FEAR OF THE GODS OR OF MAN?

277

Has it not made a Hell of eternal suffering for those predestined by its deity, and whom it has not pleased him to "draw"; taught the worthlessness of earthly things, and that the only object of life is to prepare for death; held up woman as a dangerous creation, cursed in maternity, and required to receive purification at the hands of the priest for the crime of child-bearing? "Behold," said the Hebrew psalm-singer, "I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me," which places a brand of infamy upon every woman who ever bore a child. Has it not used its powerful influence at every opportunity to induce the Legislature to pass and retain unconstitutional laws, with the object of stifling the expression of opinion, in order to further its own interests and bolster up its false claim, and of suspending the liberty of the people on one day of the week, in order to drive them into its churches? Has it not used its influence to prevent the development of the human intellect, of science, and of research, for the purpose of arresting education and progress; to oppose political and social reforms and the use of anesthetics for the alleviation of human suffering, on the plea that pain is sent from its deity, who is thus condemned to deliberate malevolence; and to prevent thought, silence opinion, and stifle doubt, which might lead to the discovery of its fraudulent claim, exposure, and in the end, defiance of its power?

It is the opinion of some well-meaning but illogical persons that religion, and the superstitious fear to which it gives rise, is useful in the interests of morality, especially in the case of the lower classes. The late J. S. Mill said : "No belief which is contrary to truth can be really useful." Did the fear of all the gods of Greece keep the people moral, or preserve them from falling into decay? Did the numerous gods of Rome prevent the people becoming victims to the curse of Cæsarian despotism? Did the "Decalogue" of Moses and the threats of Yahuh's vengeance restrain the evil inclinations and actions of the Hebrews? No; nor, as we have seen, have the mysterious gods, numerous saints, and diversified devotions of the Christian Churches restrained them from bloodshed and murder. Experience teaches that the fear of the Christian triune God exercises no more restraint than did all the Pagan gods of old.

The only fear noticeable in the Christian, as with the

non-Christian, is that he will be found out-not by his God, but by his fellow-men.

We cannot, therefore, admit that it is necessary that mankind should have the fear of a bogey continually before them. Have we not the beauties of nature to cheer us, the facts of science to satisfy our needs, the happiness of our fellows to inspire us to noble acts, and the love and affection of our friends to console us in our hours of affliction? Surely truth, social duty, and law can be much more safely relied upon to guide and control the conduct and actions of men than falsehood, superstition, and fancy, which latter can only result in wasting valuable lives in the endeavour to grasp at a shadow.

Truth wants no bolstering up by penal enactments to restrict freedom and liberty; for, unlike falsity and fraud, it is capable of standing on its own merits, and will bear the closest scrutiny. The doctrines of science, unlike the doctrines of theology, require no special legislation in order to compel men to recognize them as truths, for the simple reason that they are truths, and because the evidence in their favour has been sufficiently strong to convince thinking men of their veracity-and non-thinking men follow in the wake of thinking men. They can be easily demonstrated, and are of universal acceptance. But they do not owe their universal acceptance to favour, or to any vested interests or acquired rights; they are the result of careful and lifelong investigation.

EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL LIFE, ETHICS, CONSCIENCE, DUTY, LAW, AND MORALITY-AN ETHICAL CODE-ANTIQUITY OF ETHICS THE CODE OF JESUS NOT ORIGINALLIBERTY AND FREEDOM OF OPINION-THE DESPOTISM OF CUSTOM-FREEDOM OF SPEECH-BLASPHEMY AND

HERESY-PARTIAL LEGISLATION-EDUCATION.

HAD there been only one human being in the world, there would have been no such thing as duty, and no need for an ethical system. It was only when man met his fellowman, and relations were established between them, that social life commenced, and need arose for principles and rules of conduct, governing each in those acts which in any way affected the other. Thus arose, by mutual consent, Duty and Obligation; for, as each member of society receives protection, and accepts the benefits of a certain line of conduct on the part of the others, he owes a return for this, and is bound to observe a similar line of conduct towards them, and to bear his share in the labours and sacrifices incurred in defending society from injury and molestation. These principles and rules of conduct were gradually and imperceptibly evolved and developed with the evolution and development of social life. As population increased individuals and families co-operated for mutual protection, such combination resulting in the formation of tribes; and, as tribes combined with neighbouring ones for offensive and defensive purposes against more distant ones, nations were formed. With the formation of tribes and nations civilization and refinement increased; certain principles and rules of conduct, at first simple, and evolved by the requirement of tribal intercourse and relationship, became gradually more complex. What was found to be for the good and

welfare of the community at large was considered right, and what was found to militate against this was considered wrong the only means by which the differentiation of right and wrong, duty and neglect of duty, can be properly estimated-until eventually certain of these principles and rules of conduct were universally accepted and recognized by all nations; and thus was evolved a complicated system of human law and ethics, varying slightly in accordance with the various national ideas, traditions, and require

ments.

But

With the evolution of social life, ethics, and duty, were evolved what is called "conscience," and certain personal attributes-affection, sympathy, gentleness, generosity, benevolence, etc., and this evolution was not confined to human life. Among the lower domesticated animals there were developed the attributes of affection, gentleness, faithfulness, etc. Certain knowledge, feelings, and sentiments were common to all, especially as regards behaviour, conduct, and character; and this mutual knowledge and sentiment became the regulating principle of the community-the standard of right to which each and all spontaneously looked to direct their course. Thus was conscience evolved. Conscience is a word made up of con= together and scientia knowledge, and means mutual knowledge and sentiment. It is dependent upon environment, education, and, to a large extent, on constitution and ancestry. conscience is not an infallible guide, for its promptings may lead us astray. Were it infallible, it could never approve the wrong, nor condemn the right, which it frequently does; all consciences would teach or approve the same thing, which they do not; and conscientious quarrels and crimes would be unknown, which history teaches us is not the case. Also, the general conscience of the people tells them wrongly that what is must be right; that the morals and ways of those who reared them must be correct; and that only wickedness could attempt to change the beliefs, ways, customs, etc., of the community. This is the conscience of non-thinking and non-reading people, who, too ignorant or indolent to think for themselves, adopt the thoughts and opinions of others. This kind of conscience is the most dangerous of all forms of conscience, because it gives rise to prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance. It is not open to

EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL LIFE.

281

reason or argument, but acts on party cries, shibboleth, and excitement. It is the cause of all conscientious persecution. We have a good example of the fallibility of conscience in the Gospel legend: the Jews conscientiously regarded Jesus as a vulgar blasphemer, and their conscience bade them hand him over to the Roman Government, to be punished for that crime (supposing the Gospel story to be true). The conscience of Jesus incited him (so we are told) to reproach and denounce the Jews as a set of wicked people who deserved everlasting damnation for rejecting his foolish and fanatical preaching and claims. Here conscience on both sides might be perfectly honest and pure, but extremely dark and unenlightened. Had the Jews and Jesus been better educated, they would have known that difference of opinion on religious matters was the last thing in the world to justify a quarrel between them. The person, however who regulates conduct and life by the generally-accepted standard of right is a conscientious person, no matter how high or how low that standard may be, or how it may change from day to day.

There can be no principles and laws common to all without duty and obligation; and there can be no duty and obligation without the neglect of these-guilt. The whole of man's duty and obligation-which springs from man himself, and was in the first instance voluntary-is contained in human law.

Human law is of two kinds-statutory, or written; and moral, or unwritten. The first consists of public offencesagainst the community at large (misdemeanours and crimes) -which are punishable by the State, either by fine or imprisonment; and private, or civil, offences against individuals, which have to be remedied by private litigation. The second consists of faults and offences against rules of conduct in social life-i.e., against propriety-the observance of which does not require legislation, but is left for each to carry out according to custom and the dictates of his or her conscience.

Ethics and morality have suffered much from their enthralment by theology and ecclesiasticism. By the surreptitious imposition of a so-called "divine" law a spurious and debased moral code has been palmed off upon an unsuspecting and confiding public by what is called "the