The distinction is intended to prepare the way for the setting forth of Conscience,[21] which is called a ’principle of reflection in men, whereby they distinguish between, approve and disapprove, their own actions.’  This principle has for its result the good of society; still, in following it, we are not conscious of aiming at the good of society.  A father has an affection for his children; this is one thing.  He has also a principle of reflection, that urges him with added force and with more steady persistency than any affection, which principle must therefore be different from mere affection.

Butler’s analysis of the human feelings is thus:  I.—­Benevolence and Self-love.  II.—­The particular Appetites, Passions, and Affections, operating in the same direction as Benevolence and Self-love, but without intending it.  III.—­Conscience, of which the same is to be said.

His reply to the objection,—­against our being made for Benevolence,—­founded on our mischievous propensities, is, that in the same way there are tendencies mischievous to ourselves, and yet no one denies us the possession of self-love.  He remarks farther that these evil tendencies are the abuse of such as are right; ungovernable passion, reckless pursuit of our own good, and not pure malevolence, are the causes of injustice and the other vices.

In short, we are made for pursuing both our own good and the good of others; but present gratifications and passing inclinations interfere alike with both objects.

Sermons II., III., are meant to establish, from our moral nature, the Supremacy of Conscience.

Our moral duties may be deduced from the scheme of our nature, which shows the design of the Deity.  There may be some difficulties attending the deduction, owing to the want of uniformity in the human constitution.  Still, the broad feelings of the mind, and the purpose of them, can no more be mistaken than the existence and the purpose of the eyes.  It can be made quite apparent that the single principle called conscience is intended to rule all the rest.

But, as Conscience is only one part of our nature, there being two other parts, namely, (1) Benevolence and Self-love, and (2) the particular Appetites and Passions, why are they not all equally natural, and all equally to be followed?

This leads to an inquiry into the meanings of the word Nature.

First, Nature may mean any prompting whatever; anger and affection are equally natural, as being equally part of us.

Secondly, it may mean our strongest passion, what most frequently prevails with us and shows our individual characters.  In this sense, vice may be natural.

But, thirdly, we may reclaim against those two meanings, and that on the authority both of the Apostle Paul and of the ancient sages, and declare that the proper meaning of following nature is following Conscience, or that superior principle in every man which bears testimony to its own supremacy.  It is by this faculty, natural to a man, that he is a moral agent, a law to himself.