Ancient Faiths And Modern Part 23

10. I do not believe that G.o.d has now, or ever has had, a separate and chosen people, peculiarly "His own," and, consequently, that there are none to whom the term "the elect" can apply.

11. I do not believe that what is generally designated religion is necessary to the existence of law and order in a state or in a family.

12. I do not believe that G.o.d requires the a.s.sistance of man, here or elsewhere, to enable Him to find, or to keep, or to punish, His subjects.

These negatives might be multiplied, but I doubt whether profitably so, inasmuch as the more we dilute important points, the less readily are they recognized. We may now proceed to affirmations:--

1. I do believe in the existence of a distinct Power in creation--great beyond conception, which pervades all s.p.a.ce--which is everywhere present in the earth, the sea, the air, and in every conceivable part of the Universe--which made all things, and gave to them properties, powers, and laws. A power to which it were blasphemy to a.s.sign ears, eyes, hands, or human parts, and an evidence of a grovelling mind to suppose it capable of human pa.s.sions, such as love, hate, jealousy, and merriment, and to describe it as ignorant, vacillating, and grieved at its own work. That Power I cannot conceive as having either an origin or an end. Into the designs of such a power, man cannot enter, nor can he even seem to approach them, except by noticing the works of creation, and studying the laws which apparently govern it By the term, "laws of nature," I understand "the laws of the power of which I speak." I cannot conceive how man can form an idea of a state of spiritual existence of which he can neither see, observe, or notice anything.

It is, in my opinion, unnecessary here to enter into the vexed question of the continued interference of this Power with its works, for where we have only human a.n.a.logies to guide us, it is undesirable to argue upon them in the attempt to discover the superhuman. As we shall have occasion shortly to indicate our views upon a matter a.n.a.logous to this, we will postpone anything which we may have to say.

I believe that the Power has never made, nor can ever make, a mistake; that all its works are perfect, and that where they seem to us to be otherwise, it is from our ignorance of their design.

It seems to me that lions and lambs, sharks and gudgeons, that hawks and chickens, form a portion of a grand scheme: that the distinct cla.s.ses of animals were originally perfect; that they may deteriorate, yet never advance beyond perfection. I do not believe that a lion could become, under any circ.u.mstances, a bull; a bear a camel, or a pig an elephant.

2. The belief that the Creator made each creature originally perfect, and with certain well defined propensities, involves the further confidence that the indulgence in those propensities is a necessary part of the scheme of creation; consequently, I believe that the tiger eats flesh because it is a law of his existence, and that in doing so he commits no sin. I believe, still further, that a close observation of nature gives us some apparent insight into the plan of creation For example, I think the existence of gills in a fish leads us fairly to the conclusion that it was intended to live in the water; that the existence of teeth implies that they were to be used in eating, wings in flying, legs in walking. Still further, when we notice that vegetables can a.s.similate mineral matter, which animals, as a rule, cannot, I believe that the vegetable kingdom has its special place in the world; and when, moreover, we find creatures who can eat and digest vegetables, and have a special apparatus for the purpose, it is fair to conclude that they too have their station a.s.signed. A corresponding remark applies to the carnivora. Once again,--when an extended observation shows us that the beasts and birds of prey select for their victims the young of animals which their parents are unable to protect, the aged, who are too infirm to fight for themselves, or the sickly, which are quite unfit to live: when, moreover, we find these carnivorous creatures die when age or accident deprives them of the power of getting food; nay, when we see large numbers of all animals die from want of food, of air, of warmth, or from accidents--I believe that we are justified in deducing the idea that it is a design of the Power, that those which cannot live shall die; I believe that death is as essential a necessity to every creature as is its birth, and that its many forms have a definite purpose.

Let us now, for a moment, turn our attention to the very commencement of life. If from any cause the new being is seriously malformed or diseased, it is a common thing for the dam to miscarry. If a mother, say a pig, rat, or bird, brings forth a larger brood than she can nourish, she commonly kills the smallest, and allows only those to survive which she can find food for--the bird that lays more eggs than her nest will hold, turns the overplus out; and if, when the fledglings grow up, they are too bulky, one of them will be discarded. The cuckoo's chick has a special provision made for helping it to turn out the young of another bird, and its mother has also a special instinct to lay its eggs in the nest of the hedge-sparrow. The life of one involves the death of three or more. Again, in the aquatic world, one fish makes no scruple to feed on its own young ones or those of its neighbours, and the old crocodile seeks out its offspring as a favourite luxury. We find, moreover, that where these creatures abound there may often be found a small animal--the ichneumon--whose instinct teaches it to seek for and destroy the eggs of the saurian. In like manner crows, rats, cuckoos, and probably many other creatures, have a propensity to feed upon the eggs of various birds. In few words, we recognize throughout creation an apparent design to prevent a superabundance of life.

This remarkable provision, working, as it does, through laws which seem to be fixed and established, prevents our belief in the interference of the Creator. When an animal has reached the period of nearly adult age, there is in many instances a considerable amount of instruction given to it, sometimes by the sire, but mostly by the dam. When that has been imparted, parents and offspring seem to be like strangers to each other.

It is probable that, if we could observe all animals, we should find some system of training of the family. As it is, we can only speak of domestic fowls, and notice the order which the hen keeps up amongst her brood of chickens; they are taught to live peaceably. Her punishments are never lenient; they are, indeed, necessarily severe.

We may next proceed to inquire into the animal instincts which exist in adult life, at a period when every creature is supposed to be in its perfection. At a certain time of the year there is a propensity for the male and female to unite. There is not anything in creation which affords a more attractive study than this, for every cla.s.s of creatures has a practice peculiar to itself. One might fancy that in an act so necessary and so simple there would be little cause for interest; yet, in reality, "the prodigality of design"--a term which we hope to explain fully hereafter--is more largely shown in this process than in any other. It is, however, a subject upon which one cannot descant before the general public.

So far as we are able to observe animals, we find that at this period there is, amongst a great number of cla.s.ses, a power amongst the males to discover the most perfect amongst the females, and to fight for them.

By this means the young are certain to be the offspring of perfection of grace and beauty in the dam, and strength and size in the sire. We can readily understand that, if the loveliest hind were to pair with the weakliest stag, the breed would degenerate, and probably die out. But the conqueror can hold his place only so long as he has vigour; when age has weakened him, the youthful successor practically prevents the old buck from being a father. In some exceptional cases (apparently so at least) the number of males exceeds that of the females, and, as a result of the instinct before alluded to, the fight ends in the majority of the males being destroyed. The survivor then has one spouse only, and not a seraglio. This is said to obtain amongst rats and lions.

As yet, there is not a sufficient amount of observation available to enable us to affirm what is the general cause of exit from life, when no death by violence occurs. We do not know the end of old buffaloes, elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, whales, and other monsters. Tales are told of decrepit lions being occasionally seen tottering to their fall; and gossip says that ancient cats know when they are about to die, and retire to some secluded nook, where they give up the ghost quietly.

I cannot charge my memory with a single anecdote in which the youthful animal endeavours to sustain the old one, by feeding it during its decrepitude. Throughout creation parental affection signifies solicitude for offspring. We do not anywhere discover a love towards a parent after the younger creature has reached adult age.

In all the cases to which I have referred, and, were I a naturalist, they might be greatly multiplied, there is no pretence, even amongst the orthodox, that any of the creatures have committed "sin" against the Almighty, or against the community of which they form a part. On the contrary, what is done, even though it amounts to murder, is regarded as a necessity; and we admire the laws of nature which bring about such results. We do not stop to inquire whether any contrivance would prevent birds from laying too many eggs, and cuckoos from dropping theirs into the nests of other birds; we content ourselves with saying, "such is the will of Providence." It is easy to come to such a conclusion as regards what we are pleased to call "the lower animals," but as soon as we inquire "whether similar laws or instincts are implanted in us," we are generally met with a howl of repugnance.

But I believe that we shall never understand our true position in life and in nature until we deliberately investigate that which we have in common with other animals, and wherein we are different--probably superior. I use the word _probably_, because, in the estimation of higher beings than ourselves--if such there be--the horse and the elephant may be regarded as being far above us in the scale which those beings have framed for themselves.

I have never yet seen any deliberate attempt to work out the problem referred to. Every one, or nearly so, who if orthodox, a.s.sumes that it is absolutely wicked to compare the beasts which perish, to man who has a soul As I have, in a previous volume, shown that the evidence for the immortality of the horse is equal to that for the human race, I will not stay to point out the absurdity of building an important argument upon a baseless a.s.sumption, but simply express my belief that man has very much in common with other mammals; but that he is in possession of something superadded, which, at first sight--though not in reality--takes him out of the trammels of the ordinary laws of nature that operate in the brutes.

No one can doubt that man has as strong a propensity to unite with woman, as bulls and stags have with the females of their kind. He has, even in civilized societies, a propensity to fight with one or more of his fellows for a female of surpa.s.sing beauty. Men will combat about a disputed field or country as fiercely as dogs over a bone, or hermit crabs over a sh.e.l.l. As a rule, man detests to be taught, quite as much as does the whelp; yet, when he has gained an art, he is as proud of it as a highly trained spaniel. Men are gregarious as horses in a field, and quite as intolerant as they, of an interloper. Like the wild wolves, men will unite together to capture and prey upon creatures of each of whom individually he stands in fear. Like a set of wild bulls or buffaloes, men will, for a time, agree to obey a leader, and, when the object is gained, break loose. Like a cat, man will steal, when he can, his neighbours' goods, like a crow, he will pay no attention to his parents, nor to a Sunday.

Without entering into farther particulars, we may affirm that some highly trained elephants, dogs, and horses, are superior to many human beings in every point upon which an impartial judge can determine.

It is my belief that, for a man to obey an instinct which is implanted in his nature, is not "a sin" against G.o.d.

To see this in a fair light, let us a.s.sume, as we have a right to do, that it is an instinct in the nature of all known creatures, to increase and multiply their like. To avoid doing so intentionally, is a contravention of one of the Creator's laws. If this be so, then celibacy is a sin, as great, indeed, as if one were to refrain from food of all kinds; and no one can be considered as worthy of the name of good, who remains unpaired without just cause. In like manner, it is not an offence against the laws of G.o.d for any man and woman to unite, for it is as much a law of nature that they shall do so, as that they must eat and drink. The plea of "religion" cannot make that wrong, which is by nature right.

In like manner, if in a limited community--say upon an island, the number of men exceeds that of the women, I believe that a fight amongst the males for the possession of mates, would not be "sin" against the Omnipotent even though many combatants died during the contest.

Nay, so common upon many points is the agreement; amongst even the most orthodox, that none would say that a man commits a crime when he steals the store of honey laid up by bees, kills animals for food or for their fur, or covets and appropriates the prairies. .h.i.therto occupied by herds of deer and bison. Even the commandments said to be delivered by G.o.d Himself are held not to be literally binding upon man, except in relation to his friends. He may, for example, by the laws of war, murder his enemies, fornicate with their wives, steal their property, and deceive them in every way. Abraham, the so-called friend of G.o.d, murdered many Orientals, and plundered them; not because he had any quarrel with them, but simply because they had murdered and plundered some of his friends. David again, a man after G.o.d's own heart, with his dying breath, gave his son instructions to put individuals to death in cold blood, superseding the law of Sinai, by a heritage of hate. When, therefore, common consent takes certain actions out of the list of crimes or sins, provided that the deeds are done against enemies, we have to seek for the origin of those ideas which make murder, theft, robbery, rape, and false-witness crimes in the abstract.

To understand this point, we have really to start from the b.e.s.t.i.a.l basis, and aver that what is not sin in them, is not sin in savage man.

No one of any intelligence would say that a Briton would be justified in shooting an Ashantee because the latter had killed and eaten an enemy, or an aged parent; nor would any one of us sentence a Hindoo to death because he had killed a dozen Thugs. Even in comparatively civilized American backwoods, a person who has killed a bully has been thought a public benefactor. Again, when we cast our eyes upon Australia, and learn the brutal way in which the black native virgins are violently carried away from their relatives and married, and how again they are repeatedly carried off as wives by other men, we feel ourselves justified in leaving the ravishers without punishment, for there is no violation of law, or, if there be, Englishmen have no right to interfere.

But what we tolerate in uncivilized lands, even where we are ostensibly rulers, we will not suffer in our own. The reason of this is, that we have banded ourselves into a society in which "the laws," once settled and determined by the majority, supersede, in certain cases, individual action.

To make our meaning clear, let us imagine that amongst some nation or people there is one man more astute and powerful than his fellows; still further, we a.s.sume that he has fought, or is desirous to fight, a neighbour of nearly equal force. It is clear that if his people murder each other from any cause he will lose warriors; consequently, he will let his tribe understand that he will punish homicide, on a plan which he thinks will be deterrent. Still further, as he requires soldiers of strong limbs and st.u.r.dy const.i.tution, he declares that no woman shall many without his consent, so that he may prevent any one selling herself, or being sold, to a weak or old man for mere pelf. As, in a savage state, most possessions are those which are useful in war, he would prohibit theft. As a consequence, he, and all who respected his power to punish, would regard murder, theft, rape, and unauthorized wife-selling as crimes--offences, that is to say, against the ruler of the state, and not against the Creator of mankind.

It signifies little to my argument, whether society is governed, as the early Aryans were, by warriors, or, as the later ones were, by Brahmans.

In either case the leaders make laws, and declare a violation of them to be punishable.

When communities are small in size, and extend over a small area, few rules of life are necessary; but when a nation increases in size, and especially when it consiste of many tribes or cla.s.s which have voluntarily united together, legislation is far more complicated, inasmuch as the ideas of right and wrong in each section may, from long custom, vary from each other. For example, in most of the United States of America bigamy, or the possession of two wives at a time, is a crime; whereas, in Salt Lake city, its rulers have twenty, and its men a dozen, if they like, and yet are esteemed saints, and really conduct themselves as if they had a clear claim to the t.i.tle.

The greatest complication is when the laws of a community have been framed, partly by soldiers, partly by ecclesiastics, and partly by mercantile men, for each party has a different creed. The first makes no scruple to fight at the command of the second, whilst the third endeavours to prevent all war whatever. The second set intrigue to have the supreme power; the first and third often endeavour to suppress the second, knowing its aggressiveness and l.u.s.t of supremacy.

When a nation is under what is grandiloquently called a Theocracy, every offence against a command given _ex cathedra_ is regarded as a sin; not simply a disregard of the law, but a defiance of the G.o.d who is said to have ordained it. Thus, according to what is known as the Mosaic law, it was a crime punishable by a lingering death to gather sticks on a Sabbath day (Num. xv. 32-36); but it was no crime to kill all the males and women of a whole nation, and retain the maidens for private prost.i.tution and for the use of the priest (Num. x.x.xi. 17, 18, 40, 41). In such a nation it was no crime to commit forgery--and of all the bearers of false witness, none exceeded in ancient times the Jewish writers in the Bible--but in mercantile England, the former has been at one time punished with death, and the latter by ignominious penalties.

In modern Theocracies, such as once existed in Austria, Spain, Italy, England, and elsewhere, it was considered criminal to think differently, upon any religious point, from the authorized standard. In those kingdoms many a person was doomed to die a painful death, and thereafter sent--as it was supposed, to h.e.l.l--whom we now regard as a virtuous, brave, and n.o.ble individual.

The common sense of mankind induces all citizens to buy what they have need of, at the smallest possible price; but a mercantile government says to its people--"You shall not buy anything from anybody who has not first paid us for the privilege of trading, and something more for every ware which he offers for sale, and every one contravening this order shall be seriously punished." Here, again, an artificial offence is manufactured that has no origin in nature.

When a people has succeeded in throwing off publicly the trammels of Ecclesiastical legislation, as England, Italy, Spain, France, Austria, Belgium, and other nations have done, they by no means shake off their private shackles. The only difference between Spain, Austria, and other places, now and formerly, is, that the priesthood are seeking to attain by subtlety what they could previously command by their state power. At one period in the history of modern Rome, it was a crime not to kneel on the bare ground when certain priests pa.s.sed with a bit of wafer surrounded by gorgeous trappings. This is a crime no longer against the state, but for all who believe the Papal hierarchy it is yet a sin.

At one time in England, it was a crime not to go to church on Sunday; it was equally punishable to carry on any business. The laws respecting these matters have not yet been repealed, and they have been put recently into operation, although the good sense of the majority has made them practically obsolete. Yet, though this is the case, and the law no longer punishes Sabbath-breaking, the priestly body continue to launch their thunders against all who regard every day alike. It is, indeed, doubtful if, in the eyes of our parsons, there is any sin so great as enjoying one's self on a Sunday. The law of our country does not make it a crime for a woman to prost.i.tute her body, or for a man to have a concubine of greater or less permanency, but the hierarchs denounce the arrangement as criminal in the sight of G.o.d.

We need not multiply our ill.u.s.trations farther. Sufficient has been advanced to show that there are two distinct cla.s.ses of sins--one, those made by Ecclesiastics, or by those legislators pa.s.sing under the name "Society;" the other, those which are against the laws of nature--e.g., an enforced celibacy, such as that to which Romish priests are doomed.

In saying this, we readily allow that what is right, according to the laws of G.o.d, as set forth in the universe, is wrong according to the code made by the legally const.i.tuted authorities of the state in which an individual lives. We grant, moreover, that, if a government is strong enough, the laws of man should be enforced by human means. But we do not believe that mortals should be compelled to carry out that which priests tell them is the justice of the Immortal, of which they know absolutely nothing. I hold that no state can fairly claim to take cognizance of, or to punish, thoughts, or any private indulgence which creates no public scandal.

If we endeavour to reduce our views to a still clearer issue, the difference between divine and human laws will be the more readily understood. Let us a.s.sume that Miss Kallistee is the most perfect woman in a district. For her contend with their natural weapons Messrs.

Dunamis, Kratos, Kalos, Sophos, and Mathesis; and the conqueror, having killed his adversaries, takes the lady to wife. The law of man or of society now steps in and kills off the survivor; or, if it should know beforehand of the coming contest, will prevent it. As a consequence, the lady must be contended for peaceably, and may become the bride of impotent old age or wealthy disease. As a result, the healthy offspring, which nature would have reared, are either absent, sickly, diseased, or idiotic. Here, then, I affirm that a law of society is a sin against G.o.d.

I would wish my readers to ponder over this matter, which gives much food for thought. I do not think that such contests as I have described can be tolerated in any society of civilized beings, for, in proportion to our emergence from barbarism, we do not seek mere strength and beauty of form in our population. We desire to cultivate the intellectual rather than the animal in man. But experience has shown that, as a rule, the further man departs from the latter, and the nearer he approaches to the former, the more does his progeny deteriorate physically.

It is a problem whether, by any available contrivance short of that which was adopted by the Incas of Peru, man can uniformly develope upwards. The physiologist can readily see how the matter might be effected, but in republican or const.i.tutional kingdoms, the means will never be adopted.

We have now come to a point when it is necessary for me, as an individual, to express an opinion as to the selection which a philosopher, living in a comparatively civilized community, should make between a promulgation of the so-called laws of G.o.d--an instruction respecting the laws of nature--or an utterance of the laws of society, with the enforcement of them. Ere forming a decision, let us endeavour to ascertain what each alternative involves.

If a state, acting through its executive government, decides to make what are called the laws of G.o.d the basis of legislation, it must first decide what those laws are. In the endeavour to do so, every thoughtful man will recognize the impossibility of verifying a single one. The whole must, therefore, be promulgated on a.s.sumption; and if so, the legislators will be conscious that they have no valid authority. If, on the other hand, they a.s.sume the laws of nature to be a safe guide, they must allow proceedings which are opposed to the feelings of the majority of civilized mortals. Being, then, averse to elect either of these codes as a sole basis, the statesman will endeavour, as far as in him lies, to make or adapt laws for the society in which he lives.

When the well-being of the community becomes the basis of its legislation, the idea of sin vanishes from the statute book, and the stern realities of life have to be envisaged with firmness and decision.

So also when religion has merged into common sense, and facts are appealed to rather than fancies, policy takes the place of dogma, and the voice of a majority overcomes that of any priesthood.

Into political economy, however, it is not my desire to enter, further than may be necessary to ill.u.s.trate my own opinions upon religion.

Having emanc.i.p.ated myself from the thraldom of bibliolatry and priestcraft generally, it is my aim to examine what seems to be my duty as a man and an integer of society. I conceive that, although I have no certain knowledge thereof, I am one of the myriads of instruments by which the Almighty works out His designs. My appreciation may be imperfect, but still it seems to me a duty, always to be a good husband, father, friend, and citizen--to act ever towards others as I should desire myself to be treated under the same circ.u.mstances--to improve such talents as I am conscious of possessing; and, in a general way, to do as much good as I can during my lifetime--taking care, if possible, to leave after my death no mischievous agency set on foot by me. In few words, I believe that the only true religion consists in a constant steady performance of duty--a duty discovered and determined by the individual, and not one prescribed by any set of men.

The conclusion thus arrived at, appears at first sight, to be meagre in the extreme, but when it is fully examined, it is found to involve important consequences. The faithful, for example, or, as they style themselves, "the orthodox," live, when they pay any attention to such matters, in a state of perpetual fear of G.o.d and eternity; some, indeed we may say many, go mad from the oppression which they feel from having committed an unpardonable sin; some pa.s.s through life weighted by the dread of not being finally "saved"; all, with rare exceptions, have a horror of death and of the results of "the judgment." Feeling a.s.sured that few will be saved, and the many will be d.a.m.ned, they have a dreadful feeling of certainty that either they or some of their dearest relatives or friends will be amongst the majority. Some go through life sinning and repenting--"in dust and ashes," as the technical phrase runs--until they are ashamed of their own vacillation, or go on sinning, without any qualms of conscience, until it is too late to mend; and they recognize before them "a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation." These fantastic terrors are far more deeply rooted in the Protestants than in the Papists, who have so completely become imbued with the belief that their priests have almost unlimited power in the unseen world, that the dying folk become easy in their minds, by a full a.s.surance of hope that friends, hierarchs, and "ma.s.ses" will make purgatory bearable and heaven certain. Of fear about eternity I know nothing; feeling confident that the G.o.d who made me--directly or indirectly it would be a waste of time to discuss--had some work for me to do here. I am quite content with whatever may be a.s.signed to me hereafter by the same Power. Of a future state I am wholly ignorant.

As an integer, I feel a sort of instinct that death is not absolute annihilation; but beyond that I do not now seek to know, for every source of intelligence is absent.

To some inconsiderate enthusiasts this may seem a cold belief, but in reality it is anything but that, for my days and nights are freed from that wet blanket of vague dread which makes so many mentally s.h.i.+ver; and my time is pa.s.sed pleasantly in the alternate labour required by duty, and the repose necessary to recruit one's energies.