his being, that is the moral 
 law. In doing this he disposes of himself. This 
 he alone, of all creatures on the earth, can do, and 
 that he can do this is his great distinction. He 
 can accept the law of his being and be wise, or 
 reject it and be a fool. No being below man is 
 capable of being wise, or of being a fool. 
 
 Choice may be either between good of the same 
 kind, as greater or less, or between good choice t*- 
 of different kinds, as higher or lower, things. 
 When it is between good of the same kind, it is 
 between things; when of different kinds, between 
 different principles of action. Thus if Between 
 the sense of taste only be addressed the v^inoifie,. 
 choice may be between an apple and a pear, but 
 it may also be between the indulgence of appetite 
 and the desire of knowledge, or any of the higher 
 forms of activity. In either case the choice pre- 
 supposes a knowledge by the intellect of that 
 which is to be chosen, and an apprehension 
 through the sensibility of some good on the ground 
 of which it is to be chosen. 
 
 Volition, the second and secondary constituent 
 of will, is always preceded by choice, choice pre- 
 not only by a choice that may be held oon. 
 in abeyance, but by an immediate choice to put it 
 forth. The choice between an apple and a pear 
 
72 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 may be made long before either is taken, but the 
 moment comes when the choice is made to put 
 forth the volition, and the office of that is to 
 originate the moyement by which the apple or 
 the pear is taken. 
 
DIVISION rv. 
 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 THE MOKAI, NAXUItB. 
 
 From this the moral law proceeds when a man 
 is a law to himself; and through it that same 
 law is recognized when it is revealed directly and 
 in its fullness by God. 
 
 By a nature we mean a constitution such that 
 on given conditions certain results will AMtim. 
 uniformly follow. Of the origin of how known, 
 what is thus called a nature no account can be 
 given. That it is can be known only by phe- 
 nomena uniformly manifested ; nor can we know 
 anything of the origin of the phenomena except 
 their conditions. The conditions being given, 
 fire will uniformly burn, and hence we say it is 
 the nature of fire to burn. Because the ox uni- 
 formly eats grass and the lion flesh, we say it is 
 their nature to do so. Because sensation uni- 
 formly occurs in us on certain conditions, we are 
 said to have a sensitive nature. In the same 
 way we say that mankind have uniformly, on cer- 
 tain conditions, moral ideas and feelings, and 
 hence that they have a moral nature. We say 
 
71 MOBAL SCIENCE. 
 
 that it is as natural and necessary for a man to 
 be conscious of rights, and to feel under obligar 
 tion to do some things and to abstain from others, 
 as it is to think or to feel. Endowed as he is, 
 he cannot help thinking. If he could he would 
 not have an intellectual nature. In the same way, 
 if he could avoid having moral ideas and feelings 
 he would not have a moral nature. 
 
 This nature reveals itself, first, through the 
 Reyeaied in moral or practical reason, in the recogni- 
 tton"™*"*' ^^°^ o^ rights. No one can exercise his 
 rights. powers legitimately without a recogni- 
 
 tion of his right to himself, that is of his right to 
 use his natural powers for their natural ends with 
 no interference from any one else. This idea of 
 the right of a man to himself is involved in the 
 very exercise of his powers, and is revealed in 
 connection with every active principle of our nat- 
 ure. Has man an original desire for property, 
 constituting it an end and a good ? Then the 
 idea of a right to property will reveal itself in 
 connection with that desire, and no mere expedi- 
 ency, nor any law except that of necessity, may 
 interfere with that right. The idea may not come 
 into prominence till the right either is, or is at- 
 tempted to be, infringed, but then our nature is 
 stirred to its lowest depths. Rights are not prin- 
 ciples of action except as they need to be de- 
 fended. 
 
 As thus corresponding to a right on the part of 
 
THE MORAL NATURE. 76 
 
 others obligation can be defined, and enforced. 
 Such obligation was formerly called perfect, while 
 one that could not be thus defined and enforced 
 was called imperfect. According to this the ob- 
 ligation to pay a debt would be perfect ; to give 
 something in charity, imperfect. Whewell would 
 limit the word to the first sense, but as commonly 
 used, and as I use it, it transcends the region of 
 rights, and is coextensive with the words ought, 
 and duty. 
 
 But vrith tue idea of a right comes also the idea 
 of obligatior.. for these are reciprocal. laeaofobii- 
 If I have a right to myself, others must gfrfg^hte-rt 
 be under obligation to respect that right, "'f""^^- 
 and I must be under obligation to abstain from 
 interfering with the right of another to himself. 
 It is affirmed, not solely on the ground of the 
 rights of others as made known through our own, 
 but also on the ground of their worth, and of our 
 capacity to do them good. 
 
 And here it may be noticed that these two 
 forms, in which the moral nature reveals s„iptorai 
 itself, are recognized by our Saviour in Jft^t""" 
 the two fundamental precepts of the '"""■ 
 moral law given by Him. One of these corre- 
 sponds to the first and lower form, in which the 
 moral nature is manifested through the constitu- 
 tion, and the other to the second and higher 
 form. 
 
 The precept, " All things whatsoever ye would 
 
76 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 that men should do to you, do ye even so to 
 them," is given solely with reference to our con- 
 duct towards men. It founds itself on our moral 
 nature as intuitively made known on the side of 
 rights, and could be interpreted only by one 
 knowing, not his own wishes, but his own rights 
 and the claims of humanity, and through these 
 knowing what others would have a right to expect 
 from him. It is the whole law as the moral nat- 
 ure reveals itself on the side of rights and with 
 reference to man, but not the whole as that nat- 
 ure reveals itself on the side of capacities and 
 with reference both to man and to God. 
 
 We need then the higher and broader precept, 
 " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
 heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
 strength, and thy neighbor as thyself." The first 
 precept is " the law and the prophets." It is 
 what they taught, but on the second " hang all 
 the law and the prophets." It is said that Con- 
 fucius and other philosophers have so far under- 
 stood our nature as to give the first precept, but 
 Christ alone has risen to the comprehension and 
 grandeur of the second. 
 
 As a product of the moral reason, this idea of 
 obiigatim obligation is peculiar, because it is re- 
 product, lated to each division of our complex 
 nature. As related to the intellect, it is an idea 
 as related to the sensibility, it is a feeling ; ana 
 as related to the will, it is a command. We caL 
 
THE MORAL NATVBE. 77 
 
 it Bu^etimes one and someii'mes th«i ^liLick.. It is 
 not a mere idea, or a mere iwling, oi, like iUauty, 
 a synthesis of the two. It iu also an imperative, 
 the " categorical imperative." It is commonly 
 callud an impulse, and an authoritative impulse. 
 Dr Wayland calls it so. But no impulse has au- 
 tlioiity. It is not an impulse in the ordinary 
 sense of that word, since its action is directly upon 
 the will, and its function is, not to impel a man 
 directly towards any particular course, but, when 
 two principles of action are in question, a higher 
 and a lower, to require the will to choose the 
 higher. 
 
 Like the other constituents of our personality, 
 the moral nature is active from the first, intomatio 
 that is, from the beginning of our moral JJ"^" ^^ 
 life. This is true, as in the appetites, ""■ 
 while there is yet no knowledge of results. Chil- 
 dren and persons the most ignorant have at once, 
 in connection with their active principles, an idea 
 of rights, and so of justice. They have an im- 
 mediate recognition that something is due from 
 others to themselves, that is, of rights, and recip- 
 rocally, that something is due from themselves to 
 jthers, that is, of obligation. Under these ideas 
 tlie moral life is developed, but they do not suf- 
 fice for a philosophy. If we would have condiUoM 
 
 ; • <• . olaphl- 
 
 that, we must take possession of our act- lowphy 
 ,ve principles, must know them in their relation 
 *^o each other, and be able to accept and justify 
 
78 MOBAL SCIENOE. 
 
 them in the eye of reason, by the results they 
 would produce. If we see that obligation is pri- 
 marily obligation to choose, and that it always 
 demands the choice of the higher principle of ac- 
 tion and of the higher good, we may rationally 
 Accept it as affirming the law of our Ufe. 
 
CHAPTER n. 
 
 MOBAL LAW. 
 
 Having thus a moral nature and moral ideas, 
 man becomes subject to moral law. 
 
 To know what moral law is, we need to distin- 
 guish it from otlier kinds of law. Law is spoken 
 of as natural, civil, and moral, and these need to 
 be defined separately, for I know of no definition 
 that will cover all the senses in which the general 
 term, law, is used. 
 
 We have then, first, natural law. A natural 
 law is a uniform fact, implying a force natural 
 that acts uniformly and is independent '*'" 
 of human will. If, as in gravitation, the rule in 
 accordance with which the force acts is known, 
 that enters into our conception of the law. 
 
 Of law as thus understood, there are several 
 varieties, as physical, vital, mental, in varieties 
 each of which there is a force uniformly natural law 
 directed to an end. Up to a certain point, the 
 mind is subject to this kind of law no less than 
 matter. These laws, or more properly uniformi- 
 ties, are the basis of experience, are the condition 
 ii education, and of that intelligent activity by 
 which means are adapted to ends. 
 
BO MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Under natural law all things come alike to all. 
 
 pecuiiaritiei Accident, impi-udence, willful exposure, 
 law." are treated alike. It may even be a 
 
 duty to incur injury by what is called the viola- 
 tion of a natural law. One who should be scorched 
 in an heroic effort to save life would not be said 
 to be punished. Indeed, whatever harm may 
 come under natural law does not, as in other 
 cases, come from breaking the law, for a natural 
 law cannot be broken by one under it. The harm 
 comes, as in falling from a precipice, not because 
 a natural law is broken, but because it is perfectly 
 obeyed. 
 
 Civil law is the expressed will of the supreme 
 
 authority of the State in the form of a 
 ClTillaw •', T . , 
 
 command, and with a penalty annexed. 
 
 It may be righteous or unrighteous. It takes no 
 
 cognizance of motives, but has for its object the 
 
 control of the outward actions of men so far as 
 
 they relate to the rights of others. As affecting 
 
 the will it reaches only to volitions. 
 
 Moral law is law which moral beings are at 
 
 Moral law ai- all times under obligation to obey. It 
 
 ways bind- .,,-,. , 
 
 lug. is binding upon every moral creature 
 
 under all circumstances. To a moral law there 
 can be no exception. If there can be an excep- 
 tion to what purports to be a moral law, it is not 
 a moral law, but a general rule that is to be in 
 terpreted as the case demands. If man is to ba 
 H law to himself, moral law must proceed front 
 
MOKAL LAW. 81 
 
 the moral nature, and as thus proceeding it ^11 
 haye, according to what has been said, ,^^ 
 two branches, — the law of righteous- '"»'"'>«•■ 
 ness, and the law of obligation. The law of right- 
 eousness respects rights, and its precept is. No 
 right may be violated. The law of obligation re- 
 spects principles of action as higher and lower, 
 and good as varying in its quality, and as greater 
 or less. Its precept is, Choose for yourselves and 
 for others the higher principle of action, and the 
 nobler and greater good. These taken together 
 are the moral law as derived from the moral nat- 
 ure. To this law there can be no exception, in 
 this world or any other. Of this law the under- 
 lying idea is that of a good. Without that idea 
 there can be no idea of rights, or of an obligation 
 to do anything for ourselves or for others. As 
 we shall see hereafter, this law in its coincident 
 two branches is coincident with the law love. 
 of love. No one who loves another can violate 
 Iiis rights, or fail to do for him what obligation 
 demands. 
 
 When moral law, in either form of it as pre- 
 sented above, is placed before an unper- obligation 
 verted moral being capable of under- afflrmia. 
 standing it, obligation to obey it is intuitively and 
 necessarily affirmed. If it were not, man would 
 not have a moral nature. The obligation is at 
 first recognized in a particular case, but immedi- 
 ately and necessarily, not by generalization or in 
 • 
 
82 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 daction, assumes a general form. It is thus, by 
 the resolution of the two branches of the law into 
 the law of love, that moral law is the law of obli- 
 gation. Where there is obligation there is moral 
 law, and where there is no obligation there is no 
 moral law. 
 
 This affirmation of obligation implies both a 
 A law and Command and a penalty, and thus be- 
 ' ""*• comes law. In this it differs from a rule. 
 
 A rule tells us how to do a thing. A law tells us 
 what to do and commands us to do it, but becomes 
 law only as it is enforced by a penalty, or by 
 punishment. This affirmation of obligation car- 
 ries with it the force of the word ought ; but un- 
 less it be supposed to express the will of God 
 with his autnority lying back of it, it will be, as 
 men now are, of small force in controlling the 
 appetites and passions. Men fear but slightly the 
 reaction upon themselves of violated law, which 
 may be regarded as penalty in distinction from 
 punishment. 
 
 The sphere of moral law is the control of the 
 Sphere oi ^^^^ himself iu his preferences and 
 moral law. choices. Disregarding outward manifes- 
 tations it takes cognizance of that which can be 
 known only to the individual himself and to God, 
 of that which in the Scriptures is called " the 
 heart." This is its grand peculiarity. It asserts 
 its prerogative just where moral forces have plaj 
 and moral battles are waged. 
 
MORAL LAW. 83 
 
 This law, or affirmation of obligation, cornea 
 from within a man, as any law must by (,„„„ ,„„ 
 which a man is " a law unto himself." "'""'n. 
 It is given by the moral reason when the occasion 
 conies, and is possible only on the condition that 
 there be a being possessed of intellect, sensibility, 
 and will. With this condition the idea and aflSr- 
 mation of obligation is given by the moral reason, 
 just as the idea of beauty is given by the aes- 
 thetic reason on condition of intellect and sensi- 
 bility, or as the idea of space is given by the pure 
 reason. 
 
 The occasion comes when there is opportunity 
 for choice between a higher and a lower good. 
 Obligation is primarily obligation to choose, and 
 choice must always be between two objects re- 
 garded as good, or between two principles of ac- 
 tion I'egavded as productive of a good. 
 
 But though the law is thus from within the 
 man, it is vet not of him as having choice Socrates, 
 and will, but comes by necessity, and K»nt. 
 as from a somewhat apart from himself. Hence 
 Socrates spoke of it as his demon ; hence Adam 
 Smith called it " the man within the breast ; " and 
 \ience the comparison by Kant of the moral law 
 to the stari-y heavens as equally wonderful, and 
 tis equally apart from himself. Only too, in the 
 fact of a moral law thus given, could Kant have 
 found what he regarded as the strongest proof of 
 the being of a God who is a moral governor. It is 
 
84 VORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 an adequate, and tSe only adequate proof. From 
 the law of cause nid effect, as well as from the 
 revealed fact that wc ute in the image of God, we 
 may infer that a morrvl natiue, and ro moral law, 
 are involved in the personality of God as they are 
 in our owa. 
 
DIVISION V. 
 
 THE PERSON. 
 
 Wb have now examined the conditions for 
 choice, and for action from choice by man as a 
 being under moral law. In doing this we have 
 considered the intellect, the sensibility, the will, 
 and the moral nature, separately. This it was 
 necessary to do, but we are to be careful not to 
 regard them as separate entities or agents. It is 
 not the intellect that thinks, or the sensibility 
 that feels, or the will that chooses. It is the man, 
 the one indivisible, intelligent, self-conscious, free 
 agent that thinks, and feels, and chooses, and acts 
 from choice. We thus find, 
 
 THE PEKSON, OE EGO. 
 
 We find a being who knows himself as the sub- 
 ject of phenomena, and so can say I. 
 
 This, no being below man can do. No animal 
 can do it, nor the sun, nor the stars ; and the 
 power to do it places man above them all. This 
 knowledge of himself as the subject of phenomena 
 and yet distinct from them is consciousness ; and 
 the knowledge of himself as the subject of moral 
 
86 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 phenomena that pertain to his own actions is at 
 the basis of conscience. Finding such a being, we 
 find, not an act, but its source. "We do not find 
 the quality of acts as right or wrong, but rights 
 and obligations, righteousness and wickedness, as 
 pertaining to a person who chooses, and who 
 knows with himself whether he chooses or does 
 not choose in accordance with moral law. Here 
 we find, not faculties which we may name, but a 
 being who possesses these, and is more than they. 
 Here we find the tree which must be made good 
 if its fruit is to be good. 
 
DIVISION VL 
 
 EIGHT AND WKONQ. 
 
 Thus far we have been investigating the con- 
 stitution of man as furnishing the con- jj,^,„ ^, 
 ditions of choice and action from choice ■'«"«""y- 
 under moral law. Both the conditions and the law 
 have their origin as independently of the will of 
 man as his physical system. His active principles 
 he did not originate, their relations he did not es- 
 tablish, he did not give their law. We now come 
 to man, not only as so and so constituted, but as 
 choosing from the influence of these principles 
 and under this law. This brings us to a region 
 wholly different from that in which we have been. 
 We have been in a region of necessity, we now 
 come into one of choice and of freedom. 
 
 Of freedom 
 
 Towards this point everything that pre- 
 cedes converges ; from it everything that manifests 
 character radiates. Through this, man comes to 
 his highest distinction and prerogative, that by 
 which he is able to dispose of himself in choosing 
 his own end. All creatures below man are sub- 
 ject by necessity to the law of their being. Man 
 chooses whether he will or will not be subject to 
 this law. 
 
88 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 That man has thus a moral nature implies noth- 
 ing praiseworthy in him. It may be, and is, an 
 infallible indication of a moral nature in God, and 
 of his will that we should be under moral law • 
 but till we reach choice and freedom under the 
 law given through that nature there is no virtue 
 or vice, nothing right or wrong, and no ground for 
 reward or punishment. But in reaching choice 
 under moral law we find all these. Especially do 
 
 Bight and "^° °°^ ^^^ ^'^^ t^® ^""^^ ^^'^^ *^® WOrds 
 
 wrong. right and wrong. The object of choice is 
 a good ; the act of choice is right or wrong. The 
 theory of right was referred to in the Introduc- 
 tion, but from its prominence in moral discussions 
 it requires further attention. 
 
 Might has commonly been supposed to be the 
 ultimate, or rather the moral idea. So 
 
 \Fhewell , . tttt i i mi i • 
 
 it is made by Whewell. " ihe adjective 
 right" he says, " signifies conformable to rule; and 
 it is used with reference to the object of the rule. 
 To be temperate is the right way to be healthy. 
 To labor is the right y^aj to gain money. In 
 these cases the adjective right is used relatively, 
 that is, relatively to the object of the rule." 
 
 "It has been said also that we may have a 
 series of actions, each of which is a means to the 
 next as an end. A man labors that be may gain 
 money, that he may educate his children; he 
 would educate his children in order that they may 
 prosper in the world. In these cases the inferioi 
 
R16HT AND WRONG. 89 
 
 snds lead to higher ones, and derive their value 
 from these. Each subordinate action aims at the 
 end next above it as a good. And the rules which 
 prescribe such actions derive their imperative force 
 and validity each from the rule above it. The 
 superior rule supplies a reason for the inferior. 
 The rule to labor derives its force from the rule to 
 seek gain ; this rule derives its force (in the case 
 we are considering) from the rule to educate our 
 children; this again has for its reason toforwara 
 the prosperity of our children." 
 
 " But besides such subordinate rules there must 
 be a supreme rule of human action. For the suc- 
 cession of means and ends with the corresponding 
 series of subordinate and superior rules must some- 
 where terminate. And the inferior ends would 
 have no value as leading to the highest, except 
 the highest had a value of its own. The superior 
 rules could give no validity to the subordinate 
 ones, except there were a supreme rule from which 
 the validity of all these were ultimately derived. 
 Therefore there is a supreme ride of human ac- 
 tion. That which is conformable to the supreme 
 rule is absolutely right; and is called right simplj 
 without relation to a special end. The opposition 
 to right is wrong." 
 
 " The supreme rule of human action may also 
 be described by its object. ' 
 
 " The object of the supreme rule of human ac- 
 tion is spoken of as the true end of human action, 
 
90 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 the ultimate or supreme good, the summum honum 
 .... The question why ? respecting human ac- 
 tions demands a reason -which may be given by a 
 reference from a lower rule to a higher. Why 
 ought I to be frugal or industrious? In order 
 that I may not want a maintenance. Why must 
 I avoid want ? Because I must seek to act inde- 
 pendently. Why should I act independently ? 
 That I may act rightly." 
 
 " Hence, with regard to the supreme rule the 
 question why? admits of no further answer. 
 Why must I do what is right? Because it is 
 right. Why should I do what I ought? Because 
 I ought. The supreme rule supplies a rule for 
 that which it commands by being the supreme 
 rule." 
 
 " Rightness and wrongness are, as we have al- 
 ready said, the moral qualities of actions." 
 
 According to this, when a subordinate end is to 
 All rules ^® gained right action becomes so by its 
 wd^J^cmd! relation to that end ; but when the high- 
 "^- est end is to be gained, right action has 
 
 no relation to that, but only to the rule for attain- 
 ing it. We have thus, as a ground of right ac- 
 tion, sometimes an end, and sometimes a rule that 
 is simply a means for attaining the end. But hav- 
 ing admitted that the object of the supreme rule 
 of human action is the true end of human action, 
 no reason can be given why the supreme rule 
 ihould not hold the same relation to the suprems 
 
BIGHT AND WRONG. 91 
 
 end 01 good that any other rale does to its end. 
 That would make all rules, as they obviously are, 
 Becondary, and would carry moral action back to 
 the choice of a supreme end. 
 
 In saying that we are to do right because it is 
 right, right is made ultimate. But for Doing right 
 a man to do right because it is right, right 
 meaning by that as Whewell does, conformity to a 
 rule with no knowledge of the object of the rule 
 or of its validity from that, is puerile. The only 
 other meaning of this phrase, which many regard 
 as expressing the sum of disinterestedness and vir- 
 tue, is that a man is to do what he conceives to 
 oe his duty, because he so conceives it. This a 
 man may rationally do, but it is not making right 
 ultimate. It presupposes, if the agent be intelli- 
 gent, an investigation, or a knowledge in some 
 way, of the grounds of duty and of right. It is a 
 singular view of disinterestedness and of virtue to 
 suppose that they consist in a regard for an ab- 
 straction for its own sake, whereas the teaching of 
 the Bible is that we are to love God with all our 
 hearts and our neighbor as ourselves, and that to 
 do this is to be disinterested and virtuous. 
 
 Whewell speaks of rightness and wrongness as 
 the moral quality of actions. So we are accus- 
 tomed to speak, and it is remarkable to ^,^^4 ^ ^ 
 what an extent many have been misled endtahMM 
 oy this, as if there were something moral '"*"»»«' 
 Uiherent in the act itseK. If we use rightness and 
 
92 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 wrongness, or the adjectives right and wrong, aa 
 we constantly do, to mean the fitness or unfitness 
 of an act to accomplish its end whatever that may 
 be, then the quality inheres in the act ; but it is 
 not a moral quality. The burglar says, I entered 
 bj' the window ; his companion replies, that was 
 right. The policeman, seeking to catch the burg- 
 lar, says, I entered by the window, and his com- 
 panion says, that was right. In this sense of it 
 right depends on the judgment. When an assist- 
 ant surgeon tells his superior that he has cut off 
 a limb, the term right or wrong in the response 
 will have no reference to motives or to any moral 
 quality, but solely to his judgment. In this view 
 of it a man may intend to do right and do wrong. 
 He may intend to do wrong and do right. He 
 may even be virtuous in doing wrong and wicked 
 in doing right. 
 
 But while the quality of rightness and wrong- 
 Bight M ^^^^ i"^ *^® above sense may belong to 
 UyMttotho '^^ 3,ct, no moral quality can belong to it 
 •"'• except in a figurative way. It is con- 
 
 venient to call an asylum for the cure of lunatics 
 a lunatic asylum, and so it is convenient to call an 
 act done by a moral agent acting morally a moral 
 act ; but there is no more a moral quality in the 
 act than there is lunacy in the asylum. Moral 
 quality can belong only to a person. 
 
 The system which thus makes right the ulti 
 Right imme- mate moral idea has two phases. The 
 
 Uately iotu- „ , , ,, ... 
 
 .#« iirst regards the sense or intuition 03 
 
BIGHT AND WEONG. 98 
 
 right as immediate and infallible. An action ia 
 right because it is right, and there is an immedi- 
 ate intuition of it. This not only admits of no 
 rule as a standard, but of no regard to conse- 
 quences. The second phase of this system not 
 only allows, but requires, the use of the intellect 
 in seeking for relations, consequences, utilities, 
 but says that the intuition of right is given only 
 in connection with these. It does not, Theintui- 
 however, tell us what the particular re- mateiyde- 
 
 ... , T 1 !• ,1 pends on the 
 
 lations and consequences needed for the approhen- 
 intuition are. Fairly analyzed it will be good. 
 found that these can be resolved into a good in 
 Bome form, and so, that this system is coincident 
 with the one we advocate. If the question be 
 whether it is right to sell intoxicating drinks, or 
 to give monej^ to street beggars, there can be no 
 rational intuition of right till it is known what 
 will be for the good of the individuals in question 
 and of the public. 
 
 But are there not some actions right or wrong 
 in themselves ? No. No action can ^^^ „„t 
 have moral quality in itself. The only Jjfo^g"n 
 meaning that can be attached to that '•^emBeiyea 
 phraseology is that the person doing the act is 
 praiseworthy or blameworthy. Except figura- 
 tively no action can be rewarded or punished. 
 Not in the action but in the doer of it do we find 
 moral quality, and him it is that we reward and 
 punish. In him we find righteousness or unright- 
 
H MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 eousness, goodness or wickedness. These involve 
 moral qualities which can belong only to a per- 
 son. The action may indicate, but cannot possess, 
 them. 
 
 Is there then nothing right or good in itself ? 
 Righteous- Yes. Righteousness, regarded as a form 
 gooduoss. of constant activity in the will, is right 
 in itself, and goodness, goodwilling, is good in it- 
 self. Of these the products in action are right 
 and good, but only relatively, and not in them- 
 selves. Nothing IS wrong in itself always and 
 everywhere but the disregard of moral law, usu- 
 ally shown in selfishness, and its sure offspring 
 malignity ; and nothing is right in itself always 
 and everywhere but love, and those forms of an- 
 tagonism to selfishness and malignity which love 
 must necessarily assume. 
 
DIVISION vn. 
 
 MAN CIIOOSING. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 AMEENATrVTBS AND LAW. 
 
 Having now considered what is preliminary to 
 choice as a moral act, and also right and wrong 
 as related to such an act, we wish to know pre- 
 cisely what takes place when we thus choose. 
 
 In order to this we will suppose a man given 
 to the use of strong drink, and with the J^^ inmtr,. 
 pay for a day's work in his pocket, to be '""'■ 
 deliberating whether he shall take it home to his 
 suffering wife and children, or go to the saloon. 
 The question is between choosing in accordance 
 with the cravings of appetite on the one hand, or 
 with the promptings of affection and the behest of 
 the moral law on the other. It may not be needed, 
 but as the want of distinctness at this point has 
 been so great, I will venture to illustrate the rela- 
 tions of the several factors in a simple way, after 
 the manner of the " Outline Study of Man." 
 
96 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 The person deliberating we will represent by 
 the line A. We will then place Affection, B, and 
 Appetite, C, in front of him as the motives by 
 which he is directly addressed, the one drawing 
 him upward along the line D, the other down- 
 ward along the line E. We will then place Obli- 
 gation, or the Moral Law, F, back of him, and 
 represent its behests as proceeding along the lines 
 G and H, thus : — „ -Q' 
 
 This, as I suppose, presents the relation of the 
 factors in all cases of moral action. The direct 
 motives in this case are affection and appetite. 
 In each there is a good; but one is higher, more 
 human and ennobling than the other; and it is 
 between these two kinds of good that the choice 
 is to be made. In a being rightly disposed, affec- 
 tion would win without the aid of the moral nat- 
 ure. The man within the breast would simply 
 stand by and smile assent; or, if the tendency 
 towards appetite were too strong, would say. No. 
 But when appetite is strong, and affection is 
 strong, and the moral nature, now taking thfl 
 form of conscience, ia awake, we see what a strug- 
 
MAN CHOOSING. 97 
 
 f!;Io of the elemental forces there may be. But, 
 be the struggle greater or less, the choice itself, 
 the final decision by which the man disposes of 
 himself, is his own free act. There is no 
 pfficient cause of it, no proper cause of 
 any kind, out of himself. The act is simple, and 
 so cannot be defined. It is direct, requiring no 
 use of means, and so no one can tell another how 
 to do it, and no one can interpose to prevent it. 
 No force from without or within can so interfere 
 as to render the act otherwise than free without 
 subverting the nature. Force has no relation to 
 it, and motives have no causal relation. They 
 have no eJBBciency, The man himself, not his 
 will, but he, the agent, is the cause of the act, 
 and therefore he is responsible. 
 
 We here see that while there is but one force 
 drawing the man to choose wrongly, there contending 
 are three acting to lead him to choose '""*'■ 
 rightly. On one side we have simply the crav- 
 ing of appetite. On the other side we have (1.) 
 affection for his family, having sole reference to 
 their good. We have (2.) a sense of the base- 
 ness of sensuality and of the greater consonance 
 with his manhood of, the higher act, with its inev- 
 itable reflex good to himself. We have (3.) the 
 affirmation of obligation, the moral law. 
 
 Of these three the force of each may vary in- 
 definitely. (1.) Pure affection, with no con- 
 tciousness of any other motive, may lead the man 
 t 
 
98 MOIIAL SCIEXCK. 
 
 to go to his family. As thus prompted the action 
 would be beautiful. 
 
 (2.) A regard to his own dignity and good 
 may be the preponderating motive. The reflex 
 of the act in good upon the man himself could 
 not be the motive in the very first act; but such 
 good reveals itself at once, and is a rational and 
 worthy motive. If there were to be no 
 other there would be no selfishness. A 
 man is not to blame for finding enjoyment in do- 
 ing good if he cannot help it. This reflex good 
 to the agent thus inevitably connected with affec- 
 tion, and indeed with benevolence in its widest 
 form, has led some to say that an act purely from 
 affection or benevolence is impossible. It would 
 be if the act could not be done without conscious 
 reference to this good; but it can be, and is, just 
 as a boy plays ball with no reference to the health 
 and sound sleep promoted by it. 
 
 But (3."> we have the affirmation of obligation, 
 Place and the moral law. The relation of this to 
 
 . Hlce of con- 
 
 ience the act of choicc is wholly different from 
 that of either of the others. It is not an induce- 
 ment standing in front to be itself chosen, but 
 is a voice from behind saying of the path that 
 leads to the higher good, " This is the way, 
 wnlk ye in it." It presupposes two or more gocid 
 ijiings, causes or means of a good, in front, be- 
 tween which choice is to be made, and its funo- 
 '.ion is to demand the choice of the higher good 
 
MAN CHOOSIXG. 9i) 
 
 [n this view of it there is u double Qiotive for 
 the choice of the higher good: one, its iiitrhisic 
 value; the other, the imperative of moral law. Of 
 these the imperative may so occupy attention that 
 the man will seem to himself to act wholly from 
 that. He may say that he does it because ho 
 .ought, from a sense of duty, from principle, from 
 a regard to the right, and because it is right; and 
 this may be the determining element in his choice 
 as between the two forma of good; but if there 
 were not in some intrinsic value, aside from the 
 affirmation of obligation, a reason why the choice 
 sliould be made at all, obligation must base itself 
 upon nothing. It could not be rationally affirm- 
 ed. No one can be under obligation to anything 
 for wliich there is not, aside from the obligation, 
 more reason than there is against it. In such ac- 
 tion the moral element may be more or less prev- 
 alent, but will always be present while reason 
 holds its seat. 
 
 Having thus seen what takes place when onlj 
 two active principles are in question, we need U 
 know what all those principles are, and their rela 
 tions to each other ; and to find a supreme law 
 We have ali-eady considered them separately ; but 
 perhaps we may be aided in apprehending their 
 relations if we present them thus : — 
 
100 
 
 JIOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 THE PERSON, 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 fz; 
 o 
 
 K 
 H 
 
 hi 
 < 
 
 Into, and above 
 this nature man 
 was put to dress 
 
 uiid to keep it. 
 
 When a choice 
 is to be made be- 
 tween any two 
 principles of ac- 
 tion an iuflueiice 
 i s supposed t o 
 pass from each 
 along the lines A 
 and B to the Per- 
 son, and also from 
 the conscience 
 along the lines C 
 andD 
 
 Righteous I n- ■» 
 
 dignation, ( 
 
 Complacent C 
 
 Love, 
 
 Rational Love, ) 
 Self-Love, v 
 
 Rights, ) 
 
 Brother and Sis- ^ 
 ter, f 
 
 Parental, 
 Conjugal, etc.. 
 
 a V 
 
 Esteem, 
 Power, 
 Knowledge, g g 
 Property, '^.a 
 Libert}', 
 Society, 
 
 Moral 
 
 Affection* 
 
 Rational 
 
 and 
 
 MoraL 
 
 Natural 
 Affections 
 
 " Desires. 
 
 s 
 
 Instincts. 
 
 Sex, 
 
 Thirst, 
 
 Hunger, 
 
 Activity, 
 
 Sleep, 
 
 Air, 
 
 Appetites 
 
MAN CHOOSING. 101 
 
 After what has preceded, little need be said of 
 che enumeration and arrangement in the jheappe 
 above column. The felt needs of air, '""■ 
 sleep, and activity are not usually placed among 
 the appetites ; but as originating in the body, as 
 periodical, and as having a physical limit, they 
 come under the definition, and the regulation of 
 them is so within our power and so essential to 
 well-being, that attention needs to be drawn to 
 them as subject to moral law. 
 
 The desires may be variously arranged. In 
 the pi'eceding column, that of existence and that 
 of good are placed on the side as pervading the 
 rest. This they necessarily do. They 
 
 Th0 deairefl 
 
 are also distinguished from the others by 
 
 the fact that their objects can never be directly 
 
 Bought. 
 
 But whatever may be said of the arrangement 
 of the active powers, what is contended for is, — 
 
 First, that they differ from each other, and that 
 that difference is intuitively perceived, just as the 
 difference between memory and judgment is per- 
 ceived. 
 
 Second, that some are higher than others. By 
 tliose who have no theory, and no principle of 
 iinangement, the terms higher and lower are con- 
 stantly applied to these principles. 
 
 Tliird, that as the principles are higher or 
 lower, the quality of the good from their activity 
 s higher or lower, and that this difference of 
 
102 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 :iuality is perceived intuitively. Speaking of the 
 " springs of action," Mr. Martineau says, " Imme- 
 diately on their juxtaposition, we intuitively dis- 
 cern the higher quality of one than another, giv- 
 ing it a divine and authoritative right of prefer- 
 ence." 
 
 In connection with this higher quality of the 
 uighMt good, it is to be noticed that as we pass 
 
 good ., , , 
 
 wholly in up it comes to be more and more m our 
 power. own power till we reach the highest, 
 
 when it becomes wholly so. For the gratification 
 of the appetites, the desires, and the natural affec- 
 tions we are dependent on what is without us, 
 iiiid often beyond our reach, but no one can pre- 
 vent us from loving God and our neighbor, or de- 
 prive us of the good there is from that and the 
 accompanying approval of our conscience. Uere 
 we have an independent source of contentment 
 and blessedness. " A good man shall be satisfied 
 from himself." The highest duty and the highest 
 joy being thus naturally connected, we can see 
 how it is that in the Scriptures joy is made a 
 duty. 
 
 We say. Fourth, that the moral nature, as af- 
 fii-ming obligation, is not itself an active principle 
 having its own object, but that it acts directly 
 upon the will, or rather upon the man himself, to 
 determine him in his choice between two or more 
 active principles or ends. Of principles of actior 
 ill conflict it will always require hiin to choose th« 
 
MAN CHOOSING. 103 
 
 higher. If there were not principles of action be- 
 Bides itself between which the man might choose, 
 the conscience would have no scope. 
 
 We say, Fifth, that the law of the conditioning 
 and the conditioned gives us a scientific i^„ „, „„„. 
 test of the relation of the active princi- andTcra^ 
 pies to each other as lower and higher, ''°""'*- 
 this law having been as strictly observed in the 
 upbuilding of nature as the law of gravitation is 
 in its permanence. This law, like that of gravi 
 tation, was known and practically acted upon 
 long before the conception of it entered into sci- 
 ence. 
 
 We say. Sixth, that from the law of the condi- 
 tioning and the conditioned the law of j^„ „, u^. 
 limitation is directly derived, and that it "*"™' 
 is by this law that the normal action of the lower 
 powers in their relation to the higher is to be 
 tested. This law, as stated in previous editions, 
 and in the " Outline Study of Man," is, that we 
 are at liberty to bring into exercise every lower 
 power, and to derive from it what enjoyment we 
 may, provided such exercise be carried only to 
 the point where it will best minister to aU that is 
 above it. 
 
 This gives us the natural law of self-denial. It 
 is the denial for our own sakes of a lower princi- 
 ple of action when it would be inconsistent with 
 :he best action of any one above it. That such 
 denial should be called self-dea'\a,] does not speak 
 
104 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Well for that self. The Christian law would re- 
 quire us to take into account the good of others, 
 and to deny ourselves for that. 
 
 If now we begin at the bottom of the column 
 Conscience ^^ ^ctive principles, and go upwards, we 
 puWto° '" shall find that the conscience, which has 
 principles, jurisdiction along the whole line, will 
 enforce the law of limitation at every point. Ap- 
 petite will be at work as an independent principle, 
 and may be indulged up to the point where it 
 will best minister to the health of the body, and 
 to the highest efficiency of the powers above it ; 
 but the moment it tends to transcend that limit 
 the conscience puts in a veto. And not only so, 
 but, since appetite has for its object only an in- 
 ferior interest, the law of limitation may arrest it 
 before reaching the point determined by its own 
 law. Not seldom do higher interests require this. 
 The mother who might properly satisfy her own 
 appetite fully is bound to arrest it, if need be, for 
 the sake of her famishing children. As subordi- 
 nate, the law of appetite, its own law, is thus 
 constantly liable to exceptions through the de- 
 mands' of the higher nature, and in accordance 
 with the law of limitation. And so it is all the 
 way up. In connection with every lower princi- 
 ple of action there are exceptions, and the law of 
 limitation comes in, until we reach the highest 
 ihe prinoi- principle of all. We then find a princi 
 
 pie and law i i i , 
 
 jfiove pie that has no limitation, and a law 
 
MAN CHOOSING. 105 
 
 that baa uo exception. We find The Peinciplb 
 OF Love, and The Law of Love. There is no 
 possibility of loving God too much, and no danger 
 of loving our neighbor better than ourselves, and 
 80 there is no limitation. There can be no cir- 
 cumstances in which we shall not be under obli- 
 gation to love God with all our heart, and our 
 neighbor as ourselves, and so there is no excep- 
 tion. 
 
 The natural and supreme law of our constitu- 
 tion, thus found by a fair analysis of the Scop« of the 
 powers, and an exposition of their rela- law. 
 tion to each other, will, of course, take cognizance 
 of the whole column of active principles, whether 
 to prevent the encroachment of the lower upon 
 the higher, or of the higher upon the lower. As 
 man now is, the chief danger is that the lower 
 principles will encroach upon the higher. Hence 
 the law of limitation is to be carefully guarded ; 
 but having once reached through that and the law 
 of the conditioning and the conditioned the su- 
 preme law of love, that law can no more permit 
 excess in a higher principle as it is related to a 
 lower, than in a lower principle as it is related to 
 a higher. It can no more permit the injury of 
 health for the sake of knowledge, than it can per- 
 mit an indulgence in appetite that would prevent 
 the gaining of knowledge. 
 
 We thus see that the nighest activity of rational 
 ove wjth reference to its own ends as having 
 
i06 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 value in themselves, is the very thing, and the only 
 Dnion of thing, that the law demands. Seeing thia 
 lore. we find a perfect coincidence between 
 
 the law of our being and ibs highest active prin- 
 ciple, and thus do we marry them — LAW and 
 Love, the two mightiest forces in the universe. 
 It is this that we have sought. This, and this 
 alone, so brings harmony into the constitution 
 that law, and reason, and impulse can work to- 
 gether. We thus find a perfect law without bond- 
 age, and perfect freedom without license. We 
 find a perfect law without bondage, because there 
 can be no bondage where love reigns ; and we find 
 perfect freedom without license, because there can 
 be no license where law reigns. The highest har- 
 mony of the universe is in the love of a rational 
 being that is coincident with the law of that being 
 rationally affirmed ; and the deepest jar and dis- 
 cord is from the love, persistent and utter, of such 
 a being in opposition to his law. It is because 
 there is in the Divine Being this harmony of law 
 with love that He is perfect. It is because this 
 harmony is required in the divine government 
 that that is perfect ; and no philosophy for the 
 regulation of human conduct can be both vital 
 and safe in which that same union is not consum- 
 mated. Such a union is demonstrably the only 
 condition of perfection for the individual, or foi 
 society ; and when it shall be universally consura 
 Biated the niilleniiiuin will Imve conie. 
 
MAN CHOOSING. 107 
 
 Thus it is that while love is a rational princi- 
 ple of action, and the highest possible ihaiawoi 
 
 • 1 -i • , ,1 ■• 11 love the law 
 
 principle, it is at the same time and al- ofourbeing 
 ways obligatory, and so the law of love becomes 
 the law of our being. In substance, and as ex- 
 pressing his inmost nature, love is the one word 
 uttered by God in the Bible. " God is uttered bj 
 Love." It is the one word that em- '^°'"- 
 bodies his commands as expressed in the Bible. 
 
 " Thou shalt LOVE the Lord thy God with nil 
 thy hfcart, and thy neighbor as thyself." By the con- 
 It is also the one imperative word ut- mun. 
 tered by Him through the constitution of man 
 regarded as a whole; and in the coincidence of 
 these two utterances we find a perfect proof tluit 
 both are from Him. 
 
 In the highest generalization, defining love to 
 be the choice of the good of conscious loveana 
 being impartially and for its own sake, '""-''"•" 
 the law of love will include self-love as well as 
 love to others. Still, since each one is specially 
 intrusted to himself, antl has appetites, passions, 
 interests, temptations, that cannot be shared by 
 others, it is better for practical purposes to regard 
 ■elf-love as a separate principle. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 WICKEDNESS. 
 
 We have now seen what the harmony of the 
 3onstitution would be, and how it may be at- 
 tained. We turn for a moment to the revei'se of 
 this. In the possibility that man can reject the 
 law of his being we find the possibility of both sin 
 and immorality. 
 
 " Sin is the transgression of the law." It is 
 what the Scriptures call it, " anomia" 
 lawlessness. It is the choice of some 
 L-nd or principle of action lower than the highest 
 111 id making it supreme. It is the practical rejec- 
 tion by a rational and moral being of the law of 
 Ills being, the moral law, the one law for the con- 
 unity oi the ^^'°^ °^ moral beings whoever and wher- 
 law. gygj, tiiey may be. This law must be re 
 
 coived or rejected as a whole. " For whosoever 
 shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one 
 point is guilty of all." Any other principle would 
 permit each man to transgress in the directior. 
 of his strongest propensity and then to excuse 
 himself, as so many do, on the ground of their 
 obedience in other respects. 
 
WICR.EDNESS. 109 
 
 This unity of the law and the necessity of re 
 ceiving or rejecting it as a whole divides t„oc1ms« 
 men into two classes — those who ac- "'"en. 
 cept the law, and those who do not. None obey 
 it perfectly, but some recognize it, justify it, ac- 
 cept it, and make it their purpose to conform 
 their lives to it. With others there is no practi- 
 cal recognition of the law as a whole. It is not 
 their supreme purpose to make it the law of their 
 life. 
 
 For those who do accept it, it becomes both a 
 principle and a law of love, an active principle 
 like any other, and the supreme law as proclaimed 
 by the moral nature. For such there are as many 
 forms of beneficence as there are of besetments 
 and liabilities, of wants and woes among ^^^^^^ „£ 
 men ; and the merit of the agent in re- """'''• 
 lieving them will be measured, not by the amount 
 done, but on the principle of the widow's two 
 mites, by the amount of self-sacrificing love. 
 Other motives may lead to beneficence, but the 
 only pure source and true measure of it is self 
 sacrificing love. 
 
 For those, on the other hand, who do not accept 
 the law there are as many forms of sin as there 
 are active principles lower than the highest, and 
 that can gain occasional or permanent control. It 
 will matter much to the individual and to society 
 which of the lower principles predominates ; but 
 be it which it may, the character "will be rad- 
 
110 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Ically wrong unless the principle and the law of 
 love be made supreme. 
 
 This unity of the law and necessity of receiving 
 Nosepara- it Hs a wliole, if at all, shows too the im- 
 lon an/mo^ possibility of drawing a definite line be- 
 "•''*^- tween religion and morality. It is usual 
 
 and convenient to distinguish duties of which God 
 is the object, and offenses directly against him, 
 from those of which man is the object, and offenses 
 directly against him, and thus to make separate 
 departments of morality and religion. We say of 
 men that they are moral, but not religious ; and 
 it has been one of the great delusions and perver- 
 sions of the world to suppose that they could be 
 religious without being moral. Most religions 
 have been constructed on this supposition, and 
 not a few have incorporated the grossest immo- 
 ralities into their religious rites. But as the law 
 is the moral law, any infraction of it is strictly, if 
 not technically, an immorality ; and as it is a 
 divine law, any infraction of it is disobedience to 
 God, and so irreligious. A true religion must in- 
 clude and require all the duties of morality, but 
 no religion not from God ever did, or ever will, 
 thus include and require those duties. 
 
DIVISION VIII. 
 
 OF CONSCIENOB. 
 
 In treating of the moral nature I said nothing 
 of conscience. The reason was that I 
 include in conscience only those plienom- nature and 
 
 I* 1 . I'll conscience 
 
 ena from the moral nature wluch relate "ot idenu- 
 to our own conduct. Through the moral 
 nature we are furnished with moral ideas, by 
 which we are enabled to judge on moral subjects 
 as on others where our own conduct is not in ques- 
 tion. We thus judge of abstract questions of 
 morality, and of the conduct of others. But ac- 
 >ording to its etymology (con-scio, a conscience 
 knowing Avith), conscience is strictly the ''"""J'- 
 knowing of ourselves together with a knowledge 
 of moral law as it is related to us. As Asoom- 
 commonly understood, however, con- deratood. 
 icience includes not only knowledge, but also the 
 feelings which precede, accompany, and follow 
 .he moral act. It presupposes a moral nature 
 that furnishes the two fundamental ideas of rights 
 and of obligation, and includes all the phenomena 
 that arise when either of these ideas is regulative 
 
112 JIOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 in our own conduct. Thus, the immediate rec- 
 ognition of lights by children and ignorant pev- 
 sons is said to be from conscience. They know 
 themselves together with the moral law that is 
 involved m the iinowledge of rights, and, when 
 their own rights are concerned, have a peculiar 
 class of feelings which are attributed to the con- 
 science. 
 
 But the chief business of conscience is to regu 
 coMcience late our choices. This it does, or seeks 
 ehoices. to do, by the affirmation of obligation. 
 In such cases we have presented to us always 
 an alternative. We may act from a higher or 
 a lower principle of action. We may choose a 
 nobler or a baser end, and the moral nature, 
 now acting as conscience, affirms obligation to 
 Elements of choose the higher principle and the 
 tonscience. jjobler end. Then will come delibera- 
 tion for a longer or shorter period, often a pro- 
 tracted and severe struggle ; then the choice ; then 
 the selection of means to carry out the choice ; and 
 then, on reflection, self-approbation or rcuiorso. 
 These are the phenomena, and so far as the moral 
 nature is concerned in them, they are all commonly 
 attributed to conscience. 
 
 We may tlien define conscience to be, first, tha 
 knowledge of ourselves together with the 
 
 D«Qnit]onfl. , i i r i i i 
 
 know ledge of moral law, and as we dr« 
 related, to that. This excludes feeling. 
 
UK CONSCIENCE. 118 
 
 Or, second, we may define it to be tlie whole 
 moral consciousness of man in view of Lis own 
 actions and as related to moral law. This will 
 include the testifying state which accompanies the 
 struggle while deliberation is going on, and also 
 tlie self-approbation or remorse that may follow. 
 
 From what has now been said we may see how 
 far the conscience is infallible. 
 
 The moral nature necessarily affirming moral 
 law in both its branches, when a m )r,il conseienM 
 being sees that a proposed action \\ill iibie. 
 come under that law, the conscience will judge 
 of it infallibly as right or wrong. Accepting the 
 law respecting rights, the conscience will infal- 
 libly judge it wrong to steal because stealing is, 
 by its definition, the violation of a right. There 
 may be question whether a given act comes under 
 the law, and the judgment may err, but when the 
 act is known to come under the law the judgment 
 is infallible. 
 
 We next inquire whether the conscience can be 
 educated. 
 
 Those who make it wholly intuitive necessarily 
 say no. And as they say on the one Can hecn- 
 
 ■ 11 • 11,1 ii Bcionce be 
 
 hand that it cannot be educated, so they educated? 
 Bay on the other that it cannot be blunted or 
 Beared. 
 
 But if we regard conscience as including feeling, 
 as practically we must, we have an indirect con- 
 trol over it, call it educatirn or what you please, 
 s 
 
114 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 by which the whole tone of our moral life may be 
 changed. We may habitually neglect to bring our 
 actions before the tribunal of conscience at all 
 we may deal unfairly with ourselves and bring 
 them disingenuously, — and one of these we shall 
 certainly do if we choose a wrong supreme end , 
 or we may form tlie habit of bringing our actions 
 uniformly and fairly before that tribunal. Be- 
 sides, the general law of feeling applies here, by 
 which, if it be rationally cherished, it becomes 
 purer and stronger, or, if it be repressed, its foun- 
 tains are dried up. Hence the conscience re- 
 garded as a whole, may become more and more 
 sensitive and pervasive, or it may become blunted 
 and seared. The man may become hardened, 
 " past feeling." " twice dead," " plucked up by 
 the roots ; " or his path may be that of the just, 
 "shining more and more unto the perfect day." 
 
 Looking back now over the system we have 
 considered, it is claimed for it, — 
 
 1st. That it is drawn from the constitution of 
 man and accords with tt. 
 
 2d. That it accords with Christianity. 
 
 3d. That through the principle of the condi- 
 tioning and the conditioned it brings man intc 
 harmony with nature. 
 
 4th. That in the law of limitation it furnishes a 
 principle to be applied by the individual in ad 
 
OF CONSCIENCE. 116 
 
 justing tbe claims of each tendency and spring of 
 action except the highest. 
 
 5th. That it reconciles discrepant systems. 
 
 6th. That, if fully accepted, it would result in 
 the perfection of the individual and of society. 
 
PART II. 
 
 PRACTICAL. 
 
 LOVE AS A LAW. 
 
 MAN ACTING FROM CHOICE UNDEE MORAL LAW 
 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 
 
 ^O^ AS A LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM THE LAW Of 
 LOVE. 
 
 Having considered the Law of Love, we now 
 proceed to Love as a Law. If we would conduct 
 life by philosophy it is not enough to know its 
 law and its end. We must also know how to 
 apply that law and to reach that end. We need 
 both parts of that perfect wisdom which it is the 
 part of moral science to teach. Perfect wisdom 
 consists in the choice of the best ends and of the 
 best means to attain them. In this, wisdom dif- 
 fers from skill, — perfect skill consisting in the 
 best use of means whatever the end may be. 
 What belongs to the choice of ends we have con- 
 sidered. Love is our general principle and primal 
 wisdom. We now come to another part of our 
 definition, and inquire what love, working under 
 tile law of limitation, would require us to do. 
 According to the Scriptures, " Love is the ful- 
 filling of the law." Hence the Law of Love and 
 of obligation or duty are coincident. The reason 
 is that love is that which the law requires, and 
 with which, if love be perfect, it ia satisfied. 
 
120 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 This is conceded, or at least not denied, by wri- 
 ters on morals ; and yet when specific duties are to 
 be deduced, they either do it wholly from the 
 Btand-point of conscience and not of love, or incon- 
 sistently, from love out of regard to the Scriptural 
 law. But accepting the Scriptural doctrine, bp« 
 lieving that the Law of Love covers the domain o/ 
 morals, we proceed to inquire what that law re- 
 quires. 
 
 This inquiry it will be observed is wholly deduc- 
 tive. In all inquiries respecting duties except the 
 highest, there are two orders of questions : The 
 first asks, What ought to be done? The second, 
 How ought it to be done ? To the broadest pos- 
 sible " What ? " on this subject, but one answer can 
 be given. " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
 with all thy heart, and thy neiglibor as thyself." 
 This is the law of love. As a spiritual act, it is 
 the primal wisdom, and, corresponding to it there ia 
 no " How ? " No one can explain to another how to 
 love, because the love is a primitive act, and no 
 means can intervene. 
 
 Thus regarded love is an act and a choice, and 
 as rational must itself have a motive. LoTeasap 
 There must be a reason on the ground motive, 
 of which love may be demanded by the con- 
 science. That reason, as we have seen, is the 
 worth of being, or its capacity of good and evil» 
 But the act having been done, the generic choice 
 having been made, love becomes a motive in all sub- 
 
LOVE AS A LAW. 121 
 
 sequent acts. The first and great question is, What 
 does the law demand ? To this the reply is, Love. 
 The second question is, What does Love demand? 
 And to every " What ? " here, there is a " How ? " 
 Or, if we please, all questions of this order may be 
 comprised in one, — How shall the demands of love 
 be carried out ? 
 
 It is in morals as in astronomy. In that we firsl 
 find the law, and then apply it. The law being 
 given, we inquire at what time the sun and moon 
 ought to bo in such relation as to produce an eclipse. 
 This inquiry is of a different order from those which 
 have it for their object to find the law, or the rea- 
 sons of it. If we suppose, with Kepler, each 
 planet to be accompanied by an angel, whose busi- 
 ness it is to see that its radius vector shall describe 
 equal areas in equal times, all the inquiries and 
 efforts of the angel might have relation solely to 
 that result ; but without understanding both the 
 law and the reasons of it, he could know nothing 
 of the philosophy of the heavens. 
 
 Failing to distinguish, at this point, as most have 
 Lore <u done, between love as an act demanded by 
 
 rhoice and , . i >, i/* • - 
 
 ts emotion, the conscieucc and itselt requiring a mo- 
 tive, and love as the motive of subsequent sub- 
 ordinate acts and demanding them, we fall into 
 confusion. In the one case we have the law 
 of love ; in the other love as a law. In the 
 first case the main element of the love is choice ' 
 1 Sea Bac Sermon, ISSL 
 
l:^2 moral science. 
 
 rather than emotion. In the second the choice is 
 implied, but emotion seems more prominent. In 
 the first the choice is hke the body of the smi, in 
 Itself dark ; in the second it is like the same body 
 with the elements of light and heat and beauty 
 gathered and floating around it. 
 
 Over the subordinate inquiries arising under love 
 offlce of 3,s a law, the conscience must watch, de- 
 wdTnte™ manding not only perfect uprightness and 
 "'' candor, but such painstaking in informing 
 
 the judgment as to secure that secondary wisdom 
 which more often bears the name, and by which 
 means are adapted to ends. But while the con- 
 science must keep watch of the processes, the pro- 
 cesses themselves are carried on by the intellect. 
 The great work of. the conscience is done in an- 
 swering the first question, and in holding the will 
 in the form of choice up to a perfect correspond- 
 ence with the law. Subsequently its work will be 
 to bring subordinate choices and specific volitions 
 nto conformity with the generic choice, and in 
 doing so, questions that will be relatively principal 
 and subordinate, the " What ? " and the " How ? " 
 will constantly arise. 
 
 Accepting then the law of love, we shall need to 
 inquire, what in the several departments 
 of duty does that law require, and how 
 are those requirements to be carried out? 
 
II. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF DUTIB8. 
 
 In answering the above questions, a classification 
 af duties is needed. 
 
 In tliis we shall be guided by that principle of sub- 
 I'rincipieof ordiuatiou, on wliich the law of limitation 
 Hon. is based, as stated in the third of the 
 
 Lectures on Moral Science. It is as true of 
 duties as it is of forces, faculties, and enjoyments, 
 that those are lower w'liich are conditional for 
 others. 
 
 But are some duties conditional for others ? 
 First de- The Condition of good work is a good in- 
 S?e. ° strument, of good fruit a good tree ; and 
 of doing good to others, and glorifying God, a good 
 man. 
 
 Our first and lowest duty will then respect our 
 own state, including both disposition and capacity. 
 The first and imperative demand of love is, that we 
 secure those conditions in ourselves, by which our 
 power to do good will be the greatest. 
 
 We thus roach our first class of duties under 
 Hrat class ti,e law of love. They are those which 
 
 of dutlos •' 
 
 Mpwi our- i-uspect ouiselvei. They respect eithei 
 
124 M01.AL SCIENCE. 
 
 our owri inward state or outward condition ; and 
 till we reach absolute perfection, will have for 
 their object a change for the better in one or the 
 other of these. They are not distinctively duties 
 to ourselves, though involving all that has com- 
 monly been regarded as such; but will include 
 everything possible to enable us to benefit others 
 and glorify God. Hence they will be held as du 
 ties, not so much from regard to ourselTes, as on 
 other and higher grounds. 
 
 The SECOND CLASS OF DUTIES are those to ow 
 fellow men. These will have for their ob- second ciasr, 
 iect, until they reach perfection, a change our'fluow 
 for the better, either in tlieir state or condi- '"™' 
 tion. 
 
 That these are lower than our duties to God wil 
 probably be conceded, but are they condi- xhesecon- 
 tional for them ? In a sense they are. ourXtie" 
 Whatever may be said of an innate or 
 connate idea of God, and of duty to him as all-per- 
 vasive, it is true that practically, and in a normal 
 state, the parent would be known before God, and 
 that God would be known through him. The sis- 
 nificance of " Our Father which art in heaven," is 
 reached only through a knowledge of what a 
 father on earth is ; and our duties to the earthly, 
 typify those to the heavenly Father, and prepare 
 us for them. 
 
 But besides this priority of time, and so a condi- 
 tioning from the order in which the faculties are 
 ieveloped, duties may be so related that one cannot 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF DUTIES. 126 
 
 oe consistently or acceptably performed except on 
 the condition that another has been. One who de- 
 frauds another may not bestow charity upon him. 
 He must be just before he is generous. In the 
 same way immediate duties to God so imply those 
 to men, tliat a man is in no condition to do the 
 ibrmer who has not done the latter. 
 
 This requires attention. It is the essence of 
 NoreUgion superstition, and has been the curse of the 
 
 without ^ 11 1 !• • 
 
 morality. race, to Irauic somethmg called religion 
 that could be gone tlirough with formally, and be 
 rested on for salvation, to the neglect of the love of 
 man, and the duties from that. Hence we need to 
 emphasize the impossibility of religion without moral- 
 ity. This the Scriptures do both in the Old Testa- 
 ment and the New. " I," says God, "hate robbery 
 for a burnt-offering." " When ye spread forth your 
 hands, I will hide mine eyes irom you, yea when 
 ye make many prayers I will not hear ; your hands 
 are full of blood ; wash ye, make you clean, put 
 away the evil of your doings from before mine 
 eyes ; cease to do evil, learn to do well ; seek 
 udgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the father- 
 less, plead for the widow." " If," says the Saviour, 
 " thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there re- 
 jiemberest that thy brother hath aught against 
 thee, leave there thy gift before the altar and go 
 thy way ; first be reconciled to thy brother, and 
 then come and offer thy gift." " If a man say, I 
 love God, and hateth his brother, ho is a Har. For 
 
126 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 lie who lovetli not his brother whom he hath seen, 
 how can lie love God whom he hath not seen ? ' 
 This view cannot be too strongly enforced, and 
 ought to enter into the substance of every treatise 
 on duty. 
 
 As prior then in time, and as prerequisite for ac- 
 ceptable worshiji, our duties to our fellowmen are 
 conditional for our duties to God. 
 
 Our THIRD CLASS OF DUTIES will be those to- 
 wards God. 
 
 These are higher than any other because of their 
 object, of the higher faculties involved, Third class; 
 
 • 1 1 1 1 1 duties to 
 
 and because tJiey imply all the others. Qod. 
 If the love of man be first, as it would be in a child 
 growing up normally, it will be conditional for that 
 of God, which will follow as certainly as the foil 
 day follows the morning twilight ; but when once 
 there is the love of God, it will be seen to include 
 or imply the love of his creatures. As man now 
 is, the true relation seems to be, when specific 
 duties are required, the performance first of those 
 toward man as a condition of the acceptable per- 
 formance of those toward God. 
 
 It will be remembered that in classifying physical 
 forces as higher and lower, we begin ciassifica- 
 with that winch is broadest, and at each ties as 
 
 • 1 1 p • 1- higher nnj 
 
 btep in our ascent comprehend fewer iridi- broader. 
 iduals, till we reach man ; but in classifying duties 
 we reverse the process ; we begin with that which 
 is narrowest, and as we ascend reach the broadest 
 
DUTIES TO OUliSELVES 127 
 
 Riid grandest generality, including not only out 
 duties to all the creatures of God with whom we 
 are in relation, but to God himself. 
 
 CLASS I. 
 
 DUTIES TO OUKSELVES. 
 
 I. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION. 
 
 We now proceed to consider the first class of 
 conditionB duties in detail. These will require that 
 thBse''juties "C securc tliose conditions in ourselves by 
 auoou'r'du- wliicl) WO Can work most efficiently under 
 
 ties toothers, .i i pi 
 
 tlio law 01 love. 
 These conditions are : — 
 
 1. That we secure our rights ; 
 
 2. That wo supply our wants ; and 
 
 3. That wo perfect our powers. 
 
 Of thoso each in its order is conditional for the 
 next, and they will include all that we need to do 
 for our own good, and to enable us to do good lo 
 ,»thers. 
 
 DIVISION I. 
 
 THE SECUKING OF OUK RIGHTS. 
 
 We are to sectire our rights so far as they may 
 bo a condition to onr host workinn; under the law 
 )f' love. 
 
 The only right thfit mud be secured for the abovp 
 
128 UOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 gnd is that to life. As long as there is life men 
 may act under this law, in whatever condition thej 
 may be. Hence the right to life is more sacred 
 than any other, and hence the riglit to defend it 
 even by taking the life of anotlier. God lias en- 
 dowed men with life, has placed them in their 
 positions here, often with many others dependent 
 upon them, has implanted within them an instinct 
 of self-preservation, has made the life of each as 
 sacred as that of any other, that security of life 
 which the instinct guards is essential both to the 
 well-being of society and of the individual, and if, 
 with these interests in question, life is wrongfully 
 assailed, it not only comes within the law of love to 
 defend it by taking, if necessary, the life of another, 
 but it is an imperative duty. God does not regard 
 life as too saci'ed to be taken for the violation of 
 natural law, and it is not only by a righteous moral 
 law that life is taken in such cases, but by a natural 
 law imjilanted in the constitution. 
 
 The right to life nmst be defended to the utmost. 
 'Jf the other great rights, as of liberty, property, and 
 .•ejmtation, we may be deprived and still work under 
 the law of love. These rights we are to secure as 
 far as possible in compatibility with that law, 
 but as no absolute rule can be laid down, and as 
 \he subject of rights will be treated further on, it is 
 not necessary to speak q^ tliem more fully here. 
 It is only to be said that at each point we are 
 to yield or defend these rights as the law of love 
 wisely interpreted may require. 
 
DUTIES TO OUESELVES. 120 
 
 DIVISION II. 
 
 THE SXJPPLY OF OUR -WANTS. 
 
 The second condition of our action under tha 
 law of love is the supply of our wants. 
 
 Ry wants is here meant those things which are 
 necessary for the well-being of the body and the 
 mind. These and nothina; bcvond are essential to 
 fidl work under the law of love. To provide these 
 requires toil, and this toil every one not incapacitated 
 by feebleness or infirmity is bound either to undergo 
 himself, or to pay others an equivalent for it. No 
 duty is more strongly insisted on in the Scriptures 
 than this. Not to perform it not only violates the 
 first law of equity, hut deprives us of all position 
 and stand-point from which to labor for others. 
 
 DIVISION III. 
 
 THE PERFECTING OF OUR POWERS. 
 
 Having life and having our wants supplied, we 
 ^.le next to perfect our powers. This is the third 
 duty to ourselves under the law of love. It is of 
 i.iuch wider scope than those before treated of, but 
 that the law of love requires it will be seen if we 
 look at the ways in which we can minister to the 
 good of others. 
 
 These are three : — 
 
130 JIOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 1st. By putting forth our energies, physical and 
 mental, directly to that end. Keiation of 
 
 . 1 perfecdou to 
 
 2d. By exerting over them an uncon- the good of 
 
 . „ others. 
 
 BCious mfluence. 
 
 3d. By awakening in them the joy of compla- 
 cency. 
 
 For each of these the one comprehensive con- 
 dition and duty is our own perfection. "Be ye 
 therefore perfect." How is this duty to be per- 
 formed ? 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 perfection as related to direct action fob 
 others: of the body: of the mind. 
 
 According to the views in the preliminary state- 
 ment, the process in attaining this T)er- Perfection 
 
 ^ . . by upbuild- 
 
 fection must be one of upbuilding. In mg. 
 the language of the Scriptures, it must be an 
 " edification." This gives us a point of departure 
 and a method, which the term " self-culture " does 
 not. In this view the instrumental powers, the 
 appetites, the desires and natural affections, and the 
 intellect are given us that through them we may 
 build up a perfect body and a perfect mind. These 
 l>owers we can control in three ways. We can 
 inoiie, restrain, and guide them, and these we are to 
 Jo partly from the good there is from their owd 
 regulated activity, but chiefly as they are con 
 litional for the moral and spiritua. nature. Of tha 
 nature our perfection would require the fullest pD* 
 sible expansion and activity. 
 
DUTIES TO OURSELVES. 131 
 
 In building ourselves up then so as to become 
 
 Physic.i effective working powers, we begin with 
 r«rf«!tioti , , , T ° ^ ■ ' . ° , 
 
 Hrst. tlie body. Love would require us to seek 
 
 physical perfection, because this would include 
 
 strength, beauty, and ffracc, and uach of these would 
 
 aid in the highest ministries of love. The more 
 
 strength love has to wield, the more efficient it will 
 
 be ; the more it is clothed in beauty and in grace, 
 
 the more satisfaction it will give. 
 
 For the perfection of the body we are dependent 
 
 rothiBend ou the appetites, the lowest of the instru- 
 
 law of limit- ' ' 
 
 ►tionfor mental i)owers over which we have con- 
 
 Ihe appe- ^ 
 
 tites. trol. As lower, they are a condition lor 
 
 nil that is above them, but their immediate object 
 is the upbuilding and well-U'ing of the body, and the 
 continuance of the race. Through them we appro- 
 priate such things as the body needs, and we have 
 only to say that in doing this they are to be held 
 wtricfly subject to tiie law of limitation. By their 
 constitution they are in a measure self-regulating, 
 but must always require rational control with ref- 
 erence to their ends. They may be of any degree 
 of strength, and be indulged to any extent up to 
 he point where they cease to be in the best man- 
 r er a condition for the activity of that which \n 
 ibove them. The stronger they are the better, if 
 their action be for the strength, beauty, and grace 
 of the body, and for the upbuilding of the inteHoc- 
 tual and moral powers ; and all i)leasure through 
 them that is incidental to such upbuilding, or ^-ver 
 compatible with it, is legitimate. 
 
132 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 From tlie varying relatiuiis of the appetites, more 
 precise rules for their regulation cannot be laid 
 down. 
 
 As, however, the evils fioin the appetites are sc 
 great, we may not jiass tliem without J^"!"^^" 
 notice. The first great danger from the t't^ 
 natural appetites is, that men will find in the good 
 iiom them their supreme end. This multitudes do. 
 Such are sensuahsts ; for the character is always 
 determined by that in which the supreme end is 
 (bund. Such persons may wallow in gross sen- 
 suality, or seek their gratifications in a refined and 
 fashionable way, but they will belong to the sty 
 of Epicui-us, will live unworthily, and will die and 
 be forgotten, leaving the world no better for their 
 havinc lived in it. 
 
 The second great danger from these appetites, ia 
 Uiat those who have higher aims will be constantly 
 111 hired and seduced by them, so that the whole 
 lone of their life will be lowered. Those are few 
 
 o whom some soil from sensuahty does not cling. 
 ■ Fleshly lusts " not only injure the body, but 
 " war against the soul." 
 
 The third danger from the appetites is in the for- 
 mation of those that are artificial. These have notb- 
 
 ng to do with upbuilding, as the substances on 
 which they fix are all poison and incapable of being 
 assimilated. The pleasui-e from them terminate! 
 in itself ; the tendency to increase the amount of 
 the stimulus is strong ; the nervous system is \ut 
 
DUTIES 10 OURSELVES. 133 
 
 paired by tlieiii ; habits are formed which hold 
 men in feai-ful bondage, and it may be questioned 
 whether the best state of the moral powers and 
 tlie highest spiritual exercises are compatible with 
 liiibitual stimulation, either alcohoHc or narcotic. 
 If God had judged it best that man should have an 
 appetite for these substances, doubtless He woidd 
 have implanted it. 
 
 Held in their proper place, the appetites are pro- 
 ductive only of good ; but looking at the history or 
 at the present state of man, we find the amount of 
 misery and degradation from abuse of the natural 
 appetites, and from artificial ones which are them 
 selves an abuse, to be appalling beyond description. 
 Of the great corruption of the heathen, one of the 
 most prominent forms is sensuality, their very re- 
 ligion being often but a deification of this. Of coun- 
 tries nominally Christian, especially in their great 
 cities, the corruption is unutterable, and seldom, if 
 3ver, has Cln-istianity so pervaded a community as to 
 lift them wholly out of this slough. Hence we 
 raise a warning cry at this point. Hence a right 
 training of the young must involve a control by 
 them of their appetites, since a failure here is a 
 ailure in all that is above them. 
 
 But while the proximate object of the appetites 
 ■■ppetifes is the perfection of the body, they alone 
 -lent. are not sufficient for that. For its highest 
 
 strength, beauty, and grace, there are needed ir 
 addition health and physical training. 
 
i34 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 1. Healtli. This is to the body what virtue ii 
 to the soul, its normal state, its good ; and 
 
 /. 1 ■ • • 11 1 Health 
 
 for this, attention is needed, not only to 
 the appetites, but to air, exercise, sleep, and cloth-' 
 ing. The care of health through these is a duty, 
 not only from the consequences to ourselves of its 
 failure, but because the power of love would thus 
 be paraly/.ed, and instead of aiding others we should 
 become a tax upon their energies, if not a burden. 
 Needless iU-liealth in its myriad forms is an incubua 
 ui)on society ; and, though it may seem harsh to 
 call it so, it is, as a violation of the law of love, a 
 crime. 
 
 This whole subject is not as yet brought as it 
 should be within the domain of the conscience. 
 The consequences of neglecting the laws of health, 
 of imprudence, and excess, are constantly attributed 
 to a mysterious Providence. They have the same 
 relation to Pi'ovidence as typhoid fever in the filthy 
 wards of a city. They are visitations under Prov- 
 idence rendered necessary by the neglect and folly 
 of man. 
 
 2. Physical training. Health alone will not secure 
 perfection of form or of power. Espe- physical 
 cially will it not secure grace, which is '™'>'"s- 
 higher than beauty, and is expressed chiefly 
 through motion. Hence the need of physical 
 waining. 
 
 The true snliject of education is man in the unity 
 t{ soul and body. If either factor be neglected, 
 
Ii'JlUiJ - OLKStLVEb. loo 
 
 the highest results cannot be reached. Hence a 
 well regulated system of physical culture is not only 
 K legitimate part of education, especially of a liberal 
 education, but it is demanded. In this we have de- 
 clined from the wisdom of the ancients. 
 
 Physical training may be carried too far ; it may 
 I'hysioai become an end. Not subordinated to a 
 lo'te"* higher culture, or out of proportion, it is 
 suaraou. ^ deformity and a imisauce. It also needs 
 to be guarded against an ambition to perform diffi- 
 cult and dangerous feats. If it can be guarded at 
 these two points, it must become an essential ele- 
 ment ill our system of education. 
 
 Strength, beauty, grace, — these are the fruits of 
 physical training and health. Of these 
 strength is put forth solely under the fii- 
 rection of will, and its exertion for others may im- 
 pose obligation. Beauty and grace, on the other 
 hand, produce their effects without our direct voli- 
 tion. They are as an emanation, a fragrance, a 
 soft green, which we admire and enjoy without feel- 
 ing obligation. 
 
 Are we then under obligation even with i-egard 
 to the body, to seek not only strength to be used by 
 will for the good of others, but also those perfec- 
 tions and accomplishments even which may become 
 a source of pleasure when contemplated by them ? 
 {es, even thougn they are so often sought and dis- 
 played from vanity. By all .means let beauty be 
 •ought ; beauty of person, and even of dress. This 
 
Vi6 MOBAL SCIENCE. 
 
 nature teaclies. The flowers are not sim]jly becom- 
 ing, tliey are beautiful. Nor do the Scriptures 
 forbid it. Tlie Apostle Peter, with his quiet and 
 solemn eye, does not condemn outward adorning 
 except as in antagonism to the higher '■ ornament 
 of a meek and quiet spirit ; " " the plaiting of 
 hair," and " wearing of gold," and •' putting on of 
 pparel," are not to be the adorning. E,ightly sub- 
 ordinated they may have their ])lace, but are as 
 nothing when compared with the " hidden man of 
 the heart, which is in the sight of God of great 
 price." 
 
 Let grace be cultivated. That costs nothing. 
 But let nothing be done from self as central. Let 
 it be in sympathy with the tendency of eveiy or- 
 ganizing and vital force in nature towards ])erfec- 
 tion, and as putting us in harmony with the 
 " Kosmos." Above all let it be for others. If 
 vanity coidd but be exorcised by love, accomplish- 
 ments would at once fall into their place and be- 
 come admirable. The taint which attaches to them, 
 as in the service of vanity and egotism, would be 
 removed, and the social questions which arise 
 concerning them would be easily settled. 
 
 But if we are to seek a perfect body, perfeouoa 
 Tiuch more a perfect mind. "' '°""'' 
 
 Here again there must be upbuilding. Love 
 )f -lUg presup])osed, its first business will be to pu/ 
 *nd hold in its place each of the instrumenta 
 powers. 
 
DUTIES TO OURSELVES. 137 
 
 Of these the desires are to the mind what the 
 Uvrofiim- apDctitcs are to the bodv. They are nat- 
 
 Katioo for ^ ^ . . , "^ . . 
 
 (he desires, ural aiiu iieccssary principles ot action, 
 liaving JIG moral character in themselves, but re- 
 quiring control. Like the appetites they are to be 
 governed, not on the principle of repression, but 
 by being made to minister to something higher. 
 Let the desire of life, and of property, and of knowl- 
 edge, and of power, and of esteem, have their full 
 scope, provided they violate no right of others, and 
 that what the}' appropriate is used in the service of 
 the affections, and under the guidance of conscience. 
 But here, as in the appetites, we must draw atten- 
 Dangers tioii to the great danger there is from 
 
 Prom the . °, , ° 
 
 desires. pervcrsion and abuse. 
 
 And here, also, the first danger is that the object 
 of some one of the desires will be adopted as the 
 supreme end. 
 
 In this case the character formed, and the re- 
 sults, are very different from those when the ap- 
 petites are thus adopted. The appetites have a 
 natural limit. They are satisfied, and cease their 
 craving; excess in them ultimately and speedily 
 debilitates both body and mind ; the sphere of the 
 sensualist is narrow ; he dies and is forgotten. But 
 the desires bave no natural hmit. " They grow by 
 what they feed on," and are all absorbing. Hence 
 we have the poltroon when we should nave the 
 martyr ; we have the miser, emaciated and cowei ing 
 over his gold ; we have the pale student outwatch- 
 
138 MOKAL SOIKNCE. 
 
 JDg tilt' stars ; we have the conqueror desolating 
 continents, and the shifting devotee of public opin 
 ion These fill the world with their deeds. They 
 trample on appetite, and may seem nobler than its 
 slaves, but are equally in bondage, and some of 
 them beyond comparison more mischievous. 
 
 And here it may bo well to ^tate what that is in 
 which the selfishness, and idolatry too, of somshness 
 the race consist. It is in adojitiug as their "" " '^' 
 supreme end the good tliere is from the activity of 
 some lower part of their nature. This is selfish- 
 ness. Its primary form is not that of enmity to 
 God, or to any one else. TJiere is no conscious 
 malignity. It disclaims this when imputed to ii, 
 and says, " Is thy servant a dog that he should do 
 this thing?" Not interfered with, it is good-na- 
 tured, perhaps cultivated and elegant. But let any 
 one, even God, come between it and the end made 
 supreme, and it becomes aversion, enmity, bitter 
 and uncompromising rebellion. In such cases, the 
 form varying with the appetite or desire, and scope 
 being given, there is no form of deception, and no 
 extent or refinement of cruelty to whicli a people 
 civilized, and cultivated through art, will not go. 
 
 This, too, is idolatry. It is the true idolatry of 
 the race, which has always found svmbois to rep- 
 resent that which they have made their supreme 
 end, and who have vcidly worsliijiped their own sel- 
 lish passions as reflected in those symbols. 
 
 It need only be added that those who have choseD 
 
DUTIKS TO ^UKSELVES. 139 
 
 higliei' ends ai'e in constant danger through inor- 
 dinate desire, even more than through inordinate 
 Appetite. 
 
 After the desires, the affections will require at- 
 rhoaffeo- teution by one who would perfect himself 
 n'raund'' ^s an agent for doing good. The affec- 
 "°™'- tions are Natural and Moral. The differ- 
 
 ence between these is, that the moral affections are 
 consequent upon acts of will or choice, and derive 
 their character from the character of these acts. 
 The natural affections are found in us acting spon- 
 taneously, like the desires. 
 
 For the most part the natural affections do not 
 require repression. They rather need culture, and 
 under that are capable of expanding into great 
 beauty. Nor is there from them such danger of 
 abuse that attention need be drawn to it here. It 
 is sufficient to say that they are to be developed 
 under the law of limitation. 
 
 The lEtei- ^f the instrumental powers it only re- 
 
 '"'■ mains to speak of the Intellect. 
 
 The necessity of training, and if possible, per- 
 fecting the Intellect if a man would do much for 
 his own good or that of others, is admitted. To 
 this every seminary of learning testifies. Its rela- 
 live importance is doubtless overestimated, since 
 education has come to mean chiefly the training of 
 the intellect. 
 
 The general statement here is that the law of 
 love requires that every talent and means of in- 
 
140 MOBAL SCIENCE. 
 
 flaence, wliether general or professicnal, should be 
 cultivated to tlie utmost. 
 
 Does an artisan fail, as in making a steam boiler 
 to provide in the best way for the safety and com- 
 fort of the community ; is a physician ignorant of 
 thv! right remedy, or a lawyer of the precedent on 
 which his case turns ; does the clergyman lack 
 quickening and persuasive power ; each is con- 
 demned by the law of love, and responsible for the 
 consequences if the failure could have been avoided. 
 There may be faithfulness at the moment, — at the 
 bedside, in the court-room, in immediate prepara- 
 tion for the pulpit — but the failure and guilt may 
 lie far back in the indolent self-indulgence and dis- 
 sipation of the years of preparatory study. 
 
 We now pass to the Governing Powers. It is one 
 thing for a person to improve his instru- QoTeming 
 mental powers, as he might his knife or ^'"'"^• 
 his reaper, and another to improve those which are 
 more distinctively himself. It is in these that we 
 find the worth and dignity of man, in these the 
 image of God. In these is the germ of immortality ; 
 in these the seat of spiritual conflict. 
 
 For the education of these powers there are no 
 institutions except those of Christianity. j„ „^p. 
 Tiie Church with its Bible, and ministry, Spow- 
 and the Spirit of God pervading all, is "'■ 
 God's institution for the education of these powers, 
 and training them up into the likeness of Christ, 
 and so of God. Nor would human institutions be 
 
DUTIES TO OUKSELVES. 141 
 
 af any avail. Improvement here must begin in the 
 Will itself, by its submitting itself to the laws 
 of ruason and of conscience, and opening the 
 whole man to every high and holy influence 
 which God may bring to bear upon him. All 
 powers are to be improved, and these no less 
 tlian others, by their being exercised in the sphere 
 and under the conditions appointed for them by 
 God. So only. But the sphere of these powers is 
 to rule. Hence they can be imjsroved only as they 
 are permitted to be active in ruling. But that 
 they should do this nothing can secure but that 
 ultimate act of choice which determines character, 
 and which lies beyond the reach of all institutions 
 and external appliances. If these powers be held 
 in abeyance, their place being usurped by appetite 
 or desire in the form of passion, they will be dwarfed 
 and perverted, and will manifest themselves in 
 every form of superstition and fanaticism. 
 
 Such is the sphere of the governing powers. He 
 who would cultivate them must permit them to 
 govern, and to govern uniformly. So shall they 
 gain strength, and so shall he walk in increasing 
 light until " the perfect day." 
 
 But the conditions under which these powers are 
 Oon^idona to act, aud the helps offered, require to be 
 uid helps, known no less than their sphere. These 
 cannot here be treated of at large, but I desire to 
 advert to the subject of immediate divine aid, be- 
 cause that is so generally regarded as alien to phi- 
 
142 MORAL SCI£NC£» 
 
 losophy. It is not so, for the whole philosophy of 
 upbuilding would lead us to anticipate that man in 
 ais liigliest powers would be connected with that 
 wliicli is still higher. And in this it is accordant 
 with the voice of heathen antiquity, and of the 
 Scri])tures. Always men have spoken of the voice 
 of God within them, and the Scriptures sj)eak of 
 the " light that lighteth every man that cometh 
 into the world." The expressions vary, but the 
 import is that there is a direct access of the Spirit 
 of God to the spirit of man, both for illumination 
 and quickening. For tlie reception of these the 
 Moral Reason is adajited as the flower is adapted to 
 receive the light and warmth of the sun, and no 
 symbol could be more beautiful than that of the 
 flower that turns itself to the sun and follows it in 
 its course. 
 
 But are we not here in danger of mysticism ? 
 V'es; but only as we are in danger of 
 conflagration from the use of fire. Let us 
 be cautious and encoiirage no mysticism. Let ua 
 rIso be cautious and neither ignore nor quench any 
 light offered us by God. This is a vital question in 
 our upbuilding. I hold that this communication 
 and aid are in strict accordance with philosophy, 
 and my conviction is that whoever attempts perfect- 
 
 .ig his directive powers without prayer, and open- 
 ing his mind, by putting away wickedness, to the 
 
 lluminating and quickening influences of the Spirit 
 
 ■>f God, will fail of success, 
 
DUTIES TO OURSELVES. 148 
 
 It is onlybv thus building up himself through the 
 ft'holu range of his faculties, that man can reach 
 the highest efficiency when he would put forth 
 direct acts of will in the service of love. 
 
 CHAPTER n, 
 
 PBRFEOTION A3 RELATED TO UNCONSCIOUS INFLUENCB. 
 
 The second mode of doing good to others is by 
 unconscious influence or example. 
 
 This, in its liigliest degree, requires perfection not 
 so much of the powers, as in their control and mode 
 of action. No lower power may act beyond the 
 point at which it becomes a condition for the action 
 of a higher. Tlie appetite for food or drink may 
 not be so indulged as to prevent tlie fullest activity 
 of the desire of knowledge or of power. The desire 
 of power may not become so engrossing as to dwarf 
 the affections or stifle any claim of justice or of 
 right. Napoleon cared nothing for appetite, but 
 was gluttonous of power. When a man chooses the 
 object of any lower power for his supreme end, that 
 determines his character, his energies are directed 
 to that, his development is around it, and he be- 
 comes unsymmetrical, as a tree whose upward sap 
 is arrested and expands it into a deformity. This 
 most men do. They lack the controlling and 
 directive power needed to keep the faculties in 
 lu/x^rdination, and even if they choose the highest 
 
144 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 end are long in bringing moral symmetry into theii 
 lives. Only when this is done are they in a con- 
 dition to exert the highest unconscious influence 
 over others, and when this is done, this influence is 
 more efficient than any other. 
 
 The direct power of man over nature is slight 
 compared with that which he gains throu jh her own 
 forces. The same is true of society. As God in- 
 tended man to be a social being. He implanted in 
 him those principles by which he may have a com- 
 mon life, and through which that life may be reached 
 ind modified throughout a nation, and for ages. 
 Among these principles is that sympathy and un- 
 conscious imitation by which families and nations 
 are assimilated, and to reach, as it may be done, the 
 common life through this is the sublimest work of 
 man. 
 
 It is in early life that this unconscious imitation 
 is most operative. Every child is a Chinese. Give 
 him a cracked saucer for a model, and he will make 
 a cracked set. The child needs formal teaching by 
 words, but his principles are formed and practical 
 habits moulded chiefly by that action of those 
 around him which expresses their inner life. From 
 this there is a subtle and pervasive influence that 
 no direct teaching can counteract. It is thus that 
 families, neighbornoods, sections of country an 
 reached and assimilated, and to this all contribute. 
 It is through this that great men, men great in 
 character and action, reach their highest influence 
 
DUTIES TO OURSELVES. 146 
 
 riiey are simply set in the firmament of the past, 
 and shine. 
 
 Doubtless the power of a book, of the word spoken, 
 of mere teaching, is great, but this silent shining 
 addresses different principles, and under different 
 conditions. Power is from the inner life in its in- 
 tegrity, and this is most perfectly and certainly 
 revealed by action. Hence " Example is better 
 than precept." The word not weighted from the 
 life sounds hollow. Hence the folly as well as guilt 
 of attempting to substitute anything for that thor- 
 ough sincerity of character from which alone good 
 iniluences can legitimately flow. 
 
 We here find a special danger to preachers, and 
 to all who teach professionally or formally. They 
 are tempted to " say and do not." There is no 
 surer way to destroy self-respect and bring such 
 teachings into contempt. Against such teachers 
 the Bible denounces its heaviest woes. " Woe 
 unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye 
 devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make 
 long prayers : therefore ye shall receive the greater 
 damnation." 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 PERFECTION AS RELATED TO COMPLACENCT. 
 
 The third way of benefiting others through a 
 care for our own state, is by awakening in them th» 
 'oy of complacency. 
 
L46 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Under the former head we regarded man as 
 active, with powers to be addressed ; under this we 
 regard him as having susceptibilities. Our object 
 then was action, character ; it is now enjoyment. 
 
 The highest susceptibilities are moral, and it is 
 from manifestations of moral character that we 
 have our highest enjoyment through the susceptibili- 
 ties. Through these we have the love of compla- 
 cency, the sense of moral beauty and grandeur, 
 esteem, veneration, and the emotions which, in 
 their highest form, become worship. 
 
 For the susceptibility to natural beauty and 
 grandeur God has provided. Nature is full of ob- 
 jects that correspond to this ; it is among our 
 purest and best sources of enjoyment, and is the 
 forerunner and type of the higlier enjoyment from 
 the beauty of holiness. But the moral susceptibili- 
 :ies can be awakened only by character. For these 
 the great provision is in God himself, whose charac- 
 ter is perfect ; but aside from this, these susceptibili- 
 ties may be drawn out in high activity by human 
 character. If all people were to reflect the image 
 of Christ in their radical character, the ideals of 
 literature and art, or rather something more beau- 
 tiful and better, would live and act before us, and 
 no one can estimate the enhanced joy from mora. 
 beauty. 
 
 It is an office of Love to increase material beauty 
 She smiles upon the marriage of taste with industry 
 She would esteem it a crime to mar nature ; she 
 
DUtlES TO OURSELVES. 14? 
 
 would, if possible, restore tlie beauty of Eden. 
 How much more then must Love feel under obliga- 
 tion to increase moral beauty ; how much more a 
 crime to diminish it. In a community whose moral 
 nature is developed, high moral character is the 
 purest, the best, the amplest contribution to mere 
 enjoyment that can be made. It is better than 
 pictures or statues or landscape gardens. Such a 
 contribution every man can make by attending to 
 nis own state, and it is among the more imperative 
 obligations of Love to do this. 
 
 That this end of love would be most fully 
 reached by our perfection, is too plain to need 
 enforcement. Everywhere the highest complacency 
 demands perfection. 
 
 CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 PBRFECTION AS BELATED TO THE GLOET OF GOD. 
 
 We have thus seen that our own perfection in 
 a condition of our best ministrations to others in 
 each of the three ways in which it is possible for 
 us to minister to them, and that love would there- 
 fore oblige us to seek that perfection. We are also 
 under obligation to seek it, because it is a conditi(jii 
 of our most folly glorifying God. 
 
 God is glorifiea by the manifestation of his per 
 fections. In the products of his wisdom and power 
 He is glorified, as tliey are seen to be perfect. He 
 
148 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 is more glorified as He himself is seen to be perfect 
 in his moral character and government, and as He 
 is loved and obeyed by creatures made in liis image. 
 This love and obedience are the sum of human duty : 
 they are perfection. They are also the glorifying 
 of God, and, it may be added, the enjoying of Him. 
 Tliat God should be glorified by us voluntarily, and 
 enjoyed in any other way, we cannot conceive. In 
 this view of it, therefore, perfection can hardly be 
 said to be a condition of glorifying God. It is the 
 glorifying of Him. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 PERFECTION AS RELATED TO SELF-LOVE. 
 
 From the above it appears that love to others and 
 to God would require us to seek our own perfection. 
 But this is just what would bo required by a reason- 
 able self-love, and is there no place for that ? Yes ; 
 and we here reach the point, not only of the recon- 
 ciliation of self-love with benevolence, but of their 
 convergence. Self-love is legitimate. Our own good 
 IS of intrinsic value, and we are especially bound 
 to care for it as it is that part of the universal 
 good which is more especially intrusted to us. God 
 eares for it, and why not we ? In doing this wft 
 have reason to believe that we not only work with 
 Him for our own good, but as He himself works, 
 * From hence, also, it is evident," says Edwards, in 
 
DUTIES TO OURSELVES. 149 
 
 his " Treatise on the Nature ofVirtue," " that the 
 divine virtue, or the virtue of the divine mind, must 
 consist principally in love to himself." If this be 
 correct, our virtue will consist in some degree in 
 love to ourselves. While, therefore, we allow self- 
 love a place in prompting efforts for our own per- 
 fection, it is a subordinate one. 
 
 It is worthy of notice that it is no part of the 
 divine law, as directly expressed, that we love our- 
 selves. It is simply implied in the command to 
 love our neighbor as ourselves. The reason 
 doubtless is the deep harmony there is between 
 loving God and our neighbor and loving ourselves. 
 So perfectly coincident are they as reciprocally re- 
 sulting, both and equally, from perfect powers act- 
 ing rightly, that if we love God and our neighbor 
 we do the very thing that self-love would, require, 
 and there is no need of enforcing a further law. 
 To love God and our neighbor is the best way of 
 loving ourselves. 
 
 CHAPTER VL 
 
 HABITS. 
 
 Ir. speaking of individual upbuilding and perfec- 
 tion, the subject of habits may not be omitted. 
 
 Habits presuppose original faculties and suscep- 
 Babits, ao- tibilitics by which acts are done and iin- 
 t!Lin. pressions are received independently o( 
 habit. They are formed by repeated voluntarj 
 
150 MOnVl, SCIENCE, 
 
 action of the powers, and by repeated impressiona 
 Dn t]io sensibility. No man, therefore, is born with 
 habits, but every one has a tendency to form them ; 
 and, according to tlic distinction just made, tliey 
 will bo either active or passive. 
 
 Active liabits are formed by the repetition of 
 voluntary acts. It is an ultimate fact in ^^^^^ 
 our constitution, that repetition, practice, '^*''"'- 
 use, produces, always facility in doing the acts re- 
 peated, and sometimes, in addition, a tendency to 
 do tliem. Facility and tendency, — these are the 
 results of acts voluntarily repeated, which required 
 at first careful attention and painful effort. Both 
 facihty and tendency are spoken of as the result of 
 liabit, but they need to be distinguished ; and we 
 also need to distinguish a tendency to do a thing in 
 a particular manner, from a tendency to do it at all. 
 By repetition one gains facihty in writing his name, 
 and a tendency, if he write it at all, to do so in a par- 
 ticular way ; but he does not gain a tendency to 
 write his name. For dohig that a rational motive 
 IS required. The same may be said of all acquired 
 skill. This is gained by the repetition of acts 
 giving facility, and a tendency to do the thing in a 
 particular manner. But in some cases a step further 
 is taken, and a tendency is acquired to do the thinj; 
 •tself. This may go so far that habitual action may 
 seem automatic, and not only not to be from the 
 will, but to be in opposition to it. It is this ten- 
 dencj/ which is more particularly spoken of aj 
 
DUTIKS TO OI'ESKLVES. 151 
 
 •' liabit." This it is that may need to be guarded 
 against, or to be overcome. 
 
 Of sucli a constitution the object is evident. It 
 Object of is not to trammel us, or to reduce us to 
 ttBbits. routine, but to enable us so to incorporate 
 
 into our being tlie results of voluntary action as to 
 II vail oursehes of tliosc results with the least j)os- 
 sible attejition, and so that the mind may be free 
 to enter upon new fields of effort. This it is desir- 
 able to notice, because many writers have eidarged 
 the sphere of habit quite too niucli. 
 
 Such being the nature of active habits, and the 
 object of that constitution by which they are formed, 
 it is obvious, — 
 
 1. That men must be responsible for their habits, 
 Kespousi- and for all acts done from them. Not 
 
 liility for • r* 1 1 • • 
 
 habits. only do specific habits origniate in the will 
 
 as prompted by original and controlling faculties 
 that act independently of habit, but they can 
 never wholly escape from the control of will. 
 
 2. It is obvious that when men rest in any form 
 uabitscon- of habitual action, they defeat tlie end for 
 [fj^notto which the capacity for habits was given, 
 trammel uB. .^^rjjjpjj jg ^q gjyg freedom to cuter upon 
 
 new fields of activity. Habit, as habit, is automatic 
 and mechanical. It is simply conservative, while 
 man never reaches a point where conservatism is 
 not for the sake of progress. Hence, while we are 
 to seek by repetition all possible facility and power, 
 va are to guard sedulously against being broughl 
 
152 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 mto bondage to any tendency. It is sad to see the 
 power of rational will and free elioicu narrowed 
 tlown by any blind force, natural or acquired. 
 
 3. It is obvious that bad habits may be formed 
 as well as srood ones. In these there is 
 
 ° . . . Bad habits. 
 
 a tendency to nicrease ni strength in- 
 definitely ; and when we have this accumulated 
 power thus added to the force of original passion, 
 we have a bondage the most fearful known. Hence 
 the wisdom of letting evil alone " before it be med- 
 dled with " 
 
 4. It is a point of wisdom to " set the habits," 
 as Paley says, " so that every change may xhe'^set" 
 be a change for the better." In illustra- "''"'''"' 
 ting this he says that " tlie advantage is with those 
 habits which allow of an indulgence hi the devia- 
 tion from them. Tlio luxurious receive no greater 
 pleasure from their dainties than the ])easant does 
 from his bread and cheese ; but the peasant, when- 
 e\er he goes abroad, finds a feast ; whereas the 
 epicure must be well entertained to escajie disgust. 
 Those who spend every day at cards, and those 
 who go every day to plough, pass their time much 
 alike ; but then whatever suspends the occupation 
 of the card-player distresses him ; whereas to tiie 
 laborer every interruption is a refreshment ; and 
 this appears in the different effects that Sunday 
 produces upon the two, which proves a day of rec- 
 reation to the one, but a lamentable burden to ths 
 other." 1 
 
 > Uorai PhUoKphy, chap. vi. 
 
DUTIES TO OURSELVES. 153 
 
 Passive habits, as has been said, are formed by re- 
 fwaiTe peated impressions. These, no less than 
 "■ active habits, have it for their end to regu- 
 
 late action. This they do by their effect both upon 
 the enjoyment and the suffering caused by impres- 
 sions. The end being action, the means are disre- 
 garded ; and emotions and impressions, both pleas- 
 ant and unpleasant, are moderated by such habits 
 when they vt'ould interfere with the best condi- 
 tion for action. The doctrme of Bishop Butler is 
 that, " From our very faculty of habits, passive 
 impressions, by being repeated, grow weaker. 
 Thoughts, by often passing through the mind are 
 felt less sensibly ; being accistomed to danger 
 begets intrepidity, — that is, lessens fear ; to dis- 
 tress, lessens the passion of pity ; to instances of 
 others' mortality, lessens the sensible •apprehension 
 of our own. And from these two observations 
 iogether, — that practical habits are formed and 
 strengthened by repeated acts, and that passive 
 impressions grow weaker by being repeated upon 
 us, — it must follow that active habits may be 
 gradually forming and strengthening by a course 
 of acting upon such and such motives and excite- 
 ments, whilst these motives and excitements them- 
 selves are by proportionable degrees growing less 
 sensible, — that is, are continually less and loss 
 sensibly felt, even as the active habits strengthen." ' 
 This shows how needful it is that motives, excite- 
 
 1 Analogy, Fart I., chap. v. 
 
154 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 ments, sympathies, legitimately connected with ac- 
 tion, should be followed by sucli action, for no one 
 is so hardened and hofieless as he who has become 
 familiar with such motives without corresponding 
 action. " Going," says Butler, " over the theory 
 of virtue in one's thoughts, talking well, and draw- 
 ing fine pictures of it ; this is so far from neces- 
 sarily or certainly conducing to form a habit of it 
 in him who thus employs himself, that it may 
 liarden the mind in a contrary course, — that is, 
 form a habit of insensibility to all moral consid- 
 erations." 
 
 But while the above gives us the relation of 
 active and passive habits, and contains Qualification 
 
 . , , « 1 . of Sutler's 
 
 practical truth ot the utmost moment, it doctnoe. 
 may be questioned whether the doctrine of passive 
 impressions, as stated, does not require qualification. 
 No proof is given by Butler that " from our very 
 faculty of habits, passive impressions must grow 
 weaker." It is even conceivable that they might 
 grow stronger. The law applies to all that depends 
 on physical organization as now constituted, perhaps 
 goes further, but is not a necessary law of intellect 
 and sensitive being. Let that on which sensibility 
 de])ends remain unworn, as surely it may, and there 
 will be no reason wiiy the thousandth impressioii 
 ihonld not be as vivid as the first. 
 
CLASS II. 
 
 DUTIES TO OUK FELLOW MEN. 
 
 Duties to our fellow men will fall into two great 
 livisions, wliicli wo shall treat separately, witb 
 livisions under each. 
 
 I. Duties to uien as men. 
 
 II. Duties growing out of special relations. 
 
 PKELIMINARY. 
 
 SELF-LOVE AND THE LOVE OF OTHERS. 
 
 In passing to these we must not omit to say that 
 Bt.f-iove as love to our fellow men requires atten- 
 
 ftnd love of . , . . , 
 
 othoraro- tiou to our own Condition and state, so 
 
 ciprocally , . . . 
 
 derendent. seit-lovc reqmres attention to tlieir condi- 
 tion and state. If we can best minister to our fel- 
 low men only as we are perfect, tliey can best 
 minister to us only as they are perfect. As social 
 beings, our whole interest and enjoyment will de- 
 pend upon the condition and state of others, and 
 the promotion of their well-being is that of out 
 own. So intimate and reciprocally dependent are 
 a rational selt-love and a love of others. They are 
 not only not opposites. as son..:» linve supposed. 
 
156 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 but are different pliases of one common principle, 
 equally necessary to the common end. 
 
 In our duties to others the law is that we shall 
 love our neighbor as ourselves. "We must tlien 
 do for him as we would for ourselves. But, as wo 
 have seen, we are to regard our own rights, to sup- 
 ply our wants, and to perfect and direct our powers 
 
 If, then, we would love our fellow men as we do 
 ourselves, we must — 
 
 1. Regard, and, if necessary, aid in securing 
 their rights ; — 
 
 2. Supply their wants ; and — 
 
 3. Do what we can to perfect and direct their 
 powers. 
 
 These will include, and in their order as lower 
 and higher, all our duties to our fellow men. 
 
 In these ways we are to "do good to all as we 
 I ;tve opportunity." But through rela- QrouoiJof 
 tiiiiis established by God, indicating the and duties, 
 ends not only of the individual, but of the family 
 lud of society, we are required, while we g[\ e to all 
 tlieir rights, to supply the wants and to seek to per- 
 fect and direct the powers of some rather than of 
 others. To empower us to do these more effec- 
 tually, we may have special rights over persons ; 
 we may owe them special duties ; and they may 
 have special claims and be under special obligations. 
 Tliis will give us what have been called the " rights 
 i)f persons " in distinction from the " rights of 
 things," and will require a separate consideratiop 
 if the rights and duties of the family and of society 
 
FIRST GREAT DIVISION. 
 
 DUTIES TO MEN AS MEN. 
 
 DIVISION I. 
 DCTIES REGARDING THE RIGHTS OF 0THEB8. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF RIGHTS. 
 
 We are now prepared to pass to the consideration 
 jf riglits. 
 
 Of rights tlic correlative is obh'gatioii, and tlie 
 obhgatioiis corresponding to rights give tlie lowest 
 form of duty to otliers. For the most part riglits 
 are guarded by negative precepts, the command 
 being " Thou shalt not." They belong to others 
 already, and can be taken or withheld from them 
 only by positive injury. This love can never do. 
 The least that love can do for others is to respect, 
 B,nd concede to them, all their rights; and no one 
 who violates or withholds the rights of another can 
 eonsistently claim tc be benevolent toward him. 
 That we give to otliers their i-ights, is therefore the 
 Droper condition of all higher forms of duty. 
 
158 MOliAL SCIENCE. 
 
 As actions are right from tlieir relation to an end, 
 BO all rio-lits are founded in the relation of those 
 things to whicli men have a right, to some joundadon 
 end indicated through our nature, and to "' "*'"''■ 
 be attained either by ourselves or others. 
 
 For every active principle in man, for everj 
 natural desire, affection, or capacity, indicating an 
 end to be attained, there is a corresponding natura. 
 right ; and these rights are higher or lower accord- 
 ing to the dignity and sacredness of the end, or 
 which is the same thing, of that part of our nature 
 in which they originate. Thus the 'e ax'e rights 
 which would secure the attainment by instinct of 
 its ends, and by the appetites of their end. And 
 so of the desires, and of the intellect, and of the 
 natural affections, and of the moral and spiritual 
 nature. Whoever is permitted to pursue unob- 
 structedly all the ends indicated by these several 
 active principles, has all his rights ; and in doing 
 so he has a right to have and to do everything that 
 will not interfere with the rights of others. If ob- 
 structed on any other ground, he would not have 
 all his rights. Having endowed man with active 
 pi-inciples, the purpose of God evidently was to 
 place him in such conditions that he should be in 
 liiced, required, and enabled to secure the ends 
 indicated by tjiose principles ; and when in the 
 pursuit of those ends he is arrested by any mter- 
 f(Mvnce with siicli divinely constituted conditions 
 tiie indignant protest which arises in the breast of 
 ■^"ery man is the voice of God in the assertion o) 
 
DUTJLES TO OUB FELLOW-MEN. 159 
 
 rights. We are so constituted that, in apprehend- 
 ing the relation between these active principles and 
 their ends, the moral reason necessarily forms the 
 idea of rights. 
 
 Rights, as thus founded, are of several kinds. 
 
 And 1st, There are what have beL-a called 
 Kinds of "rights of things " and "rights of per- 
 "«'''*• sons." This is a radical distinction, and 
 
 needs to be clearly understood. 
 
 Men have a right to tilings that they may be 
 enabled to attain their own ends. They have 
 rights over persons that they may enable those per- 
 sons to attain their ends. Rights of things are to 
 guard against the encroachment of otliers, and 
 their sole correlative is obligation on the part of 
 others. From the use of anything to which one 
 man has a right, others are under obligation to ab- 
 stain, and ti) abstain wholly. Of rights over others, 
 having it for their object to enable them to attain 
 liioir end, the correlative is still obligation on the 
 part of others ; but tliey also involve obligation on 
 the part of him in whom tiie right vests to those 
 others. Tiie parent has a right over the child, and 
 Ihe child is under obligation to respect that right ; 
 but the parent is also himself under obligation to 
 the child to use that right solely for the end for 
 A'hich it was given. 
 
 As rights have theit foundation in their relation 
 Limit of *" ^^ ®'^*^' ®° t^^.y fi"<i their limit in tlie 
 ''*'"' same relation, Relative.y to others a man 
 
IGO yiJliAL SCIENCK. 
 
 may have a right to do what he will with Iiis own, 
 but in truth and before God, no man has a right 
 to use anything except for the end for whicli it was 
 given. No man has a right to destroy his property 
 wantonly, or to use it foolishly, though no other 
 man may have a right to prevent him. 
 
 Here, too, we find not only the foundation, but 
 he Hmit of all rights of government whether human 
 r diviuo. If any being be in a position to secure 
 his own ends independently of all others, then no 
 other being can have any rights over him. It is on 
 this ground that any right over God is impossible, 
 and his right over his creatures as moral Governor 
 is not from his relation to them as Creator and Pre- 
 server, as these relations are simply from his power, 
 but it is from his capacity and disposition to do for 
 them what is necessary for the attainment by thein 
 of their end. Moral governuient is by law, and )io 
 man will say that it would be right in God to give 
 his creatures a law that would lead them astray in 
 seeking their supreme end. So far as we can un- 
 derstand it the whole end of the moral government 
 jf God is to lead his creatures to the attahiment by 
 them of that end. If any one should fail of this 
 (llimately and finally, and it should appear that God 
 had not ])rovided conditions by which it was possible 
 Cor him to attain it, the fault would not be in the 
 i-riviture. But there will be no such failure. No 
 creatuie shall ever be able to charge such a failure 
 ipon God. Hence the righteousness of his govern- 
 
DUTIKS TO OUlt FELLOW-MEN. 161 
 
 meiit, liis riglit under tliat government to control 
 liis creatures, and the guilt of theii- rebellion. In 
 the same way parents and civil rulers, holding rela- 
 tions established by God, through which their aid is 
 indispensable to others in the attainment of their 
 ends, have rights over them, but only for the attain- 
 ment by them of those ends. If any man make use 
 of another for his own ends simply, he uses him as 
 a thing. Tiiis, when done by an individual, is 
 slavery ; when done by a government, it is tyranny. 
 
 Rights, again, are natural, and adventitious. 
 Rights Natural rights are both of things and of 
 
 •d'eDti-""' persons. They are those which would 
 «ous. belong to man if there were no civil 
 
 government. A man has a natural I'ight to those 
 means and conditions of good which God has pro- 
 vided to enable him to secure his end, such as air, 
 light, water, the unappropriated products of tlie 
 jarth and waters, and the fruit of his own labors. 
 Parents have also a natural riglit to tlie obedience 
 and respect of their childi-en, and children to the 
 love and care of their parents, because these grow 
 out of natural I'elations. Adventitious rights are 
 those which grow out of civil society. No man is 
 naturally a ruler, or judge, or sheriff, or legislator. 
 These have rights as such, but they are adven- 
 titious. So also are many of the rights of property. 
 
 Rights are also alienable and inalienable. Alien 
 Bights auen- able rights are tnose which may be law- 
 iiteubie. lully transierrja to another. We do no) 
 11 
 
162 MOBAL SCIENCE. 
 
 here inquire what others may unlawfully do m de- 
 priving us of rights, which will still be ours and 
 may again be exercised when we have the power, 
 but what we may do in transferring to others rights 
 which will cease to be ours. The ground of this 
 diftinction will be found in the ends which these 
 rights respect. All rights from the ?'iwer powers, 
 as the desires and natural affections, that do not 
 respect the supreme end, are alienalrS. A man 
 may transfer to another his property, or his right 
 over his child. But a man has an inalienable right 
 to himself in the use of all those means and condi- 
 tions which are necessary to the attainment of his 
 supreme end. These he cannot alienate, and no 
 one can rightfully deprive him of them. No man 
 may lower his true manhood ; but if, without doing 
 this, he can alienate or part with anything, he is at 
 liberty to do it. 
 
 If the foundation of rights has been correctly 
 stated, it will follow that the rights of all ^^^^^ 
 men are equal. As rights are foundeil "*'"°' 
 »n ends indicated by active principles, if men have 
 I ommon active principles and a common end, tiiat is, 
 if tiiey are men, they must have common and equal 
 rights. This is the doctrine of the Declaration of 
 Independence, and the foundation of republican 
 nstitutions. The condition in which men are 
 bom, and their natural endowments, may be of the 
 greatest diversity, but the riglit of one human boinc 
 to all the means and conditions given him by Go(^ 
 
DUTIES TO OUK i'KLLOW-MEN. 163 
 
 lur atiiiiuiiig his ends must rest on the same ground, 
 ami Ijo as perfect and sacred as tliat of any oilier. 
 
 Tiiat men have equal riglits has been regarded as 
 self-evident, but some confusion has arisen from not 
 distinguishing clearly between the rights of things 
 Bijthta of and of persons. As regards rights of ])er- 
 persons to SOUS a practical evasion has been attempted. 
 liDBuisUed. All children, it is said, are indeed born with 
 equal rights, but, as unable to secure their own ends, 
 they need for a long time to be under guardianship, 
 and if there are persons or races who are under the 
 same need, they may be treated in an analogous way. 
 
 This is true, but before the desired application of 
 it may be made, it must be shown that such persona 
 are really unable to take care of themselves. There 
 are idiots and incompetent persons who must be 
 thus cared for, but to suppose large classes or races 
 to be left thus and without natural guardianship 
 would be an imputation upon Providence ; there 
 are no such races. It must also be shown that any 
 such assumed guardianship is a rightful one, and 
 will secure its legitimate ends. Such a guardian- 
 ship for tiie ends of those over whom it is assumed, 
 would not be coveted. The law of love would re- 
 quire us first to give all persons their rights, and if, 
 Hfler a fair trial, they are unable to take care of 
 themselves, then to have guardians appointed by 
 lawful authority, and for their good. This would 
 ')e wholly contrary to the spirit of slavery, which 
 consists in using persons as things, and for our owp 
 
 ends. 
 
164 ilOKAL SClJiNCK. 
 
 The rjglits which men, all men, thus have as em- 
 powered of God to secure their own ends, 
 ai'e those of Justice and of Truth, which 
 last is also a form of justice. 
 
 As between man and man, justice consists in con- 
 ceding and rendering to every one all his rights. 
 He who has all Ills rights has no injustice done him. 
 Divine Justice consists not only in this, but also in 
 rendering to every one his deserts. Tliese two 
 forms of justice are entirely distinct. Desert of 
 punishment depends upon guilt ; but with guilt as 
 such and in distinction from injury to the individual 
 and to society, man cannot deal. Tliat depends 
 upon the heart, whicli he cannot know and can 
 have no claim to regulate. Man looks on the act 
 and infers the motive. He may not punish ex- 
 cept on the presumption of a bad motive, but his 
 punishment must be graduated, not by the pre- 
 sumed badness of the motive, but by the tendency 
 of the act to injure society. God, on the other hand, 
 looks at the motive and disregards the act. He sees 
 and punishes guilt in intention where there is no 
 outward act. Hence " Vengeance belongs to Him." 
 He only can administer punitive justice. Man may 
 guard rights ; he may prevent any violation of them 
 m the name of justice and within its limits. And 
 the sentiment of justice within him may find satis- 
 faction in such punishment, but the measure of pun- 
 ishment by him must be found in its necessity to 
 i^uard the rights of society, and not in any satis- 
 
DUTIES TO OUR FELLOW-MEN. 165 
 
 faction of absolute punitive justice. Any otlier 
 right can be had only from direct revelation. 
 
 We now pass to consider more particularly the 
 rijrhts which belong to all men. 
 
 But in doing this we must notice an element 
 BecurUyan ^^'bich enters into our conception of all 
 theTouUp- '"'gilt* — ^^^^^ °^ security. Tlie right to 
 lion of right, gpcm-ity in the possession and use of any- 
 thing rests on the same ground as the right to the 
 thing itself, since the end on which the right is 
 based cannot be fully attained without this. With- 
 out security there is no enjoyment or free use of 
 anything, and jjerfect security alone gives its full 
 value to a ])ossession. This is the element and con- 
 dition in connection with our rights which we 
 value more than any other. Heuce this element is 
 recognized in law ; and if there be good reason to 
 believe that any one will violate the rights of others, 
 he may be bound over to keep the peace. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 PERSONAL RIGHTS : LIFE AND LIBERTY. 
 
 ShCUKiTY being thus implied in all rights, the 
 first class wliich we shall notice is those of the 
 Person. 
 
 Every person has a right to life, and to such 
 security and freedom as will enable liim to attain 
 the several ends indicated by his active powers. 
 
 On the riglit to life all otliers depend. This is 
 the first guarded in the Decalogue. It is ^^ ^^^^^ 
 also the first mentioned in the Declaration "''■ 
 of Independence, wliere it is said to be inalienable. 
 It is so. It may be forfeited for crime ; it may be 
 surrendered for the sake of principle or of humanity, 
 but cannot be alienated for a consideration. 
 
 How, then, may the right to life be so forfeited 
 :liat others may have the right to take it uo„f„. 
 iiway ? *''^'**- 
 
 This may be done in four ways, and 
 
 1. By attempting the life of another. The righi 
 to take life in defending life is recognized by the 
 la^vs of all countries and by all persons, except a 
 few extreme non-resistants. 
 
 %. The right to life may be forfeited by attempt- 
 
PEBSONAL EIGHTS: LIFE AND LIBERTY 167 
 
 fng house-breaking or robbery in the night. The 
 law jjroperly makes a distinction between sucli 
 attempts bj day and by night, and in the latter 
 case justifies tlic taking of hfe. Still every such 
 attL'inpt will not make this morally right, and for 
 such cases no general I'ulo can be laid down. 
 
 3. Tiie right to life may be forfeited by resisting 
 the officers of the law. If officers of the law aiu 
 resisted in its execution, they have a right, as a last 
 resort, to take life. If a mob which they have 
 been commanded to disperse, will not disperse, they 
 have a right to fire upon it. 
 
 4. The right to life is forfeited by murder, that 
 is, by taking life with malice aforethought. 
 
 The death penalty was early authorized and de- 
 manded by the Bible, not from cruelty, but on the 
 very ground of the sacredness of human life. 
 " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his 
 blood be shed, for in the image of God made He 
 nMn." The estimate placed by a lawgiver upon 
 any right, can be measured only by the penalty by 
 which he guards it ; and as death is the highest 
 possible penalty, they who impose this show the 
 highest possible estimate of the value of life. That 
 is a sophism by which those who reject this penalty 
 would persuade themselves or the community that 
 m so doing they are more humane than others, or 
 Bet a higher value on human life. It is the reverse. 
 
 But the right to take life can depend upon nr. 
 estimate of its value by us. It must come cither 
 directly or indirectly from God, •— du'cctly by rev- 
 
168 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 elation, and indirectly from its necessity to the 
 ends of government. Government is from God, 
 and has thus a right to do what is essential to its 
 own being and ends ; and if the secm-ity which is 
 its great end can be attained only by the death of 
 those who would destroy it, then society may put 
 them to death. Society has thus the right, and 
 must judge how far, in the varying phases of civil- 
 ization and Christianity, it may be necessary to use 
 it. 
 
 The rights of the Person are also infringed by 
 any violence actual or attempted. An assault is 
 violence attempted. Battery is any degree of vio- 
 lence, even tlie slightest touch in anger, or for in- 
 sult. Violence may also result in wounding or in 
 maiming the person attacked. 
 
 Under rights of the person is also included, — 
 the Right to Liberty. By this is here Right to 
 meant, not freedom of choice, but the '"""^y- 
 liberty of external action in carrying out our choices. 
 It is the right to do whatever any one may choose, 
 provided he does not interfere with the rights of 
 another. 
 
 Liberty to tliis extent is plainly essential to the 
 end of man as a responsible being, and hence a 
 natural right. It is also inalienable so far as it is 
 necessary to the highest end of any man ; but if 
 by parting with some portion of it, — for even 
 slavery does not wholly take it away, — a man can 
 bottur subserve the great ends of love, he is a1 
 liberty to do it. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 EIGHT TO PROPERTY. 
 
 The Right to Property reveals itself through an 
 
 itafounda- Original desire. The afHrmation of it is 
 "'"'' early and universally made, and becomes 
 
 a controlling element in civil society. 
 
 The sense of this right, thus originally given, is 
 deepened by observation and reflection. Without 
 this society could not exist. With no right to the 
 product of his labor no man would make a tool, or 
 a gai'ment, or build a shelter, or raise a crop. 
 There could be no industry and no progress. 
 
 It will be found too, historically, that the general 
 well-being and progress of society has been in pro- 
 portion to the freedom of every man to gain prop- 
 erty in all legitimate ways, and to security in its 
 possession. Let the form of the government be 
 what it may, if there but be freedom of industry, 
 and security in the possession and enjoyment of its 
 results, there will be prosperity 
 
 The laws of every government relate largely to 
 propert3\ They regulate the modes of it? acquisi- 
 h'on and transfer, and punish violations of the right. 
 
 Tlie acquisition of property is required by lovfe. 
 
170 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 because it is a powerful moans of benefiting otherB. 
 There is no giving without a previous get- pmperty to 
 ting. A selfish getting of property, though ^'^i^^ 
 better than a selfish indolence or wastefulness, is 
 not to be encouraged ; but the desire of property 
 working in subordination to the affections should 
 be. Most blessed would it be if all the desires 
 could thus work, but especially this. Industry, 
 frugality, carefulness, as ministering to a cheerfii^ 
 giving, would then not only be purged from all 
 taint of meanness, but would be ennobled. " There 
 have," says Chancellor Kent, " been modern 
 theorists, who have considered separate and ex- 
 clusive property as the cause of injustice, and the 
 unhappy result of government and artificial insti- 
 tutions. But human society would be in a most 
 unnatural and miserable condition if it were pos- 
 sible to be instituted or reorganized upon the basis 
 ol such speculations. The sense of property is 
 graciously bestowed upon mankind for the purpose 
 of rousing tlieni from sloth and stimulating them to 
 action. It leads to the cultivation of the earth, the 
 nstitution of government, the establishment of jus- 
 tice, the acquisition of the comforts of life, the 
 growth of the useful arts, the spirit of commerce, 
 the productions of taste, the erections of charity, 
 and the display of the benevolent affections." 
 
 Property may be acquired, — 
 
 1. By appropriating so much of those things 
 vhicli God lias given to all as we need for oui 
 
RIGHT TO PROPERTY. 171 
 
 own use. Some things which God has given to all, 
 Direct modes as air and sunlight, cannot be appropriated, 
 
 .f acquiring ^ ' -r. 
 
 property. and SO Cannot become property. But 
 the spontaneous fruits of the earth, the products of 
 the waters, and so much land as may be necessarj 
 for individual support, and as shall be permanently 
 occupied, may, by appropriation, become property. 
 
 2. Property may be acquired by labor. 
 
 Labor is the chief source of value, and the 
 laborer has a right to the value he creates. This 
 is a natural right resulting directly from a man's 
 right to himself. It may not be easy, it is not, to 
 adjust the questions that arise between the claims 
 of accumulated labor in the form of capital and of 
 labor directly applied, or wages ; but the principle 
 is, that the value created should be shared in pro- 
 portion ±0 the labor represented or applied. 
 
 In the above ways property may be acquired 
 Indirect directly. It may also be acquired indi- 
 """O*"- rectly, and — 
 
 1. By exchange. This may be either by barter, 
 which is an exchange of commodities ; or by bargain 
 and sale, in which the purchaser gives money. 
 
 2. By gift. The right to give away property is 
 involved in the right of ownership. 
 
 3. By will. The right to bestow property by 
 will is admitted in all civilized countries. This ia 
 natural and beneficial to society. The right how- 
 ever is not absolute, but may be so limited by Jaw 
 as not to counterwork the general snirit of the in- 
 ititutions of a country. 
 
172 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 4. By inheritance. When persons die intestate, 
 tlieir property is inherited by tlieir relatives in 
 accordance with law. 
 
 5. By accession. " This is the right to all that 
 one's own property produces, whether that property 
 be movable or immovable, and the right to that 
 which is united to it by accession either naturally 
 or artificially. This includes the fruits of the earth 
 produced naturally or by human industry, the in- 
 crease of animals, and the new species of articles 
 made by one person out of the materials of another." 
 " Also title by alluvion, or the deposit of earth by 
 natural causes." ^ 
 
 6. By possession. To prevent litigation the laws 
 properly fix a limit beyond which a man shall not 
 be disturbed in the possession of property, however 
 it may have been acquired. This gives no moral 
 right, but is what is called " right by possession." 
 
 The right of property is exclusive. No man, no 
 state, has the right to take it away without ^^^ ^ ^^ 
 an equivalent, and the owner has a right ^^'=''^'™ 
 to put it to any use he may please that is consistent 
 with the rights of others. 
 
 Property may be real or personal. Real estate 
 consists of lands and of appurtenances, as Property 
 houses, trees, shrubs, that cannot be easily sonai. 
 moved. All other property is personal. 
 
 With the exceptions to be mentioned hereafter 
 ihe right of property is violated if it be taken witb 
 
 ^ Kent*B Qmimeniariet. 
 
RIGHT rO PROPERTY. 173 
 
 out tlie free consent of the owner; or if througn 
 Phis right concealment or deception the owner fail 
 
 how tIo* 
 
 lilted to have a full knowledge of the equiva- 
 
 lent offered. If property be taken with consent 
 enforced by fear, or by violence without consent, it 
 is I'obbery. 
 
 If taken by forcibly entering a dwelling in the 
 night, it is burglary. 
 
 If simply taken without the knowledge or con- 
 sent of the owner with no violence, it is theft. 
 
 If pi'operty be taken, and through concealment 
 or misrepresentation the owner be ignorant of the 
 equivalent offered, it is cheating. 
 
 If the equivalent offered be a foi'ged paper, it is 
 fraud. The line between fraud and cheating is not 
 sharply drawn. In a large sense they cover the 
 same ground, but while there is fraud in all cheat- 
 ing, yet forgery is a fraud, and not cheating. 
 
 If property be taken with consent obtained by 
 lying or deception without an equivalent, it is ob- 
 taining property under false pretences. 
 
 Of these, robbery, as violating both the rights of 
 person and of property, is the highest crime. As 
 violating both the rights of security and property, 
 burglary comes next. The others are criminal in 
 the eye of the law, for that is the only criminality 
 that can here be estimated, as they tend to unsettle 
 the right of property and disturb the order of 
 wciety, and this tendency may vary with time ana 
 tircumstances. 
 
174 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 The right of property is exclusive, but as it is an 
 inferior good, it may not stand in the way (jjoand of 
 of the great interests of the community, or ferei™^h 
 of the hfe of the individual. Hence the "^'"k*"- 
 community have the right, provided for and asserted 
 under all governments, of taking in a legal way, 
 and for a fair equivalent, private property for the 
 convenience and safety of the public. And indi- 
 «duals have the right to take property as food to 
 preserve life. 
 
 It is commonly said that the right of property 
 precludes the taking of the least thing without the 
 consent of the owner, but consent may sometimes 
 oe presumed. The rule is to take nothing we 
 should not be willing the owner should see us take. 
 To take an apple in passing through an orchard is 
 not stealing. 
 
 In the ways above mentioned property is wrong- 
 fully taken. It may be taken rightfully with the 
 I'ree consent of the owner, whether as a gift or for 
 an equivalent. If for an equivalent, it may be by 
 exchange or by purchase. 
 
 The law of exchange, as already indicated, is 
 chat each party should have a full knowl- j^^ ^^ ^^ 
 edge of that which is offered as an equiva- "•'"''«''• 
 lent. In exchange intrinsic values are not consid- 
 ered, but the convenience or taste of the parties 
 Hence a fair transaction can require nothing bu 
 freedom from constraint, and a full knowledge b^ 
 aach party of the equivalent offered. 
 
RIGHT TO I'KOl'ERTy. 175 
 
 The law of exchange by purchase, or of buying 
 unci selhng, is the same, so far as the seller is con- 
 cerned, as that of simple exchange, except that a 
 trader is bound to ask for that in which he professes 
 to deal, no more than the market-price. A fair 
 transaction requires tliat there sliall be no conccal- 
 niunt or deception in the article sold, that no more 
 than tlie market-price be demanded, and that no 
 improper motive, as vanity, or a depraved appetite, 
 be appealed to. In selling an article in which he 
 does not profess to deal, a man may ask what he 
 pleases. 
 
 Property may be permanently and rightfully 
 alienated, by gift, by exchange, and by 
 sale. It is also permanently alienated by 
 gambling. Tiiis has different forms. In some cases, 
 as in dice and in lotteries, it is simply an appeal to 
 chance. In others, as in cards, there is a mixture 
 of chance and skill. In others, as in betting, of 
 chance and judgment. In all cases the object is 
 gain without an equivalent, and while tliere is such 
 gain on one side there is, on the other, loss without 
 compensation. In legitimate trade both parties aio 
 benefited ; in gambling but one. Legitimate trade 
 requires and promotes habits of industry and skill; 
 gambling generates indolence and vice, and stimu- 
 ates a most infatuating and often uncontrollable 
 lassion. It is wholly selfish, and wholly injurious 
 .11 its effects upon the r-ommunity. That a practice 
 thu» inherently vicious should be resorted to fo; 
 
176 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 charitable purposes, does not change its character, 
 but only tends to confound moral distinctions. 
 
 But arc all appeals to chance in the distribution 
 ■j{ property rambling ? Not necessarily, Aiionation 
 
 ,„?,. . ^ , of property 
 
 if we define it by its motives and results, by chnuce 
 
 rt . XT ■ T • 1 1 not always 
 
 A picture is given to a fair. No individual gauiuung. 
 will o-ive for it its value : that value is contributeu 
 by a number, and the picture disposed of by lot. 
 This differs from an ordinary lottery : 1st, Because 
 there are no expenses, and all that is given goes for 
 ail object which the parties are gathered to promote. 
 2d, The prize is given so that nothing is taken for 
 prizes from the amount paid in, but the whole goes 
 for the j)roposed object. 3d, This may be done 
 from a simple desire that the fair should realize the 
 worth of its jjropeity and so benevolently. And 
 4tli, Appeals to chance under these conditions are 
 not likely to be so frequent or general as to en- 
 danger the habits of the community. All this may, 
 and should, in fairness, be said. It should also be 
 said, 1st, That no form of charity should be tolerated 
 for a moment that in the actual state of a com- 
 munity will foster a spirit of gambhng. It should 
 be said, 2dly, Tliat any attempt to promote a benev- 
 olent object by an appeal to selfish motives is 
 wrong. Benevolent giving is a means of Christian 
 culture, but selfish giving in the form of benevo- 
 lence is a deception and a snare. If the cause of 
 lienevolence cannot be supported benevolentlj^ it 
 lad better not be supported at all. Any othej 
 
RlGUl TU i'KUl'liBlV. 177 
 
 mode of supporting it will dry up its fountains. 
 While therefore we do not say that all appeals to 
 chance in the distribution of property are gambling, 
 we do say that all combinations and arrangements 
 to cause persons to give money for benevolent ob- 
 jects otherwise than benevolently are wrong, and 
 more especially if they tend to promote a spirit of 
 gambling. 
 
 But not gambling only, speculation also requires 
 attention in its relation to morals. In 
 
 bpeculation. n-^ o ■ i • J ir 
 
 some or its forms, as m buynig and selang 
 stocks, or wheat, when there is no delivery, vs^hat 
 is called speculation is mere gambling. It is sim- 
 wTiatia ply betting; on the question of a future 
 
 tailed spocu- , ? r, ■ , . 
 
 lation. market price. But in speculation, as dis- 
 
 tinguished from gambling, the speculator does not 
 expect to get something for nothing. There is 
 a bargain and a transfer of what each party ac- 
 cepts as an equivalent. Speculation is purchase or 
 sale in the expectation of a change of prices. With 
 fixed prices, which are the basis of ordinary profits, 
 it is impossible. The problem here is to give 
 enterprise and sagacity a fair field without vio- 
 lating the law of love. And 1st, If the ground on 
 which a change of prices is expected is equally 
 Vnown, or accessible to both parties, all agree that 
 the transaction is fair. 2d, If one party has the 
 power to cau?e fluctuations in price, and buys of 
 «ells with the intention of doing this, all will agree 
 that this is swindling. But 3d, If there be f 
 
1.78 MOBAL SC1£NC£. 
 
 certainty that there will be a rise of price in 
 consequence of an event known only to the pur- 
 chaser, then tlie inquiry is whether he may avail 
 himself of his knowledge. On this opinions differ. 
 It may be said on the one hand that the owner 
 receives full compensation for his property as esti- 
 mated by any price he may have given for it, any 
 labor he may have bestowed upon it, or any expec- 
 tations he may have formed from it, and that if 
 there is to be an increase of value without labor — 
 if somebody is to gain without loss to anybody, it 
 may as fairly be the man who by his enterprise or 
 good fortune has the knowledge as he who has the 
 property. It may be said on the other hand that 
 when a man raises a crop, he does it with the ex- 
 pectation of any advantage that may accrue through 
 unforeseen events, and that for a quicker or more 
 fortunate man who has bestowed upon it no labor 
 at all, to step in and seize an advantage that would 
 have been his in the natural course of events is 
 not strictly honest, to say nothing of the law of 
 love. 
 
 In solving such cases, it may be said that society 
 k-iay be established and exist permanently cooperation 
 
 . , -, p . . and conipe- 
 
 (in two pnnciples — that or competition, HMon. 
 and tiiat of cooperation. The first has its advantaces, 
 and the evils of it are diminished as general intelli- 
 gence is increased. Under it the evils of ignorance 
 are felt pecuniarily, and intelligence is thus stimu- 
 lated. Under this system transactions like the 
 
BIGHT TO i'KOl'ERTY. 179 
 
 »b(AX' \v(juld bo allowable. It is only transactiona 
 based on such a system that human law can regulate. 
 But the principle of cooperation is far higher, and 
 the results would be better. This would require 
 that each man should Ijc made acquainted with the 
 facts, and not only be permitted to act in view of 
 them, but be advised respecting them. 
 
 The above is a common case. There is anothei 
 less common and differing from it in one respect. 
 A man discovers a mine on the fai-m of another. 
 May he buy the farm and say nothing of the mine ? 
 In the above case advantajie would accrue to the 
 holders of the |)roperty despite the will of him who 
 had the knowledge, but here tiie whole increased 
 value comes from the knowledge and is dependent 
 upon it. May not he then who has the knowledge 
 avail himself of the whole of the increased value ? 
 So it would seem, and yet if men had confidence in 
 each other as disposed to act on the principle of 
 cooperation, the owner would be informed of the 
 facts, and would sliare the profits equally with hiir 
 H'ho informed him. 
 
 In connection with this subject it should be saio 
 that nothing tends more strongly to demoralize a 
 community than unsteady prices. It unsettles in- 
 dustry, and promotes a spirit of gambling ; and any 
 legislation that so' tampers with the currency, or 
 disturbs values in any way as to produce this, will 
 affect disastrously the moral, no less than the pecu- 
 aiary interests of the country. 
 
180 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 But property is not only parted with pcrmanenth 
 bv sale or excliani-e, but also temporarily Temporerj 
 for a compensation. If it be money, it of property, 
 is loaned ; if real estate, it is rented ; if a horse, it is 
 let. 
 
 Money differs from other property in being 
 created by law for the public convenience. Hence 
 its amount, the conditions on which it may be 
 issued, and the rate of interest have always been re- 
 garded as proper subjects of legislation. The pub- 
 lic must have a right to prevent that which it creates 
 for its convenience from becoming an injury, but 
 the precise legislation required will be a question of 
 expediency rather than of morals. Where money 
 is abundant, and the amount in a country is large, 
 and especially in a commercial community, it may 
 be wise to permit men to take what interest they 
 fan, when under other circumstances it would not. 
 And banks, being created for the convenience of 
 tlie public, may be restricted in tiieir rate of interest 
 when individuals would not. Their possible com- 
 bination and power to control the currency may 
 •equire this. The rule is, that all possible fi-eedom 
 compatible with the public interest should be con- 
 ceded in their use of money both to banks and to 
 individuals. This being understood, bargains in 
 ■egard to interest are to be regulated on the same 
 (irinciples as other bargains. 
 
 When money is loaned, money is to be returned 
 5ut when real estate is rented, or when horses ant 
 
KIGHT TO I'ROPERTY. 181 
 
 carnages are let, tlie same property is to be re- 
 turned. Ill tlie mean time the property may be 
 abused ; and this gives rise to the rule in such cases 
 that it is to be used only for the purpose for which 
 it was rented or let, and that the same care is to 
 be taken of it that a reasonably careful man would 
 take of his own property. If, in connection with 
 such care, tliu property should be injured by acci- 
 dent in tlie use contemplated in tlie bargain, the 
 loss will fall on the owner ; if in any other use, on 
 the person in temporary possession. 
 
 Property is also often lent without compensation 
 simply for the convenience of the borrower. In 
 this case the lender is undei' obligation not to de- 
 mand it arbitrarily and witliout reference to the 
 specific use for which it was borrowed. The bor- 
 rower is under obligation to use the property with 
 rare and to return it promptly/. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 RIGHT TO REPUTATION. 
 
 The next right that belongs to man is that of 
 Reputation. 
 
 Tlie desiic of esteem is as natural as that of 
 property, and is equally the foundation of a right. 
 With most it is a stronger desire, and so the foun- 
 dation of a right that is more precious. If there 
 are those who say with the Roman miser, — 
 
 " Populus me sibilat at milii plaudo, 
 Ipse (lomi simul ac nummos contcniplar in area," 
 
 " The people hiss me, but I applaud myself at home, 
 while I gloat over my hoarded riches," — they are 
 but few. In the Scriptures a desire for tliis is en- 
 couraged, and it is set above property. " A good 
 name is rather to be chosen than gTeat riches, and 
 lovino; favor rather than silver and gold." With 
 many, reputation is dearer than life, and as society 
 is now constituted, the me.ms of enjoying life are 
 even more dependent on this than upon property. 
 If knowledge is power so is reputation, and espe- 
 cially is it power in tlie form of influence. If then 
 i man have sucli a possession, we may not dotrac' 
 from it except foi a good reason. 
 
BIGHT TO KEPUTATION. 183 
 
 The most common mode in which the right of 
 [hi, tight reputation is violated is by slander. The 
 tatod™ Un- essence of this lies in diminishing the rep 
 *"■ utation of another without good cause, 
 
 whether by truth or falsehood. It was formerly a 
 maxim of law " the greater the truth, the greater 
 the slander." The reason of tliis was that tiie 
 truth tended more to injure reputation than false- 
 hood. Now, however, the courts accept the plea 
 of truth in mitigation of damages, and generally in 
 full justification. The malice or the mischief may 
 bo as great, or even greater, if only truth be told ; 
 but society is not bound to shield a man by its laws 
 from tiie natural results of his own acts when fairly 
 made known. 
 
 Slander may be mahcious, selfish, or inconsid- 
 erate. It is seldom probably from pure malice. 
 That is not the usual form of human wickedness. 
 Rut there is scarcely a position or occujiation in life 
 in which any considerable reputation will not so bring 
 him who has it into competition with others, that it 
 sliall either be, or be supposed to be, for their in- 
 terest to have it dimhn'shed. And as the facilities 
 for slander are almost unlimited, as the modes of it, 
 by insinuation, hints, injunctions of secrecj^ so tend 
 to veil its real nature, as 't has so many shades, and 
 as there is not the same danger of legal prosecution 
 as in taking from the property of another, our treat- 
 mert of others in regard to their reputation, when 
 tliey are in competition with us, becomes one of the 
 Saost trying tests of character. 
 
184 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Tlic test of cliaracter is however scarcely leas 
 levere under tlie temptations in the ordinary inter- 
 course of society to inconsiderate sJander. Tliere 
 is Iiere no malice, no competition, no special object, 
 but topics of conversation are needed ; there is 
 excitement in telling news, and words really slan- 
 derous are uttered uimiindful of the exaggerations 
 hat are sure to follow, and of the deej) wounds 
 they may give. In such a case lack of criminal 
 intention is no more an excuse than it would be in 
 a man who should throw the slates of a roof he 
 might be repairing into the street of a city careless 
 of the passers below. 
 
 Against the higher forms of slander a man of 
 average principle would be guarded, but it was 
 probably with special reference to these lighter 
 forms that the Apostle James says, " If any man 
 offend not in word the same is a perfect man and 
 able to bridle the whole body." Christians are re- 
 quired to lay aside " all evil speaking." They are 
 to be put in mind "to speak evil of no man." So 
 carefully do the Scriptures guard the sacred and 
 orecious right of reputation. 
 
 It would appear thus that there are two distinct 
 cases in speaking of others when reputa- Keptitation 
 tion is in question. In the one an indi- euJ/nSbed/ 
 vidual lias a reputation, and we know of nothing he 
 has (lone either in gaining it or since it was gained 
 lint, if truthfully stated, wov.ld diminish it. To 
 diminish reputation in such a case would be to ado 
 
RIGHT TO KEPUTATION. 185 
 
 the guilt of lying to that of slander. We have no 
 more right to do it than we have to steal. In the 
 second case an individual has a reputation, but wo 
 know things either in regard to his mode of gain- 
 ing it, or that he has done since, which, if truthfully 
 stated, would diminish or perhaps blast it. In this 
 case we are not only permitted to state what we 
 know, but are bound to do it when required to do 
 it by justice, or for the protection of the innocent, 
 or for the good of the offender ; but we are to do it 
 with the temper and limitations required by the law 
 of love. 
 
 But reputation may be diminished not only by 
 slander, but also by ridicule. The object 
 
 Ridicule. p , . . i rni • 
 
 or this IS to awaken contempt, ihis may 
 be proper when provoked by pretense or affectation, 
 by extravagance or absurdity, ])erhaps by persistent 
 awkwardness or carelessness, but never to bring 
 into contempt anything that is genuine. The mo- 
 ment this is done, — and it may be done towards any 
 man, — however keen the wit, or perfect tlie mimicry, 
 or droll the caricature, we obscure the distinction 
 between that which is reputable and venerable, 
 ind that which is contemptible, and tlius not only 
 wrong the individual, but undermine those higher 
 tentiments on which the stability of the community 
 depends. Ridicule is an effective weapon, but re- 
 quires care in its use, and out of its sphere is de 
 moralizing and dangerous. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 RIGHT TO TllUTH. 
 
 We have now considered the rights connuouly 
 mentioned as belonging to all men, — the generaJ 
 right to security, the riglit to life, to liberty, to 
 property, and to reputation. I aui inclined to say 
 there is still another — the right to truth. 
 
 This has the same foundation as other rights, that 
 is, in its necessity to men for the attainment by 
 them of their ends ; it is often so spoken of as to 
 imply that it is a right, as when one is said to have 
 no right to the truth, and in grave cases men are 
 put under oath and the riglit is enforced by law. 
 We should hence have naturally expected that it 
 would be regarded as a right and classed among the 
 others. Whewell does, indeed, place the right of 
 contract among the primary rights of men, and 
 bases it on the need of mutual understandins:. But 
 in that mutual understanding which is essential to 
 the order of society there is no jjroper contract. 
 Nor is such understanding by any means wholly 
 based on anything that can be called either a con- 
 tract or a promise. Men act on expectation based, 
 either, as in nature, on uniformity of causatioc 
 
BIGHT TO TRUTH. 187 
 
 without ruference to obligation; or on confidence in 
 tlioso wlio liavc voluntarily excited expectation and 
 who feel, on that ground, bound not to disappoint 
 it. Which then is the prevalent element in the 
 affairs of life ? A man keeps a shop. Do I expect 
 to find it open during business hours because he is 
 under contract, or has promised to keep it open ? 
 No, he may shut it up for a holiday, as John Gilpin 
 did his, and break no contract ; or he may shut it 
 up indefinitely and give no notice. My expectation 
 in this, and in a multitude of similar cases, is based 
 on that uniform operation of motives, which, aside 
 from any sense of obhgation and in compatibility 
 with freedom, gives stability and consistency to con- 
 duct. It may be difficult, it is, to separate expec- 
 tation thus based from that which rests upon an 
 implied promise. This always exists vtfhen expec- 
 tation is voluntarily excited, and carries obligation 
 with it, and it is from the two combined that we 
 feel so secure of the uniform conduct of those 
 around us. So far, however, as a right exists in 
 this case, I should prefer to call it a right to truth 
 rather than a right of contract, though it is perhaps 
 of little consequence what we call it. 
 
 But such cases are on tlie same general ground 
 with others, in which there is certainly no contract. 
 A.11 human interests connect themselves witli truth. 
 As has been said, men act on expectation, and can 
 let successfully only a!= their expectations are well 
 founded, that is, as they are founded in trutii. Hul 
 
188 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 God has made men so dependent on each otner lor 
 information, that neither the ends of the individual 
 nor those of society can be attained unless the repre- 
 sentations which they make to each otlier are large- 
 ly true, and what I say is, that when any legitimate 
 end of another depends on his being told the truth, 
 he has a light to the truth. It must be so or there 
 are no rights. A traveller asks the right road. 
 Ho has a right to the truth. A child asks if a berry 
 be poisonous. It has a right to the truth, and such 
 cases are so numerous, that a right to truth seems 
 to me among the most sacred and important of our 
 lights. 
 
 But it may be asked, who shall decide when a 
 man has a right to the truth. In some cases the 
 law decides it. Wiiere it does not, the person of 
 whom it is demanded must decide. Certainly he 
 who asks an impertinent question, or any question 
 not essential to the attainment by himself of some 
 legitimate end, has no right to the truth, though 
 the absence of such right will not justify a lie. 
 
 A right to truth, as stated above, will include 
 that of contract whether express or implied. 
 
 If any say that a right which cannot be en- 
 forced is no right, it is replied that this is enforced 
 every time an oath is taken, for the only object of 
 nn oath is to enforce the truth ; and that this right 
 can be enforced quite as fully as the right to rep» 
 tatiot). 
 
DIVISION II. 
 
 DUTIES REGAKUING THE WANTS OF OTHEKB 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 JUSTICE AND BENEVOLENCE. 
 
 Having consitlorcd Riglits, we next pass to the 
 supply of Wants. This is tlie second great class 
 of duties required by love .is a law. 
 
 The transition here is from the duties of justice, 
 to those of benevolence. Between these there are 
 important differences. These were formerly indi- 
 cated by saying that the obligations and claims of 
 justice were ])erfect, while those of benevolence 
 were imperfect. But this form of expression was 
 objected to as weakening the force of obligation, 
 and of late the differences themselves have been 
 too much overlooked. 
 
 But it is one thing for a man to ask for the pay- 
 ment of a debt, and quite another, however great 
 may be his need, to ask for charity. In the first 
 case he has a right to the money, and the person 
 Dwing it is under obngation to j)av it on the ground 
 >f that right. In the second case the person asking 
 lias no right to the money, but it may still be right 
 
190 MORAL SCIENCK. 
 
 for the person asked to give it, and lie may be 
 under obligation to do so. There may be a claim 
 of" liumanit}', if not of justice, and an obligation on 
 the ground of tliat claim where there is no right. 
 
 Hence the first difference between the duties of 
 justice and those of benevolence will be that one 
 respects rights, and the other right. These are gen- 
 erally coincident, that is, it is generally right for a 
 man to do what he has a right to do ; but they may 
 be opposed. A I'ich landlord may have a right to 
 collect his rent from a poor widow upon whom un- 
 expected and unavoidable misfoi'tune has fallen, and 
 take from her her last crust and her last blanket, 
 but it would not be rijrlit. The rent migjit be 
 justly due, the claim niiglit be valid in law, the law 
 might enforce it, and properly, for otherwise there 
 could be no law ; but it would not be morally 
 right. 
 
 A second difference, growing out of tlie first, is, 
 that as i-ights are capable of definition and precise 
 limitation, the obligations growing out of them may 
 be enforced by human law, whereas that which is 
 right, being incapable of such definition and limita- 
 tion, the obligation growing out of it cannot be thus 
 enforced. Hence the proper business of legislation 
 is to secure to all their rights, and not to oblige any 
 to do right. If there are courts of equity their 
 object is not to compel the doing of right, but to 
 (irevent the doing of wrong through the imperfcc> 
 tjni)s and under the forms of law. Tb«»f legislatior 
 
JUSTICE AND BENEVOLENCE 191 
 
 should seek to pass from the guardianship of rights 
 to an attempt to compel the doing of right, is nat- 
 ural ; but this has seldom been done without con- 
 fusion and mischief. 
 
 A tliiril iliiFerencc between the duties of justice 
 and tlioso of benevolence is, that while rights are 
 tlie ground of a claim, and he in whom they vest 
 may propei'ly be indignant if the claim be not met, 
 he who asks aid as charity can never make a claim, 
 and has no ground for indignation if his claim be 
 refiised. It may be that the person asked is under 
 obligation to give, but of that he who asks is not 
 to be the judge. If he might be, two spheres 
 totally different would be at once confounded. 
 Goodness must be free to choose its own methods, 
 else it would not be goodness. The rich man who 
 refused all apphcants for aid, and lived in odium 
 that he might accumulate enough to sup])ly a city 
 vi'ith water, was afterwards justified and lauded. 
 He was under obligation to be beneficent, but was 
 at liberty to choose his own methods ; and even if 
 he had not chosen to recognize the obligation, it 
 was not for those who had no claim on him but that 
 of humanity to call him to account. 
 
 A fourth diflFerence is, that while a fulfillment of 
 the obligations corresponding to rights excites no 
 giatitude, a fulfillment of obligation in doing right 
 by supplying wants, does excite gratitude. Neman 
 i-i grateful for the payrapnt of a debt. It is simple 
 .nstice, and is, or should bo, a matter of course. 
 
192 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 But if wants are gratuitoiisly supplied, even thougli, 
 as in the case of the good Samaritan, the benefactoi 
 could not fail of supplying them without a violation 
 of obligation, gratitude is felt. The reason is that 
 in the one case the man receives simply what is his 
 own, what he has a right to, and may claim ; and 
 this is always thus where simple justice is done. 
 The natural order of things, except as provided for 
 by tlie natural affections, is that every one should 
 have his rights and supply his own wants. In this 
 there would be no call for gratitude, while any 
 interference with this order by an infraction of 
 rights would awaken indignation. But when this 
 natural order lias been broken in upon, and there 
 is want or suffering for which he who gives relief 
 is in no way responsible, then the supply of that 
 want, and the relief of that suffering, can come only 
 from simple goodness ; and such goodness manifested 
 in behalf of any individual is the proper ground of 
 gratitude. Be it that the benefactor is under ob- 
 ligation to be good. The action of the moral 
 nature enters into, and forms a part of goodness. 
 But this obligation having been recognized, and 
 goodness, instead of its opposite, having been freely 
 chosen, the exercise of such goodness towards an 
 individual whose rights we have not violated, and 
 whose wants and sufferings are from no agency of 
 Durs, is a ground for gratitude, and all the grouna 
 ^here can be. There is no contrariety, as some 
 teem to think, between a pervasive moral nature 
 
JUSTICE AND BENEVOLENCE. 193 
 
 an the one hand, and the utmost freedom of choice 
 iind the fullest play of every generous affection on 
 the other. That these affections should have wide 
 scope is right, and if there be obligation it is only 
 to the choice of that which is inherently lovely in 
 the promotion of good. 
 
 13 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 SUPPLY OF THE WANTS OF 0THEB8. 
 
 With this view of the differences between the 
 duties of justice and those of benevolence we pro- 
 ceed to consider what the law of love would require 
 in the supply of physical wants. 
 
 Give a person all his rights, and it is to be 
 expected that he will supply his own wants. From 
 the feebleness of infancy and of age, and from 
 sickness, this is, however, often impossible ; and 
 then, though there be no claim but that of human- 
 ity, love would require others to supply them. 
 
 Here two propositions are to be established. 
 The first is, that whenever a person has i^^^^^^ 
 all his rights, and it is possible for him to SStTitent 
 supply his own wants, love not only does ^''"'J^- 
 
 ot require us to supply them, but positively for- 
 bids it if our doing so would encourage either indo- 
 lence or vice. 
 
 Intelligent activity is the great source of good to 
 man. It is the foundation of self-respect and of the 
 respect of others. Beauty of person and talent we 
 jdmire, but these are gifts. Will, intelligently 
 exerted for a worthy end, is the only object of 
 
SUPPLY OF THE WANTS OF OTHERS. 195 
 
 * 
 
 approval. Mental attainments always, and wealth 
 generally, — the great means of doing good to 
 others, — depend on such activity. There is be- 
 sides, as the inseparable concomitant of such activ- 
 ity, a satisfaction of the highest kind, and that can 
 come in no other way. Of this activity, want is 
 the appointed stimulus. Opposed to it is indolence, 
 a besetting sin of the race ; the mother, not only 
 of imbecility, but of every vice — and in the stern 
 contest of God's ordinance of want with this sin, 
 (ove cannot interfere. An apostle commanded, 
 ' If any would not work, neither should he eat." 
 
 The second proposition is that when it is im- 
 wheu^nts possible for persons to supply their own 
 rtppiie4°by wants, Love requires that they be sup- 
 ' """• plied by others. 
 
 This impossibility as it appears in infancy, in sick- 
 ness, in disability from accident or sudden calamity, 
 ».nd in old age, is divinely appointed as a part of 
 our condition here ; and over against it we find the 
 promptings and claims of natural affection, of friend- 
 ship, of neighborhood, and of humanity. In tlie 
 spontaneous play of these, if we could but exclude 
 indolence and vice, we should find an adequate pro- 
 vision for the supply of all wants. The wants and 
 liabihties of each would but tend to the union of 
 the whole, and the burden of their supply, if indeed 
 :t would be a burden, would not be greater than 
 the discipline of character would require. Nc 
 legislation would be needed. But indolence and 
 
196 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 vice do exist, and from them come want and suffer- 
 ing that assume such proportions as to require 
 legislative action. May not, then, such want and 
 suffering be left to the provision made by law? 
 No ; and this for the sake of both parties. 
 
 Legislation can do much, but when its provisions 
 are best administered it is impersonal ; LegfaiaHon 
 
 not satH- 
 
 like the laws of Nature, it must go by cientuse- 
 
 ? , ourethis 
 
 general rules, and so cannot touch the supply, 
 heart. It has in it the power of relief, but not of 
 reform. It may reach want, but not character, and 
 till that is readied nothing effectual or permanent 
 is done. The present life is not retributive, but 
 disciplinary, and when the laws of well-being have 
 been so far trans£iressed as to brine; want and suffer- 
 ing that call for charity, these should lead to refor- 
 mation. But this they seldom do. More often we 
 find either a liardened defiance or a languid and 
 hopeless discouragement. What is then needed is 
 such kindness and sympathy as will bring to the 
 poor and suffering and degraded the hope of res- 
 toration to his own self-respect, and to the respect 
 ■and love of others. This can come only from a 
 manifestation of individual and personal interest. 
 Love begets love, and for all who can love there is 
 hope. If love thus manifested, and seconded bv 
 the natural fruits of transgression, will not work a 
 reformation, no human effort can avail. 
 
 Nor will the highest interests of the benefactor 
 uimself permit that the relief of want and suffering 
 
SUPPLY OF THE WANTS OF OTHERS. 197 
 
 fro-.n indolence and vice should be left to legislation 
 alone. If we except the forgiveness of enemies, and 
 kindness to those injurious to us personally, there is 
 no way in which Christ can be imitated so closely 
 as by doing good to the degraded through their own 
 fault, and to those seemingly lost. There is no 
 achievement like that of lifting a man sunk in vice 
 and enchained by evil habits onto the high ground 
 of Christian manhood, and fixing him permanently 
 there ; and the more there is of sympathy, and of 
 effort for this, the more is the character improved. 
 
 For tlie sake of both parties then, we are for- 
 bidden to remit the care of the poor by their owr 
 fault to proyision made by law. 
 
DIVISION III. 
 
 PERFECTING AND DIRECTING THE POWERS OF OTHER& 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 DUTY OF INFLUKNCE FROM THE RELATION OF CHAK- 
 
 ACTEK TO WELL-BEING OBSTACLES TO CHANGE 
 
 OF INTELLECTUAL STATE AND OF CHARACTER 
 
 But we are not only to supply the physical wants 
 :jf men as we have opportunity, we are also to seek 
 to perfect and direct their powers. 
 
 In speaking of our duty to ourselves, nothing was 
 said of directing the powers, because they were sup- 
 posed to be under tlie direction of the law of love. 
 The inquiry was what love, supposed to exist, 
 would require us to do. But as a condition of well- 
 being, a right direction of the powers, so far as it 
 can be distinguished from perfection, is even more 
 important than that. It is necessary to progress 
 toward perfection. 
 
 There is here a distinction to be made between 
 the intellectual and moral jiowers. For the im- 
 provement of the moral powers the two conditions 
 of activity, and right direction, are requisite, but 
 ictivity alone is needed to improTe the intellectual 
 
DUTY OF INILUENCK, ETC. Iflfl 
 
 powers. The Inirglar gains adroitness and skill in 
 picking tlie lock as rapidly as the lock-maker in 
 guarding against him. With given activity it 
 matters little for purposes of skill and efficiency 
 on wliat objects tlie intellect is employed, or for 
 wliat end. But if the moral powers are not em- 
 ployed on riglit objects and directed to a right 
 end, tJiere is not only perversion but deterioration. 
 The more active they are the more they deterio- 
 rate. If, therefore, we would do the highest good 
 to men we nmst seek, not only to perfect their 
 powers, but to perfect tlie moral powers by direct- 
 ing them riglitly. Our object must be to produce 
 a change not merely in tlie condition, but in the 
 state of men ; and not merely in their intellectual 
 state involving acquisitions and capacity, but in 
 their moral state which involves, or rather which is, 
 character. 
 
 And here, in character, whether we would con- 
 t'hir^tor"' suit for our own good, or that of others, 
 being"' we find that condition of well-being which 
 
 is to be singled out as " the one thing; needful." 
 It is to be distinguished from everything else — 
 from all dispositions and tendencies so native as to 
 be wholly independent of choice, and which, if they 
 lie back of choice, have yet no moral character till 
 they are sanctioned by that. It is to be distin- 
 guished from all characteristics, which are accidental 
 Peculiarities ; from acquisitions, which are what we 
 gain, whether of material or of power, character 
 6t'ing implied ; and from all accomplishments, which 
 
200 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 are acquired perfections in ourselves, and means or 
 pleasing others, if we have a disposition to please 
 them. So far from consisting in any of these 
 tilings, it is this that controls and directs them all. 
 This can transform and renovate all dispositions, 
 can remedy all infelicities of temperament and of 
 temper. Character can triumph over the most ad- 
 verse circumstances, turning them into means of its 
 own advancement. Jt can transfigure and glorify 
 the humblest lot. It is the possibility of this in 
 our humanity, and its capacity for it that gives to 
 that humanity its highest value, and it is the higher 
 manifestations of this that give it its dignity. What 
 then is it ? It is the very essence, not of our sub 
 stantial being as given by God, but of ourselves as 
 having capacity to choose our own ends, and to 
 take our own ])luce in his universe. It is deter- 
 mined by and consists in our radical choice. It is 
 our deepest loxe. When we know what tlie su- 
 preme chosen end of any man is, we know his 
 character. This it is that determines his affinities 
 in the moral world where the attractions and re- 
 pulsions are stronger than they are in the physical 
 world. With this, the deepest, central love of its 
 being, right, Immunity comes into such a relation 
 to the Maker and Proprietor of all, that it enters 
 mUo the possession and inheritance of all things : 
 with this wrong, it not merely falls away into in- 
 :lill'erence to all that is good, but into repugnance 
 to it, and enters a realm of positive evil and suffei^ 
 ing corresponding to the good of which it is capable. 
 
DUTIr 01' INFLUKi^CE, ETC. 201 
 
 From thib relation of character to wull-being it 
 aiust be our duty to do what we can that tlie chai'- 
 acter of others should be right; but the intellec- 
 tual acquisitions and power of others, and especially 
 tlieir character, hold a relation to our efforts en- 
 tirely different from the supply of their wants. If a 
 rnan fail to supply his own wants we can do it with- 
 out his coijpei'ation, or at least, we can so provide 
 for tiicm that liis cooperation, unless he may choose 
 to commit suicide, is a matter of course ; but no 
 man can be benefited to any great extent intellec- 
 tually, or at all morally, without his own active co- 
 operation. We have direct power over matter, but 
 can reach mind only by influence. If any one 
 choose he can oppose a barrier to anything we can 
 do that we cannot overcome. 
 
 And not only so, there is a tendency in ignorance 
 _ . , and vice to erect such barriers. Mind has 
 
 Barriers to 
 
 iimirancc '^^^ ''*'* inerttcB as Well as matter. The 
 »ndvice. ignoraut pei'son sees what he sees and is 
 content with it. He is not content with the igno- 
 rance as such, but with knowledge, that is, witli what 
 he knows, and every person who is content with 
 what he knows is in the same condition, only ke 
 may be a little less ignorant. The man has knowl- 
 edge, it is his knowledge ; in the light of it he sees 
 »nd walks, he sees nothing beyond, and so desires 
 nothing. If this knowledge, however limited, be 
 connected with customs of long standing, so that in 
 the light of it the man walks where his fathers 
 
^02 MOIJAL SCIENCE. 
 
 walked, and if enlargement of knowledge would 
 draw after it a change of associations and habits, 
 and especially if fancied interest from short-siglited 
 views come in, then will new ideas not only not be 
 welcomed, but they will be resisted. And so strong 
 is this tendency that if a people be ignorant there is 
 no hope tliat enlightenment will spring up from 
 tliemselves. There is no example of it in history. 
 It must come from above, or from without ; when it 
 does come it will be resisted, and the resistance will 
 be in proportion to the ignorance and the fancied 
 Interests in question. 
 
 ■ But if this be true of ignorance, much more will 
 it be of vice. Vice involves habits of action, chosen 
 habits. Its very essence is in these. It relates not 
 merely to associations of thought, to ordinary cus- 
 toms and the routine of Ufe, but to the whole direc- 
 tion and tendency of the man, to the tenor and 
 current of his affections and choices. Vices differ 
 as appetites, desires, passions may be stronger ; but 
 they have a common root in the fact that the man 
 is not lifted from the plane of indulgence in that 
 propensity which is strongest, whatever it may be, to 
 the higher ground of subjugating all propensities 
 and merely impulsive tendencies to the demands 
 of intelligent clioice, and the voice of conscience 
 speaking in accordance with that. It makes a 
 radical difference whether the conduct has its rool 
 in rational choice and be sanctioned by the con- 
 tcieuce, or in blind impulsion of whatever kind 
 
DUTY OF liNl'XUENCE, ETC. 208 
 
 In tlie one case tlie man is controlled by what in 
 the Scriptures is called the spirit in opposition to 
 the flesli, and in the other by that which is called 
 the flesli in opposition to the spirit. In its nature 
 all impulsion is blind. Each appetite and desu-e 
 finds its motive in its own object. In themselves, 
 impulsion, desire, appetite, have no moral character, 
 but the man who gives himself up to the control of 
 any one of these has a moral character. He lays 
 aside his true manhood. He debases himself. 
 Outwardly he may do nothing unseemly, but he 
 permits that to rule which ought to serve. He falls 
 into bondage, and nothing but favoring outward 
 circumstances, or an amiable temper, or a selfish 
 prudence, can stand between him and any crime. 
 In a sense and to a certain extent the impulsive 
 and the rational powers may be coincident, but they 
 can never act in the same manner, nor have tlie 
 same end. Iui]HiLsion, apjietency of every kind, are 
 independent facts in our constitution. They are to 
 control us up to a certain point, and then are to be 
 .•egulated. Up to the point where they need reg- 
 ulation they may be said to be coincident witli the 
 rational power, but they are blind ; they are essen- 
 tially of the nature of servants, and whoever gives 
 niinself up to the permanent guidance and control 
 of any one of them, or to be controlled by them in 
 turn as ?ach may be strongest, is in bondage. Tliis 
 bondage may assume a great variety of forms, and 
 be mere or less invetcratf a;id debasing, but in 
 
£04 MORAL SCIENCK. 
 
 3very form it is bondage, and more to be dreaded 
 tlian that wliich is physical. We call it bondage, 
 and it is so. It is an unnatural position, a degrada- 
 tion. Let the spiritual nature with its powers of 
 comprehension abdicate its seat and work in sub- 
 jection to the lower and blind nature of appetency 
 iiid impulsion, and the broad wisdom appropriate to 
 lliat nature degenerates into the cunning of the 
 Berpent. Intellectual power becomes a curse, and 
 instead of holding his erect position and communing 
 with the heavens, the man, that which is distinc- 
 tively so, goes upon his belly and eats dust. 
 
 This bondage is felt, but it is chosen, for though 
 it be bondage, there is yet in it a certain freedom, 
 the freedom of abandonment and insubjection. 
 There is in it no trouble or sacrifice of self-denial, 
 for the higher nature, in whose behalf alone self- 
 dniial is possible, is set aside. If we add to this 
 the blindness and paralysis that come upon the 
 b])iritual powers when they are thus ignored and 
 abused, the light that is within us becoming dark- 
 ness, we shall not wonder that it is so seldom, if 
 ever, that any one who has come under the power 
 of this bondage breaks away from it of his own 
 accord, or by his own strength. 
 
 We have, then, three conditions of humanity in 
 iheir order as lower and higher, in which „. 
 
 o ' Three con- 
 
 we are required to put forth efforts in its ?jj'|^^g"" 
 ochalf: physical want, igrorance, and I ''^'"■'' 
 will not say vice, but that state in which the v» 
 
DUTV OK INFLUENCE, ETC. 205 
 
 tioiial and spiritual powers are in bondage to those 
 that are impulsive. 
 
 Of these, physical want, as producing Immediate 
 rirst, phys- Suffering, and as addressing us through 
 leal want. j,|jg genscs, makes an appeal that is uni- 
 versally felt. Hence all mankind have a sympathy 
 with the disposition that would relieve such want. 
 ]*\om the time of Job, and doubtless from the be 
 ginnmg, men have commended him who has been 
 " eyes to the blind," and " feet to the lame," and a 
 " father to the poor," and who has " caused the 
 widow's heart to sing for joy." Besides, physical 
 suffering is often unavoidable. It may be from 
 hereditary disease, or from misfortune, or accident, 
 and no possible agency, or want of agency, on the 
 part of the sufferer can come in to check our sym- 
 patliy. It is to be said, too, tliougli giving to sup- 
 ply pliysical suffering often requires delicacy, yet 
 that we approach in this less near to the centre of 
 ersonality, and are less in danger of wounding 
 dither self-love or a just self-respect. 
 
 But, with the evils from ignorance, all this is in 
 o. , J a jrieat measure reversed ; and with those 
 
 Second and o 
 
 third, ig- from spiritual bondage, and from vice, as 
 tiid vice. distinguished from its physical effects, it is 
 wholly so. There is here no immediate suffering ; 
 the senses are not appealed to ; there is nothing to 
 measure the evil, and those who are the subjects of 
 the evil are not conscious of it. Ignorance may be 
 from indolence and negle'^t, c- from mere wilfullnesa. 
 
206 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 It is often self-complacent, or perliaps makes itaelf 
 anconsciously ridiculous and absurd. Still less 
 visibly do spiritual bondage, and vice except in its 
 lower forms, connect themselves with suffering. 
 Around these wealtli and learning and accomplish- 
 ments are often gathered ; they array themselves 
 in the fasliions and organize the gayeties and pomps 
 of this world. Having their seat within, and being 
 connected witli much tliat is attractive, it is not for 
 one man to say how far they exist in another. As 
 they must be from choice and in\'olve tlie supreme 
 choice, and are always wrong, whoever seeks to 
 remove them must venture into the very seat of 
 personality, and always with direct or implied cen- 
 sure. It is not therefore to be wondered at that 
 while those who have relieved physical suffering, 
 and those who have enlightened ignorance through 
 the regularly constituted forms of education have 
 been welcomed and commended, those who have 
 sought to 'enthrone conscience and benefit men 
 spiritually should have been thought intrusive and 
 fanatical, and should have been resisted and per- 
 secuted. The truth is, that over large portions of 
 the earth this form of doing good has not been 
 iittempted. Its necessity has not been recognized. 
 Us very nature has not been understood. Christ is 
 tlie only person who ever made this his sole aim, or 
 it least, who made all things else subservient to 
 fliis. He alone saw clearly what was the greai 
 vant of the race. This, we can now see, has its 
 
DUTY OF INFLUENCE, ETC. 207 
 
 foundation in the nature and condition of man, as 
 much so as ])hysical or intellectual want, and also 
 that it should be recognized as fui'nishing the high- 
 est sphere of labor for the good of man. But this 
 sphere has not been recognized distinctly, and this 
 labor has not been done except where the teachings 
 of Christ have come. He first revealed fully the 
 motives and conditions of successfid work, He inau- 
 gurated the system by his own crucifixion, and it 
 has been carried forward since only by the sjiirit of 
 self-renunciation which He thus illustrated. 
 
 In each of the spheres above mentioned, it is 
 more blessed to give than to receive. The reason 
 GiTingand '^i *-''^'- gi^i'^g implies a superiority of the 
 rwei'ing. giyer in the possession of the thing given, 
 and also the exercise of faculties capable of confui- 
 ring a higher joy. He who would relieve ]ihysical 
 want must havu money, or food, or clothing to give ; 
 he who would enlighten the ignorant must luive 
 knowledffe, and lie who would lift another from anv 
 form of spii-itual bondage or vice, can work effec- 
 tually only by standing, in some points at least, 
 ibore him. 
 
CHAPTER n. 
 
 BPHEKES OF EFFORT : WHO MAY LAHOB IM 
 
 THEM. 
 
 But \Yliile there are thus these three gi'eat fields 
 of labor, and wliile it is more blessed in each to give 
 than to receive, the question arises, who niay enter 
 in to labor in them. 
 
 In the first, the field of physical want, the ca- 
 pacity, the right, and the obligation have always 
 been supposed to go together. If any man had 
 wealth, and was disposed to employ it in relieving 
 such wants as wealth can directly relieve, no one 
 lias objected ; but to labor as teachers, and also for 
 tlie spiritual interests of men, men liave been espe- 
 cially set a])art. This has been done for good rea- 
 sons, but I suj)pose tliat liere also the capacity gives 
 the riglit and imposes the obligation. For the sake 
 af order, and to guard against error, goverinnents 
 and ecclesiastical bodies have assumed to authorize 
 teacliers and those qualified to minister to the spir- 
 itual wants of men, bvit they have no power except 
 to exolu'le those who have not the capacit>. Ca- 
 [)acity is given of God, and no man or body of men 
 aas a right to forbid one who has it to do a good 
 
SPHERES OF EFFORT : WHO MAY LABOR IN. 209 
 
 work to Ilia fellow men. J£ one who has capacity 
 be thus forbidden, it is still his duty to go on as the 
 Apostles did, doing his work and taking the conse- 
 quences. This may bring on conflicts and turn the 
 world upside down, but any other doctrine would 
 be fatal to progress. 
 
 As referring to distinct parts of our nature, the 
 Three three spheres of beneficence spoken of 
 
 ipheres (lis- -*■ ^ 
 
 triniinatoj. abovc uccd to be carefully discriminated, 
 and in the minds of very many, the third needs to 
 be legitimated. We need not merely to see their 
 limitations, but especially the difficulties and obsta- 
 cles of each. We need also to see their relations 
 as higher and lower, the lower good being a condi- 
 tion for the higher, and the lower work furnishing 
 the best introduction to that which is higher, and 
 the best standing-point for it. He who fails to do 
 good to the bodies of men when that is in liis power 
 and they need it, or who fails to enlighten the ig- 
 norant when he can, will enter upon a higlier work 
 at a great disadvantage, if indeed he can succeed in 
 it at all. We need, finally, to see, what it has been 
 my general object to impress in these remarks, that 
 each of these spheres is open to all who can enter 
 in, and that the relations of men to each other as 
 .nen, impose upon all the obligation to do for othem 
 lu each of these spheres whatever they can. 
 14 
 
SECOND GREAT DIVISION. 
 
 DUTIES FROM SPKCIAL RELATIONS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 BIGHTS OF persons: RIGHT AND RIGHTS: SPECIAI 
 DUTIES : THE FAMILY. 
 
 We have now seen that it is our duty to do good 
 to all — 
 
 1. By conceding to them their rights ; 
 
 2. By supplying their wants ; and 
 
 8. By directing and perfecting their powers. 
 
 But tliis good is to be thus done to all in their 
 simple relation to us as fellow men. As such they 
 stand to us in the relation of perfect equality — not 
 necessarily an equality of condition, but an equality 
 Df rights. We have no right over them, they have 
 no claim upon us on the ground of having been 
 m any way specially committed to us. 
 
 But in the relations, constituted by God, of hus- 
 band and wife, and of parent and child, ^ . , 
 and others growing out of these, there is "J** '™''; 
 
 o o 'of special 
 
 a commitment of each to each, and of "'''''*• 
 iome to others ; and there is a foundation laid foi 
 
RIGHTS OF i-EKSONS, ETC. 211 
 
 wliut lavu been called the rights of persons, with 
 their corresponding duties, claims, and obligations. 
 As has been said, the rigtit of parents over the 
 child is from the fact that God has so committed 
 tiie child to them, tiiat they are either indispensa- 
 l)le to the attainment by the child of its end, or can 
 do for it what no one else can. This right, thus 
 founded, involves the duty on the part of the par- 
 ents of doing what they can to enable the child to 
 attain its end. This is the very purpose for which 
 the right over the child was given, and no duty can 
 be more imperative. 
 
 We have thus, in special relations of which those 
 Bpeciai ^^ t^^*^ family are but an example, an oc- 
 
 auttes. casion for special duties. As we pass to 
 
 the consideration of these duties that arise from 
 or under the " Rights of Persons," we make an 
 important transition. We come into a region in 
 many respects new. It is one thing to treat of 
 duty among equals having a common standard, law, 
 or authority, to which they must alike defer, and 
 quite another to treat of it among beings who have 
 .•eciprocal rights and duties, claims and obligations. 
 [n the one case, the standard may be simply imper- 
 gonal law, or what must mean the same thing, — the 
 law of obligation as revealed in each one, and so 
 there be no responsibility except of the being to 
 himself. There could he no government, no obe- 
 dience, no punishment. In the other case, all these 
 lejJJ exist, and ii: treating of these duties, new ques- 
 
212 M01£AL SCIENCE. 
 
 tions and principles must be involved that will re- 
 quire attention. 
 
 And first, it may be well to notice more fully, 
 though it does not belong here exclu- Eeiationof 
 
 . . Right to 
 
 Bively, the relation to each other of Right, Rights, 
 and of Rights. Neither of these can be, except 
 with reference to an end. The idea of an eternal 
 Right existing in the order of thought before God, 
 or any being who could have the conception of an 
 end, and controlling him, is to me inconceivable. 
 Right relates to what beings are to do ; rights to 
 what they may claim and require others to do. 
 That is the right thing to be done in a family by 
 which the ends of the family as God instituted it 
 would be attained, and a parent has rights that he 
 may cause those ends to be attained. In the im- 
 perfection of human arrangements men may have 
 legal rights which it would not be right to enforce, 
 but it would be a contradiction to say that they can 
 have a right morally to do that which is not right. 
 He who enforces his rights for the end for which 
 they were given, does right ; he who does it for 
 any other end is a tyrant. 
 
 We next ask attention to the claims of „, , ., 
 
 The family 
 
 special duties and of the familv, out of ofV°TaT 
 which they all grow. "^^^^ 
 
 It is said by some that we are to regard every 
 man, and labor for him according to his intrinsic 
 worth, irrespective of any special relation to us 
 Tiiis has a show of breadth and of liberality, bu 
 
KIGHTS OF PJJKSONS, ETC. 213 
 
 is contraiy to nature, and would defeat ita own 
 end. 
 
 If there be one set of arrangements more illus- 
 ti'ative than others of the divine wisdom and good- 
 ness, it is that by whicli the knowledge and strength 
 and affection of the parent — that natural aflFection 
 wliich fixes upon the child as his own — is set over 
 against the ignorance and weakness and utter de- 
 pendence of the child. This, if any thing can, in- 
 dicates the ministry to which the child is to be 
 entrusted. Throughout animated nature the good 
 of the wiiole is reached by sj)ecific ministries indi- 
 cated and animated by specific affections. Through 
 them a large part of the good on the earth is con- 
 ferred and enjoyed, and he who would set them 
 aside, would set aside one of the widest and most 
 pervading of all the provisions and ari-angciuents 
 made by God. 
 
 It will follow from what has just been said, that 
 those who thus go contrary to nature must defeat 
 their own end. Is that end the hiippiiioss, or the 
 best care of the race ? The race has no existence 
 separate from the individuals of whom it is com- 
 posed, so that what is best for each individual is 
 best for all. But it is found that tlie happiness of 
 individuals is best promoted by a faithful attention 
 to those special duties which are involved in these re- 
 lations which God has established. The children of 
 each parent are committed to him. This gives him 
 ft specific duty. These are his platoon as an undei 
 
21 i MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 :)fficer in the great army of the race. There may 
 be higher duties in relation to the army and its 
 coininander tlian the care of his platoon. Exigen- 
 cies may occur wlien this shall be, for no natural 
 a flection or imjiulsc can give absolute law, but un- 
 der all ordinary conditions it is the business of each 
 parent to take care of his own children. It is not 
 for him to look the world over and compare his 
 children with those of others and decide on their 
 relative value or worthiness. By the voice of na- 
 ture and of God, as well as by every ad\'antage of 
 labor and of influence, his first duty is to his own 
 children, and as this is the case with every other 
 man, it will follow that in this way all children will 
 be taken care of in the Ijest ],)ossiblo manner. 
 
 And what is thus true of the parental relation is 
 true in its measure of all the relations of kindred, 
 as of brother and sister, and the more distant grades 
 of affinity. It is also true of those to whom we 
 aix' bound by friendship, of those to whom gratitude 
 is due, of those who stand in the relation of neigh- 
 bors and even of fellow citizens. 
 
 Of course specific affections need regulation. 
 There is danger of excess in them and of absorp- 
 tion by them. They do not give law, but are as 
 much intended to have an influence in social life as 
 the instincts are in the control of the body. With- 
 in limits, and under ordinary conditions, a man may 
 ■-ationally yield himself to the guidance of his in- 
 itincts with the conviction that they are the voice 
 
BIGHTS OF PERSONS, ETC. 216 
 
 Df a higher reason than his own. Let a man ignore 
 Instinct and Appetite in the care of his animal life, 
 and hand the care of that life over to Reason to be 
 provided for on scientific principles and there will 
 be no longer spontaneity or beauty in that life, and 
 ils ufficieiicy will bo impaired. In the same wny, 
 if wo disallow those feelings which naturally spriii^^ 
 from the near affinities and proximities of social lil'c 
 Vfc take away its warmth and spontaneity, and sub- 
 stitute the limited and discordant views of individ- 
 uals for the wisdom of God. 
 
 The family is the ordinance of God, and its un 
 derlying idea is religious. It is, indeed, a training- 
 school for the community and the state, but only as 
 preparatory to fitness for a place in that great family 
 above of which the family here is a type, and foi 
 which it should be a preparation. It is the first 
 form of human society, the foundation and source 
 of all other forms, and as that is such will they be. 
 It was because the family is thus the fountain-head 
 of society, and must determine its character, that 
 our Saviour insisted so strongly upon its sacredness. 
 In nothing were his teachings more in opposition to 
 the spirit of his time, or to the general spirit of the 
 world, and nothing in those teachings caused greater 
 surprise to his disciples. But he knew his ground, 
 ne abated no jot from the strictness of his require- 
 ments, and the history of the world since shows the 
 wisdom of his precepts. Without this the materials 
 'or a free government never have been ftimished 
 
216 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 and never can be. This it is, just this, that oui 
 people need not only to see, but to have impressed 
 upon them, for it is upon the purity, the sacredness, 
 and the well-ordering of families that the perma- 
 nence of our institutions must depend. Have what 
 public schools you will, enlighten the people as 
 you may, and without the family as formative, — 
 formative of habits of obedience and of a temper of 
 mutual forbearance, — and as offering in its spirit 
 the only model of a right government, the perma- 
 nence of free institutions in any such form as will 
 make them a blessing is impossible. 
 
 On this point I feel that I cannot speak too 
 strongly, because we are here at the root. Most 
 questions of what is called social science pertain to 
 the branches, but in this — the right constitution 
 and ordering of families, — is God's social science, 
 and if men will but learn and apply this fully, most 
 other questions that now pertain to that science will 
 disappear. Remove the swartip and the malaria and 
 there will be no occasion to discuss the mode of 
 treating the epidemic. 
 
 But while insisting thus upon the claims of the 
 family, I would not be insensible to those Basis of 
 
 p 1^ • 1 1 IT • commun- 
 
 01 the idea that underlies communism, ism. 
 The basis of communism is, for the most part, sec- 
 alar and economic, and its advantages are wholly so. 
 It seeks the best distribution and results of labor 
 But may not these be as well reached through the 
 femily as in any other way ? If not, it would be a 
 
RIGHTS OF PERSONS, ETC. 217 
 
 jtrange exception to the law by which that which is 
 lower is best attained by attaining most fully that 
 which is higher. The difficulty has been that fam- 
 ilies have not been so ordered as to attain the higher 
 end, and then, in their isolation and selfishness evils 
 have arisen for which communism has been sug- 
 gested as a remedy. This has been tried with every 
 advantage by earnest, enthusiastic, and cultivated 
 people, but has uniformly failed. It always will. 
 But while there will be economic as well as so- 
 cial evils as long as the real end of the 
 
 Ooifperatlon. „., , ,. i-ii o /~t t • 
 
 family m trammg up children for God is 
 not reached, and while communism, as dispensing 
 with the family, can never succeed, yet another idea, 
 represented by another word, has arisen, through 
 which a measure of success, perhaps a large one, 
 may be hoped. That word is cooperation. To this 
 there is no objection. Through this, in perfect 
 compatibility with family relations and interests, 
 much may be done to diminish labor, to increase 
 production, and to divide more equally, not to say 
 justly, the common results of labor and of capital. 
 How much may be done in this way we do not yet 
 know. The experiment has not been fully tried. 
 Let it be tried. Let whatever can be done in this 
 way be done ; but Jet us hold fast to God's institu- 
 tion of the family. Let us hold fast to the doctrine 
 of special duties made imperative upon us by our 
 Dersonal relations. Let us not put off work at our 
 »wn doors for distant work, mistaking indolence, oi 
 
:I18 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 sentimentalism, or the love of notoriety, or all to- 
 gether, for either phihmthropy or religion. Finding 
 a chart laid down for us in the voyage of life, let us 
 follow it, and not venture in seeking the good of 
 tiie whole to substitute our own wisdom for the 
 i^iBdbm of God. 
 
CHAPTER n. 
 
 GOVERNMENT : RESPONSIBILITY : PUNISHMENT. 
 
 Accepting these special duties, or, indeed, recog- 
 nizing Rights of Persons at all, we reach at once 
 the right of the parent to command, and the corre- 
 Bponding obligation of the cliild to obey; or, more 
 generally, we reach the right of one moral being to 
 govern another, involving both command or author- 
 ity, and obedience ; we rench Faith as tlie only ra- 
 tional ground of obedience ; wu have Responsibility, 
 both of those who o;ovem for the governed, and of 
 those who are governed to those wlio govern ; and 
 we have Punishment. These are great ideas in 
 morals ; the larger part of our duties are connected 
 with them, but tliey can have place only under a 
 system of special relations, and in connection with 
 special rights growing out of the relations and caus- 
 ing the duties to vary endlessly as the relations 
 vary. At these ideas we need to look. 
 
 The foundation of the right of government and 
 
 its limitations as they are related to an 
 
 mont. QwA, have already been referred to. This 
 
 right first appears in the parent. If he is to secure 
 
 the end of tlie child, it is Indispensable that he 
 
220 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 should have the right to control him. So far as 
 that may be necessary, he has a right to control 
 him physically and by force. Such control in very 
 early years he is bound to exercise. Subsequently 
 lie lias a right to command, and the child is under 
 obligation to obey. This is properly government — 
 tlie control of one intelligent and moral being by 
 the expressed will of another. On the one side 
 there is a command, on the other there is obe- 
 dience. 
 
 And by obedience here is not meant conformity 
 to the will of the parent on the ground of 
 
 ■If 1 •!! T Obedience. 
 
 perceived reasons aside irom that will. It 
 is one thing to appeal to the reason of a child, 
 showing him the reasons why we wish, or command 
 him to do a particular act so that he may do it, not 
 on the ground of the command, but of the reasons ; 
 and it is quite another thing to give the command 
 without reasons, and to be obeyed simply on the 
 ground of the command. Of these only the last 
 is obedience. If the child so sees the reasons for 
 action that he would perform the act on the ground 
 of those reasons without regard to the will of the 
 parent, such an act cannot be in obedience to that 
 will. There are parents who seek to control their 
 children by such presentation of reasons and call it 
 government ; but it is not government. The child 
 may do right, and this may be the best thing for the 
 Darent to do, but he should not delude himself with 
 tlie idea that he governs, or that the child obeys, 
 
GOVERNMENT : RESPONSIBILITY : PUNISHMENT. 221 
 
 To obey is to do the will of another, simply on the 
 ground thnt it is his will. He who obeys may see 
 reasons for it, or against it, or see no reasons at all, 
 but he would do the act equally in either case be- 
 cause he was commanded to do it. If that be not 
 the reason, it is not obedience. 
 
 Now it is just this obedience to which the parent 
 has a right, and wliich the child is bound to yield. 
 But, you will ask, is not the child a rational crea- 
 ture, and is not his reason to be appealed to ? Yes, 
 his reason is to be appealed to, but in so far as he is 
 under government in distinction from influence, 
 tliat reason is to be exercised, not in an attempt to 
 comprehend tlie reasons by which the will of the 
 parent is determined, which would be to put him- 
 self upon an equality with him, but in comprehend- 
 ing the reasons for confidence or faith in the parent. 
 
 This brings us to consider the great principle of 
 Principle faith whicli underlies all rational control of 
 nf fiuth. Qjjg being by another. This is a rational 
 principle, wholly so, having two branches as it makes 
 its demands upon the understanding or the will, 
 and is expressed in belief or in obedience. Their 
 common root is confidence. Belief because another 
 says it, is confidence expressed in believing ; obe- 
 lience because another commands it, is confidence 
 expressed in action. This is the great and only pos- 
 sible uniting, elevating, and assimilating principle 
 where an inferior being is to be governed by the 
 will of a superior, that is, to be governed at all ; or 
 
222 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 where any one being is to be governed by the -w .11 
 of another. The child, the subject, the being gov- 
 erned, may not know the reason of the command, 
 but lie knows that lie who gives it is wise and good, 
 and he feels that it is the most rational thing he can 
 do to believe a proposition simply because he s.iys 
 it, and to do an act siini)ly because he commands it. 
 As this rational faith is the sole principle of gov- 
 ernment aside from fear or force, it be- jaitha.id 
 comes us to examine it well as needed in b"^™™™ 
 this relation of parent and child, where we first 
 find the need of it. In early life children need to 
 be controlled wholly by their pai-ents, and they are 
 to be so guided that they may pass gradually from 
 that control to a jierfect independence of them, and 
 to a wise course of action under the government of 
 God. In this subjection and control there is to be 
 no shade of degradation, no slavish fear, but only a 
 control made necessary by the condition of the 
 child, I will not say to the fulfillment of its destiny, 
 but to the attainment of its end. Such control will 
 be reached by a subjection in perfect faith, both of 
 the understanding and the will of the child to the 
 understanding and will of the parent, and in no 
 other way. This will be government ; it ^\ ill be 
 lubjection, but it will be government by one quali- 
 fied both by wisdom and by love to govern ; it will 
 De submitted to in the recognition and full faith of 
 this wisdom and love, and can therefore liave in it 
 nothing misleading or degrading. The child simplj 
 
GOVERNMENT : RESPONSIBILITY : PUNISHMENT. 223 
 
 Works under the law of love in his peculiai rela- 
 tions as ordained by God ; and that is all that any 
 creature can do. He is to rise as rapidly as possi- 
 ble to his position of independent action, but ui the 
 process of thus rising, his wisdom and duty are to be 
 subject to Jiis parents. If the parent be what he 
 sliould be, the end will thus bo reached perfectly. 
 If he be not wliolly what he should be, sucii sub- 
 iectioii will still be generally right and best, but if 
 the parent become disquahfied by vice or imbecil- 
 ity to direct the child to his end, then the civil law 
 may interfere, or the child may himself seek otiier 
 protection and guidance. This shows that tlie duty 
 does not arise from the mere relation. Remove the 
 idea of an end to be attained, and that of duty will 
 also disappear. 
 
 And here we find, not merely the principle of 
 Kespnnsi- faith, which, though rational, wholly so, 
 biiity. j^jj^} ufijg,. lY^Q circumstances the only 
 
 rational thing possible, is yet not philosophy at all, 
 any more than instinct is, but we also find the fact of 
 responsibility. This also has two branches. There 
 is both a responsibility for others, and to others ; 
 though responsibility for others must, except in God, 
 ultimately resolve itself into responsibility to an- 
 other. This is a great fact in morals, and the 
 ground of it needs to be clearly stated. 
 
 If any hold that the will of another is the groiuid 
 of obligation, responsibility to him will follow of 
 course. But if a man b<! under obligation on a 
 
224 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 ground independent of the will of another, how can 
 he be responsible to that other ? Most pliilosophers 
 do in fact find a ground of obligation other than the 
 mere will of any being ; but all our duties arc so 
 connected witli responsibility, and all the duties of 
 every created being must be, that many liave not 
 thought of duty as possible without that. Respo)i- 
 sibihty has seemed to them to be involved in the 
 very conception of law, as much so as obligatioii. 
 And in one sense it is ; but in any sense in which a 
 moral beino; can be a law unto himself it is not in- 
 volved ; and the question is, how such a being, thus 
 capable of being a law to himself, can, consistently 
 with this, become so subject to anotlier as to be 
 responsible to liim. 
 
 This difficulty has been clearly seen by Dr. 
 Hickok, and lie sets it aside by saying, that inas- 
 much as positive authority must have otlier ends 
 than spiritual wortliiness, it has nothing to do with 
 pure morality, and ]nire morality has nothing to do 
 with it except to see that none of its requisitions are 
 jpposed to moralitv. "Pure morality," he says, 
 " in the contemplation of such occasions will not be 
 sufficient to cover all the methods of dealing with 
 human conduct, and thus other systems of motives 
 must be found and classified which do not du'ecl 
 themselves immediately to the end of highest wor- 
 thiness, and thereby other rules of human actioij 
 must be attained than the ultimate rule of pure 
 morality. But no such motives may be applied, ano 
 
GOVERNMENT : BESPONSIBIUTY : PUNISHMENT. 226 
 
 flu such rules atlupced conti'ary to the clauiis of pure 
 morality." '■ Again, it is said of authority that, "it 
 IS introduced as a necessary means of constraint 
 where pure morality will not admit of an appli- 
 cation ; but in no case, and for no reason, may it bo 
 used in conflict with morality ; and hence the neces- 
 sity of subjecting all authority to the criterion of ^• 
 rigid iVloral Science by which only can it be known 
 that it is nothing but righteous authority that has 
 been tolerated. Positive authority, thus, must come 
 within the field of a pure moral science. It will not 
 govern by morality, but it must govern in full ac- 
 cordance with morality." ^ 
 
 Here it may be asked, if positive authority does 
 not govern by morality, what it does govern by ; 
 and also how any authority can be a " righteous au- 
 thority " that has no moral quality and is exercised 
 outside of the field of morality. All government, 
 as such, is by authority, and it would seem desirable 
 to find a ground for that by which the government 
 of God may be a moral government, and not simply 
 not immoral. 
 
 The question respecting tlie ground of responsi- 
 Ki hteous bility then recurs, and an answer to it is 
 mthority suggested in the expression used above, 
 " Rio-hteous authority," that is, an authority having 
 its foundation in Rights. Has the parent a rii/hi 
 to govern ? If so, responsibility must follow, for 
 mthout that there can be no gorernment. This is 
 
 I Moral Science, p. 14^ , « Jbid., p. X48. 
 
 15 
 
226 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 self-evident. On what ground then can govern- 
 ment be justified ? Why not leave each moral be- 
 ing to the conti'ol of his own moral nature, and to 
 the results of his own action under the guidance of 
 that nature ? There might then be guilt on the 
 violation of obligation, the shock of which would be 
 felt within his own being, but no responsibility to 
 another. This is so with God. He is, and can be 
 responsible to no one ; but the responsibility of crea- 
 tures to Him must follow directly from the posses- 
 sion by Him of the right to govern them. These 
 must go together. To-day a child is at large in the 
 streets. He has no responsibility to any teacher, 
 and no teacher has any right over him. To-morrow 
 the parent places the child in a school, and now the 
 teacher has rights, and the child is responsible. 
 The teacher not only has the right, but is under 
 obligation to use all legitimate means to attain the 
 ends of the school, and the pupil is responsible to 
 him for that, and only that which would interfere 
 with those ends. Any authority needed to attain 
 rhose ends is righteous authority, as growing out of 
 his rights, and no other authority is righteous. So 
 the responsibility of the child to the parent is directly 
 from the right of the parent to control him, and must 
 be coextensive with that right. But, as we have seen, 
 ihe rights of the parent are from his relation to the 
 end of the child and of the faniily, which he is under 
 obligation by the affirmation of his own moral natuj'e 
 to take every proper means to secure, and so tht 
 child must be directly responsible to hiiji. 
 
GOVERNMENT : RESPONSIBILITY : PUNISHMENT. 227 
 
 And not only is there responsibility to others, but 
 Besponsi- also, as has been said, for others. If tliese 
 
 Mlltj- for . "^ 
 
 •thers. do ultimately coalesce from the fact of the 
 
 responsibility of all to God, yet this aspect of tlie 
 Bubject requires attention. The parent is responsi- 
 ble for the welfare of the family, that is, he is under 
 obligation to Go(i to see that that welfare is guarded 
 and promoted. He not only has a right but is un- 
 der obligation, on the ground of that, to guard their 
 rights. So far as he is able he is bound to see that 
 no selfishness of one sliall so encroach upon another 
 as to debar him from the exercise of any natural 
 right or the attainment of any legitimate end. Here 
 again we have the right of government, not merely 
 that the end of the individual may be attained, but 
 that the rights of all may be guarded. From his 
 very position the parent must be the guardian of the 
 child if his rights are to be secured, or if his end is 
 to be attained ; and hence we see tliat rights, gov- 
 ernment, and responsibility have a common ground 
 in their necessity for the attainment of a common 
 jiid having intrinsic value, and in view of which 
 obligation is immediately affirmed. The child is 
 bound to have faith in the parent because he has 
 .•eason to believe that he is wise and good, and will 
 do all things for the ends of the family ; and the 
 nan is bound to liave faith in God because he has 
 reason to believe that He is wise and good, and will 
 ao all thino-s for the ends of liis^ intelligent and 
 moral kingdom ; and so the child and the man can 
 
228 MOKAL SCIENCt 
 
 joyfully submit to government, and acknowledge 
 responsibility under it with the conviction that so 
 only can they work for that end in view of which 
 obligation is affirmed. So only can conduct become 
 rational, so only can we have science in the place 
 of blind impulsions, and unity in the principle of 
 conduct in our various relations. 
 
 There is one point more concerning responsibility 
 It always has respect to some person. A Responsi- 
 man may violate obligation as affirmed person, 
 within himself, and it be nothing to another except 
 as a moral being ; but if he be responsible to 
 that other, then a failure to meet that respunsibiJity 
 is a violation of a right that must admit and may 
 demand retribution. If a parent command a child 
 to do an act which he has a right to command, the 
 child is directly responsible to him for obedience. 
 It' the child refuse to obey, not only is an ordinance 
 of God that is inwrought into the very structure of 
 society set aside, but the personal rights of the pa- 
 rent are invaded. Not only is obligation violateo 
 and guilt incurred, but there is a direct personal 
 affiront, an infringement of a sacred right, and the 
 parent is bound to vindicate that right in the only 
 way possible, that is, by punishment. 
 
 We have thus the origin, not only of the right of 
 government, but of punishment, the idea punishEont 
 and right of which are, indeed, involved "'"'" 
 in the very notion of government. The conse 
 juences within the moral being himself, of violating 
 
government: RESPONSIBILITY: PUNISHMENT. 229 
 
 abligatioii, tlie shock that may ensue, whatever that 
 may be, is iipt puiiishinenl. It cannot be. Punish- 
 ment is tlie vindication by a person, through some 
 positive infliction, of violated rights. In no other 
 way can such rights be vindicated, and rights gen- 
 erally be protected, except possibly by some expres- 
 ,ion of a displeasure as great as would be manifested 
 oy inflicting tlie punishment. In no other way car 
 the attitude of the person towards his own authoiity 
 and rights, or towards uniA'ersal righteousness as 
 sailed through these, be indicated, and his mora 
 character be made to appear. Government being 
 by authority, is an expression of Will, and if punish- 
 ment is to sustain government, that too must be, 
 and must be known to be, an expression of the same 
 will. Evil may be suffered and inflicted that is not 
 punishment. Evil from accident, or misfortune, or 
 fi'om the laws of nature regarded as impersonal, is 
 not punishment. Nor is evil inflicted by equals 
 upon equals punishment, nor that inflicted from 
 anger, or malice, or for the sake of discipline. This 
 latter, evil inflicted for the sake of discipline, is gen- 
 erally supposed to be punishment, and parents say 
 to children that they punish them for their own 
 good. But if that be the sole end the infliction of 
 evil has no refei-ence to law, and cannot be properly 
 punishment. Punishment presupposes a law ad- 
 ministered by a personal lawgiver having rights. 
 It presupposes a righteous penalty annexed to the 
 law, and that the law has been violated. These 
 
230 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 conditions being given, punishment is the infliction 
 of a previously declared penalty by the will of the 
 lawgiver for tlie sake of sustaining the authority 
 of the law. That authority can be sustained in no 
 other way. Nothing but a penalty proclaimed, and, 
 if need be, inflicted, can make known and measure 
 the regard of the lawgiver for the law. Hence, as 
 entering into the very conception of government, 
 punishment is justified. It can never be wanton, 
 or capricious, or revengeful, for evil thus inflicted 
 would cease to be punishment, but the extent of it 
 must be measured by its necessity for the attain- 
 ment of the ends of government, and what that 
 extent should be only a righteous and comjjetent 
 lawgiver can judge. Obviously, as proclaimed be- 
 forehand, the penalty must express, and that only 
 can, the estimate by the lawgiver of his own rights, 
 and of the rights of others that are in question, and 
 also his benevolent desire to present the highest 
 moral motives the case will allow to prevent the in- 
 fraction of law. And then, whatever it is right to 
 affix as a penalty beforehand it must be not only 
 ■ight, hut necessary to inflict as punishment, else, 
 unless some adequate reason can be given, all gov- 
 ernment must be abandoned. 
 
 In connection with the above, two things are to 
 be noticed. The first is, that the jjroper violation oi 
 ground of iiuiiishment under anv f!,overn- proper 
 
 . , • 1 • p 'i T- • ground of 
 
 ment is not the violation ot obligation, puninnmeti 
 mat is, guilt as such, but only the ^■lolation of y'o^ 
 
aOVERNMENT : KESPONSIBILITY : PUNISHMENT. 231 
 
 gatiou, as that violates riglus. In iiuiaaii govern- 
 ments this is avowedly so. Tliey do not claim to 
 punish guilt as such, or to measure it except as it 
 violates the rights of the community. Under the 
 divine government it Iiappens, or rather it must be, 
 that the violation of obligation and of the divine 
 rights, and so of the rights of his intelligent uni- 
 verse, correspond, but the punislnnent is not in 
 view of the guilt as such, but as it is guilt that vio- 
 lates the I'iglits of others. There must be guilt. 
 Tiiat is the only condition of punishment, but not 
 its ground. If we may suppose guilt that would 
 violate no rights of God, or of any other being, 
 liowever detestable it might be in itself, or whatever 
 tiie consequences might be within the being liimself, 
 it would be no ground of punishment. There is no 
 abstract inexorable justice that would require it, 
 and henro, even though guilt may liave been in- 
 curred, if the rights of all be ])erfect]y preserved 
 and secure, jninislimont may be righteously omit- 
 ted. It will not be demanded. 
 
 The second point to be noticed in coimection with 
 uppeaiof the above, is that the ajipeal of ])enalty 
 worthy fear, when threatened, and of punishment, 
 (vhen inflicted, is not primarily to any form of the 
 Sensibility tliat can be reached through positive in- 
 fliction. Tins ajipeal is not therefore to the fear ol 
 suffering as suffering merely, but of suffering as it 
 may be caused by that recoil of personality against 
 aggression upon its rights, which is an inherent and 
 
232 MOKAL, SCIENCE. 
 
 essential j)art of righteousness — a fear of sufl'ering 
 as expressing the disapprobation of the lawgiver, 
 and felt to be deserved. This is no unworthy fear, 
 as some seem to suj)pose. 
 
 There are three sources of suffering to us as 
 moral beings. The first is, the recoil of i^j^g 
 our own moral natui-e when the law of its momrsukr- 
 Deing is transgressed. This is remorse, in '°*' 
 ■which a man constantly accuses and condemns him- 
 self. The second is the expression of disapproba- 
 tion by others without any act of will put forth 
 towards us. They may do, and wu may fear, nj 
 hostile act, but the look of mingled displeasure and 
 sorrow is felt and remembered with a pang, and 
 this feeling will increase with the excellence and 
 dignity of the being, and if we have wronged him 
 personally, with his kindness and love towards us. 
 A third source of suffering to us as moral beings is 
 from a direct act of will withdrawing fi'om us con- 
 ditions of good, and inflicting upon us positive evil. 
 To avoid each of these, to avoid simple suffering 
 even, would be a suitable motive ; but it is not by 
 the fear of suffering that moral creatures can, or 
 ought to be governed. Not so does God or any 
 wise man seek to govern them, but by the fear of 
 penalty. It is by the moral nature alone tiiat suf- 
 I'eiing can be known as punishment, and hence i1 
 is to that nature, and to no ignoble and unworthy 
 I'eiir, that punishment appeals. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 REIATION OF THE SEXES: CHASTITY. 
 
 We liavc now considered the general topics con- 
 nected with the transition from those duties which 
 we owe to all men, to those special rights and du- 
 ties which are indicated by our special relations, 
 and it will be next in order to consider the rights 
 and duties tliemselves. 
 
 The special relation on which all others depend 
 is that of the sexes. In connection with this the 
 first general duty is that of Chastity. 
 
 Chastity is a duty of the individual both to him- 
 self and to tlie coniniunity. 
 Effect upon 1st. It is a duty to the individual him- 
 
 tho Individ- 
 
 "1- self. 
 
 By chastity is meant personal purity, and upon 
 the violation of this, whether by solitary or social 
 rice, God has set the seal of his condemnation by 
 the effects of it upon both the body and the mind. 
 
 All solitary vice tends to weakness and insanity, 
 the extent of both which from this cavis^ is little 
 suspected ; and in connection ■^^ ith the social vice 
 there is a disease, one of the most loathsome and 
 wretched ever known, which seems to have beea 
 sent as a special judgment and check upon it. 
 
234 WOKAL SOIEJJCE. 
 
 Mor is the effect upon the mind loss debasing. 
 "However it may be accounted for," says Paley, 
 "■ the criminal intercourse of the sexes corrupts and 
 depraves the mind and moral character more than 
 any single species of vice wliatsoever. That ready 
 perception of guilt, that prompt and decisive resolu- 
 tion against it, wliich constitutes a virtuous charac- 
 ter, is seldom found in persons addicted to these 
 indulgences. They prepare an easy admission for 
 every sin that seeks it ; are in low life, usually the 
 first stage in men's progress to the most desperate 
 villainies ; and in high life to that lamented disso- 
 luteness of principle, which manifests itself in a 
 profligacy of public conduct, and a contempt of the 
 obligations of religion and of moral ]n-obit3% Add 
 to this that habits of libertinism incapacitate and 
 indispose the mind for all intellectual, moral, and 
 religious pleasures, which is a great loss to any 
 man's liappiness." 
 
 2. Obedience to the law of chastity is a duty to 
 the community. From the time of Sodom, Biectupon 
 sins of licentiousnesss have been the chief munity. 
 cause of the corruption and downfall of nations. 
 There is no ruin and degi-adation like that which 
 these sins bring upon the woman, and there is no 
 [Toneral debasement like that of a great city deeply 
 infected with this class of vices, and those that in- 
 evitably accompany them. If men could be brnuglit 
 to obey the laws of God in regard to chastity anc 
 Uiarriage, and also in regard to narcotic and intox- 
 
EELAllON OF THK SKXES : CHASTITY. 235 
 
 icatiiiy substances, laws written not only in liis 
 Word, but in tlieir physical and moral nature, the 
 great obstacle to the intellectual and moral improve- 
 ment of the race would be removed. Abstinence 
 from these is not virtue. It may give greater skill 
 to fraud, or more power to ambition, but it is a con- 
 dition of virtue. It is in connection with these 
 sins that man is capable of degrading himself below 
 tiie brutea ; and through them what is called civiliza- 
 tion, that is, skill in literature and the arts, and in 
 producing the elegancies and luxuries of life, may 
 coexist with a state of society to which the savage 
 state would be infinitely preferable. Certainly 
 every one owes it to society to do what he can to 
 relieve it from this incubus. 
 
 In combating this class of sins in ourselves the 
 Theimagi- proper point to guard is the imagination 
 
 nation to bo "^ 7 , , i mi • ■ i ■ i i 
 
 guarded. and the thoughts, ihis is the citadel. 
 With this sufficiently guarded, we may go anywhere 
 and be subject to any form of outward temptation, 
 for " to the pure all things are pure." But few 
 only can go thus. Against no class of sins do we 
 more need to put up the petition : " Lead us not 
 into temptation." We need to guard the senses, 
 especially as temptation may come through them ir 
 the guise of the fine arts, which have often been ot 
 great efficiency in corrupting a people. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 RIGHTS AND DUTIES IN RELATION TO MARRIAOB, 
 
 After the general duty of chastity it will be in 
 order to consider : — 
 
 1. The rights and duties of the sexes in their re- 
 lations to each other previous to marriage. 
 
 2. The rights and duties, in their relation to each 
 other, of those who are married. 
 
 3. The law of divorce. 
 
 4. The rights and duties of parents. 
 
 5. The duties and rights of children. 
 
 1. Of the rights and duties of the sexes in their 
 relations to each other previous to marriage. 
 These will relate, first, to the period pre- Rights and 
 
 . , , , , duties befon 
 
 vious to bemg engaged to be married. engagement. 
 
 That is a critical period when young persons first 
 twake to a consciousness of those sentiments which 
 are to unite them so closely, and to affect so nearly 
 their own happiness and that of the coming gener- 
 ations. A new world is opened up to them full of 
 susceptibility, emotion, sentiment, romance, ]iassion 
 and with cajiabilities of both happiness and miscrv 
 unutterable. What shall be done ? Left to them 
 
BIGHTS AND DUTIES IN RELATION TO MARRIAGE. 237 
 
 selves, there is danger of imprudence and misjudg- 
 ment. Controlled by others, there is danger that 
 that which is highest in sentiment and purest in af- 
 lection will be sacrificed to fancied interest, or to 
 nmbition. It is not easy for the parties themselves, 
 much less for others, to distinguish the glamour of 
 a transient infatuation from the conscious recogni- 
 tion and opening affection of two natures made to 
 supplement each other. In the freshness and glow 
 of such sentiments prudence is spurned, and an ap- 
 peal to dutj' seems cold and impertinent. Hence, 
 in some countries, in most indeed, young persons 
 have been kept during this period under the strict- 
 est surveillance, and everything pertaining to mar- 
 riage lias been regulated by others. Among tlie 
 Moravians, partners were, until recently, assigned 
 by lot. There are persons living in this country 
 now who obtained their wives in that way. But in 
 this country now it is virtually in the hands of the 
 young people themselves, giving rise doubtless to 
 greater ha|)piness in some cases, but in others to 
 mistakes and scenes both ludicrous and sad. By 
 those who have had opportunity to observe it has 
 been gravely questioned which course is best. In 
 .uiy way there will be persons unmatched and mis- 
 matched. But however this may be, this matter 
 not only now is, but will continue to be chiefly in 
 tlie hands of those more immediately concerned, and 
 n view of that they have duties whether they wil' 
 ieed thenj or not. 
 
238 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 And here the one duty of those whose affections 
 are yet free is to withhold themselves from any at- 
 tempt to awaken affection in another except with a 
 view to marriage. This will be hard where there 
 IS conscious beauty and power ; vanity and pride 
 will jilead strongly, and many will go as far as they 
 can or dare. But the existence of an affection that 
 cannot be requited is a great evil, and to awaken 
 purposely, or to seek to awaken such an affection, 
 is a crime. It is trifling with feelings that God in- 
 tended should be sacred, and causes a revulsion that 
 nothing else can. It makes cynics and misan- 
 thropes of the most hopeless kind. One who can 
 thoughtlessly or heartlessly trifle with a true affec- 
 tion, or who mocks at it and treats all claim to it 
 as a pretense, is lost, — is incapable of even conceiv- 
 ing of the great liapjjiness there is in affection with 
 secm'ity for its basis, and which God intended should 
 be connected with the marriage state. Only when 
 there is a view to marriage may that more intimate 
 ac(juaintance be sought which will justify an en- 
 gagement, and when the parties are on this footing, 
 the one duty is frankness in relation to everything 
 that could affect the feelings of the opposite party. 
 
 After an engagement is entered into, the rights 
 Tutl duties of the parties become more Rights and 
 definite. The parties are now betrothed, eDgagcment 
 sffianced, engaged to each other by a promise only 
 'ess sacred than that of marriage. They are, and 
 lliould be known to be, in such relation to each 
 
BIGHTS AND DUTIES IN RELATION TO MARRIAGE. 239 
 
 other that it would be criminal in either of them to 
 seek the affection of another, and that it will be 
 criminal in any other to seek the affection of eitlier 
 of them. 
 
 Tlie lengtli of an engagement involves no pi'in- 
 ciple oxcejit that neitlier party has a right to pro- 
 long tlic time beyond that desired by the othei , 
 \vitlio'it good reason. In general, short engage- 
 ments are best. 
 
 The levity and capriciousness with which such en- 
 gagements are broken are to be deprecated. If it 
 be found that there was concealment or deception 
 in relation to anything material at the time of the 
 engagement, or if there be gross immorality or 
 licentiousness subsequently, the other party will be 
 justified in breaking the engagement. Nothing 
 short of one or the other of these. can justify such 
 a step of one party without the consent honorably 
 obtained of the other. An engagement is not mar- 
 riage, but only preliminary to one, the object of 
 which is a happy life in the attainment of the ends 
 of marriage. Incident to an engagement, though 
 not the object of it, is a more perfect acquaintance, 
 and if, in connection with this it should appear that 
 their mutual happiness is not likely to be secured, 
 and this shall be the opinion of pach, they are not 
 only at liberty, but are bound to break an engage- 
 ment which they find to have been made under a 
 misapprehension, though, it may be, without fau)< 
 Dn either side. 
 
240 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Perhaps it ouglit to be said, as the affections of 
 woman are stronger than those of man, and as she 
 is not allowed the initiative, so that the injury of a 
 broken engagement would be greater to her, it is 
 incumbent on the man to be especially scrupulous 
 on this point. 
 
 The reciprocal rights and duties of husbands and 
 wives grow, like all others, from the law mghtsanj 
 of love, but from that law as applied in Smtanos 
 this special and most intimate and sacred *"* ^" 
 relation. With the affection that should form the 
 hasis of marriage, the happiness that may flow from 
 it is greater than any other not distinctively religious. 
 It is, indeed, made in the Scriptures a type of that 
 higher happiness which is to flow to the church from 
 her union with Christ. A failure to attain this hap- 
 piness can arise only from ignorance or from a want 
 of right purposes and dispositions. 
 
 There is often ignorance or misapprehension of 
 the reciprocal rights and duties involved in mar- 
 riage. God has indicated in the structure of the 
 physical frame, and in the mental characteristics 
 which correspond, different spheres of duty for the 
 husband and the wife. The adaptation of each sex 
 to its sphere is equally perfect, and as both are parts 
 of one indivisible race, the terms superior and in- 
 ferior are not properly applicable. What is needed 
 s a distinct recognition by each sex of its own 
 sphere, and a cheerftil acceptance of its responsi- 
 bilities and duties. The object is unity througlt 
 
BIGHTS AND DUTIES IN RELATION TO MARRIAGE. 241 
 
 diversity, and, within limits, the greater the diver 
 sity the greater the beauty of the possible unity. 
 If God has made, as He has, by nature and by 
 revelation, the husband the head of the house, then 
 the truest and best happiness of the wife will be 
 found only in recognizing him in that I'elation. If 
 God has made it the business of the wife to " guide 
 the house," then the husband will find his peace and 
 happiness in giving her the reins in that depart- 
 ment. Of course there are exceptions, as there are 
 to the command to children to obey their parents. 
 If the parent become imbecile, or intoxicated, oi' 
 command the child to steal, he is bound not to obey. 
 The relation is changed, and the law of love must 
 be interpreted by the relation. So it is universally. 
 If through ignorance, or inadvertence, or wayward 
 speculations and theories of equality that recognize 
 no difference, the natural relations fail of recognition, 
 the full benefits of marriage cannot be realized, 
 though the temper may be right. 
 
 But while ignorance is one cause of failure in 
 CaoMs of married life, the great source of trouble is 
 ness. a want of right purposes and dispositions. 
 
 It is some form of selfishness on one part, or both, 
 The husband is imperious, exacting, unsympathiz- 
 ing, self-indulgent, perhaps sensual to the extent of 
 vice. The wife is indolent, neglectful, extrava- 
 gant, peevish, unsympathizing. Perhaps there 
 was an original failure of a full commitment of each 
 to each, so that there never has been that conscioua 
 
 16 
 
-242 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 'inity and perfect confidence in which the charm of 
 married life consists, for next to loving with a per- 
 fect love is the happiness of a perfect confidence, 
 and of an assurance that love is returned. The 
 great duty then will he to cherish and cultivate 
 mutual love. 
 
 But can love be cultivated ? On this point there 
 is much misapprehension. Love is radi- cuitivnUon 
 cally an act of will. True, that which ''^""•■ 
 leads to marriage is accompanied by admiration, by 
 desire, by sentiment, but these do not become love 
 till the will authorizes them by an act of choice, and 
 this fact gives the will an indirect control over all 
 the emotions and feelings connected with it. 
 
 In the first place then, each can cultivate those 
 qualities in themselves that will tend to secure love. 
 Each can seek to become more lovable. A reso- 
 lute purpose and persevering effort in this will work 
 surprising changes, and is far better than complaints 
 of want of affection. Such complaints tend only to 
 aggravate the difficulty. In the second place, hus- 
 band and wife may seek, and are bound to seek, the 
 improvement of each other ; and by this I mean not 
 merely intellectual improvement, but improvement 
 in all that is a ground of esteem and of rational affec- 
 tion. The mode and measure of this will so depend 
 upon their relative age, upon acquirements aiid 
 temperament, that no details can be given ; but a dis- 
 position to give and to accept aid in this way wiV 
 greatly tend to mutual love. But in the third place 
 
BIGHTS AND DUTIES IN RELATION TO MABRUGE. 243 
 
 and wliich is perhaps quite as important as either, 
 we can form the habit of looking at excellences and 
 overlooking deficiencies and even faults. Let each 
 party adopt the spirit of the couplet — 
 
 " Be to her virtues very kind, 
 Be to her faults n little blind." 
 
 and it would, I will not say pour oil upon the 
 troubled waters, but would prevent them from ever 
 becoming so troubled as to " cast up mire and dirt." 
 This I say on the supposition that there are faults 
 to be overlooked and follies to be kind to, but if 
 there are, and I have known such, husbands whose 
 wives have for them no faults or follies, and if there 
 are wives whose husbands have none, these remarks 
 do not apply to them. 
 
 In these ways a vast deal may be done in the cul- 
 tivation of mutual love, and this, as inclusive of all 
 other duties, and sure to draw them after it, and 
 also as being so little underst(jod and a])preciated, is 
 the one great duty that needs to be inculcated upon 
 those in the marriage state. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE I^W OF DIVORCE. 
 
 Marbiagb, as we have seen, involves a union 
 lacredness altogether pocuHar. In its perfection it is 
 »f marriage. ^ spirJtual unioH, and only in it does the 
 life of each party become complete. That this union 
 should be, and should be understood to be for life, is 
 essential to the interests of both parties, to the wel 
 fare of children, and to the interests of the State. 
 Only on the condition of such understanding can 
 there be a perfect commitment of each to each, and 
 that perfect community of interest and of life which 
 radically separates marriage from all forms of pros- 
 titution and unlawful cohabitation. As thus pecu- 
 liar and sacred, the original institution of God was 
 that the union should be of one man with one 
 woman, and for life. Under the Mosaic dispensa- 
 tion divorce was permitted on various grounds 
 but the original ground and saci-edness of marriage 
 was not lost sight of. This appears from a remark- 
 able passage in Malachi showing the unreasonable- 
 ness and evils of both polygamy and divorce, and 
 tlie displeasure of God towards them. " And this,' 
 lays he, " have ye done again, covering the altar of 
 
THE LAW OF DIVORCE. 245 
 
 the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying 
 ont, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any 
 more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. 
 Yet ye say, wherefore ? Because the Lord hath 
 been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth 
 against whom thou hast dealt treacherously. Yet 
 is she thy companion and the wife of thy covenant. 
 And did not he make one ? Yet had he the residue 
 of the Spirit." He might have made any number as 
 easily. " And wherefore one ? " continues the pro- 
 phet. " That he might seek a godly seed. There- 
 fore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal 
 treacherously against the wife of his youth. For 
 the Lord God of Israel saith that he hateth putting 
 away." What a picture ! Poor wronged women 
 bathing the altar of God with their tears ; those who 
 did the wrong seeking to be religious by offerings 
 while they yet held on to the wrong ; God rejecting 
 their offerings, asserting the law of marriage, declar- 
 ing that He made one woman for a perpetual union 
 with one man that the children might he trained for 
 Himself, and implying that this could be done in no 
 jther way. 
 
 The original law of marriage, thus asserted by 
 Malachi, Christ fully restored. This law is based 
 on the very nature of marriage, and is confirmed 
 by the fact that rather more males than females are 
 born, allowance being made for their greater expos- 
 ure to the causes of death. This has been so felt 
 to be a law of nature that among various nations, 
 
246 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 the Romans and Scythians, who have not had i-^e 
 light of revelation, marriage has been held saci-ed, 
 adultery lias been puiiislied by death; and the very 
 i:nv of divorce laid down by Chiist has been 
 adopted. Hence it is the duty of Christian States 
 to make this law tlieir standard, and to approximate 
 it as nearly as the state of public sentiment will 
 allow. No doubt there are cases of peculiar iiard- 
 Bliip. Persons of uncongenial temperaments and 
 tempers are united. There will be ill-assorted mar- 
 riages and misadjustments of every degree. There 
 will be vice and abandonment on one part or the 
 other, and such cases are liable to be of peculiar 
 hardship to the woman. But facility of divorce 
 will set back its influence to the very fountain-head 
 of the institution. It will affect the spirit with which, 
 marriage is entered upon ; it ^^■ilI generate and mul- 
 tiply the very evils for which divorce is sought. 
 Nothing can so tend to repress petty differences, 
 liable to become exaggerated into permanent feuds, 
 as the consciousness, always felt like a jjervading at- 
 mosphere, even when it is not recognized, that they 
 ure inseparably united and must be mutually depend- 
 ent. If facility of divorce be sought, as it is, on the 
 ground of cases of special hardship to women, it is 
 to be remembered that the evils of divorce fall 
 with peculiar hardship upon her, and tl at the punty 
 and general elevation of the sex will always be in 
 proportion to the strictness with which the law of 
 maniage is enforced. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN. 
 
 In considering the reciprocal rights and duties of 
 parents and children, we are, as before, to be 
 guided by the Law of Love intei-preted by the re- 
 lation. The child is entrusted to the parents by 
 God. In its original weakness, ignorance, and en- 
 tire dependence, the i)arents have, and must have, 
 tlie right of entire control. As the child becomes 
 capable of taking care of itself, tliis right will be 
 modified, till, at length, wiien the occasion for it 
 shall cease, the right will cease altogether. This is 
 typified by what we see among the lower animals. 
 They have no knowledge of rights, but the care and 
 -■ontrol of the young is provided for by an in- 
 Btinct which ceases when the young are able to take 
 care of themselves. If the young need no care, 
 there is no instinct, showing how carefully every- 
 thing in nature is furnished and regulated witli ref- 
 erence to ends. 
 
 The right of control thus belonging to the parent 
 IS to be used, first, to promote the end of the child, 
 ind second, of the family. 
 
 The end of the child is not identical with whfit it 
 
248 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 sometiuKJs called, and supposed to be, the good of 
 the child, consisting in his own personal advance- 
 ment or eiijoymunt, in some " summum bonum " 
 that can belong to liim alone ; but it is the very end 
 indicated in his constitution, and for which God 
 made him, that is, not merely to be a recipient of 
 good, but an originator and promoter of it, in syni- 
 [)at]iy \Aith God in his spirit, and in harmony with 
 Hhn in his methods. It will thus enter into the con- 
 ception of his end that he should promote the good 
 of the family. 
 
 In marriage and in the birth of children the fam- 
 ily is constituted. This is a divine institution hav- 
 ing an end that can be readied only through all 
 its members ; and while the child may not be, as 
 tiie ancients su[)]iosed, used selfishly, as a thing, for 
 the good of tlie ])arent, he may yet be required to do 
 all things tliat are legitimately for the ends of the 
 family. He may be )equired to labor for the com- 
 mon support, and it is the duty of the parent so far 
 to control eacli cliild tliat no one shall interfere 
 with the riglits of any of the others. 
 
 This riglit of control may and should be en- 
 forced by physical means if necessary. There is an 
 end to be attained for tlie child himself. It is of 
 the last importance to him that he should be taught 
 obedience and subordination. These are in the or- 
 iler of God's providence, and he who does not know 
 how to obey will never know how to rule. The 
 u^me thing is important to the peace of the family 
 
SIGHTS AND DUTIES OF I'AKENTS AND CHILDREN. 21G 
 
 iind of society, and miit^t be secured by every legit- 
 imate means. Let persuasion be tried. Let reason 
 be appealed to ; but if these will not suffice, the rod 
 should not be spared. Perhaps the rod was for- 
 merly used too much. It will be quite as mischiev- 
 ous in every way to use it too little. The child lias 
 a rational nature, but may not be reasonable. He 
 has also an animal nature, and there is no reason 
 why that should not bo appealed to. Do you think 
 it degrading to your child to whip him? You need 
 not do that. Whip the mule that is in him. If 
 possible whip it out of him, and then you will have 
 a child and not a mule. The less we have of the 
 use of the rod the better, but government, subor- 
 dination, order, must be maintained, and if these 
 cannot be had without tlie rod, the parent is dere- 
 lict in his duty if he do not use it. 
 
 The rights of the parent are for the sake of his 
 first duty of ^uties, and to enable him to perform 
 ^y^Vj"^ them. His first duty is to provide for phys- 
 ictti wants. j|,j^] ^ants, ill whole or in part, according 
 to the age of the child, and to make such provision 
 as shall comport with his condition in life. He is 
 bound to provide for his health and physical devel- 
 opment, and to put him to no such employment in 
 ifind or desree as shall interfere with these. 
 
 The second duty of the parent is to secure such 
 Second duty intellectual education and such training, 
 •duoation. jjj somo industrial pursuit, or in some pro- 
 fession, as shall secure his support and his useful- 
 
<250 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 ness as a citizen. It might be supposed tliat nat- 
 ural aflPection would secure this, but in all states of 
 society there are individual cases in which it does 
 not, and it is found that high civilization and aggre- 
 gate labor have hitherto, by some misadjustment, 
 precipitated a stratum of society in which artificial 
 appetite and animal want have so been the prevail- 
 nm element as to subordinate natural affections, 
 making the children mere instruments of selfishness, 
 and dooming them, almost by necessity, to a similar 
 condition. It is this state of things that has justi- 
 fied, and that alone could justify an interference by 
 society with the hours of labor, which, we should 
 naturally suppose, parents would best know how to 
 regulate. It is the duty of the parent to make over 
 to society good material for its upbuilding, and if 
 any class of parents fail to do this, society not only 
 has the right, but is bound in self-defense to inter- 
 fere. 
 
 The third gi-eat duty of the parent relates to 
 moral and religious training. " Man does T^ij^^^j-. 
 not live by bread alone," nor can the "Jj^J"* 
 child. He is capable of being trained for '""°'"e- 
 God, and God has entrusted him to the parent that 
 he may be thus trained. The only effectual way in 
 which the parent can do this is himself to be what 
 the child should be. There is in example an im- 
 perceptible and pervading influence that can be had 
 in no other way. Let this be good in principle, and 
 judiciojis in outward forin, and all other good in- 
 
RIGHTS A.ND DUTIES OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN. 251 
 
 Hueiices will, almost of course, fall into its train. 
 Let this be evil, and it will be mainly through this, 
 in connection with physical deterioration, that the 
 miquities of the fathers will be visited upon the 
 children to the third and fourth generation. 
 
 But besides this, much may be done in giving 
 direction to reading, in regulating associations, in 
 forming habits. And all this, especially the forma- 
 tion of habits of thought and feeling, as well as of 
 action, is to be begun very early. They will then 
 become incorporated into the life as they will not be 
 likely to be, and perhaps never can bo afterwards. 
 In all this there is to be care not to do anything 
 obtrusively or in excess. Much harm has been 
 done by bending the bow too far. It flies back. It 
 may bo difficult in the stress and pressure which 
 active business life, and especially public life, brings 
 upon men to give the time needed for such training 
 of children, but no folly can be greater tiian that so 
 common in this country, by wliich parents make 
 themselves slaves to lay up money which, for want 
 of right training and moral qualifications in the 
 children, becomes their ruin. Nothing can be more 
 sad or instructive than the history, in this regard, 
 of many of our wealthy families. It is no less the 
 wisdom of parents, in behalf of their children than 
 in behalf of themselves, to " seek first the Kingdom 
 of God and his righteousness." The highest value 
 )f wealth must be to purchase for children, indi- 
 i-e( tly of course, more knowledge, more wisdom. 
 
262 IIORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 more health, better habits, to give them bettor facil- 
 ities for usefuhicss, and more chances of it ; in 
 short, to raise them to a higher manhood. Thus a 
 liigh. manhood, a pure, elevated womanhood, is the 
 end to be reached. If it can be reached, as cer- 
 tainly it may, without wealth, that is of little conse- 
 quence. If wealth becomes obstructive of this, it 
 is a curse. But it need not be thus obstructive. 
 Instead of vanity, pride, dissipation, luxury, effemi- 
 nacy, the result of wealth may be, and should be, 
 the training of families not only in the knowledge 
 and virtues that give dignity to life, but also in 
 every accomplishment that can give it grace. 
 
 We now pass to the rights and duties of chil 
 dren. 
 
 It is sometimes said that a right and an obligation 
 are reciprocal : that wherever there is a Kightsof 
 
 , . ... children 
 
 right tliere is a corresponding obligation, claims. 
 Tiiis is not strictly true. The parent, as a parent, is 
 for the sake of the child. His rights are to enable 
 him to perform his duties, and both are for the sake 
 of the child, and these rights and duties commence 
 before there can be either duties or conscious rights 
 on the part of the child. And when the child be- 
 comes capable of duties and conscious of rights, these 
 have generally no reference to the end of the parent. 
 The rights give no right of control, but are simply 
 claims, and the duties are mostly such as are re 
 quired by the well-being of the child, which is, cf 
 should be, the great object desired by the parent. 
 
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF I'AKSNTS AND CHILDREN. 253 
 
 The duties of children may all be comprised in 
 Duuwof tl"^ one word '■'■honor" as that is used in 
 :hiidren. jj^^ pjf^j^ Commandment. This seutimont 
 of honor towards the parent, expressing itself ir 
 outward act according to the clianging relation oi 
 parent and cliild in tlie progress of the cliild towards 
 maturity, would hold the parent and child in per- 
 petual harmony, and would secure to both every 
 end contemplated by the parental relation. The 
 child that honors his father and mother will render 
 them implicit obedience in his early years. If, as 
 his power and right of self-control are increased, it 
 should become his duty to differ in any respect from 
 the parent, or even to disobey him, as in rare and 
 exceptional cases it may be, the spirit of the law 
 will still be preserved, and all will be done that can 
 be with a good conscience, to meet not only the 
 commands, but the feelings and the wishes of the 
 parent. The temper expressed by this word 
 ' honor," is precisely that which is needed to fit 
 the child for his duties towards God and towards 
 society as represented by government. This spirit, 
 extending itself from the parental relation into all 
 others, permeating the character, becomes a foun- 
 tain of courtesy, and makes the difference between 
 a people reverent, mutually respectftil, and capable 
 of self-control, and an irreverent, reckless, profane 
 mass of individuals incapable of self-govei-nment, 
 and sure to inaugurate, sooner or later, in the name 
 \)f liberty, a stat<3 of society compared with which 
 
254 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 despotism would be a blessing. So long as children 
 honor their parents in this land, there will be piety 
 towards God, and freedom in the State ; but if these 
 fountains be corrupted, whatever form governments 
 uuiy assume, men will fall off from their allegiance 
 to God, and the spuit and benefits of fi-eedom will 
 depart. 
 
CHAPTER VIL 
 
 lOCIETT AND GOVERNMENT: THE SPHERE OF GOV- 
 ERNMENT : ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT : MODE OJ 
 FORMATION. 
 
 We now proceed to consider Civil Society and 
 Civil Government. 
 
 Government is the agent of society for the ac- 
 OoTemment complishmcnt of its ends, and like the 
 how divine, family^ Jg a divine institution. By a divine 
 institution, we mean one made necessary by God 
 through relations ordained by him for the attain- 
 ment of our end. The fact that food is necessary 
 to sustain life, makes the use of it of divine ap- 
 pointment ; and the fact tliat the end of the child 
 cannot be attained except tlirongh control by the 
 parent, gives the parent riglits directly from God, 
 and imposes upon the child corres])onding duties. 
 No assent or contract on the part of the parent, or 
 of the child, is required to constitute the family so 
 far as to render valid every right and obligation 
 needed for the attainment of its ends. The rights 
 and duties are from the ends. The relations, caus- 
 ing the family to be what it is, indicate those ends, 
 ■nd through them, the m'l of God. These rela- 
 
206 MOKAL bClENCE. 
 
 tious and ends man cannot change. He can only 
 act or refuse to act in conformity with, or in refer- 
 ence to tiicui. Acting in conformity with tliese 
 relations, and witli reference to these ends, the 
 blessings intended to flow from the family will be 
 realized, and as there is a failure in this, evil will 
 result. The institution is from God, it cannot be 
 changed by man. All he can do is to conform, or 
 refuse to conform, to the relations it involves, and 
 seek, or refuse to seek the ends indicated by those 
 relations. 
 
 And precisely so it is with Civil Government. It. 
 is a divine institution, if not as directly, ci^,g„^. 
 yet as really as is the family. The %ZttL 
 rights which society has, and which it may '""'"'• 
 rightfully exercise through some form of govern- 
 ment it has from no contract. Men may, if they 
 choose, express the rights and duties involved in 
 government in the form of a contract, but it is a 
 mistake, and may lead to mischievous consequences 
 to suppose that these rights and duties originate in 
 iny form of conlract. By the constitution of God 
 the ends of the individual can be attained only 
 through government, and therefore the rights of 
 government and the duties of individuals under it 
 originate in the same way as the rights and duties of 
 parents and of children. The individual is born in 
 Bociety. That is his natin-al state, and as thus born 
 both society and he have reciprocal rights and duties 
 These he may recognize and have all the benefit! 
 
BOClliTY AKU GOVi:i{NMENT, ETC. 257 
 
 of society ami of govei'nmeiit, or lie may refuse to 
 I'ucoguize tlieiii and be deprived of these benefits, 
 but tlie rights and duties exist independently of 
 \m will. They exist, and in entering into society, 
 the individual comes under no new obligation, and 
 gives up no right. 
 
 It is said in tlic Declaration of Independence, 
 (hat " Governments derive their just powers from 
 the consent of the governed." If, as most have 
 supposed, this refers to the foundation of govern- 
 ment, and not to its form, the above view is opposed 
 to it. Such a doctrine would exclude the will of 
 God as underlying government. It would also take 
 away its authority, for the consent that may be 
 given at will may be withdrawn at will. Besides, 
 the princiijle would require, not merely the consent 
 of a majority, but of every man. Such a doctrine 
 may please the popular ear, and be accepted when 
 there is no strain upon the government; but when, 
 as in our late struggle, there is such a strain, the 
 instinct of the nation sets aside the doctrine of mere 
 contract or consent, and practically asserts an au- 
 thority resting on a deeper basis. Its form of gov- 
 ernment a nation may ordain and change. If that 
 government overstep the limit of just authority it 
 uiay be resisted, but within those limits its rights 
 lire from God. 
 
 The distinction between society and government 
 Distinction ^''^' ^^ more prominent if we suppose 
 ^'ty'an'/'' sacli individual composing the society to 
 ioT«nmieut ^^, perfect, that is, to exercise a perfect 
 
 17 
 
258 MORAL SCIKNCE. 
 
 8elf-gc7ernment. In that case nothing that iould 
 [iroperly be called government would be nesded 
 Tlici'e might be regulations respecting all mattcra 
 requiring uniformity and involving no principle, as 
 the age for voting, or the distribution of the prop- 
 erty of one dying intestate. These might be 
 made by the united experience and wisdom of the 
 community, and to them all would conform, not as 
 under government, but as apprehending the rea- 
 son of them, or, at least, the necessity of uniform- 
 ity. We should thus have, with perfect family 
 government, and perfect self-government, which is 
 simply obedience by tlie individual to the law of 
 God, society without civil government, but capable 
 of being organized into a civil government when- 
 ever the occasion should arise. 
 
 Such occasion can arise only as civil government 
 inay be needed to enable individuals to Q^unjiund 
 reach their end, and it will have no right "f '.'*.*,'°"i 
 
 ' O of civil gOT- 
 
 to do anything which will not contribute "°™>^"'=- 
 to that. Government can have for a legitimate 
 end only the good of the governed. The object of 
 it is to do that for the individual whereby he may 
 be enabled to attain his end which he could not do 
 for himself. 
 
 What then can government do for the individua.. 
 which he cannot do for himself? 
 
 To answer this question fidly we must contem 
 plate government in two aspects : Is", as the indi- 
 vidual may take a part in forming anci administering 
 
SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT, ETC. 269 
 
 it ; and 2dly, as it is an agency standing apait I'roin 
 
 tlio individual and above him for the doing of that 
 
 wliich he could not do himself. 
 
 In treating of government it has been this latter 
 
 participation aspc'ct that has been almost wholly re- 
 develops ttie T 1 Tn 1 • 
 joverued. gardcd. If we suppose a despotic govern 
 
 nient to do for tlie people all that it can do, — let it 
 be wiiolly paternal, — yot the influences under wliich 
 the individual will be formed will be wholly different 
 from those under a free government where it is the 
 duty of the individual to understand and take part 
 in the formation and the administration of the gov- 
 ernment. Free institutions have their value not 
 merely from their greater tendency to secure the 
 rights of the individual, but also from their educa- 
 ting, formative, develophig power. Free institutions 
 tend to become, and will become in themselves, a 
 great university for political education, as well as a 
 sure guai'anteo that provision shall be made for uni- 
 versal education in other directions. As, therefore, 
 man has a right to the best means of development 
 as well as to the best conditions for action under a 
 government, it may be said that he has a right to 
 free institutions whenever and wherever he is capa- 
 ble of so administering them as to secure their 
 ends. 
 
 But apart from this, regarding government as 
 k.mething already formed, the inquiry arises what 
 it can properly do for the individual which he could 
 aot do lor himself, for, as self-help is the great co;t 
 
260 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 dition of grovvtli, it must dwari' the individual, aud 
 deaden enterprise to have the government do what 
 the individual can. 
 
 And here it is to be said that the first and great 
 function of government is to secure to all Qovemment 
 their riglits. Of rights we have already ^^1^^" 
 spoken. They include all that is necessary "'*"■ 
 for the attainment by the individual of his end. 
 Give man liis rights in regard to Life, to Liberty, 
 to Property, to Reputation, to Truth, and give him 
 Security respecting all these, and you do for him 
 all that is essential. If, with such conditions, he 
 fail of attaining the ends he ought to attain it must 
 be his own fault. 
 
 It is sometimes said to be a separate office of gov- 
 ernment not only to secure the rights, but GoTerDmeut 
 to redress tlie wrongs of the individual, dreeswrongs. 
 There is room for this distinction, though the secur- 
 ing of rights and the redress of wrongs are really 
 the same thing viewed in different aspects. If a 
 man has been wrontred it is his risht to have that 
 wrong redressed if that be possible, and if that be 
 not possible, it is the right of society to demand 
 buch punishment as will give them all the security 
 of which the case admits. The great end tlierefore 
 of a government is to secure promptly and efficiently 
 the rights of all who are under it, and it is a good 
 government in proportion as it does this. Tliis, of 
 course, can be done only as there is perfect equality 
 Sar all in tlie eye of the law. It is against the vjo 
 
SOCIETY ANU (iOVEKNilENT, ETO. 261 
 
 #tiuu .f a right as such, of any right, of the right 
 of the humblest and poorest, that the government ia 
 to guard, and if any difference be made it should be 
 in favor of the liumble and tlie poor. The prompt, 
 efficient, impartial protection of rights and the re- 
 dress of wrongs, is then the first great office of gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 A second legitimate function of government is to 
 GoTOrnmeni S'^® facilities, sometimcs for individual, but 
 toteeniOT-"' ^ove oftcu for associated enterprise. It 
 '"^™' may thus limit and regulate copyrights, 
 
 and patent-rights, and may incoi'porate companies to 
 enable them to pursue branches of business which 
 could not well be undertaken by individual enter- 
 prise. Whatever individual protection or further- 
 ance any individual may need to attain the ends of any 
 lawful form of industry he ought to have — -provided 
 no special privilege be given him, for no partiality 
 or favoritism should be shown in legislation. And 
 in incorporations, as of banks, the acts sliould be 
 passed not at all for the special benefit of tliose who 
 are incorporated, but of the public. All such acts 
 should eitner be open to all, or should be limited 
 iolely by a regard to the public good. 
 
 This general head of furnishing facilities opens a 
 field of legislation into which abuses may readily 
 creep ; still it is not only legitimate, but well-nigh 
 .indispensable. Government, as the agent of society, 
 may even undertake enterprises in its own name that 
 ibftll furnish facilities for the people generally, but 
 
262 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 the utmost caution is needed in selecting, and in 
 carrying forward such enterprises. It is a special 
 danger under our form of government that public 
 enturjjrises «'ill be entered upon for private advan- 
 tiioe, and that they will be carried forward both 
 wastefully and corru]3tly. 
 
 These then are the direct objects which a govern- 
 ment may propose to itself, — the protection of all 
 rights, the redress of wrongs, and the furnislang of 
 facilities, without favoritism, for the enterprise of 
 the people. 
 
 There is also an object which must be regarded 
 as leiritimate, which lartrelv nives tone to seir-preeer- 
 
 O ' o I o vation of 
 
 the measures adopted under every I'urm govi-mmcut. 
 of government, and that is its own preservation. 
 Wliatever has a rijfht to be has a riglit to all the 
 means necessaiy to its permanence and well-behig. 
 Hence despotic governments, assuming their right 
 to be, must maintain standing armies. Hence lim- 
 ited monarchies must have an aristocracy to stand 
 between them and the jieople, and both must exer- 
 ■ise control over both education and religion. Witli- 
 out these no monarchy has been permanent, or can 
 be. If, by extraordinary talent and sagacity, a man 
 like Louis Napoleon may seize tlie reins and hold 
 lliem for his lifetime, it is yet felt that his govern- 
 ment has no permanent basis. Louis Napoleon 
 had a son who would naturally succeed him, but 
 if you asked a Frenchman what would happen if 
 the father should die, he would simply shrug hi» 
 
SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT, ETC. 263 
 
 ihoulders, and say nothing. It was the instinct 
 
 of self-preservation that led Napoleon and the 
 
 English aristocracy to take part against us in our 
 
 late struggle, and it is to be expected that every 
 
 establishced form of government and every invested 
 
 interest should be governed in tlie same way. 
 
 It is on the principle we are now considering thi,t 
 
 (lenM right free governments have the right to pro- 
 of govern- ' i p i . 
 
 ment to vide for and maintain schools instead of 
 
 iiumtaia 
 
 tchoois. standing armies, and to restrict the right 
 of voting and of office-holding within such limits 
 as the safety of the Republic may require. The 
 apprehension of these two rights, especially of tho 
 right to tax the property of all, whether they have 
 or have not children to educate, has been slow in 
 finding its way into the public mind, and would still 
 be contested even in many parts of onr own coun- 
 try, but it rests on solid ground if it can be shown, 
 as clearly it can, that virtue and intelligence are the 
 essential conditions of a free and popular govern- 
 ment. It is only on this ground that this right can 
 rest, for the government can have no right to take 
 property of one man for the benefit of others unless 
 it be essential to its own being or well-being. 
 
 But may not the government promote intelligence 
 Degisiation and morality for their own sake ? Mux it 
 for morality, not legislate directly for their promotion 
 as ends ? No. It must protect the rights of all, 
 redress their wrongs and give them facilities such 
 IS a government only can give, and leave the pro- 
 laotion of virtne and inteUigence, except as these 
 
264 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 may be demanded for its own being or efficiency, to 
 individual effort, or to voluntary association. Es 
 pecially is it to be said that government may not 
 interfere in any way with religion except as such 
 interference may be required by the principles above 
 mentioned. 
 
 But may there not be legislation in favor of tem- 
 perance? No. The promotion of temperance is 
 no proper object of legislation. Temperance has 
 the same relation to legislation that honesty has. 
 The laws against stealing are not for the promotion 
 of honesty, but for the protection of rights ; and in 
 tlie same way if the traffic in ardent spirits did not 
 interfere directly or indirectly with the rights of 
 others it would not be a proper subject for legisla- 
 tion. Let those who carry on this traffic guarantee 
 the public against the crime and increase of tax- 
 ation it occasions and there need be no legislation 
 on the subject. But the moment any business can 
 be shown to be the caiise of crime on which the 
 courts established by the government must sit, or of 
 taxation which the government must assess and 
 collect, it comes within the range of legislation, and 
 the community have a right to the best legislation 
 that can be devised for their protection. Neither 
 liquor sellers nor liquor dealers have any rights be- 
 yond the point where their acts begin to touch the 
 right of others to property or to security, or even 
 their right to be protected from those moral con- 
 litions which, as human nature is now constituted 
 
SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT, ETC. 265 
 
 will insure the corruption of the young and of the 
 weak through temptations addressed to their senses, 
 and which are obtruded upon them. 
 
 Much has been said of attempts to make men 
 moral by legislation, and of prescribing to men what 
 lliey shall eat and drink; but no one who under- 
 stands the proper objects of legislation would think 
 of doing either of these. If morality may be indi- 
 rectly promoted by legislation, so much the better. 
 If, in order to abate taxation and crime and nuis- 
 ances, it may become necessary to render intoxica- 
 ting drinks less accessible than some who might 
 safely use them would desire, this is not the object 
 intended, but only the means necessary for a legiti- 
 mate end. 
 
 It will appear from the above, that in addition to 
 True end of mcasurcs needed for its owu preservation, 
 govenunent. (.j^g gj,;gf function of government is the 
 removing of obstacles. Its end is attained when all 
 the individuals under it attain their end. But this 
 can be done only through the positive exertion by 
 each one of his own faculties, and all that govern- 
 ment can do is to secure faVorable conditions for this. 
 The fatal mistake has been, that governments have 
 proposed ends of their own, and in securing these 
 nave been utterly reckless of both the rights and 
 the ends of the individual. When this is done in 
 the least degree, it matters not what the fonr of 
 government may be, — it is a perversion and 
 tyranny. 
 
266 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 We next inquire when, in the progi-ess The origin 
 of the race, civil government becomes meit. 
 necessary. 
 
 If we make, as we must, a distinction between 
 government and society, society being the principal, 
 and government the agent, then government can- 
 not be needed, or possible, till there is society. But 
 as demanding civil government, a single family cati- 
 not constitutp society. Tlie family has a govern- 
 ment of its own, and suffices for itself. Before 
 there can be civil government, there must be an 
 aggregation of families. Hence it is that the family, 
 and not the individual, is the unit of civil govern- 
 ment. This, in the patriarchal form, would natu- 
 rally grow out of the union of several families hav- 
 ing a common origin ; and this again would naturally 
 extend and consolidate itself in monarchy. This is 
 supposed to have been the actual origin of govern- 
 ment. 
 
 This needs to be ftilly comprehended ; for if society 
 ever consisted of disintegrated individuals, standing 
 on an equality, and an attempt had been made to 
 construct something unknown before, to be called a 
 government, all would have had an equal right to 
 take part in such construction. But consisting as 
 society did of families, and needing only such ex- 
 tension and modification of principles of government 
 already existing as should secure in wider relations 
 the conditions of well-being previously secured in 
 the familv, there would be not only a natural right 
 
SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT, ETC, 26t 
 
 but a necessity, that in the formation of civil govern- 
 ment families should be represented by their heads. 
 Such a work could n jt have been done by the body 
 Df those whose rights were to be secured, and, if 
 formally done, the heads of families would be the 
 divinely appointed representatives to do it. If 
 these were to meet and adopt such a form of gov- 
 ernment as should seem to them best adapted to 
 secure civil liberty, that government would not 
 stand simply as tlie product of human wisdom and 
 will, but, as growing out of relations divinely consti- 
 tuted, would have divine authority. 
 
 But no such formal meeting was originally held. 
 With no discussion of abstract rights, by a move- 
 ment spontaneous, gradual, self-adjusting, as all 
 primitive movements for the attainment of ends in- 
 dicated by nature are, government would naturally 
 grow out of the union of several families having a 
 common origin, the head and natural representative 
 of each family caring for its interests as occasion 
 might arise. In this way, but for usurpations and 
 abuses, government might have gone on indefinitely. 
 In some cases, as throughout the East, these usur 
 pations and abuses were such as to crush out liberty, 
 and produce permanent degradation and hopeless- 
 ness among the people. In others they have 
 resulted in agitation, revolution, discussion of rights, 
 and in attempts to found governments on such 
 rights. 
 
 So instinctive, however, has been the tendency 
 
268 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 above indicated to crystallize into governments by 
 
 an inherent force, that formal declarations ^^^^^f 
 of rights had scarcely been thought of J"™^™. 
 till our own revolution, and then their ™™''" 
 effect was less than has generally been supposed. 
 There was no destruction of old governments, and 
 construction of new ones on the basis of principles 
 formally laid down. The colonial governments 
 were continued. The laws were essentially the 
 same under the Confederation as before, though the 
 seat of sovereignty was changed ; and when the 
 Constitution was formed there was simply a new 
 distribution of some of the essential powers of gov- 
 ernment, and a new mode of appointing those by 
 whom the government should be administered. It 
 was not the object to find a new basis of govern- 
 ment, but such a mode of appointing its officers and 
 such a distribution of its functions as should give 
 the best guarantee that its ends should be secured. 
 There had been abuse, and the object was to guard 
 against that. The inquiry then was, and is now, 
 how government may be so guarded from abuse 
 ta to secure for all that civil liberty which is iti 
 end. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OOTBKNMENT REPRESENTATIVE AND INSTRUMKNTAL I 
 THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE. 
 
 If we suppose government to have originated as 
 above, spontaneously, formally, or in whatever way, 
 it is plain that those who take part in it, whether in 
 its original formation, or by voting or by holding of- 
 fice, must act largely in a representative capacity. 
 They must act for the children, the sick, the infirm, 
 the insane, the criminal, the absent. If adult women 
 were permitted to vote, there would still remain a 
 large majority who could take no part in the gov- 
 ernment, and whose rights could be secured only 
 as they were thus represented. Hence all con- 
 cerned in government act as trustees and guardians. 
 Government is not an end, it is instrumental. It is 
 ■IS a bridge over which all must pass, and what 
 society cares for is to have a bridge that will carrj' 
 all safely over. It is in that that essential rights 
 and interests are involved, and society has a right 
 to see that only those are engaged in building the 
 bridge who know how, and are disposed to build it 
 well. 
 
 But if government be thus representative and 
 
270 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 instiumental, it will follow, since natural rights b& 
 long to all, that the right to take part in j^^^j ^ 
 it, whether by voting or holding office, ^''^01'° 
 cannot be a natural right ; and also that *"*"««• 
 society will have the right to say who shall exercise 
 that right, and on what conditions. Hence society 
 may rightfully require that voters and office-holders 
 shall be above a certain^ age, shall have a certain 
 degree of education, shall have committed no infa- 
 mous crime, and the like. 
 
 It also follows from the representative character 
 of voting, that tlie exercise of the right gu^ageaa 
 becomes a duty, and that citizens cannot ^"'^' 
 treat it, as they frequently would, as a persona] 
 right or privilege which they may rightfully at their 
 pleasure forego ; but it imposes a solemn obligation, 
 requiring in the voter the exercise of his intelligence 
 and discretion, if not for himself, at least for the sake 
 of others who cannot take part in the government, 
 and even for the sake of posterity, who will one day 
 inherit his work, and be affected by his care or his 
 neglect. So essential is this that society might com- 
 pel the exercise tf this right, and insist that those 
 to whom it is comr. litted shall not lay it lightly aside, 
 nor be allowed to shield themselves under the idea 
 that it is a personal right and privilege, and thus 
 stand idly by while others inflict an injury on soci 
 ety ; but might require of tliem, as of more formal 
 guardians and trustees, that they sliall act for the 
 Denefit of their wards, though they may not care 
 
GOVERNMENT, ETC. 271 
 
 efficiently for their own rights, as members of soci- 
 ety, to protect them. 
 
 But while it is undeniable that the right of suf- 
 Bight of frage extends to interests far beyond those 
 toufeire'd. of the individual who may claim to exer- 
 cise it, and hence that no individual can claim to 
 exL'j-oiso it as a natural right, it still remains a duty 
 for society to confer this right in the most just and 
 secure manner tliat human wisdom can devise. 
 
 And here it is to be said that there has doubtless 
 been from the first the spontaneous and unconscious 
 operation of a print'.iple which should be a control- 
 ling one, that is, that those should vote on any sub- 
 ject on whom tlie responsibility with reference to 
 it falls. It has seemed right that those who are to 
 go to war should determine the question of war, 
 and that those who are liable to do military and 
 police duty, and sit on juries, who are to work on 
 the highways and pay the taxes, should vote on 
 those subjects ; that those, in short, whoever they 
 may be, who do the fighting, and the working, and 
 the tax-paying, sliould also do the voting. It would 
 be quite as unjust that war should be declared 
 hrough the votes of women anil children who could 
 take no part in it, as that men should impose taxes 
 on projierty which women have acquired. If it be 
 said that the interests of women are as much opposed 
 to war as those of men, and that they would never 
 urge and inaugurate and perpetuate one in oppo- 
 sitiop to the judgmeijt of the ijien, this is refijte<3 
 
272 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 by what occurred at the South during our late civil 
 war, for it is well known that the war was intensi- 
 fied and prolonged by the spirit of the women, 
 though they had no power to vote. If women and 
 children had taken an active part in the great duties 
 and responsibilities of society, beyond question they 
 would have been allowed to vote. 
 
 But accounting thus for what has been, we inquire 
 what ought to be. On what principle Basiaofth* 
 ought society to confer the right of taking suffrage. 
 part in the government ? 
 
 And here it is plain that no one ought to be ex- 
 cluded arbitrarily, that is, unless such exclusion is 
 required by the ends of government. In this view 
 all ao-ree on two ^rounds of exclusion. One is in- 
 competence, the other presumed hostility to the 
 government. On these grounds minors, foreigners 
 not naturalized, criminals, and those who have 
 jhown hostility to tlie government, are excluded. 
 This being conceded, and putting aside for the 
 moment the question in regard to women, the one 
 great princij)le which must be observed by society 
 in conferring the right of suffrage, and which is 
 practically found to be the foundation and safeguard 
 of civil liberty, is that that right should be attainable 
 Dj' all. It is to be something attainable by all, not 
 possessed. Thus society may require that all voters 
 shall have attained a uniform and discreet age, but 
 distinctions may not be drawn between the rich and 
 the poor, the white and the black, the learned anq 
 
GOVERNMENT, ETC. 273 
 
 the unlearned. To the youth of each of these 
 classes society may rightly say that when they reach 
 Buch age, and not till then, they shall come equally 
 into possession of this right. 
 
 Nor may society impose any condition upon the 
 right of suffrage which the mass of the people can- 
 not comply with. Thus society may not requiro 
 that voters shall be free from sin, but may require 
 that they shall be free from crime, for a moral life 
 is a condition with which all can comply. Thus 
 society may not limit the right of suffi'age to pro- 
 found mathematicians, nor to men learned in the 
 ancient languages, for these would necessitate talent 
 and education not practically withm the reach of 
 every youth ; but it may require that every voter 
 shall be able to read the English language, for that 
 is attainable by every American youth, and neces- 
 sary, in the present age, to secure an ordinary intel- 
 ligence. 
 
 Such is the basis on which the right of sufirage 
 should be conferred. Forbidding that the right 
 should be withheld from any race or class as such, 
 and that any part of society should have or exercise 
 the right of excluding any other part, it secures to 
 every person the right to rise. 
 
 But besides the right of sufirage, which is the 
 Bight of right to take a part in the affairs of the 
 Bon. government, there is a totally distmct right, 
 
 % right of repi-esentation. These two are oflen 
 corfounded, bxit are distinct, for those who do no< 
 
 18 
 
2'i 4 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 V^ote are still entitled to be represented. In prac- 
 tical effect, as in theory, tlie child is represented by 
 the father, and the wife by the husband. All indi- 
 viduals have an interest in government, and where 
 the individual possesses an interest, that interest 
 necessitates and confers a right, for wherever there 
 is a right to govern there must also be a right to be 
 governed rightly. The representative in the legis- 
 lature represents far more than the minority of men 
 who voted for him. He represents their opponents 
 who voted against him, their wives and children 
 who did not vote, and he represents, and is bound 
 to provide for the well-being of even criminals who 
 have forfeited the right to vote. This generahty 
 of representation is sought to be secured by what is 
 termed " manhood suffrage," and it is this which 
 must prevent one class from dominating over or ex- 
 cluding another from the substantial right of repre- 
 eentation, and which must secure to all that equal 
 protection and care without which civil liberty can 
 but imperfectly exist. 
 
 There is also a right of representation which in 
 this country has received but little favor Represent*- 
 
 . , . 1 . . Hon of 
 
 IT attention as yet, but which may in time property, 
 be found essential to the existence of popular gov- 
 ernment, and that is the representation of propertv 
 as distinct from the representation of persons. Mer 
 owii certain common duties to society, and society 
 owes a certain common protection to them, bul 
 thero aie also expenses of government which are iio 
 
GOVERNMENT, ETC. 275 
 
 drawn equally from all men, but wliich are contrib- 
 ated in different proportions by individuals. This 
 principle is very old, and has borne an important 
 part in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race, it hav- 
 ing been enunciated as early as Magna Charta in 
 the declaration that taxes should be laid only with 
 the consent of the taxed given through the " Com- 
 mons " in Parliament ; and again in the Bill of 
 Rights ; and again in the revolution of the Amer- 
 ican colonies, where the principle in question was 
 the power to tax without the consent of the taxed, 
 or without representation. There exists now the 
 case of unmarried women holding property on which 
 the government imposes taxes without affording a 
 correlative right of representation ; and there is also 
 the case of resident aliens whose property is taxed 
 in the same way. This withholding of representa- 
 tion from tax-paying women, and at the same time 
 requiring them to contribute equally with men to 
 \he ordinary expenses of government, already strikes 
 !ie common mind as injustice ; and it may be that 
 the growing interests of civilization will one day re- 
 quire that these two bases of representation shall be 
 separated, and that one branch of the legislature 
 shall represent property, and be chosen by those 
 who contribute towards the expense of maintaining 
 government, and that all such shall be allowed to 
 >;ike pai't in the government to that extent, what- 
 ever mav be their nationality, race, r.r sex. Of the 
 Sijuitv of such representation there can be no ques- 
 
276 MOEAL SCIENCE. 
 
 tion. Government is supported wholly by property ; 
 the .arger portion of legislation respects property, 
 and it may readily happen in communities like the 
 city of New York, where irresponsible and destitute 
 foreigners are constantly made voters, that great in- 
 security and oppression should result from subject- 
 ing property to the control of mere numbers. 
 
 We have thus the family as the unit of society. 
 We have government as necessarily rep- Has woman 
 
 . 1 . „ , a right to 
 
 resentative. We have a right m all the Tote. 
 members of society to representation; to protection 
 in all their rights ; to be governed rightly. We have 
 also the two grounds on which persons have been 
 called on to take part in the government : responsi- 
 bility for personal service, and the support of the 
 o-overnment by their property. With these ele- 
 ments we inquire whether the right of suffrage 
 sliould be extended to woman. The question is 
 not whether she has a natural right to vote, for 
 none have that, but whether her own elevation and 
 best influence, and the ends of society require that 
 that right should be bestowed upon her. 
 
 This question has been discussed as if the sexes 
 tonstituted different classes, and as if there were, 
 or could be, in their real interests, a conflict be- 
 tween them. That is a great mistake. A man ana 
 his wife are not of a different class ; and their in- 
 terests, together with those of their family, are 
 identical. The very existence of society, indeed, 
 iejiends on men and women as entering into a specia 
 
GOVERNMENT, ETC. 277 
 
 relation which not only unites their interests, as in 
 a partnership, but identifies them, and makes each 
 sex reciprocally the guardian of the otliei*. The 
 cases where this relation does not exist are strictly 
 exceptional, and society is not organized, and djes 
 not exist for exceptional cases. 
 
 This question, therefore, should not come in the 
 form of a partisan discussion, but of a mutual in 
 quiry what the rights of woman are, and how she 
 may be elevated to the highest point in culture and 
 legitimate influence. And upon such an inquiry 
 man should enter with no less alacrity and candor 
 than woman, for if there be anything which mus' 
 react with swift retribution upon society, it is any 
 needless ignorance or degradation of its wives and 
 mothers. 
 
 The family, as has been said, is the unit of society. 
 This character of it should be, and unconsciously is, 
 one of tlie most cherished objects of Christian civil- 
 ization, and unhappy will be the nation whose legis- 
 lative mind shall regard society simply as a mass of 
 individuals, and not as a combination cf families. 
 The family being regarded tiius, as a divine institu- 
 tion sufficing for itself, and society being regarded as 
 a combination of families, society will have a double 
 life, or ratlier, its one life will be within two spheres. 
 There will be the domestic life of the family, and 
 the public life of society. Of these the family is 
 the more important and sacred, and over this in its 
 domestic life, it is the duty and dignity and happi- 
 
278 MOKAL SClEiN'CE. 
 
 ness of woman to preside. Tliis is her spiiere, iiol 
 inferior to tiiat of man, but different from it. Here 
 she has not only a right to vote, but to rule. If, as 
 is to be sujjjiosed, she is fitted for her place, nothing 
 will be added to tlie dignity of the husband or to 
 the hapj)iness of the family by any interference with 
 lier where the responsibility properly falls upon her. 
 Tlie s])here of society on the other hand belongs to 
 man, at least it lias been hitherto regarded as belong- 
 ing to him. For the support of its institutions and 
 for those duties more immediately required for its 
 welfare he is res])onsible. Here man has the right 
 to vote, and notliing will be added to the dignity of 
 the wife or to the happiness of society by any inter- 
 ference of the wife where the responsibility properly 
 fulls upon the husband. By a natural relation, and 
 so by the appointment of God, the wife is the centre 
 of the domestic circle, the chief source of its happi- 
 ness, and giiai'dian of her husband's interests and 
 rights in all that pertains to it. By a natural rela- 
 tion the iiusband is the house-band, the provider for 
 its wants, its defender, and the guardian of the 
 rights of the wife as of the children in their relations 
 to society. He is the natural representative of both. 
 The wife is not a child, but according to the Chris- 
 ian conception is nearer than that, is one with her 
 liusbiuid, and their interests are one. If we suppose 
 »ociety composed of families alone, and if the rightf 
 »f wives and children would not be secured by giv- 
 ing to every husband and tatlier a share in the gov 
 
GOVERNMENT, ETC. 279 
 
 crnmetit, the fault would not bo in the system, bal 
 Ml individual corruption that would work itself out 
 wliatcvei- system might be adopted. Women have 
 had wrongs, and so have children. These must be 
 ...dressed, but this will not be done by disregard- 
 ing any relation established by God. If ])arents 
 and children, and husbands and wives, will act in 
 the spirit of those relations, society will be perfected. 
 If they will not do that, no political relations will 
 avail. The same spirit on the part of men that 
 wo;ald concede the right of voting, would concede 
 and secure in a representative capacity every right 
 without that. 
 
 For each of the spheres above spoken of, men 
 and women are fitted respectively by their physical 
 organization and by their mental instincts and ten- 
 dencies, and their relations to the children require 
 that the fplieres should be kept separate, h is not 
 that man is not competent to set the table and rock 
 the cradle, or that woman is not competent to vote. 
 It is because the one life of society will work itself 
 out in more perfect results, if these two great but 
 interdependent spheres be left to those who natu- 
 rally have charge of them. 
 
 But while the above is said, society is to hold it- 
 Bclf ready to make any changes which its changing 
 modifications may require. In the primitive stages 
 i)f society, when the chief business of governments 
 was to carry on offensive or defensive war, women 
 iiad no desire to take part in government, and tlieii 
 
280 MORAL SCIKNCE. 
 
 presence would have been an inconvenience and 
 injury. But society has now greatly advanced, sc 
 that there are many fields, especiallj' that of educa- 
 tion, in which ^vomau may properly act, and in 
 which her aid will be an advantage to society ; and 
 it is j)ossible that in a future and higher stage of 
 progress these fields will be increased, and woman 
 be assigned to perform her definite part in the gov- 
 ernment. Yet so long as the sexes remain fused in 
 one common mass, as has always been the case with 
 Bociety, so long the indiscriminate mingling of the 
 sexes, either in the domestic sphere or in the gen- 
 eral management of government, will be found an 
 inconvenience, a source of embarrassment and weak- 
 ness. If, however, it should be found advantageous 
 to society and to woman herself that the number of 
 her employments should be increased, and her re- 
 Bponsibility to society enlarged, there would probably 
 be no opposition to a corresponding enlargement of 
 the right of suffrage. 
 
 If we adopt this view of the family as the unit 
 of society, and of the natural right of representa- 
 tion, the principle which it contains Avill harmonize 
 and protect all interests. Let the family be regarded 
 as the unit of society, and the principle adhered to 
 of giving to each unit a single and equal represen- 
 tation, and society may provide for exceptional cases 
 tj general laws. Such cases arise when the chil- 
 ilren of a family reach maturity and do not marry 
 ind in the case of widows who are the heads of 
 
GOVKKNMENT, ETC. 281 
 
 feinilies. For the case of widows no remedy is pro- 
 vided, but ill equity there should be. When the 
 sons of a family reach the age of manhood they go 
 forth and become, in theory as in fact, the stocks of 
 new famiUes, which sooner or later they support, 
 maintain, and represent, and hence they are mad^ 
 responsible for the duties and burdens of society. 
 They may not, indeed, instantly marry and become 
 the heads of new families, but they are preparing 
 for that, and are essentially doing the work of main- 
 tauiing the future family by the work of preparation. 
 The daughters, on the contrary, remain at home, 
 and are identified in its interests with the old family 
 until they are taken forth to form parts of new fam- 
 ilies. They do not go forth by themselves, nor un- 
 dertake the work of preparation, but stay protected, 
 maintained, and represented in and by the original 
 stock. Perhaps, exceptionally, they may acquire 
 property, and in the contemplation of law, establish 
 for themselves new homes. Society will never fos- 
 ter such a system, for it would be prejudicial to its 
 own ends ; but nevertheless it might protect t!ie in- 
 dividual by allowing her to exercise the suffrage of 
 property representation. The right of personal 
 Buffi-age she could hardly ask, and society would 
 hardly allow, except as she should be willing ant! 
 fitted to do the work of the juror, the policeman, 
 the sheriff, tlie soldier, — except as she should be- 
 come subject to all the duties and responsibilities oj 
 nrhicli the great interests of society depend. 
 
282 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 In sjjeaking on this subject nothing has been said 
 Eiitherto of sentiment and a sense of propriety as 
 (listingiii.slied from rights, and nothing need be, ex- 
 cept as those indicate, as natural sentiment always 
 does, vvliat is right. But sentiment depends so much 
 upon custom, and custom is so varied and capri- 
 cious that it is difficult to know what natural sen- 
 timent is. Througliout the East it shocks the sense 
 'jf propriety for a woman to appear in public un- 
 veiled, or to walk tlie streets arm-in-arm with her 
 husband, probably even more than it would here for 
 ner to vote and take part in the stormy debates of a 
 town meeting. Still, sentiment has a real basis. In 
 reading tlie account lately given by a missionary of 
 Iiis finding a man in the house knitting and his wife 
 at work in the field, we cannot help feeling that the 
 sense of ludicrous impropriety as well as of indigna- 
 tioii is well founded. That there is in the minds of 
 \arge portions of the peojile of this country — perhaps 
 stronger among tlie well educated and refined, and 
 stronger among women than men — a feeling of pro- 
 priety that would be offended by the promiscuous 
 mingling of women with men in the conduct of pub- 
 lic affairs, cannot be questioned. It is the sentiment 
 vhich makes woman strong through her weakness. 
 It lay at the foundation of all that was good in 
 hivalry. It has been a strong auxiliary to Chris- 
 .•ian piinciple in elevating woman. It sets her apart 
 n\ many liearts as something sacred, and adds to life 
 »therwise hard and prosaic, much of its beauty 
 
GOVEKNMENT, KTC. 283 
 
 f'or lliis suiitlmout Americans are distinguished. It 
 eliould be elierislied I'ather than weakened, and if, as 
 many think, it would be destroyed, or essentially 
 impaired by extending the suffrage to woman, those 
 who wish her elevation will hesitate long 'oefore tak- 
 ing such a step. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 FOKMa OF GOVERXMENT. DUTIES OF MAGI8TKATJ!8 
 
 AND CITIZENS. 
 
 After considering elementary points so fully, it 
 will not be necessary to spend much time on the more 
 beaten grounds of forms of government, and of the 
 rights and duties of citizens and of magistrates. 
 
 Governments have always been classed as Mon- 
 archies, Aristocracies, and Democracies, ^^^^^^f 
 but substantially they are now, and indeed f^^n'SST' 
 always have been, either monarchical or ""'■ 
 republican. There are indeed privileged classes, as 
 in England, who have an hereditary share in the 
 government, but there is no government that is in 
 fact or in form aristocratic. 
 
 Monarchies are either absolute or limited, as the 
 power rests with one man alone or is divided witli 
 others. The monarch may be elective, or heredi- 
 tary, though of an elective monarchy there is now 
 no example. That the monarchy should be liered- 
 itaiy conduces to the stability of the govenmient, 
 ind to peace. 
 
 Democracies, that is governments by the people 
 hepiseives. instead of by representation, are impo» 
 
FORMS Oi GOVliKNMENT, ETC. 28o 
 
 BJWe except for very binall coniuuinitics. Repub- 
 lican government is representative and. elective. 
 Tliere may be a simple independent republic, such 
 lis the several States were before the formation 
 of the Federal Union, or there may be a federal 
 reimblic, vv'ith ])owers divided between the cnntral 
 iTovernment and the several states. 
 
 The object of government, that is, security in the 
 enjoyment of every right, may be attained under 
 any form. A monarch may concede every right, 
 and his character may give security, but practically 
 it is found that rights are best secured where a large 
 amount of power is retained in the hands of the 
 people, and where the government itself is one of 
 checks and balances. 
 
 The essential condition of freedom and security 
 is that the three great functions of govern- 
 M^amtin ment, the Legislative, the Judicial, and the 
 function of Executive, should be kept distinct, and 
 government. s},ou](i be in different hands. Let the 
 laws be made by one set of men, witli penalties fixed 
 before transgression ; let the question of an infrac- 
 tion of law and the declaration of the penalty be in 
 the hands of anotiier set of men, and the execution 
 of tlie sentence in still other hands, and a good de- 
 gree of security and freedom can hardly fail to be 
 enjoyed. Still, much will depend on the method in 
 which the legislative body and the judiciary are 
 appointed and constituted. The object is the bes 
 l^ws and their perfeci administration. Society i 
 
286 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Ilierefore bound to elect men of wisdom and integ- 
 rity, and laws passed by such men after due deliber- 
 ation will be all that can be reached in the present 
 imperfect state. 
 
 To secure due deliberation- and a view of eacli 
 subject upon all its sides, the legislature Twoieg- 
 should consist, and commonly does, of two bodies, 
 bodies. In some cases these are elected in different 
 methods and serve for different periods, and this 
 would seem best adapted to secure the end. It 
 gives opportunity also for the representation of everj' 
 interest. 
 
 It has been thought in tliis country that the office 
 of legislation was a right and a privilege j^^^ 
 to be enjoyed in rotation, with little refer- '""O™- 
 ence to integrity and wisdom, especially with little 
 reference to any s])ecial knowledge of the science of 
 legislation. If the legislative body be numerous, 
 such a theory will be comparatively harmless if a 
 fair proportion of competent legislators be elected. 
 In such bodies the business is really done by a few, 
 and if the numbers that serve simply as ballast do no 
 positive mischief, there is little objection to the prin- 
 ciple of rotation for them. Crude legislation how- 
 ever is too great an evil to be lightly incurred, and 
 too many men may not be set aside just as experience 
 vould render their services valuable. Society owes 
 it to itself to see that its legislation moves on in the 
 full light of the experience of the past, and of the 
 ■jest t^'ent and wisdom of the present. 
 
FORMS OF GOVERNMENT, ETC. 287 
 
 Laws having been made, and penalties annexed, 
 The ladi- CEses will arise under them, respecting both 
 ''"' property and crime, that will require a ju- 
 
 diciary department. The sure and speedy and 
 inexpensive administration of justice is an essential 
 condition of the well-being of a people. The speed- 
 iest and least expensive method of reaching this is 
 by a single judge deciding cases on the spot, or, in 
 cases of importance and difficulty, two others might 
 be added. The objection to this is the danger of 
 passion, prejudice, and corruption. Hence juries 
 and courts of appeal have been introduced. These 
 have guarded against corruption, but have in many 
 cases so been the means of delay and expense that 
 the rich could baffle and worry out the poor, and 
 that it is often better pecuniarily to lose a just claim 
 than to contest it in law. Such a state of things 
 is disgraceful to civilization and to Christianity, and 
 should be remedied by an enlightened people. What 
 is needed is an impartial and competent judiciary, 
 through which speedy and inexpensive justice may 
 be reached. This end has been sought not merely 
 through the constitution of the judiciary, but also 
 through the mode of its appointment, and the ten- 
 ure of office. Obviously these should be such as to 
 Becure the appointment of the best men, and that 
 the judge himself shall be unaffected in his prospects 
 und private interests by his decisions. That these 
 conditions should be secured by an elective judi- 
 ciary, holding office for a limited and comparativelj 
 
288 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 brief binie, would not seem possible in the preaent 
 
 state of public morals. 
 
 It is the business of the executive to see that the 
 laws are enforced, and that all sentences ng„- 
 of the judiciary are carried out. The """•"" 
 executive also represents the majesty of the na- 
 tion before other nations, and in all international 
 transactions is the medium of communication with 
 them. The character of these duties demands that 
 they be performed by a single person.f If the ex- 
 ecutive have, as he should have, to guard his own 
 prerogatives, a veto power, he is so far a part of the 
 legislature ; but beyond that his sole business is to 
 execute the laws. This he must do, certainly, as he 
 understands tliem. He must execute a law in what 
 he supposes to be its true intent and meaning, seek- 
 ing, if there be doubt, the best aid from legal ad- 
 visers. But when a law has been passed, having 
 fully tlie forms of law, he must accept it as such, 
 and may not delay or refuse its execution on the 
 ground of its alleged unconstitutionality, though, if 
 t]i(3re be doubt, he may take immediate measures to 
 have the constitutionality of the law tested. 
 
 To secure always a suitable executive has been a 
 great problem. In most nations the executive of- 
 fice lias bean hereditary. This has many advan- 
 tages. It tends to stability and a uniform policy, 
 «.nd prevents the excitement and corruption incident 
 to an election. Besides, in many countries an intel- 
 ligent and patriotic election would be impossible. 
 In this country the executive is elective, virtual!) 
 
FORMS OF GOVERNMENT, ETC. 289 
 
 by the whole people, and hitherto the strain has not 
 been found too great. Whether this will continue 
 to be the case when wealth shall he Indefinitely in- 
 creased, and interests shall be extended and compli- 
 cated, is a problem. It can only be as there shall 
 be a virtue and an intelligence among the people 
 iiitherto unknown. Probably the danger would be 
 diminished, if the tenure of office were for six years, 
 with no possibility of a reelection. 
 
 The duties of the citizen are, 1st. To ohey the 
 Firat duty l^ws SO far as liis conscience will allow him 
 lit^a- ^° '^'^ so* ^^ is possible for men to cherish 
 obedience. willfuIncss and fanaticism under the pre 
 tense of conscience, and the presumption is in favor 
 of the law as right, and of the obligation of the citi- 
 zen to obey. Still there have been, and are liable to 
 be, under all forms of government, wicked laws, and 
 if, with the best light a man can gain, he shall deem 
 it wrong to obey a law, he is bound to disobey it, and 
 take the consequences whatever they may be. He is 
 bound to obey God rather than men. 
 
 2. The citizen is bound to bear cheerfully his 
 Beoondduty; sharc of the burdens of government, and 
 to taxation, of socicty. Whether called upon for per- 
 sonal service, or for property in the way of taxation, 
 he is to stand in his place and do his part without 
 subterfuge or evasion. 
 
 3. So far as his influence goes he is bound to see 
 Third dntyi that the best men are selected as candi- 
 wfi4». dates for office, and so to cast his vot« 
 ts will most benefit the country. 
 
 19 
 
^iUO MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 4. The citizen is bound to give his aid in all at- 
 tempts to secure the rights of others, and ponrthduty 
 to enforce law and order. He may not ^^1^™™ 
 stand supinely by and see the right of '"°°'- 
 property violated. If, through general supineness, 
 tlie property of individuals be destroyed by a mob, 
 society is bound to make it good. Against the ten- 
 dency of liberty to license, and of license again to 
 despotism, every citizen is to guard. 
 
 If we look at history, or at the state of most 
 countries now, we cannot value civil lib- vaineof 
 erty too highly. Hitherto it has existed "''" """'^ 
 but imperfectly, and has reached its present posi- 
 tion only through great sacrifices and struggles. 
 Tlie end of government, as for the individual, the 
 ground of human rights, and the rights themselves, 
 liave not been well understood. These are now 
 understood by some, and it lias become possible to 
 instruct a whole people in them. Let this be done, 
 and if, in connection with such instruction and the 
 advancing light of science the community may but 
 t)e so pervaded by the spirit of Christianity that a 
 permanent and constantly advancing civilization 
 may be possible, there will be nothing to prevent the 
 attainment by man of all the perfection and happi- 
 ness of wliich the present state will admit. Tlie 
 highest earthly conception is that of a vast Christian 
 •ommonwealth, instinct with order, and with such 
 triumphs and dominion over nature as modern 
 tcience is acliieving, and promises to acliieve. 
 
CLASS m. 
 
 DUTIES TO GOn 
 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 DUTIES TO GOD DEFINED. 
 
 Duties to God are distinguished from otliers by 
 ii«iRaonto having God for their object. It is one 
 Mher^duties; ^\^^J^g f^j. ti,g giibject to disregard the sov- 
 reat duty, gj-gign indirectly by breaking his laws in 
 injuring a fellow subject, it is another for him to 
 meet that sovereign personally and show towards 
 him disregard or contempt. There are accordingly 
 both duties and sins of which God is the immediate 
 object, and which have reference to Him alone. 
 Such are worship, and blasphemy. It is this capacity 
 of coming directly to God that makes man a child, 
 or rather it is the necessary result of his being a 
 child. 
 
 So far as we can separate religion from morality 
 BeUgion religion consists in those duties of which 
 guiBhed God is the object. That these cannot be 
 ndity. performed acceptably except on condition 
 
 of performing our duties to our fellow men has at 
 
292 MOBAL SCIENCE. 
 
 ready been shown. In this sense our duties to ova 
 fellow men are conditional for those to God, and so 
 lower. Whether they are also conditional as prior 
 in time is less clear. Many suppose that the moral 
 nature is first called into action towards man, and 
 observation favors this. But the relation of God tc 
 the soul as Creator and as all-pervading in his 
 presence, and the necessary idea which, according 
 to some, is formed of Him from the first, has led 
 others to the belief that the moral nature is first 
 stirred towards God, and that there can be no form 
 of duty without some reference to Him. 
 
 But be this as it may, while all must allow that 
 there can be no genuine religion without j^^^^^ 
 morahty, it is generally supposed there can ^^mS* 
 be morality without religion. This may ""'^'J'- 
 be differently viewed as we suppose morality to con- 
 sist in outward conduct, or in a state of the heart. 
 There are many reasons why outward conduct should 
 be in accordance with the rules of morality, though 
 it may not proceed from love. Doubtless, also, the 
 moral nature, in common with the other parts of our 
 nature, and taking its turn with them, is constantly 
 brought into activity towards men with no conscious 
 reference to God. But if we mean by morality the 
 love of our neighbor as a paramount and controlling 
 principle, and by perfect morality the love of our 
 neighbor as ourselves, then there is no reason to 
 «uppose that it can exist without religion. The 
 principle in each is identical, and supposing God t« 
 
DUTIES TO GOD DEFINED. 293 
 
 be known, they reciprocally imply each other. Cer 
 lainly this is the only morality that has an adequate 
 basis, or that can be relied on as consistent. 
 
 With this view of the relation to each other of 
 tliese two branches of duty, we inquu'e what those 
 duties are of which God is the object. 
 
 And here the first and great duty of every one is, 
 Man'« great *" ^^'"^ Mmself to Grod. This is the great- 
 *"'^' est and most solemn of all acts. It in- 
 
 volves the highest possible prerogatives of a creature, 
 and is the highest possible privilege as well as duty. 
 The whole wisdom of man lies in his confiding him- 
 self impHcitly to the guidance of the divine wisdom, 
 and to the protection of the divine power. It was 
 by withdrawing himself from this guidance and pro- 
 tection that man sinned originally ; he can be 
 restored only by accepting them anew. 
 
 As Creator, God is the absolute owner of aU 
 things. As omnipotent. He can do with them as 
 He pleases. But if He would be a Father and 
 Moral Governor He must have children and subjects 
 in his own image, and with the prerogative of 
 choosing or rejecting Him as their supreme good. 
 Control by force, order by an impulse from'without, 
 is the opposite of control by love, and of order from 
 a rational choice, and the highest duty of man is to 
 give himself in the spirit of a chUd, that is by faith, 
 to God. 
 
 The above will include everything. W'.oever 
 bolds himself fully and constantly in the afjlude tr 
 
294 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 God of a child, does all that he can. This will in- 
 rlude love and obedience. Still we need to specify 
 in three particulars — 
 
 1. The cultivation of a devotional spirit ; 
 
 2. Prayer ; and 
 
 8. The keeping of the Sabbath. 
 
CHAPTER n. 
 
 CULTIVATION OF A DEVOTIOHAL 8FIKIT. 
 
 A DEVOTIONAL Spirit may be cultivated — 
 
 1. By tlie exercise of devotion. This is on the 
 principle that all our active powers are strengthened 
 by exercise. There is no active power that does not 
 gain facility and scope by repeated acts under the 
 direction of will. 
 
 2. A devotional spirit may be cultivated by a 
 right use of Nature. 
 
 The physical universe is but a visible expression 
 uf the power and the thought of God. 
 
 This power and thought are seen in the very con- 
 stitution of matter. It was not any matter, but 
 such matter, and in such proportions, that was 
 •leeded for the forms that we see, and for vital pro- 
 cesses. The varieties and affinities and relative 
 quantities of matter as much show that it was created, 
 and for a purpose, as its forms and movements show 
 that it is used for a purpose. It is therefore the 
 voice of Science as well as of Revelation thsit He 
 " hath measured the waters in the hollow of his 
 ^and, »nd ijieted out heaven " — that is the ex^epjt pi 
 
296 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 the atinospliere — " with the span, and comprehended 
 the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the 
 mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance." 
 
 But the more obvious manifestations of thought 
 and power are in form and movement. It is in the 
 forms that we see, so diversified — some changing, 
 some j)ermanent, each adapted to an end — together 
 with those uniform and recurring movements which 
 reveal unlimited force and skill, that what we call 
 Nature consists. Through this we gain our concep- 
 tions of beauty, and of the most perfect adaptation 
 of means to ends. Physical science is but the 
 thought of God expressed through this. Upon this, 
 suspended as it is in immensity, so vast in its magni- 
 tudes, so miglity in its forces, so perfect in its organi- 
 zations even the most minute, so extended yet pre- 
 cise in its periods, no one can look without wonder, 
 unless it be from ignorance or criminal stupidity. 
 
 Rut all tills may be regarded with two habits of 
 mind utterly different. 
 
 Tlirougli tlie element of uniformity in nature it is 
 possible to regard it as having no relation to a per 
 Bonal God. Through that element God so hides 
 himself behind his works that very many are prac- 
 tically, and some tlieoretically, pantheistic or athe- 
 istic. They see nothing in Nature but impersonaj 
 forces and fixed relations. 
 
 A devotional spirit is the opposite of this 
 Through Nature it sees God. It sees, and culti- 
 vates the habit of seeing Him in everything. Tc 
 
CULTIVATION OF A DEVOTIONAL SPIRIT. 297 
 
 such a spiiit tlie earth and tlie heavens are a teniple, 
 the only temple worthy of God. , To it the succes- 
 sion of day and night and the march of the seasons 
 are constant hymns. To it, not the heavens alone, 
 hut the whole frame-work and structure of Nature 
 with its ongoings " declare the glory of God." 
 
 This is the spirit which it is the duty and hapjn 
 ness of man to cultivate. The highest use of 
 Nature is not the support of man, but to lead him 
 up to God. 
 
 3. A devotional spirit may also be cultivated by 
 observing the Providence of God as it respects 
 Nations, individuals, and particularly ourselves. 
 
 The warp of our earthly life is those uniformities, 
 called laws, without which there could be no educa- 
 tion of the race, and no rational conduct. But these 
 laws intersect a-nd modify each other. They are so 
 related to the results of human will, and the results 
 of different wills apparently unrelated so combine and 
 converge to unexpected ends, as to have produced 
 an impression almost universal that the filling in of 
 those seeming contingencies which go to make up 
 the completed pattern of our lives is controlled by 
 wise design. In this is Providence. This it is that 
 \n every age takes Joseph from the pit and makes 
 nim ruler of Egypt. Through this it is that the 
 »rrow shot at a venture finds the joints of the har- 
 ness. Here, as in Nature, it is possible for men to 
 eubstitute something else, as chance, or fate, for 
 God ; but those who believe in Him will nowhere 
 
298 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 find more striking evidence of a divine hand, and 
 " he who will observe the Providence of God wiU 
 have providences to observe." 
 
 4. But the main nutriment of a devotional spirit 
 nmst be found in the Scriptures. 
 
 In the Scriptures we have an unequivocal revela- 
 tion of God as personal, and so of his attributes as 
 moral. It is only in view of personality and moral 
 attributes that devotion can spring up. Sentiment 
 and sentimentalism there may be in view of force 
 regarded as impersoTial, but not devotion, not wor- 
 ship. These require a Father in Heaven, an infinite 
 God, universal in his government and perfect in his 
 moral character. Whatever may be said of the 
 truth of the Scriptures, it is demonstrable that the 
 God whom they reveal must call forth the highest 
 possible adoration, and hence that the knowledge of 
 God as revealed in them must, more than anything 
 else can, quicken intelligent devotion. The attri- 
 butes and character of God as made known in the 
 Scriptures hold the same relation to devotion that 
 the infinity of space, and the awful force that sus- 
 tains and moves in it the array of suns and planets, 
 holds to the emotion of sublimity ; and as nothing 
 can supersede infinite space in that relation, so noth- 
 ing can supersede the God of the Bible as the 
 ground and stimulus of the highest possible devo- 
 tion. 
 
 Thus recognizing God in the three great modes 
 Ui which He is revealed, in Nature, in Providencs, 
 
CULTIVATION OF A DEVOTIONAL SPIRIT. 299 
 
 uid m Revelation, we shall cultivate a devotional 
 ipirit. 
 
 „ ^ In contrast with a devotional spirit is 
 
 one that is crofane. 
 
 This may manifest itself in action or in speeclu 
 Tlie true conceptian of this world is that of a temple 
 involving both the ownership and the indwelling of 
 God. As there is nothing that God does not own, 
 any reckless or vicious use of what is his is a form 
 of profaneness. It is a profanation to convert what 
 God gave for food into a means of gluttony or 
 drunkenness. If travellers were to stop in a cara- 
 vansera, and in the presence of him who built and 
 furnished it were to destroy the food and injure the 
 furniture he had provided for all, he would be 
 grieved and justly incensed. It would be an un- 
 grateful disregard of his wishes, and an abuse of his 
 goodness. But this is what men do who pervert the 
 works of God from the end designed by Him, and 
 such conduct toward Him is profaneness. 
 
 But while this is really profaneness, and in an 
 aggravated form, it is not generally so regarded, 
 The term is commonly applied to some form of 
 speech implying disregard or contempt of God, or 
 of the sanctions of his mo'-al government ; and more 
 particularly to an irreverent use of his name. This 
 Is an offense that would excite astonishment if it 
 were not so common. It differs from others in be- 
 mg -vholly gratuitous, and is thus, perhaps, the most 
 striking evidence of the depravity of the race. Tha 
 
300 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 thiet, the sensualist, the ambitious man has a temp- 
 tation that appeals to a natural desire; but that a 
 creature and child of God, supported wholly by his 
 goodness and responsible to Him, should wantonly 
 profane his name, could not beforehand be credited. 
 That there should be in Christian lands communities 
 in which such profaneness is thought an accomplish- 
 ment, and so an evidence of manhood that boys are 
 tempted to it on that ground, shows a standard of 
 manhood that has depravity for its essence. 
 
 Profaneness can be of no possible use to him who 
 indulges in it, or to any one else. If it were not 
 wicked it would be simply superfluous and ridicu- 
 lous. As it is, it is, as Robert Hall said, in allusion 
 to feudal times, merely " a peppercorn rent to show 
 that a man belongs to the devil." So far from giv- 
 ing, as some suppose, assurance of the truth of what 
 is spoken in connection with it, it is the reverse. 
 All observation shows, mine certainly does, what 
 might have been inferred without it, that he who 
 will swear, will lie. Why not? The practice is 
 »carcely less oifcnsive to a just taste than to a sen- 
 sitive conscience, and whoever may be guilty of it, 
 deserves to be not only condemned and abhorred, 
 but despised. 
 
CHAPTER ni 
 
 PRAYER. 
 
 The second great duty which we owe exclusirelj 
 to God is Prayer. 
 
 Literally, prayer is supplication, it is asking ; but 
 Prayer ^^ commoiily used it includes all that we 
 
 worahip. mean by worship. It includes in addition 
 to supplication, adoration, confession, and thanksgiv- 
 ing. To a being like man each of these would seem 
 to be the dictate of nature. What more reasonable 
 than adoration in view of an Infinite Majesty ? 
 What more suitable than confession in view of guilt, 
 or than thanksgiving in view, not simply of good- 
 less, but of mercy, and of a love unutterable ? 
 What more natural than that the creature and 
 child, in view of his wants, should ask the Creator 
 and Owner of all, and his Father, to supply those 
 wants ? That each of these, excepting the last, is 
 not only suitable but a duty is generally conceded, 
 Dut that man should ask and that God should give 
 oecause of his askmg, has seemea to many incom 
 patible with the fixed order of nature, and with his 
 infinite attributes. 
 
 By asking is here meant, not simply desire ex- 
 
802 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 pressed, but paramount desire. There must be 
 n desire fur the thing asked greater than Prayoris 
 
 , 1 111- paramount 
 
 tor anything else that would be mcom- desire, 
 patible with it. This is prayer, and nothing else is. 
 If a man may have either an estate or so much 
 money for the asldng, but cannot have both, how- 
 ever nuich he may desire the estate he cannot 
 really ask for it, unless he desires it more than the 
 money. And so, whatever desire a man may have 
 of heaven, or of the presence with him of the Spirit 
 of God, yet if he have a stronger desire for any form 
 of worldly good, any form of expression that he 
 miglit use in the guise of prayer would not be ask- 
 ing. It would be hypocrisy to the omniscient eye. 
 It is only a paramount desire presented to God with 
 the submission becoming a creature, that is prayer, 
 and the question is whether, in consequence of such 
 prayer, man will receive what he would not with- 
 out it. 
 
 On this point the Bible expresses no doubt. 
 There is in that no recognition of the dif- iesai„ony 
 P.culties raised by philosophy. It teaches "'"^'B""' 
 us how to pray ; it commands and exhorts us to 
 [)i-ay ; it gives us examples in great number and 
 variety of direct answers to prayer ; it makes prayer 
 an essential element of a Christian life ; it says ex- 
 plicitly, "Ask and ye shall receive." It would be 
 iu)[)ossible that the duty and efficacy of pray or 
 !ilu)uld be taught more clearly than they are in th« 
 IJlble. 
 
PBAYEB. 803 
 
 These teachings of the Bible are confirmed bj 
 the analogy of our earthly life, and by the instinct 
 of the race. 
 
 From his infancy the child asks and receives. 
 . Asking is one of the two legitimate ap- 
 
 pointed ways in which his wants are to be 
 iupplied. For some things, and at some times, it is 
 the only way. It is just an expression of that de- 
 sire and dependence which are appropriate to the 
 relation of parent and cliild. Without recognized 
 dependence in the way of expressed desire on the 
 one hand, and an abihty and wilhngness to supply 
 wants thus indicated on the other, the chief beauty 
 and significance of the parental relation would be 
 gone. Can it be then that we have a Father in 
 heaven, and yet that the very feature which gives 
 warmth and beauty and value to the earthly relation 
 should be wanting ? Without this the name would 
 lose, in its transference to God, its chief significance, 
 and Christ would not be the benefactor He is sup- 
 posed to have been in teaching the race to say, 
 " Our Father." 
 
 On this point too the instinct of the race has been 
 roiceof manifested unequivocally. Universally, or 
 bBtinct. nearly so, when, as the Psalmist says, men 
 ■'draw near unto the gates of death," when " they 
 that go down to the sea in ships " " mount up to the 
 heaven," and " go down again to the depths," " anc" 
 »re at their wits' end," " then they cry unto the 
 Lord in their trouble." Not only s^ieculatlve que* 
 
304 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 lioners of the efficacy of prayer, but professed athe- 
 ists have often been brought tp extremities in which 
 this instinct has so asserted itself that they have 
 cried unto God. 
 
 It may also be doubted whether the highest bless- 
 ings can be received except on the condition of 
 asking. Health, rain, a prosperous journey, may 
 come to men whether they ask or not. But the 
 highest blessings are from the direct communion of 
 man with God. Tins is the great distinction of man, 
 that God himself may be his portion and good. To 
 be enjoyed, this blessing must be desii'ed and sought 
 for, and it can be sought for only by asking. To 
 obtain the larger number of blessings we need, we 
 must not only ask, but put fortli active exertion ; but 
 liere the only active exertion possible is the asking. 
 Nor would it seem fit that God should bestow this 
 blessing on any other condition. Other things may 
 come alike to all, but it might have been anticipated, 
 even if He could do it otherwise, that God would 
 give his Holy Spirit, as a sanctifier and comforter, 
 only to those who should ask Him. 
 
 Not only from the Bible, then, but from the anal- 
 ogy of our eartlily life, from our whole nature aa 
 practical, and from its necessary relation to our 
 Sigliest wants, should we infer the efficacy of asking, 
 
 Tlie question tlien recurs whether, in objection 
 Jie light of a philosophy that apprehends ta™JtabU- 
 nimutable law and tlie infinite attributes "J'""""- 
 tf God, all this be not a mere seeming and delusion 
 
PRAYER. 805 
 
 To the efficacy of asking for the Holy Spii'it, oi 
 for any direct agency of God upon our minds, there 
 can be no objection from the immutabihty of phys- 
 ical law, since that can have no relation to what is 
 done immediately by a personal being. From this 
 Lighest region and sphere of prayer, therefore, no 
 cavil about fixed law can debar us. Nor, on the 
 view of the immutability of law (the only correct 
 one), taken by the Duke of Argyle in his " Reign 
 of Law," can any valid objection lie against the effi- 
 cacy of asking, for example, for rain. " There are," 
 says he, "no phenomena visible to man of which 
 it is true to say that they are governed by any inva- 
 riable force. That which does govern them is 
 always some variable combination of invariable 
 forces. But this makes all the difference in reason- 
 ing on the relation of will to law — tliis is the one 
 essential distinction to be admitted and observed. 
 . . . . In the only sense in which laws are 
 immutable, this inmnitability is the very charac- 
 teristic which makes them subject to guidance 
 tlu-ough endless cycles of design. It is the very 
 certainty and invariableness of the laws of Nature," 
 — that is, of each individual law taken separately — 
 " which alone enables us to use them, and yoke them 
 to our service." If, as some suppose, man can cause 
 i-ain by the firing of cannon, then it may be obtained 
 by asking it even of hmi. In such a case there 
 would be simply a different adjustment of invariable 
 laws ; and if results may be thus produced to some 
 
 20 
 
806 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 extent by the intervention of human will without a 
 miracle, it cannot be irrational to suppose they may 
 be thus produced to any extent by the divine will. 
 The arrow shot at a venture that finds the joints of 
 tlie harness, is governed by ordinary laws. Nothing 
 bnt their nice adjustment is needed to carry it pre- 
 cisely there. The intervention of will is supposed, 
 but in no other relation to fixed law than that of the 
 human will when it causes ice by a fireezing mix- 
 ture. This removes a difficulty which has weighed 
 heavily on many minds. 
 
 There remains the objection from the objection 
 infinite attributes of God. Mnite*'' 
 
 As infinite in knowledge, God knows "■""butes. 
 what we need before we ask Him. We can tell Him 
 nothing new. He also knows what events are to 
 be, therefore they cannot be changed. As infinite 
 in goodness, He will do for us what is best whether 
 we ask Him or not. 
 
 In obviating these difficulties, we may say — 
 
 1. That no one can read the speculations of such 
 men as Spinoza, Kant, Cousin, and Hamilton, upon 
 the Infinite, without feeling that they are dealing 
 with a subject which they do not fully grasp ; and 
 that it can never be wise to set the results of such 
 speculations in opposition to the practical principles 
 of our nature. The apparent contradictions result- 
 ing fiom these speculations were such that Kant 
 felt obliged to recognize or invent what he called a 
 Practical Reason, as the only basis of rationa 
 'onduct. 
 
PBATEB. 807 
 
 2. Tlie objtctlon so makes God infinite as really 
 to limit Him, and virtually to deny his personality. 
 It makes it impossible for Him to be a Father, or 
 moral Governor. Prayer is an act of choke and 
 free will. So is murder. And if, because God is 
 infinite, and knows what is to be, and will do what 
 is best, it can make no diflFerencc with a man 
 whether he prays or not, for the same reason it can 
 make no difference whether he murders or not. It 
 will follow that God will do what He will do, with- 
 out reference to human conduct, which is subversive 
 of moral government, and a practical absurdity. If 
 we regard God as a person, and man also, the pos- 
 sibility of such direct intercourse as prayer involves 
 must be allowed ; nor can we conceive of a being, 
 especially of an Infinite Being, having fully the 
 attributes of personality, that is, being really God, 
 to whom it would be impossible to answer prayer. 
 Why not say that the immutable God immutably, 
 that is always, answers prayer ? The difficulty lies 
 in connecting personality with infinite attributes, 
 and those who deny that prayer may be efficacious, 
 •eally deny the personality and fatherhood of God. 
 
 It is to the fatherhood of God that we chng. To 
 that we turn with infinite relief, from those limitless 
 and dreary abstractions, which philosophy calls the 
 Infinite and the Absolute. Without that, we are 
 orphans : virtually, all is Fate. With that, nothing 
 ian rationally prevent the child from coming to the 
 Father, or even the sinner, when he sees evidence 
 
808 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 of placability, from coming " boldly unto the throne 
 of grace, that he may obtain mercy, and find grace 
 to help in time of need." 
 
 With this view of the nature and reasonableness 
 of prayer, it only remains to say that its j^^ ^^^ 
 fo-m is of little consequence. Prayer is °' p™?" 
 more than desire — more than sincere desire. It 
 is paramount desire offered to God with a filial 
 spirit. Of necessity this will be both reverent and 
 finportunate. Such prayer, whether repeated from 
 memory, or read from a book, or, as would seeir 
 most natural, uttered directly from the promptings 
 »f the heart, is always heard. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE SABBATH. 
 
 I'he last duty to be considered is the keeping til 
 the Sabbath. 
 
 To man, originally, the Sabbath must liave come 
 as a positive institution, since he could have seen 
 no reason for it, aside from the divine command. 
 It has since been commonly regarded as partly pos- 
 itive and partly moral. Now, how^ever, as a reason 
 can be assigned for it, and even for the proportion 
 of time designated, it may be regarded as wholly 
 moral. 
 
 In considering the Sabbath, we shall first treat of 
 the Religious, and then of the Civil Sabbath. 
 
 By the Religious Sabbath, we mean a day set 
 apart by God himself for his own worship, and to 
 secure, in connection with that, the religious cul- 
 ture and final salvation of men. 
 
 By the Civil Sabbath, we mean a day made 
 " non-legal," in which public business shall be sus- 
 pended, and in which all labor and recreation shall 
 be so far restrained, that the ends of a religious Sab- 
 bath may be secured by those who wish it. 
 
310 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 In treating of the religious Sabbath, wc naturally 
 consider, first, its origin and history. 
 
 Concerning these, the points which the Mends ol 
 the Sabbath accept and regard as estabhshed are 
 the following : — 
 
 1. That the Sabbath was given to our first par- 
 ents in Eden, according to the account in Genesis 
 ii. 2, 3 ; and that it was intended for the race. 
 
 2. That we find unmistakable indications of the 
 Sabbath, both in tJie Scriptures and in heathen liter- 
 ature, between the original command and the giving 
 of the Law. 
 
 3. That when tlie Law was given, the command 
 to hallow the Sabbatli was made conspicuous, as 
 one of the ten commandments. That it has the 
 same rank as the other commandments, all of which 
 are moral in their character, and universally binding. 
 
 4. That during the subsequent history of the 
 Jews the Sabbath is referred to by the prophets in 
 a way to show that they classed it with the other 
 commandments, and that they regarded its obser- 
 vance as intimately connected with the prosperitv of 
 the nation. 
 
 5. That at the time of our Saviour the Sabbath 
 was observed with great strictness ; that the people 
 assembled regularly for public worship, and that 
 Moses and the prophets were read in the syna- 
 gogues every Sabbath-day. Also, that this worship 
 was attended by our Saviour, and that while He re- 
 proved the superstitious observances and over* 
 
THE SABBATH. 811 
 
 iciiipulousness that had crept m, He yet recognized 
 the Sabbath as a divine institution, and as " made 
 tor man." 
 
 G. That after the resurrection of Christ the day 
 was changed, and that the Christian Sabbath, with 
 substantially the same ends, has been perpetuated 
 till the present time. 
 
 Tliese points liave been amply discussed by many 
 writers, and as they belong to history rather than 
 to philosophy, they will not be further noticed here. 
 We proceed to inquire what may be known of the 
 origin of the Sabbath, from the character and condi- 
 tion of man. 
 
 And here we observe that the rehgious Sabbath 
 authenticates itself as from God. This it does m 
 various ways. 
 
 1. Regarding man as sinful, taking him as we 
 now find him in every country where the Sabbath 
 is unknown, the very conception of a Jwly Sabbath 
 would have been impossible. There could have been 
 nothing within him or without him to suggest it. 
 
 2. Regarding men as selfish, the rich and the 
 powerful would never have originated an institution, 
 or consented to it, which would not only free laborers 
 and dependents and slaves from labor one se vent! i 
 of the time, but would require that time for the 
 service of another. 
 
 3. As the Sabbath corresponds with no cycle or 
 natural division of time, it must have been impos- 
 lible for any man, or number of men, to single oul 
 
312 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 one day, and set it apart authoritatively. Man could 
 neither have decided rightly the proportion of time 
 to be set apart, nor have guarded the sanctity of 
 the day by penalties. If the division of time into 
 weeks were wholly unknown, it would be impossible 
 that it should be introduced by man. 
 
 4. Man could not have so associated the Sabbath 
 with the grandest ideas made known by revelation, 
 or possible to thought, as the creation of the world, 
 the resurrection of Christ, the outpouring of the 
 Spirit, and the rest of a holy heaven. He could 
 not have made it span the arch from the beginning 
 till the consummation of all things. 
 
 5. The Sabbath authenticates its divine origin 
 not only as it thus blends with the highest ideas and 
 interests of man, as connected with the past and the 
 future, but by its analogy with the works of God as 
 simple, and at the same time touching the interests 
 of the present life at so many points. In this it is 
 like the air and the water, which seem so simple, 
 yet subserve so many uses. 
 
 As thus impossible to have been originated by 
 man, as connected with the creation of the world, 
 with the resurrection of Christ, with the outpouring 
 if the Spirit, and with the rest of heaven ; being 
 analogous to nature, and promoting every interest 
 of time, we say that the religious Sabbath comes to 
 •pan bearing its own credentials as from God. 
 
 From the origin of the Sabbath we Thes»but» 
 turn to its necessity tor man. formao. 
 
 I. Of its necessity for man as an individual. 
 
THE SABBATH. 313 
 
 Of this the first ground is the necessity man is in 
 toi reiigiouB °^ religious instruction. The religion of 
 
 IrUtoUOtlOn. tjjg gJljlg Jg JJQJ ^ fgj^ jjj^^ g^ ijg gong 
 
 through with mechanically, or a superstition that 
 can be inherited, or imposed upon ignorance. It is 
 a religion of light. This is its glory. But rational 
 ideas of God and of his worship, and of the duty 
 and destiny of man as a religious being, can no more 
 be reached without instruction than similar ideas of 
 civil society. Upon such instruction the Bible in- 
 sists, both in the Old Testament and in the New, 
 and for this, if it is to be made general, the Sabbath 
 is indispensable. 
 
 But it is not simply instruction that man needs. 
 Fotperautt- ^'^ nceds persuasion. Indifference and 
 '*'"'■ aversion are to be overcome. Men are 
 
 tempted to forget God, to neglect prayer, and make 
 light of accountability. They atre tempted to live, 
 and most men do live, for this world alone. Here 
 is the great need of a Sabbath. There is need of 
 time and opportunity to persuade men ; to go, if need 
 be, " into the iiighways and the hedges, and compel 
 them to come in." 
 
 But again, if we suppose an individual intelli- 
 for culture g^^^'j religious, the Sabbath Avould be 
 ud growth, needed for his culture and growth. Were 
 men open every day to the calls of society, and sub- 
 ject to the pressure of competition in business, the 
 tide of worldliness would become resistless. The 
 Sabbath brings the world to a solemn pause, as 
 
J14 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 under the eye of God. It enables man to subordi- 
 late sense to faith, and hfts him up to the power o{ 
 living for the unseen and the future. 
 
 Again, man cannot reach his end as isolated. 
 He is social, and needs public and social i.or8oci.i 
 worship, as well as instruction, and for ""'°' 
 these the Sabbath is indispensable. The Sabbath, 
 the pulpit, the Sabbath-school, and the social meet- 
 mgs appointed on the Sabbath and revolving about 
 't, are inseparable. Withdraw these, and it ia 
 doubtful whether the Church itself would survive. 
 The pulpit, in connection with the Sabbath, is the 
 only institution ever established on earth for the 
 general diifusion of religious instruction, and for 
 securing a form of social worship that should bring 
 all men together in equality and brotherhood before 
 God. 
 
 II. The Sabbath is needed not only for the indi- 
 vidual, but for the family. 
 
 The Sabbath and the family were instituted in 
 Paradise — these only, and they natu- j„ f^ 
 -ally support each other. Where there is JJ°JSe°*" 
 
 Sabbath, the domestic relations are not *^"^ 
 held sacred, and where the domestic relations are 
 not held sacred, there is no Sabbath. Let but 
 these two institutions, the family and the religious 
 Sabbath, be sustained in their integrity, and every 
 interest of the individual and of the family will be 
 tecured. 
 
 III. The Sabbath is essential to the state, if free 
 i?overiiment !s to be maintained. 
 
TfiE SABBATH. 3l6 
 
 No people ever have been, or ever can be, raised 
 
 to a point of knowledge and virtue that would en- 
 able them to maintain permanently a free govern- 
 ment, that is, self-government, without that circle of 
 agencies of which the Sabbath is an essential part. 
 
 Without the Sabbath and the Bible there has 
 The Sabbath becu uo sucli diffusion of kuowledgo 
 goTernment. amoiig a whole people as would qualify 
 them for liberty. It was among those who most 
 highly esteemed the religious Sabbath, and were 
 persecuted for maintaining it, that the idea of edu- 
 cating the whole people first arose and was made 
 efficient. Tlie idea had its germ in that estimate of 
 man as man, which underlies the whole system of re- 
 ligion of which the Bible and the Sabbath are a part. 
 
 But knowledge is not sufficient ior freedom. 
 There must also be virtue, principle, and a right 
 social state. Outward forms and amenities must 
 spring from good will, and love as a law must be 
 applied in the relations of life as it never has been, 
 or can be without tlie Sabbath and its teachings.^ 
 
 IV. We next observe, that man needs the Sab- 
 
 1 As the capacity of 'aan for free government is now on trial, and 
 especially in this country, this point is of special interest to the patriot 
 as well as to the Chri.-tian, and has attracted no little attention. Two 
 years since, at the request of the New York Sabbath Committee, a 
 paper was read by me before the National Sabbath Convention, held at 
 Saratoga, in which it was maintained: — 
 
 1. "That a religious observance of the Sabbath would secure the 
 permanence of free institutions." 
 
 2. " That without the Sab'oath religiously observed the pennanenci 
 «f free institutions cannot be secured; " and — 
 
316 MOFAL SCIENCE. 
 
 balh as a physical being, and not he alone, but the 
 animals that are subjected to labor by him. It i« 
 worthy of notice that cattle are especially mentioned 
 in the fourth commandment. 
 
 If this be so, it is a fact of high import, not only as 
 showing the wide relations of the Sabbath, but the 
 subordiiifition of physical to moral ideas in the whole 
 structui-e of the present system. 
 
 The question is, Will man and animals do more 
 work, do it better, have better health, and p^ ^^^ 
 live longer by laboring six days and rest- "o^,'^ 
 ing the seventh, than by laboring seven ^»*''"'"'- 
 days in the week ? This question can be decided 
 only by facts, and by a wide and careful induction. 
 
 On this point extensive observations have been 
 made by cautious men, and facts like the following 
 are stated : " The experiment was tried on a hun- 
 dred and twenty horses. They were employed for 
 years seven days in a week. But they became un- 
 healthy, and finally died so fast that the owner 
 thought it too expensive, and put them on a six 
 days' arrangement. After this he was not obliged 
 to replenish them one fourth as often as before. 
 Instead of sinking continually, his horses came up 
 ttgain, and lived years longer than they could have 
 
 3. " That the civil as based on the religious Sabbath is an institntion 
 '0 which society has a natural right, precisely as it baa to property." 
 
 These propositions, it is believed, can be established, and if so th« 
 flabbath must be from God. 
 
 The paper referred to having been published by the Sabbath Con» 
 jiittec and extensively circulated, it is, perhaps, sufficient to refer to } 
 here. 
 
THE SABBATH. 817 
 
 done on the other plan.-" Numerous cases of this 
 Kind are stated by Dr. Justin Edwards in his " Sab- 
 bath Manual." 
 
 A friend writes me that when the extensive stable 
 of the 3d Avenue Railroad, in New York, was com- 
 pleted, he was invited to inspect it ; and noticing that 
 the stables were arranged in groups of seven, he 
 found on inquiry " that the object was to have a 
 gang or team of horses together ; that each car re- 
 C[uired three pair of horses per day, each pair going 
 about twenty-four miles ; but that this was not 
 enough, for that a horse, no matter how well fed 
 and cared for, required rest, and that the only way 
 to give it to him and still keep the car running was 
 to have an odd horse which should come in and take 
 his turn at the work." This gave each horse a 
 seventh part of the time for rest. " It had been 
 tried, the superintendent said, with less, and with 
 more, but that it took just about seven horses to run 
 the car all the time." My friend adds : "This re- 
 sult had apparently been reached through pure 
 experience, but however reached, it had not been 
 founded upon any Scriptural reason ; and I have no 
 doubt but that tlie superintendent and directors were 
 entirely unconscious of the fact, that they were fcl- 
 'owing a divine precept." 
 
 In view of facts like the above, Dr. Edwaids felt 
 iutliorized to say of laboring animals that " when 
 employed but six days in a week, and allowed to 
 rest one, they are mere healthy than they can b« 
 
818 MORAL SCIENCE. 
 
 when employed during the whole seven. They do 
 more work, and live longer." 
 
 And what is true of animals is true of man. 
 From extensive inquiries, from rejDorts made by 
 government commissioners, and from the opinion of 
 many scientific physicians, Dr. Edwards concludes 
 that "men who labor six days in a week, and rest 
 one, can do more woi-k in all kinds of business, in 
 all parts of the world, and do it in a better manner 
 than those who labor seven." Also, " that it is 
 now settled by facts that the observance of the 
 Sabbath is required by a natural law, and that were 
 man nothing more than an animal it would be for 
 his interest to observe the Sabbath." ^ 
 
 The above refers to physical labor ; but as the 
 power of vigorous and persistent mental The mental 
 
 111 1 1 Pill- PO'™" "««<* 
 
 labor depends on tlie state ot tlie body, it >^ sabbath. 
 will follow that more such labor can be done, and 
 better done by those who keep the Sabbath, than by 
 those who do not. This is confirmed by facts, 
 beginning with the testimony of Sir Matthew Hale, 
 which seems to have first called attention to the 
 subject. He said : " If I h<id at any time bor- 
 rowed from this day any time for my secular em- 
 ployment I found that it did further me less than if 
 I had let it alone, and therefore, when some years' 
 Lixperience, upon a most attentive and vigilant 
 observation, had given me this instruction, I grew 
 peremptorily resolved never in this kind to make a 
 
 1 See Sab. Doc. No. 1, p. 41. 
 
THE SABBATH. 319 
 
 breach upon the Lord's day, which I have now 
 
 strictly observed for more than thirty years." On 
 tills point more recent testimony is abundant, but 
 need not be added. 
 
 The views above presented rest on their own 
 basis, though they could never have been reached 
 witiiout revelation, and they justify us in calling 
 special attention to the saying of our Saviour, that 
 " the Sabbath was made for man." Viewing him 
 in whatever aspect, whether as a physical, an in- 
 tellectual, or a moral and religious being; whether 
 in his domestic, his social, or his civil relations, we 
 ses that the Sabbath is an integral and essential 
 Dart of the divine arrangement for his training and 
 well-being. 
 
 If tlie ])receding views are correct, and also the 
 Man's rigtit doctrino of rights already considered, it 
 
 to the civil .„ p „ , , • , , 
 
 Sabbath. will toUow that mail lias a riglit to the 
 civil Sabbath, on the same ground that he has a 
 right to property, or to anytiiing else ; and that it 
 belongs to legislation to secure him in the enjoy- 
 ment of that right. 
 
 Rights are from the necessity of those things to 
 which man has a right, to secure the various ends 
 indicated by the active principles of his constitution, 
 and they vary in importance and sacredness accord- 
 ing to the importiince and sacredness of the end. 
 But the highest end of man is a rehgiously socia! 
 Dnd. His most sacred rio;ht must therefore be tc 
 tlie requisites ^nd cf )j; ditions for attaining that ejid 
 
820 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 and he will have a right to demand of society what- 
 ever legislation may be required for that. The 
 civil society which does not afford to every man the 
 most favorable conditions for the attainment of the 
 ends for wliicli God made him, needs modification, 
 and if it would render such attainment impossible, 
 it needs reconstruction. 
 
 In saying the above we disclaim any purpose to 
 make men moral or religious by legislation, or to 
 interfere with any liberty that ■would not trench 
 upon rights. Give us our rights, give us the still- 
 ness and quiet needed for the religious impression 
 of the Sabbath, for the instruction of families, and 
 for public worsliip, and we are content. To these, 
 as needed for the attainment of our highest ends, we 
 have a right. 
 
 " It may also be said that society, as being from 
 God, has a natural right to anything necessary to 
 secure its own cuds. If, therefore, it can be shown, 
 as it can be, and has been, that those ends cannot 
 be secured without the Sabbath, then society has, 
 on this ground also, a right to legislate in favor of 
 the civil Sabbath." ^ 
 
 It only remains to speak of the manner in whicli 
 the Sabbath sliould be kept. 
 
 How the Sabbath must be kept must ^^^^^^ „, 
 be determined in part from its origin, but acSS 
 rhiefly from its end. bj its end. 
 
 A-s associated with great and joyful events in th( 
 
 ' See Safibath and Frte Inititttiionf, p. J7' 
 
THE SABBATH. 321 
 
 past, the Sabbath is of the nature of a festival, auo 
 ihould be a day of joy. As calling us to cease from 
 the toil imposed by the primeval curse, and to lay 
 aside its soiled garments, the Sabbath is a day of 
 release and of refreshment. As pointing to a resi 
 of lioly activity, in which the curse of tod shall bt 
 wholly lifted from us, the Sabbath is a day of de- 
 lightful anticipation, and of earnest preparation. 
 To one acquainted with its origin, and sympathizing 
 with its end, the whole tone and aspect of the day 
 must be bright, and its spirit free ; but, as has been 
 said, the manner of keeping the day, its duties and 
 employments, must be mainly determined by its 
 end. 
 
 Is the end of the Sabbath physical ? Then it is 
 to be spent in physical culture. Is it intellectual ? 
 Then the schools, and lyceums, and libraries shoula 
 be opened and thronged. Is the end assthetic ? 
 Then we are to listen to fine music, and view works 
 of art. Is it social ? Then we are to make calls, 
 and attend dinner parties. Is the end communion 
 with nature, or with the God of nature, distinc- 
 I'vely ? Then we are to walk in the fields and 
 woods, . and go on excursions. Is the end of the 
 Sabbath religious? Then it is to be kept holy, 
 riien are we to bring ourselves by every method of 
 his appointment, into immediate and conscious re- 
 ation to God as a holy God, and our end will be 
 <he prorattion of holiness in ourselves and others. 
 This is the end designated by God, the only worth v 
 21 
 
322 MOEAL SCIENCE. 
 
 end, the only end, even, in connection with which 
 any other can be fiiUy secured. 
 
 But while the above is the end, it does not follow 
 that it is the only end ; for here, as else- Higher and 
 where, we find higher and lower ends, i"""™^- 
 and here, too, the law of limitation holds. Every 
 lower good may be promoted, and should be, but 
 only so far as it is a condition for one that is higher. 
 Holiness is the supreme end. So far as that will be 
 promoted by physical rest and " bodily exercise," 
 by study, or art, or social intercourse, or commun- 
 ion with nature, these will be in place, hut no further. 
 " The Sabbath was made for man," and whatever 
 labor or service his good may require us to perform 
 on that day, we are to do — all works of necessity and 
 mercy. But we are to remember that it was made 
 for man especially as a religious being, and as his 
 great need is conformity to God, if the Sabbath be 
 not so kept as to promote that, it fails of its chief 
 end. It fails to be properly a Sabbath. But let it 
 be kept so as to promote this end, and every inferior 
 good will follow. There will be physical rest. There 
 will be that study of the Word of God and that 
 meditation which give light and depth to ^e intel- 
 lect. There will be sacred song, with so much of 
 art as higher ends may demand or permit. There 
 will be that family worship which hallows the home, 
 and that public and social worship which at once 
 humbles and exalts men., and brings them togethei 
 IS one f^imily before God. Man will have sympathy 
 
THE SABBATH. 323 
 
 with nature, not merely as expressing the naturs 
 attributes of God, but as the basis and frame-work, 
 and in some of its aspects, the silent prophecy of a 
 higher moral and Christian system. All this he 
 will have under the law of limitation, and in addi- 
 tion, the limitless good that comes from conformity 
 to God, and direct communication with Him. 
 
 Such a law of the Sabbath is as precise as can be 
 given and not keep men children, or make them 
 machines. It avoids all precisionism, allowing each 
 one to decide for himself, whether or not he may 
 pluck the oars of corn as he passes through the field, 
 and rub them with his hands. 
 
 The requirement to keep the Sabbath holy places 
 HoUnesB i* '" ^ peculiar position, as making holi- 
 °righ*ob-° "^ss necessary to the right keeping of it. 
 lerrance. j^ jg self-evident that the religious Sabbath 
 must be kept religiously, and that only a relig- 
 ious man can do that. Here is the great difficulty 
 with the Sabbath ; but it is only the same as with 
 the service of God in any form. " Ye cannot," said 
 Joshua to the Israelites of old, " serve the Lord, for 
 He is a holy God." The very reason why they 
 should do it was the reason why they could not. 
 The faculties can act with alacrity only with ref- 
 erence to a congenial end. Let a man "hunger 
 tnd thirst after righteousness," and all opportunities 
 and means of attaining it will be welcomed and im- 
 proved. This alone can free the Sabbath from that 
 unpression of negation and vacuity and restrain! 
 
324 MOKAL SCIENCE. 
 
 wliich tliey must feel who are brought up to keep 
 it strictly, but have no sympathy with its ends as 
 religious. Restrained by conscience or by custom 
 from employments and pleasures that are congenial, 
 and with no taste for the proper business and enjoy- 
 ments of the day, it will be " a weariness," and they 
 will say, as was said by men similarly situated three 
 thousand years ago, and has been ever since, " When 
 will the Sabbath be gone, that we may set forth 
 wheat ? " For this irksomeness of the Sabbath 
 there are but three possible remedies. One is that 
 God should change his law ; one that men should 
 obey it ; and the third, that they should disregard 
 and pervert it by spending the day in business or 
 pleasure. 
 
 The observance of the Sabbath has been supposed 
 to be peculiarly a guard against crime. .^^ 
 It is so because it is more purely than any- ^''^"J"* 
 tiling else a test of regard to the authority "'™*- 
 lit God. As no time is intrinsically holy, and 
 nothing but the command of God can make it so, 
 tlie observance of a specified time on that ground is 
 .ihnost sure to be connected with the fear of God in 
 Dtlier things. Hence, of 1232 convicts in Auburn 
 State prison, only 26 had conscientiously kept the 
 Babbath ; and of 203 who were committed in one 
 year, only two had conscientiously done so. For 
 the same reason, desecration of the Sabbath is ofter 
 liie beginning of a course of vice and crime. As oi 
 old with the Israelites, the Sabbath seems to bn se/ 
 
THE SABBATH. 325 
 
 AS a sign between God and men, and when they dis- 
 regard that, all fea^- of Him departs. It is, there 
 fore, ominous of every form of evil when a young 
 person begins to disregard the Sabbath. Tell me 
 how the Sabbath is spent, and I will give you a 
 moral history of the rest of the week. 
 
 It has also been supposed that something of dis- 
 ProTidence Crimination, enough to show which side 
 
 »nd the /^ , . 1 . 
 
 Sabbath. God IS on, may be discerned in specia.' 
 evils which follow Sabbath desecration. It is said 
 by careful observers, and confirmed by striking 
 facts, that those who seek to obtain their own ends, 
 whether of business or pleasure, by appropriating 
 God's time for them, often find themselves strangely 
 thwarted, sometimes by seeming accidents and sud- 
 den events, and sometimes in the long lines of God's 
 providence. This may well be, for if the law of 
 the Sabbath be the law of God, we may be sure 
 that there is no sucli inflexibility of natural forces 
 that they cannot be brought to conspire with it, and 
 that in some way it will ultimately vindicate itself. 
 " Who hath hardened himself against Him, and 
 prospered ? " 
 
 The religious Sabbath has been dwelt upon thus 
 at length, from the conviction that it is 
 vital to individual piety, to the family, and 
 to our free institutions ; and also that it can be sus- 
 tained only by a clear apprehension of its grounds, 
 hnd by vigilance and struggle. To a pervertea 
 Sabbath, a day of amusement, spectacles, idleness, 
 
326 MORAL SCIliNCE. 
 
 Eud consequent vice and degradation; despotism, in- 
 fidelity, and formalism have no objection. Such a 
 day is their surest means of undermining everything 
 opposed to tlieni. It is the temple of God become 
 a den of thieves. It is a holy Sabbath that is the 
 pohit of their common attack, and this it is that the 
 friends of an enlightened Christianity, and of free 
 institutions, are called upon to sustain. 
 
 The fourth and the fifth commandments stand 
 togetlier in the centre of the Decalogue ; and as it 
 is throuiih these that there is a connection between 
 the two tables of the divine Luw, so it is through 
 the Sabbath that a divine influence passes into the 
 family, and through that into society. This is the 
 ilivinc order — the Sabbath and the family mutu- 
 ally supporting each other ; and God, through 
 them, working out a perfect society. It remains 
 to the Christian and the patriot to accept this order, 
 md work together with Him. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 HOPKINS'S •■ LAW OF LOVE AND LOVE AS A LAW.' 
 
 BY TOE REV. JAMBS MoCOSH, LL. D., D. D. 
 
 In the summer of 1866 I found myself wanJeriiig 
 among the limbs of the Green Mounlains, and it oc- 
 curred to me Ihat I ought to find my way to Williams- 
 town and its college. One end I had in view was tu 
 see more of the grand scenery — the lovely forests and 
 towering mountains, by which the region is character- 
 ized. I was certainly not disappointed in the situation 
 of the town. Il is placed on «, knoll in the lieart of a 
 capacious hollow, surrounded with imposing mountains. 
 Jt struck me as a spot at which the Last Judgment 
 miglit be lield, with the imiverse assembled on tlie 
 slopes of the encircling hills. But I had anothor object 
 on whicli 1 had set my heart still more earnestly, and 
 tills was to make the acquaintance of the Presidrnt of 
 llio college, wliose works I had read in my own country, 
 and whose chaiacter I had been led to revere by the 
 accounts given me by those who know him intimately. 
 And if I was not disappointed with the scenery, I was 
 still less so with Dr. Hopkins, whom I found a man 
 stalwart and elevated like the mountains among which 
 he Uvea and muses, and yet adorned withal with graces 
 as lovely as the foliage of the spruce hemlock which 
 there clothes the scenery. Since that time I ever place 
 him before me, in imagination, seated under a tree in 
 the heart of the mountains, pondering some deep theme, 
 seeking light for himself, and wishing to impart it to 
 otheri. 
 
328 APPENDIX. 
 
 Ill the book befoie us he has given us the result of 
 his thoughts on no lower a subject than Law and Love 
 and the relation between them. And surely these twc 
 mnst be intimately connected, and this whether we are 
 Me to express it in categorical form or not. There 
 ciiu be no moral excellence without love ; but just as 
 little can there be without a rule, without obligation. 
 The two seem to be inseparably joined in the nature of 
 things, as they certainly are in the revelation which 
 God has given of duty iu the "Word, — " For tliis is tlie 
 sum of tlie Ten CommMndments, to love the Lord thy 
 God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy 
 strength, iind with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as 
 thyself." 
 
 Jonathan P^d>vards used to ponder this profound sub- 
 lect. Francis Hutcheson, the founder of the Scottish 
 School of Philosophy, liad labored to prove that virtue 
 consists in benevolence. Edwards saw the defect of this 
 theory, as omitting love to God and justice, which are 
 virtues quite as much as benevolence. So amending the 
 theory of Mntcheson, Edwards makes the bold attempt 
 to resolve all virtue into love, in love to being as being, 
 nnd distributed to beings as they have cto'ws upon us. 
 But, with all his acuteuess, he failed to see that in this 
 resolution he had unwittingly introduced another idea 
 besides love — that of claim or ohligation — the claim 
 of being as being, the separate claims of different beings, 
 say of God, of father and mother, of husband and wife, 
 of brothers and sisters, of rulers and subjects, of friends 
 and foes. That being lias claims upon us — that dif- 
 ferent beings, such as God and our neighbors, havu 
 separate claims upon us, — this turns out to be an ulti 
 mate truth, whicli cannot be resolved into anything 
 nforior to itself. Why ought I to love my fellow-men ' 
 Why ought I to love God, and to love him more than 
 
APPENDIX. 329 
 
 t love even my fellow-men ? To «j, whatever there 
 may be to highoi- intelligences, tliere can be no answer 
 but one, and that is, that I onght to do so. And if 
 nny one puts the other qnestion, How do I come to 
 know this ? there is but one answer, and this is, that 
 it is self-evident. And thi^ leads me to remark that 
 there is a great defect in the prevailing doctrine of our 
 lay among metaphysicians — a doctrine introduced by 
 Kant into Germany and by Sir W. Hamilton among 
 English-speaking nations — as to what are the proper 
 tests of first truths : these are represented as necessity 
 and universality. The primary mark of first truths was 
 seized by Locke with his usual sagacity : it is self-evi- 
 dence We regard God as having a claim upon our 
 love, not because we are neces-iiated to love him, or 
 because all men love him, but because it is right, and 
 men see it to be so at once ; and it is because they 
 see it to be so that the necessity and universality arise. 
 Edwards lias succeeded in showing that love is an essen- 
 tial element in virtue ; but he has not succeeded iu 
 proving that to us there is no other element. In par- 
 ticular, tliere is a binding obligation to love God and 
 man, and not only so, but to discountenance and puni.sh 
 sin and to countenance and encoui'age moral excellence, 
 
 And now we find a thinker of tiiis centurv, and liv- 
 ing in much the same parts, trying to solve the same 
 [)roblem of the relation of law to love, and love to law, 
 and thinking he has solved it. The following is his 
 Doble language : — 
 
 " Law and love ! These are the two mightiest forces 
 iu the universe, and thus do we marry them. Th? 
 place of the nuptials is in the innermost sanctuary ot 
 the soul. As in ail right marriage, there is both con- 
 trariety and deep harmony. Law is stern, majestic, and 
 the fountain of all order. Love is mild, winning, the 
 
S30 APPENDIX. 
 
 fountain of all rational spoiitautity — that is, of tlie 
 Bpoutaneity ihat follows ralional choice. Love without 
 law is capi-icious, weak, mischievous : opposed to law il 
 is wioliecl. Law without love is unlovely. The hijrhest 
 harmony of tlie universe is in the love of a rational 
 being tliat is coincidenl uiih the law of tliat beiny 
 rationally affirmed ; and the deepest possible jai' and 
 discord is from (he love, persistcsit and utter, of such a 
 being in opposition to his law. It is becau.se there is in 
 the Divine Being this harmony of law with love that 
 He is perfect." 
 
 It is a curious circumstsuice that Dr. Hopkins does 
 not examine, or even refer to the attempt made by Ed- 
 wards. Indeed it is one of the pccidiarities of our 
 author — under one aspect an excellence, under another 
 a defect — that, like Edwards, he is largely a '• self-con- 
 tain'jd" thinker. The reading of the one, a<5 of the 
 other, seems confined, and confined to rather common-. 
 place works. This circumstance imparts a freshness and 
 an independence to their thinking, but at times it keeps 
 them from seeing certain aspects of their theme which 
 others have noticed and brought out to view. ■• 
 
 Dr. Hopkins, as every one who knows his spirit 
 would expect, has a great aversion to ancient Epicure- 
 anism and modern Utilitarianism. He speaks with 
 great contempt of " the sty of Epicurus," " the dirt phi- 
 losophy " and " the bread and butter philosophy." On 
 the other hand, he is not prepared to give his adiierence 
 to the counter doctrine of intuitive morals. Avoiding, 
 as he reckons, the errors of both extremes, he is striving 
 to construct a theory of his own, and he defends it with 
 able arguments and acute distinctions. I am not sure 
 whether he has been successful any more than Edwards 
 was in n like attempt. While evidently and strongly 
 aiming at something higher, I fear that, without m".aning 
 
APPENDIX. S'di 
 
 it, he has landud himself logically in Eudaimonism, or in 
 making enjoyment the supreme end of man and of 
 virtue. 
 
 He admits fully that there is in the mind of man 
 Viriginal and fundamental ideas: "I am one of those 
 who believe thfit there iire simple aud ultimate ideas." 
 He gives existence as an example : " That of existence, 
 or biiug, is one. All men liave, and must have, an 
 idea of something, of themselves as exipling." But 
 then he will not idlow that an idea, which seems to 
 me to be as much entitled to be regarded as simple 
 and original as any other we could name, is of that 
 description. I refer to our idea of Right. He insists 
 that there is, that there must be, an ultimate end to 
 which everytiiing else is subordinate. But he denies 
 that doing right, as right, can be that end. What, then, 
 is the ultimate end, according to Dr. Hopkins ? It 
 comes, in the end, to be a " form of enjoyment or satis- 
 faction.'' He says it is " the good." But what is the 
 good ? The following is his answer : " An objective 
 good is anything so correlated lo a conscious being as to 
 produce subjective good. Subjective good is some form 
 of enjoyment or satisfaction in tlie consciousness." He 
 tells us that " strictly there is no good that is not sub- 
 jective." This is explicit enough. Commonly he speaks 
 of the ultimate end in virtuous conduct as being " the 
 good " or " well being." But then the phrases " good " 
 and "well being" are ambiguous; they may mean 
 pleasure, or they may meau moral good and moral 
 well being. I am not sure whether Dr. Hopkins is 
 not kept at times, by the amphiboly of these phrases, 
 from seeing the full consequences of his theory. Let 
 him, or let his readers, substitute " some form of enjoy- 
 ment or satisfaction in the consciousness " for " good " 
 and " well being," and wliat the precise doctrine is, and 
 
S32 Al'PKNDIX. 
 
 must be, will at once become patent. He tells us 
 again and again : " It is an affirmation, through the 
 moral reason, of obligation to choose the supreme end 
 for which God made us — that is, to choose the good 
 of all beings capable of good, our own included, anil put 
 forth all those volitions which may be required to attain 
 or secui'e that good." This sounds well, and is in entire 
 ftccordance with the impression which Dr. Hopkins means 
 to leave. But substitute for " good " " some form of 
 enjoyment or satisfaction in the consciou-sness," and it 
 Domes to this, logically — that the supreme end of man 
 is to choose the enjoyment of all, including, so far as I 
 see, the enjoyment of the Supreme Being. 
 
 He is careful to explain, in thus speaking of good as 
 " some form of enjoyment or satisftiction," that he does 
 not mean our own good, but " that of all conscious 
 beings." But whethiT lie means it or no, whether he 
 wishes it or no, whether he sees it or no, this is in the 
 end the utilitarian or " greatest happiness princiiile." 
 'I'Ms is the logical consequence, and if not drawn by 
 himself it will be drawn by others ; and the history of 
 philosophy and theology shows that what follows log- 
 ically will, in fact, follow chronologically, when the sys- 
 tem has had time to work and show its effects. 
 
 And, after all, Dr. Hopkins cannot get rid of an ulti- 
 nate principle of right. For why am I or any other 
 man required to look after the good? — meaning the en- 
 joyment of all conscious beings — is the question that 
 ever comes up. Why am I bound to look after any 
 one's enjoyment but my own ? The answer to this 
 question by such a man as Dr. Hopkins must be, Bocaiist 
 't is right, which right is discovered by the moral rensou, 
 and is an ultimate idea and an ultimate end. Right 
 thus comes, like love, to be an end in itself, inferior to 
 no other, subordinated to no other. 
 
APl'ENDIX. Jj;j.J 
 
 He cannot avoid this conclusion by the distinctions 
 which he draws. He tells us '' that ho jness is not a 
 meiins of happiness but the cause," and "that a cause 
 we always conceii^e of as higlier than its effects," and 
 gives, as an illustration, " God as a cause is higher than 
 the universe." Tj ue, God as a cause is higher than 
 Huy creatui-e effect, or, we may add. any creature cause. 
 But as to creature cau-es atnl effects, I am not sure 
 that the cause is always higher ih m its effects. These 
 late discussions as to the nature of causation have 
 shown that all physical causes are composed of more 
 than one agent, and tiiat all effects are capable of be- 
 coming causes which may or may not be greater than 
 the effects. I am not sure that the causes which led to 
 the abolition of slavery in the United States were higlier 
 than the effect — the abolition of slavery. But grant- 
 ing his doctrine to be true, that holiness is* greater than 
 happiness because it is the cause of happiness (it is 
 Bometitnes, also, in our world the cause of suffering), 
 then it surely follows that holiness, which is the higher, 
 and not happiness, ought to be the ultlnnate end. 
 
 The following is evidently the difficulty which Dr. 
 Hopkins feels in making right the I'nd of moral action 
 " It is plain that the quality of an action can never be 
 Me ground of an obligation to do thnt action." " Think 
 of a man's doing good to another, not from good will, 
 but for the sake of the rightiiess of his own act. Think 
 of his loving God for the same reason. Certainly, if 
 we regard right as the quality of an action, no man can 
 be under an obligation to do an act morally right for 
 which there is not a reason besides its being right, 
 and on the ground of which it is right." This is 
 oointedly put. Bu( it is possible to meet it. The 
 difficulty arises from a confusion o^ idea into which we 
 »re apt to fall when we think or speak of ultimate 
 
y34 APPENDIX, 
 
 deas or euds. "We telk of them as having a reason, 
 Dut then we are apt to forget that this reason is not out 
 of themselves but in themselves. It lies in the objects 
 contemplated, and is seen to be so by the bare coutem- 
 plaiion of the objects, that is by self-evidence, which is 
 the primary mark of iniuitive truth. All that passes 
 under the name of love is not virtuous. Certainly our 
 love is not always virtuous when we contemplate some 
 form of enjoyment or satisfaction to ourselves or others. 
 But when we love God and our fellow-men in a truly 
 virtuous manner, wh feel thitt love, that this love, is due 
 to them. In this, as in all cases of moral excellence, 
 the ought, the due, the obligation, comes in along with 
 love, and is an ultimate end inferior to no other. 
 
 Dr. Hopkins .=ees that iitilit irianism has a truth in it. 
 The truth lies in this, that wu are bound by ultimate 
 moral principle to promote the happiness of mankind. 
 Or, to give a deeper and jiister account, we are bound 
 not only to do good to all conscious beings, we are 
 bound to love them. Viewed under this aspect, the 
 principle of virtue is not beneficence, but love. Had 
 Dr. Hopkins, with his clinching power and high moral 
 aims, brought out these two ti'ulhs more fully than intui- 
 tive moralists have done, he would have done essential 
 service to ethical science, which has sometimes given 
 morality a repulsive aspect, by exhibiting law as sepa- 
 rated from love. But this is not the way in which Dr. 
 Hopkins " marries " the parties. He thinks he has dona 
 great service to ethics by showing how sensibility, pleas- 
 are, enjoyment, or satisfaction is a condition of moral 
 good. " A sensibility is the condition precedent of all 
 moral ideas." I am not sure that he is absolutely right 
 here. We may put the case that God creates an angelic 
 being with high intellectual endowments, but without 
 sensibility. Is not that angel bound to be gratefil tc 
 
APPENDIX. SiJo 
 
 God, ft-om the very relation in which he stands to nia 
 Creator, and apart altotjether from sensibility on his 
 part or the part of God ? In following out this princi- 
 ple, I hold that man is bound to love God, apart iilto- 
 gether from this love prodiudiig any enjoyment on God's 
 part or on man's part. Dr. Hopkins is obliged, in 
 eilecting his reconciliation, lo give a very inadequate 
 view of law. " The object of law is the control of force 
 by direction and regulation with reference to an end." 
 Surely, the deepest idea of a moral law is here lost 
 sight of, which is obligation to cherish the affection or 
 do the deed as being right. 
 
 But while I take objection to the very peculiar theory 
 advocated as to the ground of morality, I am bound to 
 speak in highest terms of the ability and high moral 
 purpose displayed throughout the volume. Except in 
 regard to the special theory in the first part, I have 
 nothing to say against the work, and much to say in its 
 favor. Of the second, or practical part, I have to speak 
 only in highest commendation. Take tlie following as 
 a specimen, selected at random, of the clenr discrimina- 
 tion and admirable judgment everywhere displayed. 
 
 " Property may be permanently and rightfully alien- 
 ated by gift, by exchange, and by sale. It is also per- 
 manently alienated by gambling ; this has different forms 
 In some cases, as in dice and in lotteries, it is simply an 
 appeal to chance. In others, as in cards, there is a 
 mixture of chance and skill. In others, as in betting, 
 of chance and judgment. In all cases, the object ia 
 gain without an equivalent, and while there is such gain 
 on one side, there is, on the other, loss without compen- 
 sation. In legitimate trade both parties are benefited ; 
 in gambling, but one. Legitimate trade requires and 
 promotes habits of industry and skilL ; gambling gener- 
 ates indolence and vice, and stimulates a most infatuating 
 and often uncontrollable passion. It is wholly selfish. 
 
336 APPENDIX. 
 
 and wholly injurious in its effecis upon the community. 
 That a practice thus inherently vicious, should be re- 
 sorted to for charitable purjtoses, does rot change iti 
 character, but only tends to confound moral instructiong. 
 But are all appeals to chance in the distribution of prop- 
 erty gambling? Not necessarily, if we define it by its 
 motives and results. A picture is given to a fair. No 
 individual will give for it its value ; lliat value is con- 
 tributed by a number and the picture disponed of by lot ; 
 this differs from an ordinary lottery : 1st, Because 
 there are no expenses, and all that is given goes for an 
 object which the parties are gathered lo promote. 2d, 
 The prize is given, so that nothing is taken for the prizes 
 from the amount paid in, but the whole goes for the 
 proposed object. 3d, This may be done from a sim- 
 ple desire that the fair should realize the worth of its 
 property, and so, benevolently. And all appeals to 
 chance under these conditions are not lilsely to be so 
 frequent or general as to endanger the habits of ilie 
 community. All this may, and should, in fairness, be 
 said. It should also be said, 1st, that no form of 
 charity should be tolerated for a moment that in tlie 
 actual state of a community will foster a spirit of gam- 
 bling. It should be said, 2d, that any attempt to 
 promote a benevolent object by an appeal to selfish mo- 
 tives is wrong. Benevolent giving is a means of Chris- 
 tian culture, but selfish giving in the form of benevo- 
 lence is a deception and a snare. If the cause of 
 benevolence cannot be supported benevolently, it had 
 better not be supported at all." 
 
 I commend all intelligent readers to buy this book 
 »nd read it with care, and they will find themselves 
 travelling in the company of a man of high and inde- 
 pendent soul, who expresses his thoughts in brief and 
 weighty sentences, and imparts much moral ins>ru'-tion 
 of a lofty order. 
 
APPENDIX, 337 
 
 ANSWER TO REV. DR. McCOSlI. 
 
 BT KEV. MAKK HOPKINS, D. D., LL. D. 
 
 In re-viewing "The Law of Love," in the "Observer'- 
 i)f April 15th, Dr. McCosh speaks of his visit to Wil- 
 liamstown and to myself. That visit is among my 
 most pleasing recollections. It was during the summer 
 vacation ; the weather was fine, and we were quite iit 
 leisure to stroll about the grounds and ride over the 
 hills. 
 
 Riding thus, we reached, I remember, a point which 
 he said reminded him of Scotland. There we alighted. 
 At once he bounded into the field like a young man, 
 passed up the hillside, and, casting himself at full length 
 under a shade, gave himself up for a time to the asso- 
 ciations and inspiration of the scene. I seem to see 
 him now, a man of world-wide reputation, lying thus 
 solitary among these hills. They were draped in a 
 dreamy haze suggestive of poetic inspirations, and from 
 his quiet but evidently intense enjoyment, he might 
 well, if he had not been a great metaphysician, have 
 been taken for a great poet. And indeed, though he 
 nad revealed himself chiefly on the metaphysical side, 
 it was evident tliat he shared largely in that happy 
 temperament of which Shakespeare and Tennyson are 
 the best examples, in which metaphysics and poetry 
 seem to be fused into one and become identical. 
 
 As befitted the season, our conversation was in the 
 light and aroma of those great truths in whicli we were 
 Bgreed, without any attempt to go down to their roots. 
 As, however, I was meditating my book, I went so far 
 ■ts to ascertain from him more fully what I knew be- 
 fore from his writings, that he held to an ultimate right, 
 and would not agree with me. My ground on that 
 28 
 
lias APPENDIX. 
 
 point was therefore not hastily taken, and while I ac- 
 knowledge fully the want of reading refei'red to by Dr. 
 McCosh, and regret it, I may be permitted to sny that 
 on thi8 subject he has presented no point that T had 
 not seen, and has raised no objection that I had not 
 considered. 
 
 That the foundation of obligation should be goner- 
 idly understood is most desirable, and as the subject so 
 appeals to the common consciousness that every intel- 
 ligent man can understand it, I cannot but think that 
 Dr. McCosh has done a public service in bringing it 
 thus prominently before the wide circle reached by the 
 " Observer." Thanking him, therefore, for this, as well 
 as for his courtesy and kind words to myself, I will en- 
 dea^'or to do something to aid the object he thus evi- 
 dently had in view. 
 
 In doing this, I propose, since the book reviewed 
 has probably not been seen by one iu fifty of the read- 
 ers of the " Observer," 1st, to make a condensed statement 
 of the system it contains; 2d, to inquire whether that 
 system is one of utilitarianism or eudnimonism, which 
 is the thing objected against it ; and 3d, to inquire 
 whether Di*. McCosh can hold his system in consistency 
 with the Scriptures, or with himself. 
 
 " Morality regards man as active." It asks, " What 
 ught to be done ? " " Why ought it to be done ? " 
 How ought it to be done?" How shall we answer 
 these questions ? The method adopted in my books 
 is so simple and obvious that nobody but a philosopher 
 could ever have missed it. It assumes that all morn! 
 axstion is rational action, and that all rational action 
 must not only have an end, but must find its occasioii 
 and reason in that end. 
 
 This being assumed, the next step is, and must be 
 to inquire what the end of man is. This is the ud 
 
APPENDIX. 339 
 
 flerlying question of all philosophy of actiou for man. 
 This we may know, or suppose we do, because wo are 
 told it ; or we may know if by investigating the struc- 
 ture of man in connection with his position, just as we 
 do that of a locomotive standing on a railway track. 
 In the first case, we shoidd i<novv the end by faith ; 
 in the second, by philosophy. The faith may be ra- 
 tional, wholly so. That will dej)'. nd on the ground of 
 our confidence in him who tells us. But it will not 
 be philosophical. Both methods are legitimnte. but; 
 must ultimately coincide. It wmdd not do for any- 
 thing claiming to be a revelation to say that the chief 
 end of a locomotive was to stand still and scream 
 through the steam whistle, and no teaching could stand 
 that should go clearly against the end as revciilcd in 
 the structure. 
 
 Of the above methods, the Westminster divines, 
 whose earnest minds were instinctively led to the ques- 
 tion of an end, adopted the liist. But, adopting a 
 right method, they regarded man solely as under a 
 remedial system, of which philosophy can know noth- 
 ing, except, indeed, as it inay become a to.^t of anything 
 claiming to bo such a system. The end, however, as 
 stated by them, I adopt fully, while Dr. McCosh, as I 
 understand him, adopts it only in part. According to 
 him, " man is bound to love God apart altogether from 
 tills love producing any enjoyment on God's part, or 
 on man's part." Tliis must mean that enjoyment ought 
 to be no part of the end in any moral action. That is 
 the principle of it. Would Dr. McCosh sny go? 
 Would he say that virtuous love to God, which must 
 consist in good-will, or the willing of good, would be 
 possible if God were as incapable of enjoyment as a 
 rock? To me, the conception even of such love is 
 impossible, and yet the statement of Dr. McCosh would 
 
340 APPENDIX. 
 
 seem to require it, But, however this may be, what 
 we need is no mere Btatcmeiit based on faith, but a 
 philosophy of action, and for me this is possible only 
 from a knowledge of the end of man as revealed in his 
 structure. 
 
 Let us then take man as wc would a locomotive, 
 and see if we can, as we could in that, find his end 
 from his structure. This is no question of words and 
 subtle distinctions that two hair-splitting philosophers 
 may fall to loggeiheads about. It is a great ]iroblem 
 which I have hoped by my books, and hope by this 
 paper, to set many at working out. This we are to do 
 independently of revelation. I would do it cautiously 
 and reverently, but I would do it. We are, indeed, 
 bound to do it for ourselves, and not to leave it to be 
 done by infidels, and then weakly quarrel with the 
 results. 
 
 In doing this we sliall find aid in observing all lower 
 forces that work towards ends. These we find ar- 
 ranged in a beautiful gradation as condiliouiug and con- 
 ditioned, and so higher and lower; thus giving, as I 
 have shown, a law of limitation for tlie regulation of 
 all forces and faculties except the highest. In observ- 
 ing these forces the point to be noticed is, that in pass- 
 ing upward nature reaches points where she does not 
 proceed by gradations that pass into each other, but 
 by leaps. This she does when she passts from inor- 
 ganic to organic being ; when she passes from vegetable 
 to animal life; and again, when she passes from animal 
 to rational and spiritual life. In each case we get some- 
 thing diflferent, not in degree merely, but in kind ; an! 
 in steppiug across these gulfs we are to notice that 
 while we carry with us everything on the side we leave, 
 it yet falls into subordination to the new force, which 
 will work by its own laws, and cannot be safely rea- 
 
APPENDIX. .'541 
 
 M>ned about from the old analogies. A tree is the 
 product of a force that acts in opposition to gravitation 
 and to all the cohesions and chemical aifiiiities of inor- 
 ganic matter, and he would be seeking the living among 
 the dead who should carry the laws of iiiorgauie being 
 over to account for the phenomena of vegetable life. 
 
 In each case, in passing ovei', we need a test of tlie 
 presence of the new power. The test of the presence 
 of vegetable life is organization ; of animal life it is 
 sensation, and of rational life it is the power to choose 
 its own end with an alternative in kind. Reaching tliis 
 point we pass out of the domain of mechanical Ibices 
 acting from without, and of instinctive and impulsive 
 forces acting from within, into a region higher ami en- 
 tirely new, of comprehension and of freedom. " Up to 
 man," as I have said elsewhere, "everything is driven 
 to its end by a force working from without and from 
 behind, but for him the pillar of cloud and of fire puts 
 itself in front, and he follows or not as he chooses." 
 
 As I view it, it is only after passing this gulf that 
 we find moral phenomena. But at this point there ia 
 a difference about the very nature of those phenomena ; 
 and if we could always tell which side of the gulf men 
 are on, if they would not sometimes be on one side, 
 and sometimes on the other, and sometimes astride it, 
 often not seeming to know where they are, it would 
 prevent immense confusion. " Holiness," says Dr. 
 Thomwell, " is a nature." Then, it may be created, 
 but cannot be commanded. Where he was when ha 
 said this we cannot doubt. The same I suppose would 
 be said, — it ought to be, — by the writer of a recent 
 article on morals in the " Princeton Keview." By this 
 jlass of thinkers God is conceived of as an essence in 
 which love and wrath inhere as qualities, and rr.ani- 
 fest themselves independently and necessarilv; whereas 
 
342 ArpF.\T)Tx. 
 
 others conceive of him .is a person, rational and free, 
 and as a consuming fire only becanse he is love. Of 
 these, Dr. McCosh is (imong the latter. He has passer" 
 this gulf. For him " nioi-al good '" (goodness ?) " is a 
 quality of certain actions procecdiug from the will." 
 Saying ihns, he mu-it, with us, develop moral phenom- 
 ena from tlie point of ftvedom as manifested in choice 
 
 What, then, are moral plienoniena? They are those 
 revealed from a moral nature, and are immediately 
 known as moral, as intellectual phenomena are revealed 
 from an intellectual nature, and are immediately known 
 as intellectual. A man and a brute are moved equally 
 by appetite to eat ; but the man can, and the brute can- 
 not be induced to eat that which is distasteful out of 
 regard to a higher good. Here is an alternative in 
 kind, possible for man, impossible for the brute; and 
 when this is presented the moral reason comes at once 
 into action, and aliirms obligation to choose the higher 
 good, just as natural reason atfirnis personal identity 
 when the occasion arises for tluit. This will be re- 
 peated, as alternatives of higher and lower good are 
 presented, till we reach the supicnie good, and then we 
 shall have moral law, and a liasis for conscience both 
 as an impulse and as a law. Whoever will ask him- 
 self what he means by an enlightened conscience will 
 find the meaning and necessity of a supreme end and 
 good. 
 
 In a being willing to come to the light ihe alfirina- 
 lion of obligation will be mnde impartially, whether the 
 good be our own or that ot another. It wUl be made 
 in view of good as such, and vahiable in itself, whether 
 it be our own, or that of our fellow creatures, or of God. 
 
 What tlien have we here '. We have, 1st, good. 
 This is wholly from the sensihiliiy, and is the conditioi! 
 for any affirmation of obligation, and of any moral idea 
 
A1-I>ENDL\. 34y 
 
 We have, 2d, tlio afllriiiation of obligation to choose 
 the good. In tliis we find moral law. Here we find 
 the "claim" spoken of by T)r. IMcCosh, what lio c-ali=i 
 the "ought" tlie "due," the "obligation" wliich It 
 might be, inferred from his review that I ignore. Ii is 
 indeed strange that in reviewing a book, ouu thin! ul 
 whicli is occupied in sliowing ilie precise origin aiiil 
 nature of obligation, it should lie quietly taken I.t 
 granted that it is ignored. I do nut ignore it, but 
 affirm it as strongly as he does; hut I do nut far, as 
 he does, that this affirmation of obligation to chouse mu 
 end "is itself an nltiinaie eml inferior to no oilier.' 
 " The ought, the due, the obligation," he says, " comes iu 
 along with the love, and is an ultimate end iiif'eiior tu 
 no other." This I do not say, because oliligntion nuist 
 be obligation to choose some ultimate end, and how a 
 man can choose as an ultim:ite end his obligation to 
 choose some other ultimate end, I do not well under- 
 stand. I5ut be this as it may, tliis affirmation of obliga- 
 tion is no part of viitue. It is not only not im ulti- 
 mate end, but it cannot be an end of any kiinl. It is 
 necessitated. If it wore not, we should not have a 
 moral nature. Without it man would be incapable 
 of either virtue nr vice, but it is no part of cither. 
 Through it we sim[ily have law, that by which a man 
 " is a law unto him-^elf," but the question of obedience 
 and disobedience, in which virtue and vice consist, lo- 
 maina. 
 
 Having now the idea of good from the sensibility 
 and of obligation from the moral reason, we come tc- 
 Vbe action of the will, the man, the voluntary agent, 
 i.he CAUSE, higher than any effect he can produce. It 
 ■a in his power as a cause, as well as in his nature as 
 rational and moral, that man is in the image of God 
 ♦nd onl^ as he is a cause js }»e either responsible gi 
 
S-t-l APPENDIX. 
 
 respeclablo. As a cause it is obvious that man nia^' 
 assume oni' of three positinn-* in regard to good. He 
 mny choose it unselfislily and impartially for himself 
 Htid all who are capable of it — that is, he may love 
 God with all his heart, and his neighbor as himself; or 
 he may choose his own good selfishly, regardless of 
 that of otliers; or he may be malignant, and wish to 
 destroy good, and to cause positive misery. 
 
 Taking the first of the above positions, the man ac- 
 cepts the Law of Love as the law of his being. It is 
 law because obligation is affirmed. It is the Law of 
 Love because love is the thing, and the only thing com 
 manded. " And thus do we marry them," — '• Law and 
 Love, the two mightiest forces in the universe.'' The 
 command comes with immediate and "self-evidence" of 
 its authority, nn the apprehension of good as valuable 
 in itself to God, to our fellow-creatures, and to our- 
 selves. Choosing thus, the man has dune no outward 
 act, and yet he has virtually done all good acts. Noth- 
 ing remains but to cai-ry out this choice in executive 
 volitions, according to the circumstances and relations 
 of life. In making this choice, and thus carrying it 
 out, the man will fulfill obligation, will be virtuous ; 
 and in so doing there will be developed a sensibility 
 of tlie moial nature giving a satisfaction higher than 
 any other. This form of voluntary action would be 
 moral goodness, and the enjoyment from it would be 
 moral good. This is holy happiness, or happiness from 
 holiness, or blessedness. It can come only from holiness, 
 finil is as much higher than animal enjoyment as an au- 
 gel is higher than an animal. Becoming conscious of 
 this, the man is fully in possession of himself, with all his 
 possible forms of activity and their results. He knows 
 himself now through and through, as he might know 
 ^ locomotive. And now, retaining his generic choice 
 
API'KNDIX. g.]/^ 
 
 ii cause good, his action must taiie ouu of two forms, 
 He must either seek to cause good direcily, or to lead 
 others to cause it. He mu't seek to caiiso a change 
 either in the condition or the character of men. In 
 thus laboring to cause well being directly, and to cause 
 it indirectly by laboring for holiness, man finds his liim 
 end. Thus does he glorify God ; tims does lie do tin 
 greatest possible good to his fellow-creatures; thu. 
 does he find his own highest enjoj'ment; thus does It 
 reveal the highest beauty, and so become an object of 
 complacency. What more can we ask for man as ac- 
 tive? Let him become thoroughly subject to the Law 
 of Love, and we ask nothing more. 
 
 But what of right, and righteousness, and justice ? 
 Nothing has been said of these. We have now reached 
 the point at which moral philosophies generally begin. 
 They generally begin by inquiiing about right, and 
 obligation as from that. It will be seen from the fore- 
 going statements what I would say of them. Let a 
 man adopt the Law of Love, and then seek to apply love 
 as a law in practical life, and he will need to ask con- 
 stantly what is right ; he will always be under obliga- 
 tion to do it; and the doing of it will be righteousness. 
 Then also will the idea and sense of justice be revealed; 
 but there is no more an eternal right, or an eternal 
 justice, independent of good and of iove as possible 
 through that, than there is an eternal tree independent 
 of existence. Existence is the conditioning idea with 
 out which that of a tree could not be, and good and 
 love are conditioning ideas without which those of light 
 iind justice could not be. A justice that should have 
 no reference to the good of any being would not be 
 justice, but a blind instinct. But, having its basis and 
 conditioning idea in love, it justifies itself to itself even 
 in becoming " indignation and wrath." These must b« 
 
S46 APPiixnix. 
 
 developed from love, which thus becomes holiness, when 
 selfishness and malignity would defeat its ends. Some- 
 thing analogous to this is seen even in instinctive love. 
 The fury of the eagle is never so great as when it re- 
 veals itself as au expression of love for its yount;. And 
 nothing can be so dreadful as the wrath of Infinite 
 Goodness, not as a blind lury, but because it is Jnfinila 
 Goodness. That there arc what may be called ra- 
 tional instincts and impulses connected with our mo'a! 
 nature, and which some have mistaken for conscience 
 and so have become fanatics, I believe ; but I also be- 
 lieve that there can be no law of the conscience except 
 in the presence of the supreme good. 
 
 Of this system it may be said, 1st, that it is in 
 harmony with the Scriptures. It was a great satir^fac 
 tion to find that the law of the Constitution was the 
 law of the Bible. Let that be shown and we shnll 
 have an argument for the divine origin of the Bible 
 that cannot be gainsaid. 2d, By making the idew of 
 good the condition of obligation, or goodness, or virtue, 
 the system shows just how that "absolute assurHuce " 
 Mmes, " that happiness must be the accompaniment or 
 ind of holiness," which the " Princeton Review " says is 
 •' graven on man's soul." How this comes ihe advo- 
 cates of an ultimate right have never attempted to 
 show. Let them attempt it, and tliey will find the 
 need of changing their system. 3d, It connects man 
 with all that is below liim, and all that is subordinate 
 in him with that which is higher, thus bringing him 
 nto unity with his surroundings and with himself, and 
 making the same law of limitation that we find in na- 
 ture a law to him. 4th, It gives a basis out of which 
 Ihe practical part grows, so that it is not mere precept 
 
 Such is the system. We now inquire, as was pro 
 posed, is not this utilitarianism ? Of this there seems 
 
APPENDIX. 347 
 
 lo be a superstitious horror iu some quiirters, and th" 
 idea is hardly betier defined than Ihat of a ghost Dr 
 McCosh says there is a truth in it, but what th^i 
 truth is, as he states it, if it be not precisely my doc- 
 trine, I am unable to make out. It is the only p;iit 
 of his review that puzzled uie. J have supposed that 
 utility involved a tundeucy to some good, and tliiit the, 
 choosing of a tiling because of its tendency Li a jrood, 
 or as a means of good, was a different thing fmni the 
 choice of a good that is gooil in itself and that lias 
 Qothing to do with tendency. I must think these are 
 wholly different. But as some do not see this, I will 
 simply say, leaving out definitions, tliat as objectionable, 
 nothing can be utilitarianism that does net either op- 
 pose self to love, or happiness to duty. To this .all will 
 agree. 
 
 But so far from opposing self to love, the system is 
 one of disinterested and impartial love — the •' love of 
 God with all the heart and of our neighlwr as our- 
 lelves." It has nothing to do with means or utilities, 
 but chooses an end for its own sake, that is, not good 
 in the abstract, but the good of beings capable of good ; 
 and this choice is love. It fixes on good as that, and 
 hat alone, which renders virtuous love possible. We 
 have, then, no possible taint of utilitarianism here. 
 
 Nor, again, does this system oppose liappiiiess to 
 duty. It affirms, with Dr. IMcCosh, (he " self-evidence " 
 of obligation, and that duty is to be done at all hazards. 
 Speaking of conscience in its relation to moral law, 1 
 say "From Ihat is its power to originate the word 
 night, and whetie\er the mandate imd impulse involved 
 n that word are truly derived from the law ihey are 
 to be obeyed at all hazards. It would he absurd tc 
 say that anything could excuse a mai. from doing what 
 ne ouglit to do. Moral law must he supreme." Nothing 
 
d-18 APPENDIX. 
 
 Burely, can be stronger than this. There is no taint ot 
 utilitarianism here. 
 
 But though the book so proclaims love and law sep- 
 arately as to preclude utilitarianism, is it not inconsis- 
 tent with itself, and does it not, in marrying the two, 
 give an opportunity for this subtle and terrible enemy 
 to slip in ? Again, No. If utilitarianism cannot bt; 
 compatible with either separately, much less can it be 
 with the two united. As I understood the contract, it 
 was that law was so to remain law and 1 )ve love, as tn 
 exclude utilitarianism. The two must be united in 
 some way. They belong to each other by a preor- 
 dained affinity, and the deepest laws of thought, and 
 the necessities of moral government; and if they can- 
 not be united by making good fi'om a sensibilily the 
 condition of obligation, then how ? This does, indeed, 
 and that is one advantage of it, retain the truth which 
 Dr. McCosh admits is in utilitarianism — just that, and 
 nothing more. The question here is not at all about uu- 
 compromisiug obedience or duty, when that is made 
 known, but whether tlie very idea of duty is possible 
 except through that of a good from the sensibility, and 
 so of a possible love. The truth is, that the advocates 
 of an ultimate right are so afraid of soiling virtue by 
 some contact with happiness as to exclude the possibil- 
 ity of it altogether. This Dr. MeCosh seems to me to 
 do when he speaks of obligation to love a being with- 
 out regard to his happiness. If tliere may be the love 
 of complacency without regard to happiness, there can 
 DO more be virtuous love than there can be pity with- 
 out regard to distress. 
 
 The system, then, is not one ot utditarianism. It has 
 no tendency towards it, and nothing could be more un- 
 founded than such a supposition. If, indeed, there be 
 vij two things more opposed to utilitarianism than la\» 
 
APPENDIX. a4'J 
 
 and love, of which, in their true uaturc iuid relaliims lo 
 each> other, this system is simply ^i exposilioii, T dc 
 not know what they are. 
 
 But if the system be not iililitiirianism, is it not "cii- 
 daimonism, or the making of enjoyment the supreme 
 end of man and of virtue?" If we vvo\ilil cleiir lhi.s 
 subject up fully, we nmst under.staud eaoli other hero. 
 We must understand wlint is meant when it is ?ai(l 
 that there is some other good besides happiness. 
 
 Looking at man in his complex nature, — as physical, 
 intellectual, moral, spiritual, — we see that he is capa- 
 ble of various forms of activity from without aud 
 within, and that these are accompanied with certain 
 forms of feeling. Tiiis capacity of feeling is called the 
 Bensibility ; and the feeling may be one of pleasure or 
 pain, of joy or of sorrow. Now we need a word which 
 shall express unequivocally the whole range of feeling 
 as it gives satisfaction, pleasure, joy, happiness, blessed- 
 ness. Unfortunately we have no such word. Happi- 
 ness is often used, but in many minds its associations 
 are with the lower forms of enjoyment. Blessedness, 
 which is from the moral and spiritual powers, and c^n 
 be only as (hey act normally, will not do, because it 
 excludes the lower forms of enjoyment. Hence the 
 difficulty of finding any one word that will exi)ress the 
 whole end of man ; but that that end is in the sensibil- 
 ity, and so in it that without that the very conception 
 of an end would be impossible, I have no doubt. 'I'o 
 avoid ambiguity and put it in the broadest way, my 
 statement is, " that a sensibility is the condition pr.^ee- 
 dent of all moral ideas." Of course it must be the con- 
 dition of all moral action. Is this denied ? To deny 
 t would be to deny the universally received doctrine 
 of which my position is but an instance, that there if 
 tie action of the will except frcm tbi sci;sibiliiy. Dr 
 
350 APPENDIX. 
 
 McCosh does, iudeed, attempt to deny it, but in doing 
 so lie makes a supposition that I marvel at; one indeed 
 that looks so much like an absurdity, that if it had been 
 made hy any one else, I am not quite sure but I might 
 have taken it for one. He puts "the case that God 
 creates au angelic being with high intellectual endow- 
 ments, but without sensibility," and then affirms, and 
 founds a principle on it, that such a being would be 
 under obligation to be grateful to God, while yet grati- 
 tude is a form of the sensibility, and obligation itself 
 cannot be conceived of without it. " Si naturam furca 
 expellas," etc. Let the advocates of an ultimate right 
 be explicit on this point. If they say there is any good 
 not from sensibility, let them tell us what it is. If not, 
 let them say so, and accept the consequences. So far 
 as I can see, no one can any more, except by a juggle 
 of words, deny that all good is from a sensibility than 
 he can deny his personal identity. 
 
 The view presented above is said by Dr. McCosh to 
 be a " very peculiar theory." By others it is said to 
 be the view long held by a large class of writers. This 
 is of little consequence. In the materials of the system 
 there is nothing new. They are the same old ideas. 
 So the needle and thread were the same old materials. 
 But as a simple change in the manner of threading tlie 
 needle led to a wide range of new combinations and 
 revolutionized a whole branch of industry, so a sim- 
 ple adjustment or two here, with very little that is 
 new, may disentangle thought at this knotty point, and 
 change our whole mode of conceiving of this subject. 
 
 It remains to say something of the system held by 
 Dr. McCosh. Dr. McCosh agrees with me in accipiing 
 tlie law of love as given in the Scriptures ; and ul^u 
 obhgation as " self-affirmed." Wliat I venture to doubt 
 is, whether, in holding the system ho dcjes, he is consis- 
 tent with the Scriptures, or with himself. 
 
APPENDIX. a61 
 
 Aiid here, as "vo urc iti s^.L-iik ol lu\c, 1 uiu^,! call 
 attention to two diflferent meanings, an "amijliiboly " of 
 that word. It may be a love of benevolence, as a man 
 may love his enemy, including good-will, or the willing 
 of good; oi' it may be a love of congruity, as a man 
 may love art or poetry, in wliicli there is no f;ooJ-wili. 
 The first is viituous love, the second is not. Tlitie 
 is no virtuous love that is not eiilier tlie willing of good 
 to some being capable of good, or that does not, like 
 the love of coniplacency, proceed directly or indirectly 
 from that. 
 
 With this in mind, and remembering that we are 
 seeking for ihu ultimate thing on which the mind rests 
 when obligation is affirmed, let us take the Law of Love 
 iis given in the Scriptures : " Tliou shalt love the Lord 
 thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thy- 
 self." Here God is presented to be loved for his own 
 jake, and there is nothing more ultimate, the idea of 
 good coming in simply as rendering love possible. Tin 
 love is to be a simple primitive act in view of tlie object 
 as worthy iif love. But Dr. McCosli is not satisfied 
 with tills, lie says, "'AVe irgard God as having a 
 claim upon oui' love because it is right, and men see it 
 to be so al onco." I venture to SHy that men do not 
 see it to be so at all. It may be true that men see at 
 once that tliey are under obligation to love God; it is 
 right that they should love him ; but it is not true that 
 they are under obligation to love him because it is 
 right, and of course they do not see that they are. I 
 Lave said that "No man is under obligation to do an 
 act morally right for wliich there is not a reason be- 
 tides its being right, and on the ground of which it is 
 right." In acc:ordance with this, the reason of our love 
 to God, its iliimate ground, is the worth and worthi- 
 ness of God, so that we do not love him because it is 
 
352 Al'PENDlX. 
 
 right, tlie riyhtiiess being as Dr. McCosli allows, s 
 mere quality of our love, but because he is worthy of 
 oui- love. In the one case the last thing seen as the 
 ground of obligation is God in his worth as capable of 
 eood, and in his woi-thiness as seeking to promote it ; 
 in the other it is — light. This is an " ultimnte idea," 
 absolutely ultimate, observe, with nothing beyond it ; 
 ■' an end in itself, inferior to no other, subordinate to 
 no other." This puts right above God. We are to 
 love God, not for his sake, but for the sake of the 
 right; or, as was saiil to me recently, we are to love 
 God because we love virtue, as if the love of God were 
 not virtue. In the same way we are to love our fel- 
 low-men, not for their sakes, but for the sake of the 
 right. We are to love the right supremely, and to 
 lo\<e God because we love the right. Nor can it be 
 said that the love of God and of right are the same, for 
 good-will towards an " ultimate idea " is impossible. 1 
 have seen quite enough of this abstract, hard, godlcfs, 
 loveless love of right and virtue, instead of the love of 
 God and of men. It is nearly as bad on the one side 
 as utilitarianism is on the other ; and " whether " Dr 
 McCosh " means it or no, whether he sees it or no, this 
 is, in the end, the" uliimate right "principle." "This 
 is the logical consequence, and if not drawn by him it 
 will be drawn by others ; and the history of philosophy 
 and theology shows that what follows logically " (ex- 
 cept when men receive a system, as most men do tliis, 
 in words only) " will follow chronologically when the 
 
 ystem has had time to work and show its effects." 
 Accordingly, we find that wherever this system has 
 been fully received it has tended to fanaticism. No 
 man can adopt right as an liltimale end with no regard 
 to good — and if it be ultimate it must be so adopted 
 
 — without thif tendency ; nor can any man adopt sn 
 
AI'PEXDIX. 353 
 
 ultimnte anr! supreme the Scriptunil Law of Love, the 
 very nature of love making the good of being its und, 
 and at the same time consistently adopt right as "au 
 ultimate end," " an end in ilself, superior to no other, 
 subordinate to no otiier.'' 
 
 It is to be observed, also, thai the Scriptures nowhere 
 command men to do right because it is right, but that 
 their whole tenor is opposed to this form of teaching. 
 
 But if the theory held by Dr. McCosh be not con- 
 sistent with the Scriptures, can he liold it, and be con- 
 sistent with himself? I am not sure, indeed, whether 
 Dr. McCosh has not been led to adopt and retain the 
 system by the " amphiboly " of the cardinal words 
 which we are obliged to use on this subject, such as 
 "end,'! and "right," and "love," and "good." He 
 Bpeakg of right, and love, and obligation, and holiness, 
 as being ultimate ends. So far as appears, there may 
 be any number of tliese in his system ; nor does he 
 Bcem to recognize the necessity of a supreme end, or 
 the distinction insisted on by me, between ends as ulti- 
 mate and supreme. 
 
 Hut what does Dr. McCosh mean when he speaks 
 of these — of love, for example — as an end ? Love 
 is an act ; and we do not commonly speak of an act 
 as an end, but as done for some end. Anything purely 
 spoulaneous, as an emotion, that may be called love, 
 would have no moral character ; but if love be a ra- 
 tional and moral act, as most people suppose, then it 
 must have some object or end beyond itself, for it is 
 difficult to see how a rational action, involving the 
 choice of an end, can be its own end. 
 
 AVhat, again, does he mean when he speaks of right 
 
 IS an end ? What is right ? Is it, as some say, some- 
 
 hjng out of the mind, having an independent exist- 
 
 Buce, like space ? That Dr. McCosh denies. Is it tho 
 
 23 
 
S54 Al'I'KNDlX, 
 
 quality of an action ? Most men thinii bo. But tht 
 moral quality of an action can exist only in view of 
 the fnd to be chosen, and therefore cannot be ihat eiul. 
 Is right, as I suppose it is, equivalent to the "recti- 
 tude " of the " Princeton Review " ? Tlien it is " ii 
 simple quality" — " ninlefinablc," "absolute," "eternal,' 
 "unchangeable" — having itself for its own standard ; 
 as high as God, for there can be " nothing iiighui," 
 as pure as God, for there can be "nothing purer,' 
 aa authoritative as God, for llicre can be " nolldng 
 more authoritative." " It is nnderived," " ultimate," 
 " supreme," " elementary,'' " uncompounded." Yes ; a 
 " simple quality " is elementary and uncompounded ! 
 and yet it is not simple, for "it carries in itself the 
 idea of obligation." This same " simjjle quality" is, 
 moreover, " moral goodness," and " is the oiiginal 
 supreme excellence of God and all moral creatines." 
 AVhether this "simple quality" originally iidieied in 
 God's essence or iu his acts, we are not told, though we 
 should be glad to know. Probably in both, for we are 
 told that it is both "in man's soul, and in its acts." Is 
 it tliis "simple quality," thus simplified and made per- 
 fectly intelligible, the doctrine of which " may be called 
 the catbolio Christian doctrine of tlie ultiniaie moral 
 idea," that Dr. McCosh would make an end ? If so, I 
 have nothing to say ; for a simple quality capable of all 
 that is thus attributed to this, may doubtless become an 
 and, or, at least, I should be unwilling to say what it 
 may not become, whether an end or an elephant. Prob- 
 ably this is the very quality spoken of by the Teutonic 
 theosopher, quoted by Campbell, when lie annoui lea 
 ..hat " all the voices of the celestial joyfulness qualify, 
 commix, and harmonize in the fire that was from eternitj 
 in the good quality." 
 
 Take again obligation, to which I have already re 
 
APPJ-ajDix. 3o5 
 
 ferred. There may be obligation to choose an end, but 
 as I understand i(, obligation itself canf)ot be im end. 
 And yet Dr. MeCosh says that it is an " ultimate end, 
 inferior to no other." Obligation an ultimate end! And 
 one, too, not inferior to the good of God and liis uni- 
 verse ! There niust lurk here somewhere — and the 
 public must judge where — that "confusion of idea into 
 whicli," as Dr. McCosh says, -'we are apt to fall when 
 we speak or think of ultimate ideas or ends." 
 
 But again : take love in the two meanings explained 
 above, and the cctnfusions from it are endless. What 
 do the advocates of the ultimate right theory mean by 
 the love of right, and of the right ? A virtuous love ? 
 I suppose so. If a man is to do right because it is right, 
 which is what Dr. McCush would call virtue, it must be be- 
 cause he loves the right, elsi; there is a virtue without love, 
 which neither Dr. McCosh nor the Bible allow. But is 
 the love of right, or of tlie rii^lit, or of virtue, virtuous 
 love ? No ; because neither right nor virtue can be ob- 
 jects of good-will. There is no willing of good to them, 
 and so no more virtue in loving them than in loving 
 poetry, except as such love may imply a previous love 
 that did involve good-will. 
 
 But perhaps the most misleading ambiguity of all, is 
 that of '' good " as derived — sometimes from the sensi- 
 bility an^ meaning enjoyment, and sometimes from the 
 will and meaning goodness. Of this, however, I have 
 pcken so fully in the work reviewed, that I will not 
 dwell on it here. 
 
 On other points I should be glad to touch, particularly 
 those of cause and law. But enough has been said. For 
 the first time in my life I hav*- noticed what has been 
 »aid of my writings If I havt spoken plainly, it is not 
 in a spirit of controversy, for 1 have no little fort to de- 
 fend, but with a desire to aid Dr. McCosh in his evideji' 
 
356 APPKNDIX. 
 
 purpose of awakeuLug a more general interest in this 
 great subject, and to add my mite toward the displace- 
 ment, sure to come, of a traditional philosophy based on 
 the inadequate and radically false method of construct- 
 ing a system of conduct on a purely abstract i<lea. 
 WiLUAHs College, May 1, 1869. 
 
 ANSWER TO REV. DR. HOPKINS. 
 
 BT JAMES JIcCOSH, D. D., LL. u. 
 
 Dr. HonciNs's letter is worthy of the man, in respect 
 both of the ability and llie kindly spirit displayed in it. 
 No evil can arise from a controversy so conducted. On 
 the contrary, I expect good to spring from it. It bears 
 on a question second to no other in philosophy, and it 
 admits of applications to the justice of God, the punish- 
 ment of sinners, and the atonement for sin. 
 
 But we, the controversialists, must, for our own sake 
 and that of our hearers, take care that we keep the point 
 at issue clearly before us. It is a very simple one : 
 What is the chief end of man ? Is it or is it not some 
 Ibrra of pleasure, happiness or enjoyment ? 
 
 AVith much that Dr. Hopkins has said I concur. I 
 agree with what he says as to the importance of looking 
 t.1 ends in determining what " good " is. This has been 
 done more or less by moralists since the days of Aristotle, 
 who begins his Nicomachean Ethics with an inquiry 
 into ends, and has been followed by the Stoics, and by 
 (Jicero in his treatise De Finihus. The question is, What 
 is the end and the supreme end of man? Again Dr. 
 Hopkins and I are agreed as to the manner in which this 
 question is to be settled ; that is, by an inquiry into oui 
 "npral nature — in the manner of Bishop Butler. The 
 
APPENDIX. 357 
 
 luestioii here is, What saith our moral nature as to tha 
 final aim of man ? Dr. Hopkins's answer to the ques- 
 tion is stated clearly in a passage which I have quoted 
 before, and which I must quote again. What then is 
 tlie ultimate end according to our author? He says it 
 is "the good." But what is the gnod? He answers, 
 — "An objective good is aiij-thiug so correlated to a 
 conscious being as to produce subjective good. Subjec- 
 tive good is some form of enjoyment or satisfaction in 
 Ike consciousness." He tells us that " strictly tliere is 
 no good that is not* subjective." In his review in the 
 " Observer " he says there is ■' a difficulty of finding any 
 one word that will express tlie whole end of man ; but 
 that end is in the sensibility." " The capacity of feeling 
 is called the sensibility, and the feeling may be one of 
 pleasure or pain, of joy or of sorrow." This is the 
 point at which we come into collision. My remarks 
 will be confined to it. 
 
 We are agreed as to the way in which the point is to 
 be settled. It is by an appeal to our moral nature. To 
 that moral nature I appeal witli confidence, as decidiug 
 in my behalf. An intelligent being receives favors from 
 God; say lofty reason, fine fltncy, rich emotions, and a 
 capacity of distinguishing between right and wrong. 
 What is the affection which he should cherish toward 
 this his benefactor ? Our moral nature replies on the 
 instant, — gratitude and love. And we do not require 
 to consider whether this graiitiide adds to the enjoyment 
 of God or the etijoyinent of him who cherishes it. It 
 is the same with moral evil as with moral good. Ten 
 lepers are healed by our Lord. Nine of them give liim 
 tio thanks. In condemuing their conduct we do not stop 
 to inquire whether it is fitted to give pain to the sensi- 
 bility of the Saviour or their own. On the bare con- 
 templation ol he act we declare it to be evil. The act 
 
B58 APPENDIX. 
 
 is not wicked because it grates on the sensibility of tha 
 Saviour, or is fitted to inflict sorrow on those guilty ol 
 it. On (he contrary, it offends our Lord and is fitted to 
 bring down judgments on tlie offending parties because 
 it is evil. 
 
 Dr. Hopkins is shut up to tliis conclusion by his own 
 statements. Enjoyment is represented by him as the 
 end of moral action. But wliat enjoyment? Enjoy- 
 ment as enjoyment ? Every kind of enjoyment? En- 
 joyment of passion, of sensual pleasure ? No, says Dr. 
 Hopkins; only enjo>'ment of a certain kind. He says 
 expressly that good does not consist in happiness but " a 
 holy happiness," " happiness from holiness," " it can 
 come only from holiness.'' Does not this show clearly 
 that in the moral end hoKness requires to be looked at 
 with the happiness ? Doi s it not prove that there is a 
 higher end than enjoyment, «nd to which enjoyment 
 must give way because enjoyment is the inferior ? With- 
 out contradiction, it is ihe less that yields to the greater, 
 and happiness, as the loiver, must give place when holi- 
 ness requires it. Holiness, then, and not mere happiness, 
 thus comes to be the higher, the supreme end. 
 
 It cannot be proven by an appeal to our moral na- 
 ture that sensibility is a necessary condition of virtue. 
 I acknowledge that it is presupposed in the exercise of 
 certain virtues. It is our duty, so far as within us lies, 
 to pi-omote the general happiness — this is the truth in 
 utilitarianism ; but it is a truth which embraces more 
 than mere sensibility — it embraces " duty " as well as 
 happiness. Again, it is true that one ground of our re- 
 garding God as good is, that he delights in the happiness 
 of his creatures ; another reason always being that he 
 delights in their holiness. All this shows that while 
 man should look to pleasure and pain, he should also 
 V>ofe to something higher. The brutes have no otheJ 
 
APPENDIX. SoS; 
 
 und than enjoyment. But as nature rises — as Dr 
 Hojikius shows in one of the fine passages of his paper 
 — from lower to liigher, from inorganic to organic 
 from phint to animal, and from irresponsible animal bo 
 responsible, so (lie end of oauh being rises in the same 
 way; tlie end of the organic is higher than that of the 
 inorganic ; tlie end of man is liigher than that of the 
 brute. Moral and accountable man is bound, while he 
 does not overlook enjoyment, to look beyond to the law- 
 fulness or unlawfulness of the enjoyment as determined 
 by moral law. Moral good does not consist in any case 
 in the promotion of mere enjoyment, such as may be 
 accomplished by a fine piece of furniture, a fine flower, 
 or a fine animal, but by something difl^erent and higher, 
 by the love which knowingly contemplates and promotes 
 the enjoyment. Nor does it consist in every sort of love, 
 but in love that is due and right. As we mount up in 
 this way, we rise to the contemplation of a love, and a 
 holiness, and a justice above all gratification of the sen- 
 sibility. We clothe the Divine Being with these per- 
 fections, and we believe that in the exercise of them he 
 will regard the happiness of his creatures ; but that he 
 will also, and for a higher end, promote their love and 
 their holiness. 
 
 Dr. Hopkins is still perplexed with the difficulty, — 
 " The moral quality of an action can exist only in view o< 
 the end to be chosen, and, therefore, cannot be that end." 
 I endeavored to remove that difficulty in my review, and 
 1 must try to do it again in a few words. The difficulty 
 arises entirely from a misapprehension of the nature 
 of the first truths of the intellect, and of the ultimate 
 ends of our moral constitution. The reason of first truths 
 IB to be found, not in anything out of themselves, but 
 ui themselves and the objects contemplated. We are sure 
 ' bat two straight lines cannot inclose a space, not becausr 
 
860 APPENDIX. 
 
 we can give any reason for it out of ihe thing? and out 
 of ourselves, but because in contemplating two straight 
 lines, we see that they are such in their nature that they 
 cannot inclose a space. So it is with final moral ends — 
 ends iu themselves. When we love God in such a \\ay as 
 to constitute this a moral act, we see that there is an ob- 
 ligation in the very act ; and this not our own enjoyment, 
 or that of God, but because the act is right in itself. 
 He says, " If love be a rational and moral act, as most 
 people suppose, then it must have some object or end be- 
 yond itself, for it is difficult to see how a rational action, 
 involving the choice of an end, can be its own end." 
 But does not Dr. Hoiakius see that in affirming our own 
 existence and identity, which is a rational act, we have 
 reason not " beyond," but in the thing ? In like man- 
 ner, when ue love God, we are made to feel that this is 
 due to God. Dr. Hopkins acknowledges everywhere — 
 which tlie Utilitarians do not — the existence of moral 
 reason, deciding what ought to be done. His confusion 
 arises from his not giving that moral reason the right 
 place. He makes it, as I understand him, come aflcr 
 the end, after the end has been chosen. The correct 
 statement is that the moral reason is implied in the very 
 choice of the virtuous end. He says, " The atfirmation 
 of obligation is no part of virtue." The abstract affir- 
 mation may not, but the intuitive concrete conviction 
 is. We love God, not as being a mere sensitive en- 
 joyment to ourselves, or as adding to the enjoyment of 
 God, but as fit, proper, and due. Dr. Hopkins li;is 
 hit the truth for once, when he says, '' The love is 
 to be a simple primitive act iu view of the object as 
 worthy of love." This seems to me to bo the correct 
 uipression. " The love is a primitive act in view of the 
 abject ; " he adds, "as worthy of love ;" and I say, tlia 
 worthiness is proclaimed by the moral reason " in view 
 
APPENBIX. 361 
 
 >f the object," and has a place in the motive leading 
 as to perform the act. This is the element which dis- 
 tinguishes a virtuous love from other love which may 
 not be virtuous, which may be positively sinful. 
 
 I am surprised to find Dr. Hopkins saying that " the 
 Scriptures nowhere command men to do right because it 
 is right, but that their whole tenor is opposed to tliis 
 form of teaching." Does not Paul say (Eph. vi. 1), 
 " Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this h 
 right" — just, due ? And is not the whole tenor of 
 Scripture on this wise : " Love God, obey his command- 
 ments, for this is right ? " 
 
 The question at issue lias many applications. John 
 Foster, in a well-known letter, proceeding on the doo 
 trine that it is the highest end of God and man to pro- 
 mote happiness, argues with immense power that there 
 cannot be eternal punishment under the government of 
 God. I am obliged to say that if I grant his premises, 
 1 cannot avoid his conclusion. I can stand up for etei-nal 
 separation of the wicked from God only on the principle 
 that ingratitude, that ungodliness, are sins in themselves, 
 and ought to be punished. 
 
 I have not before me the means of ascertaining Dr. 
 Hopkins's view of the nature of the atonement. 1 hold 
 that in the Divine nature thei'e is an essential justice 
 which leads Him not only to promote enjoyment, but 
 punish sin. I hold that the atonement has a reference 
 not merely to the general happiness of mankind, but the 
 holy perfections of God, and that Christ's sufferings were 
 a real substitution and a satisfaction to Divine justice. 
 It is only thus I can understand the strong language 
 employed everywhere in Scripture about Jesus suffering 
 and dying in our room and stead. I mention these things 
 merely to show that this discussion has extensive bear- 
 ings, but I believe it would weary the readers of a popU' 
 lar newspaper to dwell on it. 
 
;G2 ArpENDix. 
 
 And so I must concludo by saying that 1 do not be- 
 lieve that Dr. Hopkins has been able to build a half- 
 way house, likely to stand, between the two contending 
 armies. Our author has evidently a great aversion to 
 utilitarianism. But if tlie end of virtue be enjoyment, 
 everything must be subordinate to it, ami we aio landed 
 logically, whether we see it or no, in tlje greatest hap- 
 piness theory. We can avoid tliis only by falling back 
 on that moral reason which Dr. Hopkins acknowledges, 
 and by giving it, which Dr. Hopkins does not, a place in 
 determining the supreme end, which we will then see, 
 not to be mere happiness, but holiness. 
 Pbisceton, JuTie 14, 1869. 
 
 DR. HOPKINS'S REJOINDER TO DR. McCOSH. 
 
 The subject of discussion between Dr. McCosh and 
 myself not being of transient interest, 1 liave not been 
 in haste to reply to liis second paper. I do it now, not 
 as thinking my positions endangered, bnt in the interest 
 of a subject too much neglected. Literally and figura- 
 tively, deep ploughing is good husbandry. Only as the 
 community shall be pervaded by a deeper knowledge of 
 nature, and especially of man, can the best fruits of liv- 
 ing be expected. 
 
 " The point at issue," says Dr. McCosh, " is a very 
 simple one — What is the chief end of man ? " 1 had 
 supposed it to be. What is the foundation of obliga- 
 tion ? but accept this, since he prefers it. I am indeed 
 pleased that he is so far a convert to the doctrine of 
 ends as to be willing to substitute an end to be chosen 
 for the abstract idea of right. Regarding man only as 
 ictive, the science of morals requires this ; but it wLli 
 be fatal to his system. 
 
APPENDIX. 363 
 
 But, simple or not in the point it makes, the above 
 question underlies practical philosophy. This is coming 
 to be more and more recognized. The difficulty with 
 the French was said by Joiiffroy to be that they did not 
 know what the end of man is ; and in the last number 
 of the "North Briiish Review" (here is an article Lav- 
 ing this for its title and subject, in which it is said thiit 
 ''The theoretical solution of this question woultl be tlie 
 answer to a fundamental problem in ethics ; its practi- 
 cal realization would be the ideal of a perfect life." 
 
 What the end of man is, Dr. McCosh says, is to be 
 settled " by an inquiry into our moral nature, in tho 
 manner of Bishop Butler. Tiie question here is, What 
 saith our moral natin-e as to the final aim of man ?" In 
 this I regret not to agree with Dr. McCosh, especially 
 as he says I do. As rational, we have the power to 
 overlook and cotnprehend our whole being as we would 
 a locomotive, and I suppose the question must be de- 
 cided by our doing this. It mu-t, if it is to be decided 
 by philosophy at all. This is not to be done by the 
 moral nature alone. On the contrary, that nature is to 
 be compared with the other parts of our complex being, 
 the proper functions and relations of each are to be de- 
 termined, and thus the end of tlie whole. This was " the 
 manner of Bishop Butler." Making this comparison, 
 he says, as quoted in " The Lnw of Love," " It may 
 be allowed, without any prejudice to the cause of virtue 
 and religion, that our ideas of liappiness and misery 
 are, of all our ideas, the nearest and most important 
 to us ; that they will, nay, if you please, that they ought 
 to prevail over those of order, and beauty, and harmony, 
 and proportion, if there should ever be, as it is impossi- 
 ble there ever should be, any inconsistence between 
 them." Here we have the highest English authority in 
 morals not only making the comparison T advocate, but 
 
B64 APPFNnix. 
 
 afRrming that our ideas of happiness and misert/ are 
 nearer and more important to us than any others, and ho 
 than that of holiness itself, which Dr. McCosh makes 
 Bupreme. Butler, however, and 1 agree with him, dot's 
 not, like Dr. McCosh, — who says that " happiness rauPt 
 give place where holiness requires it," — allow that there 
 can be an " inconsistence " between holiness and happi- 
 ness. He believed in a deep harmony of the constitu- 
 tion, insuring tlie harmony of the two ; and that harmony 
 is in the fact that " a sensibility," and so the possible en- 
 joyment and suffering of some being, "is the condition 
 precedent of all moral ido'as." 
 
 Nor, I may remark here, is Butler alone among those 
 of the intuitional school in his estimate of happiness in 
 its relation to virtue. Whewell, who has stood shoulder 
 to shoulder with Dr. McCosh in opposing Mill, says, 
 " Happiness is the object of human action in its most 
 general form as including all other objects, and approved 
 oy reason." Edwards says,^ " Agreeable to this the ffood 
 of men is spoken of as an ultimate end of the virtue of 
 the moral world;" and quotes Scripture to prove it. 
 And Robert Hall himself, in opposing Edwards, says, 
 " Let it be remembered we have no dispute respecting 
 what is the ultimate end of virtue, which is allowed 
 on both sides to be the greatest sum of happiness in the 
 universe." 
 
 But, authority aside, if we compare the different con- 
 stituents of our being, we find that the end of the intel- 
 lect is to know ; of the sensibility, to feel ; and of the 
 will, to choose and act. As rational, we can feel only 
 as we know, and can choose and act only as ends are 
 presented through the sensibility. If we suppose the 
 Bensibility excluded, the conception even of an end ip 
 impossible. Aside from the products of this, nothing 
 Ban be a good, or have value. Except as we and otherj 
 
 I See 6tli page of C?o<f « Chief End. 
 
APPENDIX :]G . 
 
 are pogsessed of this, neither love, nor hatred, nor oblige 
 tion, nor right, nor wrong, nor virlue, nor vice, is possi- 
 ble. Finding thus the end in the sensibility, so far at 
 least that without that there can be no end, I accept the 
 statement of the Westminster divines that " The chief 
 end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." If 
 any inquire how this 's to be done, I reply that it is to 
 be done by knowing, loving, and obeying Gnd. This is 
 the whole of religion, and the whole duty of man. It 
 may all be comprised in loving God, since to be loved, 
 he must be known ; and if loved, he will be obeyed. 
 This brings into requisition the intellect, the sensibility, 
 and the will ; and from the right action of these, with 
 God for their object, there must be an enjoyment of 
 him forever. Anything involving this I accept, and 
 nothing short ot it. I cannot, I do not wish to exclude 
 from my conception of the end of man that " fullness of 
 joy " which is in the presence of God, and those '' pleas- 
 ures which are at his right hand forevermore." But 
 while I accept the above statement, perhaps a plainer 
 one may be, that the chief end of man is " to promote 
 blessedness impartially and in the highest degree." 
 Blessedness, then, is the supreme end — the blessedness 
 of God and of his rational universe ; and that form of 
 activity by which this is chosen and voluntarily caused, 
 is holiness. 
 
 Having thus stated my views positively, and I hope 
 clearly, in this aspect of the subject, I proceed to some 
 positions of Dr. McCosh in his second letter to which I 
 do not assent. 
 
 The first in logical order is, that there may be vir- 
 tue without sensibility. Strange as it may seem. Dr. 
 McCosh reafBrms this position. " It cannot," he says, " be 
 proven by an appeal to our moral nature " — and of 
 coarse he means that it cannot be proved at all — " that 
 
806 AI'PENDIX. 
 
 feusibility is a necessiirj' condition of virtue." " I ao- 
 knowledge," he continue", " that it is presupposed iu the 
 exercise of certain virtues." Indeed ! Then have we 
 need of a new division of the virtues into those that can, 
 ami those that cannot exist without sensibility. And 
 this is said by Dr. McCosh while he allows that all vir- 
 tue may be included in love ! It would be interesting 
 to hear him give the constituents of a love that has ncj 
 sensibility. It would be interesting to hear him enu- 
 merate those virtues that presuppose no feeling, or 
 power of feeling, either in those who exercise them, or 
 those toward whom they are exercised. I would not 
 be too positive here ; but through what medium, or from 
 what angle, Dr. McCosh can be looking when he speaks 
 of such virtues, I cannot conjecture. For myself, I am 
 free to say that I have no conception of any such virtue, 
 and must venture humbly to question wliether any one 
 else either has or can have. 
 
 The second position of Dr. McCosh that I would call 
 in question is, that " holiness is the supreme eud." As 
 stated above, holiness is that form of voluntary activiiy 
 ay which blessedness is chosen and intentionally caused. 
 The objection to making this the supreme end is, that it 
 makes the activity its own eud. If holiness be the su- 
 preme end, and holiness or virtue consists iu choosing 
 the supreme end, then holiness must consist in ehoosiug 
 holiness. This difBculty must always arise when any 
 form of activity of tlie will, and so of virtue, is made ilie 
 ultimate end. Rational activity can never be for tin; 
 Bake of the activity itself, but nmst always be for the 
 sake of some result of the activiiy; for some good, satis- 
 faction, enjoyment, blessedness, — either of the being 
 acting, or of some other being. The activity is virtue 
 the result is blessedness. The virtue is from the will 
 the blessedness from the sensibility. 
 
APPENDIX. 367 
 
 Another position from whijh I dissent, if iudeed it bo 
 mother, is, that the monil ciiiality of an iiction can be its 
 end ; or that the quality of an nc'ion may be the ground 
 of obligation to do that action. It is said in the " T/hw 
 of Love " to be plain that tliis cannot be. Dr. McCosh 
 and others say it is plain it can be ; and it is in conceiv- 
 ing how it can be, that llie diffi.'uliy arises with whicl 
 " Di'. Hopkins is still perplexed," and I fear always 
 will be. 
 
 Hut how is this in other cases ? Can the bi'avery or 
 tlie generosity of an act be the reason for doing it ? 
 Yes, if it be done ostentatiously ; but no true man ever 
 did a brave act because it was brave, or a generous act 
 because it was generous. But for an underlying sensi- 
 bility, the idea of bravery would be impossible ; and if 
 the exposure to dangci', in wliich the bravery consists, 
 were not for an end beyond tlie exposure itself, it would 
 be mere ostentation and fool-hardiness. It is the same 
 with generosity. Hotli are praiseworthy and pleasing, 
 and men may be so exhorted to culiivate them for their 
 own sakes as to think them ultimate ; but the qualities 
 themselves are possible only on the ground of interests 
 lying beyond themselves, and can never be the cliiei 
 legitimate motive for those actions in which they inhere. 
 But if right and holiness be allowed to be the qualities 
 of actions, no reason is seen why the same is not true 
 of them. A man loves his enemy. This he does, not 
 from any worthiness in him, but because of his worth as 
 having capacity for good. In view of this he subdues 
 his resentment, and makes sacrifices for the good of his 
 enemy as he would for his own. This is a riglit and 
 holy act. Is it done because it is so, or does it become 
 10 from the end for wh'oh it is done ? The ((uestions 
 answer themselves. 
 
 Dr. McCosh says my difficulty ' aris^ eutirely fro^i 
 
868 APPENDIX. 
 
 * misappiehension of the nature of ilie firht truths of tha 
 intellect, and of the ultimate ends of the moral constitu- 
 tion." " Tiie reason of first truths," he adds, "is to be 
 found, not in anything out of themselves, but in them- 
 selves and the objects contemplated." " Does not Dr. 
 Hopkins," he asks triumphantly, " see that in affirming 
 our own existence and identity, which is a rational act, 
 we have the reason, not beyond, but in the thing ? " 
 Yes ; and admitting the parallelism here assumed, does 
 Qot Dr. McCosh see that it makes against him ? The 
 reason for affirming the truth is not in the act affirm- 
 ing it, or in any quality of the act, but " in the objects 
 contemplated ; " it should follow, therefore, that the rea- 
 son for choosing an end is found, not in the act of choos- 
 ing, or in any quality of the act, but in the end ; and 
 that is just what I say. But I do not admit the paral- 
 lelism. It seems to me that the processes of the mind, 
 in dealing with first truths where there is no choice, and 
 with ends where there is, are wholly different. With 
 what he says of first truths I agree ; but tlie moment 
 he pusses lo i-nds, I seem to find confusion both in 
 the thought and in the language. " So," he says, " it is 
 with final moral ends — ends in themselves. When we 
 love God in such a way as to constitute this a moral act, 
 we see that thei'c is an obligation in the very act ; and 
 that not our own enjoyment, or that of Gud, but because 
 it is right in itself." Concerning this extraordinary 
 passage, whicli contains the gist of what he says, I in- 
 quire, 1st. Whether any " final " end be not an end in 
 itself, whether moral or not? 2d. Whether a " moral" 
 end means anything more than an end that we are 
 under obligation to choose? 3d. Whether it be pof- 
 sible to lovt God so that it shall not be a moral act ? 
 And 4th, Whether Dr. McCosh means to say that w» 
 io not see that there is an obligation to love God before 
 
APPENDIX. 369 
 
 we love him ? His language implies this. He sajg, 
 " WTien we love him, wo see (hat there is an obligation 
 in the very act." If it be " in the very act," it could not 
 exist before that, and so a miiii who had never loved 
 God could be under no obligation to love him. This 
 consequence must follow every attempt to make, as Dr. 
 McCosh does, obligation, or the sense of it, a part of 
 virtue. Tlie obligation is " not our own enjoyment, or 
 that of God ; " but it may be affirmed in view of the 
 capacity of God and of other beings for enjoyment, and 
 not because " it is right in itself," aside from all relation 
 to enjoyment ; and this I suppose to be the truth. I 
 suppose the moral reason afljruis obligation to choose, 
 not goodness, but good as good in itself This, I sup- 
 pose, is ultimate, and that a reason for every right act 
 may be found in its relation to thn ultimate good. 
 
 And here I must notice a misapprehension of Dr. 
 McCosh respecting the place assigned by me to the 
 moral reason. He says my "confusion arises from 
 making the moral reason come after the end, after the 
 end has been chosen." I not only do not do this, but it 
 never occurred to me as possible that any one should 
 As I understand it, the moral reason has n place in 
 determining the supreme end by affirming obligation to 
 choose it, but it is no part of the end ; nor is the ob- 
 ligation a part of the act or choice. The choice, the 
 love, 1 make " to be a simple primitive act in view of 
 the object as worthy of love.'' In this, Dr. McCosh is 
 80 obliging as to say that I have "hit the truth for 
 >nce ; " and yet lie says that " the intuitive, concrete 
 conviciiou of obligation " is a part of the love, thus mak- 
 ing it complex. Certainly I recognize the love as " fit, 
 proper, and due ; " but I also say that the love itself is 
 mpossible, except through a capacity for enjoyment. 
 '; his makes " a sensibility th'j co»dition precedent of sH 
 2i 
 
iTO APPENDIX. 
 
 moral ideas," and is fatal to the theory of an eternal 
 right, or that anything is riglit in itself apart from all 
 relation to enjoyment. 
 
 On the Scriptural question, I have only to repeat 
 what I have already said. The passage quoted by Dr. 
 McCosh is the only one in the Bible tliat seems to say 
 I hat we are " to do right because it is riyht ;" but that 
 loL'S not say it, and scarcely seems to. If it said that, 
 no further question could be asked. The theory of 
 morals would be settled. What it does say is, that 
 children should obey their parents because it is right, 
 and that leaves the question, Why is it right to obey 
 parents? where it was before. I " am surprised" that Dr. 
 McCosh should think this n text in point. It is, indeed, 
 worthy of notice how little is said of " right " in the 
 New Testament. The word is used but thirteen times 
 in all, and only ten times as an adjective. Of these, the 
 word StWioi', translated right in the passage quoted, 
 is used but five times ; the proper meaning of it is not 
 right, as that term is used in this discussion, but just ; 
 and in no other case can it be tortured into a support of 
 the theory of Dr. McCosli. 
 
 Of " the whole tenor of the Scripture" on this point, 
 am content that any one should judge, as between Dr. 
 McCosh and myself, who has not a theory lo support. 
 Our Saviour opened the Sermon on the Mount, and 
 every beatitude, by speaking of blessedness. In the 
 same connection, he spoke of the " great reward in 
 heaven." The general doctrine of the Scriptures is, 
 that men shall be rewarded according to their works. 
 1 he " good and faithful servant " is to enter into the 
 joy of his Lord. The righteous are to inherit eternal 
 life, and tlie wicked to go into •' everlasting punishment. 
 It wa.s for the "joy that was set before Him that tb» 
 Saviour himself endured the cross, despising the shame.' 
 
APPENDIX. 37 1 
 
 Dr. MoCosh refers to the theological bearings of th« 
 point in question. Those I might discuss if there were 
 ipace and a call for it ; but there is neither. Let the 
 question be decided on its merits. Tliat is the only fair 
 way ; and to aid our readers in doing that has been my 
 endeavor in the preceding discussion. 
 
 Mark Hopkins. 
 
 WlUJAMS COLLEGK, Jtlly 24, 1869. 
 
 DR. MoCOSH'S SUMMATION 
 
 or THB CONTROVERST BETWEEN HIM AND DR. HOPKINS. 
 
 The discussion between Dr. Hopkins and myself 
 must sooner or later come to an end, and I do not see 
 why it should not now close. I fear the readers of the 
 " Observer ' will complain if we protract it much longer. 
 Wo have both had an opportunity of stating our views, 
 and tlie public must judge for themselves. Intelligent 
 .•caders have already before them the means of coming 
 to a decision, and will not thank us for falling, as we 
 might be tempted to do, into miserable wrangling. 1 
 am in this paper to take up no new topic. I am simply 
 to sum up what I believe to be the substance of the dis- 
 pute. 
 
 (1.) Dr. Hopkins tells us, in language which cannot 
 be too often quoted, that the final end of man is " some 
 form of enjoyment or satisfaction in the cmisciousness." 
 "That end," he says, is "in the sensibility," and " the 
 capacity of feeling is called the sensibility, iuid the feel- 
 mg may be one of pleasure or pair, of joy or of sorrow." 
 He says in his last paper, " If we suppose tlie sen-ibility 
 pscluded, the conception even of an ejul is impossible.' 
 Vow this is the point which I conliuvert. 1 maintain thai 
 
572 Al'PENDIX. 
 
 we ought to look to someihing liigher, and that all trulj 
 good action ha'' i\ higher reference. I have to complaiD 
 that in explaining and defending his peculiar theory 
 Dr. Hopliins changes " form of enjoyment " and " sen- 
 sibiliiy " into "good "and "blessedness." In ihia way 
 1 believe he deceives himself, and would hide from 
 others the sensational chnracter of his system. If by 
 "good " is meant " moral good," I agree with him; but 
 then it is a departnre from his fundamental principle, — 
 that man's end is some form of enjoyment. He is able 
 to give his theory a plaubible appearance and a lofty 
 moral tone only by passing from the one to the other. 
 If we substitute for " the good," wherever it occurs, " the 
 feeling of pleasure and pain," we see how bare and 
 earthly the system is. In his last paper, he tells us that 
 " blessedness is the supreme end." This sounds well, 
 and if it be properly explained, the view is correct. But 
 the "blessedness" uhich has thus come in surrepti- 
 tiously in the defense of his theory is not the same as 
 " the enjoyment " of his primary principle. There may 
 bo an " enjoyment in consciousness " which is not blessed- 
 ness ; and there is a blessedness which is not enjoyment, 
 as when a nian suffers pain and reproach in a good 
 jause. He speaks of the supreme end being " blessed- 
 ness, the blessedness of God and of his rational uni- 
 yerse." Substitute for " bles'edness " " sensitive enjoy- 
 ment," the sensitive enjoyment of God, and the doctrine 
 iars upon us offensively. Surely the supreme end of 
 man is not to promote the enjoyment of God. I insist, 
 'hen, that he stick to the one or other, ei:her the enjoy- 
 ment or the blessedness. If he adhere to the enjoy- 
 ment, his theory becomes the utilitarianism whicli he 
 pepudiates. If he insist on bringing in blessedness, he 
 nas introduced, whether he sees it or no, a new and far 
 her element, and is driven, logically, to a very differeD 
 
APPENDIX. 373 
 
 theory. Whichever horn lie takes, he is in difficulties 
 in this middle posilioii which he lias cho-eii to occupy. 
 Wlien our Lord says, " Blessed are they who mourn," 
 he includes vastly move than mere sensitive enjoyment. 
 If Dr. Hopkins means by " blessedness " a " holy enjoy- 
 ment," I believe that this is a supremo end ; but it is so 
 because holiness is a constituent. 
 
 (2.) I am sorry lo find that he and I do not agree, iia 
 I thought at one time that we did, as to the w:iy of set- 
 tling the question between us. As a question of menial 
 philosophy, I presumed that it was to be determined by 
 Ru inquiry into our menial and moral nature. It turns 
 out that Dr. Hopkins does not admit this. I am not 
 sure what is the way in which he would settle it. He 
 Bays, " As rational, we have the power to overlook and 
 comprehend our whole being as we would a locomotive, 
 and I suppose the question must be decided by our do- 
 ing this." I accept his illustiation. We deleimine the 
 end of a locomotive by looking at its structuiu and its 
 relation to other things in the uses to which it is turned. 
 It is thus we are to determine the end of man's existence, 
 as a question in philosophy. We look at man's nature, 
 especially his higher nature, his moral nature, his moral 
 reason, or conscience ; and we find it to dt-clare that 
 there is something higher than men: enjoyment, and to 
 which enjoyment shonld be subordinated, if the two 
 covae in collision. I am sorry to find him, in his last 
 paper, falling into the omission of Professor Bain, and of 
 the sensational and utilitarian scliool genc-rally, and rep 
 wsenting the original constituents of man's end to bo 
 intellect to know, sensibility to feel, and will to choose 
 and act." In iloing so, he has left out as an independ- 
 ent element the Moral Power Moral Rciison, or Cou- 
 «ieiice, which, looking to an action, declares it to bo 
 good or evil, to be diosen and done as being good, or to 
 
37 1 APPENDIX. 
 
 be avoided as being evil. This moral power in man 
 declares, if we listen to it, that tliere is a higher eud 
 than the mere securing or promoting of enjoyment, and 
 that tliis is nn end which man should set before him. I 
 am amazed to find liim declaring that, apart from sensi- 
 bility, " the conception of an end is impossible." The 
 Rloral Faculty points to a higher end, and it is easy to 
 form a conception of it. I hold, then, that our moral 
 nature settles the question in my favor, and I do not al 
 low a loose appeal to any supposed " rational " or " over- 
 looking " or " comprehending " power capable of deter- 
 mining the question without looking at the decisions of 
 conscience. 
 
 (3.) He gives a place to the Moral Reason, but it is 
 not, I think, the proper place — it is a confused place. 
 He tells us that " Moral Reason has a place in deter- 
 mining the supreme end by affirming the obligation to 
 choose it, but is no part in the end." In discussing this 
 subject, he puts a number of questions to nie which I 
 could easily answer, but the questions and the answers 
 would only conduct us into a miserable chop-logic no 
 way fitted to lead to a solution. Whenever the Moi'al 
 Reason looks at a moral act, — say justice, or love to 
 God, or love to man, — it declares it to be binding. It 
 declares it to be so beforehand and behindhand, as Dr. 
 Hopkins seems to admit. But I go a step furtlier, and 
 ftfllrm that the moral power declares llie act to be good 
 «t the very time we do it ; that is, cherish ihe aK'ect.'ou, 
 or do the deed that is virtuous. I hold that not only be- 
 "ore we love God and after we love God, but when we 
 love God, we see that there is obligation in the act 
 This makes the sense of duty to enter into the virtuons 
 act and to become part of tlie end. This does not make 
 the act complex, any more than water is coinplei', as 
 oontaiuing two elements — oxygen and hydrogen; anj 
 
APPENDIX. ;i75 
 
 More than any other actual stale of the mind is com- 
 plex — all operations of the mind being concrete. Upon 
 ray statement that when we love Gorl, we see that there 
 is an obligation in the vin-y act, lie comments in a way 
 scarcely worthy of him : " If it be in the very act, it 
 could not t'xist bufore that, and so a man who had never 
 loved God, could be under no obligation to love him." 
 Surely a thing may be in the act, and yet exist before 
 the act. The truth is, that if the obligation did not 
 already exist, man could not see it by ihe Moral Reason. 
 As the obligation exists, the Moral Reason may per- 
 ceive it beforehand and behindhand, but also in the very 
 act. 
 
 (4.) On another important point we difiFer. He de- 
 nies, and I affirm, that the quality of an action may be 
 the ground of an obligation to do that action. When I 
 affirm this, I do not mean that an abstrciclion is the- 
 ground of obligation, but that the concrete action is good 
 as possessing that quality — that is, is done because it 
 is right. This. I think, can eas-ily be decided. I am 
 tfiupted, let nie suppose, to tell a lie, to say that I did 
 not commit an act which I did commit. But in looking 
 nt and considering the act thus suggested, I see that it is 
 evil iu itself, and I decline doing it. It is clear to me 
 that in such a case we are led to refuse to do the deed 
 because of the sinful quality of the act, and not because 
 we look to some form of enjoyment. It is the same 
 with injustice, with ingratitude, and other sins. I avoid 
 them, or should avoid them, not simply because they 
 may deprive me or others of enjoyment, but because they 
 are inherently evil. It is in the same \vay that we are 
 led, or should be led, to do a good act, say to cherish 
 gratitude or godliness: we see tlie essential excellence 
 nf the affections. Even in love the same element enters 
 yheu the feeling >-ises to the rank of a virtue ; for all 
 
37G APPENDIX. 
 
 love is not virtuous. We have to distinguish between 
 n holy love and an unholy; and a holy love, .«ay love 
 to Gofl or love to man, is cherished as being right 
 proper, due, and not from siny enjoyment to be thus de 
 rivi'd by G<id oi' by ourselves. 
 
 (5.) I allow that in many virtues, pleasure and pain 
 enttr into our view. We are bound as much as within 
 lis lies to promote the happiness of all beings capnble of 
 |oy or of sorrow. But even here, let it be observed, a 
 moral element entei's : we are bound to do this. All 
 our higher moralists maintain that justice, wliich looks to 
 what is right in itself, is a virtue quite as much as be- 
 nevolence is. Dr. Hopkins argues tliat in loving God 
 we do so " ill the view of the capacity of God and otlier 
 beings for enjoyment." I am not prepared to uphold 
 6uch a statement ; for my moral nature, as interpreted by 
 my consciousness, does not seem to me to sanction it. 
 We love God as being our Creator and Benefactor, and 
 as posses?ed of all perfection. 
 
 I am not to enter on new subjects, and so will not 
 review the ftatement which he gives of the doctrines 
 of certain philosophers. It could easily be shown that 
 neither Butler nor Edwards lend any sanction to the 
 very peculiar etliical theory of Dr. Hopkins. I need to 
 touch only on one other point. 
 
 (6.) The Bible happily is not a metaphysical work, 
 and I am not very willing to use its simple statements 
 to settle philosophic questions. But it seems to me that 
 the Word of God, in its spirit and its letter, opposes that 
 theory which makes man's highest end to be enjoyment. 
 Everywhere God is represented as a Being of whoso 
 :"haracter holiness is as essential an attribute as even 
 Dcnevolence. Sin is spoken of as an evil in itself, and 
 requiring atonement to be made for it. We are taught 
 -o do this, and avoid that, not merely that we n^aj 
 
APPENDIX. 377 
 
 avoid sensitive pahi, ;uicl gain scusitive enjoyment, but 
 because God has (.'ominaridorl it, siiid because wc are 
 bound to obey God. Onr chief end is to glorify Gml, 
 and in this, and under this, enjoy Him forarer. 
 
 I began tliis discussion with a profound veneration 
 for tiie character and :iliiliiics of Dr. Hopkins, and I 
 close it with the siiiue sentiment. 
 Pkuciton, N. J., Sept. 13, 1869. 
 
 REV. DR. HOPKINS'S CONCLUSION. 
 
 Dr. McCosii thinks it time the discussion between 
 him and myself should close. I agree with him. He 
 says, " We have botli had an opportunity of stating our 
 views," and that " intelligent readers have already be- 
 fore them the means of coming to a decision.'' So I 
 thought, and wus content. Hence anything furtiier, 
 and especially a rediscussion of tlio whole matter in 
 the foim of a snuiniing up, was unexpected by me. 
 Under tliesc circumstiinces it is with reluctance that 
 I say a word more ; but from his fame and position 
 the words of Dr. ]\IcCosh fall with weight, iind I am 
 unwilling that some statements and representations in 
 his last paper should pass without notice. 
 
 On the first point taken up by Dr. McCosli, I am 
 happy to say tliat, in my opinion, we are more nearly 
 agreed than he seems to suppose. I cannot but think 
 that much of our seeming d'-frerence arises from the 
 different meaning we give to the word " sensibih'ty," 
 »nd hence to "blessedness." Ry the sensibility, I 
 mean, iu common, as I suupose, "ith philosophers gen- 
 erally, the capacity of feeling in its whole range, as re- 
 vealed, not only through the activity of the senses, but 
 
878 APPEin>ix. 
 
 of every menttil and moral power; and did not suspect 
 the possibility of my being supjiosed to mean anything 
 else. According to this, blessedness would be a form 
 of enjoyment, and, except in and through the sensibil- 
 ity, would be impossible. Hut Dr. McCosh cannot 
 moan this, for he saj-s '■ tlicre is a blessedness which 
 is not enjoyment," and calls on me to " stick to the one 
 or the othei-." He says that if I adhere to enjoj'ment, 
 my theory becomes utilitarianism ; if 1 insist on bring- 
 ing in blessedne.=s, I introduce a new element, whether 
 I see it or not : and so he makes two horns of n dilem- 
 ma where I see no horn at all. He says tliat the end 
 of man is not in the sensibility, and yet says that 
 " blessedness,'' " properly explained," " is the suj)reme 
 end." He says that "holy enjoyment is a supreme 
 end," — that is, the supreme end, for there can be but 
 one. But this is precisely what I have said from the 
 beginning,! and whoever says this, explain it as he 
 may, must agree with me snbstantia'ly in my whole 
 theory, " whether he sees it or not." I congratulate 
 Dr. McCosh, or rather myself, on his coming to this 
 lesult ; but what meaning he can attach to the word 
 " sensibility " hi his process of doing so, is inscrutable 
 to me. With the above meaning, I still say that '' if 
 we suppose the sensibility excluded, the conception even, 
 of an end is impossible ; " and T cannot but think that 
 my readers, and even Dr. McCosh will agree with me. 
 As I have said from the first, a being with no capac- 
 ty of feeling of any kind not only could form no con- 
 ception of an end, but would lack the very condition 
 that would enable lum to form moral ideas or to form- 
 ulate a moral law. 
 
 Under his second head, again, I think we should be 
 •ubstantially agreed but for the same difficulty. Dr 
 McCosh accepts my illustration of the mode in which 
 1 See Moral Science, lect. viii. 
 
APPEKDIX. 3/y 
 
 die question betweeu a^i is to be settled. He says, 
 * We determine tlie end of a locomotive by looking at 
 its structure and its relation to other things in the uses 
 to which it is put. It is thus that we are to determine 
 the end of man's existence as a question of philosophy." 
 This is just what 1 say ; and also that it follows that 
 as we do not determine the end of n locomotive by 
 inquiring " what saith our moral nature," so neither do 
 we determine thus the end of man ; whereas Dr. Mc- 
 Cosh says, after saying what I have quoted above, that 
 the end of man is to be determined by his conscience. 
 As I think, we judge that the end of man is to be 
 gained by obeying his conscience by comparing that 
 faculty with others, but thMt judgment and comparison 
 are not the work of the faculty itself In this there 
 is a slight difference on another ground ; but now comes 
 that again from onr not nnderstanding alike " sensi- 
 bility " and its cognates. Dr. McCosh is " sori-y to 
 find me falling into ihe omission of Professor Bain, and 
 of the sensational and utilitarian school generally," — an 
 omission, by the way, fallen into by Ktint and Hamil- 
 lon and every distinguished intuitional philosopher who 
 has written since, — "and representing the original 
 constituents of man's end [being?] to be intellect to 
 know, sensibility to feel, ami will to choose and act." 
 In so doing, he says I have " left out, as an independent 
 element, the Moral Power, Moral Reason, or Con- 
 Bcience." He is '' amazed to find me declaring that 
 without a gensibility the conception of an end is impos- 
 sible.'' He holds that " ihe moral power in man de- 
 clares that there is a higher cud liian the mere securing 
 or procuring of enjoymen'," and that "it is easy to 
 form a conception of it." Here it is, in all this, that 
 ire feel the need of that inscutable meaning of the 
 irord " sensibility " of whict I have sjjoken. For with- 
 
880 Ari'EXDix. 
 
 oat it what have we ? We Lave a part of man's na- 
 tur€(, and that (he highest, whicli neither consists, noi 
 18 employed, in knowing, or feeling, or willing ! What 
 else is possible ? We have an end without a sensibility, 
 easy to be conceiveil of, higher than any other, and yet 
 the pursuit of which would neither secure nor promote, 
 at least intentionally, the enjoyment of iinybody. I 
 atn curious to know what such an eiiil may be, espe- 
 cially in the view of one who holds that " the supreme 
 end is blessedness (properly explained) or holy enjoy- 
 ment" 
 
 Under his tliird head Dr. McCosh says that I " give 
 to Moral Reason a place, but a confused place." What 
 I say is, that moral reason recognizes moral quality, 
 and affirms obligation to choose ends. He, as I sup- 
 pose, says the same, and also makes this affirmation of 
 obligation, or sense of duty, a part of the end. lie 
 says, " This makes the sense of duty to enter into the 
 virtuous act and to become part of the end." I say 
 It enters into the act to give it quality, but not as a 
 part of the end. The end, I suppose, must be known 
 before the sense of duty can be originated. Whether 
 this more complex view gives moral reason a less "con- 
 fused place," I leave others to judge. Tliat a moral 
 act may be binding, both beforehand and at the time 
 when it is done, I agree fully with Dr. McCosh ; but 
 am not sure that I understand what is meant by it8 
 being binding "behindhand." 
 
 On the question under his fourth head, we seem to 
 be in direct opposition. Dr. McCosh affirms, and 1 
 deny, that the quality of an act can be the ground of 
 obligation to do that act ; and yet I am not sure that 
 •ve are looking at precisely the same point when we 
 JhuB affirm and deny. I agree that the quality ol an 
 ftct may be assigned as the reason for doing it. A nui^ 
 
APPENDIX. 381 
 
 aukj be exhorted to do a just act becauBe it ia jnst, oi 
 he may say he did it because it was so. This is con- 
 venient, and often sufficient, and language has accommo- 
 dated itself to it as it has to the apparent motion of 
 the heavens ; but it would lie mere trifling to assign 
 the fact of the justice of an Mct — ilmt is the quality of 
 justice in it — as the ground of the obligation to do 
 justice. We here setik wlmt is ultimate, the real na- 
 ture of things ; and what I sav, jind have said, is that 
 without an underlying ssnsibilily and its products in 
 the consciousness, the quality itself of justice could not 
 exist — that nothing could be either just or riglit. He 
 and his school say tiiat an action is right because it is 
 right, and that is the enil of it. I say that a reason 
 can always be given why an action is right, and that 
 witliout a sensibility, the quality of right in an action, 
 regarded as moral, could not exist. 
 
 Under his fifth head Dr. McCosh allows that " in 
 many virtues pleasure and pain enter into our view." 
 " We are bound," he says, " as mucli as in us lies, to 
 promote the happhiess of all beings capable of joy or 
 of sorrow. But even here, let it be observed, a moral 
 element enters : we are bound to do this." Of course 
 we are. Who ever thought oth'!r« isc ? I agree with 
 Dr. McCosh perfectly, that wlien b('inj,^s capable of joy 
 or of sorrow are in question, we are as much, or at 
 least nearly as much, bound to exert ourselves for them 
 as if they wei-e capable of no such thing. I agree 
 with him tliat justice is quite as niuih a virtue as be- 
 nevolence, only I do not think tliai "justice looks to 
 what is right in itself independently of benevolence, or 
 'hat it could exist without it. I tliiuk benevolence its 
 flndition, but no more think the idea of justice a part 
 >f that of benevolence than 1 do the idea of identity 
 a part of that of being I tlinli also that if God were 
 
882 APPENDIX. 
 
 ii8 incapable of sensibility as a rock, and so incapable 
 of enjoyment, it wouW be impossible for us to love 
 Him with the love of benevolence, the only love com- 
 manded. 
 
 Respecting tlie Bible, Dr. McCosh says, under his 
 Bixtli head, tliat he is "not very willing to use its sim- 
 ple statements to settle |)liilos6pliic questions." I am. 
 Let the Bible state anytliing simply and explicitly, and 
 I have no philosophy to oppose to it. I said that the 
 Bible nowhere commands us to do riglit because it is 
 right. Dr. McCosh was surprised, and undertook to 
 show that it did, by quoting the only passage he could 
 find that seemed to say so, though it did not. He now 
 simply says that it seems lo liini "that the Word of 
 God in its spirit ami Icttei- oppo-es that theory which 
 makes man's highest end i<i lio enjoyment," quoting no 
 text, and implying, in the form of his statement, that 
 I hold that the end of man is his own enjoyment. I 
 have nowhere said that. What I say is, that the high- 
 est end of man is to cause blessedness " properly ex- 
 plained." In immediate connection, Dr. McCosh speaks 
 -){ sensitive pain and sensitive enjoyment as if they were 
 the basis of my system. I li-iist I have said nothing 
 to justify this. I am no sensationalist, but a believer 
 in the highest form of intuitional and spiritual philoso 
 pliy. I am no utilitarian. I believe in a good that 
 is good in itself, and to be sought for its own sake ; 
 and in disinterested love of beings who are capable of 
 happiness, quite as much, too, as if they were not. In 
 my two books, 1 have examined the constitution of 
 man in its relation both to nature and to the Bible. I 
 bave found from that, that the law of the constitution 
 ic the law of tlie Bibli;. That law — the Law of Lovt 
 
 ■ 1 accept and endeavor to enforce — simply that. 1 
 ' ijd no " lialf-way house." I bring in nothing " gijr 
 
APPBiroa. 383 
 
 reptitionsly." T steal no element. I do not snLoidi- 
 Date virtue to happiness, but find a harmony between 
 them. I do not say as Dr. Lord, in his letter to the 
 graduates of Dartmouth, taking the representation of 
 Dr. McCosh, represents me as saying, that I am bound 
 to glorify God " because my faculties are adapted to 
 that duty, and in performing it my faculties will be in 
 harmony, and I bhall be happy." I simply find the 
 moral law — the one law for myself and for all others 
 — impersonal and impartial, and have as little to do 
 with this terrible enjoyment as is possible under a law 
 that requires me to promote it in its purest form and 
 in the highest degree. 
 
 But enough. All metaphysical points lie within a 
 narrow compass, and it is both amusing and annoying 
 to me to see what a fog of discussion, and often nimbus, 
 will gather around them. Those involved in this dis- 
 cussion seem to me simple and luminous. Most of the 
 difficulty in making them appear so to others arises 
 from the imperfection of language. This has seemed 
 to me so great, that for years I was deterred from 
 attempting anything. I saw so much on these subjects 
 of mere logomachy. This lias been a difficulty between 
 Dr. McCosh and myself. We evidently do not always 
 attach the same shade of meaning to the same word. 
 If we could do that, I am confident it would bring us 
 nearer together than we have seemed, for not only are 
 the intuitions of all men on these subjects alike, but he 
 and I belong to the same general school of thought, 
 and are substantially working together. 
 
 I close by reciprocating the kind expressions of re- 
 gard by Dr. JlcCosh. It was a great pleasure to me 
 to welcome him in this country. I rejoiced in the 
 Bclat with which he was received at Princeton, and in 
 Ihe favor and endowment which his coming brought 
 
384 APPENDIX.. 
 
 to that College. I trust the favor will continne, and 
 the endowment increase ; and can only say that if 
 another such man could be found who would come to 
 this College and bring equal favor and endowment, es- 
 pecially, just now, the endowment, I would resign 
 to-day. 
 
 WlUJAlU COLLIEGE, S^. WtA, 1869. 
 
•^v^ Ti^fBijjTeeai