As all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye.”
But supposing it is true that the child has cause for jealousy?
Given, the starting idea, and his reason is equally capable of proving a logical certainty, whether it is true or whether it is not true.
Is there any historical proof of this startling theory?
Perhaps every failure in conduct, in individuals, and in nations, is due to the confusion which exists as to that which is logically right, as established by the reason, and that which is morally right, as established by external law.
Is any such distinction recognised in the Bible?
Distinctly so; the transgressors of the Bible are those who do that which is right in their own eyes—that is, that of which their reason approves. Modern thought considers, on the contrary, that all men are justified in doing that which is right in their own eyes, acting “up to their lights,” “obeying the dictates of their reason.”
For example?
A mother whose cruel usage had caused the death of her child was morally exonerated lately in a court of justice because she acted “from a mistaken sense of duty.”
But it is not possible to err from a mistaken sense of duty?