_Morality._--That Paley's principle does not apply to the higher morality of Christianity is evident from this: when I seek to bring before myself some ordinary form of wickedness that all men offend by, I think, perhaps, of their ingratitude. The man born to L400 a year thinks nothing of it, compares himself only with those above his own standard, and sees rather a ground of discontent in his L400 as not being L4,000 than any ground of deep thankfulness. Now, this being so odious a form of immorality, should--by Paley--terminate in excessive evil. On the contrary, it is the principle, the very dissatisfaction which God uses for keep_ing_ the world mov_ing_ (how villainous the form--these 'ings'!). All faith in the great majority is, and ought to be, implicit. That is, your faith is not unrolled--not separately applied to each individual doctrine--but is applied to some individual man, and on him you rely. What he says, you say; what he believes, you believe. Now, he believes all these doctrines, and you implicitly through him. But what I chiefly say as the object of this note is, that the bulk of men must believe by an implicit faith. _Ergo_, decry it not. You delude yourself, Christian theorist, with the idea of offences that else would unfit you for heaven being washed out by repentance. But hearken a moment. Figure the case of those innumerable people that, having no temptation, small or great, to commit murder, _would_ have committed it cheerfully for half-a-crown; that, having no opening or possibility for committing adultery, _would_ have committed it in case they had. Now, of these people, having no possibility of repentance (for how repent of what they have not done?), and yet ripe to excess for the guilt, what will you say? Shall they perish because they _might_ have been guilty? Shall they not perish because the potential guilt was not, by pure accident, accomplished _in esse_?