ORIGIN OF MORAL EVIL 321 



possible. Such was his idea of the " Righteousness 

 of the Law ". 



We turn to Christianity and we find the whole 

 of the ceremonial law was a mistake, and " Righteous- 

 ness of Faith " takes its place. 



Hence we discover a fundamental contrast between 

 these two laws of Judaism and Christianity, respectively. 



If it be asked why some men follow one line of 

 conduct and others follow a quite different one ; both 

 thinking they are right in obeying law, it is just be- 

 cause human-made laws are never perfect nor universal ; 

 whereas Spiritual laws — as revealed by Jesus Christ 

 — are found by experience to be applicable to all races 

 at all times. 



But whatever law men believe to be right and obey, 

 that is, act up to their light, feeble though it may be, 

 they cannot be called in question. If he obeys, we may 

 call him relatively moral, and relatively immoral if he 

 disobey it. 



But Law may be " natural " as well as human. 



By "natural law" is only meant an "observed order 

 of facts " ; that is, certain events always take place under 

 the same circumstances. This uniformity is said — meta- 

 phorically — to be in obedience to law. It represents 

 what always is. It only differs from human laws, in that 

 these represent what man always ought to be. 



Now animals, by not having the power of abstract 

 reasoning and possessing no consciousness of the power 

 to choose, i.e., volition, cannot be moral or immoral, but 

 are simply non-moral or living automata. 



Man, alone, on the other hand, can be both moral or 

 immoral, for he alone is conscious of the universal law of 

 contrasts, and can use or abuse nature's laws, say of health ; 

 and he can also obey or disobey human laws. 



31 



