e idea of virtue, but would simply develop into a negative creature, a
mutilated being bereft of all that constitutes our notion of humanity.
Such experiences as are possible only in society--all forms of goodness
as suggested by such words as 'love,' 'sympathy,' 'service'--would never
emerge at all. The native instincts of man are simply potencies or
capacities for morality; they must have a life of opportunity for their
evolution and exercise. The abstract self prior to and apart from all
objective experience is an illusion. It is only in relation to a world
of moral beings that the moral life becomes possible for man. The
innocence which the advocates of this theory contend for is {58}
something not unlike the non-rational existence of the animal. It is
true that the brute is not immoral, but neither is it moral. The whole
significance of the passions as they exist in man lies in the fact that
they are not purely animal, but, since they belong to man, are always
impregnated with reason. It is reason that gives to them their moral
worth, and it is because man must always put his self into every desire
or impulse that it becomes the instrument either of virtue or of vice.[6]

But if the theory of primitive purity is untenable, not less so is that
of innate depravity. Here, also, its advocates are not consistent with
themselves. Even the systems of theology derived from Augustine do not
contend that man was created with an evil propensity. His sin was the
result of an historical catastrophe. In his paradisiacal condition man
is conceived as possessing a nobility and innocence of nature far beyond
that even which Rousseau depicted. Milton, in spite of his Calvinistic
puritanism, has painted a picture of man's ideal innocence which for
idyllic charm is unequalled in literature.[7] Nor does historical
inquiry bear out the theory of the utter depravity of man. The latest
anthropological research into the condition of primitive man suggests
rather that even the lowest forms of savage life are not without some dim
consciousness of a higher power and some latent capacity for good.[8]
Finally, these writers are not more successful when they claim the
support of the Bible. Not only are there many examples of virtue in
patriarchal times, but, as we have seen, there are not a few texts which
imply the natural goodness of man. Our Lord repeatedly assumes the
affinity with goodness of those who had not hitherto come in