implanted or developed in the minds of the young; for all must admit that
in early infancy they are not there, or, at least, that they do not appear.
_No_ one would expect to find in two infants--twin-brothers, we will
suppose--creeping on the floor, with one apple between them, that there
could be, at that age, any principles of right or justice, or of brotherly
love existing in their hearts that could prevent their both crying and
quarrelling for it. "True," says one; "but there are germs of those
principles which, in time, will be developed." "No," rejoins another,"
there are no _germs_ of them, there are only _capacities_ for them, through
which, by Divine power, the germs may hereafter be introduced." But when we
reflect upon the difficulty of forming any clear and practical idea of
the difference between a _germ_--in a bud upon an apple-tree, for
instance--which may ultimately produce fruit, and a _capacity_ for
producing it which may subsequently be developed, and still more, how
difficult is it to picture to our minds what is represented by these words
in the case of a human soul, it would seem as if the apparent difference in
people's opinions on such a point must be less a difference in respect
to facts than in respect to the phraseology by which the facts should be
represented.

And there would seem to be confirmation of this view in the fact that the
great apparent difference among men in regard to their theoretical views of
human nature does not seem to produce any marked difference in their action
in practically dealing with it. Some parents, it is true, habitually treat
their children with gentleness, kindness, and love; others are harsh
and severe in all their intercourse with them. But we should find, on
investigation, that such differences have very slight connection with
the theoretical views of the nature of the human soul which the parents
respectively entertain. Parents who in their theories seem to think the
worst of the native tendencies of the human heart are often as kind and