A woman may innocently, because ignorantly, marry a married man, and so commit a _material_ act of adultery.

She may discover the facts, and persist, and so make her act _formal_ also.
Actions of brutes, such as those of the bee, the ant, or the beaver, however materially good as regards their relation to the community to which such animals belong, are absolutely destitute of the most incipient degree of real, _i.e._ formal "goodness," because unaccompanied by mental acts of conscious will directed towards the fulfilment of duty.

Apology is due for thus stating so elementary a distinction, but the statement is not superfluous, for confusion of thought, resulting from confounding together these very distinct things, is unfortunately far from uncommon.
Thus some Darwinians assert that the germs of morality exist in brutes, and we have seen that Mr.Darwin himself speculates on the subject as regards the highest apes.

It may safely be affirmed, however, that there is no trace in brutes of any actions simulating morality which are not explicable by the fear of punishment, by the hope of pleasure, or by personal affection.

No sign of moral reprobation is given by any brute, and yet had such existed in germ through Darwinian abysses of past time, some evidence of its existence must surely have been rendered perceptible through "survival of the fittest" in other forms besides man, if that {197} "survival" has alone and exclusively produced it in him.
Abundant examples may, indeed, be brought forward of useful acts which simulate morality, such as parental care of the young, &c.