is, therefore, quite certain that the happiness of all mankind is preferable to that of nations; this to that of families, and this again to that of individuals. Personal interests, it is allowed, must be neglected sooner than those of our country, or than family affections. But the same reasons that lead to this conclusion, prove also that the species is more worthy of our love than our native country.

The superiority of general happiness is also confirmed by the essential difference of the two natures of man. The greater number of animals find their enjoyments in selfishness; some, however, live in society, are attached to each other, and feel a kind of love for the country of their birth; but man alone is susceptible of exercising good-will towards the whole of his own species, and every other being of creation. I am confirmed in my opinion, that general happiness is the aim of man's existence, since I see the truth of what afflicts many amiable minds, that the just perishes in his righteousness, while the unjust prospers in his wickedness. This happens under the government of the animal nature, which feels no pleasure in general happiness, nor pain in the commission of injustice. It shows the predominance of the animal nature, but is it not probable that the Creator intended the satisfaction of those faculties which are proper to man as well as of those he holds in common with the brutes? There can be no doubt he did. I think that both natures are to be gratified, that no faculty is made in vain, and that all that stamps superiority upon man is not bestowed merely to make him unhappy. Now, as the more noble powers are not satisfied in the actual state of things, religious people hope that they will be ministered to in another life, and this is considered as a conclusive argument in favor of the immortality of the soul. As the peculiarly human nature, however, is preferable to the animal, it must follow that even in this life, its satisfaction is superior to that of the other. I entertain this opinion the rather because the animal part may be satisfied under the dominion of the human, which leads to the recognition of duty universally; while the brute nature has no feelings of obligation, and looks for mere selfish enjoyments. Wieland, in his Agathon, expresses this idea

almost in phrenological terms, yet it must be understood that he considered the mind as free and in conflict with the senses. He calls the mind the spiritual part, and the senses the animal part of man. In order to render man that which nature intended him to be, says he, the harmony of these two natures must be preserved. 'If this harmony,' continues he, is possible, it can be effected only by the subjection of the animal part to the spiritual, the intelligent and the free. This subjection is the more reasonable, for the animal part incurs no danger from the sway of the spiritual, and has no reason to dread any denial of its legitimate enjoyments, since the former knows too well what is necessary for the common good of the whole man to refuse to the animal portion what is necessary to its existence and its welfare. But the animal part knows nothing of the wants of the spiritual, cares not about its own restless struggles against every attempt at control, and the instant that reason slumbers or slips its bridle, it assumes an arbitrary supremacy of which the destruction of the whole internal economy of our nature is the inevitable consequence.

Thus, I do not believe that in the eye of God, the unjust who thrives is worth the just who perishes; I rank the unjust among animals; like them he is pleased with what flatters himself alone; he is even more dangerous than they, on account of his superior understanding.

The proposition (it is one which troubles many minds)—moral errors are unavoidably punished in this life-finds it solution also, in the superiority of general happiness. The strong and able-bodied man may not seem to suffer from excesses and sensuality; but his descendants have often to pay the penalty. The love of domination is ministered to by the ignorance and servility of nations; these, however, must bear its blighting influence. He who begins by subjecting his countrymen to his will, and finishes by aiming at the empire of the world, must injure, and make thousands and millions wretched. The few who amass riches do so at the expense of the many who remain poor, and so on. Thus the evil which results from any infraction of the natural laws, is not always felt by

him who is its first cause; it is, however, certainly experienced sooner or later.

Finally, as I perceive that, in the kingdom of justice, and of general happiness, the individual is never forgotten, whilst individuals enjoying happiness so easily forget their neighbors, and the general weal, I most anxiously wish the kingdom of individual happiness at an end.

Thus, general happiness appears to me the principal aim of phrenic life, as the preservation of the species is the chief end of vegetative life. General happiness is the touchstone for all natural morality, for all social institutions, and for all the actions of man. Every deed which favors the general weal is good, and the more this is opposed the worse is the act.

Here we may ask, whether there are certain races of men in civilized society, or certain classes, who deserve the lot of mere animals? These, on account of their inferiority, are employed by man for his pleasures and purposes; are the highly gifted among the human kind also permitted to use for their advantage those who are less favored by nature? Or, are there individuals who may arrogate privileges, and claim immunities?

To reply in the affirmative would be against natural morality. This declares God to be the impartial parent of all, and permits man only to do good to his fellow man; it does not exclude the agency of self-love, but makes it, along with all other faculties common to man and animals, subordinate to those proper to man. Indeed, I know of nothing more important than it is, to prove the existence of natural morality, and to specify its laws. For, as mankind must be governed, a true legislation is extremely desirable.

Both religious and civil regimens have done immense injury to mankind, and this in proportion as the inferior faculties, such as self-love, love of approbation, courage, destructiveness, and even attachment and circumspection, have dictated their positive laws. The animal is the enemy of man, it justifies absolute power, the right of the strongest, the spirit of party and of sect, national pride

and hatred, and every kind of personal design. It looks only for convenience. Religion itself is employed as a tool in its purposes. The misery of man will certainly endure so long as the faculties common to him and animals determine that which is to be done or omitted.

Attempts have been made, with more or less success, to improve legislation, but all the means have been derived from inferior faculties. Evils, therefore, may have been mitigated, but they could not be entirely abolished. Final success depends altogether on the sacrifice of personal interest, or of individual to general happiness.

The universality and constancy of the natural laws deserve a particular attention. Their basis is the same, at all times and in all countries; they are independent of personal and of local circumstances. Were it not presumptuous, even absurd, in naturalists to endeavor to create physical and chemical laws, and in gardeners to change the laws of vegetation? Those who breed and rear animals must treat them according to their nature; they will never feed parrots with bitter almonds or parsley. The organization of man is also allowed to be subject to natural laws, though several are unknown or neglected in social life.

That the five senses, in their healthy state, propagate external impressions according to determinate laws, is farther admitted. No one can see as great that which is small; taste as sweet that which is sour; nor see as blue that which is scarlet. Without perfect regularity in the functions of the senses, it were altogether impossible to acquire any positive knowledge of the physical qualities of external objects.

The

Who

Now, why should not the same determinateness pervade the affective and intellectual faculties? It is, indeed, commonly admitted in as far as the intellectual operations are concerned. principles of the arts and sciences are always pointed out. doubts of the mechanical laws? They are the same now as they were in ancient times. The mechanician never attempts to warp or change them in constructing machines; in inventing, he only

makes new applications of laws that are invariable. Mathematical laws, also, have not changed with ages; every mathematician, whether aware of them or not, applies them in his calculations. A great musical genius produces harmonious tones, and a great painter agreement of colors, according to natural principles, and without previous study. The laws of all arts exist in nature, and are only discovered, not created. A deep thinker needs no logical precepts to enable him to perceive sound from false reasoning. Thus the intellectual operations of the mind are governed by natural laws, which can neither be changed by revelation nor by human enactments, neither by praying, by fasting, nor by offerings. They who are born gifted with great talents discover the laws of their faculties, make these known to the less favored in capacities, who then learn and apply them in their mental operations.

In the same way, they whose peculiarly human faculties hold such as are common to man and animals in subordination, act in a moral way without precept, and even with pleasure; nay, if constrained to do evil, they would feel positive pain, precisely as does the great musician from bad music. Moral precepts are necessary to those only who do not possess them in their interior. Now, as the Creator has provided for physical and moral laws, when will man cease to invent laws, and begin to study those the Creator has traced for his guidance? And when will he be wise enough to submit to them?

Existence of Evil.

The natural law of the subordination of the faculties leads us immediately to consider moral evil. The first step is to inquire whether evil exists or not. Having settled this point, I shall then examine its origin.

Two kinds of evil are commonly spoken of; the one physical, the other moral. There is an evident opposition throughout all nature. Earth, water, and air, present a perpetual scene of destruction and reproduction, of pain and pleasure. And even as