themselves.* He wished man to be and to act according to the faculties proper to human nature. If this were so, all would work with pleasure for the common happiness; those who engaged with great talents, would require the same recompense as those who were industrious with slender endowments; private property would be at an end, and general peace would reign on earth.

Jesus felt that his doctrine was too difficult for man as he is, but he supported his superiority by its salutary effects and by experience, which shows that it is perfect. Nations may prepare themselves for such a kingdom of love; but Jesus himself did not rely on this motive alone; he attended also to the motives of reward and punishment. Moreover he was prepared for the disputes his teaching occasioned. Whoever proposes a new doctrine brings forth an object of difference. Now the moral principles of Jesus being especially opposed to riches and worldly distinctions, to that, therefore, which man desires most eagerly, necessarily excited adversaries and caused persecutions. He came not on purpose to excite dissensions between brothers, relations, or man and man; but he knew that dissensions were unavoidable in the natural order of things. Now let every one judge for himself, whether it were better to live quietly in error and in injustice, than to suffer and struggle for truth and general happiness.

Thus, my conviction is, that the moral precepts of Christianity are those of the Creator. I cannot, however, believe that such a pure system of morality will be easily, or soon adopted. But this can take nothing away from its perfection. It will ever remain the object all regulations ought to have in view, for its reception is the indispensable condition to universal peace. In my work on Education, I speak of what will avail in procuring the conditions under which man can receive this moral doctrine. Meanwhile, it is certain that they only usurp the name of Christians, who by their enactments prove that their sole aim is individual happiness; or, who strive after riches and worldly distinctions, and other advancement of their merely private estates; or, who live at the expense

* Mark iii. 35.

of others; or, finally, who are apt enough to laud, but ever ready to act in contradiction to the precepts of Christianity. It is, indeed, blasphemous to bear the title of Christian without acting up to the sacred duties it requires. Let us, therefore, in acknowledging the purity of Christian morality, put it in practice, before we dare to arrogate the noble name of Christians.

Natural goodness of man.

There is, undoubtedly, a great deal of moral evil in the world. Man, it is also certain, is commonly inclined to evil, that is, to follow the activity of the animal faculties, which are, for the most part, very energetic, and submit with difficulty to the guidance of the powers proper to man. I am, nevertheless, astonished to observe so much goodness in the world. Its abundance evidently proves that man is naturally good, and by no means in consequence of his social institutions; these, indeed, are for the most part, calculated to pervert him. The poor are surrounded with temptation and exposed to corruption on all hands, and the lives led by the rich, especially their idleness and luxury, invite them to immorality. All ranks have their superstitions, and all believe in error, as well as in truth; all pay for temporal and also for eternal happiness, and all subscribe to the first dogma proclaimed necessary to secure the good things here, or to purchase the joys of immortality hereafter, an entire abnegation of reason.

A true picture of society would, indeed, be frightful. Happily, man has received from the Creator so large an infusion of goodness, that it is not to be annihilated. It is lamentable, then, that certain persons attach themselves more to the letter than to the spirit of some symbolic propositions of the gospel, and that mystical, contradictory, and noxious interpretations are rather believed in, than simple, reasonable, and salutary views.

There are some naturally good, some who instinctively, so to say, do the things which Christian morality commands. But, have we not all heard religious people say, that this natural disposition

to do well profits those who exert it in nowise? Some may wish to excuse their sins in degrading the nature of man, not aware that in degrading man they degrade his Maker, since they tell us at the same time that man is made according to the image of God. Let us examine into the origin of faith and of charity, discuss their comparative excellence, and determine the merit which belongs to natural benevolence.

In regard to the origin of religious belief and charity, I refer to the first volume of this work. I shall only repeat that they spring not from the same fundamental faculty, that they may exist separately or conjoined, and that they may be active in very different degrees. These propositions are as important as those according to which charity and the disposition to faith are inherent in the nature of man. We may, therefore, proceed to ask which of the two is the most important ?

Pious people commonly decide on this question according to their individual feelings. But this manner of judging frequently leads into error, and is apt to deceive. Let us, therefore, make abstraction of ourselves, and consider the subject generally.

We are very ready to believe that which we like; this, however, is not always truth. Religious systems, and the various sects of each are all founded on belief. Jews, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Inquisitors, Quakers, &c., all fancy they possess the true interpretation of the revealed will of God. Hence, simple belief does not indicate abstract truth. Religious belief is the result of feelings, and all feelings without exception, are blind; religious belief consequently may be deceived; and I think it causes error whenever the faculty on which it depends ceases to act in harmony with the other powers proper to man. It has, unquestionably, done a great deal of harm in the world. Some standard, by which its manifestations may be regulated, is therefore extremely desirable. What shall we say of those who maintain that Christianity does not require good works? Simply, that they wish to make their task very easy; not reflecting on the very nature of a covenant, which cannot be made without conditions; and not knowing the gospel

of Jesus Christ, who desired that his disciples might be known by their works, and the excellence of his doctrine by its effects. Such a basis alone is unobjectionable, since it includes its validity in itself, and soon changes faith into conviction. Now as pure charity is the aim of the doctrine, and was the practice of the life of Jesus, charity is evidently the chief of his precepts.

Farther, the tendency of charity is solely to do good; but religious belief may do evil too; it easily finds an excuse for selflove, personal views, and abuses of many complexions. Priestcraft when asked what is right, commonly answers, expediency or our decision. History proves this accusation of religious governors.

We may add, with the Apostles St. James and St. Paul, that faith without works is dead. Every hypocrite may say, I believe. Faith should be considered only as an additional motive to exercise charity; and in its inferiority it alone should never be the basis of any religious doctrine. Priestcraft of all denominations, contending for their supremacy, wish to lead the people blindfolded.

'Beware of false prophets,' says Christ, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye will know them by their fruits.'

Finally, even those who have no religious faith, or belief, still admit charity and its good effects. Thus, I do not hesitate to place, with St. Paul,† charity above faith.

In regard to the merit of natural benevolence, I think, that the moral laws are as positive and inherent in our nature as are those of vision, and of the harmony of colors and tones; I also conceive that Christ has commanded certain works because they are good in themselves and according to the will of the Creator, but not that these works are good by their being commanded; and, farther, that the truth of religious interpretations is proclaimed by their compatibility with general happiness. If man can do nothing of himself, that is, by the powers which he has received from his Creator, what can be the benefit of the priesthood? How could Jesus Christ speak of gifts or talents? How can man be made answerable?

Those who say that natural human benevolence is worthless, might also say that the goodness of God is without value.

Persons, it is true, who are naturally good, deserve less credit for their beneficent actions than those who do good principally because it is commanded. The former are charitable because they find pleasure in charity, while the others of charity make an act of virtue. In reference to energy and effect, however, natural benevolence is superior to that which results from faith. The faculties which act from internal vigor are rewarded by their indulgence; they persevere with pleasure and constantly tend to action, while those which must be excited by other motives become inactive as soon as these cease to operate. The naturally good do more acts of beneficence without faith than those who, little endowed with primitive charity, take mere faith as their guide and rule of conduct. Those, however, who unite natural charity and faith are the most assiduous in doing good; but, to reject natural benevolence is equivalent to saying that pure and natural gold is not worth such as is extracted from very heterogeneous minerals, and that a swift and willing horse is inferior to one which must be spurred to go quickly.

I finish this section by asking, what individual can determine moral evil and moral good, that is, dictate the moral laws? I think that it is with moral as with all other principles; a blind man cannot establish the principles of coloring, nor one born deaf those of music; the great painter gives the rules of his art, and the great genius for music indicates the laws of harmony. In the same way, he who possesses the faculties proper to man in the highest perfection, and in whose actions they predominate, he who can challenge the world to convict him of sin, has a right to determine moral principles, and to fix rules of moral conduct. Those, therefore, who would make exception and say, Follow my words and not my deeds, have no title to give rules of action to the community, or to superintend their practice. How noble was the saying of Christ in reference to this point,* If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.'

* John, x. 37.