243 



or mental, so it is in her province to observe and interpret 

 phenomena which belong to what is called the moral nature 

 of man, in the light of experience ; and so far as the purposes- 

 of this work are concerned, we may rest assured that as in 

 the physical and mental nature of man heredity exercises 

 a most potent influence, so it does with regard to that 

 part of his individuality which is denominated moral. In 

 a word, heredity dominates the whole individuality of man. 

 In every purely scientific estimate of this individuality the 

 moral aspect must be regarded from the same standpoint 

 as the physical or mental, and it is here that Science and 

 Theology have waged their fiercest battles. Ribot, in 

 discussing the irreconcilability of heredity and free-will, says : 

 " Clearly there can be but two hypotheses either we must 

 say that at every birth there is an act of special creation, 

 which places in each being the germ of its character, of its 

 personality ; or we must admit that this germ is the product 

 of preceding generations, and that it necessarily comes from 

 the nature of the parents and from the circumstances of the 

 generative act" Here I leave this question, having no wish 

 or intention of discussing it, but I contend that as there is 

 a parallelism between the physiological and psychological 

 nature of man, so there is, and must be, between his 

 psychological and moral nature, and that they are all equally 

 hereditary. 



The moral nature of man has been developed, as his 

 mental nature has been, by heredity acting through count- 

 less aeons of time part passu, and coterminously with the 

 progress of civilisation. In his primitive state of barbarism 

 and savagery man had no adequate idea of morality. To 

 hunting succeeded pastoral pursuits, and to pastoral, agri- 

 cultural, and it is only with the latter that we can associate 



