T IN HUMAN SOCIETY. I97 



to which it owes its abiUty to escape from beasts 

 of prey, there is at least equal skill displayed in 

 that bodily mechanism of the wolf which enables 

 him to track, and sooner or later to bring down, 

 the deer. Viewed under the dry light of science, 

 deer and wolf are alike admirable; and, if both 

 were non-sentient automata, there would be noth- 

 ing to qualify our admiration of the action of 

 the one on the other. But the fact that the 

 deer suffers, while the wolf inflicts suffering, en- 

 gages our moral sympathies. We should call men 

 like the deer innocent and good, men such as the 

 wolf malignant and bad; we should call those 

 who defended the deer and aided him to escape 

 brave and compassionate, and those who helped 

 the wolf in his bloody work base and cruel. Sure- 

 ly, if we transfer these judgments to nature out- 

 side the world of man at all, we must do so impar- 

 tially. In that case, the goodness of the right hand 

 which helps the deer, and the wickedness of the 

 left hand which eggs on the wolf, will neutralize 

 one another: and the course of nature will appear 

 to be neither moral nor immoral, but non-moral. 



This conclusion is thrust upon us by analogous 

 facts in every part of the sentient world; yet, in- 

 asmuch as it not only jars upon prevalent preju- 

 dices, but arouses the natural dislike to that which 

 is painful, much ingenuity has been exercised in 

 devising an escape from it. 



From the theological side, we are told that 



