Reason is the representative of the spirit; sensuality is the essence of the animalism in our composition, and their respective tendencies are as shown in the following synopsis :—

Spirit-reason,-intuitions-conscience-wisdom-virtue-mor

ality (spiritual progress)-happiness.

Animus-senses-instincts-sensuality-ignorance-vice-im

morality (spiritual ruin)—misery.

Let us avoid above all things giving pretty names to ugly things. If our sensuality (the unborn vice) have carried us, at any time, beyond the control of conscience, let us not at least try to cloak, excuse and justify the act of the senses; but as long as reason is true to us, let us expose the natural deformity of vice; and while doing so, we shall learn to hate vice; and the more intense this feeling of hatred which withdraws us from vice, so much the more intense will become our love of virtue that draws us to God. Our physical strength increases with training, and our moral strength (will) must rise and fall in proportion to the efforts we make in the cause of virtue. Habits grow in power daily, whether they be of a virtuous or of a vicious nature, and we must guard against permitting a habit to creep upon us insiduously; but look it straight in the face, and while we yet have an unbiassed judgment, (which must become prejudiced after we have once submitted to the influence of the new habit,) examine its nature, enquiring, whether it will advance the interests of virtue or vice. If we thus exercise a continual self control, if we always guage our impulses by the standard of God's perfections, if we have before our minds' eye the relative results of obedience or disobedience to God's laws (conscience), if we in fact submit every act of ours to the tribunal of reason, then we shall require neither "a holy nor any other ghost" to intercede for us with groans unutterable; nor a saviour, whatever his name; for we shall thus save ourselves from all that we might be afraid of, more surely, than by trusting in a human sacrifice. As if blood could wash out sin! As if any deed could be undone ! As if the faithful believer in that sacrifice would not have to suffer for his misdoings as well as the disbeliever. The effects of vice on our present life we know by the safest of all reasonings, that of experience; and we see that Jew, Moslem and Christian or heathen has to suffer equally and evenly, independently of their peculiar creeds; and that consequently, our earthly happiness or unhappiness depends, not on what we believe, but on what we do. And with regard to our future spiritual existence, the effect of our misdoings while in the flesh, remains to be seen. We may, however, presume, that we shall carry into that life, the degree of perfection our spirits have acquired here, i.e., that, according to the degree of spirituality we shall be possessed of, at the time of our death, we shall be ranked among God's spiritual creatures in another world; and that our punishment beyond the grave for the indulgence in vice here, will be our low state of spirituality in an existence, where we can better appreciate the degradation than here. In this sense our works will follow us," that is, the effect of our

works on our spiritual nature. And these are the conclusions at which we arrive: (1,) that we are endowed by God with a greater or a less wisdom and zeal, towards perfection; (2,) that it is in our power to raise or lower these qualities by giving supremacy to either the spirit or the soul; (3,) that in the degree in which we thus act, we shall experience a corresponding reward on earth; (4). that we shall enter the future life as we left the present one with regard to our state of spiritual perfection; (5) that dogmatic faith will not save; rather that works have this effect.

WHAT is sin? Webster defines it as "the voluntary transgression of a divine law," or as "a neglect of a known rule of duty," and a German philosopher describes sin as "such a transgression of a law as calls for punishment," while we should define sin as: "every thought, word, and deed in contradiction to our individual notions of what is right." We call sin whatever interferes with our comfort, our well-being, if it is caused by human agency; and we call him sinful, who so affects our happiness. When we are stronger than the offender, we punish him; we forbid him to repeat his offence. And in a commonwealth, in which the defence of our lives and property has been entrusted to a Government, the latter imposes its laws, i.e., rules, to be observed, to secure against oppression and wrong each individual; and the transgression of such laws is called sin, or rather in this connection "crime;" the word “sin” has more reference to what is called the transgression of divine laws. Now, if all laws were of the same nature in different ages, states, or creeds, if they were identical; and if the notions of what a divine law is, were equally agreed upon, then it would not be difficult to decide the character of sin. But now just the reverse is the case; namely, all creeds, ages, and states differ as well in their laws, as in what they understand by the terms "sin" or "crime," of which we shall give abundant illustrations further on; so that we come to the conclusion that "sin" is only an abstract term possessing no concrete significance. A conception that cannot be defined does not exist, and an ethical term, that admits of many different and opposing descriptions, has no concrete value. Consequently the expression "sin" is an expression without meaning, from a logical point of view; although in colloquial language it may mean something, namely, as we said above," any body's interference with our individual notions of what is right, so that the meaning of the term "sin" is entirely depending on time, place and circumstance.

We shall now quote a few instances to demonstrate the vagueness and contradiction attached to the term "sin," and to show that it has only a significance in the abstract. Polygamy is a sin, (bigamy)

punished severely in Western Europe, and in the Colonies that sprung from it, in fact by Christianity as it now exists, while it is not objected to by the majority of the human race, while it was countenanced by the law (divine) of Moses, and while the primitive Christian church, which is always held up as a model, practised polygamy; so that in the 2nd century the clergy had to be compelled to content themselves with one helpmate. And this is evident also in the spurious epistle of Paul to Timothy (iii., 2:) "A Bishop then must be blameless the husband of one wife." That implies, as plainly as language can express, that the custom of polygamy prevailed at the time even among the clergy. Thus the present Christian world condemns this practice in the face of all humanity, of the divine law and of the example set them by the early Church. Again, the calling the incarnation of God in Jesus an imposture, is a deadly sin with the Christians, who think themselves, however, justified in stigmatizing Mohamed as an impostor; while the Moslem holds diametrically opposite opinions. Sabbath breaking is called a sin by the Christian; nevertheless he observes it not at all; but has selected a different day, 36 hours later; and then he says it is a sin to "profane the Lora's day." Now not to mention, that the observation, in the style they now demand it, of the Sunday, is nowhere commanded or recommended in the so-called inspired Scriptures, and that the custom was only incorporated much later (5th century of our era,) in the tenets of the church, look to the continent of Europe and tell us, have the Christians there the same idea of the sin of Sunday profanation that the Anglo-Saxons have? Idolatry is sin with the monotheists, not with the polytheists. The law, "Thou shalt not make graven images," etc., is transgressed freely by two-thirds of Christianity, without being considered a sin. Murder, one of the cardinal sins, has been often highly commended, viz., Sissera's death, Judith's feat, Gessler's assassination. Very many instances might here be quoted, in which murder was considered a crime by one party, and a deed deserving hymns of praise by the other party. Besides, the execution of the vendetta was considered no sin in Corsica; and it is enjoined us as duty even yet among many tribes. Duelling was demanded by the code of honor (duty) once; now it is considered criminal. What is war, but cold-blooded murder on a large scale. What is it, but manslaughter without provocation, still law (divine or human) has nothing to say against it. At the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, Josephus tells us of innumerable suicides among the Jews, which were considered meritorious, and based upon some traditional law of theirs; now it has been classed with felony. As to slavery, which is regarded as belonging to the same class of crimes, and justly, throughout all ages and among all nations, neither divine nor human law has interfered with it until very recently. We see then, that the most concise definition for sin would be, disobedience, ie., disobedience to our individual notions of what is right and wrong. Now, as individuals differ, so will their notions differ, and consequently also the complexion of sin.

What was right yesterday, is wrong to-day; what is right in the east, is wrong in the west; what is a merit in one creed or sect, is a sin in the other; yea, what is right in one person, is wrong in the other. Now, after this, find us a comprehensive definition of the term sin in the concrete, except the subjective one we have given.

Now admitting that the world has agreed, in giving the name of "sin" to breaches of the different, varying and opposing “human and divine laws," the question arises: "To whom is to be ascribed the disposition of man to commit sin ?" and we receive three distinct replies :-(1.), God, who created everything, and without whom there is nothing made that is made, must have been, of course, also the originator of this most powerful agency. (2.) The Devil (Satan, Ahriman), the anti-god, the evil one, etc., one of heaven's angels, who fell through pride, and is now in open rebellion to God, he is the cause of sin coming into the world. (3.) Man, who was gifted with free agency, and who was at liberty to choose the good or the evil, gave the latter the preference, and thus brought sin into the world.

Now let us analyze these replies, and attempt to come to a conclusion as to the soundness of any one of them.

The assumption that the Good and Perfect One should have called into existence an agency rebellious against Himself, the cause of immeasurable misery to the world, and damning to humanity, was never entertained with satisfaction from the earliest ages; and philosophers reasoned themselves weary to find a way out of this perplexity. Only by ascribing to their deities like passions and feebles to those of man, could the polytheists account for the existence of sin; but enlightened religion and philosophy reject this expedient. Moreover, if God were the cause of sin, then how can He punish sin when committed? Every one, who had eyes to see, perceived that each sin brought its punishment with it; but nevertheless, it was noticed that in some cases the penalty for a sin appeared insufficient, or imperceptible in other cases; and as men had already learned to believe in the immortality of the soul, they naturally concluded, that sins which were not punished here, would meet with their punishment in the life to come. Thus, the penalty is imposed by God, whether here or there; and how is this to be reconciled with God's justice if He created sin? In which way soever the question may be regarded, God cannot be held responsible for the existence of sin; and, therefore, the conception of a being nearly as powerful as God, an anti-god, found favor on every side.

The idea of the existence of a good and of an evil principle, of a personified virtue, and a personified vice sprung from the east. Zoroaster is nominally the founder of this doctrine, but it may be regarded as certain that he had derived the conception of Ahriman from India, where Vishnu is always represented as combating the evil, z.e., the noxious element. Jews, Christians, and Musulmans, in turn, eagerly grasped this dogma, which freed them out of the dilemma of either accusing God as cause and still punisher of sin, or of denying His, as

the sole agency, in the creation of the world. The idea of the two opposing, personified principles (dualism), however, does not dispose of the difficulty from the point of view of the monotheist. A true disciple of Zoroaster is consistent, for he regards the good and the evil god, as co-existing from all eternity, and independent of each other; while our God and our Satan is not an Ormuzd and Ahriman, but Satan is a created being; and consequently subject to his Maker. If this be so, then we do not see how the difficulty is solved, or how God is freed from the reproach of having caused sin, by the institution of the satanic power. For, whether God created man and made man sin, or whether he created a Satan, and made him sin, and through his instrumentality man, the conclusion is still the same, viz., that God must have originated sin. If the Jews under Jeremiah had adopted pure dualism, they would have rid themselves of the question as to God's responsibility for sin, but they would have had to abandon, in this case, their monotheistic views. The compromise they effected, by adopting a representative of the evil principle, but declaring him created by, and subject to God, had the result of giving their creed a vagueness and haziness that is most injurious to its disciple. If there be a created devil, a fallen angel, who fell through his sin, then we shall have naturally to turn to God again, to account for the existence of sin in this rebelling angel. So that, if we refuse adopting dualism in its fulness, this second hypothesis must also be abandoned.

Then, if God cannot be the cause, and the devil have no share in, the origin of sin, we have no one else to fall back upon than man. Sin must then have been an emanation from the con

scious agency of man. But is this the case? Who established the law that made sin possible? Who furnished man with free moral agency without which sin is inconceivable? Paul (Rom. vii., 10, etc.,) says distinctly: "The commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death." Now, whatever, the process was, by means of which sin sprung into existence, it is undeniable, that the whole arrangement must have been made, and its results fore-known, by God. His fore-knowledge should have prevented Him from setting the machinery at work, that could not result in anything than repentance and rage to Himself (sic the Bible) and immeasurable misery to all humanity, not to reckon the suffering it caused to His own (!) kith and kin. The fact that God must have fore-known the results of His experiment, and that He could have avoided its origination, makes God, and God only, responsible for the existence of sin. We are not afraid of using these expressions, for we know that God looks into our very hearts; we are convinced that He approves of the argument, which is destined to destroy old world's prejudices, and clear the way towards a better comprehension of His perfect governance of the world.

Now, even supposing that man were responsible for the semination of sin, we must naturally ask: "To what extent has the individual to answer for the sin committed by him? Has every human being the same opportunities, the same capacities given to him, so

ΑΙ