He feels that to be just, upright and honorable, is according to his nature, but according to the doctrine that nature is essentially evil, justice and uprightness and honesty shall be evil. And the opposite qualities, since opposite of evil is good, shall be good! Then shall all the affections which are natural be evil, the love of husband to wife, and the love of wife to husband, which is natural, be a thing base and vile and in every way to be shunned; the love of parents to children to be evil. And all the natural feelings, the natural tendencies, the natural affections, all shall be bad, all evil. And then if man desires to live aright, since his nature is of itself wholly evil, his business shall be to oppose nature. All things against nature shall be good, all according to nature shall be bad. To be malevolent shall be good, to be full of pity, evil; to be kind-hearted shall be evil, to be harsh in life and conduct, good; to be merciful shall be wrong; to be cruel shall be right; to be a peaceable citizen of a State, and an obedient child, shall be evil; and to be a lawless and desperate outlaw or a parricide, shall be good. The chaste husband or wife, living according to the dictates of nature in marriage, shall be evil in that very thing; the licentious adulterer shall be good. Monstrous consequences these, and outraging the natural feeling of all; and yet consequences that unavoidably follow from the monstrous paradox that human nature is essentially evil.

Let us look at this dogma a little more plainly still. If this be so, then man requires no temptation, in fact cannot be tempted, for his nature being wholly evil, all his hopes, desires, fears, are of themselves evil essentially. He cannot be polluted, for of himself his nature is evil. All crimes are equal, for the nature from which all proceed is equally bad, being in itself essentially evil. All his sins then are equal in the eye of God, each equally deserving condemnation in the eye of infinite justice. And the innocent babe, if his nature be essentially evil, is a subject for limitless wrath equally with the hoary murderer and debauchee of eighty years. And all this in direct opposition to the Holy Scriptures.

Nay, more than this. If man's nature be all evil, as then all his evil temptations, thoughts, feeling and actions must come from himself, then there can be no tempter to evil outside of him,-no devil; but a principle of evil in him. And that principle of evil is in, and is, the nature of man! In other words, man is Satan, and there is no Satan but man!

Now, asking of my readers to look this notion straight in the face, to have in their minds the clear idea of it, is asking of them also to bear in mind that "thoughts," "words," and "actions," are not "human nature." I would ask them steadily to look at this doctrine, "that human nature is essentially evil," and ask themselves, do not these consequences follow from it really and unavoidably?

This is a system of Morality, indeed! which makes it natural to do evil, unnatural to do good; which puts law and conscience and justice all as evil! And all the things that are naturally good, asserts that they are naturally evil. A strange system of Morality indeed, which begins by denying the possibility of any morals, any goodness, and asserting that all actions are bad, and all equally bad!

This is a hideous Moral System, one that nevertheless has existed from very ancient times. They are the tenets of a very ancient sect upon whom the prophet Isaiah pronounces a woe: "Woe be to them that call evil good, and good evil, that put light for darkness and darkness for light;" to them the apostle Paul alludes, when he speaks of those who in the latter days should "forbid to marry, and command to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them that believe and know the truth, for every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving."

Of such philosophising has there been an abundance, and unto it man's nature is essentially evil, and unto it from this central fact all nature and all creatures also become evil, and therefore it is that it forbids marriage, and orders to abstain from meats; whereas the apostle lays it down as plainly that all creatures are good, and "that marriage is honorable in all."

But in addition to the display of the natural consequences of this doctrine, that human nature is essentially evil, we may appeal to the consciousness of each individual, to the knowledge he has of himself. Does not each man feel that when he acts evilly or sins, that he acts against the laws of his own nature? That to act rightly and virtuously is in accordance with the law of his nature, and not against it? Does he not each time that he acts evilly, feel ashamed, condemned by his own nature? Does he not feel that to cheat, to lie, to murder, so far from being natural, are directly

against his nature? Surely, all the experience that man has of himself, all this tells him that his nature is not essentially evil.

And I confess that I have been most heartily ashamed of men who from the pulpit preach this horrid notion, never having thought of its consequences or of its nature; and then, to establish it, have told untruths as great. Tell the man who has bent in agony over the sick bed of a dying wife, who for months, without hope of reward, has watched, and wept, and sympathized,tell him this is no good act, but purely evil and sinful! And then, in order to prove such a monstrous paradox, tell him that it was done from selfish motives, and nature will rise and give you the lie; and the man will feel and speak as strongly of you as did Paul of the men that preached this doctrine of old, as "speaking lies in hypocrisy, having the conscience seared as with a hot iron."

Tell him that morality is not only of no good, but downright sinful; and Nature's law shall tell him directly the contrary, and the Bible will say to him, "When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, then are they à law unto themselves."

Take the hoary desperado, the pirate and cut-throat, and drunkard and debauchee, from the Indian seas, and place him side by side on the same level with a young innocent girl, from an unpolluted home, and nature's consciousness of truth shall declare your notions false.

It follows, then, that the nature of man cannot be in itself essentially evil.

And by the exclusion of the three of the only four possible answers, it must be that we affirm the one remaining, "that Human Nature is of itself and in itself essentially good."

We exclude the three, and this affirms the one. The proof, therefore, of it at the present is exclusive and negative, rather than positive. We therefore insist upon it as a right, of logical necessity due to us, that objections against the conclusion be reserved until we come to the positive proof. In the mean time, we would discuss another part of the subject as preparatory to this positive proof.

NOTE TO CHAPTER I.

Upon this doctrine, that "Human Nature is essentially evil," it may seem to some persons strange that we should spend so much time in displaying its evil consequences and developing them. Yet let such persons know that all these consequences have not only been deduced as logical conclusions, but they have been preached and acted out by perhaps the vilest and most evil of all the ancient sects, the Manichæans. These men took it that man's nature is essentially evil, and carried out their doctrine to the extremest degree, as history will show.

For this reason we have brought the dogma, in all its consequences, clearly and distinctly before the minds of our readers. We would have them see its untruth distinctly and decidedly. For that man's nature is not essentially evil, but a nature which although fallen is in its nature good: this is the first principle of all morality.

I would also add, that this is the unanimous decision of the early Christian Church.

CHAPTER II.

What is the nature of Good and Evil?—The highest good, and the means of discovering it.

In our last chapter we used a phrase "Human Nature," for the constitution of man, as consisting of body, soul and spirit. By this word we meant the whole nature of man considered generally, without reference to the peculiarities of individuals or of nations; "the man," generally. We asked, then, whether it were "evil or good," as considering this as the first question, the fundamental one of all Ethics. And we decided it in a negative and exclusive way, that Human Nature must be in itself good, and not evil.

And now we would have our readers remark, that we have used the terms "good and evil" often. We employed them because we knew that human nature was good, and that therefore each one, without explaining, would readily understand that which we meant.

But now it is time to examine more closely into the meaning of these terms.

The first remark we shall make is this, that when we establish what is "good," we establish also the highest end of man, that after which he should the most aim, and at the same time we establish the supreme rule of his conduct.

For instance, if the supreme good of man be in Utility, then as the supreme law of life he should aim only at Utility; he should make this the measure of all his actions, and casting aside all other considerations, he should not ask, is this right, or just, or my duty? but, is this useful? And so with regard to all other criterions or tests whatsoever, that have been established of Good and Evil. The establishment of a Highest Good and Evil is the establishment of a highest law for man's actions, and of the highest reach of virtue and perfection to which his nature may climb.

The question, then, of "good and evil," and their nature and criterion, is a very important one; the question of the "Highest Good" still more important. They are not theoretical, merely, but practical; and that in a very great degree, because they imply a law of action first, and secondly, a knowledge and governance of our own nature according to it.

For clearly, we can see in each individual that he has something which he counts the Highest Good, to which he will sacrifice all inferior; clearly we can see that this feeling is a law unto his nature, acted upon at all times by himself, and always referred to in his actions. I have known Epicures, to whom, by an observation of life and conduct, the Highest Good was the pleasures of the palate. I have known Epicureans to whom general ease and selfgratification was the Highest Good. I have known fathers and mothers to whom the advancement of their children was the Highest Good; men to whom the possession of property was the Highest Good; to whom power was the highest; to whom domestic happiness, or the love of their neighbours, or the sense and performance of their duty, or the doing of justice or of mercy; I have known, in my short life, instances of all these; instances in which I could most plainly discover that these objects were severally considered by men as the main object of their lives, the objects which, to obtain, they would count the highest good of their existence. And I have taken notice that the feeling of the object being the highest, became a rule of action, a law and measure by which all action